And we’re not yet even to the convention!
Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. Hillary will be able to run any attack ad she wishes against Trump. All she needs to do is find the most unpopular side of any issue, and then claim that Trump supports that unpopular position. But wouldn’t that be lying? No, lying is when Trump accuses Hillary of lying about his record. Here’s an example:
Washington (CNN) Donald Trump on Wednesday night charged Hillary Clinton was misrepresenting his position by saying he wants nuclear arms for Japan — but the presumptive Republican nominee previously has said exactly that.
At a rally in Sacramento, Trump said that Clinton “made a speech, she’s making another one tomorrow, and they sent me a copy of the speech. And it was such lies about my foreign policy, that they said I want Japan to get nuclear weapons. Give me a break.”
He added, “See they don’t say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we’re taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up.”
But in an April interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Trump said, “It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea.”
Wallace asked, “With nukes?”
“Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes,” Trump responded.
I keep pointing out that Trump’s been on both sides of every issue, that he’s the least “authentic” person ever to run for President of the United States. And yet his deluded fans support him precisely because they think he’s the only authentic candidate. Or they admit that all his non-immigration views are fake, but at least he’s sincere on immigration, which is what really matters. OK, do these Trump immigration views seem sincere?
The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax.
Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Amen, I couldn’t have said it better.
(For those who don’t know, “comprehensive” is a code word in the immigration debate. And if you are an anti-immigrant Trumpista, then you don’t want to find out what it implies.)
If you want to see some amusing work by master contortionists, just read how the gullible Trumpistas spin this in the comment section. Some will insist the unfair press is making up quotes. Others will claim Trump’s had a since road to the White House, err, I mean road to Damascus conversion on immigration. Remember, even Trump has acknowledged that he can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and it doesn’t matter to his supporters. The only question is whether his supporters will constitute 50.1% of the electorate in November. Right now there’s a 24% chance of that happening.
The Republican candidates who opposed Trump were even more incompetent than they appeared. All they had to do during the debates was read out Trump’s actual view so immigration, every time the question came up. If they had done this early in the campaign, before he got momentum, the xenophobes never would have flocked to his campaign.
PS. Ross Perot was a colorful, populist, protectionist business tycoon, with weird conspiracy theories, who ran for President in 1992. Perot’s high point occurred in June, when he actually led the field, polling at 39%. It was all downhill from there, as voters got serious about the fact that we were actually electing a President, and that having a crazy person in charge of foreign policy might not be a good idea.
PPS. And hot off the press:
Donald Trump sought to tout his support among African-Americans on Friday by pointing out a black man in the crowd and calling him “my African-American.”
“Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him,” Trump said. “Are you the greatest?”
HT: Tyler Cowen
Tags:
5. June 2016 at 06:32
Well, I’m convinced that Ilana Mercer or Ann Coulter or a reincarnated Milton Friedman or Thomas Jefferson would be a better leader than Trump.
Is Hillary the immigration skeptic candidate? Clearly not. Trump is our best hope.
5. June 2016 at 06:36
Also, the Trump quotes were in response to the 2012 Romney loss. Trump may have been parroting popular wisdom at the time and changed his mind as immigration became a bigger issue and he read Ann Coulter’s book.
5. June 2016 at 07:00
Actually, you could also vote for Johnson, the Libertarian.
Or just stay home.
There is no way I’d vote for Bombastic Chauncey Gardner.
off topic. Here’s a news article that seems rife for a blog post: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/japan-s-debt-burden-is-quietly-falling-by-the-most-in-the-world
5. June 2016 at 07:25
Re: the “Look at my African American over here” comment… Echoes of Mitt Romney’s “Who let the dogs out, hoot, hoot” comment (or whatever that was) in 2007.
https://youtu.be/FDwwAaVmnf4
There are Trump problems, and then there are GOP problems. Inauthenticity on matters of race is a GOP problem. (Not that that excuses Trump).
5. June 2016 at 07:26
Trump flip flops.But, he is so angry that he could carry out one side of his flip on a whim. Also, compared to Trump, Perot is incredibly sane.
Perot was right that many jobs left American shores because of NAFTA. Entire industries left. Other nations became economically stronger. Workers in the USA have suffered greatly. Has it contributed to world peace and stability? That could be true. But it has destabilized the USA. That is why we are stuck with Trump.
There are a couple of interesting charts here showing which years had the most and least jobs exported, and accumulated totals of job exports.
http://www.businessinsider.com/looks-like-ross-perot-was-right-about-the-giant-sucking-sound-2011-2
5. June 2016 at 07:34
Scott,
At least you can say you tried many times and many ways to reach these people. They are on likely on the verge of total defeat and humiliation, even if Trump wins this election, which if the most recent Reuter’s poll is any indication, he won’t.
Even if Trump wins, this could have the longer term effect of wiping out the Republican Party and keeping them out of leadership nationally for a generation or more. It might not be as extreme nationally as what happened in California, but it could be that extreme in places like Florida, which is obviously a critical swing state. It could turn Texas a lot more purple too.
5. June 2016 at 07:45
Trumpistas,
I’ve grown tired of addressing you anymore. You are even more devoid of reason and facts than expected. None of you have offered any evidence of a net negative effect of immigration in the US, yet you want to deny other Americans the freedom to hire who they want, and deny the benefits of resulting lower prices to all other Americans.
You are cultural bigots, at the very least, and I think you’re more fit to discuss serious issues on websites such as that of stormfront. You are many things, but pro-American is certainly not one of them.
What is funny is, thanks to your total lack of logic, reason, and facts, you don’t see the electoral tidal wave coming. I have never been happier as a liberal Democrat, because you are helping to bring about the biggest wave of liberalism this country’s seen since LBJ.
I expect that the ultimate effect of all this immigrant bashing and assorted other bigotry will be to fuel a backlash like that seen in California after the Republicans there got behind Prop. 187. No, the backlash won’t be as extreme on a national level, because nationally the immigrant population is relatively smaller than in California, but I think it will really move electorates in key states like Florida and Texas toward Democrats, permanently. Florida will become a solidly blue state, and Texas will at least lurch more toward purple.
So, enjoy Trump’s (somewhat feigned)bigotry while it lasts, because this is just the last gasp of a white power society that is fading into history.
