trump is serious!!!!!

[Guinevere]

that s rich coming from a commie

Are you that pig-headed, or just plain unable to read? No matter how many times Sue identifies as a socialist, you still need to throw around the "commie" label. Do you understand they are two completely different things???

[Scooter]

if he wins, and it is possible if he can get some democrats on board and the republicans don t jump on the Kasich bandwagon, I hope that he starts a viable third party which includes democrats and republicans.

only if wins tho, not before.

of course he would have to name the party.....

maybe he would be humble enough to name it the American Party ....

How completely appropriate.

Wasn't that the official name of the Know-Nothings in the 1840s or thereabouts?

[Econoline]

Right you are, Scooter.

[Sue U]

My point exactly.

The Trump supporters today are the same morons who spawned the Know-Nothing Party with the same mostly anti-immigrant stupidity. History truly does repeat itself, and these dipsticks are incapable of learning anything at all from it.

[Scooter]

I figured that's where you were going. The similarities are scary, actually.

[wesw]

jim, I just went back and read your first post in this thread.

pretty good analysis.

you under estimated his populist appeal, as did everyone, but a pretty good analysis all the same.

[Scooter]

Minus the drugs, I see him as the Rob Ford of U.S. politics.

And it's rather fun to be watching it as a spectator for a change, rather than having to live it.

[Sue U]

As I noted more than 5 years ago:

The rise of the Teabagger Palinites closely parallels the rise of the Know-Nothing (American) Party of the 1850s, particularly in its lack of organizational structure and coherent philosophy and its use of virulent nativism and fearmongering as its principal political tools.

I suspect there will always be -- as there apparently has always been -- some fraction of the population attracted to such movements. The question is whether they are more dangerous as a marginalized collection of wingnuts who are denied a seat at the table of political power, or as a marginalized collection of wingnuts who have some proportional representation in the political system. In many ways, I think they would be less interesting to the media and easier to ignore generally if they became a "real" party and showed themselves to be as ineffectual, inept and ill-considered as they appear.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=104&p=1449&hilit=Kn ... arty#p1449

I'm a freakin political psychic.

[Guinevere]

You and Tim Egan (but you were first): http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -nothings/

[Econoline]

Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter, fact-checking the GOP frontrunner

At PolitiFact, we’re checking all the presidential candidates. But people keep asking about new GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.

So far, we’ve fact-checked Trump 28 times since his June presidential announcement at his Trump Tower office building in Manhattan.

How has the Republican frontrunner fared on the Truth-O-Meter?

The numbers largely tell the story:

• True . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

  ---

  Mostly True . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

  ---

  Half True . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 (18%)

  ---

  Mostly False . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 (14%)

  ---

  False . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 (54%)

  ---

  Pants on Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4 (14%)

  ---

Put another way, two in three claims we’ve checked from Trump resulted in a rating of False or Pants on Fire.

You can see all fact-checks involving Trump here, and you can read all our fact-checks involving the 2016 presidential race here.[/size][/font]

[wesw]

yes, Hillary and Obama have set the new standard for honesty.

[Guinevere]

[Lord Jim]

I see him as the Rob Ford of U.S. politics.

Wow...

Does it get any worse then that?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Believe me, it can always get worse.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, Guin. He really said that - just like that? Great Scot! Trump's even more incoherent than a certain posteur on this board who shall remain gormless. Utter bilge and unfit for anything other than remedial English followed by remedial Humanity

[Guinevere]

Here's the actual article, and the original source of the transcript with the video (which is truly painful to watch):

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... mps-latest

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_vall ... _dt_tw_top

[MajGenl.Meade]

It remains an awful utterance uttered awfully. However, the video does make it marginally more understandable without making it either responsive or informative.
Neither was it less painful aurally than in the reading of it.

We humans tend to speak semaphorically (there's a word!) while writing more intentionally. Apparently, so does Trump. He did manage to achieve in new low in coherence and responsiveness.

I think he was trying to say that the opportunity to free three US citizens from Iranian clutches was missed in the final nuclear deal. I agree with that but also reserve judgment in case there is a secret side-deal allowing the Iranians to save face by releasing them some time after Congress approves (or Obama vetoes their disapproval) of the deal.

Nevertheless, this "sentence" shows that Trump prefers sidelines to mainlines and if he can't keep a simple answer on track, the country has no chance should he (God forbid) be elected anything higher than dog-catcher.

"..with civil authority fragmented and social violence spreading, the traditional constraints of political imagination are loosed; radical actions and political transformations of all sorts become conceivable and plausible, even appealing"
Richard Slotkin - The Long Road to Antietam; How the Civil War Became a Revolution

[RayThom]

Once this deal is approved I have a strong feeling that the three Americans held captive will be freed. Of course, with a great deal of Iranian theopolitical pomp and circumstance.

Hey, I may be wrong but I often find myself seeing and sensing things that others don't.

[MajGenl.Meade]

One is reminded of how the Iranian hostages were released, lo those many years ago. To the Iranians, there was some significance in doing it on the day President Reagan was sworn in - perhaps they thought it meant that President Carter wouldn't get any credit; the guy who'd sent in troops in an attempt to free them (albeit with dismal failure). I doubt it was because Mr. Reagan scared 'em.

Or did President Carter arrange it so in order to distract attention from the new President's big day?

[Lord Jim]

One is reminded of how the Iranian hostages were released, lo those many years ago. To the Iranians, there was some significance in doing it on the day President Reagan was sworn in - perhaps they thought it meant that President Carter wouldn't get any credit; the guy who'd sent in troops in an attempt to free them (albeit with dismal failure). I doubt it was because Mr. Reagan scared 'em.

Or did President Carter arrange it so in order to distract attention from the new President's big day?

Yeah, like Carter was that clever...

It was interesting the way that happened though, because the announcement took place not just on the day that Mr. Reagan replaced TIC, but within seconds of his taking The Oath, and beginning his Inaugural Address...

There are two reasonable explanations for this...

One is that they wanted give one last dis to Jimmy "not even rabbits respect me" Carter....

The other is that they feared that Mr. Reagan would take immediate military action, upon becoming CIC...

Neither explanation makes TIC look good...