WE’RE CLONING WHO?? Nerd Rage #189

WE’RE CLONING WHO?? Nerd Rage #189

We discuss Kavanaugh and the US Open, along with Star Trek AND Star Wars! Just ignore that whole cloning thing…

Also, someone was tipsy. In vino veritas!

Enjoy!

Advertisements

It’s All Falling Apart! Nerd Rage #188

Watch: It’s All Falling Apart! Nerd Rage #188

More McCain-ia!, plus gun-grabbers vs. gun rights advocates: who’s less civil? Political false equivalencies galore, emotionalism vs. stoicism, Osei’s review of The Incredible Hulk, and music theory/videogame and cinema music are all discussed in this episode of Nerd Rage! Watch, subscribe, like, comment, and share!

The Insidious Nature of Arrogance

I have been quietly observing the coverage and opinion sharing surrounding Trump and his salacious past for a while now. As his affairs have come to light, people have become ever more divided in their opinions over him. On one side, you have those who call Trump the worst kind of cad and liar, and on the other are those who insist they can and should overlook his past in favor of the good he may do now.

Both sides have valid points.

I have been reluctant to weigh in with my own opinion because I know that the people who are vehemently opposed to Trump will become apoplectic and will question my character by extension. It is similar to the irrational attacks levied by the hard core pro-Trump side whenever I have been critical of him, but oddly enough it is the antis who have been the most unpleasant since the election.

That is, I had been unwilling to weigh in… until today.

Earlier I saw this post and my immediate reaction was surprise that the NY Times should be concerned with character. They do, after all, have a history of blatant biasfabrication, and political spin. It is ironic, given their history, that they should have published an opinion on precisely this topic. If they were subject to their own standards, I would be compelled to assign them to the dust bin of the corrupt and unreadable. I suppose, then, that it is good to separate the publication itself from the succession of questionable posts and journalists that have been published within its periodicals. 

The post itself talks about Trump’s past and the support he gets from conservatives today despite what could politely be called a colorful history. It calls into question, specifically, the character of Mike Pence, but also that of the whole of conservatism and the right. 

As to the character of Pence, I can only say that you need not agree with him in all things to acknowledge he is a man of honor. I believe that he feels he can do some good in his position as VP, and that he could influence Trump’s life in a positive direction. 

I believe we can all agree that Trump could use all the positive influence he can get. Of course his past indiscretions are inexcusable. They may be understandable in a sense, but I wouldn’t attempt to justify them. Therein lies the source of the divide over support for Trump. He has been, at least, honest about his vices. That alone sets him apart from most politicians, many of whom behave exactly like Trump privately and then publicly play at being virtuous. 

It doesn’t help the discussion at all when one considers that the integrity of the presidency was utterly destroyed under Clinton, and that this was defended and approved by the very media outlets that have engaged in perpetual pearl-clutching since Trump’s nomination. Hypocrisy is alive and well and its most ardent champion is mainstream media. 

Which brings me back to the Divide, and the most common refrain associated with said divide, “Consistency!” “Character!” “Conviction!”

I found this quote from the Times post particularly telling: 

“Conservatives have twisted themselves into knots trying to excuse Trump’s vulgarities as acceptable and somehow set them apart from the supposed productivity of the man himself, somehow cleaving the sin from the sinner.”

Concerning the questions of character and convictions, and the contention within conservatism and particularly among Christians, is this not precisely what we ought to do?? Not make excuses, but to separate the sin from the sinner? Can we not acknowledge that things done may be unequivocally wrong while also acknowledging that people may be redeemed? 

Before you counter with, “Yes, but..,” let me reminded you that not one of us can redeem ourselves by our own power alone. If you have ever sought forgiveness or absolution then you cannot claim any more innate goodness or virtue than the President can. The act alone is proof that we are not good for goodness sake, whatever childhood songs may say. 

This brings me to what I perceive to be the insidious arrogance of “better than.” 

It is possible for a conservative Christian to support Trump’s presidency and abhor his dalliances. Jesus did not tell us to seek our salvation in politics, nor did he say that we should hawk our “fruits” in the public square by proudly proclaiming the superiority of our vote. When the elites of his day tried to trap him in an inconsistency, he merely said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” What our duty as a voter is, then, depends on a very personal conviction that is God’s alone to judge, as He alone is the one to place such convictions on us. 

It is disturbing to me to see such prideful and contentious interactions among otherwise delightful people. Yes, we should definitely be concerned with character, but first and foremost and always the character that concerns us most should be our own. If we cannot hold a mirror to our own pride and foibles, and seek always to remain humbled by what we find there, then we have no business becoming the arbiters of virtue in other people’s lives. 

We may not like what it says about us that our Representatives are such fallible and fallen individuals, but let us not delude ourselves with the fantasy that we each and all have not at some point been just as given to vice as they are. They are the reflection we turn away from. They are the beams we avoid in our search for specks

I can already predict the rebuttals to this opinion and I may in time address them, but I believe we can gain an understanding of what are simplistically called “inconsistencies” by remembering the many instances wherein God uses secular leaders to perform wise and good acts, and how sometimes a part can redeem the whole. These things did not come about by posturing, however; they were the result of real conviction, real faith, and constant prayer. I can’t help thinking our time would be better spent in the pursuit of self improvement and spiritual communion rather than in endless arguments over who is the “better” person based on whether or not they support the President as a politician or as a person.

To that end, I would leave you with a passage from The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis:

“We are deceived by looking on the outside of things. We suppose ourselves to be roughly not much worse than Y, whom all acknowledge for a decent sort of person, and certainly (though we should not claim it out loud) better than the abominable X. Even on the superficial level we are probably deceived about this. Don’t be too sure that your friends think you as good as Y. The very fact that you selected him for the comparison is suspicious: he is probably head and shoulders above you and your circle. But let us suppose that Y and yourself both appear “not bad”. How far Y’s appearance is deceptive, is between Y and God. His may not be deceptive: you know that yours is. 

In an instant of time -while your friend hesitates for a word- what things pass through your mind? We have never told the whole truth. We may confess ugly facts -the meanest cowardice or the shabbiest and most prosaic impurity- but the tone is false. The very act of confessing -an infinitesimally hypocritical glance- a dash of humour- all this contrives to disassociate the facts from your very self. No one could guess how familiar, and in a sense, congenial to your soul these things were, how much of a piece with all the rest: down there, in the dreaming inner warmth, they struck no such discordant note, were not nearly so odd and detachable from the rest of you, as they seem when they are turned into words. We imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are exceptional single acts, and make the opposite mistake about our virtues…”

Just Watching…

Just a few passing observations:

Have you ever read something and immediately something bothers you about it? You can’t place your finger on it, of course, and on the surface it seems innocuous, but it’s still wrong. That’s what this tweet is to me.

“Invisible and neglected.” What do these words even mean? As a general rule, Sikh’s tend to stand out in their communities. So they’re not invisible. And neglected by whom? I don’t see anyone in the United States who’s obligated by law to look out for and cater to the Sikh community. Or the black community. Or the gay community. It’s almost as if you’re responsible for looking out for yourself.

But “representation matters,” right? Everyone (except whites/men), must be pandered to and catered to. It’s not enough that you be allowed to live your life; no, you must force others to see you and celebrate you, even if they’d rather do neither. Even if, for all intents and purposes, you’re irrelevant, you must make people look at you and your causes so you can feel special.

So, trans representatives and Sikh mayors: that’s great, you achieved something, be proud of that. But let’s not pretend that “representation” is what everyone is so happy about. It’s vain narcissism, coated in layer upon layer of feel-goodism, to the point that we no longer recognize it. A Sikh mayor in Hoboken or a trans representative in Virginia doesn’t make a difference, not on its own.

It is not what they are that matters. It is what they will do with their power.

~ It feels like Dr. King’s dream is all but dead these days. All everyone ever talks is what folks look like on the outside. No one cares about “who” anymore; it is all about “what.” Black? Trans? Atheist? Hispanic? Gay? Muslim (in the most reductive, meaningless way)? It does not matter if you are an utterly awful person, as long as you fit the mold of being an Oppressed Minority™, you have a place in “society.”

Meanwhile, if you’re white (and especially if you’re white and male (and triply especially if you’re white, male, and Christian)), you’re pushed to the back. You’re assumed to be racist. You’re automatically a monster who needs to literally kiss the ass of every “minority” on the street to begin to make up for something you can’t help.

It is almost as if segregating and slandering people on the basis on that which is uncontrollable is a bad thing. It’s almost as if there was a whole movement to end this sort of thing….

~ Periodically, Shannon and I will talk about the old days of online conservative activism back in 2012. We talk about the comradery, about the joy of finding like-minded individuals across the nation to connect with. And we talk about how it slowly sort of fell apart. How we saw the reality of certain individuals and groups. How what was once an alliance of happy warriors descending into vain infighting and back-biting. About how far too many people were invested in keeping things as they were rather than trying to build (or rebuild) something.

A year into the Trump era and things seem to be only worse. Plenty of people and commentators who I’ve liked and respected over the years have revealed themselves to be hateful and spiteful and petty. They hate Trump so much, they’re willing to sabotage him rather than fight for their supposed values.

For all of his faults, Trump is still better than Hillary, and certainly supports more rational policies than the left. Indeed, there are plenty of Trump policies and acts one could point to as objectively good things. Yet apparently hatred of Trump has eclipsed these facts. Few people out there anymore are actively promoting conservative values if they hate Trump; they are just hating Trump.

Welcome to the brave new world, where everyone fights for their own stupid egos.

~ It has been a century since the Bolsheviks turned Russia into a hellhole. Yet people, especially the young, act as though there are no lessons to be learned from this. Only if we tried it ourselves, the socialist dream would be fully realized and we would have perfection. Will it really take coming face to face with actual famine to understand what it means?

~ I guess I shouldn’t end this on a sour note, so have an arrangement of one of my favorite pieces of music:

Can and Should

A man was fired recently. Contrary to what the left would have the general public believe, it is not because he was sexist, or racist, or opposed the shallow vanity that passes for diversity today. No, he was fired only because he dared to have a serious, nuanced opinion that did not conform exactly to leftist groupthink. It did not matter that his opinions largely matched up to the left’s; that he did not toe the line exactly was the problem. So Google, one of the greatest tech giants in the world, fired him.

Now, you might say, “Google is a private organization! They can do whatever they want!” Which they can. But that’s a non sequitur. That they are free to practice whatever hiring and firing decision is not the point, nor am I advocating for restrictions on this. Lord knows if I don’t think that Christian groups should be forced to have gay and Muslim leaders, than no one ought to be forcing Google to hire or retain employees against their will.

However, that does not mean Google did the right thing (indeed, they may have done something very bad, as it turns out).

Indeed, this is a major problem with our society. We equate the freedom to do something with its rightness. We fail to differentiate between the words “can” and “should.”

Can we fire this person? Yes. Should we fire this person? Probably not.

Can we force this baker out of business for refusing to bake a cake that goes against their beliefs? Probably. Should we ruin this person’s livelihood? Probably not.

Can I get blasted drunk this weekend? Yes. Is this a terribly good idea? My hangover will probably tell me no.

Can I sleep around? Yes. Should I run the risk of diseases, pregnancy, or emotional turmoil? I’m going with no.

Can I strut around like I know everything the world has to offer? Yes. Should I, given I’ve only lived a bit north of a quarter century? No.

The problem is that we don’t treat ourselves and our freedom with any real respect. We, as a society, earnestly believe that because we are free to do something, there is nothing wrong with actually doing it. We believe that there should be nothing restraining us from any action, good or bad.

I don’t believe that. I believe that one of the goals of life should be to lead a dignified and respectable life. We ought not be going around behaving stupidly and foolishly. We should not go around heedless of others and even ourselves. Bear in mind, I’m not advocating for leading dull, uninteresting lives (I know I do, and I’m not necessarily proud of that). Sure, we’ll occasionally do wild, crazy. even stupid things. We will do mean and unkind things. We might even think those things worthwhile, that the costs associated with those actions are outweighed by the (perceived) positives. Should we make a habit of it, though? Should we turn those things into our lifestyle?

Shouldn’t we have enough self-awareness to realize when we are making mistakes? Or is that sort of self-reflection outmoded too?

Enough With the Political Sanctimony

It’s no secret that the political atmosphere is rife with tension these days. It doesn’t help that both online and in the real world, there are paid trolls who are making bank off the divisiveness of various movements and campaigns. It is mentally and spiritually exhausting to deal with.

I’m simply tired of the political blame games. I’m tired of broad insults and assumptions.

Someone asked me earlier, in discussing ‘deplorables’ and ignorance and support for this side or that, “Who’s fault is that?” You know what I said?

Ours. It’s our fault.

It’s my fault and your fault. It’s everyone making sweeping assumptions and dispensing broad insults and NOT talking to the people around us in real life about the whys and hows of real life issues. We aren’t even aware of what issues matter most to the people living around us, working with us, and teaching our kids, or why those issues matter to them.

Seriously.

I think we need to step away from the internet and relearn how to speak to actual human beings. We need to be able to discuss, educate, and persuade without being complete asshats, because that’s pretty much how we all come across when all we do is obsess over who’s on the right side of politics all day online. We spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with people whose opinions we don’t esteem in the least, and whose lives we couldn’t care less about. And why don’t we care??

If you can’t see your opponent as a human being with value simply because they vote differently than you, then I’d say that says a lot more about you than it does about them. I certainly don’t like what it says about me, and as convinced as I am of my rightness, I realize that it makes no difference when I crow about it on the internet. That usually doesn’t change anyone’s mind, but it validates my opinion with every like and “Amen!” thrown my way…which is still pretty unproductive.

Being morally superior about our choice in candidate does far more harm than good. I can and will express my opinions, but I’m trying to avoid issuing insults to people I don’t even know. People whose lives, concerns, and values I can’t possibly understand. I know that their support may go to policies and candidates that I find detestable, but why should I then write them off as if they’re no better than dirt? Not knowing what led them to this choice, what good does it do to insult them now that they’ve reached it?

Basic decency has taken a critical hit in this election cycle. Even good people are so caught up in the frustration of it that they’re letting their pride and ego turn them into something unrecognizable. I get it, we’re all extremely frustrated! We’re all disappointed and disgusted and afraid. But we’re also all still human beings, and we’re more complex than “Trump voter” or “Hillary voter” or “Johnson voter”. We’re all far more complex than political affiliation. Our importance and worth extends beyond “ally” or “opponent”.

You may be right. You may have the most facts and the best arguments. You may have a brain the size of Canada.

But if you don’t have a heart, you’ve lost. It’s just that simple.

You’ve lost your ability to influence people who you will need on your side politically, and you’ve lost a crucial part of what it takes to be a decent person in general.

There’s a saying that goes like this: “You can be right or you can be happy.” Just look around you. Look in the mirror. It’s pretty clear that we aren’t choosing happy, and frankly I don’t wish to be allied with a bunch of sourpusses.

I simply cannot retain the good in me when my mind and mood is being poisoned by negative influences. I choose to be happy, and to be at peace.

 

Romans 12

 

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”says the Lord.

 

Sincerity and Respect

Note: This is adapted from a Dixon’s Musings post from July 18, 2014.

On Nerd Rage and Twitter, I have spoken (and written) several times before about the necessity of respect.  In fact, I believe that the cause of the vast majority of our internal disagreements on the right stem not from the fact that we disagree, but the fact that we don’t respect each other.  We don’t afford each other respect for our differing beliefs and it harms our discourse.

Today, I want to take that a step further.

I feel that the disrespect we express towards one another has a deeper root.  When we engage in discourse, either with liberals or each other, we don’t give others the benefit of the doubt.  By that, I mean to say that we don’t respect the sincerity of the beliefs of others.

When someone’s point of view doesn’t conform to our own worldview, it’s easy to believe that the other person is not serious.  After all, we “know the truth,” so how can someone honestly believe something contrary to that truth?  How can any serious, honest human being disagree with the truth?  From there, we tend to draw one of two conclusions:

1) Such people are stupid.  Rather than approaching a debate assuming that our partner/opponent has given their point of view some degree of serious thought, we merely assume they are ignorant parrots.  We see them as foolish, which is often the case (such people tend to prove just how wise or ignorant they are over the course of an argument), but not always.  Instead of accepting them as equals (to start), we patronize and demean them.

2) Such people are being intentionally deceptive, either toward themselves or toward others (they’re “trolling”). The person we debate isn’t interested in actually having a civil discourse; only in causing trouble and strife.  To be certain, this happens very frequently in the age of the internet; some people really do like to watch the world burn after they’ve set it aflame.  However, I don’t believe that our automatic response to having our beliefs challenged should be to assume that this mentality is the cause.

Now, there are certainly moments where people need to be roundly mocked and shamed for what they do and what they believe.  As I said before, there are plenty of people who will show their true colors after a few minutes of talk.  However, not every discussion requires mockery simply because someone disagrees with us.  Not every expressed opinion, no matter how wrong or disagreeable, is trite or foolish.  Sometimes, people just think differently from us and legitimately so.

Let’s take a few examples.

Why can’t #NeverTrumpers simply be dissatisfied with the choice presented for November?  Why can’t they have taken an honest and sincere look at Trump and concluded that he is an inadequate candidate for president?  There certainly are many honest and true people among them who simply hold the potential leader of the free world to a high standard and find Trump lacking.

On the other hand, why can’t Trump supporters merely see no other true options?  Why can’t their support for someone who they view as truly different be simply that?  Why must they universally be rubes and racists and fools?  Why can’t Trump supporters truly feel that the prospect of a Clinton presidency is a far more grim fate than anything Trump presents?

Why must every criticism of Islam be viewed as “racist?”  Why is it that people cannot simply see the reality presented before western society by Islamist extremism and react accordingly?  Why must this impulse be born of hate and ignorance?

Conversely, why can’t the defenders of Islam have legitimate concerns about the generalization of a billion people?  Why can’t they have concerns that decent people, caught up the in whirlwind that is the more violent sects of their faith, will suffer undue blowback?  Is there truly no potential for bigotry in response to Islamism?

Why must all those opposed to homosexuality be bigoted and hateful?  Why must laws that protect the rights of businesses to not violate their consciences or maintain the gender segregation of public restrooms be tantamount to Jim Crow segregation?  Why can there not be valid concerns regarding free exercise, free association, and general safety?

Likewise, do LGBT people not have legitimate concerns about their treatment in society?  As a minority, should they not be concerned about and vigilant against marginalization? Are there not many Christians who, rather than approaching the community with love instead approach it with venom and malice?

The list goes on.

To clarify, I do not present those arguments in an attempt to claim that all of them are valid.  I think you, the reader, are perfectly aware that not only do I hold specific points of view on each issue, but I happen to disagree with some of the counter-arguments I offered.  Obviously, contradictory values cannot all be valid; the truth must exist somewhere within them.

The point is that each of these points of view are very strongly and seriously believed by many people.  Simply dismissing the sincerity of these beliefs is often what leads to constant strife.  Rather than understanding that some people, right or wrong, for good or for ill, hold their beliefs strongly and for legitimate reasons, we instead tear them down.  The least we can do for each other is respect this sincerity and treat one another decently when we disagree.

While showing each other respect may not lead to swayed hearts and changed minds, maybe, at the very least, it can soften our discourse.

Some Observations

A lot seems to be going on lately, so I guess I’ll write a little bit about each topic.

– The terror attack in Nice, France has brought out the usual reactions. People blame “religion” and “extremism” for violent, bloody murder, rather than the very specific and prolific religious ideology that is actually responsible. The usual suspects wail that “this isn’t Islam!” and wait with bated breath for the anti-Muslim backlash that never comes. The same people put a filter on their Facebook profile image and start a hashtag, while some jackass drags a piano to the scene and plays a tune.  It’s easy to imagine these selfsame people angrily decry the “thoughts and prayers” of others. Meanwhile, world leaders “condemn” the attacks while doing nothing to address the source of the problem.

Violence and bloodshed in the streets should not and cannot become the norm.  Yet, the people who throw shade favorable to the Islamists do this very thing.  They tell the common people that we can do nothing to counter the very real danger, not without “losing who we are.”  Last I knew, dead men aren’t the same, either.  And should the elite who rule over us continue along this dangerous and bloody path, peace will not be long maintained, neither from the forces without that seek to kill us, nor the forces within who only desire to be safe.

– As someone who does not support the Black Lives Matter movement, I still cannot deny that there is a legitimate need to root out corruption within the criminal justice system, particularly as regards minorities. On the other hand, this very legitimate impulse is overshadowed by the blatant anti-cop viciousness from some portions of BLM.  It doesn’t matter if the majority of the movement doesn’t agree with this notion; far too many of its supporters (carelessly) celebrate the murder of police officers and perpetuate the myth of policemen hunting down blacks in the streets. The men and women charged with keeping our streets safe are being turned into demons to satisfy the victim mentality of people who have never had to suffer under Jim Crow or the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement.

– I think I’ve made it abundantly clear on the show that I believe this entire election cycle to be a mess of colossal proportions. We’re in the heart of the summer and there’s little hope I’ll have a horse in the race come November.  Bear in mind, I’ve not completely discounted the idea of voting for Donald Trump, but as he is now, I cannot support him, and he has not shown any evidence that he will be worth supporting in four months time. It is impossible for me to throw my lot in with a man who has shown none of the qualities I consider vital for a leader.

On the most basic level, I do not trust him when he says he has become a conservative.  A man does not spend his entire life as a liberal, vociferously supporting leftism’s greatest champions, and suddenly have an overnight conversion. Even Christians coming into belief in God and Jesus often take baby steps, slowly subsuming their old worldview with God’s. If something that transformative requires time, then surely changing one’s political ideology, with no concurrent change in one’s character, is even more difficult.

Furthermore, I believe Trump lacks the character to be a good president. He lacks grace, not just in the form of how he carries himself, but how he carries himself towards others.  He’s entirely tactless and undignified in how he presents himself.  His treatment of those opposed to him is no better. Additionally, combining his lack of humility with true power is asking for trouble.

– Part of me genuinely hopes that, given recent events, people at large will wake up to the fact that the world is still a dangerous place.  We, as a society, have managed to live very comfortable lives since the end of the Cold War.  No major international threats, no looming threat of global war or atomic annihilation.  We’ve grown complacent in a world that rewards complacency and apathy with death.

But that dangerous world hasn’t gone away; it only went silent in the face of American power. But as this nation wanes, so to do our enemies wax. And I dread the day that we must see the fruit that our weakness will bear.

Your Logic is Flawed

All I see on Facebook lately is “Colorado was STOLEN!” “Cruz is an establishment sellout!” and the further I investigate these claims, the more I facepalm.

I know I’m not convincing anyone of anything here, so I’m merely going to point out why your logic is flawed if you believe these things. I understand you all have your preferred sites that deliver news in exactly the tone you wish to hear, so I’m under no illusions that my post will shake the foundations of your beliefs. This is simply cathartic for me.

First, let’s start with your news sources, shall we? I keep hearing how The Media is evil and in the tank for The Democrats or The Establishment Republicans (it changes depending on who is critical of The Angry Cheeto – which reminds me of the evil Cheese Curls in Veggie Tales, right down to the lips). I see a lot of Trump supporters claim that the big networks are too liberal to be taken seriously while at the same time stating that smaller publications aren’t established enough to be trusted. Basically, anyone who isn’t printing favorable articles about Trump is untrustworthy. It’s true that we don’t have a lot of unbiased news sources, but when you link to biased and fake news sources posting rumor, slander, and speculation, you have effectively lost your argument. You cannot merely silence opposition, accuse it of bias, and then post biased fake garbage that supports your claims. And if you cite The National Enquirer, people are well within their rights to laugh in your face. Having a real story once every decade does not a reputable source make, especially when they are in the business of sensationalism.

Next, I’d like to put to rest this hysteria over Colorado delegates being “stolen”. I had a gentleman earlier state that “you only think you live in a Republic” while bemoaning the fact that votes were not cast democratically. Now, if you’ve got at least 5 brain cells firing at full power, you know he might have a problem with defining either the word “republic” or “democratic”. The fact is, the way delegates were elected in Colorado was Constitutional and pre-dates (in practice) the more widespread democratic primaries we see in other states. The delegates were not hand picked by The Establishment, in fact you could not get more “grass-roots” than the delegate selection process. The only thing barring Joe Voter from becoming a delegate is making a commitment to the party (paying a small fee) and showing up to a meeting (being active in the process). Oh, and perhaps eloquence and charisma. The delegate process is representative in the same way that other offices are representative: you vote for the person that you think will protect your interests and then they cast votes and represent you. If you’re confused about this, take it from someone who participated in the Colorado Caucus. Trump had plenty of time to court delegates, but he was not prepared to do so, and any reference to “Lyin’ Ted” or The Establishment is a load of hogwash because the Colorado process began months before either Cruz or Trump were hopeful nominees.

That brings me to my next point, which is that for someone who will “get things done” and “make really great deals”, Trump has shown that he is ill-prepared even when he has months to strategize. Hell, he can’t even count on the votes of his children because they didn’t register as Republicans before the cut-off date. It’s almost as if he thinks his propaganda sites and angry tweets will carry him right into office, all the while whining that the process is unfair and promising that only he can get things done. I still don’t know what Things he will get done, but apparently winning delegates and securing the votes of his children is outside of his ability. Rage tweeting may keep him in the press, but it doesn’t bode well for foreign diplomacy or for his business, which he also failed to account for. I can’t fathom the people who whole-heartedly believe that Trump is the ultimate Doer and Deal-maker when he hasn’t exhibited any efficacy outside of being a giant orange Crybully.

Finally, the worst and most abused logic is that which contends only Trump is “anti-establishment”. Most recently Trump supporters point to Cruz securing the funding of a junior Bush brother (gasp!) as proof that “he’s been bought by The Establishment!”. This despite the fact that Cruz defied Bush 43 and defended Texas against the U.N. and the International Court, which may have led to a distinct coldness from the Bush family (this should also lay to rest the idiotic globalist charges). The charge also flies in the face of literally everything that Cruz has tried to accomplish as an attorney and a Senator. To claim that a man who has stalwartly defended conservative principle and policy throughout his career is somehow, in a single primary season, a shill for The Establishment is perhaps even more ridiculous than to claim that a man who has been a lifelong progressive waffler and backer of Establishment and Democrat politicians is, in a single primary, suddenly conservative! I mean, do you even listen to yourselves?! Even Ben Carson, who woke up long enough to endorse Trump, has implied that he believes Trump is a fraud and a bad person, but that he is supporting him anyway #ForTheChildren. THIS LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE! As far as I can tell, the logic behind backing Trump is “he’s a horrible person but he pretends to be okay, so he’s gotta be better than that horrible person that pretends to be okay” – and all in the name of being Anti-Establishment, which Trump has  funded, Cruz has fought, but because Cruz is winning delegates and donors, suddenly everything is flipped upside down and The Dufus Dealmaker who can’t strategize his way out of a cereal box is being shut out by the Establishment Shill who just happens to be a lifelong principled Conservative.

GAH! You people. 

The cherry on top of this Illogical Sundae you Trump folks serve up on the regular, is the claim that even if Trump is not really Conservative, he’s still better than Cruz because he can “work with people and get things done”… because “no one likes Cruz.” So you say Cruz is Establishment and part of this massive conspiracy to unite the party against Trump, but he can’t unite the party against Trump’s ideological equals… because no one wants to work with him. And then you say that only Trump can work with the Establishment in D.C. to “get things done”.

cant even

I’m done. I am so done.

spock cries
You made Spock cry.