Althouse: "A Liberal Who Wants America to Win... An Anarchist Who Revels in Destruction... I Just Want to Watch the Chaos..."

August 19, 2015

"A Liberal Who Wants America to Win... An Anarchist Who Revels in Destruction... I Just Want to Watch the Chaos..."

"... a Corrective to American Culture’s Pathologies... the Rage of the White Middle Class... a Gamble Worth Taking... Bizarro Obama... the Picture of American Greatness... the Lead in a Fabulous Mockumentary... Make the Speech Police Go Away...."

From 30 answers to the question of what Donald Trump supporters see in him.

56 comments:

rhhardin said...: Anybody who throws public sand in the PC gears has support from all over.

The media get to broadcast their own spin not working.; 8/19/15, 9:03 AM
tim in vermont said...: I don't back Trump, in any way shape or form, except to say that I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary or Bernie, but he does give the establishment GOP and what used to be called the "Fourth Estate" but now should be known as the "Fifth Column" fits.; 8/19/15, 9:07 AM
damikesc said...: I want to hear how Hillary supporters describe her:

"Kinda honest. Usually. At least some of the time"
"Way more human-like than her prior version"
"Not the most boring member of the family any more"
"Really good at making money for herself"
"Does everything for the peo...*snort* I almost said it with a straight face!"; 8/19/15, 9:09 AM
Brando said...: "I don't back Trump, in any way shape or form, except to say that I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary or Bernie, but he does give the establishment GOP and what used to be called the "Fourth Estate" but now should be known as the "Fifth Column" fits."

That sums it up in a nutshell. It's less about "I agree with what he says" or "I think he's actually going to improve things if he gets elected" and more "he makes people I hate pissed off!"

Fortunately Hillary is gradually self destructing so if it keeps up I don't really care much who the GOP nominates.; 8/19/15, 9:14 AM
rhhardin said...: Hillary and cankle futures.; 8/19/15, 9:14 AM
rhhardin said...: It's still open whether Trump is a false flag spoiler for Hillary, by the way.; 8/19/15, 9:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: “'... even illegal immigrants seem to be prospering more than the average American citizen.'”

Aside from the propaganda that attempts to sell this notion, an apparently effective ploy to divert our attention to--and scapegoate--those worse off than we and away from those responsible for our current calamitous state, I wonder if this person has any other data that causes her or him to believe this preposterous fiction?

"'We are desperate.'”

We are in desperate straits, to be sure, but voting for Trump is no way to save us from the coming shipwreck.; 8/19/15, 9:17 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: What Tim in Vermont said.

Trump is probably my 7th or 8th preference among all the candidates, if that.

But if he faces Hillary in the General Election, I'm gonna vote for him.; 8/19/15, 9:18 AM
Michael K said...: "I wonder if this person has any other data that causes her or him to believe this preposterous fiction?"

Says the leftist who supports sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for illegals. My wife had to wait three months before she could get an appointment to renew her license because the DMV was too busy with illegals.

The comments in the piece are interesting. A lot of them don't care if he succeeds at anything. Spectacle is what they seek.

The Facebook and Kardashian generation.; 8/19/15, 9:22 AM
Gahrie said...: I wonder if this person has any other data that causes her or him to believe this preposterous fiction?

Is it any more preposterous than still being a Marxist despite the evidence of the 20th Century?; 8/19/15, 9:26 AM
Roughcoat said...: The Trump phenomenon is the crowd of angry villagers in the old Frankenstein movies marching up to the castle armed with torches and pitchforks to put an end to Dr. Frankenstein's manifestly dangerous experiments. The authorities had failed to perform their most basic function, namely to protect the community from imminent danger (in the form of the monster he created). Fed up with the authorities' inaction, the villagers took matters into their own hands. Can't say as I blame them.; 8/19/15, 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Cookie said:
I wonder if this person has any other data that causes her or him to believe this preposterous fiction?

With all the preposterous fictions you believe it is almost surreal to read that from you.

Isn't it time for you to run from yet another thread? That's how you respond when your preposterous fictions are shown to be just that.; 8/19/15, 9:29 AM
Nonapod said...: I wonder if Trump will still be all we're talking about in 6 months. How long can the rage and frustration of a lot of people keep this thing going? Can people be reasoned with, or are we beyond reason?; 8/19/15, 9:34 AM
Roughcoat said...: Concerning illegal immigration, and the over-abundance of even legal immigrants:

In my area ALL of the lawn care services are performed by Mexicans who work for white-owned companies. I repeat: ALL OF THEM.

Long ago when I was a teenager these jobs were performed by ... American teenagers and college students. I was one of them. I hired out, on my own, to mow lawns and such; and I also worked 3 summers for the Buildings and Grounds Department for Northwestern University.

Related note: unemployment among young men and women is very high. And part-time summer jobs are a thing of the past because those jobs are held by Mexican immigrants (in my area, at any rate) who work for low wages--i.e. wages depressed by the very fact of their presence in the work force.

Yes, I know, if those lawn care companies employed teenagers and young adult Americans their services would cost more because the wages would necessarily be higher. That's a price I'm willing to pay. In fact it's a price I am paying. This summer I hired a neighborhood kid to take care of my lawn and I pay him a decent wage to do it.

I used to toy with the idea of calling ICE to check the status of the workers for the lawn care outfits I see in my neighborhood. But I gave up on the idea when I realized that ICE wouldn't do anything about illegals working illegally. So I took matters into my own hands and hired a neighborhood kid to do the work.; 8/19/15, 9:37 AM
Roughcoat said...: I wonder how Mexicans would feel, and react, if 20 million or so undocumented Americans flooded into Mexico and hired out for manual labor jobs and took advantage of whatever government services and benefits were available to them? And if they demanded that those services and benefits were rightfully theirs, and made a point of compelling bilingual services, and flew the American flag at sporting events and on their cars and houses, etc.

It's a rhetorical question. I know how they'd feel.; 8/19/15, 9:43 AM
Cynicus said...: Reasons I like Trump around:
1. If everyone else is suffering, why shouldn't the ruling class suffer?
2. It's like getting the biggest bully to bully the mean girls.
3. He's not afraid of offending. Huge champion of free speech. I am sick of being told that people who are offensive in some way cannot contribute and must be shunned.
4. He understands the media, marketing and manipulation. He manipulates us and the media rather than the media manipulating us and him.; 8/19/15, 9:48 AM
Roughcoat said...: Also ... what if, among the millions of undocumented Americans in my speculative scenario there were groups who formed racist political parties in the style of "La Raza" and vicious street gangs and drug-trafficking cabals like MS-13 who were all but invulnerable to lawful constraints because they operated in huge American communities that had established themselves in large tracts of Mexican cities (um, sanctuary cities?) and which had become virtual no-go areas for native-born Mexicans (including the police?; 8/19/15, 9:53 AM
Rusty said...: Roughcoat.
In the company I work for the plant is about 50/50 legal and illegal Hispanic workers. Most if not all of the illegal workers reside in the local sanctuary city. When they arrive housing is provided for them. They are immediately enrolled on a food stamp program. Public assistance is available until they find a job. Since all the working people of the state have contributed to their livelihood, other than the boss, the drive the newest cars. Needless to say the legals despise the illegals.; 8/19/15, 10:24 AM
Roughcoat said...: Rusty,

America, what a country. Sigh.; 8/19/15, 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Brando: That sums it up in a nutshell. It's less about "I agree with what he says" or "I think he's actually going to improve things if he gets elected" and more "he makes people I hate pissed off!"

It's kinda funny to watch you "sum up in a nutshell" something you don't seem to understand. Let me sum this up for you in a nutshell:

You think the system works. They don't.

You don't have to agree with them about this. But until you grasp the obvious - that a lot of people (not all of whom are dumb yahoo LIVs who lack your alleged exalted grasp of political reality) no longer believe that voting for any of the officially-approved candidates is "actually going to improve things", either - then you have nothing more to offer than clucking.

Try to step back and take a longer and wider view. Does Trump's trolling the establishment represent some little spark of energy that, in retrospect, will be seen as the beginning of a positive change? I have no idea. I think I can predict with a little more confidence that the GOP as we know it is moribund, and good riddance. It's of no use to anyone (not even the Chamber of Commerce, which can get what it wants out of the Democrats just as easily). Interesting stuff going on, for those with eyes to see. I guess that would exclude anyone who doesn't burst out laughing at the statement "Marco Rubio wants to reform immigration policy for the benefit of ordinary American citizens".; 8/19/15, 11:09 AM
Michael K said...: if 20 million or so undocumented Americans flooded into Mexico and hired out for manual labor jobs and took advantage of whatever government services and benefits were available to them?

Mexico would immediately arrest them and expel them or worse. If we adopted Mexico's immigration laws, the problem would not exist.; 8/19/15, 11:17 AM
Brando said...: "You think the system works. They don't."

Nice assumption but wrong again. I don't think the system works, and I'm unhappy about a lot of the same things the Trumpists claim to be unhappy about. I disagree with them about their solution and candidate.

"But until you grasp the obvious - that a lot of people (not all of whom are dumb yahoo LIVs who lack your alleged exalted grasp of political reality) no longer believe that voting for any of the officially-approved candidates is "actually going to improve things", either - then you have nothing more to offer than clucking."

You seem rather defensive, but I never called Trumpists dumb yahoos--I think they're seriously wrong and being fooled, but the Trumpists I know personally are not dumb people. They're angry and see him as a vessel for their anger.

As for "officially approved" candidates I'm not even sure who you mean--approved by whom? Most of the candidates continue to be widely ridiculed by the media to some degree or another, and certainly would be subject to worse if they got nominated. In any event, I certainly am not telling anyone that "things will get better if we elect one of the others!" While I know full well I'd sooner one of them in the White House than Clinton, don't read that as some naive hope that getting anyone else in there would make things better.; 8/19/15, 11:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Is it any more preposterous than still being a Marxist despite the evidence of the 20th Century?"

I don't know...ask a Marxist.; 8/19/15, 11:46 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Says the leftist who supports sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for illegals."

DUDE! Lay off the purple acid! I've never made any comments of any kind about sanctuary cities or drivers' licenses for illegals.; 8/19/15, 11:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Isn't it time for you to run from yet another thread? That's how you respond when your preposterous fictions are shown to be just that."

What preposterous fictions do you refer to, and when has anything I've said ever been shown to be such?

Hahaha! That's a trick question! The answer is: Never!; 8/19/15, 11:50 AM
Nichevo said...: Bullshit, Cook, be a man. I've run you off threads before. Like Cedarford, you know when you're licked. You will, eventually, stop fucking the chicken, unlike say Ritmo who only knows how to double down.; 8/19/15, 11:55 AM
Nichevo said...: Also the cliche is "do not take the BROWN acid"; 8/19/15, 11:56 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Bullshit, Cook, be a man. I've run you off threads before. Like Cedarford, you know when you're licked."

Not that I know of, brah! Unlike most of you here, I have a job and a life. I don't hang around forever waiting to correct every bit of nonsense that you layabouts might post, or to counter self-evident hooey directed my way. I stay and comment as long as I:

A) Have the time and means (access to an internet device) to do so; or,

B) Until I have nothing more to add without repeating myself; or,

C) Until I grow bored of the continued inanity and belaboring of the subject.

When I must leave, I do; when I have said what I think is pertinent, or when no subsequent remark warrants my response, I leave. If the comments continue after I have stopped commenting, don't assume I am lurking there reading them. I sometimes revisit a topic thread later on or the next day, but given the swiftness with which Prof. Althouse adds new topics here, the "sell-by" date on any individual topic is vanishingly brief, and I prefer to spend my free time and energy foraging in fresher fields.

However, if it pleases you to think you have ever "run me off," far be it from me to disabuse you of your self-satisfaction.; 8/19/15, 12:18 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Also the cliche is 'do not take the BROWN acid.'"

I try avoid repeating cliches.; 8/19/15, 12:19 PM
damikesc said...: Guys, lay off Cook. I don't agree with him, but, honestly, he's the most principled lefty here. By a good margin.

I know most of the other lefties here are trolls. Robert seems genuinely Progressive and is usually rather polite and will make his arguments as cogently as possible.

It's good to know what others are thinking whose opinions are quite different than yours.; 8/19/15, 12:27 PM
Nichevo said...: He's not the worst one here, but there's definitely some weasel in him.; 8/19/15, 12:32 PM
Nichevo said...: You haven't avoided the cliche, you've merely butchered it. Again I plead illness rather than checking the transcripts, but you know and I know that I have had your ass on toast before. Or perhaps you are not capable of understanding when you've been owned. You really are oblivious sometimes. I guess one would say it's part of your charm.; 8/19/15, 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Brando: As for "officially approved" candidates I'm not even sure who you mean--approved by whom?

Poor ¡Jeb! and the rest, lone rebels without backers.

Most of the candidates continue to be widely ridiculed by the media to some degree or another, and certainly would be subject to worse if they got nominated.

The media preference for Democrats proving conclusively that there is no Republican establishment or party machine. Damn shame that the guileless Man of the People invariably nominated by the GOP just can't get a fair shake in the press.

Nice assumption but wrong again.

Brando @8/19/15, 11:20 AM. In a nutshell: "I'm not so naïve as to think that voting the way I'm going to vote is going to change anything for the better, but those people who aren't planning to vote the way I'm planning to vote? They need to stop being so angry and irrational and vote in a way that can actually change things for the better."

Jeez, when you run out of GOP talking points, you cease making any sense at all.; 8/19/15, 12:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook: Not that I know of, brah! Unlike most of you here, I have a job and a life. I don't hang around forever waiting to correct every bit of nonsense that you layabouts might post...

That was pretty funny, Robert.

I second damikesc @12:27 PM. Cook's a good sport, considering all the abuse he gets from everybody (including me) around here. Mostly he just pisses me off (but what else do I come here for?) but hell, sometimes I even agree with him.; 8/19/15, 12:53 PM
Brando said...: Angelyne, I'd love to continue discussing this with you, but you aren't even addressing any of the points I'm making. I ask "approved by who" in reference to these "approved" candidates, and you imply Jeb et al are "approved" because they have backers. How again does this distinguish them from Trump? Because George Will likes them better? Please--for crying out loud Trump is the front runner and has been since he entered the race. But go on and live in your world where he is the outsider and all these evil establishment types are making us vote for Jeb (and apparently you include me in that bunch, because I am a Beltway insider wasting time on this blog).

I'm not even sure what you're talking about in your second comment. If you think GOP nominees get favorable press coverage, I'd hate to see what you consider a hack job.

"In a nutshell: "I'm not so naïve as to think that voting the way I'm going to vote is going to change anything for the better, but those people who aren't planning to vote the way I'm planning to vote? They need to stop being so angry and irrational and vote in a way that can actually change things for the better.""

Close, but no cigar. I've only said that Trump serves only to ensure Clinton gets elected. You may be fine with that because you think any GOP president would be just as bad (except Trump, perhaps?) and so you like to watch the world burn. But speaking for those who have no illusions that a GOP president would solve everything, but that some Democrats could make things far worse, we're just not buying it.

But if you want to address non sequiturs and straw men, be my guest. I won't waste your or my time then. If you actually care to engage what I have to say, I'd welcome that.; 8/19/15, 1:04 PM
Rick said...: damikesc said...
he's the most principled lefty here. By a good margin.

It's a standard debate tactic to never support any real life circumstance lest its shortcomings attach to your position. Ever notice how he's against literally everything?

Robert Cook said...
"Is it any more preposterous than still being a Marxist despite the evidence of the 20th Century?"

I don't know...ask a Marxist.

Or Obama is "right-wing"? Do you think this is real? It strikes me as disingenuous.; 8/19/15, 1:15 PM
Paco Wové said...: "I'm not even sure what you're talking about in your second comment."

Hint: Anglelyne said the opposite of what you apparently think she said.; 8/19/15, 1:25 PM
Robert Cook said...: "He's not the worst one here, but there's definitely some weasel in him."

That'd be the Missouri Weasels, as disreputable bunch as one would hope to find east of the Pecos.; 8/19/15, 1:47 PM
Nichevo said...: No, from what you tell us you come from a decent Midwestern family. As you serve to show, there is no fanatic like a converted fanatic.; 8/19/15, 1:50 PM
Brando said...: "Or Obama is "right-wing"? Do you think this is real? It strikes me as disingenuous."

I don't think it's disingenuous--it merely reveals where the speaker stands. For example, if you are a Bernie Sanders fan, you probably think Obama is too right wing--his ACA relies too much on the private sector, allows private plans instead of single payer, he has been bombing and drone-striking other countries, and bailed out a number of private companies. To a libertarian, this is corporatism and warmongering, but to a far-Leftist, this is what they consider "right wing."; 8/19/15, 1:58 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Or Obama is 'right-wing'? Do you think this is real?"

That depends how you define "right wing." Today, he can perhaps, and at most, be described as a "centrist." What about him could be accurately called "leftist?"; 8/19/15, 1:59 PM
Rick said...: What about him could be accurately called "leftist?"

In ten seconds of thought:

He believes productive work is "behind enemy lines".
He supports abortions until birth.
He believes the government has the authority to intervene is just about anything (if he considers it important).
He believes in more government spending and control for essentially any subject he can think of (except government's core purposes including the military).
He believes if he and I are arguing over control of my money I'm greedy and he's altruistic.
He demonizes his opponents.
He believes everyone who believes differently than he on any subject only does so because they are racist.

In fact the only subject he could credibly be argued as anything other than left wing is anti-terror foreign policy and its related civil rights issues. My read of anti-terror issue is that he believed this subject could derail his presidency and chose a path that would protect that presidency and allow him to accomplish his priorities, all of which are left wing. As for the civil rights issues this is a misunderstanding of the left. Of course the left supports massive reductions in civil liberties. Why should and how could people be protected from a government whose function is to protect them especially from their own bad choices. Civil rights protections come from the center, not the left.

if you are a Bernie Sanders fan, you probably think Obama is too right wing--his ACA relies too much on the private sector,

If you believe this you don't understand the difference between desires and policy. The existence of market elements in ACA is a result of political limitations, not his preferences.

bailed out a number of private companies

Exactly as expected under leftist doctrine. What do you think a public - private partnership entails?; 8/19/15, 2:18 PM
damikesc said...: I don't think Brando is saying he AGREES with those stances. Just that one should understand that some might believe those.; 8/19/15, 2:40 PM
Michael K said...: "Today, he can perhaps, and at most, be described as a "centrist."

And Lenin was a conservative.

Cookie you are a riot.; 8/19/15, 2:55 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/19/15, 2:59 PM
Michael K said...: I think Cookie and ARM are principled. I make fun of them sometimes but respect those who are lefties.

"Says the leftist who supports sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for illegals."

I take you for a generic leftist but maybe you are a nativist leftist. If so, I apologize. Those are pretty standard leftist positions but maybe I assume too much. Most of your other comments sound standard leftist so I assumed you were on board with Jerry Brown, etc.

I just think we are heading for a collapse and Trump is an indicator. I don't support him.; 8/19/15, 3:03 PM
Quaestor said...: So a Trump supporter characterizes the Donald as "an anarchist who reveals in destruction." Since that's a supporter's opinion, does that not imply approval? Back in 1979 some people characterized Ronald Reagan as a washed-up Hollywood B-movie actor whose greatest accomplishment was Bedtime for Bonzo, but they weren't Reagan supporters.

My point is a person who thinks Donald Trump a destructive anarchist, and still approves of him must himself be something of a destructive anarchist, no? How many anarchists vote Republican? Is there an anarchist wing of the GOP? I haven't heard of one. (In case anyone mulls that rhetorical question more than two seconds, let me say this as well, conservatives who oppose Big Government are hardly anarchists. Such conflation of ideas is standard Obama bellyfeel intended to confuse the morons, so don't go there, m'kay?)

The source of that quote is "The Atlantic." Nobody who works for that magazine knows any Republicans personally. If tasked by the editor to go out and interview rank and file Republican voters, the typical Atlantic staff writer will have no idea where to begin. They won't go out into the hinterland to find them at work or at home... can't do that, no sir. They can't get more than three blocks from a medium cloud latté and an organic arugula salad with balsamic vinegrette without collapsing in a panic attack. So what they do is prowl lower Manhattan looking for people who are themselves looking at the skyline and taking selfies with street musicians. These are assumed to be not nooyahkahs, and therefore possible Republicans. That's how the quotes Althouse has trolled from the morass come to be published.

(reposted with typos fixed); 8/19/15, 3:07 PM
Brando said...: "If you believe this you don't understand the difference between desires and policy. The existence of market elements in ACA is a result of political limitations, not his preferences."

I'm not saying I believe it--but these were criticisms many on the Left made. Remember, a lot of the opposition to the ACA comes from the Left who wanted single payer.

"bailed out a number of private companies...Exactly as expected under leftist doctrine. What do you think a public - private partnership entails?"

One thing both the Left and Right tend to agree on was opposition to the big bank bailouts, though for different reasons--the Right didn't like the idea of the government interfering in the free market and the Left only didn't like the idea of plutocrats getting benefits while poor people got no bailout. Many on the Left have a problem with corporatism not so much because government is interfering with private enterprise, but because they believe private enterprise is getting benefitted by government.

But a consistent theme among leftist Obama critics is that he did not go far enough on a lot of things, and that he sold out their big items (not raising taxes by as much as they'd have liked, or recall Krugman saying Obama's stimulus was "too small"). What it goes to show is that once in the White House, you can't really get your wish list.; 8/19/15, 3:08 PM
Brando said...: "And Lenin was a conservative."

Weren't we told during the '80s that the Politburo hardliners were "conservatives" compared with Gorbachev?; 8/19/15, 3:11 PM
Quaestor said...: Weren't we told during the '80s that the Politburo hardliners were "conservatives" compared with Gorbachev?

The only authentic revolutionaries round these parts are conservatives.; 8/19/15, 3:32 PM
Rick said...: I'm not saying I believe it--but these were criticisms many on the Left made.

I understand you don't believe it, but obviously these criticisms are wrong and therefore are not evidence of Obama's supposed right wingery or centrism.

Many on the Left have a problem with corporatism not so much because government is interfering with private enterprise, but because they believe private enterprise is getting benefitted by government.

Many on the left think this, but it's a fundamental error because the left isn't against corporatism any more than it is against government. Therefore pointing out Obama's support isn't evidence of his stance from the left.

damikesc said...
one should understand that some might believe those.

One can misbelieve small things. One cannot credibly ignore a thousand data points noting Obama as a conventional leftist and claim he's a right winger. His implicit acceptance of the left's worldview has embarrassed him on many occasions including the abortion until birth comment and claiming in his Olympic presentation America is demonstrating greatness by electing him.

As the data mounts honestly concluding Obama isn't a leftist becomes more and more implausible. The better explanation is that it's a version of the no true Scotsman defense, a way to avoid accepting that the negative aspects of Obama's policies might also be inherent to your own worldview.; 8/19/15, 3:39 PM
Michael K said...: "Remember, a lot of the opposition to the ACA comes from the Left who wanted single payer. "

Not only wanted it. They are enraged at anyone who doesn't. I was banned from Wash Monthly because, in a discussion of health reform back before Obama was even a candidate, I proposed the French system, which includes a lot of market elements. Some of the commenters went to my blog, read what I had posted and banned me from the blog comments.; 8/19/15, 4:25 PM
grackle said...: And having read through this non-representative sample, I understand the candidate’s rise better than I did before.

It’s difficult for me to believe that a leftwing writer for a leftwing rag citing “non-representative” replies to a biased article asking the readers of that same leftwing magazine for opinions on Trump has anything to do with anything except the primary motivation of bringing Trump down.

Just a few words from the original article asking Atlantic readers for Trump opinions:

After all, he’s a man who has zealously pursued his self-interest all his life.

And Obama hasn’t? And Hillary hasn’t? And every politician in DC hasn’t? This one had me chuckling.

There was a time when his two ex-wives and the many former business partners he has since sued felt the same way. Those relationships didn’t work out very well for them. Why do you think that you’ll fare better?

Ooooh. Disgruntled ex-wives have had bad things to say. Apparently greatly disappointed that Trump’s prenuptial agreements were solid and unbreakable. Like we are supposed to be impressed by that. And the fact that a billionaire real estate mogul, or any kind of mogul, availed themselves of the legal system or had legal disagreements with business associates is supposed to make Trump into a monster. More chuckling.

Right now, Trump is telling you all the things you want to hear.

Laughed outright at this. This assumes all politicians are not looking, sometimes desperately, to strike a positive nerve with the voters. They pay internal pollsters and advisors big fees to find out what the voters think – except Trump. No advisors or pollsters on HIS payroll.

If the business elite is for illegal immigration, he is the business elite!

Correction: Only the progressive-minded “business elite” support illegal immigration. Many others in business do not support illegal immigration.

Readers, it is very simple. The political establishment has failed our nation. Most of them have been elected under false premises and never even TRY to live up to campaign promises. Trump is not part of that establishment and is therefore getting the benefit of a doubt.

Trump converses with audiences. No teleprompter, no notes, no PC filters on his speech. Audiences feel they are being conversed with, not talked at.

He doesn’t apologize. After years of the humiliating spectacle of Obama issuing unwanted, unasked for and unwarranted apologies for America and kissing the asses and bowing to foreign leaders and folks who want to kill us along comes someone who will NEVER do that and the progressives do not have a clue why he is gaining support.; 8/19/15, 4:31 PM
grackle said...: I’m very sorry that Hillary is probably going to be dumped by the Democrats. The Democrats get their opinions from the MSM and the MSM is turning on Hillary because they now must realize they have backed the wrong horse. Her days are numbered. But she would make the perfect opponent for the eventual GOP nominee.

About the GOP:

A real opposition political party should welcome a strong showing from ANY of their candidates, including Trump. And the stronger that candidate might grow the more they should approve - if they were really interested in winning, that is.

But they are only interested in winning if and only if one of their chosen and approved candidates capture the nomination.

I want the other candidates to be asked this question:

If Trump wins the nomination will you support him?

Fox ain’t gonna do it; Fox proved that with their attempt to bring Trump down with the third party question to him without asking ANY of the other candidates if they would support Trump should he win.

I viewed Fox’s The Five when Jesse Watters was on the panel. Was it yesterday? Most of the other panelists put him down for Watter’s merely half-hearted defense of Trump. A lot of the Trump segment was spent insulting Trump supporters – a variation on McCain’s “crazies” meme. The more they insult us the more Trump climbs in the polls. I do not really believe there’s a causation there but it is an interesting coincidence.; 8/19/15, 9:15 PM
Michael K said...: Trump is a concern because of his threats to run as a third party candidate and because Perot was so damaging. He also looks like he is not serious about policy but is having a great time insulting people and throwing a tantrum.

I find it hard to believe a major party will nominate such a person but we have seen Obama so it is not impossible.

I have a lot of trouble imagining him as president.

The electorate is so dysfunctional these days that anything might happen, though,; 8/20/15, 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael K @8/20/15, 6:31 AM:

The GOP is still big, it's the base that got small!; 8/20/15, 7:47 AM