Being anti-anti-Trump is no vice, at least not now
The anti-Trump movement, as presently constituted, is deserving of an “anti-” movement.
I had not seen the term anti-anti-Trumpism until early April 2017.
I saw it when McKay Coppins tweeted a link to an article at The Week by Damon Linker, The cowardly spectacle of the anti-anti-Trump movement.
The article makes ad hominem attacks on Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist for supposedly being among the worst anti-anti-Trump offenders.
What is the offense according to Linker? Attacking people who attack Trump:
There is a rising anti-anti-Trumpism on the right. And it is a sad and cowardly spectacle to behold….
One of the strangest developments in this very strange moment in American politics is the rebirth of politics by negation, this time on the right — in the form of anti-anti-Trumpism, which effectively argues that the president’s liberal opponents are somehow worse than this phenomenally bad president….
Today a few prominent #NeverTrumpers remain, many others have moved over into the explicitly pro-Trump camp, and anti-anti-Trumpism has become a safe position from which to avoid having to take any kind of stand at all. Or rather, it allows the right to indulge its hatred of liberals and liberalism while side-stepping the need for a reckoning with the disaster of the Trump administration itself….
Achieving a sense of proportion requires analysts and commentators to let go of their knee-jerk hostility to Democrats and place the good of the country ahead of other considerations. It requires that they choose between forthrightly supporting and opposing Trump. And that they refuse the cowardly evasion of being anti-anti-Trump.
I was going to write about it in early April, but ended up trashing the post. The anti-anti-Trump argument seemed so passive aggressive: Linker starts from the premise that almost everything about Trump requires opposition, and that anyone who does not agree with him is dishonest.
What prompted me to write this post, which required retrieving the prior draft from the website “trash” bin, was that Charlie Sykes wrote a similar op-ed for the NY Times. Charlie is someone I do know, at least online, and I enjoyed his radio show (which he left recently); he has made a tremendous contribution to the conservative movement. Charlie was one of the reasons Ted Cruz won the Wisconsin primary.
Here is an excerpt from Charlie’s op-ed, If Liberals Hate Him, Then Trump Must Be Doing Something Right:
If there was one principle that used to unite conservatives, it was respect for the rule of law. Not long ago, conservatives would have been horrified at wholesale violations of the norms and traditions of our political system, and would have been appalled by a president who showed overt contempt for the separation of powers….
But perhaps most important, we saw once again how conservatism, with its belief in ordered liberty, is being eclipsed by something different: Loathing those who loathe the president. Rabid anti-anti-Trumpism….
Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”
For the anti-anti-Trump pundit, whatever the allegation against Mr. Trump, whatever his blunders or foibles, the other side is always worse.
But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.
Charlie’s argument suffers from the same problem as the original “anti-anti-Trump” attack in many ways.
Most important, it takes place in a vacuum, ignoring that the Democratic Party, entire mainstream and liberal media, and significant parts of the @NeverTrump Republican Party have devoted themselves full time to bringing down the Trump administration. Even if that meant interfering with the Electoral College vote and justifying the corruption of the federal bureaucracy through illegal leaks.
The anti-Trump movement, as presently constituted, is deserving of an “anti-” movement.
To argue that anti-anti-Trumpers presume “the other side is always worse” seems like an inversion of reality; it is the anti-Trumpers who treat anything and anyone supporting Trump or any of his policies as always worse. Defending oneself against this onslaught is not the same as the onslaught itself.
For me, the attempt by anti-Trumpers to intimidate Electors into switching their votes so as to undermine the election was a turning point, the point at which I realized the #TheResistance was a danger to the rule of law and “norms and traditions of our political system.” One leading conservative luminary even suggested that the country would be better off run by the unelected deep state rather than by the duly-elected Trump state, a position implicitly argued by many #NeverTrump Republicans.
In such an environment, being anti-anti-Trump is a principled conservative position.
I supported Ted Cruz, as did Charlie, but Cruz didn’t win even the Republican nomination. As I have argued in my “you go to war with the President you have” posts, Trump is not a conservative, but he is willing to do some conservative things. The anti-Trump movement, by contrast, seeks to drive conservatives out of the public square.
