From "Democrats to Clinton: Don't laugh off Trump threat/The populist billionaire could be a potent general election candidate, Democratic strategists warn," by Daniel Lippman.
It's time to stop laughing? No, it's laughably long past time. Republicans laughed too long, and it got late early, and Democrats seem to think their window of time for laughing is still open. It's fun to laugh, isn't it? Your laughing is the result of his technique, disarming you with laughter. He enjoys you enjoying yourself.
I saw this going around on Facebook:
Oh? Did that make you laugh?
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
I too find the silly primary season somewhat boring. Nevertheless, my one observation is the turnout on the Republican side dwarfs the Democratic side! Watch out Democrats!
Althouse,
Sometimes it must feel like it's just raining catnip, doesn't it?
Dems would be wise to take this seriously--there is an avenue for him to beat Hillary and surely after 2008 and the past year they realize their own candidate is one of the weakest they've fielded in a long time. I can see it now, with her slow, delayed responses to his attacks (many of which will actually have truth behind them), her inability to get out from under the "Wall Street insider" image that Sanders painted her with, and his immunity from a lot of her partisan attacks which comes from his deviations from conservative orthodoxy. This election will be close.
The Republicans, after decades of engaging in dog whistle politics, have brought this onto themselves. Unfortunately, they are now bringing it onto the country as well. Good Republicans who have the country's best interest in mind, will disavow any support for him.
Fabulous graph from Gandhi. I am stealing that.
"He appears to be cracking the code with white working-class voters who could help him put blue Rust Belt states in play against Hillary Clinton."
It's awfully hard to see what Hillary offers them.
Good republicans...Peshawar what a snobbish attitude.
The only thing to say about Trump is that he is risky. Maybe, he dominates the General election (while ems laugh), just as he dominates the GOP primary (while Repubs stayed on the sidelines too long). Or, maybe, Trump fizzles out, like a flash in the pan, a la Goldwater in '64 or McGovern in '72.
It will be an interesting ride. And the choice will be binary -- either you are for Trump or for Hillary. No middle grounds.
It did not make me laugh. I did smile, so you may consider the mission accomplished.
If Trump is the R nominee, there will be significant write-in or third party candidate who will siphon off the vote and put Hillary in.
HRC seems to me an incredibly weak candidate except in one regard: she has the democratic party nomination in hand. How will she drive turnout, though? Sanders has done a good job not maiming her but his younger supporters (are there any other kind?) will be demoralized. I'm not sure if "first woman President" helps her. I guess it must. There are a lot of low-info young people who will vote on that basis if they can be motivated to construe her as a woman and not the corrupt demon who defeated St. Bern.
Other than all possible nasty attacks (it's not like her people don't know how to make them) to frighten moderates away from Trump, she'll try to drive turnout with the supreme court abortion affirmative action 'can't LOSE the progress we fought for'. (losing pains us twice as much as gaining pleased us in the first place)
I will believe people saying "I will vote against Trump, or not vote, and I would have voted for Cruz [or whoever]" after the primary is over and Trump adopts his general election mecha form.
Professor Althouse I keep waiting for you to weigh in on Trump's treatise on libel law and the First Amendment, re: New York Times v Sullivan and Gertz v Robert Welch Inc.
The case names are my own citations, of course. Trump wouldn't know those cases if they blew away his comb-over.
This is an area in which Althouse might well be the ranking professional expert in all of her blogdom.
Anyway, here's Trump:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/26/trump_promises_to_open_up_libel_laws_to_take_on_new_york_times_washington_post.html
Did that make you laugh?
Yes. :D
Good Republicans who have the country's best interest in mind, will disavow any support for him.
We'll bear that in mind. Now tell me, once Good Democrats who have the country's best interest in mind disavow any support for both Clinton and Sanders, who will they be voting for?
Just wait until they find out that Trump will pick up more of Bernie's voter than Hillary will. The anti-wall street wing of the dem party has more in common with Donald that with Hillary. So do a lot of dem constituencies. So does pretty much anyone not on the government graft train.
I used to believe "Anyone But Hillary" so strongly I voted for Obama in my state's ridiculously open primary. Now that Trump is a GOP front-runner...nothing has changed. Anyone but Hillary.
