Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[Steven Tibbetts]

Not a fan of term limits. We have them in California for all state offices, and IMO it has been a disaster. Legislators don't have the time to really learn their jobs; as a result, the real power shifts to the unelected bureaucrats. The Constitution did set up term limits; they're called "elections."

I've never liked term limits either, for much the same reason.  In a republic, the voters must be responsible for whom we elect.  If we cannot we entrusted with that responsibility, then its time for another form of government.

Pax, Steven+

[Donald_Kirchner]

I was, however, troubled listening to thoughts expressed by women with whom I meet weekly for bible study, prayer and quilting.

Why?

[peter_speckhard]

After reading this morning's paper, I wondered if the The Donald phenomenon might be because a lot of people

1) can't stand Hillary
2) really don't want anyone who's conservative (whatever the current definition)
3) think he's more fun to watch--in a train-wreck sort of way--than anyone else on this interminable campaign.

Peace,
Michael

My morning was spent with LCMS church women sewing quilts for LWR.  When the conversation turned to the elections, the reason given for supporting Trump was dislike of Hillary.  Women who agreed Trump would make a horrible president, said they would vote for him above Hillary. At the same time they could give no reason for why they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In keeping with the decision Bill and I  made years ago not express political views when with congregational members, I did not mention the candidate I was considering.  I was, however, troubled listening to thoughts expressed by women with whom I meet weekly for bible study, prayer and quilting.

Marie

When Trump announced his candidacy I thought the whole thing was a big joke and certainly had no chance of going anywhere. I said on Facebook that I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. As it is, if Trump wins the nomination I will likely vote third party. But if I had no choice but to pick from the two major parties, I would pick Trump over Clinton. I think both parties would galvanize to stop Trump from wreaking havoc.

[James_Gale]

After reading this morning's paper, I wondered if the The Donald phenomenon might be because a lot of people

1) can't stand Hillary
2) really don't want anyone who's conservative (whatever the current definition)
3) think he's more fun to watch--in a train-wreck sort of way--than anyone else on this interminable campaign.

Peace,
Michael

My morning was spent with LCMS church women sewing quilts for LWR.  When the conversation turned to the elections, the reason given for supporting Trump was dislike of Hillary.  Women who agreed Trump would make a horrible president, said they would vote for him above Hillary. At the same time they could give no reason for why they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In keeping with the decision Bill and I  made years ago not express political views when with congregational members, I did not mention the candidate I was considering.  I was, however, troubled listening to thoughts expressed by women with whom I meet weekly for bible study, prayer and quilting.

Marie

When Trump announced his candidacy I thought the whole thing was a big joke and certainly had no chance of going anywhere. I said on Facebook that I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. As it is, if Trump wins the nomination I will likely vote third party. But if I had no choice but to pick from the two major parties, I would pick Trump over Clinton. I think both parties would galvanize to stop Trump from wreaking havoc.

I had dinner that night with a German friend who lives in the US and is a reporter for a German financial newspaper.  He is a bit of a champagne socialist (family wealth combined with center-left politics).  He gave me a great deal of grief about the prospect of Trump winning the GOP nomination.  But neither he nor I believed that this was actually possible.  We both figured that he was simply trying to enhance his "brand" for profit, ego-stroking, or whatever.  And indeed, I've wondered more than once whether he really intended to do so well.  It seems as if he now might really want to be president.  But I'm not so sure. 

[MaddogLutheran]

At the same time they could give no reason for why they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Forgive me for asking this if it makes me sound like I don't believe you, but...was it that they could give no reason, or perhaps they simply felt that it was unnecessary to articulate the reason?

It would be my luck that the one presidential election year that the Democratic candidates are both so awful that my wife would consider actually voting for the Republican, the current leader on that side is Trump.  My wife has no trouble articulating exactly why she doesn't like any of them this time around.  Her opinion of Hillary:  untrustworthy, even for a politician (every one of which lies, no matter what his/her supporters might say).  That said, neither of us has completely ruled out voting for her, as she is the devil we know and understand.  For me, her being the candidate (of either party) who has taken the most money from Wall Street is actually a good thing, as she probably has little interest to completely burn down our financial system.  Unlike Bernie.

