Another Conservative Criticizes Trump

David Brooks from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html

Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy....

This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.

“His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,” they wrote.

He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants.

Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all.

As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.

Yes, and people like Brooks helped create Trump. So, you got what you were working towards, only to find it wasn't what you wanted after all. If it wasn't for the fact that we'd all suffer if Trump becomes President, this would be hilarious.

I don't see how David Brooks, or anyone else, "helped create Trump." Though I admit he does seem manufactured. Perhaps one of the lesser known experiments of Dr. Moreau. One of Krieger's nutty ideas?

Small hands bad

Agreed, I don't see how Brooks' "helped create Trump." Brooks has represented everything Trump is against for as long as he's been around. Yes, he's some sort of moderate conservative thus, to a certain frame of mind, a fellow traveller to Trump, who's some sort of fake conservative. But this is the logic that makes all Democrats communists.

I donʻt agree that Trump has "no advisers". (1)
Iʻm only afraid that he may have all too
many -- of the kind that are going to steer
him in the wrong direction.

I don't know if there's anything conservative about Trump. I'm not sure I've even heard him use the word. Maybe that's why he's popular.

The secret of Trump is that he's a moderate conservative on the traditional conservative issues. The social conservatives and Free-Marketeers liberals have loved to hate for so long are the constituencies most opposed to him. It's the new factors and stresses that set him apart, and give him an edge--populism, anti-Free-Trade-ism and the anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic stuff.

That's the thing about populism. It changes because the people change. They're fickle, wanting this and that, even when their wants contradict. There's always someone out there willing to provide for them, or say he will. PT Barnum. I often think of Trump in the tradition of PT Barnum, not identically of course, but there's this circus feeling about him.

I don't know what Trump believes and I'm not sure even he does. He generalizes.

He claims we're losing jobs to China. Therefore we're getting cheated by China. Therefore we have a bad trade deal with China. Therefore we need a better deal. Therefore Trump should be elected because he's good at making deals.

Illegal Mexican aliens are damaging the economy. Therefore they must be kept out of the country. Therefore we must build a wall. Therefore Trump can build the wall because he's not beholden to the business interests who benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.

OK. I found this summary on PBS of what Trump believes.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/donald-trump-believe-candidate-stands-10-iss...

Budget: Government must cut spending more.
Climate Change: It is a hoax.
Entitlements: Do not cut Social Security or Medicare benefits. Grow the economy to save those programs.
Gun Control: Limit restrictions on guns. Ban some assault weapons and extend the waiting period for purchase.
Immigration and Refugees: Deport all undocumented individuals. Freeze green cards. Ban all Muslims from entering the United States, at least temporarily.
Obamacare: Repeal it. Replace it.
Social Issues: Abortion should be limited. Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be defined state by state.
Taxes: Fewer tax brackets with lower tax rates.
Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.
Islamic State and Iraq: Send U.S. ground troops to target oil-rich areas.

Therefore Trump should be elected because he's good at making deals.

One would think he'd be the one convincing uncommitted delegates to vote for him. And you wouldn't think he'd be the one losing delegates because he can't manage to field candidates, put them on the right slates, spell their names right, etc.

I was never persuaded by his complaints about The System being rigged and of The Establishment trying to sink him. For a guy born into privilege, he sure complains a lot. For a guy winning the most votes, he complaints a lot.

All Republicans have had a chance to vote. Everyone is participating in the system that has existed, a system that I learned about in high school. I have no sympathy for the broadcasters, reporters, commentators, and voters (and candidates?) who are ignorant of how voting in America works. I know how it works in the country and in my state.

If a candidate is losing delegates, it's not because the System is unfair or because people are working against you (other than votes, I mean). I've expressed my doubt there is such a thing as the Establishment. But even if there were, They don't control how the rest of America outside of Washington votes. Many Republican voters don't want Trump. They're not part of The Establishment. They have good reasons, too. Are they working against him? Yes! They're not voting for him. So? How dare they!

I loathe, loathe -- I'm using the word "loathe" here -- how our elections are COVERED, not how they are set up to run. TV, radio, newspaper, magazines, the internet. One example: A contested convention won't crush America, shatter the Republican Party, or force your children into Al-Qaeda. Look at the words and ideas the press -- and Trump -- have been using: disaster, chaos, violence, riots. Riots! Give me an effing break. It's like Trump is blackmailing us. Vote for me, or the GOP gets it. Vote for me -- or people will die!

My complaints here and and in real life have long been about the amount of money required to become a candiate and run for office, in addition to the absurd length of campaigns. And what I alredy mentioned above.

I don't have any answers. But I refuse to be baited by Trump and the press into panicking for no reason.

Maybe that's the Barnum quality I see, which I referred to above. Join Trump and His Magnificent Traveling Presidential Show! Come one, come all! See the bearded lady...

>11 timspalding: Yes! Exactly what I've thought recently. If he's so persuasive, if he's such a great deal maker, why is he losing any delegates? Why is he losing any votes? Can't people see what a great deal he's offering them? The great salesman should have no problem, right?

One example: Does anyone think that negotiating in the Middle East, regarding any of its many problems, is anything like with negotiating with the New York City government or the federal government about building a hotel? What an absurd leap in logic so many people are willing to make -- and want me to make. OK, he managed to get New York City to reduce property taxes to zero on his hotel renovation project. He made it profitable, then after the agreed upon cessation paid taxes again. Good job. A neat trick. And? And? So he should become president because of it?

In the vernacular, those are two different skill-sets.

In the vernacular, those are two different skill-sets.

There's probably some transferable knowledge in this stuff. That's why it's okay when successful business managers run for some lower office. But to go from businessman to president is just too much, even if he had actually been successful--and, actually, he's done worse than an index fund would have done on his seed money.

I agree that some knowledge would be transferable. I'm certainly not against businessmen becoming president. I meant that the connection wasn't a logical necessity or a self-evident truth.

Having said all this, many people disbelieve that Trump is conservative. All things considered, regardless of what he says his positions are, I have trouble predicting what Trump will do because, like Mrs. Clinton, he's so opportunistic. Both are so enamored with power that their principles often waver. I have little faith in their behavior because of their past behavior. Is it possible that Bernie Sanders is less neurotic than Trump or Clinton?

I realize that conservatism is on the descent. It has never really been all that popular in America. With Trump winning Indiana, I have to concede that most people who vote Republican today are not all that interested in conservatism. I underestimated the deep cynicism in America of those who say, "he's a bum, but he's our bum." I have to concede the large impact of the uneducated, the greedy, the cynical, the superficial, and the desperate. I have to concede that the garbage that appears on TV is there for a reason -- because it has a large audience that wants it. And in movies, music, the internet. The people who can name the Kardashian sisters but can't find Mexico on a map. The people who steal music, movies, and software off the internet but don't want to pay their medical bills. The people who want higher taxes for their neighbors but not for themselves. The people who cheat on their spouses but recycle their newspapers.

Junk minds want junk products, junk candidates, and a junk America. I suppose if it becomes too unlikable, I'll have to find a new place to live.

New Zealand sounds nice.

Conservatism is doing just fine. It's just the center and center right of the democratic party keeps pushing republicans ever and ever further right and so the distinction of who might be conservative crosses over into the democratic party. A lot of what Sanders campaign is about is to correct that---to get democrats away from relying on banks, corporations and the wealthy. Very unlikely he's going to win but he's proved you can run a viable presidential campaign with small donors. It's arguable his is a reactionary campaign as he would bring the goal posts back to where they were around Nixon's time (or even before that) which would be good for everybody---the republicans could reclaim the center and stop the attention happy crazy fuckers in their party from being seen by their base as reasonable.

Anyway I've been hearing that Trump is going to try to go to the left of Clinton on some issues. There's plenty of wide open space to do that if he wants. Neither Sanders or Clinton are neurotic. Clinton is corrupt. Trump is corrupt as well and a loose cannon. Neither are likable in any way--at least for me.

What a disaster.

I hope someone mounts a third-party challenge, so decent and reasonable Republicans have someone to vote for. If there's any doubt as to the outcome, however, I'll vote Clinton in a heartbeat.

A third party won't win, won't even register on the opinion polls...unless there's some drastic changes between now and November.

"A third party wonʻt win . . ."

Right. And, imo, the statement of that
makes a classic "self-fulfilling prophecy",
since voters donʻt want to "waste their vote".
More important than the opinion polls about
third parties or Indpependents is the fact
that they rarely carry, or finish second in even
a single state.
(I think H. R. Perot, whom some conservatives think*
"handed the 1992 election" to B.Clinton did manage
to finish second in 2 of the 50 states, 3rd in all
the others.

As Americans we like to BE "Independents", but we
donʻt like to VOTE FOR Independents.



*the Repub. application of the well-known Dem. belief
(which I donʻt share) that Ralph Nader handed the
2000 election to G. W. Bush.

I see nothing wrong with voting for a third party candidate if the democrat doesn't appeal to you. I won't even talk about republican candidates. I have no interest in any of them being elected to anything. The democratic party of JFK, LBJ and Jimmy Carter at least made an attempt to keep to the left. From Bill Clinton onwards the democratic party's continual movement towards a middle ground has shifted American politics to the right and has led to an almost constant appeasement of the republicans by the democratic establishment. The recent example of Obama's nomination of a corporatist conservative Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to replace the now deceased Antonin Scalia just one of the latest examples.

The lesser of two evils thing is played out as far as I'm concerned. The Democrats need to come up with someone who is actually good and more inclined towards the interests of ordinary Americans and not inclined towards the wealthy, banks and corporations. Sanders fits that for me--but failing that all bets are off for me as far as the democrats are concerned at least in the presidential sweepstakes. FDR is the prototype that the democrats should be nominating.

Oh I fully subscribe to the old adage "Don't vote for what you don't want and get it; vote for what you do want, even if you don't get it".

Which means I'll be voting for some third party come November.

P.J. O'Rourke said yesterday on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" that Hillary Clinton was the second worst thing that could happen to America, which is why he is voting for her.

I'm thinking third party. I figure Hillary a one term president at best, and the real election, especially down ticket comes in 2020.

I continue to believe that I won't vote this time. But it's a fairly easy decision given that I thought twenty years ago Mrs. Clinton would someday become president no matter what she had to do. You could applaud her ambition. Or you could see her as a kind of dictator.

#24--how do you get to Hillary being a dictator--or even turning into one if she's elected? I mean I see her and Bill as corrupt as all get out and I don't like her at all and I'm not voting for her but even so.......she's 8 years at the best and I don't see her filling prisons already overloaded with non-violent drug offenders with her political opponents. She is the one establishment figure left so my best guess would be expect pretty much what we have now. Pretty much very little progress on people's needs--happy corporations, gas giants and banks and the climate and social needs can kicked down the road a few more years. More of the same old shit? Yes. Dictator? No.

Oligarch, sure. Ambition equals dictator? Odd thought.

>23 Arctic-Stranger:

O'Rourke's full skit was great. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/09/477339063/conservative-author-pj-orourke-reluctant...

"I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," O'Rourke continued. "It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

Although she's not wrong about everything, I basically agree. She's wrong like a political opponent is wrong. That is, she shares your basic idea of the good, has a lot of similar policies you didn't argue about because everyone decent agrees—e.g., being against nuclear proliferation—and might even turn out to be right on some of the stuff you really do disagree about. Trump? Totally different beast.

>24 barney67: "Or you could see her as a kind of dictator."

Speaking of dictators, remember when...

"Muammar Gaddafi pitched his tent on an estate belonging to Donald Trump in suburban New York yesterday, according to reports.

The Libyan leader is scheduled to attend the UN general assembly this week. He had been struggling to find a plot to accommodate the large Bedouin tent he takes with him when travelling abroad.

Workers were seen yesterday erecting a tent and satellites in the glamorous neighbourhood of Bedford on an estate owned by Trump. Local officials tried to stop them, saying it was illegal to build a temporary residence without a permit. An ABC News helicopter filmed a large tent on the 113-acre Seven Springs estate, with rugs and patterned wall hangings. Green and yellow fabric lined the walls in a pattern dotted with images of small brown camels, according to a local newspaper website image. Last night a state department official told AP the tent might be used for entertaining by Gadaffi, but he would not be sleeping there.

Doors all over New York have been slammed in the colonel's face, but Trump says he has rented part of a large property in Westchester county to Middle Eastern tenants who may be associated with Gadaffi." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/23/muammar-gaddafi-tent-trump-estate

For those who want to believe that Trump isn't the creation of G.O.P policies...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-rep...

#29---that was a fun read Bruce. There are some really good lines in that article--made me laugh out loud. Basically the Republican party elites got fragged. Their body parts are strewn all over the ground--or at least the pieces that aren't hanging from trees. Anyway I don't feel sorry for them---Trump is what they deserved.

Several months ago I was mentioning that the Koch brothers had bought and paid for the entire tea party apparatus and Trump just ambled along and took all those tea party voters away without even paying them back a counterfeit nickel and left them with an empty shell. Good work Charles and David.

I discovered Matt Taibbi a few years ago, and I've always found his work informative and entertaining, even if there were times I didn't entirely agree with him. In this case, I think he's spot on.

Well, let's see here.

A lesson in rhetoric:

stained-glass
swanky bar
upscale local hotel
phalanx of American flags
gimmick running mate
trademark alien-abducted smile
odd, neckless, monitor-lizard posture
Nothing less than the future of the Republican Party
once-mighty organization
seemingly unrepentant non-Republican
more likely to read Penthouse than the National Review
trounced, last-gasp effort
John Blutarsky's grade-point average in Animal House: zero-point-zero
Lucifer in the flesh
whacked it plenty in college
Zodiac Killer

>32 barney67: It might also be called 'writing'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-fundraisin...

But others simply believe Mr. Trump is unfit to serve in the Oval Office. Michael K. Vlock, a Connecticut investor who has given nearly $5 million to Republicans at the federal level since 2014, said he considered Mr. Trump a dangerous person.

“He’s an ignorant, amoral, dishonest and manipulative, misogynistic, philandering, hyper-litigious, isolationist, protectionist blowhard,” Mr. Vlock said.

Mr. Vlock said he might give to Hillary Clinton instead, describing her as “the devil we know.”

“I really believe our republic will survive Hillary,” he said.

#34--about the last person I'd listen to for political advice is a republican donor who throws around $5 million to his favorite politicians over the course of two years. Just because a person has a lot of money or can raise a lot of money doesn't mean they're any more political savvy than the average person by the way.

Some Republicans look to Trump to name better Supreme Court justices than Obama or Hillary... Below is The Donald's latest threat (implied). Can you imagine how much worse it would be if he hadn't resolved to sound "Presidential"??? Me, neither:

...The Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee gave a fiery speech in San Diego and sought to leverage the power of his pulpit to shame one of this city’s federal judges, Gonzalo Curiel, who is hearing a class-action lawsuit against Trump University.

Trump delivered a lengthy monologue about the years-old case involving students who claim they were defrauded by Trump’s real estate “university.” He delved so deeply into details of the case -- at one point, he talked about the origin of the name of the law firm representing him -- that he seemed to lose the attention of his crowd.

Trump leveled a series of blows against Curiel. He called him “a hater of Donald Trump” and “very hostile” person who had “railroaded” him. He then taunted the judge, who has scheduled a trial for late November, after the election.

“I’ll be seeing you in November, either as president…” Trump said, trailing off. “I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s doing this.” Trump brought up Curiel’s ethnicity: “The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican…I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump.”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/27/in-san-diego-tru...

Why Is Donald Trump So Angry at Judge Gonzalo Curiel?

Cohen v Trump...targets Trump through a provision of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as the RICO Act—the same statute federal prosecutors use to bring down mob bosses....Cohen frames Trump University itself as a criminal enterprise with Trump as the orchestrator of a racketeering scheme....

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel/...

The Gonzalo thing is horrible. It'd be worse, except his racism no longer shocks.

The thing that gets me, however, is how unnecessary it is. The cast isn't going to go forward until after the election. Trump could easily call it all political bullshit, talk about all the people who "loved" the classes, and leave it at that; it isn't going to sink him. But he can't do it. He can't exercise restraint in anything—anything!

And the guy just can't admit when he's wrong...I'm racking my brains trying to think who that reminds me of...

Don't troll, Rick. It doesn't become you, or anyone.

Consistent with The Donald's warm words for Putin and Kim Jong-un, Trump rented his estate to Qadaffi in 2009, and sought to use the opportunity to gain access to to the dictator, who was in a position to release billions in investment capital.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danielwagner/how-trump-tried-to-get-qaddafis-cash?utm_t...