Trump Is Already Ditching His Movement

[ABX]

We are one month from inauguration day, and it looks like the Donald Trump revolution is already almost over. In its place is a globalist establishment led by a rogue tweeter. Doubt me? Let’s review the great causes that motivated his base.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443251/donald-trump-abandons-movement-campaign-promises

[Oceander]

Is it too early to say "told you so"?

[EasyAce]

From the article:

It’s almost as if Trump said what he needed to say to win election, without regard for the truth or the
consequences. Imagine that! Indeed, he even seemed to impute his own motives to his crowd. At a rally last week
he said, “You people were vicious, violent, screaming, ‘Where’s the wall? We want the wall!’ Screaming, ‘Prison!
Prison! Lock her up!’ I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted
to win, right?” But now, in Trump’s words, “You’re mellow and you’re cool and you’re not nearly as vicious or
violent, right? Because we won, right?” For Trump, it was all tactics. And he appears to think it was just tactics
for his supporters as well.

Perhaps nothing sums up Trump’s insincerity more than his secretary-of-state pick. To the extent that there was
any cornerstone to Trump’s thoughts on foreign policy, it was his visceral disgust at George W. Bush and Bush-
era interventionism. That was “globalist.” That was “nation-building.” He even went so far as to echo far-left talking
points and claim that Bush lied his way into the Iraq War.

But in nominating the CEO of one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, Trump has nominated the very
definition of a globalist. And just as Rex Tillerson has come under fire for his close ties to Vladimir Putin, the people
who’ve rallied most strongly to his side are members of the Bush foreign-policy team — foremost among them
Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld — and Bush himself, who in a private phone call last week
lobbied Bob Corker on Tillerson’s behalf. Where are the sneering anti-globalists now?

. . . Trump’s movement was always about Trump. And those who marched to the polls believing that he’d “fight”
for them should now know that the only fights he picks are those it’s in his self-interest to pick. Yes, he still might
try to build the wall, because it would be too embarrassing to renege on that campaign promise. Yes, this first
Supreme Court nominee will likely be solid for the same reason. But you can also count on him to blur the lines
between his business and his administration, because money is in his self-interest. And he’ll likely keep tweeting
like a Breitbart blogger, because that has served his political interests beautifully, at least so far.

It’s as if the people stormed the Bastille and set up the guillotines, only to find their leader feasting with King
Louis. It turns out he was a member of the ancien régime all along.

[skeeter]

From the article:

This is why his treatment of Cruz was so infuriating. Who was lying all along?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Utter nonsense.   

[Frank Cannon]

Is it too early to say "told you so"?

[roamer_1]

That's the thing with movements... They're meant to be flushed.

[ConstitutionRose]

Oh, I wish I hadn't seen that.   You wouldn't allow a child to behave like that.

[Cripplecreek]

Oh, I wish I hadn't seen that.   You wouldn't allow a child to behave like that.

Its cultural degeneracy before our very eyes.

[jpsb]

Is it too early to say "told you so"?

Way, this is a sour grapes article from the NeverTrump HQ at National Review, a well known Fake News site.

[Just_Victor]

Way, this is a sour grapes article from the NeverTrump HQ at National Review, a well known Fake News site.

It's a valid editorial analysis.  You would do yourself a favor to actually take on French point by point instead of illogically dismissing the essay as "fake news."  There's quite a bit of low hanging fruit that could easily be refuted with sound logic.

[EasyAce]

It's a valid editorial analysis.  You would do yourself a favor to actually take on French point by point instead of illogically dismissing the essay as "fake news."  There's quite a bit of low hanging fruit that could easily be refuted with sound logic.

If it's pro-Donaldus Minimus, it's legitimate news. If it's not pro-Donaldus Minimus,
to even a single degree, it's fake news.

In other words, business as usual, simply from the Republican side of the ledger. I
don't remember Democrats using the term specifically, but during the regime of
His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP,
LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the
United States, if stories or essays were pro-His Excellency they were legitimate news
and if they were not pro-His Excellency they, too, were fake news. It was likewise
on the Republican side during the reign of President Lips II, too.

Already, too, one hears and sees the epithet of Trump Derangement Syndrome
aimed at anyone demurring even a single degree from Donaldus Minimus no matter
how lacking in true derangement a particular observer might be and might express
himself. As we heard and saw Obama Derangement Syndrome aimed at his critics
no matter how un-deranged; as we heard and saw Bush Derangement Syndrome
aimed at his critics. (Even---especially?---on the conservative side.)

And the beat goes on . . .

[geronl]

It's a valid editorial analysis.  You would do yourself a favor to actually take on French point by point instead of illogically dismissing the essay as "fake news."  There's quite a bit of low hanging fruit that could easily be refuted with sound logic.

cult members reject anything that doesn't support their view

[geronl]

I just got one of those "Our leaders are chosen by God, so we must accept Trump...."

It is pure blasphemy to think that every evil ruler in history was chosen by God after he gave us free will to accept his salvation or not.

[ABX]

I just got one of those "Our leaders are chosen by God, so we must accept Trump...."

It is pure blasphemy to think that every evil ruler in history was chosen by God after he gave us free will to accept his salvation or not.

Most of the people who say that now, that never said anything of the sort when Obama was President.

[EasyAce]

Most of the people who say that now, that never said anything of the sort when Obama was President.

Usually, it's a president's supporters who say such things. I heard (and saw) enough Democrats say it about
Obama; I heard (and saw) enough Republicans say likewise about George W. Bush, which makes you
wonder about God and convenience.

Come to think of it, there were times when I saw supporters of both wave off any reasonable critique of
their heroes quoting Jesus Christ's admonition to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and
render unto God the things that are God's---but dropping to dead silence when challenged that it didn't
mean Caesar had the right to make off with the whole pot.

[HonestJohn]

Way, this is a sour grapes article from the NeverTrump HQ at National Review, a well known Fake News site.

Is someone having difficulty understanding what an opinion piece actually is?

Hint: it's not 'news' in the first place.

[LMAO]

It's a valid editorial analysis.  You would do yourself a favor to actually take on French point by point instead of illogically dismissing the essay as "fake news." 

But that would require work and research. Isn't it just easier to plug the ears and close the eyes and yell "fake news" over and over again?