Yesterday morning I said: "And I think there are a lot of people who like both Sanders and Trump. They/we like the disruption." A commenter (Freder Frederson) said: "I hope not. Anyone who likes both Sanders and Trump is thoroughly confused and a complete moron." That brought out Gahrie: "Not so. Both Trump and Sanders are seen as outsiders promising to break the establishment stranglehold on government. (Although how a lifelong politician like Sanders can be seen as an outsider....)"
So I was very interested when, on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday, a caller said "there are so many conservatives going over to Bernie Sanders." Rush's response was: "There are not any conservatives going over to Bernie Sanders." He said it absolutely, I assume, because he saw it as definitional: If you support Bernie, you're not conservative. The caller said "It's a large group of Libertarians who are Tea Party..." and Rush cut him off: "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, you're from the Rand Paul faction." He proceeded to chuckle about it into the break.
After the break, Rush said he'd done some research, and what he found was "a bunch of radical left-wing websites and publications" purporting to have located a few — very few — Republicans — who are not necessarily conservatives — who liked Bernie. But the agenda was clearly — Rush somehow knows these things — "to enhance the image of Bernie, soften the image of Bernie as a flat-out and unmistakable socialist/leftist."
I'd like to see Rush take the next step and connect it to Trump. Those who like Trump may not necessarily be real conservatives. Step away from the assumption that you've got left and right wing stalwarts in this country. The mood of the time may be something else. Trump and Bernie may represent the same thing, something that is neither conservative nor liberal.
पोस्ट्स
१३२ टिप्पण्या:
I don't know any conservatives who agree with socialism. They aren't conservative if they do. And he's an old white man...what's up with that?? Where's the diversity we are always getting lectured about??
Where's the diversity we are always getting lectured about??
What are you talking about? The Democrats are running an old white man (Bernie), a not so old white man (O'Malley), and an old white Probable Felon-Vagino-American!
"Bernservatives... really?"
No, not really.
Except Bernie wants to confiscate more private wealth and redistribute it. Trump wants to build America up again, make it "great again." You can't confiscate and diminish private ownership and private property rights and make America great again.
Exactly right. Trump voters don't like him because he is conservative. They like him because he is an outsider. He will fix DC.
Donald "The Businessman" Trump. He will build a wall. He is rich and smart. He will hire Top Men to fix things. He loves you. He will make America great again.
WWE is the key.
IDK, given the choices we are presented with right now, Bernie, Hillary, or Trump, I like Bernie. Maybe it's because I am surrounded by Bernie fans, and many of them are people I like, or maybe it's because I am sick to death of Clinton and I don't think Trump is really serious. i don't really think Bernie is that serious either, but he would not have the full force of a filibuster proof Congress to support him the way Obama did. I think Hillary is deadly serious and has a proven record of bad judgement. Forget the enabling of Bill, let's talk about the refugee crisis and it's relationship to her policies of undermining Assad(Even after the disaster in Iraq) in Syria and overthrowing Qadaffy in Libya (Once again she outdoes Bush in Bushism).
I listened to Trump's speech in Vermont (On MSNBC) and it was more about the horse race, which is apparently where his head is at.
Incidentally liberals, all of these executive powers you are so happy to hand over to Obama? Trump will inherit them if he wins.
Nice picture of Bernie. Does he always look so confused?
I remember all the stories in 2008..... "My wife/husband always votes Republican, but this year they are voting for Obama." This is a variation of the same theme.
Bernie Sander's "Liberty score" found at the Conservative Review website is 15%. This is above all Democratic senators except Joe Manchin and Elizabeth Warren. The only Republican he is ahead of, is Susan Collins.
This is wrong.
There are no "conservatives".
"Those who like Trump may not necessarily be real conservatives." Funny stuff. "Not necessarily."
"Step away from the assumption that you've got a left and right wing stalwarts in this country." Who assumes that? Sure, Progs who viewed W and Romney as "right wing," perhaps. And yes, Cruz is trying to make himself one. But after Reagan, does anyone else even qualify as a first-tier "right wing stalwart" in the minds of actual, you know, right wingers?
It pains me to say this, but Rush is right. You can't be a conservative and support Sanders or a liberal and support Trump. If you think that you could vote for either one, then you are seriously confused.
As for the lack of diversity, why does no one mention that Sanders is Jewish.
Except Bernie wants to confiscate more private wealth and redistribute it. Trump wants to build America up again, make it "great again."
The first statement is simply untrue. Although Trump has said that he wants to "make America great again", his policies will probably achieve the opposite, turning the country into an international pariah, especially if he fulfills his promises to commit war crimes and use torture as a tool of the state.
tim in vermont, I know socialists, too. Some of my best friends are socialists! They only killed about 100m people last century; let's give them another chance.
I could see a conservative supporting Sanders--if what the conservative wants is gridlock and inaction. Sanders does not have the level of corruption of Hillary, and does not seem to have her desire to bomb and destroy things. As for his domestic proposals, they'd all be DOA with a Republican Congress.
Incidentally, if what I consider and actual reasonable facsimile of a conservative shows up, I will vote for him/her. Right now that is not on offer.
You can't confiscate and diminish private ownership and private property rights and make America great again.
Actually, that is exactly what we did in World War II.
A conservative wants gridlock and inaction?
That's Democrat-speak.
A conservative wants action. Free the market! Repeal Obamacare! Destroy abortion-on-demand!
Today on the news, the local Vermont Republicans are going after Bernie's wife for bank fraud. Just saying. I am sure they expect, probably with good reason, Hillary to return the favor.
Bernie is probably more reliable on 2A than Trump. He certainly doesn't have a fetish about it the way Hillary and Obama do.
Trump is anti-PC, not conservative. Fortunately most of our problems are cut off from solution by PC, so Trump is a necessary step to finally fixing them.
Sanders, like Obama but unlike Trump, exhibits invincible ignorance. Trump can learn what will work and what won't.
Freder wrote: You can't be a conservative and support Sanders or a liberal and support Trump.
I'm not sure how you can be a conservative and support Trump or a liberal and support Clinton, but that's on the basis of policy.
On the basis of character, one could easily pick Sanders over Trump. A conservative could easily rationalize that Sanders' policies have no chance of ever being passed, but Sanders does have a decent record of being true to his own principles and has managed not to use politics to amass personal wealth. A Sanders presidency with a Republican Congress may actually be saner than the posturing stage show we have now, or the grim establishment that Clinton promises.
