Trump as tragicomedy

[Maddy]

Pointedstick,

Is Trump really the “de facto leader of conservative America”?

Half of it, at least.

What's been revealed is that the Peggy Noonans of the USA are the elites of a very different tribe of conservatives than the one that elected Donald Trump.

It's very hard to pigeonhole the tribe of conservatives that elected Donald Trump. For so many, the choice was about the lesser of two evils.

[Maddy]

Can someone offer a plausible reason why Trump continues to surround himself with deep state traitors? I'm finding this awfully perplexing. Even a slow learner would, by now, understand what's going on right under his nose.

[Pointedstick]

It's very hard to pigeonhole the tribe of conservatives that elected Donald Trump. For so many, the choice was about the lesser of two evils.

Is it? I would say that tribe is marked by the feeling of cultural and economic loss over the past 40 years. Members of that tribe have seen their way of life systematically come under attack; their idols insulted and violated; their elders disrespected; their prospects grow dim; their communities wither and choke. This tribe is dominated by Borderers, and they correctly understand that their way of life is under attack and dying quickly.

Peggy Noonan Red Tribe understands none of that. She speaks to elite, well-educated fiscally conservative professionals who live in or near the flourishing coastal cities. Her tribesmen and women are doing all right. They are college-educated government contractors, engineers, lawyers, managers, accountants. They have money. Their children have prospects. They may not like the Democrats very much, but the "burn it all down" ethos of the other red tribe turns them off because they like the current system, by and large. Because it's working for them.

[moda0306]

Can someone offer a plausible reason why Trump continues to surround himself with deep state traitors? I'm finding this awfully perplexing. Even a slow learner would, by now, understand what's going on right under his nose.

The "Deep State" has had an undue and unlawful influence on government since at least 1945-ish. The fact that some folks are only now even aware much less concerned of what the deep state is indicative of how self-centered and tribal some Americans are. The don't seem to care about the millions of people that have died in this world as a result of the "deep state." But attack their buffoon in the white house and all of a sudden every "real American" knows what the deep state is and is ready to fight it. Millions of Southeast Asians and South Americans could have used that level of active skepticism.

I would highly recommend diving into some of the historical commentary of Noam Chomsky. There are lots of recordings of him on YouTube, though I've never read any of his books. You won't agree with his economics (at least I don't), but his knowledge of uncomfortable history is astounding.

But I mostly agree with Benko here... Trump is a symptom. I'd add that to immigration (hardly uncontrolled but I see what you mean) is automation, globalization's stress on labor, the decline of the middle class and white male, etc... these are an ignored aspect by both parties. Republicans stroke it by appealing to their affinity to guns & religion as it doesn't cost their true owners, the media elite, to have a social wedge driven between two wings of the middle/lower classes.

But in the end he's the one with the bombs, so I'll focus on his idiocy more than most.

[moda0306]

It's very hard to pigeonhole the tribe of conservatives that elected Donald Trump. For so many, the choice was about the lesser of two evils.

Is it? I would say that tribe is marked by the feeling of cultural and economic loss over the past 40 years. Members of that tribe have seen their way of life systematically come under attack; their idols insulted and violated; their elders disrespected; their prospects grow dim; their communities wither and choke. This tribe is dominated by Borderers, and they correctly understand that their way of life is under attack and dying quickly.

Peggy Noonan Red Tribe understands none of that. She speaks to elite, well-educated fiscally conservative professionals who live in or near the flourishing coastal cities. Her tribesmen and women are doing all right. They are college-educated government contractors, engineers, lawyers, managers, accountants. They have money. Their children have prospects. They may not like the Democrats very much, but the "burn it all down" ethos of the other red tribe turns them off because they like the current system, by and large. Because it's working for them.

Agreed... using Maddy's logic, any major candidate's supporters are "hard to pin down" because they are 45% of the population and, naturally, it could hardly be monolithic. There are huge differences between liberals as well, which is why I find monolithic discussions of "the Left" to be equally laughable.

The enthusiastic Trump supporters really aren't that hard to pin down. The "lesser of two evils" voters are half our damn population... and half of them voted for Hillary.

[farjean2]

The enthusiastic Trump supporters really aren't that hard to pin down. The "lesser of two evils" voters are half our damn population... and half of them voted for Hillary.

I know a lot of folks who voted for Trump and I can't think of a single one who did it because he was the lesser of two evils. Most of them were immigrants from the Philippines but there were also a lot of Indians at work who were supporting him before I retired last year. So what was the message they responded to? - Make America Great Again - that was the promise that brought them here in the first place.

[Benko]

The basic problem, as I see it, is that there are only 2 parties

Uniparty: The basic problem is that Hillary, Jeb and most of the Rs (despite what they say) are mostly the same.

Then you have Bernie Sanders and supporters on the left

And Trump supporters wherever you lump them. And a ton of them voted for him because, not as lesser of evils.

Fortunately the Rs are not as ruthless as the Ds and they were unable to do to Trump what Ds did to Bernie supporters.

[WiseOne]

Trump tapped into what you might consider to be a hidden political party that was in the Republican fold mainly because they felt they had no better choice. It's been dubbed "populist" and that's as good a word as any, but "disenfranchised and out of favor" might be more descriptive. I honestly thought this was far-seeing of Trump, but now it seems like it was purely accidental. A rather painful turn of events.

After Trump is out of office, regardless of who takes over this group of voters will fade into the woodwork and once again be forgotten. I think. Many of them probably see now that the Republicans have no more regard for them than the Democrats do. Hillary's "deplorables" comment pretty much sums up the latter opinion.

[dualstow]

That article says far more about the state of the writer's mind than it does about Trump's mind.

+0

[Kriegsspiel]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

[moda0306]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?

[Libertarian666]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

It certainly does. That writer should run for office!

[Kriegsspiel]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?

Sure. No better, no worse.

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

It certainly does. That writer should run for office!

I'm hesitant to recommend anyone run for a political office; they're breeding grounds for monsters.

[Mountaineer]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?

Sure. No better, no worse.

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

It certainly does. That writer should run for office!

I'm hesitant to recommend anyone run for (from) a political office; they're (we're) breeding grounds for monsters.

Fixed your post.

[moda0306]

Wild exaggeration? Hyperbole? Outright lying? No cost for being caught in a lie? Extreme spinning? Reality doesn't really matter?

Sounds like a politician to me.

So we should at the very least treat him no-better than one, right?

Sure. No better, no worse.

Certainly worse applies here. But even so, I'd be happy if I'd see conservatives treat Trump with the same disdain that they show "librul" politicians. It's obviously not about being a politician. Nor about lying or hyperbole. It's about virtue-signalling. It always has been with most folks.

So I'll feel free to treat him modestly worse if he's materially worse in said traits. Just like I would treat Kanye West or Kathy Griffin with disdain if liberals were dumb enough to put them in charge of the decision of how we wage war.

Conversely, if Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Jon Huntsman or Bernie Sanders were president (better than the average politician in those traits), I would probably treat them with more respect, even if I heavily criticize them.

[Maddy]

Mueller is going to bring this national tragedy to its rightful end.

A statement like this astonishes me. Is it that your personal disdain for Trump is so great that you'd champion the eradication of the most fundamental, constitutionally-based, tenets of criminal procedure? Does it worry you even a little that at some point the "Give me the man, and I'll find you the crime" team might come after YOU? Do you appreciate, even a little, the irony inherent in the view that these tactics are justified in the case of Trump because of his "authoritarian" mindset?

I'd be curious to know what Moda thinks about this.

[ochotona]

It's not a disorder. At heart, all criminal prosecution is discretionary... someone in law enforcement has to get an idea into their head to investigate something, and press charges. How does that idea get there... well, how do any ideas get into our heads? Through our network of contacts and the media, which media circle we subscribe to.

I don't think it's a big deal to expect that the President should be held to a very high standard, and his privacy should basically be forfeit... that's like being a famous person and expecting papparazzi not to take pictures of you. Wrong expectation.

I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.

[Maddy]

I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.

I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.

Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.

I've come to the opinion that the mindset of the Progressive Left is not a mental disorder; it's a calculated decision to side with the political establishment based upon the presumption that they will ultimately be rewarded with the utopia that only the authoritarian state can bring about.

[ochotona]

I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.

I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.

Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.

Every party to a criminal investigation, or their allies, is of this opinion. The system is adversarial. That's just how it is.

[Maddy]

I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.

I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.

Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.

Every party to a criminal investigation, or their allies, is of this opinion. The system is adversarial. That's just how it is.

You're talking to someone who spent the better part of three decades working in the legal system--always playing by the rules. What's happening now is NOT "just how it is."

[moda0306]

I'd expect absolutely the same if HRC was sitting in the WH.

I nearly coughed out my coffee over that one.

Moreover, this is not about "a higher standard," nor about "privacy." It's about dummying up evidence to obtain a warrant, about unlawful searches and seizures, about coercing testimony, about premising criminal investigations on events that, even if proved, are not crimes, and about untenable conflicts of interest.

I've come to the opinion that the mindset of the Progressive Left is not a mental disorder; it's a calculated decision to side with the political establishment based upon the presumption that they will ultimately be rewarded with the utopia that only the authoritarian state can bring about.

Could you please post or re-post a source that shows how this investigation is unjust in some material way?

And if anyone should be subject to legal scrutiny, it's war criminals and police statists within the executive branch, not the least of which would be the President.

I'm definitely not an expert on legal procedure, but I've found no news source that is avidly in defense of Trump that qualifies as anything but drivel. The closest thing has been from sources that aren't afraid to accuse Trump of as many lies, breaches of character and outright crimes as they are of "the left."

[ochotona]

But some people don't seem to be calculating anything; they are just consumed by hatred of Trump and his supporters, and often can't even say why.

Pretty much the same as "I hate Obama but I can't say why"

{or maybe not willing to admit why, not even even to oneself, because that "reason" is pretty ugly}

[moda0306]

Re: Uranium One... does someone have some really good sources on this? I've heard, in this order:

1. General accusations of "giving uranium to Russia," by some putrid partisans... on Fox News after hearing a conservative friend of mine bring it up (obviously not the best source)...

2. A lengthy and detailed rebuttal by a left-of-center podcaster that SEEMED like a legitimate retort, but as I mentioned I didn't have a good original source to compare it to.

I'd like to have a "steel man" argument about Uranium One rather than conservative drivel.

[Maddy]

I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.

Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?

[moda0306]

I'm happy to let anyone who wants to stew in their juices over the fact that their side lost the election do so. But it'll be a cold day in Hell when I sit idly by while they take down our constitutional system of justice because of it.

Just curious: Do any of the left-leaning members of this forum have anything to say in defense of the secret tribunals known as "FISA courts?" Or about warrantless surveillance deemed justifiable because the evidence is kept under "mask" until needed?

Maddy,

To your question about FISA courts, I'm pretty firmly in opposition to them. I leave a crack in the door for a national security statist that can actually produce a decent argument for them in full context of risks we face.

I'm probably "left-leaning." Although this forum brings out the lefty in me a lot more than when I debate my liberal friends.