41 thoughts on “Trump Defenders”

  1. and yet conservative republicans embrace him as a savior .. LOL

    Who’s ethics are challenged when you vote for someone who is publically known as a LIFELONG ethically challenged person?

    1. Because Trump was less ethically challenged than Hillary. And a better choice than !Jeb!. This isn’t hard to figure out.

    2. “and yet conservative republicans embrace him as a savior .. LOL ”

      They do? This is news to me. I’m a libertarian RINO, but I got the impression that among real conservative Republicans (excluding, of course, the NeverTrumpers), Trump was simply the only viable alternative to Queen Cacklepants (aka “the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua,” aka “Krazy Eye Killa Clinton.” aka “Felonia von Pantsuit,” etc., et al). I preferred Trump not only because it makes me physically ill to look at Clinton, but because I’m rather fond of the 2nd Amendment.

    3. I voted for Trump for two primary reasons:

      1. He wasn’t Hillary.
      2. To stop Hillary from getting to nominate Supreme Court justices and judges to lower courts.

      In both of these things, he’s doing an excellent job. Savior? It is to laugh.

    4. “and yet conservative republicans embrace him as a savior .. LOL ”

      it’s this sort of uninformed idiot blather that makes lefties look so stupid

    5. I voted for Trump after Democrats tried lynching people in the streets during the campaign. It was a year of coast to coast violence organized and funded by Hillary and the DNC.

      It was especially troubling since Democrats almost nominated an out of closet Socialist as their candidate and many of the Democrats militants lean closer to Obama and Sanders than Hillary. The Democrat party has become totalitarian and frequently engages in violence.

      The violence continues today. To make it worse, Democrats partner with international socialists to engage in violence in the effort to overthrow capitalism and our republic. Top elected Democrats traveled to Germany to take part in violent socialist riots.

      That’s why I voted for Trump.

    6. “when you vote for someone who is publically known as a LIFELONG ethically challenged person?”

      Are you trying to come to terms with voting for Ms. Clinton?

  2. Sorry, but I just can’t follow it. Those who don’t like Trump seem to judge everything harshly.
    Last year, before anyone was screaming about Russian collusion, a politician gets news of oppo research on his opponent. He’s not endorsing it, he’s not subsidizing it, it’s done already. A meeting is suggested to show him the info.
    It’s wrong for him to have that meeting? It matters who did the research? Think tank, federal employee, Wikileaks, Russians? Why does it matter?
    No, it’s not wrong. I’m not saying in the sense that “the Clinton campaign would have done it too!” This is normal.

    1. Situational enforcement of the law is never good, but the Progressive Left put us on that road, and “normalized” it, so now they should be required to live with the consequences. Is it because none of the info was classified? And until I see them showing the same regard when one of their own does it, I’m just not gonna believe all their hysterical demands that this must be prosecuted. Go after the Grand Duchess of Chappaqua with similar zeal, and then maybe we can believe you Progressives. (Why are they still so afraid of Her, that they are unwilling to sacrifice Her for the greater cause?)

  3. Yawn.

    Meanwhile, Trump is doing a good job at being not-Hillary and an excellent job at not only preventing Warren Court 2.0 (after which no property, right or freedom would survive), but moving SCOTUS in the right direction. How’s RBG’s health these days? 🙂

  4. Trump’s defeated defenders? Like Alan Dershowitz? Despite being quite liberal, he’s been steadfast in maintaining that there’s nothing here. And I have to agree. The only person who mentioned anything about Russia supporting Trump was Rob Goldstone, who set the whole thing up – the operative words being “set” and “up,” which this sounds like to me. Also, there isn’t any indication that the alleged information had been illegally obtained. Just that it would be incriminating. Who wouldn’t have wanted to see it? I sure as hell would have! The Clintons destroy all of their records. It would be good to see whether there is anything solid behind all of the appearances of impropriety on their part. And I’m not speaking about it from the perspective of the Trump campaign, but as an American citizen.

  5. I didn’t like Trump in the primaries or general. I voted for him in the general because I was utterly convinced that, no matter what, Trump is not Hillary Clinton. I still remain convinced that he is not Hillary Clinton, so I do not regret my vote.

    I have to say though, I’ve been pleasantly surprised in some ways by his presidency. I’d probably vote for him again, even if his opponent is not Hillary. I don’t like some of the things he’s done (broken promises, etc) but all in all, I’ll give him a B grade. (When I voted for him, I expected a D-)

    As for DJT Jr.’s actions, I’ll condemn him for being amateurish and naive. But, I can’t see that he did anything wrong. It’s a known fact that the other side was actively colluding with foreigners (Ukraine, for one) so why wouldn’t the Trump side be willing to listen to prospective dirt from Russia? When your opponent is dirty (and is is proven collusion with the media, too), you either fight dirty too or lose. That sucks, but that’s the way it is.

  6. I find him a breath of fresh air, and am waiting to see how it all unfolds. The old “Democrat-Lite” strategy of the Republicans sure wasn’t working.

  7. On Monday, the New York Times published a jaw-dropping story, alleging that a 2016 meeting between a Russian attorney and Donald Trump’s son and son-in-law had been arranged to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton that a Kremlin-connected lawyer might be willing to provide to the Trump campaign.

    I am always skeptical of people who leave out the details. Trump Jr released emails showing the “dirt” was possible collusion between Hillary and Russia. Would McArdle expect Jeb!, McMuffin, Hillary, or the DNC to skip a similar meeting about Trump?

    Hillary and her staff have strong financial ties to Russia. All of Hillary and the DNC’s policies favor Russian interests. Russia has long been the ideological source code for Democrat activism. Russia regularly finances DNC agitprop. Why wouldn’t a whistle blower be met with?

    It is not like the DNC media or the FBI would do anything about it.

    1. People who love their country do not help rival powers intervene in their country’s elections, even if that intervention might have the lovely side effect of getting them elected.

      Surely she will write up a piece on Hillary’s collusion with Ukraine and former British spies possibly working for Russia.

      She wants to ignore actual collusion in favor of imaginary collusion.

  8. the Trump family is extremely ethics challenged. They are, after all, lifelong Democrats.

    Slander and hogwash. His actions have not made democrats happy.

    Talking is not illegal. Collision is specifically an illegal act and we have absolutely no evidence here of such. It would be dereliction if they didn’t have discussions.

    Putin is not a good guy but is doing exactly what a leader is suppose to… looking after the interests of his own country. It’s a shame many Americans can’t follow that example.

    What the enemies of America (the left) are doing is breathlessly reporting ‘crimes’ that aren’t when they do actual crimes and get away with them without even hiding the fact.

    The best thing Trump can do is fill over 100 court vacancies with judges that will enforce the rule of law (rather than of ‘good’ intentions.) He’s doing that and the left is attempting to obstruct that (but are limited by their own enactment of the nuclear option which Trump now has as well.)

    If Trump is a democrat we need more like him. He has all the right enemies which should be the final argument whatever flaws he has.

    1. Slander and hogwash. His actions have not made democrats happy.

      So? Lots of Democrats have had actions that have made other Democrats unhappy. The notion that calling Trump a life-long Democrat (which is demonstrably true, given the length of his life, and his recent conversion) is “slanderous” is stupidly hilarious.

      I get that you’re not going to be happy until I worship the ignorant con man as you do. Sorry, it’s not going to happen.

      1. It’s contrary to evidence which is unlike you Rand. What seems to be happening is your observational bias. First his style has made you decide he’s a democrat so when he has been on both sides of an issue (which is his external thinking process) you ignore his conservative side and latch onto his populism which is simply demonstrates he is a non ideologue searching for a conclusion. Demanding he always be consistent will lead you astray when all it means is he hasn’t reached a position (even when he’s leaning toward one.) That’s a legitimate complaint unless you refuse to look deeper.

        His conservative credentials go back 40 years. All you have to do is take notice. But his external thinking process makes that inconsistent. If you choose to ignore that just look at the people he’s picked.

        Judge Gorsuch is the best pick by a Republican in ages. Even Reagan gave us O’Conner who was awful.

        Ivanka is leftish, but as much as the Donald loves his daughter she hasn’t deflected him from conservatism other than in minor ways.

        Even Fred Thompson left the conservative reservation on occasion, but that didn’t make him a democrat.

        Nobody is asking you to worship Trump and you’d be wrong to suggest I do. The media is doing what they always do, but now dialed up to eleven and you’re buying it.

        Read some perspective. You’ve lived through this as I have.

        1. Demanding he always be consistent will lead you astray when all it means is he hasn’t reached a position (even when he’s leaning toward one.)

          I’m not “demanding he always be consistent.” I wish you’d respond to things I actually write, instead of things you imagine that I did.

          1. I’m not “demanding he always be consistent.”

            You’re right. That’s not exactly what you’re doing. What you are doing is using his words to assert conclusions when you already know his words aren’t conclusive. It is his actions that are conclusive. So far his actual actions have been better than we could have hoped for. Had he any real support at all beyond people both the left and right have dismissed for decades we’d be living in a golden age.

            Is it a fault that he speaks inconsistently? Of course it is, but it’s as much an issue as cheeto face/bad hair. Immaterial.

            I’ve driven many cars in my life. Some of them had crisp steering and others have been quite sloppy. But all of them got me safely down the road. Your smart enough to get the analogy.

            You’re a very honest guy Rand which has become your problem because honesty without perspective is as good as dishonesty. The left has that perspective problem in spades with the Russian BS a prime example.

            Hillary and Obama engaged in actual treason. Trump and associates did not regardless of the 24 hr ceaseless reporting.

            Pointing out real flaws that are immaterial makes you a fellow traveler with the left and RINOs. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is asking you to bow down to Trump. But as long as you help the media narrative along, you cease being one of the good guys.

            Being right is cold comfort if the patient dies.

      2. The other thing you should realize about me not criticizing Trump when he deserves it is it’s stupid to add to the dogpile when fully supporting what he’s doing right is critical.

        We’ve got serious problems that Trump is actually positively addressing. Unless it’s something extremely bad (which most aren’t) criticism is just cutting your nose to spite your face. It’s just plain stupid.

        1. when fully supporting what he’s doing right is critical.

          I’m not going to “fully support what he’s doing” when much of what he’s doing is stupid. Sorry.

          1. Again, lack of perspective. F&%k the stupid. Focus on the good. Don’t help the narrative. According to the left every republican has an IQ of 50 and every democrat 200.

            You are personally reinforcing that narrative.

            fully supporting what he’s doing right

            Emphasis added to encourage reading comprehension.

    2. “The best thing Trump can do is fill over 100 court vacancies with judges that will enforce the rule of law (rather than of ‘good’ intentions.)”

      Believe it was about 120 positions but I agree filling them with the right kind of judges should be one of his most important acts. Heard recently he had submitted or was going to submit a couple dozen of them so far (not counting Gorsuch). Judges who first and foremost don’t think it is a judge’s job to make laws. The Dems have already issued articles of impeachment against Trump; obviously they are trying to frame the 2018 midterms as a referendum on impeaching Trump. Personally think that is a losing strategy for the Dems; especially if Trump is able to achieve a large portion of his promised agenda (or is perceived as being well on the way).

      1. The only way Trump gets impeached is with republican support (which fully reveals them as enemies of the people… while they bluster the opposite.)

        It’s never going to happen.

        1. “The only way Trump gets impeached is with republican support (which fully reveals them as enemies of the people… while they bluster the opposite.) It’s never going to happen.”

          I agree. But I think the Dems mistakenly in my opinion believe the polls about Trump’s allegedly “sagging popularity”. Screaming about impeaching Trump will ignite the Dems’ base the hard core Trump haters. They believe that will be enough, and that they can ride the issue of impeaching Trump in the 2018 midterm elections and flip the House (maybe the Senate as well). Not saying I think so, I don’t, but the Dems put too much faith in the Main stream media (like MSN, NPR, etc.) and their biased polls. Look how MSN (Maddow) is practically foaming at the mouth because Trump junior met with a “connected” Russian; treason for sure, impeach him. They (the Dems) are willfully omitting from their minds that the same “trusted” sources predicted a Hillary Clinton “landslide”. Personally…I think the Repubs will hold on to the House easily and retain control of the Senate as well. And while it is probably much to early to say I also think Trump will win re-election handily in 2020 and by an even larger margin.

          1. The dems are in for some big election surprises in the future because they believe their own bull and the people don’t. The panic that they no longer control all sources of info is going to lead to drastic actions that will not fully succeed (but we need to be on constant watch for that which might.)


  9. Collusion isn’t even a misdemeanor unless it’s a collusion to fix prices.

    And there was nothing even questionable about the meeting other than the idiocy of Russia still having a “crown prosecutor”. I’m pretty sure they murdered the Czar and haven’t looked back since.

    One of the e-mails said: “the Crown prosecutor of Russia met with … Aras [Agalarov] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”

    As we all know, Hillary has multiple and highly questionable dealings with Russia. Any competent prosecutor would have dug into the Uranium One Deal, massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation by the seller, and a very large “speaking fee” paid to Bill Clinton for a speech in Moscow. And that wasn’t all she did. She also helped set up a major technology center that helped transfer US high technology to the Russian military.

    The Clintons aren’t talking, so the only people who would know what was on the other side of all those illegal looking transactions would be the Russians, specifically the Russian government. The only way we could find out that Clinton had engaged in a massive abuse of power, the selling of her office and US foreign policy, bribery, money laundering, espionage, treason, and all other sorts of malfeasance would be to hear it from top Russian officials, or intermediaries sent by them. If you don’t want to get burned by a foreign government, don’t commit crimes with a foreign government.

    And the public should have the right to know if one of the candidates was in bed with, or being blackmailed by, the Russians. So Donald Jr. took the meeting. I would have taken the meeting. There is no world in which such a meeting is even slightly unethical. It’s demanded.

  10. Sorry, no. McArdle is dead to me now. When you actively try to take down the only guy between you and Killary Clinton, you’re on the wrong side.

    Disliking Trump is no excuse for “conservatives” sabotaging his presidency.

  11. I usually consider McArdle to be a provocative read, even on those few occasions where I disagree. This time she jumped the shark.

  12. Ridiculous reaction by McArdle.
    I am amused by the email exchange. Reminds me very much of those emails I get about the former Nigerian Prime Minister who has placed ten million dollars in an account and needs me to help him get it. It’s always been my ambition to be one of those who troll those folks and waste weeks of their time trying to reel me in. Maybe that’s what Don Jr. was doing? Good clean fun.

  13. And as has been pointed out, this meeting took place long prior to the release of the DNC e-mails. There was nothing “hacked by the Russians” at this point, so the meeting would only have been about Hillary’s dealings with Moscow.

  14. until I worship the ignorant con man

    No, you’d rather give aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Nobody is demanding your worship, just reconnect with your reason.

    Everybody is ignorant. The question is do their actions make the situation TODAY better or worse. Trump may take one step back, but has made ten steps forward for each. That’s politics.

    It does matter if he’s a ‘con man.’ You’ve just described every politician in existence. Get over it and support your own interests.

    1. The age old battle of style versus substance. BHO had a lot of style, virtually no substance. Trump, to many people, has execrable style. So, what? So far, he’s delivering the things I want.

  15. No Trump fan here, but one is reminded of Lincoln’s reported response to advisors who warned him (possibly correctly) that US Grant was a drunk, borderline insubordinate, reckless, etc. etc, at a time when all his other generals were constantly engaging in inconclusive battles while the war continued at ruinous expense:

    “I cannot spare this man; he fights!”

Comments are closed.