Whatever reduces the Establishment to rubble the fastest.
Please.
We can then argue whether rubble is conservative or liberal.
I am Laslo.
Freder wrote:
Actually, that is exactly what we did in World War II.
For socialists, we are always at war with Eurasia. Or should be.
, turning the country into an international pariah, especially if he fulfills his promises to commit war crimes and use torture as a tool of the state.
You mean like assassinating people with drones and Hellfire missiles? I guess it is better for the world that some random collateral casualty is consigned to a wheelchair for life, for example, by a missile than somebody known to associate with the mastermind of the death of thousands of non combatants should go through a little scary stuff.
Thinking for a liberal is like riding the streetcar, once you get to the conclusion you want, you just get off. Unfortunately for conservatives, we are cursed with the bad habit of keeping on thinking, even after the feel good thought enters our head.
Trump is for trying whatever looks to be workable at the moment.
Sanders - I don't know - nostalgia for the glory days of the student revolution?
madAsHell said...
Nice picture of Bernie. Does he always look so confused?
--
That's Bernie's reaction when someone tries to steer the conversation away from 1% hoarding...like "damn emails" or ISIS/L.
Brando said..As for his domestic proposals, they'd all be DOA with a Republican Congress.
Oh..he seems to be a fan of executive order ?
" Sanders first spoke against economic injustice and in favor of increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Then a community organizer forced Sanders into a discussion on immigration, according to several people who attended the meeting. Tania Unzueta, an undocumented immigrant and cofounder of Immigrant Youth Justice League, asked Sanders how he planned to bring comprehensive immigration reform if he were elected as president.
Sanders then proposed to use executive orders to broaden President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). Sanders said he believes this plan to be within the scope of presidential powers. "
Freder Frederson said..."You can't confiscate and diminish private ownership and private property rights and make America great again."
Actually, that is exactly what we did in World War II.
I thought we fought Germany and Japan in World War II. I'd like to hear more about your theory on how Trump is conservative.
There are no good "reasons" to vote for any of the three, only rationalizations.
Maybe Nernie's got a chance. After all, didn't Obama get elected (twice) by promising to undo thirty years of prosperity?
Just as right-leaning white Dems are moving to Trump, strategic-thinking cons should consider voting for Bernie in places where they could switch back in the general, just to derail Hillary!
If the race comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, I guess I'll have to vote for Trump. Hillary is nothing but a lying, corrupt, incompetent politician. She is interested in nothing but her own power. Worse yet, she has done real harm to the nation. In a sane world, she would already be under indictment and considered unqualified for public office.
If the race comes down to Trump vs. Sanders, I'll probably just grab the popcorn and sit this one out. I don't care much for either one but at least it would be interesting to watch the show.
It is more ominous that Loretta Lynch has apparently stated that her mission this year is to structure the Department of Justice so that it will continue on its present course regardless of who gets elected to either the Presidency or Congress in November.
I think that is the mission the White House has given all department and agency heads, and I don't know that either Trump or Sanders can cope with that.
That is why I say we really need a reincarnation of Old Joe Kennedy, who would really relish cutting budgets and firing people.
Hagar wrote:
"I think that is the mission the White House has given all department and agency heads, and I don't know that either Trump or Sanders can cope with that."
I saw that, too. Not surprised that no journo thought to ask her if the American people in the future shouldn't decide what the JD should be doing in the future. I know it embarrasses the heck out of some people, but we are still nominally a democracy.
"Trump and Bernie may represent the same thing, something that is neither conservative nor liberal."
Exactly, they're both populists. (And two peas in a pod, in my opinion.)
If Trump and Sanders manage to get the nomination, people will mostly vote their party line. But if it's Cruz/Sanders or Trump/Hillary, many voters will cross party lines to vote for Sanders or Trump, and one of them will win.
As many commenters have already said, if Trump or Sanders is elected, the free market (and our standard of living) will suffer.
As many commenters have already said, if Trump or Sanders is elected, the free market (and our standard of living) will suffer.
All hail the free market, for it is the only indication of whether life is worth the living!
As we are seeing quite explicitly now in Cologne, Stockholm, Rotherham, Stuttgart, Vienna, Brussels - what the free movement of labor (and I use that term loosely, as there's little indication of work being done by the invaders) - leads to the mass rape of your women and children, the defilement of your public places, and the marginalization of your culture and people. The bread is quite literally taken off your child's plate to feed the barbarian.
That it arguably makes some goods cheaper, or provides a greater variety of takeaway... well, can't have a free market paradise without breaking a few civilizations.
American exceptional-ism was in the exceptional people who founded it, not some magic in the soil. We aren't immune to the catastrophes that befall a nation that seeks to replace its own people.
Onward and upward with Trump. Choo-choo.
As many commenters have already said, if Trump or Sanders is elected, the free market (and our standard of living) will suffer.
Same goes for Hillary. What a fine mess we have gotten ourselves into.
I don't know that either Trump or Sanders can cope with that.
That is why I say we really need a reincarnation of Old Joe Kennedy, who would really relish cutting budgets and firing people.
If anybody is more confused than the person who says Trump and Sanders are interchangeable, it's the person who doesn't think Donald Trump relishes firing people.
I'm a conservative but if push comes to shove I can vote for Trump. For all of the bombast and buffoonery I am certain of two things: he won't raise my taxes and he won't screw the country with some high-handed Quixotic progressive agenda. That's good enough for me. Can someone actually make a case where Trump would be a worse president than the current one or worse than any of the Democrats running?
Hillary folds her empty hand. Trump wins the trick.
The Secret Service guys with Trump had better stay really alert.
I think it's time people wraped their heads around the idea that the Democrat/Republican, left/right mode of politics is on it's way out.
enry said...
Freder wrote: You can't be a conservative and support Sanders or a liberal and support Trump.
I'm not sure how you can be a conservative and support Trump or a liberal and support Clinton, but that's on the basis of policy.
On the basis of character, one could easily pick Sanders over Trump. A conservative could easily rationalize that Sanders' policies have no chance of ever being passed, but Sanders does have a decent record of being true to his own principles and has managed not to use politics to amass personal wealth.
