The Chattering Class Still Doesn’t Get It about Trump

Now that Donald Trump basically has the Republican nomination sewed up, we are seeing yet another round of statements from the press and Democratic officials along the lines of Trump’s ascendancy being some kind of bizarre, unbelievable accident. We are being told once again — in spite of numerous exit polls to the contrary — that his constituency is only disaffected white men without a college education. And speculation by some that many Bernie supporters will vote for Trump instead of Hillary is met by hoots of laughter, interspersed with objections like “Come on, Trump and Sanders have nothing in common.”

Well, if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, a lot of his supporters will be loathe to vote for Hillary, and I believe some non-negligible number will indeed choose Trump. And contrary to assumptions by the Chattering Class, a number of minorities will vote for Trump too. Many African-Americans, for instance, are NOT in favor of high levels of immigration, which they believe (backed up by statistics) hurts low-skilled blacks, drains needed money for education of the underclass and so on.

But as I’ve often said, the biggest problem with the Chatterers is their inability to empathize with people who are struggling economically. Many of the Chatterers aren’t making anything near “1 percent” wages, but on the other hand, they haven’t ever felt the terror of facing eviction or being long-term unemployed or underemployed. Just like the old line, “A conservative is a former liberal who has been mugged,” many Trump supporters may be former Democrats who are victims of the financial crash that Democrats like Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin contributed to. How on Earth could such a person support Hillary Clinton and her lavish speaking fees paid by Wall Street? Think of it. If you think that such people will consider Clinton the lesser of two evils, I believe you are dead wrong.

The Chatterers are oblivious to the finding of the recent Fed study that 47% of Americans could not come up with $400 cash for an emergency, without borrowing the money or selling some possession.  “A measly $400,” the Chatterers might say in (temporary) awe, before going back to their mantra, “Trump has offended all groups, so no one will vote for him,” etc.  They just don’t get it.

People feel betrayed. And I don’t mean just people who are Caucasian, male and blue collar. When will the Chatterers wake up?

 

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “The Chattering Class Still Doesn’t Get It about Trump

  1. Bernie is, unfortunately, dead in the water. What the hell, he was never really a “Democrat” anyway (which is why he never really had any real chance, running as a Democrat).

    Screw Trump. The man is a walking cartoon. Look up “lout” in the dictionary, and there’s a picture of him next to it.

    Screw Hillary, and the NAFTA and TPP she rode in on. (Anybody who thinks that she isn’t going to double back on herself, flip flop yet again, and happily push through TPP… and behalf of her Wall Street pals…once she gets into office is just not paying attention.)

    Vote Jill Stein, Green Party. Yea, sure, like all lefties, she’s all warm and fuzzy over the hispanic invasion, but who knows? If it is explained to her very slowly, she might just grok that H-1B is just a way for the 0.1% to screw engineers.

    P.S. Yes, I have the luxury of being able to vote Green, and not have to feel any guilt about perhaps aiding and abetting a self-serving carnival barker getting into the WhiteHouse (Trump). I live in California, and Billary is going to murder Trump (electorially speaking) here anyway, no matter what I do. So I have options, to wit: Jill Stein, Vermin Supreme, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the choice that we really all should be allowed to choose, but are currently NOT allowed to choose, and to have registered (and counted) explicitly, i.e. “none of the above”. Given the options, I’m going with Jill Stein.

    Like

  2. I always considered myself a republican.
    After I experienced the Boot Heels of Capitalism first hand for the years since 2003 I have found that I have democratic type beliefs.

    That said, I will not vote for Hillary because of her lack of respect for our top secret communication rules (I was a former Radioman in the Navy) and because of her lack of respect for our troops on the ground.

    I do not believe Trump either because I think he will pull a cruz once nominated.

    But for reasons you described in this article I can guarantee you that he or Bernie will get my vote.

    Like

  3. All the traditional candidates have been bought and paid for by the same greedy special interests who don’t care about this country or the people who’s lives they’ve destroyed.

    Like

  4. Google “Tata Consultancy Services Clinton” to discover why my campaign slogan for her is “Tata Clinton!”

    Those of us whose jobs have been outsourced and off-shored will never forget.

    A choice between the Queen of outsourcing and the King of shaking up the establishment is an easy one.

    Like

  5. I’m not a Trump fan. But his ascendancy and success have happened for a reason. He has articulated some issues which resonate with a heck of a lot of people. I don’t think a politician who is a Berlesconi-Il Duce rerun can succeed. But he certainly can win. Until the Democrats understand the degree of disaffection that they have CREATED with the working class, persons like Trump have a great chance of succeeding. I also agree with your note about the black voters. Black voters are beginning to realize that the Democrats no longer are willing to do much for them. Democrats support illegals.Will that make a difference in this election? It might in some states.

    Like

  6. You’re saying that there many low information voters who will believe anything a congenital liar tells them.

    Your probably right. The USA is lost, and I don’t see much hope for the country unless it places an intelligence check as a prerequisite to vote.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I am a white woman the same age as Hillary and I have a Bernie2016 sticker on my car, a Ford with a Made in Michigan sticker in the window added at the factory – not made in Mexico – yet – in 2012. No way could I ever vote for Hillary who cannot get enough of TPP and H-1B, though I am a lifetime Democratic voter. I am an ex techie college grad (physical science) and NOT a member of the Chattering class nor a fancy pants crooked lawyer. I have faced bouts of unemployment as most everybody in manufacturing/engineering thanks to the bipartisan de-industrialization of America. and failed economic globalism. If Ford really does have in mind to make future models of my Focus in Mexico I truly hope The Donald (or Bernie) gives them a whopping dose of “protectionism” and political incorrectness.

    Like

  8. Insightful. My family is part of that 47% (although I am not yet). My son says he doesn’t know anyone who is not living paycheck to paycheck. He also has defaulted on a large student loan. But the chattering class and the politicians in Washington feel no sympathy whatever for student loan debtors, who they regard as deadbeats. Yet these people took out loans on the assurance of those same politicians that the jobs would be there.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Many Trump supporters may be Republicans and former Democrats who are victims of the financial crash that Democrats like George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, George W. Bush (a.k.a. Shrub), Obama, Solis, Jeh Johnson et al. contributed to.

    Like

    • So you’re drumming the Bushes, mainstays of the Republican Party for 30 years, out of the party. You can’t complain about the policies of the Democratic Party if you include Republicans in it. I believe you must include everyone in charge of the economy.

      Like

  10. Chatterers don’t wake up. They never GREW up. Most of these people came of age in the 1960’s and they don’t believe in the following things:
    1. a standard of morality that is universal and not man-made — including honesty and integrity.
    2. “forbidden love” – some relationships are not going to work — see all the classic literature on that.
    3. money does not grow on trees — they believe it comes from government fiat, so there is no limit.
    4. you can’t tax your way to prosperity — they think the rich are another endless source of money — see #3.

    These are the people who did not have to work their way up, so they never had to deal with reality. They were shielded from it, and thus believe lies and fantasies much more readily than warnings and restrictions.

    Like

  11. The problem of Trump is not because he somehow has a vague message that appeals to people who struggle in difficulty. The problem of Trump is that he does not really care about people who struggle in difficulty but he cynically manipulates people’s anger to get votes.

    That is the problem I have always had with the opposing side. The concerns about negative impacts of immigration are totally legitimate. The problem is that those people who claim immigration hurts economy and employment, only use it as scapegoating and to cover their true colors of racism

    Liked by 1 person

      • Of course I cannot read Trump’s mind but I do not think it is hard by looking at his record. Trump said wage is too “high” and Trump’s tax plan includes huge cuts to the wealthy and his plan to win trade is to impose huge tariff to imported goods(which will be transferred to burdens on ordinary Americans).

        So is that clear?

        Liked by 1 person

  12. The largest loss free trade has produced is in the failure of wages to grow.

    Average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls from 1947-2000 in 1982 dollars are:

    1947……….196.47
    1948……….196.00
    1949……….202.58
    1950……….212.52
    1951……….215.09
    1952……….219.75
    1953……….229.35
    1954……….231.25
    1955……….243.60
    1956……….250.85
    1957……….251.13
    1958……….250.27
    1959……….260.86
    1960……….261.92
    1961……….265.59
    1962……….273.60
    1963……….278.18
    1964……….283.63
    1965……….291.90
    1966……….294.11
    1967……….293.49
    1968……….298.42
    1969……….300.81
    1970……….298.08
    1971……….303.12
    1972……….315.44
    1973……….315.38
    1974……….302.27
    1975……….293.06
    1976……….297.37
    1977……….300.96
    1978……….300.89
    1979……….291.66
    1980……….274.65
    1981……….270.63
    1982……….267.26
    1983……….272.52
    1984……….274.73
    1985……….271.16
    1986……….271.94
    1987……….269.16
    1988……….266.79
    1989……….264.22
    1990……….259.47
    1991……….255.40
    1992……….254.99
    1993……….254.87
    1994……….256.73
    1995……….255.07
    1996……….255.73
    1997……….261.31
    1998……….268.32
    1999……….271.25
    2000……….271.96

    The maximum real wage was $315.44 (1982 dollars) in the year 1972.

    The least-squared fit of the data from 1947 to the 1972 peak is

    Real Wage Least Sq Fit = -9029.11576752542 + 4.73972991453198 * Year

    Extending the 1947-1972 trend to 2016 produces a wage of 526 (1982 dollars)

    Using the inflation calculator at

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=526&year1=1982&year2=2016

    526 (1982 dollars) is $1,298 (2016 dollars)

    The current (March 2016) real wage from

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t24.htm

    is

    $718

    For the average America blue collar worker to get back to the real wage growth trend this nation produced from 1947 to 1972 would require a raise of

    $580 dollars a week or 80 percent.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Lovely situation! Our choice is crazy or corrupt. Actually, Hillary isn’t corrupt by “Establishment” standards. Her plus is that she’s stable and predictable. Unfortunately that means she will predictably side with the bankers and the likes of Tata.

    The plus with Trump is that he “might” shake up the system. The danger is that he might also blow it up. We just don’t know from what he says. And then there’s all the despicable stuff.

    It’s a very unpredictable situation because the djinn of mass dissatisfaction has been let out of the bottle. Hillary and the Establishment can’t suppress it forever, and Trump is liable to take it in directions we don’t want to go. A movement needs to develop that will have impact on Congress and the Presidency, that solves problems without destroying. We do seem to be at a cross-roads. Interesting times!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Does anyone know if H1B visas that are approved this October can be invalidated for use if Trump becomes President and starts office next January? I know that the application season is from April to September with employment authorizations granted on October 1. Do the companies use the visa immediately and the worker comes into the country within weeks of the visa approval?

    So if Trump becomes President, he won’t be able to do anything about the H1B visas granted this October? So even if he puts the program on hold, the visas granted this October become active next year until 2020? Or can a President invalidate the H1B visas previously granted if he puts the entire program on hold?

    The “American Jobs First Act” authored by Senator Jeff Sessions authored this past December is a long way to getting anywhere. I just checked and it still is in the first stage with a 2% chance of being enacted.
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2394

    Liked by 1 person

    • Generally speaking, visas which have been approved continue to be valid.
      The most interesting questions arise on the case of “3 year” H1-B visas which
      are certainly going to be re-approved if Hillary wins.

      Trump’s Secretary of Labor/Secretary of Homeland Security would have the
      option of not renewing these visas for another three years, or subjecting them
      to conditions, such as actually paying the H1-B a comparable wage, or requiring
      a no-layoff guarantee from the employer. You know, stuff that would RUIN THE PROGRAM.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s what I’m worried about. That they’re approved and out the gate. Hopefully, they’re not all 3 yr visas.

        If Trump gains office in January, these visas don’t usually get filled (as in flying in the person) until after Feb or March. Maybe Trump and Labor Sec. can do something.

        Like

  15. After going through all the stages of grief about Trump, I can’t accept that he could be President. But I do recognize that he and Bernie have tapped into an extreme level of dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction reflects the reality of exploitation of the 99% by the political and economic elites. My conclusion, God forbid, is that Trump might clean house, which would be a good thing. My fear is that he could make things worse in a whole new way.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Not at ALL wealthy, pro-mental health awareness and anti-stigma across the board, I have been trolling the internet attempting to understanding the psychology that might explain the popularity of a man who is more flashy marketer than thinking politician, and apparently – judging by his own statements – bigoted toward a great many groups that make up American demographics, and quite the misogynist.

    Your article makes the most sense of any I have come across. NEITHER party truly understands the desperation of a large Trump-sized chunk of the American voting public. I just hope America’s not ready to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

    I mean, doesn’t political experience matter AT ALL anymore? Are we truly ready to throw whomever we must under the proverbial bus as long as we get ours? How is that any different from what’s going on now?

    One of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes says it best: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him LAST.”

    xx,
    mgh
    (Madelyn Griffith-Haynie – ADDandSoMuchMore dot com)
    – ADD Coach Training Field founder; ADD Coaching co-founder –
    “It takes a village to transform a world!”

    Liked by 1 person

      • Well Norm, ya know, college professors are murderers, they’re rapists, they’re bringing drugs. But some of them… I assume… are good people.
        🙂

        bigot (noun)
        a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

        Donald Trump: “Get ’em outta here!”

        P.S. Actually, I agree with you that Trump is most probably not a bigot. He’s just saying whatever sells well this week. And the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who form the majority of his base are just eating this stuff up and asking for seconds. This year he is pro-gun and anti-choice. He knows full well that none of his public statements are given under oath, and thus, because he has no actual personal convictions about anything (other than being sure that he’d like to be president) he’s perfectly happy to say whatever it is that the crowd he happens to be speaking to today wants to hear. Tomorrow, in front of a different crowd, he’ll say something entirely different.

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280717-trump-in-2012-obama-spoke-for-me-after-newtown

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-the-nra-trump-completes-his-rapid-transformation-into-a-pro-gun-voice/2016/05/20/6a6acc70-1ea1-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

        Like

          • All generalizations are false, including this one.

            As a general rule, I try hard to avoid ever saying “All X are Y” or even “Most X are Y” or even “Many X are Y”. I find most such generalizations not only not useful, but actually harmful, even to the people asserting them. As you see however, I do permit myself certain exceptions to that general rule, e.g. when it comes to Trump supporters.

            Like

      • It would seem, from your response, that you are among those who are of the opinion that Trump isn’t racist but simply “careless and undisciplined,” as John Hinderaker of the conservative website PowerLine put it?

        The opinion in my comment is much more in line with Dana Milbank, op. ed. for The Washington Post:
        “It might be possible to explain away any one of Trump’s outrages as a mistake or a misunderstanding. But at some point you’re not merely saying things that could be construed as bigoted: You are a bigot.”

        Bigot: [Merriam-Webster] “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

        In this campaign Trump has uttered (or tweeted) slurs against African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and the disabled (blatant in his attempt to mock the physicality of Times reporter, Serge Kovaleski’s movement disorder – see clips on the web)

        I think that qualifies him. Wish you agreed.
        xx,
        mgh

        Liked by 1 person

        • I don’t mean to dismiss Trump’s comments, many of which I have publicly criticized, and I’ve publicly stated many times that I support Bernie. But it seems to me that you are not writing responsibly here. To my knowledge, I don’t think Trump has ever said anything negative about blacks or Asians. Did you just gratuitously throw them into your list?

          For that matter, I don’t think Trump has ever said anything negative about Muslims. His only statement that I know of about Muslims is that some are engaging in frightening violence in the U.S., so that he wants a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country. I disagree with that measure, and again have said so publicly, but his premise is indisputable, and Trump has never said he thinks all or most Muslims are like that.

          I wonder if you are aware of the fact that Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Latina Democrat, has made statements like Trump’s regarding Muslims? Or that California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein has stated that Muslims and Arabs should get intense scrutiny at airports?

          Trump’s biggest problem, as we all know, is his impetuous, unbridled nature. Most people I know in politics, academia and so on say such things privately but know to keep their thoughts non-public.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Thanks for approving & responding. If I can find the time to source, I will – but it may take me a bit of time to get back with links. What I recall most is my emotional reaction at the time I came across various comments.

            ALSO, I don’t care whether a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent publicly utters comments that paint groups with a black and white stereotyping brush (or suggests policies that target them similarly), I believe it becomes part of the problem, not a step toward solution, with which your prior articles would seem to indicate you agree. While equally odious coming out of the mouth of a Senator or Representative of either party, I am especially dismayed when those comments are unleashed as soundbites by individuals setting their sites on the White House.

            At the very least, Trump’s impulsivity will turn out to become a considerable problem for ongoing diplomatic relations until and unless he can learn to insert a pause to think between thought and expression. His campaign to date inspires little confidence that he is interested in developing that particular skill.

            IMHO, “shoe-banging” Heads of State are an embarrassment, regardless of the country flag they fly or where they bang their metaphorical (or actual) shoes. I certainly would hate to see anyone with even a remotely similar communication style representing – or tasked with leading – America domestic or foreign policy.

            In any case, although I don’t agree with everything you write, I do appreciate your considered writing and your blog. We could probably go back and forth about Trump for years and perhaps disagree on more than we could find to agree upon. May America always remain a country that supports the rights of its citizens to speak our minds, whether we agree OR disagree!

            xx,
            mgh

            Liked by 1 person

          • I understand your visceral reaction against Trump, and once again, I’m a Bernie supporter. But let me put it this way: Hillary may know how to avoid making bigoted remarks in public, but there is no way I would vote for her. I absolutely do not trust her, or more precisely, I trust her to take actions that I consider quite harmful to the nation.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m with you re: Sanders, btw. I have nodded in approval in response to almost everything the man has said, but (sadly) I never believed for an instant that his well-reasoned approach could capture the nomination in America’s current emotional climate.

            SO – what’s our choice for the next 4 years? Is Trump really less likely to harm the nation? I sincerely doubt it.

            Can the country survive the next four years until (hopefully) the pendulum swings over to sense and sensibility? I sincerely hope so – AND I am sincerely afraid that will turn out to be a naive desire.

            xx,
            mgh

            Like

          • I take it that you consider Hillary to be in the “sense and sensibility” category? Please don’t refer to Trump in your answer.

            Like

          • Not particularly – but it’s difficult to comment without referencing her opponent, since the race looks as if it may well turn out to be a “least worst” voting situation for a great many Americans. I do believe that, at the very least, she would be able to represent America in a manner that would not leave us bowing our heads as the rest of the world laughed at our “Presidential taste.”

            What gives me hope where H. Clinton is concerned is the change in the initially negative reaction of Upstate New York during her senatorial tenure: “We know how good she is . . . [and] what she brought back to New York and how she helped [the University at Buffalo] and small businesses all across upstate New York and focused on the economy.” ~ Cuomo

            I also have hope that she will receive substantial guidance from B. Clinton, along with vetted access to qualified advisors to whom she would most likely be inclined to listen. It would be practically impossible to advise a President disinclined to listen, believing that simply shouting down what IS might change anything much at all.

            xx,
            mgh

            Like

          • You’re citing a Democratic governor’s obligatory testimonial for Hillary? Really?

            The “small businesses” in Buffalo? See this article, which states,

            That’s because Clinton is someone who tends to bend with the wind on this issue. In 2007, in a speech to top Silicon Valley executives, she was very clearly on the side of boosting H1B numbers. ” I am reaffirming my commitment to the H1B visa and increasing the current cap. Foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to what we have to do in being innovators,” she said to loud applause.

            In 2003, she was clearly not hesitant to inaugurate the offices of India’s Tata Consultancy Services in Buffalo, one of the major beneficiaries of H1Bs and IT outsourcing contracts from the US. Clinton was the key architect of the whole plan to bring business, and TCS, to the State of New York, at a time when the whole issue of outsourcing and H1Bs was gathering steam.

            That passage is followed by a “However,” which is just a response to Trump’s pointing out the H-1B problem, and a tepid response at that.

            I do like Bill, but he knew that the H-1B program was rotten yet approved a doubling of the cap regardless — and then went on a fundraising tour of Silicon Valley. Based on his “qualified advisors,” he signed into a law repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.

            Like

          • Whoa! It was simply a quote that expressed what I was trying to say – and I make it a point to attribute when possible. I was not promoting it as “proof,” regardless of whether the person who said it truly believed it or read it from a script it at gunpoint.

            I’m not going to participate in arguments about who’s “better” than whom. NO politician makes it far without learning the dirty tricks of politics, and NO businessman makes it far without learning the dirty tricks of business – which makes them ALL suspect in my eyes.

            As I said in my first comment on this article, I am simply attempting to understand the underlying psychological dynamics of what – to me – is one of the most bizarre and over-the-top, heated, finger-pointing campaigns since I was old enough to pay attention to campaigns and think for myself. BECAUSE I will have to make a choice at the polls, and I’m looking at a least-worst situation.

            Hillary plays her cards close to the vest – Trump plays cards by the seat of his pants in an overt, deprecating fashion that I have never been, and will never be able to respect. AT. ALL.

            Does H. Clinton think the same things and not say them? Nobody knows, and that’s my point. Nor can we know if Trump actually believes what comes out of his mouth. BOTH waffle, the difference is style and tempo.

            How will the players on the world stage respond to the considered style of one vs. the impetuous style of the other? Which is most likely to be able to turn detractors into allies? Which is more likely to create enemies and foment rage aimed in the direction of whomever is the target of the moment – to rouse the rabble, as they say?

            Which has experience in the political arena? Which is more likely to actually LISTEN to advisors regardless of what she “secretly” believes – able to pull back when expedient without creating a bubble-under-plastic problem in the attempt?

            Ethical beliefs aside, Mitch McConnell’s publicly admitted emphasis on “the long game” only makes ANY kind of sense if the short game doesn’t blow up in everybody’s collective face first.

            In any case, I doubt that we agree, and I doubt that either of us will be able to convince the other to vote for a candidate who scares us.

            The damage potential of Trump’s reactive disinhibition scares me more than the calculated style of H. Clinton – and he has given no indication on the campaign trail that he is willing or able to behave in any other fashion.

            Wars and horse races – and whether we agree on the same horse or not, every bettor loses in the climate of this type of election.

            Regardless of who wins the top spot, the politicos of the Senate are likely to choose to walk out again in any case, far more invested in what’s good for the party than what’s good for the country – “and none dare call it treason.” (referencing ONLY Stormer’s title, btw)

            We are left in a position to attempt to decide which leader will leave us with enough to be able to rebuild IF the pendulum ever returns to any semblance of order and reason.

            May the least worst candidate win – please GOD.
            xx,
            mgh

            PS. And this BEFORE the Trump University “Playbooks” came out, which will open another can of worms bringing up another set of issues altogether.

            Like

        • “In this campaign Trump has uttered (or tweeted) slurs against African Americans, immigrants, Latinos, Asians, women, Muslims and the disabled…”

          You left out United States POW veterans. Trump has also disrepected them in a colossal way, specifically with reference to John McCain, but as usual Trump made typical blanket generalizations, so that his baseless insults actually applied to *all* U.S. POWs, presumably since the founding of the republic.

          So draft doger Trump, who apparently found a friendly doctor, just in the nick of time, to write him a note claiming that he had “bone spurs” so that he could avoid being sent to VietNam, has the unmitigated cajones to criticise a decorated war veteran (McCain) who was shot down, breaking various limbs in the process, and who was then tortured by his Vietnamese captors over a period of several YEARS, and who still, to this day, cannot raise his arms above his shoulders because of the torture he underwent in Vietnam.

          Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a fan of McCain. I loath and despise his jingoistic militarism, and I still, to this day, remember him as one of the so-called “Keating Five”. But during the Vietnam era, he answered his country’s call and served with distinction… unlike Trump who doged the draft. For Trump to now say *anything* critical of *any* honorably dischaged serviceman (or servicewoman), let alone a decorated former POW who was tortured while in captivity, is nothing short of reprehensible. And I say this as someone who actively protested and marched against the Vietnam war at the time. Trumps doesn’t just owe an apology to McCain. He owes one to *everyone* who has ever worn the uniform of these United States.

          http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-evades-specifics-on-his-draft-deferment-120330

          P.S. Trump’s verbal lunacy reached even greater heights than ever before today when he managed to contradict himself WITHIN A SINGLE SENTENCE. (Perhaps a new first, even for Trump.) Students of the English language and/or 1984’s “doubethink” may want to stop and ponder the internal consistancy, or lack thereof, of today’s profound Trump utterance: “Generally speaking that’s 100 percent true.”

          Liked by 1 person

          • Ron, we are of the same generation, I’m guessing. I didn’t actively protest the war (primarily because my Dad was the USAF Congressional Liaison at the time and I respected that), but I did not support that war either. Not. At. ALL. I made my opinion clear, in any case.

            STILL, I believed (and still believe) that the way in which the American public treated the returning Viet Nam vets was (and IS) **shameful** – and that NO ONE must ever again be allowed to express anything but gratitude to the brave men and women who fight and die for our freedoms – without immediate, unambiguous condemnation. I cannot believe that ANYONE running for *any* office would think they could get away with it. (emphasis on “think” – see my earlier comment here re: fear of the fallout from T’s impulsivity)

            It’s shameful that we don’t allocate more resources to support for returning vets – but it doesn’t take a balanced budget to make *sure* we say nothing that DISrespects their service, even those who *clearly* cannot respect it.

            My response is new respect for those Republicans who didn’t attempt to skate when asked to respond (“There is no place in our party or our country for comments that disparage those who have served honorably,” tweet from Sean Spicer – and the unequivocal tweets from Rubio, Christie, Walker, Jeb Bush, etc.)

            I have lost all respect for those who could not respond strongly or who tried to avoid anything that might be politically damaging (ex., no comment on Trump from Santorum or Cruz, even tho’ they DID tweet support for McCain’s heroism).

            Ironic that this particular gaffe falls so close to Memorial Day, and that Trump’s “come-back” was contexted as an attempt to clarify ( vs. an apology), followed by further attack, “If a person is captured, they’re a hero as far as I’m concerned. I don’t like the job John McCain is doing in the Senate because he is not taking care of our veterans.”

            hmmm . . . enough to placate the vets who decided never to vote for the man? We will see.

            https://usatelections.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/donald-trump-john-mccain-war-hero/

            xx,
            mgh

            Like

          • “The damage potential of Trump’s reactive disinhibition scares me more than the calculated style of H. Clinton”

            vs

            “My response is new respect for those Republicans who didn’t attempt to skate when asked to respond”

            “I have lost all respect for those who could not respond strongly or who tried to avoid anything that might be politically damaging”

            Seems to me that you like politicians or people who speak out with views that align with yours but when they voice opinions that are opposite yours, you call them reactive & damaging. This is like the hypocritical liberal & leftist Trump protestors who talk about free speech yet try to shut down Trump rallies and prevent him from speaking.

            Like

        • I think this is what’s wrong with today’s leftist and politically correct environment. You can’t call a spade a spade without getting it spun into something else and misconstrued via “media hype”.

          A lot of Mexicans actually agree with Trump’s statements about what’s going on at the border and with what illegals are doing inside our country. I have traveled extensively throughout Mexico and lived there for months at a time. I have met taxi drivers and taco stand owners who have repeatedly crossed the border. To them it’s a sport. One taxi driver told me that he got a California driver’s license and was able to fly around the country unhindered. He had a big smile on his face when he recounted to me his exploits and how he gamed the system. He said that he crossed the border like it’s no big deal and found a job working ‘under the table’ at a restaurant in San Jose, CA.

          Trump’s mocking of the reporter’s disability was obvious and non-PC but can you say that he was mocking all people with that type of disability? I will say that that is not something I expect someone with presidential stature would do, but if that reporter was getting in the way of fixing the many problems that our country has, I’ll give Trump a pass on that.

          Btw, when a person changes his/her mind based on new information or the influence of someone else’s opinion, that is opposite of bigoted. If anything, it would be seen as a flip-flop, which Trump has been accused of.

          Like

          • A recent poll showed that Trump is getting slightly more support from blacks and Latinos than did Romney in 2012. I would guess that that support will increase over the next few months.

            Like

          • “One taxi driver told me that he got a California driver’s license and was able to fly around the country unhindered. He had a big smile on his face when he recounted to me his exploits and how he gamed the system…”

            Driver’s licenses, welfare, spanish language instruction, presumably so that they never need to bother with learning English, and on and on. Here in the Golden State, our politics are so far to the left now that we give the illegals *everything*. Nowadays, illegal aliens are EVEN ALLOWED TO PRACTICE LAW here in the Golden State:

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/justice/california-immigrant-lawyer/

            You can’t make stuff like this up. This is so ludicrous that it wouldn’t even have made it into a script for the Twilight Zone.

            People wonder aloud how Trump has gotten as far as he has. It’s because of absurd stuff like this. I detest the man, and I’m smart enough to know that both parties are playing “hide the ball” with the real solution to illegal immigration (i.e. vastly harsher enforcement against people who HIRE the illegals… no wall required), but you can understand why frustration boils over into insane Trumpism when you see stuff like this happening.

            P.S. Yes, they are “illegal aliens”. Attempts to re-label them as “undocumented immigrants” are just silly on their face. “Undocumented” makes it sound like they just forgot and left their documents in their other suit. But we all know better. There is the law, and then there is pandering. It’s important to keep them straight in one’s mind.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s