Brief discussion about Trump

Updated,

6.14.19:

9:47 am:

Let's take another look at this.  Just now, I looked up the term "lawfare".  Isn't that the same as weaponizing the government in order that it could be used to destroy the opposition?

James A. Baker, the FBI guy that Comey likes so much, was forced out, and reportedly joined the Lawfare blog.

If the Democrats can do it, why can't Trump?  I know how provocative that sounds, but the Democrats aren't backing down on their tactics, so why should Trump NOT use those very same tactics?

The Dems say it is against the law.  Okay, then why are you doing it yourselves?


7:48 am:

If I have any complaint about Trump, is that he allows his opponents openings to attack.  He opened himself up to Stephanopolous' attack.  If he redirected it back at 'em on the spot, as opposed to leaving it out there so that the Democrat spin machine could get cranked up, he would be doing a better job of fighting back.  He could have pointed out that Hillary bought and paid for "dirt" on himself in the form of the Steele Dossier.  He could add that he wouldn't weaponize the government against his political opponents the way the previous Democrat Administration did!  If he had said something like that, they would have edited it out, as it would not have been useful propaganda for them.

6:21 am:

Mittens joins the fray.   Is there any wonder why this guy lost a winnable election?  It is hard to see how this helps him get back to the top of the heap.  He may as well join the Dummiecrats.

What makes these people unworthy is what they say about Trump.  That is why I chose to support the guy.  If they didn't lie about the dude, I might not have supported him.  At first, I was skeptical about Trump as the GOP primaries played out, you see.  I might have supported a guy like Cruz if Cruz didn't act like Romney here.

Guys like Romney really do look like "cucks".

6.13.19:

Nearly three and a half years ago, I wrote that I would vote for Trump.  I did, and I will do so again.  Why?

It seems that his opposition is stuck on stupid.  Perhaps it is a case of ideology making a person stupid.  His opponents are so desperate to find things to attack him with that they say stupid things.

The things they say reduce their credibility.  The ones least attached to ideology will abandon the tribe once they see how stupid the approach is.

Truth is independent of ideology.  But real intelligence can only proceed from the knowledge obtained from truth.  If you are blind to truth, you might as well be lobotomized for all the good your brain is to you.

Stupid unfounded attacks only make you look as stupid as you really are.  Only the blind leading the blind will fall for it.


1.22.16:

Lately, there have been some reports that the Establishment wing of the GOP is warming up to Trump.  This is being taken as an "ah hah!" type moment in which the conservative wing is saying that The Donald isn't conservative, and thus cannot be trusted.  The Donald says he can make good deals.  I think this is better than taking the position that you won't negotiate at all.  Is that what the conservatives want to take to the people in the general election?  My guess is that it won't work in the general.  It may not work in the primaries, either.

This blog has always been anti-ideology.  After all, I have stated several times that "ideology can make us stupid."

It may be a bit of rose-colored glasses here about Trump, but if he is anything, he is independent of those who would control him.  That means ideological types as well as the lobbyist types with their money.  Trump is free to do what he thinks is best for the country.  He is free to do what he claims he does best, which is to make deals.

I don't know if The Donald can be trusted to adhere to ideology, but I'll trust him to get the best possible deal he can for the country.  In the final analysis, that's the best that you can hope for.  If I could vote today, I'd vote for him.  Ideology be damned.