President Donald J. Trump

[Designx]

Poll: Most think Clinton’s emails unethical or illegal

Benghazi didn't work for Romney. I doubt the email scandal will work for Cruz or Rubio. You can't attack the Democrats and win.

[albrecht]

Benghazi didn't work for Romney. I doubt the email scandal will work for Cruz or Rubio. You can't attack the Democrats and win.

Yeah, I think Trump's strategy of using the system of celebrity, non-answer answers, no details jingoism, bells and whistles, and Foxified type of speeches is awesome. Using the media, Hollywood, "news" etc techniques against themselves.

[GravitySucks]

+1

7 out of 10 eh?  Guess most Americans do give a crap.  Excellent.

Criminal activities don't stop a dead person from voting for a democrat.

[albrecht]

Criminal activities don't stop a dead person from voting for a democrat.

It wouldn't surprise me if the dead people who were criminals vote that way. Prison cemeteries, boot hill, and potter's fields are likely good sources of voting registrations in some places! Forgotten people for the most part and so less chance of getting caught out- great Democrat votes.

[Zoo]

And once again Trump smashes it again. So suck it mainstream media  !!1

[onan]

i'm not sure why you'd assume that to be true.

trump's been famous for about as long as i've been alive, and he's done limitless amounts of business in new york... so if your hunch is true, then we need to start witnessing a long parade of former associates describing what a pile of excrement he is.  yet, it's not happening, and we're three elections (two trump wins) into a primary.

I can't find the article I read, so my only valid source is my butt.

[popple]

https://youtu.be/pKHasVckAyk

[Value Of Pi]

Yeah, I think Trump's strategy of using the system of celebrity, non-answer answers, no details jingoism, bells and whistles, and Foxified type of speeches is awesome. Using the media, Hollywood, "news" etc techniques against themselves.

If he continues this way and gets elected this way, it might just serve us right for allowing infotainment and pure stupidity to dominate us. What a way to go -- in our own 50-state, sea-to-shining-sea reality show. I wonder what history would say, if there will even be a history in the tentatively scheduled, so-called future.

[Value Of Pi]

And once again Trump smashes it again. So suck it mainstream media  !!1

Yeah right, suck it, what have we got to lose?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDBCiZKZi_g

[Yorkshire pud]

If he continues this way and gets elected this way, it might just serve us right for allowing infotainment and pure stupidity to dominate us. What a way to go -- in our own 50-state, sea-to-shining-sea reality show. I wonder what history would say, if there will even be a history in the tentatively scheduled, so-called future.

How did this happen? I've been accused previously of hating America, but I genuinely feel agrieved that your country has reached such a low point that the likes of Trump and the god bothering Cruz are seen as viable contenders to be POTUS. It's a comic opera if the consequences weren't so catastrophic. Clinton and Sanders might be no better I agree, so what the hell happened? Is it really the Kardashian effect? That 'thinking' is now a dirty word?

[Value Of Pi]

How did this happen? I've been accused previously of hating America, but I genuinely feel agrieved that your country has reached such a low point that the likes of Trump and the god bothering Cruz are seen as viable contenders to be POTUS. It's a comic opera if the consequences weren't so catastrophic. Clinton and Sanders might be no better I agree, so what the hell happened? Is it really the Kardashian effect? That 'thinking' is now a dirty word?

This whole subject is endlessly fascinating and disturbing. "The Kardashian Effect" sounds like a "Star Trek, The Next Generation" episode where Picard tries to find and eliminate the source of the "strange space" or contagion that is driving everyone insane. I'm sure social scientists and others are working on this in real life, but I don't think they've got any practical solutions.

The problem may not be limited to the U.S., but it probably began here. The thing you have to remember to remember, not being an American, is that you can't locate the source on any conventional political grid. It's not a left or right, progressive or conservative thing. So don't round up the usual subjects.

