Sunday, June 5, 2016

A President Trump Would Severely Test William Gladstone

I was talking with Greg this morning. Here's what he said:

"I played golf yesterday in Savannah and I got paired with a military guy who is moving back to Savannah form DC after 3 years behind a desk. He was a super nice guy (and good player he shot 1 under 71!) that shared a passion for B1G football with me (He's a Cornhusker fan). Any way I tried to keep the subject on football, golf etc but one other guy in the group made a comment that left an opening for a statement to declare your politics and this guy quickly (with a roll of the eyes) said Oh dont worry President Trump will fix it! Then as we were riding to the next tee he sarcastically said to me " I cant wait til America is great again!!".

"Now, this is one 40yr old guy who has been in the Pentagon for 3 years so I hesitate to take too much from it but Im sure he is not alone in thinking that Trump looks/sounds like a buffoon much of the time. I thought it was a good sign."

Everything I've seen and heard suggests that most military men like him are utterly appalled about the very idea of a President Trump.

You know with Trump it's more than simply agreeing or disagreeing about issues. There's fear that he would not observe democratic norms and respect constitutional limits.

He certainly hasn't whatsoever during this campaign.

True, the military might refuse some of his more outlandish orders. The former CIA director, Michael Hayden, said the same.

You can argue that our system is strong enough to not let Trump go too far. Maybe it's true but why would you want to test it?

Does anyone really want our fate hanging on the discretion of Michael Hayden to disobey a Trump order?

Again, maybe he would but why would we put ourselves in such a position?

It makes you think of what Gladstone once said:

"Good laws make it easier to do right and harder to do wrong."

Read more at:

I think this is certainly true. But this theory a President Trump would really test this theory. Just consider how he conducts himself now and just add all the power and prestige that comes from the most powerful office in the world.

"Lawyers suing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for fraud over his Trump University real estate seminar program are making public more of his testimony in the case, including how he batted away questions about whether instructors in the program intentionally lied to students."

"Attorneys pressing a pair of class-action suits against Trump also made a move Friday that could increase the political pain for the GOP presidential candidate: they said they’re planning to file with a federal court in San Diego excerpts of videos of Trump’s two recent depositions in the case."

"That’s likely to trigger a battle over whether the videos should be made public. With likely Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton blasting Trump and his self-styled university as a “fraud,” it seems a certainty that video of Trump being grilled about the venture will feature in TV attack ads if the recordings are released."

"The newly-filed transcripts of portions of Trump's testimony provide more fodder for Clinton and others charging that Trump University took advantage of people in financial straits looking to make quick cash."

Read more:

It's amazing. I've worked for telemarketers that used these kinds of aggressive tactics. Although even when I worked for a really pushy chemical sales boiler room we never went anywhere this far.

That was just to get maintenance guys to agree to a $100 purchase of drain cleaner-probably way overpriced. True, we knew that this sometimes could get them in trouble with their bosses-though not always. 

Sometimes big corporate chains bought a lot more drain cleaner or spent more than they really needed.

But Trump's team was pushing people to max out their credit cards. Believe me the guy I worked for-Eric, the owner-never in a million years would I imagine him in the Oval Office.

Eric is provably a criminal, but he's a small fry next to Trump. The difference is Trump is the Republican nominee. 


  1. Good post Mike.

    O/T: Check out how the Trump albatross (Trumpatross? Donaldatross?) wears around the necks of those who've felt compelled to don it (Mitch McConnell in this case):

    The fun part is they used Erick Erickson's article about Trump's comments being straight up racist, and it being pathetic that the GOP doesn't call him out on it, to further get under Mitch's skin.

    Also check out the comments between Bill S. (moderator) and "smagar." Bill ends up erasing smagar's final comment and probably banning him from the site with a "Bye, asshat" ... Lol. One of Bill's final comments to smagar:

    "Trump is a racist. It's as simple as that. Erick called him out for it. And the GOP is enabling it by doing exactly what McConnell did and looking the other way. It validates what the Left has been saying all along, which is unfortunate, but Trump's cult has demonstrated that there is a large bloc of right-ish voters that agree with him and want to keep brown people out of the country.

    If it helps the Democrats, so be it. There is no room for a racist, xenophobic bigot in the White House.

    The truth hurts sometimes."

    Oh wow, I just now noticed some of the other comments there:

    From cgh62:

    So glad I'm no longer part of the GOP. Gutless, balless, spineless cowards. Accept the very Devil as the nominee, just so long as they can stay in power. No principles, no ethics, no morals. Just political power.

    The rot runs deep in the GOP. It's statements like this that is making me rethink my vow to vote down ticket for Republicans after skipping the top line.


    Bill S:
    "This is why I will never vote for another Republican candidate, ever. At any level."

  2. That is just awesome stuff. I've said it before but again: it's the the conservative intelligentsia who is doing some of the strongest anti Trump stuff out there.

  3. And Jennifer Rubin was saying much the same thing last week, especially in regards to Paul Ryan. And she's right: there's nothing substantitively different between Ryan and McConnell on their reaction to Trump's racist comments. Leon H. Wolf should be going after Ryan as much as he does McConnell (I think there's special hatred for McConnell in the way he shut down Cruz in the senate though).

    It's too bad Erickson's piece wasn't written yet when Ryan was interviewed, the interviewer could have done the same thing to him that McConnell's interviewer did: just read the Erickson piece and see what he does with it. Come to think of it, that Erickson piece is so devastating, I wonder if that marks a departure in his own willingness to overlook Republicans (the ones he still likes) reluctantly deciding to support Trump. It wasn't that many days ago when one of his writers (maybe him?) wrote a piece with a title something along the lines of "I don't blame Paul Ryan for 'endorsing' Trump". I wonder what his attitude is now given Trump's unapologetic turn to racist statements about judge Curiel?

    But back to Rubin: here's what she had to say regarding racism, Trump, and Ryan's endorsement:

    UPDATE: Predictably, Ryan was forced to comment on Trump’s attack on Judge Curiel. The Post reports:

    Speaking on a Wisconsin radio station one day after he officially endorsed the presumptive Republican nominee, Ryan called Trump’s comments “out of left field for my mind.”

    “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to,” Ryan (R-Wis.) said during an interview with 1130 WISN. “I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.”

    It’s actually not out of left field; it’s par for the course for Trump. And it’s racist. Ryan will no doubt be asked whether at some point Trump’s conduct is disqualifying. In our book, that point was months ago.

    1. Erickson's piece that I called "devastating" above:

      It is hard to square that with Erickson excusing Rick Perry, Rubio and Paul Ryan and others for eventually boarding the Trump train. Erickson said previously that if he attacked every Republican that eventually felt they had to get behind Trump "he wouldn't have any friends left." Well if they keep making mealy-mouthed excuses (or less than full throated condemnations anyway) for Trump's racist comments, perhaps he won't have any friends left anyway.

      That's why I said I wonder if that piece by Erickson is a bit of a turning point, hopefully marking the evaporation of his willingness to excuse Trump apologists in the future.

      Reporters should track down every prominent conservative politician and thinking and put them on the spot regarding Trump's comments. I'd like to see Erickson's circle of friends shrink dramatically. =)

    2. should be:

      "conservative politician and thinker"

      And to be sure, I'd like to see his circle shrink now, but then expand as politicians start getting OFF the Trump train (sometime after the GOP convention, when there's truly no turning back on Trump's nomination).

    3. ... My fantasy is to see Erickson, RedState, Rubin, Cruz, etc, all make an endorsement of HRC prior to November. I don't care if they do it similar to how Bill Maher endorsed Cruz in the GOP primary (when it was down to Cruz vs Trump), taking a big swig from a bottle of bleach in a futile attempt to cleanse themselves after, but I'd like to see it happen!

      And I'd like to see the alt-right, white nationalist and Trump factions NEVER forgive them for it. Let's split the GOP up into 2 or more parties!