Donald Trump

Trump Supporters—in Their Own Words—Demonstrate How Little GOP Understands What's Happening

Nobody cares that he's not a 'real conservative.' That's not the point.

|

Trump rally
Credit: Darron Birgenheler

The Guardian gave space for Donald Trump supporters to explain themselves, and the results are genuinely interesting. Republicans or conservatives who are signing on to the #NeverTrump campaign, in particular, should read through it to get a better sense of how voters outside the beltway bubble perceive the way Washington works.

There's the self-described "patriotic socialist" who has decided that strong borders are the most important issue, even though the writer is also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and in favor of boycotting Israel. There's a Hispanic millennial Florida attorney driving a metaphorical dagger into Sen. Marco Rubio's heart, no doubt, worried that "political correctness" has turned into a tool to destroy people and likes how Trump fights back. Her sister also worked for Trump and says he's much nicer than his public persona. There's the 20-year-old gay Muslim who actually supports the temporary ban on Muslim immigration and believes Trump will end the U.S. practice of ignoring how awfully our ally Saudi Arabia behaves.

What's truly fascinating are two self-described progressives who are voting for Trump for different reasons but are partly driven by the same recognition of the brutality of the foreign policies put forth by both parties.

Trump progressive number one works in a "liberal arts department" and is voting for Trump because the writer thinks Trump actually is bad for the country and will cause Americans to reject "unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition." Given that Trump is the same kind of trade protectionist as Bernie Sanders, I don't see how that would happen. There's nothing libertarian about Trump's economic platform. But nevertheless, the writer makes an important point to those who point out the cruelty of the way Trump would approach the war on terror:

I don't find conversations about how morally repugnant Trump is to be interesting when the rest of the candidates seem to also support imperialistic and fascist policies concerning drone strikes, torture and mass surveillance.

Progressive number two (a yoga instructor) thinks Barack Obama has been similarly terrible and doesn't think Sanders can beat Hillary Clinton:

Barack Obama talked about hope and change, but I believe he failed to deliver on his promises. His record with drone strikes and prosecutions of whistleblowers are especially troubling (not to mention he didn't follow-through with prosecutions of those who caused the financial crisis).

As far as Obamacare goes, I'm not buying it, because it seems ignorant to throw money at a problem and hope it will get better. I'm glad more people are covered, but the plans aren't worth shit, as many of them don't kick in until you spend thousands on a co-pay. No thanks.

Bernie is a breath of fresh air, but I'm not sure he can beat Hillary. In a match between Bernie and Donald, I'd vote for the former. In a match between Hillary and Donald, I'd vote for the latter. It isn't a vote for Trump, but rather a vote against the political establishment (which must be removed from office at any cost—even if it means electing a reality TV star for president). The stakes are too high. Hillary cannot win or the oligarchy will continue unabated.

Note that none of these supporters are making the argument that Trump isn't a con artist or that he actually is a conservative. It should be very clear by reading all these letters that absolutely none of these folks care about Team Red or Team Blue or squad goals that originate from D.C. An approach that would challenge Trump's ascendancy needs to internalize that reality.

It's also clear from these letters that the Republicans aren't the only folks who should be worrying about what's going on in the minds of Trump voters. I had figured that the Democrats might be worried that Sanders' supporters would stay home come November rather than vote for Clinton. But these letters show Sanders' fans also considering Trump. Maybe that's also feeding some Democratic ire toward the "Bernie bros."

In other crossover news, remember former Democratic primary candidate Jim Webb? He says he won't vote for Clinton either and is considering Trump. His logic:

"The reason Donald Trump is getting so much support right now is not because of racists," he said. "It's because people are seeing him as the only one who has the courage to step forward and say we've got to clean the stables of the government, we've got to make it work."

"With Donald Trump, you're either going to get something very good or very bad," he added. "But with Hillary Clinton were going to get more of the same thing. Do you want the same thing?"

NEXT: Signature Snafu May Doom Maine Marijuana Measure

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. There was a knife buried at the house of somebody suspected of killing two people with a knife.. And the cops never found it. Apparently, the cops have neither brains nor metal detectors.

      1. They were so busy trying to frame a guilty man that they forgot to build a case based on facts.

        1. He essentially has a life sentence now, doesn’t he?

          1. He’s eligible for parole next year.

        2. That’s pretty much the theme of Netflix’ “Making a Murderer” as well.

          1. You have to appreciate how LEO arrogance has reached a point where they can’t be bothered to actually build cases against obviously guilty people.

            1. Depends. They’re sure on the ball for drug busts and DUI’s, but just try reporting a property crime like a burglary. You get a police report for the insurance company, but forget ever seeing your stuff again.

              1. Property crime means property is gone. That’s of no interest to cops.

                Drugs and DUIs mean then can confiscate and fine. That is of interest to cops.

                1. So cops would search for stolen goods if they could keep them? Sounds about right.

      2. Based on my experience with them investigating a break in at my business, they’re utterly incompetent.

        1. I called the cops because of a break in at my apartment, and after running me for warrants and asking for permission to search for drugs, they left.

          1. Given your user name, I thought at first you were joking.

            Were these LA cops?

            1. No. Boulder, CO.

              1. Scary, I’m there now.

          2. If they were New York cops they would have busted your chops for making them take time out from harassing “loosie” sellers.

      3. Would it be tinfoil of me to suggest that perhaps that one or more cops deliberately missed the evidence either because of fandom or money?

        1. Oops, in light of Spitty’s post below change that from “missed” to “witheld”.

            1. How dare you expect me to RTFA, you misandrist heterophobe with your aristocratic facts?

          1. I have to wonder whether the construction worker friend story is an ass-covering move by the cop. I mean, really, the guy makes an incredible discovery, hands it off to his friend the nearby cop, and proceeds to say nothing about it for almost two decades?

      4. Why is this being discussed here? Anyway, the bloody knife was thrown into a garbage can in Chicago, wasn’t it? Who said this latest knife was bloody at all?

    2. Found… eighteen years ago.

      The folding buck knife was found by a construction worker on the perimeter of the house while he was demolishing the house in 1998, law enforcement sources tell the celebrity gossip website.

      The worker allegedly gave the knife to a police officer who was patrolling the area, off-duty while working at a moviesite, who never turned it in.

      1. According to another article, the police officer knew exactly what it was and wanted it framed.

      2. I bet the chain of custody on that knife is real solid.

      1. Has he taken that name to Porn yet?

    3. It wasn’t found buried at the mansion (at least not recently). A construction worker found it, gave it to a cop. The cop kept the damn thing as a souvenir. And Repubs don’t want police reform?

    4. Knife turned into police allegedly found on O.J. Simpson estate

      Folks, “into” vs. “in to”. (Also “setup” vs. “set up” and other phrases that should be made into single words only if a noun is intended.)

      So many ways to parse, all of them wrong. [Knife turned into] [police allegedly found on OJ Simson estate]. [Knife turned into police] [allegedly found on OJ Simpson estate]. [Knife turned into police allegedly] [found on OJ Simpson estate]. But none of them mean what it should’ve said, “Knife turned in to police allegedly found on OJ Simpson estate”. Or better, “Knife, allegedly found on OJ Simpson estate, turned into police”.

      1. For those of you who didn’t get it yet, how does a knife become police?

  1. strong borders are the most important issue, even though the writer is also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and supports boycotting Israel.

    I’m not clear on the “even though”. All of those positions are logically consistent. Indeed, given that this country is about as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage as any on the planet, its not irrational at all to be wary of importing people from countries that are opposed to these policies.

    1. What does Israel have to do with that?

      1. No reason you can’t be in favor of limited immigration and an Israel boycott. So why the “even though”, which implies that these positions are inconsistent if not mutually contradictory?

        1. People who support gay marriage and legal abortions also tend to favor more freedom of movement, and are typically aligned with Democrats.

          1. People who support gay marriage and legal abortions also tend to favor more freedom of movement

            Yeah, I remember fondly the dismantling of the TSA and the Border Patrol when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House.

            Oh, wait, they made us buy health insurance instead of doing that.

            1. “People”, he said. Politicians don’t count as people.

            2. Why would the Democrats dismantle the TSA? It was something they wanted.

              1. Whooosh!

              2. Good point. They do like their “theatre”.

          2. People who support gay marriage and legal abortions also tend to favor more freedom of movement, and are typically aligned with Democrats.

            Yeah, as long as that movement isn’t for economic reasons.

        2. I took it to mean “even though he disagrees with Trump on all these other issues”

          1. I thought Trump was pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice? Has that changed?

            Also, isn’t he supposed to be anti-semitic? That’s what Facebook tells me, anyway.

            What’s funny is, except for the Israel boycott, all of those positions are Trump positions, but for some reason the author apparently thinks that a Trump supporter is being inconsistent if they agree with Trump on them.

            I think its what Hugh said – Reason is having a difficult time processing that people might agree with them on some issues (gay marriage and abortion) and disagree on others (open borders). That’s a mindset usually associated with partisanship and politics-as-identity, not with libertarianism.

            1. The tough thing about being a libertarian partisan is that all other libertarians are wrong.

              1. No, you are wrong!!!11!1!eleventy!

              2. Nuh-uh.

            2. Also, isn’t he supposed to be anti-semitic? That’s what Facebook tells me, anyway.

              The world is nuts. Even discounting the fact that one of his sons is married a Jewish woman and that one of his daughters married into Orthodox Judaism (and that both are raising their kids, his grandchildren, in the religion), by his statements alone, Trump has been one of the most pro-Jewish candidate in the race. Hell, at times the man’s prosody and mannerisms are almost indistinguishable from Jackie Mason. I’d go so far as to say Trump would be America’s first “Jewish” President, as much as Bill Clinton was our first “Black” President.

