Since Trump does not actually understand what pro-life conservatives truly believe, he mindlessly echoes the liberal caricature of pro-life conservatives. He mistakenly thinks this is what these conservatives want to hear. They don’t. This is, however, what liberals want to hear. They want a Republican candidate who feeds their false “war on women” narrative. They want to run against the caricature of the pro-life position, because the caricature is ugly. And Trump is giving them precisely what they want....
५ एप्रिल, २०१६
"In the wake of Donald Trump’s abortion gaffes, it should finally be clear that Trump is not a real conservative..."
"... he is the liberal caricature of a conservative."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५१ टिप्पण्या:
Right, Trump is not a conservative.
Both conservatives and liberals go for politically correct guardrails on what can he thought or said.
Our problems need that ended. After that you can argue liberal or conservative, stripped of PC.
Rush too is convinced that human life begins at conception, which only means that he's a social conservative and takes disagreement as a sign of moral decay.
Trump doesn't see the moral decay, getting the right answer with a chemical calculation. But he doesn't see the right explanation for it.
To the liberal, can a conservative be anything other than a caricature when it comes to abortion?
The few people I know who openly believe that legalized abortion is an outrage absolutely think that it's murder and that it should be punished severely but maybe I'm reading too much into the things they say.
I agree with the article completely, and have been thinking much the same thing. Trump's professed views really are those of the typical leftist caricature of a conservative, on every subject. The media will make sure that conservatives have to spend the next 10 years disavowing the views of a man who hasn't held a genuine conservative position in his lifetime.
Oh, darn. I wasted one of my three free WaPo clicks on this.
Trump actually has a point. If abortion's a crime, who's the criminal?
But both pro- and anti-abortion folks have been taught to think that the pregnant woman is just some holding place, an incubator, a non-thinking being that has no moral or legal position at all. Someone else must be at fault. A doctor, a rapist, a clinic.
Trump is no kind of a conservative, nor is he a "Republican"
He is a New Yorker, or a New York phenomenon, which in this case may not be such a bad thing.
"The few people I know who openly believe that legalized abortion is an outrage absolutely think that it's murder and that it should be punished severely but maybe I'm reading too much into the things they say."
I believe legalized abortion is an outrage. I also know women who have had them and deeply regret it. I do not wish to see them imprisoned for it. Imprisoning the "doctors" who took an oath to do no harm and yet do nothing but is sufficient to deter the practice.
It is overly harsh, IMO, to imprison women for following the dictates of a culture that overwhelmingly tries to convince them that they wrong they are committing is in fact totally acceptable. I wouldn't go back in time and imprison Washington for having slaves either.
I always find it funny, though - if conservatives want to imprison the moms, they're cold heartless bastards. If they don't want to imprison the moms, they're inconsistent and incoherent. Funny how that works, and the possibility that they acknowledge the responsibility of the almost-mothers while showing mercy to them due to the corrupted state of our culture isn't on the table at all.
Any one of them, except Ted Cruz, will be on Social Security.
Others who aren't conservative: Nine tenths of Senate republicans. Same with the House. Same with Governors. There are no options, only smirking, corrupt, self-dealing assholes who will do anything to hang on to power.
"I agree with the article completely, and have been thinking much the same thing. Trump's professed views really are those of the typical leftist caricature of a conservative, on every subject."
Well, only when he's not reversing himself or taking leftist positions (believing Bush lied to get us into Iraq, defending Planned Parenthood).
A better way to look at it is Trump is doing a send-up of what he believes conservatives are. He goes back to his friends the Clintons (and the leftists who go with Trump to those Clinton fundraisers) and says "can you believe they bought it? Sure, the wall will get ten feet higher! Sure I can do it for $8 billion!" Then something slips out in public, like "I could shoot someone" and his followers would stick by him, revealing his own amazement that this has worked on so many for so long.
I agree with almost all of this. This is the reason that conservatives have such an issue with Trump. its because he's not a conservative he just plays one on TV. But its a caricacature of one.
"Trump actually has a point. If abortion's a crime, who's the criminal?"
Which point does Trump have? The original one that, yes the woman should be punished, or one of the 4 or 5 other points meant to correct the previous points that were meant to correct...?
"The few people I know who openly believe that legalized abortion is an outrage absolutely think that it's murder and that it should be punished severely but maybe I'm reading too much into the things they say."
I'm sure a lot of people think that way, and it is a logically consistent position if they think abortion is murder, but they are in the distinct minority. Even among pro-lifers, most do not want the mother punished. I think that for them, abortion is a wrong, but not really "murder". That's the only way to justify not making it a criminal act.
I'm presently listening to an audiobook on puppy training by Cummings Vet.
Where they're talking about the importance of socializing the puppy with a domineering/aggressive temperament, they say, "After all, you don't want your puppy to turn out like Donald Trump, do you?"
The copyright date is 2007, IIRC.
The abortion issue never affects my own vote. I could vote for someone with practically any opinion on the issue. For me, it's like ignoring agricultural price supports.
I suppose that Trump is similarly indifferent about the abortion issue. Since he is running in the Republican race, though, he has to pretend to care about the issue.
Abortion should be an issue that a President should have to deal with. It should be a state issue. As the issue has developed, however, only judges can make any decisions about its legality. The electorate and the elected officials do not have any effective say on the issue.
Beyond the abortion issue, I think that Trump does not seriously study any issues -- even issues that he does care about. He does not have the intellectual discipline to study. He would rather spend all his time and energy spouting off his superficial opinions to television interviewers and to large, admiring crowds.
I favored Trump from about August through November 2015. During that period, he began to post position papers on his website. I expected that he gradually would improve those position papers and add more position papers. I expected that he would improve his demeanor, rhetoric and speeches.
As it became apparent that Trump never would improve any of those qualities and that all his positions would continue to be superficial, I shifted my support to Cruz.
"I agree with almost all of this. This is the reason that conservatives have such an issue with Trump. its because he's not a conservative he just plays one on TV. But its a caricacature of one."
It's sort of like watching a closeted gay man go out of his way to be a total jerk to women because that's what he thinks straight men are like.
Well, yes. Exactly.
This is why he can't drill down on any issue beyond the superficial slogan. It's not what he really thinks, and he can't imagine why anyone else would really think it.
It reminds me of conservatives on the West Wing. At one point, President Bartlett asked his VP -- supposed to be a pro-2nd-amendment politician from Texas -- why anyone would support concealed carry. And the VP rolls his eyes, shakes his head, and says he has absolutely no idea.
Trump has always felt like that to me. He's playing a role and hamming it up and loving the attention.
I agree that abortion is illegal and always will be. It's those 5 out of 9 Philosopher Kings who made it illegal to say that it is illegal anymore.
But Trump spilled the beans again. Now go away and let the Law kill babies in peace.
.
Meade, yes, Trump's a wavering idiot. That fact does not shed light on the discussion.
"I expected that he gradually would improve those position papers and add more position papers. I expected that he would improve his demeanor, rhetoric and speeches." Funny.
Actually Trump is a caricature of a caricature of a conservative. We've gone through the simulacrum of the looking glass. Jean Baudrillard, call your office.
Still, there's a slight chance GOPers will come to their senses just in time. Better an honorable defeat with Cruz than a bloodbath with Trump.
This comes to the point of why Trump is so popular.
Maybe he isn't conservative. Maybe he isn't even pro life.
However, this "gaffe" doesn't tell us that. Instead it illustrates for me the cowardice of the conservative movement and exactly why we lose. Because we don't want to fight.
I'm not a conservative now because I believe abortion is murder and those who kill the baby should be punished?
This gets me so steamed.
With friends like these clowns, who needs enemies?
Trump fights. These losers surrender before the battle is even waged.
Screw them.
@Bob Ellison, "Trump actually has a point. If abortion's a crime, who's the criminal?"
Excellent point. Trump's recognizing a women's agency. He’s saying women make the choice to get an abortion, abortion is a crime, so do with women who get an abortion what we do with anyone who commits a crime: hold them accountable, punish them.
Blogger jr565 said...
I agree with almost all of this. This is the reason that conservatives have such an issue with Trump. its because he's not a conservative he just plays one on TV. But its a caricacature of one.
So now I'm a caricature of a conservative?
And we wonder why we lose.
Amanda couldn't have said it better.
Let's not pretend you're pro life if you think people can murder their innocent children and shouldnt be punished for it.
I believe at sometime in the future our descendants will look back on this era in time when millions of unborn children were slaughtered for their inconvenience with disgust the same way we look back at our ancestors for condoning slavery. When the dust settled after the war, we didn't jail former slave owners or the people who profited from the slave trade. We just made them stop. I don't want women jailed for having an abortion or the doctor or the clinic. I just want them to stop. For the people who say abortions won't stop. They'll just move to the back alley again and put women's lives at risk. I really don't care. We now live in a time when contraception is safe, legal, and abundant. Men and women need to use it, and if you can't just abort a child at will, maybe more will. I know right now my view isn't popular, but I hope someday it will be. I don't choose a presidential candidate based on his or her stand on abortion because as long as the Supreme Court has decided it's legal, what the President believes is irrelevant. The end to abortion on demand has to come from We, the People, and we aren't ashamed enough- yet.
"I'm not a conservative now because I believe abortion is murder and those who kill the baby should be punished?"
No, and nobody said that. Trump is not a conservative because he never put a minute of thought into abortion--or otherwise never stopped being "strongly pro-choice" as he described himself--and slipped up, offering four contradictory stances on the issue.
Had he said "I believe it is murder, and if it is murder then everyone involved is guilty of conspiracy" that would have been one thing. Sure, it would have fired up pro-choice people and even some more mild pro-lifers, but no one could deny that's a pro-life stance. Instead, he starts with "the woman should be punished, but not the man" which is weird, because unless the man didn't know about the abortion he's partly responsible, then he goes on to "only the doctor, because the woman is just a victim" which doesn't make much sense either unless you see women as delicate flowers (and I thought Trump treated everyone the same?), then he says "the laws should stay the way they are which is odd for anyone who knows the laws right now permit all sorts of abortions that even mildly pro-life people find objectionable.
Now, if you identify with all that, then I'd wonder if you really put any thought into your abortion stance. But it's pretty clear Trump was winging it, probably uncomfortable on the issue as he doesn't give a rip if anyone has an abortion. I wouldn't be surprised if he paid for several abortions over his lifetime.
As a constitutional conservative, I think abortion is murder. Unfortunately, in this America, they hide what happens to a baby when it is aborted. I do not think abortions should be "banned", but I wish they would stop making it sound like it is "noble" thing to do, and wish people would stop using it as birth control. I know a couple of girls who have had 3 or more...I understand that they don't like birth control, but at some point the madness has to stop. Instead of making the people who believe it is murder feel like they are wrong....we need to make the people having abortions think about what THEY are doing.
eric,
If you support the imprisonment of women who have abortions, I don't think that means you're not a conservative. But it makes you an unmerciful one, and also a bit short-sighted in my opinion. Would you have imprisoned every southerner who held slaves during Reconstruction? It may have been just, but it would also have torn the country apart. Pushing for the criminalization of every woman who had an abortion under a culture that insists it's legal and okay to do so would have the same effect. And it would create millions of martyrs for the pro-abortion movement.
Yes, Trump's position could technically be considered conservative, if he meant it. Do you really think he does, and if so, why'd he reverse it so quickly?
You're basically admitting to being in line with the leftist caricature of a conservative. That's fine. But the vast majority of pro-life organizations and the pro-life population agree that criminalizing the almost-mothers, while not a perfect example of justice, would ultimately be detrimental to shifting the culture to where abortion is culturally unacceptable, not just legally unacceptable. And making it culturally unacceptable is by far the most important of the two.
"... he is the liberal caricature of a conservative."
Yes!!! Thiessen broke the code! And a writer for the Washington Post, no less. Take note, New York Times, David Brooks is what you think a proper conservative "ought to be." Marc Thiessen is what a proper conservative is.
Trump's understanding of the conservative position on abortion is as ill-informed as Althouse's understanding of the conservative position on abortion.
Moreover there really is no single Republican position on abortion. The Democrats have this advantage over the GOP, that they've shed the "Scoop Jackson" wing of the party (indeed, not long after Scoop died in the 1980's) and there are no more "Blue Dog Democrats" in the Congress after they fell on their swords to give Obama the ACA. The Democrats a very uniform party, and you buy into their doctrines top to bottom or you don't belong and sooner or later you're headed for a shaming.
The Republicans include fiscal conservatives, like me, and evangelicals, and lots of other people who cannot support the extreme positions of the 21st century Democrats. So the successful nominee needs to be able to herd cats, and the first step is to understand something about the cats you're herding. Which Trump does not.
Blogger Qwinn said...
eric,
If you support the imprisonment of women who have abortions, I don't think that means you're not a conservative. But it makes you an unmerciful one, and also a bit short-sighted in my opinion. Would you have imprisoned every southerner who held slaves during Reconstruction? It may have been just, but it would also have torn the country apart. Pushing for the criminalization of every woman who had an abortion under a culture that insists it's legal and okay to do so would have the same effect. And it would create millions of martyrs for the pro-abortion movement.
Qwinn, your analogy fails because grandfathering laws is immoral. You can't put up a no parking sign after someone is already parked there and then fine them.
If you held slaves after slavery was outlawed, then yes, you should be punished. Women who have abortions today are doing so under the color of law. As revolted as I am by that, it's legal in this nation. Once it's outlawed, however, thy should be punished as murderers.
Should a woman who kills her 2 day old child be punished for murder? How about a woman who kills her child 2 days before it is outside the womb?
I don't see a difference. People who say they are pro life but argue there is a difference aren't really pro life.
@wendybar, my position is very close to yours. Perhaps I'd go farther, because I know about Tay-Sachs disease, and I understand that the microencephalitis caused by Zika can manifest very late in the pregnancy. I think a therapeutic abortion should include cases where the baby would be born to a short life of pain.
@eric, you and I differ. Would you force a woman who discovers that her baby has Tay-Sachs to carry the infant to term? Because Tay-Sachs babies are beautiful, even by the standards of beautiful babies. Then at six months they start to die and the process is both painful and long -- as much as four and a half years. Are you they cruel?
You're basically admitting to being in line with the leftist caricature of a conservative. That's fine.
And you're agreeing with them. You're helping the leftists paint a position they disagree with as a caricature.
And you wonder why we lose.
With friends like you, ho needs enemies?
@eric, you and I differ. Would you force a woman who discovers that her baby has Tay-Sachs to carry the infant to term? Because Tay-Sachs babies are beautiful, even by the standards of beautiful babies. Then at six months they start to die and the process is both painful and long -- as much as four and a half years. Are you they cruel?
This is the pro abortion position. In essence, abortion should be legal because of rape.
You've taken a slim minority of instances, less than a tenth of a percent of abortions, and demanded we create our laws around it.
Gotta defend Trump here. Yes, he is not a doctrinaire Conservative. So what?
He is reasonably Conservative on 2 important issues: illegal immigration and radical Islam.
He has taken a non-Conservative position on Trade Deals and the Iraq War.
So, he is a mixed bag. This is ok, because, importantly, the voters in the country aren't clamoring for a doctrinaire Conservative. They are sick of Obama, and want something different. They want more conservative than Obama, but not full Conservative.
Never go full Conservative.
Blogger samanthasmom said...
I believe at sometime in the future our descendants will look back on this era in time when millions of unborn children were slaughtered for their inconvenience with disgust the same way we look back at our ancestors for condoning slavery. When the dust settled after the war, we didn't jail former slave owners or the people who profited from the slave trade. We just made them stop.
We made them stop by making it illegal and demanding punishment for anyone who continued to engage in the behavior
The election will not be decided by the 'Right to Life' issue. Trump rolls on.
eric,
Under that caveat, that there would be no grandfathering, I really can't argue with what you're saying, though I do think the political ramifications would be severe, and could wind up rebounding to the point of getting it legalized again in the future. I agree with you that there is no real difference, but I'm also afraid that the actual real-world result of applying the laws in the way you describe would be to enshrine the culture of death permanently.
