Trumpism Corrupts

[BengalHawk62]

The logic of those folks who support this con man is amazing. If Trump is the price to pay for winning the White House, then this country is lost. The folks who enable this deceiver should be perpetually mocked. From Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard:


...... But it turns out that Trumpism has corrosive effects, too. Witness how it has corrupted people in its orbit.

Nine months ago, if you had asked Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Jerry Falwell Jr., or Ann Coulter whether they would endorse a figure who takes the Code Pink, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org view of Iraq ("Bush lied, people died"), one suspects they all would have recoiled at the prospect. Yet in the hours after Trump insisted that George W. Bush intentionally lied the country into war, not one of the major figures who have endorsed him was willing to contradict his claim.

Sarah Palin — John McCain's running mate — has been stonily silent on Trump's conspiracy theory. Contacted through his spokesman, Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. declined to comment on it. Pressed by The Weekly Stand-ard's Michael Warren, Scott Brown issued a mealy-mouthed non sequitur, saying, "I'm more focused on how we deal with terror challenges of today, not yesterday." And Coulter, who has reached the stage in life where she is capable of falling in love serially with Mitt Romney and then Donald Trump, actually tweeted out a quasi-defense of Trump: "Bush also said Harriet Miers=qualified & amnesty wasn't 'amnesty,' so he did lie." Five days later she changed course somewhat in a column where she allowed that "Trump is right about President Bush not keeping us safe — though not about his 'Bush lied' argument that makes me want to strangle him." But don't worry, Coulter insisted that Trump didn't actually mean what he said, that he was just a "scamp" just "doing wheelies" and "taunting" the rest of the Republican party. Like so many of the people in thrall to Trumpism, Coulter believes that Trump is fully committed to everything he says. Except for when he's just posturing.

One needn't be an admirer of George W. Bush, or a believer in his freedom agenda, or even a supporter of the Iraq war to understand how pernicious this is. Whatever your views on the wisdom of Iraq, no serious person believes that Bush masterminded a massive fraud, with the help of his cabinet and the entire national security apparatus; that his "lies" then managed to fool the governments and intelligence agencies of a dozen allies; and that, somehow, none of the evidence of this scheme ever managed to leak into the open.

It is almost certain that none of Trump's endorsers actually believes this theory either. And yet these public figures refuse to contradict Trump's assertion because they do believe that acceptance of every one of Trump's utterances is the price of admission for Trumpism.

You see evidence of the ill-effects of Trumpism not just in Trump's endorsers, but among his enablers in conservative media, too. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, admitted that with his "Bush lied" line, "Trump sounded like the Daily Kos blog." "[O]n a Republican debate stage, defending Planned Parenthood in language used by the left, going after George W. Bush and Jeb Bush and the entire Bush family, for the most part, using the terminology of Democrats, people think that Trump was out of control, that he had emotional incontinence that night," Limbaugh said.

But Limbaugh then proceeded to construct an alibi for Trump. He floated the idea that, because South Carolina is an open primary, Trump was really just "strategically" "making a move on independents and Democrats."

People who ought to know better — who almost certainly do know better — seem to have embraced this article of faith: Trump is leading in the polls. Anyone leading in the polls is brilliant. So Trump is brilliant. Therefore everything Trump does or says must be brilliant, too.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/trumpism-corrupts/article/2001153

[McC]

And Socialism has worked nowhere and Hillary wouldn't know the truth if it sat on her and Cruz is slime incarnate and only technically an American and Rubio looks like a young boy and has too many vowels in his name. Point to the flawless candidate and I'll vote for him or her.

The bigger issue is that all we ever get to vote for is crap or wrong guy, wrong time candidates.

The scariest thing is that out of nearly 300 million people, this dung heap is the best they can come up with.

When I step into the polling booth, I'll be looking for None of the Above. Somehow, I don't think the founding fathers had vote for the least objectionable in mind. Of course, they never really envisioned politics as a career.

[*Nately120*]

Meh, people say they are sick of the same ol' crap but those same people also think voting for a 3rd party is pointless. It's frustrating, really.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 03:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, people say they are sick of the same ol' crap but those same people also think voting for a 3rd party is pointless.  It's frustrating, really.

They think it's pointless because, outside of making some kind of statement, it is.

[BmorePat87]

(02-24-2016, 04:00 PM)McC Wrote: They think it's pointless because, outside of making some kind of statement, it is.

unfortunately this is true.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 04:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: unfortunately this is true.

Yep.  Unfortunately.

[*Nately120*]

(02-24-2016, 04:00 PM)McC Wrote: They think it's pointless because, outside of making some kind of statement, it is.

Voting for a crappy D or R is more of an empty statement than a legitimate voice in government, too.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 04:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Voting for a crappy D or R is more of an empty statement than a legitimate voice in government, too.

True.  But the whole thing is set up to prevent third party candidates from having a chance in hell of winning.

[*Nately120*]

(02-24-2016, 04:28 PM)McC Wrote: True.  But the whole thing is set up to prevent third party candidates from having a chance in hell of winning.

UNLESS enough people vote for a 3rd party to get 5% of the popular vote and begin to qualify for funding/exposure and start on the path of breaking the 2 party system.  Basically, voting for a 3rd party CAN be effective, but the system is stacked to dissuade voters from realizing they have this power.

Why anyone thinks his vote for Romney, or even Obama depending on where you live, mattered more than my 2012 vote for Gary Johnson is just proof that the D and R cronies are still accomplishing their goal of convincing voters they have no power to change things.

That's my take, and I can argue that my vote wasn't a waste, and I don't just mean in my own biased mind.

http://ivn.us/2012/11/01/why-5-matters-to-gary-johnson/

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 01:49 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: no serious person believes that Bush masterminded a massive fraud, with the help of his cabinet and the entire national security apparatus; that his "lies" then managed to fool the governments and intelligence agencies of a dozen allies; and that, somehow, none of the evidence of this scheme ever managed to leak into the open. 

Actually both the Bipartisan 9-11 commission and the internal investigation by the DOD found that Bush created the Office of Special Plans under Donald Feith for the sole purpose of claiming he had good solid intelligence when the CIA and everyone else was telling him it was not.

It is called "stovepiping" information.  you can split hairs over whether it was technically a lie, but everyone agrees it was a massive deception and the wrong thing to do.  He did not lie, but he had other people lie for him in order to get us into the war.

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2016, 02:09 PM)McC Wrote: And Socialism has worked nowhere

There are multiple socialist countries with a higher standard of living than the United States.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2016, 01:49 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: One needn't be an admirer of George W. Bush, or a believer in his freedom agenda, or even a supporter of the Iraq war to understand how pernicious this is. Whatever your views on the wisdom of Iraq, no serious person believes that Bush masterminded a massive fraud, with the help of his cabinet and the entire national security apparatus; that his "lies" then managed to fool the governments and intelligence agencies of a dozen allies; and that, somehow, none of the evidence of this scheme ever managed to leak into the open. 

I completely believe this to be true.  One need only remember Dick Clark and his being ordered, almost immediately after 9-11, to tie it to Iraq somehow.  I do think it had more to do with Cheney than Bush but I firmly believe they deliberately lied to get us involved in that war.  I think Colin Powell thinks the exact same thing as well.

[McC]

(02-24-2016, 10:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are multiple socialist countries with a higher standard of living than the United States.

Name them.

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2016, 12:47 AM)McC Wrote: Name them.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-countries-with-highest-standard-of-living-344733/

Sweden
Switzerland
Germany
Norway

[McC]

(02-25-2016, 01:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-countries-with-highest-standard-of-living-344733/

Sweden
Switzerland
Germany
Norway

Germany is not Socialist.  And don't all those other countries have incredibly high costs of living?  Maybe that's what you meant.

"Scandinavian countries—specifically, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—are perceived as socialist because their citizens pay very high income taxes. However, these countries still suffer from many of the social and economic ills that socialism is supposed to prevent."  Aug 11, 2015

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2016, 01:42 AM)McC Wrote: Germany is not Socialist.  And don't all those other countries have incredibly high costs of living?  Maybe that's what you meant.

No.  Thta is not what I meant at all.  PLease read the story I linked.

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2016, 01:42 AM)McC Wrote: Germany is not Socialist.  And don't all those other countries have incredibly high costs of living?  Maybe that's what you meant.

"Scandinavian countries—specifically, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—are perceived as socialist because their citizens pay very high income taxes. However, these countries still suffer from many of the social and economic ills that socialism is supposed to prevent."  Aug 11, 2015

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

Did you happen to read anything other than the headline of the story you linked?

I don't think it says what you think it says.

[McC]

(02-25-2016, 01:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Did you happen to read anything other than the headline of the story you linked?

I don't think it says what you think it says.

It says Scandinavian countries aren't truly Socialist and it costs a helluva lot to live there.  That lowers the standard of living for most people.  There are also only nine million people there.  Roughly the population of Greater NYC.  Not a great comparison, really.

So, maybe Socialism can work, sort of, if you are  Rhode Island.

[McC]

This is from a Swiss dude--

https://www.quora.com/Is-Switzerland-a-socialist-country

He seems to disagree with you, Fred.

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2016, 02:12 AM)McC Wrote: It says Scandinavian countries aren't truly Socialist and it costs a helluva lot to live there.  That lowers the standard of living for most people.  There are also only nine million people there.  Roughly the population of Greater NYC.  Not a great comparison, really.

So, maybe Socialism can work, sort of, if you are  Rhode Island.

1.  What you need to look at is the actual criteria they use to define "standard of living".

2.  Bernie is not saying that the government should own the means of production.  So we are talking about the same term most of these countries

3.  Why does size limit the the ability of socialism to function properly?