I am reluctant to speculate, but I can imagine some women might be reluctant to specify their criticisms of the first legitimate female candidate for president...especially if it has anything to do with her marriage.  I can tell you my mother absolutely hates Hillary and views her with contempt as an opportunist for sticking with Bill, even after his public humiliation of her, to further her ambition.  I'm NOT telling you what you, or your quilting women, should think.  But I do understand social taboos are real.

Sterling Spatz

[Jeremy Loesch]

After reading this morning's paper, I wondered if the The Donald phenomenon might be because a lot of people

1) can't stand Hillary
2) really don't want anyone who's conservative (whatever the current definition)
3) think he's more fun to watch--in a train-wreck sort of way--than anyone else on this interminable campaign.

Peace,
Michael

My morning was spent with LCMS church women sewing quilts for LWR.  When the conversation turned to the elections, the reason given for supporting Trump was dislike of Hillary.  Women who agreed Trump would make a horrible president, said they would vote for him above Hillary. At the same time they could give no reason for why they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In keeping with the decision Bill and I  made years ago not express political views when with congregational members, I did not mention the candidate I was considering.  I was, however, troubled listening to thoughts expressed by women with whom I meet weekly for bible study, prayer and quilting.

Marie

When Trump announced his candidacy I thought the whole thing was a big joke and certainly had no chance of going anywhere. I said on Facebook that I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. As it is, if Trump wins the nomination I will likely vote third party. But if I had no choice but to pick from the two major parties, I would pick Trump over Clinton. I think both parties would galvanize to stop Trump from wreaking havoc.

I think that's right. There would be a coalescing of the two parties to stop him. Trump would be disastrous, though there are many unknowns with him. And periodically a pleasant surprise comes from an unknown.

We know Secy. Clinton. She's a liar. She's unethical. She's in it for the money and she's an attention whore. In other words,  she's like Trump. It's very sad.

And Sens. Cruz and Rubio and Gov. Kasich should meet to determine which two of the three will drop out. If the three linger in the race, it will be political suicide for them and they will carry the deserved blame of allowing Trump to advance.

Jeremy

[Richard Johnson]

We know Secy. Clinton. She's a liar. She's unethical. She's in it for the money and she's an attention whore. In other words,  she's like Trump. It's very sad.

Yeah, that makes sense, comparing her to Trump. I like that. But you forgot to add the one way she is different, which is that she actually has a clue about public policy and international affairs--which, even if you disagree with her, should count for something in comparison to the ignorance and bombast of The Donald.

[MaddogLutheran]

After reading this morning's paper, I wondered if the The Donald phenomenon might be because a lot of people

1) can't stand Hillary
2) really don't want anyone who's conservative (whatever the current definition)
3) think he's more fun to watch--in a train-wreck sort of way--than anyone else on this interminable campaign.

Peace,
Michael

Yes, I think all of that is in play.  I was noticing on Twitter today that people were talking about Trump's appeal to the working class.  It was said that you should never underestimate the appeal to some voters of the candidate's honest comfort/connection with the average person.  There is a certain appeal for some to be made to feel that a television celebrity really cares about them.  For whatever reasons, Trump seems to have this, and I think it explains the devotion of his supporters.  While not quite the same, it's not unlike Obama's aura of cool in 2008.  How broad it truly is remains to be seen.  I can't tell if it would carry over to a general election.

Say what you will about the Obama phenomenon in 2008, what actually won him the election was large, monolithic turnout in urban centers, which overwhelmed the majority but divided vote everywhere else.  When you can win 99% of Philadelphia with high turnout, that overcomes losing the rest of Pennsylvania 60/40, or whatever it was.  The Obama campaign strategy was deliberately not to appeal to the swing voter, but to maximize the base turnout.  Hillary apparently has hired Obama campaign staff and intends to try to emulate this.  Whether she can generate the necessary turnout remains to be seen.  I would have thought Trump would have flamed out by now.  Since he hasn't, I have to acknowledge I have no idea what may happen next.

Sterling Spatz

[MaddogLutheran]

We know Secy. Clinton. She's a liar. She's unethical. She's in it for the money and she's an attention whore. In other words,  she's like Trump. It's very sad.

Yeah, that makes sense, comparing her to Trump. I like that. But you forgot to add the one way she is different, which is that she actually has a clue about public policy and international affairs--which, even if you disagree with her, should count for something in comparison to the ignorance and bombast of The Donald.

Yes, that's exactly what my wife said this morning in our conversation about this before I left for work.  Almost word for word.

All politicians lie.  Only some of them get investigated by the FBI because of it.  We shall see.

[Team Hesse]

After reading this morning's paper, I wondered if the The Donald phenomenon might be because a lot of people

1) can't stand Hillary
2) really don't want anyone who's conservative (whatever the current definition)
3) think he's more fun to watch--in a train-wreck sort of way--than anyone else on this interminable campaign.

Peace,
Michael

My morning was spent with LCMS church women sewing quilts for LWR.  When the conversation turned to the elections, the reason given for supporting Trump was dislike of Hillary.  Women who agreed Trump would make a horrible president, said they would vote for him above Hillary. At the same time they could give no reason for why they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

In keeping with the decision Bill and I  made years ago not express political views when with congregational members, I did not mention the candidate I was considering.  I was, however, troubled listening to thoughts expressed by women with whom I meet weekly for bible study, prayer and quilting.

Marie

When Trump announced his candidacy I thought the whole thing was a big joke and certainly had no chance of going anywhere. I said on Facebook that I would vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. As it is, if Trump wins the nomination I will likely vote third party. But if I had no choice but to pick from the two major parties, I would pick Trump over Clinton. I think both parties would galvanize to stop Trump from wreaking havoc.

This was the logic that got a minority partner in the coalition the Chancellorship in Weimar Germany. The rest is history.....not gonna vote for Trump....or Clinton....or Sanders.


Lou

[Donald_Kirchner]

Wondering when Godwin's Law would kick in...

Or...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/24/time-for-trump-to-name-gop-dream-team.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[MaddogLutheran]

This was the logic that got a minority partner in the coalition the Chancellorship in Weimar Germany. The rest is history.....not onna vote for Trump....or Clinton....or Sanders.

Yes!  While I'm contemptuous of people who lazily compare Trump to Hitler, there is a certain historical naivete of "establishment" Republicans willing to throw their lot in with sudden populist like Trump to win the next election.  I'm sure they think they can control or manage him.  That's just what the conservative parties who allied with Hitler's Nazi party thought too.  I don't think we'd be on the brink of totalitarianism if Trump were to win.  But I do think those establishment types would be in for a rude awakening.   And our republican system would likely be stressed as a result.  It's bad enough the current administration keeps trying to rule by decree when the system of checks and balances stymies it.  Imagine a Trump "reign" trying to build on this foundation.

Sterling Spatz

[MaddogLutheran]

Wondering when Godwin's Law would kick in...

Or...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/24/time-for-trump-to-name-gop-dream-team.html?intcmp=hpbt1

I wouldn't call that Godwin's law.  As I already commented, it's a valid historical comparison.  As for me, I specifically disavowed any totalitarian inference related to invoking the German political analogy, which is what people who invoke Hitler's name usually mean.  But perhaps Pr. Hesse would like to revise and extend his remarks.

[James_Gale]

We know Secy. Clinton. She's a liar. She's unethical. She's in it for the money and she's an attention whore. In other words,  she's like Trump. It's very sad.

Yeah, that makes sense, comparing her to Trump. I like that. But you forgot to add the one way she is different, which is that she actually has a clue about public policy and international affairs--which, even if you disagree with her, should count for something in comparison to the ignorance and bombast of The Donald.

I'm really starting to question your priorities and your judgment.  I understand that Hillary might have clues about what you call "policy."    But so what!  There's no way that she could have survived even early phases of a season of the Apprentice, which is a much better test of presidential mettle than "policy."  Sheesh.




 

[Brian Stoffregen]

We know Secy. Clinton. She's a liar. She's unethical. She's in it for the money and she's an attention whore. In other words,  she's like Trump. It's very sad.

Yeah, that makes sense, comparing her to Trump. I like that. But you forgot to add the one way she is different, which is that she actually has a clue about public policy and international affairs--which, even if you disagree with her, should count for something in comparison to the ignorance and bombast of The Donald.

Isn't there a saying about the enemy you know vs. the enemy who is unknown?