Sunday, January 24, 2016

Thinking Twice: The pro-Trump and anti-Trump perspectives

First the Pro-Trump thoughts...
Against The Establishment
It's a pretty sad day when Joy Reid of MSNBC makes more sense to me than National Review.
Check out her diagnosis (which mostly comes from moderate Republican turned liberalish independent Bruce Bartlett) at 6:45.
It's accurate -- the establishment/elite has been selling lies to everyone outside the donor class for years. They use their power to enact their own priorities into law, while telling the rest of us "it's too hard" or "it will scare the moderates."
And for years we went along with this.
Well, as she notes, the issue of immigration has caused this bargain -- the elites get their actual agenda, everyone else gets lies and empty promises -- to break down, probably forever.
You know, for years, I felt it was my duty to sell these shit sandwiches to readers for the Greater Good of winning elections.
I didn't like doing it, but I thought that, for example, the War on Terror was too important to risk a rupture over other questions.
Although I've come to hate politics and I just despise reading the news now, the one good thing is that I'm liberated from splashing some ketchup on Sandwiches Made of Actual Shit and trying to sell them to people as tasty and healthful.
I feel liberated. I serve no "Greater Good," as I don't know that there's a Greater Good to be served anymore. So I can just say exactly what I think.
And what I think is that the establishment has to be destroyed.
We will not be ignored, we will not be condescended to, we will no longer accept broken promises and lies as our payment for our service to the GOP.
And if it requires destroying the GOP and electing a Democrat to teach the establishment this lesson, to chastise them and to humble them, then we shall do just that, and do so happily.
You will either come to terms, or you will be destroyed.
Anti-Trump... maybe
After a lot of thought and, ultimately, resignation, I have decided to support Donald J. Trump in 2016.
I imagine this will bother those of you who still have faith in humanity, you beacons of hope in this vast, unforgiving universe.
“Why?” you might ask, if you still, somehow, haven’t become a shell of a human being. “Why would you support Trump?”
You want to know why, person who hasn’t yet become a despondent shadow of his former self?
Because my spirit is broken.
I’m so tired. I’ve read countless editorials, opinion columns and investigative pieces that simply, honestly and accurately explain why Trump should not be the leader of the free world, why it might be a bad idea for him to hold a position of authority in our government, why he might be a hypersensitive, raving, narcissistic child with no real idea of how to fix the myriad problems facing our country. I’ve flipped through hundreds of pages documenting his many lawsuits, poor business decisions and general idiocy, pages and pages and pages of evidence that he should never be taken seriously or trusted with heavy responsibility. And yet, his popularity grows; his fans become ever more rabid; and my soul shrivels into a small black hole, engulfing my ability to resist and my will to carry on.
At first, I’ll admit, I didn’t get it. He’s not intelligent, charismatic, charming or attractive. If you close your eyes while he’s talking, it sounds like you’re playing a halfhearted game of Chubby Bunny with a racist 5th-grader. But I get it now.
I finally understand that to support Trump, you don’t have to agree with his politics or believe he’ll save America; you just have to stop caring, give into sweet release, and let the wave of dejected acquiescence wash over you like the incoming tide.
A Trump presidency will probably be unbearable for you unwavering angels of light who still believe that the voters will eventually choose someone else, someone who doesn’t sound like a drunk college freshman winging a social studies presentation the Monday after Christmas break.
Can you imagine seeing Trump’s face, tanned into an uncomfortable shade of blonde, every time you turn on the news for the next four years? Can you imagine hearing his voice, spewing incoherent, uninformed nonsense at you, over and over and over again for roughly 1,460 days?
I used to imagine it and cringe, when I still had a life force.
I used to find the idea of President Trump unendurable, horrifying. Now, I just take two sleeping pills and curl into a fetal position under my desk until all emotion and conscious thought pass.
Are you afraid of what might happen to America, not to mention the Republican party, if an entitled, tantrum-throwing cretin become its leader?
I was, too, when I could feel fear. Now I’m Frodo, exhausted, beaten down, desolate, lying on the side of Mount Doom; just drag me up the side of the mountain and throw me into the all-consuming fire of a future in which Donald Trump can make major decisions that affect my life. I have surrendered to wretched defeatism.
I used to get into arguments with people who like him because he’s “anti-PC” and “outspoken” and “arguably not a pandering, easily corruptible misogynist.” But then I realized that everything is pointless. I used to say things like “we don’t want this man representing America” and “he is not prepared or equipped for this kind of responsibility,” but now when confronted by a Trump supporter, I just lie down on the ground and play dead until they leave or the floor gets cold.
I have been worn down. I have abandoned all hope.
So carry on, America. Do what you want. Willingly march yourself into four years of a president who regularly gets into fights with strangers on Twitter. I will join you, like a salmon swimming upriver to its death.
I will spend 2016 wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, quietly lying in the dark, waiting for the rapture.
#Trump2016

51 comments:

chickelit said...

