Donald Trump

Trump Meets with Congressional Republicans, Hilarity Ensues

Big fan of Article XII of the Constitution, threatens to start publicly attacking Republican Sen. Jeff Flake.


Gake Skidmore

Donald Trump met with House and Senate Republicans today, some of whom have yet to endorse the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it does not sound like it went well, based on what sources told the Washington Post about the closed-door sessions.

Trump, according to the Post, targeted two of the senators who have been vocal about their refusal to endorse him so far, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, who actually endorsed Trump before withdrawing the endorsement and did not attend the meeting. According to the Post, Trump called Kirk a "loser" and predicted he would carry Illinois, which has not voted for a Republican for president since George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Flake reportedly asked Trump about his controversial comments, insisting he wasn't part of the "Never Trump" movement and saying he wanted to endorse Trump but was uncomfortable doing so. According to the Post, Trump told Flake he hadn't attacked him yet but may start to do so and predicted Flake would lose his election. Flake, according to the Post, had to point out he's not on the ballot this year.

Trump also engaged with Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a prominent opponent of Trump's nomination. A spokesperson for Sasse told the Post they "had a gracious exchange" but that Sasse still believes "this election remains a dumpster fire."

On the House side, South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford described Trump's comments to House Republicans as "the normal stream of consciousness that's long on hyperbole and short on facts" to the Washington Post, telling their reporter that "at one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, 'I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,' going down the list. There is no Article XII."

Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith appeared to confirm the flub to the Post. "When he made the comment about the Constitution, I love this Article and that Article, I assumed he was talking about the Amendments, because he was off on the numbers," Griffith told the Post.

Trump spent a portion of his time with House Republicans explaining his Saddam Hussein comments—the Iraqi dictator was very good at killing terrorists but a very bad guy otherwise, according to Trump, who blamed the media for allegedly misconstruing his comments.

Some Republicans remain optimistic. "If you look at the trajectory of his unforced errors, he's getting better," Texas Rep. Bill Flores told the Post. "I mean, he's not where we want him to be, but he's getting better."

At, Donald Trump has a 23 percent chance of winning the presidency. Trump is about 5 points behind Hillary Clinton in the average of two-way polls and three-way polls which include Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

NEXT: Black Lives Matter and So Do Their Gun Rights: Where's the NRA on Philando Castile?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I just love it when the Cosmos at reason start defending the integrity of Republican Congress Critters.

    1. Seriously. You guys at reason want to be cool and say “a pox on both houses”. Well guess what? We have a pox on both houses and it is called Trump.

      1. You do understand that there’s a difference between opposing the two parties as a means to the end of creating a government that better respects the liberty of the citizenry and opposing the two parties in service of granting power to an authoritarian clown, right?

        1. Only vaguely. Maybe if it was told as a youtube serial with puppets I would get it. You’re right though, this is a pox on everything.

      2. I’ll agree that Trump is a pox.

      3. The only people hurt by Trump are the American people.

    2. You must of read a different article than I did.

      1. must have

        1. Look, if we had an edit button I could avoid this. Or maybe have a paralegal proofread my posts.

    3. Ed? a Cosmo? lol.

      Have you ever even read any of his stuff?

      1. I bet Ed is sipping a gimlet right now! A gimlet!

        1. The guy from the dwarf bar?

      2. Come on, who reads the articles?

      3. Come on, who reads the articles?

        1. Besides the squirrels, obviously.

    4. NEEDZ MOAR COCKTALE PARTIEZ!!1!!111!!!!!!

  2. My favorite is Article LXIX. Article XXX is pretty good, too.

    1. Someone should have asked Trump about Article 786 which makes Sharia the Law of the Land. His response would have been one for posterity.

  3. “Dumpster fire”

    Yeah, I’ll go with that.

  4. South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford described Trump’s comments to House Republicans as “the normal stream of consciousness that’s long on hyperbole and short on facts”

    God damnit Sanford. You were the chosen one. You were going to bring back balance to the force. But no! you had to go diddle an Argentinian chick, and get caught.

    1. ^This.

      He’s a decent politico, but he let his Glans instead of Cerebrum do the thinking.

      1. So did Bill Clinton.

        1. Bill was smart enough to (a) marry a bigger sociopath than he was and (b)never diddle anyone prettier than her.

          1. I’m comfortable saying Flowers > Hillary.

          2. Bill was smart enough to run as a Democrat.

      2. He should’ve been defiant. Talked about getting sweet Latin American ass and how everyone is just jealous. Seriously. I’ve become so cynical that I honestly could not care a whit about pols’ private lives. (I know, they could be blackmailed, etc. )

  5. Trump told Flake he hadn’t attacked him yet but may start to do so and predicted Flake would lose his election. Flake, according to the Post, had to point out he’s not on the ballot this year.