Yep. it takes real genius to not amass personal wealth as a politician. Real ambition. A real go-getter. Biden/Sanders, that's the ticket. Two guys so kazy they couldn't even get rich in politics
This reminds me of the poll thrown out by the MSM every so often, most often on slow news days, finding that 90% of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is taking.
The story always ends there, with no explanation that 45% think the country is heading to hell as a result of progressive/socialist/Democrat policies and the other 45% think just the opposite.
Since American politics has become a version of American Idol, where each week the politicians offer, from an assorted catalog of policy positions, their rendition of the week, wherein the MSM takes a poll and determines who is winning.
Occasionally, the MSM might remind voters how the candidate had performed in a prior week or two, but for the most part the candidates remain on stage based on their latest performance.
I sincerely doubt any genuine supporter of Bernie could answer the question as to how all of his proposed largess would be funded other than 'tax the rich'.
On the other hand, the Trumpster, whose huckster-like persona has shrewdly catapulted him to the lead among the classic rock crowd, keeps singing the same song week after week.
I, no doubt, a conservative of some type, will cross over and vote for Bernie in the primary, since I live in a state where the chance of any Republican candidate taking the state's electoral votes is as likely to happen as Obama is to take a lifetime membership in the NRA.
And in case Bernie gets the nomination and wins the Presidency, he would do less harm to the country than the shrewster, as he is less ruthless and dead people don't surface among his entourage as often.
As for the lack of diversity, why does no one mention that Sanders is Jewish.
I find it interesting that Jews have become so well assimilated that Sanders can run and this is not an issue, or, even brought up. Which is, I think, a good thing for this country.
Right now, I think that the only religion that I think should maybe disqualify someone from the Presidency is Islam. Sounds harsh, I know. But, I think that one of the factors behind the world turning into so much chaos, and as result, the refugee problem we are seeing in Europe, and maybe even here, is that President Obama, while most likely not Muslim, was raised as such for a formative part of his life, and didn't bring to the office the caution in their regards that most even on the left probably still have. And, yes, I think that this is also part of why Israel is less secure than it was when Obama took office. Sanders could only help in regards to helping the only real democracy in the Middle East be more secure. And, indeed, I expect that he would be better with Israel than Hillary would, given her history with both Israel and with Islam.
Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren steps softly through the underbrush in her moccasins, avoiding the snapping the dry twig that will bring on the musket fire, until her moment arrives as Hillary collapses of her own dead weight.
"Left wing economics and a neocon foreign policy." I think that is exactly where America is today so Hillary is a natural fit with the mood of the electorate!
If you are a person who believes "big is bad" (big government as well as big business, and definitely big government doing the bidding of big business), then I could see this person supporting Sanders in hopes that he would go after big business. This might be a conservative, but not in the traditional sense.
It is not enough to just relish firing people (and I do not know Trump does; The Apprentice is a TV show), you have to have the insatiable drive for power and the meanness and skill to push it through whatever the obstacles in your way might be.
(Hillary! may have the personal characteristics, but she is out for scavenging whatever she can; not for a positive bottom line for the business, which was a core belief of Old Joe's.)
"Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren steps softly through the underbrush in her moccasins, avoiding the snapping the dry twig that will bring on the musket fire, until her moment arrives as Hillary collapses of her own dead weight."
That worries me.
FullMoon wrote: Yep. it takes real genius to not amass personal wealth as a politician. Real ambition. A real go-getter. Biden/Sanders, that's the ticket. Two guys so kazy they couldn't even get rich in politics
I didn't even think of adding Biden to the ticket. That is real genius!
I listened to that segment with Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and Professor Althouse has reported it accurately.
The notion of fans of both Sanders (an evil joke to Rush) and Trump (someone Rush is very carefully tolerating because of some of Rush's pet issues and general anger level) was rejected by Limbaugh. But there really are such people. We know that there are such people.
We have a name for such people in political science. We call those people "hysterical idiots."
Rush hates the notion, because (a) he holds his program out as being "The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and (b) Trump has SO FREAKING MUCH BAGGAGE as being a fake "conservative," none of which Rush wants to address. It is a real issue, I think, and I credit Althouse with raising it. I don't understand anyone's (including Althouse) being seriously enamored of both Trump and Sanders, even as "disruptors." They aren't even good avatars for a classic Capitalism Versus Socialism Debate of the Century. Because Trump is such a lousy spokesman for conservative capitalism.
There is an unsourced quote, most often misattributed to Chruchill: "The greatest argument against democracy is a fine-minute conversation with the average voter."
There is support of a couple different kinds: I will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate (I hope it isn't Trump, but it could be worse than him) but I would rather the Democrats nominate Bernie than Hillary. Why? Yes, Bernie is to the left of Hillary, but he may have more respect for the law and constitutional constraints than Hillary. I say may, because he might have zero respect for the law like Ms. Clinton, but he might have some respect for the law and this would make him greatly preferable.
So, this makes me a conservative supporter of Bernie--in a kind of way.
Nor may Hillary! have the skills. I think Clinton Inc. owns her as much as she owns it, and she will be obliged to keep the boys happy.
Hillary!, Biden, Sanders - what did any of them achieve in Congress?
I don't think the folks who like Trump are necessarily "conservative". I think they're ticked about the stagnant economy, political correctness, illegal immigration, and general feeling the American dream is coming to and end. I don't agree with Trump's political ideology -- mainly because I'm not sure he has one -- but his overall message is appealing to me. He's striking the nerve that American can't do what it once did because we've painted ourselves into a corner. And to get out of that corner, we need to gut the red-tape while ensuring the what what things the government executes on, it executes on very well. I don't know if he can pull that off but I'm pretty sure he's the closest we have in this election.
Trump supports massive tax increases on the wealthy, a Canadian-style single-payer health care system and is a fierce protectionist. For reasons familiar to all Economics 101 students, blunt-force protectionism destroys jobs, many more than it saves. How is that different from Sanders?
We think of the Occupy Wall Street movement as leftist, but many low and middle-class republicans feel the same way. Voters tried "Hope and Change" and when they saw that didn't work, they moved on to "Discontent and Fear." Trump and Sanders tap into that. They exploit that.
Did you see the article a week or so ago about the pilot departing Taiwan (I think) calling back to the home office asking why his plane was flying SW rather than W as he thought it should?
This might be the situation our next president finds himself in. Except there is no home office to call, since his cockpit is the home office.
Freder: "Actually, that is exactly what we did in World War II"
Freder, not being a very bright sort of fellow, neglects to mention that the output of our nation during WWII was utilized to create the means to reduce other industrial nations to rubble.
The US was the only power left standing at the end of WWII and our lead over the rest of the world would have been even larger had not our various lefties and liberals and "progressives" decided that it was important to give even more to their beloved Soviet Union, like Eastern Europe, "the bomb" etc.
What does Trump offer working class Republican voters? Absolutely nothing other than stupid slogans and a trucker cap. And a wildly unrealistic promise to build a wall. A big, huge beautiful wall. With a beautiful door. Sanders is the only candidate that offers them anything.
Garage
And what is it that Bernie offers that can be delivered?
Garage - what Trump offers working class Americans are jobs.
I think one of Trump's attractions for voters is that he's not a die-hard conservative. Saint Reagan had been a Democrat too, and his politics retained a tinge of Dem in them. That was one of the reasons for Reagan's success.
In any case, elections in the US are decided by Indepedents, so that's where the assessment should focus in terms of electability, and Trump is doing well among Independents.
It's the Head Up Your Ass Brigade! Could be anybody. No telling how big their numbers are.
Holy shit the leash is off.
Instant publication! Wow. I can say anything.
Sanders: "America sucks"
Trump: "America is great"
That is the difference.
Didn't tim in Vermont say only yesterday that if its not Trump, he'd vote BErnie Sanders?
There are also a lot of polls suggesting that 20% of Trumps support is with democrats.
So, there is a lot of overlap that isnt' based on party loyalty.
The thing I don't get is that I'd assume you'd vote for someone based on their positions, not on their persona.
So, if you were to vote for Trump first and foremost as an example, he is going to suggest he would have certain priorities. And if you voted for Sanders HE would suggest he has certain priorities. But those priorities are so different in both effect and outcome, how could you square the circle? So if Trump doesn't win the nomination the next choice would be for wealth rediscribution and socialism?
And not the guy who has the same priorities as Trump professed to have?
My mom does this to some extent. She wants Hillary. She thinks Hillary was robbed in the last election and it was done because she was a woman. She is voting for her because she has a vagina, frankly. And she has threatened to vote Trump if the democrats screw her out of the nomination again. (she voted Obama last time despite this happening, so my guess is she would vote for Sanders simply because he is the dem nominee). But she doesn't support Trumps policies (though surprisingly, sometimes she does). It would be a revenge vote.
If you were voting against your self interest out of revenge, why not simply not vote?
I'm fairly sure Warren will have massive issues with getting on ballots and basic logistics. And she has tons of skeletons in her closet.
Those people who think Sanders won't be able to do much because of a Republican congress haven't been paying attention.
A Republican congress is what we have now. The Republican Senate was bragging, yeah, bragging, that they've confirmed more judges for the Obama administration than were confirmed under Bush. Bragging.
Guess what Sanders will get to do. Add more judges. Circuit courts, supreme court, etc. This is where the laws are made now.
Did you know gay sex marriage is now legal? Yep. Not because anyone anywhere got to vote on it. Nope, because judges make laws now.
And that's where a socialist like Sanders will move his agenda. Through the courts. And once the courts are stacked, how do you stop their "illegal" actions? Ha! Fools. It's not illegal when you control the courts.
Voting is a waste of time, except to appoint our new law makers, judges. They don't judge anymore. They are politicians. And the next president is going to appoint a couple of powerful politicians to the supreme Court.
I'd trust Trump over Sanders on that score.
"I remember all the stories in 2008..... "My wife/husband always votes Republican, but this year they are voting for Obama." This is a variation of the same theme.
"
remember Chris Buckley? yeah, no one does. He burned his bridges by backing Obama. Hope he enjoys his time in the wilderness. But he probalbly came around and started loving hope and change if only to not address his profound displayed retardation.
Why are these people voting for Republicans if they think Obama was a good alternative? It cant be based on policy choices.
I like this drinking game
Blogger JMS said...
Trump supports massive tax increases on the wealthy, a Canadian-style single-payer health care system and is a fierce protectionist. For reasons familiar to all Economics 101 students, blunt-force protectionism destroys jobs, many more than it saves. How is that different from Sanders?
Trump is also white. And old. And alive.
How is that different than Sanders?
Let's point out a bunch of other things they have that are alike and ask how its different. Because fun.
eric wrote:
Guess what Sanders will get to do. Add more judges. Circuit courts, supreme court, etc. This is where the laws are made now.
Did you know gay sex marriage is now legal? Yep. Not because anyone anywhere got to vote on it. Nope, because judges make laws now.
And that's where a socialist like Sanders will move his agenda. Through the courts. And once the courts are stacked, how do you stop their "illegal" actions? Ha! Fools. It's not illegal when you control the courts.
assume the repubs are recalcitrant and put their feet down. Sanders would just pull an Obama, demagogue them as tyring to shut down govt and then pass law through edict, bypassing congress entirely.
jr565:
It's worse than that. It's not like nobody got to vote on same sex marriage. Everybody DID vote on it. It lost. And then came the lawsuit(s).
The states get to establish their own laws on the age of consent, how marriages get performed, who can perform them, what papers need to get filed, what tests need to be performed, and how much anybody pays for a license.
Of course, states can't use race-based laws to ban interracial marriages. Because we have an explicit constitutional history with racial discrimination. Racial minorities are a "suspect class," and "strict scrutiny" applies to such laws. Racial limits on marriage (to the extent that race could even be determined with sufficient specificity to make the law rational) don't pass the basic constitutional test. But none of that applied to same sex marriage.
And jr; while you rightly worry about another four years of Democrat nominations to the federal judiciary, don't forget about another four years of Democrats running the Department of Justice. We could probably have 16 years of Republicans in the White House and it might not clean out the DoJ. But four more years of a Dem administration following Holder and Lynch is just four more years' worse.
How come Freder gets a tag and I don't?
Bernie is hired to play the too stupid to deceive persona. He is really a con man like all faux Socialists are.
But he makes the jobless young folks feel like he is one of them and can issue them all the winning lottery ticket. The rich will pay for it, you know.
Trump knows how to actually TALK TO working class voters. As does Sanders. As did Reagan.
Most of the GOP guys can't do it. Hillary! sure as hell can't.
