January 18, 2018

"The Times editorial board has been sharply critical of the Trump presidency, on grounds of policy and personal conduct."

"Not all readers have been persuaded. In the spirit of open debate, and in hopes of helping readers who agree with us better understand the views of those who don’t, we wanted to let Mr. Trump’s supporters make their best case for him as the first year of his presidency approaches its close. Tomorrow we’ll present some letters from readers who voted for Mr. Trump but are now disillusioned, and from those reacting to today’s letters and our decision to provide Trump voters this platform."

Wrote the NYT editors yesterday, so today's the day for the page full of pro-Trump letters.

That's a big step away from the Don't-Normalize-Him narrative of a year ago.

ADDED: A few excerpts, each from different letters:

"If I wanted a scripted smooth talker for president, I’d have voted for someone else. An unscripted Mr. Trump feels more authentic to me, and I still don’t see him as a politician. If the election were held again today, I would 100 percent vote for him again."

"Who knew that all it would take to make progress was vision, chutzpah and some testosterone?"

"I loved George W. Bush, but he failed on policy over and over again. If it takes putting up with Mr. Trump’s brash ways to see things get done, that is a deal I’m willing to accept. To be honest, I’m not sure he would have accomplished what he has so far without being an unrelenting public bully."

"As a child of the ’60s I admire his iconoclastic nature, optimism and unapologetic humanity. When asked during the campaign about his truthfulness, he replied that maybe he is too truthful."

"I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and a bachelor’s and master’s from Harvard; I’m a former hedge fund trader and now an academic.... [Trump] has turned a fragile nation 'anti-fragile' (the scholar Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s term). Before Mr. Trump, we were scared of any volatility. Oh no, ISIS! Oh no, banks! The more chaos there was, the worse we were. Now volatility is our friend. The more chaos, the better! Entrepreneurship up. Optimism up. Good old American problem solving is back! You know who loves change? Capitalists. Mr. Trump has led us on that spiritual exodus."

97 comments:

Greg Hlatky said...

"We are adding their addresses and phone numbers for purposes of doxxing and SWATting."

Nonapod said...

It may be an interesting experiment. I imagine that most of the NYTs regular readers haven't ever really been exposed to the dangerous wrongthink of the typical Trump supporter. Will NYT readers be able to tolerate so many foul blasphemies without fainting or succumbing to apoplexy?

Freeman Hunt said...

I was afraid the NYT would only print the letters that matched the media caricature of Trump voters, but that's not what they did. Nice selection.

EDH said...

"Tomorrow we’ll present some letters from readers who voted for Mr. Trump but are now disillusioned, and from those reacting to today’s letters and our decision to provide Trump voters this platform."

Jupiter said...

Looks like they've closed the hole in their paywall. Which means, from my perspective, that the NYT has slipped behind the event horizon, never to be seen again.

Leigh said...

My favorite NYT letter:

Before I respond to your questions, I have a question of my own: Did you run similar surveys for Obama voters? Or, for that matter, Eisenhower voters? Trump voters are not circus freaks to be displayed or singled out.

The very fact that we have a tax cut, a roaring economy and stock market, a magnificent new Supreme Court justice and a wonderful attorney general with not only a moral compass but also a determination to actually enforce the laws of the land gives me great hope for this country’s future.

I think President Trump is doing just fine, particularly when one considers the sustained assault of the media, Hollywood, talk shows and, dare I say, “the paper of record,” which has abandoned all pretense of objectivity to join, if not lead, “the resistance.”

gspencer said...

Area-wide reports of multiple cases of the vapors. All NYC hospitals are swamped. Increasing cases now being reported in the DC area as well,

"Oh the humanity"

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Tomorrow we’ll present some letters from readers who voted for Mr. Trump but are now disillusioned.."

that's considered pro-Trump?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

shorter NYT-DNC: We are allowing SOME positive-Trump thought-crime. But not for long.

Curious George said...

