9 thoughts on “Trump, On Scalia”

  2. Hrmmm. I’m tempted to pile on and say that Trump’s statements on this (Putin) are idiotic, but… I also see a possible angle he may be milking, the way he’s done before.

    The angle is that while the USA hasn’t been killing its internal political opponents, it most certainly has been prosecuting them and jailing them. To name just a few, the video-maker they tried to scapegoat for Benghazi, the journalists the spied on, and let’s not forget the while IRS persecution scandal. These are absolutely Putin-like police-state actions, and *if* Trump can shift the conversation that way, he’ll score some points. I suspect this *might* be his angle, because I’ve seen him pull similar bait-and-redirect tricks on the media before.

    Or, of course, he might be responding just out of sheer ego, which will hurt him (and deservedly so).

    As for his angle, if any, on Scalia and affirmative action; either he’s exposing his liberal instincts, which would be troubling on two levels; first, that he still has them, second, that he is showing he has no filter between his mind and his mouth. Or, maybe he’s playing the long game and pandering for the general election. (I’d find that equally objectionable in this case).

  3. What part of that was an endorsement of the murder of journalists? Part of the problem with Trump coverage is the media sensationally skews his words into something he didn’t actually say. This feeds right into the trap Trump set for the media.

    1. The people who should be against murdering journalist is other journalist.
      Unfortunately the US doesn’t have many actual journalists- lots of idiotic talking heads and people being involved in political activism and the likes of Dan Rather or Brian Williams who are simply, frauds.

      So a question is, do actual journalists really care how they are wiped out?

  4. The problem isn’t Trump. The problem is all the other candidates (other than, perhaps, Cruz) who let Trump take the winning issue.

    They gave it to him. They had plenty of chances to take it back. They chose to let him carry it, speeding with it towards the goal line. They’re not even trying to catch up.

    1. My take is similar, though IMHO a bigger factor in Trump’s rise is the overwhelming anger amongst most Republicans regarding the party establishment continually selling out in congress (for example, the Ryan/McConnel omnibus).

      People perceive (whether they are right or wrong doesn’t matter, because in politics, perception is king) Trump as the anti-party-establishment guy. It’s a “Anybody but them!” dynamic.

      1. Trump has been effectively playing both sides of the military intervention issue. He claims to be the most militaristic candidate and that he would bomb this sh## out of ISIS but then says all of our interventions were a mistake. Hillary won’t be able to hit him with a but you voted for it defense.

        This makes him seem rather measured in any potential use of military force rather than the crazy madman that is going to nuke everyone as has been claimed by some.

        1. What worries me about the depiction of him as the “nuke everyone” candidate is it’s what they said about Reagan in 1979-80.

          It clearly backfired on them then, too. History already knows this line, and is just waiting to repeat itself if we’re not careful — or if we actually want Sideshow Donald in the White House. Which I’d rather not.

Comments are closed.