Nice play on words in the title, Lem.

Lem said...

Thanks Chick... we have good people to draw from.

chickelit said...

I can still remember being a petulant 40-year old and bristling at the notion of voting for George W. Bush, mostly because he reminded me of the spoiled frat guys I half-despised in college. So I did vote for Gore for that reason. There really wasn't much more political depth to me then.

chickelit said...

Then 9/11 happened and I realized that while nearly the whole nation was on board about what to do about it at first, half of them began to undermine the long term strength of the nation as time went on.

chickelit said...

I still think that the 2016 election may be an entirely events-driven election. The fact that the Dems are wholly without leadership seems unprecedented. Political nature abhors a vacuum, too.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I wasn't that excited about GWB either. I gave Gore and GWB a listen and decided to go for GWB.

Gore never really irritated me like the Clintons.

Lem said...

I won't tell you that the allure of a can do no wrong (on 5fh Ave or anywhere) inflated Tom Brady in White House doesn't appeal to me.

The White House is not an NFL franchise. I have to remind myself of that.

chickelit said...

AprilApple said....I wasn't that excited about GWB either. I gave Gore and GWB a listen and decided to go for GWB.

Gore never really irritated me like the Clintons.


I left the US for 3 years in 90's, coming back only once (briefly) in the interregnum. During this time I was mostly without exposure to American media. Upon coming back, in 1993, I noticed a difference on college campuses which I otherwise wouldn't have noticed. I forget the context, but some well-meaning person took me aside and said "We just don't say things like that anymore." What was new was PC speech. What precipitated this? Clinton's election 1992. Probably also Rush Limbaugh's influence. I didn't put this together until years later.

ricpic said...

I don't know who wrote this but it's filled with the usual contempt for both Trump and his supporters, of which I count myself one. What's stupid about building a wall to keep out a massive invasion? What's stupid about putting a halt (even if only temporary) on the "refugee" muslim invasion? What's stupid about making demands of America's trading "partners" like the duplicitous Chinese that they give as well as get? What's stupid about a rapid rebuild of our defense capabilities? The genuine stupidity lies in giving any credence whatsoever to the "solutions": of nefarious self-serving sophisticates, may they rot in hell.

bagoh20 said...

"Because my spirit is broken."

Then get out of the fight. You're a liability in that state of mind.

Trump said it best himself. He could shoot someone in public and not lose a vote.

He has even abandoned his core attraction of being anti-establishment. Now that he sees the victory in reach, he immediately decided that making deals with the traitors and signing their bills is what he's gonna be really good at.

The right is now as principled and logical as the left.

We got to do something, anything! Now hold my beer, and watch me vote.

chickelit said...

Trump said it best himself. He could shoot someone in public and not lose a vote.

There was an interesting "annalysis" over at Althouse on what he said and what the press said he said.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Trump said it best himself. He could shoot someone in public and not lose a vote

Actually what Trump said was that the pollsters/media talking heads said that he has strong supporters. HE didn't say that. Once again the media twists the words and leaves out the most important part. Is it any wonder the media is held in contempt? Liars all.

Here is what D Trump actually said.

"And you know what else they say about my people —the polls — they say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? — where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."

rcocean said...

Agree DBQ. The MSM never stops lying about Trump. Its disgusting.

edutcher said...

You can have lots of reservations about Trump. I'm the first one to say so.

but the thing he's got going for him is he's effective. He's rerwritten the debate on illegals and immigration. The fact people are even talking seriously about will Hillary ever be indicted is because he went after her (something the Cruzzers and the rest of the "experts" said would never happen) and took away the War On Women from her, destroyed Willie as a campaign prop, and did a real number on her feminist street cred.

Like it or not, everybody thought that would be Fiorina's role, but he's been so effective, she isn't need to go after the twat vote Hillary was supposed to get.

What gets me about the Cruzzers (they love to call Trump supporters names, but can't take a little of their own medicine, even in jest), they don't want to hear any reservations about The One True Ted Conceived Without Original Leftism by a Canadian Virgin.

And there are plenty.

That kind of fanaticism does not make me feel secure. Nor does the idea they see themselves as sole arbiters of who's a Conservative.

Truth in advertising: I'd love it if Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal were still in the race, but, as Rummy once observed, yopu go with the field you got.

bagoh20 said...

He has even abandoned his core attraction of being anti-establishment.

No, all he was saying is that, comes the time, he would be able to work with Congress which, unless there's a miracle this November, will still have only about 100 Conservatives in the House and a handful in the Senate.

Hate to remind everybody, but even Reagan had to come to terms with a Democrat House.

And who's going to want to do any favors for Cruz? McConnell? Dingy Harry?

Unless he wants to do executive orders for 4 years, how does he govern?

edutcher said...

rcocean said...

Agree DBQ. The MSM never stops lying about Trump. Its disgusting.

Neither do the Cruzzers.

Which is another knock against them.

William said...

Well, Ted Kennedy actually drowned a woman, and it didn't lose him a single feminist vote. Norman Mailer stabbed his wife. Nonetheless, Gloria Steinem, the noted feminist, was a campaign worker in his mayoralty campaign and even threw in what she described as a "mercy fuck"........Not much chance any Democrat will be called out on this and mocked for their hypocrisy. But it's there.......I'm tepid about Trump, but I think he's probably right about more things than Hillary. Plus he's more fun to watch. Bernie has the distinction about being wrong about everything. If you want to give Obama a third term, Bernie's the man.....lIf Bloomberg ran, I'd give him a look. When mayor most of his liberalism was aimed at such harmless things as big sodas. Big sodas, tampon taxes. If only the liberals cold devote themselves to these issues.

Chip Ahoy said...

Lost me at "Chubby Bunny with racist 5th grader"

The racist is you, my dear, but I cannot convince you of that because your racism is thoroughly internalized and incandescent that it projects outward like an aura and warms everything around you.

And how am I supposed to know what Chubby Bunny is?

Ordinary non racist people do not equate border protection with race, but you do, and ordinary people do not equate vetting for a new and real hazard from specific areas as racist, but you do.

You are not a serious person, just a trope-filled person skidding along superficial by axioms, guided by adages and common partisan knowledge FOX News network, Koch Bros, BOO!

I read that first one by Ace posted three places.

The simple fact is, I've never had representation. Not once.

One time at a very fancy dinner party [I cracked up laughing in the wrong place. The hostess grabbed a bunch of salad dressing bottles from the refrigerator by their necks and brought them to the table clanging. It reminded me of home, decades earlier, but I hadn't had bottled dressing that long. It was FUNNY! Because everything else was so tediously fancy.] And I asked this perfect douchebag partisan bag who's a douche but who used to be my friend, "Isn't it possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Of course it is. We ALL ARE. All of us are. All of us are.

"NO!"

I told you he's a douche

That's how rigid that little prick.

And I'm telling you, I will NEVER forget that incident so clear in my memory that occurred two decades ago, because NOBODY serves six clanging bottles of dressing.







bagoh20 said...

It's a metaphor, and exaggeration of course, but the point was that his supporters are immune to arguments against him.

Every Trump supporter I've spoken to, including on this blog, has made it clear that they just don't care about anything negative you say about Trump. They turn every negative into a positive, and on the ones they can't, they simply say "I don't care".

I have hope that a Trump President would cut waste, and get rid of incompetence, and if he turns out to be a good President, then I'll be extremely happy that my concerns were wrong, but if he turns out to just continue us down this doomed path even faster or worse, then supporters will have to face that they didn't care, and got played for suckers. Go back and look at older videos of Trump interviews. He was dead sure of his positions as a liberal before he changed them recently well into adulthood. I'm very suspicious of that, especially with Trump's style of doing and saying whatever it takes to win today.

I believe I know what Cruz, Rubio, and Christy would do, including where they will let me down. I know that's still far superior to the Democrat alternative, but I'm not saying I don't care what they say or do. I've seen them flip some positions, but they have been 90% where they are now all their adult lives. Trump has reversed almost every political position just recently as an older adult, or at least says he has. Being cocksure of such a guy's future actions just doesn't seem wise to me.

bagoh20 said...

