↓
 
Home » Who are Trump’s supporters, and what do they want?

Who are Trump’s supporters, and what do they want?

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP: Even though it’s Sunday and I don’t often blog on Sunday, I have some new posts below for today. I’m bumping this one from yesterday up, though, because I want people to read it if they haven’t already.]

I keep trying to get away from writing about the Trump phenomenon, but it keeps drawing me back in, with a certain morbid fascination.

This was going to be a great year. It would be Obama’s last as president. There was an unusually good field of GOP candidates, with several I liked a fair amount, and an increasingly weak Democratic opponent. And then Trump entered the race.

Prior to that, I was somewhat of a Trump virgin—that is, hadn’t watched his shows, hadn’t read much about him, just really had very little interest in him. Of course, since I wasn’t living under a rock, I knew he’d had a series of wives, some European; and that he was a mega-rich real estate developer from the New York area who was a very colorful and flamboyant personality who liked to be in the limelight and had a successful reality show. He didn’t interest me nor did he particularly offend me, so I not only didn’t have a pre-existent hatred, I didn’t have much of an opinion at all.

If anything, Trump’s blunt style of talking resonated somewhat with me because it was the milieu in which I was raised—New York, that is, not mega-rich real estate developers, although my family even knew a couple of those, less mega than Trump—among people who did not pussyfoot around when they spoke. In fact, they were seldom what you’d call polite or tactful.

Then, as Trump gained more supporters, I started reading about him, listening to him, watching him, and I did so with growing alarm. This happened on two levels. The first was cognitive. What he said seemed poorly thought out, rabble-rousing, and mostly consisted of braggadocio, with very little content or detail other than the assurances that all would be great. It was entertaining, of course, but it just seemed like BS to me (now I’m sounding like a New Yorker). Whenever anyone threatened to gain on Trump in the polls, he attacked them, but in ways that were particularly vicious, childish, and often deceptive.

Video clips of Trump’s previous interviews and speeches and behavior were not the least bit reassuring, either. His immature attacks and his bragging in the past were consistent with his behavior now, although at times a bit more vulgar, but his political points of view were all over the place. In particular, his accusations towards President Bush were as over-the-top as those of any leftist, and he has never apologized for any of it. In fact, I don’t think he’s ever apologized for anything, nor will he.

I could go on and on, but if you’ve read my blog for any length of time you get the idea. Suffice to say that, over time, my revulsion at many of his political positions (some in the past, and some in the present), and his lack of integrity and willingness not just to attack an opponent but to do so viciously and mendaciously, was joined by my growing sense that he was in this for power, and that power is what Trump is really about. And for him, it’s personal—personal power. That seems dangerous.

I’m agnostic on whether Trump really intends to do what he says he wants to do. I see no reason to trust him, but it’s certainly possible. But one thing of which I am fairly sure is that, because it’s power he likes and power he’s after (money and women were just a means to that, although they’re fun also), that he will have no hesitation to ride roughshod over the Constitution, or over your rights if you get in his way. And he’ll try to destroy the reputation of anyone who doesn’t support him or do what he wants.

Which brings me to Part II of this tome: Trump’s followers. I don’t like to use cutesy names for them—Trumpets, Trumpettes, Trumpbots, whatever—because I don’t find them cute or funny. But for want of a better term I’ll call them Trumpers for the sake of brevity in this post.

They are not a unitary group, however, not by any means. They constitute (apparently, if polls are to be believed, and I think they basically are) about a third of those identifying as Republican primary voters. I believe the Trumper cohert is made up of three main segments. The first and probably most numerous group are what I’ll call the sincere Trumpers. They’re afraid of illegal immigration and detest the way our government has enabled it so far, and they’re angry at the GOP, and they trust and like Trump. The second and smaller group are the activists of the right. They’re a lot angrier, and they’re a lot more instrumental and vocal around the internet, as bloggers and commenters. I think they are organized, and they tend to come in groups, although not always. Some might even be paid by Trump; I really have no way to know about that, and it may or may not be so. They use leftist techniques: intimidation, name-calling, lying about other candidates, mockery, and statements of Trump’s inevitable victory with the goal of creating a feeling of crushing defeat and hopelessness in followers of his opponents, and some in the first group follow their lead in this.

What does this second group actually want? What is their endgame? I think they would be pleased if Trump were elected, but that’s not really their ultimate aim. Their real goal is to destroy the Republican Party and remake it in a different image. It’s a win-win proposition for them if they can push Trump onto the GOP. If Trump wins the nomination without winning the presidency, they believe the GOP as we know it has almost certainly been destroyed, so that’s okay. And they believe that if Trump wins the presidency, the GOP as we know it is also destroyed. As I said, win-win.

What do they want to replace the GOP with? I think there are actually many subgroups within this group of Trumper activists on the right, and they don’t necessarily agree on the goals for replacement. One group might sincerely see this as a transition to small government conservatism (although they’d have to look to a post-Trump president for that, because Trump is definitely a big-government guy). One group might not care; they really do just want to let their inner nihilist rip and watch the world burn. Another group may be solely about power itself, and another group may be neo-Nazi.

Then there are the activists of the left, who make up group three of the Trump supporters. I have become more and more convinced that some activists on the left are deeply involved in pro-Trump battles. They want to destroy the GOP, too—in their case, in order to facilitate the triumph of the left—and in Trump they feel that they have found the perfect Trojan horse with which to do it. Whether Trump is in on these leftists’ game I really don’t know; I tend to doubt it. It’s possible Hillary and Bill are, but again, I have no idea and I don’t think so.

I think that members of this third group (which is quite organized) think they can use Trump for their purposes, and their general plan is to help him along to the GOP nomination and then to shaft him once he is nominated and the general election campaign begins. How will they do this? Oh, it’ll be a piece of cake. There are so many awful video clips of Trump, and so many old quotes and articles from his past, that they’ll have an embarrassment of riches from which to choose, and although Trumpers of the right are not dissuaded by his history, the general population is far more likely to be turned off.

Both of these activist groups, right and left, are the Trumpers who lead the way for the other Trumpers, that first group of sincere Trumpers who just want a Trump presidency because they believe in him and his promises to them. For the most part, the activists come up with the memes with which to fight, and then behave in a manner some of the sincere Trumpers emulate:

What are their methods? In other posts, I’ve already described some of the mockery and taunting, but there’s much much more:
(a) saying it’s inevitable that Trump will be nominated; you see again and again the assertion that “it’s already over,” which is designed to induce a feeling of resignation and ennui in supporters of Trump’s opponents
(b) saying that Trump is the only one who…(fights immigration, etc—fill in the blank—even though he’s not the only one)
(c) saying that Trump is the one who will get the most crossover voters: Democrats, black people, etc. (I’ve written about this several times and about how the polls have not supported these contentions so far)
(d) ignoring all the negative Trump lore (videos, articles, etc.) that’s out there as though it’s irrelevant, or justifying it
(e) ad hominem attacks on sources of negative information or opinions on Trump, including the people who post it or say it
(f) the sheer volume of their comments on blogs and discussion boards, and their indefatigability in hammering away on them

I doubt that’s an exhaustive list; that’s just what comes to mind at the moment.

I’ve always been puzzled by Trump supporters who say that Trump’s vast wealth means he’s unlikely to be corrupted by the need to raise money from donors. That’s not the only way to be corrupt. It may be hard to buy Trump, but Trump is the one candidate with nearly unlimited resources to buy others—their support, their silence, their cooperation, their acquiescence for fear of being lied about and smeared. If you think he’s a good guy who means well, and that you can therefore trust him, then I just don’t think you know much about Donald Trump and the way he’s conducted his life (or his politics) and how he’s wielded his power so far, how he’s lied and betrayed the trust of people over and over again. I think you should be very very uncomfortable with facilitating his ascent to the most powerful office in the world.

[ADDENDUM: You might think “hey, this post was long enough, so why an addendum?”

Well, I found it fascinating that—almost as though conjured up—a new commenter and Trump supporter arrived in the comments section of this thread with some approaches I had left out in my non-exhaustive list. So I thought I’d highlight them.

“Ben Johnston” is a Trump supporter, and my guess is that he’s a member of group one: sincere. He’s polite rather than insulting, for example. He’s a nice guy, I think. But he suddenly arrives and in his first comment he says this:

I fear you may be missing the point. This is a rebellion. The powers that be are the money sources behind the governing elite. People see how politicians are corrupted by forces seeking to unify world governance. Look at the latest example of Paul Ryan, as his bank account rises his votes seem inexplicable. There is no difference between republican and democrat. Trump is a hail Mary for a frustrated population continuously disappointing by the results of their votes and fearful of being left to the dogs.

In answer to Ben Johnson and another commenter, I explained here that I know full well it’s a rebellion. I’ve also written about that phenomenon many times before on this blog, too, although as a newcomer I wouldn’t expect Ben Johnston to know that. But in addition, although I don’t actually use the word “rebellion” in this post, I certainly refered to this group’s anger and their desire to destroy the enabling GOP and replace it with a party in a new image. What is that if not rebellion?

But it’s actually another part of that comment of Ben Johnston’s that I find particularly odd:

The powers that be are the money sources behind the governing elite.

My response is: that’s an excellent description of one prominent aspect of Trump’s rather long resume: donating money to get political influence and favors. And Trump has donated a lot of money to extremely non-conservative politicians and causes (the list is long), and not just local people who would benefit his business interests, either.

Ben Johnston goes on to say, in another comment to the post:

Reminds me very much of the status quo reaction to Ronald Regan [sic].

When I saw that, it reminded me that that I’ve seen comments like that from Trumpers all around the blogosphere, over and over. It’s actually one of the standard memes, and I should have listed it in the post along with the rest, because it deserves some attention.

