Is This The Hill You Want to Die On?

My managers often get frustrated with the government entities for whom we operate facilities.  They frequently try to escalate trivial issues.  I then attempt to explain to them that they only have a limited number of "points" they can spend in trying to get action in conflicts, and that spending these points on trivial problems is both a waste of time and counter-productive to solving larger problems that crop up later where we really do need to go to the mattresses.  I frequently ask them "Is this the hill you want to die on?"  I feel like this is a concept that no one ever taught Donald Trump.  He seems willing to die on any hill that happens to wander into his path.  Maybe that is why his core of supporters love him, I don't know.


  1. The_Big_W:

    What baffled me so much about the last election was how many (even "staunch" conservatives) were willing to live under the rule of a woman who obviously though she was above and beyond the laws of the common man and actively and openly sold political favors to the highest bidder in expectation of being able to weld political power.

    Hillary was completely totally and obviously unfit for office.

    Given a choice between someone who would clumsy execute the responsibilities of the President of the United States and a petty tryrant in waiting who had mastered the art of political corruption, and yet was a absolute disaster at execution of political policy, I figured "what the hell" and rolled the dice.

    Also the party that engineered a Judiciary capable of making law wholesale, has no business putting any more justices on the Supreme Court and very much underestimated how most Americans felt about that....

  2. billyjoerob:

    The left is our boss, we must not ask to much of massa.

  3. C078342:

    Yes, Pres DJT is unconventional. But he is honest in calling out the libs/progs for all their hypocrisy and lies. There are many more examples of antifa violence than so-callled white supremacists. These include, but are not limited to, anti-freespeech criminals on campuses nationwide. We had 8 years of an empty suit, we don't need 4 (or, God forbid) 8 years of an empty pants suit.

  4. mx:

    You rolled the dice and got a man who won't forcefully and vehemently denounce white supremacy? Do you feel satisfied with the results of your gamble?

  5. ambisinistral:

    Have you not been paying attention to the ever escalating set of leftist demands? Retreating to the next hill time and time again is what got us into this mess. Time to stand and fight.

  6. stan:

    I find it interesting that people who love Fidel Castro and other mass murdering tyrants are offended by Trump. Moral maturity is a scarce commodity. Charlottesville saw repugnant racists trying to speak and violent marxists show up with bats and ax handles to smash their heads in. The racists were doing something legal, within their constitutional rights, and we all have a strong interest in protecting that interest -- especially as they are particularly nasty and repugnant. The radical left-wingers (part of a group which advocates violence against capitalists and a marxist revolution) were there to commit violent crimes. Between the two, the Antifa Leftists were more to blame. First, because they were there for the express purpose of committing violent crimes. Second, because their ideology is even more repugnant and harmful than the racists'. The historical toll in deaths, tortured and repressed for communists completely dwarfs that of the KKK or anyone else.

  7. stan:

    Warren's point seems far better suited to the Democrats. Trump is responding to battles being waged by lunatics in the midst of delusion. I can't believe the stupid crap they are trying to push.

  8. gwvanderleun:

    Two words: Get. Informed.

  9. The_Big_W:

    I was thinking of two other words, but, nicely said!! ;-)

  10. marque2:

    Trump is being viciously attacked. We responds the attacks get worse becaise the press, Dems and GOPe attack. When he doesn't respond the same three attack him for not responding. When he tries something like being stern with Kim. NK and China he is ridiculed for being an ignorant buffoon - when it works they claim it had nothing to do with him and after weeks of hysteria are told it is no big deal.

    The guy can't win for trying - I don't that has anything to do with a limited number of points. You never Trumpets just want him to sit back and take it and get ruined anyway, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Romney, McCain (when he was actually running for pres) and to some extent even Reagan. Why is it Democrats are suppose to be able to say and what they want, but Republican Presidents have to keep a stern posture and let themselves be ripped apart without defense?

  11. mx:

    He could categorically and completely denounce white supremacists and go an entire 48 hours without describing some white supremacists marching with torches as "very fine people" or causing David Duke to praise him. That would be a win. Bonus points if he could speak about an occasion where a woman died without promoting one of his businesses. For virtually any other politician in this country, it would be an easy, automatic win to do that absolute minimum.

    Honestly, Trump has to do so darn little for it to be considered a win. I mean, Trump honored Chief Petty Officer Owens' widow in March and was hailed by liberal commentators like Van Jones with praise like "He became President of the United States in that moment, period." Every other way we get another story about how he's going to "pivot" and turn things around; people thought bringing in Kelly as chief of staff would do the trick. The press and the GOP are itching to see him demonstrate the businesslike competence he ran on and get something done. If he did that instead of picking fights on Twitter, that would be a win.

  12. Agammamon:

    The other options were a woman who won't forcefully and vehemently denounce socialism and a guy who absolutely embraces what is quite possible the most murderous type of government in the history of humanity.

    So yeah, I kind of think we dodged a bullet there.

  13. marque2:

    He actually was right on all counts. The press always focusses on the handful of knuckleheads + most of the crowd was ordinary citizens not worked up about race, but were upset outsiders were coming in and telling people what to do. They wanted to preserve history and were marching for free speech as well. Even some libertarians in the crowd.

    Those people are the very fine people who cherish democracy and don't deserve to be belittled by people like you whomwant to misconstrue trumps statements to make him out to be some bad guy.

    Democrats get endorsements from bad people as well but somehow people like you and people in the press seem to realize it doesnt relate to the candidate when the candidate is a Democrat.

    Just the GOP. And if you think Trump is the only one - plain vanilla Bush Jr was also frequently attacked as a racist White Supremecist for no apparent reason. At least Trump is clumsy with the political language - Bush wasn't.

  14. mx:

    If you're a very fine person and come to discover that you've inadvertently joined up with a torch-bearing mob chanting "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil," you should leave. That's really not so difficult. Figure out how to communicate your wishes without making common cause with white supremacists. Very fine people do not march with white supremacists. Very fine people do not show up at events where Richard Spencer is a headline speaker. Heck, if we want to talk about "both sides," then I'd also say you should leave if you've inadvertently gotten yourself mixed up with a violent mob that is assaulting those practicing free speech.

    Similarly, if you're the President of the United States and David Duke and Richard Spencer are praising you after you give a press conference, you should figure out how you possibly gave them the impression that you're on their side and make it abundantly clear that you stand with the vast majority of this country that abhors white supremacy. President Bush Sr. once did so in the strongest possible terms.

    In the spirit of Warren's question, do you really want to die on the hill of "some of the people in the crowd chanting blood and soil were very fine people?"

  15. Bistro:

    McCain, McConnell, other rep scum, they don't see any hills. They roll over and spread their legs every single time. Trump doesn't. He's like Mao or Kim Jong il. He's going to put blood, lots of blood into the fight and with enough of yours, he's going to win. I quite like Trump. He can gore all the oxes on capitol hill and go back for more. He won't drain the swamp but he will taint it with lots of blood.

  16. marque2:

    Dude, your mind is poisoned by anti Trump.

  17. herdgadfly:

    Fair enough. How about starting with this 20 minute Charlottesville video from Vice News that exposes many deranged men who are part of the alt-right leadership. I certainly got informed about a scary reality.

    Here is the url. Please remove the first 5 letters - https

  18. herdgadfly:

    Could we have some factual data to support what appears to be wishful thinking? The first problem seems to be that Trump considers everyone his enemy at some time or another. Sadly, his self discipline magically disappears when self-love and anger get in the way. We get talk always but little action and follow-through.

  19. ToddF:

    I think the hill of decrying ALL political violence is a hill worth dying on.

    Maybe a better post would be explaining why all these virtue signaling CEO's refuse to denounce leftist political violence. Do they really think a civil war would be good for business? How can people accomplished enough in life to be CEO's be so oblivious to the harm of escalating violence, and not be wanting it to end?

  20. Chris Miles:

    The establishment right has used reason and civility and compromise to honorably lose a long series of battles.
    His base loves him because he promises to invert that sentence as much as possible.

  21. ToddF:

    As opposed to you, who right here excuses left wing political violence, wanting to only call out one side. Yes, I do feel satisfied, reducing trash like yourself to just calling for violence, and lying about what others say.

    A clue for someone as un-American as yourself. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. Period. It doesn't give trash like you a license to go violent because you don't like someone's speech.

  22. ToddF:

    And you still have no right to get violent.

    Get informed.

  23. ToddF:

    Quoting three words while spinning a tale around them shows you to be nothing but a fraud. Man up, boy.

  24. billyjoerob:

    There is no evidence for a tautology. "You ask for less, you get less" is pretty much airtight logic.

  25. Mercury:

    " I frequently ask them "Is this the hill you want to die on?" I feel like this is a concept that no one ever taught Donald Trump. He seems willing to die on any hill that happens to wander into his path."

    You're right. Let's all just decide it's acceptable for mobs to destroy whatever the Huffington Post decides is objectionable, today. The whole confederate monument thing will probably be their last demand.

  26. DanSmith:

    I accept as true the proposition that Trump is often his own worst enemy. However, he has many enemies who are very close to being the worst. As a thought experiment, try to imagine the media coverage of Trump's reaction to Charlottesville if the police had successfully kept apart the Antifas and the White Nationalist/Nazi/KKK group. No deaths or injuries. The hated group exercises its First Amendment right. I maintain there would have been nothing different reported unless Trump had parroted the talking points of the Left. And even then, there would be the caveat: "but he failed to denounce X Y and Z for A B and C." As an elected official of the government he is expected to support the Constitution. He wasn't (as Scott Adams has pointed out) elected to be the nation's moral leader.

  27. Mercury:

    Trump may have just been following the precedent set by Obama after the Micah Xavier Johnson incident involving "powerful weapons"

  28. BobLouGlob:

    Trump's biggest issue is communication. He is terrible as his own spokesperson. He lacks the eloquence of Obama and Clinton, and lacks the easy charisma of Bush. While I generally agree that his policies are a step in the right direction, he will never be the religious figure people expect from him. Americans have become too used to "kingly" presidents and it may be a good thing that Trump is knocking the presidency down a couple of pegs. I'm still hoping congress decides to take some more control as the Presidency has become far too powerful.

  29. Mike Powers:

    "Is this the hill I want to die on," I ask as they push me onto the headland
    "Is this the hill I want to die on," I ask as they lock arms and step towards me
    "Is this the hill I want to die on," I ask as the ledge crumbles beneath me
    "Is this the hill I want to die on," I ask as my fingers scrabble at the gravel
    "Is this the hill I

  30. CapnRusty:

    Voltaire said (more or less), “I abhor what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” Trump, somewhat less eloquently(!), espoused the core of that concept.

    The premise of free speech is that all ideas may be aired, even those which some find reprehensible. With free and open discourse, the citizens are able to distinguish the bad ideas from the good. After all, in a democracy, it is the citizens who must decide by whom they shall be ruled; discourse among them is vital. Demagogues progress to tyranny by demanding, by force if necessary, that some words never be spoken. Usually, they do this in the guise of “protecting” the citizens.

  31. Matthew Slyfield:

    "Yes, Pres DJT is unconventional. But he is honest in calling out the libs/progs for all their hypocrisy and lies."

    Except he has as much hypocrisy and as many lies of his own.

  32. Matthew Slyfield:

    Trump is no conservative and is as much a petty tyrant as Hillary.

    He is just a corrupt as Hillary.

    So the choice was a marginally competent corrupt tyrant or a bumbling incompetent corrupt tyrant.

    It was a choice between Cthulhu and the Anti-Christ.

  33. Matthew Slyfield:

    If we were talking about actual historical monuments from the 19th century that would be one thing.

    However, the vast majority of these Confederate "monuments" were erected in the 1950s and 1960s. Close to 90 percent of those monuments were erected after WWI.

    Think about that for a while.

  34. marque2:

    He has done more for the libertarian cause in 6 months than any other president in your lifetime, and you complain, complain, complain.

  35. marque2:

    where do you get this stuff? Normally you are fairly sensible poster. When it comes to Trump you just post imagined garbage.

  36. marque2:

    They are now destroying Lincoln monuments, Joan of Arc monuments, mostly because the left wing movement is a bunch of idiots and don't really care about the monuments. They are only doing this for effect, attention, and because Soros is funding them to make Trump look bad

  37. Mercury:

    It doesn't actually matter WHEN the monuments were erected.

    Think about that for a while.

    If a city/town decides, after reasoned debate, committee hearings, votes and/or by whatever means the normally make civic/public decisions, to remove the monuments, that's fine.

    But allowing/encouraging mobs to destroy whatever they suddenly don't like, is a bad precedent to set for reasons that should be obvious.

    And at the risk of being accused of ThoughtCrime I'm going to go ahead and assert that the desecration of ANY graves, especially with the government's tacit approval, is a BAD THING.

  38. The_Big_W:

    Regarding your post. Vince Foster unavailable for comment.

    Trump may not be pure as the wind driven snow, but Hillary is one very very evil person.

  39. The_Big_W:

    Regarding your post. Vince Foster unavailable for comment.

    Trump may not be pure as the wind driven snow, but Hillary is one very very evil person.

  40. James White:

    However, the vast majority of these Confederate "monuments" were erected in the 1950s and 1960s. Close to 90 percent of those monuments were erected after WWI.


  41. James White:

    When one of the protesters has a pending felony charges including 2nd degree murder, this is not the hill to stand on.

  42. James White:

    the alt-right leadership? Come on. That's just made up stuff. They created a term, threw everyone they didn't like in the alt-right tent and now are running stuff like this?

    There's nothing new about the neo nazis. They're neo nazis, not alt-right.

  43. James White:

    When one of the protesters has a pending felony charges including 2nd degree murder, this is not the hill to stand on. The hills before this, sure. The hills after this, probably. But this particular hill is not the one to stand on.

  44. C078342:

    I certainly do. Where are the condemnations of black lives matter? Where are the condemnations of anti-free speech radicals on college campuses? Where are the condemnations of illegal aliens? Where are the condemnations of voter fraud?

  45. mx:

    There's a good graph here:

    A decent chunk were before WWI, but most were erected after 1900, with a second wave in the 60s as a response to the civil rights movement. There's a good case to be made that they are monuments to Plessy v Ferguson more than the Confederacy.

    You could also listen to Sen. Ben Sasse: "I wish more folks understood how many of the monuments now being debated are not really from the post-Civil War period as a way to remember war dead. Rather, contrary to popular understanding, many of these statues were explicitly erected as Segregation Monuments in the twentieth century, during Jim Crow, as a way of shouting – against the American Idea – that public spaces were to be whites-only spaces. Tragically, many of these monuments were erected exactly when lynchings of black Americans were being celebrated in those communities – and the timing overlap here was not accidental. (It's also worth noting that Gen. Robert E. Lee had opposed erecting Confederate Memorials because he worried, wisely, that they would become scabs of bitterness to be endlessly picked at.)"

  46. ToddF:

    ALL political violence. It's un-American to suggest that some political violence is OK, just because it's done in your name.

  47. Just Thinking:

    I am old enough to remember Gerald Ford telling David Duke that he had no place in the Republican Party. It appeared to be an effective rebuke.
    Perhaps Trump supporters will say that the issue is not Republican vs. Democrat Party, and I can appreciate that view; but whatever movement that Trump wants to lead, it should be much clearer that this movement does not welcome the likes of David Duke.

  48. ErikTheRed:

    For all of the Trump apologists if you want to denounce racism, this is how you do it:

  49. stan:

    Just like Democrats call out the Black Panthers, BLM, Antifa, and Acorn. Oh wait. That never happens. No one expects it. It's only Republicans who ever face a demand to exclude odious supporters. EVER. Hint -- the left is trying to execute a coup. Time for people to focus on the serious issues at hand. Trump denounced violence on both sides. Only fools and fellow travelers of the left are silly enough to distract the focus onto a pathetic David Duke and his dozen or so followers.