Yes, not imprisoning the mothers would be a compromise on our part. The really disgusting part of this debate is that the pro-abortion side never has to compromise, is never asked to compromise, and is never willing to compromise. The pro-lifers are the only ones who ever compromise, and yet it is we who are constantly referred to as the "extremists". It is sickening.
If I were to go along with what you propose, I would suggest charges of murder against the abortionist, and charges of conspiracy to murder against the mother. I think that would be consistent, as it is the abortionist himself who actually carries out the act. A mother seeking out an abortion is effectively "hiring a hit man", which is what conspiracy to murder entails. It is a lesser charge though. What would you say to that?
Big Mike said...
"@wendybar, my position is very close to yours. Perhaps I'd go farther, because I know about Tay-Sachs disease, and I understand that the microencephalitis caused by Zika can manifest very late in the pregnancy. I think a therapeutic abortion should include cases where the baby would be born to a short life of pain.
@eric, you and I differ. Would you force a woman who discovers that her baby has Tay-Sachs to carry the infant to term? Because Tay-Sachs babies are beautiful, even by the standards of beautiful babies. Then at six......"
But most abortions aren't for those reasons. Most abortions are for convenience sake.
It's almost like how babies are made is a mystery.
"He is reasonably Conservative on 2 important issues: illegal immigration and radical Islam."
If by "reasonably" you mean "sometimes when he is not reversing himself or completely out of his depth on the subject."
What bothers me is both of those issues need to be addressed with an understanding of how best to defeat radical Islam and how best to handle both illegals who are here and prevent further illegal immigration. But this cartoon "the wall got higher!" crap and the promise of committing war crimes and "kick their asses" sounds good if you're sitting around a firepit drinking beer and letting off steam, but ultimately fails to present any solution or even a basis for coming to a solution.
This fight to prove Trump's no conservative misses the point of Trump, IMHO. We are at a point, on the conservative side, at least, where ideology has run its course. The National Review crowd have become neo-Puritans with purity tests and Scarlet NC's (not conservative) to hang on people's chests.
They don't understand the moment. Trump is above ideology, for better or for worse. I think it's for better because I think Trump will reinvent Republicanism. It is a tired, old structure but it was built on a solid foundation. Trump is burning down this building and that's his role of the moment. The role of the neo-Puritans is to stop being neo-Puritans, help Trump burn the damn thing down, then help him start rebuilding it with new material.
This is a cycle like the Phoenix bird must go through. After 500, time to burn it up and then let something new rise from its ashes. Trump holds the match.
Bob Ellison said at 10:09 -
"Trump actually has a point. If abortion's a crime, who's the criminal?
"But both pro- and anti-abortion folks have been taught to think that the pregnant woman is just some holding place, an incubator, a non-thinking being that has no moral or legal position at all. Someone else must be at fault. A doctor, a rapist, a clinic."
You have to remember that not everything that is immoral is made illegal and subject to criminal punishment. That is the essence of public policy - weighing the costs and benefits in deciding what immoral acts should be made illegal and punished. The pre-Roe policy of excluding abortion seeking mothers from punishment was not a disclaimer of their moral culpability, but a recognition that their action was often a product of distress. The equivalent distinction in the law between justifiable vs excusable homicide.
Trump is the product of a MSM education.He might learn that he was being fed shit for all those years.
Ah. It's from the Washington Post.
The nations high school newspaper of record.
Go Generals!
All the "conservatives" here going apoplectic over this abortion flap just proves to me how useless conservatism is. Trump is strong on the biggest issues. Immigration, trade, economy, security. Without that nothing else matters.
But here are the true conservatives, burning down the house. You people are absolutely worthless politically. That's why we support Trump.
Get with it. Conservatism never conserved anything, it never will, it was dying before and Trump has finished it off.
A 'true conservative' will NEVER win the Presidency. Therefore, anyone who playa the true conservative card in the Presidential race is asking to lose.
Is it getting through yet?
I should follow up that I do think the question belongs to the States, not on a federal level. As such, I think it should be up to the individual State to determine if the mother should be punished. Just throwing this out there because the federalist aspect of the question isn't and can't get mentioned enough.
"A 'true conservative' will NEVER win the Presidency."
Really? And how often has this been tested since 1984? You know, when a true conservative won 49 states?
If I were to go along with what you propose, I would suggest charges of murder against the abortionist, and charges of conspiracy to murder against the mother. I think that would be consistent, as it is the abortionist himself who actually carries out the act. A mother seeking out an abortion is effectively "hiring a hit man", which is what conspiracy to murder entails. It is a lesser charge though. What would you say to that?
I'm almost always willing to compromise for a part of what I can get.
But starting off with a compromise doesn't make sense to me.
My position is, it's murder. Therefore, murderers should be punished.
If someone says to me, OK, let's punish the doctors. Great! Let's make a law that punishes the doctors. I'm all for it.
But my position remains the same. It's murder and women are moral agents who make the decision. Therefore, they ought to be punished.
"Meade, yes, Trump's a wavering idiot. That fact does not shed light on the discussion. "
Maybe not. But his answer — yes, we should punish women — does shed light. And by "answer" I mean his first answer, the one before he politically corrected himself 4 times in 48 hours or so.
"Without that nothing else matters."
Sorry, but the future belongs to those who show up for it. None of the things you've mentioned will matter much in the face of the demographic collapse of the West alongside an Islamic world breeding an average of 4 children per mother.
eric,
Okay. I'll ask again - murder charge against the abortionist, conspiracy to murder against the mother. Would you consider that a compromise on your part, and charges of murder to both would be required for true justice? Or do you think that's fair enough, and doesn't require compromise?
There is no such thing as a "real conservative", the very concept is absurd.
Conservatism is an attitude, not in any solid sense a political program. To the extent that it is a political program it is conditional and contingent. There isn't much in the way of specifics of public policy to connect Cato the Elder, de Maistre and Burke, just to start on the "paleo" side.
Ref, if anyone cares, Russell Kirk.
buwaya,
I disagree. I think the Republican Party platform, as it has been codified for many years running, is a pretty good descriptor of the conservative political program. That document is generally very well thought out and consistent. The problem is that the Establishment consistently chooses to discard or compromise away virtually every aspect of that platform.
Have no fear. Trump really could negotiate much better deals for sale of Fresh Body Parts. The threat of shutting down the assembly line will loosen up the industry's demands for loot.
Think of Trump's bargaining power. One right wing SCOTUS appointment and the entire Industrial System for grinding up foetuses grinds to a halt.
I think Trump is about as likely to nominate a right wing SCOTUS appointment as Hillary is.
Trump is a recent convert. So what. Up to now he has spent his life chasing women, trying to be a trillionaire, and his hair. That doesn't make me better than him. Probably it's the other way around.
Nobody who isn't a party-boy "conservative" is still hugging and puffing about the question of Trump's being a "true conservative". Nobody who isn't a party-boy "conservative" gives a rat's about what party-boy "conservatives" think conservatism is.
Was Reagan a true conservative?
Trying to buid a 600+ ship navy, putting the country exponentially more in debt/adding to the deficit. Raised taxes 11 times. etc. etc.
>
Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt. George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt. Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 17 Times, Bush Seven. Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves.
>
ok, ok, he did give me the biggest pay raise during my years in the USN.
Indeed, the two party system prevents one from ever being a true anything as one is usually more worried about being re-elected than following the party scripture. It's the nature of the beast!
I yield back the balance of my time ...
"Nobody who isn't a party-boy "conservative" is still hugging and puffing about the question of Trump's being a "true conservative". Nobody who isn't a party-boy "conservative" gives a rat's about what party-boy "conservatives" think conservatism is."
If by "party-boy" you mean "establishment", kiss my ass. I've been sick of the establishment for years, and I sure as hell do care that he's not even remotely conservative. It's his supporters that don't give a damn.
Meade said...
" Maybe not. But his answer — yes, we should punish women — does shed light. And by "answer" I mean his first answer, the one before he politically corrected himself 4 times in 48 hours or so."
The question was if abortion is illegal should people who have abortions be punished?