              And yet, he is beloved by the no-shit, for real (yet much smaller than the media portrays) neo-Nazi contingent.

              If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
              If boats were on land, churches on sea,
              If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
              And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
              If the mamas sold their babies
              To the gypsies for half a crown;
              If summer were spring and the other way round,
              Then all the world would be upside down.

            3. Trump made a commercial for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when he was up for re-election in 2013. It is up on YouTube.

            4. In my observations, I have never seen libertarians so rabidly partisan as they are when discussing Trump and his supporters.

            5. I thought Trump was pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice? Has that changed?

              That depends on whether you believe him, of course, but he does claim to be pro-life. Not sure on marriage.

              Also, isn’t he supposed to be anti-semitic? That’s what Facebook tells me, anyway.

              Well, he did change his position on Israel after David Duke refused to endorse him on account of Zionism. But he totally disavows David Duke.

              1. Watch his Netanyahu commercial. He LOVES Israel.

            6. What’s funny is, except for the Israel boycott, all of those positions are Trump positions, but for some reason the author apparently thinks that a Trump supporter is being inconsistent if they agree with Trump on them.

              Do you even watch him speak? These are not all Trump positions.

              1. Id there any position that isnt a Trump position?

                Pther than on ED hs has been nothing but inconsistent.

                1. He’s been consistently anti-abortion through this whole cycle.

                2. What is this ED of which you speak?

                  1. Electile dysfunction.

                3. Sue Mavis Beacon.

              2. OK, he now says he’s pro-life, but it looks like all he talks about in specifics is funding abortions, PP, etc.

                Which is actually the appropriate focus for a national pro-life candidate.

                I’m trying to get by without having to do any research on these people, going purely on random bits of info parroted by the media, etc. You’re making that a lot harder.

            7. ‘I think its what Hugh said – Reason is having a difficult time processing that people might agree with them on some issues (gay marriage and abortion) and disagree on others (open borders).’

              This has been a problem for Reason for a long, long time.

        3. The Palestinians in the first half of the 20th Century were for strong borders also.

          The ruling elite of Palestine (i.e., the British Empire) pretended to be for strong borders, but were ineffective: immigration occurred in wave after wave, followed by a tsunami of immigration after WW II.

          The rest is history.

    2. “”I’m not clear on the “even though”. All of those positions are logically consistent.””

      Exactly. The writer *presumes* that all of people’s policy views are supposed to fall neatly into some Psychographic profile based entirely on a media-narrative. “no one Gay could think *that*?!”

      1. The writer was being ironic. Deliberately. I’m pretty sure.

    3. I forgot, is boycotting Israel a “left” or “right” thing these days?

  2. Sure, many on both sides of the aisle are sick of the unresponsive Dem and Rep establishments and punishing them takes precedence over everything else. It wouldn’t be surprising at all to see a large number of Bernites vote for Trump.

  3. Trump progressive number one works in a “liberal arts department” and is voting for Trump because the writer thinks Trump actually is bad for the country and will cause Americans to reject “unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition.”

    I nominate this one for Retard of the Year. Anybody care to second my motion?

    1. we’re way to early in the year to begin the nomination process.

    2. I’m afraid there are far stupider out there.

    3. I would really, really like them to define “unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian”. The disconnect between what we mean and what people think we mean must be massive.

      1. Neoliberalism is a boogeyman word on the left that encompasses everything they hate about the modern Democrat party. It’s almost completely undefined as far as I can tell.

        1. Libertarian is also a boogeyman word on the left.

          1. At least the libertarian movement actually exists and attempts to define itself. I’m not certain anyone actually refers to themselves as neoliberal anymore. Those that did were more classically liberal, but that’s not who they’re talking about.

            1. What movement? We’re all just paid stooges of the Kochs.

              1. oh, yeah that’s right, I forgot

                *cashes sweet, sweet Koch check*

            2. Neoliberal was part of the move in the 80’s and 90’s to sell off govt assets and have the WTO/etc play a bigger role in breaking up ‘national’ economic decisions and globalizing and such. Post-Soviet Russia is the best example of its fuckups – the recent Greece crap is another – but basically the Clintons and the Davos crowd – and Reason IMO – are still advocates of it. I don’t think the guy making the statement is that far off in linking it to ‘libertarians’ since it started as a semi-emulation of Thatcher as a way of dealing with sovereign debt crises and is most avidly supported by Rand-quoting Wall Street cronies – and the Reason crowd of libertarians is about as globalist as you can get.

        2. Kind of like how “neocon” is used here.

          1. Neoconservative has some basis in modern political theory. I think referring to them as Straussian is more accurate though. Particularly since “conservative” is a largely meaningless term.

            1. Which I do not think has much connection to how it is causuallu invoked here.

            2. Straussian is irrelevant. Neoconservative was a pejorative applied by Michael Harrington to (mostly Jewish) Trotskyites who became anti-Stalinist – then avidly anti-Communist – then avidly Zionist after 1967 – got jobs working for Scoop Jackson in the 1970’s – then left the Dem Party and started working for Edward Bennett in the Reagon administration before moving back into Republican foreign policy.

              And yes except for Jeanne Kirkpatrick RIP – it mostly means ‘Jewish’ when used as a pejorative by paleos – which in turn was a pejorative created by the neocons.

      2. It means slavery to the corporations. You see, when corporations provide goods, services, and jobs to willing takers, they are enslaving us. When people engage in voluntary commerce, they are being enslaved.

        Contrast that with benevolent government which protects us from these evil corporations by restricting what we may purchase, controlling prices, and controlling wages. These acts of force by government are freedom, without which we would be slaves to our corporate oppressors.

        Liberty is tyranny, and force is freedom.

    4. Holy shit. How would electing Trump do any of those things?

      1. Trump would make bad deals. It is so simple!!!!!!

    5. I nominate this one for Retard of the Year. Anybody care to second my motion?

      Hold on there, it’s only March, and it’s an election year. Feel free to submit an awards package but don’t be surprised if it gets upstaged in late October by something even retarded-er.

    6. Retard? This genius is playing the long game. Can any of you engage in such longterm thinking?

    7. In this little moron’s defense, there is a kernel of truth here. If Donald comes to define the right, then, by default, the only sane choice is the left. It’s a false choice, to be sure, but Hitler did this with the Communists. You don’t want to be a commie, right? Well, then be a smarty. Socialists try to do the same to the right.

    8. Well, it is one strategy, and well thought of by SJWs .

      It is the Cloward?Piven strategy.

      And… for me it seems to be the quickest way to dismantle leviathan. Switch strategies to fully support and expand leviathan in all things until it falls of its own weight. The problems of course are, how painful and how long will the collapse be, and what will rise to replace it.

  4. how voters outside the beltway bubble perceive are dissatisfied with the way Washington works

    FTFY. Claiming it’s just a perception seems to be one of the things they are angry about. It occurred to me that Trump is running against the media as much as anything else.

    1. It’s not “just” a perception, it is a perception. Everything we know is based on perceptions that are informed by biases and filters both internal and external. Nobody has a clear and holistic understanding of the way Washington works, even the people who are in the thick of it.

      1. When used the way the author does, it implies that it is an unjustified perception.

        Yes, yes, everything is a perception at some level, but to refer to it as such implies that that’s all it is – just your perception, man, with little to no substance.

        Besides, their dissatisfaction is just as real as their perception. Why not use that term, instead of the more minimizing term?

        1. the author

          You mean Scott Shackford?

        2. That’s not how I read it. Unless you are just talking about a qualitative judgement on how it works (e.g. “badly”), it almost certainly is a perception that is not completely aligned with reality. That doesn’t mean the perception can be dismissed. I can’t say I know how DC politics and government really works. But I have a good enough general picture to be fairly confident in saying it doesn’t work very well by the standards of almost everyone who isn’t an insider who personally benefits from it.

        3. I’m not sure which is more impressive RC, your heroic willingness to take umbrage at anything and everything on behalf of the trumpenproletariat or your remarkable ability to perceive slights undetectable by even the most powerful electron microscopes.

          1. I noticed both of those things myself. No microscope required.

          2. As ever, I am looking mostly at the quality of the arguments put forward by writers and commenters here. If I call someone out for having a bad argument, it doesn’t mean I disagree with them on policy, just on the quality of their argument.

            I also find that people’s word choices and how they express themselves gives insight into how they really think and see the world. If you have two ways to say something, picking the way that is dismissive tells me something about you.

            As for standing up for the trumpenproles, well, if you’re picking apart arguments and pondering semantics, lately there hasn’t been much but anti-Trump screeds to pick apart and ponder.

            Put up a poor argument about Hillary’s horribleness, and I might just pick that apart.

        4. RC, I think Scott , while not necessarily sympathetic to Trump and his followers, is giving them a fair shake. If every other writer on Reason stopped writing Trump articles and gave the beat to Scott, I’d be thrilled. He’s doing a great job and I think you should be more charitable in your interpretations of his writing.

          1. Nick has been saying these sorts of things for the past week or so.

          2. lulz, I can’t disagree with you. I just find the choices people make in how the write about things interesting and insightful into the writer, just as much as the subject.

      2. Lads, lads, you’re both right. I should have said that the Trump supporters hate being talked down to by the media and consider phrasing like “perceive” to be talking down to them.

        1. Maybe they should be as thick-skinned as their candidate, who never complains about such slights.

    2. DC Operative 1: If we just hired more public affairs staff we could improve our communication strategy and bring them over to the dark side.
      DC Operative 2: That probably won’t work, since they’re all drooling idiots out in flyover country, but it will pump up our budget a 300k – so let’s roll.

