I have no desire to pick on kindergarten teachers, and that’s not what I intend to do here. But let’s look at the thought process below:
“I’ve never voted for anyone like him,” said Denise McLemore, 56, a Trump supporter and kindergarten teacher from Lexington, North Carolina. “He seems very arrogant and outspoken and he reminds me of my kindergarten students: whatever he thinks in his head, he says.”
Despite his shortcomings, McLemore said she wants to take a chance with Trump. “I don’t know if I can trust him, but I like that he’s different,” she said. “He’s made me a believer.”
The fact that Trump is “different” is doing all the work here. Nothing else recommends him. He’s arrogant and impetuous and immature and not necessarily trustworthy. If this guy walked into your store and asked for a job, you’d size him up and tell him that you’re not looking to fill the position at this time: “Don’t call me. I’ll call you.”
Imagine, though, that your business is struggling so badly with your current staff that bankruptcy looks imminent. You’re out of ideas for how to turn things around and you’re running out of time. Maybe this brash, foul-mouthed man-child can offer you something. If nothing else, he seems supremely self-confident. He says he can double your revenue in two months, and that seems wildly unlikely. Ludicrous even.
At a certain point, though, desperation can change your calculus. The status quo isn’t working and doing more of the same seems certain to fail. So, maybe you roll the dice.
Most likely, you’re going out of business either way, so why not go down swinging?
Or, as Jonah Goldberg puts it:
Nominating Donald Trump will wreck the Republican Party as we know it. Not nominating Trump will wreck the Republican Party as we know it. The sooner everyone recognizes this fact, the better.
Do you remember the old Catch-22? The only way to get out of doing bombing missions during World War Two was to get certified as insane. But bombing missions were so dangerous that not wanting to do them was proof of your sanity.
Nominating Donald Trump would be insane, but not wanting to nominate any of the alternatives is proof of your sanity.
And so you begin to get the weakest kind of rationalizations:
About accusations that Trump is “outspoken and harsh,” Joe Glass, who voted for Kasich in past week’s primary, said that Trump’s demeanor could match that of U.S. rivals on the global stage.
“Isn’t Putin the same way?” asked Glass. “He seems to be doing okay.”
If it comes to it, Mr. Glass will be supporting Trump over the Democratic nominee.
When getting shot is your only other option, drinking poison seems like a decent alternative.
Going back to that kindergarten teacher, it’s not all that difficult to see how Ms. McLemore convinced herself to opt for Trump, but it still seems like a stretch when she calls herself “a believer.”
What does she believe in?
The answer, I believe, is hidden in plain sight in Jonah Goldberg’s analysis, although he doesn’t see it.
Put simply, and with the incessant and obtuse comparisons of Trump to Reagan notwithstanding, you cannot have a party that’s both Reaganite and Trumpish.
Trump’s cheerleaders insist that he’s a symptom of long simmering maladies on the right. I’m persuaded (even though I think Dr. Trump’s remedies are nothing but snake oil). Even now too many GOP leaders think Trump’s success is purely a result of his brash personality, and nothing more. But only when we accept that a terrible diagnosis is real is it possible to think intelligently about our options.
To wit: This ends in tears no matter what. Get over it and pick a side.
The answer is that this isn’t a battle between Reaganism and Trumpism. Reagan didn’t communicate or govern like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. The conservatives devalue all the things that made Reagan attractive and effective. So, the voters are not being offered a choice between Reagan and Trump. They’re being offered insincere promises and gridlock and inflexibility and paranoia (which is supposed to represent Reaganism) and a guy who compares unfavorably with your average kindergartner.
People are choosing Trump because he’s different. Different is better because the familiar is unacceptable and sure to lead to another defeat.
Donald Trump is winning because when you’re down by two touchdowns with thirty seconds to play, calling another run up the middle makes no sense, and your best choice is to say a Hail Mary.
I doubt that I would use the term Hail Mary on the Orange Combover, but I wouldn’t doubt the results. Its a prayer. And prayer works not quite as well as well as wet toilet paper.
American Football has used the term since 1922. Thousands upon thousands of games have been played in major league College and Professional. Successful Hail Marys? You can count them on Wikipedia.
Is setting yourself on fire the fallback position?
Isn’t this a large part of Sanders’s appeal, too? “The status quo isn’t working and doing more of the same seems certain to fail.”
