Democrats secret and not secret agents...
I've been depicting Fiorini as the perfect Democrat secret sleeper agent. That Is still more true than not. But it's only my opinion - well - not only. Now we find the second agent depicted by Mona Charon's column on Dec 9th. That's today!!!
She lays out her case in no nonsense straight forward terms. Question inow is how many of his approval number came from the left to begin with. Who? Trump the life long Democrat turned RINO. Who else as an opponent would bandaid the left back together?
http://townhall.com Mona Charon
The dictionary defines "bogeyman" as "an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children." Hello, Donald Trump. It's not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect.
As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin's point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats' unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican "rapists" and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Line 'em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity: provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.
This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican -- rather than explaining why President Obama's refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment -- instead had to condemn Donald Trump's mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice. Again, he's the perfect bogeyman.
It's not just that what he says demands condemnation. It's that it seems to give credence to the Democrats' narrative.
Personally when I listen to or read about Trump I'm reminded of the climb to power int he 20's and 30's of the last century by an ex German Army Corporal who also had a hair problem..on his lip.
She lays out her case in no nonsense straight forward terms. Question inow is how many of his approval number came from the left to begin with. Who? Trump the life long Democrat turned RINO. Who else as an opponent would bandaid the left back together?
http://townhall.com Mona Charon
The dictionary defines "bogeyman" as "an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children." Hello, Donald Trump. It's not clear whether he set out intentionally to elect Hillary Clinton, but there is little question that he could not be fulfilling the role of Republican bogeyman to greater effect.
As Commentary's Jonathan Tobin noted, during a week in which the disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism ought to have been Topic A, we are all talking about Trump instead. Brilliant. Tobin's point actually applies to the entire presidential contest. By rights, it should be about the Democrats' unraveling. From Obamacare to terrorism, from the economy to climate change, and from guns to free speech, progressive policies have proven deeply disappointing when not downright obtuse and dangerous. Clinton promises more of the same while trailing an oil slick of corruption in her wake. And yet swinging into the frame, week in and week out, the orange-maned billionaire bogeyman dominates the discussion.
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-Hispanic bigots, Trump (a lifelong Democrat) is supposed to confirm. Just look at the way he talked about Mexican "rapists" and vowed to build a wall that Mexico will fund.
Hell yes, Republicans want to fight a war on women. Did you hear what Trump said about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina?
Hell yes, Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-handicapped, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Line 'em up and Trump will offend. Not cleverly, mind you, but crudely. Donald Trump is fond of saying that our political leaders are stupid, constantly outmaneuvered at the bargaining table by shrewder Chinese, Mexicans, and Japanese. No one can accuse him of stupidity: provided his goal is to elect Hillary Clinton.
This week, while we were still burying our dead from San Bernardino, every Republican -- rather than explaining why President Obama's refusal to fight the war on terror has led to this moment -- instead had to condemn Donald Trump's mindless proposal to keep every single Muslim out of the United States until further notice. Again, he's the perfect bogeyman.
It's not just that what he says demands condemnation. It's that it seems to give credence to the Democrats' narrative.
Personally when I listen to or read about Trump I'm reminded of the climb to power int he 20's and 30's of the last century by an ex German Army Corporal who also had a hair problem..on his lip.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
On the other hand, if handled right, the Tea Party wing of the GOP could use him to wrest control away from the big-spending establishment faction of the party.
All that effort only to find out their erstwhile heroes were their stead fast enemies.
the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how you spell socialist.
One -Bring in one of our insiders who is one of their outsiders.
Two (added one) Form an ad hoc None Of The Above Party and boycott the current election non-system with a massive show of no shows and no confidence.
If they are acceptable to the statist party, then they are unacceptable.
Second move is as I put it before Fiorino Jindal ticket with a view of destroying the system from within over eight years. Or something similar. Trump doesn't fit that scenario either.
Third is an outsider to politics such as John Allison former CEO of Branch Banking & Trust.
Other than he should be in the Gulch or reading our doings occasionally (he fits that well and it should be recommendation enough knows AR and AS and objectivism inside and out) I have not further comment. Some of the older timer types should recognize the name.
Three ways to go besides choosing life with no honor....
The first one is iffy but possible
The second one is possible but iffy
The third one means building a whole new party. The None of the Above Party. Infinitely preferable and doable at the grass roots level.
The rest is just give up and die in place...speaking of which spending all this time talking about which leftist is the best choice is really weird. Let's see do we want "Lenin and Stalin or Adolf and Benito, or Trump and Krugman. Wow three choices!!!!
My rhetoric, yes...but the thought of either being President does make me, predictably, sick.
Which reminds me that the British meaning of 'pissed' is intoxicated.
Maybe they are just pissed.
of the Rs to the "silent majority" who voted them into power
in congress over the past 8 years. . they will accept any
method to get retribution, short of armed rebellion.
They Are Pissed! -- j
.
of the Rs -- whom the "silent majority" voted into power
in congress during the past 2 elections -- and that majority's
desire to see change at any cost. . They Are Pissed! -- j
.
Please explain the objectivism that I missed.
To cement that if you vote for anyone else the winner takes all rule sucks up your vote and changes it to favor the other candidate. So in the end voting for the 'lesser' of evils only leaves you as a supporter of evil.
Rand again. In any question there are three possible answers. Right, Wrong, Compromise. Which make one right answer and two wrong answers.
In our system you are given the choice of Wrong and Compromise. If you play the game you lose. If you don't play the game and in doing so vote 'none of the above you win. Personally.
Do I like the man? Impossible, but I admire how he's managed to rip control from the hands of a corrupt political and media cabal to gain his standing in the contest. I'm disappointed that my favorite, Rand Paul, hasn't been near as adept.
What I find interesting is that the media hasn't been able to find a single disgruntled employee to set up as the poster child to show how evil Trump is. They tried to get his two exes to criticize him, and that didn't work. His kids are hard-working, intelligent, and likable, obviously showing great respect for their father. He doesn't smoke, drink, or do drugs, and never has, unlike the "choom gang" member currently occupying the White House.
I have been amused at the furor over Trump's statements about halting Muslim immigration, as he was not saying anything different than Rand Paul, although in a blunter fashion. We have the example of a Europe that is collapsing from its own reckless immigration policies, and Trump is simply echoing what you can hear from most Americans on the street.
Comparing Trump with Hitler is foolish and irrational. I would be more inclined to compare him to Louisiana Governor Huey Long, "The Kingfish," who gave FDR such concern with his populist stance. Had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he might have been elected President in 1936.
The pundits keep predicting the collapse of the Trump phenomenon, and he keeps proving them wrong. Will we have a President Trump? Who knows, but the contest has become entertaining.
Load more comments...