Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Trump for President (update 3)

No, don't get the wrong idea. That's the website I went to out of curiosity, of the morbid variety. I wanted to know what he stands for. He takes enthusiastic stances on the following issues: U.S.-China Trade Reform, Veterans Administration Reforms, Tax Reform, Second Amendment Rights, and Immigration Reform.
Doesn't seem that anything of importance is missing, does it?
Ian Tuttle explains why he'd vote for Trump were he the nominee.
Andy McCarthy takes a swing at Trump.
I'll update this post with relevant links as I find them, most recent at the bottom.

14 Responses to Trump for President (update 3)

  1. C.A. Sebacher says:
    Stay tuned.
  2. William Luse says:
    Indeed I will, C.A. Edge of my seat.
  3. C.A. Sebacher says:
    Link doesn’t link, at least not for my tablet.
  4. William Luse says:
    It’s fixed. Early onset incompetence (less severe than dementia).
  5. William Luse says:
    I will read it.
  6. C.A. Sebacher says:
    “Put simply, nobody in American elite life — not in politics, not in finance, not in the intellectual world — has been able to find a convincing explanation for the transformative negative changes that characterize our time. These changes are spiritually and possibly literally earth-shattering. The family is falling apart and being redefined at the same time. Incomes have stagnated. Small stateless actors with global reach due to the Internet threaten the disruption and destruction of everyday life in places major (Paris) and minor (San Bernardino). And for many the ethnic complexion of America is changing in ways it has never changed before.
    So along come Trump and Sanders, and what do they say? They both say the system doesn’t work. Trump says it’s because losers are in charge and that the goal needs to be ‘winning.’ Sanders says the system is rigged, billionaires run everything and must be stripped of their power (and money), and bankers must be sent to jail by the dozens if not hundreds. Note that the key to understanding these appeals is that they are really not all that partisan. Trump doesn’t say Obama is to blame, though he says Obama is a ‘disaster’–but then, so was Bush in his estimation. Sanders doesn’t really say the problem is recalcitrant Republicans but rather the behavior of a superclass of people who stand above politics and manipulate it like puppeteers manipulate marionettes.
    Their meta-message is this: The problems are bigger than the ideological choices of the guy in the White House or the sclerosis of the Senate. They are systemic — not politically systemic, but civilizationally systemic. Trump said in the last debate that he was content to be ‘a vessel for anger.’ Sanders yells a lot in debate, thus signaling anger.
    But this goes beyond anger. They are, in effect, saying, ‘We better do some extremely large things fast or this country is finished.’ And finished fast. Like now. Like by 2020.”
    We have daughters.
    Go Trump.
  7. William Luse says:
    Rules of grammar aside, that’s probably as good a defense of Trump as you’re likely to find. I just don’t think he cares about some of those things as much as the writer hopes he does. Like marriage and abortion. If he did, you’d think he’d mention them on his website. Do you think Trump has ever given a thought to someone like, oh, Terri Schiavo? One of the writer’s desires is that Trump “Make Political Correctness politically incorrect.” The only way to do that is to deprogram our youngsters, which requires abolishing the Dept. of Education and withholding all federal funding from public schools and universities that embrace the doctrine. Has Trump spoken on this? What about homosexuals and transgenders in the military? A peep out of Trump? Funny that our ex-Navy guy didn’t mention it either.
  8. William Luse says:
    My comment was directed at the first link you provided. We must have been typing at the same time. Haven’t had time yet to read the Commentary thing.
    I think Trump should hire you as a speechwriter. He will never be able to articulate his own appeal as well as you do. My objection to his lack of interest in certain moral issues, his childish impulse to insult those who disagree with him, and his lack of specificity on a host of issues, still stands. The Commentary writer says, “The family is falling apart and being redefined at the same time.” What evidence has Trump offered that he even cares about this? Because those moral issues are at the heart of our “systemic civilizational” decline. Building a wall (which I’m in favor of) will not fix it.
    It may be that behind the narcissistic bluster there’s a wise and level head suited to reversing the decline and guiding us through the next eight years. But I’d like to see some evidence of that as well.
  9. William Luse says:
    Can’t read the Commentary article. It throws up a window saying, “We hope you’ve enjoyed your 5 free articles. Subscribe now.” No thanks.
  10. C.A. Sebacher says:
    Very fair comments on Trump. 
    Note I haven’t yet voted for him.
    Is it permissible for a Catholic to adore Mrs. Schlafly? She’s been my go-to lady public figure since about the time I reached the age of reason. Don’t let our Peace and Justice Initiative colleagues know this about me.
  11. William Luse says:
    Is it permissible for a Catholic to adore Mrs. Schlafly?
    Yes. They couldn’t waterboard it out of me.

No comments: