The Donald Pro and Con

There is little doubt that Donald Trump is a high-risk choice for president, but there is equally little doubt that the American enterprise is at a very dangerous crossroads. He’s not the obvious choice that Romney was in 2012, although to hear the story told today you would think Romney was about on par with Obama in his negatives. So let us do a bit of weighing up the two sides of the question.

Pro

  • His central slogan is “Make America Great Again”, the very antithesis of the Obama creed.
  • He wants to protect the integrity of America’s borders.
  • He wants to strengthen America’s national defence.
  • He understands that not all potential migrants are equal.
  • He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy.
  • He is non-politically correct and is unafraid to say things no one else will say.
  • He is unafraid of the media and gives back better than they dish it out to him.
  • He can do through force of personality things that no one else could do in his place.

Con

  • He is half (three-quarters?) crazy.
  • He is vulgar and intemperate.
  • He knows little history.
  • He is unanchored to the Republican Party.
  • He has had no experience in dealing with foreign policy issues.
  • No one knows, least of all him, what he would really do if he won.
  • His background is in business which is among the worst places for anyone in politics to try to learn the trade.
  • He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be.

You would prefer that he were more like a Tony Abbott or a Stephen Harper, but then again, where are they now, pushed aside as they were by flea-weights.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

115 Responses to The Donald Pro and Con

  1. Markus Frank says:

    None of this really matters. Professor, I’d love your opinion about a series of 5 videos at marketskeptics.com, where the nefarious activities of the ESF and their corruption of economics is explaine. I’m not an economist, so my understanding is limited. The videos are found under ‘thing’s I’m agraid to blog about’ in the right hand blogpost column.

  2. Oh come on says:

    Con: he’s a closet truther

  3. Tekweni says:

    Most of the cons describe the incumbent other than been tied to the Republican party and business experience. We don’t know if Obama is vulgar or intemperate though as he always reads from a a script.

  4. incoherent rambler says:

    He is unanchored to the Republican Party.

    That is a pro not a con.

  5. alexnoaholdmate says:

    His central slogan is “Make America Great Again”, the very antithesis of the Obama creed.

    So your decision to vote for a politician is partly based on their slogan? How does that make you better than the ‘Hope and Change’ crowd of Obamabots?

    He wants to protect the integrity of America’s borders.

    So do his opponents – and Cruz has actually done good work on that issue.

    He wants to strengthen America’s national defence.

    Cruz, Rubio, and Bush all have strong policies in this area.

    He understands that not all potential migrants are equal.

    True – but so does Cruz.

    He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy.

    This is a big plus for the Donald – I haven’t heard all that much along these lines from the other Republicans. But at the same time he talks about import tariffs. I’m not sure I trust his economic credentials.

    He is non-politically correct and is unafraid to say things no one else will say.

    Yes, I’ll give you that one. He leads in that area.

    He is unafraid of the media and gives back better than they dish it out to him.

    Ditto.

    He can do through force of personality things that no one else could do in his place.

    Nonsense. Once you start talking about how you need a big strong leader who can achieve things through their ‘force of personality’, you’ve abandoned democracy and are on the road to authoritarianism.

    Look, as I’ve said, if the Donald is the Republican nominee at the end of all this, I would vote for him. Even Trump can’t be worse than the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be.

    But there are better options.

  6. Ragu says:

    This election is insane.

    Trump is nominally a liberal but running as a republican because it’s the unloseable election, which he is destroying.

    Sanders is an independent running as a democrat because finally, after thirty years, Socialism is cool again and the contemporary zeitgeist rewards people that took holidays to communist Russia.

  7. S' says:

    That some of the cons can be taken as pros make me shudder.

  8. tgs says:

    His central slogan is “Make America Great Again”, the very antithesis of the Obama creed.

    You’re saying that his catchy slogan is a serious pro?.. Seriously?

    He wants to strengthen America’s national defence.

    So does every GOP candidate bar Rand.

    He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy.

    LOL

    He is non-politically correct and is unafraid to say things no one else will say.

    This is a pro when the non-PC things are correct. It’s not a pro when the non-PC things are stupid. Trump does a lot of both.

    He can do through force of personality things that no one else could do in his place.

    No, he claims he can do this. If you believe him I have a bridge to sell you.

    He is unanchored to the Republican Party.

    Pro.

    No one knows, least of all him, what he would really do if he won.

    Yet you claim he will bring fiscal sanity back to government?.. Though sheer unbridled populism?

    His background is in business which is among the worst places for anyone in politics to try to learn the trade.

    Disagree.

    He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be.

    He’ll make literally anyone more electable.

    Trump is leading the primaries but his negatives are probably too high. There looks like there is a ceiling to how much support he will be able to get. If the non-Trump supporters get the chance to rally around a single candidate he’s probably done for. If he gets the nomination then I’d put money on Hilary edging him out.

    As Steyn said on QandA if it’s Trump v Sanders then who knows wtf will happen in that race to the bottom of populism.

  9. tgs says:

    Good posts alexnoaholdmate and Ragu.

  10. Ragu says:

    Jim Webb was shamed into quitting his run, by his own party, because he killed some North Vietnamese commie scum.

  11. Infidel Tiger says:

    He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy.

    That’s a goddamn lie.

    Fire this liar, Sinclair, before he besmirches freedom and sanity.

    He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be.

    Hang on, he’s redeemed himself a bit. Just a warning this time.

  12. Driftforge says:

    He is half (three-quarters?) crazy.

    Odd comment. Is this simply a reflection of :

    He is non-politically correct and is unafraid to say things no one else will say.
    He is unafraid of the media and gives back better than they dish it out to him.
    He can do through force of personality things that no one else could do in his place.

    Conventional wisdom would be that being ‘non-politically correct’ is crazy. Even worse that he steps out of the bounds of the box of acceptable commentary for either party.

    Yet so many solutions simplify remarkably outside the Overton Window.

    Is it then crazy to access those solutions?

    He is vulgar and intemperate.

    Certainly vulgar on occasion. Uncouth. But never degenerate, which we seem to accept as long as it is put in an erudite fashion.

    He is unanchored to the Republican Party

    This seems to be something that facilitates the positives listed above. Is the Republican Party important in the scheme of things? Seems mostly to be an institution designed to get conservative folk to accept changes they wouldn’t naturally accept.

    He has had no experience in dealing with foreign policy issues.

    Of course, all the other candidates do. Especially Hillary.

    His background is in business which is among the worst places for anyone in politics to try to learn the trade.

    Turnbull disease?

    He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be.

    And a bit of humour to finish off with.

  13. Fred Lenin says:

    I have come to feel that Trump woukd be good for the USA ,after tge mess tge P.c international socialists have made these last few years ,regarduping tge cons you speak of Steve ,
    -He is craztpy like a fox ,nit stupid like Clinton ir a recividist Nrxist like Sanders.
    -wouldnt be tge first poitician to meet these parameters.
    -so he hasnt got a Phd history ,so what?
    -’not being a career politics aparatchik is a real benefit inmy eyes ,( just looke at tge ones here! ) .
    -He has the left wing State Department to sort out .( like Shirten and Giliard were experts?) .
    so only lawyer crims are fit to be politicians ? ( once again ShortenmGiliard ,Turbull ? ).
    – so its a choice between a crooked political socialist a communist aparatchik ,and a patriotic businessman ?
    Its not rocket science ,he is the only candidate for Patriotic Americans .GO TRUMP !

  14. Ant says:

    Cons:

    – He is unprincipled (the most consequential negative of all).
    – He will nominate leftists for SC slots (along the lines of his extreme leftist sister, Maryanne).
    – His campaign is so negative and personal in the extreme that there is virtually zero chance that he can unite the Republican Party after the primaries are over, should he win.
    – He will lurch left in the general – New York Values, remember?

    Can anyone really see Ted Cruz rallying the evangelicals/conservatives and Bush and the others rallying the establishment types to get the vote out to back The Donald on November 8? Because I can’t.

    His behaviour is so incredibly reckless and deeply personal, yelling out “liar”, “cheat”, “stupid”, “mommy’s boy”, “criminal”, “not an American”, and on and on – against his own side!!! – that it would be impossible for any normal person to just shrug it off and throw their wholehearted support behind him. Particularly given that he will lurch left in the general.

    If he gets the nomination I have no doubt that the Trumpbots will dutifully march in and pull the handle for their hero, but a great many conservatives, evangelicals and voters who would normally vote Republican are not going to bother.

  15. Oh come on says:

    Reordered pros, with a few of my own extras thrown in

    He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy. [I don’t see much evidence of this]

    His background is in business which is among the worst places for anyone in politics to try to learn the trade. [This isn’t necessarily a con and could well be a pro. The professional politicians have fucked up the Republic enough. Why not give someone from a business background a go? It’s not as though this aspect of his personality would result in *worse* government, and could well result in improvements]

    He is non-politically correct and is unafraid to say things no one else will say.

    He is unafraid of the media and gives back better than they dish it out to him.

    He can do through force of personality things that no one else could do in his place.

    He has credibility with the “forgotten people” who listen to him because of the previous three ‘pros’

    He has effectively articulated the concerns of the “forgotten people”.

    (1) His central slogan is “Make America Great Again”, the very antithesis of the Obama creed.

    (2) He wants to protect the integrity of America’s borders.

    (3) He wants to strengthen America’s national defence.

    (4) He understands that not all potential migrants are equal.

    Reordered cons with some of my own additions

    He can’t be trusted to deliver on 1-4 of the positives above, because there’s a chance he adopted those positions as he’s only running on these to appeal to the aforementioned “forgotten people”
    He’s a truther dogwhistler, if not a full blown truther
    He is half (three-quarters?) crazy. [Actually, I think this is an exaggeration]
    He is vulgar and intemperate.
    He knows little history.
    He is unanchored to the Republican Party.
    He has had no experience in dealing with foreign policy issues.
    No one knows, least of all him, what he would really do if he won.
    He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be. [Not Bernie. Trump’s celebrity and high profile meant he had built-in soaring disapproval ratings going into the primary – which have come down. Sanders is a relative unknown. If he were to be nominated, and his past faced much more intense scrutiny, watch Sanders’s disapproval ratings soar.]

  16. Oh come on says:

    If I were American and it came down to Hillary or Sanders and Trump, I’d vote for Gary Johnson (if Cruz isn’t the GOP nominee, I’d vote for Johnson, too). Never Trump. I would never vote for a truther or someone who incites truthers. Not fit for command.

  17. dweezy2176 says:

    Personally, I think Trump is a breath of freshness in the putrid atmosphere of politics & hope that he not only becomes “Prez” but garners so many votes that the Dems are shell-shocked for years to come.
    What difference does pros & cons really make? Take Oz poltics outside of “Tones” it is near disaster .. Here in the back-blocks of the “muticultural cess-pit”, Fairfield, NSW the “Blow-in” has been the sitting member for a decade yet has not one pro or con to his credibility but because of the “country shopper” vote is always guaranteed re-election … the total waste of tax-payer funds on salary & gravy-train-ing is disgraceful yet our system supports dozens like this wastrel, election in, election out …. I’d rather one “Donald” than all our lot put together!

  18. Dozer says:

    At first I though Trump was the go, now however, I think he is nothing more than an ignorant, arrogant, loud mouthed egotistical fuckwit. like Australia, the US has been through enough of these assholes pulling the population around by the nose.

    Cruz or Carson seem endowed with enough common sense to run the show for awhile.

  19. Andysaurus says:

    Worst Con:
    He is protectionist.

  20. Infidel Tiger says:

    Anyone who thinks Trump has any business acumen and is fiscally responsible should read this:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

  21. alexnoaholdmate says:

    In fairness, there is one perfectly good element that makes Trump the ideal President for the United States today:

    He has been forced to file for bankruptcy on four different occasions, for borrowing money he couldn’t afford to pay back at exorbitant amounts of interest he couldn’t afford to cover.

    Sounds like the perfect candidate for today’s America to me.

  22. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take says:

    The whole thing is a sick joke.

    Fred Lenin
    #1948633, posted on February 17, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Good to see the old Fred Lenin back. For a while I was worried you’d turned your spell-checker on. Don’t ever change Fred, love your work.

  23. Paul says:

    All of Donald Trumps pros far outweigh everything that Sanders or Clinton can offer. You only need to look at Europe to understand what Sanders or Hillary will do to the US.

  24. gabrianga says:

    Who are we to judge the pros/cons of Trump?

    Any country which voted Rudd>Gillard>Rudd into power and then hails Turnbull as “their” winner has little room to criticise.

    Watching the new comedy routine “The Bush Brothers” perform on Hannity perhaps helps to explain Trump’s high numbers?

  25. Anne says:

    Despite Donald Trump’s bombast about 9/11 happening under Bush’s watch, he has a legitimate point. In fact, he’s exactly right: George W. Bush did NOT keep us safe and he did things that kept federal agents from discovering and stopping the attacks. But Trump simply doesn’t know the details that back him up–details that would bolster his aggressive stance regarding Muslims and government action regarding aliens on our shores. Conservatives who defend Bush regarding 9/11 have it wrong, and here’s why.

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/81487/donald-trump-george-w-bush-911-why-trump-is-right-but-doesnt-know-what-hes-talking-about/#more-81487

  26. Sinclair Davidson says:

    The biggest Trump con is that if it came to a contest between him and Hilary Clinton I think I’d prefer Clinton.

  27. Infidel Tiger says:

    Wow.

    Anne is now going full Code Pink derangement.

    Troofism isn’t far away.

  28. JohnA says:

    He has had no experience in dealing with foreign policy issues.

    However, his commentary is still streets ahead of the actual track record of the present SoS (should that be SoSUS?) and incumbent CinC.

  29. Anne says:

    He is half (three-quarters?) crazy.
    You’re just saying that ’cause it commercial.

    He is vulgar and intemperate.

    What? That’s ridiculous. One man’s ‘vulgar’ is another man’s non-PC.
    It takes discipline to create a company and wealth to the tune of $9Billion.
    Also, he doesn’t drink, smoke or take drugs and neither do any of his kids.

    He knows little history.

    How do you know what he knows? He has been a keen political observer and frequent commenter on politics since at least the 80’s. YouTube him. He’s smarter than anyone else in the field why would he know less about political history than they?

    I could go on but I’m tired of arguing with people who seem frantic and deranged on the subject and aren’t able to vote for him anyway.

  30. Yohan says:

    I agree with the points except for dismissing his foreign policy. So far The Donald seems to have a more realistic foreign policy view than the other GOP candidates. They are all for starting a war with Russia on behalf of, lets be honest, Islamic extremists in Syria.

    At least that’s how they present themselves onstage, perhaps after the nomination is over their tone will change.

  31. Anne says:

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1948738, posted on February 17, 2016 at 3:31 pm
    The biggest Trump con is that if it came to a contest between him and Hilary Clinton I think I’d prefer Clinton.

    I don’t doubt that for a minute.

  32. Michaelc58 says:

    If I recall, Americans have already voted in a whole army of fine upstanding, non-vulgar, politically and economically qualified republican senators. In fact they are in majority, don’t you know. What f*cking good has it done? Same thing here – what use electing Abbott?
    You say Trump is a risk? Wander what Trump will do?
    I say look at all the things he has already done for US politics – more than all the siting republicans put together.

    He is breaking the choking stranglehold by the press and the leftist intelligentsia and the globalists.
    He is moving the Overton window from somewhere between Breznev and Chavez to a more sane center.
    Only because of him are Americans even able to debate immigration, cultural suicide by Islam, globalism and race relations.
    Only because of him has any GOP candidate had the incentive to even pretend to want to secure borders and re-establish a nation.
    Without Trump, Cruz and the others would be road kill in the wake of Hillary’s media machine, and loose again just like that nice Romney guy.
    Unfortunately it takes an egoist to break the media – a modest man like Abbott just gets chewed up.

    And, there is no gain without risk.

    If only we had a Donald Trump in Australia.

  33. Yohan says:

    How do you know what he knows? He has been a keen political observer and frequent commenter on politics since at least the 80?s. YouTube him. He’s smarter than anyone else in the field why would he know less about political history than they?

    Yes, apparently Trump is nothing like his strongman persona that we are currently seeing. Old youtube videos show him as being articulate and thoughtful.

    That’s why if he gets the nomination all the critics are going to be surprised when he moved into ‘Presidential Mode’ instead of the brash reality show star.

  34. Anne says:

    I’m sorry Sinc, I misunderstood your comment.

    I thought you were saying you’d prefer to vote for Hillary over Trump.

  35. billie says:

    Trump is more likely to be trusted by the average Joe and Mary, than party animals.

  36. alexnoaholdmate says:

    The biggest Trump con is that if it came to a contest between him and Hilary Clinton I think I’d prefer Clinton.

    I don’t doubt it. You were right to prefer Turnbull, after all…

  37. Ragu says:

    The biggest Trump con is that if it came to a contest between him and Hilary Clinton I think I’d prefer Clinton.

    Whoa.

    Clinton is welded to her ideology. In defence of Trump, he can be talked into doing the right thing.

  38. Ant says:

    The biggest Trump con is that if it came to a contest between him and Hilary Clinton I think I’d prefer Clinton.

    I reckon Trump would prefer Clinton to Trump.

  39. Ant says:

    Personally, I think Trump is a breath of freshness in the putrid atmosphere of politics…

    No. He’ll make it even more putrid than it is now.

    Want proof? No general election primaries in US history have been more putrid than this cycle.

    A piece on Brietbart described how the insults he’s been flinging left, right and centre would have brought on an old fashion duel in back in Alexander Hamilton’s day.

    How would he behave when as president more serious critics start interrogating his performance?

  40. teddy bear says:

    Persoally I think Sanders would be best, seeing the worlds largest economy crash and burn and in the hands of a crazed socialist democrat is far better than a long slow decline that not a single candidate is capable of, not simply because they all suck but because their parliment is a joke (like the rest of the west).

    Better to crash hard and fast with the hope of a return to sanity than a long slow decline into a future ruled by elites who control every tiny aspect of our lives with virtually no hope of escape. We are already well on the path of being ruled by elites, our public and political institutions are overun by them and they are now filling our private lives and companies with their ilk through absurd regulations like quotas etc. Electing Trump will not fix that because even if he intended to fix all the mess who in the federal parliment is going to help him do it, the repulican party seem to hate him more than the democrats.

  41. teddy bear says:

    not a single candidate is capable of *fixing*
    ….

  42. Kool Aid Kid says:

    Steve: your assertions about Trump are remarkable. But this one is a doozy. According to you the first reason to support Trump is a slogan. FFS.

  43. Driftforge says:

    Want proof? No general election primaries in US history have been more putrid than this cycle.

    Short memory there.

    A piece on Brietbart described how the insults he’s been flinging left, right and centre would have brought on an old fashion duel in back in Alexander Hamilton’s day.

    Alternatively, old fashioned access to duelling may have reduced the need for comments giving rise to duels; most of Trump’s ‘insults’ are counter-punches.

    Or it would have thinned the field usefully, one way or another.

    How would he behave when as president more serious critics start interrogating his performance?

    ‘Serious’ meaning ‘politically correct’? He’ll call it disgraceful, just as he does now. ‘Serious’ meaning capable? He’ll answer it bluntly, just as he does now. Why would you expect that to change?

  44. Driftforge says:

    We are already well on the path of being ruled by elites

    Well on the path? Has it ever not been the case?

    The issue is not rule by elites. Its the current system whereby elites rule under conditions where their self interest does not align with the community interest.

  45. teddy bear says:

    I don’t think it has always been the case, partly because never before have the elites had so much power to control our lives, partly because there were more people in power prepared to defend peoples rights and liberties, and because our institutions were not completely corrupted.

  46. Anne says:

    I apologise for the lack of attribution. Got lost.

    I’ll just have to H/T the people on the interwebs.

    Trump has a Dog Problem

    If I asked you to rank your own intelligence compared to a specific dog, you would probably put yourself on top – with a confidence bordering on smugness – and rank the dog as a distant second.

    I totally agree with your assessment, and I haven’t even met the dog in question. But here’s the interesting part:

    The dog doesn’t know you’re smarter.

    The dog might know you usually touch a thing on the wall when you enter a room after dark, and the room lights up. But the dog chalks that up to coincidence. Dogs see no need to overthink these sorts of things.

    This brings me to Donald Trump.

    There are two types of people who believe Donald Trump is – to borrow a British slang – an idiot. These two groups are…

    Super-geniuses who see Trump’s brain as tiny and inefficient in comparison to their own.
    Idiots who don’t know they are idiots.

    This same generalization holds true for all of us. The two groups who believe you are stupid are the ones who are far smarter than you and the ones too dumb to grasp your brilliance in all things. You look like an idiot to both of those groups.

    And statistically speaking, super-geniuses are a small percentage of the population. So … if you were an objective observer, knowing nothing about a population of folks except that they all thought the same person was an idiot, you wouldn’t be able to sort out the smart ones from the dumb ones on that data alone.

    And did I mention that super-geniuses are rare?

    So let’s say you believe – as the British do – that Donald Trump is an idiot who is accidentally dominating the American political system and its media from top to bottom. That puts you in the category of people who are either super-geniuses or idiots who don’t know they are idiots. There is not enough data to sort it out. But if you are curious about the group you’re in, I have some suggestions.

    Look carefully at the walls in-and-around whatever space you use for indoor work. If you see any photos of yourself accepting a Nobel Prize, you are probably a super-genius. Exceptions to this rule would be photos of you accepting the prizes for peace or economics.

    If you are in a wheelchair and you use a computer-generated voice to discuss black holes, you might be a super-genius.

    But if you have a personal financial advisor who charges you a percentage of your portfolio no matter how he performs, you are not a super-genius.

    I have other suggestions too.

    If you still need them, you are not a super-genius.

  47. Michaelc58 says:

    Personally, I think Trump is a breath of freshness in the putrid atmosphere of politics…
    No. He’ll make it even more putrid than it is now.

    It’s putrid only because Trump is not complying with the Leftist PC rules demanding polite subservience, and is hitting back with interest to make a point.
    How putrid was Australian politics when Abbott disobeyed the left, despite his being a gentleman ?

  48. Pyrmonter says:

    He understands the importance of balancing the books and is more likely than any other candidate to bring fiscal sanity back into the American economy.

    Whatever he may say now, his career has been dominated by “restructuring” (known to the less politically correct as “welshing on your creditors”) to an extent and after a fashion that would cause even the supposed “bankruptcy scholar” of the Dems, Elizabeth Warren to blush.

    He’s done so with an inheritance that could have left him well-healed as a simple rentier: http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

    Fundamentally though, the issue is this: he’s not serious; he’s a troll.

  49. Anne says:

    Steve: your assertions about Trump are remarkable. But this one is a doozy. According to you the first reason to support Trump is a slogan.

    KAK, “Make America Great Again”, like “Hope and Change” and “Jeb! Can Fix it” isn’t just a slogan it’s meant to be the Mission Statement from which springs the Candidates’ policies. It may it appeal to people any more than his brash personality but for some it will evoke strong emotion.

  50. Ant says:

    Short memory there

    Really? By all means, do tell, when has it been more putrid?

    ‘Serious’ meaning capable? He’ll answer it bluntly, just as he does now. Why would you expect that to change?

    Who’s expecting him to change – as in grow up and stop behaving like a spoiled brat? I’m afraid that’s just not the pampered petal Donald Trump that we’ve come to know.

    I can see it now:

    Interviewer: President Trump, you claimed that you would get American companies to shut down their foreign operations, from countries such as Mexico, and return their manufacturing to America, to help make America great again. However, those companies have told you to take a hike. What’s gone wrong?

    Pres. Trump: You filthy liar. You’re so dishonest, it’s incredible. This is why people hate the media types and why they love me so much. Have you seen how I’m polling? They hate you, yes they do, because you’re lying and they know how great I am, because they keep telling me.

    Interviewer: President Trump, Vladimir Putin has said that you’re not so brilliant after all and now thinks you’re not even less serious than Obama. In fact, he says you’re a, quote “pussy” unquote. How do you respond?

    Pres. Trump: You’re unbelievable. He still loves me. I have video of him saying how great I am. Have you seen my polling in Russia? Thousands and thousands of people there love me. Check my Twitter feed. You’re a bigger liar than Jeb and Ted. It’s so unbelievable.

  51. alexnoaholdmate says:

    I noticed that during the last debate especially, Ant.

    Whenever Jeb Bush challenged him on something the response was never “Jeb is wrong, and this is why.” It was “You’re polling at 4%, so shut up.”

    And when Cruz reminded him that he had said “Planned Parenthood does wonderful things” (his words), his response was “You’re a liar.”

    “Donald, we have you saying that on video.”

    “Lies. All lies. All of it. I never said that. Except when I did. But when I did, what I actually meant was ‘They do wonderful things except when it comes to abortion.’ Except I never said that bit at the end. Kept it entirely a secret until you brought it up now. But gosh darn it, I mean it!”

    And his supporters keep telling you that it’s all made up, and he never said the things he’s said – even after you’ve offered them a direct quote from him.

  52. John J says:

    Go Fred !
    I think I was starting to read your posts without trouble.
    Which was disturbing as I’m not disinclined to grammar nazis.
    So
    A) glad to see I’m back to struggling with your linguistic constructions.
    (My new meds must be working or you’ve got a better app which throws in more random letters. )
    B) I never watched Trump on TV, that just never figured as entertainment for me. But he seems to be the only candidate that gets it. Cruz is only doing well because Trump is giving the media a pasting. Sanders is only doing well because Trump is giving the media a pasting and so Hillary is vaguely being held accountable.
    Don’t tell me that someone who has made billions can’t be fiscally responsible and couldn’t negotiate foreign policy. What any better than Kerry ? A kid with a lemonade stall could do better than the Obama team.
    What matters is the integrity of your citizenship and your constitution. Both of these are being dissolved by the freaking socialists through porous borders and activist judges. Throughout western democracies.

    Fred’s right !

    I think ???

    Cheers JJ

  53. Ant says:

    Yeah. Insofar as this primary season is shaping up, the guy’s entirely media manufactured in that he provides the separate ingredients – rich, bombshell wife and daughter, flamboyant, big mouth, brash, loud, aggressive, no limitations, not beholden to donors, etc, and they stew it all together to create a crap sandwhich that his Trumpbots are happy to swallow.

    If you were to extract any one of those ingredients it would put a severe dent on his image, or maybe even be politically fatal to him. But combined, he is incredibly formidable in that environment.

    This has become very educational for me. Prior to Trump, although there were hints with Schwarzenegger, I had believed the hero-worshipping drones were predominantly on the left and that my side were far too rational to fall for Trump’s BS. I was so wrong.

    If elected, he will be a loose cannon as president – most likely disastrous. Having said that, if I was voting I would still vote for him over Sanders or Clinton. Sanders being a lunatic and Clinton being a calculating menace and criminal.

    Several months ago, I was saying that I would put Trump in around mid-place after Cruz, Fiorina, Carson, Paul, Perry – not necessarily in that order (except for Cruz, who will remain top of the heap by a considerable measure).

    No way I would do that now. He’s dead last. Kasich would be better and he’s terrible!

  54. alexnoaholdmate says:

    Prior to Trump, although there were hints with Schwarzenegger, I had believed the hero-worshipping drones were predominantly on the left and that my side were far too rational to fall for Trump’s BS. I was so wrong.

    If a person is convinced that Trump will make a good President… well, they’re wrong, but that’s politics.

    But the worship of Trump is something else. The Messianic ‘He can do no wrong!’ Trumpbots rushing to his defence every time he is forced to explain his own words

    I have seen this twice in my life (I am thirty). The first time was in 2007, when Kevin Rudd took the leadership of the Labor Party. There were many reasons why one might have felt the Howard government’s time had come – but the Kevin 07 mania was beyond reasonable debate.

    And of course in 2008, when anyone that dared to opine that maybe Barack Obama wouldn’t be the best person for the job was branded as a racist. No, you couldn’t possibly have an opinion formed by fact and experience and a knowledge of history. You’re just a racist.

    (I like to think that in both cases I was vindicated).

    But I never thought I’d see it on what (I thought) was my own side. But then again, if Trump’s brand of populism is my side – if the Trumpbots are meant to be my people – then I have to rethink things.

  55. Ant says:

    On being media manufactured, I suppose I mean that the media is being more manipulative than usual in this race.

    If you look at what they tried to do with Cruz and the Carson/CNN/Twitter non-issue in Iowa, they were feverishly reporting it without ever really digging down to find the truth. Even CNN came out later and tried to brush off their own involvement in it or pointing out that it was Carson’s campaign at fault for incorrectly reporting what their boss was up to.

    Cruz’s apology was for not correcting his campaign’s initial Tweet during the evening.

    You can see how effective this was in tarnishing Cruz’s name by some of the Trumpbots here calling Cruz a “liar” for it.

    Now compare that with Trump’s behaviour – or even Rubio’s with his really mad verbal gymnastics trying to duck and weave his way around his colossal error in judgement (given he wants to be POTUS) in playing a pivotal role in the Gang of 8.

    Trump, for example, out of his own mouth says “I support Planned Parenthood”. Cruz says “Trump supports Planned Parenthood”. Trump says “YOU LIE!”.

    I mean it’s like I’m at a circus watching a clown performing.

    Here’s another: Trump says “you know my sister, Maryanne, she’d make a phenomenal Supreme Court justice”. She’s a hard leftist. Cruz says “Trump would appoint liberal judges”. Trump says “YOU’RE SUCH A LIAR! YOU’RE A BIGGER LIAR THAN JEB!!”

    One could go on for hours with all the crap that comes out of his mouth.

    But the real target in all of this is Cruz. His campaign is heavily dependent on being trustworthy – TrusTed, etc.

    His opponents main focus, including almost all of the US media, is on discrediting what is perhaps his strongest quality.

    If the newsmedia were honourable, they would have had enough solid material on Trump from about a fortnight ago to thoroughly eviscerate him and turn him into a national laughing stock.

    But, if they did that, how would it destroy Ted Cruz?

  56. Tel says:

    Whenever Jeb Bush challenged him on something the response was never “Jeb is wrong, and this is why.” It was “You’re polling at 4%, so shut up.”

    Well Rand Paul was consistently polling higher than that, and he got kicked out of the Fox debate, while Jeb! keeps getting invited back, despite being irrelevant to anyone other than the lobbyists. What’s more, Rand brought a genuine different opinion to the debate (albeit a fringe opinion) while Jeb! brings nothing new, and if you just want establishment GOP then Rubio does that schtick better.

    Seriously, Jeb! serves no purpose, unbelievable that anyone takes him seriously.

  57. alexnoaholdmate says:

    Seriously, Jeb! serves no purpose, unbelievable that anyone takes him seriously.

    Sure.

    But is “Your point is irrelevant, because you’re only polling 4%” a reasonable response to criticism?

    Does the amount of people who support a proposition determine that proposition’s truth?

    Is that leadership? Is it Presidential?

  58. Ant says:

    BTW, I’m not a Cruzbot. If he were to, for example, say in one of those debates “you’re such a liar” knowing that the statement was false, I’d walk.

    I also don’t like all his proposals – most particularly some of his tax proposal:

    “The current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free.”

    Gillard did something similar here making the first $18k tax free. This is wrong. I can understand some tax free threshold because of obvious inefficiencies, but that is far too much for anybody to earn without making some contribution back. No skin in the game, as the Americans say.

  59. alexnoaholdmate says:

    Incidentally, if Jeb doesn’t come in at least third place in South Carolina, after dominating the headlines (usually as a foil to Trump) and pulling in his brother for help – and in a state where George W Bush has an 80% favourability rating even now –

    – then surely he must drop out and give his support to Rubio. If the field is still split like this on Super Tuesday, Trump will be unstoppable.

  60. alexnoaholdmate says:

    BTW, I’m not a Cruzbot. If he were to, for example, say in one of those debates “you’re such a liar” knowing that the statement was false, I’d walk.

    None of the candidates are close to perfect. It’s about the lesser of evils. As I’ve said, I’d even vote for Trump in the election if he was the nominee, because the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, will be so much worse.

    If I could have had my dream pick this cycle? Scott Walker.

  61. Infidel Tiger says:

    Debating with Trump is like arguing with a leftist. Funny that.

  62. BarBar says:

    Steve Kates is missing out Trump’s two highest pros:

    . Trump will deport the 11 million illegal immigrant population living in the US down to the last man, woman and child.
    . Trump will ban all Muslims from entering the country until “we have figured out what is going on”.
    As his most publicised and widely supported policy why were they left off the pro list?

  63. Anne says:

    Does the amount of people who support a proposition determine that proposition’s truth?

    No but it does support that proposition’s candidate.

    In politics, it’s the people who are so often forgotten.

  64. Infidel Tiger says:

    . Trump will deport the 11 million illegal immigrant population living in the US down to the last man, woman and child.
    . Trump will ban all Muslims from entering the country until “we have figured out what is going on”.
    As his most publicised and widely supported policy why were they left off the pro list?

    Sounds good, but I’ll guarantee he won’t.

  65. Driftforge says:

    I don’t think it has always been the case, partly because never before have the elites had so much power to control our lives, partly because there were more people in power prepared to defend peoples rights and liberties, and because our institutions were not completely corrupted.

    I suspect given this statement we are at cross-purposes then.

    Elites have had more power at times in the past. But as you say, those elites had the need to defend the welfare of their people, as their own welfare depended directly upon them. That necessary link has been broken under democracy, and thus we get a preponderance of elites serving their own interests in competition with those under their influence / authority.

  66. Anne says:

    Sounds good, but I’ll guarantee he won’t.

    What would that guarantee look like, IT?

  67. Infidel Tiger says:

    What would that guarantee look like, IT?

    Well, I only have his life’s history to go on, but he’s not man of honour or integrity.

  68. Anne says:

    What would that guarantee look like, IT?

    Well, I only have his life’s history to go on, but he’s not man of honour or integrity.

    What I meant was; if you’re wrong will you send Steve $1000 so he can take his favourite Cats out to dinner?

    Help me IT, I understand why people disparage Trump when they prefer another candidate but why do they badmouth the Trump supporters? I just don’t see people calling Bush, Cruz, Carson or Fiorina fans derogatory names.