People of all political stripes like or dislike Trump for similar reasons. They all seem to be affected in the same way. Something that runs even deeper than ideology or the usual issues and causes is going on here. A good analysis I read on Politico talks about Trump not breaking the rules, but erasing them. It's more like a cult of personality than what we're used to, especially in presidential elections.

Here's the other scary aspect: nobody seems to be in charge of whatever is happening. Lots of contributors, for sure, but no secret "Consortium" orchestrating things. I think I would prefer that to pot luck but what can you do? Oh, but if you happen to have any of that Klingon nerve gas that Kirk and Spock used to counteract that nasty epidemic on the old Enterprise, please send it over.

[FightTheFuture]

Matt sums it up pretty well, I believe:

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/1127977783901997?fref=nf

[Value Of Pi]

Matt sums it up pretty well, I believe:

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/1127977783901997?fref=nf

Yes, a good essay, especially the part about Trump voters not being angry but being bored, immature and infatuated with celebrity and money. I think the word is decadence.

Soviet propagandists were always wrongly accusing us of that but we may almost be there. The game people were playing in their minds about this being a protest vote has taken on a life of its own. It's going to kick them and theirs in the ass real hard if they don't wake up soon and realize this is for all the marbles, no fooling around.

The amazing thing too is where the battle lines may well be drawn. At the bottom layer of the election onion may be the thinkers versus the non-thinkers (as YP alluded to earlier), not the economic or political or ethnic divide people always talk about.

The question for me is, is there anyone the thinkers can rally around the way the non-thinkers are rallying around Trump, if that's the choice in the end. You know, dogs and cats, conservatives and moderates and progressives all putting aside their differences temporarily to stop Trump. That would be a sight.

[Jackstar]

Dear God, we are really doing 2008 all over again. People voting for ambiguous, non-specific change in spite of the avalanche of red flags. We are really doing this again. I am so disgusted at the stupidity in this country.

[Inglorious Bitch]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/south-carolina-primary.html?recp=2&_r=0


COLUMBIA, S.C. â€" Donald J. Trump rolled to a commanding victory in the South Carolina primary on Saturday, solidifying his position as the Republican presidential front-runner after a savage campaign that drove Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents, to quit the race.

Mr. Trump ran ahead of Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, who were locked in a battle for second place. Both have struggled to become the principal alternative to Mr. Trump, a larger-than-life candidate from outside the political system whose nomination would upend the Republican Party.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Trump had won 32 percent of the vote and led his nearest rivals by about 10 percentage points. He was likely to capture all 50 delegates at stake in the state.

Mr. Trump has benefited so far from the fractious group of candidates running against him. But the results in South Carolina began to narrow that field to a small and tenacious handful, who may give Mr. Trump a tougher challenge next month in a series of delegate-rich states like Texas, Virginia and Florida.

Celebrating his triumph before a raucous crowd in Spartanburg, Mr. Trump trumpeted the “incredible movement” his campaign had become and looked ahead to the March contests as a chance to lock up the nomination.

“Let’s put this thing away and let’s make America great again,” he said.

Mr. Rubio sought to define the campaign as a contest purely among Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz and himself. “This has become a three-person race, and we will win the nomination,” he told cheering supporters in Columbia.

Surrounding himself with Gov. Nikki R. Haley, an Indian-American, and Senator Tim Scott, an African-American, Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, recounted their biographies and his own, seeking to portray the coming race as a choice between the new faces of the Republican Party and Mr. Trump’s brand of resentment politics.


MORE AT SITE

[Philosopher]

I wonder if someday we will nominate and vote for an intellectual president.  We are focusing on either family name, gender, race, bombastic statements, and single issues instead of looking for thoughtful statesmanship and leadership in a candidate. 

[NowhereInTime]

Matt sums it up pretty well, I believe:

https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/1127977783901997?fref=nf

I find it interesting that in disparaging the evangelicals who voted for Trump Walsh doesn't cite them for they really are: people who watch TBN and praise Jesus for financial gain.  OF COURSE they are going to follow the rich guy; they honestly believe God has blessed him with wealth and they might receive the same blessing.  To me, it's an indictment of the "evangelical movement" that roughly half of them appear to be "true faith Christians" who vote material wants and needs rather than principles of faith.
Actually, that makes me a little sad.  I could respect the truly faithful, but not the people who wear it as a disguise.

Plus, Matt Walsh doesn't get it; the "true conservative movement" needs to die to make this country great again rather than the other way around.  Look around this country; between Reagan, the two Bushes, and their favorite pet Bubba we've had nothing but "the true conservative movement" and it's damn near killed this country.  Wars, economic malfeasance, hatred and distrust; how again is that "American Exceptionalism"?

I will breathe a "sigh of relief" (thanks, HRC, you dunce) when the "conservative movement" is once again relegated to the posh salons of the well-to-do.

[NowhereInTime]

I wonder if someday we will nominate and vote for an intellectual president.  We are focusing on either family name, gender, race, bombastic statements, and single issues instead of looking for thoughtful statesmanship and leadership in a candidate.

We did eight and again four years ago, but now condemn him as "aloof".

[ItsOver]

Criminal activities don't stop a dead person from voting for a democrat.

I wonder why so many of the dead vote democrat.  Is it the free brain hors d'oeuvres offered outside the polling places?  Those lit'l brain smokies are rather tasty.

[Philosopher]

We did eight and again four years ago, but now condemn him as "aloof".

I consider him to be driven more by ideology than discerning intellect.  Much more.  .... and he fits under my "elected because of race" category (the ultimate in affirmative action nonsense)

[NowhereInTime]

I consider him to be driven more by ideology than discerning intellect.

Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a Constitutional Law professor at University of Chicago isn't "discerning intellect"?  Cannot even begin to wonder what would qualify as "intellectual", but let me guess: von Mises and Friedman and their "money solves everything" approach?  Ayn Rand the angry czarist Russian?
 

Much more.  .... and he fits under my "elected because of race" category (the ultimate in affirmative action nonsense)

Right. Because history bears out that America just loooooves black people.

[Philosopher]

Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a Constitutional Law professor at University of Chicago isn't "discerning intellect"?  Cannot even begin to wonder what would qualify as "intellectual", but let me guess: von Mises and Friedman and their "money solves everything" approach?  Ayn Rand the angry czarist Russian?
 
Right. Because history bears out that America just loooooves black people.

I did not say he was not an intellectual.  I am saying that he is more of an ideologue than an intellectual.  It is apparent that critical thinking does not drive his decision-making, but his ideology does.

You used the correct word, "history".  The USA, like many countries across the world including the continent of Africa, used slavery as a natural means to further enrich the rich.  We've gone though our periods of cultural revolutions.  Affirmative Action, as it was 35-40 years ago is no longer needed.  Today, it is mainly used for economic advantage, and not for social justice.

[FightTheFuture]

I find it interesting that in disparaging the evangelicals who voted for Trump Walsh doesn't cite them for they really are: people who watch TBN and praise Jesus for financial gain.  OF COURSE they are going to follow the rich guy; they honestly believe God has blessed him with wealth and they might receive the same blessing.  To me, it's an indictment of the "evangelical movement" that roughly half of them appear to be "true faith Christians" who vote material wants and needs rather than principles of faith.
Actually, that makes me a little sad.  I could respect the truly faithful, but not the people who wear it as a disguise.

Plus, Matt Walsh doesn't get it; the "true conservative movement" needs to die to make this country great again rather than the other way around.  Look around this country; between Reagan, the two Bushes, and their favorite pet Bubba we've had nothing but "the true conservative movement" and it's damn near killed this country.  Wars, economic malfeasance, hatred and distrust; how again is that "American Exceptionalism"?

