What the Donald shares with the Ronald

[INVAR]

No you're not. This is all you. My "game" is to advocate for the man I think would make the best president

"Advocate"?? Is that what you call it? 

I would call it berating, spinning, redefining, justifying and outright pandering for your prince.

I simply said he is the best of the options available and will make an excellent president.

You've said and implied much worse and much more insulting and condescending than that.

I don't play games.

You spin better than Josh Earnest on a merry-go-round of BS.

You can do as you will...which, no doubt means continuing to act like a spoiled child who lost his favorite toy because he talked back to his parents.

Yeah I know.  I already got the 'take my ball and go home' antagonisms and assorted insults when I first announced I wasn't going to be voting for Trump even before Cruz dropped out. So, in keeping with the charge that I'm a spoiled child throwing a 'hissy fit", this is where I see my refusal to go along with the mob:

[Enough with the Nazi photos. You all have been asked to tone it down. And all of you may stop calling one another names - Mod1]

[RoosGirl]

rolling Stone eh...?

I know some people that can't provide a link at all for the nonsense they try to get others to buy.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think it unwise for Trump supporters to make comparisons to Reagan because Trump so falls so incredibly short of that standard.  There was article posted here a few weeks back -- it calls Trump the "anti-Reagan", and the author's characterization of their differences matches my recollection of Reagan and sense of Trump to a T.  The author discusses all the policy differences, and then there's this part:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/trump_is_the_antireagan.html

....But easily the starkest difference between Trump and Reagan relates to temperament and personality. Ronald Reagan was always universally liked, even by nasty critics on the left. You would have never seen Ronald Reagan hampered by 60-70% unlikability ratings like those earned by Donald Trump. It was precisely Reagan’s likability that made him so electable. It is precisely Trump’s unlikability that makes him so unelectable.

When Reagan left office in 1989, Gallup rated him with the highest favorability/likability of any president since Eisenhower. Ironically, his likability, typically in the 60-70% range, is nearly identically matched by Trump’s unlikability.

Reagan was liked by people because he liked them and treated them kindly. [b/I never encountered one episode, ever, from Dixon, Illinois to Hollywood to Sacramento to Washington all the way to his tomb in Simi Valley, California, of Ronald Reagan speaking to anyone even once with the crudeness, rudeness, bombast, vitriol, vulgarity, and insults as Donald Trump does daily.[/b] Trump does not just lash out when someone criticizes him, or when he loses -- he explodes, he ascribes sinister motives, he threatens lawsuits, he maligns. (As I write, his newest victim is Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention, a kind Christian leader whose sin was that he dared to criticize Trump. Moore is suddenly a “nasty guy with no heart.") Trump does this without restraint toward fellow Republicans. Reagan had an “11th Commandment” -- thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. Trump effectively seems to have one, too -- thou shalt always speak ill of fellow Republicans. Or, that is, of fellow Republicans who do not praise him.

Think about it. Consider the leading Republicans that Trump has lit up: Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Carly Fiorina, and on and on. They are “liars,” “losers,” “morons,” “chokers,” and (for the women) “ugly.” Donald Trump has spent the last six months torching the best and brightest of the future of the conservative movement and Republican Party that dared to stand in his way. He is only happy when he is winning. Anytime that Trump lost a state in the primary to Ted Cruz, all hell was guaranteed to break loose the next morning.

Reagan did not do this. In fact, Ronald Reagan was the most humble person of his power and position that I have observed in my study of the presidency. His charitable nature was extraordinary. Bill Clark, one of his closest aides and friends, used to tell me often of Reagan (I was Clark’s biographer): “There was no pride there, Paul. No pride at all.” Donald Trump, to the contrary, is one of the most prideful human beings we’ve witnessed in American politics. He is a narcissist without question.

Bill Clark would further add of Reagan: “The man had no ego, Paul. No ego at all.” Donald Trump is all-ego. His ability to brag about himself is alarming, and I fear potentially dangerous. Psychologists will study Donald Trump for years to come.

Reagan was a man of great grace. Trump is tremendously lacking in grace.

Reagan was exceptionally kind to people. He went out of his way to give people the benefit of the doubt. Trump goes out of his way to insult people. Trump is a bully who openly encourages his supporters to “knock the hell” and “knock the crap out” of dissenters at his rallies. It is plainly unimaginable to picture Ronald Reagan speaking that way.

Reagan spoke eloquently of the dignity and sanctity of each human being, saying that “every person is a ressacra” (Latin for “sacred reality”). This was intrinsic to Reagan’s conservatism (and his faith).

Reagan was the consummate gentleman, especially toward women, to whom he was shy and gentle. Women have told me with tears in their eyes about his deference toward them. Trump’s boorish sexual references toward women and his high-schoolish rips at their physical appearance would have horrified Ronald Reagan. I can honestly say that Donald Trump’s digs at the face of Carly Fiorina and Heidi Cruz alone would have caused Ronald Reagan to reject the man because of an obvious character deficiency....

This part also struck me:

Here’s another comparison that has currency among Trump boosters: It is stated that both Reagan and Trump were dismissed by elites as policy/intellectual lightweights. They were underestimated. That is true. But the analogy ends there. The truth is that Trump clearly is a policy/intellectual lightweight, and Reagan was not. Scholars of Reagan, left and right, will today tell you that Reagan was impressively well-read and grounded in policy details.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/trump_is_the_antireagan.html#ixzz4AgCFE2E3
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

To be honest, if I stop to try to compare Trump to Reagan, I get a lot less likely to vote for the guy simply because of that "grace" discussed so eloquently in that article.  But the biggest single difference to me is that Reagan always talked about the American people and America, both with great reference.  It never seemed to be about him.  With Trump, it often seems to be only about him.   That gave me a level of trust/faith in Reagan that I'll never have with Trump.

I do want to add one other thought to this thread.  The pro/anti-Trump sentiment can get very hot and heavy here sometimes, and the criticisms often veer into the personal of advocates of either side.  I personally have found Mesaclone to be generally polite and well-informed, despite the fact that he/she is heavily outnumbered in most such threads, and takes a lot of shots.  He's also been very upfront that he knows Trump has flaws and is far from a perfect candidate.

Without naming any other names, I'm sure we can think of some other pro-Trump people who do not take the same effort to formulate the best available argument, and present it as well.  I don't agree with this particular thread, but I think we could all use a bit of Reagan's "grace" sometimes when engaging with those with whom we disagree.

[RoosGirl]

@Maj. Bill Martin That was a damn fine post, sir.  And the American Thinker article is spot on as far as I am concerned.

[Wingnut]

Wingnut,

You're trying too hard. It's right in front of you! They share 5 letters in common in their first names. However, beyond that, I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

First, like Reagan, Trump is also being clear that the Dem party has blown itself to the extreme left. He's also clear that parts of the GOP had gone either extreme right, or simply fell into the country club mentality of just trying to get along. He's been ahead of the curve at every step, much like Reagan. Further, when making political analogies one does not simply proclaim a whole human being to be identical to another...that would be inaccurate and juvenile. What the author does, and what is a rational comparison, is examining just how both men were viewed by the establishments of their own party and by their rivals from the opposing party. Further, both men were capable of reaching past a hostile media and using that media...unwillingly...to convey their message directly to the American people.

Like Reagan, Trump believes in big tent Republicanism...both men openly acknowledging the need to draw in blue collar democrats and independents to their cause. They both see/saw that the narrowminded approach of the Religious right to exclude potential supporters and candidates from the party because they fail the "purity" test is how you shrink and end a party. Its moralizing madness, and a man like Reagan would have seen Ted Cruz for the narrow minded, uncharismatic, self-centered moralist that he is...Reagan was a man of optimism, like Trump, and would not have condoned Cruz's approach to pushing people FROM the party rather than coaxing them into it.

Reagan is no Trump and Trump is no Reagan. Obviously. But both men have overcome the establishments of their own parties, and have taken that establishment and put it to work in a greater cause of growing the GOP and moving forward conservative causes like Immigration enforcement, smaller government, tax cuts for the middle class, a strong defense, a strong foreign policy built on strength and the avoidance of small pointless entanglements. Both men believe in appointing originalist SCJ's and want to make government better at the fewer things it must do. And both men were backed by the NRA as strong supporters of Gun Rights and the 2nd amendment. The similarities are almost uncanny, though the demeanor and backgrounds are in many ways very different. Both these commonalities AND differences are worthy of note.

Very good post.  I would also add that Ronald Reagan, former Democrat, was a union leader, divorced, a movie and TV star, believed in targeted tariffs to help protect US businesses, negotiated across the aisle when it served the American interest, took no crap from protestors--organized and otherwise--, was pro-choice through his terms as governor and was an American firster who believed we could make America great again.

[debrawiest]

Painful, the contortions attempted to equate Trump with President Reagan.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Painful, the contortions attempted to equate Trump with President Reagan.   

Not painful and there are no contortions.  The similarities are there for all to see.   ^-^

[catfish1957]

They share nothing.  One was a great leader and inspirer of Americans, the other a narcissistic, megalomaniac POS.  Any comparison what so ever  is political blasphemy.   FUDT.

[INVAR]

Not painful and there are no contortions.  The similarities are there for all to see.   ^-^

Only if one is drunk or a paid shill for Trump that has to lie, spin, twist and contort facts to graft them onto Reagan.


TRUMP IS THE ANTI-REAGAN

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/trump_is_the_antireagan.html

The constant claims of Trump being “another Reagan” must be addressed and must be stopped, if merely in service of truth, but also in service of what Ronald Reagan really represented and what we need to remember. The indisputable reality is that there is no meaningful, legitimate set of similarities between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan.

Generally, in terms of policy/ideological preferences, there is not much that Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan have in common, from domestic to foreign policy, which is quite odd given two Republican nominees for the presidency not too many years apart. Sure, policywise, I suppose there are some things, like favoring a strong military and -- maybe, at one point -- perhaps possibly cutting income-tax rates. But even then, as I write, Trump’s favoring of lower taxes is something on which he is already reneging. Indeed, between my first draft of this article last week and my final version this week, he has flip-flopped on taxes. In a matter of minutes on Sunday, from NBC to ABC, he soared all over on taxes, and on the minimum wage.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, is legendary for his refusal to reverse himself on income-tax cuts throughout his entire presidency. Trump is reversing himself even before the Republican convention. Reagan’s refusal was because Reagan was principled. Trump’s reversal is because Trump is not principled. Reagan was a complete conservative. Trump is momentarily pretending to be a conservative, and is getting away with it because of followers who back him no matter he says or does -- just as he boasted they would. (Click here for Trump’s woefully embarrassing attempt to define conservatism, a problem Reagan never had. Trump’s definition is that of someone attempting to hijack conservatism merely in order to get elected.)

Reagan opposed high taxes because federal income taxes were (among other things) the mother’s milk that sustained and grew big government. I see no evidence that Donald Trump believes in small, limited government the way Reagan did. The way Trump speaks of what he would do as chief executive is not small-government at all, and is actually quite stunning in its remarkable lack of Constitutional comprehension. He talks as if the president can just magically cancel trade agreements and enact massive changes unilaterally. The Founders carefully never devised such a system.

Our system was designed so the chief executive cannot stomp in and do whatever he pleases. That’s how banana republics operate. If Trump’s advocates are frustrated with the inaction of the federal government now (by the way, federal-government inaction is not a bad thing to a conservative), just wait until they see Trump’s inability to kick and scream and get what he wants from behind the Oval Office desk. The federal government is not a business, and the president is not a CEO. The Founders did not want the president to be a CEO. Conservatism and genuine conservatives grasp this. Reagan did. Trump doesn’t.

[Suppressed]

rolling Stone eh...?

Ad hominem, eh?

How about you respond to the facts?

[Mesaclone]

They share nothing.  One was a great leader and inspirer of Americans, the other a narcissistic, megalomaniac POS.  Any comparison what so ever  is political blasphemy.   FUDT.

There are, of course, differences which Bill aptly pointed out. That is a fair point and worthy of adult conversation. But it is equally true that there are a great number of similarities in his positions and in how he is perceived by the establishment and by many of his enemies. This is not a zero sum argument where he is either 100% the opposite of Reagan or some sort of clone. Both men were complex but its juvenile to pretend they share nothing...and your opinion of Trump as a leader is simple subjectivity, and MANY see him as an incredibly strong leader. Heck, there are those in your NeverTrump movement who, absurdly, compare him to powerful...though evil leaders from the Fascist era. Which is it...he's a wilting weak leader or a powerful fascist demagogue, because you really can't have it both ways. 
 
The reality is that he inspires tens of millions of people and his Make America Great Again approach is inspiring tens of millions as is his diminution of political correctness.

[catfish1957]

.and your opinion of Trump as a leader is simple subjectivity, and MANY see him as an incredibly strong leader. Heck, there are those who, absurdly, compare him to powerful...though evil leaders from the Fascist era.

That's funny, I don't seem to remember many leaders who substitute the term position with "SUGGESTION"   Leaders don't change their minds continuously either.  No one has come even remotely close to the mass level of flip flopping that this clown has demonstrated.  I really feel for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they have to put up with this dufous as CIC.

[INVAR]

There are, of course, differences which Bill aptly pointed out. That is a fair point and worthy of adult conversation. But it is equally true that there are a great number of similarities in his positions and in how he is perceived by the establishment and by many of his enemies.

Your statement is as absurd as those who would say that Che Guevera had many similarities with George Washington, therefore we must accept Che was a great leader.

The indisputable reality is that there is no meaningful, legitimate set of similarities between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan.

Generally, in terms of policy/ideological preferences, there is not much that Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan have in common, from domestic to foreign policy - Paul Kengor, Reagan Historian and Author

[Mechanicos]

That's funny, I don't seem to remember many leaders who substitute the term position with "SUGGESTION"  Leaders don't change their minds continuously either.  No one has come even remotely close to the mass level of flip flopping that this clown has demonstrated.  I really feel for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they have to put up with this dufous as CIC.

suggestion  noun an idea or a plan that you mention for somebody else to think about http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/suggestion

The reason nobody pays attention to this dumbass argument is because most know what the term means and  do not twist it in a dwindling suicidal Fringe Group of #neverTrumpers to attack Trump. Because it makes the ones doing it look uneducated. 

[Mesaclone]

That's funny, I don't seem to remember many leaders who substitute the term position with "SUGGESTION"  Leaders don't change their minds continuously either.  No one has come even remotely close to the mass level of flip flopping that this clown has demonstrated.  I really feel for the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they have to put up with this dufous as CIC.

Wow. You have a lot to learn about leadership. Leaders change their minds when evidence and reasoned argument dictate they do so. That's not an abrogation of principle, rather, its having the wisdom to understand that one does not know everything and must always be open to listening to argument and adjusting progress as facts and evidence come to light.

And when you use terms like "No one has come remotely close" you are just demonstrating the need for more experience and study of the world.

As for suggestions vs policy, that's just an acknowledgement that moving forward politically almost always means conceding something to those who oppose you...Stalin can perhaps force through exactly what he wanted under his system of government...in ours everything, by its very design, is a compromise and a negotiation. The trick is to be effective at this to the point you get MOST of what your principles deem to be the best solution.

[INVAR]

Wow. You have a lot to learn about leadership. Leaders change their minds when evidence and reasoned argument dictate they do so.

You make Josh Earnest look like a rank amateur.

You vying for a "Communications Director" position (i.e.: Chief Propagandist) in the Trump monarchy?

[RoosGirl]

The reason nobody pays attention to this dumbass argument is because most know what the term means and  do not twist it in a dwindling suicidal Fringe Group of #neverTrumpers to attack Trump. Because it makes the ones doing it look uneducated.

Great.  Where can I read about the suggestion for removing illegals from the country?

[Mesaclone]

You make Josh Earnest look like a rank amateur.

You vying for a "Communications Director" position (i.e.: Chief Propagandist) in the Trump monarchy?

No, I'm all for criticisms of any candidate, including Mr. Trump. I have my own reservations about him on a number of points/issues. But I don't like dishonesty and I don't like trying to tar a GOP candidate with bogus accusations. Silly exaggerations about using the word "suggestions" vs "policy" are meaningless semantic games...akin to the PC crap in which every word must be parsed for its hidden micro-aggressing meaning. Its stupid, and unworthy of discussions amongst Republicans.

Trump is flawed in many ways, as are all candidates...so we can talk for days about his shortcomings and most pro-Trump voters will agree with some of the more cogent points in such a discussion. Major Bill makes some great points and I strive to read everything I see from him on this board. But in the end, warts and all, Trump is the best man for the presidency who still actually has a chance to win that position. That is the ONLY decisive point in all of these discussions.

What is so damning about those who oppose Trump, is that they are so blinded by their rage, they cannot even see the positive qualities that Trump brings to this kind of race...I could honestly see how someone could decide that on balance Trump was not what they wanted...but this attempt to portray him as a new Mussolini and the second coming of the anti-Christ is a sure sign that reason has left the building. NeverTrumpr have turned the world black and white, and can't even acknowledge the reality that much is gray...including any assessment of individual candidates. Heck, I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but I could sit here and lay out 5 legitimate qualities she has that would be great to have in a sitting president. That doesn't change the balance sheet, as her negatives heavily outweigh her positives...but to be so blinded as not even be capable of looking at a candidate in a holistic way is to be narrowminded and...well...blind. And you really can't reason with blind...its the defining quality of fanaticism.