  69. Driftforge says:

    Ah because the Trump supporters are the ones everyone has been taking for a ride. If they get the box seat, previously preferred constituencies will no longer have access to the goodies they once had.

  70. alexnoaholdmate says:

    I just don’t see people calling Bush, Cruz, Carson or Fiorina fans derogatory names.

    I just don’t see Bush, Cruz, Carson, or Fiorina fans denying their candidate said something he clearly said, claiming those that disagree with them are brainwashed or in on some vast conspiracy, or changing their opinions on a dime when their candidate demands, like Commies in the thirties (“We hate Hitler. Now we love Hitler, stop the war! Now we hate Hitler again, and always have!”)

  71. alexnoaholdmate says:

    “I’m pro-choice, even to the extent of support late term abortion. Surprise! Now I’m pro-life!”

    “I’m in favour of gun controls, quite draconian controls in fact. Surprise! Now I’m against them!”

    “I’m a close friend of Hillary Clinton, I reckon she’s a great negotiator and one of the best Secretary of State that we’ve ever had. Hell, I even invited her and her husband to one of my many weddings. Surprise! Now she’s scum, and a threat to America!”

    “I never said we should impose a 45% tariff on Chinese and Mexican goods. That’s an outrageous lie. Oh, the New York Times has a tape of me saying exactly that only yesterday? Well, George W Bush is responsible for 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, and helped fake the moon landing too!”

    “I never said I supported Planned Parenthood! What an outrageous lie! [Offstage whispers] “What’s that? There’s a video where I say exactly that? Well, what I meant was, Planned Parenthood does wonderful things, except in the case of abortion – the main reason for its existence.”

  72. Yohan says:

    If I could have had my dream pick this cycle? Scott Walker.

    That’s exactly who I thought was the best candidate early on. The Left also saw the danger in Walker, and spent a considerable amount of time and energy attacking him early last year. Scott Walker had another advantage in that he was more palatable to working class voters, unlike Cruz or Bush.

    He had that outsider status, but Trump came along and took it, and that was that.

  73. Anne says:

    Everyone’s been taking me for a ride? Damnit!

    Anyway, assuming the RNC play fair, he’ll probably be the Nominee.

    In light of the derision and abuse Trump supporters cop, I wouldn’t be surprised if support for him is even higher than polls reveal.

  74. Infidel Tiger says:

    Help me IT, I understand why people disparage Trump when they prefer another candidate but why do they badmouth the Trump supporters? I just don’t see people calling Bush, Cruz, Carson or Fiorina fans derogatory names.

    If you want to know why Trump supporters are generally disliked, go to the comments section at Breitbart.

    They make Srr look like a learned and rational being.

  75. Ant says:

    Trump now says that Hillary Clinton is “evil”, no less.

    Of course, that makes me a liar because, even though his brain caused his lips to move and that word popped out, it really didn’t.

    Coz he’s Trump. Besides, look at his poll percentages. How can he be wrong? What’s that? But he lost Iowa? Cruz cheated and lied, remember?

  76. Anne says:

    Yes Alex, I get it. You don’t like Trump.

    Your recourse to Argumentum ad Hitlerum clearly demonstrates my point.

    People will simply bypass the chat with you and go vote for Trump.

    If you want to know why Trump supporters are generally disliked

    I don’t have to go to Breitbart. You’re right here. I would be a Trump supporter, why would you hate that about me?

  77. Ant says:

    As far as I’m concerned, I don’t hate Trump supporters.

    I disagree with them and it’s quite impossible for me to understand why they can’t or won’t see through his flim flam. It’s all there out loud and proud for easy consumption.

    A classic example:

    Trump: “I support Planned Parenthood.”
    Cruz: “Donald Trump supports Planned Parenthood.”
    Trump: “YOU LIE!!”

    It’s black and I see black. Why do the Trumpbots see white?

  78. alexnoaholdmate says:

    Your recourse to Argumentum ad Hitlerum clearly demonstrates my point.

    I think you need to look up the meaning of that phrase, and compare it with what I wrote.

    The adults will wait for your return.

  79. Anne says:

    The adults will wait for your return.

    Again, this demonstrates my point. The contempt is visceral.

    Why?

  80. teddy bear says:

    Driftforge while I may be naive in saying this I like to think that there was a time in the past maybe around 20-50 years ago where elites had lost a lot of power and influence and the ordinary working class people could work their way up into positions of power and authority with relative ease. I think if you look at the difference between the make up of the Labour and Liberal party 20-50 years ago and compare it with today it illustrates the point.

    As to elites and power, they have certainly had more power at times in the past but their power and authority has never extended as far as it has today. Not only that but previously elities where generally far more concerned with themselves than interferring with the lives of the “peasants”. There was also far more structure to the elites it was more about a small upper class and powerful familes.

    These days not only can any lunatic enter the ranks of the elites and gain a position of power but increasingly they are more likely to gain the position, and gain it by advocating for more power and control over peoples lives. They not only want to enrich themselves financially at our expense but do it by legislative means that exert some control over us. Positions dedicated to promoting gender equality, etc in the workplace are great examples of this.

    Increasingly if you want a job or a promotion you have to prove that you are one of them, in the public sector you probably won’t get anywhere unless you are not only one of them but in the right social circles.

    In this environment no single personality no matter how powerfull will be able to make any substantial difference against the tide. Not only that but people are increasinlgy waking up to the situation the west faces itself in, a Republican victory right now would be a disaster as they will not be able to make any difference in this environment which will further alienate conservatives and the middle and will give at least another 4 years for the rot to slowly spread.

    I and many others I talk to believe things need to be brought to a head, and the only way to do that properly is by have the phoney left in charge as opposed to the phoney right. Look at what has happened here with the liberals. It would have been far better to have had another 3 years of Labour than what has occured. Now not only have we lost the chance at reforming the Liberal party but it has been taken over by the phoney left.

  81. alexnoaholdmate says:

    Again, this demonstrates my point. The contempt is visceral

    Because like so many Trumpbots, you have accused me of cheating (“argumentum ad Hitlerum”, and completely incorrect) instead of addressing the argument.

    I don’t mind differences of opinion. That’s the cut and thrust of political debate. But Trumpbots don’t argue. They cheat. And then they flee when challenged.

  82. Ant says:

    BTW, I do hate Trump.

    I’ve been wondering when was the moment he went from my mid-range preference for the nomination to rock bottom?

    I think it was from the moment I heard this. It was the moment I realised he is completely without principle and will do anything to succeed. Probably explains how he “grew” such a “great” business. I wonder how many people got the ‘Trump Treatment’ along the way. It goes for just over 2 minutes and really is quite incredible.

    Ben Carson is/was a brilliant paediatric neurosurgeon, top of his field, in one of the US’s most prestigious cancer centres – John Hopkins.

    He attained that spectacular position through genius, guts and hard work, rising from extremely humble beginnings, fatherless and poor.

    Not long after Donald Trump was still openly identifying as a Democrat and donating to Democrats, Carson delivered the singular greatest verbal evisceration of Barack Obama and his stinking ideology that has wrought such destruction on poor and minority communities from coast to coast.

    He did this to Obama’s face, on national television.

    By contrast, Donald had $400 million handed to him and proceeded to become one of the most flamboyantly wealthy people in the country, courting and buying off politicians of all stripes to advance his personal interests.

    Nothing, NOTHING, justifies how Trump characterised Ben Carson. Nothing.

    Yet he did it anyway. Carson was rising in the Iowa polls and looked a credible threat, so Trump reached deep down into the bottom of a sewer and slandered a great and decent man, not through reasoned and sound argument, but through pure slime.

    When things are black, I see black.

  83. Roger says:

    Con: He has had no experience in dealing with foreign policy issues.

    Neither do the other GOP candidates, Steve, but I’d actually rate Trump rather highly in this area.

    Unlike Cruz & Rubio he’s not a warmonger and has shown some considerable nous in his comments on FP so far, particularly in exercising lateral thinking.

  84. DM of WA says:

    People here seem to be basing their opinions of Donald Trump entirely on news reports and media commentary about the current US Republican candidate debates where Trump’s outrageous approach has been highly effective (and highly cost-effective) in getting voters’ attention. I suggest you look at his town hall meetings, speeches and interviews, of which there are plenty on Youtube and elsewhere, including some interesting material from the 1980’s when he was also touted as a possible Republican candidate.

    It is clear to me at least that, based on the fuller picture, he a serious candidate with considered views, is definitely intelligent, and can be perfectly civilized and charming when he chooses so to be. There is method in his madness and I expect the more attractive side of Donald Trump’s persona to come to the fore as the candidates are forced out.

    PS Does anyone seriously think, based on the last twenty years of US presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that Trump’s so-called lack of government experience is of the slightest importance. Those presidents who spent most of their lives inside the Washington bubble between them have wrecked the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

    As someone one said: the business of America is business.

  85. Nato says:

    Trump has the one key criterion I look for when voting, that neither PM contender in our election has. The hatred of the news media.
    Trump has gone beyond even the fourth estate. The first estate ‘clerics’ in higher education despise him just as intently AND he bears the fierce enmity of second estate ‘nobility’ across the legislature, the courts and the bureaucracy.
    That”s the kind of pressure that will force out either a diamond administration or the most spectacular, most public, most entertaining political spack out for as long as representative democracy is remembered.

  86. Pusnip says:

    You would prefer that he were more like a Tony Abbott …

    Hmmm, so you would prefer that Trump win office and then not follow through on anything he said beforehand. Abbot was a weak opposition leader who overpromised and a weak PM who underdelivered. He torpedoed the conservative/fiscally responsible cause in Australia, and those who continue to eulogise that failure simply crowd out a replacement who might show the backbone, nous and honesty needed to get a true fiscally responsible reform agenda implemented.

    He is (half) three quarters crazy

    I suppose that ,at least on this matter, you’re well placed to judge.

  87. Crossie says:

    If I could have had my dream pick this cycle? Scott Walker.

    That’s exactly who I thought was the best candidate early on. The Left also saw the danger in Walker, and spent a considerable amount of time and energy attacking him early last year. Scott Walker had another advantage in that he was more palatable to working class voters, unlike Cruz or Bush.

    He had that outsider status, but Trump came along and took it, and that was that.

    Walker was my favourite initially but he ruined his chances by hiring the most establishment of advisors who simply devoured his whole budget and spat it out along with him. Shame about that but personnel is policy and he failed there.

  88. Yohan says:

    People here seem to be basing their opinions of Donald Trump entirely on news reports and media commentary about the current US Republican candidate debates where Trump’s outrageous approach has been highly effective (and highly cost-effective) in getting voters’ attention. I suggest you look at his town hall meetings, speeches and interviews, of which there are plenty on Youtube and elsewhere, including some interesting material from the 1980?s when he was also touted as a possible Republican candidate.

    It is clear to me at least that, based on the fuller picture, he a serious candidate with considered views, is definitely intelligent, and can be perfectly civilized and charming when he chooses so to be. There is method in his madness and I expect the more attractive side of Donald Trump’s persona to come to the fore as the candidates are forced out.

    Bingo. People think Trump is a clown because of the aggressive reality show style of campaigning, and they only hear the distorted soundbites. If he gets the nomination, or close to it, you will see a different person emerge.

    Its been said many times by people who know him, that behind closed doors he is nothing like what we currently see.

  89. Yohan says:

    Walker was my favourite initially but he ruined his chances by hiring the most establishment of advisors who simply devoured his whole budget and spat it out along with him. Shame about that but personnel is policy and he failed there.

    Yeah they said this is what happened. But I would not really blame him, because that strategy would have worked correctly if it was a usual establishments fight, such as Walker v Jeb v Rubio.

    Instead we had Trump come in and be anti-pc, say all the things that were never meant to be brought up, then Cruz followed him into the breach. That’s why these two guys are now leading over the establishment.

  90. Crossie says:

    Instead we had Trump come in and be anti-pc, say all the things that were never meant to be brought up, then Cruz followed him into the breach. That’s why these two guys are now leading over the establishment.

    It was hoped that Walker would espouse Trump’s issues but his advisors were against it. Of course, the decision was ultimately his but he followed the conventional wisdom and struck out. You would think that a guy who won national prominence due to his fights with unions would know better, that the people were heartily sick of business as usual.

  91. Yohan says:

    Crossie I guess this was one perfect example of what happens when we are not being genuine or sticking to principles. He took the safe option and it backfired.

    It’s a shame because Walker also had a telfon like quality, and I think middle American would like him. Maybe in the future his time will come.

  92. BarBar says:

    DM of WA
    #1949217, posted on February 17, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    People here seem to be basing their opinions of Donald Trump entirely on news reports and media commentary about the current US Republican candidate debates where Trump’s outrageous approach has been highly effective (and highly cost-effective) in getting voters’ attention. I suggest you look at his town hall meetings, speeches and interviews, of which there are plenty on Youtube and elsewhere, including some interesting material from the 1980?s when he was also touted as a possible Republican candidate.

    Great. Could you put up some links to videos and transcripts of the speeches so all the Trump doubters here can be reassured he is actually a man of wisdom, intelligence and character ?

  93. EB says:

    BarBar, they’re all over youtube. He’s much more tempered than a handful of grabs shown on the ABC.

  94. Old School Conservative says:

    Michaelc58
    #1948766, posted on February 17, 2016 at 3:48 pm
    If I recall, Americans have already voted in a whole army of fine upstanding, non-vulgar, politically and economically qualified republican senators. In fact they are in majority, don’t you know. What f*cking good has it done? Same thing here – what use electing Abbott?
    If only we had a Donald Trump in Australia.

    I can only imagine the strength of will and moral fibre required to go after the political elites in Australia. You would be taking on Labor, Labor-Lite, the ABC, Fewfacts, a couple of free to air TV stations, and the low information intelligensia of Australian academia.
    It’s not just the array of opponents, it’s their disgusting tactics. Skewering your children, using foul language about you with the support of mass media, dirty jokes about your spouse, using toilet humour to destroy you, and censoring your message. Just look how all political parties have shut up about their opponents’ travel rorts because all are tarred with the same brush.
    To do a Trump in Australia will require someone with the ability to ride over the elites’ self-protection racquet whilst simultaneously presenting an iron-clad Australia-enhancing set of policies.
    I see no-one on the Australian horizon who can do this.

  95. BarBar says:

    EB – provide some links then of your favourites.

  96. Entropy says:

    Its been said many times by people who know him, that behind closed doors he is nothing like what we currently see.

    On what planet is this a good thing?

    I suspect he has an inner totalitarian just like the PC tossers he is currently attacking. This of course is why SRR is such a rapid supporter. Like his other hero Putin.
    As an example, he reckons Apple should enable the State to have access to your phone data. Totalitarian. The State knows best.

  97. . says:

    Trump is more “reasonable” – yep he even wrote a book about politics – he wanted wealth taxes, gun control, abortion on demand and so on.

    He’s a more affluent version of Bernie.

  98. Hamish Marshall says:

    Ant, 5.36pm and 10.00pm Beautifully said.

    Roger, 9.08 if the POTUS cannot deal with the reality that the USA is permanently at ‘war’ with Islamists (both Government, and extra government in nature) and with vile totalitarian powers, he/she is intellectually spineless, and through their appeasement, will ensure many times more human suffering in the mid to longer term. Neville Chamberlain had an excuse of sorts – he was negotiating from a position of weakness. No such excuses apply to Obama or Trump.

    DM of WA
    ” As someone one said: the business of America is business ” Not anymore son. The business of America now is living of the government teat. A massively overly governed welfare nanny state, given to facilitating cronyism on a grand scale at the upper end and building a drug addled underclass at the lower end.

    The only man who, by dent of his intellectual and moral capability, has a hope of reversing this mess is Teddy Cruz. Trump supporters are at best wishful thinkers!

  99. Yohan says:

    I suspect he has an inner totalitarian just like the PC tossers he is currently attacking.

    No doubt he is a totalitarian. But what I am talking about is his aggressive TV persona. Apparently he is nothing like that according to people who know him. This does not mean his positions will change or he will become a libertarian, unfortunately.

  100. BarBar says:

    DM of WA
    #1949217, posted on February 17, 2016 at 10:00 pm
    It is clear to me at least that, based on the fuller picture, he a serious candidate with considered views, is definitely intelligent, and can be perfectly civilized and charming when he chooses so to be. There is method in his madness and I expect the more attractive side of Donald Trump’s persona to come to the fore as the candidates are forced out.

    DM – you didn’t help me with any links so I googled Donald Trump+ intelligent+ civilised and I got:

    Donald J. Trump? Verified account ?
    [email protected]
    Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault

    Can you provide your definition of” intelligence and civilised” DM so that others might better understand this message ?

    If you go to the link athttps://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/332308211321425920?lang=en&lang=en there’s a photograph too.

  101. Infidel Tiger says:

    Donald J. TrumpVerified account
    [email protected]
    Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault

    That is just sad. I’m officially embarrassed for Trumpbots now.

  102. Infidel Tiger says:

    Bingo. People think Trump is a clown because of the aggressive reality show style of campaigning, and they only hear the distorted soundbites. If he gets the nomination, or close to it, you will see a different person emerge.

    Its been said many times by people who know him, that behind closed doors he is nothing like what we currently see.

    So your saying he’s a complete fraud and you’re happy with this?

    What kind of mental disease is this?

  103. Oh come on says:

    Bingo. People think Trump is a clown because of the aggressive reality show style of campaigning, and they only hear the distorted soundbites. If he gets the nomination, or close to it, you will see a different person emerge.

    This makes no sense. If Trump got the nomination or something near, why would he allow a different persona take over from the one that got him into the winner’s box in the first instance?

  104. Oh come on says:

    And Trump instantly lost me when he started on with his trutherist dogwhistling.

  105. Fisky says:

    I predicted about four months ago that Trump was going to play the Truther card!

  106. BorisG says:

    ?He may make either Hillary or Bernie more electable than they otherwise would be.

    This point is last in the list but not the least. If he (or any other candidate) is unelectable then all his pros (and cons) are irrelevant.

  107. Yohan says:

    Since when had Trump played the truther card? He said the Bush administration lied us into war. This is very different to claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

    Yes the Bush administration lied about WMD’s, to give justification to go to war against Iraq. Nothing controversial about that. Everyone involved now claims they were ‘fooled’.

  108. BorisG says:

    He said the Bush administration lied us into war.

    Then he is in the same camp as Obama. Good company.

  109. Yohan says:

    So your saying he’s a complete fraud and you’re happy with this?

    What kind of mental disease is this?

    It’s theater to gain media attention. All of them put on an act. I’m much happier with Trump’s strongman act, than Cruz’s televangelist act pandering to small town church goers. ‘Lets raise the body of Christ’ and ‘abortion is the single most important issue’ e.t.c

  110. Yohan says:

    Then he is in the same camp as Obama. Good company.

    A lot of people on the right (including myself) tied their own personal self worth and integrity to the Iraq war. So to now admit it was based on deliberately manipulated intelligence triggers them like fuck.

    One way of avoiding this cognitive dissonance, it to pretend it’s all a leftist argument, therefore we can dismiss reality with righteous justification.

  111. BorisG says:

    One way of avoiding this cognitive dissonance, it to pretend it’s all a leftist argument, therefore we can dismiss reality with righteous justification.

    I disagree (or should I say bullshit etc as is catallaxy style). I never supported the Iraq war but not for the leftist reasons. It was not a deliberate lie, but it was wrong nonetheless.

    Admitting , even retrospectively, that the war was a mistake is not the same as saying it was based on a lie. It is worth checking what Trump said at the time when lack of WMDs became known. I would guess he supported the Bush position (The fact that Saddam Hussain has not yet been found does not mean he never existed :).

    The ONLY reason Trump is saying this is to attack Jeb Bush.

  112. BorisG says:

    I stand corrected. Trump always opposed the Iraq war. But it wasn’t a lie.

  113. A Lurker says:

    Again, this demonstrates my point. The contempt is visceral.
    Why?

    I am personally tiring of the fervent campaigning coming from certain posters here.
    Yes we get it, you hate Candidate X, and want Candidate Y to win – or you hate Candidate Y, and you want Candidate X to win.
    However this is Australia, and unless you are American and plan to vote, your fervent and passionate views on who should and shouldn’t win, mean exactly diddly squat and are becoming tiresome and boring.

    Besides, whoever ends up becoming President will always remain one thing.
    A politician.
    And there are far too many of those in the world.

  114. BorisG says:

    I am personally tiring of the fervent campaigning coming from certain posters here.

    I have a solution for you. Don’t read these comments.

Comments are closed.