I will breathe a "sigh of relief" (thanks, HRC, you dunce) when the "conservative movement" is once again relegated to the posh salons of the well-to-do.

Negative. People are desperate. Trump is a cult figure. Bad things will happen to those that follow the cult leader.

[NowhereInTime]

I did not say he was not an intellectual.  I am saying that he is more of an ideologue than an intellectual.  It is apparent that critical thinking does not drive his decision-making, but his ideology does.

Let me see if I get this; if a progressive uses their intellect to implement their ideals, they're an ideologue? I don't see how that applies to the Iran Nuclear deal or thawing relations with Cuba, for example.  I also don't see how that squares up with the Affordable Care Act, or utilizing the bully pulpit to catalyze the gay marriage/rights movement or, for that matter, deporting more people than ever while trying to create pathways to citizenship?  How are any of those the actions of an ideologue rather than a thoughtful, discerning individual?

You used the correct word, "history".  The USA, like many countries across the world including the continent of Africa, used slavery as a natural means to further enrich the rich.

Now I understand!  Our slavery was wholly justified by the fact that other people, including Africans, did it too!  I'm not that qualifies as an "intellectual" view of history.

We've gone though our periods of cultural revolutions.

Meaning, what, the Civil Rights movement?  Did MLK stand under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" before he was murdered? 

Affirmative Action, as it was 35-40 years ago is no longer needed. Today, it is mainly used for economic advantage, and not for social justice.

Right again.  Because 35 to 40 years of highly resisted Affirmative action has scrubbed away 300+ years of slavery and 150 years of Jim Crow. 

Fee fi fo fum, methinks I smell the rationalization of a conservative...

[Philosopher]

1. Let me see if I get this; if a progressive uses their intellect to implement their ideals, they're an ideologue? I don't see how that applies to the Iran Nuclear deal or thawing relations with Cuba, for example.  I also don't see how that squares up with the Affordable Care Act, or utilizing the bully pulpit to catalyze the gay marriage/rights movement or, for that matter, deporting more people than ever while trying to create pathways to citizenship?  How are any of those the actions of an ideologue rather than a thoughtful, discerning individual?
 
2. Now I understand!  Our slavery was wholly justified by the fact that other people, including Africans, did it too!  I'm not that qualifies as an "intellectual" view of history.

3. Meaning, what, the Civil Rights movement?  Did MLK stand under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" before he was murdered? 

4. Right again.  Because 35 to 40 years of highly resisted Affirmative action has scrubbed away 300+ years of slavery and 150 years of Jim Crow. 

5. Fee fi fo fum, methinks I smell the rationalization of a conservative...

1. You answered your own question with your examples.

2. I never said it was justified.  Quite the opposite.  I did intimate that it was a global enterprise, which made it a much worse, pervasive, systematic holocaust.

3. No.  Affirmative Action.  The need to tip the scales with government's fat finger has long passed.  There is much less of a social justice corrective need today.  Proponents enjoy it as a means of 'economic" advantage.

4.  Same as #3.

5.  Today is different than the times of slavery, segregation and systematic racism.  Many people suffer generational economic hardships and systematic discrimination (just look at Appalachia or any rural area).  Doesn't matter what hue your skin is.  I would hope that a thinking person could come to similar conclusions without being labeled anything.

[NowhereInTime]

1. You answered your own question with your examples.

Then we must differ on the definition of "ideologue".  Administration after administration has mishandled Iran (except Reagan, who committed crimes with them). Obama, as a perceptive and rational thinker, observed the best way to diminish the threat of Iran as nuclear aggressor was to create a pathway to a peace plan that includes on the ground inspections to verify compliance.  This accomplished, allows Iran back into the family of nations; not close to perfect, but the change is already evident as Iran released several people who were held in limbo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-releases-post-correspondent-jason-rezaian-iranian-reports-say/2016/01/16/e8ee7858-ba38-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html

The moral?  The president saw engagement and negotiation as the pathway to change and peace.  The actions of an ideologue? More so that of an intellectual.

Thawing relations with Cuba?  Every president (including one of my favorites, JFK) has kept a bellicose posture towards Cuba, usually using human rights abuses as justification (as if any of them, excepting Carter, gave a damn).  Cuba was every president's favorite foil; standing up tough to "communism".  To what end? After a while the rest of the world just shrugged their shoulders and said why keep up the charade? If we really want to end the threat of totalitarianism then the road to success runs through engagement.  For Heaven's sake, Dick Nixon demonstrated that with China! The president, first through back channels and then through direct negotiation, began the slow thaw that has led to the moment that our embassy is reopened and travel is resuming. 

Moral? How long until Iran and Cuba see their leaderships moderate under world cultural influences? The Cuban people were never going to "rise up against the Castro regime" because Fulgencio Batista were still worse than the Castro regime.  And who's really pissed off?  The Batista supporters in Miami.  Is ending the "threat" from Cuba the actions of a demagogue through diplomacy the actions of an intellectual or an ideologue? 

You must have a much different definition of "ideologue" and "intellectual".   

2. I never said it was justified.  Quite the opposite.  I did intimate that it was a global enterprise, which made it a much worse, pervasive, systematic holocaust.

No, but you did use the classic "gee the Africans even did it" rationalization that conservatives always use to somehow excuse or mute the effects of our participation.

3. No.  Affirmative Action.  The need to tip the scales with government's fat finger has long passed.  There is much less of a social justice corrective need today.  Proponents enjoy it as a means of 'economic" advantage.

I find little evidence that 40 years of Affirmative action has somehow balanced those scales nor any evidence of your claim of "economic advantage" .  Anyone you know getting rich off Affirmative action?  Again, this sounds like the rationalization of a conservative rather than an empirically based, intellectual observation.

4.  Same as #3.

In no demonstrable way.

5.  Today is different than the times of slavery, segregation and systematic racism.

Not when you examine the demographics.  Black youth unemployment over 50%.  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

Minority youths more than five times likely to be incarcerated as adults than white http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/juvenile.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Likelihood to be in poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Moral of this story?  Unless you are inclined to believe it is a function of being black or latino to be underproductive or more prone to criminal activity (as many conservatives "intimate"), then there's a lot of work to do to help our brother and sister Americans "catch up". We whites, even those in Appalachia, had a 300 year head start.
 

Many people suffer generational economic hardships and systematic discrimination (just look at Appalachia or any rural area).  Doesn't matter what hue your skin is.

It still does.  It also matters your access to education and opportunity for entrepreneurship.

I would hope that a thinking person could come to similar conclusions without being labeled anything.

Right, like being labelled an "ideologue rather than an intellectual" or the "product of race based voting"?  I would agree about said labels. And that perhaps we should think long and hard about trying to disguise hatred and contempt in pseudo intellectual exercises.

[Philosopher]

Then we must differ on the definition of "ideologue".  Administration after administration has mishandled Iran (except Reagan, who committed crimes with them). Obama, as a perceptive and rational thinker, observed the best way to diminish the threat of Iran as nuclear aggressor was to create a pathway to a peace plan that includes on the ground inspections to verify compliance.  This accomplished, allows Iran back into the family of nations; not close to perfect, but the change is already evident as Iran released several people who were held in limbo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-releases-post-correspondent-jason-rezaian-iranian-reports-say/2016/01/16/e8ee7858-ba38-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html

The moral?  The president saw engagement and negotiation as the pathway to change and peace.  The actions of an ideologue? More so that of an intellectual.

Thawing relations with Cuba?  Every president (including one of my favorites, JFK) has kept a bellicose posture towards Cuba, usually using human rights abuses as justification (as if any of them, excepting Carter, gave a damn).  Cuba was every president's favorite foil; standing up tough to "communism".  To what end? After a while the rest of the world just shrugged their shoulders and said why keep up the charade? If we really want to end the threat of totalitarianism then the road to success runs through engagement.  For Heaven's sake, Dick Nixon demonstrated that with China! The president, first through back channels and then through direct negotiation, began the slow thaw that has led to the moment that our embassy is reopened and travel is resuming. 

Moral? How long until Iran and Cuba see their leaderships moderate under world cultural influences? The Cuban people were never going to "rise up against the Castro regime" because Fulgencio Batista were still worse than the Castro regime.  And who's really pissed off?  The Batista supporters in Miami.  Is ending the "threat" from Cuba the actions of a demagogue through diplomacy the actions of an intellectual or an ideologue? 

You must have a much different definition of "ideologue" and "intellectual".  .....I think we share the same definitions.

No, but you did use the classic "gee the Africans even did it" rationalization that conservatives always use to somehow excuse or mute the effects of our participation.  .....Even the native Americans practiced slavery.  It does not excuse the practice, but broadens awareness of how global it became.

I find little evidence that 40 years of Affirmative action has somehow balanced those scales nor any evidence of your claim of "economic advantage" .  Anyone you know getting rich off Affirmative action?  Again, this sounds like the rationalization of a conservative rather than an empirically based, intellectual observation.

In no demonstrable way.

Not when you examine the demographics.  Black youth unemployment over 50%.  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

Minority youths more than five times likely to be incarcerated as adults than white http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/juvenile.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Likelihood to be in poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Moral of this story?  Unless you are inclined to believe it is a function of being black or latino to be underproductive or more prone to criminal activity (as many conservatives "intimate"), then there's a lot of work to do to help our brother and sister Americans "catch up". We whites, even those in Appalachia, had a 300 year head start.  .....None of us had a head start.  There were and are always the very rich and the many very poor.
   
It still does.  It also matters your access to education and opportunity for entrepreneurship.  .....Yes, but I would suggest that very few are born with guaranteed access to one or both.

Right, like being labelled an "ideologue rather than an intellectual" or the "product of race based voting"?  I would agree about said labels. And that perhaps we should think long and hard about trying to disguise hatred and contempt in pseudo intellectual exercises.  .....I was talking about not labeling those who are debating.  The subjects of debate can be "categorized". 

[NowhereInTime]

I would still contest the notion about who had a headstart and the whatever, but yeah, a'ight.

[WOTR]

Soviet propagandists were always wrongly accusing us of that but we may almost be there. The game people were playing in their minds about this being a protest vote has taken on a life of its own. It's going to kick them and theirs in the ass real hard if they don't wake up soon and realize this is for all the marbles, no fooling around.

At this point, the biggest problem to be faced is not that it is a "protest vote", it is a very real lack of practical alternatives.  As much as I really dislike Trump and think he is one of the worst things that could happen to both America and the world- who else?  When they announced the list of candidates you had a bible thumping divider, another Bush (did anybody honestly believe that was a real alternative?) Rubio (who comes with a few problems of his own, but stands almost no chance) and Trump.  Every one of the candidates who may get the position is distasteful.

And whichever of them gets it will run against Hillary (I may prefer one of the first two Bush's to her- never mind Jeb) or a raging socialist (Hello B.S.) 

In the end- whichever of the apparent heirs to the whitehouse (Trump, Sanders, Rubio, Cruz or Hillary) it is guaranteed to be four years of complete shit.  I don't know that I could bring myself to register a vote for any of these people blood sucking, classless, base, vile cretins.

So yes- Trump is a protest vote in one way- he is also the answer to not providing a candidate (or backing a candidate) of quality (there were a few in the initial line-up who did not make me want to vomit when I typed their names... but none were ever really contenders.)

And this is the best that both the democratic and republican parties have to offer the citizens of America?

[chefist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DJrA8gBwM