How Has Your Opinion Changed Or Not Re Trump?

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

He's the most gifted salesman of all time and I'm not using that term as a pejorative. 

 

If the left had a Trump like hype man, I'd be all in. I had hopes for Avenatti, but he's clearly sputtering. There's really only one Donald Trump.

 

I reckon more than a few members of TBD understand nuanced policy better than Trump, but none could sell it to the masses quite like him. It would have served Dems well to fully appreciate this guy's talent, but that ship sailed in 2016.

We just had eight years of Barack Obama.  Both are divisive, manipulative, thin skinned, charismatic, loathed by the other side, effective at using the bully pulpit, have an unwavering base, are fawned at by their party's media outlets, and effective at pretending to give a crap about people outside of their circle.  Trump is just louder and more eccentric.

[Azalin]

9 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

For all the bluster, he's pretty much your standard issue GOP President. The lone deviation from orthodoxy is on trade.

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. In my view, the only thing Trump has in common with your standard run of the mill, 20th/21st century republican presidential candidates is party affiliation. The entire party was aligned against him from the very beginning, and he picked off an entire field of viable candidates one at a time. McCain was a maverick?! No, Trump is the maverick.

 

7 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I was one of the posters here most vocally opposed to President Trump when he was candidate Trump.

 

I found him boorish, poorly spoken, and was entirely unsure of what a Trump Presidency would look like from a policy perspective given his ties to Steve Bannon and his prior life as a long-time Democratic donor.

 

Given that the Presidency becomes the defacto leader of the Party, my fear as a classical liberal, was that he would be the death knell of traditional American conservative values.

 

I was wrong on every front, and am not ashamed to admit it.

 

President Trump has been the best thing that has happened to the concept of classical liberalism in my lifetime, and probably in the last 150 years of American governance.

 

He has fought tooth and nail against the modern slave trade, pursuing human freedom all over the world, even into the darkest corners where I never thought a light could shine.

 

He has forced government to reduce it's size and scope, working to return our legislative body to it's proper role, and has faithfully executed the laws congress has written.

 

He has appointed swaths of conservative, origionalist, and libertarian leaning judges to the bench; including two SCOTUS appointments who will serve to return our Government to it's proper role in American life.

 

He has torn up old treaties, unbeneficial to American interests, and forged new ones that directly benefit American business and people.

 

He has used the bully pulpit to lead globally, withdrawing us from the United Nations Human Rights Counsel, which was a hive of villainy and evil given legitimacy by the United States membership.

 

He has returned us to a proper course of ratifying international treaties with a withdrawal from an unbinding pledge from Kyoto.

 

He has worked to force Congress to do their jobs and legislate in regards to our immigration and border problems.

 

And this list is in no way comprehensive.

 

I came to this discussion as a fervent anti-Trump libertarian, and from my current vantage, if he continues on this arch, will be standing shoulder to shoulder with men like Washington.

 

 I remember well your original arguments against Trump, and I give you, LA, and others credit for being intellectually honest and walking your opinions back. Many of us have done so, but not a lot of people will admit a change of heart. Cheers!

[LSHMEAB]

16 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

We just had eight years of Barack Obama.  Both are divisive, manipulative, thin skinned, charismatic, loathed by the other side, effective at using the bully pulpit, have an unwavering base, are fawned at by their party's media outlets, and effective at pretending to give a crap about people outside of their circle.  Trump is just louder and more eccentric.

I disagree that Trump is effective at pretending to give a crap about people outside of his circle.

 

As a matter of fact, I think his attacks on the left are a feature and not a bug. It's politically effective for Trump and I don't have a problem with it. I would never vote for him, so why should he pander to me? Obama feigned the appearance of caring about people we all know he despised, but how many people actually bought it?

 

They are both charismatic narcissists with a great deal in common whether their supporters want to admit it or not. That much I'll give you. I don't think it's even possible for a non narcissist to become President.

 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

I disagree that Trump is effective at pretending to give a crap about people outside of his circle.

I meant outside of the rich and the powerful he regularly converses with.  Nothing to do with party.

[LSHMEAB]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

I couldn't disagree more. In my view, the only thing Trump has in common with your standard run of the mill, 20th/21st century republican presidential candidates is party affiliation. The entire party was aligned against him from the very beginning, and he picked off an entire field of viable candidates one at a time. McCain was a maverick?! No, Trump is the maverick.

 

 

DR cited isolationism and I cited trade. I'm gonna have to question isolationism when you bring John Bolton on board, but he hasn't actually done anything so it's fair.

 

What else distinguishes Trump from the GOP? The party establishment opposed him because they didn't think he could win. These are the people that gave you Romney and McCain and likely preferred Jeb. That archaic thinking lead Dems to nominate Hillary freaking Clinton. It doesn't work. 

[Azalin]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

DR cited isolationism and I cited trade. I'm gonna have to question isolationism when you bring John Bolton on board, but he hasn't actually done anything so it's fair.

 

What else distinguishes Trump from the GOP? The party establishment opposed him because they didn't think he could win. These are the people that gave you Romney and McCain and likely preferred Jeb. That archaic thinking lead Dems to nominate Hillary freaking Clinton. It doesn't work. 

 

No, the party establishment was against him because he wasn't one of them.

 

Do you really believe that if any of the other republicans had won against Hillary (which they almost assuredly would not have) that they would be doing the same as Trump? He defies convention at every turn. He hasn't won over the 'never Trump' republicans, they just know to shut the hell up because the voters prefer what Trump is selling to the standard GOP (or democrat for that matter) fare.

 

I personally think you'll have to stretch it to paint Trump as a typical party-line republican in any area except for tax cuts and judicial appointments, but I'm willing to stand corrected.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

No, the party establishment was against him because he wasn't one of them.

 

Do you really believe that if any of the other republicans had won against Hillary (which they almost assuredly would not have) that they would be doing the same as Trump? He defies convention at every turn. He hasn't won over the 'never Trump' republicans, they just know to shut the hell up because the voters prefer what Trump is selling to the standard GOP (or democrat for that matter) fare.

 

I personally think you'll have to stretch it to paint Trump as a typical party-line republican in any area except for tax cuts and judicial appointments, but I'm willing to stand corrected.

 

 

The party was more against him because of his crassness along with his controversial rhetoric and they thought it would be impossible for him to win the general if he won the nomination.  Thus, losing power and influence (campaign contributions).

 

I would add deregulation to tax cuts and judicial appointments to typical party-line republican policies.  These three areas happen to be what Republican officials care the most about which is why it's now Trump's party.  I think Trump and most of the GOP in Congress are too scared to do entitlement reform to address the deficit. 

 

Where Trump probably differs most from what a typical Republican president is going hard after what he considers "trade deficits" by imposing tariffs.  He's talked about this going back to the 1980's so it's not surprising.  He also bucks the trend of what Republicans accused Obama of as cozying up to dictators as a necessary evil for a more peaceful world.  I also don't think anybody but maybe Ted Cruz would've withdrawn from the Iran deal and the Paris Accords.  So, I give him credit where credit's due on those decisions which I happen to agree with.  

[unbillievable]

I assumed he would be entertaining.

I expected him to do nothing, so I'm surprised he has done so well when dealing with the stuff that really matters.

I love the way he exposes the deranged left.

 

The only way things could get better is if Oprah decides to run against him.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

DR cited isolationism...

 

Just to clarify... 

 

Trump's foreign policy is not isolationism. That's how it's painted by those on the Never Trump right and left in the media and in politics, but it's not the reality. Trump has been working closely with dozens of nations to tackle a number of critical issues. To name a few: 

 

* The US and GCC's war on Hezbollah/ISIS/AQ in several different theaters, all done off the radar for the most part. 

* The US rallied its Asian partners, and rivals, to apply unheard of pressure on the DPRK which has netted a denuclearization deal and peace on the peninsula. 

 

Trump's number one aim in his foreign policy, that isn't reported on the news, was the dismantling of the terror financing and human trafficking networks around the world. See the KSA purge and how closely the US was working with MBS before and after as the most visible example. This work has been multinational, and done with the assistance of many foreign allies - including several (the Brits and Australians) who were active participants in a coup attempt against 45. 

 

Think about that a second. Two nations we can prove were actively involved in trying to not only influence our election, but after it was over to change the results of it through subterfuge, have been partners in Trump's primary foreign policy goals. If he was an isolationist, or a "traditional nationalist", we could very well be looking at a world where we're sanctioning the hell out of the Brits and Aussies. But Trump chose to work with May and the Aussies instead of destroying their governments. 

 

None of this policy would be approved by either side of the uni-party establishment. It's a direct threat to their most sacred cows and wedge issues.  

[LSHMEAB]

51 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Just to clarify... 

 

Trump's foreign policy is not isolationism. That's how it's painted by those on the Never Trump right and left in the media and in politics, but it's not the reality. Trump has been working closely with dozens of nations to tackle a number of critical issues. To name a few: 

 

* The US and GCC's war on Hezbollah/ISIS/AQ in several different theaters, all done off the radar for the most part. 

* The US rallied its Asian partners, and rivals, to apply unheard of pressure on the DPRK which has netted a denuclearization deal and peace on the peninsula. 

 

Trump's number one aim in his foreign policy, that isn't reported on the news, was the dismantling of the terror financing and human trafficking networks around the world. See the KSA purge and how closely the US was working with MBS before and after as the most visible example. This work has been multinational, and done with the assistance of many foreign allies - including several (the Brits and Australians) who were active participants in a coup attempt against 45. 

 

Think about that a second. Two nations we can prove were actively involved in trying to not only influence our election, but after it was over to change the results of it through subterfuge, have been partners in Trump's primary foreign policy goals. If he was an isolationist, or a "traditional nationalist", we could very well be looking at a world where we're sanctioning the hell out of the Brits and Aussies. But Trump chose to work with May and the Aussies instead of destroying their governments. 

 

None of this policy would be approved by either side of the uni-party establishment. It's a direct threat to their most sacred cows and wedge issues.  

I figured you would have a more thorough explanation of his foreign policy than "isolationism." I don't have to agree with it 100%, but it's thorough.

 

One thing I question is the number of actual "Never Trumpers." If we're talking Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, Max Boot, etc., I've always viewed them as moderates who's only real career path is to play the Never Trump card on television. 

 

The midterms will tell us quite a bit about the actual numbers.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

I figured you would have a more thorough explanation of his foreign policy than "isolationism." I don't have to agree with it 100%, but it's thorough.

 

One thing I question is the number of actual "Never Trumpers." If we're talking Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, Max Boot, etc., I've always viewed them as moderates who's only real career path is to play the Never Trump card on television. 

 

The midterms will tell us quite a bit about the actual numbers.

 

The Never Trumper core was the Neoconservative right, who all flooded to HRC's campaign because: uniparty is the real ruling party. Or was.

[LSHMEAB]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Never Trumper core was the Neoconservative right, who all flooded to HRC's campaign because: uniparty is the real ruling party. Or was.

I'm just trying to put a public face to it; maybe Bill Kristol? As far as I can tell, most of the people on television are just trying to salvage their own career. Can't really knock anyone for looking out for #1, but it's hard to take them seriously. 

 

Again, I question the number of voters who fit this mold, which is why I'm skeptical of the polls. I think as long as Trump is involved, polling is always going to involve something of a Bradley effect.

 

We shall see.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm just trying to put a public face to it; maybe Bill Kristol? As far as I can tell, most of the people on television are just trying to salvage their own career. Can't really knock anyone for looking out for #1, but it's hard to take them seriously. 

 

Again, I question the number of voters who fit this mold, which is why I'm skeptical of the polls. I think as long as Trump is involved, polling is always going to involve something of a Bradley effect.

 

We shall see.

 

Yup. The Kristols, the Frums, the former Bushies, all the "conservatives" that show up on MSNBC bashing Trump over the past two years tend to have a neoconservative thread in common. 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Never Trumper core was the Neoconservative right, who all flooded to HRC's campaign because: uniparty is the real ruling party. Or was.

Uniparty, that sounds as creepy as a unibrow

[Buffalo_Gal]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Uniparty, that sounds as creepy as a unibrow

And both are the Brezhnev look.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Uniparty, that sounds as creepy as a unibrow

 

It is. 

 

[3rdnlng]

In reading over the threads this evening it's becoming more and more apparent that PPP members who ridiculed and made fun of Trump 1-2 years ago have come around to appreciate him as our leader. They still might not really like him but respect what he has done and is trying to do. Kudos to you guys who have allowed your opinions to re-form.

[Albwan]

29 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

In reading over the threads this evening it's becoming more and more apparent that PPP members who ridiculed and made fun of Trump 1-2 years ago have come around to appreciate him as our leader. They still might not really like him but respect what he has done and is trying to do. Kudos to you guys who have allowed your opinions to re-form.

It's really got to be Trump,  because the alternative is truly scary.

Those people get control it will be a real &^%$ show for the US.

[Chimp]

19 hours ago, Albwan said:

It's really got to be Trump,  because the alternative is truly scary.

Those people get control it will be a real &^%$ show for the US.

Exactly.  Would rather eat a bullet than submit to being governed by Hillrod

[Tiberius]

19 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

In reading over the threads this evening it's becoming more and more apparent that PPP members who ridiculed and made fun of Trump 1-2 years ago have come around to appreciate him as our leader. They still might not really like him but respect what he has done and is trying to do. Kudos to you guys who have allowed your opinions to re-form.

He pisses of Liberals so they love him. Look how angry and upset Liberals are after these last few days. The rights love of Trump just grew even deeper these past few days.