77 thoughts on ““I Hate Donald Trump””

  1. I expect the Donald & Hill will mend their fences quickly after the Donald loses the election for Hillary.

    Perhaps even the greatest reality show performance in the Donald’s career. A brilliant election year “losing winner” strategy to aid a friend that would have otherwise hopelessly shot herself in the foot. A strategy that will be studied for decades to come. Lessons?

    1) How to consistently win primaries with <40% of the votes cast. By bringing in new voters who are not traditional party people to give you a solid 30% minority block and run in a party that brings in so many candidates that the party loyalists dilute their own votes to meaninglessness because of stupid, antiquated, winner-takes-all primary delegate rules in many key states.

    2) Brand your opponent. Works great for those who believe in branding & markets. For those of a socialist/communist top-down view, not so much….

    3) Garner free publicity at every turn by saying something outlandish. If you are of the proper ego you pat yourself on the back every time you go off script with one of your "witticisms".

    4) Somehow manage to offend the delegates from key battleground states by playing petty games at the convention.

    5) Flush the (R/D)INOs from supporting you, even though they control the party purse strings. But hey, you're a billionare (pre-tax) so f*ck 'em…

    6) You win regardless of the election outcome. Define your election bid as having "made a difference", then off to the status-quo…

    7) Prove to the American people by leveraging an eager MSM as best you can that the Republican Party remains squarely in the Party Of Stupid camp….

  2. giving them an illegitimate excuse to ignore Hillary’s actual scandals and crimes.

    Because with candidate Jeb Bush they would have been all over the scandals, reporting them accurately and honestly, and allowing the American people to arrive at their own opinion about her fitness for the office.

    Welcome to la-la land.

    1. There’s at least a chance that Bush would have focused on the scandals, and had a bit of campaign discipline. In any event, who said anything about Bush? Cruz sure would have gone for her jugular, and made it impossible to ignore her scandals.

      1. I doubt any sane person would argue that Cruz/Bush/etc. would be displaying a lack of campaign discipline the likes of which we are seeing today. In fact, I think most people would agree that the degree of campaign discipline we would be seeing would be favorably comparable to what Mitt Romney was displaying four years ago.

      2. and made it impossible to ignore her scandals.

        Cruz doesn’t control the media. They have zero obligation to focus on what he would want them to, and they wouldn’t.

        Its like saying that there wouldn’t be a problem with Islamic extremism if the USA didn’t exist.

        1. But Cruz wouldn’t be whining about how he’d be ahead if it wasn’t for the media. He’d be rubbing their nose in their obeisance to Her Highness and corruption every single day. Trump is too stupid to do that, just running his puddle of consciousness at rallies.

          2. I heard the speech. An occasional speech that someone else wrote read from a teleprompter doesn’t revise my opinion that he is an undisciplined candidate who will continue shoot himself in the foot on full auto.

          3. speech that someone else wrote read from a teleprompter doesn’t revise my opinion

            Of course not. /sarc

            Who gave that speech? What was the content? Doesn’t matter because it’s Trump. Unbelievably blatant.

          5. He’s going to be making a lot of them between now and November. I have found so far that what he actually says and what is breathlessly reported in the legacy media to be markedly different.

            In order for Conservatives to have something to conserve, Hillary must not win. If she wins, America is done. Romney was sunk because he wasn’t conservative enough – remember Romneycare? And that handed a second term to Obama.

            Conservative ideological purity or the continued existence of your country. You only get to pick one.

          6. he’ll soon be back to spouting stupid…

            Meaning what? Nothing. Rand I used to count on you to judge on merit, not source. What happened to you?

            That was more than a great speech. It included things I’ve been waiting for anybody to say and nobody else is saying them (well, they’ll be parroting them eventually.)

          7. Meaning what? Nothing.

            Meaning that, like Obama, he’s not very bright, and prone to saying stupid things when he can’t read them off a teleprompter.

          8. saying stupid things

            Not a much as you’re suggesting. He’s verifiably right in many cases the media is accusing him of being wrong on.

            You’re attacking a style that gives him free publicity.

          9. Cruz wouldn’t be whining about how he’d be ahead if it wasn’t for the media.

            Certain about that? I’m reminded of McCain who was shocked to learn the media wasn’t his friend anymore when he wasn’t betraying republicans.

          11. But Cruz wouldn’t be whining

            Cruz was the only other candidate that was aware of how the media operates and was able to deal with it. But since we all know the media is operating as a wing of the Democrat party, I don’t know why it is out of bounds to say so.

    2. Exactly right. People like to blame Trump for what the media does, as if he can control them. The Democrat media has their own motives and Trump’s actions wont change their motives.

      There is absolutely nothing Trump can do that will prevent the Democrat media from attacking Trump or portraying him the way the Hillary campaign wants them to. Any comment can be twisted, as we saw with the founder thing, and when they don’t have a comment will simply make something up or use some other squirrel tactic to avoid covering Hillary’s downsides.

      The endless controversies over Trump’s comments can be summed up like this. “OMG Trump said what?” after reading something in the popular press. “I’d better go check this out.” goes to read the original comments or watch the whole video. “Oh, that isn’t what Trump said at all. No wonder they didn’t provide a full quote in the article.”

      I said this before but it is like Democrats decades long strategy of saying everyone else is racist. There is nothing that can be done to prevent them using this strategy because the intent is to call people racist. It doesn’t matter what hoops are jumped through, they will continue to use the accusation because the accusation is what gives them the claim of differentiation and gives them power over minorities.

      You could have an inter-racial marriage and teach at an all black school while working on the side for an agency that helps illegal immigrants find jobs and you would still be a racist if not a Democrat. Crazy? Trump is labeled anti-immigrant while his wife is an immigrant. He is labeled as anti-semitic while his daughter is Jewish. He is accused of being some “extremist right wing Hitler” when he has spent much of his life holding the same views as moderate center left Democrats.

      1. “People like to blame Trump for what the media does, as if he can control them. The Democrat media has their own motives and Trump’s actions wont change their motives.”

        Wodun I think that’s not quite the complaint. You are right when you say the media will do whatever it can to besmirch Trump. No argument there.

        But I think Trump can handle it much better via his spoken words as well as ads. I also think he could expose the media more by showing lots of examples of hypocrisy.

        But he doesn’t do that.

        1. I also think he could expose the media more

          We can all always do more. Is anyone else doing as much?

          The fact that it’s talked about as much as it now is, is due to Trump’s ‘whining.’

          2. He’s very effective at exposing the media because of the ass hat way he’s doing it that exposes his message so the media can’t ignore it. Do you think for a second they’d cover it if they couldn’t slant it?

        2. But I think Trump can handle it much better

          I do too. He could set up some outrage traps for the media. But when an absolutely ordinary and true comment about Obama founding ISIS makes the media, and strangely enough Republicans, go ape, it shows that no matter what he says will be twisted.

          Look at this example. The media demands Trump act more “Presidential” whatever that means. Trump gives a great policy speech. Rather than deal with the content of the speech, the media attacks him as unstable because one speech is serious and another is more fit for a rally.

          The media demands he lay out specific policies then A) They don’t cover them B) Continue saying that he has no policies C) Twists one of his policies into something that it isn’t.

          A good example of C was after his last policy speech about vetting anti-gay views that Democrats on CNN were saying he hates gays and wants to kill them or something.

  4. Another dispatch from la-la land: After Trump, can the Republican Party be rebuilt?

    Accomplishing these recommendations is far from easy. Not only will it require years of hard work, it also will require elites to place their fellow Americans’ welfare above their own vanity, power, and quarterly dividend statements. This cannot be a temporary pose to trick the “rubes,” but a change in heart, mind and direction. The new party bosses must admit that much of the work they do in Washington is either useless or downright counter-productive.

    Naw, no issues there.”Years of hard work”?? Give me a break, that could be accomplished in 6 months. A year tops. Piece of cake.

    [where’d my eyeballs go?]

  5. The elites (of both parties) can be relied upon to protect their own rice bowls with religious fervor and a steely heart.

    It would seem to me that “Cantoring” the elites is the way to go:

    If conservatives (real ones)/Tea Party people nationwide all threw money, time and effort towards overwhelming and eliminating an elite (like, say Ryan) The Message might get through. Simply because the elites now have something to fear. Defeat the likes of McConnell, Boehner (when he was active) Ryan and other RINO’s then the elites would be presented with Something To Lose.

    The Democrats did this starting in 2007 and continuing on. All the moderate Dems left the party and the Party swing deeply left.

    If there are no consequences, there will be no change in behavior.

    Milton Friedman once said something to the effect that you don’t strive to get the “right” people into office; you strive to get the people in office to do the right thing.

      1. I heard his opponent (Nehlun (sp?) on a local talk radio show. He was universes away from Trump.

        And he got a little outside support but not the yuge amounts I’m talking about.

        Interesting that you don’t think of Ryan as a RINO…..I didn’t either until his actions as Speaker.

      2. “I don’t view Ryan as a RINO” Indeed. I would have hoped that the American people is sick of politicians who Do Things that Don’t Work. Instead they seem ready to throw away any politician who refuses to Do Things that Don’t Work. If you don’t throw tantrums you’re a RINO.

      3. true not rino more uniparty. you should note his policy prescription are made convoluted so that the status quo is never in danger.

        ps incumbents tend to win 80-90% of the time

    2. If conservatives (real ones)/Tea Party people nationwide all threw money, time and effort towards overwhelming and eliminating an elite

      That is exactly what the Tea Party did and the GOPe didn’t get the message. The base gave the party a huge a huge victory in 2010 using this strategy and the GOPe didn’t get the message. Boehner was already forced out of his position as speaker and the GOPe didn’t get the message.

      If there are no consequences, there will be no change in behavior.

      The consequence is that Trump won the nomination and the GOPe still hasn’t got the message.

      1. “That is exactly what the Tea Party did and the GOPe didn’t get the message. ”

        They can’t stop. You cant just oust boehner and then sit back and smoke a cigar. You have to keep the pressure up until the elites buckle and crumble.

        I don’t see that happening. McConnell is secure in his position. But I maintain tht that security is assailable.

        1. The Freedom Caucus in congress has continued to be a thorn in the side of the establishment.

          Well, the Tea Party types tried but the party wouldn’t listen. They will continue their efforts but because the party wouldn’t listen to sensible reforms, we have Trump.

          Just think we could have had a Rubio if he had respected the Republican base as a Senator and we could have had a Cruz if the establishment didn’t try and destroy him. The establishment wouldn’t play ball with the voters so an insider couldn’t win the nomination.

    3. >If conservatives (real ones)/Tea Party people nationwide all threw money, time and effort towards overwhelming and eliminating an elite (like, say Ryan) <

      too little too late. an article v convention of the states for 2018 elections at the state level; issue: place the raising of the federal debt limit in control of passage by 3/4 of state legislatures. grab power constitutionally people from the dc hive of scum.

  6. Did anybody actually read the article with, you know, comprehension regarding what it actually says about Trump? This writer repeats a pattern you see over and over. I don’t like Trump, but… [realization!]

    Let’s start with the fact that every candidate (it doesn’t matter who) is a potential threat to the continuation of the republic but it always depends on the actions of the world which I’ll bring up again in a moment. That’s just a reiteration of the politics of fear.

    “inability to take responsibility” So if Trump reacts to a provocation and defends himself he’s not taking responsibility? That’s a ridiculous conclusion. It does not follow. That’s style over substance.

    “complains like a little girl about the ‘dishonest media.’ What’s the substance in this statement? Is it the name calling or the fact that the media is dishonest?

    he enables everybody’s worst impulses. Absolutely right and what’s the substance? They reveal who they truly are rather than who they pretend to be. Before Trump, could you imagine elite conservatives telling us they would vote for Hillary?

    the media still finds ways to twist and misrepresent what he says They’re so used to lying they can’t use the truth… because the truth is, everything bad they think Trump might do, their gal has already done 100 times worse.

    Trump refuses to rule out using nukes. That’s how you make deterrence work. How bone headed was it of Obama to say, “you better not call my bluff?” We don’t want our enemies to be sure of how we’ll react. We don’t want them confident. We want them worried. Trump does that. So he worries the rest of us as well? Get over it.

    It does take more effort to understand what Trump means but when you actually do make that effort (instead of reacting worse than you claim Trump reacts) YOU FIND SUBSTANCE. Not just substance, but those hidden little facts that nobody wants to talk about. You can claim he’s just right by accident. I don’t give a damn as long as he keeps revealing the truth others want to keep hidden. Things we’re not suppose to speak about.

    Call him a useful idiot if you like, but instead of putting all your focus on the idiot part you might squeeze in a few moments to consider the useful part.

    1. So if Trump reacts to a provocation and defends himself he’s not taking responsibility?

      Yes. Apparently you don’t understand what taking responsibility means. With Trump, it’s never his fault, always someone else’s. He doesn’t just talk like a fifth grader, he behaves like one.

      Call him a useful idiot if you like, but instead of putting all your focus on the idiot part you might squeeze in a few moments to consider the useful part.

      He’s being useful to Hillary and the Democrats (and the press, but I repeat myself), not to me. Or to the Constitution and Republic.

      1. “With Trump, it’s never his fault, always someone else’s.”

        Maybe, but it’s the same way with Obama or Hillary or any other Dem. Maybe you find it unseemly. Truth is, I do, too. But, here’s the thing: they win doing that. Republicans have been taking the high road for decades. Where has it gotten them?

        IMO, there is nothing unusual about this cycle, and its doubtful Trump could have been any more successful with any other strategy. This is the time of the campaign when the MSM is free to run wild, while most people do not see the candidates up close and personal. It’s traditional for the liberal candidate to be leading in the polls at this stage. Someone mentioned last week that, at a comparable time, GHWB was down 17 points to Dukakis.

        The debates will be the next opportunity for the masses to see the candidates up close and personal. They will make or break Trump. Until then, it’s really just a bunch of Kabuki theater.

        1. Good points, but I would argue a bit over the GOP actually taking the high road. They have lied about their intent to take the high road. They never passed the law to repeal Obamacare as they promised, and they made the excuse that they didn’t pass the law because they wouldn’t have the votes to overcome Obama’s veto. But that is why they are the stupid party. Pass the law, Obama vetoes, then the voters are ticked off at Obama. Don’t pass the law, keep all that voter anger on themselves.

          1. They never passed the law to repeal Obamacare as they promised

            The House did what they could. The Republican Senate is unable to “pass a law” (it takes the president’s signature t0 pass a law) when they don’t have sixty votes. Which they don’t. It is completely unrealistic to have expected Republicans to send legislation to the White House absent that supermajority.

        2. IMO, there is nothing unusual about this cycle, and its doubtful Trump could have been any more successful with any other strategy.

          I didn’t say he could. I don’t think Trump is capable of being successful, and even if there was a strategy that would work for him, he is incapable of implementing it, because he is incapable of not being Donald Trump. That’s why it was a disaster to nominate him.

          1. “I didn’t say he could. I don’t think Trump is capable of being successful”

            People said the same thing about him getting the nomination in the first place. Like him or despise him, he’s the only one who can beat Hillary.

        3. “Republicans have been taking the high road for decades. Where has it gotten them?”

          Taking the high road does not preclude fighting viciously and hard. Yes they took the high road…and then promptly surrendered at the slightest Obama pushback.

          Just look at the difference as to how the party’s operated whenin the minority:

          When the GOP was in the minority in Congress Boehner whined and cried that they have only 1/2 of 1/3…… And when they were given bioth the House and Senate they STILL said it wasn’t enough.

          Now look at the Dems in the recent past when they are in the minority. Reid has successfully stopped many GOP initiatives. No whining. No moaning or crying or pants wetting.

          He got in there, called the GOP Heartless Bastiges and fought hard and won.

          1. Now look at the Dems in the recent past when they are in the minority.

            Yes, they didn’t engage in failure theatre to snowjob their voters. They actually do what their totalitarian fascist base wants and lie to the public about their true goals, not to their base. The exact opposite of the Republican establishment.

            They are too insecure in supporting their own beliefs and open to pressure from the Democrat media about how they should act, which explains why so many side with the Democrats against Trump. The Democrats control the media and the media controls the establishment.

      2. >Yes. Apparently you don’t understand what taking responsibility means. With Trump, it’s never his fault, always someone else’s. He doesn’t just talk like a fifth grader, he behaves like one.,<

        and that makes him different than baracky and hildebeast, excepting media coveraging, how exactlty?

    2. So if Trump reacts to a provocation and defends himself he’s not taking responsibility?

      Isn’t amazing how the Democrat media wants to create the rule that Trump isn’t allowed to respond to attacks made against him. Does this rule apply to anyone else?

      “complains like a little girl about the ‘dishonest media.’ What’s the substance in this statement?

      The substance? They want Trump to shut up and let the media attack him without any response from Trump. How would not responding to attacks work out?

      he enables everybody’s worst impulses. Absolutely right and what’s the substance?

      The substance is that rather than hold people accountable for their own actions, they blame Trump. Democrats sending out lynch mobs to attack innocent civilians becomes Trump’s fault rather than the Democrats who organized the violence.

      the media still finds ways to twist and misrepresent what he says They’re so used to lying they can’t use the truth

      Yup! And it doesn’t matter what Trump does, the media will keep following this intentional strategy.

      It is the same thing we see every election but dialled up to 11. In the past, people who are anti-Trump would notice this condition and be upset but now they participate in propagating it.

  8. Who should Trump listen to about how to win the election? People who don’t want him elected? Any time someone who doesn’t want Trump elected says, “Trump needs to do X.” Take it with a bag of salt because its intentionally bad advice.

    1. “Who should Trump listen to about how to win the election? ”

      Wodun,

      He should listen tot he people telling him to step down and let Pence run.

      1. Pence is only running for VP because Trump selected him. Why would Trump step down? He won the nomination fair and square. Nobody voted for Pence in the primaries. The only way Pence becomes President is if Donald Trump wins and THEN steps down. Does that seem likely?

      3. Why should he listen to people who want him to lose and does anyone who wants him to step down want Pence to win?

        The primary is over. For all the complaints about Trump’s demeanor, there is some historic levels of sore loserism taking place.

      4. He should listen tot he people telling him to step down and let Pence run.

        If you think Pence should run, you should be thanking Donald for giving him a national presence. But to suggest Trump step down is just more delusion.

  9. Well I listened to Trump’s speech which he gave in Milwaukee yesterday. It was a very good speech.
    and He did precisely what I have been saying he should do and CAN do:

    He can be just as provocative without jamming his foot in his mouth.

    He plainly stated how the Dems take the african american vote for granted and then initiate policies which keep them destitute and dying in the streets.

    Now as far as I can recall, NO presidential candidate has ever said that. So he was confrontational and direct. But he did it in such a way that minimizes (it will never be zero) what the opposition media (redundant) can do with it.

    See? Wasn’t all that hard, was it. And lots of you said that if he did that Trump would not be Trump.

    Well any speech which directly assaults the Dem Plantation scheme is pure Trump.

    He also pointed out that the worst crime cities have been the ones under total Dem control for decades.

    These are all things wee, here are fully aware of. No candidate has ever said that in a speech. Until now.

    So Trump was Trump and it was well done.

    It doesn’t change my mind about him; but it shows all the naysayers who said he cannot say massive things without talking only off the cuff, that they were wrong.

      1. Democrats like to bring this up to muddy the waters with their candidate’s close ties to Russia and Russia’s close ties to the Clinton Foundation, State Department, and the Democrat activist group Wikileaks. Not to mention Obama’s plans to work more closely with Russia and Iran to fight ISIS.

        The media also wont talk about Obama and the State Department trying to unseat ally leaders in places like Israel or propping up Islamic dictators like the MB. There is a huge difference between a civilian doing campaign work abroad and the federal government under Democrat control campaigning against allies and supporting Islamic dictator coup’s.

        It is a common tactic with Democrats. Accuse other people of doing what they are doing. In this case, they didn’t make the accusation first so it doesn’t have the same muddying impact but I am sure their media wing will do what they can.

  10. wodun> There is absolutely nothing Trump can do that will prevent the Democrat media from attacking Trump or portraying him the way the Hillary campaign wants them to. Any comment can be twisted, as we saw with the founder thing

    But the media doesn’t have to twist his words. He makes his own word-pretzels and presents them gift-wrapped. Take your founder thing.

    Hewitt: Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

    Here, an effective communicator would recognize that he is speaking to a national audience, not just his core supporters at a rally, and say, “Yes, exactly. And that effectively makes him the founder of ISIS.” But no, he replies:

    Trump: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

    Is it possible that he doesn’t care how his message is received by the public at large, as long as it goes over well at his rallies?

    Hewitt: They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?

    Trump: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.

    He had the ability to take this and turn it around to his advantage without backing down, but instead he doubled down, only encouraging people to lump any actual criticism of the current administration’s foreign policy with the rest of his ad hominem attacks, such as the birther nonsense, and just ignore it all. There’s dirty politics, and then there’s stupid, dirty politics. I don’t see how Trump could be more effective at handing this election to Clinton than what he is doing right now.

    Leaving aside all of his other disqualifying traits, Trump has never demonstrated the ability to communicate well with a larger audience, to make his case beyond his core group of supporters. Fortunately, this is the one disqualifying trait which will be directly selected against in November. I just hope that he loses by the largest possible margin, and out of the ashes of the Republican party will rise a conservative party which truly supports fiscal responsibility. ISIS is not an existential threat to the US, but our growing national debt is.

    “Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it.” And he should know because, “I actually think I’m going good, I have the biggest crowds. Nobody’s ever had crowds like this.” Now if only he could limit the franchise to those who attend his rallies.

    1. But the media doesn’t have to twist his words.

      Except the founder controversy is an example of them being outraged over normal political parlance. How many times have the Democrats said similar, if not the exact thing, about Bush or other Republicans? All the time, never media outrage.

      http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/

      HH: I know what you’re arguing…
      DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?
      HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.
      DT: Well, I disagree.
      HH: All right, that’s okay.
      DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.
      HH: That’s…
      DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.
      HH: That’s true.
      DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
      HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.
      DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
      HH: Well, good point. Good point.

      See, you didn’t even bother to read the transcript where Trump does exactly what you want him to. You don’t like Trump so you just ignore the parts where he conforms to your wants and claim he didn’t do what you wanted him to do. Why use the same tactics the Democrats are?

      The thing is, Trump is right here. Obama and Hillary are more responsible than anyone else for the rise of ISIS. The media can’t say that because then they would have to report on what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan and other countries that Democrats are blissfully unaware about. They might actually have to talk about the genocide, sex slavery, death toll far higher than the Iraq War, and mass migration of tens of millions of people primarily because of Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy blunders.

      Leaving aside all of his other disqualifying traits, Trump has never demonstrated the ability to communicate well with a larger audience,

      My advice is to watch Trump’s speeches rather than only be exposed to them through the filter of people who don’t want him elected. Make up your own mind rather than have other people make up your mind for you.

      ISIS is not an existential threat to the US

      ISIS is an existential threat to civilization. Had they been dealt with sooner, they wouldn’t be the problem they are now. Ignoring them was, and is, folly.

      1. wodun> See, you didn’t even bother to read the transcript …

        I read the entire transcript, and even before doing so I didn’t believe that Mr. Trump thought President Obama actually founded ISIS, but when he was specifically asked if he meant that the President had created the conditions for ISIS to flourish, he responded, “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do.” In terms of communication effectiveness, it doesn’t matter that he contradicts himself shortly thereafter. He had already intentionally created his word-pretzel for media consumption, no additional twisting required.

        Hewitt: … I’d just use different language to communicate it …

        Trump: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

        Trump’s strategy all along has been to bait the press with outrageous statements and then to bask in the free media coverage. It worked during the primary, but has proven less effective with the larger electorate.

        1. It is effective. The reason is first the media jumps all over it. Then people look into it (like we’re doing now?)

          Almost every time we do this we find Trump is right.

          Eventually (for some) the light dawns. At this time it may appear a losing strategy, but we’re moving into a period before the election (after the first debate) where this will become much more effective.

          If the reaction keeps being, “Trump is saying it wrong. The right way would be…” somewhere along the line people will see that how you say a thing isn’t as important as the thing itself.

          2. No, “we” don’t.

            Rand, you are choosing ignorance. It is a choice. He’s been right on a very high percentage of the issues.

          4. In your opinion, not mine.

            Shall I have to start pointing out every time you agree with Trump? Do you think Islam is a problem?

          5. No, that would be a stupid waste of your time, and my bandwidth. Even stopped clocks are right once in a while.

            You are utterly failing to tell me anything that will cause me to support Donald Trump, and you are utterly unable to do so. No one can do that except Donald Trump. As long as he stays on teleprompter, with speeches written by others, as he has been for the past few days, there is a chance he will do so, but please stop wasting my time with your useless defenses of his cluenessness.

          6. Actually I’ve withheld comment because where Trump is concerned you’ve said some real whoppers.

            Assuming everything you believe about Trump is true you are also suggesting our republic is so fragile that one fool can wreck it… as if we had no congress or courts or states.

            OTOH, illegals and dead people voting is somehow not a threat to our republic?

            “you are utterly unable to do so”

            You really don’t understand the implication of what you said???

          8. I understand it perfectly.

            In the words of Yoda… “This is why you fail.”

            You should be smart enough to know that you, making assertions, is not quite the same as omniscience.

            Obviously the plain truth annoys you. That is not my intention, so that is where I fail. The article you linked to should have been a clue.

            A stopped clock is a really bad analogy for what is going on, but your dismissiveness makes you blind to it.

            I will say no more. My apologies for any offense.

        2. It worked during the primary, but has proven less effective with the larger electorate.

          Yes, and it’s never been effective with people like me. It must makes me consider him a fool.

        3. ‘…but when he was specifically asked if he meant that the President had created the conditions for ISIS to flourish, he responded, “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do.”’

          I read that as:

          “No, I don’t think he took an already existent group and made it stronger. I think he is responsible for the genesis of the group.”

  11. “I just hope that he loses by the largest possible margin, and out of the ashes of the Republican party will rise a conservative party which truly supports fiscal responsibility. ”

    Kirk, here is the problem with your hope:

    if Trump loses, the GOP elites – who have distanced themselves form Trump and practically disavowed him – will say:

    “See what happens when you let the republican rabble select the candidate? They are stupid and cannot be relied upon to vote intelligently. Therefore we will tighten our grip and control of the party.”

    in other words, a Trump loss will give the GOP more excuses to ignore the rank and file. They learned nothing when Trump was nominated…they will continue to learn nothing.

  12. Look at this stupid headline…

    “Donald Trump To Bring Adviser With Russia Ties To Classified Briefing”

    We know what the media is trying to suggest. Here Trump is doing exactly the right thing, but the media has to figure out how to spin it.

    I have Russian ties!

Comments are closed.