Donald Trump

Donald Trump Is the Harbinger of the Republican Party Apocalypse

And the GOP paved the way for its own destruction.

|

Gage Skidmore / Foter

We may be witnessing the collapse of the Republican party, or at least the Republican party as we know it. And if so, then Donald Trump is the harbinger of its apocalypse.

The signs of the party's weakness and disarray are everywhere. Trump is the GOP's presidential front-runner by most any measure: FiveThirtyEight, which recently published a long essay looking at the GOP's breakdown as a party, gives him a 55 percent of winning the nomination, based strictly on the polls. Yet the candidate is now in open warfare with two of the right's most influential media platforms: National Review and Fox News.

Last week, National Review published a special issue devoted to denouncing the candidate, with an unsigned editorial labeling him a "a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones."

Then on Tuesday, Trump announced that, because Fox refused to comply with Trump's demand that moderator Megyn Kelly—who has feuded with Trump for months—be removed, he would not participate in the network's forthcoming presidential debate.

National Review isn't the party, of course, and neither is Fox, but they are important player on the right, and they wield considerable influence within the Republican party. 

Some level of friction between candidates and right-leaning media is fairly common, and both Fox and NR have certainly criticized GOP candidates before. Even still, this sort of sustained, all-out conflict between two of the right's leading media outlets and the GOP's presidential frontrunner is virtually unprecedented. Among other things, it suggests that the traditional party power structures are breaking down, and are now competing amongst each other to retain their dominance.

Trump's candidacy exists almost entirely outside the traditional support structure for successful Republican candidates. His campaign, for example, is run by a small staff of loyalists with little traditional national campaign experience and funded without the backing of the GOP donor class. He appears to have only one issue adviser, a former trade and immigration staffer for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who only came on board last week. As Dan Drezner notes, despite months of promises to bring foreign policy advisers on board, Trump has yet to do so; instead, he has suggested that he is receiving counsel from people who, when asked, say they've never spoken to the candidate.

Trump is essentially running his own party now, housed within a hollowed-out GOP brand. In less than a year, he has all but taken over.

And even as media and intellectual wings resist Trump's takeover, official party organs are allowing—arguably even encouraging—him to proceed. Shortly after National Review published its anti-Trump package last week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) informed the magazine that it had been booted from a spot co-hosting a GOP debate next month. This week, the RNC, which sponsors and helps organize the debates, said it would not get involved in the matter. Fair enough, in some ways: Candidates can choose for themselves whether to participate. Yet it is an admission that it will allow Trump's no-show tantrum without complaint. And, of course, the RNC will support Trump if he becomes the nominee.

Other parts of the party apparatus appear willing to go along with this as well. Trump is far from an establishment figure, and yet figures from the party's establishment—an overused and under-defined word that mostly just means the leaders and actors who help guide the party's course—seem increasingly willing to follow Trump. Prominent GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch recently said he's "come around a little bit on Trump," and mused that Trump might actually expand the GOP's appeal. Former presidential nominee Bob Dole recently argued that Trump could "probably work with Congress, because he's, you know, he's got the right personality and he's kind of a deal-maker." Multiple reports, based on interviews across the country, suggest that GOP donors and other influencers have begun to warm to Trump, and are in some cases have begun to reach out in hopes of contributing to his campaign.

This is what a failing institution looks like: leaderless, directionless, torn by infighting between its power centers, and willing to sign on to anything or anyone that will provide some semblance of purpose or momentum.

True, Trump may not succeed in capturing the nomination, and the party may well hold together in some form or fashion. But if that is the case, then we have learned something anyway.

Mainly, the ease with which Trump has made his moves suggests the poor state the party was in to begin with. Part of what Trump has accomplished, appropriately enough, is to expose the depths of the party's weakness, both in terms of organization and ideology. The GOP can rally no one to its cause because it does not really have one—or, at minimum, does not have one that motivates a sufficient number of people.

Foter / Gage Skidmore

For many prominent Republicans the party's purpose is mostly transactional, hence Dole's argument that Trump might be an effective dealmaker, and the pursuit of Trump by previously put-off party donors, who seek to buy a stake in his campaign, and establish influence accordingly. Perhaps inadvertently, then, the GOP establishment is proving Trump right that the party exists largely for self-perpetuation and self-protection.

At the same time, the success of Trump's particular campaign has revealed the deep strains of nativism—shading into outright racism—that runs through segments of the American right, and its friendliness toward authoritarian politics.

To the extent that Trump's campaign is about any one thing, it is about fear of foreigners and immigration, and he has stoked fear and anger toward immigrants more overtly than any other popular candidate in recent memory, often through off-handed proposals that stretch the bounds of both the constitution and decency. And Trump's fans love it: His biggest applause line is his promise to build a wall, and at a recent rally the crowd cheered when Trump promised to kill the wives and children of terrorists.

What's more, his supporters frequently go even further than Trump in stating their disdain for immigrants and outsiders. CNN interviewed more than 100 Trump backers recently, and here are some of the things they said (via The Washington Post's Greg Sargent):

 "It seems like we really go overboard to make sure all these other nationalities nowadays and colors have their fair shake of it, but no one's looking out for the white guy anymore."

"White Americans founded this country. We are being pushed aside because of the President's administration and the media."

"Hey, hey. Ho, ho. All the Muslims have to go!"

"I don't want them here. Who knows what they're going to bring into this country?"

"We can't look at a Muslim and tell if they're a terrorist or friendly."

Trump's campaign has attracted racists and white nationalists. At a rally in Alabama last year, one attendee told The New York Times, "Hopefully, [Trump is] going to sit there and say, 'When I become elected president, what we're going to do is we're going to make the border a vacation spot, it's going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill.'"

At the same event, another told The Washington Post, "You probably think we're prejudiced, but my whole life we had niggers work for us in the field. And they were niggers. My daddy called them niggers. I'm not ignorant. That's just the way I was raised. There's black people and there's niggers. You live around here, you know the difference." At a Trump rally in Las Vegas recently, a black activist was beaten while onlookers yelled things like "light the motherfucker on fire," and "Sieg heil!

Not all Trump supporters buy into these sentiments, of course, but the consistency with they pop up amongst his supporters at campaign events, in addition to their prevalence on social media, is telling enough about both Trump and the party he's taken hold of.

The fact the GOP has made such an effective vehicle for Trump's angry, ugly, authoritarian, nativist campaign is both revealing and damning. Trump is using the party as a host body for his antics and ambitions, but he is only able to do so because it was already prepared and ready for someone like him to come along—or perhaps because it had been neglected for so long by self-interested party elites.

The point is that the party was weak before Trump arrived. And in retrospect it's clear that there were signs of its weakness high and low: the emergence of the Tea Party, the constant fighting between party factions, the disinterested and directionless leadership, the perpetually frustrated party intellectuals, the repeated interest in and acceptance of joke candidates, the general disinterest in governance or policy, the cozying up to folks like, well, Donald Trump. All of which suggests that the GOP, if not actively working towards its own doom, was setting the stage for the breakdown we're seeing now.

Trump, then, may be the catalyst for the party's demise, but the Republican party apocalypse was in the works long before he arrived.

NEXT: Obama Warns of Growing Anti-Semitism Around the World, Last Pre-Iowa Caucus GOP Debate Tonight, Ammon Bundy Tells Refuge Occupiers to Go Home: A.M. Links

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. I’m just looking forward to race between a Republican that was against the Iraq war and a Democrat that voted for it.

    1. If this isn’t the biggest bullshit article I have ever seen anywhere!

      Suderman says,

      “At the same time, the success of Trump’s particular campaign has revealed the deep strains of nativism?shading into outright racism?that runs through segments of the American right,”

      And then he goes on with a group of unsubstantiated quotes.

      Guess what Peter? Someone told me you’re a pedophile.

      And then they told me you kill black people for sport.

      And someone else told me you beat your wife and children.

      And that person also told me you have sex with dead people.

      And his wife told me you raped her.

      And a lady told me you hate anyone who isn’t Jewish.

      Your BULLSHIT never ends, does it Peter?

      YOU are the reason this publication has turned into a rag.

      1. Oh, don’t worry. I’m sure President Trump will reserve a nice warm spot in the oven for Mr. Suderman.

      2. Hahahahahaha… Ahhh… Awesome.

      3. Would you say it was better when Virginia Postrel was in charge?

      4. The biggest BS about this article and so many others on Reason is that even if it is 100% true, Trump or Cruz (or whoever GOP candidate wins) will still get orders of magnitude more votes than the Libertarian’s candidate. Reason Mag are focused on the GOP and DNC far more than actually promoting the Libertarian Party. It is easy to sit back and be critical when you have nothing to offer to be criticized about, in turn.

        When it comes down to it, most of the Libertarian candidates are nuttier than Trump and less electable than Clinton. Reason knows this so it has basically taken on the role of whiner and agitator, and it gets pretty old after a while. Who can a libertarian support that isn’t a loon that has absolutely zero chance of being elected dog catcher, let alone Pres. All Libertarians seem to talk about are guns and immigration. I like the pro gun talk but the unfettered and unregulated and unlawful mass immigration from the third world without any checks or protections for people already in the country will forever be an untenable and unpopular position in any first world country and especially when it is essentually the third world exporting its poverty to us that we have to support through welfare and all the STEM workers being hired to displace American STEM workers.

        New at Reason: Don’t vote, all the candidates suck and we don’t have anything to offer ourselves so we will devote the next 10 months to telling you nobody is worthy to vote for, ever…

        1. Garagefather — That may be the best comment I have ever read on this site.

          My hat’s off to you, brother.

