Greg wrote:

I'm in agreement with Poe that some of the worst things attributed to him are a bit overblown. For instance, he's often paraphrased as having said that "Mexican immigrants are rapists" or "All Mexican immigrants are rapists"--but he said "in some cases" they are rapists. I don't know if any significant number of them are rapists, and I think he is pandering to a base audience, and I am sure he doesn't care how many really are rapists, but the general claim wasn't one that he made.

What bothers me most of all about Trump, and the reason I could never vote for him, is the complete transparency with which he lies and gets away with lying. I saw a segment with Bill O'Reilly trying to convince Charles Krauthammer to vote for Trump. They were discussing Trump's purveying of the rumor that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK. And O'Reilly admitted that Trump probably didn't believe it. But he said it, stirring up a firestorm that hurt Cruz more than him. Trump is unaccountable de facto for what he says, in a way that no other politician is. And that is a terrible quality to have in someone who lacks impulse control.

His rhetorical style is connected with his lack of accountability. People see him as speaking truths that others are afraid of.  If he slips up and says something untrue, you can't blame him because he's speaking from the heart or some other nonsense.  Anytime the uneducated masses claim they found someone proclaiming the truth, the fact is that the truth is being vastly oversimplified so that the people have something to hoot and holler about.  Like Poe said, Trump's policies mean exactly nothing, because he's a populist.  The only thing he's dedicated to is his own honor, and that is extraordinarily dangerous. In my opinion it is at least as dangerous as having a progressive liberal like Hilary or Sanders in office, although in a different way.

Re his lack of accountability:

Politics is theater. Every presidential candidate I have ever known has said either flatly false or grossly simplified or dressed up things for the sake of audience appeal. Have we forgotten Palin's "paling around with terrorists" lines? Trump's prime sin seems to me to be foregrounding the theater qua theater.

The idea that he actually lacks impulse control on a general level (as opposed to sexually) is not particularly plausible. His educational and business credentials clearly show his ability at organisational control is quite competent. Indeed, even these verbal "lapses" seem carefully calculated for particular appeal and effect. I've known Trump as an excellent improve talent since the 90s, and it is not a matter of *merely* saying anything.

Re his abortion beliefs:

I am not firmly against abortion because I am not fully convinced that the personhood arguments are decisive, so forgive me for any callousness, but does it ultimately matter whether he really *believes* it or not? What matters for a head of state is not belief but action. If he makes the correct actions, what's it to you if he does it for reasons of conviction or for reasons of alliances.

Last edited by iwpoe (5/06/2016 9:41 am)

Timotheos wrote:

How far right are we talking here? Don't worry, as a Texan I'm almost certain that I can take it.

Right there with you in the pro-life contingent though; the main reason I'll probably have to suck it up and vote Trump will be in a desperate attempt to stop Clinton because of her Emperor Palpatine status in the pro-choice movement...

My main "issues" are abortion and 2nd Amendment preservation. I can't get any farther to the right on the former as I'm pretty uncomfortable with abortion even in the case of rape, and concerning the legality of firearms and other weaponry... well, let's just say I draw the line somewhere near mortars. 

Regarding Hillary's Palpatine status among pro-choicers, I was concerned last fall when Bernie was accusing her of not being progressive enough during their preliminary debates that the mods were going to roll a newborn onto the stage in a cart so she could smother it.

iwpoe wrote:

You always talk a big game, Jimmy, but then I want to take back the Sudetenland and you get all pissy.

I'm not opposed to fascist rule on principle, only in America. Partition Poland, I say!

Greg wrote:

Trump recently hired a pro-life advocate as his policy director and got a sort-of endorsement from Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, which means he is immediately moving to bring pro-lifers under his umbrella. The gestures seem somewhat nominal given Trump's history and the fact that he defends torture and defended killing families of ISIS members for months. But they seem to be working pretty well; I see a handful of Catholics on Facebook starting the "Trump's not so bad" rationalizations.

And the small gestures work because they don't actually care about whether Trump is pro-life. They are attracted to Trump (or else just detest Clinton) and they want a reason to justify voting for him, however weak. John Mashburn and Frank Pavone can be those reasons.

Has there ever been a presidential candidate who has secured a major party nomination who strong Christians can vote for in good conscience?

American elections aren't a matter of voting for "your guy" but rather against "their guy." To look at it any other way is to conclude never to vote. Trump is arrogant, crass, and absurd, but he's the first to admit to all three. I'll take that and more over Hillary's proliferation of abortion and general sleaze any day of the week.
 

Last Rites wrote:

American elections aren't a matter of voting for "your guy" but rather against "their guy." To look at it any other way is to conclude never to vote.
 

That seems like the most reasonable option.

iwpoe wrote:

Re his lack of accountability:

Politics is theater. Every presidential candidate I have ever known has said either flatly false or grossly simplified or dressed up things for the sake of audience appeal. Have we forgotten Palin's "paling around with terrorists" lines? Trump's prime sin seems to me to be foregrounding the theater qua theater.

Yes, I think foregrounding the theater qua theater is the sin. Shame is a good thing; the politician who can be an overt realist without paying the costs that any other would is a scary thing.

iwpoe wrote:

Re his abortion beliefs:

I am not firmly against abortion because I am not fully convinced that the personhood arguments are decisive, so forgive me for any callousness, but does it ultimately matter whether he really *believes* it or not? What matters for a head of state is not belief but action. If he makes the correct actions, what's it to you if he does it for reasons of conviction or for reasons of alliances.

I wouldn't mind if he didn't believe it, if I could count on him to stand for it. When he has taken almost the full range of positions on abortion recently, and freely changes his views (generally without consequence) multiple times in a single day, it is gratuitous to assume that he will act correctly or even in accordance with his own beliefs.