Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[LutherMan]

 Donald Trump won Nevada...

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

It's beginning to appear that I will not be casting a ballot for president this year in Nov.  I wonder if I will be joined in that by others who see Trump's "common-sense conservatism" as not conservative at all--beyond being simply a ruse and masque adopted for expediency.  He has no conservative record.   Ronald Reagan changed from Democrat to Republican, but he labored and toiled for the conservative Republican cause, building a record that matched his words.   Trump has not. 

[peter_speckhard]

It's beginning to appear that I will not be casting a ballot for president this year in Nov.  I wonder if I will be joined in that by others who see Trump's "common-sense conservatism" as not conservative at all--beyond being simply a ruse and masque adopted for expediency.  He has no conservative record.   Ronald Reagan changed from Democrat to Republican, but he labored and toiled for the conservative Republican cause, building a record that matched his words.   Trump has not.

I would think a vote for a third party would do more to change the system in a positive direction than not voting would. Each voter is a tiny fraction of Caesar. It doesn't do much good to have Caesar's authority wash its hands of the matter. I would never vote for Trump or Clinton, but I might vote for whatever odd Libertarian is in the race. It wouldn't do any good in 2016 but it would help ensure a better set of choices in 2020. I would see it as trading a player for a future draft pick.

[Richard Johnson]

Of the many things that I find abominable about Donald Trump, one that really sticks in my craw is his comment about 9/11 happening "during Bush's reign." I think it was a stupid and unfair comment on the face of it, but what really gets me is "Bush's reign." We don't use the word "reign" to describe the period our presidents are in office. It makes one wonder (a) if Trump is just clueless about American political vocabulary, or (b) if he anticipates that, if elected, he will be "reigning." Or both.

I'm also thinking tonight if the Republican Senators don't get the reality that their party may well nominate Trump, in which case they will not only lose the Presidency but probably the Senate, and President Clinton will be the one they have permitted to nominate the successor to Justice Scalia--and her nominee will be easily confirmed by the majority Democrats in the Senate.

[Team Hesse]

It's beginning to appear that I will not be casting a ballot for president this year in Nov.  I wonder if I will be joined in that by others who see Trump's "common-sense conservatism" as not conservative at all--beyond being simply a ruse and masque adopted for expediency.  He has no conservative record.   Ronald Reagan changed from Democrat to Republican, but he labored and toiled for the conservative Republican cause, building a record that matched his words.   Trump has not.

I would think a vote for a third party would do more to change the system in a positive direction than not voting would. Each voter is a tiny fraction of Caesar. It doesn't do much good to have Caesar's authority wash its hands of the matter. I would never vote for Trump or Clinton, but I might vote for whatever odd Libertarian is in the race. It wouldn't do any good in 2016 but it would help ensure a better set of choices in 2020. I would see it as trading a player for a future draft pick.

There is the added problem for those of us in a state like Washington which is dominated in statewide races by the Democrats of King County(Seattle). It never makes any difference which Republican we may or may not support, the electoral votes for the state are going to go to the nominee of the other party. If Trump is actually the nominee I will change my party registration and probably write-in someone. Maybe Condoleeza Rice....I cannot support the Libertarian agenda because there is a place for civil law in this fallen world. The Libertarians I have heard are into simple licentiousness--anything goes--a different narcissism than the government paid for program of the Democrats.


Lou

[Voelker]

Of the many things that I find abominable about Donald Trump, one that really sticks in my craw is his comment about 9/11 happening "during Bush's reign." I think it was a stupid and unfair comment on the face of it, but what really gets me is "Bush's reign." We don't use the word "reign" to describe the period our presidents are in office. It makes one wonder (a) if Trump is just clueless about American political vocabulary, or (b) if he anticipates that, if elected, he will be "reigning." Or both.

We do seem to be enjoying a slide back into the latter days of the Republic, though we do lack in rich generals marching their personal armies up and down the Eastern seaboard (I can see it in 2020 — a candidate tries to ride his sacking of New Brunswick through the first few debates). It doesn't help that we seem stuck with dynastic politics, perhaps because people prefer familiar faces and names — there are Kardashians to be followed, dontcha know.

[Dave Likeness]

When you honestly analyze this year's Presidential candidates you have to admit
that Donald Trump is really not the best person the Republicans have.   And the
same goes for Hillary Clinton as she is not the best Democrat available.

What fuels Trump is the anger and outrage against career politicians in Washington
D.C.   They are more interested in getting reelected that taking care of the business
of our nation.  I have always advocated term limits for U.S. Senators  who should
be limited to two terms or 12 years.  U.S. Representatives should only serve 5 terms
or 10 years.

The good candidates who would make good Presidents are sitting on the sidelines.
They hate the required fund-raising, the inevitable broken promises, the dirty tricks
on the campaign trail, the loss of family life, and the partisan bickering in D.C.

[SomeoneWrites]

When you honestly analyze this year's Presidential candidates you have to admit
that Donald Trump is really not the best person the Republicans have.   And the
same goes for Hillary Clinton as she is not the best Democrat available.

What fuels Trump is the anger and outrage against career politicians in Washington
D.C.   They are more interested in getting reelected that taking care of the business
of our nation.  I have always advocated term limits for U.S. Senators  who should
be limited to two terms or 12 years.  U.S. Representatives should only serve 5 terms
or 10 years.

The good candidates who would make good Presidents are sitting on the sidelines.
They hate the required fund-raising, the inevitable broken promises, the dirty tricks
on the campaign trail, the loss of family life, and the partisan bickering in D.C.

I really agree with everything you said. 

I'm definitely big on term limits for representatives.  I'd be fine with 5-6 year limits.  The senate, I'm not so sure about.  A friend articulated that the house was sort of the "community contribution" - which is what the representatives should be.  The senate, I was told, was designed for career politicians.  Without digging deeper, that makes sense to me.  But if we capped them at 2 terms I wouldn't be complaining at all. 

[James_Gale]

Of the many things that I find abominable about Donald Trump, one that really sticks in my craw is his comment about 9/11 happening "during Bush's reign." I think it was a stupid and unfair comment on the face of it, but what really gets me is "Bush's reign." We don't use the word "reign" to describe the period our presidents are in office. It makes one wonder (a) if Trump is just clueless about American political vocabulary, or (b) if he anticipates that, if elected, he will be "reigning." Or both.

I'm also thinking tonight if the Republican Senators don't get the reality that their party may well nominate Trump, in which case they will not only lose the Presidency but probably the Senate, and President Clinton will be the one they have permitted to nominate the successor to Justice Scalia--and her nominee will be easily confirmed by the majority Democrats in the Senate.

The word out here in DC is that the Republican Senators (and House members) very much fear a Trump nomination for the reasons that you identify. 


And I tend to agree that Trump is unelectable and that his nomination will hurt Republicans up and down the ballot.  Then again, my gut is still telling me that Trump won't win more than 5% of the vote in any caucus or primary.  My head is reluctantly acknowledging that my gut is very wrong.  So who the heck knows.  Maybe Trump will win the election and help Republicans up and down the ballot.  My head and my gut don't believe this.  Not even a little.  But given my track record this year, I'm starting to doubt everything I thought I knew. 


What a depressing election season.

[James_Gale]

The Entrance Poll:


Trump beat Cruz among Evangelicals 43-27.  He beat Rubio among Hispanics 41-29.  The sample size in a caucus state is small. I have no idea how many Evangelicals or Hispanics participated in the caucus tonight.  Still . . . .


Ugh.

[Charles Austin]

Mr. Gale writes:
The word out here in DC is that the Republican Senators (and House members) very much fear a Trump nomination for the reasons that you identify. 

I comment:
Then explain why they do not speak up. Where are the other Republican voices? Why do we not hear from Republicans (other than those running against him) who know that Trump will be a disaster for the party?

[LutherMan]

Media Trying, But Can't Escape Blame For Enabling Trump

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/23/media-trying-but-cant-escape-blame-for-enabling-trump/

[Charles Austin]

Just FYI, Craig, if I believed in the "IGNORE!" button, I would apply it to that "federalist" website. I don't go there.

[Jeremy Loesch]

Charles, I haven't read the particular article that Craig linked for us all, but The Federalist has consistently good articles that are thought provoking. The writing is typically engaging, the viewpoints are moderately diverse. I'd encourage you to give it more of a try. It can be a source for understanding different points of view.

Jeremy

[Keith Falk]

Elizabeth Warren has to be kicking herself that she decided to not to run, right?