Because, obviously, a nosediving Trump gives Hillary a chance to beat the Republican.
But, conversely, and as my friends and I have always said, we prefer Trump to the likes of Cruz (especially) and Rubio, et al. At least with a Trump you feel there's a chance at something other than theocracy, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism.
That chance has moved other commenters I respect to support Trump, notably many at NakedCapitalism (Yves went for Trump when he said he'd tear up TPP if congress deemed to pass it during the lame duck session) and a few even at Crooked Timber. And far more who are NOT taking a gung ho Hillary approach simply because they don't see it as a race to much to care about, and in many cases, to care enough to hold their noses. BTW for me the vote doesn't make any difference and that is the only reason I probably won't vote for Hillary.
I do indeed see this week as "the establishment media fights back," even fearing a Trump dictatorship might bring media persecution, though, generally, they've loved the ratings of Trump--a unfolding disaster, 24+/7, I wouldn't think they'd ever want it to end.
Am I supposed to care that Trump has hinted at not supporting our NATO "committments"? I'm with those who thought NATO should have been abolished in 1991 and even perhaps never even created.
Am I supposed to care that he might not back our ongoning proxy war in Ukraine with Russia? I wish we'd denounce any possibility of NATO for Ukraine, just before packing up NATO itself.
We have no business being the policeman of the world. We're not trusted anyway, and for good reasons...centuries of conquest and imperialism. Given our position in the world, we shouldn't even take sides. Let the Prime Directive apply to the USA.
And about the bomb? Well, such problems shouldn't even exist, and I don't feel they actually do. I think the system itself works against a hypothetical "mad man" President so that that's not the danger (accidents are THE danger, primarily). Trump is not actually schizophrenic, he's a very successful con artist primarily. He's in his element being more far out than anyone else, the #1. But not actually blowing things up. (...unlike Clinton...) he has no history of physically blowing things up, just IBGYBG.
I'm sure the "would you want this man in charge of The Bomb" will be trotted out for anyone anti-Imperialist of any stripe, let alone Leftist of any stripe, just as it had been for Barry Goldwater.
So, I'm not going to be swayed by any of those "he's not our man for Empire and Stability" arguments sway me. What I fear more is that despite Trump's possible somewhat liberal nature, his election would further the advance of anti-abortionism, erode progress in LGBT rights, and erode the financial underpinnings of the welfare state and the economy itself, as Republicans have done since Hoover.
His not being the great man of Empire is for me a plus. Just not enough of a plus.
But, conversely, and as my friends and I have always said, we prefer Trump to the likes of Cruz (especially) and Rubio, et al. At least with a Trump you feel there's a chance at something other than theocracy, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism.
That chance has moved other commenters I respect to support Trump, notably many at NakedCapitalism (Yves went for Trump when he said he'd tear up TPP if congress deemed to pass it during the lame duck session) and a few even at Crooked Timber. And far more who are NOT taking a gung ho Hillary approach simply because they don't see it as a race to much to care about, and in many cases, to care enough to hold their noses. BTW for me the vote doesn't make any difference and that is the only reason I probably won't vote for Hillary.
I do indeed see this week as "the establishment media fights back," even fearing a Trump dictatorship might bring media persecution, though, generally, they've loved the ratings of Trump--a unfolding disaster, 24+/7, I wouldn't think they'd ever want it to end.
Am I supposed to care that Trump has hinted at not supporting our NATO "committments"? I'm with those who thought NATO should have been abolished in 1991 and even perhaps never even created.
Am I supposed to care that he might not back our ongoning proxy war in Ukraine with Russia? I wish we'd denounce any possibility of NATO for Ukraine, just before packing up NATO itself.
We have no business being the policeman of the world. We're not trusted anyway, and for good reasons...centuries of conquest and imperialism. Given our position in the world, we shouldn't even take sides. Let the Prime Directive apply to the USA.
And about the bomb? Well, such problems shouldn't even exist, and I don't feel they actually do. I think the system itself works against a hypothetical "mad man" President so that that's not the danger (accidents are THE danger, primarily). Trump is not actually schizophrenic, he's a very successful con artist primarily. He's in his element being more far out than anyone else, the #1. But not actually blowing things up. (...unlike Clinton...) he has no history of physically blowing things up, just IBGYBG.
I'm sure the "would you want this man in charge of The Bomb" will be trotted out for anyone anti-Imperialist of any stripe, let alone Leftist of any stripe, just as it had been for Barry Goldwater.
So, I'm not going to be swayed by any of those "he's not our man for Empire and Stability" arguments sway me. What I fear more is that despite Trump's possible somewhat liberal nature, his election would further the advance of anti-abortionism, erode progress in LGBT rights, and erode the financial underpinnings of the welfare state and the economy itself, as Republicans have done since Hoover.
His not being the great man of Empire is for me a plus. Just not enough of a plus.
No comments:
Post a Comment