Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Why I Will Vote for Trump

On June 7, I will vote in the California primary. I will vote for Donald Trump to become the GOP nominee for President. This statement will undoubtedly set the blogosphere aflame; I anticipate suicides or, at least, deafening lamentations to arise from many of some of the millions, uh, dozens of readers of this blog. So, of course, and I paraphrase, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel me to this selection.

My reason for voting Trump is probably very similar to that of millions of other Americans. I will explain why I think so many of us vote for Trump--let me know if I have it wrong. As the military say, however, "bottom line upfront" (BLUF.) After all the verbiage I will spew, it comes down to one thing: I am tired, sick and tired, of seeing my country, our country, our laws, our history, our values, and our very civilization spat upon, kicked around, and degraded by hordes of low-information, pampered cretins allied with malevolent criminal thugs both at home and abroad.

Let me say that Senator Cruz is a fine person, a patriot, and potentially a good president--but he can't win, not this time. I do not like the vicious attacks on him. I would like to see Cruz on the Supreme Court or, at least, as AG. I also have liked in the course of the campaign Governor Walker, Carly Fiorina, and Senator Rubio, and hope that they will play major roles in national politics. I did not start out supporting Trump, and a perusal of the Diplomad archives will show that. I, however, "have evolved," and support him now. I would love a Donald Trump-Allen West ticket, but don't know if that's possible, or at least West as SecDef. All that, however, is for the future; I shouldn't get ahead of myself.

Trump for President of the United States.

As bored readers of this humble blog know, I consider myself a conservative/libertarian, or maybe a libertarian with an asterisk. My default setting is "NO" to new programs, new agencies, new spending plans, etc. I believe in resistance to change and do not think that change, in and of itself, is good or bad. Change is change. Proponents for change have the burden to show that what they propose is better than what now exists. I want to to walk into change with my eyes wide open, aware of pluses and minuses--to the extent possible, always remembering Bastiat's warning about unintended consequences. Western civilization now has entered a bizarre phase in which its most basic institutions, traditions, and values have come under sustained assault from progressive proponents of change, and those institutions, traditions, and values are changing pellmell with little thought to what will replace them, except some vague progressive vision in which the progressive champions of change will run the world on behalf of and for the good of us all. No definition, no standard is safe, no matter how well established.

Western civilization is collapsing. We see that as the Islamic invasion of pampered Eloi Europe continues apace, meeting little resistance, and, in fact, often welcomed with open arms and wallets. We see it in the United States where our vastly overfunded higher "education" system produces millions of aggressive, self-centered, ignorant dolts and turns them loose on society as "agents of change." We see it in the triumph of mental illness and the collapse of common sense, e.g., defending our national borders; we see it in the insisting that there is no such a thing as a female sex and a male sex; in the imposition of minimum wage and other regulations and laws that destroy the economy and liberty; the refusal to ask for voter identification, etc. If one seeks to defend the values of America and the West, one gets labelled a racist, a xenophobe, a supremacist, a patriarch (see here, for example). The assault on dissent, on diversity of opinion, on individual freedom is unrelenting. The truth must remain unspoken. We see the collapse in the horrifically malevolent people elected to office, up to and including our president--a president "too busy" to worry about America winning, and more interested in appeasing and accommodating our enemies than in standing by our friends and interests. These, of course, are just random tips of the many icebergs out there.

The people one might expect to lead the charge against this progressive mayhem, the Republicans and the well-heeled conservative elite, are MIA when, in fact, they haven't gone full Bowe Bergdahl or Lord Haw Haw on us. I have written about this before (here, for example) and don't want to bore you too much with another round. I would note, however, that these so-called conservatives seem more worried about ideological purity than about the disaster all around us. Some are busy reorganizing the Titanic's deck chairs, while others are putting in an order to Amazon for completely new chairs oblivious to those icebergs tearing at our hull.  

The conservative mandarins deride Trump as some sort of impostor, a fake. They delight in pointing out that years ago he did this, or said that at variance with conservative dogma. They will note that he took advantage of this or that government subsidy or bankruptcy law to benefit his businesses; that he donated to this or that campaign, or had dinner with some progressive political idiot. You know what I say to that? Yes. Guilty as charged, and so what? He was a businessman operating within an irrational system not of his creation. It bears repeating, he had to make rational decisions within a irrational system in order to benefit his investors, his employees, his creditors, etc. We all have had the experience of making rational choices within the confines of an irrational environment. The military in combat do this all the time. We conservative/libertarians do it when we take a lawful tax deduction on this or that expense--something which in a perfectly rational economic system would not exist. As a rational actor, you take advantage of the benefits offered up by an irrational system. We all do it. Only an idiot would not.

Trump is not an idiot. He, in fact, seems very intelligent and shrewd. He can see the trouble we are in and can and does articulate it. OK, Trump is not a traditional conservative. As noted, I don't care. The water is coming up over the decks and we need somebody to get us to shore. Maybe he can help us do it. I know Hillary and Bernie can't. We need a patriot, yes, a patriot, willing to try something different, you know, something radical such as making America's interests come first in the White House. I wrote some time ago that,
William James, one of my favorite philosophers, stated in his brilliant essay, "The Will to Believe" (Note: Everybody should read it!) that, "In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark." We don't know the future, in fact, we often don't know the present or the past.
Well, in this case we do know the present and it is a bad one, and it is not hard to see the future. I am willing to take a leap of faith. Whenever one votes, that's what one does.

Trump for President of the United States.



Twitter: Lewis Amselem@TheDiplomad

95 comments:

  1. Trump sounds like he would fight for the US, which would be an interesting change of pace from the past almost 30 years. But Trump is a businessman negotiator negotiating with the populace to be president, and what he is saying are his opening negotiating positions. We don't know the principles according to which he will conduct negotiations with foreign countries, Congress, others within our nearly dead Constitutional system. As a businessman, his principles are primarily what is legal and good for his company. That doesn't work for President because legal and good are only part of the mix. Cruz has those governing principles, but no business negotiating experience, and, we don't know how much fight there would be in him. With Trump, there is plenty of fight, but will it be directly usefully and well. In any event, so far, Trump is selling but I am not buying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert of OttawaMay 1, 2016 at 6:00 AM

      The grass roots of the GOP, the Tea Party, were promised Conservative policies if only they controlled the Senate and Congress. The Tea Party people gave them to the GOP and what have they done? Nothing! They give Obomber exactly what he wants no budget; unbounded spending and imperial government bureaucracies.

      Delete
    2. They were promised that by people who didn't have the political power to deliver on their end. While Cruz did 'hold to his word' on that, it doesn't change that there was no agreement by the GOP to become the Tea Party. (My personal opinion is that they should have, but that's just my personal opinion.)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  2. My guess is make room on Mt. Rushmore or impeachment. Trump truly is that leap into the dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Trump truly is that leap into the dark."
      Agree absolutely.

      Delete
    2. Over time I've evolved in the opposite direction from the esteemed DiploMad. A few months ago (in a comment on this very blog, I think) I said that if it came down to a choice between Trump and Hillary, I'd reluctantly have to give Trump my vote.

      There's still no way Hillary would get my vote, but now I don't think I could give it to Trump, either.

      If the man has any core values, and not crowd-pleasing sound bites, I have yet to detect them. His foreign-policy speech was cobbled together by professional writers based on his earlier statements, and given a gloss of fairly diplomatic phrasing, but it didn't seem to come from his heart, or even from his intellect.

      I share the DiploMad's frustration and anger. Trump, though, brings a chainsaw, not the necessary precision of a stiletto, to the biggest issues of the day. Sure, some people think a chainsaw is exactly what's needed, but many of those people have little actual knowledge of how things work (or of how to make things work well).

      And one of those people, I fear, is Donald Trump. I'm not willing to shove all my chips to the middle of the table and hope for the best. If I have fold and pick a third-party candidate, that may be my least-worst bet.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he'll be competent at operating the Executive Branch, which is a difficult ship to steer at the best of times. I don't think he's conservative despite the right/populist immigration impulses. And I dislike his style. When he made fun of the reporter with the shriveled arm is where I started turning against the guy.

      Delete
    4. It was a movement disorder and that was kind of a close call for me as well. It wasn't clear to me that he knew the guy, intended to make fun of him in some sort of unique way for his disability, or knew of the disability itself.
      The gesture was just too vague to draw much from, but were it in light of *other* similar instances of him denigrating disabled people, it would be more clear as part of a pattern.
      For now, if he was making fun of the disability (very ambiguous in my estimation), he's getting away with it because he's only been recorded doing it once.
      I'm pretty sure if it was intended as such, he'll do the same thing again. It's what people do when they 'get away' with things.

      If I could ask one thing of Shrillary Shroo critics, it would be to not use the term 'pantsuit'. To me, it brings a tinge of nasty, unfair gender discrimination, not the type of discrimination where a gender distinction is being made simply for the fact that there's a such a distinction involved, but rather something derogatory. She's not a terrible candidate because she's female and wears 'pantsuits', she's all that bad because of her overriding ambition to become President regardless of what it costs her, those around her, or America (imo).


      - reader #1482

      Delete
  3. I just don't see it. I believe that Cruz is the better and more experienced and more principled candidate. So I will just have to hope that a contested convention comes down in favor of Senator Cruz. That said if I had to choose between a yellow dog and the current Democratic candidates, the yellow dog would be our next Prez. If Clinton wins, will the Congress vote to impeach and convict on the grounds of misfeasance and malfeasance rising to a level tantamount to treason? Thus beating President Harrison's 32-day record for shortest administration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert of OttawaMay 1, 2016 at 6:02 AM

      Cruz more experienced? What has he done?

      Delete
    2. Principled? A snake oil preacher not even eligible for POTUS under the Constitution he claims to revere. For that matter, when did he become eligible to be a Senator?

      A continued trend here of hiding one's birth data. If the Cruzan was a naturalized US citizen at birth, when did he get Canadian citizenship? Dual status wasn't allowed until 1977.



      Delete
    3. I know there is no point in litigating "natural born citizen" here but I must say in my opinion, the place of birth is not as important as the status of the parents. Obama was a genius to get everyone chasing his birth certificate and yalking Kenya as place of birth. Cruz, like Obama was fathered by a foreigner.

      BC

      Delete
    4. Anonymous: Cruz, like Obama, was born to an American mother who met transmission requirements. Under US law, both men were are US citizens by birth.

      Delete
    5. Except Obama's mother actually didn't meet those standards. She had to be 19 to pass citizenship on to a foreign born child at the time; She was 18. Therefor IF Obama was born abroad, he in fact would not be a natural born citizen. He wouldn't be a citizen period.

      Having said that, he was born in Hawaii, so it doesn't matter.

      Delete
  4. Two important decisions have yet to be made: who will be Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's running mates? I have a hunch that neither Clinton nor Trump will be president by 2020, for any number of possible reasons (use your imaginations, folks). So who takes the reins? The potential candidates for Trump's VP would be far less harmful to the nation than most of the potential candidates for Clinton's VP: Elizabeth Warren? Deval Patrick? Tom Perez? Sherrod Brown? Jerry Brown? Cory Booker? Bernie Sanders? Al Franken?!

    I need a drink ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assumed Gore, if he and Bill are done diddling their way around the world...

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  5. Thank you, Dip. I agree 100% and will be sending this link to friends and family. Earlier in the season I was a Cruz and/or Walker supporter, with an open mind toward various other candidates, for example Jindal and Perry. By September I was favoring Trump, swayed by my 20-something son, my over-90 father, watching several Trump rallies, and reading three of his books on policy (the first from 2000) plus a couple of his business books.

    It truly is time for people in public life to step up and make their endorsements.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I guess "they" are right. The Constitution is dead. We have come to the point in America where we will elect another American Idol president. I weep for the America that was, now wasted.

    May you live in interesting times has arrived, barring God's mercy in sparing us a Trump or Clinton administration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me JFK was *not* and "American Idol" President.

      Delete
    2. Sure as heck Obama was.

      Delete
  7. While I appreciate your statement and the reasoning behind it, I am not on board the Trump train. Yet. Perhaps I will be eventually (since I live in Nevada, and have already voted for Cruz, it is unimportant to the current race whom I support), but I find it too big a pill to swallow right now. I still find Trump boorish, bombastic, and bordering on clownish. Still better than Hillary, whom I could not ever vote for. So if the contest comes down to Hillary or the Donald, I will of course vote Trump. In the meantime I continue to hope Cruz can pull it off.

    Other than that, your essay was right on with its description of where we are today, and I agree 100%. And yes, we do need to change the direction this nation is headed. My gut feeling is Cruz has better instincts in this regard than Trump, but Trump might still pull it off in a satisfactory manner.

    So if Trump gets the nomination I will certainly support him. But right now he's not may first choice.

    P.S. I'm not sure the conservative elite are "well-healed". But I will admit they are sick and in need of healing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trump will pick as his VP a yes man! As far as I've been able to tell Trump has no principals. Reminds me of Mussolini.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. principles. Principals run schools.

      Delete
  9. Mad,
    You're default setting for change reminds me of G K Chesterton's fence:
    “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that was what I immediately thought of, too. I am quite disturbed by the current wholesale destruction by intimidation of so many pillars of our social intercourse and traditions, with little thought or care to the why of their presence or to what might follow.
      It seems to be enough for these liberal "activists" to simply destroy. Yuval Levin has a book, The Great Debate, in which he has an extended contrast of the philosophies of Burke v Paine, et al., that relies in great part on the 1789 French revolution (of course, that was the times in which they lived) and their writings in regard to same. And we all know how that revolution turned out.
      Chesterton's Fence encapsulates the contrast in far fewer words.

      Delete
    2. I am delighted to see other Chesterton fans here! The "Fence" immediately sprang to mind with me...in a neo reactionary way.

      Delete
  10. "I believe in resistance to change." Our current president brought us plenty of change. Can we hope our next one will bring us un-change?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings from Downunder,

      During my air force pilot training in the late 50s the following mantra was hammered into us during the instrument flight phase:

      Change - alter the attitude of the aircraft.
      Check - stop the change.
      Hold - assess the effect of the change.
      Adjust - change the attitude slightly if needed.
      Trim - reduce the control forces by trimming.

      We were also taught rip, bust and tear were anathema and would result in a dangerous situation.

      However, the latter seems what we have had in both our countries under recent socialist leadership. Too bad - CCHAT worked.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let's pose the question this way: will we be a country ruled by professional politicians? Or will we go back to the original plan, a country of citizens that serve in public life for a time and go back to their lives? I see this as the last chance for a nonprofessional at the Presidential level. Is that a good thing? The Founding Fathers seem to think so.

    The only way for a Republican President to be successful is to be able to bypass the main stream media. Trump has proven that he can do that. He's actually been very consistent on trade issues. I don't see him telegraphing his every move the way that Obama does.

    More than anything, I think people want to see a President that acknowledges the damage trade agreements, rampant illegal immigration, and environmental extremism have done to the lives of American citizens. We gave the Republicans a majority in Congress and they have done absolutely nothing with it. We no longer trust them. That distrust extends to Mr. Cruz, who has done little except to vote to give the President even more authority over trade agreements. We want our laws to apply to the rich as well as the poor. And like you, we want to be able to celebrate our culture and religion without being attacked by scolds.

    Welcome on board the Trump train! With the help of people like you, we can turn this around.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I voted for Cruz in my state's primary, but I would certainly vote for Male Vanity Hairdo over Shrillary Shrooooooo in a heartbeat. I will further agree that a reading of Trump's foreign policy speech left me pleasantly surprised. However, my take on FP under the O is that the LGBT (Libyan Giant Bungle Trip) happened because the O and the Shrooooooooo were thinking something like "If stupid Bush the Younger can overthrow a nasty Arab dictator, we can too; for anything you can do, I can do better."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see Trump as being like a typical Real Estate Salesman [which he is] selling you a house about which he knows nothing and so has to blather his way forward to make it sound like a good investment and hope you don't see through the bullshit.

    So you go to Cruz your friendly neighbourhood bank manager who will advise you on the financing, if it's in a bad part of town, whether it is a good or bad investment and so on.

    This video is a perfect example, he's asked a simple question on the Constitution and he doesn't know! He's auditioning [ahem] for the job of President of the US and he has to bafflegab his way to an answer and he hasn't a clue. As someone already said, another American Idol President. It's very sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. American Idol President? Choosing a president has always been a popularity contest? That's how you got your "constitutional lawyer"-TWICE.

      Anyway to use your vocabulary American Idol president or Wife of a sex offender, who incidentally abandoned the staff at an American Embassy while it was under attack and lied about it (a common occurence for shrillary).
      Your choices may be dire, but at least one candidate will make decisions based on what is GOOD for the USA, that has to count for a lot.
      And while we are talking about Benghazi I seem to remember that obambi promised to hunt down the perpetrators-how is that coming along?

      Delete
    2. And while we are talking about Benghazi I seem to remember that obambi promised to hunt down the perpetrators-how is that coming along?

      Well, Our Beloved President has had other things on his agenda. Lately he's been helping OJ Simpson find the Real Killers.

      Delete
  15. Sorry, forgot the video link.

    http://conservativevideos.com/see-how-trump-answers-when-asked-to-name-the-top-3-functions-of-the-federal-government/

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'untended' -> 'unintended'

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  17. David R. GrahamMay 1, 2016 at 8:57 PM

    Strong concur: http://theological-geography.net/?p=25534

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey I just deleted my last post because somebody had changed it. How is this possible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please resubmit. That shouldn't happen.

      Delete
  19. When it comes down to it... no other GOP candidate has shown an aptitude for managing the spotlight.
    Going against Shrillary Shroo is going to be an *extremely* rocky ride. Only a guy comfortable opening up in a nationally televised debate about the size of his manhood is really going to be able to handle the kind of crap that rolls out over the next six months.


    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will vote for Trump on purely pragmatic reasons.
    1. He can't do any worse than the current POTUS and certainly much better than Hillary (who I would set even money that she would sell out her duties to whichever country bids the highest).
    2. He is not part of the system that has transformed the elected Office into a get rich quick scheme for cynical fools whose oath/word mean nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I pretty much agree with everything you say here (though I have not yet read the comments) When Cruz threw his hat in I had just spent the last five years living in Texas and was pleased as punch. Had I not moved out of town shortly thereafter I may have even volunteered. But events unfolded. I am displeased at some of the people on the right that I fully respected at what they have turned into. Half the time they haven't even understood, or pretend to not understand what Trump says. I could understand at least BDS, but TDS? Dudes, he's on our side! But as with BDS there does not seem to be any talking to these formerly sane people. I lost most of my lefty friends so I suppose I don't need those righty 'friends' either. I have just two words for them- and they're not happy birthday.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am disappointed in your reasoning and judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me know where I went off the rails.