Of course, Sanders is telling them all sweet-sounding lies, and 4 years of him would probably have the black unemployment rate at 20%, but he knows how to lie to them.
Didn't tim in Vermont say only yesterday that if its not Trump, he'd vote BErnie Sanders?
I probably did, but the more I think about it, the more I can't stand Trump. I think that I liked him the first time I saw him speak, to that Univision heckler, the second time, in Vermont, he just turned me off. There is nothing there but hucksterism. We have had 8 years of a huckster.
And Sanders will shake hands with guys that Pat Leahy would cross the street to avoid, people like auto mechanics, independent plow drivers, duck hunters who actually eat the ducks they shoot, those kinds of low lifes, people who work with their hands. Basically Leahy works on getting judges in who will take away their guns.
There is nothing there but hucksterism. We have had 8 years of a huckster.
Same here. I've listened to him speak multiple times. Every time he's given the same empty speech. He's a joke candidate without a punch line.
A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton leading Trump by 7 points and Bernie leading Trump by 13 points. This speaks more to independent's but it's worth noting. Especially because Bernie gets a fraction of the election coverage Trump or Hillary get.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
I'd like to see Rush take the next step and connect it to Trump. Those who like Trump may not necessarily be real conservatives.
Well, yea -- Ron Paul polled in the 10-20 percent range in the early primaries the last two presidential election cycles, while Rand Paul just got dumped from Thursday's Fox Business debate because he couldn't meet the 3 percent threshold. Where do you think the majority of Ron Paul's supporters went?
The ones who were drawn to dad because he was angry about what was happening are going for the angriest candidate in the 2016 presidential cycle, and that's Donal Trump, even though Trump's anger often in the past has taken him in non-libertarian directions (though not as statist as Bernie Sanders. But Bernie's angry, too, and that's why he's also picked up some of Ron Paul's 2008-12 backers). Rand's attempt to show a more temperate side than his father was support to broaden his base towards others in the Republican Party; instead, he lost most of dad's supporters to Trump, and had seen the ones he was seeking to attract migrate to Ted Cruz.
Sanders has that 1930s movie Mean Old Man look. It's the prominent lower teeth that does it.
That's all I got.
No Conservatives are supporting Bernie. That's like proclaiming yourself a "steak-eating vegetarian."
I remember 28 year old men like Bernie in the early 1970s. They were, in general, over-educated, spoiled poseurs then, and probably are the same way now.
Bernie is clueless. He's frozen in time in the Great Depression. The greatest middle class in the history of mankind was built in the good ole USA, flaws and all, during Bernie's lifetime -- and he can't even see it. And, he can't comprehend that capitalism, free markets and Protestant work ethic built it. What a maroon!
The guy's lost. Yes, everyone vote Bernie. He will get thumped by Trump. Millennials who want a job know that the Bernie's of the world never hire, but the Trumps do.
Speaking of Trump, though, he's not Conservative either. He's more of a populist or Nationalist. He will make deals with Democrats to further his political standing. Be prepared for disappointment. But, he will be far less disappointing than Hillary. No doubt about that. And, he may even surprise us. He deserves credit for his stands on illegal immigration and battling radical Islam.
Her base has always been the type of Feminist-lefty women who want to see "a woman" in the White House, as long as she is a lefty woman. "it's time for a woman in the White House" has been their battle cry since 2008. Which makes it hilarious that they've recruited Lena Dunham to deny this very open declaration of earlier Hillary base supporters.
The rabid support I see for Bernie is from die hard "anti-capitalist" lefties. They confuse corporatism with capitalism. Mostly because Bernie makes the correct noises about soaking "the rich" and "wall street". His campaigning as an "outsider" only makes sense to the socialists who want him in office. Or only if "outsider" means "anti Wall Street".
Trump is the true outsider and anti-establishment candidate. Cruz is the insider anti-establishment one.
Tim in Vermont
Trump is a real estate developer, a huckster by trade. That doesn't mean that once he gets the deal he remains a huckster. He then has to operate and on the whole he has done a good job of that creating hundreds of millions in assets, billions if you believe him. So I look at his campaign as similar to a real estate deal that he is competing to get. He will say what needs to be said to get the deal, the nomination, but once gotten he will have to get with the real work of building the building. He has no idea how to arrange the plumbing in one of his buildings but he knows who does and he knows how to hire and motivate that person to get it done on time and on budget. The skill of managing all these components of a transaction that involves acquiring land, dealing with govt. to get approvals, hiring architects and contractors and then managing the finished product is not trivial. It requires significant skills that do not belong to the "huckster" class.
No other candidate of either party has every managed anything as complex as the creation of a major building in an urban environment and then having to operate it at a profit. No other candidate has ever had to deal with government to get the approval to build a building and receive the variances needed to make it profitable. None.
You may not like his hair or his bluster but I think his management and leadership talents would likely make him better qualified than any of the people of either party
Carrying my metaphor above further:
Anyone remember Korean Airlines Flight 007?
Someone, on the plane or at Anchorage, played with the autopilot and forgot to reset it; the pilots relied on the autopilot, and the plane strayed in over Soviet air space; the Russians mistook it for a provocation by a USAF 707 spyplane and shot it down.
No one intended for this to happen; just "human error."
eric said...Guess what Sanders will get to do. Add more judges. Circuit courts, supreme court, etc. This is where the laws are made now.
Good one, eric, too true.
To weave together a couple of threads in this comment section, the first Republican to make a big stink about appointing "conservative" judges & really going after the Federal bureaucracy would lock up damn near all of the right-leaning Conservative vote. I mean, I think so, anyway...those are two huge issues for me and I hope for a lot of other people, and so far I haven't heard much about them.
Why have these guys and gals not run adds competing with each other to denounce the IRS' politicization more strongly (and the EPA's, and all the other Fed. agencies)? Why haven't they cut adds promising to clean house and make sure the government is run fairly and in a politically neutral way, unlike under Obama & Hillary Clinton? I mean, that'd be huge, and might even appeal to some good government centrists. Tout the State Dept. stonewalling on Hillary's emails, tout the IG's report on same, tout Lois Lerner & other Federal officials ("who take taxpayer money, working on your dime") who took the 5th...light it up!
You don't have to directly attack other candidates in the same party, you know, you can make a name for yourself by positioning yourself on a given issue, and I have to think "fighting the overly politicized/overly liberal Fed. government bureaucracy" is a winning issue for a Republican.
Michael said...The skill of managing all these components of a transaction that involves acquiring land, dealing with govt. to get approvals, hiring architects and contractors and then managing the finished product is not trivial. It requires significant skills that do not belong to the "huckster" class.
Yeah, but I've heard the "he's inexperienced but will hire the BEST people & take their advice" line before, Michael, specifically when Obama was first elected. He'll hire Austan Goolsbee, how bad can his economic policies really be? Well, you know, I doubt Cash for Clunkers was an idea Austan Goolsbee would normally have supported, but it happened anyway.
Now, perhaps Pres. Obama is a special case--special for his overweening self-confidence/belief in his own superiority (he thinks he's a better policy analyst than his policy analysts, better speechwriter than his speechwriters, etc), but few people have noticed much that might be described as "humility" in Trump's public persona so far. Personally I'm not interested in voting for a blank slate, and I'd certainly want to believe most of the country agrees with me on that (having learned their lesson from Obama, one hopes). Trump'll have to do some work on that problem, I think.
SGT Ted said..."it's time for a woman in the White House" has been their battle cry since 2008
Snicker snicker, Monica was in the Oval Office, snicker snicker, doing quite a job, snicker snicker.
Blogger Michael said..
he knows how to hire and motivate that person to get it done on time and on budget..
--
And..I hadn't thought of it this way before..but he might be uniquely positioned to "fire" non-performers without the usual reticence most pols have...maybe.
Hoodlum Doodlum
Where is the inexperience you refer to ? I am making the point that Trump is very experienced in getting from A to B in an environment that is not political Kabuki. Other than Carly no other candidate has shit for experience in the real world. None. Trump is not a blank slate. You may not like his buildings (I certainly don't) but his buildings exist. He got them done. He has a fairly substantial enterprise going today. He is not an AA first term senator w zero experience. Conflating the "lack of experience" of Obama with the lack of holding elected office is probably not the best way to compare. Or judge. He has picked people to work for him based on their ability to get things done, not on any reliance on their past service to his political ambitions.
walter
His famous quote on his tv show was "you're fired." He rather enjoys sorting out those who are not effective. That is why the establishment hates him.
I know. So instead of the usual "signs of instability" etc., He'd be licensed to say "This is what I do! I manage __!"
"I was very unimpressed... Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand." - Donald Trump
'When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak... as being spit on by the rest of the world.' - Donald Trump
"We came, we saw, he died" - Hillary Clinton
As a conservative I can at least appreciate the honesty in Bernie. He really does want to make the world a better place. Do I think socialism is going to make that happen? No.
But I also think the best cure for the disease of believing socialism will fix everything is a good dose of socialism. He's a much better choice than hillary who's ideology is tied to heaven knows what.
Sure..we need more economic/social punishment. That'll fix things.
Michael said...He has picked people to work for him based on their ability to get things done, not on any reliance on their past service to his political ambitions.
Right, but like I said that was the argument "centrist" people made for Obama, as well--that he'd be sure to hire and appoint experienced professionals who could get the job done. I agree that Trump is miles ahead of Obama (and most of the other candidates) in terms of "experience running a large organization" and I definitely give him credit for that--having to meet a payroll, face customers/a market, etc goes a long way in my book--but there are very important ways in which running the federal bureaucracy differs greatly from running one's own business, and I haven't heard any specifics from Trump on how he plans to handle the workforce he'll actually get.
What I meant about "blank slate" was more do do with Trump's lack of solid, long-term political/ideological positions on key issues. His immigration policy I get, but even there the specifics seem to be made more or less ad hoc if not made up in the middle of giving a particular speech. What's his actual tax policy, what's his actual view of the proper role of the judiciary, what kind of judges would he appoint; that sort of thing usually comes out of long-held positions, and as far as I can tell Trump (like Obama) really doesn't have 'em. Putting out a position paper now is good, but having a long term record (either votes or interview answers/statements/endorsements, etc) is much better. I'm not saying he can't convince me he holds a given position now and will act on it if elected President, but he has to actually do the work necessary to persuade me of that. Slogans (Hope & Change! Make America Great Again!) won't cut it.
Levi Starks said...
As a conservative I can at least appreciate the honesty in Bernie. He really does want to make the world a better place.
He has no idea what a better place looks like, because has no idea where stuff comes from. He reminds me of all those environmentalists in polycarbonate kayaks trying to block the passage of a floating oil rig. Not A Fucking Clue.
I have to agree totally with what Michael said at 1:50 pm. I would like to see Trump as POTUS for one reason only. He is not a politician. Think about it. I want to call his election this: The Great American Experiment... and I can only hope that his election would start a series of Presidents that were not politicians, but regular people who have risen above all of the regulations and barriers that the politicians have erected.
HoodlumDoodlum
I expect to get more policy specifics as his campaign progresses. You do not offer the city the list of things you will do for them in return for their allowing a variance on a project. Policy proscriptions can come later. Now we are dealing with broad brush on topics that should not be topics at all in a more sane world: enforce the laws that are on the books being #1 and the one that has resonated with people the most. People who go out of their way to pay taxes, obey the speed limit, adhere to community rules are royally pissed at the fact that 12 million people have decided to not obey the law. It is simple, really, this appeal
Since he is not a politician in the traditional sense his longterm positions on various topics are probably a lot like yours or mine. Some are fixed in stone and some we are willing to compromise. He did not get what he's gotten by not being able to compromise. Reagan was a compromiser when he needed to be. Obama not so much. Obama is possibly the worst of all time.
For now he is giving slogans but they are slogans that resonate with those who believe in the rule of law and in common sense. He is not, like to Mayor of Philadelphia, ready to say what you hear with your ears and see with your eyes with terrorism is not what you hear with your ears or see with your eyes. Sad, but this is breakthrough talk in 2016.
Allen S
Thank you. You put it better than I did.
Rusty said
"He reminds me of all those environmentalists in polycarbonate kayaks trying to block the passage of a floating oil rig."
More apt than some realize since he seems to want to embrace Northern European social policy/welfare while punishing the oil industry they admit makes it possible.
Michael, I think most of Trump's followers also think that way. Notice that Trump is also liked by people who have probably never voted for a Republican, and I doubt if Trump is one, but chose that party because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere trying a run at being a Democrat. I can't think of anyone else who would work both sides of the "aisle to seal the deal'.
Michael said... People who go out of their way to pay taxes, obey the speed limit, adhere to community rules are royally pissed at the fact that 12 million people have decided to not obey the law. It is simple, really, this appeal
I completely concur, Michael, and I don't find his current popularity surprising (or worrisome) in the least. To go another step further people are even more pissed because they see that situation and they hear leaders of "their party" talk a good game and then do nothing about it/sell out their purported beliefs when it comes time to vote and/or take a difficult stance. Trump points that out, and taps into anger Repub. voters have against the Repub. establishment (as well as the Democrats, of course).
Where Trump can get into trouble, I think is when you (correctly) say about his positions [s]ome are fixed in stone and some we are willing to compromise. Part of Trump's appeal (w/Republicans) is how he's supposed to contrast with the current crop of establishment Republicans--those being the ones who're called sellouts, etc. If Trump gives people reason to think he might change his mind, grow in office, or even just that he's not being honest about his actual positions now then I think he'll lose some of his appeal, especially if that undercuts his "un-PC truthteller" persona. On gun rights, for instance, some things I've seen make it seem like he'll be vulnerable if he embraces gun rights now but can be shown to have embraced gun control in the recent past.
So far his "no compromise, be the most extreme" tactic has shielded him from any attacks along those lines. Eventually he'll probably face some, though, and if credibility becomes an issue then a tactic that works well for negotiation (taking the most extreme position first, being seen as unwilling to be nudged, etc) might become a liability--if someone made you doubt Trump would actually do what's necessary to build a wall, for instance, it would make you rethink not just his position on that issue but his overall appeal, I'd bet.
Anyway I don't think we disagree on why Trump's leading the pack now.
Trump is neither a conservative nor a constitutionalist. He's basically a lifelong Democrat with a gift for verbalizing the obvious.
Trumpadopes are the new Obamadupes. They don't like the Obamanation and are looking to get even.
I expect to get more policy specifics as his campaign progresses.
Readers, if you want to find out what Trump’s positions are on trade reform, VA reform, tax reform, 2nd amendment and immigration reform go directly to his website and cut out the middlemen. Get it from the horse’s mouth.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
On the Trump/Sanders comparisons:
I believe the Sanders appeal is limited and shallow – a lot of east coast, some west coast and rabid progressive enclaves in between. There’s not that many Democrat primary voters in between who will go for an avowed socialist – yet. It’s Hillary’s nomination with no problem except for the FBI investigation. It’s the only thing that could derail her.
I don’t believe party identification this campaign season has the same significance as it has in the past – for the GOP. With the Democrats it is probably more important.
The GOP frontrunners are the “outsiders.” They are not seen as traditional establishment Republicans, thus party identification would not be much of an impediment to independents’ votes. Wanting to vote Republican is not going to be much of a factor in their decision when they vote for Trump – they will vote for the man, not the party – or the ideology.
We’ve discussed the similarity between the Trump phenomenon and the Sanders phenomenon – the fact that some Sanders supporters might vote for Trump if Sanders fails, as he surely will, to get the Democrat nomination.
But there are essential differences, too. Sanders strength is a manifestation of Hillary’s weakness as a candidate – not his own inherent strength. If the Democrats had a stronger candidate than Hillary I doubt Sanders would have gained much political traction.
But Trump is different. His strong showing as a candidate is not the result of anyone else’s weakness. It’s all his own creation.
I think Trump will win in Iowa. It might even be by a wide margin, a landslide, one of many. If he wins there and goes on to take New Hampshire there could be a cascading effect. You’re either on the bus or off the bus.
Allen S
I think you are correct. He has real life skills that have never found their way into the thinking of politicians. Most of these politicians could not feed themselves if they were't holding office. I am not a total convert, but I am impressed with how he has pulled this off and equally impressed with the black friends he has made who won't say an unkind word about him. Think of all the dirt they had on poor, clean, Romney by this point in his campaign. Don't think they haven't tried to find it on Trump.
walter said...
Rusty said
"He reminds me of all those environmentalists in polycarbonate kayaks trying to block the passage of a floating oil rig."
More apt than some realize since he seems to want to embrace Northern European social policy/welfare while punishing the oil industry they admit makes it possible.
While the Northern Europeans are going for more of a market based economies.
in addition to my other problems with Trump I noticed something really annoying about him. He takes credit for things that he really shouldn't. He said something along the lines of "now the other republicans are talking about building a fence" as if he came up with the idea to build a fence.
That is an OLD idea that was being discussed when Bush was still in office. Trump did not come up with an idea to build a fence. So you cant say that others are copying HIS idea.
Maybe he's more serious, rhetorically, in the idea that he will in fact build the fence, as opposed to just talking about it. But I note, plenty of politicians have talked about that fence and it has yet to materialize.
Its not Trump's issue though.
how about ....consandersatives?
For those of you trying to find fault with Trump, let me just say that anyone who hasn't made a mistake or failed at something, is someone who hasn't tried to do anything in life.
Hagar, when Korea 007 went down, the leftist assholes at Harvard handed out "Don't Mess With Russia" papers. That was the headline. "Don't Mess With Russia!" 1986. I was there. I got the papers from the Young Socialisist League or the Youth League of Socialists. These assholes have always been around and are never going away.
He said something along the lines of "now the other republicans are talking about building a fence" as if he came up with the idea to build a fence.
To be fair I think Trump is talking here about the other GOP candidates that are opposing him in the primary – in which case Trump is correct – is this campaign none of them even hinted at a fence until Trump. In fact the subject of immigration was considered out of bounds and too dangerous this campaign season until Trump broke that particular meme’s back over his knee. It would alienate the Latinos, or so it was thought. Now, of course, they are all jumping on the bandwagon. They are followers, maybe even good followers, but they are not leaders.
AllenS said...
For those of you trying to find fault with Trump, let me just say that anyone who hasn't made a mistake or failed at something, is someone who hasn't tried to do anything in life.
I am LMFAO, imagining The Donald saying something like that. According to the The Donald, The Donald has never made a mistake.
I, for one, and just getting over the landslide victories the Liberaltarians ushered in the last few election cycles...
Chuck
Look around. You will find the Donald admitting to a lot of mistakes in business. Requires curiosity and familiarity with the world wide web and internets.
OK, I am Tired.
I keep hearing about how Trump has done all these things in the Private Sector: he builds Buildings! He makes Jobs! He makes Deals!
What the Fuck has Trump ever done for the Public Workers? The guys who work for the Government that make the whole Machine work?
He hasn't seen to do shit for them.
Come on People: we can do better.
I am Laslo.
Trump builds big buildings in NYC. I'm sure he's done lots of nice things for Public Workers, helping to keep the whole Machine nicely oiled. I am Charlie.
I think it was a president of United Fruit who said that if you can be right 51 percent of the time, you are executive material; if 67 %, you are wasting your time in business. Run for President!
@ Bob Ellison,
I was thinking of Flight 007 as a metaphor for what might happen to the U.S. after Obama; on autopilot and no one paying attention to fixing the wrong programming.
"he won't raise my taxes and he won't screw the country with some high-handed Quixotic progressive agenda."
And you know this because?
Michael said...
Chuck
Look around. You will find the Donald admitting to a lot of mistakes in business. Requires curiosity and familiarity with the world wide web and internets.
Give me a yeuuuuuge break!
Trump can't even admit that it was a mistake to use film of Morocco in a campaign ad about Mexicans crossing the southern U.S. border.
http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/01/trump_defends_use_of_moroccan.html
Hahahahahaha. You can't make this shit up.
We can't even talk about the word "mistake" (much less discussing serious substantive actual mistakes), without Trump spouting some awful, bald-faced lie. Here's Trump, dissembling in vintage Trump form about whether he ever said that the US invasion of Afghanistan was a "mistake." Of course Trump did in fact say that the US "made a terrible mistake going there in the first place," and indeed said it on the very same program where he later claimed he never said it had been a mistake.
Naturally I understand that Trump can't be bothered with facts, or quotes, and not even his own quotes on the same program a few weeks later. He's got to Make America Great Again, and facts and quotes are for losers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/donald-trump-ive-never-said-we-made-mistake-going-/
Dear Lord how is this ignorant, arrogant, lying jackass not yet a national laughingstock?
"He seems to have little sense of the principles underlying our political system and of the purpose and limits of government action. Those are both broad generalizations, but they seem to me suggestive of the pattern. Trump’s strength is his diagnosis of a rot at the core of our public life, but his weakness is what he proposes to do about it — which in many cases strikes me as likely to make things far worse."
Yuval Levin
National Review
Phil 3:14 said...
"he won't raise my taxes and he won't screw the country with some high-handed Quixotic progressive agenda."
And you know this because?
1/12/16, 7:39 PM
And you know different because of what? He isn't running as a socialist,that's the Bern and Hillary a/k/a the Democrats. Sanders and Hillary are campaigning on more taxes and more government. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
AllenS said...
For those of you trying to find fault with Trump, let me just say that anyone who hasn't made a mistake or failed at something, is someone who hasn't tried to do anything in life.
Chuck chortled...I am LMFAO, imagining The Donald saying something like that. According to the The Donald, The Donald has never made a mistake.
Source that please, Chuck. It's pretty easy to disprove.
Bernie sounds genuine because he speaks from the heart. For example, the time he unhesitatingly apologized to Clinton for the data-sharing fuss during the last debate. That took Clinton by complete surprise. Clinton tries too hard to stay on script and it's part of the phoniness which doomed her from the start. How much longer will she stay in the race?
"Trump can't even admit that it was a mistake to use film of Morocco in a campaign ad about Mexicans crossing the southern U.S. border."
Interesting. As I recall the video, it was about people rushing the border. That was true. The Morocco angle was not the focus of the video.
I don't like Trump but he is probably going to win because so many people are fed up with the Ruling Class.
Trump is a protest candidate and just might get elected. I'm not sure how much people care how he will govern. A few people I know have read his position papers, instead of listening to his speeches, and think they make sense.
People are very angry and this summer when Europe burns, the anger will be white hot.
People say things.
THey don'ty mean em.
Trust me.
Dear Lord how is this ignorant, arrogant, lying jackass not yet a national laughingstock?
Because of all the ad hominem thrown his way?
"And [Warren] has tons of skeletons in her closet."
Scalps, damikesc: scalps.
Hoodlum,
The thing you're missing: Obama didn't have any experience there, either! That is, after all, what managing a big project is mostly about. Trump has done this, Obama hadn't... and still hasn't.
Scalps, damikesc: scalps.
Truth is written here.
chickelit - I gave you two times when "mistakes" were slapping Donald Trump upside his comb-over. And he wasn't admitting any of it.
And since when did it become impermissible to go after Trump in blunt, personal terms? It's what Trump does to his opponents, and basically all of his opponents on a weekly if not daily basis. I'm certainly not going to be nicer or more polite to Trump, than he is to Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.
But of course nobody wants it to be purely personal. (It often is, with Trump; he's the High Priest of the Ad Hominem. We've never had a public figure in politics who's been more personally insulting.) I prefer dissecting all of Trump's weird and laughable statements, and examining his unsupportable policy notions whenever he articulates any of it.
Dear Lord how is this ignorant, arrogant, lying jackass not yet a national laughingstock?
We have a name for such people in political science. We call those people "hysterical idiots."
Trump has SO FREAKING MUCH BAGGAGE as being a fake "conservative," none of which Rush wants to address.
Because Trump is such a lousy spokesman for conservative capitalism.
Ad hominem toward Sanders and Trump supporters, anyone? Readers, the question becomes whether it helps or hurts Sanders and Trump to insult their supporters. I think it helps. So, for this Trump supporter, the commentor is more than welcome to fire away. The more the merrier.
Also, I missed out where Trump has claimed to be a conservative capitalist “spokesman,” or even a “conservative,” so a link to that would be nice. I think it is undeniable that Trump is a capitalist – his billions are proof enough for that. He is not in my opinion a conservative. I have Trump pegged as a right of center, reform-minded moderate with a dash of libertarianism because of his reluctance toward war in general.
Also, I’m wondering which candidate is the commentor’s choice for the GOP nomination. C’mon now, don’t be shy.
You can't just be against everything in politics. You have to be for something, since all the offices get filled by somebody.
Here’s where me and the commentor seem to agree. The only thing nagging in the back of my mind is just which candidate does the commentor favor? Don’t keep us in the dark; bring it out for the light of day.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा