"Clinton is boring. She's as fun as changing shelf paper on a Saturday afternoon. Meanwhile, who wouldn't want to see a sequel to “Back to School” in which the Rodney Dangerfield character becomes president?"

Jonah Goldberg

While rummaging through Trump's wares I found a 2,000-mile physical fence on the Mexican border. Without that, nothing else will soon matter.

Apparently Trump is this election cycle's Teflon .

As my husband is so fond of saying about politicians, and decision making in general.

The standard is not perfection. The standard is the alternative.

And I really really despise the alternative.

It's a logical progression. We had a clown until 2008, now we have a carnival barker. Trump is a ringmaster. P.T. Barnum would have hired him.

1. Everything is a suggestion unless you want a king/dictator.

2. HRC consistently corrects, re-phrases, or walks back stuff so I guess this is a normal political thing.

3. If you like your health plan you can keep it.

4. Of course the IRS did not target conservative organizations.

5. No emails from HRC's _________________ but that's just normal for government.

6. I'll give you paper copies of what you "need" and delete the rest (trust me).

Just another day in paradise.

I really don't want Trump as president. But the alternative is worse.

With his characteristic bluntness, and with uncharacteristic accuracy, Newt Gingrich pointed out to Fox and Friends, “You could say that Trump is the candidate Fox & Friends invented.”

They had been giving him free airtime, every Monday, for years. Is it any wonder he doesn't need to spend anything? Fox News has already foot the bill for Trump's campaign.

It's a logical progression. We had a clown until 2008, now we have a carnival barker. Trump is a ringmaster. P.T. Barnum would have hired him.

Canvasback at May 14, 2016 8:46 AM

You've been drinking too much socialist
Koolaid

That *clown* , as you call him, at least managed to keep World War three from starting in the Middle East.

Obama has set the bar so low, that even Bernie Sanders would probably be an improvement.

I like both Trump AND Sanders.

Toss either one of these hand grenades into the stagnant gene pool of American politics!

Trump is threatening to undo the consensus on immigration, trade, and political correctness — the three big factors killing the traditional American majority.

Trump supporters are sooooooooo fucking naive.

Trump supporters are sooooooooo fucking naive.

Patrick at May 14, 2016 1:37 PM

The prize for naïveté goes to Obama supporters in 2008. Voting for him a second time just makes you a moron.

I'm not a supporter of Trump but I will vote for him, at least once. Might as well roll the dice.

As a libertarian woman who is an Army veteran, and a gun owner my issues are of no interest to Hillary. She hates everything about me.

Heck, even Bernie is pro second amendment.

@Isab: "As a libertarian woman who is an Army veteran, and a gun owner my issues are of no interest to Hillary. She hates everything about me."

Can you imagine how she would feel about you if you were a man instead of a woman? A worse dick-shriveler has never existed! According to accounts, she is a nasty, ball-busting bitch with those who are unfortunate to work for her. She must be stopped, and if that means Trump, then so be it.

Further regarding Hillary, the only time I ever donated money to a presidential candidate was in 2008, when I gave to Obama in the primaries solely to obstruct a possible Hillary presidency.

Do we need a female president? No, not necessarily. But if we get one, she needs to be someone other than Herliary Ramrod Clinton, La Abuela Bruja!

Bless my heart, but the thing that tickles me about Donald Trump is the number of God-grifters like Franklin Graham and Falwell the Lesser rushing to support a man who clearly doesn't know even the most basic things about the Bible.

Can't stand Trump; but, after 8 years of an asshole nation of Obama supporters and now a choice of Hillary or Sanders or ???

Well, let's just say Trump is looking pretty darn good - and not in the sends a tingle down my leg good Like Obama did to some heterosexual (at least they claim to be) "reporters."

But, Trump is an alternative to the usual crap choices we have.

I'm still not a Trump Supporter; but, it looks like I will end up voting for him because not voting (something I've NEVER done) would just be a vote for the whore-monger's lying wife. And, among so much else wrong with lying Hilary for Prez, Bill in the White House with all that free time on his hands just doesn't sit well with me.

Bless my heart, but the thing that tickles me about Donald Trump is the number of God-grifters like Franklin Graham and Falwell the Lesser rushing to support a man who clearly doesn't know even the most basic things about the Bible.

Kevin at May 14, 2016 3:39 PM

Maybe they don't fit your ignorant hick stereotype, and aren't the one dimensional,single issue voters you like to think they are?

Perhaps they think when it is Donald Trump, (who by the way has been known to attend church) verses Mafia Don, queen of the slush fund, Hillary Clinton, they weighed their options and made a rational decision?

Maybe they don't fit your ignorant hick stereotype, and aren't the one dimensional,single issue voters you like to think they are?

Oh, I don't think they're ignorant at all. I think they're panderers and opportunists, but hardly ignorant.

Perhaps they think when it is Donald Trump, (who by the way has been known to attend church) verses Mafia Don, queen of the slush fund, Hillary Clinton, they weighed their options and made a rational decision?

I don't think that at all. There were plenty of candidates with Christian bona fides in the primary (including Clinton, whom I believe is a Methodist), but they only had doe-eyes for Trump.

Nick: I really don't want Trump as president. But the alternative is worse.

People who want Trump (or some other Republican) are convinced that Clinton will destroy the country if elected.

People who want Clinton (or Sanders) are certain that Trump will destroy the country if elected.

I guess that means the country will be destroyed either way.

I don't think that at all. There were plenty of candidates with Christian bona fides in the primary (including Clinton, whom I believe is a Methodist), but they only had doe-eyes for Trump.

Kevin at May 14, 2016 8:05 PM

What country do you live in? Is the weather nice in Wonderland?

Do you think anyone here is gullible enough to believe Hillary Clinton is even Christian, regardless of what she puts on her bio?

And do you read anything? Many of the Evangelicals backed Cruz until it was clear he was mathematically eliminated.

Do you think anyone here is gullible enough to believe Hillary Clinton is even Christian, regardless of what she puts on her bio?

What is she? Satanist? Muslim?

And do you read anything? Many of the Evangelicals backed Cruz until it was clear he was mathematically eliminated.

I read quite a bit! It's one of my favorite activities. That's how I know Franklin Graham went gaga for Trump back in March, when there were quite a few candidates in the race, and Jerry Jr. compared Trump to King David, which even the evangelicals found risible.

Isab:

The prize for naïveté goes to Obama supporters in 2008. Voting for him a second time just makes you a moron.

Just to set the record straight, I never voted for Obama, either time.

His associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers were extremely problematic for me. I also feel that the liberals compromised their principles to support Obama. They wouldn't support a white candidate who attended the Christian services of a white equivalent of Jeremiah Wright.

On the contrary, they'd haul the torches and pitchforks if a white candidate had the nerve to ask for the Democratic Party's nod. And I would be joining them.

Yes, there are other very valid reasons not to support Obama, but once you've already found the dealbreaker, why dig further?

Gog_Magog's statement was the reason I made my "naive" comment. "Toss either one of these hand grenades [Sanders and Trump] into the stagnant gene pool of American politics!"

And I've engaged with Trump supporters who feel the same way. That Trump will somehow blow up the political machine in D.C. and we will rebuild a government that works for the people again.

Yeah, right.

A President Trump will find, just like every other President before him, that his hands are largely tied. Whatever grand and glorious things he thinks he will accomplish, he will find that without the backing of Congress, he will get none of them. Congress is the mighty roadblock.

And Bernie supporters are worse than naive. They're just sad. Like the Trump supporters, they believe that Bernie will cause the downfall of the existing establishment. What makes them worse is that they're reposing their trust in a weakling.

What as he done, in his entire tenure, that convinces anyone that the man has more backbone than a jellyfish? He's championed exactly three bills which made it to law, two of which were for the renaming of post offices in Vermont.

And when he fled the stage having been cowed by Black Lives Matter protesters, that was it for me. The guy has a serious inability to assert himself. And this would be President? Maybe of the local PTA, but not the country.

"What is she? Satanist? Muslim?"

Does it matter what she calls herself? Does anyone really care?

You cast your vote on the basis of what someone self identifies as?
And you expect evangelical Christians to be that simple minded also?

For about the third time on this forum, I am tempted to ask how old you are.

My best guess at this point is 15.

Isab:

Does it matter what she calls herself? Does anyone really care?

You cast your vote on the basis of what someone self identifies as? And you expect evangelical Christians to be that simple minded also?

More importantly, even if Hillary were a devout Christian, what does this even prove? The members of the Westboro Baptist Church are devout Christians. Would you vote for one of them?

Christianity should not be considered the basis for morality. We've evolved higher moral standards than that.

There is no condemnation of slavery to found in the Bible. Indeed there are rules governing slavery in the Old Testament and in the New, both Paul and Peter support this arrangement.

We decided at some point this was wrong.

Ditto with treating women as second class citizens (if that), and with the condemnation of homosexuality.

Patrick:

"With his characteristic bluntness, and with uncharacteristic accuracy, Newt Gingrich pointed out to Fox and Friends, “You could say that Trump is the candidate Fox & Friends invented.”

CNN, MSNBC, etc., all had a hand in this too. The Trump-centric coverage, even early on, was hugely disproportionate. The night he skipped the Republican debate over Megyn Kelly and threw his own veteran-honoring event, he got as much coverage as the debate. The guy just makes for great TV, so the media paid for his campaign.

Kevin:

"I don't think that at all. There were plenty of candidates with Christian bona fides in the primary (including Clinton, whom I believe is a Methodist), but they only had doe-eyes for Trump."

I watched this with interest, as have my evangelical friends. The high-profile evangelicals who say their views are directed by biblical values above anything else (and that America is a Christian nation and should remain so) had options that better aligned with that: Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, etc., all promised to fight for religious liberty, stand up to secular media, and protect the unborn.

Many evangelical followers have challenged Falwell and Graham on this:

http://m.christianpost.com/news/liberty-jerry-falwell-endorses-trump-alumni-embarrassed-dissappointed-155970/

F&G have not criticized Trump for policies contradictory to scripture, and they have not held him to the same standards for (their professed) morality to which they would hold other candidates. As an example, Trump is probably still pro-choice and lying about it, and he's defended Planned Parenthood repeatedly (albeit conditionally), which no other Republican candidate would have survived.

Trump may be the rational choice for these same evangelicals, but if so, then I think they are overstating their biblical motivations. The guy is hilariously religiously illiterate. (See his speech at Liberty U., for which I assume he tried to prepare.) They care a lot more about his willingness to shout down anyone without apology and without explaining himself--which is easy to admire if you feel like you're generally being erased by popular culture, and which is what you have to do if, like Jerry Falwell Jr. you're an evolution denier who believes in abstinence.

I'm betting that post RNC, we're going to see him move toward center (especially on social issues) with the same refusal to apologize or explain himself. I can't wait to see how these guys react.

Insufficient Poison:

CNN, MSNBC, etc., all had a hand in this too. The Trump-centric coverage, even early on, was hugely disproportionate. The night he skipped the Republican debate over Megyn Kelly and threw his own veteran-honoring event, he got as much coverage as the debate. The guy just makes for great TV, so the media paid for his campaign.

I think you're missing Gingrich's point. It appears you're faulting CNN, et al., for "Trumpcentric" coverage once he announced his campaign.

Fox & Friends had been giving Trump coverage long before anyone knew he was going to run for President. As Newt pointed out, he was a regular guest every Monday for years.

I watched this with interest, as have my evangelical friends. The high-profile evangelicals who say their views are directed by biblical values above anything else (and that America is a Christian nation and should remain so) had options that better aligned with that: Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, etc., all promised to fight for religious liberty, stand up to secular media, and protect the unborn.

Precisely! And most of those candidates had longstanding records on those issues that were supposed to be of paramount importance — as well as religious backgrounds that should appeal to evangelicals. Trump had and has neither.

Trump may be the rational choice for these same evangelicals, but if so, then I think they are overstating their biblical motivations. The guy is hilariously religiously illiterate. (See his speech at Liberty U., for which I assume he tried to prepare.)

"Two Corinthians" — which sounds like the beginning of a joke: "Two Corinthians walk into a bar..."

They care a lot more about his willingness to shout down anyone without apology and without explaining himself--which is easy to admire if you feel like you're generally being erased by popular culture, and which is what you have to do if, like Jerry Falwell Jr. you're an evolution denier who believes in abstinence.

Most of his appeal seems to lie in his belligerence, which is not something I admire in either a statesman or an employee (and the president is both). I've seen people say they like the fact that he "punches back," which seems to be both a childish standard and one that's fundamentally anti-Christian.

Patrick, I do fault CNN among the other networks, nightly talk shows, etc.

I understand Gingrich's (different) point that Trump might not have had the visibility he needed to Repubs in the first place if not for FOX making him a regular. (Although I admit I didn't know that he was a regular until you wrote it.)

I was just tacking on. During the debate coverage, even liberal journalists like Anderson Cooper talked about this guy like he was a deity. They amped up everyone's fascination with him.

"Precisely! And most of those candidates had longstanding records on those issues that were supposed to be of paramount importance — as well as religious backgrounds that should appeal to evangelicals. Trump had and has neither."

You have no,idea who the die hard evangelicals voted for or donated money to, when the outcome was up in the air.

You also seem to have missed the point that republicans preferences, evangelical or not, have been reduced to a binary choice.

Ladies and gentlemen, the playoffs are over, and one of the super bowl teams has been chosen. The other appears to be a shoe in.

Nattering on about the candidates that didn't get there, and why evangelicals should or should not have supported them, is teenage navel gazing of the most useless sort.

You don't have to support Trump because you like him or agree with him. Being horrified at the alternative is enough.

Voting third party is a utopian wet dream. All it does is throw the election to the candidate who is furthest away from the third party candidate ideologically.

If you don't understand this, I refer you to the election of 1992. Read all about it.

All of the negative Trump stuff above notwithstanding, I'm voting for Trump.

Nattering on about the candidates that didn't get there, and why evangelicals should or should not have supported them, is teenage navel gazing of the most useless sort.

Oh, I think it's significant indeed — the same way I would if, say, an environmental group backed a Big Oil candidate.

You don't have to support Trump because you like him or agree with him. Being horrified at the alternative is enough.

Agreed. You can support Trump, or Clinton, or a third-party candidate, for any reason of your choosing — which is one of the many virtues of America.

think it's significant indeed — the same way I would if, say, an environmental group backed a Big Oil candidate.

Oh really? how would it significant and why? Especially if the alternative was a socialist? Let's hear some grown up analysis of how we should all be single issue voters, and stick to our philosophical guns. Riding the anti hypocrisy Titanic down to certain doom.

You see, this why I think you are in high school Kevin. You read both too much and too little into why someone might support a political candidate.

There just isn't any reasoning going on here.

Kevin is talking about what occurred before and during the presidential primaries, BEFORE Trump was the presumptive nominee and the choice became binary. He has said that three times.

Voting third party (and I will vote for Johnson again) is a long game. Gary Johnson won't win, but if he gets 10 percent of the vote, that will garner serious attention and a little more momentum, and even at 5 percent our party qualifies for a piece of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. We hasten the arrival of a time when we do have real choices.

It is the TRUE "lesser evil" choice. It is a powerful form of signaling.

Every time somebody says third-party voters spoil elections, what I hear is, "Democracy would be great if it weren't for all these voters."

Kevin: "Two Corinthians" — which sounds like the beginning of a joke: "Two Corinthians walk into a bar..."

Two Corinthians start to walk into a bar. They are joined by three friends and now that there are five Corinthians, and the doorway is narrow, they have to form a column to get in.

So these two Popes go in to a bar.

Oh really? how would it significant and why? Especially if the alternative was a socialist? Let's hear some grown up analysis of how we should all be single issue voters, and stick to our philosophical guns. Riding the anti hypocrisy Titanic down to certain doom.

As IP pointed out, I've said three times that Falwell and Graham supported Trump when there were plenty of other evangelical alternatives. Falwell formally endorsed Trump when Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Santorum were in the race, none of whom are socialists.

You see, this why I think you are in high school Kevin. You read both too much and too little into why someone might support a political candidate.

Thank you. My complexion is good, but it's not that good, and I only wish I had the hairline I did in high school.

"That *clown* , as you call him, at least managed to keep World War three from starting in the Middle East."

How? Bowing to everyone?

And for those of you talking about the MSM, please recall that they decided to turn their collective head and do nothing to investigate Mr. Obama.

Peter Jennings, on the air the night of his election: "What do we really know of this man?"

@Radwaste

Unless I totally screwed up my response, I believe the clown reference was to George W Bush. Not Obama,
If you want to call Obama a clown, I agree.