Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's Bizarre, Rambling Speech Was the Perfect Donald Trump Endorsement

The former Alaska governor captured the incoherence that's driving Trump's campaign.

|

Sarah Palin's bizarre, rambling speech last night endorsing Donald Trump didn't make much sense (it's already been described as "post-apocalyptic poetry," which may not be entirely fair to either poetry or the apocalypse). Here, for example, is a representative passage:

A good, heated, and very competitive primary is where we are. And now though, to be lectured that, "Well, you guys are all sounding kind of angry," is what we're hearing from the establishment. Doggone right we're angry! Justifiably so! Yes! You know, they stomp on our neck, and then they tell us, "Just chill, okay just relax." Well, look, we are mad, and we've been had. They need to get used to it.

The speech name-checks a variety of conservative issues, from immigration to national defense to the build-up of debt, but not in any coherent context. They are not political issues in the traditional sense but free-associative decorations loosely affixed to Palin's freewheeling resentment. At times the speech, with its whiplash-rhythms and word juxtapositions, became downright hypnotic. Just play this on repeat for a while and let it wash over you:

In part this is because making sense isn't really Palin's style. But it's also because there is no coherent defense of Donald Trump's candidacy. His own argument is little more than a simple boast that he will make the country great, like it used to be, followed by a series of insults and a discussion of his poll numbers.

To the extent that he proposes anything resembling actual policies, they tend to be implausible fantasies, designed more as insults and power plays than ideas for governance. His speeches go long on personal boasting, and he dismisses most questions of governance by appealing to his own innate ability to overcome obstaces. You cannot make a reasoned case for Trump, because there is no such case to be made. 

Palin's support was incoherent, then, in part because that's how she is, and part because it could be no other way. Support for Trump is not based on reason or argument or logic or even a sense of what Trump would actually do as president, but on his personal appeal as a businessman and political entertainer, and a related sense of how and what the country would be. It is not really a political campaign at all, so much as an extended act of fantasy and wish-fulfillment for both him and his supporters. Donald Trump's presidential campaign is Donald Trump fanfic, with Donald Trump as the Mary Sue.

In a way, then, Palin's speech was the perfect endorsement for Donald Trump's campaign: an incoherent mess of angry, resentful sentiment, delivered in a way designed to provide the maximum in media spectacle. Palin effectively—and, okay, somewhat poetically—captured and amplified the identity-politics-driven nonsense that feeds both the candidate and his supporters. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Government Roadblock: Feds Should Just Get Out of the Way of Self-Driving Vehicles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hope and Change — Part Deux

    1. All of you dunderheads stuck to your insane ideology (open borders, unlimited immigration) need to get over it before you lose our country.

      Granted, Trump and Palin are not the best orators in the world. If oratory is what you are going to base your vote on I imagine you would want Obama again. What Trump and Palin have is they are genuine and unrehearsed. They don’t practice their speeches in front of focus groups or base what they say on the latest polls.

      Trump will run this country like a business. In capitalism I trust.

      There’s not one of you reading this who can tell me why Trump shouldn’t be president.

      Bring it on.

      I dare you.

      1. Alright! Who left the gate open?

      2. Trump would level your home to reach a 1 dollar bill on the other side of it.

        1. Winner Winner, Shula Steak house dinner!

          1. Bobarian, Unicorn, Libertymike — Not one of you are able to muster up one little intelligent comment or statement to refute anything I said?

            Please, I beg you, tell me something you don’t like about Trump and then sit back, relax and watch me destroy the meaningless, illogical statement you make.

            It’ll be fun. For me.

            1. Why don’t you make an intelligent statement first so we can have some proof that you’re actually sentient?

              1. Bobarian — Ok, answer me this:

                What candidate running for president is better than Trump.

                You can’t do it.

            2. EndTheGOP|1.20.16 @ 12:46PM|#
              “Bobarian, Unicorn, Libertymike — Not one of you are able to muster up one little intelligent comment or statement to refute anything I said?”

              Here, I’ll help:
              Fuck off.

            3. I have told you.

              1. Unicorn — What proof do you have of that inane statement of yours?

                    1. WTF — Scroll down and see my response to Catatafish.

                      Now do you have any REAL disagreements with Trump or is the ED issue the only thing you can come up with?

          2. Thank God, I’m Tired of Chicken

            1. Yusef — That’s funny. Here you are “Tired of Chicken” when you are an intellectual chicken!

              1. Hey-oh! Sick burn, brah!

      3. You’re a funny guy. And a collectivist nitwit.

        1. Zeb — Have you got anything intelligent to say or are you strictly a name-caller and then you run away.

          What don’t you like about Trump? Please tell me. And then watch me refute whatever inane comment you pulled out of your ass… you know, that place where you keep your pea-brain.

          1. I don’t appreciate Trump’s disrespect for property rights or his aggressive use of eminent domain for private use.

            1. Derp — How has Trump shown a “disrespect for property rights” and what was “his aggressive use of eminent domain for private use”?

              1. I apologize for linking to the Guardian, but in my defense, it’s a David Boaz article.

                http://www.theguardian.com/com…..idow-house

              2. Trump openly supported the Kelo decision by SCOTUS. In fact, he pre-dated Kelo in his support for using government to steal private property from one owner in order for it to be used by another private party (shocker, it was him). Please look at his statements surrounding Hartford, CT redevelopment.

                1. Cata — You are mistaken. The Kelo decision does NOT support “using the government to steal private property from one owner in order for it to be used by another private party.”

                  You really need to look up the word ‘steal’ in the dictionary. It is quite the opposite of stealing actually. When the government uses eminent domain to acquire property for corporations the owners are paid two or three times more than the property is worth.

                  Tell me, why doesn’t it bother you when the government uses ED to acquire property for an interstate highway but it bothers you when the government wants to use ED to purchase property for a corporation who wants to create thousands of jobs.

                  And if this is the only reason you have to not vote for TRUMP let me tell you, we have bigger problems to solve than the eminent domain issue. We are so close to losing our country. If a democrat/socialist wins the election in 2016 they will get to nominate as many as 4 Supreme Court justices and capitalism will be dead for the next 75 years minimum. Trump is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary or Bernie.

                  Your children and grandchildren will be living the lives of the Russians of the 1950s.

                  Please tell me who you think should be our next president.

                  1. You really need to look up the word ‘steal’ in the dictionary. It is quite the opposite of stealing actually. When the government uses eminent domain to acquire property for corporations the owners are paid two or three times more than the property is worth.

                    Yet for some reason it isn’t the seller who is deciding what it is “worth.”

                    We are so close to losing our country.

                    Who’s “we”? Why is “losing our [sic] country” a bad thing?

                    Your children and grandchildren will be living the lives of the Russians of the 1950s.

                    Yawn. No kids here.

                    Please tell me who you think should be our next president.

                    SMOD ’16.

                    1. Just say — You are correct. It isn’t the seller deciding what it’s worth. It is the county who has previously determined that amount. The same amount as the owner is paying taxes on.

                      And then the corporation pays that person 2 or 3 times that amount. Quite a difference from “stealing.”

                      “We” is every citizen. If you really want to lose the country vote socialist. We’re almost there now. If a democrat/socialist wins in 2016 and that person gets to pick 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices we will be a socialist country for the next 75 years minimum. And Communism is just a short slide down that slippery slope away. I prefer capitalism to a Big Brother government in any life.

                      Thank God you didn’t procreate.

                      Personally, I’m hoping SMOD 16 breaks up into a zillion pieces and one of those pieces pierces your brain, you know, the pea-brain you hide up your ass.

                  2. EndTheGOP:

                    Until Kelo it was understood for hundreds of years that the takings clause was strictly limited to “public use.” The Kelo decision and its supporters did for eminent domain abuse the same way Wickard v. Filburn did for commerce clause abuse. Making government the arbiter of “the best use” of private property completely destroys the very concept of private property itself.

                    I’m normally not one for name-calling but if you can’t understand that then you’re nothing but a fucking statist twat.

                    1. Catatafish — If this is the best you can do to show why people shouldn’t vote for Trump, he has already won the election. This is a NOTHING issue in this campaign.

                      Now let’s see if you have any balls:

                      Who do you want to be president out of all of the candidates.

                      Or are you nothing but a fucking PUSSY?

                    2. As a veteran of 4chan, this is some epic trolling. You wouldn’t be a regular of the /pol/ board would you? You ‘fucking PUSSY?’

                    3. Catatafish — If this is the best you can do to show why people shouldn’t vote for Trump, he has already won the election. This is a NOTHING issue in this campaign.

                      Now let’s see if you have any balls:

                      Who do you want to be president out of all of the candidates.

                      Or are you nothing but a fucking PUSSY?

                2. and he keeps being asked about it and sticks to his position.

                  Kelo is the one ruling I have seen that was hated by both right and left.

                  Trump has no adviser to explain it to him?

              3. So your intelligent refutation of the argument boils down to “I know you are, but what am I”?

                Fuck off. This thread is repleat with denunciations and intelligent discussions of Trump’s issues and Palin’s demagoguery. Your sick little trolling game is pathetic.

                1. Bobarian — Still can’t refute a single thing I say, huh? It must be so frustrating.

                  Again:

                  What candidate running for president is better than Trump.

                  You can’t do it, mental midget that you are.

                  1. Fuck off — almost every candidate would be better than the bloviating, crony-capitalist, shit-talking hair-piece, and I can’t refute anything you’ve said, because you haven’t said anything.

                    The one point you’ve seemed to make is that Trump is the only one that can beat Hillary.

                    Hillary is doing a fine job of beating Hillary. Whomever the GOP lands on will beat Hillary, unless Trump decides to run as 3rd party.

                    1. Bobarian — You are the most amusing idiot I have met here at Reason. Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

                      Now let’s see if you have any balls.

                      Which candidate do you want for president?

                      I think most of the readers are betting you’re a PUSSY!

                  2. Nutz. Deez Nutz.

                  3. All of them.

          2. I don’t want anyone to run the country period. That’s a good start and enough reason for me.

            You could read some of my many comments and see for yourself if I have anything to say.

            1. Zeb — Are you under the mistaken impression that country’s run themselves? Does your household run itself? Does your automobile run itself? Do corporations run themselves? No they don’t. They have LEADERS. And that is what Trump is.

              And no. I’m not going to read through the archives of Reason to see what comments you have made in the past. State your thoughts here and now or go away and stop wasting the time of people who are trying to exchange intellectual ideas.

              1. I’m also against his opposition to gun rights.

                1. Derp — What opposition are you referring to? Be specific.

                  1. You haven’t replied to my comment about eminent domain abuse yet.

                    1. Derp — Read my response above to Catatafish. It gives my response to the ED issue.

                      And what a small issue that is really. I’m trying to save the country and all you can bring up is ED in your opposition to Trump. Get real.

                      Now be specific about how you think Trump is opposed to gun rights.

                  2. He is on the record as supporting an “assault weapons ban” and waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm.

                    1. Catatafish — How many times does it have to be explained to you guys.

                      TRUMP WAS PLAYING A PART IN ORDER TO PROSPER AND SURVIVE IN NYC.

                      Who the fuck can’t understand that.

                      I don’t care what he endorsed when he was playing the game. I care about what he endorse NOW!

                    2. If he was lying then, then what makes you think he’s telling the truth now?

                    3. RoninX — Because I can tell when a person is REAL or not.

                      Name me the politician who hasn’t lied to his constituents.

              2. You must be new to this whole libertarian thing. A country doesn’t need a leader any more than the economy needs top down control.

                1. Zeb — I’ve been voting Libertarian since before you were born. I’m trying to save the country here. It’s time to throw away our ideology for a period of time to get the country back on the right tract because once the socialists control things, it’s all over.

                  Trump is the only candidate running who can gets us there.

                  1. Which Libertarian presidential candidate did you vote for in the 1960 election?

                    1. Wholly — You’re an idiot! There was no Libertarian Party in 1960. At least Google for information before you embarrass yourself next time.

                      Either start making intelligent comments or go elsewhere. I have more important things to do that tutor your dumb ass.

                    2. um? I’ve been voting Libertarian since before you were born? So – No you haven’t and thank you for the history lesson d-bag

                  2. I personally like my ideology just the way it is thank you. I also don’t need to be led to the right “large expanse of land” by anyone.

                  3. “It’s time to throw away our ideology”

                    Why the fuck would we bother listening to you then, genius?

                    1. StackOfCrap — Do you have ADD. Go back and reread what I’ve written in this thread. I explained my thought process logically and PERFECTLY.

                      Trump is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary. That is why you should bother listening to a genius like me.

                      By the way. From what I’ve discovered the last 6 months or so I am the only genius here at Reason.

                      Anyone care to debate that point?

                      I didn’t think so.

        2. I guess he’s doing a Trump impression? I think that’s the bit.

          1. Wait, based on his obsessive Twitter chatter, could this actually BE The Periwig Popinjay himself? Has our little comment board been graced with the presence of The Donald??

            1. Endless — Maybe.

      4. Dude, if Barack “Uh… [long pause] Um” Obama is your standard for decent oratory, no wonder you’re the type of addled person who would write what you did there.

        1. Citizen — Please tell me your favorite orator and then watch me destroy him right in front of your very eyes… dude.

          Name me ONE thing you don’t like about Trump.

          You can’t do it because you’re a mental midget.

          1. A real asshole wondered in the door.
            I repeat: Fuck off.

            1. Sevo — I understand. You’re not quite up for an intellectual debate, are you.

              The funny thing is, you never will be either.

              1. False. Sevo is a masterdebater.

                1. Thanks, and my masterful response to our newest asshole is:
                  Fuck off!
                  I like it, don’t you?

          2. My favorite orators are Cicero, Patrick Henry, and Daniel Webster! Please destroy!

            1. Derp — What about jesus? Surely you enjoyed his oratory.

          3. Name me ONE thing you don’t like about Trump.

            Assholes like you love him.

          4. Abraham Lincoln

          5. He eats pizza with a fork

      5. I have seen a bunch of your comments in this thread. I agree with most other people, f* off.

        That being said, the reason nobody is biting on your dares to name someone better is because that is not an argument. If everyone else is an asshole, that doesn’t mean Trump is not. It kind of gets down to Trump’s whole campaign. He doesn’t lay down anything concrete, but he is really good at going after people. Are you Trump?

        Further, you can’t debate his positions because he doesn’t have any. You can’t say, well, that whole wall thing is bullshit, because, theoretically he could build a big wall, but it all lacks so many details that you could just come up with a bunch of half-baked, semi-plausible ways to do it, or the vague promise of making Mexico do it, how pray tell.

        You tell me one thing Trump is going to do other than “Make ‘merica great again.” The whole point is that most of the bs he spouts off sounds an awful lot like authoritarianism, which is why everyone here is telling you to go screw yourself. It’s the common denominator among his adherents. The only reason anyone can give (including Trump) is that he is great and he will win. And make America win. How?

        All the simple answer to how he is going to do stuff is by abuse of power. We have no reason not to assume that without any sort of evidence to the contrary.

        Blindly following a charismatic leader is anathema to everything this site is about.

        1. Joe — You are watching the most masterful politician who has lived within the last 100 years, maybe in the entire existence of our republic. Why should he be specific? He doesn’t have to. He is such a genius he is manipulating ALL of his opponents to his benefit the same way he will manipulate Hillary. He is the ONLY candidate who can beat Hillary. Cruz and all of his evangelical bullshit can’t beat her. Gary Johnson, as much as I love the guy, doesn’t have a chance in hell. Neither does any other Libertarian candidate

          You said, “You tell me one thing Trump is going to do other than “Make ‘merica great again.”

          Aren’t you paying attention? He’s going to build a wall. Wake up. I haven’t got the time to tutor you if your head isn’t in the game.

          You also said, “That being said, the reason nobody is biting on your dares to name someone better is because that is not an argument. If everyone else is an asshole, that doesn’t mean Trump is not.”

          Don’t tell me. That’s going to be your lame excuse not to vote. You can’t find the perfect candidate so you’re going to hang your head and sulk like the PUSSY you are.

          YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

          1. He’s manipulative, and that will make him a good leader? Lmao you need to get your priorities in line, man.

          2. He’s going to make America great by…building a wall? Our lack of walls is what is holding us back from greatness? And we used to be great before right, (cuz he’s gunna make us great AGAIN)which means we USED to have walls before? Where did the walls go? Have the Mexicans been stealing our jobs AND our walls? Also, is that what makes GREAT Britain so great, since they’ve had The Wall since the late 70s? Should we elect Pink Floyd for president to make us great AGAIN?

        2. Succinct and lucid argument. Amen ‘dat.

      6. A career crony who suddenly finds himself awake inside the candy-closet is not going to “run the country like a business”. He’s going to stuff the fuck out of his pockets with candy before he gets discovered and kicked out of said candy-closet.

        1. Other Lib — Who are YOU going to vote for. Come on, don’t be a PUSSY all of your life. Take a stand. Grow a pair, Tell us.

          1. Rand Paul

            1. Wholly — You like betting on losers do you? I’ll bet you a million dollars Rand Paul doesn’t even win the GOP nomination much less the presidency. Is that too steep for you?

              Hell, he’s probably already dropped out while I was typing this.

              1. No it isn’t too steep for me. Actually let’s double it.

      7. This is a joke, right? I’m assuming this is sarcasm
        \
        He is not the lesser evil. He is the exact same.

        1. Baron — Who are YOU going to vote for. Come on, don’t be a PUSSY all of your life. Take a stand. Grow a pair, Tell us.

      8. He is overcompensating for a small package and no hair?

        1. Wholly — you act as if you know what my package looks like. Was that you in the locker room last weekend staring at my johnson like you never saw one before? I’ll bet it was.

          1. Actually not sure what kind of locker rooms you hang out in but I bet you also eat little shits for breakfast too.

          2. Eh… calling a bathhouse a locker room is a BIT of a stretch.

    2. You misspelled Cope or Hanged.

  2. Uncle Joe without the groping.

  3. I was impressed with how many of her own meaningless catchphrases she managed to work in.

    1. She did a really good job of convincing me that Trump is an even worse candidate than I thought.

      She seemed to throw some love Rand Paul’s way, but I wasn’t exactly sure what her point was. Maybe she thinks our boy Randy would make a good VP?

      1. Actually, this was the lead-in to the Rand praise, and I think the real “point” of it:

        It’s gonna take a whole team. Fighters, all of us, in the private sector. Fighters in the House and the Senate. So, our friends, who are fighters in the House and the Senate today, they need to stay there and help out. They can help our new leader in the positions that they are in.

        Sit down, stay in the Senate, and get in line to help Trump.

        1. Does she comment here? I swear I’ve heard variants of that before…

          1. Well, *I* have advanced the argument that we are better off with 20 years of Senator Rand Paul than 4 years of President Rand Paul.

            But it’s not because I particularly want to hand some Republican president a nice large, tame legislative block providing him with a rubber stamp.

            1. You’re right about Rand in the Senate. Never thought I’d say, “thank god for Kentucky,” but there you are.

              1. I imagine McConnell brings it back to even.

            2. I also think Paul as a senator long term would be better for liberty than President Paul.

            3. The fact is there are too many GOP candidates now.

              Trump in fact benefits from the division of the establishment votes.

              Kasich + Bush + Rubio + Christie = some decent percentage

              Did I forget anybody?

              1. One more thing: before anybody drops out, could we get at least one week of Trump-Christie antagonism?

                I really want to see those guys insult each other.

                1. Meh. If it gets down to Christie against 3-4 other candidates, he’ll just eat his remaining competitors.

          2. Wanting him to focus on the Senate is reasonable. His odds of winning the presidency are minimal, and if he splits his resources and loses both, we’re much worse off.

        2. Sit down …, and get in line to help Trump.

          This being my 3rd (or is it my 4th?) Presidential cycle here at HnR, I have already braced myself for a year’s worth of posts from the Hit & Runpublicans that will read just like that.

          1. John was just the advance man.

          2. This being my 3rd (or is it my 4th?) Presidential cycle here at HnR, I have already braced myself for a year’s worth of posts from the Hit & Runpublicans that will read just like that.

            Nope. That never happens. And if it does happen they certainly won’t admit to it next time.

            1. *pushes SF into the memory hole*

              What were we talking about?

              1. Nobody pushes SF into a hole…

                The trick is keeping him out of em.

                1. Especially if there are cookies hidden in the hole.

          3. When Hillary is in the White House, it will all be YOUR fault, HM.

    2. Drill, baby, drill! …down into accountability…

    1. Yes, I’m pretty sure there exists a yokai that feeds upon tears of laughter; though I prefer the hone onna.

      1. Yokai?

        And all this time, I been spelling it yokel.

    2. I’m really glad we can fuck the country over in oscillating ways so that somebody can score points in a game.

  4. Palin just nuked whatever shred of credibility she had left.

    1. Yes, I’m afraid so.

    2. Seems the left was correct about her.

      1. It’s actually quite interesting to reflect back on the Palin trajectory. In 2008, she did seem quite a good choice. I got what McCain was going for when he picked her, and the vitriol and elitism with which the left attacked her was shocking.

        Over the years, though, it seems like she’s gone further and further off the deep end. Maybe she’s buying into the hype about her, maybe she is just desperate to stay in the spotlight, maybe the left was right about her all around. It’s tough to say.

        1. “In 2008, she did seem quite a good choice.”

          Uh… she was clearly unvetted and unprepared, unhinged, and a sign of desperation from an overwhelmed McCain camp from the get-go.

          Her 2011 cross-country tour where she quite clearly scammed her supporters out of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars should have been the absolute end of her. The general inability for most humans to self-reflect and acknowledge that they are capable of making enormous mistakes is the only reason she is still around.

          1. The general inability for most humans to self-reflect and acknowledge that they are capable of making enormous mistakes is the only reason she is still around.

            Until yesterday’s PM Links, I did not realize she even was still around.

            I still maintain that, ignoring the years of crazy we were eventually subjected to, she was a good choice in 2008. The McCain campaign was in free fall because Barack H. Christ could do no wrong in the eyes of the media, while McCain was constantly being misquoted, misrepresented, or otherwise portrayed in an unflattering light (often, though not always, deserved). Palin got a lot of people excited about his campaign. She was down-to-earth, unpretentious, and seemed like someone we all knew. Not a quality I’m looking for in a president, personally, but many people apparently are. The fact that the media was particularly nasty to her only increased her supporters’ love for her.

            1. I think McCain was the victim of the most blatant slam partisan slam job I can recall when the NYT ran that story about him possibly having an affair with one of his staffers. Their evidence consisted of a whole bunch of unidentified sources saying, in effect, that McCain and her were not coldly professional toward each other and treated one another like people.

              I can easily imagine the McCain campaign wanting to do something, anything, to get the glowing press he received when he was The Maverick and working with the Democrats as the Republican Who Understands. Hence, Palin.

              I thought of that story last year when the story about how male congressional reps were making a point of ensuring they were never alone with attractive female staffers and how that was preventing the women from being able to compete professionally because they lacked that quality one-on-one mentoring time that their male peers received.

  5. Where is GILMORE, I need a dossier on that sweater…open-faced-poncho-shrug/shawl stat!

    1. And the jangly part: Bullets? Beads? Tiny carved bones? Or just noisemakers, like belling a cat?

      1. They do remind me of mini-windchimes. Belling a cat might be the correct answer.

  6. Yeah, our leader is a little bit different. He’s a multi-billionaire. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But, it’s amazing, he is not elitist at all. Oh, I just hope you guys get to know him more and more as a person, and a family man. What he’s been able to accomplish, with his um, it’s kind of this quiet generosity. Yeah, maybe his largess kind of, I don’t know, some would say gets in the way of that quiet generosity, and, uh, his compassion, but if you know him as a person and you’ll get to know him more and more, you’ll have even more respect.

    Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I for one am pretty fucking psyched to finally get to know someone whose largess gets in the way of his generosity. BORED OF WINNING!!!!!

    1. “I just hope you guys get to know him more and more as a person, and a family man.”

      A family man?

      A family man?!

      Did she say, “A FAMILY MAN”?!!!

      1. To be fair, Palin’s idea of a family man is someone who gets drunk and hits his girlfriend.

        1. allegedly!

          And a family woman is one who has two out-of-wedlock children from two different fathers (one of which is disputing paternity)…

        2. You win the internet.

      2. Yes. He loves family so much, he needs a new one every few years.

    2. Come to think of it, Trump is a family man in a way.

      He has like six of them!

      1. Antonio Cromartie for President!

    3. Your tears are yummy and sweet, Nikki. Really, why are you so afraid and offended by these rambling talks by fame-whores with no coherent policies about anything? Because they’re not Serious like the Establishment?

      Now, I don’t like Trump or Palin, I’m not going to vote for them, but you are a straight bitch for ever saying one mean thing about these brave truth speakers who will save us from the SJW hoard if America is smart and honest enough to elect them. But I’m sure you would prefer Hillary or Jeb instead.

      1. Can’t tell if serious.

        If it’s between the SJW’s and Donald Trump, I’ll be funding every warp drive proposal on kickstarter.

        1. P.S. You’re not impressing anybody, but you’re especially not impressing anybody for calling Nikki a bitch.

          P.P.S. FU

          1. Be cool, Ken. You done got trolled.

            1. Poe’s Law.

              I invoke Poe’s Law.

          2. But she IS a bitch. She’s proud of it. That’s why we love her. What’s your issue?

      2. It’s because I’m not a family woman.

        1. We all know you’ve got a family, Nikki.

          Locked in your basement.

          You should probably feed them at some point.

          1. Don’t be ridiculous. Urban sodomites don’t have basements.

            1. Listen, woman, we have no time for this! There’s a war on Christmas we need to fight and Trump is going to make those Jewboy coffee magnates say “Merry Christmas” whether they like it or not!

          2. Their ankles are chained to the floor and they stand in front of blackboards writing “I will not dangle my participles.” over and over again.

          3. Hey bro, stop trying to get Nikki to enact emotional labor on behalf of her family. She doesn’t roll that way.

            1. Where did i say it was HER family?

              1. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. If she’s keeping them in her basement, they’re her family, no?

      3. *slow clap*
        *waits for the inevitable “I think you are right” *

  7. “In part this is because making sense isn’t really Palin’s style. But it’s also because there is no coherent defense of Donald Trump’s candidacy.”

    Maybe somebody else has already brought this up in another thread, but . . .

    I’ve been wondering out loud who the hell would possibly want to be Trump’s running mate–seeing as if Trump loses, it’ll be political suicide.

    The answer is Sarah Palin, right?

    There isn’t anybody better suited to be his running mate, and I’m not sure there’s anybody else with name recognition that would want to be Trump’s running mate.

    1. You’re FIRED!

      1. She was just ahead of her time.

        1. The other day, Trump mentioned that Scott Brown would make a good VP.

    2. He could hold a reality show competition

      1. I’m ashamed to say i’d watch that.

  8. Trump will choose Zombie James Stockdale as his running mate.

  9. I think it was the perfect speech to represent the base of the GOP. After all, she was the person the party once chose to be a heartbeat away.

    1. Oh gee. Partisan troll is partisan.

      Who would have thunk it?

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      1. …said one who always makes sure he reads the troll’s comments.

          1. See you again, I’m sure, Ken!

            1. Yeah, jack, we expect your sorry ass to clutter up the place now and then.
              BTW, it’s a shame you got sloppy seconds with Biden.

      2. He has a point, though: the GOP put this woman up with McCain. I suppose when the Dems put up either the felonious idiot or avowed socialist, Jackand will be along to apologize for it.

        1. Technically, the McCain campaign put her up after he had won the primary. The media indulging this woman’s narcissism and balancing it with more than enough of their own (tell us more about her children, Andrew Sullivan) is what made the election cycle into such a spectacle. Which, to be fair, the McCain campaign should have been able to predict. But to blame her on the GOP as a whole is a bit of a stretch.

          1. Well they did nominate the warmongering Arizona cryptkeeper.

          2. In McCain’s defense, in 2008, Eric Dondero was promoting her as an up and coming star in the coming Republican-Libertarian thousand year reich.

            1. Aren’t you supposed to spell that with a lot more oooooooos?

            2. I am mostly (blissfully) ignorant of Dondero besides the Hit & Run memes, but I find it hilarious when anyone talks about their party/ideology/whatever holding office indefinitely beyond the next election.

        2. avowed socialist

          Are you sure? From “Bernie Sanders: To Rein In Wall Street, Fix the Fed”:

          Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed’s boards and to handpick its members and staff. Board positions should instead include representatives from all walks of life ? including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.

          1. You’re right. He’s not a socialist, he’s a (wannabe) communist.

            1. You’re right. He’s not a socialist, he’s a (wannabe) communist corporatist.

              FTFY because Sanders is stealing a chapter 1 from The Coming Corporate State.

          2. I’m sure that will play well with Democrats. “We need a farmer on the Fed board!”

            1. In a fascist state, businesses are governed by a board of directors made up of the following groups:

              * Capital
              * Labor
              * Consumers

              The entire banking and finance industry would be regulated by the Finance Corporation which would be made up of representatives of capital across the industry, representatives of labor across the industry, and representatives of consumers of the industry.

              For banks, this would be anyone in the US, so “homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses” would fall under consumers. (Raven Thomson states that since the consumers of most industries is the entire nation, government representatives would be included as representatives of consumers to represent everyone across the nation.)

              Representatives from the various Corporations ? Finance, Manufacturing, Transportation, Old Age Pensioners, etc., would then be sent to the national legislature ? Congress in the US, Parliament in the UK, Chamber of Fasci and Corporations in Italy, etc.

              Under Bernie Sanders’s scheme, the Federal Reserve essentially becomes a Finance Corporation.

          3. How cute, he thinks he can stop the equivalent of regulatory capture by putting in a board that is unfamiliar with high finance.

            1. So did Oswald Mosley.

  10. Once you accept the inevitable doom of our nation – all you can say is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZdeg_fL-I

  11. “””The speech name-checks a variety of conservative issues, from immigration to national defense to the build-up of debt, but not in any coherent context. “”‘

    So are you saying conservatism is not coherent or that conservatives can’t articulate in a coherent way or that you don’t like Trump or Palin?

    1. Maybe he’s saying that Palin did not coherently articulate anything conservative.

      1. Hush now, nikki! Don’t you know “conservative” now refers to a set of cultural shibboleths, as opposed to any sort of concrete fiscal policies or a particular view of government?

        1. Ugh, but daaaaaaaaaaaaaad, whyyyyyyyyyy?

          1. Hands off my Medicare, girl!

        2. Was there ever a time when ‘conservative’ meant something besides ‘opposing whatever the Democrats propose’ or ‘doing the same thing as the Democrats, only slower or for different beneficiaries’?

          1. When Buckley was alive?

            1. I guess I should have phrased the question as ‘what did conservatism ever mean besides those things’.

          2. Not all conservatives are USians.

          3. Goldwater. “Before passing a law, check the constitution.”

            1. So, basically, conservative has been kind of a meaningless term ever since a genuinely conservative candidate lost in a goddamn landslide election to a slimy and abusive naked opportunist.

              1. For Republicans, winning is more important than principles. Dems as well.

              2. Pretty much, yeah.

        3. “Conservative” has meant “kultur warrior” for at least 20 years. They don’t care any more about fiscal sanity or free markets than Bernie and Hilldog.

          1. There are shit-tons of pricipled conservatives who believe in fiscal restraint and want to just be left alone on social issues.

            The real issue is (as G Carlin noted) ‘Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.’

            The stupid always seems to rise to the top. The Tea Party was formed around fiscal conservatism, and the media gave voice to the idiots standing around the edge.

          2. Conservatives have been on the defensive in the culture wars, they have been the aggressors.

      2. The English language has, once again, let Sarah Palin down.

        1. Doggone it, Sarah Palin will not be held back by the elitist rules of grammar and syntax imposed on us by the leftwing bureaucrats in Washington and their allies in the Lamestream Media

    2. That’s some deep exegetical work there, DJF.

      1. *looks up exegetical*
        *thinks about whether to feel insulted*
        *time passes*

  12. “What are we gonna do in Washington? Why do we want to go to Washington?” Stillson roared. “What’s our platform? Our platform got five boards, my friends n neighbors, five old boards! And what are they? I’ll tell you up front! First board: THROW THE BUMS OUT!”

    A tremendous roar of approval ripped out of the crowd. Someone threw double handfuls of confetti into the air and someone else yelled, “Yaaaah-HOO!” Stillson leaned over his podium.

    “You wanna know why I’m wearing this helmet, friends n neighbors? I’ll tell you why. I’m wearin it because when you send me up to Washington, I’m gonna go through them like you-know-what through a canebrake! Gonna go through em just like this!”

    And before Johnny’s wondering eyes, Stillson put his head down and began to charge up and down the podium stage like a bull, uttering a high, yipping Rebel yell as he did so. Roger Chatsworth simply dissolved in his chair, laughing helplessly. The crowd went wild. Stillson charged back to the podium, took off his construction helmet, and spun it into the crowd. A minor riot over possession of it immediately ensued.

    “Second board!” Stillson yelled into the mike. “We’re gonna throw out anyone in the government, from the highest to the lowest, who is spending time in bed with some gal who ain’t his wife! If they wanna sleep around, they ain’t gonna do it on the public tit!”

    1. “Third board!” Stillson roared. “We’re gonna send all the pollution right into outer space! Gonna put it in Hefty bags! Gonna put it in Glad bags! Gonna send it to Mars, to Jupiter, and the rings of Saturn! We’re gonna have clean air and we’re gonna have clean water and we’re gonna have it in SIX MONTHS!”

      The crowd was in paroxysms of joy. Johnny saw many people in the crowd who were almost killing themselves laughing, as Roger Chatsworth was presently doing.

      “Fourth board! We’re gonna have all the gas and oil we need! We’re gonna stop playing games with these Arabs and get down to brass tacks! Ain’t gonna be no old people in New Hampshire turned into Popsicles this coming winter like there was last winter!”

      This brought a solid roar of approval. The winter before an old woman in Portsmouth had been found frozen to death in her third-floor apartment, apparently following a turn-off by the gas company for nonpayment.

      “We got the muscle, friends n neighbors, we can do it! Anybody out there think we can’t do it?”

      “NO!” The crowd bellowed back.

      1. If you were writing a novel, and your Donald Trump character didn’t win, it would be a huge copout, wouldn’t it? Vote Trump.

        1. I think SF is looking for some clairvoyant with a brain tumor to take Trump out.

  13. I didn’t play the video, but the quote didn’t seem incoherent or rambling to me. Maybe it was in the delivery? Or maybe this is just the Hatin’ Palin hour?

    1. I say this as someone who does not watch online videos: you are missing out.

      1. The delivery was awful at times, but I thought the content was perfect for Trump supporters. Whoever wrote it knew their audience well.

        1. You think it was written? Wow.

        2. For the record, I watched (some of) her, uh, speech. It was painful to the eardrums. Written down makes it seem sort of sensical but the delivery was just… ouch.

  14. “Last board,” Stillson said, and approached the metal cart. He threw back the hinged lid and a cloud of steam puffed out. “HOT DOGS!!”

    He began to grab double handfuls of hot dogs from the cart, which Johnny now recognized as a portable steam table. He threw them into the crowd and went back for more. Hot dogs flew everywhere. “Hot dogs for every man, woman, and child in America! And when you put Greg Stillson in the House of Representatives, you gonna say HOT DOG! SOMEONE GIVES A RIP AT LAST!”

    1. I can’t tell which candidate in this race is Stillson. I sort of suspect it’s all of them.

      1. It’s sad to see King so statist and left now, because pretty much all of those early books were very anti-government, from the endless committees that learned the exact wrong lesson from the Black Prom, to the clueless or turned cops in Salem’s Lot, to the useless police and park rangers in The Shining, the government wiping out 99% of humanity in The Stand, feckless cops in Cujo, Stillson and the dangerous idiocy of the electorate in The Dead Zone, and the downright evil of the CIA/NSA stand in The Shop in Firestarter.

        1. There is a sort of emotional “evolution” wherein if you surround yourself with the sort of people who believe that their own lives and concerns are of vital importance to the entire world, you come to agree with them.

        2. It’s sad to see King so statist and left now, because pretty much all of those early books were very anti-government

          Weren’t a lot of those early books written in ’70s when thanks to Watergate and the Church Committee a lot of leftists were at least skeptical of government? I guess that’s one good thing that could come from a Trump presidency: the left will suddenly remember that maybe being skeptical of government isn’t such a bad thing. Until one of their own gets back in the White House of course.

          1. Unfortunately, their skepticism of government only lasts for so long as a “conservative” holds the reins of power.

      1. Basically.

  15. Well, Palin also backed John McCain, so what did anyone expect?

  16. A good, heated, and very competitive primary is where we are. And now though, to be lectured that, “Well, you guys are all sounding kind of angry,” is what we’re hearing from the establishment. Doggone right we’re angry! Justifiably so! Yes! You know, they stomp on our neck, and then they tell us, “Just chill, okay just relax.” Well, look, we are mad, and we’ve been had. They need to get used to it.

    I’m assuming the rest of the speech gets more bizarre. This does seem rambling… a bit… it seems that she’s improvising and not reading from a teleprompter, but I don’t see this much as bizarre.

    She sounds like she’s saying exactly what other Trump supporters are saying: Screw the establishment, you haven’t listened to us, we’re angry, and no, we’re not going to be brought to heel by the GOP Old Guard Establishment.

    1. Palin still wants to be VP, apparently. At least SNL will have some fresh material.

      1. At least SNL will have some fresh material.

        Full Tina Fey employment this election cycle! A record the government can be proud of.

        1. God, I can’t stand Tina Fey. She did one almost decent sketch like eight years ago and the media falls in love with her. She’s not funny. Hey, remember all of those great Tina Fey classics before or after the Palin parody? No, because there aren’t any.

          1. Not a fan of 30 Rock?

    2. She sounds like she’s saying exactly what other Trump supporters are saying

      Actually, she sounds like Trump.

      1. Has anyone ever seen HER and Trump in the same room? /sarc

  17. I just want to see the shocked look on all of those Trump supporters when he gets elected and does exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do.

    1. Half the time Trump is a progressive plant who is going to stick to his supporters and the other half of the time he is America’s Juan Peron leading a fascist movement to end the American Republic.

      The only person who seems to ever speak in any rational way about Trump is the Dilbert guy Scott Adams. Adams makes the point that Trump thinks of everything as a negotiation. And the way you negotiate is to take an outrageous position knowing you will settle for less but also knowing your initial offer will drag the other side as far as possible before you make the deal. Basically, it is the truism that you can’t get anything unless you ask for it. and something is only “outrageous” in comparison to what is expected. So for example, Trump says he is going to build a wall and pay for it by taxing remittances to Mexico not because he actually expects that to happen but as first bid in the negotiation. He says that not to obtain it but to make other things that at the beginning seem impossible suddenly seem reasonable by comparison.

      1. I always take my political advice from cartoonists. Well, sometimes actors and comedians.

        1. Scott Adams is a very smart guy. Just because he writes a cartoon doesn’t mean he is stupid. It doesn’t mean he is smart but it doesn’t preclude him from being smart. If you don’t believe me, go read his blog. Adams is a very level headed and smart guy worth listening to.

          1. My father was a cartoonist. He was very smart. And yet, he voted for JFK, who was only spared from being the worst president of the 20th century by getting his brains blown out.

            1. Cool story. Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And your father could have voted for Nixon. I mean what could have possibly gone wrong with a Nixon Presidency?

              1. Concussion often has a lasting effect. Have you seen a neurologist recently?

                1. I don’t write the history Old Man. I just read it. Nixon and Kennedy were the choices in 1960. So again, your father could have not voted for Kennedy and voted for Nixon.

                  The 1960 election was kind of a big deal. Are you having memory loss issues or something? Did you think Kennedy was running against Coolidge?

              2. Nixon who WAS the worst president in the 20th century.

                1. Worse than LBJ? Worse than Carter?

                  1. Worse than Wilson?

                    Doubtful.

          2. Scott Adams basically says that Trump is using suggestive techniques of a master hypnotist to mesmerize the crowds into supporting his candidacy.

            You know who else did that sort of thing while promising to restore national greatness? 😉

            1. It is not so much the speeches. It is the giant military style marches on Washington and the mobs of brown shirted Trump supporters out beating up Muslims and Mexicans and burning down their businesses that has me worried.

              1. I really don’t see that being very far away from where Trump is trying to point us though, John.

                1. And that is crazy bobarian. I am sorry but it just is. The only real fascists in this country are the Islamic kind. And the same people who are convinced Trump is one are often the people who are utterly incapable of seeing Islamic fascism for what it is. It is almost like they are taking their inability to deal with or face the real threat of Islamic fascism and compensating for it by pretending that Trump is the fascist.

                  1. If we are going to keep throwing around the word “fascist” we should really agree on what it means first. I don’t think we’re all talking about the same thing. I think that most of the non-John people here are thinking of the economic side of fascism. While John assumes we all mean “Nazism”.

                    1. Zeb,

                      To the extent there is an “economic side of fascism”, it is socialism. And there is only one socialist I am aware of running for President and it is not Trump. Think about it, Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist who wants to close the borders and believes in the right of the American people to the soil that is the US. And yet, Trump is somehow the fascist, not the self admitted National Socialist.

                    2. They are all fascists. That’s what I’ve said all along.

                    3. Trump is most definitely a socialist. His policy proposals are overtly and clearly socialist.

                  2. Also, which Islamic fascists are running for president or have any signifcant influence in the US? Maybe it’s a worry in some parts of Europe. But I’m more worried about our homegrown fascists here. Whether or not you agree on that definition of fascism, we’re mostly talking about people who think that the government should engineer society and run the economy.

                    1. Zeb,

                      If you don’t think Islamic fascism influences the US, go try and publish a Muhammad cartoon or any kind of serious critique of Islam in any major publication. Go ask the woman who had to go into hiding because the FBI said they could not protect her after she started “everybody draw Muhammad Day” about the influence of Islamic fascism.

                      Granted, the right to speak frankly about Islam is a small right. But dont’ worry, they will move on to other bigger rights. Just give them time.

                    2. How do you define fascism? I don’t think we are talking about the same thing here at all.

                    3. Fascism is the commitment to the total state and the use of violence and particularly mob violence for political ends.

                    4. OK, well under that definition, probably none of the candidates are fascists. Sanders is probably closest. That’s not what I meant, though.

                      There you go, problem solved.

                    5. I agree Zeb. None of the candidates are fascist, though some are worse than others.

                    6. the mob violence is simply a means to an end. The real meat of fascism IS the economic platform, just like left wing socialism. It justifies the subordination of the individual to the state through national “greatness”. Basically instead of having a socialized society run by government “top men”, you have a socialized society run by business and corporate “top men”. The interest then becomes the good of the nation and its businesses rather than the good of its people. For example, the “nation” may benefit when one of its national champion industries gets government protection through tarriffs, but this comes at the cost of almost all individuals in the nation being worse off.

                  3. I’m not talking about fascism at all, but the cult of personality that is forming around Trump.

                    Fascism was the framework for Hitler to work within, but his political success was based on building his own cult of personality. He demonized jews; Trump is demonizing mexicans and muslims.

                    I don’t want to Godwin, but there is some similarity here.

                    1. Bobarian,

                      The Muslims seem to be doing a good job of demonizing themselves. And the entire Prog left constantly demonizes the white working class and white men. If you are so scared of demonizing groups, why did you not get concerned when Trurmp said something bad about Mexicans?

                      You want to talk about demonizing a group, what about White Male college students? We have had multiple American Dryfus cases regarding some poor white male college student being falsely accused of rape but convicted in the media, see the Duke LAX case and the UVA Rolling Stone article.

                      That is demonetization.

                    2. I don’t support any of those mother-fuckers either, John. And I think they’re just as shitty, but this is a Trump/Palin thread.

                      And I’m more concerned with Trump’s bloviation about mexicans than muslims. I’m not a free borders guy, but I think Trump just pushes an already extreme, bi-polar situation with no middle ground to an even farther point. Scott Adam’s point, since you retreated from it, is that this is Trump’s negotiating technique. It seems to be an utter failure in the immigration arena that can only make the situation worse..

            2. You know who else did that sort of thing while promising to restore national greatness? 😉

              Obama?

              Somewhat related: I do feel there’s something to a lot of the observations made by some folks that Trump is using a lot of the same tactics, and in many ways is the mirror image of Obama in ’08. Obama campaigned on vague promises of “hope and change” and “fundamentally transforming the country” etc. etc. What is that if not “vote for me, I’ll make America great again”? They really are two sides of the same coin.

              In fact, has anyone ever actually seen Trump and Obama in the same room at the same time?

              1. OK, I need to read the threads before I post.

          3. Scott Adams also believes he can hypnotize people and make things happen by writing them down every day and believing it.

            I kind of agree with you, but Scott Adams also believes some really wacky bizarre shit so it’s hard to take the guy at face value.

            1. It’s not really a problem except when the bizarre stuff turns out to work or be true. It’s like reading ZeroHedge: What do you do when the insane nutjobs get it right and the smart people blow it?

      2. Kind of like Scott Scheule’s philosophy of Anarcho Moon Blowing Upism?

        I suppose what we do is create some other crazy extreme so far removed from anything that anarchy ends up seeming like the happy medium compromise. I think I can do this, though I’m a little tipsy. All right, my new political philosophy is “Anarcho-Moon-Blowing-Up-ism.” Let’s say we’ve now got three groups. We’ve got the anarchists, the pro-governmentalists, and the crazy anarchists who not only want no government, but they want to blow up the friggin’ moon. Whoa! What’s this? All of the sudden, anarchy is the moderate, centrist position. At debates people are always yelling at us, calling us spineless; “Take a stand you gutless wimps! Either say you want government, or you want no government and you want to blow up the moon!”

      3. I have a hard time pinning Trump down, but I’d be surprised if he thought of the campaign as a negotiation, at least in any calculating way. I think, if anything, he views it as an advertisement — he knows what his audience wants and he gives it to them. Implementation of those ideas and commitments aren’t part of the calculus right now.

        But Trump strikes me as being far more intuitive than analytical. I suspect he is going from his gut more than sitting down and developing some flowchart strategy.

        1. That very well may be true. He is much like Obama in that he seems to be good at letting his supporters and enemies project their own thoughts and fears onto him. I think his supporters are more cynical than the media and his detractors think. I don’t believe his supporters believe he will do everything he says and I don’t think they care. They support him as a way of telling his detractors to fuck off and see him as someone who will do something and break the hold hte media and elite have on politics.

          His detractors in contrast are almost pure projection. They loath and despise the Americans who support Trump and project all of that hatred onto Trump and pretend he is some kind of fascist monster. The argument is not about Trump but the hatred of his supporters.

      4. Half the time Trump is a progressive plant who is going to stick to his supporters and the other half of the time he is America’s Juan Peron leading a fascist movement to end the American Republic.

        Well, that’s because (to the extent that it is actually true) we don’t know which he would be (or where in between he would land). Adams’s assessment of him may well be correct. But we still don’t know what his actual goals would be (assuming he has any beyond “winning!”).

        1. If you may not think you know, but Taran and a lot of other people on here are quite convinced he is a fascist who is going to launch armies of brown shirts on America. And that is crazy.

      5. i think the idea that trump actually negotiates that way is a myth he thought of to explain why he’s actually smart and not nuts.

    2. “I just want to see the shocked look on all of those Obama Trump supporters when he gets elected and does exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do.”

      They love him because he says what they want to hear, not because he’ll actually do it.

      1. And in fairness, very few of Obama’s dedicated supporters seem to be disappointed. It seems like they should be but they don’t seem to me. Maybe Trump’s supporters will be the same way.

        1. In all fairness, Obama did cause the earth to cool and stop the rise of the seas.

          1. You forgot the /sarcasm tag.

            1. None needed, JWatts. Barack H. Christ did all of those things. He would have done more, but the mean old TEATHUGLIKKANZ hate poor people and are TEH RACEIST

    3. Hyperion – you are spot-on. Trump’s campaign is nothing but a bunch of sleezy pick up lines in a bar.

  18. His goal was to use the endorsement to recruit young people to attend the caucus. But it backfired miserably. They looked at her like she was another student who just discovered the miracle of adderal. No one will say, “I’m here because of Palin.” Cruz is going to win Iowa. Not that he’s any better.

    (Why the Rand shout-out? Because his son also had some drug-induced debacles. Misery loves company.)

    1. Cruz voted to end NSA spying is first rate on gun rights and political speech and seems actually committed to doing something about the regulatory state. How is he no better than Trump?

      1. Because he said “I wonder if sand glows” or something like that implying that he would nuke the Middle East.

        … which is to say, the man knows how to start a negotiation. “Get your shit line, or we will sort it out for you” is a far more convincing and effective tactic than “bow before my unearned Nobel Prize” or whatever else Obama thinks passes for negotiating.

      2. He’s a Canadian zombie. They come here to destroy us by aping our principles and values and then as we stare at them in amazement they bite off our faces. See Margaret Atwood – Handmaid’s Tale.

  19. That’s quite a top she’s wearing. I wanna borrow that top.

    1. If anyone has ever wondered what nicole’s mom looks like…

        1. She looks like you in Sara Palin’s top. Obviously.

    2. I wanna borrow that top.

      Your car just hit a water buffalo?

  20. Support for Trump is not based on reason or argument or logic or even a sense of what Trump would actually do as president

    I call bullshit. I happened by chance to hear her speech in it’s entirety. She said we need a president that was willing to kick ISIS’s ass. Trump holds the same position. Hey Suderman, ram me up your cosmo ass.

    1. Considering the amount of irrationality that Palin has inspired over the years from people like Suderman, calling her irrational is a bit ironic at this point.

    2. So, Nikki, is this guy a good guy just trolling, too? ’cause I think he’s sincere.

      This guy responds to the charge “Support for Trump is not based on reason or argument or logic” with the observation that Trump is anti-ISIS.

      I think he’s totally sincere, too!

      Poe’s Law works both ways, guys. It’s hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic, but it’s hard to tell when they’re being sincere, too.

      If I were to make fun of Trump supporters, I might write the same thing this guy did sarcastically–that he wrote with 100% sincerity.

      Yes, yes! Trump is anti-ISIS. How fucking ingenious! Why didn’t I see it before?

      If only my gay professors had taught me about this in college.

      1. Maybe this guy is so distrustful of the other candidates that he doesn’t believe they are anti-Isis or sincere enough about it to be trusted on the issue?

        Obama is nominally “anti-ISIS”, yet seems totally uninterested in acting on that conviction. The writers at Reason are most certainly anti ISIS, but they would never support doing anything against ISIS beyond arresting any ISIS supporters who committed acts of terrorism in this country.

        So perhaps when this guy says “Trump is anti-ISIS” he means that Trump is so in a meaningful way such that he can be trusted to actually act on the position rather than mouth a few platitudes and do nothing?

        1. So perhaps when this guy says “Trump is anti-ISIS” he means that Trump is so in a meaningful way such that he can be trusted to actually act on the position rather than mouth a few platitudes and do nothing?

          Isn’t your argument elsewhere that Trump is only mouthing meaningless platitudes and won’t really act on the things he’s saying?

          1. What I’m saying is Suderman sucks. That he’s a useless cunt. Apparently he doesnot agree with or see any substance in this:

            The permanent political class has been doing the bidding of their campaign donor class, and that’s why you see that the borders are kept open. For them, for their cheap labor that they want to come in. That’s why they’ve been bloating budgets. It’s for crony capitalists to be able suck off of them. It’s why we see these lousy trade deals that gut our industry for special interests elsewhere.

            1. OK, now I’m not sure if you’re sincere or not.

              1. You disagree with the quote?

                1. That was about the only part of her rambling mess that I got anything out of, and I have seen absolutely nothing from Trump to indicate that he has anactual plan to addrss any of those issues.

                  Bloviation is not a technique, son.

                  1. When Trumps said his strategy would be to bomb the shit out of Isis, I too thought it was stupid and not an actual plan.

                    And then Paris happened. In response to Paris, the US (probably pushed by France) decided that yes, we could bomb the ISIS oil tankers if we warned the drivers first.

                    Obama essentially proved Trump to be correct.

                    We now see ISIS just cut soldiers’ pay by 50%. I wonder what happened that caused them to lose revenue?

                    Now, I assume Trump just got lucky, but its because Obama is talking tough but doing not much.

                    I admit, maybe not doing much is the proper policy, but it gave Trump an opening.

                2. The quote is rambling, mistaken, and incoherent. And yes, of course I disagree with the protectionist implications of that quote.

                  I get the talking point she’s using – the establishment GOP is interested in cheap labor, Chamber of Commerce, blah blah – and Suderman’s critique is correct. She’s mouthing the usual spiel, but with much more rambling and even less precision than most politicians.

          2. I thought John’s argument was that Trump was taking an extreme position on certain things as a tactic to make it easier to get the result he actually wants, not that Trump intends to not do anything.

            1. Also it’s probably applicable that Trump is working at shifting the Overton window. That being said, how do you know if he’s shrewdly negotiating or just talking out his ass?

              1. …how do you know if he’s shrewdly negotiating or just talking out his ass?

                You don’t, obviously. You can only make guesses based on the available information. I personally have no idea which it is.

              2. porque no los dos

          3. I am not making an argument. I am telling you what I think this guy is saying. I am not saying anything about the validity of his position. I am saying that Ken is mischaracterizing it.

            Can’t you see that? Is is that hard? Why on earth would you think I was endorsing the position. I said “maybe the guy is …” I don’t know how to make it more clear that I was speaking for the original poster not endorsing his argument. I really don’t.

            1. Trump is not intelligent enough to pull off the subtlety you are proposing. He really is not. This guy is a two-bit huckster who can barely form a coherent sentence and has the geopolitical knowledge of a fourth grader. And yet you expect us to believe that he is this great negotiator who will magically defeat ISIS and not really do all the other insane shit he is promising to do? Sorry but I wont take that risk. If my coworker says he is planning on raping someone’s family and burning down their house I’m not going to assume it is just a negotiation technique to get the price down on the used buick he found for sale on craigslist.

        2. “Maybe this guy is so distrustful of the other candidates that he doesn’t believe they are anti-Isis or sincere enough about it to be trusted on the issue?”

          Then we’re not talking about reason or logic, and that was my point.

          He seems to think the reason we don’t just defeat ISIS already is because too many of us believed our gay professors or something.

          Trump’s support really is about being anti-PC. People are so sick of PC (not just in the U.S., but in Europe, too), that they’re rallying around someone who is impervious to PC concerns and pointless hand wringing.

          And by itself, that’s a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

          But let’s not pretend any of this is intellectual. I like Trump because he’s gonna kick ISIS’ ass is worse than just “America, fuck yeah!”

          It’s like a conscious rejection of reason as a guide to policy. There are reasons why putting troops on the ground in Syria maybe isn’t a good idea. Surely, we’re not going to support whatever The Donald wants–specifically because he’s impervious to reason, are we?

          1. He seems to think the reason we don’t just defeat ISIS already is because too many of us believed our gay professors or something.

            We could roll through ISIS like crap through a goose tomorrow if we chose to do so. We don’t because our political leaders lack the will to do so. That is not partisan, that is just a fact. ISIS continues to exist because the US, though not lacking for the capacity, lacks the will to destroy them.

            And yes, a lot of Trump’s support is about being anti-PC. At the same time, most of the over the top hatred is about the hatred of his supporters and the fear of PC ending.

            And reason doesn’t guide shit. You can reason your way into doing anything if you start with the right assumptions. There is nothing irrational about saying we need to destroy ISIS but lack the will to do so. There is also nothing irrational about saying we can’t or shouldn’t destroy ISIS because of whatever reason you want to name. The only difference between the two positions is the underlying assumptions each one is making.

            1. Sure, we could roll through ISIS like nobody’s business….but then what? What do we do with Asad and his supporters? Do we fight them or help them? What about Turkey? They are our allies right? What are we gonna do when they start fighting kurds who are atttacking them using american weapons? what about al nusra? Al Qaeda? Do we support Hezbollah now? Russia? What about the Saudis sending tons of money to militants there? There is a de facto proxy war in Syria between them and Iran already. Who’s side are we on when all these battles break out? Syria is a nightmare of proportions Americans cannot fathom. Simplistic ideas of rolling in there and ending things is a fantasy.

          2. He seems to think the reason we don’t just defeat ISIS already is because too many of us believed our gay professors or something.

            Strawman much?

            1. Why do you believe we haven’t defeated ISIS already?

              1. Because we don’t have the will to do so. Do you honestly believe we would not if we put our minds to it? Do you think AK 47s and pickup trucks will stand up to tanks and A10s?

                1. IIRC they stole thousands of APC’s and hundreds of our tanks. Not that the govt can’t blow that shit up too, but they’re not…um… JV

                2. We could wipe out ISIS with nuclear warheads.

                  We don’t have the will to do that.

                  We didn’t have the will to wipe out ISIS or the rest of the insurgency on the ground when we invaded Iraq.

                  Why would that be any different now?

                  It’s debatable as to whether anything short of a nuclear warhead would really wipe ISIS out, and the problem is that wiping them out with ground troops probably isn’t worth the trouble or cost.

                  People aren’t willing to spend the money, suffer the casualties, etc. necessary to wipe out ISIS like they’re not willing to spend the money or suffer to fix the problems associated with climate change. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Security threats have a price tag associated with them, and if we’re not willing to pay the price, then that’s a pretty good indication that we shouldn’t.

  21. “It is not really a political campaign at all, so much as an extended act of fantasy and wish-fulfillment for both him and his supporters.”

    Much like Obama’s campaign, except Obama was better at it, but not so much better that people still buy it today.

    Reagan, though, was the master. To this day many conservatives say that Reagan downsized government. Come to think of it, many Progressives echo same thing about him.

    1. And Obama had the entire media helping him do it.

    2. Reagan cut taxes on the rich. For most people, conservatives and liberals alike, that is the same as cutting government.

      1. It’s the same as cutting the heads off orphan babies.

        1. Every dollar that the government doesn’t take from a rich person is a dollar taken from a starving child. Tony said so.

          1. Every dollar that the government doesn’t take from a rich person is a dollar taken from a starving child.

            …and given to the rich person so that he can rape the planet moar harder.

            1. The planet was asking for it.

  22. There it is. TEAM. Makes no difference that the candidate she’s endorsed is a complete imbecile. She perceives he can win. And that’s all that matters. Having someone from my TEAM in the White House. They don’t care about the people. They don’t care about the country. They most certainly don’t care about liberty. Only about power.

    Kids, time to embrace the insanity. Say fuck it, sit back with the mind altering substance of your choice and laugh at the the destruction and the morons who’ve caused it, as there is nothing else you can do in a representative democracy filled with mindless TEAM idiots who have the power to vote for their favorite exception to liberty.

    The experiment has failed. A toast to Ben Franklin who warned us to be vigilant some 230+ years ago. You nailed it, and we’ve devolved to some pathetic scene from Idiocracy.

    All we can do now is hope (pray if you’re so inclined) for a quick end, preferably in a nuclear fireball, that we won’t have to endure the suffering that most assuredly awaits us.

    For Donald Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Trump is going to be president of the United States of America.

    1. All we can do now is hope (pray if you’re so inclined) for a quick end, preferably in a nuclear fireball, that we won’t have to endure the suffering that most assuredly awaits us.

      You are now reduced for openly hoping for the nuclear destruction of the country because the voters might elect someone you don’t like.,

      At least you are letting the mask slip there Frank. That is something I guess.

      1. Tony couldn’t have said it better himself.

      2. No he’s not, John. Your willful misapprehension of what he actually wrote is, however, noted.

        1. HE is hoping for a quick end via nuclear fireball. That is hoping for the nuclear destruction of the country. He thinks things are so bad, that is the best result.

          IF that is not hooping for the destruction of the country, what is? The fact that he pretends that is the best option available doesn’t make his professed hope for it any less real or any less bizzare and immoral.

          How about we hope Frank and you and the rest of the pants shitters on here are wrong and there are better futures than being destroyed by nukes?

          1. John, you are starting to sound link MNG.

            1. No, MNG was sincerely dishonest. John is dealing with some neurological issues. Too bad, at one time, he actually could recognize and enjoy humor. It is a painful thing for us to witness the deterioration.

              1. Yeah Old man. I have neurological issues. Says the guy who thinks Nixon didn’t run against Kennedy in 1960. Do the people where you live know you have unsupervised access to a computer?

                1. I have neurological issues.

                  Recognition is an important step, and that puts you ahead of many other victims of this problem. It may well be irreversible, but that can be helped with certain lifestyle changes.

                  1. Yes it is old man. Sadly, you can’t seem to understand just how stupid you are. You are almost as dumb as Frank old man. It is that bad and you seem to think it is everyone but you who has the problem.

            2. He said what he said. Was it hyperbole? Perhaps. But if I had a dollar for every time one of you clowns took one my pieces of hyperbole literally, I would be living in Aruba right now.

              1. You took my hyperbole literally so now I’m going to take everything you say literally, even if you say it’s not meant to be, because waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

                /John

          2. No, he’s saying that the future is so horrifying that nuclear eradication will seem like a mercy in comparison.

            Which still seems fairly stupid considering how horrifying shit has been in the past and even is in the present. If FdA had his way, we would never have invented libertarianism or experienced the Enlightenment, because our ancestors would have committed suicide in the Stone Age.

            1. Sounds like FdA would have saved literally billions of people from many years of suffering.

              1. I’m intrigued. Is there a newsletter?

        2. I’m starting to think John and Tony are the same person. They both willfully ignore principles and assert that all choices are based upon like and dislike, they both willfully ignore hyperbole and insist that the straw man they are attacking meant their words to be taken literally, and they both embrace fallacies like they are persuasive arguments. I seriously think they’re caricatures created by the same person with Tony being the leftist troll, and John being the conservative one.

          1. You guys are obsessed with Grand Unified Troll theory.

            1. I’m more of Troll M theorist myself.

              1. String Troll

                1. Of course the Troll Ether hypothesis does have merit.

                  1. What is the smallest troll particle? Something belongs here about dark-matter.

                    1. Scale is irrelevant so I don’t believe in Plank Troll.

          2. If you think he meant something different than what he said sarcasmic, say what it is. Screaming Tony doesn’t add much. Frank said what he said and it is exactly the kind of thing that you would be shitting your pants over had anyone you didn’t like said.

            1. I’d suggest you look up the definition of hyperbole, but it wouldn’t matter since you’re being a dishonest troll.

              1. Yeah sarcasmic. You shit your pants like four times a week over some piece of hyperbole I write. I get it. You are butt hurt. You have been for about a year now. I haven’t cared that you are butt hurt before. I don’t know why you think I will care now.

                1. Trust me John, you are so unimportant to me that there is absolutely nothing you could say that could get me to “shit my pants.” Ever. Please don’t mistake your comments causing me to look upon you with disgust and contempt with pants shitting or being butthurt. You’re just not that important. You’re a nobody. You’re just a troll.

          3. Fregoli Syndrome – look it up.

            1. Hmm, I did. I learned something new today, so it was good day.

      3. Ah, speaking of:

        mindless TEAM idiots

        1. You just think the best option is death by nuclear fireball if the country doesn’t vote your way. Nothing TEAM about that.

          I will give you credit Frank. I always talk about how stupid you are and how you never have anything to add to the conversation. And generally that is true. But this time you did add something. You added a new idea. You added the idea that if Trump wins the best thing we can hope for is for the country to be destroyed in a nuclear war. And that is undeniably a new idea. It is bat shit insane but it is new. And that is a start.

          Maybe you are trainable after all.

          1. Says the guy who would cheerfully march Muslims into ovens if given the chance.

          2. Nice try, troll. You can satisfy your boundless need for attention with someone else.

            1. Frank,

              You are not even smart enough to be a troll. Trolls are at least funny sometimes.

              1. You are not even smart enough to be a troll.

                Says the guy who is not even smart enough to know that he is a troll.

    2. Say fuck it, sit back with the mind altering substance of your choice and laugh at the the destruction and the morons who’ve caused it

      Except that most of the candidates want to take away ” the mind altering substance of your choice” and replace it with paramilitary confiscatory raids so it’s kind of hard to sit back and relax and laugh at the idiots since it might be our asses on the line next.

    3. Whycome you got no tattoo, Francisco?

        1. Oh my god. It’s… it’s beautiful.

          1. Thx, that’s my dick by the way.

            1. It’s…Uuuuuuge.

    4. “There it is. TEAM. Makes no difference that the candidate she’s endorsed is a complete imbecile. She perceives he can win. And that’s all that matters. Having someone from my TEAM in the White House.”

      I think there’s a certain genuine logic to this.

      I’m aware that we’re not currently in a true dichotomy, but if the only choices available were totalitarian fascism or totalitarian communism–and the choice were solely up to you–which would you choose?

      Not that Trump is a fascist.

      Point being that the more socialistic the left becomes, the more willing we should probably be to overlook warts, wrinkles, tumors, and moles on the right–if we genuinely care about capitalism.

      Wouldn’t our liberty be in a far better condition if McCain or Romney had been elected?

      I’m not saying you have to stop calling Trump out as a fucking moron, but isn’t it better to have an asswipe idiot in office than a socialist? And if Hillary is more neocon, more hostile to our Constitutional rights, and more socialist than Trump is, then aren’t there obvious implication of that in the voting booth?

      1. I would think so Ken. And the same people who are claiming that Trump is a moron are in the next breath claiming he will end the Republic. So a guy they admit doesn’t really have a plan and is likely to do the exact opposite of what he is saying and is promising things that they claim have no chance of ever being enacted is at the same time a fascist who is going to end the Republic.

        Trump has really caused them to lose their minds. If Trump were to win, I think some of these people are going to end up in a sanitarium or on some kind of medication. I am completely flabbergasted how it is Trump can have such an effect on people.

        1. If Trump wins, over the long term, it may be the biggest blow to capitalism.

          If the Republicans are the only pro-capitalism voice in the two parties, and they become associated in the minds of voters with a populist strong man instead, then like I said, we need to start funding warp drive projects on kickstarter.

          1. I don’t see how Trump is any less or more “pro capitalism” than any GOP nominee since the first Bush. The worst think you can say about Trump is that he seems dead set on starting a trade war. He is definitely pro protectionist. That is definitely a problem but he is hardly the only such politician in the country. Otherwise, Trump’s economic positions seem to be a bunch of cliches and shit that has been part of the “bi partisan consensus on economics” for like 20 years now.

            That is certainly not good. But outside of Cruz and Paul, it is no worse than the horse shit people like Jeb and Kasiach are putting out and is a hell of a lot better than anything Hillary is putting out. Trump is a giant meh. I honestly can’t understand why people are so panicked over him. I get it that they don’t support him. But to think that he is even the worst option available let alone the kind of crazy shit people like Tarran and Frank have convinced themselves he is, is just nuts.

          2. If the Republicans are the only pro-capitalism voice in the two parties

            That’s a big ‘if’. There are some Republicans that are pro-capitalism, but I wouldn’t say it’s true of the party as a whole.

            I actually think (hope?) that some on the left (particularly in the anti-poverty and environmental movement) are *finally* starting to come around to the reality that markets are, if not a good thing, at least an effective thing.

          3. Trump will be like Obama, a unique phenomena.

            Jesse Ventura didn’t lead to another showman running Minnesota.

            People are getting way too hysterical with claims that Trump is a fascist.

            Having strict immigration laws doesn’t make your country fascist. Is Japan fascist? Korea?

            No.

            1. GTFO with your reasonable comment

      2. but if the only choices available were totalitarian fascism or totalitarian communism–and the choice were solely up to you–which would you choose?

        I would choose to die fighting, in all honesty. There is always another choice.

        Point being that the more socialistic the left becomes, the more willing we should probably be to overlook warts, wrinkles, tumors, and moles on the right–if we genuinely care about capitalism.

        The economic theory that the right, and Trump, advocate, isn’t capitalism.

        Wouldn’t our liberty be in a far better condition if McCain or Romney had been elected?

        Not likely.

        Ken, the lesser of two evils is not a solution. It’s simply slowing the march to the same end…our total enslavement.

        1. “I would choose to die fighting, in all honesty. There is always another choice.”

          I suppose in real life, the third choice is to have one or the other imposed on you by other people. Isn’t it better to choose for yourself?

          Regardless, I can see how other people might reasonable come to that conclusion.

          I can also see why you might fight with the communists to overthrow a fascist dictator–and then turn around and fight with the fascists to overthrow a communist dictator.

          “The economic theory that the right, and Trump, advocate, isn’t capitalism.”

          Prices set by markets and the means of production owned privately as opposed to prices set by government and the means of production owned publicly.

          Surely we can use terms like “capitalism” and “socialism” descriptively even if neither has ever existed in a perfect state.

          “Ken, the lesser of two evils is not a solution.”

          Defaulting to the greater of two evils isn’t a solution either.

          And our liberty would be stronger if McCain and Romney had been elected President.

          1. I suppose in real life, the third choice is to have one or the other imposed on you by other people.

            No, Ken, that’s the same choice. Making your choice means I’m destined to die in misery and in chains. If I’m going to die miserably, I choose to die fighting and free. Still a miserable death, but at least I wouldn’t go out as a sheep.

            Prices set by markets

            Ken, prices aren’t being set by markets when the government picks winners and losers through subsidies and regulation. The Rs subsidizes and writes regulation for their constituency and the Ds for theirs.

            That IS NOT capitalism. It’s cronyism.

            Defaulting to the greater of two evils isn’t a solution either.

            Of course it’s not a solution. But when 85% of the population is too ignorant to save themselves, there is nothing I can do. The result is the same regardless of R or D. I’m not going to give either credibility by voting for one of the scumbags over another.

            I’ll sit back, say “I told you so” and offer a solution when/if the mindless realize the error of their ways, but I WILL NOT justify either of their positions by giving them my vote.

            1. “Ken, prices aren’t being set by markets when the government picks winners and losers through subsidies and regulation.”

              Does the term “descriptive” not mean anything to you?

              Would you say that something can’t be more socialist–because it isn’t really socialist if prices for some things are still being set by a market somewhere?

              If not, then why can’t something be more capitalist or less capitalist?

              We do not live in a world of black and white. Some candidates are more capitalist than others–even if none of them are perfectly capitalist. And for any voter who cares about capitalism, taking how capitalist a candidate is into consideration is certainly reasonable.

              In fact, disregarding how capitalist one candidate is compared to the other because neither is perfectly capitalist is completely unreasonable.

            2. “Of course it’s not a solution. But when 85% of the population is too ignorant to save themselves, there is nothing I can do.”

              You can advocate capitalism to 85% of the population that doesn’t understand or appreciate it.

              You can advocate that they vote for more capitalist candidates and vote against less capitalist candidates, too.

              1. You can advocate capitalism to 85% of the population that doesn’t understand or appreciate it.

                I do. And they are too ignorant and too concerned with a TEAM win to give a fuck.

                You can advocate that they vote for more capitalist candidates and vote against less capitalist candidates, too.

                Delude yourself if you wish, but being a cronyist is no more capitalistic than being a socialist. Calling cronyism capitalism simply gives the socialist ammunition when the system fails due to their interference in the market.

                Your way is a self-licking ice cream cone. A road to oblivion. I will not condone it.

                You want me to vote Republican…

                …run and nominate libertarian candidates. Until then, fuck off and die in a fire.

                1. “ll sit back, say “I told you so” and offer a solution when/if the mindless realize the error of their ways”

                  Then you’ve condemned yourself to live in a less capitalist and less libertarian world–because a majority of the world will not embrace reason within our lifetimes.

                  Like God, we’re limited to only doing what is possible, and if the possibility of getting what we want is limited to what we can convince other people to support, then we need to convince more people to support what we want before we’ll get it.

                  “Making your choice means I’m destined to die in misery and in chains.”

                  “Your way is a self-licking ice cream cone. A road to oblivion.”

                  “Run and nominate libertarian candidates. Until then, fuck off and die in a fire”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Splitting_(psychology)

                  1. You ARE the problem, Ken. TEAM R has your vote, no matter what…and they know it. There is no reason for them to change. I blame and hate you for it.

                    1. Actually, I vote Libertarian or don’t vote at all sometimes.

                      It’s just that you’ve become unhinged. Maybe you’ve been arguing with John for too long.

                      Get a good night’s sleep. You’ll feel better in the morning.

          2. Oh, look. It’s someone telling us to hold our nose and vote Republican. That thing that never, ever happens here all the fucking time.

            1. Wait, I thought we were supposed to hold our noses and vote Democrat. It’s all so confusing…

        2. “Ken, the lesser of two evils is not a solution. It’s simply slowing the march to the same end…our total enslavement.”

          Except voting for a Republican because he’s more capitalist than a socialist Democrat is not marching to total enslavement.

          It just isn’t.

    5. “You talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.”

    6. Embrace the suck !! =D

  23. Do you think Trump bought this endorsement? Sarah’s all about the money. I’d love to know if any changed hands.

    1. They seem perfect for each other. I can’t imagine her endorsing anyone else with Trump in the race.

    2. Maybe she’s angling for a cabinet position, or possibly VP?

      1. I was saying that earlier.

        It’s VP. It’s gotta be.

        Who else has the aptitude, name, and desire to be associated with Trump?

        If Trump loses, being his VP will be political suicide.

        If Trump wins, being his VP may be political suicide.

        Trump will throw anybody under the bus without a moment’s hesitation.

        And the banging. Oh, the banging!

        Do you know how many different women Trump would bang in the White House?

        He might start his own The Osbornes style reality TV show from the White House.

        The whole point of being the President is that you get to be on TV a lot.

        1. If Trump wins, being his VP may be political suicide.

          I dunno. You might, *might* see real push for impeachment if Trump wins, which would make the VP next in line. That actually might make Palin good insurance for a President Trump…

        2. If Palin is VP, then Trump loses.

          A major miscalculation on his part.

          Palin would increase Dem turnout to the sky.

  24. Oh, you want bizarre and rambling? Here’s an article by Sen. Maria Cantwell that talks about the ravages of climate change while pounding the table for more, better ice-breakers to be deployed by the Coast Guard.

    Apparently, we’re suffering a major ice-breaker gap:

    We cannot continue to debate this issue while other countries build icebreakers to access the polar regions. We need to face this serious gap in Arctic readiness. As President Obama presents his final budget to Congress, the administration must include funding to refurbish the Polar Sea and fund a new fleet of icebreakers so the Coast Guard can carry out its critical mandates.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/op…..ebreakers/

    1. The U.S. Coast Guard’s Icebreaker fleet, last I heard, was in a serious state of decline.

      Of course, nobody things of privatizing the damn things…

      1. Why would they? There’s no profit in it as long as government offers the service for free.

      2. This might be true, I just found the article’s treatment of the subject bizarre. Especially the shoe-horning of climate change into the article. But it’s Maria Cantwell.

      3. According to the USCG, the USCG has only two icebreakers. Russia has 40 icebreakers according to CNN (who knows what class they are or how well maintained they are? it may be more of a fleet-in-being).

        1. Well, Russia has thousands of miles of Arctic coastline and not a lot of warm-water ports whereas the US has some Arctic coastline but a fuckton of warm-water ports. Canada probably has a greater “need” for icebreakers than we do.

          However, if we need more of the damn things, then build them. The USCG only needs them do its job; if there are no civilian icebreakers, then what need does the USCG have for them?

          1. The USCG has to ask the USN for ships ? the USCG doesn’t have its own budget for ships.

            And, of course, the ships the USCG does get comes out of the USN’s budget.

    2. It is not that Palin is that smart or interesting. It is that there are so many other people like Cantwell who hold real positions of power and are profoundly ignorant and in some cases downright crazy yet somehow escape the scorn or people like Suderman and the rest of the “Palin is the stupid” mob.

      1. Sans teleprompter, Palin delivers a better speech than Obama. She is more euphonious and more mellifluous.

        You might recall that I said so in the late summer and fall of 2008.

        1. I agree. I wish Reason would invite Palin to an event sometime. It would be funny to watch her wipe the floor with the various staffers who use the “Palin is stupid” line to social signal.

          1. I never realized Palin Derangement Syndrome was recursive.

            Interesting, I shall apply for an NSF grant to study this.

            1. You would bet on the reason staff? Since when are they a collection of Danial Websters? I am not exactly setting the bar high here.

  25. I’m not a Donald Trump partisan, but most of Suderman’s objections aren’t likely to persuade many voters. Indeed he seems to suffer from intellectual parochialism.

    “Sarah Palin’s bizarre, rambling speech last night endorsing Donald Trump didn’t make much sense ”
    To whom, you? You’re not the target audience. You might as well argue that “Straight Outta Compton” was a horrible movie because of how it portrayed 1950 white family values.

    “The speech name-checks a variety of conservative issues,”
    So, it did what it was supposed to, which was throw red meat to the partisan’s who were attending or watching.

    “But it’s also because there is no coherent defense of Donald Trump’s candidacy. ”
    Again, Suderman’s beltway thinking is on display here. He’s belt-splaining Trump.

    “His own argument is little more than a simple boast that he will make the country great,”
    So, he’s just repeating what Obama repeatedly claimed. How is this atypical of any Presidential candidate.

    1. “His speeches go long on personal boasting, and he dismisses most questions of governance by appealing to his own innate ability to overcome obstaces. You cannot make a reasoned case for Trump, because there is no such case to be made. ”

      It sounds like Suderman is upset that Trump refuses to lie to us by making more campaign promises that he can’t keep than he has. Obama made all kinds of promises that he knew weren’t plausible.

      How can you seriously claim that Obama’s: “Middle class families will pay $2,500 per year less for health insurance. is any better than Trump’s “I’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it”.

      “Support for Trump is not based on reason or argument or logic or even a sense of what Trump would actually do as president, but on his personal appeal as a businessman and political entertainer,”

      Yeah, so? I agree to the extent that it won’t attract my vote. But Suderman acts as if this is just the most ridiculous tact ever. I think Suderman needs to actually look at the poll numbers. Clearly plenty of people are willing to accept that premise.

      1. It sounds like Suderman is upset that Trump refuses to lie to us by making more campaign promises that he can’t keep than he has. Obama made all kinds of promises that he knew weren’t plausible.

        Half of what comes out of Trump’s mouth are campaign promises he can’t keep. “When I’m president, you’ll hear ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores again.”

        1. Hey, at least he’s not going big, like promising to close Gitmo or anything.

        2. “Half of what comes out of Trump’s mouth are campaign promises he can’t keep. “When I’m president, you’ll hear ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores again.””

          That’s aspirational. It’s no different than Reagan’s shining city on a hill. Trump just isn’t as smart and well phrased as Reagan.

          1. That’s aspirational. It’s no different than Reagan’s shining city on a hill.

            No, they are complete opposites.
            Reagan: “These visitors to that city on the Potomac do not come as white or black, red or yellow; they are not Jews or Christians; conservatives or liberals; or Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans awed by what has gone before, proud of what for them is still?a shining city on a hill.”

            Trump: We’ll put those uppity ACLJewboys in their place!

            1. HM,

              A huge part of the left are unapologetic anti-Semites. I am failing to see how Trump is some big evil here.

            2. Do you think Trump is racist / anti-Semitic? Sometimes I believe it, sometimes I don’t.

              BTW, that entire line is just for Iowa evangelicals, and its signalling, not for real.

              Focus groups of Trump supporters show they understand he’s a showman and half the stuff he says won’t happen.

              This will drive anti-Trump people crazy. But again, its signalling.

              1. Harun,

                Nikki is below saying that it is a close call which is worse Trump supporters or ISIS. That is how stupid and insane these people have become.

                1. What’s more likely, that I will actually be harmed by ISIS, or that I will be harmed by Trump supporters?

                  1. What is the magnatude of that harm Nikki? Last I looked Trump supporters didn’t plan to murder or enslave you. And go ask those people in Paris and San Bernadino what the chances of them harming you are?

                    Moreover, what are the chances of German Nazis harming you? By your logic they are not worthy of hatred either.

                    I get it Nikki. You are not white trash. You are better. You are enlightened. You are so fucking awesome your shit doesn’t stink. Now if we could get on with doing something about all that white trash out there, life would be wonderful.

        3. Shut up, Nicole or we’ll put you on the other side of the wall that Mexico will build between us.

        4. “Mr. Gorbachev, YOU’RE FIRED.”

          1. “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

      2. I don’t see what point you have other than both Trump and Obama are shameless demagogues. I also don’t see what purpose your tu quoque serves considering the fact that Suderman didn’t write the word “Obama,” or even, “Democrat” once in his article.

        1. You have to read it backwards, HM.

          1. And have your COSMO-dar turned on.

        2. I think the implication is that Suderman is a secret Obama loving democrat pretending to be a libertarian. The reference to “beltway thinking” and “belt-spaining” are the giveaway. Usually “beltway thinking” is a yokeltarian dog whistle for “cocktail party loving cosmotarianz!!!11!!!!1”

        3. I didn’t say that Suderman was hypocritically praising Obama while condemning Trump. I said, pretty explicitly, that Trumps failings were pretty typical of most Presidential candidates. I used Obama for examples, because he’s the most relevant candidate having won the last two elections.

          “So, he’s just repeating what Obama repeatedly claimed. How is this atypical of any Presidential candidate.

          1. Heck, the GOP establishment routinely campaigns on an issue, and then collapses on it in Congress.

            McConnell says its good to keep issues alive for re-election. If you think about that, he means its better to never solve anything or stand on principle, unless maybe it drives donations. See Im-Ex bank.

        4. 8 years ago, when I said that Obama was a scumbag, I’d often get, “he’s better than McCain!” back. Nothing ever changes. Smoke dope. Vote Trump.

          1. I’m not saying vote for Trump. I’m not.

            I’m saying that Suderman’s objections to Trump aren’t representative of what your average voter cares about. Obama and George W Bush before him, etc made similar points and still won the Presidency.

            “Sarah Palin’s bizarre, rambling speech last night endorsing Donald Trump didn’t make much sense (it’s already been described as “post-apocalyptic poetry,” which may not be entirely fair to either poetry or the apocalypse).”

            This is not the start of an objective analysis. It’s a cultural war attack. Suderman is saying that he didn’t like her phrasing or content. But instead of simply stating it, he makes it hyperbolic by calling it bizarre and post-apocalyptic.

            1. You are exactly correct JWatts. That is exactly what is going on in this article.

            2. This is not the start of an objective analysis.

              You mean an Op-Ed expresses an opinion?!?!

              1. “You mean an Op-Ed expresses an opinion?!?!”

                Seriously. I mean I actually said: “Suderman is saying that he didn’t like her phrasing or content. But instead of simply stating it, he makes it hyperbolic ”

                How hard is that to comprehend? It’s pretty clear I’m not bashing Suderman for having an opinion.

                What I’m saying is Suderman’s piece is a classic Culture War attack.

    2. “His own argument is little more than a simple boast that he will make the country great,”
      So, he’s just repeating what Obama repeatedly claimed. How is this atypical of any Presidential candidate.

      Obama said he’d make the country great, Trump says he’ll make it classy, like Atlantic City.

      1. A casino on every corner Diane. Who doesn’t love casinos? Especially big flashy ones with lots of fake marble and columns.

        1. Free whiskey if you sit in front of the penny slot machines long enough.

  26. A post ragging on both Palin and Trump?

    *pops some popcorn, sits back and enjoys the shitshow*

  27. So which editor is gonna draw the short straw and write “the libertarian case for Trump” post?

    1. Track their purchases. Find out which one has laid up a stock of cyanide capsules.

  28. Feel free to go over to the Cuckservative Review an commiserate together. They’ve resumed their natural posture – namely clutching their scrotums and bellowing in pain.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..inevitable

    1. Oh man, I’d totally forgotten about cuckservatism.

    2. I thought their natural posture was coming all over themselves as they watched their wives push giant brown babies out of their vaginas?

      1. You’re turning our friend on, nicole.

        1. I hope so.

          1. Ooo, girl, you’re the worst!

  29. Support for Trump is not based on reason or argument or logic or even a sense of what Trump would actually do as president, but on his personal appeal as a businessman and political entertainer, and a related sense of how and what the country would be.

    Change “businessman” to “black man” and “political entertainer” to… uh… “political entertainer”, and you could be describing the current president.

    NOTHING has changed since the days of Teddy, Suderman. Nothing.

    1. Someone, I forget who, said the other day that Trump is betting people hate leftism more than they like conservatism. There is a lot of truth to that.

      What people like Suderman don’t or refuse to understand is that people don’t support Trump because they necessarily like Trump. Trump is almost incidental to what is going on. People support Trump because they hate people like Suderman and are tired of being told how to think and what to do. Supporting Trump is, much like supporting Obama was in 08, a brand. Only supporting Trump is a way for people to tell people like Suderman to fuck off where as supporting Obama was a way to say “I am tolerant and those people are not”.

      If it turns out that Trump is the great Satan who ends American democracy, the media and all of those who contributed to our unbearable smug and PC political culture will bear much of the blame for it. If they had not spent so much time telling a good portion of the country to shut up and do and say only what they are told, there would never have been a Donald Trump.

      1. Yep, the right is like a chick who’s fucking tired of nice guy bullshit.

        She dated the churchgoing guy who wanted a family, and expected her to wait until marriage to get intimate, right up until she caught him fucking her best friend. She moved in the responsible guy with the steady job, who would passive aggressively criticize the things she bought and was too cheap to take her anywhere nice outside of Valentine’s Day, right up until he snuck off to Vegas without her and blew all the money they had saved up on craps and hookers. She dated rent-a-cop who always promised to protect her from the bad guys he saw everywhere, until he got completely hammered and started some shit in a biker bar and she spent three weeks in the hospital and lost her job because someone broke a chair over her head.

        Now she’s dating some macho asshole with a motorcycle and cool hair, and she knows he’s a piece of shit, but she also thinks he’s hot and that’s about all you can fucking count on anyway. Her exes and their friends are whining that she’s being a dumb shallow bitch whore who’s going to end up knocked up and alone, and then she’ll really regret not sticking with the nice guys.

        1. Pretty much. And Suderman and people like him are her prudish family who can’t understand why their little girl wont’ shut up and do as she is told.

          1. I think of Suderman more as the taxpayer who realizes he’s going to be paying to raise her children as she loses most of her teeth to a meth habit.

            1. I see Sudderman as a typical half wit elitist who just can’t understand why the people he takes so much pride in hating won’t support the things he wishes they would. Trump is as much as anything anti-PC. People support him because he says shit the media hates and gets away with it.

              If Sudderman doesn’t like it that Trump is popular, he has only the media culture he has played a small role in helping create to blame.

              I don’t know why you guys are so upset about Trump. You hate everyone who supports him. You guys hate those people and think they are the worst on earth. What do you care that they have a candidate? You wouldn’t want their support for anything anyway.

              1. Why are you pretending you don’t understand why people don’t want their enemies to unite behind a leader who represents what the first group considers specifically to be the second group’s absolute worst impulses?

                I mean, why do you hate ISIS? You hate radical Muslims. Why do you care that they have a state? You wouldn’t want their support for anything anyway.

                1. So Nikki,

                  Do you honestly believe the people who support Trump are worthy of the same hatred that ISIS is?

                  1. The same hatred? Probably not. But it’s damn close. I don’t think you realize how morally odious they actually are to me. They value many things I despise, and despise many things I value.

                    1. The same hatred? Probably not. But it’s damn close.

                      Then you are either ignorant, insane or both. The Republic may be dead but if it is it isn’t Trump that killed it. People like you whose entire self identity seems to come from hating other Americans and pretending their political enemies are evil as a way of self aggrandizement killed it.

                      I am sorry Nikki, but that is pathetic. It is so stupid and so hateful and idiotic, it is unworthy of a substantive response. If you really need to have it explained to you how Trump supporters are different than ISIS, you are too stupid or too bigoted to understand any reasonable explanation of that.

                    2. I never said I needed to have it explained to me how Trump supporters are different than ISIS. I am telling you that I consider Trump’s base to be a group of people with primarily immoral motives supporting a man whose candidacy is based on immorality. Everything they want, I think is bad. Everything I want, they think is bad.

                      Why does it make you flip out like this when I say I find other Americans immoral? I honestly don’t get it.

                    3. Because there are degrees of “bad”. Again, it is just pathetic that an educated woman like yourself would has allowed their class hatred and bigotry cause them to not understand that.

                    4. “Degrees of bad,” like when I said I didn’t hate Trump supporters as much as ISIS? Jesus christ, John.

                    5. And you claim to be an anarchist and a nihilist. Get the fuck out of here with your “they are immoral”. You don’t believe in morality. Or at least claim not to every time the issue is brought up.

                      You are just a sorry snob who is busy social signaling. Immoral? Really? Do you think I don’t read what you post or forget about it once the subject changes?

                    6. “You are just a sorry snob who is busy social signaling.”

                      Translation: “WAH STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME”

                    7. Then you are either ignorant, insane or both.

                      60/40

                2. I mean, why do you hate ISIS? You hate radical Muslims. Why do you care that they have a state? You wouldn’t want their support for anything anyway.

                  Are you seriously suggesting that John strongly cares whether radical Islamists rally behind ISIS or Al Qaeda?

                  Is John going to write 8,000 articles suggesting that ISIS aren’t true Islamists, and many used to be layabout Western chavs until recently, and that Islamists would be better off with Zawahiri than Al Baghdadi?

                  1. Have I written anything at all arguing that people should support a different candidate?

                    1. No, you just made a terrible analogy which, given proper consideration, reinforces your opponent’s view rather than your own.

        2. *motions to couch*

          Tell me about your mother, ant…

    2. Support for Trump is based on three things.

      He stood up to the progressive media and won.
      He stood up to the Republican establishment and won.
      He is against OPEN BORDERZ.

  30. There went Trump Perot’s chance of ever getting elected.

  31. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  32. Yes Trump is a fascist. Most of the people who argue otherwise are themselves closeted fascists.

    1. What incredibly stupid logic. Par for the course on this site unfortunately.

  33. Trump seemed to be grimacing through most of the speech. Needs to work on his poker face. Or his smiling appreciatively face.

  34. as Phyllis replied I am in shock that any body able to make $4140 in a few weeks on the internet . try this website……….

    ________________ http://www.Wage90.Com

  35. Dems: We fight for Blacks. Gays. Vaginas. “Undocumented” immigrants.

    Trump: I’ll fight for the white working class.

    It’s surprising it’s taken someone this long. Maybe Pat Buchanan just came a couple decades too early, before OPEN BORDERZ became an explicit policy, before tens of millions of illegal immigrants, before the Supreme Court managed to find gay marriage hiding in the constitution, before people were being forced to baked wedding cakes, before BLM, before the Progressive Theocracy went bat shit crazy with witch hunts. Before the IRS targeted the Tea Party, and got away with it (and still gets away with it).

    The combination of identity politics with a completely lawless administration rewarding it’s friends and punishing it’s enemies has broken the waning historical commitment of poor whites for the rule of law and Justice with a blindfold. Now it’s “fight for us”, like the Progressives has been using against them, and like the vast majority of the world.

    One way rule of law was never going to last that long. It was inevitable that someday the white working class would get into the act and go looking for someone who would unapologetically say “I fight for you”.

    1. Identity politics is a terrible idea when progressives advocate it, and it’s still a terrible idea now that Trump is championing it.

  36. What is Dumpy Shania Twain up to this week?

  37. i actually voted for palin in 2008. i feel like some of this is my fault.

  38. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  39. At this point Palin is not so much in it for the politics. She is in it for the publicity and the marketing aspects of being a celebrity.

    Now granted, seeing the path Trump has followed, she may see sustained celebrity as a potential vehicle for future political involvement.

    1. Shorter: This isn’t really what Palin is doing for Trump, it’s more what Trump is doing for Palin.

  40. I have no clue as to why Suderman labelled Palin’s talk as “bizarre.” maybe Suderman should listen to
    what comes out of the mouths of Clinton and Bernie. Now THAT’S bizarre.

  41. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  42. REALLY? Is that the best critique you’ve got, Peter Suderman? Liberals never seem to be willing to look directly at the issues. Hey, DEAL WITH IT! All she’s doing is making fun of your response to our perspectives ? why can’t you just respond directly to them? Here’s exactly what the issues are:

    ? Our anger about the policies that have screwed up our country. Your spending habits, you’re supporting and enabling our enemies, your attitude about the value of a human being (abortion), your forceful and illegal practice of changing our constitution in spite of what the people want and so much more. Damn right we are pissed!
    ? Whether you like it or not, the success of this country is the direct result of our countries adherence to the principles found in our Constitution. They come directly from God, specified clearly in the Bible. We’re not forcing God on you ? our Constitution provides you with the freedom to choose what ever you damn well please, a feature that comes directly from the Bible. Any other form of government has not had our success and severely limits the freedom of man to make his own choices. Absolute power (big government) corrupts absolutely.

    More after this…

  43. … part two from previous comment.
    .
    Absolute power (big government) corrupts absolutely.
    .
    ? Liberals have chosen to deny that when guns are removed from law-abiding citizens, criminals gain control! There is a direct correlation between preventing citizens to own guns and the high incidence of gun related murders. Deep down you have to know that is the truth, for your denial runs so deep that you have no ability left to objectively assess the situation.

    The pattern of the liberal response is so predictable: when you can’t provide a reasonable rebuttal that makes sense, you just make fun of how the message is delivered. There is so much lack of understanding of how your short-term perspectives have screwed up our country. You just won’t take responsibility for the results of the policies that have brought us to $19 trillion of debt. Conservatives recognize the game that liberals play and we’re calling your pitiful bluff ? you’re not fooling us; we have the record of history that can’t be erased.

    Please feel free to give me your rebuttal. There’s only one expectation ? stick with the issues directly and respond to them. If you have no ability to provide a reasonable response to the issues by focusing on style, then you have proven my point.
    .
    Eyes Wide Open

  44. You leave Palin alone, Suderman.

    Nobody strokes my political junk the way Sarah does.

    She’s my bitch.

    Lay off. I don’t need her crying when she’s busy doing her woman job on my man meat.

  45. @ End The GOP
    Editor’s Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic
    Please tell us why Sarah Palin’s speech was the perfect endorsement for The Donald and why we should care?

  46. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.wage90.com

  47. We get it. You don’t like Sarah Palin. But your article is just as incoherent as you claim Trump and Palin to be. Short on examples, and long on repetitive key words like “incoherent.”

    Sadly, I’m sure this article would pass as an “A” based on today’s educational standards in English 101.

  48. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    ????????????? http://Jobstribune.com

  49. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  50. just wait for the surprise ending….what do they have planned come election time?

  51. I’ll see you all
    At the Woodchippers Ball
    I’ll stand tall
    I won’t fall
    I’ll be in the hall
    So give me a call
    Y’all

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.