Donald Trump: Security, Health Care, and Education Top Three Roles for Federal Government

Your Republican frontrunner

CNN

At a televised town hall on CNN tonight, Donald Trump was asked what he believed the three most important priorities of the federal government. After saying he'd like to name "security" as all three top priorities, he gave host Anderson Cooper two more, healthcare and education.

So the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican nomination for president believes the top three roles of the federal government are:

1. Security

2. Health care

3. Education

You can consult the U.S. Constitution here to try to find where healthcare and education are enumerated as federal responsibilities.

The "cuckservatives" look like they're inside the house. Donald Trump's supporters have spent the last nine months arguing his conservative opponents weren't really conservatives.

Cooper seemed surprised, and asked what kind of role for education and healthcare the federal government should have. Trump gave a rambling answer about "the country as a whole" or something like that. Constitutional limits, pth. Your 2016 Republican frontrunner.

Comments

[Crusty Juggler]

Trump 2016!

[coloraDOOM]

I'm telling the administration.

[GILMORE?]

I NEED THERAPY NOW!

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

He's no worse than Hillary Clinton! And do you really want someone as awful as Hillary Clinton as president? Vote Trump!

[GILMORE?]

Please, for the love of God = vote for Gary Johnson and stop fucking whining already.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

I'm not whining! I'm mocking! *sniffles*

[GILMORE?]

the actual trump supporters here can be counted on one hand, yet we have entire threads ridden with moaning as though this is Emory University, and everyone is being oppressed on all sides by a non-stop barrage of Pro-Trump boostering

And what is mostly being characterized as that is just exasperation and boredom with Reason's 24/7 pants-shitting and hyperbole about it all.

someone put it well in the previous thread =

RBS|3.29.16 @ 10:06PM| block | mute | #

Yeah, I don't really understand the position some people seem to have adopted that not hating Trump and denouncing everything surrounding him at all times is basically the same as supporting Trump.

[SIV]

STFU and VOTE TRUMP, cosmo

[GILMORE?]

(holds up hand, and ticks off the pinky finger)

[wareagle]

I'm not a supporter but part of me thinks the biggest fear of a Trump presidency comes from the professional politician class. If he were to win and catastrophe did NOT follow, then the whole TopMen veneer would be eliminated, even for the low-information Team sycophants.

He may well be further left than Hillary and his list tonight includes two strikes in conservative circles, but society is debating taking a leak as a political statement, so what's a little more bizarro.

[Robert]

Double edged sword. It'd say we don't need professional politicians, but if things go exceptionally well it might also say the best Top Men come from biz.

What I'd really like to see is non-lawyers as Sup. Ct. judges.

[robc]

Trump is a top man candidate. Just a different set of top men.

[Trigger Warning]

Not really. Trumpets consider Trump a Top Man. He's in a suit and speaks authoritatively about things and stuff.

[Nihil]

He's in a suit and speaks authoritatively about things and stuff

Isn't that exactly what constitutes a Top Man?

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Interesting interview - Jeffrey Tucker on Trump:

http://choiceconversations.lib.....rey-tucker

[GILMORE?]

Does he discuss his "Cross Burning" analogy?

[Chipper Morning Wood]

No, but toward the end, he discusses inside information about why Rand became soured on libertarians. Interesting stuff.

[GILMORE?]

why Rand became soured on libertarians.

That does sound interesting.

[GILMORE?]

in case anyone else might be interested, he seems to get to the Rand Paul topic @ 1.02.00

what i heard from 50:00-1:00:00 was pretty dull, IMHO. mostly tucker moaning about how Trump represents a racist anti-christ/gozar the destroyer.

the host of the show seems to think Rand decided that the "Blame America for 9/11" Ron-Paul stuff was bad-politics. which i agree is probably what he thought (and i agree with the notion)

i don't agree with the host's point that "This would instantly alienate all libertarians".

Tucker's point about Rand seems to be that the Paultards from 2012 felt Rand betrayed everyone by failing to endorse Ron (even after Ron was effectively out of the race)... and he got all these death-threats and insults etc. from "his dad's people".

Which naturally might put a person off of the idea of trying to please 'doctrinaire libertarians'. "with friends like these"...etc.

Shorter = Rand believes "they're politically naive and useless as constituents". Surprise.

Tucker doesn't really comment on whether this is *true* or not, and just says this is what Rand was thinking.

[jarflax]

All Trump All The Time

[GILMORE?]

You'd think Ed would be praising the guy for not saying =

#1 = first we kick all the Mexicans out

[Pat (PM)]

Well, what do you think "security" is?

[GILMORE?]

touche

[Quincy.]

"If security means a world without burritos, let my people have food carts!"
?B. Franklin

[Pat (PM)]

I wonder how he will achieve his federal education goals when he plans to eliminate the Department of Education and kill Common Core?

[jarflax]

Actually I think doing that would do more to promote education than any other plan I have heard.

[Pat (PM)]

True, and I suppose if you frame it the way Social Contractor does below it could even be spun into a coherent statement. Still, calling education one of the top 3 roles for the federal government when you've previously argued that the role of the federal government is "don't do anything" is an unusual usage.

[Social Contractor]

I don't know if "priorities" translates to roles as it could mean the priority is to unregulate or stop fucking with it so much. Which I would agree with.

But I suspect that Trump is the sort of guy who can't accept that there's a problem that can be solved by markets that couldn't better be solved by his yuuuge intellect.

I would love to see a candidate that says "I can't do shit, I'm a politician. I don't make anything."

[PapayaSF]

I think it's obvious that Trump is more aware of the powers of the market than Hillary or Bernie.

[Spencer]

Nah. He's forest gumped his way to where he is.

[lulztopian]

Yeah people just luck into billions every day. That's why you're a billionaire, right? Because it's really easy.

[Spencer]

It was easy for forest gump.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Forrest Gump is a character from a book that was turned into a movie.

[GILMORE?]

Most of Trump's early money was inherited, and half of his subsequent business deals (real estate) did well, and the other half tanked like the Titanic.

If he'd had to do it all from scratch, he'd be a modestly successful nobody. His main asset is an ego the size of Jupiter.

[Notorious UGCC]

I would have used the name of a certain ringed planet.

[GILMORE?]

No on is interested in uranus.

[Notorious UGCC]

I'll tell my doctor.

[Quincy.]

I would have gone with a certain axially tilted planet.

[robc]

Iirc, he has less money than if he had socked his inheritance away in an index fund.

This isnt a bad thing, but you dont get to hail yourself as a business genius if you cant beat the market.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Iirc, he has less money than if he had socked his inheritance away in an index fund.

Lizzy One Drop used this argument (how ironic) as proof that Trump was a "loser". It's a dumb argument for a few of reasons:

1) His overall wealth would have taken massive hits in 87, 01, and 08.
2) It assumes no withdrawals and no tax.
3) If everybody did nothing but sock their money away in an index fund, nothing would actually get built.
4) Real estate is a notoriously fickle market that even the best players get soaked on sometimes. Witness the housing bubble.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

1 is irrelevant because the claim is made including those events.
2 is similarly irrelevant because it's not as if he was making active withdrawals from his real estate capital.
3 is also irrelevant because the whole ppint about trump is his suppposed business/investment acumen. If his investments can't consistently beat a broad index then he isn't outperforming the overall economy. The fact that others can oitperform an index by building/investing in specific projects puts paid to the notion that he's successful.
4 - are steaks, vodka, or the casino business as fickle? If he's such a great businessman, why can't he compete and win in less fickle arenas?

[Red Rocks Rockin]

2 is similarly irrelevant because it's not as if he was making active withdrawals from his real estate capital

No, the argument is that he'd have more wealth if he put all of his money in an index fund instead of his real estate deals.

3 is also irrelevant because the whole ppint about trump is his suppposed business/investment acumen.

If Trump was supposed to do nothing but put all of his money in an index fund, then by your logic, EVERYONE should be doing the same thing. You're making a point that has no basis in reality.

If his investments can't consistently beat a broad index then he isn't outperforming the overall economy.

There's a lot of people whose investments haven't beaten a broad index. That doesn't make them poor investors, which is what you're arguing.

4 - are steaks, vodka, or the casino business as fickle?

Actually, yeah.

If he's such a great businessman, why can't he compete and win in less fickle arenas?

How many of these arenas have you built a billion-dollar empire with?

[JeremyR]

That's the thing though - as a crony capitalist, Trump doesn't know anything about markets other than the government can help decide who wins and loses.

And the government/politicians can do things, just not as efficiently as the market.

Space is a great example. Government got us to the Moon, while private industry can barely reach low Earth orbit. They can do it much cheaper, though.

[Spencer]

That's silly. It's also only been a few years with much less investment.

[robc]

The current government cant get us to the moon.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Or LEO. But we've got awesome cupholders in the $8BB capsule that can, um, sit on the ground.

[EscherEnigma]

Sputnik 1 took flight in 1957, and the first moon landing in 1969. And they had to do a lot of the basic research first to get that far.

In contrast, the early 2000s saw a bunch of private spaceflight ventures pop up. Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and so-on. There's plans to get commercial passengers in space by 2018.

So I'm not sure that's "silly". Private industry, not counting the big boost from already having NASA do decades of research and design work ahead of time, has had more then a "few years". And any difference in investment is actually the point. Government has an easier time with pie-in-the-sky projects, big bold things.

Private industry is better at taking a big bold thing and making it mundane and common place.

[SilentCal]

You mean like only providing things that people actually want (when also considering the price tag) instead of just doing random crap because it makes for good TV?

Fucking assholes

[PapayaSF]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is Ed telling us that Trump is not a libertarian?? Huh. Well, you learn something new every day.

The interesting question, setting aside the Platonic world of pure ideology for a moment, seems to me to be: What does this mean in the real world? What does he think the exact role of the federal government is, and even more importantly, how do those views contrast with his election opponents? I suggest that as a businessman and more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, he would be more open to libertarian (or libertarian-flavored) solutions than Hillary or Bernie.

[lulztopian]

Yes, and he's said as much, at least wrt to healthcare, where his plan was to repeal PPACA and allow the sale of insurance across state lines...which sounds pretty good to me.

[Hyperion]

I heard him today talking about getting rid of 85% of regulations. That would actually make him a libertarian in that regard. I mean, if he meant it and wasn't just talking. Now, talking, that is something Trump does, a lot, and I don't see him stopping anytime soon. What else he would do as potus is entirely unknown, but talking a lot, that's a sure thing.

[wareagle]

that's the thing with Trump. Much of what he says sounds like stream of consciousness but of the moment, meaning he could well say the total opposite at some future point.

[Suicidy]

If he got rid of 20% of regulation, it would be a Godsend,

[Gilbert Martin]

"I heard him today talking about getting rid of 85% of regulations."

That would be good - except the executive branch doesn't actually have the power to unilaterally do that.

Trump, Hillary and Bernie have all been spouting off about various and sundry things they would do as if they were being elected Emperor of Rome rather than the President of the United States. They wouldn't have the authority to do any of them.

[GILMORE?]

It sounds to me that he's just punting by picking the simplest headline-topics that voters rank highly

(*because "the economy/jobs" is too vague, and "the deficit" means he would have to pretend to be a spending hawk, which would be surprisingly new, etc)

I don't know what that has to do with the Cucktardia. Is the shocker (to ed) that Trump's just another politican, policy wise? Why is that news?

Wasn't it just last week that Suderman et al all seem to have suddenly grasped what everyone else figured out months ago? = That Trump and his support has little-to-nothing to do with "Ideology" or "Policy"?

[Spencer]

Or rationality. Or good looks.

[GILMORE?]

those too. But when did they ever matter? Voters aren't rational, and ugly people seem to love politics.

[lap83]

ugly people seem to love politics.

Hey! We are just as God made us

[Pat (PM)]

Or good looks.

I beg your pardon?

[Pat (PM)]

dammit

[This Machine]

God bless America.

[Notorious UGCC]

That article linked to this article.

"[A rapper calling himself] T.I. said that if one of his fans "supports all of Trump's actions," he doesn't want them to buy his music.

""Some things are more important than money to me," he added.

"In early March, T.I. endorsed Bernie Sanders for president."

Numero uno, the Sanders jokes kind of write themselves, but the author of the article was probably aware of the implications.

Numero two-o, Mr. T.I. seems to be hedging - "look, I know you support Trump's border wall, but d you support *all* his actions? Even his divorces? You don't? Great, you can buy my records."

Numero three-o, just to be clear, people who *don't* vote for Trump I still don't have to buy T.I.'s records either, I hope.

[GILMORE?]

"[A rapper calling himself] T.I.

T.I. has a handful of Grammys and a dozen top-40 hits. Not everyone lives in a cave, Eddie.

[Notorious UGCC]

Oh, *that* T.I. I thought they meant his cousin, the less popular one.

[Pat (PM)]

I thought they meant the calculator people

[Rhywun]

I couldn't name a Grammy winner from the last ten years and I don't live in a cave. At a certain age you just give a shit what's popular, just what's good (to you).

[Rhywun]

*don't give a shit

[lulztopian]

Given that education is enshrined in all fifty state constitutions, government is already prioritizing education, so I'm not seeing the problem with Trump's answer.

Here's the thing about those "rambling" answers: Trump speaks like a real person would, where he expects a level of shared knowledge with the audience and figures you can fill in the blanks.

[Spencer]

Please not a trump apologist. It's just too much.

[GILMORE?]

its a troll.

[Spencer]

Potato, potahto.

[Pat (PM)]

Given that education is enshrined in all fifty state constitutions, government is already prioritizing education, so I'm not seeing the problem with Trump's answer.

They asked him about the role of the federal government, not the state governments. And he's previously said that basically, the fedgov should largely get out of education and let state and local governments handle it. Which is a perfectly good position to hold, but it means reducing the fedgov's role in education, which makes the answer a bit unorthodox.

[Ken Shultz]

"Given that education is enshrined in all fifty state constitutions, government is already prioritizing education, so I'm not seeing the problem with Trump's answer."

It's a good thing there isn't anything about slavery in the state constitutions--or I guess you wouldn't have any problem if Trump supported that, too?

I don't reverence our rights because they're in the Constitution. I reverence the Constitution becasue it protects our rights. If and when it fails at that, screw the Constitution.

What do I care if the Constitution of whatever state protects education? California's Constitution says that at least 40% of all expenditures need to go to to K-12 education. Now the average teacher in California makes about $70,000 per year--not including benefits. Fuck California's Constitution. If the federal government were involved, it would only be worse.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

What color crayon did you use to fill in those blanks between the sounds of Trump's dog whistle? Schutzstaffel brown?

[Gilbert Martin]

I expect Trump and his supporters do share pretty much the same level of knowledge about most issues.

And that level is not much at all.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

So Trump is Kang. Or was it Kodos that called for abortions and tiny American flags?

[Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper]

That was Florida Man

[Ken Shultz]

We talked last week about how Trump is to the left of Paul Krugman on free trade.

We've been talking for the last three months about how Trump is appealing to the same demographic we used to call "Reagan Democrats"--white, middle class, blue collar workers who've been alienated by progressives, social justice warriors, environmentalists, feminists, et. al. in the Democratic Party.

I don't see why it should be surprising to anybody to find that Trump's appeal is somewhere to the left of libertarians and fiscal conservatives. I guess it's a surprise to all the journalists who've been demonizing Trump as some kind of right wing nut over the last six months. But then I'm starting to think the journalist establishment is the last group to catch on to anything.

[Jerryskids]

I thought Trump's big appeal was because he's expressing the anger the conservatives feel over being sold a bill of goods by the faux-conservative "establishment" for so many years - that Trump was the Real Deal. The same people who rejected the media-designated "right-wing extremist" McCain and Romney because they weren't really right-wing at all but merely RINOs, the same McCain and Romney who got trounced by Obama because the majority of voters apparently don't actually want even a moderately right-wing candidate. And now Trump, who his supporters seem to think is even more genuinely right-wing conservative than the guys that were too right-wing conservative to get elected, is somehow going to sweep the series here? If Trump has to run hard right to get the GOP primary nod, doesn't this suggest that he's going to move toward the center, be more moderate, for the general? And if Trump becomes more moderate, gets more Dem votes than Hillary, appeals more to Democrats than an actual Democrat - isn't he a Democrat? That would certaily explain why he talks so little about making government smaller in any fashion, I suppose. But, damn, that makes him as unlibertarian as any other candidate.

[Ken Shultz]

Remember, Cruz is a Tea Party guy. He's the Republican reaction to the establishment.

Trump is a Republican reaction to the Democrat PC brigades, but he's also a reaction by people who would be Democrats--if it weren't for the Democratic Party demonizing them for being white, blue collar, and middle class.

The white, blue collar middle class used to be the bread and butter of the Democratic party. They've become convinced that the Democratic Party doesn't care about them anymore--because the Democratic Party doesn't care about them anymore.

There are so many people out there who've come to believe that the Democratic Party is for gays, minorities, environmentalists, social justice warriors, illegal immigrants, and feminists--and that all of those groups should hate the white, blue collar, middle class for being white, blue collar, and middle class.

We have to stop believing that Trump supporters are all traditional Republican in character--fiscally conservative, pro-capitalism, etc. The white, blue collar, middle class used to be the base of the Democratic Party. They still are! To paraphrase Reagan, they haven't left the Democratic Party--the Democratic Party has left them.

[Ken Shultz]

Trump Democrats are no more into fiscal conservatism than Democrats were under Tip O'Neill. They're still Democrats. They're Robert Byrd style Democrats. Trump could very easily be a Democrat except for one thing--he doesn't demonize white, middle class, blue collar workers. The disruption we're seeing in the Republican Party isn't because of a philosophical split between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. It's a split between Republicans on the one side--and traditional Democrats flooding into the Republican Party because they're being chased out by Democrats.

Nationally, I think the Democratic leadership even hates Irish and Italian Catholics now--for being Catholic! I can't believe that's happening!

The Democrats (environmentalists, gay rights people, BLM, illegal immigrant activists, feminists, et. al), are so convinced that the white, blue collar, middle class is the enemy of all that's good and holy, they've managed to convince the white, blue collar, middle class that they should all be Republicans. It's an amazing thing.

[GILMORE?]

I think that's a decent summary, Ken. I'd quibble with some small details, but that's the gist of it.

[EscherEnigma]

That's a lot of "ifs".

With the normal caveat of general-election polling this early being unreliable, every poll I've seen has Clinton beating Trump, with a significant cross-over of Republicans voting for Clinton with few Democrats voting for Trump. Heck, that group (Republicans voting for Clinton) make up a huge chunk of that "Gary Johnson would steal voters from Trump and Clinton" poll recently.

So sure, if all your "ifs" were true, then yeah, whatever. But there's no reason to put any stock in that train of "ifs".

[LarryA]

the three most important priorities of the federal government

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the People. Period.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Simple, if you study history.

[Ken Shultz]

+1

Although I start breaking down personally if you ask me about whether the government should have a role in educating orphans--but even that's about government protecting the rights of the defenseless.

When I sell this idea to non-libertarians, it sounds something like this:

If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights. In no particular order, our priorities should be 1) to protect our rights from foreign threats by way of a military, 2) to protect our rights from criminals through a police force, and 3) to protect our rights from the police and others through a system of courts.

To whatever extent anything the government does is a priority, it is only a priority because it protects our rights. Make a persuasive case that whatever you want the government to do will protect our rights, and I might consider it a legitimate priority.

[Homple]

Nice, but Trump is running for President and 1952 vintage North Dakota high school declamation day recitals of the founding documents won't help him win in 2016.

[maralize legajuana]

I would say that environmental protection would be promoting the general welfare. Of course nuclear power could fix a lot of these problems but god forbid progressives actually support something practical

[Notorious UGCC]

I'm waiting to get The Art of the Deal from my local library - I'm next in line, but the previous patron sure is taking his/her sweet time reading it.

I read his campaign manifesto, Vote for Me, or whatever it was called. Interesting and concise in its expression. Keeps going back to himself.

This is his campaign Web site (unless some prankster has fooled me).

It seems that he has "Positions" on the following issues: Healthcare Reform, US-China Trade Reform, Veterans Administration Reforms, Tax Reform, Second Amendment Rights, and Immigration Reform.

I didn't actually see a section on education.

On health care:

"Completely repeal Obamacare....

"Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements [wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?], any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state....

"Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns...

"Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)....

"Require price transparency from all healthcare providers...

"Block-grant Medicaid to the states....

"Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products....

"The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start...."

[Jerryskids]

If you are delving into that book, I shall say a prayer for your sanity.

[Notorious UGCC]

You're locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but thank you for the thought.

[Robert]

I know, right? I can't figure out why HyR bloggers would be so down on him as to policy, out of all the major candidates.

The scary thing is that in the recent polls, the only Republican contender for POTUS who's beating Democrats (even Sanders) is Kasich.

[straffinrun]

If you won't see the truth, well, I can't help you get out.

[Notorious UGCC]

My Dinner With Andre got really bad reviews from the Farm Film Report.

[Suicidy]

Those cunts!

[GILMORE?]

I keep waiting for Mr. Epistemological Windbag to drop dead from Iocane poisoning.

[SIV]

Locane kills

[GILMORE?]

eye-o-cane. sheesh.

it is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is one the most deadly poisons known to man.

[Notorious UGCC]

Speaking of tasteless...

[TheZeitgeist]

Ask Hillary same question, and her first answer would be more wishes.

[Hyperion]

Hey, some fucking Jimmy Dean sausage ad just hijacked the site and tried to force me to watch it, and only it. WTF Reason?

[Notorious UGCC]

Ja, und tell me more of zis dream of yours...

[Hyperion]

Ok, I was actually typing a comment when Jimmy Dean hijacked my browser. That fucking dream!

[Notorious UGCC]

OK, you can't let this Dean guy push you around.

Go right up to him and say, "thanks to you, I just became a vegan, and I made your wife a vegan except on Wednesdays, when she...you know..."

[Notorious UGCC]

Don't hesitate to ask me if you need any more down-to-earth advice.

[Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!]

Adblock or Adblock Plus

[Robert]

OK, but what kind of trap Q is that? You want to say security & stop there, but if you're pressed for 2 more, what can you answer that won't annoy radical libertarians? Delivering the mail? Roadz? They're Constitutional, but do they make you any happier? He didn't say war on foods, drugs, or obscenity, or anything else busybodyish. He didn't pick out some new biz that fedgov's hardly involved in now, like, say, broadcasting or phone service. He said nothing worse than anyone else who's not a radical libertarian (who might uncooperatively say nothing other than security) would say, and a good sight better than many would.

[rudehost]

" He said nothing worse than anyone else who's not a radical libertarian (who might uncooperatively say nothing other than security) would say"

Exactly because we know that your average rank and file republican believes the federal government's top responsibilities are health care and education. That is like totally mainstream.

The lengths you people will go to in order to defend this rug topped mouth breather is astounding.

[Bra Ket]

Yeah I was thinking this as well. The article stepped right over his first and preferred answer to attack the consultant-soundbite bs he came up with when pressed, which as the article noted, he wasn't even able to explain or expand on.

Though Trump's idea of security is significantly different, I'm sure. And they were really bad 2nd and 3rd priorities.

[Emmerson Biggins]

Asking somebody who wants to be the CEO of an organization what the top 3 priorities of that organization are isn't a trap question.

[Hyperion]

So, I've been gone for 3 days and first thing I come back, what do I see? A Trump article! How totally unexpected, you keep us in such suspense, never know what you guys will do next. I mean, what sort of Trump article is next I mean.

Has anyone ever really listened to this guy? I saw a live feed of him today. I'll have to give him credit for one thing. I can actually, at this point, stand to listen to him for a few minutes. So there's +1 for the Trumpster over Obama.

But the guy talking, it's just all the same thing. Here's what he sounds like, whether you listen for 20 minutes or 2 hours, it's all the same version of this, just substitute any issue.

You know what we're going to do? We're going to build a wall. You know what else we're going to do? I talked to a lot of people people yesterday who are Christians, pastors, and they told me... you know what they told me? I love these guys, they're good guys. You know what else we're going to do? I talked to a lot of people in Wisconsin yesterday and they told me there's too many regulations. You know what we're going to do? We're going to get rid of about 85% of regulations. I love those Wisonsin people, they're great people. And we're going to protect our 2nd amendment. You know what else...

Seriously, this is the way he talks.

[Heroic Mulatto]

The Reason Magazine Hit 'n Run commenter known as Hyperion is a totally overrated clown who speaks without knowing the facts. -- Donald J. Trump

[Steve G]

Needs moar "many, many"s...

[Bra Ket]

I've been thinking of it as a guy with his own radio show. He just rambles on enjoying the sound of his own voice while everyone is running in circles trying to dissect his chatter and freaking out like he's the antichrist. I guess people just prefer lies that are more scripted and robotic because that's what they are used to.

[Notorious UGCC]

For Gilmore - per your request.

Well, not really a request per se.

Actually, Gilmore was *against* me linking it rather than in favor.

[Notorious UGCC]

Janet Yellen talks interest rates

(no, not really)

[Notorious UGCC]

Donald Trump is already working on his inaugural address, and someone leaked a copy.

[Notorious UGCC]

The Kasich campaign's last-ditch plan to persuade voters to vote for him already.

(may be NSFW)

[Notorious UGCC]

Alternate set-up: Donald Trump threatens to use an ice laser on enemy countries.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

His answer is neither controversial nor remarkable.

[Notorious UGCC]

Hillary won't debate Sanders unless he tones down his ads.

(NSFW)

[Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper]

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here

[buybuydandavis]

Donald Trump's supporters have spent the last nine months arguing his conservative opponents weren't really conservatives.

And how does showing that Trump is not a conservative refute that claim?

Did anyone think he was a conservative?

[GILMORE?]

Donald Trump's supporters have spent the last nine months arguing his conservative opponents weren't really conservatives.

I'm not even sure what the evidence for that really is. It seems to be just enlarging from a small segment of voters and projecting it on the great unwashed mass that is pro-trump, which, as the Guardian noted, isn't as monolithic as some in the media want to believe.

I think its just Ed's handy strawman. Needless to say, Trump's own lack of conservative bona-fides haven't proven a problem for his supporters. As Matt Taibbi observed =

Cheryl Donlon says she heard the tariff message loud and clear and she's fine with it, despite the fact that it clashes with traditional conservatism.

"We need someone who is just going to look at what's best for us," she says.

I mention that Trump's plan is virtually identical to Dick Gephardt's idea from way back in the 1988 Democratic presidential race, to fight the Korean Hyundai import wave with retaliatory tariffs.

Donlon says she didn't like that idea then.

Why not?

"I didn't like him," she says

[AlmightyJB]

Principals

[Bra Ket]

bit suspicious when the reporter only paraphrases part of the answer then quotes another part to imply hypocrisy. Is it on the video?

[Notorious UGCC]

Hillary's new ad explains why the people should vote for her.

[Notorious UGCC]

Oh dear, Gilmore was right, I can't troll to save my life.

So, folks, it's either up my game, or up yours.

[AlmightyJB]

Daddy!

[Notorious UGCC]

If this link doesn't elicit a response, I guess everyone is asleep or something.

[Notorious UGCC]

Maybe that's a hint to me.

[neoteny]

Not very OT: 16 States Announce a New Coalition to 'Fight for Climate Change Progress'

Sixteen of the nation's top law enforcement officals have come together to curb greenhouse gas pollution, advance clean energy, and pursue joint investigations into whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies committed crimes by lying to investors and the public about climate change.

[Trigger Warning]

Luke Perry turned into Zach Galiafinakis?!

[some guy]

I'd say there are only three things the fedgov should be doing, so they are by default the only three priorities:

1. Protecting individual natural rights against government at all levels
2. Protecting individual natural rights against international threats
3. Handling disputes between states

I'll admit you can argue about the order of 1. and 2.

[Meritocrat]

Wondering what Trump could accomplish as President? My 2010 political suspense novel Progress is about a celebrity real estate developer who runs for president to prevent an economic collapse. Progress, not only foresaw that a man with no political experience would take down the media and win the presidency, it also, in warning of an impending economic crisis, correctly predicted that China and other nations would now be dumping US Treasuries. For those wondering what could happen if Trump goes all the way, Progress reveals an agenda that could rescue America and a masterstroke Trump could pull to get it passed. Have you heard all the "alpha dog" talk surrounding Trump? Progress gets to the bottom of this too! http://www.amazon.com/Progress.....B003XIIZUS