    You know, you’d think that Trump would at least have remembered that McCain is up for reelection in Arizona, and that Senators from the same state aren’t up for reelection in the same year unless there’s a special election.

    But good lord is the guy a buffoon.

    1. Hey! Don’t insult Trump. He is, per Kevin D. Williamson, “Sean Hannity’s Tangerine Dream”.

      1. Williamson is such a douche bag.

        1. From his article Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State: The White Working Class’s Dysfunction

          The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.

          The soul of Republican cucks, laid bare.

      2. It’s absolutely gross to see Hannity reduced to a high school cheerleader waving his pom-poms for The Donald.

        1. Hanity has always been an epic know nothing douche bag. Just exactly how is it possible for him to be any more reduced than he already was? If anything, Hanity has probably raised his stature by cheering for the Donald. God knows it couldn’t get any worse.

        2. Rule 34, though.

          1. Ugh.

          2. Sometimes there just isn’t enough tequilla.

    2. I could forgive him this one. What is the value of knowing when any particular politician is up for reelection?

      1. Value? None. But at least it would show that he’s up to speed on things and is willing to get along with them. This just shows that Trump doesn’t give two fucks about Flake’s seat, or Mark Kirk’s seat, or anyone else’s. And you know what? Trump’s fans are okay with that. Even it means Donald has to work with a Democrat Congress. (Probably wouldn’t bother him, TBH.)

        1. It doesn’t even show that much. It just shows that Trump isn’t paying attention, doesn’t want to pay attention, and doesn’t think he needs to pay attention. He thinks he can just use the same bullying tactics that play well with his supporters, even when he’s talking with people that don’t buy his schtick.

      2. Well if you’re going to threaten to attack a politician so that he loses an election, it might help to know whether said politician is actually up for election. Otherwise you look like a doofus throwing around meaningless threats.

  6. “If you look at the trajectory of his unforced errors, he’s getting better”


    1. Yes, that was the best line in the article.. I definitely found funny. Hey! he’s shitting his pants less. Such a big boy!

    2. Except that no one outside of the Washington media hive gives a shit. Sorry but the “gaffe” card is maxed out.

      1. Very true. Just as no one cared when Biden thought Article I described the role of the VP, people will think expecting Trump to be knowledgeable on the contents of the Constitution is just elitist “gotcha” questions.

      2. About this specific gaffe or in general? The former, I agree with, this won’t hurt it (it does further demonstrate his lack of knowledge, however). The latter, well, the fact that he’s down in the polls against a terrible candidate like Hillary Clinton shows otherwise.

        1. Hillary has tons of media support, although it appears to be withering a bit.

    3. I would think they would be more interested the trajectory of Trump’s election results.

    4. Thing is, Trump is a populist, and the people don’t really know more than him or care. He basically just went and talked to a bunch of nerds that everyone hates (because they are pompous asshats, not because they are nerds) and mixed up some deep Star Trek and Star Wars Trivia, and while they’re laughing at him, his own base is thinking “fucking nerds”.

      Trump has cultivated the contempt of the elite for him to sell an image of himself as an avatar of the masses who feel the same contempt every day (but, in his shit-talking way, he’s making himself the person they want to be, the person who gets the chance to tell a scumbag politician or journalist or intellectual to his face that he’s a stupid asshat and his mom is a filthy whore).

      1. You nailed it ant1sthenes. That is exactly what is going on.

        The only thing I would add is that the politicians, journalists and intellectuals are asshats and it is an insult to whores to call their mothers one.

      2. Great. I hope it’s worth losing the election in a missive landslide to Hillary Clinton.

        1. And if that doesn’t happen Hazel, what are you going to do? You seem to have so much at stake in that being true. How are you going to handle it?

          1. I’m going to enjoy the bitter tears of whichever side loses.
            I fucking hate both Hillary and Trump, so it’s win-win.

          2. That said. Trump has no chance. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool who has made the fatal error of believing their own propaganda.

        2. Fuck yes it is. Let’s give the Republic a bullet in the brain rather than rectal cancer. It’s dead regardless.

          1. You mean Hillary is a bullet, right? Because that’s what you’re going to get. Four years of President Hillary Clinton. I hope you like it.

            1. So… you prefer Trump now? Because I hope I don’t have to explain to you that Johnson is not going to win. It will be Hillary or Trump, barring a convention coup, indictment, or assassination.

              1. I support Johnson. If it was close I might consider voting for Clinton, but it’s not going to be close.

      3. Dead on, ant1sthenes

  7. BTW Kirk, Flake and sAsse are all scumbag losers.

    1. Is that you Donald?

      1. Is that you Donald?


      1. Loony loser can’t spell five letter words. Sad!

    2. “Horrible people. Horrible people. Just horrible.”

      In reality, Flake is one of the better GOP senators. He’s actually libertarian on a few things.

      1. Flake is not horrible. And he is way better than McCain

        1. And he is way better than McCain

          Talk about damning someone with faint praise.

          1. He’s way more libertarian than Trump.

            1. I am not a libertarian. So what difference does that make to me?

    3. sAsse

      Say what you will about Mike M, but that guy sure is inspirational.

      1. Much like Winston’s mom’s flesh apron, he looms large.

  8. This is the moment where I think Scott Adam’s vision of a sane Trump’s 3rd act turns into fantasy. What a spectacle.

  9. Mother Jones is on the case. “Donald Trump has never read the constitution”. This is fun.

    1. How would they know?

      1. Why would they suddenly care whether or not a candidate has read the Constitution?

        1. No kidding.

        2. Understanding the deficiencies of how the Supreme Court upholds the constitution is important when you are trying to get around its limits.

          In this fashion, Trump may be the better candidate for not understanding it. His blundering will keep him from being effective.

      2. We comment on unread articles all the time. This is a little to pot/kettle for me.

    2. So… he’s in good company with the staff of Mother Jones?

      1. And the past few occupants of the White House.

        Barry has read the secret full-text version, though, that gives the President to pass laws and appoint judges when Congress fails to act, launch kinetic military actions when an authorization from Congress appears in doubt, spy on everyone always, and murder U.S. citizens when he feels like it.

    3. Of course, neither have most of the staff at Mother Jones or most of the electorate.

    4. “That musty outdated old scrap of paper that white slave holders made up?”/Progtard

    5. I’m gonna love the part where they ask the writers to name 3 things protected by the first amendment.

      1. Or even half of the power powers enumerated in Article 1, section 8.

      2. “name 3 things protected by the first amendment.”

        Oral, anal, and premarital.

  10. At, Donald Trump has a 23 percent chance of winning the presidency. Trump is about 5 points behind Hillary Clinton in the average of two-way polls and three-way polls which include Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

    So a five point lead translates into a 75% chance of winning?

    1. Yes.

      Chance of winning is a function of the lead and the margin of error.

      Plus probably a fudge factor.

      1. And obviously the distribution across states.

      2. Not true at all. One has nothing to do with the other. The betting markets are just the expression of what various people think will happen. They are not in any way mathematically connected to the polls. Also, you can only bet one way. So if 75% of the betters think there is a 55% chance of Clinton winning, the numbers will show there is a 75% of Clinton winning.

        Betting markets are basically hookum. They are just an expression of the conventional wisdom of the people who play them. That may or may not reflect reality.

        1. I read that the Remain betting numbers were so lopsided largely because of a few power players.

          1. That too. They are no doubt very easy to manipulate and fix.

        2. The polls were so wrong about Romney in 2012. Totally wrong.

          1. We are talking about betting markets Hazel. I get it. Your entire sense of personal identity rests on Hillary winning. honest to God, part of me hopes she does because I am not sure how you and a lot of other people are going to handle it if she doesn’t.

            That being said, it is hardly a certainty. You might want to start preparing yourself for the possibility that she might lose.

            1. I’m just fondly remembering how completely fucking wrong you and the other Republican shills around here were about the 2012 election results. Right up until the last day you were insisting that the polls were biased. Turns out Romney did even worse than predicted.

              1. Well, yeah. He was a boring Mormon that already implemented the ACA before Obama did. He had nothing going for him at all except that he might have been slightly better than Obama. Sounds like a familiar talking point this time around, actually.

                Vote Republican: We Might Be Better!

                1. Sounds like a familiar talking point this time around, actually.

                  This time around a lot fewer Republicans are trying to argue that their guy’s better than the Democrat, though.

              2. I know Hazel, you want it to be true. I am just wondering what is going to happen to you if it is not.

    2. What I want to know, is: where can I get 4:1 odds from a reliable bookie and how big a bet will they accept?

    3. Five points is a significant lead in a presidential race. Someone losing by 5 points nationally is lucky to get 200 electoral votes.

      1. A five point lead in the election sure. A five point lead In a poll with a margin of error optimistically rated at 3%,not so much. And again. trump is ahead in the only poll I have seen of likely voters and that includes a third party option. The ones that have Hillary ahead are either of registered voters and or are head to head.

  11. “If you look at the trajectory of his unforced errors, he’s getting better,” Texas Rep. Bill Flores told the Post.

    Now THAT is a rose-colored pair of glasses.

    1. No. It shows how out of touch he is with the country. No one gives a shit about this stuff. In fact, i think some people like him more because of it. The has been so many years of manufactured outrage about this sort of thing that people just don’t care. And no one has any respect or trust in the media anymore. Trump could swat Megyn Kelly on the ass during a live national interview and it wouldn’t affect his poll numbers.

      1. Trump could swat Megyn Kelly on the ass during a live national interview and it wouldn’t affect his poll numbers.

        You’re right, how could they get much worse?

        1. He is within five points and actually ahead in some polls. I think they could get a lot worse. The numbers are what they are. The last two Rasmussun polls have him ahead. Is Rasmussun just insane?

          What evidence causes you to have such a religous conviction that he will lose. None of the data I see supports that.

          1. Shit John, he would run away with this election if he could stop being an ass. His support consists of pissed-off GOP members and people who despise Clinton so much they’re willing to vote for Trump and that’s it. He’s got to expand beyond that base or he’ll never win the general.

            Right now, he shows no indication of tempering his methods or style. If anything, he’s gotten more bombastic.

            1. Maybe he would. The media would make it tough for anyone. That said, I don’t see how this thing is in the bag for Hillary. Time will tell.

              1. It’s hard to judge because both of them are so hated, their numbers would have been political suicide in any other election since the beginning of the United States.

                Since there is literally no lesser evil between the big two, perhaps it’s time to go little three. It’s lesser in every regard except being right.

            2. Shit John, he would run away with this election if he could stop being an ass

              No. Not really. You don’t get “FBI primary” without the other crap. That’s how Trump functions.

        2. Tee-hee!

      2. i think some people like him more because of it.

        Of course they do, how many people did you know growing up (or now) that just did not give a shit about learning anything? Those people vote and they still don’t give a shit about learning.

        1. I like him more for it. I think it is funny as hell the way he trolls people like hell. And I have three graduate degrees. i am pretty sure I learned something along the way.

          1. I, too, enjoy the way he trolls the fuck out of the media and SJWs, but that doesn’t mean I want him to be president.

          2. And I have three graduate degrees. i am pretty sure I learned something along the way.

            And the result is that you spend your free time defending Donald Trump from Internet meanies. You may want to rethink your premises.

            1. I have a big heart and feel an obligation to educate the less fortunate. Everyone has a vice.

              1. With an enlarged heart, your body starts to retain fluid, your lungs get congested with fluid and your heart begins to beat irregularly.

                But more importantly I think Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) reaches anyone who follows the news.

                1. I have no illusions about Trump, but I don’t think he is a psycho either. Again, the people who run our government are to a man delusional morons. Considering how low the bar is, I see no reason not to think Trump won’t be a bit of an improvement. If nothing else, him winning and then not turning out to be any worse than Obama and Bush, will put lie to the idea that politics is some special job that only the anointed can have. That would be a very good thing.

                  1. Judging from your posting history the last few months, John, you have an entire boat load of illusions regarding Trump. Not that you’re alone in that regard, mind you, but pretending you have none is ludicrous.

                    1. What are my illusions? If there is a boatload of them, why can’t you be bothered to name them?

                      You can’t because there are none. But you can’t believe that someone could have a reasonable disagreement with you. Too bad. Sometimes life is like that.

                    2. This post is almost art in how closely it models Trumps bombastic style. Kudos.

                      I do like how Trump has managed to turn mainstream Republicans into anti-trade protectionists blaming foreign labor and markets for all their woes. I guess it’s not surprising since Trump is, and has always been, a New York Democrat but it’s interesting to see people who otherwise value these things suddenly throw them in the dumpster because a giant Oompa Loompa told them too or Hillary will win.

                      Although in all fairness, John, perhaps you were never about free trade. Maybe you’ve always been pro-tariff. Maybe you’ve always been a lot of different, mutually exclusive things over the course of a single day; but I respect you more than that John. I just think you’re too Republican to give a shit who or what Trump really is; as long as he isn’t Hillary you’ll carry any amount of water for him.

                      If you want to know what your illusions are, read your posts to yourself and maybe you’ll see it. I doubt it though, but I have hope you’ll wise up in 2020. For the moment, it will continue being all our fault and in our heads until you figure it out for yourself. You’re a smart guy, John, I think you will eventually.

                    3. So in other words, you can’t name any of them and were talking out of your ass. Just like i figured.

                      As far as trade goes, I have been thinking about that issue since I was in college 20 years ago. And my opinions on it have evolved over the years. IN the abstract, free trade is a good thing. In reality, free trade as we are doing it now has not worked like we thought it would. There is a lot of reasons for that too numerous to mention in a 1500 word limit. Suffice it to say we are not going to have a trade war and even if we do have some protectionism, tariffs are nothing but a tax and the economy will adjust. Not every tariff is Smoote Hawley. But I think about these issues. You just mouth catch phrases and exhibit a religious faith in something you call the “market” without really understanding what the term means.

                      And you seem to have a very selective read of my posts. About 20 times a day I say something bad about the Republicans and those in Congress in particular. Odd behavior for a hack.

                      Again, you can’t defend or really understand your own position. You deal with that by assuming anyone who disagrees with you must just be some fanatic partisan thus relieving you of the responsibility of thinking or defending your views. That is a stupid way to go through life but whatever works for you.

                    4. Gotcha, if you don’t answer a question on trade it’s because it would be too long to fit it into a response.

                      If I point out one of your amazingly convenient illusions regarding Trump, such as his monumentally retarded comments on trade that are clearly aimed at morons within the Republican party, I’ll need to turn in an essay even though, at face value, you’ve already played the ‘dodge the question’ game and followed it up with a nice little appeal to personal authority.

                      I assume you’re well aware the United States already has somewhere to the tune to 10,000+ tariffs, perhaps even closer to 15,000, yet Trump wants more tariffs on some of our biggest trade partners in some misbegotten theory that this will have zero effect upon prices here at home and at the same time it will magically create jobs here? Please, explain that. Be lucid. Don’t ignore the fact we produce more than we ever have before, too. I’m all ears.

                      Trump is cancer. Just because Clinton is a worse form of cancer doesn’t matter to me.

                    5. I did answer it. I do believe in free trade but not as we are currently practicing it. I also think that the alleged harms of protectionism are way overblown. Not every tariff is smoote Hawley. What more would you like to know? This is a difficult forum to teach you macro economics but I guess I could try.

                      What are retarded about his comments? He is right. We do get screwed in trade deals and we allow other countries to protect the living shit out of their markets while giving access to ours. You think his comments are “retarded” because you are incapable of admitting there is any nuance to an issue. It must be your position or be retarded. Sorry, I don’t think that way.

                      And yes we have tariffs. And so do a lot of other countries. And amazingly enough, the world hasn’t ended has it? It is almost as if the issue is complex and not amenable to buzz word solutions or something.

                      Trump is a politician who took up a cause and opening no one else would take. You call him a cancer because you are an ignorant poser who thinks that social signaling is a substitute for intelligence.

                    6. What are my illusions?

                      The notion that he has the slightest hope of winning the general election, for starters.

                    7. The numbers are what they are Hazel. He is ahead in some polls. And he isn’t far behind in the others. If he does win, it is going to be really fun watching you have a complete mental breakdown. It is only July and you already have pretty much lost what little mind you had on this issue.

                    8. So you believe in free trade, just not as it’s currently being practiced? I asked you to be lucid, John. I’ve already taken college macro economics, that’s why I hoped you’d be able to clue me in on why Trump wants more tariffs and more barriers to trade even though his goals don’t match his actions. In that vein, how are we being screwed, John? Be specific, if you even know. Or better yet, how is Trump, in any way, for free trade? That’s probably a more important question.

                      He’s about as lucid as Bernie Sanders on economics. This is literally what I mean about illusions, John.

                      Anyway, I give up mate. You are entirely too Republican to even care that Trump is dangerous. He’s not Hillary, therefore TRUMP. I can understand that, believe me I was once a Republican, but it’s folly. It’s the same folly that got Obama elected in 2009. You can’t just vote against someone and expect a good result.

                      I will say you are right that Trump very well could win. I just don’t consider that any kind of an actual win.

                    9. Yes, we don’t practice free trade. We allow ourselves to get screwed and use these agreements as way to get around the democratic system to impose reglations in the name of harmonization.

                      Moreover, to the extent that we benefit from cheap goods, that comes at a price. Perhaps long term structural unemployment and the loss of entire industries that will never return to this country is not worth a few extra points of short term GNP growth. That question is never asked. Everyone assumes that next quarters GDP is somehow a judgement from God.

                      I have a BS in economics. I took it all including ecnometrics and all the real stuff with the math. And frankly, you don’t know enough about the subject for me to really have much of an intelligent conversation with you about it. You took one class in college, learned the things that supported what you wanted to believe and went out conquered.

                      Go learn something. And more importantly, learn how to think for yourself and then come talk to me.

                    10. Anyway, I give up mate. You are entirely too Republican to even care that Trump is dangerous. He’s not Hillary, therefore TRUMP. I can understand that, believe me I was once a Republican, but it’s folly. It’s the same folly that got Obama elected in 2009. You can’t just vote against someone and expect a good result.

                      You literally know nothing. It is comical. No dumb ass. it is not that I am a Republican or else. More than anything, it is that I find people like you annoying. People don’t know anything and get their entire sense of intellectual self worth by posing and pretending to be with the right crowd and looking to show the know nothings. That more anything is why I like Trump.

                      I am just tired of stupid, dogmatic know nothings like you. You deserve Trump.

      3. I actually agree with you – Trump’s supporters haven’t seemed to give a shit if he’s consistent or even basically knowledgeable when he opens his face-hole to emit an opinion. Of course, from the point of view of a congressman whose career depends on the illusion that politics is a serious duty of the best and brightest, Trump is a disaster that needs to be spun somehow.

        1. Politics isn’t some serious duty. it was never intended to be. And the people who practice it are generally low life know nothings. This more than anything is why it would be so great to see Trump win. Trump would not be a great President, but he likely wouldn’t be bad and would grow into the job and almost certainly be better than what we have.

          The fact that a real estate hustler reality TV star can do an acceptable job at the “world’s toughest and most important job” would show just how stupid these people are. i am tired of the cult of politics and government. Give the guy a chance. He can’t be any worse than the rest of these clowns and it is almost certain that he is better. Anyone would be better.

          1. The minutiae stuff isn’t pertinent to being President anyway. That’s not why you’re (supposedly) there. You make the calls when everyone else briefs you.

      4. “No. It shows how out of touch he is with the country. No one gives a shit about this stuff. In fact, i think some people like him more because of it. The has been so many years of manufactured outrage about this sort of thing that people just don’t care.”

        John, you and other Trump supporters are not exactly the entirety of the country. Trump is a historically unpopular candidate. There is no way around it. It isn’t just a media narrative. If you want to talk about being out of touch with the country, look in the mirror.

        1. Last I looked he was within 5 points and Hillary’s lead had dropped in every poll, even the real outliers over the last two weeks. Also, last I looked turnout in the Republican primary was up 62% over 2012 and he got more votes than any Republican candidate in history.

          I am not that out of touch. I don’t know that he is going to win, but you are kidding yourself if you think he can’t.

          1. You do understand that Trump is slightly less favorable than someone who more than a few people view as being a power mad felon that can’t be trusted, correct? You are arguing he’s catching up to the historic bottom of a very deep barrel.

            1. Oh, and no this isn’t a prognostication it’s simply does anyone really give a damn if the worst possible candidate wins when almost no one can tell who the worst is?

            2. I am arguing he can win. All he has to do is beat Hillary and he wins. It doesn’t matter that he beat a bad candidate. He will be President none the less.

              Why does pointing that out bother you so much? It is what it is. I don’t see any point in lying about it.

              1. If your only argument is that Trump can win, kudos you’ve missed the entire point. Enjoy your horse race.

                1. Yeah he might win. So what? You don’t seem to have a point other than social signaling about how you hate Trump.

                  1. The Republicans could have nominated a good candidate would would have walked away with the election against Hillary Clinton. Instead you went with the feelz. And you will lose, badly.
                    The Republicans will be lucky to keep the Senate.

                    1. Yeah hazel. I am sure you would be voting Republican if only they had nominated someone reasonable. Whatever. You would be on here bitching no matter who they nominated.

                      And I won’t lose anything. I am not running. I will get up and go to work no matter who wins. Maybe you need to take a step back and stop personalizing this so much. Perhaps that is why you have gotten a little crazy on this subject.

                    2. I would be voting Republican if they had nominated Rand Paul. For sure.

                  2. The ‘so what’ is pretty clear: both politicians this year are generally hated by everyone yet are still on the ballot. Take that to mean what you want, but I think most people correctly predict that no matter who wins, we all lose.

                    I’m glad you’re enjoying your horse race, John. It’s important to find fun where you can these days, I suppose.

  12. “I mean, Paul, really, who hasn’t used a six-pointed star label before? Can you believe this? It’s nonsense. I love the Jews. We gotta do something about this, Paul.”

    1. So when I see a star I think “star”. When you see a star you think “JEWS”. And I am the one who is antisemitic? Really?

      1. When I see a “Star of David” I think Jews. First, he re-tweeted something stupid. Then, he took it down because it was considered anti-Semitic. Then, he puts it back up in an act of defiance! The big issues. Politics, Trumpified and John-approved.

        1. I don’t think every six pointed star is a Star of David. Maybe I am just not sufficiently attuned to the Jewish menace or something. I defer to you guys on that.

          1. The entire topic is stupid. It is indefensible. Stop re-tweeting stupid things created by people affiliated with white supremacy groups. How about that? Is that too much to ask? Or, are we going to continue to have the “is that really the Star of David?” discussion?

            YES! NO! YES! NO! It is retarded.

            1. But shit gets thrown around so much on the internet how do you know it is? Hell, I wouldn’t have known. Unless you prowl around the white supremacist sights, how could you?

              1. Why are the people running his twitter account re-tweeting anything they are not 100% sure of? He is running for president. Err on the side of caution. It is not complicated.

            2. Yeah, that Star of David thing is just some deep Star Trek vs. Star Wars trivia. How could a New York real estate tycoon be expected to know such things?

              1. I know Hazel. Those New Yorkers of all people should know a Jew sign when they see one. I am just a Midwesterner. I am not as in tune with those damned Jew signs like you are. I just see a star.

                1. Exactly. We can’t expect midwesterners to have seen elitist films like Schindler’s List.

                  1. We see those films Hazel. We just don’t obsess about Jews. That is just how we roll.

                2. “A Jew sign”?

              2. Anti-Semitic stereotypes aside, I just don’t understand what he was even going for there. Is Trump insinuating that Hillary is a secret Jew? That Hillary, like the stereotypical covetous Jew, cares only for money? Is he trying to appeal to…what, the anti-Semites who were leaning Hillary?

                1. Neither does anyone else Derb. But Hazel and several others seem really angry that some Jewish sign was on a tweet.

                  1. I’m not angry about it. He re-tweeted a racist tweet from a fucking neo-nazi group. He’s either a complete idiot, or he’s engaging in racist dog-whistles to actual white supremacists. It’s fucking hilarious to see you twist yourself in knots to defend him.

        2. When I see a hexagram I see Star of David, when I see a flat six pointed star (not composed of lines) I don’t. It’s obvious they weren’t trying to do a Star of David.

          1. This right here

        3. Better tell the Sheriff’s department to turn over their Jew badges.


        1. Don’t worry about it. The adults are talking.

          1. Since you’re too sophisticated to get the joke: Trump continued making a big deal out of this even in the wake of Comey’s conference. Therefore, it would be funny (and unsurprising) if he went into a meeting with elected members of his party and just complained about some superfluous bullshit like that tweet, or how big his hands are, or how many women find him attractive, or whatever nonsense he agonizes over instead of focusing on something serious.

            I don’t know much about the tweet itself, nor do I care.

            1. Again, don’t worry about it, the adults are talking. Its okay.

  13. Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith appeared to confirm the flub to the Post. “When he made the comment about the Constitution, I love this Article and that Article, I assumed he was talking about the Amendments, because he was off on the numbers,” Griffith told the Post.

    So he’s going to protect the electoral college and the House of Representative’s Presidential voting in case of a tie?

    1. Some of them, I assume, are good Articles.

      1. They are classy Articles. Some of the best. I’ve seen a lot of Articles and, let me tell you, you don’t find many better Articles than those.

  14. Trump reminds me of a few VP/CEOs I had the misfortune of being in the same room with: Short of facts, lots of shooting from the hip, and expecting someone else to take care of the small details.

    Me in a Lean meeting. VP of Lean is talking about barcoding / computer systems.

    VP: What if I told you that (local company name) doesn’t use a barcoding system. And they’re one of the top producers of plastic thing-a-ma-bob.

