This was an interesting weekend. For one thing, we got out first rain in weeks. The straw that I call grass seems to have appreciated it. I've started swimming again too. Yay! And I saw some things in the news that got me wondering.
First, on the immigrant kids...
Thoughts?
First, on the immigrant kids...
● I saw a poll which said that the majority of the public blames the parents of the immigrant kids for their separation. Only 40%ish blamed the government. I thought that was interesting. Despite the full-retard deep-throated level of insane 100% rage that the left has displayed, the public rationally gets that Trump is not to blame. It must suck being a leftist.Secondly, some interesting articles. I always wonder where the leftist collective gets their thinking orders because they do move in goosestep and the change seems to happen on weekends. There must be a weekend edition of "What You Think Now" or something. Anyways, this week's whine is "why aren't Trump people listening to us"?
● I had to laugh that just as I saw articles telling me how "powerful" the image of the crying kid and the Time magazine cover were -- defined our age, they did -- both proved to be false. Time even had to apologize. Once again, the left's attempt to "define our age" is little more than lies and fakery.
● Isn't it interesting how the kids issue has almost entirely died overnight? The left went from 100% of drones screaming their "independent" outrage at 100% volume to "oh look, summer." What has diverted them? Well, Trump signing pictures of crime victims at the request of the parents and some leftist restaurant owner tossing Sarah Huckabee out of her restaurant. Focused like a laserbeam, aren't they?
● The first article came from the New York Times, an obscure journal that often gets whacked for plagiarism. This article wondered why Trump people don't understand how evil he is and why they still support him. Indeed, the article began with genuine shock that anyone could still support Trump despite all the reasons the left hates him. What they found by asking Trump supporters was that the public has stopped listening to the outrage. They consider it political. True. They think the left is full of crap and will complain no matter what. True. In fact, the reporter found that the more the left attacks, the more the public rallies to Trump. OMG! But how can we convince these yokels that Trump is evil if trying to convince them makes them less likely to believe us?I take these articles, and others, as a moment of shock. The left just went full retard on the kid issue and they assumed this would bring everyone to their side and destroy Trump. To see that they didn't even win a majority of the public has shocked them. They don't understand it. They are legitimately asking each other now, "Why aren't they listening to us?" The problem is this is the blind asking the blinder, and the answer is basically that we're stupid. I suspect that in a week or so, this will morph into some serious "how stupid are you people" articles. But right now it's an interesting insight into their mindset that they seem genuinely confused.
● Then there was an article titled "Trump seems indifferent to confusion." What this article really meant was, "no matter how much we whine and scream and block his staff from restaurants and stage protests, Trump and the public just aren't coming to our side." This article seemed baffled why we yokels don't care about the problems they are causing. Unlike the other article though, this one just concluded that Trump and his supporters just aren't right in the head.
Thoughts?
Is Time Magazine even relevant anymore?...BTW, it rained here too finally, we needed it...however, the current crop of mosquitoes are as large as dive bombers...I know liberals who are at wits end trying to make people believe them...and it isn't working...it's killing them..
ReplyDelete1) Like I said last week (before the photo was debunked though I'm not sure how much it meant) Trump is much closer to the US public on immigration than the Democrats are so its unsurprising the issue isn't damaging him.
ReplyDelete2) The Democrats with their 'iconic photos' and uncharismatic, shrill leadership are very weak opponents but as I said the week before last, Trump's explanation of his current policy and what he wants out of a future policy remain utterly incoherent.
3) Whipping up one's base with crazy talk is a successful strategy in recent years so its quite possible fake photos and conspiracy theories will help Dems rather than hurt them in the midterms. Time will tell.
Critch, It's amazing how dry it's been here this year. Glad you got rain!
ReplyDeleteIt really struck me this weekend that they are starting to realize that the public isn't listening to them and I think they are genuinely confused at the moment. After all, everyone they know hates Trump, so where are these other people coming from?
Anthony, The left is always looking for an image to declare iconic, and they are almost always wrong. What's more, recently, several of their most iconic images have been unmasked as no what they appear to be. Even the famous Iwo Jima flag raising apparently was restaged for the photo to be taken.
ReplyDelete2. The Democrats don't seem to have any leadership at this point. I have no idea what they stand for except a lot of hate about whatever Trump does. The monster put ketchup on his fries!! Ahhhhh
3. It's possible, but I think they have wasted too much energy too early on people who don't actually vote, i.e. celebs. It will be an interesting midterm, but I think all they are doing is solidifying the right right now.
I'm not the first to note this phenomenon, but the left sees Trump as evil and can't imagine anyone seeing anything differently. As a consequence, they conclude that his supporters must just like evil. The left literally perceives the right as puppy-kicking devils.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, while there were those on the right who called Obama evil, most recognized the the people who voted for him thought he might be some sort of healer or savior.
There is a smaller version of this where the right assumes the left wants the negative unintended consequences of their ill-conceived policies. Admittedly, there may be some projection, because conservatives do frequently want things like reduced welfare rolls, which the left sees as negative.
Point being, yes, both sides engage in a degree of vilifying, but the left has a much more black and white approach when it comes to Trump.
tryanmax, I'm going to disagree to a degree. In my experience, the far right or fringe engages in mental vilifying. The rest of the right does not. The rest of the right is actually quite willing to give someone a chance and rather polite. It's the fringe right that sees people like Obama and George Soros as evil masterminds who want to destroy America.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as a rule, the left is subject to group think, which brings with it the idea that anyone not in the group is evil. It is the rare leftist who is open minded. To the contrary, most tell themselves that they are open minded, but then are very closed minded.
I think this comes from the fact that the media and the culture machine are leftists, plus leftists generally are emotional thinkers rather than rational thinkers. The result is that they can't bear to surround themselves with people who don't feel the same, forming a bubble, and their bubble world is reinforced since every film or media report mirrors their views. Hence, they live in a world where literally everyone they know or see spits out their views. So when they hear about someone who doesn't, it shocks them.
By comparison, conservatives live in a world where liberals just won't shut up. So we are constantly surrounded by them and their views. We don't live in a bubble.
The "conservatives" who do live in bubbles tend to retreat to getting their news from talk radio or Alex Smith, refuse to go see movies or watch television, talk about living off the grid, and find the GOP so tainted they won't support them. That's the "Obama is a secret Muslim" group.
Hillary, Maxine Waters, etc have really been going crazy this weekend....they're going to blow a gasket if they don't stop.
ReplyDeleteThe Supremes have upheld Trump's "Muslim" ban. Leftist faux outrage in three... two... one.
ReplyDelete🍿
ReplyDeleteI think this Slate headline captures the leftist mood perfectly:
ReplyDeleteJust Another Day in Court
The Supreme Court treated Donald Trump’s travel ban like any other case. That’s a terrible sign.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
Two big SCOTUS victories today. Left hugging its knees in the fetal position. Feels good.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, That headline reeks of "Don't they know how important it was that we show Trump how wrong he is???" There's no grasp that Trump was right and they were wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I love seeing the left fall apart.
ReplyDeleteOh let's see...
ReplyDeleteJust like the internment of the Japanese (only they are "interned" in those shithole countries from whence they came)... shameful (yawn)... worse than Hitler (what isn't)... made liberals cry... mommy, what do we hate Muslims? Because Donald Trump is racist honey...
That's quality whining folks. Enjoy it!
Ok, I can't let this go without a response:
ReplyDeleteUm. I thought the America the left knows is full of racists. So this is in fact, the America they know...
If there are no sh*tholes, then what's the problem with staying where they are at? Aren't they better off over there?...
The left doesn't believe in shame...
Worse then Hitler? When everything is worse then Hitler, then nothing is worse than Hitler...
Muslim is not a race...
Funny that we would still allow visitors from a dozen other Muslim countries to visit if we're anti-Muslim...
Liberal tears make me feel good.
If escaping from a hole dug by Trump's tongue is a triumph, today is truly a day to be celebrated.
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in January of 2017 the Muslim thing would have been less of a headache if Trump A) had initially enacted a coherent policy and B) hadn't consistently screamed 'MUSLIM BAN' to thrill the talk radio crowd, even as lawyers and other government officials explained that it wasn't a Muslim ban but restrictions placed on certain dangerous countries. Such restrictions have traditionally been part of the power of the president.
http://commentaramapolitics.blogspot.com/2017/01/trump-date.html
Rushed, confused implementation of the visa thing didn't hurt Trump because the only people burned (slightly) were foreign Muslims. If that marks his style of policymaking (its in keeping with his campaign style),
http://commentaramapolitics.blogspot.com/2017/01/trump-derrangement-syndrome.html
So Trump shouts 'MUSLIM BAN!' during his campaign, then makes a reasonable at first glance (though the devil is in the details) move temporarily ending movement from certain Muslim countries (well short of a Muslim ban) and his detractors are shouting 'MUSLIM BAN!'. How utterly predictable.
*Shrugs* I don't see the Democrats benefitting from this politically. Its a safe bet the general public is more worried about Muslim terrorism than whatever rights are at issue.
If escaping from a hole dug by Trump's tongue is a triumph, today is truly a day to be celebrated.
ReplyDeleteThis is bigger than one case. This signals that the current Supreme Court is not going to tolerate "Trumplaw"--that is, jurisprudence wherein legal precedent is thrown out in favor of stopping Trump--in the lower courts.
Further, this empties the rebuke of "Trump's tongue" of much of its power. The staunch NeverTrump line has been that Trump creates his own problems. Maybe so. But they mostly tend to resolve in his favor and in such a way as to put other matters to rest, as well. Isn't that worth it?
As you point out, its great for Trump that his tweets are considered legally irrelevant but Trump's initial problem was a sloppily drafted executive order whose meaning seemingly no one even within his administration could agree on.
ReplyDeleteIt literally created a problem where there would have been none (the final form of the order was well within the president's remit).
Which is not to say it wouldn't have caused opposition (there is no percentage in supporting Trump for the Democrats) but it would have deprived it of a leg to stand on.
Given that lives are at stake, isn't taking the time to decide exactly what you are ordering DHS to do to protect the nation worth it?
The new (not so new) left:
ReplyDeleteInsane Clone Posse
Anthony, You seem to be under the strange impression that the left cares about the substance of their anti-Trump arguments. They haven't cared about substance in decades. Under Trump, all that matters is that you can form an expression of outrage. Screw the facts... the law... the logic... the morality.
ReplyDeleteAllena, Exactly! That's the left in a nutshell!
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI have never gotten the sense Trump or the Democrats have much in the way of a coherent philosophy of government. Lots of conspiracy theories, whines about victimhood and faith in big government (so long as it's in friendly hands) though.
Yep. That's pretty much it.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, somewhere along the way, “sloppily implemented” became “sloppily written.” That’s neither here nor there. Lots of ink and pixels were expended discussing Trump’s opportunity costs, how he undermined his own message, and generated unnecessary animus. All beside the point.
ReplyDeleteLong before Trump was a blip on the radar, we all understood that politics favors the status quo. For just as long, the right lamented that the left could manhandle the status quo any which way, and vacillated between wanting their own politicians to do the same or warning against becoming like the enemy.
Trump made a choice. He’s manhandling the status quo with the knowledge that, as with Obamacare, when the dust settles, for the most part people will just accept the way things are. Could Trump have executed better? I’m too cynical about Trump to know what that question ought to be in relation to.
Tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteWith executive orders the drafting and the implementation are the responsibility of the same guy.
'Politics favors the status quo' and 'liberals could do whatever they wanted' are two conflicting statements. I'd say the first is true but not the second. Bill Clinton passed historic gun control and Obama passed historic health care and both guys lost both houses of Congress in a hurry. So where is the 'consequence free liberalism' and 'conservative inaction' that you complain about?
In recent decades the president has steadily accrued power and government has steadily grown for good reasons and bad (growing the military after 9/11 made sense for Bush, the prescription drug plan not so much).
Trump has slashed regulation and taxes (commendable acts which are growing the economy) but inbetween highlighting the economy's historic free market driven growth (which hasn't impeded the growth of the government) Trump whines that the economy is weak and money is going to the wrong people, so government has to intervene, and that the normal route of trade law (Congress) is just too slow and ineffective, one needs a powerful exec who can instantly decide what needs to be done and do it.
Want an example? Recently Trump has declared all of trade a national emergency and has slapped tariffs on a bunch of countries. Now he is threatening American companies who seek to adjust to the damage to their bottom lines done by the brewing trade war.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/26/trump-warns-harley-davidson-big-tax-if-it-sells-back-to-us-following-production-shift.html
President Trump warned Harley-Davidson on Tuesday that if the company follows through on moving production of motorcycles sold in Europe overseas, "it will be the beginning of the end" -- while saying the American icon would not be able to “sell back into the U.S. without paying a big tax."
-----------
The administration’s move to impose the tariffs came after a nine-month investigation, led by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, which found the current level of aluminum and steel imports to the U.S. had the “potential to threaten our national security.”
END QUOTE
Last but not least did you forget your post of a few weeks ago which pointed out how easy it is for the next executive to undo a flurry of executive actions? I agreed with that post then and I agree now.
http://commentaramapolitics.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-promise-of-era-of-broken-promises.html
Anthony, I would counter that one reason why Trump hasn’t legislatively gored any big liberal oxen is because Obama did so much by executive order. Certainly the view is out there that Obama’s Legacy Has Already Been Destroyed.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteAs I said, written vs. implemented is neither here nor there. But the rhetorical shift is interesting.
I hate to point out how words work, because I feel like I'm being insulting, but "...the right lamented that the left could..." attributes the following complaint to someone other than myself. It is perfectly ordinary that it could contradict me. Where is the consequence free liberalism? It's in the US Code. (Put a pin in that.)
You'll get no argument from me about the increased power of the executive, but I'm not at all sure what you're driving at. When I say Trump is manhandling the status quo, I merely mean he is taking a more Democrat-style approach. That approach is, in broad strokes, to stake out a position and lean on it for forever. (Put a pin in that, as well.)
In regards to the use of Executive Order, I would point out that Trump's first two travel bans had expiration dates. That the third does not is best understood as a response to court orders which upset the first two's time tables. Supporting this interpretation are the several provisions within the third order which would automatically end restrictions on affected countries. (This is really just an example at this pint, but pin it.)
Further support is found, somewhat ironically, in Trump's rhetoric. (Here's where you attach string to the pins.) He routinely throws issues related to his orders over to Congress by saying, if you don't like it, change the law. Trump is begging Congress to override him. Or affirm him. Like I said, I'm cynical about Trump. Either way, Trump is giving no signs that he expects to forge a legacy via phone and pen.
P.S. I realize that I am routinely giving off an impression that is contrary to my actual opinion of Trump. Please don't forget that.
We've talked before that this year may be similar to 1968 for the Dims. Their Left wing is on the rise and the old guard, Waters, Schumer, Biden, etc. are viewed as irrelevant. of course, in 1968 this drove many Democrats completely away from the voting booths and Nixon whupped their butts..This win in NY by an avowed communist is just one inkliing taht things may not go well for main line Democrats. They will get lumped in with the crazies and those old Democrats who are for the most part Kennedy style Democrats will either not vote or will maybe vote for the GOP. I'm Catholic, and a lot of the Democrats in my church, who are not liberal whackos by any means, are very disillusioned with their party over abortion, immigration, guns and a host of other things..
ReplyDeleteCritch, what astounds me is that those who are disillusioned by the Democrats over abortion, immigration, and guns took this long to reach that point. I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and guess that maybe they thought the party could be steered right?
ReplyDeleteI think they always thought it would come back to what they thought it should be, but it got further and further from home. My dad was a Roosevelt Democrat but a combination of LBJ and then Jimmy Carter broke him of that habit.
ReplyDelete