Althouse: "This post is my first post about Donald Trump running for President."

February 12, 2017

"This post is my first post about Donald Trump running for President."

"I was actively resisting even the idea that he was a real candidate. I'm adding the tag 'Donald Trump' now, so I can find it later. Originally, the only tag on this post was 'nothing.'"

68 comments:

jaydub said...: He doesn't have a chance.; 2/12/17, 5:17 AM
bleh said...: I remember this post. I felt happy that you wanted nothing to do with him, and sad that you avoiding him meant nothing.; 2/12/17, 5:44 AM
rehajm said...: After this post I recall thinking people don't see what he's doing.

Many still don't.; 2/12/17, 6:07 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: @Ann -.preretirement, I don't really remember you getting this early of a start. Am I hallucinating?; 2/12/17, 6:23 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I've been getting up early for a long time!

It's not about retirement. I was never staying up late at night to get work done. I've never worked late at night in my life. Never stayed up all night to get work done. The closest I ever came to "pulling an all-nighter" was writing a take-home exam in my last semester of law school. I stayed up until maybe 3. Never on any other occasion did I even come close to that.

I'm very strongly a morning person. In the winter, I'm often up for hours before dawn and often asleep before 10, often just trying to stay up until 9. When I wake up, I look at the clock hoping it's at least 3, and then, great, I can get up. My favorite part of the day!; 2/12/17, 6:30 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Funny thing to me, looking back, is that Trump was always a more serious candidate I his own mind than in those of everyone around him. Looking back, and knowing what we know now, I am not sure if the Republicans could have stopped him. The Dems, yes, and esp Crooked Hillary, by concentrating on the three big swing states that she lost. Still, I am one of those who was never that big of a Trump supporter, but am happier every day that he ran, and won.; 2/12/17, 6:31 AM
traditionalguy said...: That message was garbled in transmission. But your mind was clearly responding to the Trump Effect early on. Everybody else thought he was a myth, but you felt the rumblings like animals that feel coming earthquakes.

Poor CNN still doesn't believe he is real.; 2/12/17, 6:45 AM
Tank said...: Not positive about the timing, but I think that was about the time I commented that I'd believe he was really running if he filed the financial disclosure forms, which he obviously did.; 2/12/17, 6:54 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: @Ann - Just the opposite. Never really pulled all nighters in college or grad school, but definitely did so as a programmer, and, then as a patent attorney. I remember during the mid-1980s, being proud of myself, being able to corrupt the woman I was working with at the time (and who was ultimately the mother of my kid) from a normal 9-5 to my usual noon to midnight shift. I started the late hours as an undergrad. Last early morning classes were freshman year, and sophomore year, got a single in the fraternity house, painted it brown, and put up thick curtains, and kept it for the next three years.

Don't know why, but the women in my life have been more like you - early birds, who never need to cram. Actually, I do know the answer - my mother was proud of the fact that she graduated first in her class in college, without ever cramming or pulling an all nighter. A couple sons who procrastinated, then pulled it off at the last minute, used to drive her crazy. Why couldn't we operate like her, logically, with a lot of preparation and planning? Boring! Much more exciting working 90 miles an hour, cutting things close. Both of my careers lent themselves to that sort of thing. I can't count the number of times I beat statutory deadlines by 15 minutes or so with patent filings.

But now, the woman I have been with for most of the last 20 years and I seem to be almost reversing roles. She no longer is up at 4, and I don't sleep in. We seem to be going to bed about 9:30 or so, which has me up around 5 (MST), waiting for your first post of the day.; 2/12/17, 6:59 AM
Once written, twice... said...: Ann, the question you should be asking yourself is --what led you to being unable to write critically about Trump in 2016 even though in mid 2015 you didn't even consider him a serious candidate?; 2/12/17, 7:13 AM
Snark said...: Althouse has certainly written critically about Trump. That said, I've perceived a shift from cruel neutrality to a kind of knee jerk contrarian coddling when it comes to Trunp. I find it confusing more than anything.; 2/12/17, 7:27 AM
Phil 314 said...: I will continue to fight the urge to see the political world as bipolar:

Trump and not-Trump.; 2/12/17, 7:33 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: Once written, twice ... Because criticism, and not even thoughtful criticism, abounded! Simply leaping on the criticism bandwagon didn't help Ann understand or evaluate Trump at all. What was missing in the mix was an actual appraisal of Trump, and/or an attempt to understand his campaign.; 2/12/17, 7:39 AM
tim maguire said...: I didn't take Donald Trump seriously for the same reason Europe doesn't take Marine LePen seriously--I thought he was nobody's second choice. Once it became clear I was wrong, that he was a lot of people's second choice, I stopped predicting his demise. And while I was never confident he'd win, I never once bought into the polls saying he couldn't win.; 2/12/17, 7:43 AM
tim maguire said...: Maxedout, the professor most certainly did criticize Trump, she even called for his withdrawal after the "grab the pussy" tempest. Once Written knows that.; 2/12/17, 7:46 AM
Drago said...: Once Written still has fevered dreams of public Stalinist Show Trials and forced public self-criticism for all those who do not adopt the Party line.

One can easily picture Once Written publicly shouting down Althouse while waving little red copies of obambi's latest book and shaking her fist in Althouse face.

For leftists it has always been and always will be thus.; 2/12/17, 7:48 AM
Michael K said...: This was my first [post about Trump.

I am not a Trump supporter but I am intrigued at the steady progress he is making toward success. I have been a fan of Angelo Codevilla’s characterization of America’s Ruling Class.

The recent collapse of Republican Congressional resistance to the left’s political agenda as noted in the surrender of Paul Ryan to the Democrats in the budget, has aggravated the Republican base and its frustration.

Ryan went on Bill Bennett’s radio show on Tuesday to tell his side of the story, which involves the fact that he inherited from outgoing Speaker John Boehner an unfavorable budget framework, as well as some of the tradeoffs involved (especially defense spending). He also laid out the argument I’ve heard elsewhere, which is that he needed to “clear the decks” so that a real return to “regular order” budgeting next year will be possible. You may or may not be persuaded, but the contrast with Boehner is fairly plain, I think.

In other words, perhaps the omnibus should be thought of as something like the Dunkirk evacuation. But if so, we still need our Churchill to explain it and chart the path forward in a compelling way. This requires the presidential field to step up.

Dunkirk brought the British Expeditionary Force home almost intact, although minus their weapons. Ryan did the equivalent of surrender.

That was kind of the last straw for a lot of Republicans. Trump brought the Democrats.; 2/12/17, 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: What I see is yes, a sort of "knee jerk coddling of Trump", a good description by Snark. I also see Althouse trying so hard to make sense of his blunders and garbled comments by interpreting him. She gives him far more credit than he deserves. His first month in Office has been a "disaster" as he's so fond of describing things. The man running for the most powerful seat of power in the world, shouldn't need people to continually have to interpret him or put a sane face on his crazy ideas, lies, comments, tweets, speeches, or Executive Orders. I sense some people who were taken in by this fraud are now beginning to question themselves and their choice, maybe that includes Althouse.; 2/12/17, 8:42 AM
Michael K said...: The trolls seem to arrive early today.; 2/12/17, 8:43 AM
Anonymous said...: The troll Michael K, seems to think no one else is allowed to express an opinion that may differ from his. Hint Michael, this isn't your blog, nor do you control the comments section.; 2/12/17, 8:47 AM
Birkel said...: One wonders when people took presidential candidates seriously in other cases. For Barack Obama, it seems to have been his speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention. There is no evidence, beyond that speech, that he was prepared for the responsibility of the presidency. He was a back bench state and national legislator, otherwise.

Ronald Reagan was not taken seriously despite his gubernatorial elections in California because he acted in a Hollywood production with a primate. I'm not precisely clear on whether his 44 state win in the 1980 election was enough to reframe the issue. I remember some people taking him 'unseriously' in 1984 before Minnesota had the audacity to vote for favorite son Walter Mondale.

Carter, McCain, Kerry, Gore and Mondale were taken seriously despite a mountain of evidence that each and every one of them was flawed. (And I use the word flawed as an exercise in caution.) Ford is an odd case.

I thought both Clinton and Bush were misunderestimated and not taken seriously quite after it was obvious that they were competent managers -- if dramatically flawed.

Here's a theory: Those insiders who ran were considered useful cogs that would protect the status quo. Outsiders were attacked by the Deep State (Leviathan) beyond even party. Those that could be co-opted become serious once co-opted.; 2/12/17, 8:53 AM
rehajm said...: Michael K said...
The trolls seem to arrive early today.

I think it's Jake Tapper.; 2/12/17, 9:06 AM
Once written, twice... said...: I think "knee jerk coddling of Trump" is a good discription. But Ann looks totally delusional and foolish when she claims "cruel neutrality." Obviously she wasn't.; 2/12/17, 9:17 AM
Once written, twice... said...: And isn't.; 2/12/17, 9:17 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: I don't remember the Trump anagram, but I do remember Althouse and her Trump dreams!; 2/12/17, 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't think Althouse is or was ever truly "cruelly neutral". It takes some effort, but her opinion for or against usually reveals itself in time, sometimes almost immediately.; 2/12/17, 9:22 AM
Birkel said...: And on today's episode of "Cruisin' for a Bruisin'..."; 2/12/17, 9:30 AM
David said...: From the comments;

Rusty said...
Mad dolt run; 2/12/17, 9:44 AM
Birkel said...: Eleven letters is not the same as ten letters.; 2/12/17, 9:46 AM
HT said...: Althouse has certainly written critically about Trump. That said, I've perceived a shift from cruel neutrality to a kind of knee jerk contrarian coddling when it comes to Trunp. I find it confusing more than anything.
2/12/17, 7:27 AM

I agree.

"The man running for the most powerful seat of power in the world, shouldn't need people to continually have to interpret him"

This is true. I don't need anyone to interpret him for me and I almost always skip the often very very lengthy posts of AA trying to do so. To me, he is fairly straightforward and I don't think I have any trouble understanding what he says or means.; 2/12/17, 10:12 AM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/12/17, 10:16 AM
Birkel said...: @ 8:53 AM above

Thoughts from the knowledgeable and thoughtful Althouse readers?; 2/12/17, 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/12/17, 10:32 AM
Michael K said...: " nor do you control the comments section."

No, but I control my presence here.

If you trolls get too annoying, it isn't worth it.

You could try an experiment and post something reasonable and intelligent. You could even include links to interesting articles that support your argument.

But you won;t.; 2/12/17, 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it was a huge miscalculation of Althouse and others who seemed to believe he didn't mean exactly what he said, that he would pivot, grow into the Presidency. He is as simple minded as he seems and to try to make him appear complex was just bad judgment. He never was joking when he said outrageous shit. He fell back on that excuse when his comments were so over the top that he was given enough pressure by Republicans to make him nervous. Yes, he said what he meant, until he changed his mind, which could happen in the same sentence. The man was not, is not, competant to be President. Half the country put a man into the Presidency that they assigned traits to that they wished he had, were deceived into thinking he had, but clearly does not have.; 2/12/17, 10:34 AM
Limited blogger said...: Trump nostalgia a couple weeks into the job.; 2/12/17, 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael K,
You will be missed by some people and others will celebrate. So go flounce off once again, how many times now have you flounced off only to return? You know that makes you look silly, don't you? Bye, don't let the door hit you in the ass.; 2/12/17, 10:37 AM
Michael K said...: I thought both Clinton and Bush were misunderestimated

Clinton is a superb politician but a lefty ideologue. One big difference from Hillary is that he seemed capable of learning and the 1994 election convinced him he had to pull in his horns.

He outwitted Gingrich in the shutdown and night have been a credible president but for the Lewinski fiasco that drove him far left when he was threatened with impeachment.

I thought it was very significant that Sam Donaldson, the week after the story broke, expected him to resign.

I don't think Bush II was a very good administrator but he showed guts in going for the Surge.; 2/12/17, 10:38 AM
Birkel said...: Michael K:
I think you missed my larger point about cooptation. Clinton was underestimated against the early field of Democrats who were part of Leviathan already. Clinton was taken seriously when he agreed to become part of the Ruling Class, when he promised to be an insider president.

I am suggesting the traditional divide between Democrats and Republicans is fluid. The more critical factor is insider or not. Insiders will be judged serious.

Leviathan is self-aware and declares enemies regardless of policies.; 2/12/17, 10:50 AM
Big Mike said...: @Michael K, please don't feed the trolls.

@Sockpuppet, consider the benefits of climbing into a bathtub full of warm water and slicing your wrists. Trust me, from here on it only gets worse for you.; 2/12/17, 11:04 AM
Michael K said...: Clinton was taken seriously when he agreed to become part of the Ruling Class, when he promised to be an insider president.

I don't disagree on your larger point but I think it was Mario Cuomo's year and he chickened out because the Dims thought Bush unbeatable after Gulf War I.

Rostenkowski outwitted him into raising taxes. Plus George Mitchell blocked a capital gains tax cut. That caused a recession that was already over by the election. It was still enough to beat him when Perot got involved. Perot was actually the main factor.

Perot may have been the Trump equivalent but too soon.

I still think the Democrats made a deal with Bush. A tex increase in return for support of the Gulf War.

Gore actually sold his vote for the war but the rest of them were more subtle.; 2/12/17, 11:04 AM
Michael K said...: "@Michael K, please don't feed the trolls."

I wouldn't mind lefty commenters that made sense instead of just spewing hate. Freder makes a few good comments.

ARM was one but he has gotten into TDS.

Garage was also reasonable.

I used to have some nice debates at Wash Monthly but they went nuts in 2004 when Kerry was running and Bush was the target of BDS.; 2/12/17, 11:08 AM
Birkel said...: Michael K:

I am not discussing the particular facts you describe. I'm relating my own impression about the treatment of presidential candidates (which was tangentially the point of Althouse's post) and their relation to Leviathan (Deep State) government.

Bush I, for example, was a Washington D.C. fixture and was never criticized in the same way that true outsiders have been. Jack Kemp wasn't Reagan's running mate in 1980, in part, because the Republican status quo self-appointed elites did not trust two outsiders. We would face a very different world had Kemp been VP and become president in 1988. (That is an alt-history truly worthy of Newt Gingrich! But nobody would buy that book in an alternative universe because nobody would have learned who Newt Gingrich is. Dramatic irony there, eh?)

Of course Democrats are perceived as likelier to continue the growth and expansion of Leviathan more than Republicans. So the default is set to reward Democrats. But insider Republicans who want an expansion federal authority -- like McCain -- are not opposed in the same way as true outsiders.; 2/12/17, 11:23 AM
Birkel said...: ...expansion (of) federal...; 2/12/17, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: "@Sockpuppet, consider the benefits of climbing into a bathtub full of warm water and slicing your wrists. Trust me, from here on it only gets worse for you."

Are you sane? Doubtful. What a comment. You want to be taken seriously as an intelligent non troll? Too late. There are trolls here alright, some of them lean right, far right.; 2/12/17, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "@Michael K, please don't feed the trolls." "

"@Sockpuppet, consider the benefits of climbing into a bathtub full of warm water and slicing your wrists. Trust me, from here on it only gets worse for you."

Michael responds thusly:

"I wouldn't mind lefty commenters that made sense instead of just spewing hate."

Michael K seems to be missing the big fat fly that just landed on his nose.; 2/12/17, 11:34 AM
Michael K said...: "We would face a very different world had Kemp been VP and become president in 1988"

Yes, I have had the same thoughts.

I do have some doubts about Kemp, though.

He was mentor to Ryan.; 2/12/17, 11:42 AM
Birkel said...: The same insider-outsider dichotomy can be seen in the 2012 election. Romney was an outsider with an earned reputation as a man of ideas and accomplishments who could fix things. But insiders to Leviathan do not want Leviathan fixed. They are happy with their current distribution of goods and believe any costs are deferred far enough into the future not to matter.

So Romney was vilified in ways that remain unbelievable. He gave cancer to a woman? Fake news! He would throw older, disabled pensioners off of cliffs? Fake news! Nobody believed that nonsense and yet it was allowed to stand because Romney is a temperate man.

Trump, the intemperate outsider, faced similar allegations but turned to attack. The attacks revealed the accusers as hollow charlatans peddling propaganda for Leviathan. He used humor to disarm them and insults to enrage them. Leviathan was bested in the election but reveals herself again and again.

As somebody who did not support Trump until the general election, I marvel at his superior media strategy. I hope another outsider such as Walker or Cruz recognizes how Trump has accomplished his goals.; 2/12/17, 11:54 AM
Michael K said...: "Trump, the intemperate outsider, faced similar allegations but turned to attack. "

I despaired after Romney lost. His biggest problem was that he is the archtypical Mormon nice guy. He could not bring himself to attack.