As to effectiveness, it's hard to deny that Trump is a successful businessman, but if he had simply invested his inheritance in the overall stock market when he got it, he would be at least as wealthy as he is today just on market return without him paying any attention to it at all.

A much more successful man was Mitt Romney who gave away his inheritance and started near zero still becoming extremely wealthy. Neither man invented anything or got in on the bottom rung of some wild startup. They both had to work to where they are, but Trump didn't really outperform the business sector as a whole. Just worth knowing.

edutcher said...

William said...

Well, Ted Kennedy actually drowned a woman, and it didn't lose him a single feminist vote.

Inside the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

Non-Massholes, including females, took a different view.

bagoh20 said...

It's a metaphor, and exaggeration of course, but the point was that his supporters are immune to arguments against him.

Every Trump supporter I've spoken to, including on this blog, has made it clear that they just don't care about anything negative you say about Trump. They turn every negative into a positive, and on the ones they can't, they simply say "I don't care".


I've made a point about the fact he has shortcomings in my eyes and, as far as it goes, he has more support from me than anyone else. Some of his old stands the Cruzzers like to bring up seem to be just that, old; others come out of having to do business in the state and city of New York. The issue of experience is one I've thought about a lot. The issue of how he'll do with foreign policy is another that concerns me.

So you can say you met on Trump guy who has reservations.

The same complaint of the trump people, however, can be made for Cruz supporters. They refuse to see any bad side to him. And, of course, call you every name they can think of for even disagreeing. They are very angry at just about everybody who doesn't see it their way and see it as us vs them, which seems to be the way Cruz conducts himself.

What gets me more than anything else is they have no problem with the idea they're not going to have to win over other people - Trump's, Rubio's, Fiorina's - to get the nomination, much less win an election and, of course they are; and no problem with the idea Cruz is just going to buffalo Congress into doing everything his way.

He was dead sure of his positions as a liberal before he changed them recently well into adulthood.

CNN seems to have disagreed with you

In any case, nice to see there are some Cruz guys that don't foam at the mouth when confronted with dissent.

bagoh20 said...

"... all he was saying is that, comes the time, he would be able to work with Congress "

I'm saying that he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet and he's going soft. I thought his tough, take no prisoners style was what was so fresh and new and attractive. Maybe it was just bullshit? They always go softer eventually, so I like Cruz's starting point a lot better. He has already been there and proven he'll stand for things, even if he has to stand alone. If you want the tough outsider that the establishment really fears, it seems to me that Cruz would be that guy more than Trump.

bagoh20 said...

I'm not a Cruz guy - he's just the most conservative, which matters to me. I want to win, and I think he might have a problem in the general, both him and Trump are easy to scare people with. I think Rubio or Christy are more electable, but Trump is a wild card with all kinds of unusual pockets of cross over support.

edutcher said...

bagoh20 said...

I like Cruz's starting point a lot better. He has already been there and proven he'll stand for things, even if he has to stand alone. If you want the tough outsider that the establishment really fears, it seems to me that Cruz would be that guy more than Trump.

OK, if the "establishment" really fears him, what's the incentive to work with him? "My way or no way" hasn't worked too well for him so far. He's put up something like 25 bills and only one has been passed. That's not effective. I understand he shut down the government for a few days, but that doesn't fix all the problems the country has.

The other point to consider is that he's put a lot of this on a personal basis. Calling Mitch McConnell a liar and a great many of his other colleagues squishes is great theater and got plenty of headlines, but why should McConnell or anyone else do anything to help him out if Cruz wins?

Another point to consider. We're talking a guy who paints himself as an outside, but, if you look at his resume, is really an insider. We're talking about a guy who's an ideologue at the very least and probably a narcissist who, after 2 years in the Senate, thinks he's ready to be President. A guy who makes a great show out of being the voice crying in the wilderness.

In fact, Cruz has failed in every cause he has championed—and it is never his fault. Failure to defund Planned Parenthood, failure to repeal Obamacare, failure to stop the Iran deal—and the list goes on. That is his Senate career. Of course, all conservatives want these battles to be fought, even if we lose. But it’s not really the issue or the cause that Cruz is championing. No, he just wants to be the one leading the cause—and wants you to see him doing it. Cruz is a perpetual martyr.

Here’s the problem—our country is in real trouble, this is no time for contrivance and theater, we need authenticity and results. We do not need a leader who loves to play the martyr, because the thing about martyrs is that they always die
.

Read the biographical blurb at the bottom.

As I say, I have plenty of reservations about Trump. But having them about Cruz does not make me a rube or an idiot.

bagoh20 said...

"CNN seems to have disagreed with you"

I know what he's said, and who he has supported. I've seen it with my own lying eyes. The fact that he may have said the opposite at times really supports my point that we have no idea where his real motivation to simply win will lead. I think he is just as likely to do something like end Obamacare as he is to install single payer if he thinks that will make him a hero to somebody.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

OK, how do you know what Cruz will do?

He's really a lot like Ozero. Get past the advertising and you've got no much there there.

F'rinstance, he was OK with Gang of 8 for quite a while, even wanting to confer legal status on the illegals. He said he didn't like TPP for Barry, but voted for it anyway. He spoke against the Ocare spending bill for 21 hours, but was the 100th vote for it in the Senate.

Anything suspicious you can say about Trump, and you may be right, you can say about Cruz (though his people don't want to hear it), although I think Trump's seen what a mess not only Ocare, but the couple of attempts at single payer, have been.

My guess (and we're all guessing) is that he'd like to go down in history (and I think that's what beckons him - and anybody else who seeks the White House) as the man who brought the country back and made it better. I think the last few years may have shown him socialism is not the way to go.

YMMV.

What I'd like to know is how Cruz got on with his colleagues at the FTC, DOJ, and Solicitor General's office in TX. Was he any different there?

Be interesting.

bagoh20 said...

I don't like the youth and inexperience of either Cruz or Rubio. The sad thing is that they would be worse if they had a longer career in D.C. I don't like career politicians as an option ever.

Trump is much better in one on one interviews than in speeches - if you can even call them speeches. He just seems to talk about superficial stuff in speeches, but in interviews he explains his positions better, although he still talks about polls too much. I also wish he would engage in the arguments rather than just dismiss or attack his critics. There are so many better ways to have responded to the National Review piece than to just say they suck and nobody reads it. I have to assume he doesn't have any counter arguments to points that are important to a lot of us. He's been coasting on this "I'm winning" as 90% of his argument. That's what is irritating about the blind fawning support. Demand better, and you just might find out what you are voting for. Stop telling him you don't care what he says, because it matters, especially if you want to vote for him.

edutcher said...

bagoh20 said...

I don't like the youth and inexperience of either Cruz or Rubio. The sad thing is that they would be worse if they had a longer career in D.C. I don't like career politicians as an option ever.

Know what you mean.

About 25 years ago, Orrin Hatch got into a row on the Senate floor with Teddy Kennedy and ended his remarks with, "And, if he expects me to believe it, I have a small bridge for him".

Now he's just another guy with DC-itis.

He's been coasting on this "I'm winning" as 90% of his argument. That's what is irritating about the blind fawning support.

I don't see it as blind or fawning. I think it's people who see a guy who beats the machine (which he is, at the moment), and he's the only one doing it.

After 8 years of the Lefties getting their way, he's sticking a thumb in their eye.

You go with the Strong Horse/Winner, however you want to put it.

Rabel said...

This is all very confusing. Maybe someone can help me out. Is Trump a conservative, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, self-serving conman who is trying to trick low-information, gap-toothed rednecks like me into voting for him or is he a liberal, establishmentarian, crony-capitalistic, New Yorkian, self-serving conman who is trying to trick low-information, gap-toothed rednecks like me into voting for him?

I seek clarity because I've heard both arguments - often from the same people!

Perhaps someone can put propose a Grand Unified Theory of Trumpativity that pulls together the Quantum Trump and the Newtonian Trump and puts my confusion to rest.

I wonder how Hawking is rollin' nowadays. I bet he could do it.

chickelit said...

@Rabel: Don't forget to mention that Trump is arch-enemies with America favorite TV news personality.

I once read somewhere a quote about the mark of an intellectual being the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time.

I need to track that one down.

chickelit said...

It was probably Niels Bohr. He was good at that.

chickelit said...

It will be entertaining (but distracting from more important things) to see if Megyn Kelly goes to bat for Rosie O'Donnell again this Thursday.

bagoh20 said...

"I seek clarity because I've heard both arguments - often from the same people!
"


Well, that's exactly my point. Nobody knows because he's been all over the map. He even admits that he needs to, like Obama, "be flexible", or "pragmatic" as some call it. What Trump has never been is a committed conservative. I find that to be a big negative. So now people are pretending to not know what a conservative is.

Clinton fans tell me that her deviousness and ability to get away with almost anything is proof of her political skill, and we need someone like that, so I'm told. Once people decide they want to vote for someone, all that's left is twisting whatever it takes to defend that choice.

Rabel said...

Well I hope Niels Bohr will remember, a Southern man don't need him around, anyhow.

There's a lot of disinformation being spread around about Trump. It's coming from both sides and requires a sharp ear to distinguish the truth from the lies. I respect your opinion, Bags, but would just caution you to be on the lookout for an organized propaganda campaign intended to demonize Trump and shame the uncommitted into rejecting him.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

I respect your opinion, Bags, but would just caution you to be on the lookout for an organized propaganda campaign intended to demonize Trump and shame the uncommitted into rejecting him.

The will try to impalinate him on a shtick.

I just watched that SNL parody. It seemed to me that it was a "Donald's OK but what the hell is he doing palling around with Palin?" shtick. The potential cross-over voters -- mainly Upper East Side women -- must continue to believe that they were correct and justified in "shaming" Palin. Their worldview depends on it.

bagoh20 said...

I'm judging Trump only according to Trump: his words and his actions eclusvely. It's not hard to find, so there is no need to use other sources. If someone says he said this or that, I go find the video. If someone claims he was the one actually wearing the infamous blue dress that day in the oral office, I go find the video. I'm still looking for that one, but wow, what a distracting exercise.

bagoh20 said...

To explore a different angle:
The chances of any of us being killed in a terrorist attack is one of the least likely dangers we face, yet we incur endless expense and sacrifices to prevent it. And, if you believe the data, immigration is actually in reverse now with a net loss of undocumented people in the U.S. - lowest since 2004. With those two facts in evidence, is Trump really the guy to solve our real problems going forward, or is he a bomb dropped on a mostly empty target?

Rabel said...

1. Those expenses and sacrifices have a lot to do with the truth of your risk assessment.

2. I don't believe the data.

Rabel said...

By the way, I'm more of a Trump agnostic than a true believer. But I'm not an atheist.

Rabel said...

Eight years ago I wouldn't have given him the slightest consideration. Things have changed.

Rabel said...

If not for Chamberlain, England would not have chosen Churchill.

I may have just just compared Trump to Churchill. That calls for another round.

chickelit said...

To explore an even more different angle: bags is right about the terrorist threat decreasing there hasn't been a major one in CA this year. Plus the President's new Executive Orders re "gun safety" make me feel safer already. Romney's much maligned "self-deportation" has actually come true to greater extent. All we had to sacrifice was a little GDP to get there; a hit to the barometer of future earnings. I'm feeling confident that when the economy kicks into recovery mode, those people will stay home.

Here's another thought: these are sleepy times indeed in DC; why should America need the undivided attention of some of her best Senators for the duration of the year? Trump does not have that excuse-- he should instead focus on running his business and paying his taxes. Jeb! of course is the least busy and best funded of the Republican lot but he blocked by a lot of pesky questions regarding immigration. But since immigration is now largely "solved" there's no reason why he shouldn't rise in the polls.

chickelit said...

Rabel, Rabel, your face is a mess!

chickelit said...

Rabel, your photo somehow reminds me of the Althouse "Manson girl" photo she recently reposted.

Rabel said...

Reading back through, I see that it could also be said that I compared Trump to Jesus. I have a rosary around here somewhere. Penitence may be required.

Rabel said...

The similarity brings up an interesting possibility. You know one of Charlie's girls hid out in plain sight for decades.

I want to believe...

chickelit said...

I submit that the Trump candidacy is necessary to recalibrate our media. They are flabby and out of shape -- the NYT and WaPo especially. No other candidate gets anywhere close to his level scrutiny. It's like having Rush Limbaugh running. During this necessary recalibration, the press will do and say many dishonest things; these too are necessary in order to give those media competition.

Rabel said...

Words of wisdom, Chick. I think.

One problem for Trump is that I find it almost impossible that a person with his extensive and widespread business career, even with a building full of lawyers and a good faith effort to stay within the law, hasn't done something that could be construed by a motivated prosecutor to be a crime.

You can almost hear the establishment digging. Hillary's digging too, but she's way too slick to be heard.

Rabel said...

Some perverted minds may think it would be kinda cool in a weird sort of way if both major candidates were under indictment on election day. But not me, no siree bob, not me.

Meade said...

Smart money still on Hill: http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner