Trump considers funding super-PACs to defeat Cruz and Kasich in later elections
Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump is considering creating two super-pacs expressly focused at destroying the political careers of Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
During an event in Cleveland on Friday, Trump hinted at the prospect of funding an outside group against Cruz in the future.“Maybe I’ll set up a super-PAC if he decides to run,” Trump said of Cruz. Turning to his running mate Mike Pence he asked rhetorically, “Are you allowed to set up a super-PAC…if you are the president, to fight someone?”
The source close to Trump’s thinking indicated that Trump would consider forming the super-PAC whether or not he wins the presidential election in November.
This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of a Republican and conservative looking for allies within his party. Instead, it sounds like a Democrat who, having gotten the Republican nomination for President, can now stop pretending and begin the process of using his position to destroy the conservative movement in the United States in order to make it easier to impose liberal policies.
Trump’s supporters keep screaming that Cruz should have endorsed Trump for party unity. Well, the same applies to Trump — to bring the party together — only more so, since he has the nomination for president and as such is the de facto leader of the party. Moreover, while Cruz’s speech could have been more carefully worded, it nonetheless laid out the arguments for voting against Hillary Clinton and supporting all Republicans nationwide, even Trump (though unstated). Trump however is clearly doing the exact opposite, considering the investment of millions of his own money to actively work to defeat two of the party’s more conservative Republicans.
But hey, Trump can win! Who cares what he stands for!
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump is considering creating two super-pacs expressly focused at destroying the political careers of Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
During an event in Cleveland on Friday, Trump hinted at the prospect of funding an outside group against Cruz in the future.“Maybe I’ll set up a super-PAC if he decides to run,” Trump said of Cruz. Turning to his running mate Mike Pence he asked rhetorically, “Are you allowed to set up a super-PAC…if you are the president, to fight someone?”
The source close to Trump’s thinking indicated that Trump would consider forming the super-PAC whether or not he wins the presidential election in November.
This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of a Republican and conservative looking for allies within his party. Instead, it sounds like a Democrat who, having gotten the Republican nomination for President, can now stop pretending and begin the process of using his position to destroy the conservative movement in the United States in order to make it easier to impose liberal policies.
Trump’s supporters keep screaming that Cruz should have endorsed Trump for party unity. Well, the same applies to Trump — to bring the party together — only more so, since he has the nomination for president and as such is the de facto leader of the party. Moreover, while Cruz’s speech could have been more carefully worded, it nonetheless laid out the arguments for voting against Hillary Clinton and supporting all Republicans nationwide, even Trump (though unstated). Trump however is clearly doing the exact opposite, considering the investment of millions of his own money to actively work to defeat two of the party’s more conservative Republicans.
But hey, Trump can win! Who cares what he stands for!
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
It seems he is intent on yanking a door open. and slamming it right into his nose.
I don’t think it’s useful to think of Trump’s politics in the traditional left/right terms, Trump is Trump first, all opponents are equally the enemy.
In Politics, action, comes after rhetoric, sometimes , LONG after. In Politics, it is massssssivley important to remember to judge the politicians deeds and actions…. A politician’s words only matter in a historical sense, when we have the Facts, to compare with the oratory., or, in the old street vernacular, “Money talks, Bullshit walks”….
Lieing Ted’s political career in the GOP is history.
Tian Li: You want to discuss politics on Behind the Black you are welcome to do it. However, you are not welcome here if you are going to focus on name calling. The Trump trope, “Lying Ted”, is in itself a lie, as it isn’t based on anything, except blather by Trump himself.
You have been warned.
I think that given half a chance Donald Trump will become the first American tyrant.
Winning is a prerequisite for everything else. Only the winners matter. It’s blind evolution. My favorite was Ron Paul, yours maybe is Ted Cruz. But they are irrelevant because they don’t win. We might entertain their discussions, but that is all completely irrelevant because they don’t win, they don’t count. They just wasted time, energey and money. Money. Ted Cruz is storming the windmills like Don Quixote. It seems to me that Trump would’ve been prepared to offer him something, but Ted is too proud or something and not as pragmatic as one has to be in order to get into a position where one can influence politics in the direction one was elected to represent.
Trump now sees that he won’t need to care about the Ted Cruz conservatives anymore. They finally left the equation. Makes it a bit easier for Trump now that he goes far left to steal traditional democrat voters. He’ll form the christian activists into a counter-islamic movement, and Ted won’t have any role to play in that.
Cruz made an effective point in his speech, I think, about defending his family from a-hole Trump. But the US really needs an a-hole for president now so I think it backfires. “- I am the a-hole candidate!”
Trump doesn’t need half a chance. He’s already planning on it…
Localfluff;
“Trump now sees that he won’t need to care about the Ted Cruz conservatives anymore. They finally left the equation. Makes it a bit easier for Trump now that he goes far left to steal traditional democrat voters.”
IMO Trump will not steal traditional democrat voters. Blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, Islamists, unions, environmentalists, KKK, UNAbombers, etc., etc. have NEVER voted republican and probably never will. Reagan only got 1/3 of the Hispanic vote after passing amnesty. George W. received the most hispanic votes since then with something like 45%. Blacks vote something like 90% democrat. Pandering to traditional democrat special interest groups will not win Trump enough votes because anything less than 50% still equals a loss.
The Reagan democrats were basically the conservatives in that party who voted democrat only because that was their family tradition. Reagan was originally a democrat, so he had people in the democrat party that had supported him before. Reagan was seen as a chance to vote for someone who more closely aligned with their views and who felt as Reagan did when he said “I didn’t leave the democrat party. They left me.”.
If Trump continues to alienate the conservative base of the republican party, he will not have enough RINOs left to elect him. A great many of them hate his guts and like Kasich, McCain, and Romney will not support him. The republican party will go the way of the federalists and the whigs.
Localfluff:
You make the most relevant point here, first you have to win.
The next question becomes: After Trump prevails and if he goes off the rails (and I think, we can count on that) how do We The People who put him there “guide” and “control” him?
I think Trump will be pushing hard on both ends of the political spectrum in order to settle close to what he in the end intended. I think that that concept is a sure bet, its how he will be making his “working capital” and leverage. Once he gets the hang of it then things will get very politically interesting.
Trying to understand Trump on rational terms is, shall I say, irrational. Robert mentioned Trump’s blather above. Well, that’s all it is, blather. Trump will be distracted by a 10,000 new shiny things between now and whenever he said he would form a SuperPAC against Cruz. In fact, Trump probably forgot about it within two minutes after saying it.
With regards to Trump going left to steal Democrats traditional base of minorities and oddballs, I don’t think that’s his plan. Trump may pick up a few and may or may not do better than expected with them. However, the real prize is poor and middle class whites who have been voting Democrat the last six election cycles, but are willing to entertain a populist “America First” message and be persuaded to vote for Trump. There are still enough of them to make a real difference and pull Trump over the top, despite losing a portion of the #NeverTrump crowd on the right.
Expect to see Trump hammer on themes that cater to these voters such as “the system being rigged against the little guy” and “getting screwed by unfair trade deals” and then selling them that he is the one guy who will actually do something to fix these issues. While these themes may not play well to the Ted Cruz wing of the GOP, it plays surprising well to significant portion of the GOP that isn’t so hung up on conservative philosophical or social issues.
Trumps comments about forming a super-pac to counter Cruz and Kasich are NOT directed at those two but to the RINOS who fought against him in the primary.
Pretty much a warning shot saying ‘keep fighting me and you will have a billion dollar PAC to fight against in the next election.’ Basically a shut up or work with me gauntlet.
Its something EVERY leader MUST do or they will always be fighting a two front war.
Most politicians though have done this quietly in the background, but Trump is running as the anti-establishment candidate. So he has to do it out in the open, to show his supporters he is not doing things the old behind the electorates back way.
If Trump came out in a month or so and openly apologized to Cruz would those Trump dislikers Cruz supporters come over to Trumps side? Or is it to late?
What if Cruz didn’t accept the apology? Would you think less of him?
And at that point who would look like the bigger man to the electorate at that point?
Honestly none of us have any clue what the two men have said to each other behind the scenes. Cruz could have called Trump every name in the book behind the scenes and thats why trump is now acting the way he is.
Or this could have all been planned between them.
We just don’t know and never will know the real truth.
By the way could Hillary have found a more old school establishment VP? I guess she thinks older and whiter is better.
Not one single black person at my place of work is happy with Obama and none of them are planning on voting for Hillary.
Trump (and the republican party) just has to work a little to gain their support for good.
I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood the situation this time, Dr. Z.
The “threats” by Donald Trump of super-PAC-ing Kasich and Cruz are the kind of cheap shot that is a Trump stock in trade; and I mean cheap in both its usual, as well as its economic, sense. Trump is a performer and this is just misdirection, like that of a stage magician who employs a leggy, busty and scantily-clad “assistant” to make sure attention is not on him at key moments. As the late W.C. Fields said in one of his movies, “Ah, look over there! A buffalo stampede!”
One of Trump’s “go-to” moves for generating free press is feuding with someone. He’s done it innumerable times. Feuding with Cruz and Kasich will be dropped as soon as it fails to garner ratings or poll numbers.
Talking about setting up super-PAC’s is easy and cost-free. Actually doing it, on the other hand, is expensive. Trump, to this point, has spent a relative pittance even on his own campaign. How likely do you think it is he would actually put real money into a effort to incrementally embarrass two men he has already beaten soundly? Trump will do cheap all day long. But Trump don’t do expensive.
And why should he? So long as he can get free media in carload quantity by simply saying calculatedly “outrageous” things, why should he actually dip into his wallet? The Obama campaign was famous for its “mastery” of social media. I think they look like rank amateurs compared to the tiny Trump organization.
I think there is at least an outside chance that Trump’s “free media uber alles” approach may be about to become the first genuinely new model of political campaigning to emerge in America since the advent of television. Television began to change the way campaigns were run as soon as it built a critical mass of viewers in the early 50’s. By 1960, the Television-Era campaign was embodied in the Kennedy-Nixon contest. Kennedy splendidly exploited the new medium while Nixon flailed vainly in attempts to catch up.
The advent of the Internet is a similarly significant process. The Internet has been incrementally more important to political campaigns since the World-Wide Web went mass-market in the early 1990’s. The advent of mass social media platforms in the early 2000’s was a major accelerant. 2016 may be the “1960 of the Internet” in the sense that the most able user of free media, especially social media, has the edge. That would be Trump.
If that is the way things work out, the effects will be far-reaching. Traditional paid media – especially television – is where the vast majority of campaign contributions ultimately go. It is also the reason why politicians have to spend nearly their entire waking lives raising money. What if that all went away? What if Trump-like campaigns became normative?
1) Traditional media outlets would continue their decline in influence and relevance. Broadcast and cable TV would join the March of the Dinosaurs behind their predecessors the daily newspapers. Politicians would no longer have to spend vast sums to “rent” ratings from faltering media outlets; the media outlets would have to cover the politicians, based on developments that break first on free social media, in order to boost their own ratings.
2) By ending much of the current scramble for big bucks, the Democrats would get one of their highest-profile wishes – much of the current money would be taken out of politics. It is hardly obvious this would actually work to their advantage. If even Democratic politicians no longer had to have the huge sums currently gotten from public employee unions or super-PACS run by coastal elitist billionaires, say, what might that do for the effective independence of individual candidates? Ditto with respect to the current “fat cat” class who fund Republicans. A radical diminution in the need for money to fund political campaigns would hardly usher in some new Golden Age of corruption-free politics, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
A generation hence, Mr. Trump’s Presidency, should he achieve it, may well be the least of his political legacy.
Dick on target.
Dick: I think I might have said this to you before, but I am not “Dr. Z.” I do not have a PhD.
Anyway, I understand very clearly Trump’s tactics here, and recognize it very unlikely he will spend money on attacking Cruz. My point had nothing to do with that. My point was that he was once again revealing his Democratic Party leanings. Even now, when he has won the Republican nomination and has to beat Hillary Clinton, he is instead focused on damaging the lead conservatives who lost to him.
As for my focus, people should take an objective look at all my posts on Trump. My aim is not to destroy or to promote him, but to find out more about him and what his goals will be when or if he becomes president. Right now, my sense is that in terms of policy he will be a middle-of-the-road establishment Washington player, despite is claims at being an outsider, who will work to maintain the status quo in Washington. The only main difference will be who gets the goodies.
In terms of politics and power, however, Trump has so far scared me quite a lot. Once he puts his friends in power and does everything he can to destroy anyone who disagrees with him, I have no real idea what he will do then.
It is still early in this vetting process. I intend to keep looking. I also intend to avoid what too many people do, pick a politician to be their guy, and then lose all ability to think about anything.
“he is instead focused on damaging the lead conservatives who lost to him.”
I think you are wrong in this assessment.
He is attacking no other candidates who opposed him in the primary. Just those two. What are they doing different than the others?
They have not openly accepted him as the new leader of the party.
Or they have an agreement to make press.
Okay, Mr. Z, no PhD. I guess it’s like the Army and Marine non-coms like to say, “Don’t call me ‘sir,’ I work for a living!”
I share your concern about worst-case scenarios vis-a-vis a Trump presidency. But I think we have a very different assessment of the odds and underlying personal realities of the situation. You seem to regard Mr. Trump as, fundamentally, a New York Democrat. Personally, I don’t think Trump has any very coherent political philosophy and, to the extent he does have bits and pieces of one, those bits and pieces are all over the map with their rough outline being largely orthogonal to the conventionally defined left/right axis. Mr. Trump strikes me as someone who is bright – he is certainly very shrewd – but who does not have an intellectual cast of mind. He’s not a theoretician or someone who thinks much in terms of abstractions or paradigms.
Personally, I find that somewhat reassuring. Mr. Trump is certainly a narcissist, but he does not seem to be a megalomaniac. In that respect, he more resembles Bill, than Hillary, Clinton. Bill was a hit-or-miss President, but he was not a potential tyrant. Someone once said of Warren Harding, “He was a simple man. He just wanted to get into office and steal.” Harding was also a notorious womanizer. Bill Clinton had Hillary to do the stealing for him so he concentrated on boinking the ladies as his favored perk of office.
It is the combination of intellectualism, narcissism and megalomania that is most dangerous. It’s why Obama has been such a disaster and also why he is completely obdurate and uneducable. The same applies to Hillary Clinton. In New York, the intellectual, narcissistic megalomaniacs tend to wind up in Democratic politics and/or investment banking. The non-intellectual, narcissistic megalomaniacs tend to wind up in organized crime.
I think it is Mr. Trump’s non-intellecual, non-ideological eclecticism that is most distressing to most of the several varieties of “Movement Conservatives” in the Republican Party.
Traditional Values Conservatives are chary of Trump’s secularism, serial marriages and indifference or even opposition to their favored Culture War issues, particularly his support of gay rights and the abortion status quo. On the other hand, the Trump family is an impressive bunch and he seems to have had more to do with that than any of his wives. He has a big family and more of his children are boys than girls so even the Mormons in the GOP can find things to like about Trump.
Economic Conservatives are distressed by Trump’s failure to genuflect at the altars of free trade and de facto open borders. These people are included in the U.S. business establishment’s “Cheap Labor Caucus – foreign and domestic” as I like to refer to it. It’s worth noting that the Republican members of this “caucus” also have a lot of Democratic fellow travelers, especially in the tech sector. Exploiting the proles is a very bi-partisan pursuit.
Personally, I’m entirely on-board with Trump’s border control agenda. I wouldn’t mind stripping out the cartelization and mercantilism that tend to infest most of our so-called “free trade” agreements either. I hope Mr. Trump comes to see that dysfunctional U.S. corporate tax policy is much more responsible for off-shoring of skilled manufacturing jobs than are “free trade” treaties, per se. Given that Mr. Trump is neither an intellectual nor an ideologue, I think he’s educable on these points.
Civil Liberties Conservatives don’t seem to have much objection to Mr. Trump. Unlike his Democratic opposition, he hasn’t called for repealing most of the Bill of Rights or of doing away with due process. The ACLU will hate him, of course, but it hasn’t really been a civil liberties organization in decades. It’s become just another pilot fish to the Democratic Party progressive shark.
National Defense Conservatives are concerned about Trump’s derogation of NATO, opposition to the Iraq War and favorable remarks about Vladimir Putin. They have legitimate concerns. I share them. But Mr. Trump’s tendency to reduce things to economic terms is not without its merits either. There is certainly no question that much of Western Europe has allowed its military establishments to wither, especially since the end of the Cold War. Resurgent Russian aggression has not, thus far, prompted much obvious European re-thinking of this.
In general, the willingness of NATO allies to spend money on their own defense seems to increase non-linearly as one approaches the Russian border. NATO nations – of which there are 27 – are supposed to spend at least 2% of their GDP’s on defense. Only five do. The U.S. spends the most at over 3% of GDP. The other current members of the “2% Club” are Greece, U.K., Estonia and Poland. Two of these – no surprise – are former subject states of the old Soviet Union. Greece spends so much mostly because it fears another NATO country, Turkey, much more than it does Russia.
So Mr. Trump is not without a point when he asks, in effect, why America should spend so much on defending countries from Russian aggression that do not seem to be willing to pull their own weight in their own defense. Mr. Trump is certainly within his rights to point out that NATO obligations cut both ways. Personally, I favor redeploying U.S. troops in Europe from their Cold War bases to new ones much closer to Russia. Poland and Estonia should be most-favored in this process. Lithuania and Latvia, both of which are on-track to be joining the “2% Club” as soon as next year, should be right behind.
The Germans, during their mostly pointless deployments in Afghanistan – now ended, by the way – operated under rules of engagement that made even the current restrictive U.S. rules of engagement there look like those of the U.S. Cavalry during the Indian Wars by comparison. Someone described the Germans’ time in Afghanistan as being more like adventure tourism than a military combat deployment. U.S. bases in Germany, except perhaps for the big hospital at Landstuhl, should be closed and relocated to Poland and the Baltics. The Poles and the Balts would be delighted to have us.
Outside of NATO, the picture is similarly mixed. South Korea spends over 2.5% of its GDP on defense so I don’t think Mr. Trump can make a credible case for the ROK being a slacker nation. Japan could certainly do better given that it faces close-by threats from both China and North Korea. It currently spends only 1% of its considerable GDP on defense.
If the Japanese can be persuaded to up their ante, they would be formidable. Even now, at their 1% spending level, they have a blue water navy with 17 very advanced diesel-electric subs, 30 destroyers, 6 of which carry the U.S. Aegis fire control system and Standard missiles, three amphibious assault ships and four “helicopter destroyers,” as the Japanese officially call them. These are actually aircraft carriers as they are already capable of handing the V-22 Osprey and could also host the V/STOL (Marine Corps) version of the F-35. The two newest of these ships are nearly as big and fast as the carriers that struck Pearl Harbor. One of them is even the namesake of a Pearl Harbor carrier that was later lost at Midway.
Mr. Trump’s mutterings about NATO have had the tonic effect of waking up the generally somnolent Europeans and making them notice that there might well be a new sheriff in Washington, DC fairly soon and he’s not going to be inclined to tolerate the currently fashionable slacking and cheese-paring on the part of American allies. A lot of the Europeans, frankly, need a good swift kick in their fundaments. Mr. Trump seems more than willing to provide one.
Dick,
Very interesting analysis. We actually agree far more than you can imagine, and where we do not, you have made intelligent and educated arguments that I find very compelling.
One point however. You wrote, “You seem to regard Mr. Trump as, fundamentally, a New York Democrat. Personally, I don’t think Trump has any very coherent political philosophy and, to the extent he does have bits and pieces of one, those bits and pieces are all over the map with their rough outline being largely orthogonal to the conventionally defined left/right axis.”
I find your description amusing, because from my perspective it describes very accurately my life experience with New York Democrats. They have no coherent philosophy except for a sometimes irrational loyalty to their party. To me, this fits Trump to a T, which is why I repeatedly refer to him as a liberal New York Democrat. He has said he has become a Republican, but I won’t really be convinced until I start to see him do things that prove it. So far, his actions have leaned liberal far more than conservative, but I am willing to wait and see.
Dick:
That is a nicely done comment. Agree in large part but would quibble with some, but not a whole lot.
It’s far superior to 98% of all the current “political stuff” I read.
You totally nailed it for me, with this–
[“I think it is Mr. Trump’s non-intellectual, non-ideological eclecticism that is most distressing to most of the several varieties of “Movement Conservatives” in the Republican Party.”]
–That’s me, to a tee.
I’d quibble with your definitions of the sub-groups, but they are accurate in the context you describe. (I’m a Conservative Libertarian Republican, in that order.)
–I just can’t trust Trump, and for me that’s the deal-breaker.
I know several NYC real estate developers, one specifically very influential woman, who MUST be and is a registered Democrat in order to operate in NYC and is as Conservative if not more Conservative than me.
Related, my email of this morning:
As this election is now laying out that D.J. Trump will be our next president. It is now Trumps to lose, Hillary IMO can not win.
I expect the Democrat convention to be violent and split in a very fundamental way. Leftists / Liberals are the most violent people on the planet. Bernie has been shafted and his supporters are the most leftist in America. There will be blood. Hillary is accurately perceived as being as establishment as anyone has ever been perceived. She is toast. Trump is the only candidate that is capable of any kind of change.
Democrats and liberals are outraged that Trump wants to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out and to control the border? The DNC erects a 4 mile long, 8 foot high wall / fence around their convention. (The Dems tell everyone to do as they say, but not as they do) Another thing that Trump is ahead of the curve on. There are a lot of overt and subconscious things going on that the people of America are in the process of absorbing and processing. And I will go out on a limb at this point and confidently say it adds up to Trump.
In addition the DNC is attempting to pin the release of the DNC emails that condemn them for collusion against Bernie on the Russians. If that is to believed then we all now know that the Russians in fact did hack Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton’s illegal email system and they have all of her communications which it has been established many were top secret. You can not have it both ways.
Mr. Z,
Thanks for the kind words. I’m hardly an unalloyed supporter of Mr. Trump, but my support for him is based more than a bit on the same logic you used to explain why you have posted very little about Hillary. Trump is a risk, but Hillary is a certainty. And that certainty is ruin.
About at least one critical matter, however, the risk seems close to zero and the long-term reward is great. Trump has said he will appoint as Scalia-like a jurist as he can find to replace the late Supreme Court justice. Hillary will appoint more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. Even if Trump serves only a single term, he is, on the basis of actuarial statistics, fairly likely to get at least one more shot at filling a Supreme Court vacancy beyond that of Scalia – possibly two. Mr. Trump can ensure another generation or more of Constitutional, as opposed to overtly political, jurisprudence by the nation’s highest court.
wayne,
I also style myself a Conservative Libertarian Republican in the same priority order. Please consider my remarks to Mr. Z anent the Supreme Court in evaluating how much you can trust Mr. Trump. As I suspect you are, I’m not too impressed with gauzy generalities like “Make America Great Again.” Mr. Trump’s commitment to appointing a Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, though, is quite specific and hugely consequential. Trump deserves your support on that basis alone.
On other matters, Trump, like most people who are non-ideological and non-intellectual, styles himself a practical man who will do what works. That, in my view, makes him educable. When one considers the “bitter clinging” to the thoroughly dysfunctional progressive worldview exhibited for the last 7+ years by the current occupant of the Oval Office, educability is hardly something to be sneezed at in a candidate.
Mr. Trump, having spent a life in business rather than politics, is much more attuned to practicalities than are people who are never confronted, up close and personal, with the consequences of their idiocies and derelictions. He’s had failures and understands that these must be acknowledged and liquidated rather than obdurately defended past all point of reason.
To the extent that Mr. Trump’s public utterances have appeared liberal and Democratic in nature, that’s mainly a function of the uber-liberal milieu in which he has had to make his way. The non-ideological don’t tend to spend a lot of time thinking about political issues. When all, or nearly all, the people around you have a particular political cast of mind, your tendency is to make the same noises they do.
Now that, for the first time in his life, Mr. Trump has non-liberals and non-Democrats around him, there will be people able to challenge the NYC conventional wisdom. I hope at least some of them are people able to explain things in terms the non-ideological mind will find congenial. The ideologically inclined on the right tend to fail at this at least as often as their counterparts on the left.
Cotour,
I live in Los Angeles where showbiz is a major industry. So, sad to say, the idea of conservatives having to “pass” to do business is not exactly a novelty here either.
Not sure I share quite your degree of certainty that things will spin violently out of control in Philadelphia, but I’ll admit the first day, at least, was notably bereft of Kumbaya moments.
Dick Eagleson:
Another extremely well composed comment.
This is very nicely stated–
“Now that, for the first time in his life, Mr. Trump has non-liberals and non-Democrats around him, there will be people able to challenge the NYC conventional wisdom. I hope at least some of them are people able to explain things in terms the non-ideological mind will find congenial. The ideologically inclined on the right tend to fail at this at least as often as their counterparts on the left.”
I’m not feeling the hope myself, but.. the Election is 3 months away. If I had to vote today however, I’d skip the Presidential oval on my ballot. (and that would be a first for me.)
Especially enjoy that last sentence, and fully agree with it.
Dick:
I attempt to support your plea to Wayne and anyone else who is unsure about the one primary thing that Trump will be able to do to ensure America remains America.
https://youtu.be/Kh_BT82kxp8
Does anyone remember this RBG quote? I remember how it chilled me to the bone, as it should chill others who would allow others like her to occupy a seat on the Supreme Court. This is the one FACT that should allow anyone who wrestles with the Trump paradox to over come it, as uncomfortable as that might be.
My toying with predictions based on my general feeling of the facts that are flying around in the media and the general trends IMO have more than a 50% of fulfilling. And your Trump read is reasonable to me, hopefully your more measured than mine approach is effective..
Cotour–
..it’s always possible I could change my mind on Trump, but I’m fairly confident that boat has sailed for me.
(Anything out of his mouth is highly suspect to me.)
I’ve been upset with SCOTUS since they enshrined FDR’s new-deal & rewrote the Commerce Clause.
It’s a little late to panic about the Court, that would presuppose they had not lost-their-minds, a long, long, long, time ago.
The only way to control SCOTUS, is to eliminated lifetime appointments & make their decisions able to be overturned by State action.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357516/amendments-liberty-hans-von-spakovsky
“(Anything out of his mouth is highly suspect to me.)”
Wayne, the other day during lunch a woman who works for me was sickened when I pointed out my observations about Trump, his personality traits and the similar traits of the Founders specifically and in general other “highly successful” and driven people. She got physically sick.
I realized that she looks at what these people are saying and judges them by her moral standards, essentially she was shopping for a husband or interviewing a potential date. This is the emotional go to model of making a choice, it IMO is flawed and wrong as it applies to politics.
Trumps words to me are just his exploring his way through what he needs to get through. Things that he says are designed as tools and weapons (and distractions) to be used later in the battle / negotiation. It is his actions and accomplishments that are of interest to me, and in regards to that subject he has plainly stated that he will be appointing more Conservative justices than Liberal and that for me is worth the roll of the dice for four years.
The good and bad that comes along with that will be what it will be, but the condensate of the actions throughout his life IMO is more positive in what I am concerned about than negative. And so he is the candidate.
Dick Eagleson wrote: “Now that, for the first time in his life, Mr. Trump has non-liberals and non-Democrats around him, there will be people able to challenge the NYC conventional wisdom. I hope at least some of them are people able to explain things in terms the non-ideological mind will find congenial. The ideologically inclined on the right tend to fail at this at least as often as their counterparts on the left.”
If other New Yorkers we have been conversing with are any indication, I the situation is hopeless.
Despite the “non-liberals and non-Democrats around him,” Trump continues to be instinctively liberal Democrat, needing multiple guesses to finally come to a stance that sounds conservative (yet he continues to abandon those stances, because they conflict so wildly with his ideology). So far, none of them have been “able to explain things in terms the non-ideological mind will find congenial.”
Cotour,
You wrote: “This is the one FACT that should allow anyone who wrestles with the Trump paradox to over come it, as uncomfortable as that might be.”
There is nothing in this one fact that should allow anyone to overcome any Trump paradoxes (I know of none). Either you are saying that Trump will not be like Ginsberg or you are saying that the liberal Democrat Trump will go against his own ideology and nominate someone less liberal than her (which actually does not say anything about how liberal his nominees would be). Whatever you think is reassuring, it isn’t.
You wrote: “It is his actions and accomplishments that are of interest to me, and in regards to that subject he has plainly stated that he will be appointing more Conservative justices than Liberal and that for me is worth the roll of the dice for four years.”
You have been inconsistent in this one sentence alone. Please clarify: is it his actions (never having nominated a conservative justice) or his words (saying that he will) that are of interest to you?
You have complained that I call him a tyrant before he takes presidential office (you think that only the holder of political office can be tyrants, in America) rather than take his word for how tyrannical he intends to be in office, yet you are willing to be swayed by supposed future actions based upon his words rather than upon his (non-existent) actions.
I find it rather strange that you are willing to roll dice on Trump rather than consider voting for anyone who would definitely govern as you claim you want to be governed. It is as though you were going to vote for Obama and hope for the change that you want, not the change that Trump has explicitly stated that he wants.
OK, lets go at it from this point of view, we will keep it simple:
Choose one: “Liberal Democrat” or a “Progressive Liberal Leftist”
Lets make believe that your life depends on it, choose one that you will vote for. All you have to do is choose one that you are able to live with if you had to.
“Choose one: ‘Liberal Democrat’ or a ‘Progressive Liberal Leftist'”
You keep saying that you want to be realistic, but then you fail to allow for all the other alternatives.
And if we are going to make believe, as you say we should in your last sentence, they why bother with any alternatives. Just allow me only your Trump option and be done with it. “All you have to do is vote Trump and live with it.”
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I will vote for the guy that I am able to live with, if I had to.
Edward:
Good stuff!
I completely empathize with your positions & your feelings regarding this entire election-cycle.
You state & defend your belief’s quite well, despite the constant baiting & berating from our associate in NYC.
(Hope I guessed the correct Avenger’s film clip you tried to embed in the other thread!)
wayne,
Yes, that was the clip I was going for, except that the one I had found was a bit shorter. The one you found has Captain America arrive in time to save the day. Yay!
It is rather amazing how a shared culture (popular literature, movies, sports, etc.) can raise the same images in so many people’s minds. It helps with the short hand when having discussions. A good example was pzatchok’s comment on the ISS toilet failure. I’m sure that I was not the only one who felt scooped by his better timing, as many of us probably thought the same thing just by reading the post’s headline:
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/toilet-failure-on-u-s-segment-of-iss/#comment-914030
However, we seem to have many people defending the guy who is concentrating on the continued destruction of the Republican Party when attacking the Democratic Party and their poor choice of nominee-by-party-leadership should be the target. Trump even vows to continue attacking the Republican Party long after he is in office (or after he fails to be elected), but many people ignore this and hope beyond all hope that he will suddenly and magically transform into a loyal Republican.
It is specifically because so many Republicans are willing to vote for a liberal Democrat to head the Republican Party (by Constitutional law, the president heads his party) that I have left the party. I can no longer see any light at the end of this tunnel that would ever entice me back again. The party membership is getting what they wanted, and I will not be a member of a party that wants what it is getting.
Apparently, the Republican Party and its general membership have moved so far to the left that they can see two liberal Democrat tyrants, see that one is not as far left as the other, decide that he is farther right than they are, and declare him to be an actual conservative. This is like saying that fascism is a right-wing ideology; it is not, but from a point of view that is far enough to the left, it can look like it is right wing.
We thought that the Republican Party was seeing the light back in 2010, and then again two years ago, only to be so terribly disappointed, both times. I refuse to be disappointed by the Republican Party again, and no longer have any expectation that it or its membership will ever again work (collectively) toward liberty. Instead, I will expect the party to be populated by people who have moved so far to the left that they think like Cotour, that tyranny is OK, so long as it is not led by the wrong tyrant (whatever that means).
I suspect that many members of the Republican Party will also come to realize that they have been fooled by the party (shame on the party), and fooled again (shame on the twice-fooled members), and fooled yet again with Trump (shame on the thrice-fooled members). The party has betrayed us time and again, we should be mad as hell, and we shouldn’t take it anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE (2 minutes)
Huh. Not so different from 1976 as we thought.
Or maybe it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c (6 minutes)
Jeff Daniels has it right on many of the points he makes, here. The other two people on the stage tell us why America *was* the greatest country in the world, a third of a century ago. Even half a decade ago, we were allowed the freedom to choose how to spend our own money, but no longer.
“However, we seem to have many people defending the guy who is concentrating on the continued destruction of the Republican Party when attacking the Democratic Party and their poor choice of nominee-by-party-leadership should be the target. Trump even vows to continue attacking the Republican Party long after he is in office (or after he fails to be elected), but many people ignore this and hope beyond all hope that he will suddenly and magically transform into a loyal Republican.”
I think that you misinterpret Trumps accomplishment and the magnitude of it, he has asymmetrically claimed and taken over the Republican party. What he will make of it after he is president is still an unknowable. We have all complained about “the Republican party” and that it needs to be restructured, well it has been taken over and it is right now in process.
Cotour–
I would put forth, there is a huge difference between the RNC and the rank-and-file operative’s of the Republican Party, Local and State. Whatever Trump has “asymmetrically claimed and taken over,” I don’t recognize anymore.
Edward–
Good stuff! (no… Great Stuff!)
Good links, had not seen any of the 2nd one.
One key item struck me–the “shared cultural experiences” thought.
Absolutely on target!
Essential items/mores, “shared-cultural-experiences,” which define our Culture are not being transmitted or shared in a critical-mass, intact & truthfully, across generations.
It’s even more basic than Star Trek, Gone with the Wind, Singing in the Rain, etc., (but those are illustrative) it’s every little thing people in our age-cohort remember from our childhood. We Pledged Allegiance to the Flag, we learned to sing Yankee Doodle, we celebrated Holiday’s & learned what they meant.
Our schools don’t teach our History & we don’t really celebrate our National Holiday’s.
Our Institutions of Higher Learning actively undermine the system that delivers their lifetime income & comfort. The Culture & Entertainment is often segmented, fractured, and with an anti-American bias. Our Civic Institutions are increasingly weak & captured by the State. Our search-results are now “customized” to the cookies they inserted into our browsers. yadda, yadda, yadda…
I would put forth– we can only handle such fluid & changing Culture, if our basic Institutions are in tact. And I see them crumbling before our eyes.
Again, great stuff! Anything I could add would just be redundant.
“Whatever Trump has “asymmetrically claimed and taken over,” I don’t recognize anymore.”
Beautiful, now we are making progress.
Cotour wrote: “What he will make of it after he is president is still an unknowable.”
Not according to Robert’s posting, here. The article explicitly states one of Trump’s plans: “Donald Trump plans to create and fund super-PACs specifically aimed at ending the political careers of Ted Cruz and John Kasich.”
“What he will make of it” is to use his power to destroy “fellow” Republicans (I use quote marks around “fellow” because Trump is only registered as a Republican, but still thinks and acts like a liberal Democrat who is infiltrating the Republican Party, making him a Republican In Name Only — RINO).
Robert summed it up: “This sure doesn’t sound like the actions of a Republican and conservative looking for allies within his party. Instead, it sounds like a Democrat who, having gotten the Republican nomination for President, can now stop pretending and begin the process of using his position to destroy the conservative movement in the United States in order to make it easier to impose liberal policies.”
The “right now in process” is the fundamental transformation of the Republican Party into a subsidiary of the Democrat Party, complete with liberal policies and platforms. Trump’s actions are the planning of the destruction of the Republican Party, as we have known it, at Trump’s own hands.
Cotour,
You wrote: “Beautiful, now we are making progress.”
Does this mean that you consider Trump’s takeover or destruction of the Republican Party, or parts of it, to be progress?
wayne,
I like your examples of how our culture is not as shared as it once was. Although I missed the “Howdy Doody” show, as a child I heard of it and saw clips, and I understood its basics and premise, and my generation was still being taught similar values as were presented on that show.
Now, the values taught in America are that she is an evil country that did not pioneer many of the rights, freedoms, values, and virtues that the rest of the world now takes for granted or (generally) wish they possessed (see the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a poorly implemented version of American rights and values).
For example, what happened to the American Indian is typical of what happened to indigenous peoples worldwide*. It was Americans who first realized that such treatment was a bad idea. Ironically, it is *because* Americans realized that it was a bad idea that Americans blame this country for what was largely standard treatment, for that time. Other ironies, now being used against us as examples of why the US is so evil, are: not annexing the defeated Mexico and going to war to free the slaves.
As they say, nice guys finish last. No good deed goes unpunished. Nice girls don’t order lobster (this is the only one I have for girls, and I felt obligated to include girls; it is equivalent to “nice guys sleep alone,” and as Cotour noted recently, it is nice to include a little humor every once in a while).
* A major war on the American Indians was started by the governor of Colorado in an attempt to get the US Army to force the Transcontinental Railroad to be built into Denver, Colorado, to assist in the war, instead of the planned route farther north into Utah. The attempt failed, and the railroad was built into Utah, anyway, but the damage was done. *That* was clearly an unjust war, waged for no good reason, and even failed to achieve its goal. What a waste.
Cotour,
You wrote: “Beautiful, now we are making progress.”
I think I get it, now. It is the “not recognizing” or rejection of the parts of the Republican Party that Trump has taken over that is the progress. The progress is the rejection of the Republican Party by those people who once believed in it — and which once believed in those people.
What is your fantasy of how the Republican party would have been taken over or “changed” from the control of the people who have driven it into the ground and have functionally been essentially Democrats? It has needed to happen for 30 years, it is in front of your face, and you do not recognize it?
You may not like who is doing it and what it may turn into, but its happening. You have to give me that much, no?
“You have to give me that much, no?”
Sure, but that was obvious to all, including me. This is why I left the Republican Party. Conservatives were crabbing about how progressive George W. Bush was, especially with his Medicare Part-Expensive law. Conservatives were crabbing that McCain and Romney were pretty far left, for Republican nominees. Don’t get all “I saw it first” over noticing what conservatives complained about long ago.
I find it interesting that you think that the Republican Party, for 30 years, has needed to be turned into the Democratic party.
Oops. I forgot to answer your first question:
My fantasy was that you and millions of others who fancy themselves to be conservatives would have voted for actual conservatives rather than the obvious RINO in the bunch. That you guys didn’t demonstrates that you have not become conservatives or even Republicans but are yourselves RINOs.
But, that is OK, because now you have the second Democratic Party that you have been pining for, these past three decades. No one is left to speak for conservatives and others who believe in the American way.
“I find it interesting that you think that the Republican Party, for 30 years, has needed to be turned into the Democratic party.”
No, you may be misinterpreting my statement, I will clarify.
“It has needed to happen for 30 years, it is in front of your face, and you do not recognize it?”
Meaning that for the last 30 or so years, basically starting with G. Bush senior, the “thousand points of light ” (globalist) president the Republican party has been morphing into the Democrat party to the point we are at today. It is in the process of being cleaned out right now, you may not recognize it as such though.
“It is in the process of being cleaned out right now, you may not recognize it as such though.”
Yes, I recognize that it is being cleaned out. It is being cleansed of conservatives and anyone else to the right of of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump is planning to set up a SuperPac to assure that conservatives are not just out of the Republican Party but out of American politics. As I said: “This is why I left the Republican Party.”
As I have pointed out previously, the “conservative ” party true is a very narrow thinking process. The general public fear the term because it is perceived as extreme, and I agree. In order for it to become actualized, conservatism can inform the philosophy of the candidate but he or she must be functionally viewed and function in a reasonable, compassionate and benevolent manner. There has never been a strictly “conservative” candidate and there never will be. NEVER.
I think that RINO is this regard is the wrong term (you like using it because it defines a lack of a strong conservative philosophy, but its the wrong term. Its appropriate to empowered politicians who identify as “Republican” and blatantly vote as a Democrat against their constituents wishes. That is what an actual RINO is).
I think that I will have to define myself as an Independent at this point in the game.
“The general public fear the term because it is perceived as extreme, and I agree.”
Yes, wanting laws followed by all, freedom and liberty for all, that is soooo extreme I can hardly believe that I am a conservative.
“There has never been a strictly “conservative” candidate and there never will be. NEVER.”
Well, you have not been paying any attention at all, have you? That would explain why you missed so many of them, like Reagan, and several of those who were running this year. Apparently, the narrow definition of “conservative” is all on your end, not mine.
“I think that RINO is this regard is the wrong term”
It means what it means, a non-Republican who infiltrates the Republican Party. There are several of them, now, and you do not recognize them, either.
“I think that I will have to define myself as an Independent at this point in the game.”
If you are a registered Republican, then you prove my point that Republicans voting for Trump are RINOs along with him.
Edward– good stuff.
Cotour–
“Conservative” thinking is what founded this Country.
It only has nasty connotations, if one were to have imbibed of the leftist-drink.
The term used to be “Classical Liberal,” but the left co-opted that word. (Libertarians are classical-liberals to a large degree, as WAS the Republican Party from Lincoln to the early part of last century.)
“Conservatives” are not “rigid” as a whole, that’s just a left-wing narrative. People who think like I do– we want to “conserve” what we KNOW works, and has withstood the test of time.
Freedom works. Capitalism works. Our Founding Documents, work.
Socialism is a failed theory and rightly belongs on the ash heap of History.
—the definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over & over again, but expecting a different result. Conservatives try to avoid insanity. We learn from History, to avoid doing stupid-stuff, over & over & over, again and again.
We aren’t anti-progress, we are anti-progressive, wherein “progressives” believe the natural Order and the “End of History,” is “progress towards socialism.”
(The left is a Master at redefining the language for their devious conniving.)
Reagan is perhaps the best example of a Conservative in recent history. Two massive landslide victory’s and setting the stage for the PRIVATE economy, to generate 25 million jobs. Reagan never created a single “job,” nor did he ever claim he did. He rather enabled the private sector as best he could, and we all went to work, essentially, for each other.
Coolidge is perhaps a good example, pre FDR. -Ever hear about the “Great Depression of 1920/21? (That’s rhetorical, it was a severe recession but could have went worse.)
The fear was, coming off WW1 the heavily planned economy under Wilson would collapse, a recession did come, but Coolidge did “nothing” & instead slashed taxes & unwound portions of the Fed government.
The Roaring 20’s resulted, ’21/22 onward, but Hoover, the businessman, went nuts with his intervention and set the stage for an FDR.
Much like Bush did for Obama.
I’m not going to speak for Edward, but what I hear him saying (in part) & what I concur with 100%, is– Trump & Hillary are both beyond a certain line. Hillary is further past that line than Trump, but it’s a matter of degree & not difference.
Cruz and others, are on the correct side of the line.
Personally, I completely agree with BECK on the Culture & NOT voting for the “lessor of two evils.”
I also completely agree with LEVIN on the Political Philosophy end. This election cycle, my Beckian side wins over my Levinian side.
wayne,
Even though I think that was a good explanation, judging from our past attempts, I suspect that Cotour will continue to not understand conservativism.
Progressives also believe in eugenics, which allows them to justify their racism — overt or covert.
Just because someone “believes in America” does not mean that he will not badly damage it. Hoover did not intend to damage it, and FDR thought he was patriotic when he pressed the Ponzi scheme, Social(ist) (In)Security, on us in 1935 and concentrated loyal Americans (oops, make that certain hyphenated Americans) into camps during WWII.
The Lesser of Two Evils idea never appealed to me, because we still get evil, and there were always alternatives (Spock was right). The alternatives this year are no Cruzes, but they exist nonetheless. Why anyone against evil would insist upon supporting it when an alternative exists is beyond my comprehension, but that always seems to be the way people think.
Yeah, it’s insanity, by the famed definition attributed to Einstein.