Trump may have a crazy streak but he is the only person who would burn down the village to save it.

I cannot imagine anyone else who could do what he did. Yes, he is a narcissist but, once again, I quote Dizzy Dean.

"It ain't braggin' if you can do it."; 2/12/17, 12:14 PM
Birkel said...: Michael K:

I'm encouraging you to see the point that buwaya puti (if I may be so bold as to speak for him) and I have made many times. The Leviathan (Deep) State is self-aware. It is voiced by many but it is centrally directed. Those who defy Leviathan are pursued and destroyed. This is not an emotional issue but an exercise in power.

And it is not a Republican-Democrat dichotomy. The 2008 election was a no-lose proposition for Leviathan. Had 2016 been Clinton v. Bush it would have been another no-lose election.; 2/12/17, 12:20 PM
Michael K said...: I'm encouraging you to see the point that buwaya puti (if I may be so bold as to speak for him) and I have made many times.

A post of mine from 2014 at Chicagoboyz.

Exactly. Think about global warming and energy policy, matters Lofgren, whose area was defense, neglects.

I might add that reading the thinking of a member of the staff of the Republican Party suggests that what we now have in Washington is an example of a one party spoils system with the Democrats in control, majority or not.

Evidence is accumulating of a corrupt bureaucratic culture in many, if not all, federal agencies.

We are not far apart at all.; 2/12/17, 12:36 PM
Birkel said...: @Michael K
I never suspected we were far apart. Rather, I think the framing of the issue must be focused and direct. The traditional labels must be rejected BECAUSE those traditional labels intend to set us on terms that are useful to those who have selected those terms. IOW, they are meant to keep people from seeing clearly to the central issues. They are meant as distractions.

For all of its power, Leviathan has become fat and lazy. Leviathan has accepted the myth that it is on the "right side of history" and has become somnambulant. It operates as much by inertia as anything, which is why it needs little active direction. But it can be roused to fight an imminent threat and when it does, the beast is dangerous.; 2/12/17, 12:55 PM
Achilles said...: Birkel said...

And it is not a Republican-Democrat dichotomy. The 2008 election was a no-lose proposition for Leviathan. Had 2016 been Clinton v. Bush it would have been another no-lose election.

This is what boggles the trolls here. They don't understand or refuse to accept we had to defeat both parties this election to take our country back.

And the next 8 years are going to be pure agony for the left. Everything they have built up over decades beating down the American Citizen is going to b torn down. We will have a border and we will have laws that everyone, including your precious aristocracy, must follow.

Yes we are even going to make Soros obey the law. Just wait.; 2/12/17, 1:03 PM
Known Unknown said...: If SockPuppet#55 doesn't want to be referred to as a troll, there are two easy requirements to negate that:

1. Get a Blogger Profile -- you needn't put anything on it, but the deluge of anti-Trump posters here over the past six months have all been what I refer to as PNAs -- Profile Not Availables. None of them had profiles.

2. Stick around for awhile. At least a year or two at the minimum. Again, all of the recent anti-Trump one-liner commenters have been here for a day or two and then gone, replaced by another PNA.

R/V is still around. Ritmo (CC now) is still around. ARM is frequent. I do miss Garage. I'll never miss Inga because she was fairly disingenuous during her time here in many forms.

Brando is a regular who straddles the political continuum. I'm a Libertarian who doesn't like Trump's appeals to blind authority (Sessions has some big issues as AG) I think Trump's abilities to make a lot of people shit their pants is frankly hilarious.; 2/12/17, 1:06 PM
Achilles said...: SockPuppet#55 said...
I don't think Althouse is or was ever truly "cruelly neutral". It takes some effort, but her opinion for or against usually reveals itself in time, sometimes almost immediately.

The nature of bias is that the purveyor of bias is unaware of their bias. And I realize that because you fall so hard into confirmation bias you don't understand this applies specifically to you.

But you obviously lack self awareness and critical thinking ability. For a leftist troll you are really quite boring. Slightly smarter than once written, but not really by much; 2/12/17, 1:07 PM
Achilles said...: Once written, twice... said...
Ann, the question you should be asking yourself is --what led you to being unable to write critically about Trump in 2016 even though in mid 2015 you didn't even consider him a serious candidate?

The cognitive dissonance would be crushing for you if you had even an ounce of self awareness. You are one of the dumbest one trick trolls out there.; 2/12/17, 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Achilles,

Coming from you, I will dismiss your comment. Your comments are repetitive and predictable and don't display anything more that adherence to extremist ideology.; 2/12/17, 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/12/17, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: "1. Get a Blogger Profile -- you needn't put anything on it, but the deluge of anti-Trump posters here over the past six months have all been what I refer to as PNAs -- Profile Not Availables. None of them had profiles."

Known Unknown,

No this isn't true. There are plenty of liberal commenters with public profiles, who are daily referred to as "trolls" by the same people. As I said, I consider several of the commenters here coming from the right as trolls also.; 2/12/17, 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Another point Known Unknown,

April Apple and Lewis Wetzel both conservative commenters have private profiles. I've never seen any conservative commenters harass them about having a private profile.; 2/12/17, 1:42 PM
Michael K said...: Don't feed the trolls.; 2/12/17, 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: And speaking of trolls.....; 2/12/17, 1:49 PM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/12/17, 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Full Moon,
No I have no desire to argue with Michael K. I think he may be trying to be the Sean Spicer of Althouse though and that is amusing. I wouldn't want to miss any of his trolling.; 2/12/17, 2:15 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Thing is, about the Establisment, leviathan, deep state, etc, is that, yes, they have their fingers in both parties, but really came into their own, during the Obama Administration. I saw part of it when we went up on the Hill to lobby against patent "reform" in various guises. We were told by Rep Sensenbrenner that he would vote with us (he did), but most of the rest of Congress had been bought by $100 million in lobbying. It had. Much of that came from the same companies who were fighting the immigration EO. And were, of course, on the other side of the H1B issue (comprehensive immigration reform would have increased the indenture of H1B visa holders, often with PhDs, making citizenship near impossible, while providing a road to citizenship for ignorant peasants - which is why they were tied together, and funded by the tech giants).

We saw how the govt was for sale by Crooked Hillary when she ran the State Dept. But it wasn't just there - Obama essentially raffled off the various depts to his constituencies, in return for their support, and then let them do their thing. In some depts, we say progressivism gone wild. Others, like Energy were just looted. Everyone was happy. The civil servants got more power and money. The companies at the trough got richer. Much richer. The progressives got a lot of t of movement to a fascist brand of socialism that they, presumably, would control. Except that this was Hunger Games, and most everyone living outside Capital suffered.

The problem is that while Trump and his billionaire cabinet are somewhat immune to this, Congress is much less so. Or, I should say, Republicans there, since a lot of the Dems there are happy participants. There are still thousands of lobbyists, and hundreds of millions that will be spent trying to subvert the Trump agenda. No doubt that a lot of those lobbyists are desperately trying to find elephant cuff links and ties to replace their donkey ones. But, I think that we can see the dynamic at work, with the repeated suggestion that maybe Obamacare repeal can wit until next year, and, maybe even ore critically, that tax reform needs to be studied before we rush into it - which is, I ssentially code for all the special interests getting their place at the tayble. If they wait very long, it either isn't going to happen, or will be worse than we have now.; 2/12/17, 2:24 PM
Birkel said...: @ Bruce Hayden:

One of the points of devolving power from the federal government back to the states and the people is to increase the transaction costs associated with lobbying. Right now D.C. is a one-stop-shop for the purchase of favors. It would be better if the efficiency of that system were made less efficient.; 2/12/17, 2:44 PM
Michael K said...: The problem is that while Trump and his billionaire cabinet are somewhat immune to this, Congress is much less so.

Oh yes. That's why I think only Trump could do this.

They could double cross us, as many leftists predict. Still, I don;t see why he and Tillerson and others would go to the trouble.

He has made this possible,. I am glad, however, that he has his own security. I don't trust the USSS.; 2/12/17, 6:31 PM
Achilles said...: SockPuppet#55 said...
Achilles,

Coming from you, I will dismiss your comment.

Of course you do. You are an idiot. You don't even really understand the topics we talk about here. You have no self awareness. You think the pussy hat march was a success. Even the leftists in the media acknowledge it was a complete failure. You think Trump is going to be impeached or retire from office. you think illegal immigration is popular.

You exist to be mocked. Have fun with that. At least Ritmo is able to think about the shit he spews.; 2/12/17, 9:18 PM