by Jack
Donald Trump is leading the polls, with a 52% approval rating from republicans! Of the remainder, 42% of them that back another candidate want him to stay in the race. This is despite his recklessly brash campaign style and that he sometimes touts the Democrats!
What has made Trump persona non grata among establishment republicans is precisely what makes him popular among the every-day republicans. He’s expressing their pent-up anger and frustration with the old, stodgy, lying brand politics.
By criticizing GOP leaders, taking on the toughest issues and going where other the candidates fear to tread Trump is like a modern day version of Teddy Roosevelt, but in a tailored Armani suit with Magani loafers.
For now Trump is exciting and he’s saying things so bluntly and honestly its hyper-refreshing. Despite the considerable efforts of those who are out to get “The Donald” off the big stage, he remains untouchable. It seems as if Trump can’t say anything too divisive because before his remark has taken hold or the media has a chance to exploit it, he’s zooming off with a new one sensational quote…it’s been pow, pow, pow! Trump is firing faster than the MSM can type! He’s dancing like a butterfly, floating like a bee… and he has the media spotlight right where he wants it.
There’s something amazing taking place right before our eyes, Donald Trump is raising the tolerance bar, he’s acclimating the mainstream media and the other candidates to a whole new level of bold! And he’s doing it so fast that the other candidates can’t grab a headline. Heck, they hardly have time to catch their breath for a rebuttal before the Donald has moved on. Rather than try to respond to The Donald they would do better to reassess their own campaign style that has them all lagging well behind Trump and that goes for the Dems too.
For all his shortcomings, and they are many, Trump’s abrasive, blunt, honest talk is exactly what is needed at this moment in time to get the republican party rolling and breath some life back into it. When Trump’s flamboyance subsides, he will have taught the other candidates the value of being straight forward truthful without regard to the consequences.
“Be always sure you’re right — THEN GO AHEAD!” Davy Crocket, 1834
This is exactly what Trump is doing.
Roosevelt, Crocket and others made their mark on American history because they had the courage of their convictions. They didn’t care much for Washington politics and backroom deal-makers and neither does Trump. They were fearless and they took huge chances. And when necessary they were willing to separate themselves from the pack and go it alone. Trump has already threatened to do that if the GOP tries to block him.
Crocket was fond of saying, “Look at my arms, you will find no party hand-cuff on them!” That’s The Donald, for better or worse. He will not be owned by anyone.
Note: I am neither for or against Trump at this time, I am just applauding him sticking it to those who needed it.
““Be always sure you’re right — THEN GO AHEAD!” Davy Crocket, 1834 This is exactly what Trump is doing.”
Sure, except for the “being right” part.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
🙂 Yep me too, “Note: I am neither for or against Trump at this time, I am just applauding him sticking it to those who needed it”.
And these days THEY ALL NEED IT!
Harold…oh soooootrue! I wish I could tell em personally, but Trump is a pretty good proxy.
And Jack there’s a whole bunch of targets. 😉
That there is! I think we probably have better people for President than Mr. Trump. People who are smarter, more ethical, more diplomatic, etc., but for now I am enjoying Donald kicking some butt.
Wouldn’t it be entertaining, if not also reveling, if we could get Trump and Clinton in a no holds barred debate.
There’s a reason dumb bullies are often popular in high school; an unfortunate number of people actually look up to and aspire to be stupid bullies. When people say “Donald Trump says what others are thinking,” that’s not a compliment, either to Trump or to others who think like him. Trump is giving voice to those who simply don’t care about serious analysis, only incoherent rage. He’s for people who think Sarah Palin was too much of an establishment beltway candidate.
He doesn’t even have the defense of speaking truth in a blunt way; nearly everything he says is false (see Politifact link above). He’s lied about his business and wealth for his entire career, and now he’s lying about our government. That so many admire him is distressing, and nothing to celebrate. The man is an embarassment to our country.
“When people say “Donald Trump says what others are thinking,” that’s not a compliment, either to Trump or to others who think like him. Trump is giving voice to those who simply don’t care about serious analysis, only incoherent rage. He’s for people who think Sarah Palin was too much of an establishment beltway candidate.”
Chris some of us just prefer to enjoy the moment without getting emotionally involved. The presidential race has a long way to go and I don’t think The Donald is going to stay on top in the polls for too long. However, I disagree about his rage…it’s perfectly coherent.
“The man is an embarrassment to our country.” Wait, are we’re talking about Obama now or Trump? : )
If I had to make a choice between The Donald or Barack Hussein Obama, geez I’d go with Trump in heartbeat! No contest. But, if it was between Jeb Bush. Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, or Rick Santorum I would have to think about it really hard. These are all pretty good candidates and any one of them would make a better president than Obama…IMHO.
Good post, just needed to correct the subject matter:
“She” doesn’t even have the defense of speaking truth in a blunt way; nearly everything “She” says is false She’s lied about Her roles in politics and wealth for Her entire career, and now She’s lying about our government. That so many admire her it is distressing, and nothing to celebrate. The woman is an embarassment to our country.
TheDonald’s popularity is growing ’cause he says what many folks think instead of the smoke and barnyard residue spread by professional politicians – on both sides of the aisle.
Love it that he has the media’s drawers in a twist because he refuses to bow to their version of political correctness.
Whether you like TheDonald or not, he’s certainly saying things that NEEDED saying!
Chris: “Trump is giving voice to those who simply don’t care about serious analysis, only incoherent rage.”
Incoherent rage? How about genuine, well founded anger. You don’t get it’ that doesn’t mean its incoherent much less rage.
And since that is your perception? It takes one to know one!
J. Soden: “TheDonald’s popularity is growing ’cause he says what many folks think”
Yes, that’s the problem. “Many folks” are stupid, and Trump appeals to their stupidity. He tells them it’s OK to be stupid; that all the “intellectuals” out there who think they’re smarter than they are are the real problem, and that there’s no need to think seriously about any policy when you can just go with your gut. It is a very comforting philosophy to some people.
Slavish embrace of radical ideology,” radical solutions to nonexistent problems, supporting those who push such for personal, political and monetary gain or political power is not “thinking seriously.”
But you go ahead, be a slave to propaganda and lies, don’t bother to question anything, and continue to pretend you are intellectually superior.
You are so arrogant!
Chris is a legend in his own mind . . . . .
Must be awfully tiring to be such an authority on everything and have to deal with all of us stupids . . .
Apparently Donald Trump’s lawyer doesn’t think spousal rape is a thing, as he revealed while threatening The Daily Beast with a lawsuit if they published information from a decades-old book:
“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. So I’m warning you, tread very f—ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f—ing disgusting. You understand me? You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it…
…You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse. It is true. You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/07/28/what-a-surprise-donald-trump-has-an-unethical-lawyer/#more-28025
This is the guy Trump trusts to be his lawyer.
Because the lawyer is a stupid thug, just like Donald Trump.
Trumps aide was forced to apologize for his angry comment. Also Ivana (his ex) claims she was never raped while Trumps wife, this was pertaining to some marital event that happened way back in 1989. But, the Daily Beast was trying to make it sound like he did rape her and that is what caused the ruckus. That false allegation would be enough to make anyone mad.
Trump is smart and those who deny his abilities do so to their own regret. His business successes reflects his negotiation skills.
His thumbing his nose at the RNC with his threat to go third party if they continue to attack him and not support him is worthy of kicking back with some popcorn. It’s comical hearing Preibus defend the GOP/RNC while not offending Trump.
Reince Priebus: Trump Won’t Run as Third-Party Candidate:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/reince-priebus-trump-wont-run-as-third-party-candidate/
Trump, RNC’s Priebus have a little chat:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-rncs-priebus-have-little-chat
Both of these guys are New Yorkers. New Yorkers have very different standards than we do about self expression.
Divorce is rarely amicable when a lot of money is involved. But the Donald and Ivahna are apparently now friends. They have successfully raised their children together…and she just endorsed him for president. How credible can the allegation be?
It’s a lawyers job to go on the attack when his client is being smeared in the press, especially on questionable charges of something as ugly as rape.
How is it that there is so little upset in the media and on the left over the rape and sexual harassmentcharges against Bill Clinton?
See also http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/28/paglia-bill-clinton-is-like-bill-cosby/“>Paglia: Bill Clinton is Like Bill Cosby
Well the diversionist once more attempts to misdirect the direction of Jacks post about the powerful interest people have taken in Trumps speeches and comments.
Chris would not have us discuss the importance of what Trump is saying, as it might have unnerving consequences for his Liberal party candidate of unanswered questions and lies. More it may serve to wake up independent voters who are looking for a more conservative approach to governing. It very well could wake up some Conservative candidates as well, and that also would be a big problem for Clinton.
Chris turns Trumps comment about “intellectuals” into a negative, but could Trump be talking about those very same intellectuals that comprise Obamas cabinet. Trump has a point and there are many times common sense can prove more effective that a concept from an academic lecture. Remember the old saying of” those who can do and those who can’t teach”
It should come as no surprise that basically Chris’s “Many folks” are stupid is directed toward anyone whose comments do not share Liberal views. It is not just a subtle or casual remark,they never are.
Chris intention in his snippy remarks are simply to berate those that understand the foundation of Trumps words. Trumps comments are fair from being misunderstood, unlike, say, “Hope and Change”, they are his honest evaluation of today’s politicians, in any party.
Should you view them as to the point , refreshingly blatant, as well as open dissention toward today’s political failure in America, then you are far from stupid.
Failure in politics, especially those during Obamas reign is what has ignited Trumps ire, and his unbridled self-promoting banter is what the attention is about, but the media, much like Chris, needs to make it about the man himself.
I any case, whatever Trump is saying is what has been needed to be said in American for years, and you do not have to be an academic highbrow to understand that.
J.Sodens comment about “The Donald’s popularity is growing ’cause he says what many folks think instead of the smoke and barnyard residue spread by professional politicians – on both sides of the aisle” is dead on correct!
Trump is quite the phenomenon right now. He really is giving a voice to what a lot of people are thinking by taking on all the politically correct dogmas that public discourse has been strangled with lately.
How is he doing it? He’s not the first political person to use abrasive language. He’s not the first to say we have a problem at our border or that Obama is doing a horrible job. Some of it is the combination and some is that he’s good at putting on the sideshow.
It’s not Trump’s fault that our government has cause so much anger and distrust in its peoples. The left is in a desperate dash to destroy everything we stand for while the establishment right seem to twiddle their thumbs. Trump is just filling a void.
But he is still the sideshow. I may like that his voice is out there but that doesn’t mean I see him as our best choice to lead the country. There are other conservative candidates who have actually brought real reforms in government (Walker, Perry). It’s because Trump has never been tested in public office that I don’t know if we can trust him, but if it comes down to Trump (big ego, possible crook) VS Hillary Clinton (big ego, absolutely a crook) I will have to vote with Trump.
And finally,
Maybe if Obama would quit thumbing his nose at middle America and let us make a living we wouldn’t all be so desperate for someone like Trump to save us. If the GOP establishment had just took more of a stand for us and not succumbed to Obama, it could be them we were cheering for.
I’m not pretending to be intellectually superior to Trump fans. I know that I am. No intellectually sound person could support such a contemptible individual. I’m sorry if you find that “arrogant.” It’s true.
Jack, I don’t know if Ivana’s original allegations were true or if her later recantation was; that’s why I didn’t make that the issue. Trump’s lawyers statements weren’t simply “angry,” they show that he doesn’t have a clue about the law, the profession he has chosen. If this is the type of incompetence he employs, what kind of people would he surround himself with as president?
Chris, yeah it was a stupid move. Time for his people to act like adults.
Chris I have to say that while I’m not Trump’s biggest supporter, I wasn’t that impressed with the objectivity of the Politifact site you used. It seemed they were taking his opinions/exaggerations and calling them lies but then admitting in some cases that the real data doesn’t exist. If you want to shoot this guy down, you need to take a real statement he’s made and actually refute it. Just know that even if he’s caught in a lie, that is something that Bill Clinton was always praised for being able to do and wiggle out of. Some people will follow a liar if it appears he’s a fighter….
Tina: “Both of these guys are New Yorkers. New Yorkers have very different standards than we do about self expression.”
Are you suggesting that New Yorkers regularly lie about the law? Because that’s what Trump’s lawyer did. “It’s just that New Yorker attitude” is one of your more creative rationalizations for unethical behavior, but it’s just insulting to ethical New Yorkers.
Harold: “Well the diversionist once more attempts to misdirect the direction of Jacks post about the powerful interest people have taken in Trumps speeches and comments.”
Yes, how dare I turn a conversation about Donald Trump into a conversation about Donald Trump. You caught me! Foiled again!
“Chris would not have us discuss the importance of what Trump is saying,”
I will gladly discuss any statement made by Trump. Any particular statements you’d like me to weigh in on? How about when he insulted John McCain for getting captured in Vietnam while Trump was home living large on his daddy’s fortune? How about his many lies about Obama’s birth certificate? How about his ludicrous statements that Mexico is intentionally forcing immigrants into America?
” as it might have unnerving consequences for his Liberal party candidate of unanswered questions and lies.”
It’s adorable that you think Trump is hurting the Democrats.
“Trump has a point and there are many times common sense can prove more effective that a concept from an academic lecture.”
True, but irrelevant, as Trump possesses neither.
“It should come as no surprise that basically Chris’s “Many folks” are stupid is directed toward anyone whose comments do not share Liberal views.”
No. I’ve never called all conservatives stupid, nor would I ever. I don’t believe Trump or his supporters represent the views of all conservatives.
And the conservatives here should hope to high heaven that no one else thinks they do, either.
Steve: “Chris I have to say that while I’m not Trump’s biggest supporter, I wasn’t that impressed with the objectivity of the Politifact site you used. It seemed they were taking his opinions/exaggerations and calling them lies but then admitting in some cases that the real data doesn’t exist. If you want to shoot this guy down, you need to take a real statement he’s made and actually refute it.”
So if I made the claim “Steve likes to shoot kittens while wearing a Sailor Jupiter costume,” the burden would be on you to refute that?
Of course not. My statement would be accurately called a lie, precisely because the data/evidence for it doesn’t exist. If you make an assertion (not an “opinion;” there is a difference) that is not backed up by any evidence, and if you haven’t personally verified it’s accuracy,, then you are by definition lying.
I don’t buy into the politically correct idea that all opinions are equally valid. There is such a thing as facts, and there is such a thing as right and wrong in some cases. That’s what Politifact weighs in on–not “opinions.”
“Just know that even if he’s caught in a lie, that is something that Bill Clinton was always praised for being able to do and wiggle out of.”
By whom? I certainly don’t see being a good liar as an admirable quality. Neither is the ability to draw equivalences to rationalize unethical behavior.
Chris: “Are you suggesting that New Yorkers regularly lie about the law? Because that’s what Trump’s lawyer did.”
No!
I am suggesting that when angry, and the Trump people had a lot to be angry about(accusations of rape are serious), NY’ers have been known to be over the top in their speech. I have no idea what motivated him to say what he did other than anger. I wasn’t commenting on a specific sentence. Geez! Lighten up!
It’s adorable that you don’t get it. What people like, whether they agree with Trump or not, is that he speaks his mind! It’s refreshing!!
Politicians from both sides have been intimidated and coached to be careful about what they say. They pander. And they automatically go into cover your butt mode when asked direct questions.
Trump doesn’t have to “hurt the democrats” anyway, they’ve done a terrific job of that all by themselves!
“By whom?”
Democrats!
Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar”- Bob Kerry, Democrat, 1996
RE Bill Clinton: “he’s a consummate liar” – Kurt Andersen, New York Magazine
He got others to lie for him too, which makes him an unusually good schemer about his lies.
“I just got sick and tired of lying for the fella.” — Jim McDougal on Clinton.
He lied to the nation on TV and nearly got away with it.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” — Bill Clinton on Monica Lewinsky
Through it all the Democrats still loved him, supported him, and made excuses; the women shrugged and fawned after him.
(In contrast Clarence Thomas was harassed and demeaned in public hearings for telling off color jokes in a he said/she said situation)
He was held accountable by a single person; the judge in the Paula Jones case after she discovered he lied to her in court.
Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case
His lies didn’t matter and he was admired ofr getting away with them.
“I certainly don’t see being a good liar as an admirable quality.”
The party you support does, in general.
“Neither is the ability to draw equivalences to rationalize unethical behavior.”
Be certain what you’re reading is a rationalization before putting on that hall monitor hat.
Tina: “I have no idea what motivated him to say what he did other than anger.”
Might I suggest incompetence, dishonesty, and a complete lack of ethics, for starters?
I mean, this is Donald Trump’s lawyer–his actual job is to threaten and then file frivolous lawsuits against anyone who insults his boss. Does anyone really believe this was uncharacteristic behavior? He’s an attack dog working for a guy who is already an obnoxious loudmouth–I’d be surprised if this wasn’t how he normally spoke to people in his daily life.
“What people like, whether they agree with Trump or not, is that he speaks his mind! It’s refreshing!!”
I do get that, Tina. I simply disagree with it. When one’s mind is as empty and deluded as Trump’s, there is nothing “refreshing” about letting every stupid thought out of one’s mouth. I don’t believe our nation is suffering from a critical shortage of people saying dumb stuff. We don’t need anyone to lower the standards of civility and discourse–it’s bad enough already. That Trump has managed to further pollute our national dialogue is, I suppose, a strange kind of achievment–I honestly didn’t think we could sink much lower as a society, and Trump has proven me wrong about that. But that is nothing to celebrate.
None of your quotes show that Clinton was praised for being a good liar, which is what Steve said. In fact the Jim McDougal quote criticizes him for it, so that does not help the claim that Clinton was praised for being a good liar.
“Might I suggest incompetence, dishonesty, and a complete lack of ethics”
You can suggest all you want, this is a free speech blog!
I might suggest that if someone publicly accused my husband or sons of rape (And for political reasons!!!) I would hope my lawyer would respond with as much passion.
It’s telling that you are rarely outraged by the substance of an issue but prefer to nit pick and play hall monitor!
“I’d be surprised if this wasn’t how he normally spoke to people in his daily life.”
Ever been to New York? I’d be surprised if he didn’t.
It might just be that many of the people who attack Trump, or any celebrity, have an agenda of their own. You are sure quick to judge this guy.
“When one’s mind is as empty and deluded as Trump’s”
Or as arrogant and snobbish as you?
The discourse in this nation will never be raised as long as we are as divided as we are and as long as the left continues it’s Alinsky ways. As I said long ago, the republicans played gentleman for decades and the left won in Congress by convincing the public that our guys were interested in harming old people and children, that government spending and high taxes create great economy and jobs, etc. You didn’t witness the years I’m talking about so I’ll cut you some slack. But you need to get that this is a battle for the future of our country. It’s not just a give and take debate.
Jim McDougal spent decades lying himself about the White Water scandal! Of course he thought Bill Clinton was a good liar. I think what he got tired of is taking the fall for Bill Clinton.
The media and most of the democrats fawned over Bill Clinton. They thought they had found the new Kennedy and Camelot would return to Washington. He could do no wrong and his political agility, including his ability to lie his way out of scandal, was admired…period!
Sorry but this was admiration: Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar” – Bob Kerry, Democrat, 1996
Two Trump supporter that are guaranteed to crack you up. Warning strong language!
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/30129-these-ladies-support-of-donald-trump-is-actually-funny-and-entertaining
Like trump or not he is not who the regular public thinks he is. He also does not believe half of what he says on the stump he is pandering for votes when it comes to the outrageous stuff. He is trying to show how to win the Republican base. Say Crazy stuff!
listen to some of his old interviews with howard stern as friends they talk turkey on the air.
Donald is a Plutocrat. he made money off our bankruptcy laws.
Ask a New Yorker who he is. Not who he is betrayed as in media. Also he was a hired host of the celebrity. It was a TV show not some great accomplishment.
If ya want Trump to win vote for him. But all this talk like a Plutocrat should be president? WOW we are not a company to run.
Tina: “I might suggest that if someone publicly accused my husband or sons of rape (And for political reasons!!!) I would hope my lawyer would respond with as much passion.”
Well, sure. But I would also hope my lawyer wouldn’t respond by revealing a contemptible ignorance of the law, like saying that it’s impossible for a husband to rape his wife.
Note that my main critique wasn’t about his “passion;” it was about his ignorance of the law, and how that reflects on the presidential candidate he is representing.
“It might just be that many of the people who attack Trump, or any celebrity, have an agenda of their own. You are sure quick to judge this guy.”
I think everyone has enough evidence to judge Trump with near perfect accuracy. He demonstrated his character long before he started running for president. He demonstrated it in his feud with Rosie O’Donnel, wherein he frequently insulted her weight; he demonstrated it during the Birther fiasco; he demonstrated it when he criticized John McCain for “getting captured” and tortured as a POW; he demonstrated it when he gave out Lindsey Graham’s private phone number; and he demonstrates it daily in his boorish, thuggish conduct.
There is no reason to suspend judgment any further. All of these events in isolation would point to a pretty nasty human being. Taken together, and given the fact that he apologized for not a single one of these events, paint a clear picture of an obnoxious bully. I know you have a hard time admitting that, since he happens to be an obnoxious bully who is popular with your side. Were he running as a Democrat, and behaved in the exact same way, I have little doubt you’d have no problem criticizing him in the exact terms I am now.
“The discourse in this nation will never be raised as long as we are as divided as we are and as long as the left continues it’s Alinsky ways.”
Both the left and right follow the Alinsky rules as you’ve described them to me, Tina. You can’t put all the onus of responsibility on one side.
“As I said long ago, the republicans played gentleman for decades and the left won in Congress by convincing the public that our guys were interested in harming old people and children,”
And that was wrong and unethical. I don’t believe Republicans intentionally want to cause harm to old people and children. That’s a ridiculous thing to believe, and it denies the fundamental humanity of a huge group of people. Democrats who say this should be ashamed of themselves.
“that government spending and high taxes create great economy and jobs, etc.”
This is not similar to the unethical behavior you mentioned before; this is an issue of legitimate public disagreement, not an anti-Republican slur.
“Jim McDougal spent decades lying himself about the White Water scandal! Of course he thought Bill Clinton was a good liar.”
Again, I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a good liar; I’m saying you failed to show that people admired him for being a good liar.
“The media and most of the democrats fawned over Bill Clinton. They thought they had found the new Kennedy and Camelot would return to Washington.”
Well, in a way he did; both Clinton and Kennedy were moderate Democrats who screwed around on their wives.
I’ve no interest in defending Clinton. He was clearly an ethical trainwreck in at least his personal life. I can’t speak to the rape/sexual assault allegations, except to say that I don’t think they’re similar to the allegations against Cosby; for one thing, Cosby has him beat by sheer numbers. One woman, Juanita Broderick, accused Clinton of rape; two others accused him of sexual harassment. I have no idea what the facts are in these cases, but from what I’ve read, my suspicion is that the harassment charges are true while the rape allegation is false. Again, that’s just from my limited understanding of the issue.
In the interest of being fair and balanced…
Did anyone see this headline from the Hill?
“Cecil the lion’s killer donated to Romney”
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/07/29/unethical-headline-of-the-month-the-hill/comment-page-1/#comment-344259
Wow. I’m not one to complain about liberal bias in the media…but wow. This has got to be one of the most unethical and pointless articles I’ve ever seen.
I can’t even fathom the mind of someone who read the story of Cecil the lion and thought, “Ooh! I wonder what political party the lion’s killer belonged to!” Who does that? Who is that much of a partisan hack? And what kind of website would publish such yellow journalism?
The dentist who killed the lion is not a political figure, and no one could argue with a straight face that his killing of the lion was politically motivated. So who cares what politician he donated to? Why would anyone even look into that? How is that remotely news?
I thought Trump was the nadir of our political discourse, but this article honestly offends me more, since it’s a) apparently written by someone on “my side” (a fellow liberal) and b) way more sinister than any of Trump’s verbal farts. I think a lot liberals will read the headline and think nothing more than “Yeah, Romney and lion killers both suck!” without thinking through the ethics of the article itself. It’s so clearly a bad attempt at guilt by association, directed at someone who isn’t even running for any kind of office. I can’t stand Romney, but this kind of blatant personal attack–over something that has no actual bearing on Romney’s character–is so unethical and ridiculous that I find myself sympathizing with Romney in this case.
I certainly won’t be reading or linking to articles in the Hill anymore, and speaking as a liberal, I think this particular article is definitely an example of unfair liberal bias in the media.
(To clarify, the article I linked to above isn’t the Hill piece; it’s an Ethics Alarms article critiquing the Hill piece. I don’t always agree with the blogger [also a conservative named Jack], but his analysis in this case is spot on.)
Re Rosie…she more than anyone has had a foul mouth when personally disparaging and attacking those with whom she disagrees. I can muster no sympathy for her on that score. As I said, New Yorkers have different ideas about how they speak to one another.
Regarding Bill Clinton, I guess you had to be there. Your comment on his behavior sounds white washed considering your attitudes about rape. I imagine they come from the liberals you follow. Left feminist hypocrites defended and fawned over this man at a time when an affectionate hug or kiss on the cheek by a republican made him a monster in their eyes.
Your comment also brushes off the fawning press that is supposed to be politically/ideologically neutral and interested in getting at the truth.
Clinton’s Presidency was no Camelot…not even close. From White Water to Lewinsky his rise to the presidency was a lesson in sleazy corruption and abuse of women.
Illinoise Review lists those women we know about:
Tina, at least some of that list is inaccurate; Elizabeth Ward Gracen, for instance, claims she never accused Clinton of rape, and that their encounter was consensual. I can find no statement directly attributed to her in which she accuses Clinton of rape or sexual assault. There were rumors that she had made such an accusation, but she denied them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/actress-admits-affair-with-clinton/
The article makes no links to the rest of the names, and I’m not going to look into every single one. Like I said, I have little interest in defending Clinton. My Kennedy comparison was just to point out that Kennedy was probably just as sleazy, he just didn’t get caught.
I don’t want Bill or Hilary back in the White House. The fact that it’s probably gonna come back to Hilary or Jeb Bush in 2016 is extremely depressing, and I predict it may lead to the rise of a viable third party candidate. I don’t think a third party will win, but I think the voters will see these two and finally get sick and tired of the limited options available to us as a democracy.
More proof Trump is smarter than the media gives him credit for. I’ll bet his polls will shoot up even more after announcing his pick for Attorney General.
BOOM: Donald Trump’s Pick For Attorney General… Liberals’ Worst Nightmare:
http://allenbwest.com/2015/07/boom-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-liberals-worst-nightmare/
He also announced he’d invite Sarah Palin to be in his cabinet. All the Palin fans will love that.
I expect he’ll announce more of his cabinet and advisor picks from popular conservative supporters as time goes on, which will raise his polls even more.
The only ones talking about Jeb Bush being the Republican candidates are RINO pundits and Democrats. They know he will lose just like Romney and McCain did. Bush would be the Democrat’s dream Republican candidate.
At least we agree that Hillary and Jeb Bush would be depressing. I’m not interested in dynasty government.
I sure hope we don’t get a third party candidate. The viable ones can’t win but they can sure mess up election results.
Update on IRS/Lois Lerner emails.
Federal Judge Threatens IRS Commissioner, DOJ Lawyers with Contempt of Court Over Lois Lerner Emails:
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/federal-judge-threatens-irs-commissioner-doj-lawyers-contempt-court-over-lois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook+&utm_campaign=b-judge-threatens-contempt
In 1988 Oprah asked Donald Trump if he would ever run for President!!!:
https://www.facebook.com/116687955016786/videos/1148994545119450/?fref=nf
Peggy: “More proof Trump is smarter than the media gives him credit for. I’ll bet his polls will shoot up even more after announcing his pick for Attorney General.
BOOM: Donald Trump’s Pick For Attorney General… Liberals’ Worst Nightmare:”
It amuses me what you think liberals are afraid of. Gowdy has spent the last few years trying to prove some kind of Benghazi cover-up. He has failed miserably, because there was no Benghazi cover-up. What is there to be afraid of?
And that’s assuming the wild hypothetical that Trump would win in the first place, which is never going to happen.
“He also announced he’d invite Sarah Palin to be in his cabinet.”
More proof of his incompetence.
“All the Palin fans will love that.”
Palin fans would love it if you dangled something shiny in front of them.
“The only ones talking about Jeb Bush being the Republican candidates are RINO pundits and Democrats. They know he will lose just like Romney and McCain did. Bush would be the Democrat’s dream Republican candidate.”
This is bubble logic. If all you ever talk to are other far right conservatives, then I guess I could see why you’d think McCain and Romney lost because they were “RINOs.” If, however, you talk to other human beings, and look at things like polling data, you’d notice that McCain and Romney’s general popularity fell once they started embracing more right-wing rhetoric and positions.
McCain was doing fine before he picked Palin as his VP. Romney was doing fine until he embraced the class warfare rhetoric of the lazy poors, and insulted half the country in order to get more money from a bunch of wealthy donors. These actions may have cost each of them their respective elections.
I don’t understand why far right conservatives don’t realize that in order to win a general election, you have to appeal to general public, not just far right conservatives. Who exactly would have stood a better chance against Barack Obama than McCain or Romney? Cruz? Bachmann? Cain? Santorum? This is a list of crazy people. Obama won because he was able to appeal to the general public, and his opponents were not. There is no way any of the far-right candidates would have been able to do so.
Far right conservatives are going to vote Republican anyway, regardless of if their candidate is a “RINO.” I highly doubt anyone who thought Obama was a Kenyan Marxist dictator was swayed away from voting Republican just because they were dissatisfied with Romney or McCain. I also think they’d vote for either of those guys in a heartbeat over Hilary.
I want Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee not because I’m afraid of the others (ha), but because he strikes me as the most rational person running in a field of completely irrational people. Your party is busy sabotaging itself in a contest over who can say the most radical and offensive things–so when Huckabee says Obama is leading the Israelis to the ovens, instead of stepping back and saying that’s inappropriate–like I believe Jeb has–Cruz sees that and realizes he needs to be even more extreme, and say that Obama is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world. This gets the base riled up. It does not win presidential elections.
If all I cared about was winning, then I’d be begging Republicans to make Trump their nominee.
Chris, No where in my post did I say Trump was my candidate of choice. I was pointing out I thought his move to announce his cabinet/advisors was a brilliant move. By doing so he’s gaining the votes of those individual’s supporters. Their candidate of choice may not be in the oval office, but they will have input to the president elect. And they’ll go to the voting booth to help get them there.
I believe Reagan did the same thing.
If you do a PS search you’ll find I stated my similar opinion about candidates doing this several months ago.
Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are my candidates of choice, because I believe with a combined 16 years of their leadership they will be able to deliver us from the progressive socialist road Democrats and progressive Republicans have us on. Without them we will end up like Greece and I don’t want my grandkids to deal with a life under a bankrupt country.
Jeb Bush is another progressive Republican just like his brother and father, which is why he has your support and why those of us who want a constitutionalist don’t like him.
Here is a video of Ted Cruz’s dad, which provides a view of the childhood and young adult life Ted grew up in.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rafael+cruz+ted+video&FORM=VIRE11#view=detail&mid=7DEFF01FEB8CF37AD84B7DEFF01FEB8CF37AD84B
Don’t waste your time attacking Cruz because you won’t change my mind and I won’t respond.
A comment I was working on just disappeared. So, here is a short version of it incase it turns up. Also, I’m having to put my name and email into every post, when before it was always there.
Chris, concerning you limited view of Trey Gowdy I recommend you watch a couple of his videos to see his prosecutor style of getting to the truth and complying to constitutional laws.
Trey Gowdy questions Jeh Johnson.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trey+gowdy+jeh+johnson&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=A188F2D08C7037F44369A188F2D08C7037F44369
Note Chris the below is from “People” magazine. I’ll bet this had Hillary’s handlers spinning on their heels knowing this was being seen by millions of uninformed voters.
Release Hillary Clinton’s Emails Already, Judge Demands:
“The judge’s complaints echo those of Republicans and State Department critics who have accused the agency of stalling its responses to FOIA requests in order to protect Clinton, particularly in relation to her involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack.”
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-email-release-delay-judge-slams-state-department
And last but not least are the wonderful articles comparing Hillary to Nixon with the supporting similar facts between them.
Hillary’s Emails and Nixon’s Tapes:
“Now here come the Clinton e-mails. Like Richard Nixon and his tapes, Clinton – for now – has 100 percent control of them. Already we have the tale of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell, as reported here in The Washington Times “claiming confidants of Hillary Rodham Clinton scrubbed files on the 2012 Benghazi attack before turning them over to the accountability review board, according to multiple news sources.” In other words, before the e-mail issue ever surfaced there is an eyewitness career official of the State Department claiming Mrs. Clinton had a cadre of the Clinton version of Rose Mary Woods doing for her just what Pat Buchanan believed the original Rose Mary Woods had done for Richard Nixon — destroying evidence to protect the boss. Who doesn’t believe that is the reason for the server in the Clinton home? To guarantee not only 100 percent control of all the Clinton e-mail traffic but — in the case of a subpoena for those e-mails just like there were subpoenas for Nixon’s tapes — guaranteeing the ability to destroy evidence with no one the wiser that it ever existed.
And like clockwork, there are the Democrats, the party that used its majority on the Senate Watergate Committee to issue a subpoena for Nixon’s tapes, howling in anger that the GOP-run Benghazi Committee is issuing a subpoena for the Clinton e-mails. Sauce for the goose is never sauce for the gander.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-lord/2015/03/07/hillarys-emails-and-nixons-tapes#sthash.B5aqJAw2.dpuf
Time to que up Biden.