    Me (deadpan voice): My previous job was supporting (company name). And their barcoding software.

    1. He’s a classic fundraiser CEO type. All bullshit and fairy tales, no operational capabilities. Like a typical politician on steroids.

      And no, that’s not a Clinton endorsement.

      1. And no, that’s not a Clinton endorsement.

        Most people here, with the notable exception of John, understand that not supporting Trump does not automatically imply support for Hillary.

        1. Watch as their numbers grow.

          1. And Sugar Free I mean this with all sincerity. Whatever you do, do not vote for Trump.

            There I said it. I don’t want you to vote for Trump. You can mark this link and keep it as a reminder.

        2. This is pitiful. You’re so desperate for your girl to win.

          1. You are certain she is going to win aren’t you?

        3. No one said it did. It is the absolute religious faith that Hillary is going to win that leaves one to wonder if there isn’t some wish fulfillment going on.

      2. My graduate adviser was like that. He would have a meeting that was essentially one big long motivaitonal speech where he would throw out all these crazy ideas of all the stuff we were going to do. And then he would disappear for two weeks and not bother to come up with any sort of plan to do it or a schedule or anything. He just expected that we were so smart and motivated geniuses we’d just magically figure it out and do it with no leadership or direction.

        1. You were in grad school Hazel. It is called student directed learning. It is the way grad school works. If you needed an advisor to show you the way, you shouldn’t have been in grad school.

          1. Sure, except that all his crazy ideas had nothing to do with our actual dissertation projects.

            1. Again, if you couldn’t do your own dissertation, you should not have been there.

              1. You have major reading comprehension problems.

    2. Did you qualify for unemployment or did they consider that termination for cause?

      1. Nah – I have one of those jobs that everyone hates and us IT guys are mostly ignored here.

        As far as I can tell he just pretended I didn’t say anything and just went on with his spiel.

        For whatever reason, the Lean guys here are obsessed about Heijunka boards.

    3. expecting someone else to take care of the small details.

      To be honest, Presidents are not there for the small details. They should be big picture people.

  15. No insults for Rand?

    I am disappoint.

    1. Was Little Marco around to take insults, or was he too busy helping Cruz’s dad bury evidence of his involvement with Kennedy’s assassination?

  16. Wait…so a GOP Congressman asked what Trump is going to do to protect Article I powers? What the hell have Republicans in Congress done to protect them?

  17. You know, I’m starting to think they’d be better off just dumping him at the convention. They’ll probably lose in November, but that’s going to happen anyway, and at least they’ll be able to lose with some modicum of dignity. I used to think Trump had a chance but it seems I was wrong.

    1. some modicum of dignity.

      Mitch Fucking McConnell has dignity? Since when?

      This is what burns me. Trump sucks, but the GOPe has done really jack shit for their team over the past 8+ years. This is what they get for being feckless, visionless Capitol district hacks.

      1. “Mitch Fucking McConnell has dignity”

        That a comment would make sense if someone was suggesting Mitch McConnell should be President. As it stands it is just the usual Trumpbot “oh yeah well Trump isn’t the ONLY worthless piece of shit in politics, you know” observation that says nothing new or useful.

        You know, it would help if Trump’s supporters actually had the foggiest idea how the government actually works. The only way the Trump nomination hurts McConnell is if Trump manages to tank so badly that the Democrats retake the Senate, too. And even then he’ll still be the Minority Leader.

    2. What Cooper said.

    3. Yeeeah. Republicans haven’t had dignity since…well…maybe Reagan? Even then that guy has his fair share of problems even if people will punch you in the mouth for saying it.

    4. If they expect to lose, then better to lose with Trump. That will make a clean cut and likely indicate that a Trump-like figure is a loser. If they drop Trump then lose anyway, Trump and similar politicians will cry about how he could’ve won, and they try again in 2020 or 2024.

      1. That argument would make sense if Trump’s supporters were motivated by reason and ideology. Losing badly would make them realize that they need to be in a coalition to win.

        Unfortunately, Trump’s supporters are motivated by a mix of ignorance and rage. When ignorant and angry people lose, they just get angrier.

  18. The GOP has put more effort into fighting Trump for 3 months than they put into fighting Obama for 8 years.

    Reap what you sow.

    1. Symbolically signaling distaste for Trump is on par with 400 symbolic Obamacare repeal votes, no?

    2. That isn’t true, of course. But it would be nice if it was, what with Trump being a bigger threat to American freedom and prosperity than Obama ever was.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.