And yes, I'll be voting for Bernie in my state's ridiculously open primary.
The laughter was itself a technique. "Clown car" and all that crap was no more than a technique to make the narrow desiccated Democratic field seem more presidential than the Republican clash of ideas and philosophies. The problem liberals have is they believe their own hype. They can always be relied on to overplay their hand.
I suppose "War on Women" was not dog whistle? Nope, because it served the higher good of electing dems.
It's this preening "don't at all accuse me of doing what I'm doing whilst I accuse you of it" (which essentially defines the one-way illiberal PC Big Media Monolith) that is going to get the win for Trump.
It's going to turn not so much into Trump v HRC (she's an awful candidate, check out her flipping out at the young African American in Minnesota, "WELL MY DEAR" (look incredulously at her 100% supporting press corps & then cackle laugh) "WHY DON'T YOU GO RUN!"
To a young African American woman in Minnesota. err, to paraphrase VEEP, girlfriend can't 'normalize' & her 100% supporting press corps isn't going to be able to save her.
Because the real race is going to turn into a Media v. Country election.
& Back to this whole Angry Nation memen & dog whistles...
Seriously, it's not being robbed, it's not being punched in the face while being robbed.
It's being screamed at while being punched in the face by the robber
"STOP STRUGGLING YOU EVIL *FILL IN APPROPRIATE CURSE WORD"
#MAGA
Once written, twice... said...
The Republicans, after decades of engaging in dog whistle politics, have brought this onto themselves. Unfortunately, they are now bringing it onto the country as well. Good Republicans who have the country's best interest in mind, will disavow any support for him.
3/2/16, 11:35 AM"
If only the same could be said about good Democrats disavowing that grifter, champaign Communist felonious traitor Hillary Clinton.
Once written, twice... said...
The Republicans, after decades of engaging in dog whistle politics
Dog whistle politics? Just another liberal technique. You go ahead and keep believing your own hype.
BTW, if you hear the whistle - you're the dog.
The part of that that makes me laugh is when I see Trump haters pointing out Ghandi didn't say that.
Where is Chuck today? Is he too sick in bed after Super Tuesday to post?
@Chuck
Quote me what Trump said that you think is inconsistent with those cases.
That is, I didn't blog it, because I saw respect for the principle of NYT v. Sullivan and I couldn't figure out what innovation he was proposing.
Typical lack of detail, but I couldn't see what there was to attack aside from the generality of liking to assert his interests through lawsuits.
Two other unexpected winners come to mind: Lincoln and Truman. What do they have in common with Trump?
Maybe a message whose time has come. It overflows the walls set in place to control political outcomes by the rich men and their paid agents, and the result is a big win.
Then they spend 4 years being sniped at by the bitter losers who did not get what they had paid for. But the GOP did not shoot Truman because he had already had 2 terms and the GOP just planned to ignore him and insert Eisenhower as the sure thing.
Lincoln was hated by all for winning the bloody War thanks to Sherman taking Atlanta in the nick of time. And he only got a few months into the second term until he was shot down by a conspiracy.
And JFK was not protected from his own VP's men on a trip to Dallas, Texas. Does Christie have Mafia connections too. Hmmm. Trump had better pick Huckaby as VP.
Sri Dondhiji couldn't have said it better himself.
I had no idea anyone was laughing, but then again, I just fell into an open sewer and died.
I don't care what the Dems think. Their candidate is deeply flawed, and it shows, and its obvious, and it will affect the turnout and how many pull the lever for her.
I like my candidate, and he is growing his coalition, and he is appealing to every part of the American electorate. He is exciting and people want to be part of the excitement. He is a winner and people want to back a winner.
"...and it got late early"
Pretty sneaky sis.
The Democrats are underestimating Trump? Oh, jeez, how could that happen?
Look at the assholes Hillary surrounds herself with: John Podesta, the Blumenthals, David Brock. Honest to God, if you found yourself listening to any of those guys at a party, you'd excuse yourself for drink & stand out on the balcony to get away. Hell, if it was David Brock, you'd leave immediately & call 9-11 for a SWAT Team.