Much of the relentless opposition to Trump from #NeverTrump Republicans is not principled in conservatism, because if it were they’d have to present a viable more conservative current alternative.
Instead, it’s resume building for the possibility that #TheResistance may actually succeed in taking Trump down, likely with substantial help from Trump’s own foibles. It’s also an insufferable desire for a disastrous Trump presidency, so they can say “I told you so.” I want no part of that.
The choice now is between Trump and the conspiracy theorists, Antifa street thugs, campus anti-free speech police, Soros-funded front groups, deceptive anti-Trump media, Democrat obstructionists, and illegal leakers in the permanent bureaucracy who consider themselves above the electoral process.
You don’t need to be pro-Trump to be against those who collectively are a greater threat to our liberty than Trump.
Being anti-anti-Trump is no vice, at least not now.
[Featured Image: Berkeley campus anti-free speech riot, via Twitter]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
It is not an ‘anti-Trump’ movement – it is a fascist movement orchestrated by the democrat media/education complex, aimed at dehumanizing political opponents so as to create violence, intimidation and oppression. Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the Khmer Rouge would be proud. So would Idi Amin.
How many of us can really fathom the bullet we dodged in hillary clinton becoming president of the US?
Add this: the GOPe is akin to the German industrialists who hitched a ride to the Nazis, standing out of their way, simply to fatten their wallets.
I think the progs have no idea how popular Trump is among those who voted for him, and how much support he’s gained since the election. The only poll remotely to be trusted is Rasmussen.
If anyone complains about their R candidate not getting the nomination, I usually ask if their state has an open or closed primary. If your state has an open primary, then lots of other people will decide your candidate.
I live in OK and we have a closed primary. You can change your affiliation, but it has to be done 30 days in advance. Can’t decide that far ahead, too bad.
The second problem was that we had too many options that went on for too long. As the primaries went on, some dropped out but they missed the deadlines for removing their name. They still got votes, either in protest,not knowing or absentee ballots.
I certainly oppose the anti-Trumpers, but everyone knew that the usual suspects (Dems, MSM, academia, entertainment) would oppose every thing Trump.
I’m mostly annoyed by the NeverTrumpers who keep hoping that Trump will fail and keep claiming that he is failing. They seem to want him to fail so they can claim they were right all along. Do they belong in the anti-Trump crowd? I’m not sure, but in any case, I have a simple question for them. Who, from the following list, has had the most positive net conservative accomplishments?
“Much of the relentless opposition to Trump from #NeverTrump Republicans is not principled in conservatism, because if it were they’d have to present a viable more conservative current alternative.”
Nonsense. T-rump is the POTUS. Everyone knows this.
Criticizing him when he is wrong, and pointing to his conduct in contravention of his own promises, stated policies, etc. is not “wrong”. Exactly the opposite.
Nobody has to hope for a “disasterous T-rump presidency”. Without a good, effective loyal opposition, that will happen on its own. Those of us who have always warned of “help from Trump’s own foibles” knew that long ago.
To just suck up to him would be, and always has been, wrong.
The “viable more conservative current alternative” is to try to push him, as Milton Friedman suggested, to do the right thing…the thing in many cases he baited his followers by promising.
Prof. Bill, you run the risk of making a categorical error here. Many of us are not of the ilk of the unhinged anti-T-rumper; we are people who objectively assessed the man, reassess him every day, and never suggested he was Hitler or any such madness.
We can…and we’d BETTER…observe, critique, and vocally oppose any conduct of his that is out of keeping with liberty and the bed-rock of our republic.
The Comey firing is a good example of the delineation of the unhinged and the merely objective critic. There is no “constitutional crisis” implicated in the firing of Comey. What there is is a terrible example of dishonesty on the part of Der Donald, awful management, and a juvenile…and pathological…drive to self-vindication.
We either step up to the objective and obvious, or we drown ourselves in our own delusions. Conservatives don’t live that way.
I don’t have a problem with people offering good, logical critiques of Trump and his administration.
But, dear Rags, you lose a lot of credibility when you persist on using crude language. You do come across as an “unhinged anti-T-rumper.” I’ll read your comments to a point. Then, I down vote you and move on to the next comment.
When I see that you are making a good point without the rude language and condensing tone, then you get an up vote.
At this point, I know that I cannot impact what goes on in the White House, but I sure do call my Representative and Senators to influence them.
My crude language undermines my arguments?
You must just HATE Der Donald, huh?
And you would have been simply having vapors over George S. Patton.
Naw. I don’t think you are being honest with anyone.
I learned by listening to my father who spoke politely. When it looked like he was angry, then everyone knew to back down. I found that to be a very effective management technique. If I raise my voice or swear, then everyone knows it is serious.
I don’t hate anyone. I was taught not to hate. Dislike, yes. With respect to President Trump, I suspect that there is a public and a private side that are very different. I’m just looking at what he is getting done with a bunch of very difficult people.
Michigan Men don’t have vapors. Go Blue!
I’m very honest with my opinion of you.
I note your deflection and failure to meet any argument on merit.
You can stick your “polite” BS.
I don’t understand why this comment is getting so many dislikes. Or do people just see Rags comment and hit the dislike button without even reading.
I mean, sure sometimes one wishes that Rags didn’t spew as much profanity as he does, but there really isn’t anything I can object to in this comment.
“Or do people just see Rags comment and hit the dislike button without even reading.”
Yes. Very often. You will also note there is no
bad language in my first comment.
It was all about deflection, same as with Finkleman.
A few days ago, Rush was bloviating about “I TOLD you that Trump wasn’t a conservative!” Well duh! You’re just figuring that out now? We knew that!
I was a Cruz guy at first but took interest in Trump because was pissing off ALL of the right people including, most importantly, establishment Republicans. We knew that the Republican primaries were as rigged for Jeb! as the Dem primaries were rigged for Hillary. Cruz seemed to be the last guy to figure that out and was acting like a man destined to win and went ballistic over Trump’s early popularity.
Then Levin called people like me “a-holes and morons” and Papa Cruz revealed himself to be a dominionist who speaks in tongues. Glenn Beck declared that Cruz was sent by God, the new Moses. But the final straw for me was Cruz flying to CA for a meet and greet with Hugh Hewitt introducing him to the CA crony money as he sucked up for contributions. From then on, it was Trump and only Trump.
With the Trump phenomenon, suddenly a rigged primary didn’t look so rigged. His popularity grew the more the establishment attacked him AND HIS VOTERS. Tada! We had our anti-establishment candidate! Did we want Hillary vs Jeb? Or Hillary vs The Donald? Slam dunk. Trump was going to kill two birds with one stone, the Clinton and the Bush family international crime syndicates would be put out of business. Choices just doesn’t get any simpler or more appealing.
Maybe it’s time for Rush to retire.
Then you want the Prof. to retire, too. He’s always saying T-rump is no conservative.
The rest of your crap is just that. Crap.
I normally just ignore your smug insults but that lie and pulling the professor int it is outrageous. You didn’t read what I wrote did you?
I DO agree with the professor. It is disingenuous for conservatives to now be arguing that Trump pulled the wool over our eyes. He never ever ran as a conservative. He ran as a realist. He addressed all of the big issues that conservatives claim to be fighting for. But he offered a THIRD way. Trump read the Venn diagram that showed a winnable majority among disgruntled former Democrats and disgruntled former Republicans (like me) who left their parties for the same reasons (uniparty problem) and were looking for another alternative.
Without saying so, Trump became the 3rd party candidate who in one single election accomplished the impossible by knocking out the Clinton AND Bush machines. There is no way to see that as anything but a monumental accomplishment. But people like YOU and the Resistance kooks are trapped in the same old echo chambers reinforcing your ignorance for the benefit of the “masters of the universe” whose last hope is to eventually rise out of the ashes from this chaos.
There are a lot of smart, thoughtful commenters on these threads. Why don’t you engage instead of trying to overpower everyone with your insane egotistic attacks. You might learn something.