5. June 2016 at 07:57
Actually, my biggest concern now, other than Trump winning this particular election, which would still damage the country until the backlash, is that liberals who are economically illiterate like Bernie Sanders will gain too much power.
5. June 2016 at 08:02
Bill, Yes, maybe worth a post.
Gary, You do know that America’s unemployment rate fell sharply after Nafta was implemented, don’t you? And our job growth was much greater than most other developed countries.
But then who am I to argue with a “study”‘ cited in Business Insider.
5. June 2016 at 08:26
Several years back, the Canadian dollar was near parity and I saw several Canadian firms set up manufacturing here in PA. It made me laugh – the giant sucking sound of jobs going south like Perot predicted. South from Canada to the USA. Of course, those are individual jobs. Jobs in the aggregate are pretty unaffected.
5. June 2016 at 08:33
“It was all downhill from there, as voters got serious about the fact that we were actually electing a President, and that having a crazy person in charge of foreign policy might not be a good idea.”
-Maybe the fact he was an independent and dropped out and went back in during the period of the GOP convention had something to do with it.
“Some will insist the unfair press is making up quotes.”
-Can’t you read, Sumner?
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants,”
“The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration,”
-Trump’s saying illegal immigration is a bad thing. Trump has been against illegal immigration for a long time, and has always been open to keeping a door in the wall for people who want to come in legally.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ugly-things-you-learn-about-donald-trump-reading-his-books/
BTW, Hillary has also once said she is “adamantly against illegal immigrants”, but now she has explicitly changed her position to be in favor of them. Trump has toughened up his stance.
I will insist that, since Trump became America’s leading birther a year and a half before this, Trump is just repeating the conventional wisdom, possibly to mislead other Republican candidates. He never, ever believed that attracting Asians and Hispanics was a good way to win the GOP primary.
“The Republican candidates who opposed Trump were even more incompetent than they appeared.”
-Indeed. And Hillary’s staff is even more incompetent than that of the GOP candidates who opposed Trump.
“I have never been happier as a liberal Democrat, because you are helping to bring about the biggest wave of liberalism this country’s seen since LBJ.”
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
suggest, in the worst-case scenario for Trump, a closer match than Obama v. McCain in 2008. You are just lying to yourself, Freelander. Stop being delusional.
Yes, Trump was more popular with African-Americans than any other GOP candidate, while they were still running.
“I expect that the ultimate effect of all this immigrant bashing and assorted other bigotry will be to fuel a backlash like that seen in California after the Republicans there got behind Prop. 187.”
-Which, if you recall, was totally fictional. Bush 2004 got a much larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than Bush 1988. And it was the changing White vote that really mattered, as California’s women became more barren and, due to soaring rents, marriage in that state disappeared in the big metro areas.
You’re just a liar, Freelander.
Make America Great Again!
5. June 2016 at 08:35
As for Johnson, I predict he will get fewer votes than in 2012.
5. June 2016 at 08:39
BTW, Proposition 187 was a great proposition. America should have built a wall and underground electric fence on the southern border back in the days of Perot.
The early 2010s are a lot like the early 1990s.
5. June 2016 at 08:43
I’m as stupefied by Trump as the next person, but my girlfriend complains I spend too much time complaining about it on the internet. It’s gotten to the point that if I continue to make comments on webpages about how he disgusts me, she’s going to slam my face into the keyboafjhksfl;sahf;sdhgf;hsdhdadfhsdhdfjnerwbjnkerg
5. June 2016 at 08:50
Harding,
If I’m a “liar”, what is Donald Trump? He is recorded promising thousands of Trump “University” students that they would be taught how to be successful real estate developers by professional instructors “hand-picked” by him. He was then subsequently recorded as having said he did not hand-pick any instructors. That alone is a lie and fraud, to say nothing of the bait-and-switch and high pressure sales techniques applied to his “students”.
No wonder you like Trump. Like him, you just throw out insults when people call out your lack of facts, and you’re apparently too blind or stupid not to pin your bigoted hopes on an obvious conman.
This is typical of conservatives, who bought Rev. Mike Huckabee’s cinnamon supplements, which he claimed would cure cancer and diabetes, or who donated money to Sarah Palin’s PAC, which ended up spending much of it buying her own book. The whole movement is largely a fraud, which seeks to fleece the grassroots while giving power to the most corrupt people in the country.
5. June 2016 at 09:05
I was just watching Trump on Face the Nation and thought the very same thing: he is truly the gift that keeps on giving. That’s why I was a liberal Democrat for Trump since last July.
He just keeps digging this deeper hole, keeps talking about the ‘Mexican judge.’ I watch him transfixed. He is literally the Dems’ greatest asset.
Scott Adams is now giving Hillary a little respect: she has ‘persuaded’ him to support her.
“This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear. ”
“That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. Trump took her so-called “woman card” and turned it into a liability. So Clinton wisely pivoted. Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move.”
“The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).”
“If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.”
“So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.”
“As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.”
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/06/hillary-persuades-scott-adams-to.html
5. June 2016 at 09:06
Scott,
I would like to see you approach the Trump topic differently. Trying to convince his supporters that his flip flops matter is futile. Trying to dissect Trump based on his flip flops is futile.
I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m a Titanium Ted guy, but that ship sailed. I want to understand Trump. There’s far more that goes into that than his flip flops. For example, the fact that Paul Ryan endorsed him is IMO a solid tell that his policy agenda will for the most part reflect the House GOP agenda.
Trump plays his audience. People who get wrapped up in his flip flops are being played by him. While I loathed him for his lies about Cruz, I can admit that he’s the most intensely tactical speaker possibly in presidential campaign history. He does not say things to the public to show his policies; he says things to get support. That’s it.
I want to understand Trump because I have to figure out if I can vote for him. I’d like to see a deeper analysis of him.
5. June 2016 at 09:08
Harding, Yes, that’s about what I expected you to say. Sad what politics does to a brain.
You said:
“The early 2010s are a lot like the early 1990s”
You mean in the sense that we are about to elect Clinton as President?
5. June 2016 at 09:10
One other point on politics-Matt Yglesias gets it absolutely right. The GOP sure was stupid not to take Obama’s ‘Grand Bargain’ when he offered it.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11836202/grand-bargain-intransigence
Now Obama is for a Social Security expansion.
5. June 2016 at 09:12
Trump beat Cruz the day he jumped on the Lyin’ Ted train.
He beat Hillary the day he jumped on the Crooked Hillary Clinton train. If I’m Clinton, I’m seriously considering throwing the book out, hiring a bunch of Trump-like people, and coming out the gates swinging with more Trumpisms than Trump himself can give. I might start with Cheatin’ Donald Trump.
Scott Adams has been right all this time. Trump is a next level persuader. He already won the presidency, just not everybody knows it yet.
5. June 2016 at 09:16
Well if Adams is right all the time, he’s now saying that Hillary is getting pretty persuasive too, Persuasive enough to make him feel that for his own safety he’d better endorse her.
For the record I was talking about Trump just like he was last Summer
5. June 2016 at 09:24
I want to see analyses that include things like this: Trump’s campaign is surprisingly light. He spends way less money than his opponents for the same things. He has a smaller, more oiled staff. Does this suggest that a President Trump would reduce government bloat to a significant degree? Possibly.
The proof is in the pudding. Let’s talk about the pudding instead of his vote-getting tactics.
5. June 2016 at 09:25
“-Indeed. And Hillary’s staff is even more incompetent than that of the GOP candidates who opposed Trump.”
This is a perfect example of the kind of inanity coming from Trumpistas. Hillary’s campaign is staffed by former Obama and Bill Clinton staffers, who’ve won 4 presidential elections between them.
5. June 2016 at 09:25
Steve, I am given you the deeper analysis. He’s not saying all these idiotic things because he has some secret strategy to win the election, he’s saying them because he’s a moron. Why can’t people accept Trump at face value?
Suppose some homeless guy on skid row was saying the things Trump is saying. Would you spend endless hours trying to decipher what he means? “Gee, why does he suggest the Treasury default on the public debt?” No, you’d say he’s an idiot. We show far too much respect to people of power. And by the way, that also applies to Dems. No one took the rape accusation against Clinton seriously because he was a powerful alpha male. If he’d been a Congressman like Weiner he would have been forced to resign. (Actually, I don’t think either should have had to resign.)
Please, stop showing respect to powerful alpha males like Trump. He’s an idiot and deserves to be treated as one. His flip flop on Japanese nukes is not some sort of secret strategy, he is simply too dumb to know what he said last week on the topic. You want him negotiating with Putin?
It makes no difference whether Trump supports the GOP agenda or not (FWIW, he doesn’t). If he wins, the GOP becomes a lunatic fringe party. If he loses they may come to their senses and come back with a Paul Ryan type in 2020.
Steve, 2016 is a lost cause. Accept that fact and start building toward 2020.
Jacob, Very funny, but compared to Trump, Romney is another Abe Lincoln.
Mike, Scott Adams seems overrated. OK, that’s mildly amusing, but his analysis is only slightly less dumb than mine (and that’s a really low bar.)
5. June 2016 at 09:26
Or like this: Trump speaks very highly of foreign dictators. Clearly he’s doing this as a negotiation tactic. What more does it mean? Does it suggest that he’ll be in a better position to advance American agendas with them or does it mean that he’ll make some mistake and legitimize dictators in the wrong ways?
5. June 2016 at 09:28
The main reason I mention it here, Scott, is that I know that many Trump supporters swear by his analysis: because he predicts a landslide win for Trump
5. June 2016 at 09:35
Steve F.
You’re making me think conservatives are even dumber than I thought. What part of Trump being an obvious conman don’t you understand? Why do you think he has 3 separate lawsuits against him over his Trump “University” fraud. He’s recorded lying to the “students” of that “school”. He’s recorded admitting he lied to them to bilk them out of thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars each.
He’s a narcissist. Do you know what that means? Look it up. He’s wreckless and thin-skinned, and he often responds in knee-jerk fashion to things, because he’s a spoiled trust-fund baby type who has no discipline and is used to yes men.
“There’s no there there.” He cozies up to arrogant dictators, because these are people he thinks he can relate to, having ambitions in that direction himself.
5. June 2016 at 09:37
reckless, rather
5. June 2016 at 09:42
Scott,
You said, “He’s not saying all these idiotic things because he has some secret strategy to win the election, he’s saying them because he’s a moron. Why can’t people accept Trump at face value?”
— At face value, he stomped, what was it, sixteen candidates? At some point it’s reasonable to say that maybe he’s not stupid and investigate. Persuaders like Scott Adams have given fantastic assessments of Trump’s tactics. Careful dissection of his rhetoric strongly suggests he’s not stupid. He doesn’t say things the way a stupid person does.
Take his late night misspelled twitter rants for example. Those only happened when one of his opponents had a good day or Trump had a bad day and the news cycle the following day was going to be good for his opponents and bad for him. But like magic, the following cycle became all about those wacky misspelled rants.
This is Trump playing his audience. He played the media and played his detractors. They gobble up the triviality and laugh about how dumb he must be, but what really happened is Trump expended virtually no capital and turned a bad news cycle into a slightly positive one.
5. June 2016 at 09:51
Scott Freelander,
I’m not a conservative. I’m probably a few more steps to the extreme end of anarcho-capitalism than Bryan Caplan.
I’m not in the business of defending Trump. I probably dislike him more than anybody on this forum. I was all in for Cruz. Trump crossed the line many times. He is possibly one of the most despicable people I can think of.
He IS a conman and he IS a narcissist. The question is what is the con. I don’t like the fact that GOP nominee is going to be a guy who lies about everything to benefit his brand, but that doesn’t show his policy proclivities. People like us pointing this out didn’t result in him losing the primary as we hoped, and it won’t result in understanding his policies to whatever degree is possible.
5. June 2016 at 10:07
Steve F. Question for you. As Trump is a conman and narcissist do you support him for President?
If so, that sort of undercuts your argument.
This is the trouble that someone like Rubio has now. Trump is a conman, a scam artist, he’s totally unqualified, and he’s a want to be dictator-but Hillary Clinton will support Obamacare, so Go Trump.
You can’t argue Trump is an existential level threat to the very Republic and say but he’s not for Obamacare or some other policy difference over taxes or Social Security.
Like Sumner said he wouldn’t support Trump if he were for NGDP.
How do you come down on it? Trump 2016?
5. June 2016 at 10:08
“You mean in the sense that we are about to elect Clinton as President?”
-Bush isn’t President, so, no. And 2016 isn’t the early 2010s. If he was, though, I would have no problem with predicting Hillary will be in the White House in 2016 at this point.
“He’s not saying all these idiotic things because he has some secret strategy to win the election, he’s saying them because he’s a moron.”
-If he was a moron, he wouldn’t have won a single primary.
“You want him negotiating with Putin?”
-Yes. Do you want $hillary? I don’t. Do you want Cruz? He’s an incompetent. Do you want Rubio? He’s an idiot.
“Yes, that’s about what I expected you to say.”
-But not what you predicted “the gullible Trumpistas” would “spin this in the comment section”.
“Sad what politics does to a brain.”
-Why are you totally ignoring Hillary if you believe she’s gonna be POTUS? Why are you totally ignoring Obama, who actually is POTUS? Wisen up, Sumner. Make America Great Again!
5. June 2016 at 10:15
Mike Sax,
I am not a Trump supporter. I am open to supporting him in the future, but I am likely to write-in Cruz or maybe vote Libertarian.
If I did support him, I don’t think it would undercut my argument. Ultimately, I’m about policy. I despise his persona, the conman narcissist stuff, but if I end up believing that on policy he is worth a vote, I’ll vote for him.
About the conman thing specifically, let’s say I was running for President. I want the government to not exist anymore, and I would GLADLY con any voters into voting for me regardless of their position on that matter. By extension, it may not be that Trump is conning people that’s the problem, but what he conning them for.
5. June 2016 at 10:24
That’s my point Steve F. Policies are one thing. Someone who doesn’t respect constitutional limits, democratic norms is another.
If Hitler promises a SS expansion I wouldn’t vote for him even if I’m a liberal who likes the policy.
Sumner too is saying he would not vote for Trump even if he did his favorite policy in the world-NGDP targeting.
My point is that even more important than policies is having a democratic form of government rather than a dictatorship.
5. June 2016 at 10:29
I define ideas regarding the constitution and democracy as policies.
5. June 2016 at 10:34
@Sumner:
“Gary, You do know that America’s unemployment rate fell sharply after Nafta was implemented, don’t you? And our job growth was much greater than most other developed countries.”
Yes, I agree, and I didn’t say that the US economy was greatly harmed. But there are two things NAFTA did to undermine things going forward. One is low wages for workers. Two is QE being needed which had the negative impact of making the rich far richer and causing the others to fall behind.
So, NAFTA was a mixed bag at best.
5. June 2016 at 10:36
Scott,
What do you mean about Republicans coming back with a “Paul Ryan type in 2020”? Do you mean someone who lies the way he did at the 2012 Republican Convention and throughout that campaign, someone with who develops budgets with magic asterisks, someone who claims to be Christian and an Ayn Rand admirer? Or, just someone who’s somewhat closer to neoliberalism?
Here’s Ryan’s Politifact summary:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/paul-ryan/
Personally, anyone who claims to be both Christian and an admirer of Rand is a total kook. I think it’s safe to say there are contradictions there.
I assume you mean someone closer to neoliberalism.
And yes, I know that Hillary lies a fair amount of the time, seems corrupt, and is pushing some bad economic and foreign policy ideas. I’m definitely not excited supporting her, but I’m in a swing state, I will passionately vote for her to prevent Trump from winning.
5. June 2016 at 10:39
Steve F.
Something is very wrong with you if you’re even contemplating voting for Trump. And you describe yourself as being closer to anarcho-capitalism than Caplan, yet you supported Ted Cruz? That makes no sense. Rand Paul, or especially the Gary Johnson would be closer to that viewpoint.
5. June 2016 at 10:43
Gary Anderson,
You’re very, very confused. QE hasn’t led to greater wealth inequality. If anything, a lack of QE has, but I’m skeptical about that claim too. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people, both wealthy and not, would have been better off with more monetary stimulus.
5. June 2016 at 11:11
Scott Freelander,
I supported Paul too. Of all the viable candidates, Cruz was the one I thought would, as President, leave office with the greatest degree of liberties returned to the people.
Regarding Trump, I am always open to new information or a better understanding of information.
5. June 2016 at 11:21
Scott,
I just watched this interview with William Weld:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqefZhiQuM
I remember being impressed with him in the past, but I hadn’t heard much about him in years. I wonder if he shouldn’t be leading the libertarian ticket, because Johnson, though honest and humble, seems to come across as somewhat of a wingnut.
5. June 2016 at 11:22
“The only question is whether his supporters will constitute 50.1% of the electorate in November.”
Trump doesn’t need 50.1% to win…47% is likely sufficient this cycle. But he won’t break 45. I’m guessing Hillary 49%, Trump 43%, None-of-the-Above 8%
5. June 2016 at 11:26
“If he loses they may come to their senses and come back with a Paul Ryan type in 2020.”
The Paul Ryan who just endorsed Trump, immediately after Trump’s “Mexican judge” comments? The GOP is a clown car. Cruz is going to be the only one left who refused to endorse Trump. Bohner, McCONnel, Ryan, Faux News, are all all-in for Trump.
5. June 2016 at 11:31
Steve,
Yes, and those supporting Trump now, even reluctantly, could pay a terrible price over the next several years, during the backlash.
5. June 2016 at 11:48
Gary,
Oddly enough, the big loss of jobs of NAFTA and mixed bag was the Mexican economy not the US economy in which the passage made very minor adjustments (The US job market was more effected by the private sector finally knew how to use the internet for productivity gains.) and it has taken almost 20 years for Mexico to start substantially increasing Manufacturing jobs. (China was the change not NAFTA.) Anyway the passage of NAFTA both weakened the corn farmers in Mexico and their financial institutions which to a rough few years. (Read Brad Delong on the effects of the passage and Scott do you have a link?)
Probably the main effect NAFTA had on the US economy is the diminished corn farmers probably increased illegal immigration for ~12 – 14 years and now we are witnessing the reverse.
Scott, How in the hell did the Republican Primary candidates not take advantage of Trump back in November 2015? None of what has recently come out was unknown back then.
5. June 2016 at 12:08
Scott Freelander, I know you hate freedom. Weld was a less libertarian governor than Bill Clinton. The libertarian party needs more wingnuts, not less. It’s not the Northeastern Republican Party.
5. June 2016 at 12:43
Harding,
I hate freedom? lol That’s a laugh, coming from a Trump supporter. Yeah, someone who wants to build border walls, limit free trade, make it easier to sue reporters for libel and slander is all about freedom. Or is that “Freedumb”?
I favor open immigration, 100% free trade, and vast deregulation, including an end to drug prohibition, laws against prostitution, and any restrictions on abortion. I favor abolishing FINRA and most of the SEC’s functions and authority. I favor abolishing HUD and the Department of Commerce, for example, while greatly shrinking departments of Treasury, Energy, Homeland Security, etc. I also favor privatizing Fannie and Freddie, ending FDIC, letting banks fail, abolishing taxes on business and investment income, abolishing the minimum wage…
I favor a constitutional amendment to provide for something I call “super judicial review”, so that victims of laws and regulations that don’t serve the judged intended purpose of the legislation can be struck down.
I favor less foreign interventionism.
Yeah, sure, I’m anti-freedom. lol I am, however, anti-FreeDUMB.
5. June 2016 at 12:46
The race for the GOP 2020 nomination has already begun.
Politico:
“It’s June 2016. Time to think about the 2020 election.”
“The 2016 GOP convention is still weeks away, but would-be contenders – from Ted Cruz to Tom Cotton — are already laying groundwork for the next Republican presidential primary. While some are lining up blue chip staff, scheduling trips to early primary states, and setting up political action committees, others are huddling with the party’s biggest financiers.”
“But they’re all struggling with the same conundrum: How to get around Donald Trump.”
“It’s a complex calculation. Whether they choose to support Trump or to oppose him – or something in between – future Republican candidates could find themselves explaining their decision for years to come.”
“The pitfalls are obvious: Throw your support to Trump, and be tied to him. Buck him, and risk turning off his supporters.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/2020-contenders-donald-trump-223904#ixzz4AjwFZrSH
5. June 2016 at 13:46
“I favor open immigration, 100% free trade, and vast deregulation, including an end to drug prohibition, laws against prostitution, and any restrictions on abortion. I favor abolishing FINRA and most of the SEC’s functions and authority. I favor abolishing HUD and the Department of Commerce, for example, while greatly shrinking departments of Treasury, Energy, Homeland Security, etc. I also favor privatizing Fannie and Freddie, ending FDIC, letting banks fail, abolishing taxes on business and investment income, abolishing the minimum wage”
-Great stuff, man. So why would you ever support Clinton over Trump or Weld over Johnson? Those don’t sound like very pro-freedom ideas to me. Make America Great Again!
I support going after the absolute scum in the press as much as anyone. The press is little more than an arm of the DNC. Last time I checked, fraud is not a libertarian principle.
“The 2016 GOP convention is still weeks away, but would-be contenders – from Ted Cruz to Tom Cotton — are already laying groundwork for the next Republican presidential primary.”
-These dudes want to try to challenge the incumbent in 2020? When they couldn’t beat him the first time, when he wasn’t even an incumbent? Nice going, fellas, but you’ll fail, because you’re all losers.
5. June 2016 at 14:32
“Scott, How in the hell did the Republican Primary candidates not take advantage of Trump back in November 2015?”
1. Too many candidates; too many unknowns.
2. Trump’s vicious attacks hurt Cruz.
3. Trump had control of the media. Cruz didn’t.
4. The South (outside of Texas and Oklahoma) preferred nationalism over social conservatism.
5. June 2016 at 15:14
Steve F, Well thank God you don’t support him. But . . .
You said:
“At face value, he stomped, what was it, sixteen candidates? At some point it’s reasonable to say that maybe he’s not stupid and investigate.”
You can’t be serious. The fact that a candidate won some primaries “trumps” the fact that what’s he’s saying is patently absurd? Look at who wins elections in places like Philippines–should we take those people serious too? Hmmm, has fantasies about raping nuns, I wonder what that might mean for the Philippines’ foreign policy?
You said:
“Careful dissection of his rhetoric strongly suggests he’s not stupid. He doesn’t say things the way a stupid person does.”
Of course he talks like a stupid person. Do intelligent people say “I know words”?
Collin, That’s what I can’t figure out.
5. June 2016 at 15:41
“Do intelligent people say “I know words”?”
-Yes. I’m sure that any standardized test would show Trump being in the 99th percentile in English and Reading.
“That’s what I can’t figure out.”
-Why?
“The fact that a candidate won some primaries “trumps” the fact that what’s he’s saying is patently absurd?”
-Hillary says a lot of patently absurd things. The fact you don’t realize makes me think less of you.
5. June 2016 at 16:39
@sumner,
Seriously: who should immigration restrictionists vote for? Hillary? Should they have voted for Gang Of Eight Rubio who authored the CIR “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill? And yes, “comprehensive” is a code word, and that’s because the politicians don’t want to tell voters what they are doing.
Is there a non-alpha male that will support the immigration restrictionist position that I want?
Will Sumner go through contortions justifying all of Hillary’s lies and problems and justify his endorsement of her?
@Scott Freelander,
“I favor open immigration, 100% free trade, and vast deregulation, ”
I actually strongly agree with you on everything _except_ immigration. Free trade requires a completely willing buyer and seller. The western model of immigration is completely voluntary on the part of the migrant but is completely non voluntary and coercive in behalf of the host.
“None of you have offered any evidence of a net negative effect of immigration in the US”
Yes. I have. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Read David Frum’s summary of recent Somalian immigration or refugee resettlement:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/
Note that you are also demanding strong evidence of immigrations harm for Americans to justify the basic opt out freedom of not inviting foreigners into their nation and then turning a deaf ear when they provide it. In any other area, libertarians give people maximum freedom to opt out. If a customer doesn’t want to buy a good, whether it’s domestic or foreign, they don’t need to prove to you that it would not be in their interest. They just don’t have to buy. Similarly, employers can reject job applicants at will and universities can deny admission to applicants largely at will. With immigration, people like you are asserting that it is immoral for Americans to opt out of immigration.
“yet you want to deny other Americans the freedom to hire who they want, and deny the benefits of resulting lower prices to all other Americans.”
Just like a university denies students the freedom of attending school with friends who were rejected admission. Every freedom of one person has an inverse freedom of someone else.
5. June 2016 at 16:51
A rant: due to politics, Congress has not funded the fight against the Zike virus, a bona fide public health issue. Evidently small-headed babies are being born in the US already, not to mention much of the New World. Our foreign policy on this is to do nothing.
But, our foreign policy results in drone strikes on Taliban leaders in the backwater of Pakistan. Oh, and there was a taxi driver in the car? That’s too bad!
Bernie Sanders does not look so bad.
5. June 2016 at 17:36
“A rant: due to politics, Congress has not funded the fight against the Zike virus, a bona fide public health issue.”
Do you fund or participate in work on Zika virus research or treatments? What’s your excuse? Since when was Congress supposed to live your life for you?
US doctors and researchers have absolutely been working on the Zika virus.
5. June 2016 at 18:07
Scott,
It’s more along the lines of he imitates stupidity in his rhetoric. He doesn’t talk like he is in actuality a stupid person. He picks specific, direct, and nuanced words and stays on message.
The things Trump says ARE patently absurd. But that doesn’t mean that he believes them and is himself patently absurd. There is compelling reason to believe that he doesn’t believe what he says.
Take your own logic to its conclusion here. What Trump says is so utterly ludicrous that if he says it because he’s stupid, it not only makes him stupid, but it makes him several times more stupid than pretty much the stupidest non-mentally-challenged person I have ever known. That position does not look reasonable to me. The universe in which Trump is a shirt-on-backwards moron is not a universe in which he beats sixteen candidates for President.
5. June 2016 at 18:21
” The universe in which Trump is a shirt-on-backwards moron is not a universe in which he beats sixteen candidates for President.”
Sure it is! Look what party he’s in.
5. June 2016 at 19:16
Tom,
Yes, apparently he’s either forgetting about George W. Bush, or doesn’t think he was an idiot either.
5. June 2016 at 19:21
@ssumner
“He’s not saying all these idiotic things because he has some secret strategy to win the election, he’s saying them because he’s a moron. Why can’t people accept Trump at face value?”
If he is a moron, then it would be effortless to beat him in elections.
Or maybe the other Republican contenders were the morons that are so out of touch with what voters wanted and how the battle for public support would play out.
The simplistic “moron” explanation simply doesn’t wash with him completely beating the rest of the GOP.
Seriously, the GOP fully knew mass immigration was an unpopular and sensitive idea. Why did they push it so hard with Gang of Eight Rubio? That seemed like a really dumb idea even before 20/20 hindsight.
5. June 2016 at 20:02
Massimo-
The Zika virus is a legitimate public health issue.
This is well-trodden ground. Even libertarians understand the need for government action (possibly through private contractors) on public health issues.
I expect an intelligent government to move aggressively against the Zika virus, by vaccinations and mosquito control.
I believe in limited government as much as the next guy. Expecting private citizens to eliminate the Zika virus is fine, but you get the classic freeloader effect.
That is, I pay to eliminate the Zika virus, and you benefit, but pay nothing. Why should you bother to pay anything?
If the Donks and ‘Phants can’t even mount a defense against Zika, but agree on droning a taxi driver to death, then I feel fine in voting for a socialist like Bernie Sanders.
5. June 2016 at 20:45
W Bush would have been demolished in this murderer’s row of candidates. If Hillary was a Republican with all the favored Republican traits and policies, she would have done maybe slightly better than Jeb did.
Trump already beat better candidates and one more well run campaign than Clinton’s. He has yet to face the machine though.
5. June 2016 at 20:53
You’re nuts, Ben.
And, BTW, I’ve typed up my list of presidential picks from 1796 to today, if anyone cares:
https://goo.gl/g7l8y4
6. June 2016 at 05:11
Peggy Noonan was Ronald Reagan’s No. 1 speech-writer, and she was the top of the trade. Reagan gave great speeches.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-party-divided-and-none-too-soon-1464907737
Now, Noonan is not Reagan, though one could argue she was the ventriloquist during his years in office.
But this is what Noonan says now:
“Trump is taking for granted—because he is not blind—that ethnic Democratic judges will rule in the interests of their party and of their ethnic bloc. That’s what they’re supposed to do.The MSM and the overall narrative say this is just fine. It’s only bad when someone like Trump points it out in a negative way. If a properly sanctified liberal had said “This man is a good judge because his background gives him the perspective to see past narrow, technical legalities and grasp the larger justice,” not only would no one have complained, that comment would have been widely praised. In fact, comments just like it are celebrated all the time. That is precisely what Justice Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” phrase was meant to convey.
“Plus, Trump has whacked the hornets’ nest by his criticism of Mexican immigration, which he feels this judge is bound to take personally. And why shouldn’t he conclude that? The left (and the domesticated right) tell us incessantly that any criticism—however fair or factual—that touches on a specific group will inevitably arouse the ire of that group. Don’t say anything negative about immigration or the Hispanics will never vote for you! Don’t say anything critical of Islamic terror or more Muslims will hate us! But when Trump uses that same logic—I’ve criticized Mexican immigration so it’s likely this judge won’t like me—he’s a villain.
“To look for logical consistency in any of this is to miss the point. Trump is bad, and he is using these leftist arguments for bad (that is, not their intended) ends. Therefore he is both bad and wrong, even though others who say logically identical things are good and right.”
Does Noonan have a point? If identity politics becomes the Lib-Donk conventional approach, are the ‘Phant-Cons justified in reacting?
Will Noonan become a Trump ventriloquist? He needs one.
Move your lips Trump, let Noonan do the talking.
Noonan has a funny line: “We picked there wrong time to stop taking opioids.”
6. June 2016 at 08:22
My three favorite conservative websites have been going nuts over Trump lately:
Erick Erickson wonders why the GOP thinks it’s worthwhile defending Trump:
http://theresurgent.com/what-good-does-it-profit-a-party/
(they keep using KKK graphics over there too… with yellow hair adorning the white hoods)
RedState’s Leon Wolf says it’s time to “choose a side”:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/05/time-choose-side/
WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin is all Trump all the Time and all bad:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/06/the-faustian-bargain-backfires-for-the-gop/
Enjoy!
6. June 2016 at 09:47
Trump Circa 1987. The more things change:
“Trump began by telling the people who were there that he wouldn’t run for president in 1988, which disappointed some, especially Dunbar. Then Trump railed, with no notes, and for roughly the next half hour, about Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Washington, Wall Street, politicians, economists and “nice people” of whom he had “had enough,” he said. This country was facing “disaster” and was “being kicked around.” Other countries were “laughing at us.”
“It makes me sick,” Trump said.
“If the right man doesn’t get into office,” he warned the Rotarians, “you’re going to see a catastrophe in this country in the next four years like you’re never going to believe.”
“And then you’ll be begging for the right man.”
“Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign is often derided as a seat-of-the-pants affair, driven by publicity and surrounded by a fog of improvised policy ideas. But to an extent that would shock anyone who wasn’t there, Trump’s speech in 1987 forecast exactly the worldview that would catapult him to surprise GOP front-runner status in this year’s race. His speech was nativist and isolationist, an angry, gloomy rant about America losing out in a dangerous world. His message of failure—American failure—has been remarkably constant since that moment 28 years ago, with one twist: Back then, the sitting president wasn’t Barack Obama. It was Ronald Reagan.”
“Over the years, Trump has been a Republican, a Democrat, an independent and a member of the Reform Party, and his positions on issues like abortion and health care have run the gamut, but there would be no mistaking the overall worldview of a President Trump. On this front, he’s been saying the same thing for decades, right down to his go-to line.”
“Believe me,” he said at Yoken’s.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/donald-trump-first-campaign-speech-new-hampshire-1987-213595#ixzz4Ap3RJ7AI
6. June 2016 at 10:04
I love how enthusiastic Trump endorser Newt Gingrich is shocked, SHOCKED by Trump’s comments on judge Curiel:
“If a liberal were to attack Justice Clarence Thomas on the grounds that he’s black, we would all go crazy. Every conservative would say it was wrong, and it was racism. Trump has got to, I think, move to a new level.” – Newt Gingrich, proud Trump endorser
Bwahahaha…
Well I guess Newt’s off the short list for VP (and David Duke is back on?). Yes, Trump lovers, it’s just the “surface” properties of Trump we’re focusing on. Why? Maybe because with Trump all there are are surface properties!
6. June 2016 at 10:16
E. Harding,
Here are my reasons by the Republicans
1) The Party learned the wrong lessons of 2012 in which we had one month of non Romneys winning the Primary in 2011. (Herman Cain should have been the big warning instead of the rationalization in 2015.) The Party failed to believe the polls that Trump was continuously winning the polls for four months.
2) While there were issues of too many candidates, it appeared more of the candidates were hit with the great Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everybody felt a) they would lose trying to take down Trump b) They could beat Trump with one-on-one (so Jeb blew all his money on anti-Rubio ads etc.) If you track the anti-Trump ads they did not appear until after Trump’s big victories on March 1st.
3) Illegal Immigration and free trade were unpopular with the ~25% of the Pat Buchanan wing of the Party and Trump built on those policies in his run. These concerns are not going away.
6. June 2016 at 10:41
“most inauthentic”?
I don’t know. Aaron Burr was pretty much a chameleon. He even led an attempt to separate the western states from the Union in his quest for power.
Of course, being compared to Aaron Burr is hardly a feather in the Donald’s cap.
6. June 2016 at 10:56
The simplistic “moron” explanation simply doesn’t wash with him completely beating the rest of the GOP.
Yes, but it’s the default setting for academics. Other than a small corps of natural scientists who run research laboratories, they supervise no one other than a few research assistants, if that. They need to learn to draw up lesson plans, something elementary school teachers can do. They almost never face the disciplinary problems which are normal for high school teachers. They can commonly set their schedule because campuses are over-built. Unless they publish quite a bit (most do not), they’re not typically in fora where they’re not the smartest person in the room. If they’re not researching in an area where quantification is the norm, little of their day-to-day activity has robust operational measures of competence. The sections of the administration wherein the faculty have the most influence are the most bloated and infested with institutional politics. Denial of tenure is a serious threat at research universities and at private colleges with a certain amount of cachet, but it’s only the norm at a few places like the Ivy League and at most institutions happens only to a single-digit minority. Yet, half of them seem convinced that no one in the world knows how to do their job and is an idiot, no matter what the tasks in question are or what the accomplishments of that other person are. They’re obscene.
6. June 2016 at 11:16
Massimo, You said:
“Will Sumner go through contortions justifying all of Hillary’s lies and problems and justify his endorsement of her?”
This is what I mean when I talk about the dumbness of Trumpistas. What part of “Hillary is Terrible, I Detest Her, I Endorse Her” did you not understand?
Steve F, You said:
“It’s more along the lines of he imitates stupidity in his rhetoric.”
How about the commenters who support him—are they also faking stupidity? For what purpose?
Harding, You said:
“And, BTW, I’ve typed up my list of presidential picks from 1796 to today, if anyone cares:”
I won’t be able to go to sleep at night without know who you favored in the Millard Fillmore election. (Yes, that’s a trick question.)
Be sure to add a few servers, as you’ll be getting a flood of hits.
Ben, So Noonen says two wrongs make a right? If campus PC nuts do stupid things, Trump should too?
Mike, Yes, in 1988 when the US was on the verge of winning the Cold War, and in the midst of a long economic boom, and doing better than other developed countries, and before China’s boom and before NAFTA, the rest of the world was laughing at us? For what? Seriously, the man is mentally ill.
What would make the rest of the world laugh at us? Maybe if we elected a buffoonish clown as President.
Tom, And Newt is surprised he is saying things like this?
6. June 2016 at 12:06
“Herman Cain should have been the big warning instead of the rationalization in 2015.”
-I doubt it. Herman Cain had as much chance as Ben Carson.
“The Party failed to believe the polls that Trump was continuously winning the polls for four months.”
-Yup. They looked to the example of Giuliani in 2008 and how he fell. They also looked at the Endorsement Primary, which Trump lost by a landslide.
The reason Trump did not go the way of Herman Cain is because he did not look at his scandals as scandals, and often defended his role in them.
“Illegal Immigration and free trade were unpopular with the ~25% of the Pat Buchanan wing of the Party and Trump built on those policies in his run. These concerns are not going away.”
-Yup.
Sumner, LOL. Don’t rub it in.
“For what?”
-Weak real wages, deindustrialization, continuing catch-up by the Axis Powers.
6. June 2016 at 12:21
@ssumner,
“This is what I mean when I talk about the dumbness of Trumpistas. What part of ‘Hillary is Terrible, I Detest Her, I Endorse Her’ did you not understand?”
I understand. That’s not hard. You are simply endorsing the lesser of two evils from your perspective which is quite common. Why don’t you understand that this logic applies to Trump supporters?
“Remember, even Trump has acknowledged that he can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and it doesn’t matter to his supporters. ”
Hillary could do the same and you would still endorse her.
6. June 2016 at 12:45
Trump is clearly saying “It wouldn’t be the end of the world if Japan had nukes, and if I were them, maybe I’d want them”. At no point does he say “I hope Japan builds nukes”.
But then what’s new? Sumner lies about Trump, willfully obtuse. Sad.
6. June 2016 at 12:57
Sumner is like an unhinged child who adds absurd embellishments when he tattles on the other children. Except there’s no one to tattle to.
Trump: “ehh, ya know, maybe Japan would want nukes? I like nukes, nukes love me, and believe me, I get the best nukes.”
Sumner: “I CANT EVEN. TRUMP WANTS TO RAPE CHILDREN AND GIVE JAPAN NUKES! OMG I LOVE CHINESE AND IGNORE THEIR BONE-DEEP RACISM”
6. June 2016 at 13:34
Scott,
“How about the commenters who support him—are they also faking stupidity? For what purpose?”
— They place their own views on Trump. This is part of Trump’s brilliant persuasion technique I read about from Scott Adams. Trump doesn’t finish his statements; he lets his followers do that. He says “Make America Great Again” and leaves it up to anybody who listens to come to their own conclusions as to what that actually means. Then when they do, many support him yet all have different reasons for doing so.
I don’t disagree at all with you in that Trump supporters have egregiously dropped the ball on explaining why Trump would be a good President.
6. June 2016 at 16:31
Scott, you write:
“Tom, And Newt is surprised he is saying things like this?”
Yes that is odd. That was my joke though… why I linked to the short Casablanca clip. =)
6. June 2016 at 17:35
@Ben, if Noonan thought that through she’d realize the gaping hole in that logic. Let’s say Trump’s logic on this is acceptable. That means all you have to do to get a judge you don’t like removed is to publicly insult or say something that **might** conceivably be interpreted by them in a negative light due to whatever group or subsets of humanity they might belong to.
“X’s are bad/awful/rotton/evil/stinky/whatever!”
then the next day:
“The judge is an X, and I was publicly critical of X’s therefore it’s impossible I can be treated fairly! The judge cannot do their job because they’re an X. It’s soooo unfair to me the victim… Waaaa Waaaa!”
X can be white, straight, Christian, Libertarian, conservative, male, European … whatever. It’s logic that “works” for any occasion! Thankfully it’s obviously faulty logic, and it’s not just one side of the political spectrum that noticed. Even many of Trump’s notable endorses noticed and condemned it! Noonan is only serving to be-clown herself with a ridiculous article like that.
6. June 2016 at 19:03
George Will on Paul Ryan
“All supposedly will be redeemed by the House agenda. So, assume, fancifully, that in 2017 this agenda emerges intact from a House not yet proved able to pass 12 appropriations bills. Assume, too, that Republicans still control the Senate and can persuade enough Democrats to push the House agenda over the 60-vote threshold. Now, for some really strenuous assuming: Assume that whatever semblance of the House agenda that reaches President Trump’s desk is more important than keeping this impetuous, vicious, ignorant and anti-constitutional man from being at that desk.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-big-price-paul-ryan-has-paid-for-supporting-donald-trump/2016/06/06/5c8f2f64-2c08-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html
6. June 2016 at 19:07
What that piece from 1987 shows is that Trump changes his views on stuff like abortion, healthcare, and the minimum wage all the time.
But what is constant is his nativism, his xenophobia, his racist tinged nationalism.
And his love of dictators and strongmen
6. June 2016 at 20:42
I don’t know why anyone’s surprised so many Republican politicians are falling behind Trump. After all, they’ve been pandering to the Republican base, without principles, for as long as I can remember. Trump is very much a reflection of that base.
Many of us on the left, and even a few on the right, have known for a long time that ideology and principles meant nothing to most so-called conservatives. All that mattered was bigotry, xenophobia, and acting tough. They just wanted a white, male authoritarianism. Hence, a substance-less candidate, like Trump, who is essentially running as an ape beating his chest toward what he sees as other tribes of apes, has stirred passions in “conservatives” like I’ve never seen. They’re animals and it’s time to stop saying “Don’t blame the voters”. The voters need to be insulted and shamed endlessly, until they retreat back into the darkest corners of the closets from which they came.
6. June 2016 at 21:34
Scott, you realize that for every revolution, there is an equal and opposite reaction? You really don’t want to see the alt-right in full bloom.
6. June 2016 at 22:44
Scott Freelander,
Stay classy. Sounds like you have pegged all the guys on the other side. They’re big meanies for sure, and dummies as well for good measure
7. June 2016 at 05:31
Harding,
I wasn’t aware that any of Newton’s laws of motion applied to politics. I’m curious about lag though, since I’m still waiting for African-Americans to turn back toward the Republican Party. When does that happen? Oh, and when does Califorina come into play for Republicans again, in any sense?
7. June 2016 at 05:32
Cliff,
No, obviously supporters of Trump, Gingrich, Sessions, etc. are fine, intelligent, upstanding people.
7. June 2016 at 17:58
Justin, You said:
“Sumner lies about Trump, willfully obtuse.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know nothing about foreign policy.
Steve F, There is nothing brilliant about saying “Let’s Make America Great Again” Other candidates say similar, utterly vacuous things. Remember “a shining city on a hill”?
Scott, You said:
“Many of us on the left, and even a few on the right, have known for a long time that ideology and principles meant nothing to most so-called conservatives.”
It depends what you mean by conservatives:
1. Conservative intellectuals almost all oppose Trump.
2. Conservative politicians cower in fear for their jobs. They often don’t agree with Trump’s racism, but they are cowards.
3. Many of the Trump voters were non-conservatives, often Democrats and Independents who crossed over. Conservative Republicans tended to go for Cruz. That’s why Trump did far better in Massachusetts than Utah. He was not the conservative’s candidate.
Having said all that, yes, conservatism has a racism problem, but so do the Democrats. Obama used to attend a church where the preacher often spouted anti-white racist nonsense, have you forgotten? Both parties have problems with racism, the difference is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum in the GOP.
And yes, by all means blame the Trump voters.