Youngstown, OH loves him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=GmZe8J1HrlI

Birkel said...

Scott Adams is a genius.

mikee said...

Why would I read the Times to get reliable news about Trump, or any other non-leftist, or any leftist, or anything else at all? The Times is a paper that first determines what the news is, and then prints all the news that is "fit to print," that is, only what fits their self-created narrative.

Mike said...

Good for them. They chose well-written clear letters to print, illustrated with a few nice portraits of normal Americans. Does this mark a change in coverage for Trump? Could we be headed to a world where real news (not tweets or opinion) starts to dominate in the eponymously named estate?

I'm cautiously optimistic.

cf said...

They don't have the balls to put bylines of their own behind a coherent analysis of how wrong they have been.

Bullies and cowards.

Ptewy.

MaxedOutMama said...

The End Of Days has come.

I still refuse to read the NYT. It will take a while to restore any trace of journalistic ethics at this newspaper.

Fernandistein said...

I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, ... The more chaos, the better!

The guy who brags of his qualifications writes the dumbest letter.

You know who doesn't love chaos? Capitalists.

FullMoon said...

It's a trick.
Dis enchanted "Trump voters" will lay out the usual BS, and more.

Sebastian said...

"Now volatility is our friend. The more chaos, the better!" This -- at least the perception of it -- is one reason Trump will lose women.

Bay Area Guy said...

Whenever the NYT talks about conservatives from flyover country, I am reminded of a Margaret Meade expedition to study the habits of a far-away native culture, somewhere south of Madagascar. You just know, she's missing the whole picture.

But, this was a good step by the NYT. It's good for them to admit their leftwing, editorial bias, and it's good to publish letters from Trump supporters - at least the more articulate ones. Maureen Dowd does this once a year, publishing her right-wing, Irish, brother's political observations.

It's a small crack in the urban cocoon! Good on ya, NYT

Fernandistein said...

MaxedOutMama said...
I still refuse to read the NYT.


#MeToo!

Like I said before becoming a male model: "Why, this stuff's made in New York City!"

n.n said...

Baby steps to the dawn of a new day.

Kevin said...

So a year of Trump bashing, which somehow failed to convince 100% of the electorate of the rightness of the NYT.

Followed by a day of pro-Trump pieces, written by people who don't work for the NYT so they didn't have to do it.

Then followed, not by a day of national reflection and seeing just how much we might agree, but rather immediately by a day of "I'm sorry I voted for the guy" and violent anti-Trump response.

So back to our normal programming.

But then the anti-Trump NYT writers will know how to better frame their articles to attack the pro-Trump points and be more persuasive.

I expect a deluge of "the economy isn't really doing well" articles to come from this...

heyboom said...

The only chaos I see is from the "resistance". And I think this was a setup to allow the Times to highlight the disillusioned Trump voters. I'm interested to see where that disillusionment lies.

Achilles said...

"Tomorrow we’ll present some letters from readers who voted for Mr. Trump but are now disillusioned.."

The number of these people that actually exist is exactly zero. Trump will have more voters next time he goes to the polls . He has outperformed my expectations. The only people on the “right” that don’t like what he is doing are paid DC traitors like Rubin and Flake.

Chuck said...

Letters from Trump supporters; I imagine that is exactly how you get more #Resistance.

I just love all the support that begins, "Yeah I know that he's rude, crude, ugly and offensive, but..."

There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who couldn't have delivered on tax reform, modest (at least) reform of the ACA, regulatory reduction and reform, some solid improvements to immigration policy, and a whole lot of great conservative federal judicial nominations now that we have a majority-only confirmation rule in the senate.

There would never have been a big fight over a "Muslim ban." Immigration reform wouldn't have been choked by a comment about "shithole countries." We wouldn't all be wondering about a Special Counsel investigation of the campaign. We wouldn't have had a revolving door of chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors.

William Chadwick said...

Wait a minute--the NYT has been anti-Trump??!! Say it ain't so!

Gahrie said...

There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who couldn't have delivered

There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who could have beaten Hillary...except Trump.

rehajm said...

What Freeman said, but it's a set up.

Birkel said...

Businesses do not like competition. Businesses do not like chaos. Nobel Laureates George Stigler and James M. Buchanan laid this out quite nicely.
1. Regulatory capture,
2. Public Choice theory.

That is why Obama was popular with business leaders. Obama made the regulatory state the enforcement mechanism that limited competition and picked winners (who paid into the government's protection racket).

Of course, all of the diffuse benefits to the wider economy do not always result in popular support for a variety of reasons. But when the accrued benefits are big enough, as they seem presently to be due to Trump policies, the calculus changes.

Businesses have noticed and are preparing for an era of heightened competition.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Chuck said...

There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who couldn't have delivered on tax reform, modest (at least) reform of the ACA, regulatory reduction and reform, some solid improvements to immigration policy, and a whole lot of great conservative federal judicial nominations now that we have a majority-only confirmation rule in the senate.

Actually, there were 16 candidates who couldn't deliver any of that. How do we know? Because to deliver any of that, you have to become President.

Virgil Hilts said...

I dislike Trump - he's a dick and an asshole - but, I like to ask my moderate never-T friends, take away the tweets and his asinine unscripted comments, and the initial Muslim ban (which was really Bannon's fault), and what are the 10 worst things his administration has done that have harmed the country and/or the planet.
crickets.
I could probably not name 10 times that Obama said something really stupid/asinine, but I could easily list 10-20 things his administration did that were awful for the country and/or the planet.
If Ivanka could just get DT to stop tweeting and to only give scripted speeches, his popularity might hit 50%.

Comanche Voter said...

Thus the Gray Lady throws a bone to what it sees as the "morons and deplorables" and lets them have their say for the day. Ah well, once in a great while a kernel of truth appears on the pages of the NYT.

Birkel said...

Note to fopdoodles:

Conservatives do not want immigration reform that sells out to the uniparty of Democrats and RINOs. We are not Ronald Reagan pretending to believe Democrats and RINOs will do anything they promise after they import new voters. We know those promises are worthless.

You and all the Flakes and Grahamnesties can shove it.

Mike said...

"Baby steps, Bob. Baby steps."

Big Mike said...

More Gorillas in the Mist from the Times.

Birkel said...

Virgil Hilts:

What makes you think the ability to circumvent the media and control its narratives should be stopped? Tell me about all the modern era Republicans (50 years) who have stood up to all this media nonsense? I will spot you Reagan.

Which version of Hitler-cum-Republican do you think is to move the needle against the vested DC interests, the RINOs, the Democrats and the media (birm).

Quit trying to surrender.

Darrell said...

Dear New York Times,

Go fuck yourself!

--D

Qwinn said...

I agree that all 16 candidates COULD have done the things on Chucks list.

But I am also pretty certain that, with the possible exception of Cruz, they wouldn't have.

Why do I say that? 12 years of Bush I and II. They COULD have done those things too. They didn't, and usually made them worse. They weren't the Establishment's priorities, and aside from Trump and Cruz, the rest of the candidates were fully Establishment drones that would've given us the same crappy socialist lite policies thaf the Bushes did.

Krumhorn said...

The problem has been that perfect gentlemen get slaughtered by the lefties. I loved W, but he let the libruls maul him relentlessly without a single counterpunch. Reagan was gloriously wicked in his counterpunches, but he only did so occasionally. One of my favorites:

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

- Krumhorn

rehajm said...

If Ivanka could just get DT to stop tweeting

When is everyone going to wake up to the value of the tweeting?

Darrell said...

Cruz would be getting us ready for smart amnesty just about now.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Krumhorn said...
The problem has been that perfect gentlemen get slaughtered by the lefties."

Yep. I doubt I would have liked Patton, but who would you rather have leading the Third Army, Patton or John Boy Walton?

It's worth remembering that Gen. McClellan was a media darling - much more suave and worldly than the "Original Gorilla" from Illinois. All the best people thought so.

Which only goes to show you that the media has been getting it wrong for a very long time.

Birkel said...

Exiled,
Not wrong when you understand the purpose of the Left.

wwww said...

"I dislike Trump - he's a dick and an asshole - but, I like to ask my moderate never-T friends, take away the tweets and his asinine unscripted comments, and the initial Muslim ban (which was really Bannon's fault), and what are the 10 worst things his administration has done that have harmed the country and/or the planet."

Stuff happening that isn't being widely reported because scandals Stormy Daniels! are so much more click worthy.

A lotta countries do not have a US ambassador. NATO issues.

Loss of soft power authority in the world: it's gonna be a war of ideas. Democracy is not obvious, particularly as China's GDP rises. Consequences = more Mandarin classes in Africa.

I'm kinda worried that hostile powers will be able to place people in Mar-a-Lago. The journalist got all sorts of access in the West Wing. Things don't sound well-controlled.

Trump as a role model for young kids.

The tax cuts are temporary, and honestly, any unified Republican party should be able to pass tax cuts. The SCOTUS pick was McConnell. Regulations and administration of federal entities will be reversed with the next President. Everything else is a bunch of red meat to the base, which is not winning moderates.

FullMoon said...

The tax cuts are temporary, and honestly, any unified Republican party should be able to pass tax cuts. The SCOTUS pick was McConnell. Regulations and administration of federal entities will be reversed with the next President.

Interesting that businesses are moving back and investing billions.
Somehow, they seem to believe the less regulated pro business environment will survive for awhile.
Surprised me, to be honest. Expected minor change, if any, while they wait out temporary Republican/Trump power.

Big Mike said...

If Ivanka could just get DT to stop tweeting and to only give scripted speeches, his popularity might hit 50%.

The tweeting is not bad per se. If Trump would put a little more thought into each tweet, turning it from a bludgeon into a rapier, it would be deadlier.

Birkel said...

wwww

If you can explain the value of "soft power" as anything more than a theoretical abstraction, go for it. Also, please provide an example of when using this theoretical "soft power" has yielded positive results.

Thanks in advance.

Further, you're worried about Mar-a-Lago while Obama hired anti-American shit stains into his White House without a word said. Your stupidity and hypocrisy are noted. Again.

If Trump is so much a transient figure, why does the Left fight his every policy?

Jim at said...

Don't buy it for a second.

It's condescension from the top down.
It's what they do. It's who they are.

n.n said...

The problem for NYT is that they were not critical of trump on policy and moral grounds. They will have to work harder to lost their religion and overcome their JournoListic character.

buwaya said...

The problem here (besides the "gorillas in the mist" factor) is that it is personal.
Your political-social-cultural problems are not personal.
Trump is a symbol. If not Trump, you would have had some other symbol.
The reactions/objectives of the media machines would be the same.

It is natural, human to put faces on all this, but it is an error.
The fact is that you are a terminally decadent society, being slowly poisoned.
The problem is not in some Trump, whose rise was a healthy natural reaction, vomiting by a poisoned body trying to relieve itself.

wwww is right, what Trump has done can be and will be quickly reversed, putting you all back on the path of decline. The poison is still flowing in, from the schools, from the media, this has not been reversed. It is forced on your children, pushed down their throats, or directly into their brains as if with some mad scientists needles. It is exactly as bad as that.

What I can't understand is the blindness on the part of wwww and the like.
They like the taste of poison? They are eager for the ruin of their children?
It is inexplicable.

One can view the mass phenomenon of decadence, degeneration, and understand it as a historical process. But when one comes upon it in another individual, it amazes, it is a wonder of nature.

rehajm said...

The tax cuts are temporary

About as permanent as tax rates get under our system. They are permanent enough for planning purposes. At least Apple thinks so.

buwaya said...

"About as permanent as tax rates get under our system."

They will indeed be reversed or otherwise adjusted under a new administration.
These are high profile targets for marking the territory.

But they will persist for four to eight years under most conditions that do not amount to a political disaster, or long enough anyway as a one-time move to repatriate accumulated profits. At some point these companies repatriating profits may again be induced to retain them abroad, but that will be for future profits that fall under those conditions.

For now, make hay while the sun shines. But winter is coming.

Fabi said...

"There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who couldn't have delivered on tax reform, modest (at least) reform of the ACA, regulatory reduction and reform, some solid improvements to immigration policy, and a whole lot of great conservative federal judicial nominations now that we have a majority-only confirmation rule in the senate."

Except those individuals didn't win the primary and didn't defeat "the most qualified person in the history of our country" in the general election, Chuckster. You haven't yet figured out that important detail have you, precious?

Birkel said...

"...tax cuts are temporary..."

The implication, of course, is that what Obama did should be and eventually will be permanent.

This is a self-refuting argument.

buwaya said...

"what Obama did should be and eventually will be permanent."

Your future governments will make the Obama administration seem prudent and responsible.

Obama's acts are impermanent, and at least temporarily subject to reform.
But they will be back, in worse forms and much more besides.
Culture is upstream of politics.

Yancey Ward said...

Again, Chuck, show me the path that any of the other Republican candidates could put together to win the electoral college. None of the other candidates would have won MI, PA, and Wisconsin, and none of them would have won even one of those states. I also think IA couldn't have been won by any Republican candidate not named Trump. Winning all the states Romney won in 2012 and adding OH, VA, and FL isn't enough to win either.

The Republican Party had trapped itself in a cul de sac electorally, and Trump at least showed you the way out of it by appealing to voters the party had abandoned after 1988 in the midwest. It doesn't look like to me that the party has yet taken the lesson to heart based on comments you write.

Drago said...

IIB: "Actually, there were 16 candidates who couldn't deliver any of that. How do we know? Because to deliver any of that, you have to become President"

I see "Accidental Leftist" Chuck, who "brilliantly" and "magnificently" predicted a Trump wipe out and Hillary Presidency has returned to his "expert after the fact" self-assigned status and is lecturing us on hypothetical scenarios that can never be tested in the real world.

That's actually a good move on our LLR Chuck's part, for obvious reasons!

LOL

Drago said...

Trump hanging with the blue collar workers in Pittsburg and touting the largest tax cuts in history on the heels of now hundreds of companies announcing bonuses, wage increases and increased jobs.

LOL

I imagine LLR Chuck is curled up in the fetal position over that.

Fiat-Chrysler moving Ram Production back to Michigan from Mexico!

Chuckie, we'll all be expecting to see you on the front-line protesting the "stealing of those jobs" from those much more deserving mexican workers over american workers.

Drago said...

Oh no. The unemployment rate at an 18 year low!

Nancy Pelosi and LLR Chuck hardest hit!

MadisonMan said...

The Comments on the article demonstrate the thick heads of typical NYTimes commenters.

Mike said...

If Ivanka could just get DT to stop tweeting

If the Press would just get back to reporting news instead of tweets and opinion.

There. FIFY.

Drago said...

MadisonMan: "The Comments on the article demonstrate the thick heads of typical NYTimes commenters"

You should not be writing anything negative about the types of people that LLR Chuck worships.

He's liable to rhetorically jam a finger into your chest and giving you what for.

Drago said...

Uh oh. Trump's continued bonding with the midwestern working dudes.

There is not enough kleenex in the world to dry all of LLR Chuck's tears.

Not enough kleenex in the world, especially in s***-hole countries.

Kevin said...

I just love all the support that begins, "Yeah I know that he's rude, crude, ugly and offensive, but..."

The point being, for those who can't see it, is that it's better to just give his opponents that and move on than have to listen to them tell you all about it like it has any meaning at all.

That statement, Chuck, is the analog equivalent of people scrolling past your posts because they've heard it a thousand times and the 1,001st isn't going to convince them either.

buwaya said...

"That statement, Chuck, is the analog equivalent of people scrolling past your posts because they've heard it a thousand times and the 1,001st isn't going to convince them either."

The way propaganda works is to repeat everything 1000 times, or as often as it takes.
And as loudly as possible. It has nothing to do with truth or reason.

This was noticed every since Cato the Elder would start every Senate speech with "cartago delenda est". Eventually he had his way.

Ambrose said...

The NYT reader comments are fun.

rhhardin said...

Klavan podcast goes into Dems aiming anti-Trump fake outrage at women, who respond to that emotion, if you can even call it emotion

https://soundcloud.com/andrewklavanshow/ep447

Women being played for the 2018 House control election.

That women are so easy to play is why they shouldn't have the vote.

Birkel said...

buwaya:

Please point to how well propaganda actually works. You overstate the case by a wide margin.

In point of fact, the Soviets tried to push propaganda at a marvelous rate. And it turned out the people who were the targets pretended to agree.

Calibrate you analysis.

rhhardin said...

Women of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your charms.

Birkel said...

Oh, good for buwaya. He now has rhhardin on board to prove what the evidence does not show.

Propaganda is well understood to fail.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The way propaganda works is to repeat everything 1000 times, or as often as it takes.
And as loudly as possible. It has nothing to do with truth or reason."

The Big Lie works until it doesn't any more. In March of 1935, the German people were happy to hear that they were Ubermenschen who deserved to rule over lesser peoples. In march of 1945, the bombs dropping outside their windows and the barren cupboards made the propaganda rather less persuasive.

It might take a while, but the truth has a way of asserting itself.

rhhardin said...

Propaganda works on women, if it's tailored to women.

rhhardin said...

Take Althouse's at-the-time reaction to Trump's pussy remark.

It's easy to tailor that stuff, if you're opposition research.

Birkel said...

rhhardin:

For how long does it work? Show the evidence rather than your conjecture.

It's ok to be wrong.

Birkel said...

And once the initial reaction evaporates, as it will over time, do those who fell prey to it ever reconsider why they were initially deceived?

Does Althouse appear to have been permanently swayed by Trump's vulgarity?

buwaya said...

Birkel,

This is one of those things that is impossible to prove scientifically.
How do you measure belief, through surveys?
And then one will have to measure volume or frequency and reach.
You would have to evaluate specific false beliefs vs some measure of frequency/reach.

But as it happens there are any number of false beliefs based on media saturation.

For instance, its been cited often, in various surveys, that a large majority of the US public believes its taxes will go UP with the last tax bill, in spite of its actual provisions. IIRC even among people who pay no Federal Tax now. I expect that if you survey the public 9 months from now they will respond that their taxes have actually increased regardless of what actually happened.

buwaya said...

Michael Oren cited an interesting case of effectiveness and persistence of Soviet propaganda.

In his book "Six Days of War" he treats this at some length - The Soviet line, in Arab media, immediately upon the start of the 1967 war, was that it was the US that had attacked Egyptian airfields - I.e., that the US had bombed Egypt. Nasser seized on that as a "big lie" to excuse the Egyptian failure against the Israeli Air Force.

As of Orens writing (IIRC), he says, it is the official Egyptian line in its histories and the universal belief in Egypt that the US had indeed bombed Egypt.

There are any number of such things.

Consider the persistent assertion, near universal, that the US armed Iraq in the 1980's Iran-Iraq war.

The public and specialist and third-party information is that the US never sent a single "weapon" to Iraq. Almost everything Iraq got came from the Soviet Union or China, and France, with bits from various smaller sources. But the most important thing that nearly anyone cares to recall is that "the US armed Iraq". I know from experience it is nearly impossible to argue anyone out of it. Its in their heads heads and thats that.