It is true that the “establishment” was against Reagan and it is against Trump. But other than being white males of approximately the same age, and that, I can’t think of much else they have in common. What’s more, there isn’t a single criticism of Trump in my post (or on this blog, as far as I can remember) that resembles the GOP’s criticism of Reagan way back when. The GOP thought Reagan radical because he was too conservative, and they also thought he couldn’t win because of his extreme conservatism. They did not think he was (and here I’m summarizing just a few of the things I have against Trump): an unscrupulous liar who would do anything for a buck, a childish narcissist who strikes out with personal insults (some of them of a vile and mendacious nature) at anyone who doesn’t do what he wants, a NON-conservative, a believer in big government, and a power-mad man who has no respect for the constitution. And that’s not even a complete list.

Plus, of course, another difference was that, by the time he ran for the presidency, Reagan had long been governor of California with a proven record in public office, and he was extremely good at articulating conservative principles and had for the most part walked the walk in addition to talking the talk.

So repeated attempts to link Trump to Reagan because the GOP is against them both—as though that means somehow they are alike in other ways—is nonsense. But the Trumpers must think it’s effective nonsense, because they do it very often.

The third comment of Ben Johnston’s I want to take up is this, which is another meme I’ve seen Trump supporters stating over and over again:

Cruz is religious right and therefore unelectable.

Now, that is actually the sort of thing the GOP used to say about Reagan—not the “too religious” part, but the idea that he was too far to the right to be elected. However, it turns out that in national polls against opponents Hillary, Sanders, or Biden, Cruz has very consistently polled better than Trump does. His unfavorables have been much lower, and there are a lot fewer people who say they would never vote for him. So although no doubt there are people who wouldn’t vote for him for that reason, there is every indication he would be more likely to win a general election than Trump would. I’ve written several posts on that, too, so I won’t go into the details now.

Cruz is the person the Trumpers fear most as a rival of Trump’s, because Cruz actually is the person who has fought the GOP establishment. He is the natural repository for the votes of those who are in rebellion against it, so various memes must be spread to harm him. The three favorites are (a) he’s nasty and unlikable (b) he’s too religious (as BJ wrote); and (c) he’s really a RINO in disguise.]

Comments

Who are Trump’s supporters, and what do they want? — 147 Comments

  2. I maintain that Donald is Andrew Jackson — redux.

    Talk about rhyming history!

    Even the hair color — the hair do …

    PLUS

    Party destruction.

    Party creation.

    The big difference — I just don’t see Trump escaping the rage of his opponents.

    All of the chat about him drawing Democrats — is coming from PR outlets that WANT to ‘fight’ the Donald in the Fall.

    The LAST person they want to face is Ted Cruz.

  4. I fear you may be missing the point. This is a rebellion. The powers that be are the money sources behind the governing elite. People see how politicians are corrupted by forces seeking to unify world governance. Look at the latest example of Paul Ryan, as his bank account rises his votes seem inexplicable. There is no difference between republican and democrat. Trump is a hail Mary for a frustrated population continuously disappointing by the results of their votes and fearful of being left to the dogs.

  5. Very good analysis Neo.

    I suspect that the third group, the third column if you will, is fairly sizable. I have no evidence; just suspicion. Or maybe I just hope that there are not so many people who actually favor Trump.

    The second group certainly includes a number of media stalwarts; e.g. Limbaugh, Levin, et al. They are intelligent people, but I wonder if they have thought through to the end game if the GOP, and thus the two party system, is actually destroyed. I know this is not Syria, Lebanon, Libya, etc.; nor even the Weimar Republic. History should teach us that when you destroy the existing order, when you pull down institutions, the final outcome is not predictable.

    The first group, those who actually favor Trump as a candidate, may be the hardest to fathom. Trump has a record. It is not attractive. You have documented it very well in your posts, so there is no need to repeat it. There is no reason to believe that he won’t use political power as recklessly as he has used the power of wealth. Most every internet forum abounds with comments about how Trump sticks it to the media and the establishment. These ignorant or short sighted folks cannot seem to connect the dots to see that he sticks it to anyone who stands in his way.

    Then there is a group of players that don’t fit neatly into any of the three groups. I don’t think they really care very much. I will, if you will forgive me, call them “rating whores”. They are the media folks who beat the Trump drum because controversy attracts viewers/listeners; and he certainly creates controversy. Because of them Trump gets more air time, more free political advertising, than the rest of the field combined. Sadly, I now put much of FNC in that category. I doubt if they have thought about the effect that a Trump win, or an election handed to Hillary, would mean for them.

    I have said for some time, that talk is cheap and polls can be gamed, so I am am a skeptic until votes are actually cast. I am becoming very concerned, however.

  6. disappointing shouild be disappointed. Couldn’t find a way to fix it once posted.

  8. But one thing of which I am fairly sure is that, because it’s power he likes and power he’s after….

    OK, so you say.

    But why does a man at his age, at his level of personal and career achievement need power?

    He isn’t ideologically driven to impose his ideals, like any typical power-luster. That’s apparent in your characterization of Trump’s shifting stances (which is evident in any and every “changer,” given a long-enough timeline. And even this claim can be disputed on short enough time-lines, like a year or six-months.)

    So, if Trump isn’t a power-lusting ideologue, but merely in it for himself (as you claim ad nauseaum), how does public political power at this late stage in life achieve anything personal for him?

    I submit to ask these sorts of questions expose the baselessness of your claim.

    Instead, I submit that Trump is a classic real estate developer. As such – apart from his shape-shifting marketing genius – he is used to thinking in term of years and decades, and thereby unlocking value over time.

    Since there is no utopianism, but merely improving aims for shared human use in Trumps career identity, the assertion of his “dangerousness” is baseless. The fact is rather that these are constructive and inherently conservative characteristics. (Yes, I’m claiming that Trump is not at all an ideological conservative, but rather a conservative of career commitments. And thus the term “pragmatic conservative” more aptly applies, instead of, say, the constitutional conservatism of Cruz.)

    Therefore, what much more plausibly drives Trump, for such a man pushing 70 years old, is legacy building. Why else would such an overachiever enter a new field like politics?

    I’ve always been puzzled by Trump supporters who say that Trump’s vast wealth means he’s unlikely to be corrupted by the need to raise money from donors. That’s not the only way to be corrupt. It may be hard to buy Trump, but Trump is the one candidate with nearly unlimited resources to buy others…If you think he’s a good guy who means well, and that you can therefore trust him, then I just don’t think you know much about Donald Trump and the way he’s conducted his life (or his politics) and how he’s wielded his power so far, how he’s lied and betrayed the trust of people over and over again.

    [Emphasis mine]

    So, if you know the REAL Donald J Trump, you’ll see an aspiring LBJ?

    Maybe you don’t know real real estate developers.

    My old man was accomplished real estate developer who hob-knobbed with my native state’s Republican senator before his demise in the 1980s. And one of my friends is the daughter of the largest private developer in Denver.

    And I can’t see Trump as Lyndon Baynes Johnson-style president…because he’s a real estate developer (or even a narcissistic real estate developer), or not.

    If you’re puzzled by me, then I’m puzzled by your obsessive alarm at his narcissism. Trump strikes me as the least pathological of all the narcissists familiar to us from national political life.

    For me, Trump’s less dangerous, and a less risky political leader, than Senator McCain – and I managed to vote for him in 2008.

  9. On re-reading your post and my comment, is LBJ – my choice – the proper comparison? Or is your model understanding of Trump more comparable to Caligula? (Which, if so, is so hyperbolic as to invite sarcastic ridicule.)

  10. To identify one important implication of my counter-argument: does a career in real estate development require large grandiosity? YES, in general. And the bigger the vision, the greater the grandiosity – yes.

  12. “There was an unusually good field of GOP candidates” neo

    That was never my perception. Other than Cruz with Fiorina as his VP I see just another field of clueless RINOs with a few outliers like Santorum.

    Otherwise a fine analysis of Trump’s supporters with but one caveat; Ben Johnston has the right of it;“This is a rebellion. [against] The powers that be [who] are the money sources behind the governing elite… Trump is a hail Mary for a frustrated population continuously disappointing by the results of their votes and fearful of being left to the dogs.” I would only add “outraged” to ‘frustrated’ and ‘certain of their disenfranchisement if either a dem or a RINO is elected’.

    Many support Trump because they see him as the only one in the race who isn’t pulling his punches, who isn’t ‘qualifying’ his assertions, who isn’t bowing to political calculations as to what is politically acceptable.

    “why does a man at his age, at his level of personal and career achievement need power?” Orson

    No offense but that is a remarkably naive question. Power is, as much an aphrodisiac for men, as for women. The lust for power can never be satiated.

  13. Most of what seems incomprehensible about the world right now is caused by attempts to manipulate the world economy. This is on a grand scale and impossible for most to understand. Still there is a sense of something being very wrong and indeed the manipulators are losing control as we speak. They will be unharmed by what they have done but the rest of the world will suffer and not know why. Our politicians are selling us out and Trump appears to be calling them out.

  15. Geoffrey Britain:

    “An unusually good field” doesn’t mean they’re all good. By my rights, having quite a few decent ones to choose from—for example, Cruz and Fiorina (whom you mention), and I happen to also think highly of Carson (although he was never my first choice), and apparently you either didn’t like Scott Walker or he has gone down your memory hole, because he was my first choice for a while—constitutes an unusually good field.

    I repeat: it was an unusually good field, to begin with.

    And perhaps you (and Ben Johnston) didn’t read my entire post, because I did NOT leave out the rebellion aspect, although I didn’t use that exact word. Here is the relevant part [emphasis added]:

    The first and probably most numerous group are what I’ll call the sincere Trumpers. They’re afraid of illegal immigration and detest the way our government has enabled it so far, and they’re angry at the GOP, and they trust and like Trump. The second and smaller group are the activists of the right. They’re a lot angrier, and they’re a lot more instrumental and vocal around the internet, as bloggers and commenters. I think they are organized, and they tend to come in groups, although not always…

    Their real goal is to destroy the Republican Party and remake it in a different image. It’s a win-win proposition for them if they can push Trump onto the GOP. If Trump wins the nomination without winning the presidency, they believe the GOP as we know it has almost certainly been destroyed, so that’s okay. And they believe that if Trump wins the presidency, the GOP as we know it is also destroyed. As I said, win-win.

    Obviously, since these people are on the right, it’s a rebellion if they’re trying to destroy the GOP as we know it. That is exactly what I described. So if they’re on the right, and they want to destroy the GOP, they are obviously against both right (that is, the GOP) and left as they are currently configured.

    I am very puzzled by your idea that something I alluded to in this post, but also something I’ve been writing about for at least four or five years (and I could link to many many previous posts on it; in this post I didn’t feel I again needed to go into all the reasons they feel that way), is something I’ve ignored.

  16. Hi sdferr,

    Cruz is religious right and therefore unelectable.

    My own son is satisfying his law school debt with service in the Marine Corps. A government program. I think you have to start where you are. This country created this student loan problem and we are going to have to find a reasonable way to deal with it. Our greatest asset is our youth and right now many are saddled with life time debtors slavery. So there will need to be some program to deal with existing issues and some plan to go forward with. If
    I can think of this then probably Trump can too.

  17. For a power-hungry person like Trump, the ultimate prize would be to capture the position of most powerful person in the world. That’s why “a man at his age, at his level of personal and career achievement,” would pursue it, Orson.

  18. This is why i like you Neo.

    This is such a thoughtful piece.

    d) is what convinces me the Trumpers are not listening.
    How does anybody think trump can win with such high negatives.

    I do know one trumper and i said this to him over and over and he didn’t listen. Not listening is a mental disease i believe.

    I have seen you write that if Trump is nominated you will vote for him. I was in that camp. Based on this last debate antic, i think I’ll sit out and be a prepper. Ha !

    What else can we do?

    When my grand children ask, “did you vote for Trump?” I’ll have a clear conscience.

  19. It’s a beautiful solution: the way to get less government is to make more of it.

    Think it through. This can mean that more government brings about an oversaturation causing a fatal collapse, after which not only less government but hardly any or no government at all. Brilliant!

  20. Baklava:

    Thanks!

    But I want to correct one thing. I never said, as far as I can recall, that I would be voting for Trump if nominated. I haven’t ruled it out. But I don’t want to think about it unless I’m faced with that decision (if necessary, in the voting booth).

    The prospect makes me feel ill.

  21. Hi Neo-neocon,

    “Their real goal is to destroy the Republican Party and remake it in a different image.”

    I think you might be focusing on fear, anger and destruction or perhaps groups of malcontents. I think this is a more general rebellion of average people who are trying to seize the day after realizing that ‘WE REALLY ARE IN TROUBLE’ and the people who are supposed to act on our behalf are acting on behalf of the biggest donor.

    Perhaps Trump is a neo-neocon himself. Let’s hope so.

    Thank you very much for this forum and all your efforts.

  22. Orson,
    Doesn’t it bother you that he knows nothing about world affairs, manufacturing, or healthcare? He always says he will have a great team. Does that include Gruber? He never reveals his thinking about issues, and I suspect it’s because he doesn’t think about them.

  23. Perhaps Trump holds the same view of racial discrimination, in view of his criticism of Justice Scalia of late. Rather than agree with Chief Justice Roberts that if you want to end racial discrimination then it would be good to cease discriminating by race, Trump takes the same approach as he takes with regard to government intervention in the college loan markets: more racial discrimination will cause the utter collapse of the government entities discriminating by race, and therefore end racial discrimination by ending those government entities. Or civil society, whichever comes first.

  24. “Perhaps Trump is a neo-neocon himself.”

    Manifestly impossible. The man cannot put together two coherent thoughts, nor for that matter, even trouble himself to attempt it.

  25. sdferr,

    I’m with you on the less government thing and as far as I know the Marine Corps is not a new program. Service for debt seems like a reasonable place to start to me.

    As always I value other ideas and opinion.

  26. Ben – The country can and has elected candidates who appealed to the religious right. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for a Republican to win the presidency unless he has the passionate support of social conservatives.

    Oldflyer – Levin has become one of Trump’s strongest critics. It doesn’t surprise me that he has, only that it took him so long. The radio guys rallied around someone who was being attacked in the same way, by the same words, as they are. It took them a while to notice what kind of a man he really is. It took them too long, maybe. If Trump wins Iowa, Levin and the others deserve a lot of the blame.

  27. It may seem odd, but I read that Nov. 2015 Washington Examiner article and cannot recall a single mention of the Marine Corps. But then on the other hand, we might only imagine what the overburdened college kids will think of the proposition they should enter the Marine Corps (certainly a worthy if yet delimited service), and cease all our ridicule instanter.

  28. Neo – I think you’ve overlooked the perverse humor that people find in the Trump campaign. A lot of what you’d call the second and third group would, in internet terms, be called “trolls”. I’d bet that there are also plenty of non-ideological trolls who are hitting the message boards and calling into radio shows. For them, the Trump campaign has no more meaning than a flash mob. Everyone meets up, does a funny dance, and disappears. You’d think you would have to pay people to put on a public performance, but it turns out that people just like to participate in the spectacle.

  29. Hi Nick,

    I say this because in 8 years (or 16 depending on how you look at it) the population and voter makeup has changed quite a bit. Immigration has changed voter makeup. I believe the religious right prevented Romney from winning by not going to the polls. etc., etc.

    If you think about it many things have changed.

  30. I see Trump on Sunday. I saw Rubio today. Very, very impressed with Marco. Both reports should be on Power Line.

  31. Ben Johnston Says:
    January 30th, 2016 at 4:57 pm
    Reminds me very much of the status quo reaction to Ronald Regan.

    Maybe that’s true about Ronald Regan, but not Ronald Reagan.
    :~)

    Reagan was a Democrat much of his life, and a union leader, too, but he was always a conservative philosophically, and back then, unlike today, there were lots of conservative Democrats. He didn’t have to change core principles to become a Republican. He was predictable and consistent (mostly – nobody’s perfect) because of those principles, same as Cruz is today.

    The “status quo” back then was the moderate to liberal politicians from both parties, and they were the Establishment gentry. Of course they would attack Reagan, just as Establishment GOP and Marxist Democrats attack both Trump and Cruz.

    But you can feel them warming up to Trump now: Dole, Hatch and others. They believe that if they can’t destroy him with his own past they can at least deal with him, and he just two days ago confirmed that’s true.

    They know they can’t destroy Cruz because there really isn’t anything besides the phony birther crap in his life story – no dogs on cars, no teenage forced haircuts, no causing cancer in employees and no binders full of women. They also believe he believes in this Constitution they’d prefer to ignore.

  33. Let’s see,

    On the left we have:
    A communist
    A criminal

    On the right we have:
    A migration advocate non-senator
    A brilliant Canadian
    Dumber than his brother
    A woman who needs a job
    Jolly St Nick
    Barney Fife
    A Real Estate Developer with attitude
    Others that escape me right now

    Hmmmmm 😉 Don’t get upset. Just a humor attempt.

  34. geokstr

    “Maybe that’s true about Ronald Regan, but not Ronald Reagan.”

    Got me dead to rights.

  35. Great essay neo! You masterfully describe my opinion of trump and the trumpsters. On the ground in Iowa things look different than the msm picture. I knocked on doors for 8 hours today. The trumpsters I speak with have never been directly contacted by team the donald and many of them have no idea of when the caucus doors are locked (and I did not educate them, in fact I lied to them). His ground game is nowhere near that of Cruz, Fiorina, Carson, or even Rubio.

  36. Cornhead Says:
    I saw Rubio today. Very, very impressed with Marco.
    Sure, he’s charming, articulate and photogenic. However, he’s still in favor of amnesty and eventual citizenship for illegals, just demands control of the border before he grants it. The Obama administration claims we’re more in control of it than ever already, and we’ll be in control of it when Pres Rubio says we are.

    Then the first election after those 20-30 million take the oath, Marxist one-party rule happens. Trump was right to seize on amnesty as the key issue in this election.

    Rubio is just a slower walk to the Collective. If we hold the Senate or not, 5,000 pages of comprehensive immigration reform, including the pathway to citizenship, will be shoved along by Ryan and McConnnell/Schumer, and sail through both houses, passed with bi-partisan votes. Rubio will be happy to sign it.

    And we can kiss our liberty goodbye.

  39. The more I think about this, Neo, the more convinced I am I’m right. You’re getting hung up on trying to understand the Trump phenomenon because you think there’s a point to it. There isn’t. This is an Adam Sandler movie. The lead isn’t a hero in any conventional sense. He’s an idiot. You’re not supposed to root for him, you’re supposed to laugh at him and the chaos he causes. He beats the bad guy and gets the girl at the end, not because he deserves it, and definitely not because he’s grown as a person, but because Adam Sandler wrote the movie and he thinks it’s funnier that way.

  40. Ben Johnston,

    Polls often do not reflect what is observed on the ground by those of us Iowans who drive the roads and knock on doors. From that perspective the Bern will beat hrc, and Cruz will beat the donald.

  44. I agree with most of Neo’s excellent essay, with just a couple of reservations. Particularly the neo-Nazi comment she tossed in as an aside, and the complaint that some pro-Trumpers are adopting the winning ways of Alinsky, heretofore used vigorously and to great effect by the Party of Evil.

    I have felt all along that The Donald is the other side of the same coin that has Obama on it. This is the great, great harm Obama and his Democrat facilitators have done us: the essential destruction of the Constitution. And the opposition GOP did not oppose, not at all, and still does not. But we all know that.
    So what you gonna do? The People want a Leader.
    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
    Can’t.

  45. neo-neocon,

    My point was about the changing landscape of the electorate and also about the defeat of Romney by the religious right because he is a Mormon. I think they put religion above the best interest of the country by staying home. Perhaps unconsciously but never the less effective.

    Lots of people like to spoof the polls, especially democrats. It would be out of character for Iowa to caucus for Trump but who knows ?

  46. Ben,
    Romney wasn’t defeated. He was nominated.

    The people who put the interests above best interest of the country unconciously and meanly is the people who believe identity politics is persuasive.

    There are people on the right and left who do it. Identity politics puts a man as a savior (like Obama or Trump).

    If you look AT the issues and try to be persuasive (rather than what Trump and Obama do which is demonizing people), anybody else but Trump can elevate an issue to an intelligent discussion.

    We may not agree with Kasich or Bush on the issue of illegal immigration and they seem to never utter the words illegal and immigration in the same sentence (maybe they do) but at least it’s a more intelligent discussion than Trump’s.

    Trump’s arguments are:
    I’m winning in the polls (winning – sounds like that one actor).
    or
    I’ll make America great.

    OK. Well you can’t make America great if your negatives in the polls are higher than any other candidate. He’ll surely lose to either Bernie or Hillary.

  47. Thanks Baklava,

    Trump is a media expert. Right now he is speaking in twitter like phrases. The reason for this is the broad audience he is addressing. For instance he speaks in short burst about China. The issues of the economy and China are quite complicated and impossible to address in the format of electioneering. So a simple phrase like “China is taking advantage of us” will mean one thing to Joe six pack and another to the hedge fund manager. It is a fast ball over the plate left for us to figure out what he means. He is well educated on economic matters.

  48. Still putting your faith in a man. Just like the Obamaites.

    I’m well versed in economic matters.

    He isn’t persuasive and his negatives show me he’ll lose the general election.

  49. I feel an unease in the pit of my stomach because the issues of the day have become much to complicated for the average person to comprehend and I don’t know where that leads. So many are completely unaware of the economic struggles going on in the world right now. So many do not understand the history of Islamic empire and it’s implications for the present.

    I worry. God help us.

  50. Neo:
    “The second and smaller group are the activists of the right.”

    They’re alt-Right, not Right.

    The fundamental competitive flaw in the mainstream conservatives of the Right that’s been exploited by the Left activists who drove the Obama campaigns and now the Left-mimicking alt-Right activists driving the Trump campaign is the dearth of activists on the Right – which has, in turn, hamstrung the Republicans versus the Democrat subsidiary of the Left.

    Defining alt-Right activists as “activists of the right” preemptively cuts off the vital space that mainstream conservatives must fill by adopting activism in order to compete as (correctly labeled) Right activists in the only social cultural/political game there is.

    Neo:
    “One group might not care; they really do just want to let their inner nihilist rip and watch the world burn. Another group may be solely about power itself, and another group may be neo-Nazi.”

    Another group is foreign activists guised as American Left and alt-Right, advocating ostensibly partisan positions yet with the common effect of weakening the US for the world competition.

  51. Neo:
    “Their real goal is to destroy the Republican Party and remake it in a different image.”

    Not only GOPe. The process of taking over the GOP includes displacing mainstream conservatives (“cuckservatives”) in the American political landscape, which is also a primary goal in its own right.

  52. I wish I could vote for Geert Wilders.

    Read the whole thing. He clearly has a better understanding of the situation and is more serious than any American politician.

    There was one little phrase there that made me chuckle. See if you can find it.

  53. Ben:

    We both worry about the future of not only our country, but Western Civilization itself. I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on who at this pivotal hour has the intelligence, principles and testicular fortitude to stop the barbarians on both sides of the walls.

    We’ve been undermined from within by a ruthless, dedicated Marxist ideology for 100 years and because of it, we’re now at our weakest as the Huns outside are gathering their forces. I don’t think Trump even understands the perilous position we’re in, but believes that somehow making deals with the devils already inside will save us.

    We can agree on one thing though, and this is coming from a lifelong atheist – “God help us.”

  54. Neo:

    Your paragraph 3 could have been written by me, if I wrote as well as you. I agree entirely.

    As for who the Trumpistas are, I attended a Trump rally in Reno in December. A large hotel ballroom was packed with people who didn’t look to me as if they had ever attended a political rally before. Those I talked to confirmed that impression, which is not to say it is a universal feeling, just that those I talked to were political newcomers.

    I put it down to anger at the federal government, of which there is no lack in NV.

    So the question then becomes, will they make it to the polls? Surely some will, but I am guessing they will not turn out in the percentages of Cruz or Rubio voters.

    I won’t speculate on the outcome in Iowa. We will know soon enough, and my ability to call elections is abysmal. I will say I hope Trump does not carry the day because I don’t think he is a serious candidate. He might like the office, if elected to it, but the minutia of running a big business like the federal government is unlikely to appeal to him for long. And when he discovers he cannot buy Nancy Pelosi to support a pet project, his patience with the job will grow thin.

  55. “I’ve always been puzzled by Trump supporters who say that Trump’s vast wealth means he’s unlikely to be corrupted by the need to raise money from donors. That’s not the only way to be corrupt. It may be hard to buy Trump, but Trump is the one candidate with nearly unlimited resources to buy others–their support, their silence, their cooperation, their acquiescence for fear of being lied about and smeared.” — neo-neocon

    My immediate initial reaction last summer to the idea that Trump can’t be bought, and therefore he is accountable to no wealthy donors, was that yes, Trump is accountable only to Trump.

    Initially, my judgment was a more agnostic-ish conviction that it’s really not terribly peachy for anyone in a position of immense power to be accountable only to himself. After learning more and more about Trump — like neo, “I was somewhat of a Trump virgin,” with all neo’s ensuing examples of Trump virginity applying very well to me — my agnosticism turned to fear and loathing, which is where it remains today.

    But a nagging fear still persists that Trump is the final Hail Mary attempt to forego a long national nightmare of left-inspired politically correct statism, a.k.a. oppressive crony fascism. The Donald would surely bring us statism a.k.a. oppressive crony fascism, but it might not necessarily be left-inspired and politicaly correct. If we can at least stanch the inflow of illegals, known to seasoned observers as “Democrats”, we good guys, or in many/most cases our progeny, may have more of a fighting chance in the future.

    I’ll point out again that only Trump — not Cruz, not Rubio, certainly not goodie two-shoes Jeb!, nor Carly nor Ben nor Rand nor Rick nor [complete the list here] would have the energy and the resources and the political *will* to contest bitterly an election whose outcome hangs precariously on the tabulations of illegal votes and dead peoples’ votes in swing states.

    My goodness, it’s both depressing and discouraging, not necessarily in that order [how’s my alliteration?].

  57. There is no difference between republican and democrat.

    The Left got a lot of useful idiots repeating that line in Vietnam and OIF after 9/11.

    To them, there couldn’t be a difference between Nixon bombing the North Vietnamese Russian alliance into the negotiations table and the Gulf of Tonkin propaganda pretext under a Democrat. Nor would they allow Democrat policies for Hussein to be compared to Bush II or the Democrat after him, because discriminating between them and seeing the differences, would cause problems for the Leftist alliance.

    That’s why they need useful idiots. And while the idiots have gotten more useful as time goes on, they haven’t gotten less idiotic.

  58. neo,

    I did forget Carson and Walker did indeed fall through the memory hole. Carson is IMO a very good man but one who is clueless as to the Islamic threat. And again IMO, much too reliant on religious dogma, as a substitute for deep contemplation.

    Walker is a disappointment. I was initially enthusiastic about him but the more I learned, the less impressed I became, which I suspect is why he slipped my memory.

    I did read the entire post but discounted your characterization of rebellion;

    “The first and probably most numerous group are what I’ll call the sincere Trumpers. They’re afraid of illegal immigration and detest the way our government has enabled it so far, and they’re angry at the GOP, and they trust and like Trump.”

    I count myself among those willing to give Trump a fair hearing, despite the fact that I’ve always mildly disliked him and have never ‘trusted’ him.

    I think a better characterization of the majority of the “angry activist right” is its desire to remake the GOP into a party that puts America and liberty first.

    “I am very puzzled by your idea that something I alluded to in this post, but also something I’ve been writing about for at least four or five years (and I could link to many many previous posts on it; in this post I didn’t feel I again needed to go into all the reasons they feel that way), is something I’ve ignored.”

    ??? Please clarify, I have no idea to what you refer…

  59. Trump is a media expert.

    The power network supporting Trump are media experts. They grew up in the generation before and after 9/11, that would be the Age of the Internet for those that forgot.

    Trump himself, did not grow up with social media, thus he’s just mimicking other people. He’s part of the band wagon effect.

  60. Ben, If you worry then put your faith in people who elevate the discussion. Cruz, Carsin, carly

  61. “Most of what seems incomprehensible about the world right now is caused by attempts to manipulate the world economy.” Ben Johnston

    Specifics please. If its that central, its worth a considered explanation.

    “Our greatest asset is our youth and right now many are saddled with life time debtors slavery.”

    Have you ever considered that to NOT be accidental? Socialistic systems are inherently parasitic and parasites need their ‘slaves’.

  63. Geoffrey Britain:

    I have seen no evidence that Carson is “clueless” about Islamic terror. In fact, he seems take a rather tough line on it. I think because he says everything in such a mild voice, it’s easy to not pay attention to what he’s actually saying. If you’re referring to his lack of experience, I agree, but I think he’s a very quick learner.