          GREAT analysis!

        2. Dude, why do you even troll here? Don’t you have better things to do?

          If the libertarians are nutty and insignificant and keeping out immigrants is your issue, then Trump is your guy, the GOP is your party, and conservative is your label.

          I don’t watch MSNBC or hang out at Mother Jones. Why do you lurk here?

          1. Butler — What is your problem? Why do you care if Garagefather voices his opinion here? Do you come here only to hear the same opinions as yours?

            And why don’t you watch MSNBC? I watch, read and listen to EVERYTHING. Maybe that’s why your thinking is so narrow.

            I guess you think of yourself as the gatekeeper here. You think you get to say who stays and who goes.

            Make me laugh.

            YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY!

            1. EndTheGOP cannot be a real person. No one could be this stupid.

              1. Baron — I just love the way you call me names time and time again and then run away, but you NEVER want to debate me. Why don’t you ask your wife if you can have your balls back and then try to refute ANYTHING I say?

                You can’t be a pussy all of your life, can you?

                FYI: Fake persons can’t type you, fuckin’ idiot

      5. Right on! They pulled the same shit against Ron Paul in 2012. He had racist “supporters” and his campaign “attracted” white supremacists.
        Just because Nick Gillespie favors open borders and amnesty, causing him to hate Trump, is no reason to abandon journalistic standards.

  2. The most embarrassing thing about America…

    We are a nation of giant douche vs. shit sandwich.

    1. We’re not an idiocracy, we’re a kakistocracy.

        1. kakistocracy (?k?k??st?kr?s?)
          n, pl -cies
          a government by the least able or worst citizens.

          But yeah, I get it. We are living a nightmare written by Kafka himself.
          But just what kind of bug we will morph into is the $64,000 question.

          1. A kakistocracy might be interesting depending upon who gets to decide who is the least able or worst citizen.

            For example, HRC might declare that ANY non-slaver qualifies as the worst citizen (I know, one can only have one worst but it is old granny Clinton we are talking about).

            How about having a rabid environmentalist picking the worst?

    2. Trump isn’t just exposing the emptiness of the GOP, there’s an emptiness in politics and media.

      I saw a clip of Trump on O’Reilly where O’Reilly asked about the debate flap and Trump said something like “I thought we had agreed you weren’t going to ask that question” and O’Reilly responded that “hey, nobody comes on this show with pre-conditions, as a serious journalist I don’t let anybody dictate what questions I’m going to ask them to answer.”

      Right after, I saw a clip of Rubio chiding Donald for trying to make demands of Fox on how the debate gets run, saying “This isn’t just some TV show, this is serious business”.

      If O’Reilly can pretend he’s a serious journalist and Rubio can pretend the campaign ain’t a clown show for retards, why can’t Trump pretend he’s a serious candidate? Trump isn’t failing to treat the matter with the respect it deserves, he’s treating it with exactly the respect it deserves. Sure, Trump may not intend to be exposing the dirty little secret that a retarded clown can get elected president, and may actually be running to prove he’s not a retarded clown, but that is the lesson to take from this campaign and the coverage of it. The people running this show seriously believe that we enjoy watching retarded clowns and yet are too stupid to know a retarded clown when we see one. And God help us, they may be right.

      1. Donald Trump insists he’s a serious candidate and deserves to be taken just as seriously as any other candidate and I think he’s absolutely correct. But that ain’t saying anything about Donald Trump, it’s saying something about all the other candidates and it’s saying something about politics and it’s saying something about us.

      2. Pretending or not, that was a great answer from O’Reilly.

        Did Donnie stomp off in a huff?

    3. Whats worse, is that it generally only gets worse, and usually far worse anywhere else you go.

      You do actually have to leave the country to know that though. Otherwise you start thinking there is somewhere better to move to, when in reality there really isn’t.

    4. Cuck vs. Cocks

  3. “Last week, National Review published a special issue devoted to denouncing the candidate, with an unsigned editorial labeling him a “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative”

    Pot meet kettle.

    1. If you’re going to be an asshole, at least be an informed asshole.

      There were 22 contributors of that publication; some of them, as Rich Lowry stated, not only disagreed with each other in the past (David Boaz & Russell Moore, as an example) but also openly disagreed with NR (Glenn Beck & his disagreement with NR on TARP).

      So, before you opine, do yourself a favor and at least know what you’re opining about.

      You’re one of those thin-skinned partisans that libertarians poo-poo about – and you’ve turned into that you mock.

      1. Ok, NR is a shitty, big-government-fellating rag penned by war-mongering, authoritarian statist assholes, and even when they’re right about something like Trump being a shitbag, I don’t forget that. That they have internecine bitch fights changes jack and shit. Fuck NR. And fuck you.

        1. “Fuck NR. And fuck you”. Obviously, you prefer reading the headlines and that’s about it. Kinda like reading a Sheldon Richman headline and saying – there’s the libertarian moment; sounds a lot like a Salon moment.

          Man, I can hardly wait until the Kochtopusdoes Reason a big favor, kicks Nick Gillespie’s ass out on the street and puts Kevin Williamson in charge.

        2. I once asked Kevin Williamson if he would ever consider running for political office. After all, he’s from Lubbock and it yes, there is a Libertarian on Lubbock’s city council. So, it’s not unheard of (libertarian moment is building . . . .)

          He tweeted back that he’d never run for office. It ruins a person.

          He has a good point.

  4. We may be witnessing the collapse of the Republican party, or at least the Republican party as we know it.

    Maybe…but politics is a fickle bitch.

    I was thinking about this and doing some reading, and Trump basically seems to equal Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi. Would that really destroy the Republican party was we know it?

    Maybe, if Trump wins the general and actually is the president for four years, he will fundamentally transform the GOP.

    But if he loses (and especially if he loses badly), I think you’ll see a counter-revolt by the less populist elements of the party, and probably some purges. And I don’t think Trump’s supporters could form a third party of any consequence.

    1. Yeah, I’m thinking that if Trump precipitates the collapse of the Republican Party, that’s probably “creative destruction” and not a bad thing.

      But, at this point, who the hell knows? The establishment and elites are very, very good at holding onto their rice bowls, so . . .

      1. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a tune sung about the doom of one of the major parties. The Democrats after Kerry lost to a vulnerable President Bush and they didn’t gain Congress in 2004 wept, wailed and rended garments at their imminent demise. It’s always the relative stupidity of the other that dictates a party’s rise and fall.

      2. Jonah Goldberg wrote about this very thing (although Nick Gillespie had a hissy fit because Goldberg dared to write ‘libertarian’ in that column).

        Actually, Goldberg was nearly converted to . .. and then, Gillespie had to shoot him in the back.

        And let me remind Nick, Matt and the rest of the nattering nabobs at Reason – Charles D. Cooke defended you guys for the “woodchipper” incident. And yet – where was Salon? Mother Jones? Vox? The Nation? Not a peep was uttered by the Left. They fully supported the Federal government’s persecution and it was National Review who stood up for you.

        Sometimes I think some libertarians are so intransigent, they are their own worst enemies.

        And this I can bet on – next time you get a subpoena, Nick, or Matt or Pete – you’re on your own.

        1. In other words, you libertarians shut the hell up, get back in line, and only criticize the left like good children are supposed to.

    2. Yes, I told a friend two weeks ago that Trump = Berlusconi. Good to see someone else saying it as well 🙂

      1. I was hardly the first person to make the comparison. But the resemblance is striking.

    3. What Republican party is he going to destroy? The one that spends shitloads of money, refuses to end the drug war, refuses to entertain criminal justice reform, that pays serious lip-service to the closed-border lunatics, and who are, for all that, basically indistinguishable from the other TEAM?

      Fuck that Republican party. We should be cheering its destruction.

      1. Well, no, that is the Republican party he is leading right now.

  5. Libertarian moment?

    1. ITS HAPPENING!

      1. I blinked! Can I get a do-over?

  6. he may be a harbinger of the GOP’s imminent collapse or he might be the result of the media destroying their own credibility for Obama. you decide.

    1. I agree – I’m not a Trump fan but his popularity appears to be more of a harbinger of the demise of the GOP Establishment, and not of the actual GOP. Given that the GOPe has just been the opposite side of the Democratic Party for the past 20 or so years, I’m still not sure why people are surprised – though maybe the only people that are surprised are Beltway douchebags that honestly believe with every fiber of there being that they are actually superior to the proles.

      The Democrat Establishment is next.

      1. Given that the GOPe has just been the opposite side of the Democratic Party for the past 20 or so years

        Not sure what you’re getting at, here. My impression is that the GOPe is collaborating with the Dems on everything that matters, and throws up a smoke screen of kultur war BS to try to distract from this.

        1. meant to say, opposite side of the same coin…

        2. Didn’t you get the memo? You’re a Patriot if you support sugar subsidizes and a communist if you support free markets. According to Rubio. That’s why Rubio is a disgusting, awful pig of a man.

    2. I’ve decided that blaming the media and Obama for everything short of your hangnail is stupid politics. But they don’t call the GOP the Stupid Party for nothing.

    3. Trump’s popularity has little if anything to do with how the media have responded to Obama. It’s a populist response to cultural and economic changes that a segment of the population thinks have left them worse off. Since neither major party has done much to address their concerns, feelings of resentment have festered until Trump gave them an outlet.

      1. maybe. I’m just offering a theory. Obama’s nonstop lies are aggravating but the media’s 7 years of taint licking is disgusting. not much surprise that people like a guy who sticks a knife in their guts and makes them howl. and the more they howl the more he rises.

        1. Your argument is so cliche it’s cute. There is no “The Media” anymore. The interwebs allow (and encourage) everyone to consume whatever flavor of punditry that they desire. The batshit stupidity regurgitated by my friends, family and colleagues from both the right and left is getting out of hand.

        2. Your argument is so cliche it’s cute. There is no “The Media” anymore. The interwebs allow (and encourage) everyone to consume whatever flavor of punditry that they desire. The batshit stupidity regurgitated by my friends, family and colleagues from both the right and left is getting out of hand.

          1. While the influence of the Mainstream Media is nowhere near the monopoly of the past and is declining, it is still significant.

        3. Pretty much dead on. That several major left leaning media essentially got that total fraud elected by collaborating (and then continually denying that they did so) in his cover-ups and deception for the past decade in order to put him in power as their “chosen one” has left much of the country looking for payback.

      2. a segment of the population thinks have left them worse off

        There is a segment, and not a small one, that is actually worse off.

        1. That’s true. And if we are being honest, part of the reason for that are economic changes that we as libertarians are generally OK with. Now I think that shitty government policies have contributed to stagnation and deepened and extended the pain that some people have felt, particularly in the old industrial areas. And shitty government policies certainly helped make those areas less globally competitive to begin with. But things like free trade and low-skilled immigration are going to cause some people pain, even if temporarily. It would behoove us all for libertarians to have a better way of addressing that.

  7. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  8. Megyn Kelly?who has feuded with Trump for months

    Srsly, Suderman?

    1. More like “been feuded at by Trump for months.”

  9. National Review isn’t the party, of course, and neither is Fox, but they are important player on the right,

    Citation needed.

    Those two shitty outlets force RINO’s like Cruz and Rubio and Paul Ryan onto Repub supporters, while treating Rand Paul as the “well-meaning weirdo”. They essentially enabled Trump, at least he doesn’t deny his sleaziness.

    1. You realize don’t you that guys like Rubio are the actual republicans, and Paul is the RINO? That term is misused – if the vast majority of the party are squishy centrists, then that represents what the party is. Those who deviate from it (libertarians) are the false republicans.

      1. Everybody uses RINO to mean “Democrat under cover” except you.

        1. Yeah, and they’re using it in direct contravention of the plain meaning of the words making up the acronym.

      2. I think of Paul more like the brain and the rest (including Trump) as the spinal cord which causes the knee to jerk unbidden.

      3. You realize don’t you that guys like Rubio are the actual republicans

        The modern Republican Party is a mercantilist party. They have been mercantilist ever since they were founded. Their mercantilism was there at the founding because many of the founders of the party were Whigs who carried the virus as they left the corpse of their old party. And of course, the whigs ultimately got it from he Federalists.

        When the democrats abandoned liberalism to embrace progressivism, the Republicans didn’t change. They were still the party of big government giving favors to big business. It was just that the Democrats dropped any love so limited government, and the limited government guys had nowhere else to go. It was a choice between ass rape with no reach around or ass rape with a few strokes of a reach around.

        And that is the problem. The American People have a large number of people who instinctively reject the worst excesses of mercantilism and want to stop getting ass raped. It’s not that they want limited government (even though limiting government would limit the ass rape). They just want to stop getting screwed.

        And the Republican Party can’t adapt; the officers and politicians which dominate the party are really, really into ass raping the country and don’t want to stop. They’d prefer sloppy seconds to gaping ani of the Democratic Party’s victims than to give up the pleasure of those sweet, sweet, tight sheaths.

        1. SugarFree’s lawyers would like a word.

          1. I gave my lawyer to STEVE SMITH as a Kwanzaa present.

      4. if the vast majority of the party are squishy centrists, then that represents what the party is.

        If you think the elected officials and apparatchiks are the party, then this is true. If you think the party is the (registered Repub?) voters, then its not.

        1. Who elects them?

          And the nationwide contests (for President) have also produced a lot of “squishy centrists”.

        2. Ah yes, the whole “the people we elected to represent us don’t represent us!” bit. It’s *terribly* persuasive.

          1. How about “the people presented as the only possible options to vote for as our representatives don’t represent us?”

            1. I think this is more the situation.

              The apparat controls who is on the ballot (mostly). So who is on the ballot will represent the apparat first, and their voters only incidentally.

            2. So not only do your elected politicians not represent you, but your primary candidates don’t represent you either?

              Dude, if you’re so un-represented by the people that everyone else in your party chooses, maybe it’s that you don’t represent the party, not that the party’s candidates don’t represent the party.

    2. National Review hated Cruz and did multiple hit pieces on him – until they realized he might be the only alternative to Trump. They were in the Bush or Rubio camp.

      1. Glad I stopped reading NR in the early 90s

        1. But you never stopped reading Mother Jones, did you?

      2. From what I heard, the NR endorsed romney, and are filled with bushites.

    3. Except – Rand just wrote legislation that states Life Begins at Conception. And Gary Johnson wants to ban burqas.

      So much for the lesser government guys. They’re lesser alright.

      1. Johnson immediately retracted his comment on burqas. And being pro-life isn’t a disqualifier for being a libertarian.

        1. What libertarian would even suggest there be a burqa ban? Huh? As for the pro-life libertarians, I know – I am one. But being pro-life and using a government force and coercion doesn’t make you a libertarian.

          1. Some women need to wear buga’s, like that hag that was a part of the san diego shooting. She should have covered her head with a paper bag.

            1. Where to begin to comment on a post totally lacking cogent thought. First, the terrorist attack you refer to occurred in San Bernadino, not San Diego (easy enough to figure out using Google). Second, we all make typos, but most of us proofread to avoid obvious screw-ups – exactly what is a “buga”? Finally referring to your misogynist remark I assume you figure the following rule should be in place: if the women is not good looking (in your opinion) then she should wear either the Burqa or the Niqab; if, again in your opinion, she is relatively attractive than either the Hijab or, in violation of her religious teachings, no head covering at all should be the rule.

              Did I get it right?

              1. Forgive my typo of “women” when I meant “woman”.

              2. Your constructive criticism is well noted and I thank you for it. With that said, my point was to invoke a reaction, which I knew would probably be a negative one. It was a joke and an offensive one at that, it was intended to be. There is a difference between what can be said and what should be said. My comment should not have been said out of decency but my point is that it could be said out of free speech. Thank you for taking the bait. I submit no rule, just a suggestion. A paper sack would work just as well.

  10. The Republican Party had been pretty well hollowed out before Trump made a play to take over the shell. Too many decades of “moderate” or “establishment” Republicans who run as small-government conservatives then govern like big-government blue-dog Democrats. The “base” has gone beyond fed-up and now just wants somebody to smash things.

    I would prefer an actual conservative like Paul or even Cruz to be the one smashing things. Looks like the old-timers like Dole would rather deal with Trump.

    1. Too many decades of “moderate” or “establishment” Republicans who run as small-government conservatives then govern like big-government blue-dog Democrats

      I don’t buy this as an explanation for Trump. For starters, the national Republican party hasn’t been moderate for the last 15 years, probably longer. They haven’t been small government or libertarian leaning, but they’ve hardly pursued policies that ingratiate them with the soft middle of American politics.

      Second, Trump isn’t gaining the support of small government conservatives, he’s gaining the support of what is best described as an angry remnant of blue-dog Democrats.

      And Trump’s supporters don’t just want to smash things. They want a piece of a the pie.

      1. This. I’m so sick of hearing that Trump is around because Rs don’t care enough about small government. These people are aspiring welfare queens.

        1. Thirded. The bigger portion of people I know trumpeting Trump do so because they remember when they were an important part of the status quo. They want to be “winning” again.

          1. HAND OFf MY MEDICARE!!!!!!

            1. Speaking to a one-handed bureaucrat, of course.

      2. It could be some of both. And frankly, with everyone else getting a handout, why wouldn’t you want some of that too?

        1. Because you have a conscience.

          1. Maybe in Plato’s Republic but mostly that doesn’t pan out in the real world.

            1. Aw, those poor slavers, the real world forced them to do it!

              1. I’m sorry the word doesn’t align with how you’d like it to be, when given the choice between something and nothing, people will usually choose something. It’s called acting rationally.

                1. It’s also called, in this instance, being immoral.

                  1. Meh. Sure. Doesn’t change anything though.

                  2. Killing innocent people is immoral, but if someone tosses you in a pit and tells you to fight to the death or die there, it’s understandable that someone would decide to win the fight and arm up. And if everyone else in the pit has already grabbed a weapon and aimed it at you, it’s beyond understandable that you would arm yourself and fight back.

                  3. “Immoral”??

                    Are you going to start speaking in tongues and handling snakes, now?

            2. Plato was an authoritarian if there ever was one!

        2. If you mean “you” in the specific sense, it’s because I don’t like where the handouts are coming from, and I realize that well is going to run dry sooner rather than later.

          But speaking generally, it’s an understandable, if not healthy, sentiment.

          1. Yes, you in the general population sense. I don’t agree with it, I don’t think it’s healthy or a good idea, but the great masses of average people may lean that more more often than not, especially if they think they are getting the short end of the stick.

      3. The problem with the establishment – they want to win. They’d support some guy bragging shooting someone on 5th avenue if they can take POTUS.

        Me – I care more about SCOTUS than POTUS. Now, if Trump nominated libertarian justices to the SCOTUS – say, a Randy Barnett – would you support him? Because we all know a President Hillary will give us 5 more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs.

        With a Trump, at least, you have a greater chance at liberty where it really matters. On SCOTUS.

        Because POTUS comes and POTUS goes – but SCOTUS lasts forever.

        1. This. Unfortunate, but true.

  11. …via The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent…

    Right, see, that right there is what you’d call an unreliable source for an unbiased take on non-Progressives. That’s the moment where, reading the article, I started to smell a rat.

    I am not interested in a Trump presidency, to say the least, but to blame this on secret racist conservatives from Alabama is idiotic. It’s just the same old tribalism that’s worked to create Trump. He’s this popular because there is a large segment of the population who have been alienated by Progressive politicians and a media culture dominated by Progressive enclaves on the coasts and who have watched the Republican party talk about small government conservatism and act like the proverbial kids with whiskey and car keys.

    People like Suderman either don’t get that because they’re so out of touch or are to wrapped up in their own tribal ideals to admit it.

    1. *too.

      How’s that edit button coming, devs?

      1. I’ll just be happy if they fix it so I stop getting randomly logged out 10 seconds after logging in.

    2. I agree; the veracity of information should be judged based on it’s source. Anyt hmm ing WaPo says is almost axiomatically a lie.

      1. Well I made a hash of typing, “anything”. Need an edit button.

      2. Especially anything from Plum Line Greg Sargent, who is the most nakedly anti-Republican commentator around.

        1. He and I got in to a big twitter war. I called him a “Hillary shill” and he kept on saying, “no, I’m NOT a shill. I’m an opinion writer but I’m not a shill. Yes, Hillary exercised poor judgment over the private server but she did nothing wrong. And I’m not a shill”.

          I thought he would eventually block me because that’s what the Left usually do (same as Trump groupies), but no, he kept on trying to convince me and my groupies that “he is not a shill”.

          So I blocked him. I just couldn’t take it anymore.

          1. I thought he would eventually block me because that’s what the Left usually do… So I blocked him.

            Give some thought to this.

            1. Hey, I got under the proggies’ skin and I knew it. And he knew it – that’s why he kept at me! Some woman he had never met or had a conversation with before (kinda like you . . )

              Bye

        2. Oh, and speaking of my twitter war with Greg Sargent, he committed the same foul mistake that got Nick’s panties in a wad; he called me a Republican because I called Hillary Clinton a disgusting, foul human being.

          And yet, somehow and for some reason, Nick only gets his panties in a wad when conservatives think libertarians are party of their team. Let a progressive make that mistake – and not a peep from Dr. G.

          1. I swear to God, I think that if Greg Sargent was hanging from a ledge and he saw a Republican pass by he’d let go just so he can flick him/her off with both hands.

            1. He’s counting on those government angels to intercede before he crashes on the cold, hard pavement below.

              Some people have to learn the hard way – there ain’t no such thing as government angels.

    3. “not racism, just tribalism”

      Well, that makes it okay.

      1. On rereading, I see my phrasing could be improved. I was referring to Suderman’s piece as an example of the kind of tribal politics that created the Trump phenomenon.

        1. Trump is a populous demagogue, and the people supporting him, largely, do not know much or think deeply about politics. (Though there are some of those who have thrown in with him, too.) And a large part–a very large part–of the support for Trump is from normal people who are tired of being told they are “racists” or “Islamophobists” or any other “-ists” for the crime of not accepting the leftist narrative on any given issue. (Or even worse: the crime of being white, American, and something other than destitute.)

          I have heard from so many people who, at least in this stage of the election, support Trump as an anti-politically correct “troll candidate.” They don’t agree with everything he says, no, but they love how impotently frightened the authoritarian left is of him. They have tried and failed to destroy him in the media, have tried and failed with the usual list of “-isms,” and this is as deeply satisfying to them as it is to hear Trump call a coached RINO drip a loser on national television.

          And his policies are ridiculous, but “at least they’re something,” goes the thinking. A wall between the U.S. and Mexico is silly, but a plan to build a wall is NOT ignoring the electorate when they say they want the existing immigration laws enforced as the law itself ostensibly requires.

    4. “large segment of the population who have been alienated by Progressive politicians”

      Congress is dominated by progressives? Or the state legislatures?

      1. I would say Congress has a solid plurality of progs, from both parties, but mostly dems.

    5. People like Suderman either don’t get that because they’re so out of touch or are to wrapped up in their own tribal ideals to admit it.

      Dead on.

  12. I have no love for the R’s but,they do control most state houses and the house and senate.Mean while the dems have a socialist and a crony crook to pick from.Choose your destroyer.

    1. Yep – the GOP appears to be in terrible shape, until to glance over at the debacle that is the DNC.

    2. Maybe Suderman thinks Top-Down is they way things should work, meaning Trump is the conscience of the party.

      The state elections, closer to the grass roots, are where it’s at. And Trump is going to get repubs to the polls. Meanwhile, National Review does everything it can to keep repub supporters away from the polls.

      1. Sometimes I think Suderman fancy’s himself a top-man.

      2. According to MSNBC and ‘Moaning Joe’,yes. Hell,Joe seems to be loving Trumps political ‘acumen’ and is never talking about the crazy ass shit he say’s he’ll do.It’s all a game to these fuckers.

  13. One of the two major parties will collapse any day now. This has been common knowledge since the seventies at least.

    1. Like peak oil, right?

  14. An apocalypse is a harbinger. Get over Trump.

  15. The Republican Party as we knew it needed to be destroyed. It had come to the point where people like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater couldn’t be nominated anymore.

    It was really destroyed by people like George W. Bush and John Boehner. What we’ve seen since the emergence of the Tea Party is the party’s revitalization. Having the Republican party stripped from the control of those Bush and Boehner establishment forces is evidence that there’s still a vital movement going on within the Republican Party. There is nothing like that happening on the left.

    There isn’t anything like revitalization going on at all in the Democratic Party. They’re against racism and in favor of public employee unions. Take their charismatic leader away, and they’ve got no ideology–and they don’t have control of much either.

    The GOP controls the House, the Senate, an abundance of governor’s mansions, and Republican control of both houses in the legislatures of 31 states–a post World War II high. If that’s the Republican apocalypse, the GOP should want more apocalypse.

    1. HW Bush and his generation of “moderates” planted the seeds of destruction. They set about raising domestic spending and taxes the moment Reagan left town. Voting for Pete DuPont in that primary is one of those lost cause votes I’m proud of.

    2. Well said, Ken Shultz.

    3. Having the Republican party stripped from the control of those Bush and Boehner establishment forces

      As far as I can tell, they are still in charge.

      1. It’s all hands on deck for the establishment against Trump and Cruz at the moment, both of which are seen as anti-establishment.

        Jeb may drop out after Iowa,

        I’ll grant, there may be a new establishment emerging, but it’s the former Tea Party people making the news.

    4. They’re revitalizing by following a guy who loves single payer, eminent domain, pro-entitlement programs, pro-assault weapons ban, pro-affirmative actions, etc.?

      1. Trump is a third party candidate smart enough to realize that third party candidates can’t win. He alienates plenty of Republicans, but also brings in a certain sort of a Democrat.

    5. The GOP controls the House, the Senate, an abundance of governor’s mansions, and Republican control of both houses in the legislatures of 31 states

      And if it wasn’t for that darn meddling (D) in the White House, we’d all be living in the GOParadise of lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government, the blessings of free-market capitalism….. I can’t wait to get a Republican in the White House so I can get the free pony they promised me.

      1. I don’t dispute that the Republicans are full of crap, but Republican apocalypse isn’t what we’re living through.

        If we end up with a Republican in the White House after the upcoming, a lot of people are going to be very surprised to find that the Republicans are suddenly more powerful than they ever were before.

        It’s going to be a surprise. The Republicans have been completely marginalized, and everyone knows that! The New York Times, MSNBC, Salon.com, NPR, and all the others, they can’t all be wrong, can they?!

  16. I liked the cherry-picked comments. Not that I endorse Trump, but I really had “journalists” cherry-picking comments with no context to make someone look as bad as possible. I expect it from Left and Right outlets but from Reason, not so much. Maybe just little naive.

    1. supposed to be – really hate ….. No freaking edit button.

    2. What context would make any of those quotes okay, other than, “Some fucking douchebag said…”?

      1. “Now, don’t get me wrong, I would never say…”

      2. What percentage of Trump supporters agree with those quotes, and if Trump does, too.

        Obama had a campaign office where the Cuban flag and Che’s portrait were prominent on the wall.

        I can therefore now state that all Obama voters are communists who are willing to shoot political opponents.

        Fair?

        1. What pretty new goalposts you built.

          1. Those are the same goalposts you’re using if you’re going by the “one drop rule” of racism, which you appear to be.

            1. But she has such good intentions!

        2. What I’ve been seeing Trump supporters say are thing like “We know Trump isn’t a conservative, and we don’t care. We’re mad as hell, we want the GOPe – the establishment wing of the GOP – smashed, and as long as Trump is the biggest hammer around for smashing the GOPe, we’ll support him. More than that, we’ll take the attacks against him as evidence that he’s doing just want we want: Hammering the GOPe.”

          1. As I posted above, there’s also a deep satisfaction in watching a clearly biased media and group of establishment moral scolds (on both sides of the aisle) try and fail to destroy Trum with the same progressive tactics used regularly on everyday people, used to destroy their lives if they don’t toe the progressive line.

            Maybe more than anything, this is a revolt against political correctness, which has infiltrated far too much of every level of every type of establishment.

    3. You mean the comments that sound like a full 1/3 of people here commenting on the French attack threads?

  17. Not all Trump supporters buy into these sentiments, of course, but the consistency with they pop up amongst his supporters at campaign events, in addition to their prevalence on social media, is telling enough about both Trump and the party he’s taken hold of.

    Or it tells you which candidate the nativists and xenophobes and racists are rallying behind.

    1. Which is not surprising. At least ideally, the Republican party is supposed to represent the individual and individual rights. It’s no surprise that bigots will always be drawn to any ideology that allows for nutty viewpoints.

  18. To the extent that Trump’sObama’s campaign is about any one thing, it is about fear of foreigners and immigration closing Gitmo,

    Trump’s campaign is about one thing; Trump. No different than Hillary or Obama or even Bush before him. Seriously, when was the last time a Presidential race, especially one dominated by somebody like Trump, was about *a* political issue?

  19. Donald Trump Is the Harbinger of the Republican Party Apocalypse

    He’s assuming direct control.

    1. … of all the planets in the Solar Federation…

  20. Peter,

    I thought this article was pretty right on.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2…..lai/208219

    My favorite part…

    “Of course what makes all this angry back-and-forth so funny is that one combatant is supposed to be a news organization. News organizations aren’t supposed have bizarre, on-going public spats with one party’s leading candidate. Anchors on a news channel aren’t supposed to plead with candidates to show up at debates. And the head of a news channels doesn’t usually try to patch things up by directly phoning powerful politicians. But this is Fox News, so all the normal rules go out the window.”

    Who are we going for, btw? Ted Cruz? Let me know.

    1. So, which one are you voting for? The out of the closet Marxist, the in the closet Marxist, or the dope who destroyed Maryland?

      1. He’ll vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general, so he can be smug both ways.

      2. To be fair, Maryland has sucked for a number of years now. O’Malley just polished it off.

    2. Right. So quoting from “media matters” is supposed to help make your case?

  21. Trump is leading the pack, but he hasn’t earned a majority yet. There’s still something like 65+% that are undecided. He has to get these people behind him, which has been difficult.

    Another thing: he has high negatives, thanks largely to his personal attacks on other candidates. I think he may have turned off the supporters of other candidates (read Cruz and Carson) because of the personal attacks and may not be able to draw them to him during the general, if he were the nominee.

    Also, the Establishment prefers Trump to Cruz because The Donald will make deals with them, and so if it were between the two, they will pick him over Cruz, whom they detest.

    BUT, with Cruz out of the way, his supporters would likely go to Rubio, who is the second choice of many of them, according to research. Rubio has much smaller negatives and can be a contender in the general and, voila, the Establishment has their man.

  22. I figure we’re about a week away from the media going ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME

  23. Man, Trump is really causing some people to go around the bend. I don’t get it. Is he any more loathsome than other politicians? The Dem front runner is a horrible individual who recently implied Bernie Sanders has fake grandchildren and who clearly violated the law. Is Trump that much worse than Paul Ryan, the alleged conservative champion who just completely caved on the budget?

    1. “Is he any more loathsome than other politicians?”

      Should that be the standard for picking a nominee?

      1. Since that is all we have, sadly yes.

    2. Politically? No. He and the rest of the power-mad moral midgets could form a bowling league.

      On personality? He’s a warehouse of poorly made clown shoes.

      1. I wonder what the name of that bowling league would be?

        1. The Infinite Stooges.

      2. Pretty much, but how is a warehouse of poorly made clown shoes any worse than the previous three Presidents? The last guy to be President who seemed qualified and up for the job was Bush I. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are all three man children with daddy issues. Bush I may not have been a conservative much less a Libertarian but at least he was a fucking adult.

        1. Never get involved in a land war defending Trump, or Bush, or Obama, or Clinton….

          There’s no upside to it. None. You end up looking like a chump.

          1. No, you just have to pick your ground. The issue is not “is Trump a good idea to be President”. Of course he is not. The issue is “is Trump any worse than many of the other alternatives”. And I honestly don’t see how he is.

            1. OK, then stop voting these evil cunts into office.

              No one is forcing you to choose any of them.

              1. Sure. I don’t have to choose. But someone is going to choose one of them. My decision to opt out really doesn’t matter.

                1. My decision to opt out really doesn’t matter.

                  It matters as much as any explicit vote, which is to say jack and squat, but you’re still casting a vote for “None of the above.”

                  That way, I can still look at myself in the mirror the next morning and not be overcome with deep, deep shame.

  24. Trump is far from an establishment figure

    Dafuq? He most certainly IS an establishment figure, if by establishment you mean attached at the teat in Washington. The goddamn media created his presidency by giving him the vast majority of the coverage (good and bad) and he most certainly has been a campaigner/supporter of the major party figures of both R’s and D’s for a long time now.

    1. Agreed. He’s actually bragging about how he can work with the Establishment to make deals. He supports their priorities. During the 2014 election, he actually gave a lot of money to Mr. Establishment himself, Mitch McConnell.

      1. So he would be President Jeb Bush with a comb over. Not good by any measure. But considering what we have been through, I don’t see why people are panicking over it.

    2. Is the anarchist vote then going to Ted Cruz?

      1. I’d rather be fisted with a rusty cheese grater than vote for Cruz, Rubio or any of the other shitheels with an R next to their name. At least Rand TALKS about things that should be talked about. The rest of those mutherfuckers can only mouth one variation of “9/11, Mexican’s Stole Our Jobs, Kill all Ragheads” after another.

    3. Stop talking sense, my Sumerian friend; we don’t cotton to that in these parts.

  25. First off, there’s a difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants. It’s disingenuous to conflate the two.

    Secondly, nobody wants to say it, but European Enlightenment civilization actually is objectively superior to other cultures. Our ancestors conquered the world, much of which remains a shit hole to this day. It’s not unreasonable ti seek to preserve that culture in the face of a multiculti relativist onslaught.

      1. Guns, Germs, and Steel was an interesting book, but it was also a lot of post hoc reasoning. It’s a cute story. It could be real, but it could just as easily be historical fiction based on bias and incomplete information.

          1. That’s not related at all to what I said.

            1. Look, these are very interesting books whose reviews he has read in the Daily Worker. Who are you to tell him what they’re about?

            2. No, see, he’s saying you’re racist, which must be true since you’re implying that there might be aspects of the European Enlightenment that caused European culture to be more successful than other cultures of the period.

              Ironically, he’s calling you a racist because you’re saying there’s such a thing as white privilege.

              1. While I do think the Enlightenment contributed to the rise of European hegemony, even *that* wasn’t implied by what I said. All I said was that Diamond’s thesis was a nice narrative, but one of many that you could cherry pick facts to support.

                I think some of what Diamond identified helped Europe to rise in power. I think the scientific and industrial revolutions and the Enlightenment also contributed. But I also think there were probably a lot of little historical accidents and twists of fate that we’ll never know about and could never really do a full accounting of anyway that contributed, in an emergent fashion, to the rise of Europe (as well as to the Enlightenment and the scientific and industrial revolutions).

                If we could have somehow transported more and better cereal grains and a climate appropriate for them, herd animals, political diversity and wars, and the other things that Diamond identifies to the America’s, I don’t think that would guarantee that Native Americans would have risen to the same heights of power as Europe did. If we ran history again starting from the same initial conditions, there is no guarantee that Europe would rise up in a similar fashion.

          2. +1 White Man’s burden

            But enough about your true motivations…

      2. Hello, dumbass!

        Did you actually finish the book you’re citing? You know, the last part, where the author admitted that he managed to explain why Eurasians beat the native Americans and native Africans and native Australians, but failed to explain why the Europeans managed to conquer the Middle East, India, and Far East, which had all the same geographic advantages as Europe?

        Hell, you’d think someone claiming to be a “socialist” would notice that socialism was invented by the European Enlightenment, rather than anyone in the Ottoman, Mughal, or Manchu empires.

    1. Our ancestors conquered the world, much of which remains a shit hole to this day.

      Great job with that, guy.

      1. Damn your nimble fingers!

      2. We were forced to give it back by bleeding heart liberals. The few times there have been articles relating to imperialism, a large number of commenters have correctly pointed out that the benighted places of the world (i.e. all non-European based civilizations) were better off being ruled by whites than left to their own primitive devices. We introduced concepts such as “rule of law” and “property rights”. It’s regrettable that many natives died in the process, but qell frankly, they should have advanced beyond the “grass skirts and cow hide shield” level of development a long time ago, but did not.

        Those places have been independent for 60+ years now, and are still shit holes. I think it’s safe to say the problem is indigenous, and not the “fault” of the the evil white straight men.

        1. Our shields cannot repel ignorance of this magnitude.

      3. Well, it wouldn’t stay conquered, so what are we supposed to do?

    2. But (and this can’t be stated enough) Trump’s supporters aren’t embracing Enlightenment values. They’re anti-intellectual, they’re xenophobic, they’re isolationist, and I haven’t seen any sign that they are individualists.

      1. They’re explicitly identitarian. The opposite of individualism.

      2. Indeed. May I live long enough to see an Enlightened corpse swing from every lamppost!

    3. “European Enlightenment civilization actually is objectively superior to other cultures.”

      If only we could find a culture that abides by the principles of the Enlightenment.

      I’d like to move there!

      1. A fair point. Unfortunately you go to war with the army you have, and the United States is the last bastion, no matter how diluted, of the Enlightenment. The way to defend it is not to import a horde of 3rd world failures who are going to vote for redistribution in the name of “justice”.

      2. Why are you arguing with a performance artist?

    4. Ethnocentrism is an interesting thing.

  26. The populism coming from both the right and left is what makes this election different from others. I think that much of this comes from the fact that the mainstream choices at this point (Clinton and Cruz) are despised by so many in their own camps.
    I predict one or more “third party” challengers entering this race once the nominees are decided. These are most likely to come from the fringes if Clinton or Cruz win, or conversely from the center if Sanders or Trump win.

    1. Cruz, mainstream?

    2. “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

  27. Exactly. Well said.

  28. 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..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

  29. Suderman, like his buddy Weigel, seems to have the strange impression that the Bush family and the republican party are one and the same.

    They aren’t. There was a republican party long before the Bush family rose to such prominence, and there will still be a republican party after the Bush family is finally and deservedly swept off the national stage for good here in the next couple of months.

  30. Trump could “probably work with Congress, because he’s, you know, he’s got the right personality and he’s kind of a deal-maker.”

    You know who else thought they could make a fascist the leader of their country because they could work with him and mold him to their wishes?

    1. Nobody in the top seat ever goes around pleading to make nice. The person in the top seat starts bullying, it’s the entire point of seeking the top seat.

    2. You know who else thought they could make a fascist the leader of their country because they could work with him and mold him to their wishes?

      Dewey when he set out to draft Eisenhower? 🙂

    3. Suppose he sells out to Congress. Okay, how is that going to be any different than now? Other than people peeing their pants over the prospect of the federal government actually enforcing the immigration laws, no one seems to ever be able to explain just exactly what horrible things Trump is going to actually do as President.

      1. Trump himself has explained all the horrible things he would do as President. Maybe it’s all bluster, maybe Congress would never let him get away with it (although the increasing number of GOP regulars starting to fall in line is making me question how much a GOP-controlled Congress would actually put a check on him), but since neither you or I are mind readers or fortune tellers, we have to at least concede the possibility that he is serious.

        And even if he isn’t, and he ends up just being a corrupt, cronyist, divisive asshole who is only different than other politicians in flavor but not in magnitude of their shittiness, why would I just shrug my shoulders at all the xenophobic garbage that he is carrying along with him?

        We get it – you hear Trump bashing on women, Mexicans, Muslims, etc., and you think its no big deal because Clinton is a criminal and Sanders is a parasite. But some of us aren’t going to just brush it off and go with the flow.

        1. And even if he isn’t, and he ends up just being a corrupt, cronyist, divisive asshole who is only different than other politicians in flavor but not in magnitude of their shittiness, why would I just shrug my shoulders at all the xenophobic garbage that he is carrying along with him?

          So he ends up being another Obama. I am not saying that is good. It is probably no worse than Jeb Bush and almost certainly at least marginally better than Hillary or Sanders.

          I am not endorsing Trump here. I am just saying that he is not worse than many other politicians and likely better than some. You can take that however you like as a statement on the state of the country. But that is just the way it is whatever you think.

          1. I’m saying that he is worse than a lot of other politicians because he is either cynically playing off of some people’s worst fears and traits, or he actually shares them.

            1. I honestly can’t name a “lot of other politicians”, who don’t do exactly that to get elected. I would rather have Cruz or Paul or Rubio than Trump. But as annoying as Trump is, he would still be better than Hillary and likely about the same as Biden.

        2. why would I just shrug my shoulders at all the xenophobic garbage that he is carrying along with him?

          This is the question that never gets answered.

          1. Funny how it’s the only thing people here are afraid he’d actually follow through with.

  31. They have a saying in professional sports, “winning cures all”. The GOP in many ways deserves to die and be replaced by something better. I doubt, however, Trump will be its destroyer. It is hardly certain he is even going to win the nomination. Even if he does, the same people who are today crying and moaning about how they will leave the party if he wins, will have a sudden change of heart once it looks like he might win the Presidency. Power has a way of doing that. And if he loses the general election, they get to tell his supporters “we told you so”. Either way, the party isn’t going anywhere.

    And spare me the horseshit about Trump is really a liberal and not a conservative. So what? What exactly is Trump going to do as President? Create DHS, pass No Child Left Behind and appoint a complete princpalless jackass like John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Pass a budget that gives the Democrats everything they want and destroys any progress however little that was made on spending in the previous three years?

    I mean my God, it would be the end of the country if he did something like that.

  32. The GOP apocalypse happened during the 80’s when all the fundietards came into the party and drove out everyone without a bible up their ass within a decade. The GOP is now the reincarnation of the Christian Socialist Party from a century ago.

    Watching it implode now is merely schadenfreude….

    1. Yeah totally, that is why the post Reagan nominees were two Bushes, who as a family hate the evangelicals, Dole, McCain and a Mormon. I mean the fundies run the entire party, in bizzaro world maybe.

      1. “Bushes, who as a family hate the evangelicals”

        lolwut

    2. There’s some of that. But Reagan appointing Greenspan – a self-proclaimed Randian who lied and only ever acted like a Keynesian – essentially told the fiscal conservatives to shut up and enjoy their handouts.

      1. The appointment of Greenspan to replace Volker was an enormous mistake and one that is sadly little appreciated by the chattering classes. A lot of what happened in 2008 was because Greenspan refused to let the economic reckoning that should have happened in 2001 when the tech bubble burst occur. He just kept pumping the money supply and the asset bubbles in the vain hope of avoiding the inevitable. Also, had Greenspan stood up and said something about the mortgage insanity going on at Freddie and Fannie May, Congress might have been forced to deal with the issue before it was too late.

  33. Isn’t this kind of to be expected though when you have a party with no real definable ideology or philosophy? Am I alone in thinking that the GOP’s primary concern is gaining and maintaining power? Couldn’t the same thing be said about the Democrat party and Bernie Sanders? Except instead “racist xenophobic nationalists” lining up to feel the bern, it’s the hard left marxists? I don’t know, I haven’t really thought about it that much, but seems to me that both parties could be in trouble, just that the Republicans are imploding a little faster than the Dems.

    1. That is really the heart of the split in the Party. The Republicans in Washington look at elections as a way to get in power and pay off their interests instead of the Democrats’ interest. The rest of the country, who has to pay for that views elections as a way to actually change things; the dumb rubes. And worse still, the Republicans in Washington even when they have power are happy to continue paying off Democratic interests as well. Voters are understandably a bit frustrated with that.

      It amazes me that people are surprised Republican voters are willing to take a flyer on Trump. They turned out in huge numbers in 2014 to give the party control of the Congress and things got worse. The Republicans in Congress did nothing. Forget the big things like spending and taxes and Obamacare,the Republican Senate is still today happily putting one liberal nut after another onto the federal bench. Those clowns don’t even have the balls to shut down a lame duck President’s judicial appointments. There is no way you can argue that there would be any downside politically to doing that. No one is going to change their vote in 2016 because of it. Yet, they still refuse to stop confirming judges.

      And these ass clowns don’t understand why their supporters would say fuck it and go for Trump. Trump may not be conservative and is probably a nut but at least he has balls.

  34. OT: Speaking of dysfunctional, I’m only able to get the blog posts/ comments to load on my phone in Chrome now for some reason. None of the posts are loading properly on Firefox anymore. Maybe The Donald has broken reason.com now too.

    1. Do the sqwirellz have comb overs?

  35. If the GOP is in its death throes, it will not be mourned. We can only hope the ass party, with its arch criminal vs. harebrained economic illiterate front-runners, will also quickly follow it to the grave.

    The two-party system is completely broken and there is increasingly little difference between them. Both are for increasing government overreach, ever-escalating spending, trashing what’s left of the Constitution, and endless wars. They differ only in the most minor of details.

    Good riddance to both of them. It’s high time for the promised Libertarian Moment.

    1. One of the problems with our system is that prog racial politics has thrown it out of whack. The voters in each party don’t necessarily align with the interests represented by the party. People are voting on the basis of tribe rather than ideology. And any party built on a coalition of tribes is going to serve no one but its leaders’ interests.

      1. John, OT:

        What did you think of the Pats / Broncos game?

        The other day, on WEEI, the morning show had Tim Hassleback on and he pointed out that if Manning had played the way Brady had, Patriot Nation would have said that he choked. Of course, even though Brady did not play well, he did keep the Pats in the game and almost pulled it out.

        I think that one measure of both Brady and Manning is that, even in defeat, they often rally their team and almost snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. In many of his losses to the Pats, Manning has done just that. The 2003 regular season game in Indy which the Pats won on Willie McGinnis’ goal line stop is an example. The Pats were up 31-10 and Manning brought the Colts back to tie that game before losing. Because the Pats won that game, the AFC championship was played in Foxboro.

        Brady in SB 42 – same thing. He directed a late 4th quarter drive to put the Pats ahead, 14-10, before Eli and David Tyree did their thing.

        1. I think the difference in that game was that it was played in Denver. The Chiefs have just as good of a pass rush as Denver and didn’t lay a glove on Brady. The reason was that they played the Chiefs at home and the crowd noise was not an issue. Put the Pats in Denver and the o’line is slower getting off the ball and with their injury issues even Brady’s quick passing game couldn’t save them. Tom Brady has never liked being hit. And Denver beat the shit out of him. And I really don’t think they would have been able to do that had the Patriots been at home.

          As far as Manning, he is on his last legs. He is a game manager at this point. To his great credit he gets that and has embraced it. I don’t see how you can say Manning choked even if they had lost the game. Manning is just old.

          I think that game was lost in the regular season and lost because of Belicheck’s arrogance. Belicheck gave the Jets the ball in over time rather than giving Brady a chance to win the game in week 16 and then basically threw the game in Miami in weeks 17. If the Patriots has won either of those games, they would have had home field and likely gone to the Super Bowl. If I were a Patriots fan, I would blame Belicheck and his arrogance for that loss.

          1. As a buddy of mine has told me, “Belichick is too smart for his own good.” Translation: arrogance.

            Yes, this week, there have been rumblings up here in Patriot nation over the way the Hoody has handled things lately, particularly the approach to the Miami game.

          2. The Chiefs have just as good of a pass rush as Denver and didn’t lay a glove on Brady.

            The Chiefs’ rush is nothing to sneeze at, but Denver’s is quite a bit better. Especially when Ware is playing.

            Agreed with the overall point, though.

            1. The Chiefs were hurt. Both Halli and Houston were nowhere near 100%. So yeah, the didn’t though they do when they are healthy.

              It would have been interesting had New England had the number one seed. The Chiefs might have beaten Denver and I think New England would have beaten Pittsburgh. There is a decent chance New England never has to play Denver had they gotten home field.

              The other thing is New England was closer to losing even to Kansas City than the score. The Chiefs nearly came back and won that game in the second half and would have won it had they not had a key fumble in the first half. Not that New England didn’t deserve to win. They did. But New England didn’t look dominating in that game at all.

        2. Belicheck made some mistakes. The game exposed how beaten up the Pats Offensive line was. Basically the guys who replaced the injured practice squad third-stringers didn’t get it done.

      2. Lee Kwan Yew pointed out that was the reason democracy was non-viable in multi-ethnic countries – voters would vote based on their tribe rather than the issues.

        This is why when you hear from a party that thinks their superior ideas will gain them consideration while advocating open borders, your best move is just to laugh and send them on their way.

        1. Once people vote by tribe, their leaders are free to steal and screw them over because tribal loyalty will keep them from voting for the other side. The entire last 50 years has been one illustration of that with the black vote. The Democratic party has basically looted the black community without any worries of losing their votes.

          1. Republicans haven’t done anything to help fix that, either. Intentionally or not.

  36. This is what a failing institution looks like: leaderless, directionless, torn by infighting between its power centers…

    If Bush was the gadfly Bill Clinton is, the Republicans might have a captain to navigate these terrible waters.

  37. predicting the imminent demise of Trump hasn’t worked. maybe this will.

    on Star Trek they were usually able to figure it out when an entity fed on phaser fire.

  38. Oh man, it looks like Cam Newton just went……there. The “people dislike me because I’m black” card.

    I was naively hoping that this wouldn’t be what this Super Bowl became all about, but I suspected that would be too much to ask for in the Age of Obama.

    1. Yeah, I saw that. I didn’t have a rooting interest in the Super Bowl until now.

      Go, Broncos!

      1. RACIST!!1!!!!!11!!!!! /sarc

      2. I think Carolina is going to kill them. Cam Newton is a whole different story than Tom Brady. That Denver pass rush is going to be useless against Carolina as Denver chooses between sitting back and letting him pick them apart or going after him and watching Newton run up and down the field.

        Newton is a real freak. He finally figured out how to be a drop back passer in the NFL this year. And he is still six five 260 and athletic enough to be another Gronkowski if he ever wanted to play tight end. I don’t know how you stop a guy like that with a good team around him, which Carolina has.

        1. Cam Newton will be standing behind a healthy offensive line throwing to a full complement of healthy receivers. Makes all the difference this time of year.

          1. Yes it does. And so does mobility. Running QBs are just a nightmare to defend. The only reason there are not more of them in the NFL is because few guys can both run and pass well enough and even fewer can do that and not get hurt.

            Go look at what Alex Smith, who is a very mobile QB, did to the Denver defense. It just makes rushing the passer damn near impossible.

            1. So, if you are Wade Phillips, what do you do?

              Why not let Von Miller and Demarcus Ware do their thing and have the guys inside stay in their lanes and have one of the LBs spy Cam?

              I know that having the defensive backs, particularly the corners, play man to man is a problem because of having their backs to Cam.

              Sure, it is a lot easier said than done, but I think the Broncos will hurt themselves if they dial back the aggressiveness.

              1. I think you have to put a spy on Newton and let him have the short passing game. Don’t let him run and don’t let him hit a big play. Then I think you have the offense run the ball and eat up the clock and keep Newton off the field. The way Denver wins is by running the ball down Carolina’s throat and using a short passing game for long drives. Even if they don’t score, if they can eat up clock and give Carolina a long field, they have a chance. If they can do that and force a turnover or two or maybe get a special teams TD, they can win. It is going to be tough but they can win. They just have a lot smaller margin of error than Carolina.

        2. You’re right about Cam’s athleticism, and I think we’re going to see even more QBs like him in the future.That being said, I stay away from predicting NFL games. There’s a combination of three things that determine the outcome of a game. Blocking, tackling, and mistakes. The level of parity in the NFL means no team will have a huge advantage in the first two, so it all comes down to mistakes and there’s no way of telling who wins that battle.

          1. I am not sure we will see more like him. Every team will look for one but I don’t think they will find them. Newton really is a once in a generation athlete. It is as if Lawrence Taylor had a cannon of an arm and the brains to be a pocket passer. That shouldn’t happen.

            1. John, look at high school football. There’s lots of kids who are basically tailbacks with strong accurate arms. the ability of high school coaches to teach passing mechanics and progressions has improved 10 fold over the last decade or so.

              1. Sure but it takes more than a strong arm to be an NFL QB. Guys who have a quick enough release, the right footwork and the brains to play in the NFL are very hard to find. There have been tons of big athletic college QBs who had to move to another position to make it in the NFL. Newton is more than his size and speed and arm. HE has the brain and the instincts to go with it. And that is freakish even for the NFL.

    2. I like Cam Newton and I kind of agree with him here. The guy always plays hard. Who cares if he celbrates. Lots of players do that. Why is it different with him? Tom Brady is an insufferable douche most of the time and no one ever goes after him the way they do Newton. Which is more annoying, Newton doing the Super man thing after a touchdown or Tom Brady answering over and over again with a smug look on his face “know the rules” after the Ravens playoff game last year? Or Tom Brady talking trash and yelling at some Steelers DB who is lucky to be in the league?

      I can’t read people’s minds but I don’t think people are being fair to Newton and I don’t blame him for thinking it is because he is black.

      1. +1 Discount Doublecheck

      2. My sense is that a lot of football fans who aren’t Patriots fans don’t care for Brady much at all.

        I agree with you that a lot of the criticism of Newton gets overblown, but I just don’t think it’s a racial thing. Russell Wilson is (mostly) black, but I don’t know anyone who dislikes him because he comes off as humble. I think most people like athletes to show humility, even if they don’t really feel that way inside. I also remember Doug Williams playing in the big one almost thirty years ago, and I don’t remember hardly anyone disliking him, because he was also a quiet, humble, sincere type of person.

        1. Plus, Doug Williams had started the season as a back-up and Coach Gibbs had gone back forth between Williams and Jay Schroeder. Williams had also bounced around after having started his career with Tampa. So, it was a personal make good / redemption story. I still marvel at that second quarter (35 points) performance! The Broncos had been up 10-0.

        2. Yes. People don’t like athletes that are cocky, though they sometimes do. I think that is a dumb reason to dislike an athlete.

          Newton as a public persona reminds me a little bit of Alan Iverson. People hated Iverson for the same dumb reasons. To me as long as the guy plays hard and give you your money’s worth and isn’t a criminal, there is no reason to dislike them.

          1. I understand not liking the cockiness, but the part of the celebration where they give the ball to a kid in the stands is fucking awesome.

            1. Yeah, if I was running an NFL team, I would hand down a diktat that, unless its your very first TD or something else that makes the ball a special souvenir for you, you give it to cute kid in the stands.

            2. I’m not a fan of all the celebrations they do, but I’m completely fine with giving balls to kids. Big difference between showing off and doing something cool for the fans.

        3. My sense is that a lot of football fans who aren’t Patriots fans don’t care for Brady much at all.

          I got from John’s post that the sports media apparatus doesn’t give Brady any shit for being an insufferable douche, which is completely accurate.

          I think most people understand that Cam’s assertion is that he’s a black QB that acts like your stereotypical black athlete on the field. A lot of people seem to have a problem with a QB that acts like TO.

          Not me, though. I love Cam.

          1. I am not a Carolina fan and can’t stand any of the SEC teams . If you can’t appreciate how fucking awesome that guy is, then you really cant’ appreciate football. I am not a Cam Newton fan really. I am just a football fan who can’t help but be amazed at how good the guy is.

            1. That’s where I come from, too. I was dubious about him coming out of Auburn, but he’s exactly what everyone thought he could be. At some point you just have to watch and enjoy it.

              Unless you root for one of the other NFC South teams. Then you’ll spend the next 15 years hoping for him to die in a freak gasoline fight accident like I have with Brady.

              1. I figured he was likely another box of rocks who got by on his athleticism in college and would get ate up in the NFL. And he has proven me wrong. It took him a few years but he has figured out how to be a real quarterback and not just a big guy who can run and throw. And now that he has done that, he is just amazing.

      3. While we were watching the game, my wife saw Cam do his dance for the camera in the end zone and said, “Ugh, I hate that Superman thing, Newton’s so cocky.” And I said, “Honey, he just scored yet another touchdown by jumping over two lines of football players into the end zone. He is Superman.”

        It’s only bragging if you can’t back it up.

    3. I was naively hoping that this wouldn’t be what this Super Bowl became all about

      Ugh, no shit. Now we get look forward to a week and a half of hyping up the “hip, cocky young black QB vs. the crusty old conventional white QB” and “anyone who doesn’t root for the Panthers is a RAAAAAACIST!11!!1!!!!!!” horseshit. Yay…

      1. Yeah, that was the theme this morning on Mike & Mike.

        1. 200 Mike? 500 Mike? Or 1,000 Mike?

  39. Y’know, I have no affection for the GOP. In fact, my ideal scenario would be the GOP *and* the Democrats breaking up, so that we have more, but more internally consistent, parties. It’s not gonna happen for a long list of reasons, but a man can dream.

    That said, people have been predicting the demise of the GOP/Democrats for, well, quite a long time. Hell, every two years now, for quite a while, you’ve been seeing the same claims, back and forth, back and forth.

    So I’ll have to beg forgiveness for not believing it this time either. Analysts and columnists have cried “wolf” way too many times on this one.

  40. Personally I find it amusing to see the Republican Party being tore apart, they had it coming.
    I have a close friend who is a staunch republican and subscriber to the National Review and he abhors Donald Trump, but everytime I try to debate him and criticize the Republican Party like this article he gets pissed and sputters.
    You cannot reason with the hardcore supporters, even those opposed to Trump.

  41. Back to our roots: Bring back the Know Nothings and call up the Wide Awakes.

  42. Show us video of those white supremacists or they don’t exist.

  43. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ——————— http://www.richi8.com

  44. The GOP was destroyed the moment they falsely claimed Rick Santorum won Iowa only to reveal Ron Paul had actually won much later. The people are tired of being lied to. They’re tired of being forced to sort their garbage into five different trash cans in the interest of ecofaggotry. They’re tired of being called racist for not referring to illegal aliens as law abiding undocumented immigrants. They’re tired of presidents who give guns to ISIS and Al Qaeda but don’t trust law abiding American citizens with theirs. They like Trump, for better or for worse, because he’s not afraid to say what they’re thinking regardless of what others think. They like Trump because no fucks were given.

    As is probably true of most here I’d prefer to see Rand in the White House but the way things are going a few people higher in the polls would have to die for that to happen. Given the remainder of the field on either side Trump shaking up the dog and pony show might be an interesting second prize, for better, or for worse.

  45. year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even

    newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  46. “We may be witnessing the collapse of the Republican party, or at least the Republican party as we know it. And if so, then Donald Trump is the harbinger of its apocalypse.”

    That’s my hope. The rep party is a joke, it’s nothing more than the other side of the same totalitarian coin which the dem party is the other side.

  47. Most Trump supporters aren’t racists. But given that minorities are firmly behind many aspects of the PC culture, diversity mobs, unions, and CONSTANT racial grievance mongering, a certain resentment towards their rank is inevitable and understandable. Somewhere in this country, a white dude minding his own business is about to have his life ruined because of some made up stories about racism.

    Even if Trump flames out in the election, the GOP will be relevant at state levels for many years to come. Minorities voters aren’t as reliable compared to the white base, and they’re a non factor in a number of states anyways. President Sanders (if it comes to that) will provide plenty motivation for GOP voters, and given that his policy proposals make the ACA moderate by comparison, they’ll have winning issues on their side for multiple elections.

    Reason is right to call out Trump’s odious rhetoric, but they’re too smart not to realize that on substance, most of the country would agree with Trump. Reason might characterize Trump’s proposal to limit guest workers or slap tarriffs on Chinese goods as “xenophobic”, but most Americans wouldn’t mind it. There’s already a left wing version of Trump in the D camp.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for Reason’s brand of libertarianism. If he wins, it won’t be the GOP that ends.

  48. This is what a failing institution looks like: leaderless, directionless, torn by infighting between its power centers, and willing to sign on to anything or anyone that will provide some semblance of purpose or momentum.

    Bernie Sanders?

  49. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

    1. their*

  50. Suderman,

    What part of “infidels must be enslaved or killed” don’t you get?

    Of course if it was just words…. But it is not just words. It is put into effect.

  51. It surely does appear that Trump is self-imploding. He seems to be acting more like a spoiled child than a mature adult seeking the highest office in the land.

  52. its all one party, genius…..they are all the same guy

  53. In FiveThirtyEight’s defense, they give him approximately 55 percent chances of winning various primary elections, but they do not have official projections for the overall nomination.

    1. Thank you that is a very important distinction.

  54. Whoever wins the primaries will redefine the Republican party. If that is Trump, the GOP will become a narrow white authoritarian big government “state capitalism” party.

    As soon as it becomes clear that Trump will win, Rand Paul should announce a third party run, on a broad classical liberal constitutional limited government and individual liberty platform.

    But no one has voted yet, so lets see what happens.

    1. No Mark Sanford should do the third party run. But everything else you said is right. That GOP party you talk of has no future.

  55. Whoever wins the primaries will redefine the Republican party. If that is Trump, the GOP will become a narrow white authoritarian big government “state capitalism” party.

    As soon as it becomes clear that Trump will win, Rand Paul should announce a third party run, on a broad classical liberal constitutional limited government and individual liberty platform.

    But no one has voted yet, so lets see what happens.

    1. Rand Paul is not going to run as a third party candidate. Not if he wants to hold republican positions of power in red states. He’s much too valuable to go the way of Nader.

      1. There is no point staying a Republican when Trump defines the Republican party, when the GOP becomes the old white authoritarian big government “state capitalism” party.

      2. There is no point staying a Republican when Trump defines the Republican party, when the GOP becomes the old white authoritarian big government “state capitalism” party.

      3. There is no point staying a Republican when Trump defines the Republican party, when the GOP becomes the old white authoritarian big government “state capitalism” party.

      4. Apologies for the double posts. This comment system doesn’t seem to play nice with my phone.

  56. Two things I need for this election: An off-the-grid bomb shelter and a big bucket of popcorn.

  57. you can argue that one news source is generally better than the rest of course, but they’re all part of one team or another in the end. fox is under the same delusion that all the rest are, which is that ratings equals good journalism. it speaks of the mainstream media as if it isn’t apart of it, but in the next breathe loves to talk about how their ratings are two times or more than the competition. their whole business model isn’t based on doing the news better, but doing a conservative version of the news, and then when a gop candidate for president throws a fit about being asked a tough question by one of their moderators, they’re shocked when a large portion of their audience wonders aloud how they could do such a thing to a member of the same team. they hired practically everyone who was thinking of running for the gop nomination in 2012 at the time, and they wonder why people don’t buy the “fair and balanced” act.

  58. Reason, come on now, its a fact the white male is being denigrated and put down because their seen as the enemy by the control freak left. The PC fascists always make a point of bringing up “white privilege”, now am I excusing Donald Trump? No he is a control freak, statist, moron who will be no different than the control freak, statist, moron we got in the White House right now. Trump is playing to the anger many white people feel being sidelined, smeared, made fun of, told to shut up etc. problem is he is twisting this legitimate rage to get elected and gain power. Trump isn’t for liberty, he’s a authoritarian.

  59. A do-nothing GOPe Congress is only the tip of the Trump iceberg:
    A Marxist/Progressive pResident…
    An unelected, yet Constitutionally protected, Malfeasant Media…
    But worst of all is a disengaged voter base who would rather be playing video games or watching anything the idiot box.

    We are only reaping, what we have sown.

    Get engaged, or drown in a zombie apocalypse of useless eaters of the 0bamanation.

  60. “unsigned”

    “editorial”

    So, you don’t know who the editors of a historic magazine are?

    Where the fuck did you get a journalism degree? Because you overpaid, man.

  61. If you want to understand Trump you need to understand New York City politics. New York is utterly corrupt. You can do nothing unless you have “connections”. The city is set up so that everyone in it feels that they have a politically protected “piece of the action”. Whether it’s cab drivers with million dollar medallions or teachers with lifetime employment everyone feels that the city is there to protect their livelihood. Zoning laws make sure that “those people are kept in their place”. Rent control protects the wealthy and turns common apartments into gentrified feudal castles.

    Trump is a minor league Jimmy Walker, the legendarily corrupt mayor of New York. Walker solidified the total control of the city through the mayor’s office. If it happened in New York you can be sure that Walker let it happen and then only for a price.

    This is the world that Trump grew up in. It is the basis for his belief in “deal making”. Of course he says that he can deal with Pelosi and Reid, trading favors is all he understands. It is his world.

  62. Rump is a magician he can make shit come out of his mouth. And make his followers eat every bit of it

  63. Rump is a magician he can make shit come out of his mouth. And make his followers eat every bit of it

  64. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  65. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  66. So true. Trump’s speeches are pretty much like a Blazing Saddles script being read. haha. However, Donald Trump wins the battle over this, but not the war. He is going to be the newest Ross Perot when he doesn’t get the GOP nomination and let Hillary walk into the presidency. http://www.beenbitten.com/dona…..residency/

  67. Whaddya know: a political party whose rallying cry is the primacy of the individual gets undone by a psychopathic narcissist. Who could have seen that coming?

  68. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  69. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  70. ??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..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….
    ? http://www.Jobstribune.com ?

  71. The Republican Party has been a mess for a long time, because regardless of what they say the advocate, they’ve never really stuck to their principles. Of course, the Democrats don’t really have any principles, so maybe that’s why they’ve never splintered.

    1. my roomate’s step-sister makes $68 an hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for five months but last month her pay was $12476 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read this post here

      ???????? http://www.netjoin10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.