Thursday, July 21, 2016

When the game is over you support the winner

This week I read Trump supporters make the following statements:

"Sometimes you have to compromise to stay in the ball game. Losing a battle is better than losing the war."

"When game is over you support the winner."

Mike Huckabee made similar statements. 

Good thing the French and Italian Resistance movements, as well as the Polish Solidarity movement, didn't share their philosophy. You can tell which side Trump supporters would be on in those historic conflicts. 


  1. I’ll start off by being upfront – I have been a Trump supporter since early in the campaign because he explicitly supports placing the wellbeing of the American economy and American workers ahead of the wellbeing of other nations. He alone also possesses decades of executive experience and has been a great success in an extremely difficult field. I believe being a Senator does little to qualify one to be the chief executive of the United States.

    Having said that I believe those who earlier pledged to support the eventual party nominee without caveat, when that nominee was then unknown, new full well what they were doing and to fail to keep that commitment shows a genuine lack of character. For all intents and purposes they lied when there was no need to lie.

  2. "new [sic] full well what they were doing and to fail to keep that commitment shows a genuine lack of character."

    Since you admit to supporting a candidate who has a genuine lack of character "since early in the campaign," who cares? You should be glad they are starting to act more like Trump.

  3. Jonathan,

    While your condescending attitude comes through most clearly the point of your response is less clear. Are you simply dismissing the pledges that the former candidates took as an act that was a simple political expediency that should never have been considered sincere, or that they did not consider the implications of the pledge? If they could not see that there was a real possibility that Trump would be the nominee they probably should not be considered bright enough to be the Republican nominee.

    Trump was roundly criticized for initially hedging to support the party’s eventual nominee. We don’t know if he would have supported another candidate

    1. Would you be willing to say that the pledge was void even if Trump was the first one to rescind it?

  4. David,

    Given that you are supporting someone who has a genuine lack of character, why are you so bothered by other candidates having a genuine lack of character? That was my point. If your concern for lack of character is genuine, why are you backing a candidate that is so lacking in genuine character?

    Second you lay out the following options:

    1) The pledge to support the nominee was not genuine.
    2) The pledge to support the nominee did not include the foresight that Trump might be the nominee.

    Of course there is a third option:

    3) The pledge to support the nominee did not include the foresight that Trump might be a complete charlatan.

    I think the truth is option 2 and 3: it's both the case that people didn't think Trump would be a serious contender and it's the case that Trump proved himself to be much more of a scumbag than anticipated.

    To simply assert that anyone who didn't think Trump would be a serious contender isn't bright enough to be the nominee is itself not a very bright assertion to make. Virtually everyone admits that Trump's performance was unexpected. And the truth is that it was a unique set of circumstances that allowed Trump to win, the perfect storm. It was a combination of the media giving him total coverage along with him benefiting from a split field and the cult of personality.

  5. David,

    By the way, even apart from the issue of whether or not the candidates should keep their pledge there is the issue of whether the pledge was smart in the first place. Arguably it wasn't. No one should pledge to support a person just because they happen to have the label republican and happen to sucker enough racists and ignoramuses into winning a plurality.

  6. Jonathan

    I have obviously expressed certain opinions that you disagree with. There is undoubtedly much room in this world for disagreement and I was quite ready to engage in a civil and hopefully dispassionate discourse wisdom of making unnecessary pledges.

    I am amazed at the passion and vitriol with which you attack Donald Trump and his supporters. You essentially stated Trump is a complete charlatan. he has lead an extremely public life, in what way has he now presented himself as anything other than what he has always been? You may certainly argue that he is not a true conservative but he never really presented himself as such - he presented himself primarily as a populist. I have lived within 60 miles of NYC for thirty five years so I have seen his very public persona repeatedly in the news over the decades and though I have never met him I have known people who have. I may be wrong but I believe what we see is what he is. While I would have preferred a candidate with Ted Cruz' conservative convictions I see a greater need for someone with executive experience who has a track record of actually accomplishing things. That is why I was a Scott Walker supporter until it became evident he could not possibly garner enough support to be nominated.

    I am also taken aback by the contempt you hold for so many of Trumps supporters. I don't know anything about you other than the few paragraphs you have posted on this subject. For myself I can say I feel no animosity towards any of the other men or women who sought the Republican nomination nor do I feel any towards any of their faceless supporters.

  7. David,

    Again, it's very amusing to see someone who supports Donald Trump complain about "vitriol". You're supporting one of the most vitriolic candidates in the history of the Republican party. Remember Trump attacking Heidi Cruz's looks? Or the time he mocked the handicap person?

    Sorry, but if you're backing someone like that you don't get to pretend to be the sensitive, hurt soul when someone calls out Trump for being a charlatan and an ignoramus: both demonstrable facts. For example, Trump thinking judges sign bills (demonstrating the fact that he is an ignoramus) and Trump bankrupting casinos, the Trump University fraud etc. (demonstrating that he is a charlatan).

    "I may be wrong but I believe what we see is what he is."

    Demonstrating a complete lack of discernment... but also the fact that people can "see" in Trump whatever they want to see due to his pandering and qualified sales-man speech that always leaves himself a back door--after all Trump said himself that everything is negotiable. When Trump was taking 2 or 3 different positions on H1B1 visas, which was Trump as he is? Which position is the real Trump when it comes to Afganistan or nuclear proliferation?

    Sure, maybe when we see Trump what we see is what he is... but then what he is is someone who has no principled position, someone who panders to everyone while using enough Orwellian double speak to cover his flip flops. For instance, providing a list of judges that panders to conservatives, but leaving himself a backdoor by saying it's the *possible* list he would draw from or pandering to anti-immigrationists and then leaving himself a backdoor by calling it just a *suggestion*.