So Clinton is the candidate of the status quo, while the far right and the center left each represent a different sort of Hail Mary? That sounds right to me, and I think goes a long way toward explaining the passions of the Democratic primary. The party is overwhelmingly supporting a candidate who is at the very least a small-c conservative. And some elements of the base are small-c conservatives. But others are very much not.
The only part of Jonah Goldberg’s analysis that I agree with it the conclusion: Pick a side. And like other commenters here, it is hard to understand Booman’s argument that the GOP is doomed when I look around and see the GOP in control of Congress and most governorships and state legislatures. THAT situation won’t end until Democrats actually turn out to vote in years without a presidential election. And it’s the pro-Sanders demographic that is hands down the worst in that regard. Beats me why they don’t see that.
Both parties are becoming rumps to independents who are disgusted with them.
Pretty much. I’m disgusted with both parties. The GOP disgusts me more, but not by much. The Ds like ACT like they care, but they don’t give a crap about anyone except their puppetmasters.
They are all in fealty to some wealthy overlord or another. Does it matter if we claim that one Oligarch is rightwing, but the other Oligarch is leftwing.
I don’t see much of a difference from where I sit. Mostly it’s about endlessly cutting taxes on the mega wealthy. Endlessly. Most corporations not only do not pay any taxes or fees, the corporations are handed over booty/incentives just to show up somewhere – and then after all of that, they still offshore jobs or close places of business because they’re not “profitable” enough, as with the recent closure of many WalMarts (yeah a sucky place to work but it’s a job and now even THAT is gone).
The super wealthy are bottomless pits of naked greed, avarice on steroids and unending entitlement syndrome, yet the Ds and Rs stand only too willing to provide them with yet more tax cuts. When does it ever end???
Team USA is now officially a third world country. India is actually doing more for their infrastructure and global warming/climate change than we are.
Spiraling down the drain is about all either party is worth these days. And no, neither Trump or Clinton will make the slightest whit of improvement. Sanders would have a tough row to hoe if he won, but he’d at least make an EFFORT. No one else will.
How do you square the claim that both parties about about tax cuts for the wealthy when Clinton and Obama BOTH increased taxes on the wealthy? You can’t say “both sides do it” because they don’t. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy and Democrats increase them – that’s been true multiple times over the past 20 years.
Democrats are just as happy as Republicans to increase regressive taxes: fees and sin taxes
The centrist Democrat wing of the party are happy to keep taxes indefinitely at a Margaret Thatcher level. There’s a difference between Thatcher and Grover Cleveland, but you shouldn’t be surprised if people get so dismotivated that they drop out of the process entirely.
More abstractly, when someone tells them how much they hate being made to endure Sophie’s Choices and Morton’s Forks, they respond that there’s still some metric where having a particular child live is preferable. For example, if you pick your two infants over your teenager, it’s almost certain everyone will die. But if you pick your teenager, there’s a small chance that at least one of your kids will live. That’s certainly a significant difference in outcome, but all the same, you shouldn’t be surprised if (most) people outright shut down when people are offered the choice or adopt a maladaptive response like procrastinating on the decision or choosing a decision matrix (flip a coin, poll the other prisoners) that causes them to mentally disengage from the process.
The Serious, Pragmatic people of the Democratic party — at least the ones who whine about purity and low turnout — don’t seem to get this. Hence they’re okay with continually driving the level of hope and discourse down while claiming that this is okay because as long as one of the choices is objectively superior people will still made the choice.
Do you want the rich to pay more of their share or not? If Hillary wins with a passably Democratic Congress, the rich will pay substantially more. If any of the Republicans win, they’ll pay far, far less. http://taxfoundation.org/comparing-2016-presidential-tax-reform-proposals
If a meaningfully fairer tax system is really your goal, the choice is simple and clear.
Did you fucking read what I write? About how I said that how your wing of the party doesn’t realize that Sophies’ Choices/Morton Forks, even if one outcome is substantially objectively better than the other, dismotivates decision makers?
If you did, how the hell can you just write what you did with a straight face?
You know, I actually like reading what you have to say, but it’s getting tiring reading comments like this.
Sanders has to win the nomination in order to run as the Democratic candidate. Period.
I voted for him here in Georgia – and he lost to Clinton.
Assuming Clinton continues to win enough delegates to win the nomination, I have two options – vote for the person Sanders would vote for, or sit and home.
Which do you suggest that I do?
As if taxes don’t give as well as take. Raising the top rate, if it could be managed, is effortlessly compensated for in the details of the tax code. A sideshow for the rubes.
…http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-take-away-but-also-give-back-mostly-to-the-
very-rich.html?_r=0
Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent when he could have let them expire.
They don’t see that because they see no substantial difference in their lives between conventional candidates of the two parties.
The parties are still fighting the same battles as the ’60s. We oldsters are passionate about them, but young people aren’t. Those battles are over. Their concerns are not being addressed by anyone but the outsiders.
Democrats have become like G.H.W. Bush, I quote from his veto of extended unemployment benefits. “When you lose your job, you should live off your investments until you find another one.”
Both parties kiss bank ass. Both parties support the forever war. Both parties support corporate inversions and job outsourcing.
What is different between the parties? Basically, abortion and gay rights. Young people mostly use the pill or oral sex (they are quite open about it). They don’t remember true racial or sexual preference oppression so they don’t see much threat there. They don’t like sleeping in the same rooms they did when they were kids because they either have no job or a mountain of college debt or both.
Oh, yes. GUNS! Big difference between the parties. Not really important to young people. I’ve never heard one peak one way or the other. Another battle from the ’60s.
The same things “we” fight over go back to long before the ’60s. There was some reshuffling of positions within each party that led to voters reshuffling themselves, but the issues have changed very little.
A hundred years ago, I would likely have been a Republican. That’s where “progressives” mostly lived. More opposed to racism, sexism (including family planning), war, environmental degradation, and monopolies than Democrats yoked to the South. Wilson was about as good as it got for a DEM. Which wasn’t very good at all.
A majority of Americans don’t want for much other than peace, prosperity, a fair enough deal that they can make their own way in the world, and to live and let live. It’s all the busy-bodies that want to impose their religion, racism, sexism, etc. on others and the wealthy and elite (and all their handmaidens) that want to secure their dominance for themselves and their descendants that cause all the problems.
Anyone that cites wanting to preserve the status quo as dictating his/her vote is a fool. Change is what everybody votes for, but we’re not so good at demanding that candidates define what that change will be and then holding them to deliver it and assessing whether it met with expectations or the change we didn’t want after all.
Did GOP voters understand in 2000 that “compassionate conservative” and “restoring dignity and honor to the WH” meant mega-tax cuts for the wealthy, a $4 trillion losing war in Iraq, “torturing some folks,” and an out of control domestic spying operation? Of course not. No more than I understood that Bill Clinton planned to destroy key components of the New Deal.
Say it again, Sister. Say it again.
I, as well. You might blame me more because I actively worked on his campaign (as a foot soldier). I still don’t regret that, because my primary goal was dumping GHWB and ending the Reagan madness.
FYI – Elizabeth Warren today:
She has the natural political acumen that most in DC lack.
She probably also learned a lot from stumping for DINOs following the Clinton/DNC approved script (run away from and to the right of Obama) in 2014.
The Republican Party wants to completely destroy the Labor movement by using executive, Legislative and Judicial actions to defund Union organizations and take away the Unions’ ability to fund and volunteer candidate, ballot measure, voter registration and community organizing campaigns, along with the Democratic Party itself.
The Democratic Party does not want these things and works hard to avoid these outcomes at State and Federal levels. The Democratic Party also believes in the value proposition that collective bargaining should be enabled by governments and enjoyed by working people.
Even with the presidential primary increasing turnout, primaries against incumbent members of congress have all failed, right? I can’t blame the Sanders people if they come up thinking this is a fool’s game.
DEM presidential primary turnout is way down from ’08 except in states where Sanders has been strong and in those places it’s similar to ’08 turnout.
However, for the most part, the presidential primaries have been stand-alone. The local, state, and federal office primaries come later. IL is an exception and may account for why turnout there equaled that of ’08. So, it’s too soon to tell how engaged/enraged voters are wrt to downticket races.
I don’t like having the Presidential primaries separate, for exactly that reason. Voters should be able to get all their work done at once. Why make them stand in line twice?
for this?
Because it does not seem concordant with either my personal experience or my sense of how such things are usually done.
Your personal experience is based on where you live. Was never stand alone in CA with its June primary with the exception of the 2004 early stand-alone POTUS primary. Here is the reported schedule for 2016. Note all the state primaries that are held after the CA June primary.
But, when the GOP is in control of the gov office or state legislature they seem unable to pass a budget. No current budget for LA, PA, Il, and WV (those are the ones I know of the top of my head). If they do pass a budget you get the ever increasing deficit like KS. Let’s not forget, since the GOP took the house, when was the last time they passed a budget that did not increase the deficit? The GOP major policy is to cut taxes, yet they continue to collect trillions. The only plan for all that revenue is to do what? Put the guy with at least 4 bankruptcies in charge of the full faith and credit of the USA.
But, when the GOP is in control of the gov office or state legislature they seem unable to pass a budget.
That is part of the reason why CA voters finally became disgusted enough to hand the whole thing over to Democrats. Now working smoothly enough that we’re not going to see Republicans dominating CA state government anytime soon.
Republicans swept Kansas re-elections top to bottom.
Different but not in a good way. Desperation truly, as you stated.
The GOP is in an interesting situation. Leadership seems to believe that a Trump nomination would be a long-term catastrophe. My feeling is that although Trump may turn out to be a disaster for down-ticket candidates, I don’t really see the evidence that he would have effects beyond this election. Or, if he did, you’d have to show that they were effects he wasn’t simply a symptom of. I guess it’s possible, but the GOP has done so much insane and disqualifying stuff for so long, I don’t see how Trump is a bridge too far.
Say Trump loses badly, Republicans lose Senate and even the house. Well then, they get to be in complete opposition for two years, responsible for nothing (which they love), and can run a total anti-Hillary campaign in the mid-terms, with a mid-term electorate, without having to be for anything at all. They’ll be like dogs running through a field of spring grass. What is the long-term damage there?
They can trust there will be willingness to work with them on Hillary’s side. Their interests do overlap on many issues.
If the Republicans lose the trifecta this elections, they are in deep ***t. The Democrats will renew the Voting Rights Act and raise the minimum wage. Broadened voting plus a substantial boost to lower-income workers (and the associated boost to the economy) would put the current Republican party in permanent minority.
I wouldn’t count on that. Just saying… The D Team loves nothing more than hiding behind the R Team’s skirts. I count on nothing from the D Team that actually helps the masses. Nothing. Mostly if something inures to the benefit of mankind, it’s glitch, not a feature. Yes, I’m deeply cynical.
That would actually force Dems to pass the TTIP and TPP–a real advantage for the Republicans going forward.
The trade deals will pass in the lame duck, or they probably won’t pass. Clinton didn’t want to commit to opposing the TPP, but now that she has, she won’t go back on it. In addition, it was rather a squeaker vote already and the next Congress is going to have more anti-trade Dems, so Congress probably won’t pass it either.
Well, Dems will certainly own them if Obama gets them passed.
Obama being the actual author of them, I mean.
Take a quote from a Trump voter and build a theory. I realize this isn’t the format for something in-depth but after almost a year of this stuff it’s gotten tedious. Don’t mean to pick on this blog because I know everyone is doing it. This is the craziest election in ~40 years and pundits have to write about something.
As far as I’m concerned, analysis of the Trump voter must start here, http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism . Either tear it down or add something significant but I’ve read neither yet. Otherwise, I’m hoping pundits can move on to something else because this subject is wore out.
This is a difficult analogy for many because it depends very much on what the “game” is. The game for the WH? Yes, I suppose Repubs could see themselves as down two touchdowns. The game for running the country? In that game they’re up by 21. About the only thing they don’t control is the WH. With the Supreme Court now up for grabs.
It’s a strange situation for Repubs. They are obviously delighted with their Do Nothing Congress of yammering imbeciles, who respond to Bundy/militia turd arrests by introducing bills to lame federal law enforcement. They want to repeal the 20th Century (and will need a prez for that), but given their control of most states and their complete paralysis of the federal gub’mint (which they loath and want dismantled) you’d think they’d be a little more cheerful. But since hatred, anger, spite and control-freakery are their consuming passions, I guess I can sort of understand it.
The Repubs quoted here want lib’ruls to suffer more. They want their hated political opponents to despair. That’s what they care about, and in their colossal ignorance they don’t give to much of a shit about policy, as long as they can see some spite and moral retribution in it. That’s 50% of the country, our “fellow citizens”, the ones who don’t give a shit that the planet’s stable climate is now doomed and that they themselves and their beloved party are the chief cause.
Anyway, I’m tempted to say that as we become an ungovernable state awaiting countless catastrophic weather events, the real “Hail Mary” is continuing to think the citizenry is going to come around to any kind of sensibility on very much at all…
Well said and looks that way to me. I have R friends, who CLAIM that they’re angry with the do-nothing Congress, but they manage to make it all the fault of the horrible terrible D Party. It is all, only & solely the fault of the D Party. And they are HAPPY that the nutbar R pols are “standing firm” or some other bullshit.
I have friends who claim they believe that Trump will somehow make things “work again.” But they have nothing to say when I ask HOW or what that will look like. They simply don’t know.
Trump’s bombast essentially seems to boil down (for me) to: You’ll do it MY way OR ELSE. Which does pretty much encapsulate the current raison d’etre of the GOP and voters.
Trump talks about the “art of the deal,” but he puts himself out there as take no prisoners and never back down, which is not really about making common cause.
So I don’t see how “things” get any better under Trump. It seems like same old, same old stalemates. And frankly I don’t even know if GOP voters know what they want.
It does appear that all they want is to sh*t on so-called “liberals” just because. Most of the time, what I hear about so-called “liberals” – who we are, what we allegedly think and believe – is such garbled nonsense that it is representative of no one I know, least of all me.
So yeah: the impetus seems to be: sh*t on liberals; kick them to the curb; and suddenly everything will magically be super hunky dory. That’s all I got.
Nutso.
That’s 50% of the country, our “fellow citizens”, the ones who don’t give a shit that the planet’s stable climate is now doomed and that they themselves and their beloved party are the chief cause.
That’s 75% of the country if only partisan DEMs and PUBs are included. Add the Indies and it might drop to 70%.
Yes, of course. I believe Jerry Jeff Walker’s song Red Neck Mother said of its protagonist that his joys in life were “kicking hippies’ asses and raising hell.” That was 40 years ago; no change.
I have to be very careful about commenting around home about Republicans’ delight with intentionally fucking things up in order to get in liberals’ faces. My spouse does not want to think this of her close relations who are diehard Republicans.
OT:
How Republicans are gaming the voting system to tip the 2016 election in their favor
By Paul Waldman
March 24 at 12:05 PM
In all the discussion of Donald Trump’s romp to the Republican nomination, you might have missed that there was actually an electoral catastrophe in Arizona on Tuesday, and it didn’t involve Trump’s victory. It was about polling places, a seemingly mundane topic that threatens to put a thumb on the scale for Republicans in the fall. And it’s just as they planned.
People all over Arizona are livid about the fact that they had to wait as much as five hours to vote on Tuesday, because Republicans in the state drastically cut back on the number of polling places. In Maricopa County, which contains Phoenix and is home to about 4.2 million people, the number of polling places was slashed from 200 a few years ago down to 60, or one polling place for every 70,000 residents. Many voters, faced with hours-long waits, simply walked away in frustration. And why did this happen? In part, you can thank John Roberts and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Ari Berman explains:
Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This type of change would very likely have been blocked since minorities make up 40 percent of Maricopa County’s population and reducing the number of polling places would have left minority voters worse off. Section 5 blocked 22 voting changes from taking effect in Arizona since the state was covered under the VRA in 1975 for discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters.
But after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA in 2013, Arizona could make election changes without federal oversight. The long lines in Maricopa County last night were the latest example of the disastrous consequences of that decision.
In that 2013 decision, the Supreme Court conservatives said that key parts of the Voting Rights Act are no longer needed because discrimination in voting is a thing of the past. As soon as the decision came down, Republican state legislatures moved swiftly to pass new voting hurdles that previously would have required Justice Department approval before. Here’s a summary of the Republican voting program:
Impose voter ID requirements
Shorten early voting periods
Eliminate early voting on Sundays, when many African-American churches organize “souls to the polls” voting drives after services
Eliminate same-day registration
Restrict the ability of citizen groups to conduct voter registration drives
Reduce the number of polling places
Especially since the GOP sweep of 2010, Republican-controlled states have selected from this menu to restrict voting rights in any way they could. Here’s a map produced by the Brennan Center for Justice showing where voting restrictions have passed since then:
Thanks, rikyrah this is a very important issue. Here’s a link to the map you mentioned:
http://www.brennancenter.org/new-voting-restrictions-2010-election
A lot of states have imposed new restrictions. Dem. get out the vote efforts in these states are going to have to work overtime this fall.
Dissatisfaction with the status quo may explain a preference for Trump over mainstream GOP candidates, or Sanders over Hillary. But how far does it explain a preference for Trump over Sanders or Hillary?
I think the authoritarian tendency marks out Trumps support base better than any other, and explains why people might support Trump over either Sanders or Hillary. Hillary needs to distance herself from her image as the candidate of the status quo if she is to have any chance of winning congress as well as the Presidency and being in any position to achieve anything significant.
I have to admit, I can’t believe that they’re going through with this. that they think this is going to turn out ok is pure pony and unicorn nonsense.
…………………
Shadow campaign to deny Trump his delegates begins
Kasich and Cruz quietly work to persuade delegates to break with GOP voters in a contested convention.
03/24/16 05:21 AM EDT
When South Dakota’s Republican activists convened in Pierre to pick their delegates to the Republican National Convention, they got an unexpected visitor.
Merle Madrid, senior aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, had flown in from Columbus to make an appeal: If the convention fails to elect front-runner Donald Trump on the first ballot, consider Kasich on the second — even if the state’s Republican voters sent them there to back Trump or Ted Cruz.
Madrid was polite and earnest, but, according to interviews with 17 of the state’s 29 delegates, he came up empty.
“Kasich will not get my vote no matter what he does. That ain’t gonna happen,” said delegate Allen Unruh, a Sioux Falls chiropractor and tea party activist.
Madrid’s visit to South Dakota on Saturday marked one of the earliest signs that the shadow campaign for the Republican nomination has begun. Kasich and Cruz are scrambling to secure commitments from bound delegates to break off on a second ballot and vote against Trump. In many cases, that means asking delegates to buck Republican primary voters in the name of settling on a nominee.
arstechnica Microsoft terminates its Tay AI chatbot after she turns into a Nazi.
Might have sold the chatbot to The Donald after the sales agreement with Rubio fell through.
Whoaa!
I have the same problem with this, that I have with so much conservative/republican thinking: Any formulation that presents Reagan as anything other than a total fucking catastrophe of a cynically-installed ignorant figurehead just loses me.
These people talk about Reagan in such hallowed terms, not just by extolling the (very dubious) virtues of that period — which I remember very well — but by imbuing the man with all this imaginary vision and wisdom and will and canniness and political skill and all these other qualities that they are totally making up, like children do about Santa Claus.
Not only were the Reagan years a disaster for all but the super-rich, but the basic damage done to the fabric of our democracy — the way that we basically “broke” the Presidency by proving that the system would essentially limp along without a President so long as there was a cornball actor in the Oval Office who could be made to utter suitable Will Rogers, bolo-tie cowboy sentiments on demand — is something we’re still paying for.
We paid for it with George W. Bush, and we’re paying for it now, with this kindergarten teacher who obviously believes that you can just put some maniac in there because somehow the system will work itself out (since the disasters of the Reagan and Bush years have all been successfully blamed on Democrats).
Democrats think things could be better and are willing to consider changes. Republicans think everything is totally failing and see no reason not to spark a flame. Either it will light the way or it will burn it all down. Either way, what bliss.
I think we will all be saying quite a few “Hail Mary’s” in the future if he pulls this off. If he doesn’t, I do not think whatever replaces the
“Republican Party As We Know It” will be any more palatable to any of us either. As for our poor Kindergarten Teacher. I will just say “good luck” and it’s O K with me if you stay home on election day.
What happens when Trump can no longer self-finance his campaign
Because there are limits on what he is allowed to spend.
Jonah Goldberg was the idiot who wrote Liberal Fascism, his version of Trump ranting about so-called political correctness. It’s going to be hard to miss him, but I think I’ll somehow survive.
I started a lengthy comment on this post. It grew. Now a stand-alone post.
Trump vs. HRC? The Societal End Game Is Now Upon Us.
Comment there if you wish to do so.
AG