    Walker is still the same guy he always was. What he lacked—from the start, and still lacks—is any charisma. In a field of very strong personalities, he faded into the background. He is very conservative, and a very strong governor, but I don’t think he would have won the general (too bland seeming). I think he showed very good sense in dropping out, and if you recall his speech when he did, he urged others to drop out. He was subtle about it, but it was clear he was alarmed by the rise of liberal lite demagogue Trump, and he knew if quite a few people dropped out fairly early, Trump wouldn’t get traction. I respect Walker even more for that.

    Unfortunately, almost no one listened to him.

    As for that paragraph of mine that you quoted, I wasn’t trying to be obscure. The word “something” was meant to refer to the paragraph right above it. In other words, I was trying to say that I have written about this “rebellion” before without using that exact word, and that the rebellion comes from the right. “Something” refers to the whole phenomenon of the angry, frustrated right and what they are attempting to do to the GOP. I haven’t ignored it; I’ve written about it many times.

  64. neo,

    Carson’s comments on ISIS have left me with the impression that he thinks radical jihadists are the full extent of the problem. If so, then all he thinks we must do is properly vet Muslim immigrants. In the immediate future that may appear sufficient but since Islam’s fundamental incompatibility with western precepts makes assimilation impossible focusing strictly upon ISIS like groups leaves wide open the doors to stealth jihad. ISIS is simply one of Islam’s hydra like heads. And while I too think he’s a quick learner, information is filtered through the religious dogma he embraces. That ensures blind spots.

    Walker’s prior stance on illegal immigration and his lack of forthrightness during his ABC(?) interview left me uncomfortable. I detected too much political calculation. Now is not the time for carefully considered ‘nuance’. It’s time for “say what you mean and mean what you say” and “damn the torpedoes!” Anything less simply ensures a continuation on the path to the collective.

    I have never thought that you had ignored the ‘rebellious’ aspect in this election. In fact, just the opposite.

  65. Neo – You keep tellng us about the foibles/flaws/etc of Trump and his campaign.I agree with you 100%. I’m the one who suggested looking at “You’ve Been Trumped”.

    However, my comment/question has nothing to do with him. Very simply, ” Why can’t Carly Fiorina get any traction in this race? Every time I hear her speak, debate or not, I am ever more impressed! She knows what she is doing; she is a problem solver; she has great experience; she has laid out big government problems and solutions.
    And yet, after every speech, her ratings PLUMMET!
    Please don’t tell me that Kasich or some of the others are better or more polished.
    What am I missing??

  66. nkbay99,

    Fiorina was my choice until she lost momentum, that is when I signed onto the Cruz campaign. That said, from what I observe in my region of Iowa, she has the second best ground game. I hope she is in the top 4 on caucus night. I want to see her make it to super Tuesday.

  67. Geoffrey Britain

    “Specifics please. If its that central, its worth a considered explanation. ”

    Well, that would be kind of an opus involving central banks and those behind them manipulating for power and profit or we could just watch paint dry. Actually for me it has become quite interesting watching the European Union fun show and the subsequent debacles. You could say world war has already broken out economically in currency and oil etc. as everyone jockeys for position out of the gate. What gate you say. Why world domination of course. What is it always? Trying to deliver China a lesson in humility will probably prove disastrous and in my estimation shows the hubris of the current administration. Anyway, the whole Tower of Babel seems to be collapsing at the moment and the beast of the Islamic empire is being unleashed again into a world of politically correct victims. There is an ongoing physical invasion of humans into Europe that will forever alter the course of history set in motion mainly by Merkel an example of governing incompetence once celebrated by the new world types. Buyers remorse on that one similar to our own.

    So at a time when dreams of one world government are collapsing and we will be in maximum disarray comes the return of the Caliphate. Oh joy.

    Study the Byzantine / Ottoman empire era and the invasion of Europe, slavery of non-believers, collapse of trade in the Mediterranean etc. Here they come again.

    Oh yeah, and which of the candidates do you want at the helm for this show?

  68. Have you ever wondered why Trump, who only hires the best – went from August to November without even a campaign spokesperson out there – he fired Stone as his campaign manager in Aug and waited until November to hire Pierson (when questions kept buzzing about him being a Dem plant). So he hired an unknown and certainly not the “best”. I have written extensively about my views of what’s going on at my blog.

    Trump launched a scorched earth strategy to destroy each GOP candidate. The character assassinations are masterfully timed when any other candidate gains the least bit of traction. How Trump knows how to deliver his attacks at the perfect moment and how he seems rather sparse on revealing who his political operatives are, yet comes with a full arsenal of dirt, amazes me. There’s a very vast orchestrated effort behind the scenes that Trump has working in the dark.

    I believe he was set-up by Bill Clinton, his old golfing buddy – advising Trump he’s need the best political operatives. And I believe Clinton told him some names, but Trump being Trump believed they would be working for him – it could have been a casual phone call to set him up. Clinton triangulation is in play – Bernie the kook on the left, Trump the kook on the right and the middle cleared for Hillary. The mass media manipulation and saturation techniques and the relentless repetition of key buzz words and winning in the polls, created what they call an opinion cascade – it’s a slick propaganda technique developed by leftists. The Carville/Begala team took it one step further – they used it to shut down opposition and do this same sort of twisted reasoning that Trump sells too.

    The tactics – that Trump commenters showing up online, to shut down opposing opinions now, were utilized in ’98 too. I was on the Excite message boards back then and if you start arguing them into a corner, they come back with better writers to carry on the attack. They target popular venues to shut down opposing voices. Repeating their buzz words and spin. Did you notice Hillary’s Benghazi hearing – the Dems all repeated the same talking points – it’s a spin tactic to get their message resonating.

    Trump is also trying to get his followers to not watch FOX – sounds like the Faux News tactic. Any woman gets in the way and Trump reacts like the Clintons – they destroy them – hence, Megyn Kelly and daring to ask him a question he found unfair justifies all this to try and ruin her reputation and damage her career. His followers relish joining in trying to ruin her and creating convoluted conspiracy theories about the GOPe and Fox, that sound as convoluted as Hillary and her vast, right-wing conspiracies around every corner.

    I was attacked in my home during impeachment, while commenting on the Excite message boards. I have no proof and therefore have never been able to prove any it. We now know Hillary ran her own private intel group, well back during impeachment, I believe they used a retired general and Army assets to attack me – to shut me up on those Excite message boards. They found a retired general who had to retire. I had some issues with that general long before, during Desert Storm and some letters I wrote caused him some embarrassment. My husband was a career soldier in that general’s unit – the general was a Brigade commander at that time. I believe they investigated me, all because I was not being shut up on the Excite message boards and kept countering their spin. Many lines I wrote on those boards were being picked up by actual GOP pundits. That retired general – geesh,he had to retire for bad conduct and yet during Operation Desert Fox he was a main voice on TV for the Clinton action – remember the wag the dog allegations about that operation? After impeachment he was given a prominent assignment overseas – despite his bad conduct, which should have made him a security liability. In the intervening years he has been a Dem shill and still remains so to this day. I wrote all of it on my blog:

    http://libertybellediaries.com/2016/01/27/the-womans-way-of-war/

  69. Ben Johnston,

    Your 11:42 is a great synopsis.

    rickl,

    Wilders, Le Pen, Farage, and others are shaking things up in Europe. We need more of their kind here at home.

  71. libertybelle:

    I have definitely noticed that from the very first debate, Trump acted as though Kelly had done something utterly beyond the pale and completely different from what was done to any other candidate. That was absurd. And the attack on her began, and it was vicious and personal. Even most people on the liberal side agree that Kelly is one of the sharpest people on TV right now, in terms of the questions she asks (on her show; not during the debates, where in my opinion no one asks good questions). Trump said she an intellectual lightweight (only he wasn’t as polite as that) and all sorts of insults, which was preposterous. She’s plenty smart. But it almost didn’t matter what he said—the point was to unleash the hordes to attack her. And attack her they did. All of a sudden I saw tons of commenters everywhere saying really disgusting things about her (many of the sexual) and putting her down in very crass ways. He does it, and then they follow—it’s open season on whoever he takes the lead in insulting.

    It’s actually pretty terrifying to watch mob mindthink at work on such a large scale.

  72. Ann at 9:33,

    Hmmm, why have I, an on the ground Cruz campaign worker, never received this Cruz campaign mailing cnn refers to??? To borrow from our neighbors to the south “show me”.

  73. The GOP has blown the mandate it was given in the last three elelctions. The constitution gives the House the power of the purse. They have been too feckless to use it. The Omnibus bill sold out conservative and GOP voters. It funded. Everything Obama asked for. At least a jellyfish has a sting. The smug lumps of jello we voted for are only ever conservative on the campaign trail. That includes Rubio and Cruz. The former still owns Gang of 8 and the latter enabled TPP by his cloture vote. His stunt to defund Obamacare had only one purpose; to establish conservative credentials for his presidential run. It is odd how a pair of first-time Senators think they are wualified. That didn’t work out too well in 2008.

    Trump is not an ideologue. He is not interested in the nuances of conservative thought. That is not say he is unaware of conservative principles in a broader context. He does know why Justice Thomas is better than the Chief Justice. His past positions were reactive to his NYC miliieu rather than expressions of a deeply held philosophy. There is no point in criticizing him for his ideological principles when those elected on such principles betray them in office.

    Trump is many things and man of action tops the list. His record as a property developer combines failures and successes. He doesn’t repeat his mistakes. Ultimately he has succeeded on a huge scale. As Scott Adams points out, Trump has many skills and he has used them in this campaign. Roger Stone was fired or resigned as Trump’s Campaign manager. He said he wasn’t needed. Trump was doing it all himself. Obama is infamous for saying he’d be a better than any of his people but he had a large campaign staff and smart people working for him. He also had the best brains at Google FB working for him.Trump is actually doing it himself. The attacks on Kelly are noy about her. They are about moulding the media so that he controls the narrative. That takes strategic skills at the highest level. Pulling out of the last debate hurt Fox and Cruz. It maximized Trump’s Iowa TV exposure. We’ll see if Trump gained a strategic advantage on Monday night.

    I’ll close by suggestiing that people Google “Meade Trump Jackson” to see the well that Trump has tapped.

    Entered by phone so typos galore.

  76. People who think Cruz’s Christianity should be held against him are projecting, in most cases, their own animus against Christians.

    We’re four-fifths of the American population.

  77. If I were a very smart political operative working for the Trump campaign, I would become a new commenter on influential blogs on the right. I would be a very polite, nice guy (hey, who else uses smiley faces in comments?)and attempt to slowly convince readers that Trump is the man. I would be careful to not always follow the official Trump campaign line, just on the big things; say if Trump screws up, big time. Just sayin’

  78. Trump’s followers. I don’t like to use cutesy names for them–Trumpets, Trumpettes, Trumpbots, whatever–because I don’t find them cute or funny. But for want of a better term

    Trumpenproletariat?

  80. In my opinion, Trump is an inadvertent demagogue. Who would have thought that his statements would have attracted such crowds?

    In my opinion, those crowds are populated by people looking to have someone in authority fix things.

    If I recall correctly, Reagan took a different tack: He would set things straight so that AMERICANS could fix things.

  81. Neo#donating money to get political influence and favors.

    In my opinion, this part of US politics, not just Trump?Isn’t?

    How many Presidential candidates had donated or accepting donations even from outsider leader for geting political influence and favors.

    here an example

  84. What I find interesting is the number of supporters who are disenchanted Democrats. That’s where he pulls his strength from – White, long-term Democrat, NOT radical or Leftist.

  86. The belief that Trump will draw heavily from the other side is Todd Akin all over again: Trump and his supporters believe it because they want to, because it flatters their egos. Everyone else can see it probably isn’t true.
    The Democrats are punking Trump. The nanosecond after he wins the nomination, a tidal wave of oppo research commercials will hit the airwaves and wash Trump out to sea, just like what happened to Akin.

  87. Neoneocon said:
    “The prospect [of voting for Trump] makes me feel ill.”
    LOL. Yeah, it’s a real Sophie’s Choice, that.

  88. If Obama was the “anti-Bush”, then Trump is the “anti-Obama”.

    It is most unfortunate for the country… but:

    “Thus hath Obama wrought…” (together with his supporters and, most particularly, the totally irresponsible and mendacious media).

    Note: One might be tempted to (and there are plenty who do) blame the GOP members of Congress as well, for not “standing up” to Obama’s putsch-like shenanigans. My take on it is that the GOP had no idea what it was up against on the one hand, and had so much faith in “business as usual” on the other—and on the third hand could not possibly believe that Obama’s euphemistic formula, “fundamental transformation” actually meant the tearing down of the country—that they were rendered virtually impotent, especially when being constantly targeted by systematic—strategic—strafing and napalming by the MSM. Your mileage may vary…..

  89. Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  90. Barry Meislin:

    Or they were in on it to some degree. Our political class is chock full of globalists, and weakening America is a prerequisite to a push for world government. Congress voluntarily neutered itself by passing continuing resolutions instead of budgets, refusing to defund federal agencies, and publicly announcing that impeachment was “off the table”. No Enabling Act was necessary to allow Obama to rule by decree.

    One does not rise to a position of prominence in national politics by being naive.

  91. Barry Meislin said

    they were rendered virtually impotent, especially when being constantly targeted by systematic–strategic–strafing and napalming by the MSM.

    I agree. The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column. I still can’t believe how a man with such long-standing open-source-provable radical connections, e.g. Bill Ayers, got into the White House. Where was Charlotte Corday when we needed her the most?

    And while this is an impolitic thing to say, I suspect the eGOP leadership was worried about triggering riots – or worse. Can you imagine how Obama and the MSM would have fanned the flames in response to an impeachment?

  92. “If Obama was the ‘anti-Bush’, then Trump is the ‘anti-Obama’.”

    Oh please. Obama despises the Constitution of the United States, working to undermine it with his every act. Trump merely never mentions it. Were Trump an ‘anti-Obama’ he’d never stop mentioning the Constitution, and would forever discourse on its goodness, beauty and internal coherence. Instead we get watered down (i.e. thoughtless) statism direct from Trump’s mouth (“universal healthcare: YAY!”). That’s all he believes or cares to believe. The man refuses to even begin to examine his own political antecedents. He’s nothing short of pathetic on those grounds.

  93. He isn’t ideologically driven to impose his ideals, like any typical power-luster.

    That’s wrong. An ideologically driven person is by definition driven by ideology, A true believer. In some cases, promoting an ideology might necessitate weakening his own power. A power lusting person (like Trump) is after personal power, period.

    ‘The prospect [of voting for Trump] makes me feel ill.’

    There comes a point where the least of the two evils becomes so bad, I could not choose it. It’s one thing to vote for the wishy-washy (Romney or McCain). It’s another thing altogether to vote for an evil man like Trump. I would never do that.

    I would vote third party. Not so much out of protest. Rather, I’d like to be able to look at myself in the mirror the next day.

  94. Linda F:

    Neo has blogged on this many times. She follows the polls closely, including going to the actual questions asked and the demographic make-up of the respondents and found little to support Trump drawing from Democrats, minorities or independents.

    Have you seen the annual survey that shows self-identified conservatives at 40%, moderates at 40% and liberals at 20%, relatively unchanged since the 1980s? I’ve hoped my whole life for someone to establish a coalition of that conservative 40%, which would include Nixon’s “silent majority”, the Reagan Democrats, social conservatives (which includes lots of blacks and hispanics) and fiscal and Constitutional conservatives. However, herding cats is far easier, apparently.

    While we split ourselves into warring factions instead of uniting to face the tightly organized Marxists, they win with philosophical/ideological small pluralities every time. It’s how the Communists take over every country they’ve ever been in power in, with spectacularly disastrous results every single time.

    One YUUUUGE problem with Trump is he is a divider, not a uniter. He has spent most of his campaign trashing what should be natural allies in this war. For crying out loud, three days ago he was praising hardcore leftists like Pelosi, Reid and Schumer, saying he liked them and could make deals with them. That is insanity: each time we “negotiate” or “compromise” we have to give them something we have that they want – more power and control over us that we will never get back – and in return, we get to keep at least some of our liberty. They give up NOTHING they already have, and they never will, without bloodshed.

    A famous labor leader once said, “collective bargaining is a give and take process, you give and we take.” Think about that in the context of Trump’s “deal-making” promises with the left.

  95. The sincere Trumpers are the group that disappoints me most. They resemble lo-info ’08 Obama supporting traditional Dems who liked the rhetoric and ignored his past. I too despise the mainstream GOP and like hearing Trump blast the PC left. But I don’t project my hopes for smaller government and a return to Constitutional principles on a man who’s recent history has been as much or more pro-Democrat.

    I see a whole lot of trust with little verifying. The essence of a mob.

  96. Pat D says Trump does not repeat mistakes. I beg to differ, and cite four bankruptcies. That may be a record. Or maybe they were not mistakes. Maybe they were part of a cynical, mean spirited strategy to manipulate laws in ways that were never intended. Maybe he repeatedly took advantage of the system for personal gain, even though he damaged countless innocent people in the process.
    Now, someone who operated in that style would be just what we needed in a President following Obama.

  97. neo-neocon

    Wow. I’m flattered that you have given my post so much attention and would like to reply.

    I have actually followed your blog for a couple of years without commenting. What I was thinking of when I mentioned the similarities to Reagan’s run was the “look down your nose” attitude of commentators at the time when they denigrated Reagan as a “B movie actor”. Also that they were both involved in the media and appealed to the common man. They both also bring the discussion out of the comfort zone of the status quo and as such are disrupters. So my look at it was back a little for a wider view.

  98. Scotsman Micheal Forbes is a common man. Reckon Trump “appeals” to him? Thinks of him, even, as other than a “pig”? Regards him as a sovereign property holder who ought not to be molested by the powers of the state attempting to seize Forbes’ holdings for the sake of a commercial enterprise? Hmm, I wonder whether Ronald Reagan would have stood so in regards to Michael Forbes?

    But perhaps “appealing” only implies ‘name checks’. Or, finds favor with among those members of the class who don’t bother to know about Michael Forbes and his like, the little people Trump is content to stomp with his big feet.

  99. neo-neocon

    As for my politics I am currently unaffiliated though I haven’t voted for a single democrat since the first Clinton election. Yes I was once a democrat. I think it is the unaffiliated voter that Cruz will have trouble with and Trump appeal’s to. At first I thought it was just fun but then I saw the consternation of the gop leaders who have so disappointed us all.

    While I do appreciate the efforts of Cruz I don’t think the average person wants religious guidance in government because then you have to ask yourself “whose religion”.

  100. This was an excellent blog post – as my views on Trump are pretty much identical. I think that the current love affair with Trump is due a combination of anger coupled with a lack of critical thought. I’m angry too but Cruz is my first choice… I think that he will do what he says.

  101. @geokstr,

    Anyone who tells you they are going to unite the party is a liar. The core of the two main Republican factions have opposite goals; goals that CANNOT co-exist.
    The establishment wants the same size or larger government, because they like that power it gives them.
    The reformers/conservatives want smaller government, specifically to strip power away from Washington, D.C.

    There is no way to square that circle, and this fight will only end when one side (at least temporarily) surrenders.

  102. Matt_SE

    Interesting comment. I’m trying to think of when smaller government folks have ever won anything and the closest I can come is Reagan although Tip O’Neil government is not exactly conservatives gone wild.

  103. “While I do appreciate the efforts of Cruz I don’t think the average person wants religious guidance in government because then you have to ask yourself ‘whose religion’.”

    This comment insults my intelligence.

    Who here imagines if Cruz is elected that not only Democrats but a majority of the GOPe will institute an American theocracy? How many votes do you think that would garner in the Senate, 5? 6?

    Who here imagines that in the unlikely event that the Senate goes along with Pope Cruz that the SCOTUS will roll over and take it in the ass instead of smacking that blatant violation of the Establishment Clause down?

    Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

    Even if you’re referring to something less permanent like executive orders, they can’t help but backfire. If they had the popular support to be permanent, it wouldn’t be necessary to pass them by EO!

    And as a point of historical accuracy, America had a much greater sense of “religious guidance” than anything seen recently, and we somehow made it through okay.

    If you’re gonna shill for Trump by smearing Cruz, try to make your BS more believable next time.

  104. “I’m trying to think of when smaller government folks have ever won anything and the closest I can come is Reagan although Tip O’Neil government is not exactly conservatives gone wild.”

    Then by all means, just because conservatives haven’t won much in the past, let’s throw away the entire philosophy (even though we can see the result of runaway spending in both history and present-day Venezuela).

    US debt of $100 trillion, HERE WE COME!

  106. Perhaps, as Trump himself says, his supporters are those who will stick by him even were he to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave? Or if we reflect on the meaning of Trump’s statement there, those who don’t mind being insulted as being mere sheep or lemmings by their own chosen favorite. Those who, rather than take offense at being called sheep by the man they support, instead take delight in his characterization of themselves. How stupid are the people of Iowa?, Trump asks. And gets his answer, as he claims he wins Iowa.

  107. sdferr:

    Let’s say Trump wins Iowa and gets about a third of the votes of people voting in the GOP caucuses. That means that only 1/3 of GOP Iowans fit that description.

    I understand that, when all the other 2/3 votes are split among the other candidates, 1/3 becomes a win. But it still would mean that 2/3 of the other GOP Iowans aren’t supporting him. So I’m puzzled by these generalizations about “the people of Iowa.” I completely understand Trump pretending that the people of Iowa support him, but I don’t understand other people saying it.

    Of course, unless and until a significant number of other candidates drop out, we have no idea if the majority of people support him, except by polls, and that question is not usually answered. His unfavorables are high, and few people choose him as #2 compared to the other candidates, but who knows?

  108. Ben Johnston:

    So, who did you vote for in 1996? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2012?

    Did you sit them out?

    Vote for the Republican? (I doubt it, or you would have said it to burnish your credentials here).

    Vote for the libertarian? (That’s my leading guess about you, but I could be wrong about that).

    Vote some other third party?

    I’m curious.

    The first Republican I ever voted for in my life was in 2004. But, on this blog, I’ve certainly laid out where I am now, and also why I changed my mind. Have you changed your mind? If so, about what?

  109. Do I appear to believe that the support of some plurality in Iowa, should Trump prevail by a tiny margin over some fractionally smaller plurality, means that Trump wins the hearts and minds of the whole people of Iowa? So I’m puzzled neo-neocon, though I intended a raspberry toward Trump’s claims: do you take me to assert that Trump wins Iowa whole (or near-ish to whole) when I write Trump claims he wins Iowa? No, I meant there only a rhetorical Bronx cheer.

  110. sdferr:

    I would imagine that less than 1% of America knows about what Trump did to Michael Forbes. I’ve been trying to publicize it, but so far it hasn’t happened much.

    I cannot understand why someone like Cruz didn’t plaster the airwaves with stuff like that.

    Too little, too late—for Iowa. It better happen soon, though.

  111. I don’t have direct knowledge how goes the spread of information regarding Trump’s unequivocal support for the Kelo decision and the nasty powers that decision gives to him and his sort neo-neocon, but I have seen anecdotal evidence just this morning (on the twitter bandwidth, no less) that word is beginning to take hold. Let’s hope so, for everyone’s sake.

  112. Oldflyer:

    In the list of Trump’s mistakes, you can add his golf course in Scotland (original plans had to be scaled back, only a tiny fraction of the jobs promised materialized, most of Scotland now hates his guts, etc.) and Trump University, a fraud.

    Again, it drives me nuts that his opponents haven’t hammered this stuff home. At first they were each afraid to attack him because they didn’t want to draw his vicious, lying fire. But Cruz as frontrunner should have been doing it for quite a while.

  113. Uffdafil:

    It is a mob, because the right is composed of human beings, just like the left.

  114. neo-neocon

    “burnish your credentials”?

    To answer your question I have voted straight ticket Republican since. I have changed and continue to do so. I am concerned about the course of the world now. For instance when I see a picture of the devastation in Syria right now I think not long ago there were shopping malls there and people had jobs and Christians didn’t have to be worried about being abducted as sex slaves etc. Problems are much bigger than just us.

    I must say for a first experience replying to a blog this has been enlightening.

  115. LindaF:

    Dream on.

    What you say isn’t true. It’s what the MSM and Trump supporters would like you to believe.

    See this and this, if it’s facts rather than propaganda you’re interested in.

  117. Ben Johnston:

    Trust me, this blog is a tea party (and I mean the old-fashioned kind, where people politely sip tea and eat cucumber sandwiches) compared to most blogs.

    So, was it foreign affairs that changed your mind? Just curious. Political change is a topic that interests me.

  118. I recently read the book, “SJWs always Lie” by Vox Day. In the book he describes the #gamergate movement and they are similar to your Right/Left activists group (although I probably agree with the gamergate-ers and definitely not the trumpers). The gamergaters are trying to take down left-wing gamer media who are trying to push their Social Justice objectives down the throats of the gamers.

    The gamers are both right and left wing but they do agree on the objective of stopping the imposition of social justice ideology on the games they play. The author describes some of their tactics such as not having identifiable leaders so the media do not have a target. They do have resources scattered around the net with talking points and targets for individual actions such as email campaigns to stop advertisers from funding their targets.

    Apropos the Trumpers, I think that their tactics are now commonplace on the Internet battlefield. The sad and disturbing part is that they have gained traction among Republican voters. The voters are responsible for their actions but the GOP politicians like McConnell and Ryan who push through obscenities like the last budget also bear responsibility.

    As you mention, Trump is probably a stalking horse put up by the Clintons. The Trump phenomenon bears too close a resemblance to the Clinton’s Perot strategy that got Bill elected in 1992 with 42% of the vote.

  119. Again, it drives me nuts that his opponents haven’t hammered this stuff home. At first they were each afraid to attack him because they didn’t want to draw his vicious, lying fire. But Cruz as frontrunner should have been doing it for quite a while.

    Didn’t some Iowa polls show that Cruz was the second choice of many Trump voters? Could perhaps explain why Cruz didn’t attack Trump vehemently with this kind of information. He had hopes of winning them over, so perhaps decided it was not a good idea to attack the guy they love personally, but better to go heavy on policy differences.

  120. I guess it depends on the point in time you are talking about. The US state department destabilization of the Mideast has caught my attention recently. As a neocon I believed in action in the world but when the shoe is on the other foot it doesn’t look so good. I really view Hillary as an ignorant person who has caused immeasurable damage and now wants to pretend she had nothing to do with it. So wow, how do we fix this one?

  121. Ben Johnston, Syria is not unique. I was in Beirut in 1959. It was as vibrant as any city in the world. The Lebanese engulfed us with love in response to Ike’s actions.

    Some may recall that Reagan dipped his toe into Lebanon, but backed out after losing over 200 Marines, and an Embassy.

    This is not the first time that the Middle East has burst into flames, in part because of U.S. passivity.
    G.W. Bush was making progress in establishing stability in one of the most strategic countries–Obama squandered it all. And some, even here, call Bush dumb

  122. I wish I could remember who said you don’t have to support Trump or his positions to dearly wish to send a human wrecking ball to DC

  123. Oldflyer

    Iraq, such a beautiful people. So hopeful. So abandoned. Maybe we should not have done it but having done it we should not have left them to the dogs.

  125. Ben Johnston:

    Agree. Obama left them to the dogs.

    None of the present Republican candidates (except perhaps Kasich; not that familiar with his POV, or perhaps Rand Paul??) would have done what Obama did.

    But it seems your political change occurred in 1996, if I understand you right?

  126. neo-neocon

    So I guess what I am saying about my changing is that there is no single point but a continuum of change from total libtard in my 20s to something of a realist because all along I have noticed the inability of the left to come to grips with human nature or accept reality. That said, after I voted for Clinton the first time, I swore never again would I vote for a democrat.

  127. Matt_SE Says:
    January 31st, 2016 at 1:17 pm
    @geokstr,
    Anyone who tells you they are going to unite the party is a liar. The core of the two main Republican factions have opposite goals; goals that CANNOT co-exist.
    Geez, Matt, did you even read what I said?

    I said I wanted someone to unite the various factions that made up the 40% of Americans who self-identify as “conservatives”. I defined them as “…Nixon’s “silent majority”, the Reagan Democrats, social conservatives (which includes lots of blacks and hispanics) and fiscal and Constitutional conservatives.”

    Did I miss where I included the RINOs, the liberal/moderate Republicans, the crony capitalists, et al? I consider them to be the biggest traitors of all, because they enabled the slow creep towards Marxism by failing to confront it while enriching themselves.

    Would I have been clearer if I’d said a “uniter like Reagan”? I wanted someone to unite conservatives, not Republicans.

  128. geokstr

    The democrat party is really the National Socialist Party now. Crony crapitalism is the halmark of that political system. It is a worldwide phenomenon now known as globalism. If you think about it who really won WWII and is it really over or did the contestants just call a truce so they could re-organize? Organize…… Hmmmm. I know someone who listed that as a occupation.

    Tongue in cheek humor here folks. No need for flame throwers.

  131. “In answer to Ben Johnson and another commenter, I explained here that I know full well it’s a rebellion. I’ve also written about that phenomenon many times before on this blog, too, although as a newcomer I wouldn’t expect Ben Johnston to know that.” neo

    I believe I was that other commenter and in a follow up response @ 10:29 I said, “I have never thought that you had ignored the ‘rebellious’ aspect in this election. In fact, just the opposite.”

    In my comments, I never suggested that the rebellion aspect had escaped your notice neo. I did agree with Ben that the rebellion aspect was the major factor in Trump’s support.

  132. Neo-neocon: Writes

    Trump is the one candidate with nearly unlimited resources to buy others–their support, their silence, their cooperation, their acquiescence for fear of being lied about and smeared.

    In the grand scheme of billionaires, Trump is small potatoes.

    #1, Bill Gates, is a big fan of Common Core
    #2, Warren Buffet is a big fan of planned parenthood and liberal
    #5, the Koch Brothers, are conservatives
    #7, Mark Zuckerberg is an Open Borders Obama supporter who devoted vast resources to Obama’s IT systems to track and motivate voters
    #8, Michael Bloomberg is a Democrat who ran as Republican to buy the office of NY mayor
    #10, Larry Page is an Obama supporter who also devoted vast resources to Obama’s IT effort systems to track and motivate voters
    #11, Sergey Brin – See #10.
    #15, Sheldon Adelson supports Republicans, but is holding his hand close to his chest.

    Trump comes in at #121. His measly $4.5 billion is dwarfed by the sums that Sheldon Adelson ($26 billion) and the Koch Brothers ($41 billion) could spend on the GOP side.

    The one thing Trump supporters say is that he can’t be bought. However, there are 120 billionaires out there who are richer than Trump and can spend what it takes via Super PACs, to support their chosen candidate. They can’t buy Trump but they can buy a Cruz or Rubio or Bush.

    It was support from the likes of Zuckerberg, Brin and Page that helped Obama beat Romney. Silicon valley leftists from Google and FB helped build the software that powered Obama’s campaign and get-out-the-vote effort.

    The Romney campaign had nothing to match it. Its Project Orca was a disaster. So much for Romney’s management expertise; he got suckered by GOP campaign consultants who sold him a pig-in-a-poke. Project Orca never got tested under the load of a simulated election. Trump’s management style is simple: hire the best and watch them closely.

    Trump has been called the “Blue Collar Billionaire”. He seems to have an affinity with people who build things with their own hands. I built computer software architectures in my professional life, and I know what it takes to create something out of thousands of different parts under intense time constraints. My structures were the vehicles for managing health care benefits, pension funds, payrolls, investments and system interfaces. Unlike Trump, I didn’t have the skills stack to translate that into a business I owned.

    So, you can kvetch and whine about how nasty Mr. Trump may be, but us vulgarians recognize and value someone who has concrete accomplishments instead of broken campaign promises.

  133. PatD:

    Your comparison to other billionaires is irrelevant. Who cares where Trump stands in the hierarchy of billionaires? He’s been one of the people who’s been buying and selling politicians for most of his adult life, with no principles whatsoever except the narcissistic one of benefiting Trump.

    He will “govern” the same way, and with the same level of lying and self-interest.

    And indeed, his accomplishments are concrete—as in, construction, and making money in construction (with a little reality TV on the side). That’s what he knows, and as far as I’m concerned he’s quite good at it. He hasn’t lied about any campaign promises because he’s never held public office, and I’d like to keep it that way.

  134. Ann,

    My intent is not to insult you…. your willingness to reference sources such as the DMR (a progressive bird cage liner) or the rino Iowan (excluding Grassley and King) establishment is one of two things. Either you are naive, or your support of Rubio is such that you are willing to accept anything that smears other candidates carte blanche. The only other possibility is you are actually a trumpster,aka, dnc supporter.

  135. Hmpf. Where do I fit in this classification scheme?

    “Cruz supporter who will have nary an issue voting for The Donald, and doesn’t see the point of fearing a Trump Presidency, and thinks it-can’t-get-any-worse-anyways-and-since-the-preceding-hasn’t-worked-for-us-anyways-let’s-give-the-filthy-rich-business-guy-a-shot-because-at-least-he-ain’t-too-likely-to-be-having-his-strings-pulled-by-modern-Illuminati-and-is-no-longer-persuaded-by-bs-appeals-about-electability.”

    Just. So.

  136. PatD:
    #5, the Koch Brothers, are conservatives

    They’re libertarians, not conservatives. Socially liberal – pro-abortion, pro-legalizing drugs, and lots more. Don’t specifically know about illegal immigration & amnesty, but open borders is quite popular with mainstream libertarians.

    In fact, you’d think leftists would have a hard time demonizing them, but with Marxists 100% obedience to ideology is the lowest degree of conformity allowed.

  137. @neo-neocon: You write:

    He’s been one of the people who’s been buying and selling politicians for most of his adult life, with no principles whatsoever except the narcissistic one of benefiting Trump.

    You fail to understand that the political class is totally corrupt. Every significant organization is forced to pay tribute or they are denied access to the corridors of power. Peter Schweizer documents how the system works. If a CEO is concerned about the impact of upcoming legislation on his company, he can call the politicians who run the committees drafting the legislation. But the politician will not take the call if the CEO’s company is not on his or her list of donors. Trump is one of the few who has publicly said that he donates to politicians to buy access. Others will not say it; it would be like publicly announcing you pay protection money to the Mafia.

    You don’t have to take my word or Peter Schweizer’s word for it.

    John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, recalls, “If you are invited [to a fund raiser], you are expected to be there. There is an implicit aspect of the request that makes that clear. And when you get there, you better show up with a check.”

    Hofmeister’s description of these events resembles a shakedown. Not much needs to be said, unless you fail to comply. “You are standing in the room, and there is a glass bowl in the center. You are supposed to place your check in that bowl. Someone who works for the politician is watching from the corner to make sure everyone puts their check in the bowl. It’s public. If you don’t — they are going to come and ask you why. That is the expectation.”

    And if you fail to pay your tithe? Politicians will be very blunt, says Hofmeister. “ËœWhy am I meeting with you?” they will ask. “ËœWhat have you done for me?”

    Many executives and corporate PACs do what Hofmeister did — they purposely give to both sides. It’s kind of like paying protection money to two rival gangs.”I made it a practice to give to each side equally,” he told me. “If you want access or to raise something with them that concerns you, they check to see if you are a donor before they meet with you.”

    Compare what Trump said at the first debate with what Hofmeister said.

    Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

    “You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”

    The only complaints came from two candidates who yelled that they had received no Trump money. As Trump continued to talk, he was interrupted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., complaining that Trump instead gave campaign contributions to Rubio’s Democratic opponent.

    “I hope you will give to me,” said Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

    “Sounds good. Sounds good to me, governor,” said Trump.

    Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”

    You are excoriating Trump for telling the truth: CEO’s donate to politicians to buy access. They are not narcissists for doing that; they are simply looking out for their shareholders and employees.

  138. PatD:

    You are illogical, among other things.

    I don’t fail to understand political corruption. What I said about Trump indicates that I understand it only too well—he’s been a prime mover and shaker in that system, from the other end of it. Trump does what Trump thinks will favor Trump. That’s the entire purpose of his life, that and gaining power.

    You fail to understand the points I’ve made over and over, and I no longer have the time to explain them to you, patiently, again and again. Your goal may be to tire people out that way.

  139. Anyone been to American Thinker today?

    As of 1:32PM, February 1, 2016, all of the articles either questioning or criticizing Trump’s POTUS run cannot be reached. They are all met with a 404 error (non-existent link). All the articles supporting Trump or neutral can be reached. Articles commenting on foreign policy are victims of the 404 error as well (foreign policy not Trump’s forte).

  140. @Oldflyer: There was one mistake – investing in Atlantic City. It resulted in four bankruptcies.

  141. @GRA – My wife got that nasty fake support pop-up there.

    One of the Trump articles gives a 404 error. The other Trump links (one pro, one against) work.

  142. @neo-neocon: I understand your points. I just don’t agree with some of them.

    I don’t see what is illogical in explaining how the system works. As I make clear, I’m just quoting Peter Schweizer, who has researched and documented how the system works. I suppose that makes him illogical, too. BTW, I have no idea where Schweizer stands on Trump. He may loathe him as much as you do.

  143. PatD:

    Once again, you are not understanding what I’m saying.

    I was responding to your comment at 2:03 PM where you wrote to me: “You fail to understand that the political class is totally corrupt.” I have already responded to that here. I think my response was pretty clear, and yet it seems to puzzle you.

    Nothing I have said indicates you need to explain how the system works or that I fail to understand it, as I explained to you already here. There is no logical connection between my point of view and your conclusion that I don’t understand how the system works and you need to explain it.

    I don’t know whether you are actually a troll or just find it hard to follow an argument. I don’t mean to be insulting, but I don’t know how else to state it. I’ve spent more time explaining to you that your arguments are irrelevant than I care to spend.

    This isn’t about disagreeing on Trump. This is about something else.

  144. @ PatD: I’ve rechecked the links and all the articles not in favor of Trump published on Feb. 1st cannot be reached. Articles before that date are accessible.

  145. Regardless, Trump is the New Obama in terms of his supporters doing insidious things, troll-like, to quiet dissenters. Shame on them.

  146. @neo-neocon: We seem to be going in circles. You say Trump is mean and nasty because he buys and sells politicians. I say he does what every CEO of a large corporation has to do: donate to politicians to buy access. He may still be mean and nasty for all the other reasons you cite, but donating to politicians doesn’t make him mean and nasty and he doesn’t donate to politicians because he is mean and nasty. He is or was part of a corrupt system. That’s the point I was trying to make.

    Anyway, I’ll shut up now.

  147. Interesting background data from Libertybelle. I’ll be sure to read that source and archive it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