      Delete
    2. My understanding from reading your post is that you are voting for Trump because we are in desperate times and must take great risks to fix things. That makes as much sense as saying “I lost my job so I should take all my money and bet it on the lottery.”

      Delete
    3. If anything, desperate times should make conservatives more cautious instead of less cautious. I am being sincere and not sarcastic, but maybe that's the difference between a conservative and a libertarian.

      Delete
    4. We can afford to take risks in good times. I agree with you that these are bad times, but it's the bad times where character and principles matter most. It's the worst time to jettison them.

      Delete
    5. I agree with you, but what is our choice right now? Not in some hypothetical setting, but right now in the real world? Our system is designed for two candidates. The two will almost certainly be Trump and Clinton. In my view, Clinton would be a disaster certain.

      Delete
    6. That may or may not be our choice in November but you are talking about your California primary vote in June. The primary isn't over yet. Vote Cruz.

      Delete
    7. Drudge reports Trump has a 34% margin, the primary is not over, but what has Cruz got to make up that deficit? Don't know when that poll was taken but with the Mexicans acting fools I can see that margin expanding among (lets call them) the real citizens and taxpayers.

      Delete
    8. Obviously the California primary doesn't matter anymore. I can't vote for either of these candidates but I understand those who prefer one or the other. I wonder if your antipathy to Hillary comes in part from seeing her up close at the State Department. I, too, found it harder to support Presidents I actually knew because I was more aware of their flaws and weaknesses.

      It's also interesting how the Clintons' elections involve sone element of protest vote, isn't it?

      Delete
    9. DRJ: now that Cruz and Kasich have dropped out and Trump IS the nominee for all intents and purposes, has your opinion changed?

      Furthermore, your logic about desperate times is understandable but likely wrong. Desperate times often *do* call for desperate measures. And no one doubts that Trump is that desperate measure. Let's just stipulate that there is a 20% chance that Trump will get the most critical issues of our time correct (illegal immigration and avoiding a nuclear/EMP attack on the U.S.). That is still 20% better than Hillary (or any, other Democrat who could be expected to fill in for her if she can't run in November). Your logic is counterintuitive: in good times you would be *foolish* to take risks-- "if it ain't broke..." It is only in times of trouble and chaos, when the standard fixes have been tried and failed that continuing to try the same fixes is not only flawed, it is another name for insanity---i.e., "same actions but expecting different results..."

      Delete
  23. Agree, completely Diplomad. Trump is a competitor and talks a lot of trash in the heat of the game, but has articulated the current situation and connected with the average American in a way no other candidate has done. What I see with Trump is a patriot and a shrewd leader who thinks on his feet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump can't think on his feet. All ha can do his repeat his talking points. Did you bother to read the complete transcript of his WaPo. interview? It was very rambling. While Cruz had a 50 min. interview with CNBC and you can disagree with his ideas you can't find anybody posting online about Cruz not knowing his stuff.

      Delete
  24. Trump is not a man of character and he can't be trusted to do the things his followers want. Even if you don't believe his critics, a lot of voters will and these are the stories they will see if Trump is nominated: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-campaign-biography-psychology-history-barrett-hurt-dantiono-blair-obrien-213835

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We combed the rumor mill and this is what we came up with..."
      - Politico

      Delete
    2. That's a terrible link of a story... An extended discussion of what it might or might not mean when this candidate and/or his wife squints his or her eyes? This is just the way politico is... if there's any content of value in there, it certainly doesn't come across. I guess that's what you get if you want to interview five biographers. What's the point? To declare that someone *isn't* who they portray themselves to be? Trump seems to be pretty much who he says he is, which is rather unfortunate with the exception that it seems to be much better than Clinton.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. You are a true believer, reader#1482. Have you donated yet? Trump needs the money.

      Delete
    4. DRJ, Indeed I am a 'true believer', though perhaps not in who you are intending to suggest. :)

      I identify in more detail below precisely *why* think such articles aren't providing either the Democrats or the GOP any inroads into the core of Trump's nomination-run 'success'. And I could definitely be wrong. Trump could have no plan whatsoever for the generals and he could take the beating he may just deserve from Hillary. But as of now, I think his direction and mechanisms are fundamentally misunderstood by all of his opponents, which is one explanation for how we actually got to this point (another is that America is a country made up entirely of racism and hate, but that's tremendously difficult to believe from the optimism we see regularly).

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. What in Trump's history gives you the idea that Trump has any master plan other then to get elected? The papers that his hired experts have written?

      Delete
    6. I was referencing his plan for getting elected. For all I know the moment he gets sworn in, he'll cross it off on his bucket list and resign. But stopping him would require understanding what he's doing and nobody is cutting anything but racism and hate, which tells me they are clueless.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. DRJ--I'm afraid I agree that Trump is not a man of character. Unhappily, Shrillary Shrooooo is a woman of even less character. I voted for Cruz (and lost) in my deep indigo state's primary for the same reasons Dip gives for his choice of Trump. Further, while I'll be holding my nose and voting for Trump in a race between him and Shrillary Shrooooo, I admit I'll be holding my nose.

      Delete
    8. DRJ, This is why I am staying away from Patterico until after the election. I think there is too much emotion and Cruz, I'm sorry to say, is a one term Senator. You may say Trump is not even that and it is true. This is a leap in the dark but sometimes that is indicated.

      Delete
    9. You support Trump, Dr Mike?

      Delete
  25. I find it utterly unfathomable that someone would profess to stoutly resist change and demand an accounting of all unintended consequences and then support Donald Trump. Holding both of those propositions at the same time is completely incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's Trump or Clinton, which one are you going to vote for, and why?

      (yes, there's an outside chance that the GOP will throw away the plurality of the primary vote and go with a non-Trump candidate, but that's effectively handing it over to Clinton 'even more'.)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. My husband believes this will come down to a fight and who in the arena would you want to not give up and to be willing to fight for this country. The only one who comes to mind is Trump. I do not like him...after 8 years of listening to Obama listening to another loud mouth is not appealing, but I would never vote for Hillary....and anyone who would has sealed America's fate, which may have already been sealed....

      Delete
  26. I have always eagerly awaited new posts from the DiploMad - funny and always insightful. I can't think of anything that I read where I said, "That's just wrong." Until now...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're 99 out of 100 so I'll keep reading! I just hope a couple of years from now I don't have to read a mea culpa from you like we've had to hear from Peggy Noonan and others.

      Delete
    2. So you've voting for Hillary. That makes you a traitor.

      I hope TRUMP waterboards you before he shoots you and your family.

      Delete
    3. This is who Trump supporters are. This is what Trump wants us all to be.

      Delete
  27. Replies
    1. It's like choosing between Maleficent or Voldermort.
      I really don't know what to do...

      Delete
    2. You are jumping the gun. At this point you are not facing a choice between Hillary and another candidate, you are being asked to choose between Cruz and Trump. You will have a chance to vote against Hillary in November.

      Delete
  28. Something tells me will be in for a very nasty campaign. The Democrats will not let go of matters like the Trump U fraud; and I certainly hope the GOP will go after the Shrill's every issue with the gloves off. We have two very non-ideal candidates likely to run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing about both Trump and Cruz...they'll both go for the throat.

      Delete
    2. That's what we need. The Democrats and the MSM will not let up on the GOP candidate, whoever it is.

      Delete
  29. So long as the GOP and the Democrats continue to erroneously believe (or claim to believe for their ulterior motives) that Trump's campaign is based upon race-baiting, anger, and hate, Trump actually has a shot.
    Once the establishment figures out that this is a sneaky method of making his audience feel valued as people, they may be able to come up with a synthetic counter-effort. But Hillary isn't going to be able to do that herself, she simply doesn't seem to care for anybody but herself. As far as I can tell, she thinks people should accept her because of her claimed policies, not because she cares about people. Everybody's accepted she only cares about herself.

    That's part of the sickness of our "what are your policies?" political culture. In every debate and every interview, our policy-obsessed media thinks they're 'going for the kill': "What is your policy on X?"

    And then Liberals at home look at their crib sheet, check off some boxes, and then decide who to vote for.
    That's not how America was founded. We didn't opt for a representative democracy simply because a direct democracy was deemed unworkable at the time.

    Above, DJR cites a politico story that does just this... as part of its 'analysis of what's making Trump successful in this race', they seem to take glee in ripping him for this policy or that policy, or such and such shortsighted statement or no response on 'Y'. It seems obvious that they believe the key to stopping him is by engaging the policies he espouses (or refuses to espouse).

    I don't think that's the key to 'stopping Trump' at all. To stop Trump, another candidate has to play that game better than Trump and make the case that they *care* about voters more than Trump. In this particular circumstance, he's the only guy out there even claiming to *care*... everybody else is fixated on policy or, at best, espousing such things flippantly.

    I think we've only seen the prelude here. My guess is that after the nomination, Trump will start to bring out more issues that cause a more general audience to wonder whether Hillary cares about them as people. I don't know what those issues are, but Dip placed it correctly in the sense of declaring that Trump has made a case for putting America first. 'America' here referring to both principles and people, but *not* policy.

    Don't bring policy to a popularity fight.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is rhetoric, Cruz dialectic, the Dems deranged.

      Delete
    2. James Kurth writing just after the election of 2012.

      Kurth,James; FPRI "The Crisis of American Conservatism" December 2012

      "The Republican Party leadership also calculated that any disaffected Tea Party voters could be corralled into voting for Romney against President Obama in the general election. By that time, the Tea Party resentment against Romney would be only a memory, and what would count in the minds of Tea Party voters would be the immediate and immense threat to their interests of a second Obama administration."

      "… The explanation for the continuing prominence of neo-conservatism in the Republican Party does not lie in the base of Republican voters. Most of these have become critical or skeptical of U.S. military interventions abroad, especially for such remote goals as nation-building and democracy-promotion. In particular, the Tea Party movement has largely avoided discussion of security and defense issues, and many of its members take positions similar to those of the anti-interventionist (and anti-defense-spending) libertarian movement. Rather, the explanation lies in the Republican elite, and particularly with some of the Republican Party’s big donors."

      "… Such contradictions have to be resolved, or at least negotiated, within a presidential administration when it actually has to make and implement decisions about security issues which entail large fiscal costs. Within a mere presidential campaign, however, candidates can now promise almost anything and everything to particular audiences in different arenas, even things that are contradictory, and this entails almost no political cost at all. This is exactly what Romney did in 2012 with respect to the economic and the security arenas."


      http://www.fpri.org/article/2012/12/the-crisis-of-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-the-end-of-the-road/

      I concur with Diplomad.

      ***

      Delete
  30. this is my third attempt to post this response. What happened to the other two - that assumes this one doesn't disappear into the void as well.

    I am a Trump supporter. Most of the anti-Trump comments I read are based on past statements he has made which are or seem to be in conflict with his current positions. Given that conflict, he is labeled as a con man, a liar, a mountebank, a moral cripple, a degenerate, someone who would complete the evisceration of the Constitution undertaken by Obama and his cohorts and, worst of all, Obama’s alter ego. Most of those anti-Trump commentators claim they are looking for intellectual and moral purity in their candidate, someone who will restore the constitutional constraints which have been torn asunder by progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson, shrink the size of the Federal government, and realign the power relationships between the Federal and State governments in line with the framers’ intent. Almost all state that Trump has not put forth any policies, only platitudes garnished with hot air.

    While Trump has said that he does not have an answer for every problem facing the US today (does anyone?), he has taken the following listed policy postions and has also made it clear that in arriving at solutions to our
    nation's ills, he will enlist the finest minds he can persuade to help in their
    identification. The positions listed below, to me, are spot on and warrant his being the Republican nominee and our next president.

    Prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border by supporting ICE officers in doing their job, enforcing the laws currently on the Federal books, ending H1B abuses, building a wall and establishing effective controls on future immigration which allow only those who will provide a benefit to the US to enter.

    Rescind Obamacare immediately and in its entirety while replacing it with market based systems which reduce overall costs and increase the individual's ability to select insurance policies which are tailored to their needs based on age, lifestyle and current condition.

    Introduce competition into governmental drug purchases thus driving down costs and providing Yuge! savings to patients using those meds.

    Destroying ISIS's forces in the Middle East utterly as well as its ability to
    renew itself and gain new adherents worldwide.

    Revise the tax code to lower taxes for all catagories of individuals and corporations and incentivise the return of US corporation foreign held assests (dollars and manufacturing jobs) to the US.

    Restore strength to all branches of the US Military by eliminating political
    influence in purchasing equipment and services which benefit only the
    politicians pushing those purchases but do not satisfy the stated needs of the
    military leadership.

    Appoint supreme court and lower court nominees based on judicial philosophies which mirror those held by Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia.

    Appoint an Attorney General who will enforce the law fairly and, if warranted, prosecute Hillary Clinton.

    Evaluate the infrastructural shortcomings facing the nation at the Federal and State levels and focusing efforts and resources to eliminating those shortcomings.

    Eliminating all Federal aid to Sanctuary Cities and taking action against those entities which defy the law.

    Reviewing all foreign aid with an eye to modification or elimination based soley on its usefulness in promoting the commercial and geo political interests of the US.

    Reviewing all global trade agreements and relationships to ensure that all
    participants are treated fairly. Free trade only works when all participants
    play by the same rules.

    Renegotiate or rescind the deal with Iran.

    Support Israel if attacked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and how long has he's had these views? 2 months or 2 years? He last gave contributions to Democrats in 2010. He's changed his party affiliations at least 4 times. He's had a background interview with the NY Times where he hedged on the wall and Mexico. In the WaPo interview he rambled all over the place. He doesn't actually know his views. You posted what his site/campaign has put up. Did you actually like his flip/flopping on abortion.

      Delete
    2. http://www.fpri.org/article/2012/12/the-crisis-of-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-the-end-of-the-road/

      "In the religious and social arena, however, the picture is very different. This kind of conservatism is today much weaker and more marginalized than it was four years ago. First, there are now very few big donors supporting the electoral campaigns of religious and social conservatives (the only prominent exception in the 2012 elections was a billionaire investor, Foster Friese, who provided the principal financial backing for Rick Santorum). And there has also been a substantial decrease in the number of voters who put religious and social issues as their chief concern when deciding for whom to vote. Moreover, the Republican Party can always be confident that this shrinking—but still essential—part of its electoral base will continue to cast its votes, however unenthusiastically, for Republican candidates and not for Democratic ones. With a very small donor elite and a shrinking and subordinate voter base, it is not surprising that religious and social conservatives are now only a weak and subordinated component within today’s American conservatism."

      ***

      Delete
    3. This is a perfect example if how Trump has conned his supporters. Trump hasn't promised to rescind ObamaCare. He only says that "on Day One" he will ask Congress to rescind ObamaCare:

      https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

      There is no cgance that will happen and Trump knows it. He depended on desperate, gullible supporters to ignore reason and depend on emotion, and it worked.

      Trump is unpredictable and that makes him dangerous. He will also say and do anything to win, something his supporters seem to like about him. How will they like it when he isn't doing what he promised and uses those tactics against them?

      Delete
  31. Did somebody delete a comment from I am a Trump supporter? I got it twice but it isn't on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Looks like my comment finally made it. May have been using the wrong identifier.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I voted for Cruz in the NY primary and I will vote for Trump in the general. It's not that I like Trump; he's not a real conservative, but in this case I'll overlook his lack of conservative credentials. It's just that there is no way in hell that I am going to vote for that woman. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have an affinity for Cruz because the ideologue in me knows that he understands things like how the delegation of Congressional law-making power to agencies is unconstitutional. The realist in me knows that (like Libertarians whose policies always start with a tabula rasa environment and thus are unworkable in a real-world scheme where what is matters) Cruz may be a keen Constitutional scholar, but it doesn't automatically follow that he can do anything with it to make it worth it to support him. Now an AG or SCOTUS appointment otoh would get us his sharp legal mind in a venue where he can do something positive with it.

    Since it looks like a Trump v. Clinton situation, Trump is the unknown quantity and Clinton is the known quantity. There are R's who will vote Clinton because they can plan for the known quantity and blunt its effects, while a Trump president could make them millions or cost them millions (e.g. Koch) and that's too risky a bet to take. There are plenty of people with stagnated incomes, working in disappearing industries, or in general feel despondant about their future. A known quantity doesn't offer enough hope of anything positive happening on those metrics, but the unknown quantity who is so bombastic and over-the-top as to appear like he'd do anything to upset everyone's apple carts is a very attractive proposition indeed. Why D's are so shocked that the poor/unemployed/economically marginalized would support a man who paves his life with gold is beyond me given that I see it as so obvious as to why they would.

    I prefer a limited government situation. I don't believe government has my best interests at heart (nor yours either). I believe government overreach in the form of agencies staffed with unelected officious sorts who have all sorts of control over my life is unacceptable. I think the R party sold its soul when it decided that aligning with evangelical Christians to lock up a voting bloc. This is why Trump's lack of conservative credentials doesn't trouble me. Plus, I'm a big fan of upsetting apple cart of the liberal entitled. If it happens, it'll be fun to watch.

    But since I make my living by selling guns, a Clinton presidency will be very very good for business. And if she comes close to pursuing stronger gun laws, add a couple more "very's" in that sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  35. My absolute top priority is to ensure that it will not be a Democrat who nominates the next Supreme Court justice(s). We have seen the consequence of the WH, Congress and Court held by or sympathetic to, the current wave of progressive social tyranny. Yes, as most are well aware, the Founders defined tyranny as the executive, legislative and judicial powers wielded by the same hands.
    If the Court goes to a solid, reliable, liberal majority, we will lose [more of] our heretofore unalienable rights. And I do not trust the congressional Republicans to have the spine or the stomach to resist whomever a Democratic president may nominate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You failed already on the majority of issues Trump views are Democrat views.

      Delete
  36. I respect your decision and understand the reasons for your decision. I hope you can respect that I can't vote for Trump, even if you don't agree with my reasons.

    If you will do that, and based on our past limited discussions I think you will, thank you. You are the only Trump supporter I've talked to online who can demonstrate that basic concept of civilized American values.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am willing to try a non- politician who surrounds himself with experienced advisers and cabinet members who are NOT yes men. I know he will have difficulty working with even a GOP Congress and a seemly uncontrollable civil service, but he will learn. Obama didn't meet with the GOP speaker for 18 months; Reagan used to meet every Thursday with the progressive Democratic "Tip" O'Neill in the speaker's hidden office to have a whiskey and discuss what could be done for the country that they could agree on. I hope, as we have seen recently, Trump will be like Reagan in that regard.

    Clinton would be worse than Obama, IMO, since she will surround herself with yes people. We see that with her being the candidate for the Democrats.

    And as Dr. Reynolds (Instapundit) has said, if you want to check the Federal government's power, elect a white, male, Republican who would be scrutinized as no Democrat would ever be.

    ReplyDelete