From March 8 (wherein I reported that Trump would never be president - my serious mistake):
As should be evident, you change position depending on how the question is asked and when. You make flimsy excuses ("I didn't hear the question") for bad positions, you state different things at different times, you hedge, you engage in glittering generalities, and you bluster about hand sizes and other nonsense.
Also from March 8:
We have swallowed it long enough. It is no longer a question of taking a deep breath and opposing Obama or Hilary or whomever. You have become a force to be opposed. And we will do that by refusing to vote. We think you are a charlatan - a paper tiger - a sophist - a ridiculous TV clown who opens debate answers with penis jokes.
March 16, post-nomination:
Donald Trump is a mockery of this virtue. He remembers every evil. He seems not to have grand or noble designs - instead, his every speech is flattery to the crowd. He reverses course when challenged on his own words, denying that he said them, or excusing them as an error of the moment. In fact, he seems more apt to live up to the OED obscure definitions related to his name: (1) trump - noun: "A thing of small value, a trifle; pl. goods of small value, trumpery;" and (2) trump - verb: "To deceive, cheat."And also from March 16:
We have laughed at the idea of virtue in society, exchanging it instead for an ethics of utilitarianism. We are now on the verge of electing a man whose very nature is excess - excess in wives, in wealth, in appearance. He is the embodiment - the end, the telos - of an age dedicated to excess. His popularity cannot be denied, and I do not think it a stretch to say that his popularity is based in no small part upon his willingness to step upon and trample older ideals of virtue.
Re: Trump v. Hilary, from August 7:
This reasoning presumes, of course, that Trump is a better option than Hilary. I do not think this is proven. In fact, Trump seems equally likely to engage in all sorts of questionable, and perhaps immoral, behavior. Certainly, he has no qualms about doing that during his campaign, sounding quite insane in the process: "(Cruz’s) father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody even brings it up...."The same August 7 post:
He's a loudmouthed, buffoonish, machismo clown, with delusions of grandeur. He is completely driven by appetite - and that's quite bad. I would wager, to reference Aristotle, that he is nearly a vicious man. Does he regret making personal attacks at every turn? Does he even realize what he's doing? C.S. Lewis once noted that it would be better to live under robber barons than omnipotent moral busybodies...but what about robber barons vs. intemperate bullies?I think all of these are still very much apt, even more so as Trump continues his paranoid style of politics, acting as a one-man clown show.