Everywhere I’ve seen you commenting, you’ve pulled this same act and with the same results. Do us all a favor and take a vacation. (Don’t forget to give me your automatic “down twinkle” on the way out.)
“He never ever ran as a conservative.”
I’ll be here when you leave…one way or another, Mr. OccupyWhatever.
One leading conservative luminary even suggested that the country would be better off run by the unelected deep state rather than by the duly-elected Trump state
This is basically what someone means when he whines about Trump not being sufficiently deferential to “the norms and traditions of our political system”. The implication is that there exists an unwritten extra-legal law which says that the President must do things a certain time-worn, dreary and ineffective way. And we can’t have that—that’s what they mean when they wax rhapsodic about how Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing, is overwhelmed by the job, blah blah … he just doesn’t “know his place”.
A parallel argument was made by numerous Southern gentlemen in 1861. The election of America’s first Republican President purportedly violated the norms and traditions which they insisted not only existed but were binding. Their “norms and traditions” turned out to be illusory. Of course they were so certain that they were right that they didn’t wait for what the press later called “the shambling ape in the White House” to actually take office—states began to secede before Inauguration. They were a bit more energetic than their modern successors.
#Resist the Resistance
I love watching the reaction of anti-Trump conservatives every time Trump does something off the wall. They expected him to be like the supposed saviors of the movement who are elected to Congress and then suddenly join the club and become part of the establishment. Trump was never going to be the typical politician and that they expected him to morph into one shows how little they pay attention.
What’s worse? Lying about inauguration numbers or “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Do you really want a President John McCain likes and approves of? The anti-Trumpers on the right need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and remember what’s really at stake. It’s not the approval of the left, it’s Supreme Court Justices. It’s lower court appointees. It’s a justice department that doesn’t exist to cover up the crimes of Presidential cronies. If you can’t see the big picture, cancel your voter registration because you’re not doing the citizens of this country any favors.
“What’s worse? Lying about inauguration numbers or “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”?”
What’s worst is that someone as bright as you suggests either is acceptable.
A calculating liar or a pathological liar just leaves you with a liar.
“What’s worse? Lying about inauguration numbers or…”
Is being wrong a lie? Does anyone know the true inauguration numbers?
I can assure you there was lying about the inauguration numbers by the left. By Trump, I can not make that case. I don’t think you can either. But I do get your larger point.
Some things are possible exaggeration, some things are lies. Some people cannot distinguish between the two.
Thanks, prof. Great analysis.
The problem for #NT Republicans is that, after the primaries, they offered no alternative to Trump. Before the convention, they were loyal opposition offering an alternative. After the convention they were just opposition and offered only suicide.
The left is angry because Trump ‘stole’ the election from Hillary. The #NT Republicans are angry because Trump stole the election from Cruz. Both thought it was their candidate’s turn. The voters said otherwise but they won’t accept it.
Much of the relentless opposition to Trump from #NeverTrump Republicans is not principled in conservatism, because if it were they’d have to present a viable more conservative current alternative.
Also, if it were principled in conservatism, they would have made a case during the election as to why electing Hillary was better for conservativism. They didn’t then and they can’t (won’t) now. They try to draw a moral equivalence where none exists. The fact that both Trump and Clinton were less than ideal doesn’t mean the damage they would have done to conservativism was equal. For conservativism, Trump was and is the better choice. To say that would have destroyed their argument against him, so, to preserve the argument, they ignored the damage to conservativism from a Hillary victory (a lie of omission).
Like him or not, Trump has down a masterful job of exposing the fracture lines in American politics and culture, and who stands on which side of each line. Not everyone who claims to be a staunch conservative actually is.
“Like him or not, Trump has down a masterful job of exposing the fracture lines in American politics and culture, and who stands on which side of each line. Not everyone who claims to be a staunch conservative actually is.”
l’accord. Well, almost…
Putting aside your trite arguments preceding this part of your comment (which you think are shiny, but are really rationally and morally risible), and the fact that you imply T-rump acted cognitively (“masterfully”…!?!?), what T-rump HAS done is prove that many people who call themselves “conservatives” are nothing of the kind. This would include you, Mr. Some-Socialism-Is-OK.
This was shown very clearly in the period post-T-rumpian announcement when it was shown that people who identified as “conservatives” actually reversed their approval of various and sundry issues depending on whether Mr. Establishment agreed with them or not.
This includes assaults on market economics and the embrace of Keynesian stimulus. Respecting this, Der Donald soberly declared the other day that he coined the term “priming the pump”, either out of shear madness or shear ignorance.
That has, does, and will damage conservatism, not that you’ll give a good damn, since you are no part a conservative.
Of course you put aside my arguments. That’s your standard ploy when confronted with facts and arguments that expose you. Dismiss, ad hominem, deflect. But a dismissal is NOT a rebuttal. It IS an attempt to avoid having to prove your position. Because you know that an answer would destroy the fantasy world you created. As soon as you admit what is obvious to everyone, Trump is better for conservativism than Hillary, your entire house of cards falls apart. Trump voters are no longet T-rump suckers, and you are exposed as the fraud you are.
In another thread I asked you if Trump was a better choice than Hillary.
My long-stated position is that I would not vote for either lying, pathological, Collectivist fraud. There was no “better” in that analysis. Both were unacceptable.
Was T-rump a better alternative? I never had to reach that conclusion. Both were unacceptable for my vote.
Those are your words and the meaning is clear: YOU decided YOU could’t vote for either and YOU never gave any thought to the effect of YOUR decision on conservativism. That is the clear meaning of what you wrote.
Both may have been unacceptable, but one of them was going to be president. History proves that. The fact that you consider both unacceptable doesn’t mean that both were equally bad. But your analysis stopped when you met YOUR needs. YOU never thought beyond YOUR self interest.
If YOU had given thought to the effect of YOUR actions on conservativism, you would be able to answer the question of which was better, since determining that is a necessary part of that analysis. If you really cared about conservativism, you would have wanted to know what the effect of YOUR actions would have been on conservativism. But YOU DON’T CARE. That’s why, even today, YOU can’t (won’t) answer. All YOU can do is attack, deflect and lie – just like Hillary. Just like her, it’s always about YOU. Just YOU! And your own words condemn you.
Not everyone who claims to be a staunch conservative actually is.
Wait, VaG, so a conservative’s function is to defend conservatism . . . on your terms?
HELL NO, fuzzy. I’m not rags. He’s the one who demands that everyone do it his way, or haven’t you been paying attention?
Rags failed a fundamental election test for anyone who claims to value and defend conservative principles (which he DOES) – what effect will my vote have on conservativism? He was so self absorbed that he never asked the question so he has no answer. He never thought about the needs of conservativism. Yet he condemns others who gave the matter thought and arrived at an answer he doesn’t like. They were the ones who tried to be loyal to conservativism – not him.
I have been paying attention to Rags for YEARS, and he does not demand anyone believe as he does . . . much less advocate for conservatism as he does. You mistake someone stating their opinion with a demand that others toe his own line, but when you suggest to Rags that he toe YOUR line, you seem to think it’s the same thing he’s said. It’s not.
As to my not paying attention . . . I paid attention when I admitted that I voted for Trump. I paid attention when he didn’t attack my choice but actually expressed understanding of that choice.
Frankly, this great republic of ours allows anyone to vote any way they please for any reason, and yeah, that includes reasons you don’t personally approve. There is no “election test,” and frankly, I am a bit gob-smacked that you would argue there is. You can judge Rags (and myself) all day long on our votes, what these votes mean to you, what you imagine our votes mean to conservativism, and whatever else you want to appoint yourself judge of . . . the bottom line, though, remains the same: you don’t get to decide what constitutes “loyalty to conservatism.”
Rags is NOT self-absorbed, and frankly, I am more than over everyone piling on him. Rags isn’t the voice of conservatism, he’s not the voice of anything but Rags. He knows this; you, however, can’t seem able to grasp this simple fact.
“Rags failed a fundamental election test for anyone who claims to value and defend conservative principles (which he DOES) – what effect will my vote have on conservativism?”
That’s a lie, and you’re a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud.
It’s something you project on me, and you know to be a lie.
I not only DO NOT condemn people who voted T-rump, I support their decision.
I DO condemn lying, T-rump sucking cultists who’s prime effort here is to discredit anything I say that they regard as heretical.
Witness that any time I post a critical comment, your turd-swirl descends to attempt to silence me.
You know what real click-bait is on this site? Any time I point at your Great God Cheeto and say something obviously, objectively true.
You morons can’t hep it…
Yeah, the GOPe either sat on their hands after it was clear that Trump won the nomination OR they actively agitated against him winning. Nice. To hell with all of ’em. Trump killed off two political dynasties and is in the process of ruining the sweet deal in DC for a LOT of people. I have no use for the torries who like it fine with the King. I’m for revolution and let’s get on with this.
This whole piece- and the commentary- just proves Sykes’s point: it’s more about Go Team! then being intellectually honest.
Trump isn’t a conservative and he’s a RINO. Anti-anti-Trumpism is just Team Politics.
No. It’s about “Go America”.
We are tired of the so called conservatives that never get anything conservative actually done. Damn near zero. The last two republican presidents are named Bush. The previous two nominee’s were named McCain and Romney. Do you see any possibility of conservatism in that group? Could you possibly see a problem with a party that makes those four the nominee’s?
So, we chose to support someone that, while not a doctrinaire conservative, would actually try to win on some important conservative issues.
I said it early on, if you wish to defeat the progs you will first have to defeat the republicans. The republicans serve as the Praetorian Guard for the democrats. You’ll have to go through them first. trump was, and is, the only candidate willing to take on both sides.
The goal is to advance the conservative agenda. That the president isn’t a perfect conservative is of no matter as long as it gets advanced. And that is occurring.
I said it before, Trump will be the most conservative president in effect we’ve had in 50 years.
Yeah, no, Butt-hurt Barri, you’re no “conservative”…not any more that your Great God Cheeto.
Remember how he depicted Romney’s immigration position? I do.
“The goal is to advance the conservative agenda.”
With a Keyesian boondoggle that the Deemocrats LOVE?
“You’ll have to go through them first. trump was, and is, the only candidate willing to take on both sides.”
Oh, THAT explains why he picked Reince (and Repeat) Pribus, and endorsed EVERY incumbant.
You’re just a nutter. And a very willing dupe.
Your the same deranged fool you’ve always been, helping the progs along as best you can, pretending you have character when you have none.
As I have made it clear, I would not be associated with anyone like you claiming to be a “conservative”.
Oh yea, we all notice the “love” the democrats are giving Trump. More of your delusion.
Trump has been uniformly conservative in every single thing done in the first 4 months. It is plain to see for anyone that is not deranged.
He has played politics, knowing damn well that he has to give somewhere and create allies in order to accomplish anything worthwhile. You simply hope he fails so you can say “I told you so”. It must be painful to be you.
“Trump has been uniformly conservative in every single thing done in the first 4 months. It is plain to see for anyone that is not deranged.”
Suck dat T-rump…suck dat T-rump…GOOOOOOOOO sucking…!!!
Look up both Pelosi and Schumer on T-rump’s “stimulous”, moron.
They LOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVEEEEESSSSS them some of dat Mr. Establishment.
“Look up both Pelosi and Schumer on T-rump’s “stimulous”, moron.”
Well, “moron”, since there has been no “stimulous” package I could care less what your two fellow progs have to say.
As I said “Trump has been uniformly conservative in every single thing done in the first 4 months. It is plain to see for anyone that is not deranged.”
You cannot see it, or admit it, because you are deranged.
But hey, you can see Lewandoski assaulting Fields clear as daylight.
Poor Ann. She apparently doesn’t know that “T-rump has been uniformly conservative in every single thing done in the first 4 months. It is plain to see for anyone that is not deranged.”
“Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, “’It’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York.”‘ Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.”
You poor, slavish T-rump sucking nutter.
You poor, slavish trump deranged sucking nutter.
Ann Coulter? The one that thought Christie should be president? That one?
Or Romney, the creator of romneycare, the father of Obamacare. That Ann Coulter?
Is she trying to sale another book yet? That Ann Coulter?
The only people fooled by the Coulter shtick are people like you.
Well bacchys, then you and Rags can seize on every piece of #FAKENEWS to justify your TDS fueled dishonesty, hoping that the crocodile Left will eat you last. Just don’t expect to be saved by us
Why didn’t you include Prof. Bill in your personal attack, since he says essentially the same thing about T-rump being no conservative?
And why is it the default knee-JERK position of T-rump suckers to personally…and stupidly…attack?
Oh. Of course. It’s just Stalinist ThoughtPolicing 101.
Nobody needs you to “save” them, and you’d be the last anyone with a brain would rely upon.
“And why is it the default knee-JERK position of T-rump suckers to personally…and stupidly…attack?
Oh. Of course. It’s just Stalinist ThoughtPolicing 101.”
LOL. Check your mirror. Like the worst of the progs, you routinely do what you accuse others of doing.
Can you still see that “assault” committed by Lewandoski on Fields?
Because Professor Bill isn’t the liar you are, DUH.
And I’m not attacking you Rags, that would imply interest. I’m just treating you like a cat toy and listening to you squeak.
I never lie, and you’re not even rational anymore.
Note – this write up was interrupted by phone calls – I hope it is still somewhat current ….
Barry & SDN – thanks for those comments. There are a few others (Phil & MIMan) who gave good ones. I almost spilled my wine laughing.
I’ve been trying to understand this election using the bell curve concept, but that’s too rigid. Venn diagrams mentioned above are a bit better, but I think I came upon a perfect example – bubbles, waves and sailing.
Work with me on this… I race on sailboats and during rough weather, I look at the water. Is the wind getting stronger or weaker? The water gets darker or lighter. This is somewhat easy to tell. Is it a lift or a header – the direction the waves are breaking tells me that info, but the signs are often mixed and it is very difficult to know.
My skipper knows that when I say “squirrel”, it is a downburst of some type and I’m telling him to lighten his hold on the tiller since it could be a broach or an auto-tack. Don’t fight it. And we hope the boats nearby also have a light hand on the tiller.
Even as I am looking at the water for clues of the wind, I see bubbles which merge then separate and merge again. It is very fascinating.
Politically, I am a small bubble with 10 specific ideas. I look for like minded bubbles and the group grows. Oops, we got hit by a wave (primary loss) and break up. Oh, there is someone with 9 ideas that I agree with, so I merge with that bubble. Others merge with bubbles because of better matches. Another wave and there is a breakup….and so it continues until we are down with two major bubbles and a couple smaller ones.
Hey, you start with the perfect but end up with the good, which is a wild mix and we don’t all agree, but there is some agreement. When we look at the ideas, we are a better match with A and not B. We may think about going with D, I or G, but the match is not perfect and I would not have an impact in going into that smaller bubble.I like the bigger bubble.
What happened with this election is that the D bubble burst and Trump was able to bring some of them into his big bubble – the white middle class fly over people. They saw Hillary and Bernie, with Bernie gaining strength. Bubbles flowed to the Trump side. Will they stay? I don’t know about the size of that next wave and how everyone will react.
As someone mentioned above, we may have a third bubble emerging – different from the standard R or D. Am I upset, heck no. It actually makes for an interesting year. I’ll weather the lifts and headers, and I’ll get to the mark and round it cleanly.
The skipper who demands his way as the only way will only shut down his crew and lag further behind. I saw that on a long distance race – it wasn’t pretty.
As far as bubbles go – I would rather be one that is able to move and get to the bigger bubble that will get a lot done. To limit myself to a more perfect bubble will decrease the probability that anything gets done.
My mother liked champagne and we had many evenings with a bottle, nice snacks and good memories. Here’s to you, Leni!
On a recent show, John Batchelor explored the question:
Are we already inside a civil war?
With guest Michael Vlahos of Johns Hopkins. Podcast here:
It’s interesting in its own right and certainly applicable to this discussion.