There are any number of Cold War zombie memes left over from Soviet propaganda.

Drago said...

Buwaya: "Nasser seized on that as a "big lie" to excuse the Egyptian failure against the Israeli Air Force."

Nasser may have been given direction by the Soviets to do that, but the phone call between Nasser and King Hussein of Jordan where they discussed and agreed to that PR strategy was intercepted and has been included in several documentaries.

The Arab nations were quite capable of and had much practice in developing excuses and launching excuse campaigns.

It should be noted that none of those excuse campaigns were as sophisticated as Hillary's where she used intelligence agencies against her victorious political opponent.






Khesanh 0802 said...

I believe that list Chuck wrote is generally called a "counterfactual". Which I I also believe are generally thought to be useless.

The Godfather said...

I've wondered when I would see a comment from "life long Republican" Chuck that looked like something a life long Republican would say. On this comment thread Chuck did so. A life long Republican who opposed Trump to the point of being a "never-Trumper" might well have said that "There wasn't a candidate in the Republican primaries who couldn't have delivered" many of the accomplishments for which we praise Trump. As far as I'm concerned, that's evidence of Chuck's bona fides as a "life long Republican".

He's also wrong, of course. Most of the primary candidates weren't ever going to be nominated for President: Kasich, Carson, Christy, Fiorina, etc. So what they "could have delivered" if elected President is irrelevant. But it is true that most of the "serious" candidates, if nominated, would have been elected against such a weak Democrat nominee, the only exception I can think of being Jeb Bush (Bush v. Clinton doesn't feel good for the Bush side). Personally, I believe that Walker, Cruz, Rubio, Santorum, and others, if nominated, could have beaten Hillary! and would have delivered at least what Trump delivered.

But even I, a real life long Republican, who did not support Trump in the primaries, praise what he has accomplished as President. I wish his style were different, and I think he would be in a stronger position if he didn't tweet the way he does, but no honest conservative or even moderate conservative can deny what he's accomplished. So far.

Big Mike said...

@Godfather, you and I see eye to eye, but I think that you're wrong about Walker, Cruz, Rubio, and Santorum. I think it took someone like Trump to take what the Clinton Cartel was dishing out and give it back twice over.

rhhardin said...

Does Althouse appear to have been permanently swayed by Trump's vulgarity?

It ties into a hot button that's still there.

Her position seems to be that her woman's point of view is correct and there is a male point of view that's unfortunate but perhaps can be suppressed.

The male thinks that there's his point of view and there's women's point of view and perhaps they work in different places. National politics is a man's point of view place. Neighborhoods are a woman's point of view place.

Neither takes over all the terrain, when things work.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Anti-America propaganda has worked on Buwaya, and as he isn't American that isn't a surprise.

What is surprising is his inability to study history and all the other people, often witty and beautiful and fully-engaged, who thought America couldn't last a decade or a century.

Think of the idiot Soviet telling us he would bury us and what happened to his shithole country, then apply that lesson to yourself when wishcasting identical prophecies. To be clear, you damn well might have solid if Satanic reason to despair and to seemingly renounce your faith in Jesus, but projecting your pain onto our country is pathetic.

Stop thinking abstract thoughts and tend your garden once you find a safe spot for one.

Quaestor said...

On grounds of policy? Really? That's just short of a contemptible lie.

Matthew Sablan said...

On whether anyone else could have beaten Clinton: Would any other Republican have effectively defanged Bill Clinton and the "war on women" meme by stating plainly: Bill Clinton is a rapist?

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember that the wonder boy, clean as a whistle, All American Boy Scout duo of Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan were both made out to be literal murderers who enjoyed inflicting death on the old and infirm. Scott Walker, mild mannered if conservative, was made out to be Hitler.

While I'm not a fan of Trump's temperament or style, I also can't fault him. Being nice didn't work.

Birkel said...

And yet, buwaya, Russians believed neither Pravda nor Izvestia on average, over time.

When reality people can observe is consistently different than that which they are told, they believe their lying eyes.I

You should have more faith in humanity and average people.

Your pessimism misguides you in this instance.

Achilles said...

I am going to have to jump in with Birkel. While I agree with buwaya that propaganda has worked in most places it is failing in the US. I believe it is failing for reasons that are irrational.

There are many stories about George Washington during his life. He was 6'3" in a time when the average height was nearly 1' less. He was constantly riding a horse into battle. There are stories of armies fighting against him who had leaders tell their soldiers to stop trying to shoot him because it was a waste of time. Completely irrational.

Trump should not have won in 2016. Everything was against him. But he won because of a combination of events. Reagan had a similar path. There are so many branches in US history that went against the aristocracy that dominates the rest of the world.

Obama and Carter are where if human nature was allowed to take it's course we would go. That path leads to where Europe is now and in 50 years Europe will be a 3rd world shithole unless the US steps in.

But that is the catch. The US is a bulwark against barbarians and tyrants. And when we were about to succumb to the forces that dominate the rest of the world we resisted.(persisted?)

At this point you have to believe in the US. In 10 years all that talk that China will surpass us will be relegated to the same dustbin the Japan is going to take over the world in the 80's was sent to. China is going to get old before it gets rich.

Night Owl said...

That women are so easy to play is why they shouldn't have the vote.

Bullshit. Trump would not have won against what was supposed to be the historic first female president if women were as susceptible to propaganda as you think. A lot of women put aside their distaste and voted for "pussy-grabbing", "my daughter is a piece of ass" Trump, because they recognized that corrupt Hillary was more of a threat to this country than vulgar Trump. Give then some credit where it's due.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Your optimism is very American, Achilles. I dearly hope you are correct. I certainly feel more optimistic than I did during the Obama years, when I feared American exceptionalism was over.

Gahrie said...

Klavan podcast goes into Dems aiming anti-Trump fake outrage at women, who respond to that emotion, if you can even call it emotion

https://soundcloud.com/andrewklavanshow/ep447

Women being played for the 2018 House control election.

That women are so easy to play is why they shouldn't have the vote.


I've been saying this for years........

Repeal the 19th!

Gahrie said...

China is going to get old before it gets rich.

Perhaps not. China depends on its daughters to take care of the elderly. Tens of, perhaps hundreds of, millions of those daughters were killed before birth over the last forty years.

I could very easily see the Chinese government simply killing tens of millions of the elderly as an inconvenience their country was unprepared/unwilling to handle.

narciso said...

They ran the Louis gossett film of sadat. Some weeks ago with John rhys
Davis as npasser.And it had a scene where he is listeening to the BBC instead of the voice if Egypt (relating their defeat) ironically the voice of Egypt is probably more reliable than the BBC or nbc

Michael Fitzgerald said...

You know who loves chaos and sows so's to "never let a crisis go to waste"?
You know who.

Achilles said...

Gahrie said...
China is going to get old before it gets rich.

“Perhaps not. China depends on its daughters to take care of the elderly. Tens of, perhaps hundreds of, millions of those daughters were killed before birth over the last forty years.

I could very easily see the Chinese government simply killing tens of millions of the elderly as an inconvenience their country was unprepared/unwilling to handle.“

China will fail because it is centrally planned. They have more people, but they don’t have as many free people.

عالم التميز said...

شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام

Angel-Dyne said...

rh: That women are so easy to play is why they shouldn't have the vote.

Women are easier to play politically than men. So it's likely that things in this country wouldn't have gotten as screwy as they are now if women couldn't vote. (Eventually things would get irreparably screwy, even with only men voting, because that's the nature of things.)

But that's not to say men aren't easy to play politically. The GOPe, e.g., had a pretty good run bamboozling white men.