I was glancing through Dan's screed on unity, and I find myself torn. I find his characterization of Trump as an abuser, over the top and pointless. But, I will grant his point that it's time to move on from trump and move forward into something.
Where I struggle is the assumption that the only option is to unify around Biden. In his short time in office Biden has done nothing that would encourage any principled conservative to support him. It's strange how, during the waning days of the campaign, we kept hearing the horror stories about the people who would be devastated because they didn't get a $2,000 check. Yet, despite hearing how easy it would be, there's been virtually nothing done to help those desperate people.
So, while I am excited for the conservative movement to move of from Trump, and towards a future where our candidate isn't a 78 year old whit guy. What I'm not excited about is being told that the only way to achieve unity is to uncritically support Biden.
10 comments:
His characterization continues to lack evidence in support of it. That's the most dishonest part.
How do you see "moving on from Trump" to be beneficial? There was far less negative from his presidency than there was from all...from the right or left.. who chose to denigrate him. Far, far too much time and effort was expended on his eccentricities, with what I believe was an intentional ignoring of his policies and goals. While there was far more good from his time in office than bad, he represented a threat to the left- and right-wing swamp creatures...a threat for which most people from both sides long claimed to have wanted in the government. I don't need to have Trump specifically. But if moving on from him means, or results in, returning to what we had before he came on the scene, I want no part in it. What we need, and what we need to unify around, is a new Trump who isn't Trump. Someone who will be all the good things Trump has been without all that provided for the worst political animals the distraction they needed from that good.
That good was a horror to Trump's opponents. They saw it for what it had been: that which their agenda and ideas were incapable of overcoming, because it did not provide for the American people, culture and legacy what Trump's clumsily implemented policies and ideas are. Trump was the conservative movement because so-called conservatives lacked the backbone to stand up for conservatism in the way Trump did, choosing instead to cower before bullshit accusations of bigotry, misogyny and whatever other lying accusations the left might choose to hurl. Trump, like an ordinary man would, boldly told them to go pound sand...something GOP politicians should have been doing for a long time. He didn't play games with the other party and nor with his own. He just got things done. THAT'S what I'm keen on holding up as a worthwhile goal around which to unify.
Dan, as is his history, prefers instead to unify around falsehood, lies and fantasy. We see it in his defense of the transgendered, the marxism of BLM he tries to sell as "justice warriors", abortion rights and every other bullshit leftist agenda item. That's not happening and I worry that without someone with Trump's confidence of conviction, conservatism will again revert to the punchline leftist asshats have long regarded it. There was never anything about conservatism that a guy with Trump's courage couldn't use.
Trump was our rallying point, like him or not, and support for him remains strong among the American people, because he was what everybody claimed to want in a president, despite his eccentricities. Around whom will conservatives rally without him? Who will inspire that as Trump did? Age doesn't matter. Courage and conviction in American ideals and the Constitution does. We won't find that in Biden or anyone else in his party because those things aren't important to them anymore than we are.
Since you thought I was saying we need to unify around Biden, when I didn't mention Biden at all, I'm guessing you thought in my analogy the Trump was the abuser and Biden was he abused. In my analogy, Biden is not the abused. The nation is. Decency is. The Free Press and Democrats and anyone who disagrees with Trump are the victims of the abuse.
Just fyi.
Marshal... "Trump was our rallying point..."
That is just the most pathetic thing I've read all day.
It’s almost like you have these programmed responses, that you trot out regardless of whether they fit or not.
In no way do I think that you painted Biden as abused. My only reason for mentioning Biden was the fact that he’s currently in office and there is quite a chorus of voices advocating unity around Biden.
Further you’ll note that I clearly said “move forward into something”.
It’s almost like you just had to manufacture a disagreement where none apparently exists.
Craig, your words, "What I'm not excited about is being told that the only way to achieve unity is to uncritically support Biden."
Who has said this, precisely?
Oh, right. No one.
It's almost like you just had to manufacture a disagreement where none apparently exists.
The problem with your rush to manufacture a disagreement, where one doesn’t exist, is that your initial response assumed I was talking about you (narcissistic much?), and your second response jumps to speak for literally everyone. You have absolutely zero idea who I listen to and what I hear, but are prepared to tell me I’m wrong from that position of ignorance.
But it’s a pretty good attempt to stoke up your manufactured disagreement.
Perhaps you could acknowledge that, even though I mentioned your screed, that I wasn’t responding exclusively to your screed. Just maybe your assumptions about who I listen to has failed you once more. I know it’s hard to admit you’ve jumped to a wrong conclusion without all the evidence, but you sure get enough practice at it. Maybe someday you’ll learn.
And no, I’m not going to dig through months of social media posts to “prove” that I’ve seen what I’ve seen. You’d ignore it anyway.
"That is just the most pathetic thing I've read all day."
Ironic, given how pathetic you are.
"As is always the case, you're reading into my words things that I did not say."
As usual, (when you say always it just makes you look idiotic), you've chosen to respond to assumptions about what you think I said, instead of what I actually said. Unfortunately, you tend to think that if I reference you, that I am referencing you exclusively.
Google, ate my previous detailed parsing of your screed, and I'm not going to recreate it now.
I'll summarize by saying that there are some potential things to unify around in your list, as long as The Truth is primary, I could see agreement to some degree.
What will be interesting is to see what the party in power chooses to do over the next two years. Will they simply adopt the attitude of doing to the GOP what they think the GOP did to them, or will the choose true bipartisanship and open debate?
I suspect that I know which road will be taken, but I am prepared to be surprised to find out that I'm wrong about that.
Given 50+ EO's, it doesn't seem likely we'll gat any real bipartisanship.
Post a Comment