Rubio: “Everything is going exactly according to plan”

I never get tired of these posts:

MIAMI–Marco Rubio, fresh off two last-place finishes and two third-place finishes in Tuesday’s voting, announced to an excited crowd here today that “Everything is going exactly a…

Source: Rubio: “Everything is going exactly according to plan”

Maybe I’m not Crazy

For a while now, I’ve seen the Trump phenomena as being primarily about economics. Building a wall, insults, all that other crap … who cares? As a middle class American, I want to know what candidates are going to do about my economic future.

Trump seems to be the only one talking about trade and economics.

But no one else even noticed. Racism! Stupidity! He’s a phony and a fraud!

I was beginning to think I was seeing something that wasn’t there. Now, the Guardian is backing me up (Thanks, Guardian!).

Okay, the reasonable part of this post is over. I’m putting on my tinfoil hat – I can’t help but ask, “Why is the Republican establishment so vehemently anti-Trump?”

Seriously, they’d rather Ted Cruz over the guy. Rationally, you have to see Trump as a deal maker. Why not simply have a sit down with him and try to have him tamp down on the crazy?

But if the establishment is as completely in the pocket of big business as I think they are, they’re stance makes a lot more sense. Reasonable opinion or not, I’m just sayin’ …

Burn Bernie?

If there’s one thing a reasonable person should hate, it’s the gaffe pounce.

You take a presidential candidate who is running from sun up to sun down and constantly talking that entire time. As he’s talking, he’s trying to bend any question he’s asked to appeal to the constituencies he needs to win. You sit on the sidelines. Waiting. Watching.

Then, it happens. The gaffe. That one sentence or two that could be twisted to mean something completely different than the candidate intended.

Gotcha.

No offense, but it’s not a good look for the person pointing the finger. I don’t care if you’re on the right or on the left, it’s unreasonable.

Today’s victim is no other than Bernie Sanders. He thinks that no white person can be poor! The outrage. The indignity! My father grew up so poor that … (unfortunately, I’ve never been good at coming up with those kinds of jokes. Help me out in the comments section.)

No, Bernie Sanders, as a … liberal? progressive? socialist? who knows the correct terminology any more. … believes that black people are more impacted by poverty than poor people on a percentage basis. He also really needs more black voters.

Get over it already.

Marcobot?

I’ve been doing a lot of Trump posts lately. Too many. I hope my vast horde of readers (listens … crickets respond) aren’t beginning to think that the purpose of this blog is to stump for Trump.

Here at One Reasonable Person, we (okay, I, as there’s not exactly a team working around the clock or anything) simply want everyone to take a step back and ask, “Is that position reasonable?”

It just so happens that the Donald is the target of so, so many ridiculously unreasonable posts!

But here’s a great example of an unreasonable Marco post: (I’ll wait why you read it.)

Okay, I have to admit that Christie’s takedown of Rubio on the debate stage was pretty darn impressive, but, to quote Queen Elsa, let it go.  Every politician strives to stay on point. Find me a politician who hasn’t repeated himself.

Sorry, dear blogger, I find your allegation to be … unreasonable.

 

Trump is the new Hitler……really?

Heil Trump?

I can’t tell you how many posts I’ve encountered where people compare Trump to Hitler. I engaged with one lady, and she ended up agreeing with me that maybe it was a little too over the top for what she was trying to say. Another engagement, however, revealed that a different blogger truly was scared that Trump would be like Hitler.

Here’s a good refutation of that position (and note that the author is not a Trump supporter):
 
It was almost inevitable that as Donald Trump inches towards the Republican presidential nomination, voices would be raised comparing him with Adolf Hitler. Much as I would be happy to see T…

Source: Trump is the new Hitler……really?

Interesting Article Defending Trump’s Identity as a Conservative

I’m not much one for labels in that I believe that either a person makes sense or they don’t. It seems to me, however, that a lot of criticism leveled at the Donald is that he’s not a “True Conservative.”

What is a “True Conservative?”

A guy states his understanding here. I’m not sure I buy the whole argument, but it’s reasonable and well worth a read.

What Flip-Flop?

Quartz runs this article explaining a Trump flip-flop on H1-B visas. Here’s the gist of the matter:

First, Trump criticizes tripling H-1Bs, which are used to by companies to bring in immigrants with a needed skill set.

Trump’s website attacks his rivals’ support for the visas, noting that Marco Rubio, “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator,” has “a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.”

Then Trump is in favor of keeping immigrants in the US when the finish school.

“I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley,”

And again.

“We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have.”

But today, Trump is going to end the H-1B program.

“I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program.”

According to the article, Trump is all over the place. He likes the visa program. He’s going to end the visa program. Make up your freaking mind!

I’m not going to say that Trump never flip-flops as that would be a ludicrous statement, but the author of this article needs to find a better example. I do find Trump guilty – of doling out his policy in Twitter-sized chunks.

His statements, taken together, paint a picture so clear that even a writer at Quartz should be able to understand. Trump wants to keep talented people in this country only in situations where those people are actually needed. If an American can be found to fill a job, the job should go to an American. If not, we need to have use of the visas to fill the position. The visa program should not be used simply to provide cheap labor for Facebook.

That position sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

Breaking Down the Foreign Policy Case Against Trump

I know very little about foreign policy, but I’ve noticed that Trump’s stances are being highlighted more and more as a primary reason not to vote for him. As a reasonable person, I want to know more. It’s hard, however, to find well reasoned pieces that aren’t filled with all kinds of hyperbolic tripe.

Let’s go through one of the articles that I found:

We do not transgress Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment lightly.

That’s a good start. I’m on the lookout for well-reasoned, thoughtful articles. If you write something that I completely disagree with, but you do it in a manner supported by facts, I’m completely cool with that.

Let’s see how they justified their transgression.

But whether or not he believes his own words, merely uttering them renders him unfit to be commander-in-chief.

They’re not exactly winning me over to their ability to be reasonable from the outset.

Every modern presidential candidate who is realistically attempting to attain the Oval Office shares one trait: They will say whatever they need to say in order to get elected. During the primaries, they preach to their base. During the general election, they move toward the middle, most of the time in ways that directly contradict everything they said in the primary.

Is this an admirable trait in any candidate? Nope. Is it a reasonable trait considering that their doesn’t seem to be any way around the necessity? Yes.

Just by the fact that his words have propelled him into the driver’s seat for the nomination proves that the words were reasonable.

Under a Trump presidency, our allies would detest us and our enemies would have contempt for us, or even pity us.

Great. Now we’re getting to the meat of the issue. Tell me more.

Nope. That’s it. The authors simply made that statement and let it stand.

Literally, the entire article contains not one word that actually supports and explains their position.

Did they not write this:

as signatories to that letter, and as co-editors of Shadow Government, we want to elaborate on that statement in explaining to our readers why our role as the “loyal opposition” may well put us in the uncomfortable yet necessary role of standing in loyal opposition to our own party’s presidential nominee

Where, then, is the explanation that they promised?

Now, being reasonable, I have to say that they linked to other letters that promise some type of actual policy statements, and I’ll have to find time to delve into those. For the moment, though, I’m left with this thought, “What, exactly, was the point of their article?”

EDIT: I followed the link from the original article that was supposed to bring up the actual letter. The link didn’t work for me.

 

The Religious Right’s Leadership Isn’t Feeling So Hot Today

Bias Disclaimer – I’m a Christian, and because of that, my take on the subject of the Religious Right isn’t nearly as impartial as it is with most subjects.

With that out of the way, let’s start with this CNN article:

In the days before Super Tuesday, conservative Christian leaders cautioned, cajoled and pleaded with evangelicals to reject Trump, saying the New York businessman epitomized the opposite of their values.

Tuesday was supposed to be the religious right’s last stand, a day when the Bible Belt would enter the voting booth and christen the most God-fearing candidate. Christian conservatives were the last best hope to halt Trump’s momentum.

They didn’t.

According to exit polls, Trump won a plurality of evangelical and born-again Christians in Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.

While I’m not sure about the rest of the article considering the author’s clear bias on the subject, I think that the quoted paragraphs are right on the money.

As I read post after post of Christian pundits and bloggers criticizing Trump in the last week or so, I was struck by a) how many of them there were and b) the uniformity of their talking points. I couldn’t help but draw a comparison between their unified action and Jim Taylor’s takedown of James Stewart’s Mr. Smith.

(In fact, a young boy was delivering pro-Trump newspapers in my neighborhood the other day when a car cut him off. A pastor jumped out, shoved the boy to the ground, and took the newspapers!)

I’m not sure that I agree that Christian leaders, morally, should be acting in the same way as any other political interest group’s leaders. If the heads of the NRA or NAACP had acted the same way, I’d probably shrug it off as politics as usual. To see that from people who should hold themselves to a higher standard feels seriously icky to me.

Then, in the end, their duplicity didn’t even work.

Sucks to be them.