All these guys live on their own planet, & they're her lieutenants. Maybe, the physics on their planet are enough like ours they can work it to the White House since the skids have been greased for them over & over. But, I'm betting not. They have no idea how to deal with Trump, even less so than Karl "Pillsbury Dough-Boy" Rove.
Re "Gandhi didn't really say that":
But he did apparently say something even better, though less catchy: "In a civilized country when ridicule fails to kill a movement it begins to command respect."
cracking the code with white working-class voters
They still don't get it. Not really. Although, the recognition of a white paradigm, that reflects the full spectrum of human diversity, is positive progress.
"my one observation is the turnout on the Republican side dwarfs the Democratic side! "
A good test will be the GOP closed primaries where you have to be registered GOP to get a ballot.
I have no idea what will happen.
"Good Republicans who have the country's best interest in mind, will disavow any support for him."
Says the Hillary voter who doesn't care about her security violations.
Gandhi, the guy who refused to allow his wife to get a penicillin shot for pneumonia that would have saved her life but two months later allowed the Doctors to operate on him for appendicitis.
Every Republican primary has a right-winger and a moderate. Okay? With me so far?
Donald Trump ran to the right of everybody. He ran to the right of Ted Cruz. He ran as a fascist. He said many, many authoritarian things. So he became the right-winger in the race.
After shifting the Republican field sharply to the right, Ted Cruz became the "moderate" in the race. He's the "establishment Republican." Which is ridiculous. Ted Cruz is not an establishment Republican.
The rest of the field are treated like squishy liberals. Marco Rubio is fighting back. He refuses to accept this framing, and has cast Trump out as a non-Republican. In essence, Rubio is defining Trump as a fascist, as a non-Republican.
He might lose this fight. But that's what he is doing.
If we, the Republican party, nominate a Trump/Cruz ticket, which is likely, this will be akin to the Louisiana race when the Republicans put forth David Duke, against the corrupt Democrat. We lost.
What I think will happen, if it's Trump vs. Hillary, is that she wins. And we have a third Obama term, a disastrous term. And people will predict the end of the Republican party. And Marco Rubio wins 49 states in 2020.
This is if Ted Cruz aligns with Trump. I think that's the only way Trump can be our nominee, if Cruz joins forces with him and tries to "normalize" the fascist fuckwit. But it's lipstick on a pig. The American people will vote for the devil they know (Hillary) and reject the maybe-fascist.
Joining Trump is a mistake for Republicans. If Cruz joins him, it's the end of his future. (Unless Trump wins the general, which might be possible--he's a better politician than David Duke). But the odds are stacked against him.
"Republicans laughed too long" I guess you don't know too many Republicans. Nor did any GOP candidates "laugh" in the early debates.
The Republicans are always blowing dog-whistles that only Democrats can hear. I wonder why they waste their time?
"He ran as a fascist. He said many, many authoritarian things. So he became the right-winger in the race." But that was the meta-strategic ambiguity. He locked up the angry anti-GOPe right wing and now swings to the middle or even the populist left. On deportation/touchback amnesty, that has already begun.
Althouse: "It's fun to laugh, isn't it? Your laughing is the result of his technique, disarming you with laughter. He enjoys you enjoying yourself."
Enjoy Yourself
You sittin over there
Starin into his face
While people are dancin'
Dancin all over the place
You shouldn't worry about things you can't control
Come on girl, while the night is young
Why don't ya mix up the place, let it go
Enjoy yourself
Enjoy yourself
Enjoy yourself with me
Let's have some fun
Let's have a good time you and me
Sittin there with your mouth all out
Just sweet as you can be
Why dont cha live, live the life ya got
Come on girl, let's spin it
While the music's live and hot, whoo
Baby girl, I've been watchin you.
I want what I'm waitin for
For you and I to get together
We can tear the house down
Or we can tear the house down
Or we can tear the whole house down, whoo
Dont' worry, garage mahal is still laughing.
Sanders used the same mis-attributed quote.
And Gandhi addressed Hitler as "Dear Friend".
@ Professor Althouse
I gave you the link to Trump on video. But hereare the basic transcribed lines:
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money..."
"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected..."
"We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
"Well, in England, I can tell you, it's very much different and very much easier. I think it's very unfair when the New York Times can write a story that they know is false, that they virtually told me they know it's false, and I say, why don't you pull the story, and they say, we're not going to do that, because they can't basically be sued. And you can't be sued because can you say anything you want, and that's not fair."