    3. It occurred to me that Trump is running against the media as much as anything else.

      Deport illegals!
      You can’t do that! That’s not who we are! Racist! Fascist! You’re the Devil!
      Remember Ike? We like Ike. Ike rounded up illegal immigrants and deported them in Operation Wetback.
      Uh… Racist!

      Many people hate the Progressive media, and know they’re being lied to and indoctrinated day in and day out. When the media came for Trumps head, he pushed back and won. That’s where much of his support comes from.

      When the media said “You can’t do that”, Trump said “Go fuck yourselves”.

  5. Nice alt text, but you misspelled “Bern it all down.”

  6. these letters show Sanders’ fans also considering Trump

    I can absolutely see it, because the difference between Sanders’ socialist populism and Trump’s blue collar, labor populism is mostly just generational. If Trump lays off the Mexicans and Muslims a bit and starts talking about how criminal and rapey Wall Street is, you will see an alliance between the modern Tea Party and Occupy that could carry him to power.

    1. Lay off the Mexicans and hits the Muslims harder. His take on the Saudis is excellent! ‘Bout time some one running for President criticized them.

      1. I think we should go to war with them.

        After all, they are Muslim and it is Friday.

        1. We are at war wit them. Fracking.

          1. Sarah Palin was correct.

            Drill baby, drill.

  7. It is my intention to vote Trump in FL primary because 1) not Rubio and 2) the show must go on.

    1. Yep, and I saw nothing but boy wonder signs around the polling station. It was tempting to leave some claw marks

  8. Bernie is a breath of fresh air

    No, he is not. Bernie is a wet fart released from the putrifing corpse of communism.

    I suppose, however, that would be considered a “breath of fresh air” to certain types of microbes and worms.

    1. Oh, look who’s going all SugarFree on us. Nice.

      1. Indeed. I would have simply said “A breath of fresh air? More like a dust farting socialist”.

        CTC did it better.

  9. “I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every panda that wouldn’t screw to save its species. I wanted to open the dump valves on oil tankers and smother all the French beaches I’d never see. I wanted to breathe smoke.”

    1. Pandas are pretty awful.

      1. Yeah, who thinks that a carnivore that eats mostly grass isn’t going extinct?

        1. Hey now?

          / Vegan

          1. Or perhaps a North Korean.

          2. How can you tell a vegan from everyone else?

            Don’t worry. They’ll tell you.

        2. Especially when they can’t even have sex properly.

          1. Hey now? Its called affirmative consent.

            /vegan

    2. Some people just want to see the world Bern.

      1. Bern is a lovely town – for a capitol, that is…..what?

  10. Trump has the “some knowledge, some intelligence, and the masking of a lot of insecurity,” vote wrapped up. Sadly, I think that is most of the voting public.

    1. ^This, but ugh.

  11. Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even God has never seen.

    1. Time for the Family atomics?

  12. In short, the profile of a Trump voter can be summed up as PO’d.

    1. Yep. Thems is angrified!

    2. Their anger, combined with the massive dislike for Hillary, is going to result in this guy becoming the next president.

      1. The entertainment value alone.

        And 4 more years for Reason to keep Trumping.

    3. Everyone knows shit sucks and that establishment politicians are to blame.

      Their answer is to do SOMETHING different instead of doing the right thing.

      98% of the voting public is too stupid to realize that doing something in place of doing the right thing can/will exacerbate the problems. Yes, idiots, there are things worse than the establishment…I give you…Trump.

      1. Sorry. Rand is out of the race.

  13. Reading over all of those, two things jump out.

    1) A few writers are just disconnected from reality, like the one who seems to think Trump is neoliberal or libertarian (though that sentiment is instructive)

    2) Most are so angry, even hateful, at someone on the other team (take your pick on which one), or DC, that they are actively hoping Trump would be an awful president and would tear the whole thing down. That type of destructiveness is troubling.

    I’m not shocked by the things people wrote, but seeing it laid bare…it’s still sad. I truly thought more people were better than this.

    1. More than the thought of tearing the thing down, it’s what they hope to replace it with that concerns me.

      1. Do they know? Do they even care?

        I usually try to be pretty circumspect about history. I tend to argue that things probably haven’t changed that much over the centuries, we just have selective memories.

        But it’s pretty damn hard for me to imagine the American Revolution and Independence turning out the way it did if the overall sentiment that we are seeing now really was nearly as prevalent. And if Trump wins, that will be a good indication that it’s pretty damn prevalent.

        I guess things really do change, and it’s a rude awakening for me to see the direction they seem to have changed in.

        1. Don’t forget the American Revolution was won with 30% support and about 10% active participation.

          1. A LOT of people did leave for Canada.

          2. Are you going by the wild guess Jefferson conjectured in a letter?

      2. No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of. Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

    2. Dude I think you are way off base, what people are writing about trump isn’t really an indictment on him, but an indictment on DC.

      Thinking it needs to burn down isn’t irrational.

      1. This. The seat of the imperium has richly earned every bit of contempt that the helots residing in the outer provinces have for it.

      2. Oh no, I get that they hate DC. I disagree about it being rational, though.

        Frankly, we (myself included) sometimes lose perspective. Yes, the government violates basic rights. Yes, it holds back the economy. Yes, there is an unholy alliance between government and big business. Yes, many Americans have not really benefited from economic growth as much as they used to.

        But when you look at it through the lens of history, we still live in an amazingly free country. Most people can go about their lives without much interference from the government. The economy isn’t in free fall. Living standards continue to increase, even if the pace has slowed for some. For most people (not all, certainly, but most), things are not that bad. In fact, they are pretty damn good.

        I’m all for big changes, but I want to dismantle in a more controlled way. Burning it down isn’t likely to make things better.

        1. I’m quite sure some of the people handwaving away or defending the “burn it down” sentiment have approvingly cited Burke in the past. I guess, so long as Trump doesn’t appear too left-wing, the French Revolution parallel isn’t brought to mind. This will be a good burning!

        2. Most people can go about their lives without much interference from the government.

          I have to disagree. I think most people go through their lives swimming in government interference. They are just desensitized to it.

          1. They are taxed, true. But for the most part the things they’re prohibited from doing are things they think should not be done in civilized society anyway.

      3. It certainly needs burning, but, as pointed out above, if you replace it with something worse you’d have been better off saving your matches.

        1. My question is: Have the “burn it down” people actually thought through the whole process? How does electing (hypothetically) Trump “burn it down”? Doesn’t it just give a dopey egomaniac power (albeit hopefully held back by a terrified Congress)? And if Trump does somehow “burn it down,” then what? What do these people do once the party/parties (God I hope they both go) are destroyed? What goes in their place? It might be worse.

          1. It is already on fire. You can smell the smoke. We should see flames in the Jun/August time frame.

            The economy is tanking. And Main Street hasn’t recovered from the last burn (2008).

            1. Can we hurry up and draft the new Constitution then, so we have it ready when the survivors come looking for a solution?

              … If only we had a place we could all gather to live and avoid the inevitable disaster that’s coming… like some kind of… libertopia…

              1. A protected place. Some sort of valley or canyon, perhaps a gorge, vale, abyss, arroyo, chasm, crevasse, fissure, pass, or ravine

                1. A gulch, mayhaps?

                2. Robbo’s ravine?
                  Messican Ass pass?
                  Fist’s fissure?
                  Agile’s abyss?
                  Crusty’s chasm?
                  SugarFree crevasse?
                  Warty’s gorge?

  14. not to mention he didn’t follow-through with prosecutions of those who caused the financial crisis

    That’d be one way to reduce the size of government.

  15. “With Donald Trump, you’re either going to get something very good or very bad”

    Sometimes, Two-Face is a better bet than the Joker, who is *always* bad.

    1. Two-face flips a coin to decide if he’s going the kill you. The only choice the Joker makes is which of various creative *means* he’s going to use to kill you.

  16. (not to mention he didn’t follow-through with prosecutions of those who caused the financial crisis).

    So, progressive #2 wants to arrest the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee for the last twenty years?

    1. Not a bad idea. One of them will turn.

  17. Nobody cares that he’s not a ‘real conservative.’ That’s not the point.

    Right. The point is that he blames foreigners and bad people collecting welfare for all of America’s problems.

    His supporters, of course, are good people who want to collect more welfare. Protectionism is welfare. Factually, warfare is probably the worst form of welfare – making other people protect your stuff because you’re too lazy/chickenshit to learn how to defend yourself coupled with a bloated military industrial complex of which 90% is waste.

    Mind, there is essentially no difference between Trump and Clinton. There has been no difference between the leading POTUS candidates of the two major parties for over 50 years.

    1. national defense is now welfare. jesus wept.

      1. Division of labor … how does it work?

      2. What else would you call the F-35?

        1. Exactly.

          1. And the F-35 isn’t an anomaly, it’s typical.

          2. That’s not really what you said. You said that “making other people protect your stuff because you’re too lazy/chickenshit to learn how to defend yourself” is a form of welfare.

            1. So then you admit I didn’t use the words “national defense”. Funny how HM understood and you didn’t. I’ll cop to being a poor writer, though.

        2. What else would you call the F-35?

          Aircraft carrier ready?

          /derp

          1. See, I was thinking more shovel-ready.

    2. Actually about two-thirds of the GOP primary voters seem to care. Probably more if you factor in the Democrats and Independents voting in open primaries. The only place Trump has topped 40% was Massachusetts’ open primary.

      1. I’m sure most voters do care about insignificant differences.

    3. “Mind, there is essentially no difference between Trump and Clinton.”

      Really? Clinton is a felon. At least we know Trump will hire competent people who love this country. We’ll certainly be in a lot less wars with Trump at the helm as well.

      1. You believe that? About fewer wars I mean. It is not the wars. Those are human nature. It is the lack of victory parades.

        1. I’m not sure why we should believe the “competent people” bit either…

    4. making other people protect your stuff because you’re too lazy/chickenshit to learn how to defend yourself

      Voluntary armed forces.

      1. I’d prefer to be part of a “well-regulated militia” rather than have a wasteful, bloated, standing, volunteer army.

  18. All political narratives play themselves out over time as events and people change–and the social justice warriors have waaaaaay overplayed their hand. Like a football team running the same play until it doesn’t work anymore, the progressives will probably need to suffer a big loss before they trashcan their class war/racial division playbook. But there isn’t any reason to think police brutality against blacks, failed healthcare reform, and yesterday’s gay marriage issue will be enough to hold America’s middle class Democrats together forever.

    One of the biggest problems that the Democrats have, too, is that the social justice warriors, environmentalists, Black Lives Matter, and others have taken over the Democratic party’s narrative–and the center of their narratives is all about demonizing their own white, middle-class base. When the social justice warriors, environmentalists, and others are excoriating white, middle class, blue collar America, the Catholic church, Christians in general, et. al. for being racist, homophobic, misogynist, selfish, and not having a college degree–they’re excoriating their own base, too.

    The Democratic establishment seems to have convinced itself that it really is all about the concerns gay people and desperately poor minorities. Where does that leave everyone else in the base party once they’re convinced of that, too?

    1. Well said, thank you. One can certainly hope that comes to fruition, but I fear it will have to get really bad for the average American before that happens. They tend to know more about Kartrashian’s ass than what their government is doing, the Stupid American Electorate.

      1. Donald Trump’s campaign is a symptom of a problem. Just read the following views held by large portions of the electorate.

        ? Employers impose their religion and violate women’s rights if they refuse to offer health care coverage that includes contraception without co-pay, but somehow do not do this by refusing to offer coupons for BevMo.
        ? Citizens United means that corporations are people.
        ? Requiring government officials to do their jobs violates religious freedom.
        ? Universities are perfectly competent to investigate rape claims
        ? The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has the power to interpret law.
        ? Hate speech is not free speech.
        ? A public university’s code of conduct overrides the First Amendment.
        ? Requiring a photo ID to vote is racist because it places a disparate burden on minorities,but universal background checks on firearm purchases would not be racist even though it would place a disparate burden on greatyer magnitude.
        ? Police are racist, and yet can be trusted with discretion as to who may carry a concealed weapon.

        In various comments on Facebook and Disqus, I have read all of the above.

      2. I want a new rule: if you invoke the Kardashians or the “Stupid Bowl”, you lose the argument automatically, like Godwin for condescending twats.

        1. Goodwhine. Or as another commenter prefers Goodwhyne.

    2. Not that reality is about those things, just that politics is. Everything else, i.e. most life issues for most people, is settled, non-political.

  19. To be clear, though, there’s no room in the conservative tent for a guy who wants to eliminate the DOE, the EPA, much of the IRS, would permit health insurance to be sold across state lines, and would nominate The Judge to SCOTUS? Oooooo-kay.

    1. The DOE, EPA, et al are the products of economic protectionism/welfare. Failure to grasp those contradictions is not a sign of raised intelligence.

      1. Huh? I’m asking why Trump, who is taking some very traditionally conservative positions, can’t be called a conservative.

        1. Because his primary message is economic protectionism. That’s not conservative.

          1. Yeah, whatever else conservative means, prior to the Bush the Lesser Administration, it always meant opposition to the New Deal, Great Society programs, etc.

            Actually, a big part of Bush Jr’s appeal when he was running against Al Gore was Bush’s push to replace government welfare with private charity and his plan to privatize Social Security.

            If there was some other kind of “conservative”, they specified social conservative. Goldwater found social conservatives entirely worthy of denouncement, and Reagan never bothered to throw them so much as a bone.

            1. Not quite. Reagan gave us Meese & his commission, hitting at porn. Not a lot of obscenity cases won at the federal level, but they got kiddie porn onto the map & made indecency a bigger FCC concern. Plus, drug war became a much bigger concern, & the spread of interstate gambling was delayed. The trads kept complaining their issues were being ignored, but that just means that, like all interest groups, they didn’t get most of what they wanted.

          2. Every ‘free trade agreement’ that is designed to increase our trade deficits (all of them) is protectionism for the financial sector. When will people realize that Ricardian comparative advantage does NOT create perpetual trade deficits. Nor is the Whiggish version of economic determinism (that we are all destined to be post-industrial while Chinese and other serfs make shit for us) factual. This is all just religious bullshit.

            FACT – For the reserve currency country, the dollar itself – not stuff – is what drives trade flows. Countries pay for dollars by sending us their surplus shit. And a structural perpetual trade surplus for dollars is nothing more than a way to protect the banks which create reserve dollars out of thin air.

  20. “It’s also clear from these letters that the Republicans aren’t the only folks who should be worrying about what’s going on in the minds of Trump voters.”

    I keep saying the following because it remains true : Trump’s rise is as much about the Democratic party abandoning its white and middle class base as it is about anything happening within the Republican Party.

    This is the Reagan Democrats all over again. When the Democrats became obsessed with minorities and the poor at the expense of the white, blue collar, middle class, then white, blue collar, middle class, registered Democrats flocked to vote for Ronald Reagan. We don’t notice them as much during the (mostly closed) primary season, but if and when Trump wins in the general election, we’ll all be talking about the Trump Democrats.

    1. I think you are onto something here.
      As I’ve been saying since the beginning Trump is pulling support from old labor types in the Northeast and Midwest. He’s a protectionist, he wants to keep immigrants out. He wants to spend money on infrastructure projects.

      And the D’s have gone so heavy on the identity politics game that those white midwestern union types just don’t see it as a home anymore. Obama’s coalition is blacks, hispanics, and public sector unions, but no so much the private sector unions, which are mainly culturally conservative white guys in the midwest. Plus the police unions which leaned Republican anyway.

      In fact, even before Trump appeared I was saying there was room for some Republican to steal those people from the Democrats. So along comes Trump and takes that vote from the D’s and combines it with the nativist redneck vote, and it’s a new formula. Or maybe an old one (Reagan Democrats). Tough-on-crime, anti-immigrant, protectionist, nationalistic.

      1. Yeah, the Democrat establishment has been demonizing the white, blue collar (without college degree), middle class–but that’s their own core constituency!

        And I’m not sure some of those minorities the Dems believe they have locked up will remain so forever. How different are fourth generation, blue collar, Mexican-Americans from sixth generation, blue collar, Italian-Americans or Irish-Americans?

        I know gay people, and they can get married now. They’re also concerned about “the economy”, too. How much longer will there be a “gay vote”?

        1. I wonder why they demonize white people. Are they not aware that they are painting themselves as an anti-white party?

          http://www.stentorian.com/propagan.html

          Do not direct propaganda against the opposing side’s rank-and-file. They are the people whom you want to persuade to cease resistance, malinger, desert, mutiny, or even change sides.

          1. Which is why in war you want to give the defeated an opening to run away. Surrounding them produces Stalingrad.

        2. How much longer will there be a “gay vote”?

          For as long as gays believe they are an oppressed minority.

      2. Trump actually busts PC, but I think he’s only one who could get away with that.

        So, he’s done the main part of his mission. Then perhaps open the Overton window on trade an immigration.

        If he were smart, he might decide that he’s actually accomplished a lot and be done.

        1. I like the Overton window on trade exactly where it is.
          Protectionist policies should be outside of it.

          1. I think we could get maybe better trade deals, but since the deals are already done, its hard to change them now, and its a good idea to have open markets even if its unilateral.

    2. This is the Reagan Democrats all over again.

      I think you’re correct. And since Reagan was recent enough history, we cannot forget that Reagan was – in the final analysis – responsible for increasing the size of government. People want to pretend that his first 2 years in office, where he actually was economically conservative, were his entire 8 years. The last 6 years he totally abandoned economic conservatism. So much so that he actually wound up planting the seeds for “Clinton Republicans”.

      Of course, Hilary is not getting any “Clinton republican” support. Sanders did. And it didn’t matter because the number of economic conservatives is shrinking. We’re a nation of welfarists now, and Reagan is partly responsible for it. The choices are just “welfare and guns” party, or the “welfare and butt sex” party.

      1. I would add that Romney and McCain were also NOT economically conservative. Policy-wise they are no different than Trump, but Trump knows how to rile up interest. Romney and McCain were boredom personified. the GOP shit-canned economic conservatism 30 years ago.

      2. we cannot forget that Reagan was – in the final analysis – responsible for increasing the size of government.

        Amazing what a dictator can do, innit? Oh, you aren’t going to tell me that all appropriations bills that Reagan ever signed originated in Democrat controlled Houses? I am sure that is an honest mistake and not mendacity.

  21. “Note that none of these supporters are making the argument that Trump isn’t a con artist or that he actually is a conservative. It should be very clear by reading all these letters that absolutely none of these folks care about Team Red or Team Blue or squad goals”

    The only thing surprising here…. is that this revelation *is* surprising at all to people who are in theory supposed to be “covering politics”. This was readily apparent back in Oct/Nov.

    Yet the media-class has continued to pump this theory that Trump relies entirely on some horde of Poor and Angry Working Class Yokels (*who are also Klan Members). I appreciate that may be calculated rather than an honest view, and that not everyone actually believes that… but then the delusion rather seems to be that “people will stop supporting Trump if the media treats them with even more contempt”.

    1. You and I and a few others have been saying exactly that for months on here.

      Once you understand why Trump’s supporters are supporting him, you also realize why all of the claims he is some kind of American Mussolini are ridiculous. Trump is not a cult of personality and the people who support him have no illusions about him solving all of our problems. They just feel like he couldn’t do any worse and view voting for him as a way to kick the political elite in the teeth. So if he fails, his supporters won’t be any more disillusioned than they already are or any less hesitant to kick him out of office than they would be anyone else.

    2. no kidding – the contempt and the lies only feed the anger, rather than dampen it. The media seem to think the best way to put out a fire is to throw gasoline on it.

      1. And most people don’t consider themselves racist or xenophobes. So when the media calls Trump those things, the people who agree with his statements see it as the media calling them racists and xenophobes as well.

        Regardless of your opinion about whether they really are that, the fact is they don’t see themselves that way. So, calling Trump those names is just going to cause them to feel more insulted and hate the media and the Republican Party more.

        They also don’t see themselves as fascists. So calling Trump a fascist and his supporters a fascist movement is about the dumbest thing you could do if your goal is to get people to stop supporting him. Of course, I am not sure that is even the goal for most of the people saying those things. Mostly they are virtue signaling to other members of their social class.

    3. The reaction to Trump really is high comedy. And it gets better every day. The Republican party and their media organs like the National Review actually think that trotting out Mitt Romney to explain how Trump is a fraud is going to do them any good. How can otherwise intelligent people have their heads that far up their asses?

      1. What makes you think they are intelligent? If they were wouldn’t they be winning wars?

        1. Yes, that is a pretty big and generous assumption on my part.

      2. I could not believe they thought that would be a good idea. They’re way more disconnected from reality than I thought.

        I’ve said this before, but Trump’s rise is the fault of the progressives. They want the Republicans to nominate someone “reasonable”, but when they do, the Progtards turn on him the second he’s nominated. John McCain was their favorite Senator, but the Progtards turned him into Joseph McCarthy the second he was nominated, and the media egged them on. Ditto liberal Massachusetts governor and PPACA architect Mittens; they treated him like George Wallace. It should come as no shock the base said, “fuck it. You’re never voting Republican anyway, so we’ll go to the extreme”

        The people wringing their hands over Trump were the same ones claiming Romney was just shy of Emperor Palpatine, and they don’t see the connection.

        1. I agree. If Trump were to win the Presidency, the first thing I am going to tell my Progressive friends when they come crying to me about it is “if you people had not convinced yourselves that a doofus Massachusetts liberal was some kind of crazy right wing misogynist, racist, there would be no President Trump”.

        2. Yep. The media industrial complex is getting the candidate it deserves.

    4. “Squad goals” weren’t always so important either. Maybe that trend is playing itself out.

      Our election cycles have been driven by wedge issues–especially since Terry Schiavo. Parties have become like a laundry list of wedge issues.

      The Democrats don’t want you thinking about the economy. They want you thinking about gay marriage. The Republicans, meanwhile, would be happier if elections were all about terrorism.

      It was always like that before–but to a lesser extent. The biggest landslide since World War II went to a candidate whose reelection campaign centered on, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

      I blame Karl Rove.

    5. Please consider that the sort of Trump supporters who write letters to the Guardian might not be a representative sample.

    6. Looking down on the helots and successfully flattering the king is how the imperial court jesters convince themselves that they’re something much bigger and higher than they really are, whcih is a bunch of clowns wearing funny hats.

      1. whcih is a bunch of clowns wearing funny hats stealing everything in sight.

        Noblesse Oblige is long gone.

        “Let them eat garbage. Our garbage is quite healthful. It is organic and range fed. And if you can’t get our garbage you can starve. You no account.”

  22. The anti-PC college professor (50, California)
    ‘I’m angry at forced diversity’
    I’m a liberal-left college professor in the social sciences. I’m going to vote for Trump but I won’t tell hardly anybody.

    My main reason is anger at the two-party system and the horrible presidencies of Obama and Bush. But I’m also furious at political correctness on campus and in the media.

    I’m angry at forced diversity and constant, frequently unjustified complaints about racism/sexism/homophobia/lack of trans rights. I’m particularly angry at social justice warriors and my main reason to vote Trump is to see the looks on your faces when he wins.

    It’s not that I like Trump. It’s that I hate those who can’t stand him. I want them to suffer the shock of knowing all their torrents of blog posts and Tumblr bitch-fests and “I just can’t …” and accusations of mansplaining didn’t actually matter. That they’re still losing. And that things are not getting better for them. They’re getting worse.

    I found this passage to be easily the best case argument for Trump and it honestly gives me hope.

    1. I’ve read Penthouse letters that were more believable, tbh.

      1. Why? I know a ton of people just like that guy. I find it totally believable.

        1. I have seen that kind of sentiment on the right.

          “He angers the people I hate. Hurrah!”

          1. “He makes all the right heads explode.”

        2. I know a ton of people just like that guy.

          You’re telling me there is some sort of silent Trump support among a majority of “liberal-left college professor[s] in the social sciences”? Or just that you know a lot of Trump supporters who want to stick it to the SJWs?

          1. I don’t know that. I do, however, know people who are anything but conservative and part of the educated and professional class who quietly support Trump. None of them are college professors but the y are similar in their outlook to one. So I would not say this is impossible and I see no reason to disbelieve this story.

          2. To your point HM, anecdotes are not data. But I’ll just leave this here.

            1. Key passage, halfway down…

              “My advice is only go to university if you have to. And I work for one: the cost of this to my psyche is huge. We are accountable, not merely for our errors, but not saying the correct phrases or acceding to the current fashionable neuroses. Because we need that license to work: the secular convergence includes all the learned professions. We cannot be antifragile unless we have not merely enough money to leave, but have left. “

            2. His point was that this anecdote was untrue. Just because anecdotes are not data doesn’t mean they are untrue, even if they conflict with the data. Also, sometimes it is the data that is untrue and the anecdote the first sign of that.

      2. Hey now! THOSE ARE REAL

    2. Lots of people dislike Trump for reasons that have nothing to do with his un-PC-ness.

      I hate him because he’s antithetical to the objectives of the libertarian movement.
      He would take us in exactly the wrong direction toward more government intervention, more government control of the economy, and every other aspect of human life, for that matter. He’s bad on BOTH civil liberties AND economics.

    3. Why do I get the feeling this professor has been in some meetings?

  23. In a way this is good, because it could potentially put an end to the patronizing two-party political system.

    1. Yes. Or at the very least put the fear of God in the elites and make them at least try to clean up their act a little bit.

      People talk about the famous Jefferson line about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants but I wonder sometimes if the people who say that know who exactly is going to do the killing? It won’t be some nerd with a copy of the Constitution. It will be some firebrand whom the elites and right thinking people find terrifying.

      1. I find it odd that Trump is not considered an elite. He’s not a party insider elite, but then neither was Obama. The Dems wanted Obama to sit alongside Hilary quietly until she had her turn and then they would let him have his turn. joe was that attitude personified.

        Outside of winning the big chair, neither Obama nor Trump have any interest in how their party gins up support for other seats, they’re happy to let the party insiders handle that.

        But isn’t that exactly WHY the parties embraced the primary vote? Both parties were losing POTUS elections by running insider-picked candidates. Trump “beating the party insiders” really ain’t news – Obama did it, Clinton did it, Reagan did it, etc. And party insiders always whine about it, but they usually shut up and support the primary winner because what choice do they have.

        The news is really that the party insiders aren’t shutting up and are possibly throwing away the votes of “Trump Democrats” – for other seats these people may vote Dem because some of the GOP is sabotaging itself. They didn’t make that mistake with the Reagan Democrats.

        1. I find it odd that Trump is not considered an elite.

          I think he is. And that is part of his appeal and part of why the elite hate him so much. His supporters see him as someone who understands the system and thus knows how to wreck it. His critics hate him for being a traitor to his class. Trump is rich and went to the right schools. He cant’ be written off as a dumb hillbilly like Sarah Palin could.

          And revolutions are never lead by common people. They are always lead by members of the elite who figure out how to step in front of and lead the mob.

        2. I don’t think he is considered outside of the elite.

  24. There’s the self-described “patriotic socialist”

    Is that anything like a “national socialist?”

    1. What have you got against Comrade Trotsky?

  25. Great article, Scott.

    This may also show how little Nick Gillespie understands what’s going on in the GOP as well.

    1. Yes, this. Scott is on it and the rest of the staff needs to stop writhing and start reading Shackford.

  26. While the Trump supporters are interesting, most of them sound more like disaffected Democrats who should be trying to change that party.

    IMHO, Webb could have been anti-illegal immigration, but instead took the boring party line positions.

    Frankly, if these are Trump supporters, I can see why the GOP wants rid of Trump.

    Say Trump wins based on these people. Well, the wall might get built, but what’s next?

    Trump will have to keep these people on after that. What’s he going to offer the socialist and two progressives?

    1. They are disaffected culturally conservative Democrats who are alienated by the political correctness and identity politics that have taken over the Democratic party.
      They aren’t trying to change that party because they are faced with an overwhelming tide of progressive SJWs who will exile them if they try. In fact, they probably already have been exiled, which is why they love Trump’s Un-PC-ness so much. And anyway, they have a choice between proggie Bernie Sanders and his hipster fan club and Clinton’s vote-for-me-because-I-have-a-vagina identity politics. neither of which is appealing to them. They might have voted for Biden, but he didn’t run.

      1. Biden endorsed the Bern today.

        Does that mean an indictment is in the offing?

        1. Really, where’d you read that ?

          1. This wasn’t the site. But it represents what I saw.

            Biden-Comes-Close-Endorsing-Bernie-Sanders

      2. I agree with everything you say, but again, this does not mean the Republicans should necessarily change for them.

        Just because the Democrats have disappointed them, doesn’t mean the GOP should cater to them, if it were to fracture the party.

        I could see if the GOP had picked up on this a few years ago and allowed more people to have unorthodox positions where you could ease these people and the party into a bigger tent.

        Trump doesn’t just bring these voters, he also brings Trump baggage.

        1. The baggage is the vehicle.

          1. OK, partially I agree.

            But, Trump University being a scam is pure baggage, for example.

            1. Yes. And he will be in the thick of that come June or July.

    2. Yes. A lot of them are. They are the old Reagan Democrats. They are basically loathed and hated by both parties. The Democrats are completely driven by identity politics and making the Trump supporters designated scapegoat class. The Republicans are run by a bunch of corporatists who are happy to fuck anyone to make a buck.

      And the “conservatives” in the Republican party are so fucking stupid they think yelling about how “Trump is not a conservative” means anything to anyone.

  27. I got to thinking about the bumbling awfulness of Trump, and as someone who won’t be voting in this upcoming election I think an argument can be made with the tie-their-hands approach. Previously, on any issue, when there was no clear libertarian/freedom-increasing path forward, I would try to pick the option that would most tie the government’s hands.

    On the one hand, we have a Democratic candidate who is a criminal, but obviously a competent one, and competent criminal with a powerful, committed political machine behind her, 100% of which have pledged to work with her if she’s the nominee.

    On the other hand, we have a guy who the GOP political machine has claimed won’t support him, an entire opposition party that we KNOW won’t support him, and a clear, demonstrated doofusness that will be the butt of jokes for his entire 4 year term (if elected).

    1. Don’t drink the Kool-aid, Paul. That shit’s clearly got something funny in it.

      1. Who’s drinking the Kool aid? I’m going to sit quietly in my livingroom playing my PS4 while the country spins the cylinder of Democracy. It’s either going to land on the Hillary chamber or the Trump* chamber.

        *presuming Trump gets the nomination.

    2. This sounds like you are making the tie-their-hands argument for Trump, but I think it applies to Clinton better. Regardless of her competence, she is so intensely disliked on the other side of the aisle that there isn’t a chance in Hell she will get anything done — even if she wanted to, and I don’t think she does, because actually trying to accomplish something might tarnish whatever legacy she has dreamed up for herself.

      1. Trump appears to be intensely disliked by both sides, instead of just one.

        1. All the candidates this year are intensely disliked by about 75% of the electorate. It is a different 75% for each.

    3. The reason why our politicians are so out of control and why the last three or more Presidents have been able to walk all over the Constitution is because the supporters of each party refuse to hold anyone of their own party accountable for anything. Especially in the case of the President, an office holder is nearly untouchable as long as his own party stands behind him.

      The Republicans in Congress, unlike any other Republican President except maybe Cruz, would think nothing of going after Trump. For this reason, Trump would likely be the least powerful and most scrutinized President in a long time.

      1. And unlike Hillary, the media won’t be writing articles with administration-dictated talking points.

        Muscular speeches aside.

        1. Trump knows how to control access and get concessions from the media.

          Don’t be too sure that he won’t be able to demand friendly-ish coverage.

          One thing I like about Trump, is even though he gets mad, he seems pretty okay with people taking shots back at him.

      2. Maybe. If he wins and has coattails, they may decide to roll over.

        He will have the ultimate bully pulpit.

        Damn…there’s a better joke there with bully pulpit I need to find.

        1. I don’t think so. Both parties are involved in the same con of railing against a perceived evil while simultaneously supporting and benefiting from that evil. The Republicans do it with government and the Democrats do it with corporations. They both tell their supporters how much they hate the enemy but in reality they are in bed with and benefiting from it and have no reason to do anything about it.

          Trump with his whole “I am going to Washington and make a deal” act threatens to end that. Suppose for example he became President and backed a bill in Congress that really would slap tariffs on China and claim to do something about multinational corporations taking their jobs overseas. Forget for a moment your opinion of that, and imagine you are a Democrat in Congress who has made your career railing about corporations. Such a proposal is terrifying. How would you turn it down? What are you going to claim to be some champion of the free market now? Since you also are in bed with these evil multinational corporations, you couldn’t support it either.

          1. If you’re that Democrat, then you let the Republicans kill that bill while you loudly denounce them. Easy.

            1. Not so easy. A lot of Republicans campaign on looking after the middle class and such. So there likely won’t be enough of them to kill it. Very few politicians in this country get elected on the promise of “pure free trade for all”. A shit ton on both sides, however, get elected on empty pledges of looking out for American jobs and the middle class.

              No one in Congress wants to have to vote on these issues. Why do you think they passed fast track? Let the President negotiate the agreement and then vote for it as “well it was the best we could get” and avoid having to take responsibility for it.

              1. If the leaders in Congress don’t want to vote on it, then they won’t. President Trump can’t make them. And even if he jawbones them into it, are you seriously saying that the same Congress that votes for plenty of free trade bills that knock down tariffs is somehow going to balk at voting against a ruinous tariff bill? There are only a few nutballs in Congress that would vote for that bill.

                1. If the leaders in Congress don’t want to vote on it, then they won’t.

                  Sure. And then they would have to explain to the public why that is. They don’t want to have to do that. You are letting your overall objection to tariffs cause you to miss my point.

                  1. I get your point- I just don’t believe it. Most Republicans are very open about opposing protective tariffs. They publicly run on it. Polls show about half the country is against protective tariffs against China. I don’t see why you think members of Congress suddenly going to be scared to vote against the tariffs that they consistently voted against in the past.

            2. Also, there are treaties. Its not so simple.

              The theoretical bill would be voted on as such:

              1) Export districts would find it easy as pie to vote against this. Places that produce soybeans or export airplanes, for example.

              2) The two parties would push for people in super safe or non-manufacturing districts to vote against it.

              3) They would count votes carefully to allow those who’s voters would like such a bill to vote for it.

              and the bill would narrowly fail.

              Also, I really don’t like all the tarrif lovers really understand tarrifs and trade wars.

              Tarrifs have to be super high to move production, and when they do, they essentially benefit the business owners (who will use automated machinery to produce stuff, and not hire as many people imagine.) Then they are production lines that can’t move: Apple can’t move to the USA for years. So iPhones now are more expensive by 45%. This will not be popular.

              And if you just touch China, production merely moves back to Taiwan or to Vietnam.

              If the tarrif is too low, its just a tax that raises consumer prices and input prices for US goods, so when we re-export our products they are now more expensive than say Europe.

              If high tarrif walls worked, Argentina’s import substituion industrialization model would have worked. Autarky makes people poorer, not richer.

              Yes, its hard to compete with China. Yes, we could improve trade deals, but it would more on holding their feet to the fire to open markets, not swingeing tarriffs.

              1. think, not like. I don’t like tarrifs either.

                1. and I didn’t even get to the trade war where China puts 45% tariffs on our products.

                  California’s agricultural districts, and Iowa, and Nebraska, etc. will not like that.

                  Districts with exporting firms will not like this. People imagine China makes everything, but they really don’t. They just make a lot of cheap stuff you buy in stores. They don’t export planes, or jet engines, or almonds. You’d be surprised what America makes that is exported, too. I watched my cable guy in Taiwan use American CATV wire to install my cable TV in Taiwan. I asked why not use Taiwan cable? He said American cables were far more reliable. US exports are often technical, expensive, and not seen in stores.

                  You see, a 45% tariff essentially is a guaraneteed trade war and those people will lose their jobs. They probably don’t like to lose their jobs, and will be angrier than the plumber who somehow thinks it will make America Great. Until his plumbing fixtures now cost 45% more.

              2. Harum,

                The point here is not to debate the virtues or vices of tariffs. The point is that the public by and large doesn’t see it the way you do and both parties run on placating that view and then turn around and do whatever they can to give their corporate backers whatever they want.

                A President Trump, by actually putting something on the table would make it impossible to play that game anymore. They would have to either vote for it and screw their backers or stand up and be honest and tell the public they have been lying when they said they wanted to do something about multinationals.

                This is why they hate Trump so much. The merits of the public’s and Trump’s position on trade is irrelevant.

                1. The public doesn’t see it because is so theoretical now.

                  Believe me, if its actually on the table, these people will be seeing the pros and cons.

                  China won’t sit around while this is being discussed.

                  Exporters won’t either and neither will importers.

                  I agree that the Democrats would be in the worse position – they will have to admit that they really aren’t against free markets or free trade.

                  1. The public doesn’t see it because is so theoretical now.

                    Believe me, if its actually on the table, these people will be seeing the pros and cons.

                    I don’t think so. And even if it did, the gig would still be up. If everyone agreed free trade was wonderful, the parties would no longer have going after the big guy as a wedge issue.

                    Regardless, if the case were that simple and compelling, it would have already been made. It is just wishful thinking on your part. Sorry but not everyone would agree with you if only they knew the facts. If only life were that simple.

                2. The merits of the public’s and Trump’s position on trade is irrelevant.

                  The con man is breaking the con. Just. Gotta. Love. It.

                  1. The con man is breaking the con. Just. Gotta. Love. It.

                    What does that mean? it doesn’t matter if Trump really believes what he says. That doesn’t help the major parties.

        2. He would do the same thing to Republicans. Republicans love to talk about how they want a flat tax and a sensible tax code. Trump would likely propose one. And the Republicans would shit their pants. An actual sensible tax law would keep a whole lot of their corporate sponsors from making money. Same thing with immigration. They no more want to actually do something about immigration than the Democrats want to do something about multinational corporations.

          This is why both hate Trump so much. And it is not because Trump is any kind of champion for the common man or believes in much of anything. It is because he is just crazy enough to actually propose a solution. And no one wants that.

          1. Such proposals get introduced all the time and they die because no one wants to lose their precious mortgage interest deduction, child care credit, etc. You seem to think there’s some cabal of Republicans conspiring to keep the tax code complicated when in fact a large portion of the population opposes the measures you’d need to actually simply it.

            1. No, proposals that everyone knows will not pass get proposed. What doesn’t get proposed is anything that would simplify the tax code while leaving in a few things that are popular. They propose some perfect flat tax that they know the country will hate and pretend that is the only alternative to what we have.

              A proposal that actually went after the goodies handed out to the powerful and left the shit you are talking about would be very problematic for both parties. They are not afraid of proposals. They are afraid of compromises. They depend on no one proposing an acceptable compromise and only proposing unacceptable extremes.

              1. The “few things that are popular” are precisely what make the personal code complicated. Things like mortgage interest deduction, various credits and deductions for children, child care, student loans, tuition, health insurance, retirement savings, etc., and lower rates on capital gains. What unpopular things do you have in mind that can be so easily stripped out of the personal income tax code?

                1. The “few things that are popular” are precisely what make the personal code complicated.

                  No it doesn’t. What makes it complicated is the business tax code. There is nothing complicated about any of the things you list. They are of course distortions and do do harm. But they are not the goodies the Congress is worried about protecting. They protect the real goodies by including the popular things with the important stuff in any proposals at reform.

                  You are missing my point. The point is not about the relative merits of the things you list. The point is the way they use the popularity of those things as a way to avoid changing a lot of other things that are not so popular.

                  1. I’m not buying your premise that Trump himself, or any material number of Trump’s supporters, has any clue about what’s in the business tax code. And his own webpage on tax reform is almost exclusively about the personal income tax. He has a one-liner about getting rid of “some corporate loopholes.” He can’t even come out and say he’s going to get rid of all of them on his own campaign site. You’re just imprinting your own desires on him, just like Obama supporters did for him.

                    1. I’m not buying your premise that Trump himself, or any material number of Trump’s supporters, has any clue about what’s in the business tax code.

                      I am pretty sure a real estate developer, even one that is a con man, knows the tax code. Seriously, have you convinced yourself that Trump is stupid? If you have, i would suggest that you are just projecting everything you don’t like onto him and your opinions have nothing to do with Trump. He is a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

                      And the public sure as hell does know they are getting ripped off and businesses get all kinds of bennies in the tax code. My God, “tax fairness” is one of the biggest issues both parties run on and then proceed to do nothing about it. If the public were as ignorant as you like to pretend, making the big guy pay taxes would not be the winning issue it is.

                    2. Making the big guy pay taxes is a winning issue because people love to hate the rich. This is hardly a new phenomenon. The public may think the current business tax code is unfair, but they’re not going to follow the details of a tax debate in Congress to ensure that the new code is actually better. An income tax on business is inherently complicated because its hard to define the income of a business precisely. That leaves lots of room for monkey business.

                      Donald Trump is not a real estate developer. He says he is, but he is not. He tried his hand at that and got destroyed. He now takes credit for properties that have in fact been developed by and are owned by others.

                      But if he’s actually some kind of tax whiz that takes advantage of the current tax code, why in the world would you think that he is going to propose to undo it and then follow through?

                    3. I get it. You hate Trump. I don’t know what to tell you. Your opinion of Trump is not germane to what i am saying.

                      If you think that the parties are not playing this game and are in fact just representing the views of their voters, I don’t know what to tell you other than it doesn’t look that way to me. And increasingly the voters don’t see it that way either.

                    4. Politicians are representing the views of their voters. The problem is that the voters want things that cannot be reconciled. They want lots of entitlements, but don’t want the taxes or high spending that go with them. They want to stop imports, but also want cheap goods. They don’t like immigration, but they want cheap food products produced on farms that employ illegals. They don’t want foreign wars in the ME, but they want to confront Iran, support Israel, stick it to Saddam, pound Al Qaeda ISIS, and preserve cheap oil. They want a strong military, but they don’t like defense contractors that make the weapons lining their pockets. Politicians have to constantly attempt to appease these inherently contradictory desires and it’s inevitable they’re going to then piss people off. If Trump happens to get elected, he’s going to be facing the same wrath in short order.

                    5. You’re just imprinting your own desires on him, just like Obama supporters did for him.

                      Exactly. John has drunk the Kool-Aid.
                      He doesn’t want to admit he drank the Kool-Aid, but the way he’s staggering around with Trumps cum dripping out of the corner of his mouth kind of gives it away.

      3. For this reason, Trump would likely be the least powerful and most scrutinized President in a long time.

        You just sold me on voting for Trump.

    4. I see your point, but I honestly believe the Doofus has a pretty good shot at bumblefucking us into a real war. I really don’t want the irrational, egomaniacal, blowhard, bully having his finger on the button.

      1. The human race spends about 90%+ of its time on the planet at war. For the last 3,500 years.

        Not liking war will not change human nature.

        The most peaceful eras are when one power is totally dominant.

      2. WW2 was a war for dominance when the Brits were losing theirs.

      3. ” I really don’t want the irrational, egomaniacal, blowhard, bully having his finger on the button.”

        I see only one problem with this sentence.

        as i said yesterday re: candidate’s inclinations to International Conflict

        – you have a choice between “largely unknowns” on the right, who talk the same B.S. tough-talk that every GOP candidate does every 4 years, perhaps with an added dash of bluster this year because Russia is *Stealing Our War!!” in Syria…

        – and in the case of Hillary you have a case of “100% verified” instinct-to-use-American Military power to attempt to re-engineer the global order. She’s never seen an intervention she wasn’t full-throated in favor of, and has even said “her biggest regret” was not committing MORE force to Syria when the opportunity presented itself.

        You seem to fear Republicans “escalating” a war that Hilary Clinton deserves the most credit for *inventing*.

        1. Russia is *Stealing Our War!!” in Syria…

          … because we stole their war in Ukraine.

      4. I also feel its too easy to push his buttons.

        Putin ego strokes him, Trump rolls over for the belly rub.

        Opponent attacks him, he goes ballistic.

        1. Putin ego strokes him, Trump rolls over for the belly rub.

          Opponent attacks him, he goes ballistic.

          Yep. He’s all about the art of the deal. Until the deal falls apart – then he throws a shit fit.

      5. It would certainly be interesting to see who he would pick for his cabinet. For State, DoD, and Homeland Security, it seems like he wants to up the zealousness.

    5. “On the other hand, we have a guy who the GOP political machine has claimed won’t support him, an entire opposition party that we KNOW won’t support him, and a clear, demonstrated doofusness that will be the butt of jokes for his entire 4 year term (if elected).”

      The other temptation with Trump is that if he wins, it’ll burn the Republican down.

      Given single member districts, what reemerges to replace it might still be called the Republican party, and it will probably be as committed to certain base issues like the Second Amendment.

      But it could be more libertarian after Trump leaves, too. For libertarianism to become a real influence on policy, it was always going to have to be absorbed into one of the two major parties (given single member districts). In order for that to happen, one of the two major parties was going to have to fail.

      Maybe this is the way forward. Before this house can be rebuilt, it needs to be destroyed. A vote for Trump is a vote to burn it down.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/th…..1457050017

      Google search in a new browser for access.

      1. The much more likely scenario is that the GOP becomes the party of America First populism, and the Democrats become the party of identity politics and socialism, and libertarianism gets completely dumped from any meaningful place on the political spectrum.

        At best, we might influence the Democrats to become more civil libertarian, but any hope of using the GOP as a vehicle to advance libertarian economic policies will be utterly lost. It’ll be 100 years and we’ll all be dead before anyone questions Big Government or it’s role in regulating the economy.

  28. Home income source by collider.. I’m making over $5k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they ZF can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
    This is what I do, http://www.payability70.com

    1. This is a Trump thread buddy.

      1. Hey pal, he is not your buddy!

  29. Speaking of derp: De Blasio credits less guns for more stabbings

    “I’m not a criminologist but I can safely say that guns are being taken off the street in an unprecedented way. Some people, unfortunately, are turning to a different weapon.”

    1. I’m not a psychologist, but I can safely say that Bill DiBlasio is mentally retarded.

  30. One tiny ray of hope — “President Trump” might lead to a newfound fervor in Congress for reining in the Executive Branch.

    1. Almost certainly. A Trump presidency would mark the first time in a very long time that the legislative majority was neither a direct extension of, or direct opposition to the executive.

      Trump is going to have to manage a lot of competing interest in order to get anything done and he will perpetually be closer to impeachment than anyone in modern history.

  31. A significant number of these people seem to think that Trump is going to upset the current political establishment. What’s the evidence for that? He essentially says nothing about that. Instead, he focuses on how he wants the government to build a huge wall, significantly increase border protection efforts, deport tons of people, significantly increase the size of the military….These are all things that are going to make the government even bigger and more powerful.

  32. It’s what’s beyond Trump that scares me.

    I know few people want to face it, but there’s economic/monetary/fiscal “difficulties” not too far down the road, and the reasonable Tea Party and humorous Trump are going to seem like halcyon days of yore in just a few years. There’s people taking cues from Trump and Bernie – hardliners, and it’s going to be a darkness to get through. And the Apparatus is already in place for them to use.

    1. Well yes. And most people feel the sense of dread for what is coming even if they can’t articulate it.

      Just like you can “smell” fear.

    2. Exactly what do you think a riled up population is going to do beyond hang the elites who created this situation?

      I honestly look at Trump as a good sign. He may be flawed and unlikely to fix things but his support shows that people are still willing to work within the political system. The danger arises when there are no more Trumps. That means people have given up on politics and moved to other means.

      1. This is a good point, John. The economic troubles we are facing are going to hit everyone very hard, except of course our ruling class. Those that do get screwed are not going to take it lightly. Hopefully that will mean a peaceful overthrow of everyone in DC and within the confines of the Constitution, but it could easily get out of control.

      2. his support shows that people are still willing to work within the political system.

        Only as long as they get handouts from it.

        The danger arises when there are no more Trumps. That means people have given up on politics and moved to other means.

        Like earning their livings instead of sucking on the public teat.

        People want to believe the propaganda that society will turn to mass violence if the government collapses. But it’s more likely a society erupts into violence when the government SUPPORTS violence. Government support accounts for most of the social violence in Iraq, Syria, and other spots in the mid-east; that violence didn’t erupt “organically”, most of it was directed by illegitimately-ousted ex-government.

        1. Yeah Woodchipper, everyone who disagrees with you is just looking for a hand out. The entire nation, except you is are lazy bums.,

          It is a good thing you don’t use your politics as a form or moral affirmation or anything.

  33. I enjoy the fact that somewhere there’s a liberal arts major who saw Trump and thought “you know what I should do? Vote for him ironically and then FRAME LIBERTARIANS FOR HIS OPINIONS.”

    Nice to know someone cares enough to blame us for Trump.

  34. Something i stumbled across looking for an old article from last summer

    Contemporary liberal Democrats are an alliance of educated, successful, self-actualized, urban professional elites (the “Bobos” or “Goo-Goos”), ethnic- and race-based, often corrupt, urban political machines (Charles Rangel comes to mind), and the disenfranchised urban poor. … The New Liberalism has redifined liberal progressive politics from self-help on the part of citizens to charity for the disadvantaged “victim” groups performed by affluent liberal elites….. Fred Siegel calls this “the coalition of the overeducated and the undereducated.” Liberal Democrats since the 1960s have transformed themselves from Jacksonian populists to European social democrats. “

    Basically, the argument here is that the “middle class” in the US was never really part of the Obama-presidency.

    Which i think is right.

    And that, the more you look into the make-up of the underlying constituents of both parties… they increasingly rely on fairly narrow, extreme views which eschew (*yesterday’s word of the day) the bulk of the populist middle.

    The “anti-abortion, anti-gay, praise jesus” stuff is over for the GOP, and is a sea-anchor. Trump is winning because he appeals to a very-large anti-ideological middle which has been hitherto ignored by both parties.

    Anyway, the above link is worth a look.

    1. The “anti-abortion, anti-gay, praise jesus” stuff is over for the GOP, and is a sea-anchor. Trump is winning because he appeals to a very-large anti-ideological middle which has been hitherto ignored by both parties.

      This is true and makes the reason pants shitting over Trump even more irrational. Reason has spent how many years telling the Republican party it needs to stop running on the culture war? Finally they come up with a candidate who does that and reason goes insane over it.

      1. But Trump isn’t a REAL libertarian. It makes us look like losers.

      2. The “Libertarian Moment” argument makes presumptions about the “Anti-Ideological Middle” which they refuse to accept.

        They think merely being ‘independent’ means that large cohort is ripe for Libertarian pickings. They don’t realize that a lot of libertarian ideas don’t square with anti-ideological voters who are primarily concerned with pragmatic real-world issues of the moment. No one cares about ideological consistency – they care about someone who communicates clearly ‘ways to deal with the now’.

        1. Sorry – that first sentence should be something more like =

          “The “Libertarian Moment” argument makes presumptions about the willingness of the “Anti-Ideological Middle” to accept their policy-recipe – despite its obviously-ideological basis”

        2. You are dead on Gilmore. The root of that is that reason refuses to acknowledge that even if Libertarian policies are the most moral ones and the best for the general welfare, there are still a lot of people who are hurt by them and those people are not all welfare queens or government cronies. Even if you believe every single thing Reason says about immigration, the fact remains that there is a decent chunk of the population who are going to be left worse off by mass immigration. There is no arguing that and reason just pretends its not true and no one who objects to mass immigration does so for anything but illegitimate reasons.

          This problem is compounded when you realize that libertarian policies would almost uniformly benefit them and people like them and almost never harm them. So from the outside it starts to look like their “principles” are just an excuse to get everyone else to pay for policies that benefit them.

  35. I’m completely on board with reducing both of the current parties to smoking rubble. Why wouldn’t I be? Neither of them does anything that I agree with.

    Its what comes after that is worrying. The hard thing to suss out is whether what would come after would, actually, be worse than the trajectory we are currently on.

    1. This is the trajectory — “reality” is collapsing. That is in train. If you worry what comes after make your friends libertarian — if you can.

    2. RC, the worrying stems from the fact that even if you eliminated the parties, the shitty legislation and bureaucracies they built are left behind and there’s too much reverence for those artifacts, and too little for the Constitution. If your house is infested with termites, it doesn’t help much to kill only 70% of them.

  36. “With Donald Trump, you’re either going to get something very good or very bad,”

    fuck you! put it all on red, and let’s see what happens already.

  37. This is how America dies.

  38. This is how America dies.

    1. Will there be a rebirth? It has happened before.

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

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

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

  40. This has been one of the best and most enjoyable threads for me. Scintillating comments and comedy.

    Love ya all.

  41. will cause Americans to reject “unrestricted neoliberalism and libertarian free market superstition.” Given that Trump is the same kind of trade protectionist as Bernie Sanders, I don’t see how that would happen.

    The same way “free markets” are blamed for the bank bailouts. The Fed prints money. The regulators demand loans be given out regardless of creditworthiness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac create a market for uncreditworthy loans. And Congress throws money at the banks when it ends in a smoking crater.

    Obviously, the Free Market is to blame for every action taken by those government entities.

    How it happens?
    “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

  42. Barack Obama talked about hope and change, but I believe he failed to deliver on his promises.

    What did she mean?

    He delivered the goods on half of that. He delivered plenty of Hope. All sorts of dullards were ecstatically Hoping he would fart sparkly unicorns out of his ass.

  43. the GOP understands very well…..its all a scam!

    The fact that a given person is holding or seeking high-level public office is, in and of itself, proof that said person is morally and/or psychologically UNFIT to hold public office.
    So? Paul Ryan.

    Yeeaah. You know how you coulda seen YEARS IN ADVANCE the fact that Paul Ryan is a lying psychopath who would gleefully assrape his own grandmother, or an entire planet of grandmothers, for a nickel?

    The Barnhardt Axiom.

    You realize this applies every bit as strongly to Trump too, right? Tell me you are not so stupid as to believe for one second that Trump would actually do ANY of the things he is talking about. He’s just smart enough to know what y’all want to hear, and is saying it. You know how I know that Trump will never follow through on anything he is saying?

    BECAUSE. HE. IS. RUNNING. FOR. POLITICAL. OFFICE. IN. A. NATION. THAT NO. LONGER. EXISTS.

    1. I don’t think it matters, a vote for Trump is an anti-vote for the parities. It’s saying “we would rather have this ass-clown running things than the rest of you fucks”. The worst he can do is burn the whole thing down… we’re already headed there, we might as well get it over with and there’s a chance that four years from now, if we’re still around, we’ll have some serious people running for office and a public that has been reminded that their job is to hold their elected officials feet to the fire regardless if they’re on the same team.

  44. Trump supporters realize that there is a corrupt, ineffective One Party system in the USA and both sides of that One Party system continuously fail to deliver anything as promised. The debt continues to rise, the border is still unprotected, Islamism is rampant, and their standard of living continues to fall.

    They have NO faith in the establishment, both the Government and the Media. Trump represents a collective middle finger, FUCK YOU!

    Trump supporters are hopeful that Trump will shake up the establishment and might actually get things done. Considering the alternatives, Trump actually looks quite appealing.

  45. (not to mention he didn’t follow-through with prosecutions of those who caused the financial crisis)….
    That would have required prosecution of most of the upper management of Fannie/Freddie, plus Senators, Congressmen/women, and a Dept. Secretary or two – and whoever wrote the Community Reinvestment Act during the Carter Administration.

  46. An article drawing conclusions based upon commentary cherry picked by the Grauniad.

    A new low, even for Reason.

    1. I will say though, this is the first thing that has made sense. Apparently participation rates in the democrat primaries is abysmally low, I haven’t been able to figure out why… because they want them all gone is the first explanation that has laid flat.

      I’d vote for trump if it was the equivalent of hitting the reset button on the two party, ClintonBushClintonBush, bullshit we’ve been doing for the last 30 years… like the last guy in the article said, you’re either going to get something really good or really bad with Trump… you get business as usual with everyone else.

  47. Trump is popular because he is against OPEN BORDERZ, and when the Progressive media gate keepers had a shit fit over it and called him a Racist Nazi Mean Person, he told them to go fuck themselves, and managed to *increase* his popularity.

    Someone who will stand up to the Progressive Theocracy. Someone who they weren’t able to crush.

    That’s pretty much it.

  48. 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.workpost30.com

  49. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  50. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  51. I looked at the draft saying $5331 , I didn’t believe that?my? au father in law realey receiving money in there spare time online. . there great aunt had bean doing this 4 only about fifteen months and a short time ago repayed the loans on their cottage and bought a great new Bugatti Veyron . visit this site ?

    +_+_+_+_ http://www.moneypath60.com

  52. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  53. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $85 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21785 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at this web-site….
    Clik this link in Your Browser

    ??????????? http://www.Wage90.com

  54. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  55. RE: Trump Supporters?in Their Own Words?Demonstrate How Little GOP Understands What’s Happening
    Nobody cares that he’s not a ‘real conservative.’ That’s not the point.

    Comrade Trump once said we (meaning the unwashed masses) don’t pay enough in taxes.
    What party is he representing again?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.