Of course they should. That is why the federal government has no place in this discussion.
We are where we are as a country because men have abandoned reality to accommodate women. They want to be pro-life without having to take responsibility for what that means. Trump briefly forced people who want to use government force to stop abortion to face the truth.
I wish he hadn't and this is clearly not a priority issue for him. GOOD. We have way more important problems one of which is highlighted by Meade. He wants to be pro life but can't face his wife unless he says he doesn't really mean it.
We need "conservatives" to grow up and realize if they can't throw women in jail for breaking the law we probably shouldn't have that law. Trump has taken that position.
Blogger Qwinn said...
eric,
Okay. I'll ask again - murder charge against the abortionist, conspiracy to murder against the mother. Would you consider that a compromise on your part, and charges of murder to both would be required for true justice? Or do you think that's fair enough, and doesn't require compromise?
Sure. I'll take it.
eric wrote:
Trump fights. These losers surrender before the battle is even waged.
Screw them.
Does Trump fight though? Not on abortion. He walked that stance back so quickly The Flash would have expressed shock at how quick it was walked back.
So, he puts out a position that suggests he will fight. But it may in fact be because he doesn't really have a grasp on the position and says whatever comes into his head.
Shiloh,
Unlike all the countless entitlements that you no doubt support, national defense actually is in the Constitution as a federal prerogative. There's nothing un-conservative about a strong military, even if it runs up the debt, especially in the face of an existential threat. What a conservative truly disdains is running up the debt for programs that have absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever.
Meade: so you're focused on the fact that Trump is, as I said, a wavering idiot. I agree.
Trump is not a real conservative?
Wow.
Who knew?
Fooled me.
Wowee.
Qwinn said...
"If by "party-boy" you mean "establishment", kiss my ass. I've been sick of the establishment for years, and I sure as hell do care that he's not even remotely conservative. It's his supporters that don't give a damn."
I believe Trump is a conservative who didn't spend his life thinking about how the government should run the world. He obviously didn't read about it or think about it. I want someone in government who doesn't find it fun and exciting to deal with policy minutae.
He actually knows how to do things instead of how to filibuster a bill or steal a delegate.
"I think the Republican Party platform, as it has been codified for many years running, is a pretty good descriptor of the conservative political program"
Speaking as a foreigner, all I can say is that it is "a" conservative political program, but certainly not the only possible conservative political program.
Have to point out the obvious. If Trump is such a caricature, then there are quite a few people who reputedly are conservative but buy into what he has to say hook, line,and sinker. I mean come on. What does this say about what many consevatives really think or how deep they really think.
Well yeah, obviously...but here's the thing: Mitt Romney lost. Lost pretty badly, really. He lost women. He didn't do anything that would feed "the false war on women narrative."
If someone like Romney is successfully painted as a soldier in the war on women then why would anyone think it matters who the Right puts up? I mean, sure, some candidates make it easier than others, but if it worked on Romney on whom wouldn't it work? I'd wager the Media would run a "war on women" theme against Fiorina or Mia Love and most of the nation would buy it.
"Does Trump fight though? "
Well, he fights people, which is his thing. He likes fighting people.
I'm not sure he fights concepts.
But why the heck did it take the WashPo professional that long to get around to proving the idea that Trump's version of conservatism is a liberal caricature? We've been saying that for quite some time over here.
W and the GOP Congress (Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell) voted to outlaw partial birth abortion using the commerce clause power. Big Government GOP believe the Constitution limits the power of the federal government except when they are in power. Then the Commerce Clause must be interpreted as FDR intended: to restrict anything we don't like even if it only takes place within state. The party of limited government's hypocrisy knows no limits.
"What does this say about what many consevatives really think or how deep they really think."
I suspect that many who imagine themselves to be deep thinkers have shallow spots, here and there.
"I believe Trump is a conservative who didn't spend his life thinking about how the government should run the world."
Please list all the questions to which Trump has answered "I don't think the government has any place in that." If he'd have said that about ANYTHING, like, oh, maybe eminent domain, he'd have something. But as far as I can tell, Trump has promised a government solution to EVERY problem.
Qwinn
The Soviet Union ie Cold War would have have fallen of their own volition regardless of a 600+ ship navy as Communism was/is unsustainable er "Russia" ran out of $$$.
Prerogative indeed!
One could argue 24/7 cable news/mass media had more to do w/the Berlin wall falling than military might.
"W and the GOP Congress (Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell) voted to outlaw partial birth abortion using the commerce clause power."
Um, because Roe v. Wade made it a federal issue that could only be attacked by federal means? We didn't set up the rules, but we're hypocrites when we're forced to play by them in order to stop the most barbaric procedure ever legalized in any society, ever, including the Aztecs? Kiss my ass.
Thiessen thinks W is a conservative. Apparently a few other people agree with him since conservatism is just an attitude to these guys. If you call yourself one you are one. Trump can call himself a conservative just like W called himself a conservative. But cultists get upset when Trump calls himself a conservative.
"The Soviet Union ie Cold War would have have fallen of their own volition regardless of a 600+ ship navy as Communism was/is unsustainable er "Russia" ran out of $$$."
Ah, this one again. Funny how the Left's position at the time was that Reagan was an extremist who would get us all killed because the Soviet Union was ascendant and could not possibly be defeated.
I don't know of a single actual conservative who thought Bush was a genuine conservative. He was no less squish than McCain or Romney were. The people you're arguing against are those who didn't think any of the three were conservatives, but hey, any straw man is a good straw man, right?
Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right. If it's a constitutional right then no government, state, local, or federal, can infringe on it.
Partial birth abortion isn't a constitutional right. So any state is free to restrict it. But the federal government can only restrict it if it falls within one of its enumerated powers. So which enumerated power does Congress have to restrict a partial birth abortion that takes place within a state? If you're a limited government adherent, the answer is none. If you're a believer in Big Government like FDR, Wilson, and W, you say who gives a shit push it though.
"The Soviet Union ie Cold War would have have fallen of their own volition regardless of a 600+ ship navy as Communism was/is unsustainable er "Russia" ran out of $$$."
The reason the Soviets ran out of $$$ was -
a. Futile attempt to compete with the US/NATO in a military buildup. This broke them in a hopeless attempt to match resources, requiring an almost 100% militarized economy.
Less western buildup = less Soviet buildup, less stress on the Soviet economy.
b. Low oil prices for a decade, guaranteed by US alliances and protection of OPEC vs instability. This deprived them of their single best source of foreign exchange.
c. Subterfuge in limiting Soviet natural gas export markets.
The hopeless economic situation broke the morale of the Soviet leadership.
"24/7 cable news/mass media"
Little penetration into the Soviet Union proper.
Considerable in Eastern Europe, mostly East Germany, but this would have mattered even less had the Moscow leadership maintained their morale.
"Ah, this one again. Funny how the Left's position at the time was that Reagan was an extremist who would get us all killed because the Soviet Union was ascendant and could not possibly be defeated."
Let the record show Quinn did not disagree w/my statement, rather he deflected er generalized re: liberals and Reagan.
Breaking ... many libs hated Reagan/Bush/Bush / many cons hated Clinton/hate Obama.
Film at eleven.
"Trump is not a real conservative?"
I know. But what bothers me more than that is he's not even a real liberal either.
Actually, mccullogh, I'll give you this, apparently Thiessen (who I'm really not familiar with) did make the argument that Bush was conservative. This was a pretty interesting analysis:
http://www.cato.org/blog/bush-was-statist-not-conservative
Actually what I found most interesting was that the Cato analysis DOES grant that most of what Thiessen claims on Bush's behalf is true and that Bush deserves credit for them, but nails him for what is left out (such as the prescription entitlement). But I'll retract my accusation of a straw man, Thiessen did make that argument. That does call my opinion of Thiessen into doubt, not conservatism in general.
Qwinn: I disagree. I think the Republican Party platform, as it has been codified for many years running, is a pretty good descriptor of the conservative political program.
The Republican Party platform is what the Republican Party defines as a "conservative political program". As buwaya states, it is conditional and contingent. The definition you're adhering to (pretty much economic neoliberalism + foreign policy neoconservatism with a few culture war issues thrown in to keep the religious right on board) hardly encompasses all the historical strains of American conservatism, let alone any others.
Shorter version of buwaya at 11:55 AM = Communism was/is unsustainable.
@Shiloh,
The Soviet Union ie Cold War would have have fallen of their own volition regardless of a 600+ ship navy as Communism was/is unsustainable er "Russia" ran out of $$$.
Oy vey -- were you saying this in the 80s? Nobody was saying this in the 80s. Reagan was saying, "Strength thru Peace," the Left was saying, "Russia's not going anywhere, we need to learn to live with them."
"Let the record show Quinn did not disagree w/my statement, rather he deflected er generalized re: liberals and Reagan"
Sigh. I don't bother going into it all because every time I do, folks on your side just stop posting in that thread only to pop it back up in another thread a few weeks later as if they had never been debunked.
Yes, the Soviet economic model could not continue -as long as they weren't able to keep conquering and plundering other countries-. They could've gone on for decades longer by continuing their conquest which ran unabated through every American President *until* Reagan. Under Reagan, and obviously in part because of his military buildup, the Soviets were unable to make one single additional country fall to Communism. *That* is why they fell a decade later. Had they been able to keep plundering the rest of the world at will, as Carter/Mondale would certainly have allowed, we'd probably still be dealing with them today.
Now run away so you can pretend you never heard this in a thread 3 weeks from now. Again.
There's a distinction between a theoretical Conservative (read Milton Friedman books, ruminate over the Laffer Curve) and a practical Conservative (work, save, invest, marry, raise kids).
Both are important, but the latter is much more important. Trump is the latter, but on a yuuge scale. To some extent, Hillary is the latter. That's why she'll get 60 Million votes, despite her flaws
Sanders, on the other hand, is neither. Never worked, never raised his kids, just sponged off the government or others his whole life, while touting socialism. A typical leftist parasite.
Qwinn,
The people I am arguing against are the GOP presidential candidates (Cruz is fairly conservative but more symbolic than substance since he hasn't actually done anything other than talk for four years in the Senate and he's not even an originalist even though he keeps touting his law background as if it's anything other than a liability) and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. I threw in W because he was the last GOP president, was a disaster, and the Speaker of the House and the majority leader in the Senate voted for that entire bullshit W agenda. Romney wasn't conservative at all. He signed off on forcing people to buy health insurance and fancied himself a technocrat, which means he's an arrogant fool, which is why he was such a mediocre 1-term governor.
So what white knight does the RNC want to send at the convention? It will be another Big Governement, Big Deficit douche bag.
" a theoretical Conservative (read Milton Friedman books, ruminate over the Laffer Curve) "
These aren't even "theoretical" matters as it applies to political philosophy. These are economic matters independent of politics, or should be, as they can in theory be disproven or refined through experiments ("natural" though they be).
" rather he deflected er generalized re: liberals and Reagan.'
It was a deflection, but the real point is to question liberals' judgement, as they got it so badly wrong on such an enormous matter. The sins of the liberal fathers taints their modern sons, or it should anyway.
"Oy vey"
And Trump and his fellow con lemmings believe Obama was/is a Muslim born in Kenya. Must be why he is currently leading in delegates for the Rep nomination.
Yea, I can play the inane deflection game also.
>
Thank goodness no die hard conservative ever believed anything stupid/irrational in the history of the Rep party!
As Jonah wisely points out - Trump says these things because Trump has a low opinion of conservatives.
Trump’s Lies Are a Loyalty Test for His Followers
" Communism was/is unsustainable."
On the contrary, I think it is quite sustainable, in certain societies, at a rather low level of economic and technological development, if combined with rigid control of access to the outside world. A North Korea with something like Russia's natural resources could remain a hermit kingdom till kingdom come.
It is not sustainable when it is imperative to be militarily/technologically competitive.
So Trump isn't a true conservative? Thanks for the timely hint.
Frankly, Trump scares me because I don't know what, if anything, he believes in. (Except for himself, of course. But we've seen THAT play out for nearly eight years now.)
So I reluctantly hope Cruz is the Republican nominee, though he does not thrill me either.
But I think Trump will be the nominee. So I'll be scared when I vote against Hillary. But I will vote against Hillary.
The reason Trump gives the KKK the time of day is because he thinks all conservatives are the KKK.
mccullogh:
"Cruz is fairly conservative but more symbolic than substance since he hasn't actually done anything other than talk for four years in the Senate"
And what has Trump done? Or anyone else running?
Cruz is the most consistent conservative I've witnessed in my lifetime, aside from possibly Fred Thompson.
"and he's not even an originalist"
Huh? First I've heard of this. Explanation?
"even though he keeps touting his law background as if it's anything other than a liability)"
Why is this a liability only for Republicans? The Democrats haven't nominated a non-lawyer for President or Vice President since Jimmy Carter, with the hilarious exceptions of Lloyd Bensen (Dukakis' running mate) and Al Gore, who would've been a lawyer if he hadn't failed Law Divinity School. By contrast, the only lawyer the Republicans have put up since Carter was Bob Dole, and he was about a dozen other things in addition to that.
The Democrats are a lawyer's guild, and they have fundamentally transformed this country into one ruled by lawyers in every aspect of our lives. We really need to finally fight fire with fire on this, and Cruz is one of the best. I *do* consider it a very important part of his resume and is a main reason that I support him.
Trump doesn't care about abortion or gay marriage. He's got New York Values. He cares what things cost, and whether we have too many illegal immigrants undercutting our way of life. If he's asked about abortion or gay marriage, he will say something, but he doesn't really care. He likes women. He loves them. He goes through them. He can't get enough of them. His girlfriends and wives have no doubt had abortions, and he probably sent the checks to hospitals. Trump cares about money issues. He has New York values. Those values are good enough for Wisconsin, according to the most recent ARG poll, that has him up by ten points with every demographic except for women.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_republican_presidential_primary-3763.html
Drat, I wrote "Strength Through Peace" above and meant "Peace Through Strength".
How did we get on the topic of Communists and how Reagan and the Conservatives defeated them?:)
Cruz is the one who comes across as a caricature of a conservative, by the way.
Pray evurry day for the country!
The anointed one to bring the spoils back to the priests!!
How blind do Cruzers have to be to think DONALD is the caricature? Cruz couldn't win the general if his life depended on it. Hillary will play the lay-on-hands video until the cows come home.
You all know this already. But you'd rather lose nobly and feel good about yourselves than let Trump kick ass, take names, and WIN.
Qwinn: If by "party-boy" you mean "establishment", kiss my ass. I've been sick of the establishment for years, and I sure as hell do care that he's not even remotely conservative. It's his supporters that don't give a damn.
That's the point. You're right, his supporters obviously don't give a damn about whether he meets your standards for "conservatism", so continuing to flog that dead "but he's not a real conservative" horse is a waste of time, no?
(Hey, by your lights, paleoconservatives, e.g., aren't "real conservatives" either, which you're welcome to believe, but why should anybody else care?)
The Mainstream Media War on the Leading Republican Candidate continues.
"(Hey, by your lights, paleoconservatives, e.g., aren't "real conservatives" either, which you're welcome to believe, but why should anybody else care?)"
When have I said paleos aren't real conservatives? I agree with them on a number of subjects?
Trump isn't paleo, neo, or any other kind of conservative. He's a liberal, straight up. The fact that he's running in a Republican primary, thereby usurping the only process by which conservatives can be represented, is the reason that the "dead "but he's not a real conservative" horse" must and will continue to be flogged. Just because liberals are perfecting Operation Chaos this cycle doesn't mean we all roll over and let you win.
conservative, like progressive, is a useless descriptor in our national politics. Just look at what you consider to be the big specific issues and decide which of those candidates aligns with your views on at least some of those issues, if any of them do, and might be able to do something about that issue in a direction that aligns with what you think is best. If you think fiscal issues are the most important, you are out of luck since both parties believe in high deficits. The Dems will tax more but spend even more. And the GOP will tax less and spend even more. The Dems want to increase social welfare spending on non entitlement programs and the GOP wants to spend more on the military. Both parties will continue to borrow to keep up with our unsustainable entitlement programs and both parties generally agree on the budget amount to be spent on the non military, non social welfare spending part of the budget. The GOP isn't getting rid of the TSA or the Department of Education, much less laying off any of the federal workforce. Both parties spend a shitload on their own personal and committee staff members to give you an idea of how well they handle budgets.
The failure to change course and address the fiscal issues in this country will eventually lead to a massive depression with draconian government cuts. This will happen after the people who are in power are gone. The GOP refuses to raise taxes to a level that can sustain even the spending they agree with and refuses to set a realistic military budget. The Dems refuse to revamp social welfare spending and are blithe about any consequences of dependency that their social spending fosters.
But that neither party will realistically address the looming entitlement disaster shows you that they are both about short-term personal preservation and don't give a shit about the consequences to young and future Americans. None of them deserves a leadership position in this country.
Bay Area Guy
After 4 years of Bush41, 8 years of Bush43 all cons want to talk about is Saint Ronnie.
ok, I started the Reagan conversation re: the definition of conservative.
>
And thank goodness for die hard cons who now comprise 26% of the electorate.
"The GOP isn't getting rid of the TSA or the Department of Education"
You say that as if you think they should. Well....
"Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says that, if elected, one of his strategies to return America to its constitutional moorings would be to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
“I don’t think the federal government should have any role in education,” he said. “I am a constitutionalist, and I have spent my entire adult life fighting to defend the Constitution and fighting to defend the Bill of Rights."
"The Dems want to increase social welfare spending on non entitlement programs and the GOP wants to spend more on the military."
The former isn't constitutional, the latter is. And even if you don't think more military spending was necessary 8 years ago, after Obama having utterly gutted it the last 8 years, and considering the utter mess he and Hillary have made of the world in that time, you'd have to be kinda crazy not to think it's necessary now.
@Shiloh,
I like talking about the great Ronald Reagan, but also like talking about Bush the Elder and Bush the younger.
The definition of Conservative isn't an interesting topic. It's like, asking How high is up?
There is a rough thought that the guys who like private sector jobs, strong military, western civilization values, and church -- are the conservatives.
Conversely, those who want more government regulations, less military intervention, more free stuff, varied sexual activities, less religion -- are the liberals. Not too controversial.
Cruz, by his record, is a Conservative. Trump, by his speeches, takes a bit of both.
"The reason Trump gives the KKK the time of day is because he thinks all conservatives are the KKK."
Pretty much. Think "what would the leftist performance artist do if they wanted to portray what they thought of as a conservative"--and you have a guy who cannot denounce the KKK because he has internalized the MSM theme that his supporters are white supremacists. Think about that--Trump supporters spend all this time telling us he's not a bigot and then he goes and pulls the rug out from under them. This is a man who waited not a minute before shooting back at the freaking Pope, but with David Duke he had to think on it.
"even though he keeps touting his law background as if it's anything other than a liability)"
As a lawyer I'll be the first to call out lousy and unethical lawyers, but when we want a political leader who will be signing and enforcing and constrained by laws, sometimes it's helpful that they actually understand the laws. Non-lawyers can be good presidents, but proud ignoramuses (ignorami?) like Trump have such a poor understanding of the law that they're dangerous in power. I'll take a skilled lawyer like Cruz over a sleazy showman like Trump any day.
"Trump isn't paleo, neo, or any other kind of conservative. He's a liberal, straight up."
I'd take that a step farther. Trump isn't even really a liberal--he, like his buddy Hillary, has no conviction whatsoever except his own power and fortunes. He believes in no ideology, tends left when it suits him and tends right when it suits him, and longs to be a strongman like Putin or Chavez.
If he were just a liberal, that would be almost tolerable. He's something far worse.
Meade said...
"Meade, yes, Trump's a wavering idiot. That fact does not shed light on the discussion. "
Maybe not. But his answer — yes, we should punish women — does shed light. And by "answer" I mean his first answer, the one before he politically corrected himself 4 times in 48 hours or so.
Really? How so? The linked article doesn't seem to mention it:
"Trump not only declared that if abortion became illegal women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment,"
So IF it were illegal, people who broke the law should be punished, which is completely standard: replace "abortion" with anything else, like parking in the wrong place.
"In an interview with John Dickerson on “Face the Nation,” Trump said that he would not change the law to protect innocent unborn life, declaring that “the laws are set. . . . At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”"
Not inconsistent at all with the first theoretical. The SC claims that a constitutional amendment is needed to change abortion laws.
Trump then twice declined to answer when asked whether he thought abortion is murder, saying “I’d rather not comment on it” and “I just don’t think it’s an appropriate forum” before finally, on the third try, grudgingly saying “I don’t disagree.”
That all depends on the definition of "murder", which often, but not always means "the illegal killing of a person". If abortion is legal, not murder; if illegal, then murder.
While I don't generally disagree with your statements in general, Bay Area Guy, I do have to state I think it's funny that liberals are the ones considered to be for "less military intervention", considering the vast majority of military interventions this country has taken part in since WWII inclusive were at the hands of Democrats.
Abortion is a homicide.
Women who seek an abortion are temporarily insane.
Women who use abortion as birth control should be sterilized.
Good luck making that the law of the land. Sterilization! Wow. It does happen after about the fourth abortion all by itself, doesn't it?
Abortion is a symbolic issue for the GOP. It's their virtue signaling. They say they believe abortion is wrong and should be outlawed but are glad it is a constitutional right so they don't actually have to vote on it and lose elections. Ronald Reagan signed a law legalizing abortion when he was California governor because he had actual responsibility on the issue. Voters in his state favored it and so did he based on his experiences in Hollywood. About 12 of the state's with a GOP governor would have a Dem governor at the next election if they didn't sign a law legalizing abortion. People don't like abortion but they don't like the alternative even more. And only a very small percentage of people think abortion is equivalent to murdering a new born baby. Which is why the GOP says it would never charge a pregnant woman with conspiracy to commit murder but would charge a new mom with conspiracy to commit murder for hiring a doctor to kill her new born.
Bay Area Guy
Talking in generalities is why political blogs exist. Suffice it to say, politicians from either side, "generally" say 95%, leave office exponentially more wealthy than when they began their political career.
The bottom line, as always, is their bottom line.
And then they become a lobbyist ...
Name the Republicans who got rich in office.
"Talking in generalities is why political blogs exist."
Yes. Unfortunately. It is possible not to do that, and I invite you to engage in substantial argument about government policies.
shiloh said...
Shorter version of buwaya at 11:55 AM = Communism was/is unsustainable.
"Well look, EVENTUALLY these terrible Commie countries will collapse, so it's useless to do anything to try and make that happen sooner or prevent them from taking over other countries/peoples. What does it matter if they manage to grind millions more people beneath their boot heels, starve or otherwise deprive millions more...eventually it'll all fall apart. The best thing to do is to sit back, consign hundreds of millions of people to life under a brutal system, and wait for things to straighten themselves out. Of course, their leadership has expansionist/imperialist plans and quite a few very powerful weapons/large armies, but to confront them in any way just makes things worse. It's so much better to sit back and praise the parts of their system we think are better than ours (and attack anyone who too-vigorously opposes them as a warmonger, etc)."
That's kind of a despicable line, especially with the hindsight of history, no?
Shorter: There's a lot of ruin in a nation, and just claiming "it would have collapsed on its own eventually" ignores the unfathomable human misery the word "eventually" contains.
"Name the Republicans who got rich in office."
Some Congressmen, Senators to a degree.
Among Presidents -
Nixon. Somewhat rich, or at least very comfortably off. He was born dirt poor.
Eisenhower, a bit, though his celebrity would probably made him wealthy anyway.
Ford, Reagan, the Bushes were more or less wealthy before they started on political careers.
Conversely, among Democrats, there is one glaring case, that of the Clintons, of enrichment as a result of holding public offices. They are unique in scale.
Obama will come out of the White House a wealthy man, and probably will collect considerably more later.
Johnson was another case of a political career that gave a dirt-poor man a substantial (or a comfortable) legacy, much like Nixon.
Carter, Truman, Kennedy, didn't notably improve their wealth in office, though maybe the Kennedy clan as a whole had some benefit from their public offices, though its arguable that their fortune has done more subsidizing of their politics than vice versa.
"and I invite you to engage in substantial argument about government policies."
Ironic this thread is about Trump who can't seem to give a direct answer re: any govt. policy. Much like Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/Hillary/Sanders.
All I hear is on day one Reps are gonna reverse all of Obama's executive orders or do away with everything Obama signed into legislation.
The idiots not realizing nothing gets done on day one except the inaugural address.
>
Although on day one in 2009, McConnell and his merry men were determined to make Obama a one term president. Oops!
>
ok, Trump has said America is gonna start winning again. And America will win so much that "we" will get tired of winning. Indeed, it will be huuuuge!
So, it goes without sayin' he has my vote ...
Spot on, BTW. Donny Trump is no conservative. He is the New York Yankees of politics, millions of fans who think he is pure class. Many millions more who think he and his fans are a bunch of money worshipping fucktards.
"and I invite you to engage in substantial argument about government policies."
"Ironic this thread is about Trump who can't seem to give a direct answer re: any govt. policy. Much like Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/Hillary/Sanders."
Sadly, you are not, it seems, as of yet, trying to surpass these faulty, unsubstantial people. What do you like/not like about current policies and how would you solve the problems of the nation? I await your realistic program that addresses all objections and anticipates all contingencies. I am hopeful.
"The idiots not realizing nothing gets done on day one except the inaugural address."
The idiot currently in office made getting a *lot* done on the first day quite possible, since all his "phone and pen" legislating can just as easily be undone by the same phone and pen, yes, on the first day of a new President in office.
This didn't previously happen because no previous President has run almost their entire Presidency on "executive orders" before.
"Ironic this thread is about Trump who can't seem to give a direct answer re: any govt. policy. Much like Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/Hillary/Sanders."
It's hard to pin down what Cruz's policies are? Really? Why don't you go ahead and tell me which of Cruz's policies you are uncertain about.
This seems to be the anti-Cruz tactic of this election: make some criticism that would be totally accurate about the other 4 candidates but totally untrue about Cruz, but who actually stops to check if it's actually true about all of them? Going through five names is such a hassle...
Tell you what, to back up your claim, why don't you give us video of Cruz being asked a question, and his answer being evasive and non-committal.
And then I'll give you a dozen worse examples from both Hillary and Trump *each* for every one you can give me of Cruz doing the same.
There is no answer to the abortion question that will satisfy everyone. I think Hillary and Bernie's steadfast support of abortion at any time during the pregnancy is what is hideous! Trump, again, has again triggered a different conversation about the topic.
"There is no answer to the abortion question that will satisfy everyone."
It's hard to satisfy everyone when half the population has the gall to oppose any and every restriction on abortion on the basis of "slippery slope!!1!!!11!" from their position at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
What is actually possible on Day 1, or very shortly after, is to appoint a large number of new department heads with pre-determined orders. The Obama administration did this.
The other thing is to accept the resignations of all serving US attornies.
"Roger Stone: We’ll disclose the hotel room number for any delegate in Cleveland who tries to “steal” the nomination from Trump"
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/05/roger-stone-well-disclose-the-hotel-room-number-for-any-delegate-in-cleveland-who-tries-to-steal-the-nomination-from-trump/
So, basically, threats against non-Trump delegates now.
"So, basically, threats against non-Trump delegates now."
Yep, I just can't wait to see what this gang does when they have actual power. I can't imagine anything bad coming from that.
"There is no answer to the abortion question that will satisfy everyone."
Yes, but it takes some real skill to come up with a series of contradictory answers that satisfy no one at all.
AprilApple zings it:
"As Jonah wisely points out - Trump says these things because Trump has a low opinion of conservatives."
"Trump’s Lies Are a Loyalty Test for His Followers"
"The reason Trump gives the KKK the time of day is because he thinks all conservatives are the KKK."
He's learning that there are material differences between selective-child and one-child policies. The latter reflects a psychopathy of an elite minority in a left-wing regime, while the former reflects a psychopathy of the general population under a State-established pro-choice religion instructed by gods from the twilight zone and their human representatives. Neither reactive parenthood and abortion rites, nor planned parenthood and clinical cannibalism, can be addressed until science/education, religion/morality, and culture are reformed.
buwaya
You believe the problems of our nation are gonna be solved at a 95/5 con political blog?
The age-old rhetorical question: What social/political/economic etc. problem(s) in America are solved by political blogging?
Indeed, hopefully on a good day political blogs are entertaining as this is the only thing a political blog can hope to "offer".
Basically, no one's political position has ever been altered by political blogging. In fact, it has the opposite effect ie the echo chamber of most blogs just reinforces one's personal prejudices/biases.
Qwinn: When have I said paleos aren't real conservatives? I agree with them on a number of subjects?
OK, fair cop perhaps for your personal views, but how many Conservatism, Inc. conservatives (National Review conservatives, WSJ conservatives, all the soi-disant "true conservatives" of that ilk) would be willing to admit that things like tariffs, skepticism about markets-über-alles, an expansive, anti-liberal view of freedom of association (regardless of whether it had "racist" consequences), or anti-interventionism as the foundation of our foreign policy, are conservative views?
And please don't reply to this by arguing about whether these are good ideas or bad ideas. The point is that these are views that have been and are held by serious conservative thinkers of the non-"current Republican Party platform" variety.
Trump isn't paleo, neo, or any other kind of conservative. He's a liberal, straight up.
Didn't say he was.
He's a liberal, straight up.
A "liberal" who makes appeals to voters on "paleo" ideas like economic nationalism and anti-globalist national sovereignty. A liberal who violates both liberal and modern "conservative" pieties by calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
If you grant that paleoconservatives are conservatives, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand that these things might appeal to their conservative principles in ways that current Republican Party conservatism does not.
The fact that he's running in a Republican primary, thereby usurping the only process by which conservatives can be represented is the reason that the "dead "but he's not a real conservative" horse" must and will continue to be flogged.
Ffs, Qwinn, get real. The Republican party is an open-borders, globalist party, little different from the Democratic party in its indifference to the interests of the ordinary "conservative" Americans who used to form its base. You have rocks in your head if you believe the Republican Party's crash-and-burn trajectory was set in motion by Donald Trump.
You've already said that Trump supporters don't care if he's a "real conservative" or not. Apparently you think they don't care because for some reason (stupidity, illiteracy, blinding anger, gullibility, meth-bingeing) they haven't heard that he's not a Jonah Goldberg, WSJ editorial-board approved Real Conservative(tm).
Better get the word out, Qwinn! There's still time to save them from their ignorance!
For just one topic political bloggers have over the last year completely changed my mind about free trade. One justification for free trade is the brutal but GDP-enhancing redeployment of disemployed workers into more productive positions. That's not happening, and the cheap gadgets aren't worth the permanent structural unemployment.
You have to choose between free trade and an extensive welfare state.
To be fair, the triumphalist left has been very helpful; the masks are off.
Anglelyne (3:26): "Better get the word out, Qwinn! There's still time to save [Trumpists] from their ignorance!"
Speaking generally, it's likely you are mistaken about that.
"You believe the problems of our nation are gonna be solved at a 95/5 con political blog?"
Where else better? No, really, where else?
Leftist/liberal blogs, in my experience, do not welcome argument, however well-behaved and substantial. I am beginning to suspect something genetic is involved. There is no sense of the Marquess of Queensberry, or the rules of cricket. This is also true, sadly, of a few right wing blogs, but many if not most believe in fair play, reason and evidence.
Here you are free to present serious arguments and you will get a substantial, reasoned response. One of the very very few places where it is still possible.
Its a great tragedy that it has come to this, but so it is.
weaksauce
Qwinn,
"The really disgusting part of this debate is that the pro-abortion side never has to compromise"
Sure they do--they don't get to kill as many babies as they would prefer to.
eric wrote:
So now I'm a caricature of a conservative?
And we wonder why we lose.
Amanda couldn't have said it better.
Let's not pretend you're pro life if you think people can murder their innocent children and shouldnt be punished for it.
I never said YOU were caricature. I said Trump is. He seems to articulate a view about certain topics that he THINKS most conservatives agree with. But that view is generally colored by liberalism. In other words, its the liberal view of what a conservative would say not a conservative. That's why people in NR are so antagonistic to him.
From my own standpoint I hear what he and you are saying regarding penalizing women who had abortions. And I guess it would depend on when the woman had the abortion. If abortions were illegal and she persisted, especially in a late term abortion, it might be considered infancticide. I dont know if we want to have the same charge for an abortion that we would for infanticide (though I do note that if a man kicks a woman in the stomach and kills her fetus he can be charged with murder).
The problem with Trump is that as soon as he got pushback he then retreated from this position and said the laws are the laws and should stay that way. So, he can't defend EITHER position. For pro lifers having him say we'll penalize the mothers raises a red flag, but then saying the law is the law and we'll keep it that way raises another flag.
"Leftist/liberal blogs, in my experience, do not welcome argument, however well-behaved and substantial. I am beginning to suspect something genetic is involved."
Actually, liberals have a habit of not agreeing on many issues arguing amongst themselves. And to be fair, here and elsewhere "conservatives" disagree on many issues as well. But again, how is posting on a blog gonna change anything er solve any problems.
Blog posting is a good way to vent, make new like-minded friends and repeat oneself ad nauseam.
Regarding liberals disagreeing Will Rogers said it best ~ I'm not a member of any organized political group, I'm a Democrat.
It's half the fun of being a liberal, not agreeing on anything.
>
And mentioned previously someone here said Daily Kos is a liberal echo chamber to which madisonfella opined the obvious: The irony of a Rep at a 95/5 con blog saying another blog is an echo chamber.
At least Kos serves the useful purpose of raising $$$ for liberal causes and candidates, whereas all the $$$ "raised" here goes to the blog mistress.
As always, the devil is in the details ...
>
This is why watching the current state of the Rep party is so entertaining to liberals as it's usually Dems who are totally discombobulated. Indeed, it's the Dems who have grasped defeat from the jaws of victory previously and now Reps have gone all-in on the chaos making a clear path for someone like Hillary to become president.
Love it when a plan comes together!
Am I still on topic?
First rule of politics, second or third rule of life:
Never EVER get bolloxed up over hypothetical issues.
Since Roe v Wade usurped the role of legislatures, abortion is legal in this country and will be for many decades, if not forever.
No need to worry or talk about "punishing" women in the hypothetical event abortion is ever made illegal again.
In the political arena, Just say, "I believe life begins at conception, and I'm generally Pro-Life" and then STFU.
As has been mentioned ad nauseam the past 20/30 years, Reps don't want Roe v Wade overturned as it's always been an excellent fund raising issue for them.
One of a few issues that rally the conservative base.
"Actually, liberals have a habit of not agreeing on many issues arguing amongst themselves."
No, they don't really. The current one is Clinton vs Sanders, and at worst its all poo-flinging.
There are no issues as such.
There are few, or any, genuine arguments at Kos, for instance, where there is properly dialectic point-counterpoint.
I have been posting, substantially I hope, most of the time, since the Usenet days, in various venues from time to time. Truly nowhere in a liberal blog or venue have I found any willingness, at all, to substantially engage. The tendency is to ban, flee, or go ad hominem, every time.
It is truly pathetic.
"But again, how is posting on a blog gonna change anything er solve any problems."
It can change a few minds at a time. Yours, for instance. Consider the possibility that a presentation of facts and reason can change your mind, on any point. It is a virtue to be open to such a reconsideration on solid intellectual grounds. Do you have this virtue?
Anglelyne:
"OK, fair cop perhaps for your personal views, but how many Conservatism, Inc. conservatives (National Review conservatives, WSJ conservatives, all the soi-disant "true conservatives" of that ilk)"
This appears to be the source of your misunderstanding. When *I* talk about "true conservatives", those are the *last* people I mean (though I don't think most of the folks at NR are that bad, with some exceptions). By true conservatives, I'm talking about Reagan Republicans, basically. Huge overlap with the Tea Party. Does the WSJ like the Tea Party? No. Does NR like them? Mostly.
"would be willing to admit that things like tariffs, skepticism about markets-über-alles, an expansive, anti-liberal view of freedom of association (regardless of whether it had "racist" consequences), or anti-interventionism as the foundation of our foreign policy, are conservative views?"
Again, you're not going to get much argument from Reagan Republicans on these issues. The political elite? Sure. Are you going to get kicked out of a Tea Party meeting with those views? Hardly.
"A "liberal" who makes appeals to voters on "paleo" ideas like economic nationalism and anti-globalist national sovereignty. A liberal who violates both liberal and modern "conservative" pieties by calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration."
Again, most Tea Partiers are heavily in favor of curbing immigration. The part that annoys me about Trump supporters is that you *had somewhere else to go*. The Tea Party is the closest thing we've got to a viable nascent third party that would represent conservatives. And you ditch it for a clown like Trump?
"If you grant that paleoconservatives are conservatives, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand that these things might appeal to their conservative principles in ways that current Republican Party conservatism does not."
And Cruz, as a Tea Party representative, represents those things as well. Why throw all that support away for someone that most Tea Partiers don't trust worth a damn?
"Ffs, Qwinn, get real. The Republican party is an open-borders, globalist party, little different from the Democratic party in its indifference to the interests of the ordinary "conservative" Americans who used to form its base."
Mmm, no. The Establishment long predates him. The Tea Party was the proper response to GOPe malfeasance. How exactly did they lose you, Anglelyne? Did you ever give them a chance?
"You've already said that Trump supporters don't care if he's a "real conservative" or not. Apparently you think they don't care because for some reason (stupidity, illiteracy, blinding anger, gullibility, meth-bingeing) they haven't heard that he's not a Jonah Goldberg, WSJ editorial-board approved Real Conservative(tm)."
See what I mean? There's only two conservative factions in your view, Paleocons and the Establishment. You seem to have basically completely missed the entire conservative revolution that's been going on for the last 8 years. And the Tea Partiers mainly *have* held the line and voted the right way all this time (Rubio being an exception, and why he lost me). Why the hell do you want a movement that revolves around one buffoonish guy, when there's an entire political movement just dawning that represents the ideas you favor instead?
Anglelyne wrote: Nobody who isn't a party-boy "conservative" gives a rat's about what party-boy "conservatives" think conservatism is.
"Party-boy conservative" is a great coinage. Is it yours? It fits Chuck to a T.
So buwaya is the world's foremost authority on liberal blogs. ✔
So as the world's foremost authority on liberal blogs going back to Usenet days, why is it you spend so much time at a 95/5 con blog?
Obviously your life is totally consumed by political blogs. Kinda pathetic. Indeed, if your mind was open to new ideas you wouldn't be spending so much time here.
Again, I'm here for the entertainment value during an election year. Which is why it was easy for me to go on a 3+ year vacation from political blogging altogether.
Yea, 2012 was far too entertaining at Althouse w/all the talk of skewed polls and other nonsense to not return for the 2016 enlightening posts from cons.
Blogger Qwinn said...
I don't know of a single actual conservative who thought Bush was a genuine conservative
Can I get one of your cool decoder rings?
Phil:
Alright, I'll modify that. I don't know of a single actual conservative who continued to believe Bush was a genuine conservative after the prescription entitlement and partnering with Kennedy on that horrific education bill.
Lost in all of this is the determination of what set of beliefs are "conservative". It's easier to split libertarian vs. statist, but in terms of "conservative" we have to decide:
1) Is a "conservative" more in favor of foreign interventions?
2) Is a "conservative" more in favor of free trade or higher tariffs?
3) Is a "conservative" more pro-life or more in favor of keeping the government out of abortion decisions?
4) Is a "conservative" more in favor of restricting immigration, or more in favor of reducing overall social welfare policies so immigrants don't swamp the budgets for them?
5) Is a "conservative" more in favor of expanded authority for the police, or more in favor of the rights of the accused?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा