Somebody Doesn’t Think Trump Supporters are Great People

tdFrequent commenter and friend of The Company, ajstan has a pretty pointed essay at his blog.  I stole it.  Well, not the whole thing.  Read it here.

My Perception of the Typical Trumpkin

I’m not talking about the merely anti-Clinton voter.

This is about the people that actually support Trump, for Trump. As in, they think he will be a good President, and Make America Great Again. They believe this because they are stubbornly pig-ignorant of Trump’s actual character, as revealed through his public actions, over decades of celebrity life. There are also those who only pretend to believe, because they think they’re going to get a shot on The Apprentice or something. Or they just don’t fucking care, because they are shitty people.

For myself, I think of the Trump phenomenon the same way I thought about Obama-mania in 2008.  They are both symptoms of a disease.  A dangerous force which will swallow us up and spit us out if we’re no careful.



Don’t underestimate Stupid.

I’m not saying that every Obama supporter or every Trump supporter is stupid.  Of course not.  There are plenty of reasons why someone might supports Trump.  But like a fever, the doctor is likely to look at the most common cause.  I really think Stupid is the most common cause of Trump.


This entry was posted in Presidential Politics, Stupid and Evil, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Somebody Doesn’t Think Trump Supporters are Great People

  1. agiledog says:

    At this point, it is a question of Trump or Clinton. Which one would you prefer? A third party/independent candidate has no chance, so if you don’t vote for Trump, you’re getting Clinton. It is that simple. Which one can we keep from doing less damage to the Republic?

    I don’t like Donald Trump as a person or as a presidential candidate. But I “think” he can be kept from fucking us over more than Clinton would.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. AJ covered that in the first sentence. Yes. There will be people voting for Trump because Hillary CANNOT HAPPEN. If that’s what I get to, then I’ll pray as I vote that this isn’t as stupid as it looks. Like dressing up for an ’80’s party. Creating one long ladder out of two smaller ladders. Suing a retired lawyer. Some things we do are never going to be considered our smartest moves.

    There will be lots of Hillary voters casting a ballot because they think TRUMP CANNOT happen.


    • Gus Bailey says:

      Bingo Bango Bongo!
      No more calls folks, we have a winner.
      There are very few true Trump fans, and even fewer Hillary fans; we’re voting against the other guy, not for our guy/gal.
      Trump and Hillary (actually Bernie) are symptoms of the problem (Hillary is technically part of the problem as part of the establishment).

      I believe in GOD. I believe in the Constitution. I can no longer believe in the government of the United States.


  3. At this point one has to wonder if we’d be better off with someone chosen randomly from a list of folks paying property tax on homes or cars, or even from a list of folks with driver’s licenses.


    • Passed that point years ago…

      And not just the President.

      Government pay should be pegged at 40% of the same job in the private sector. No pension, and no person should work for the government for more than 5 years in a lifetime. Malfeasance in office loses you your citizenship.

      Total tax burden on persons should be capped at 10%. Only people who pay taxes get the vote.

      Corporations, taxes capped at 15%.


  4. onwyrdsdream says:

    My first order interest is in the candidate which supports the smallest state possible. If that were a democrat, I’d support a democrat… The more the state does, the less you can do. The less you can do, the slower the growth rate of the economy. The closer the economy grows, the longer it’ll take for all the cool things to happen. At the national level, this is pretty much never a democrat. Between Trump and Hillary? Honestly it seems to be a wash. Obviously Sanders is right out. As he fails this, it bears no further consideration.

    After that, I look at national security. It isn’t a contradiction, we can have a smaller state and be more secure. There is less crime when you know the odds of getting shot committing one are higher. We must rigidly support our interests and security. If we do that, we don’t need as much. We can have less and be secure. We can have more and be less secure. Ultimately that comes down to the guidance of the president, and the perception of the same by external powers. Under Obama, we’re less secure than we were under Bush, even if there was a military buildup… which there wasn’t, because the perception of the US has become a nation which will back down from threats and unevenly met out force for more or less random reasons. People fear us in the sense they fear a rabid dog. Not because it’s stalking you, but because who, where, and why it attacks are unknowable. The problem is, between Hillary and Trump, I don’t really get a sense of who’d be better on that front, except I feel that Hillary is compromised, and the anchor of her past failures would not be good for morale.. and it might lead her to either take needless risks or be over cautious. … I can say, I don’t except Trump to be cautious, which is its own set of problems.

    Finally, I get to conservative issues. Generally, economically conservative issues.. on which Hillary is terrible and trump is merely awful, then conservative values. Protecting the habits of a successful civilization are generally important to the civilization continuing its success. Ancient traditions exist to protect the tribe and share the burdens as evenly as practical. Trump isn’t very good here, but Hillary is much worse.

    The campaign issue of border security? I care about it, certainly. But between someone who was soft on that issue, but I trusted to reduce the size of government, serve honorably as commander in chief, to implement conservative fiscal policy and protect American values, even when they went against progressive cries of “-ism”, he/she would get my vote 100 times out of 100 vs someone who was strong on border security, but weak on any of those other things.

    Securing the border is important because it protects national security, the integrity of our political system, and the preservation of the best culture the Earth has ever known. Securing the border isn’t an end, it is a means to an end. People who lose the differentiation are only locking the gate with the vandals already inside, not distinguishing between them and those who share our values.

    An American is a system of beliefs, in freedom of speech, self defense, of property ownership and hard work, honor, self sufficiency, and devotion to a loving God. The world has millions of Americans who have never set foot here, and of those, if I was able, (and able to rightly distinguish,) I would personally pay the way to bring every one of them. Where as, those who believe certain speech should be prohibited, that property ownership (or interest) are evil, that the government should provide all things, that as long as they benefit, nothing else matters, that the government can be fair to everyone, and that the moral code passed down though generations is outdated or worthless… why would we even want them? How would we ever benefit? Why would we place their wants above the future of everyone else?

    So the rhetoric of closing the borders or opening the borders, I can’t really get behind it. We should welcome home our lost relatives who are aliens in the place they live, having values that their society does not endorse but naturally fit here.. and at the same time, the present administration’s welcoming of people who are decidedly our enemies, be in the people who want to claim the US for Mexico, socialists from south America, people looking to live off welfare, drug runners, or Islamic terrorists is admittedly terrible.


    Liked by 2 people

    • It might be necessary to take in refugees from the former Europe. (Which I think is the point of your last paragraph.)


      • onwyrdsdream says:

        Indeed. Without singling out Germany specifically, but only using them as an example, the next European war might be started from Germany, without being lead or manned by Germans. Demographics is destiny, as they say. If the present leadership ignores the wisdom of markets, the rights of defense and speech, and the preservation of their own culture, what right thinking person would remain? Certainly, wrong thinking people would continue to flood in. We might see Europeans coming to our shores in a replay of the MS St. Louis incident, with another progressive president turning them away, as they’re not among the favored groups of undesirables, but rather people of “privilege.” You can imagine Obama doing it.

        But suppose a nation that has such a black mark on their history, once again storming across Europe seeking conquest, to place people under a totalitarian government that seeks to eliminate the Jews. It could feasibly happen on the 100 year anniversary of the last attempt! Certainly it is inevitable that Europeans would fail to stand up to such threats until too late, as they’d hate to be labeled as racists. Though the label might still be their epitaph, victors and history and all. 2037 with Europe’s gray populations, mindless immigration policy, idiotic fiscal policy lead by Greens, and low birth rates. It isn’t inconceivable.

        (and god help us, let’s not replay 1929. With China’s bubble bound to burst and the excessive borrowing we’ve done in the last decade… Keynesians are still weirdly popular despite not having any predictive power whatsoever, so we could endure a depression that goes on for decades longer than it would naturally. Again.)


    • Jane says:

      Very well stated, onwyrdsdream, but I suggest you reconsider the order of your priorities. The purpose of Teddy Kennedy’s immigration bill was and is to change the electorate to one certain to elect progressives/democrats. Once the illegal aliens are allowed to vote, it will be almost impossible for any small government candidate to be elected president, followed soon by an overwhelming progressive (or maybe even communist!) majority in congress. Importing even more of these voters speeds up the process.

      Any progress toward conservative goals will be wiped out by the never-ending parade of horribles that will secure the votes of the imported electorate.

      As you mentioned, in addition to the total takeover of our electoral system, these immigrants will have a profound impact on our culture. What’s left of America as we’ve always known it will be as gone as the 1st, 2nd, and 10th amendments. In fact, we may even get that new constitution Ginsberg and other progressives fantasize about.

      If we don’t enforce our immigration laws, get the border under control, and take dramatic action to stop this importation of voters, any gain made is temporary. In fact, I believe birthright citizenship should end, which isn’t conceding that it was ever anything other than another judicial fiat.

      As painful as it may be to many, those here illegally should not be deported only to bring them back leeegally. That plan doesn’t stop them from voting for progressives, handouts, and bringing in the rest of their families to do the same. Make no mistake, if they’re allowed any legal status, it’s only a matter of time before they’ll be allowed to vote. Progressives will make their second-class status an issue until they’re accorded all of the benefits and rights of citizenship. Impatient, they’ve already tried to make the case (see Recent Events), for all residents of an area being allowed to vote, whether or not they’re a citizen. Some areas already allow both non-residents, such as the owner of a 2nd home, and non-citizens to vote in local elections.

      Immigration law should be strictly enforced across the board, imo, no matter how long someone has gotten away with breaking it; and without rewarding the children of those who’ve broken our laws. Seriously, it’s like allowing the children of bank robbers to keep the money stolen by their parent. After all, the children did nothing wrong…

      I could consider voting for (authoritarian and statist, imo) Trump if he could convince me that he’d deport and refuse re-entry to all like Vargas, the vocal pundit who has made a career out of being here illegally, along with those holding protests demanding “rights” while waving a flag from another country, and if not bar re-entry to the rest here illegally, at least put them at the back of the line. Of course, he has no intention of doing so. His plan, iiuc, is to waste resources deporting millions only to allow most to return with legal status.

      Going forward, imo, we should admit less immigrants overall, particularly immigration from 3rd world countries, and refusing immigration to those who will almost certainly be nothing but a burden on our country. Likewise, H1B and similar visas should be thoroughly scrutinized. We should be very, very picky about who is allowed to immigrate here, and we can be.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Jeanette Victoria says:

    One thing for sure Trump has brought out the stupid and the nasty in a lot of people. I’ve noticed that a lot of Trumpbots even if they claim to be Christians are down right nasty. So I’ve been culling my Facebook “friends.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. crawford421 says:

    If you chastise people for supporting Trump because of his personal character, as revealed by his actions over the years, you’d damned well be better scourging Hillary supporters — her character makes Trump look like a choir boy.

    I fixed a typo. — Dave

    Liked by 1 person

  7. a Reader #1 says:

    No, I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am, however, using this tweet to point out that calling the other guy an idiot just because you don’t like the candidate, is not a good argument.

    Phyllis Schaffly, Franklin Graham, Ben Carson, and over 10 million other people can’t all be “dumb.” For the majority of his supporters, it simply comes down to immigration. Not trade, not abortion, not decorum. Immigration. They keep telling people that, and few listen.


    • Gus Bailey says:

      I think the argument is, “At what price?” I hate to invoke Godwin, but Nationalism scares me. Cults of Personality scare me more. The combination of the two has a very poor history of being compatible with personal liberties of all kinds of folks who don’t fit the preferences of the privileged class.

      Maoism, Stalinism, Naziism, Victorian Imperialism, The Holy Roman Empire, The First Caliphate, Imperial Chinese Hegemony, The Roman Empire or The Egyptian Pharonic Dynasties. Granted, the first three in the list have the highest genocidal body count; but…


      • Gus Bailey says:

        Correction Maoism wasn’t genocidal as much as Democidal.


      • a Reader #1 says:

        Gus – I think that, historically, nationalism is normal, and healthy within reason. Ultranationalism is not. I am old enough to remember the healthy nationalism and pride we used to feel, such as at the moon landing. The pendulum has swung too far, and if it not adjusted now, it will swing back with a vengeance. We may, MAY, have a chance here to correct things peacefully, but I doubt it. Sweden and Germany, I fear, have gone past the point of no return.


      • Gus Bailey says:

        Fair enough. Ultranationalism is scary.


    • To a reader:
      I get that. Maybe dumb or stupid are too harsh. The man is a seriously loose cannon. I just wonder if he has any ability to run an organization which he does not own. And can he hesitate before he talks? I have worked with two millionaires, and I really think of them as arrogant, self-centered and unnaturally sure of themselves. I’m not sure he has the temperament.


    • Jane says:

      You may be correct, that it’s all about immigration, but I can’t blame anyone for not believing it. Cruz’s immigration plan was better, stronger, included enforcing current law, and he was much, much more likely to fight for it. Trump, otoh, has undermined his own claimed plan, including stating that all of his promised policies are starting points for negotiation, and most importantly, imo, he has stated that after expending the resources to deport those here illegally, he will bring them back legally. That type of plan is also known as touch back amnesty. And that’s now his starting point for negotiations. Even if those now here illegally are given a status that doesn’t give them full citizenship at first, it’s only a matter of time before they’re voting by the millions for democrats.

      I’ve lost a lot of respect for a lot of people over this election. Many people turned out to not be who I thought they were, including those who chose ratings over the principles they’ve spent decades claiming to hold. It wasn’t Franklin Graham, and I can’t recall his name, but a pastor who has appeared on Fox endorsed Trump and mentioned his “generosity” as a reason. Again, I’m not suggesting that motivated Graham. I have no idea why any religious leader would endorse an unrepentant adulterer who claims to be a Christian who has never sought forgiveness, is a frequent and blatant liar, among other decidedly non-Christian characteristics, habits, beliefs, policies and likely policies. I mean, it’s not like Trump repented favoring unrestricted abortion and asked for God’s forgiveness, according to Trump.

      I believe a significant amount of Trump’s support comes from people who believe he’s a fighter and that he’ll fight for them and what they believe in. OTOH, I’ve heard trumpkins interviewed who admitted they disagreed with him on up to 80% of the issues, but they wanted to punish the establishment for treating them so poorly. Others admit they just want to win, and believe this celebrity can win.

      That’s a huge part of his appeal, imo, that he’s a celebrity that many have watched for years. Nearly 100% name recognition and constant media attention (the latter estimated at a value of over 2 billion), and it’s not hard to see how a cult of personality could develop. Add to that being on virtually all sides of virtually all issues, and like Obama, supporters can paint him as being whatever pleases them most. I’ve seen those who claim to be free speech absolutists hand wave about Trump’s plan to change the law to allow him to sue over negative coverage. Yeah, yeah, “untrue” – – where have I heard that before?

      In the end, no matter what reason anyone claims, if shown proof that what they believe isn’t true or is far from certain, most wouldn’t waver in their support. He may very well be able to shoot someone and not lose support. And that’s very, very, very scary.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. BusPassOffice says:


    When 16 people lined up to run with Trump, those 16 were facing a guy with the best name recognition in the Country other than Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. The only blame to be placed for trump is the protest and the Establishment candidates that thought they were going to be the Obamasized.

    What I mean by Obamasized is the halt and catch fire that happened to the Barack the unknown. Obama to this day, is still in shock he got elected to the Senate, much less the whitehouse in a three year period, from relative obscurity.

    So these also ran candidates (I mean we had a guy whose only national political achievement was a 8 minute speech at a prayer breakfast) sucked the opposition and the money from alternatives to Trump. Seriously, who really had any chance outside of the governors, that a catch phrase or one debate moment was going to take them to their wildest dreams.

    The one thing these debates proved was the fact that it wasn’t Reagans “there you go again” catch phrase/debate moment that finished Carter, it was Carters poor handling of the economy and other factors. I mean if we used the “Catch Phrase Rule of winning debates” – say hello to President Christie..

    Didn’t happen. I look at Walker and Perry and even Bush dropping out really early, heck even Perry tried to promote Carly during his last debate (a act of great character that is widely dismissed by the political pundits), its tough for established winning Governors especially those who turned Blue states more Red to have to watch a clown show train wreck and be dismissed as living in DC when they rarely left the state except to lobby business to invest in their constituents.

    So Trump supporters maybe now are suffering from the IJA’s victory disease and acting out in the most disgusting manner which is butt hurt for the 16 fallen and their advocates, but these fanatics are head and shoulders above the supporters for Hillary.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Heh, I just deleted a half-written comment because it was a reply to comment on what you wrote rather than what i wrote.
      Also, was there some off-topic discussion deleted? I got some weird stuff in my wordpress dashboard.


      • I don’t think anything got deleted I did link your blog in the comments

        Liked by 1 person

      • My wp log of replies to my comments includes one from AR1, supposedly to a comment I made on this post. Neither AR1’s comment nor mine appear on this post. I think I did make the comment [ visible in my log as: I just don’t care whether FPL is a really real priest…] but I don’t remember when or where, but clicking on it in the log brings me to this post. AR1’s reply [visible only in my log] is mostly a link to Breitbart news story, but the story doesn’t seem relevant to FPL or this post. I know that’s all really convoluted…but I don’t know how to explain it better. Just a weird wp glitch, maybe.


  9. Clyde says:

    Stupid and nasty goes both ways. “You Suck!” to Ted Cruz in Indiana was both, and last I looked, was trying for the record in the #NeverTrump category. Protip: don’t try to outdo Perez Hilton to express your distaste for a person. They used to be a decent site, but until their lithium kicks in, it’s off my bookmark list.


  10. BusPassOffice says:

    Saw a great comment on NRO in Goldbergs article number 1267 hating trump. The comment said “You can worry about the state of the conservative movement and the Party, but now you need to worry about the state the Country will be left in if we get 4 to 8 years of Hillary”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Clyde says:

    Not going for the hammer, but I live in a very red area of a very blue state. A lot of the problem is that the establishment will bend, spindle and mutilate rules to ensure nominations, to get a candidate who has more fire against conservatives than democrats. When a conservative actually gets the nomination, the establishment butthurt ensures a lack of support. (A 2012 news story about a governor candidate’s actions as head of the state GOP had me shaking my head. This hasn’t even been an issue in the primary campaign, but it was borderline illegal.)

    I was a Cruz supporter (Walker was my first choice), but his moves were far too close in appearance to the establishment ones I’ve seen over a dozen years here. Blowing off objections to these as “you just don’t understand politics”, just didn’t sit right. (The following “you moron” was optional, but occasionally stated.) I saw “understanding politics” in congress after we gave landslides to the GOP in 2010 and 2014, and think it’s time for a change. I’m sure the country can survive 4 years of Trump, but regardless of the outcome, I doubt the GOP will look the same.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: I still don’t like him personally. – ajaystan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s