Obviously Trump

This kind of defense of Trump is baffling to me. Who is it for? Low-information voters? The left? Those on the right who aren’t already convinced? For any one of them, gentlemanly arguments about policy issues are a waste of time.

Low information voters are busy reading celebrity gossip or watching reality TV. They aren’t reading the Washington Post. They won’t even see an article like that.

The left will only read something like that for a Two Minutes Hate. They viscerally despise Trump and his supporters. No rational argument or piece of evidence is going to change that. Importantly, this is at least partly because they comprehend that Trump, unlike all the other general election Republican candidates of at least the last twenty-five years, represents a serious threat to them.

Neither of the Bushes, McCain, or Romney were a serious threat to the left. And neither were any of the other primary candidates this past season. None of them posed a significant threat to the cultural hegemony of the left – the control that the left has of the basic cultural drivers: the media, the arts and entertainment sectors, the institutions of education, and the corporate elite. Those institutions shape and control public opinion – what is socially/morally acceptable and what isn’t. Most people are passive and uncritical, and readily absorb orthodox left opinion. Those who are critical but have no influence are alienated and ignored. Those who have influence (e.g., have positions in academia or the media) and try to argue for positions that conflict with the left’s agenda will face serious punitive consequences (e.g., Kevin Barnett).

For at least twenty-five years, and probably far longer, the right has systematically surrendered to the left. They have allowed the left to cram man-hating feminism, foreigner-favoring and community-destroying multiculturalism, constant white blaming and shaming, constant America hating, etc., down our throats. Every major politician on the right who dared to protest has only done so in the most watered-down and indirect terms. (Nothing like the direct and honest ways that I just described those things.) And even then, at the first charge of “sexism” or “racism” or whatever-ism, they have scurried away in fear.

Look where that’s gotten us. We now live in a culture where we are forced to let men into women’s bathrooms; people who can’t even speak English are voting in our elections, Muslims whose values are fundamentally incompatible with ours are being welcomed in by the tens of thousands; and you will be fired from your job or face other disastrous professional repercussions if you take an honest and direct stand against this madness. The most you can do now is impotently cavil on an obscure blog under a pseudonym.

Trump is a threat to the left because he actually fights them. When the leftist culture has a hysterical crybully fit over something Trump says, he responds as no politician in recent history has: he stands his ground and hits back. This is the fundamental significance of Trump. Yes, he has some policy ideas that are of extreme importance for the survival of the country, and those ideas also set him apart. But they are, frankly, modest proposals and only the beginning of what would have to be done to salvage the country. What Trump is showing is that it’s possible to fight and win.

I find it incredible that so many “conservatives” don’t understand the significance of this. Take, e.g., Trump not backing down in the face of Megyn Kelly’s attempt to feminist shame him in that first debate. Do you not understand how tremendously important and inspiring that was? Do you not understand how much that meant to tens of millions of men who have been brow-beaten and scolded and demoralized for decades? Do you not understand how many people were literally cheering and clapping and jumping out of their chairs in spontaneous, righteous joy when they witnessed that? That one incident alone did more for the American right than all the silly conferences of DC think tanks combined over the last twenty years. Through that and many other incidents, Trump is showing people that they don’t have to grovel and pander and bite their tongues and endure the left’s incessant attacks. Instead, they can fight back.

That is what’s required to beat the left. We need tens of millions of everyday Americans to stand their ground and hit back like Trump, mock the left, reject the left, and show everyone that the left is an emperor with no clothes. Ironically, it’s Trump’s attitude and tactics – the very things that many “conservatives” seem to have the most problem with – that are his most important features. We need to embolden Americans to fight for their culture. Trump is awakening and inspiring them and showing them that it can be done. Any patriotic American on the right must support Trump for that reason. Anyone who doesn’t is deeply misguided or worse.

I realize that I am wasting my key strokes trying to convince libertarian nerds or delusional Cruz-2020ers about this. But a few words since I can’t help myself: if you don’t care what happens to the actual country because you’re some idealistic anarcho-capitalist or whatever, do us all a favor and stop thinking and writing about politics, which involves, you know, real people. Go build a computer simulation or something, where you and your nerd friends can indulge your imaginations in a safe, artificial world where real humans don’t bear the costs of your stupid, utopian ideas.

If you are concerned with actual results but you think someone like Cruz is going to win the presidency – ever – I have one word for you: demographics. Have you noticed how all those red states are already turning purple? How do you think things are going to look after a few years of Hillary open borders and amnesty? You think all those non-white immigrants are “natural conservatives”? Think they just need to hear a good argument and they’ll be “Constitutional conservatives”? I’ll tell you what: head down to the barrio and have a few political discussions with the people there; and let me know how many you persuade to vote for “limited government” or whatever. Alternatively, just look at how California has been voting for the last twenty-five years. Seriously, get a grip and drop the juvenile visions of a multicultural, conservative country. You’re acting and thinking like utopian leftists.

And, even though this is even more of a waste of time, I also can’t help myself from commenting on the people who think that Cruz would have won this year and that the Republicans really blew it with Trump. Cruz has nothing like the charisma of Trump, which is required to turn out voters in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of leftist propaganda, designed to deceive, demotivate, and demoralize potential rightwing voters. Cruz has all the charm of a greasy used-car salesman combined with a stuffy and awkward Harvard elite. (Regular Americans just love that!) Cruz’s positions are boring and meaningless to anyone other than the ten people who still read National Review. Compare: stopping Muslim immigration (Trump) vs. cutting social security benefits (Cruz). Compare: building a giant wall on the southern border (Trump) vs. corporate tax cuts (Cruz). Hmmm. Why do I find it hard to envision everyday Americans showing up by the millions at rallies and voting booths for Cruz like they have for Trump? Oh, maybe because they didn’t; so we don’t really have to speculate that much.

And if Cruz had been the nominee, he would have abandoned all the important aspects of Trump’s platform anyway. The only reason Cruz even started talking about immigration restrictions and trade policy was because of Trump’s success with those issues. Cruz was forced to ape Trump’s policies in order to compete with him in the primaries. But Cruz is in the pocket of the lobbyists and donors, just like all the rest. And, if he were the nominee, he would have capitulated to the bidding of his masters within a month. Immigration restrictions and deportation would have transformed into some touch-back amnesty policy. Trade policy reform would have turned into the message that the Trans-Pacific Partnership really is good for Americans, or maybe it would just have a new euphemistic name slapped on it to mislead everyone. Cruz wouldn’t stick with Trump’s ideas because he wouldn’t be allowed to. Other than Supreme Court appointments, the only difference between him and Hillary at this point in the general election would be Cruz voicing some empty blather about “the Constitution”.

Those Supreme Court appointments sure are important, though. Anyone who claims to be on the right but not doing what he can to stop Hillary from getting the ability to appoint judges is dangerously deluded or worse. In addition to disarming you, the Hillary court will also silence you. If you don’t see the “hate speech” laws coming, you just don’t understand how the left works. The whole Trump movement has given the left a real scare (because it’s a legitimate threat) and you better believe that they’re going to do anything they can to make sure that no organic movement of the American people actually has the ability to rise up against them again. That means silencing the right through hate speech laws or, even better, “regulations” – that neat form of law that doesn’t even require our useless Congress to sign off on it – and a Supreme Court packed with leftist judges who will rule that such laws or regulations are, of course, perfectly compatible with the First Amendment. So, enjoy these kinds of blog rants while they last. Because you can be sure that they are “hate speech” according to the left.

We’re in a cold civil war, guys. The left has won every significant battle and is about to deliver the crushing final blow. This is our last stand. Fortunately, amazingly, an actual fighter has stepped up: Trump. He’s an outsider who’s successfully taken on the behemoth of American politics with a highly unconventional, insurgent campaign. Trump has exposed plainly to the American people that their country is, in reality, a corrupt oligarchy that doesn’t care about their interests. Nothing like this has ever happened in American politics. Trump is not only fighting for the right. He’s actually fighting for the American people in a very fundamental way against a traitorous, tyrannical government. If you are a patriotic American and don’t have a solid refutation of what I’m saying – i.e., something more than “Trump is unstable”, “Trump is vulgar”, “Trump doesn’t use the phrases ‘the Constitution’ or ‘conservative’ enough” etc. – then you should be ashamed of yourself if you don’t support Trump.

And if you’re supporting Trump but also eager to tell anyone listening that he’s regrettable or some other negative qualification, then, well, how whiny and entitled of you! Trump is like Neo coming to save you from the matrix. Sure, he might not consciously understand what he’s doing all the time. And it’s far from clear that he’s going to lead a movement that will ultimately be able to succeed. But he instinctively knows how to fight back against the agents, something that no other politician has been willing or able to do. You shouldn’t be regretting this guy; you should be effusively thanking him. Trump is a bona fide American hero at this point.

So, support Trump, with no regrets. Obviously.


Criticus Ferox

Criticus Ferox was relegated to the basket of deplorables because he refused to embrace the vilification and destruction of his nation, culture, race, sex, and way of life. You can contact him at: criticusferox@gmail.com

View All Posts


  1. I find it odd how the NeverTrump group think Trump is a disaster to the conservative movement when the same people supported quasi-conservatives like McCain and Romney. Trump is more conservative on American culture and demographics than either of those candidates. Instead of going on apology tours, Trump fights back.

  2. The argument in this article is essentially as follows: If X threatens the Left, we ought to support X. Trump threatens the left. Therefore, we ought to support Trump. Neither premise is obvious, and premise 2 is almost certainly false.

    As regards premise 1, I’ll produce a counter-claim. As conservatives, if it is not the case that candidate X is conservative, we ought not to support candidate X. This is compatible with P1, since it is possible to threaten the left without being conservative. One obvious reason is because there are many varieties of leftism, just as there are many varieties of conservatism. Rawlsians and Marxists are both very liberal, but they often fight among each other ardently.

    Let’s talk about P2, since the bulk of the article seems to be spent establishing this. Obviously there are a couple of ways in which Trump is an affront to the left. The article brings up Megyn Kelly’s question in the first primary debate. I was with Trump on that particular instance. So what? Does that make DJT a significant threat to leftism? Hardly. There are enough examples of Trump’s liberalism and his complete lack of threat to the left that could fill an entire library, but for brevity’s sake, I’ll address two. First, how threatening is it to the left to advocate federally funding Planned Parenthood? Secondly, the author says, “We now live in a culture where we are forced to let men into women’s bathrooms” but fails to mention that such a position has been publicly advocated for by Trump himself.

    The article claims we ought to support Trump because he fights for our culture. That’s tremendously insulting. I didn’t realize that conservative Christian culture was groping, Playboy, tax cheating, draft-dodging, etc.

    Why ought we to think that he fights for “our culture” exactly? Because he isn’t PC? Sam Harris isn’t PC either. Should we elect him president? Richard Dawkins isn’t PC either…. If only Ted Bundy were alive, since killing women is even less PC than groping them! (I heard he was a Republican too…)

    Maybe it’s because he wants to “stop Muslim immigration” (which by the way, he’s walked back now and doesn’t really support anymore.) Does Trump know anything at all about our culture such that he has a reason for why we should adopt such a position?

    The article claims Trump is an “outsider.” Really? That makes me seriously question the academic credentials of its author. That’s an extremely easy claim to refute. This is Trump’s what…. 4th time running for President? How many parties has he ran with and on how many sides of these issues?

    The article also talks about how ostensibly historic Hillary Clinton would be in terms of abject horribleness. No evidence is given for this historicity, but the bugaboo of such is an essential part of virtually all appeals to support Trump. However, and importantly, the article concludes by calling Trump an American hero. Note that it is quite obvious that even if HRC would in fact be historical in her progressivism, that is entirely irrelevant to Trump’s being a hero. (Oddly enough, if she’s so horrible, and he’s a hero, why did he say “I like her a lot” not too long ago and give money to her presidential campaign in ’08?)

    We’re also told that immigration necessitates a leftward move and that it’s stupid to think that new immigrants can be talked into conservatism. This misses two of the most important things about our problem. The first is that white liberals are the main threat, not “colored” immigrants. The most liberal and atheistic nations in the world are almost all majority white. And almost all countries which are majority white are liberal and atheistic. In general, liberals from more conservative nations are coming to America to have solidarity with the white liberal culture that our schools and media are creating here. The alt-right completely misses the source of the problem. The second issue, which is related, is that the reason conservatives are not winning the hearts and minds of people through rational disputation is because most on our side are woefully confused about what conservatism means. The rise of Trump is exhibit A in this affair, but even most of those conservative holdouts to Trump are wholly ignorant of what liberalism is, and have adopted most of its core tenets while somehow trying to fight their implications.

    Much ado is made about how awful of a person Ted Cruz ostensibly is, but this is also 100% irrelevant. Cruz’s shortcomings mean nothing with respect to Trump as a person, nor candidate. But do think of this, who would be more likely to govern as a conservative, someone who actually knows what it is, or someone who came to it because he finally found a party gullible enough to nominate him and his new-found “commitments”?

    There’s so much more… virtually every sentence of this article is dripping with puerility. I’ll just conclude for now by saying what is obvious to most people. The left is not afraid of Trump whatsoever. They are absolutely giddy at the opportunity of running against him. The smartest leftists are even more giddy at the prospect of Trump possibly winning, because they know that this would be the dagger in the heart of American opposition to progressivism. If HRC wins, the left will continue to have to force itself onto a quasi-willing populace. If Trump somehow wins, the people will beg for a progressive savior.

    • Why ought we to think that he fights for “our culture”

      Immigration; by keeping Muslims and illegal aliens out of the country.

    • Which Republicans are you thinking of? Too many of them are amnesty friendly and most of them freaked out at a proposed temporary Muslim ban.

    • I didn’t support him, but Ted Cruz has always been tough on immigration, long before Trump ever thought about it. He’s largely responsible for defeating the Gang of Eight bill. He was much more electable than Trump…

    • That was already addressed in the initial post. If a certain immigration policy helps the culture, it still isn’t necessarily done with the intention of helping said culture. Further, Trump doesn’t believe in this policy, as a biography of him explains that he planned to run as a Republican on this particular platform to dupe people. (This was written long before this iteration of presidential candidacy.) To the claim below which says that Cruz criticized Trump on immigration… of course he did, for being too soft. Cruz’s stance on immigration was always stronger than Trump’s which even at its roughest allowed for some of the deported to come right back in.

    • Pooh Bear,

      I agree with you almost entirely, though I agree with Criticus that Republicans should vote for Trump now given the disaster that Hillary would be, especially regarding the Supreme Court. But given how bad of a candidate Hillary is, Cruz or Rubio would’ve been far better and more conservative than Trump. Team Hillary itself feared Rubio the most (Wikileaks). Cruz was stronger on immigration than Trump. And Trump won’t do anything about things like Obama’s bathroom mandate.

      He doesn’t fight the left so much as he fights anyone who disagrees with him about whatever he happens to be saying at the time. He’s a buffoon. But better him than Hillary.

    • Your position is like most of my family’s. I respect it to some degree, but don’t agree. I don’t think that a vote ought to be wholly against something. I think that a vote is for something equally if not more than it is against something. To vote purely against HRC just doesn’t exist in my book. There’s no spot on the ballot that says “against Hillary,” but there is a spot FOR Trump. When one looks at it that way, then you have to give reasons FOR supporting Trump, and they are hard if not impossible to come by other than he’s not Hillary which is not a positive case for Trump himself.

    • Pooh Bear,

      Ah. I see the comment now. You have a good family! 🙂

      I don’t have the view that voting for someone–checking the box by the name–is an act whereby I endorse everything about that candidate. Rarely does anyone ever agree with everything about a candidate. In fact, many do “hold their noses” and vote for people. They explicitly say things like “I’m voting for x, not because of this but because of this other thing; and I will actively oppose the bad, but the alternative is worse. I didn’t vote for x in the primary but it’s either x or y now and x is preferable to y.” So I trouble understanding #NeverTrumpers. I have yet to see anything like a decent argument why conservatives should not vote for Trump (unless they have special reasons particular to their situation, e.g. being a philosophy professor who will not get tenure if it’s found out that he voted for Trump).

  3. I’ve read quite a lot from Never Trumpers because one of my favorite Christian philosophy blogs is unabashedly anti-Trump.

    I think a lot of their points are well considered, well argued, and logically valid as opposed to the hand waving and emoting of the left.

    The fact that some (many?) establishment Republicans revile him as much as the Dems ought to tell us something.

    And I think people can instinctively sense the palpable fear of Trump the liberal left feel towards him. They say it’s because he’s fascist or whatever, but many realize they fear him because he won’t kowtow to them and their soul destroying system.

    I think the same people who can sense the left’s fear of Trump also realize that anyone who can generate that level of vitriol and hatred is saying and doing the right things.

    When the bloodsucking vampire coven is spitting curses and wailing in pain at the cross and holy water as the vampire hunter raises his wooden stake over Dracula’s heart with the first rays of dawn spilling into the crypt, the kindly Van Helsing doesn’t stay his hand, apologize for the intrusion, and quietly close the door as he sees himself out.

    What kind of story would that be?

    • CRD

      What blog are you referring to? It looks like something I’d like to check out!

      The liberals I know are not afraid of Trump. They think he’s hilarious! I know of many conservatives who are a lot more scared of him than liberals are.

  4. It’s called Triablogue, Steve Hays is the primary author there, although there are other able contributors also. I think maybe Steve’s an adjunct professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, but I’m not sure. You can just search “Trump” in the header and you’ll get tons of hits. T-blogue was early anti-Trump. As I mentioned I think much of the work there is well considered and reasoned and fact based.

    Lydia McGrew is also an intellectual Never Trumper. I believe her primary issue is abortion.

    Many of the liberals I know also mock Trump and make him out to be a clown and such, but I personally suspect they’re doing that like a small child makes fun of the boogeyman to try to help assuage his deep-seated irrational fears, and to try to make himself look like a big boy to impress others.

    Oddly many of the “conservatives” (scare quotes!) I know do the same. Odd that.

    But I’m pretty sure the point is moot, so we should probably get used to saying “Madam President”. *gag*

  5. This is the best thing I’ve seen on the topic. Thanks Ferox for saying it so bluntly and forcefully.

    Leftists call Trump a ‘fascist’ and they’re on to something. A fascist is, first and foremost, someone who actually fights the left on its own terms. Hitler and Mussolini saw what Lenin was doing and realized that was the only way to fight Marxism-Leninism. Likewise, Trump is nasty, doesn’t apologize, hits back and gets down in the gutter with the Leftoid scum. A fascist is also a kind of ‘sin eater’, in a sense. Because he has to internalize and enact the darkness and brutality of Leftism in order to defeat it, he can never really belong in the organic innocent society he wants to preserve (or bring back to life, or rebirth). He has to absorb all the toxins of Kali Yuga in trying to clean things up. Likewise, Trump is fighting for “conservative Christian culture” in a sense, though he himself obviously can’t be part of that culture. But he has a natural, normal respect for the human decency of that culture–and a natural, normal contempt for the inverted sicko world the Left is creating. There are some proto-fascist elements in Trump and his movement, and that’s what the Left feels and fears. So thank God for proto-fascism.

  6. Criticus,

    “This kind of defense of Trump is baffling to me. Who is it for? Low-information voters? The left? Those on the right who aren’t already convinced?”

    Yes, the last one. I think arguments like that are needed and helpful for convincing some Republicans to hold their noses and vote for Trump–would be NeverTrumpers. And with a close race AllVotesMatter.

  7. “They viscerally despise Trump and his supporters…Importantly, this is at least partly because they comprehend that Trump, unlike all the other general election Republican candidates of at least the last twenty-five years, represents a serious threat to them.”

    The assertion isn’t only that Trump is a serious threat to the Left, but that they comprehend that Trump is a serious threat to them and that that’s partly why they despise him. Is any evidence offered in support of this proposition? None whatever. There is, on the other hand, very good evidence against it. Trumplings love Wikileaks nowadays (it gives them false hope for the Final Victory). Why do Wikileaks e-mails by Clinton operatives indicate that the Clinton campaign was pushing for Trump to run? Why do they indicate that the Clinton campaign judged that he’d be the easiest candidate for her to defeat? Why do they indicate that they were petrified at the prospect of running against Marco Rubio? Why did they say that Trump is a ‘Pied Piper’ candidate? Why indeed if he’s so serious a threat to them? Of course, Trump isn’t a serious threat to the Left. We couldn’t have given them a better gift.

    “Neither of the Bushes, McCain, or Romney were a serious threat to the left. And neither were any of the other primary candidates this past season.”

    The Left would certainly disagree with this statement. I’ll just mention one important area in which any other candidate would’ve represented a serious threat to the Left: The Supreme Court. President Rubio would’ve replaced Scalia, bringing the ideological balance back to where it was before his untimely death: 4-4-1. That alone would secure some of the significant victories the conservative movement has achieved: District of Columbia v. Heller, Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Gonzales v. Carhart to name just a few examples. A President Rubio might’ve replaced one or more of Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, which would’ve given conservatives the opportunity to reverse significant leftist victories such as Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. This isn’t a serious threat to the Left? I can confirm that the very thought of Roe being overturned terrifies them.

    “None of them posed a significant threat to the cultural hegemony of the left – the control that the left has of the basic cultural drivers: the media, the arts and entertainment sectors, the institutions of education, and the corporate elite.”

    Being a serious threat to the Left and being a serious threat to the cultural hegemony of the Left are distinct propositions. One can be a serious threat to the Left without being a serious threat to them in some area or other. It isn’t clear how this claim helps Ferox’s case. After all, what would Trump have done to threaten the Left’s hegemony in media, entertainment, and education? How will President Trump move media control from left to right (rather than further leftward as a reaction to his election)? How will Trump ensure that more conservative actors are hired in Hollywood? How would Trump get more conservatives hired at our universities? We’re never told.

    “Take, e.g., Trump not backing down in the face of Megyn Kelly’s attempt to feminist shame him in that first debate. Do you not understand how tremendously important and inspiring that was?”

    Nope. The most important thing that that kind of behaviour accomplishes is the alienation women, a significant portion of whose votes Trump requires in order to win. These kinds of statements couldn’t be more counterproductive in relation to the goal of winning the election and, by extension, winning the issues.

    “If you are concerned with actual results but you think someone like Cruz is going to win the presidency – ever – I have one word for you: demographics.”

    Demographics might not have precluded candidates like Rubio or Cruz from winning in 2016, but they may very well prevent Trump from doing so. Think of all those Republican Latinos in Florida he gratuitously alienated!

    “How do you think things are going to look after a few years of Hillary open borders and amnesty?”

    Good question. Why didn’t you support an electable candidate like Cruz who was opposed to amnesty and defeated the Gang of Eight bill before Trump’s simple mind ever thought about the issue? Why instead did you support one of the few candidates at the prospects of whose nomination Clinton and the Democrats salivated?

    “Cruz’s positions are boring and meaningless to anyone other than the ten people who still read National Review. Compare: stopping Muslim immigration (Trump) vs. cutting social security benefits (Cruz). Compare: building a giant wall on the southern border (Trump) vs. corporate tax cuts (Cruz).”

    These comparisons are, of course, dishonest. For example, Cruz has always supported a wall in addition to corporate tax cuts. He has never supported letting in massive amounts of Muslim immigrants. And two can play the same game. Compare: corporate tax cuts (Trump) vs. building a wall and deporting illegals (Cruz). Getting rid of ‘the lines’ around the states (Trump) vs. repealing Obamacare (Cruz).

    “Why do I find it hard to envision everyday Americans showing up by the millions…for Cruz like they have for Trump? Oh, maybe because they didn’t; so we don’t really have to speculate that much.”

    You find it hard to envision that because evidently you don’t understand the difference between the Republican electorate during the primaries and the general election electorate. Trump was moderately popular in the former and very unpopular in the latter. Cruz was, according to the data, less unpopular among general election voters.

    “The only reason Cruz even started talking about immigration restrictions and trade policy was because of Trump’s success with those issues.”

    Cruz was rightly credited with derailing the Gang of Eight ‘amnesty’ bill two years before Trump announced his campaign. Cruz had been talking about mass, uncontrolled immigration for years, long before Trump cared about the issue. Cruz actually has accomplished something (defeating another amnesty bill); he doesn’t just talk about it. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

    “Cruz was forced to ape Trump’s policies in order to compete with him in the primaries. But Cruz is in the pocket of the lobbyists and donors, just like all the rest. And, if he were the nominee, he would have capitulated to the bidding of his masters within a month.”

    The lack of evidence is a common theme throughout Ferox’s post. If Cruz is in their pockets, then he’s done a pretty terrible job for them in the Senate! Why didn’t he cave to their demands over the amnesty bill? Why did he filibuster until the government shut down? Did the lobbyists want a government shutdown? We have no evidence whatever that he’s in their pockets and plenty against. On the other hand, we have pretty awesome evidence that Trump is willing to change his positions as often as he changes his suits, whenever it will personally benefit him to do so. And, unlike Cruz, Trump boasts about his ability to compromise, whereas Cruz is known for his unwillingness to compromise his principles. Trump has that ability because he hasn’t any principles, so it isn’t difficult to compromise the ones he claims to have. It’s a shame that you won’t have the opportunity to be disappointed in your saviour!

    “Immigration restrictions and deportation would have transformed into some touch-back amnesty policy.”

    Trump explicitly supports a touch-back amnesty policy.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)