I think that's pretty much it. I think there were more comments, because when Trump was asked about this and given the chance to walk it back, he didn't. He has stuck to all of this; no denial, no correction, no retraction.
So we're left with several obvious things about all of this.
Trump can't do much of anything about "libel laws" as President of the United States.
Trump can't even propose and sign legislation on the topic, insofar as that legislation may run squarely into the entire long line of case law featuring New York Times v Sullivan and Gertz v Robert Welch Inc.
It is indeed, as Trump framed it, a First Amendment problem.
Trump even blew his description of the current status of the law. He set himself up a case in which a newspaper publisher put out false story, knowingly false, and with (presumably, given Trump's general tenor) malice aforethought. And given Trump's enthusiasm about "lots of money," I think it safe to presume that Trump was talking about genuinely damaging falsehoods.
In other words, Trump was wrong in every imaginable way. Wrong about what he thought the law was, wrong about what could be fixed, and wrong about what he as president could do to fix anything.
Let's stipulate that an unfathomable constitutional amendment, limiting the scope of the First Amendment for purposes of defamatory speech and publications and the litigation thereof, might be an answer that Trump was contemplating. But neither Trump nor his handlers would cop to that, right. Just like Hillary whines about Citizens United but wouldn't be caught dead suggesting an overhaul of the First Amendment.
And, of course, there is that little federalism issue in which much of this law in the realm of intentional torts is state law, largely beyond the purview of the POTUS.
This libel-law howler from Trump drew ridicule from the right:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432064/donald-trumps-threats-gut-first-amendment-reveal-him-tyrant
And from the left:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/trump_wants_to_weaken_libel_laws_amid_feuds_with_reporters/
And from your friend Professor Volokh:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-says-hell-open-up-libel-laws/
Gosh, it was only yesterday we were hearing yuks from the Amanda-like about the clown car. Now we are back to the old standards: racist, homophobic, meanie,woman hating,
Oh, and scary.
Chuck,
New York state's libel law is more protective than the First Amendment requires. You should research that law and then the Supreme Court cases on libel and the first amendment. States can give more protection but obviously not less. New York is the headquarters for large media companies in the country so they get the law their way. It's called rent seeking.
I never laughed at Trump. I foresee twenty years of megalomaniacs that are going to make him look tame by comparison. I wish it could be simple rasicm, sexism, or isalmophoia, but it's larger than that. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
He ran as a fascist.
It's pretty clear that the party running on fascism is that of the Democrats. Hillary's speech last night was all but channeling Mussolini. On the bright side, he wasn't that big into all the genocide.
Oh, Vox.com There's an unbiased source to settle arguments!
mccullough:
Sure, but New York state defamation law doesn't come close to explaining or justifying Trump's libel-rant.
And part of the reason I like this story (as opposed to, say, the KKK/David Duke/Trump story) is because it gives a window into just how much Trump is just making all of this crap up, on the fly. Whatever occurs to him; out it comes, in the form of a serious-sounding squinty-eyed declaration.
It's nuts. Maybe Trump isn't nuts, but he's very close.
Chuck you have proved that Trump is not a constitutional scholar. What a revelation. Nor is precision his mode of expression. Again, so surprising.
Trump is a verbal impressionist. On close examination none of the individual brushstrokes is a precise representation of what we see as reality, but the overall impression is very real to us, often strikingly so. It's quite a high level talent. You are fussing over this distinction or that one, while Trump has captured the listener with an emotional pull. By and large we feel our way through day after day. Whatever engages our feelings tends to win out.
I don't understand the sanctimony expressed by some Clinton supporters regarding Trump. "Trump is such a horrible person!" Please. You're supporting Hillary Clinton! Sanders supporters get a pass.
Based on Trump's rant, it sounds like he wants to change New York's libel law since the stuff he talked about is not protected by the first amendment. Maybe Trump wants a national libel law so that no state can give more protection than required by the first amendment. The national media would love to have a national libel law that mirrored New York's law that is very protective of media companies. Sounds like Trump wants a national law that is less protective than New York's.
David;
Uh-huh.
I rest my case.
Gandhi never said this quote. It was said, differently, by Nicholas Klein. He said in 1914: "And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."
The other fact worth considering is equating Trump with Gandhi. That's insane.
The other fact worth considering is equating Trump with Gandhi. That's insane
We know. Plus everybody who doesn't hate Goldstein, err, I mean Trump is a racist hater!
tim in vermont:
what argument? did you read the article?
Why should I? I can see by the headline it's Trump bashing. And I know from Vox's history that they are a Democrat talking point factory. What is the point of reading their article? Hillary has a lot more markers of authoritarianism, but you won't see Vox pointing out the similarities between her speech last night and the writings of Mussolini anytime soon.
If there is something of there you think is of interest, why don't you quote a little snippet and explain why you think so and defend your position?
Yes, Ann it made me laugh. Perfect!
@ david "Trump is a verbal impressionist." Terrific phrase and I think it captures why people respond.
tim in Vermont
Show me a quote by Hillary that is attributed to Mussolini. Also show me Hillary shrugging off support from white supremacists. At the very least - even if you like Trump - it is rather disturbing that he tweets the most absurd things and then pretends like he doesn't know anything about it. Can you agree with that?
David
"Trump is a verbal impressionist....Whatever engages our feelings tends to win out." That is really silly. Do give Hillary the same leeway? You're admitting Trump doesn't know a thing about libel laws but gee he expresses 'feelings' that conservatives like. LOL. Good grief. Being arrogantly ignorant is now a plus?
Trump is a talented flim-flam man. So what? I won't vote for him now or ever, and I reserve the right to say "I told you so."
Trump is a talented flim-flam man. So what? I won't vote for him now or ever, and I reserve the right to say "I told you so."
The problem is your alternative will probably be Clinton.
Latest polls show Trump beating Hillary Clinton in the state of New York.
Let's think about that for a minute. If Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary the Democrat, then one of the deeper blue states is in play.
I always thought that Hillary Clinton would be lucky to win ten states. Maybe I gave her too much credit.
"Donald Trump ran to the right of everybody. He ran to the right of Ted Cruz. He ran as a fascist. He said many, many authoritarian things. So he became the right-winger in the race"
His support for government run healthcare is "right-wing"? How about Planned parenthood? How about higher taxes? you would be hard-pressed to show anything right-wing from him except his position on illegal immigration and the moslem immigration.
Show me a quote by Hillary that is attributed to Mussolini.
You move goal posts much? I said she said things that Mussolini would be comfortable saying. Hey, Mussolini was a popular guy for a while in Italy!
Hillary's conception of the role of the state stands in stark contrast to that of the economic liberals who make a home in the Republican Party and Libertarian Party.
Hillary:
We have to make America whole. We have to fill in what’s been hollowed out.
(CROWD CHANT)
We have to make strong the broken places, re-stitch the bonds of trust and respect across our country.
And I had to wonder what they would make of corporations that seem to have absolutely no loyalty to the country that they love so much.
You know whether we like it or not, we’re all in this together, my friends, and we all have to do our part. But unfortunately, too many of those with the most wealth and the most power in this country today seem to have forgotten that basic truth about America.
Mussolini:
Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State. A State based on millions of individuals who recognize its authority, feel its action, and are ready to serve its ends
The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corporative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice.
We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour
Other fascists:
Fascists in non-Catholic countries also supported Italian Fascist corporatism, including Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists who commended corporatism and said that "it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole".[40] Mosley also considered corporatism as an attack on laissez-faire economics and "international finance".[40]
Find something in Hillary's speech that Mussolini would have a problem with.
"Show me a quote by Hillary that is attributed to Mussolini."
Wait, didn't Obama befriend terrorists from Weather Underground? Didn't his people put the photos of Che Gevara, and supported communists and proclaimed that Mao is their favorite philosopher? Wasn't Louis Farakhan celebrated in Obama's church?
Although if Mussolini had the transcripts to Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches, I am betting he might have blown a gasket.
Chuck, he spoke only of knowingly publishing false statements, so what is the First Amendment problem?
Google "actual malice."
If we, the Republican party, nominate a Trump/Cruz ticket, which is likely, this will be akin to the Louisiana race when the Republicans put forth David Duke, against the corrupt Democrat. We lost.
I never knew you could square horseshit.
Interesting.
And the choice will be binary -- either you are for Trump or for Hillary. No middle grounds.
The Libertarian party is on the ticket in all 50 states. Gary Johnson will be the nominee
If it's Trump vs. Hillary, I'm voting for Johnson.
And if nobody gets a majority of delegates, it goes to the House. And the Republicans have to pick Trump, or Hillary, or Gary Johnson.
Tim in Vermont wrote:
Find something in Hillary's speech that Mussolini would have a problem with.
For people obsessed with fascism, the Left doesn't know much about it. Talk to a fascist -- a real fascist, not a blowhard real estate wheeler-dealer -- and the first thing you will hear from him is that the government needs to stop letting corporations run the country, because the government needs to be on the side of the working man.
The idea that Trump is Hitler is ludicrous. Not only has the Left already said that every GOP pol from Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin was Hitler, they have no understanding of the European history that made Hitler chancellor. Hitler didn't like Hindenberg because Hindenberg was a Graf, a member of the social class Hitler believed had betrayed Germany at the end of the First World War. Hitler thought of Hindenberg as a man of the 19th century. If Hitler had been a conservative, he would have put the frikkin' Kaiser back on the throne.
Ann Althouse said...
Chuck, he spoke only of knowingly publishing false statements, so what is the First Amendment problem?
I am not following you, Professor. Yes, the "scenario" described by Trump would be actionable, one would think. It would not be barred by a First Amendment issue (or other legal bar) arising out of the Sullivan/Gertz lines of case law.
And so why, in that situation, is Mr. Donald J. Trump whining about the unfairness of newspapers being free of liability? Under what Trump described, a suit would not be barred. So why "open up the libel laws"? Whatever the hell that means.
Of course it's not just that Trump seems to have inadvertently created the perfect hypothetical that defeats his intended point. Beyond that, it is just plain creepy, to think of a President of the United States creating law(s) to skirt a protection found in the Bill of Rights, in order to wage a vendetta "for lots and lots of money."
And lest you think that I am going too far with this story, Professor, recall that Trump did in fact sue writer Tim O'Brien (formerly the Business Page editor of the Times, and now with Bloomberg) over his authorized(!) biography, "Trump Nation."
I simply cannot begin to tell the story better than O'Brien can; and it is a must-read. For the sheer audacity and odiousness of Mr. Donald J. Trump, you can hardly top this. There is a "The Onion" quality to this one:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-21/dear-mr-trump-i-m-worth-10-billion-too-
The entire GOP is frozen by the actions of Marco Rubio. This man has drawn a line in the sand. He is saying, "Trump is unacceptable." And if you cross that line, so be it. But it is Marco Rubio who has drawn the line.
Expect Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC to be a ferocious defense of free speech, and a shot across the bow at Donald J. Trump, and all the goats and ghouls who would support such a man.
Marco was offered the vice presidency and he said, no sir! I am not interested in being your #2! And then he went to war on Donnie. He went to war even as the polls were predicting an astounding loss across multiple states. He went to war even as Donnie looked to be an unstoppable force. He went to war, and he continues to fight.
Go, Marco!
Bit late to the party: "none of the individual brushstrokes is a precise representation of what we see as reality, but the overall impression is very real to us, often strikingly so. It's quite a high level talent. You are fussing over this distinction or that one, while Trump has captured the listener with an emotional pull." Key to the con.
@Saint Croix: I can't tell if your 10:40 is satire or not.
In the Virginia primary 60,000 democrats crossed over and voted for Trump.
It's over usual suspects.You haven't got the candidates to defeat Trump and you can't cheat your way into winning with those numbers against you.
Rusty said...
In the Virginia primary 60,000 democrats crossed over and voted for Trump.
Goddam clever Democrats; they know how to play the game. They might succeed and get their dream opponent.
Chuck said...
Rusty said...
In the Virginia primary 60,000 democrats crossed over and voted for Trump.
Goddam clever Democrats; they know how to play the game. They might succeed and get their dream opponent.
Fortunately, Chuck. None of the Republican stable has a democrat to run against them. Get used to the idea of Trump as president.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा