Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Is Trump a Reformocon?

Is Trump a Reformocon?

. . . or does he defy existing labels?

As political pundits struggle to find an explanation for Trump’s indisputable success in the GOP 2016 presidential primary contest, Josh Barro wonders if Trump is the candidate reform conservatives are seeking.  He writes:

For the last few years, a small but prominent group of conservative writers and thinkers has urged the Republican party to rethink its economic agenda with a greater focus on the needs of the middle class. The so-called reform conservatives have criticized the G.O.P.’s economic prescription of cutting entitlement programs and tax rates (especially on high earners) as unresponsive to the concerns of workers earning stagnant wages.

“Reform conservatism is based on a recognition that the American economy has not served middle-income people well, not just since the crisis of 2008 but at least since the year 2000,” said David Frum, the prominent Canadian-American conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush who serves as a senior editor at The Atlantic.

Reformocons, as I have previously noted, “don’t want to diminish the role of the federal government, they want to expand and refine—even redefine—it, and they seem to imagine that foregrounding some conservative principles such as work and family is the same thing as enacting conservative policy, i.e. policy based in small government, personal responsibility, and equal opportunity rather than outcome.”

Barro asserts that Trump’s desire to fix the illegal immigration problem and his support for higher taxes on the wealthy seems to make him a good fit for reform conservatives.

There happens to be a Republican candidate for president who wants less immigration but also thinks it’s “outrageous” how little tax some rich people pay, and he’s doing pretty well in the polls. Is Donald Trump the candidate the reformocons have been waiting for?

“No,” Mr. Frum said.

. . . .   It’s an awkward thing: The reform conservative movement, to the extent it exists, is pointy-headed, technocratic and soft-spoken. Mr. Trump is none of those things. But his campaign has helped bolster a key argument from the reformocons: that many Republican voters are not devotees of supply-side economics and are more interested in the right kind of government than in a simply smaller one.

Like the compassionate conservatives before them, reformocons believe that big government is the answer . . . if it’s done right (i.e. by them), and the continued and surging support for Trump, they and Barro argue, seems to validate their own worldview.

“There were a lot of people who wanted to think the Tea Party is a straightforward libertarian movement,” said Reihan Salam, the executive editor of National Review. But he said Mr. Trump’s ability to lead the polls while attacking Republicans for wanting to cut entitlement programs showed that conservative voters are open to “government programs that help the right people.”

Mr. Frum attributes most Republican candidates’ continued devotion to cuts in taxes and entitlements to the desires of a Republican donor class that benefits directly from lower tax rates and indirectly, through lower labor costs, from high immigration. Mr. Trump, as Mr. Trump will happily tell you, does not need rich donors’ money, and the polls show that Republican voters have not yet punished him for his praise of single-payer health care (in other countries) or his past support for a wealth tax.

. . . .  Of course, there are reasons the reformocons have not lined up to support Mr. Trump. Just because he has identified some of the same problems as the reformocons does not mean they agree on solutions.

“I would not characterize Mr. Trump’s campaign so far as a policy-driven campaign to help the middle class,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute who has urged conservatives to adopt more creative solutions to address the weak job market. He took particular issue with Mr. Trump’s support for higher tariffs and his apparent disregard for long-term deficits.

While Barro argues that Trump might be a reform conservative despite his lack of support among reformocons, others have argued that he’s a progressive, Reaganesque, a fraud, and an astute politician.  One thing is certain, Trump defies neat categories, and as the professor noted, he is “by far the most entertaining politician we’ve had in memory.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Donald Trump is the Barrak Obama of the Republican party. We really know very little about him. He says that he is willing to buck the establishment, and we can project all of our dreams and desires onto him as a candidate without every knowing what he stands for (if anything at all). If he wins this will end about as well as the current presidency. SMH.

    We know he’s not a politician. That in itself makes him better then most of the other candidates running. And Trump has created jobs. Obama never created a single job while he was a community organizer.

      Radegunda in reply to foxmuldar. | September 7, 2015 at 12:29 am

      Trump became a “politician” when he started running for office. He would certainly be a politician if he were elected to office. I guess you’ll have to start disliking him them.

      Many current “politicians” were formerly non-politicians. Did they lose their virtue as soon as they got into office? What’s the point of electing “non-politicians” then?

      It’s really inane to assert that simply being a non-politician — that is, not having held office yet — necessarily makes a person more trustworthy than people currently in office. But that sort of “reasoning” is, sadly, typical of Trump supporters.

    Same Same in reply to Shane. | September 6, 2015 at 8:17 pm

    He’s worse than Obama, who was at least a safe, reliable hard left choice. Trump is only in the race to suck the oxygen away from the serious candidates. It is embarrassing how easily and completely he has succeeded.

      Radegunda in reply to Same Same. | September 7, 2015 at 12:32 am

      In both cases, the fans imagine their idol to be whatever they want him to be. But in the case of Trump, it’s more understandable that people would imagine him to be very different things, since he has changed positions so much.

    Canusee in reply to Shane. | September 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    Actually, we know alot about Trump. One can spend days watching twenty-five plus years of media and interview footage of the guy. One can spend weeks studying all things Trump Empire. All business dealings, companies, etc., are there to be search and read on the internet. His family history is documented ten ways in every direction. One can hear the same Donald say the same things in 1988 that he says in 2015. There are thousands upon thousands of employees, business collegues, classmates, neighbors, etc., who talk about him. He is just about the only candidate whose life mostly resembles an open book; transparent. Nothing like Obama in that regard. Now, if we want to line up a candidate as to how little we really know about him, other than what his party and political resume shares with us, look at Ted Cruz. Really. Do some homework. The narrative and story presentation is eerily similar to Barry’s.

T-rump is a Not-A-Con. He is a BIG GOVERNMENT crony capitalist oligarch.

There isn’t a small government thought in his coiffed head. There ARE a lot of narcissistic drives in there, and how’d that work out with Barracula?

    I agree Trump is not a conservative. Towering egos do not represent other’s best interests. We’ve seen that.

    More than anything Trump wants to make his name recognition even bigger. “TRUMP” will be on all the signs along the Border Wall.

    So, I would add “self-serving opportunist” to your “He is a BIG GOVERNMENT crony capitalist oligarch.”

    Trump as self-serving opportunist puts him in the same category as another “mack daddy” community organizer-Barry Soetero.

If anything is guaranteed to turn people away from Trump is David Frum speaking up for him.

Trump mostly rejected the flat tax idea, and said there should be higher percentages paid by the wealthy (as they do now). But he also mentioned eliminating special deals … I forget the exact words but it sounded like he was talking about all those carve outs.

THAT would be a really big deal. Cutting Gucci Gulch special interest carve outs would be a HUUUUGE deal. It was stopped cold turkey by all our sold out Congress, and even on FOX it barely got mentioned when that idea was shut down hard. That is one of the golden geese of the donor class, along with their multi-millionaire bailouts.

But it will take time to see what Trump will really lay out in detail. He won’t go for the messianic figure like Obama managed. Trump is more Dirty Harry.

    Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 6, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    I’m trying, but for the life of me, I have no flucking idea what you are going on about here.

    Two things I DO know…

    1. you seem delighted with the idea of a little T-rump Tinkering the the code, when we NEED complete reform INCLUDING repealing the 16th, and…

    2. I heard Trump’s spokeshole say that entitlements would NOT be cut under a Trump administration. We would create so much wealth, why, EVERYTHING would be fully funded.

    Which is as crazy as Obama believing we can have solar panels power America. It isn’t just impractical, it’s impossible.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 7:27 pm

      You don’t get it, that’s right.

        PhillyGuy in reply to jayjerome66. | September 6, 2015 at 7:34 pm

        More polls today showing Trump doing extremely well in NH and Iowa.

        Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | September 6, 2015 at 7:34 pm

        “Cutting Gucci Gulch special interest carve outs would be a HUUUUGE deal.”

        OK, troll. You explain. With links. GO!

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 7:45 pm

          No Rags, you are the troll. A legend in his own mind. Slowly but surely, you are isolating yourself as a crank who can’t be nice to people he disagrees with. Go ahead and flame everyone until you have not one supporter left. And we will all have the popcorn ready watching it. So have fun old man, we will be watching your train wreck.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 7:47 pm

          Here’s one … I remember GE also paying no tax back then, with big profit. There are hundreds like this. And yes, corporations are people.

          Whirlpool Corporation recorded $18 billion in global sales and $619 million of earnings in 2010 but won’t pay anywhere near the U.S. statutory tax rate of 35% on those profits. Its effective tax rate will be 0%.

          Think of these energy efficiency tax carve-outs as a version of the earned income tax credit for corporate America. Except Whirlpool and GE aren’t poor.

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704506004576174321393436988

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 7:59 pm

          OK, now we’re getting somewhere. How would you think that crony capitalist Mr. Establishment is going to put the ki-bosh on crap like that ENVIRONMENTAL tax break?

          He can’t do it by executive order. But let’s say he does get a few of those things changed. All he’s done is tinker around the margins of the utterly corrupt tax code. That’s all…

          NOTHING will have really changed.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:09 pm

          Well he would run his mouth and convince congress to make the changes. That one is not enough, but there are hundreds. And besides the revenue, there is the competitive advantage that gives the donor class advantages.

          Billions wasted on Solyndras made a lot of leftists full of cash to buy future politicians. It is essential to cut off the graft. Grants are another element like carve-outs, only worse. This whole carbon credit thing would have to be stopped as well, which is also probably in the tax code somewhere, but I don’t care to search for it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:15 pm

          We’ll probably get the VAT on top of the income tax, but maybe we could at least have a better plan not written by “the 1%”.
          ___________________________________

          C’mon, dude. Don’t go all Occupy on us.

          The way…THE WAY…to really do anything about all this stuff you’re vaguely waving at is to reform the tax code FUNDAMENTALLY. Radically. Read up on it.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:18 pm

          “NOTHING will have really changed.”

          of course it would. and besides the tax revenue, there is the redirection of the whole country. The “war on coal” is one example, or the “tax break” of being able to hire illegals and have their health care and food stamps funded by the taxpayer.

          DC now serves itself, so reform is needed in everything. There are probably ten thousand ways they have been squeezing us. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          See, I’ve made the mistake again of thinking you know anything about economics really.

          You don’t.

          Has it occurred to you that…if indeed illegal ag. workers work WAY cheaper than Americans would…your food is going up appreciably. No, you haven’t considered that?

          Spit gets complicated, son. You really need to learn some basic economics, so a lot of those bogey men don’t scare you any longer.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 12:09 am

          Sheesh rags … all those lines of insults, just to make the very old “but without illegals you’d be paying $5 for a head of lettuce” claim. That’s an old leftist and lame argument, which you consider cutting edge.

          I did have 400 grapevines for awhile, while considering whether to go big. But then we got two buck chuck and the wine glut, partly from cheap money and cheap (illegal) labor. But I learned there is a lot of mechanization available to replace labor, with more coming on all the time, even in CA fields.

          There is a fair amount of horticultural production in Illinois, but the laborers are not illegals. But we compete with those that use illegals. My degree is in horticulture btw, not that I ever really used it much.

          Here is some help to get you past your CNBC mind set of economics. Marc Faber is a pretty smart guy. Just start at 36:00 and listen to a couple minutes about why debt does matter, and how the central banks are painting over the big cracks, for now. He also covers that debt liquidation has not happened yet.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga6N113V0m8

          When the government manages the economy, it is not a free market. In your Friedman and the grocer example, it is Obama that is the grocer/banker, but he doesn’t lend the money. He charges his working customer and gives it to the welfare customer. So the capitalist is taxed to death, and the welfare state keeps electing the grocer.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 9:19 am

          Learn some basic economics. You’ll sleep better, and the world will be much less frightening and inexplicable to you.

          If you don’t think food prices will rise when we rid ourselves of illegals, you have no capacity to understand cause-effect relationships. I’m prepared to meet that cost, though not thrilled about it.

          I don’t think I’ve viewed even a uTube of CNBC in the last decade, so you’re just trying to insult me gratuitously with that bullshit. Apparently you watch it, since you know them.

          Again, you throw out terms that even you admit you don’t understand, and you express fears about a swirling hodge-podge of unrelated crap. I’ve never even hinted that our debt doesn’t matter. It’s T-rump who has tried to sell the mammoth lie that we can keep entitlements “fully funded” by just growing the economy. Even Obama understood that was impossible, and lied about doing something to tame entitlements when running for his first term.

          T-rump is PROMISING to kick that can down the road to our kids and grandkids.

          Knowing the difference between “trade deficits” and “debt” will be a good start for you in your efforts to demystify the world you are so fearful of.

          MikeInCA in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 1:30 pm

          Everything PhillyGuy wrote.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 7:35 pm

      You have to look at the specifics to see if a flat tax or national sales tax or VAT would make things better for the middle class. There are many special carve outs, some might even be good, but they are often hideouts for “rich and connected”, as I understand it. But they burrow in deep, and I don’t read tax code for fun.

      We’d have to see details, and you really didn’t offer details either, except “repeal the 16th”. But that’s just the fun part, revenue still has to be replaced.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 6, 2015 at 7:44 pm

        Well, OK. I’ve said all this ’til I thought it was trite, but one more time for you…

        There are several good tax replacement proposals; one being a flat tax, the other being some variation on a national sales tax WITH THE 16th REPEALED.

        I’d not be averse to trying them each over a decade as a good test of both, to show pros and cons since economic stuff like taxes can have very broad ramifications.

        I would do away with all business taxes at the Federal level entirely, as these are simply stealth taxes on consumers and fall most heavily on the poorest, in fact.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:01 pm

          So you don’t have a plan either.

          I’m not adverse to your vague ideas, but they too need specific numbers. Someone recently mentioned the national sales tax, since it would get taxes from the prostitutes and drug dealers or something. He got slammed mightily for that awkward statement, but there is a point to it.

          The problems from the dotcom bubble, real estate bubble, were not fixed with TARP and the QEs, so we have massive other problems coming. We’ll probably get the VAT on top of the income tax, but maybe we could at least have a better plan not written by “the 1%”.

          http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/08/22/mckim-stock-market-may-crash-a-third-time-in-15-years/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 8:09 pm

          “So you don’t have a plan either.”

          Well, NOT one I can pour in your vacant skull here on a blog thread, THAT’s fer DAMN sure.

          You’d have to…I dunno…EXERCISE your own fingers and brain…LIKE I HAVE…and do some research to LEARN the VERY detailed plans I have NO FLUCKING INCLINATION to try to pack in your ears.

          Others have managed to do so very nicely. Perhaps you’re up to it…

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 6, 2015 at 7:51 pm

        “There are many special carve outs, some might even be good, but they are often hideouts for “rich and connected”, as I understand it. But they burrow in deep, and I don’t read tax code for fun.”

        I STILL have no idea what “carve outs” means and who these eeeeevil “rich and connected” are who are getting them.

        Are you talking about depletion allowances for like oil and gas exploration? What?

        Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 7, 2015 at 8:38 am

        I don’t see what is controversial about this statement of mine .. except when I read it again I see I should have had another paragraph about the carve outs.

        The carve out part applied to the current system, and was a response to rags’ questioning. Of course the benefits of the flat and vat type ideas is it eliminates the million pages of details that “carve out” special treatment for lobbyists.

        anyway, just wanted to clear that up for the record

          Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 7, 2015 at 9:34 am

          Dude! LEARN basic stuff before you TRY to comment about it and make a fool of yourself.

          A VAT (value-added tax) is NOT a national sales tax! They are fundamentally different. A VAT CAN be levied at each stage of the production of a good, where a national sales tax would ONLY (in most proposals) be levied at the point of consumer sales.

          Jeeeeeeebus…!!!

    snopercod in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 6, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    Trump spoke of eliminating the Carried Interest loophole whereby “Hedge Fund Bandits” only pay 20% tax on profits vs. 39% if it were treated as wages. Sounds good to me!

      Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | September 6, 2015 at 7:17 pm

      Only because you don’t understand it. (I know because you used “Hedge Fund Bandits”.)

      BUT…even better…how about we just BURN DOWN THE FLUCKING TAX CODE!

      Do away with ALLLLL the crap. You won’t get that from T-rump.

      You want something that will spark the middle class renaissance? THAT would be it.

      Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | September 6, 2015 at 7:31 pm

      A third issue is the administrability of any potential reform of the taxation of carried interest. If the law were changed to tax the compensatory share as wage and salary income, GPs could still pursue strategies to dilute the tax effects of the reform. As a result, some observers argue that such a change in the law would raise no revenue or would be inadministrable. If these observers are correct, it is unclear why GPs continue to bargain with limited partners to receive carried interest and lobby for retention of its preferential tax treatment. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that taxing the compensatory share like wage and salary income would raise about $15 billion in revenue over five years.
      —From your liberal tax policy link

      So. A whopping $3 billion a year in new revenue. Maybe. WHOOOOOza. A rounding error in BIG GOVERNMENT.

    Tell me if I’m wrong, MR, but I think you are referring to targeting Hedge Fund guys, whom Trump says pays little or no taxes.

    Since no one of political importance has challenged that assertion by Trump that I am aware of, it strengthens the charge against Hedge Fund guys.

    That is small potatoes deficit-wise but it wakes up left-leaning libertarians and disgruntled Democrats, etc, to the ring of that bell. Clever campaign gambit, in my opinion.

    If Trump’s campaign pans out to the point of getting nominated, we should expect him to have a nice net full of previous Obama voters who are forsaking the American train wreck wrought by The Democrat Establishment including Obama and his gang of socialist traitors.

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      Well, wrong as so often the case.

      Rush dealt with the idea the other day. Look it up. I only half listened, so I can’t vouch for what he said.

      And “Hedge Fund Guys” is just a dog whistle of Collectivists who know a lot of Americans have no concept of the whole ambit, but DO have prejudices they can play on.

      That ambit includes LOTS of general partnerships that are put together to generate capital, which is a good trick in the U.S. since Dodd-Fwank. That capital can be used to finance a new venture or a new drilling play in North Dakota.

      Others ARE hedge funds, which play a vital role in risk management. Which is why they exist.

        Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 12:40 am

        “hedge funds today do not necessarily hedge.[1] Hedge funds invest in a diverse range of markets and use a wide variety of investment styles and financial instruments.” wikipedia

        LTCM was a huge hedge fund that was leveraged 300:1 (they say), and lots of wealthy people made huge profits via their “perfect model”. They weren’t hedging. Then when Russia defaulted in 1998 and LTCM’s model broke, I guess they called their congressman they collectively owned, and the millionaires got bailed out by middle America.

Trump’s a vote getter!

Yes, people do participate in the voting process. But this time neither of the two “big” parties has a candidate out there that can compete with him. In other words? In this race, he’s far ahead of the pack.

Wave around Rubio and Cruz all ya like, Trump is appealing to voters on a whole other level.

    Radegunda in reply to Carol Herman. | September 7, 2015 at 12:44 am

    Obama was a vote-getter too. He appealed to people on a whole other level — the level of messianic hopes and expectations. He was The One who was uniquely qualified to set the country right and wash away its sins.

    Trump too has become a focus of messianic expectations. Fans see him as larger-than-life, a person above politics as usual, someone who can command what he wants and It Shall Be Done (after he “beats the he11 out of people” to get his way).

    Trump fans really do seem to imagine that he has a unique ability to transcend the normal process of partisan politics and “get the job done.” And they often don’t seem very concerned about the particulars of the job he intends to get done. Instead, there’s a naive trust that The Donald is “listening to us” or that he simply knows what’s best — because, of course, he’s “not a politician,” and politicians are bad. Therefore Trump is better. QED.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Carol Herman. | September 7, 2015 at 3:24 am

    Trump has never run for political office before and there won’t be a ballot that counts for months. Thus he is not a proven vote getter. He is merely ahead in very early polls that tend to place a premium on name recognition.

What is Donald Trump’s worldview? When you know a person’s worldview, you have a fairly decent notion of where that person is going to come down on any specific issue.

What is Trump’s worldview? The only thing I know for sure is that he is at the center of it. Does that mean he would make a lousy president? Not necessarily. But do I have confidence that a guy who says he’d like to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who are like his pro-abortion sister is going to make nothing but good decisions? Hardly.

    jayjerome66 in reply to topcat69. | September 6, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Nobody’s perfect. A candidate who matches your views exactly isn’t going to get elected. Not going to happen.

    Think of it this way, per the Rolling Stones:

    You can’t always get what you want
    You can’t always get what you want
    But if you try sometime you find
    You get what you need

    If you need focus on abortion more then focus on the border, then Trump’s not your guy.

    CloseTheFed in reply to topcat69. | September 6, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    You’re right. But deporting illegal aliens is EXISTENTIAL. And no one else is coming close to Trump on getting rid of illegal aliens.

      Ragspierre in reply to CloseTheFed. | September 6, 2015 at 10:19 pm

      So, what’s the T-rump deported aliens count up to now?

      Has it ever occurred to you that T-rump has employed thousands of illegals over the years?

      When did you hear about his “beautiful”, “best ever” internal eVerify system that he applied to all his properties and contractors? It would have been cheap.

      Or is all this just chin-music from a fraudster?

        Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 12:51 am

        Well, Rags, Trump is “not a politician,” and politicians “lie to us.” Trump’s promises are not politician promises, and therefore his promises are good as gold.

        It doesn’t matter if he was saying and doing very different things a short time ago, because he’s Not A Politician! And we’re tired of politicians lying to us!

        (That’s pretty much the gist of the pro-Trump argument.)

If trump got elected, I believe he would do his best to put the right people in the right places. When Obama got elected remember who he put in those places. All his socialist friends like Eric the Red Holder. Remember all those czars Obama created. 99% of them socialist/communist folks. Trump has said he would consider Trey Gowdy to head the Justice department. That would be a big start as there needs to be a lot of cleaning up in Washington.

    CloseTheFed in reply to foxmuldar. | September 6, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    He put in friends, socialists, homosexuals, and illegal alien lobbyists. Bizarre bunch, even to me, the friend of the traumatized.

    Radegunda in reply to foxmuldar. | September 7, 2015 at 12:55 am

    What makes you believe that Trump would choose better people than the candidates who have long, solid records of conservative principle — rather than a record that includes saying that the Obama administration was doing a great job, and that Hillary Clinton is a wonderful, brilliant person, and that the economy does better under Democrats than Republicans?

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to foxmuldar. | September 7, 2015 at 2:37 am

    Trump’s disdain for doing his homework and his lack of curiosity on major issues means he isn’t likely to be able to discern between genuine expertise and superficial glibness on most issues. .

    The fact is that crony capitalists like Trump hire fellow cronies while egotists hire sycophants.

Trump expresses outrage. Trump trumps political correctness. He speaks his mind without regard to the pieties of the ruling class. Half the time he is right on. Half the time he spouts nonsense.

He is unqualified for high office due to his ignorance, lack of character and the fact that he really hasn’t accomplished much on his own.

People are desperate for political discourse that cuts through the b*ll. The Republican candidate who manages to do this will take the nomination. Let’s hope it’s not Trump.

With the ball cap on,Trump reminds me of Jon Voight’s character, Mickey Donnovan in the Ray Donnovan television series, trying to explain his latest hustle.

Trump is not a Reformocon and does not defy existing labels. He falls under an older, disused label, which unites racists, bootlickers, backers of a Strong Central State and traditionalists together.

The label is “Fascist”.

    CloseTheFed in reply to JWB. | September 6, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    OMG. Hyperbole alert.

      He’s running as a strongman who can get things done and restore the country to “greatness”. How is he not a fascist?

        Ragspierre in reply to JWB. | September 7, 2015 at 11:12 am

        Especially when coupled with his love of the fascist economic model that Barracula loves so much, which is often termed “crony capitalism”, and his animus toward market economics.

        He’s just another BIG GOVERNMENT guy. A Collectivist, in fact.

Phillyguy
No Rags, you are the troll. A legend in his own mind. Slowly but surely, you are isolating yourself as a crank who can’t be nice to people he disagrees with. Go ahead and flame everyone until you have not one supporter left. And we will all have the popcorn ready watching it. So have fun old man, we will be watching your train wreck.
===================================================

I was directing a response to JJTrombone, who IS a troll and was trolling me. That was none of your business, to begin with.

I’m not sending this to Prof. Bill, but I will the next one if you keep this up.

    There you have it, folks. The most contemptuous commenter I have run across on this blog now threatens PhillyGuy with an “I’ll report you to the Professor…” if you do it again.

    What are you? A child? Pulling an ‘Im tellin Mama what you said about me!’ ??

    hahahahahahahaaa

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 8:46 pm

      That is a personal attack. You are violating the terms of this blog.

        Well now, more of the same old Ragspierre, the reformist Rags melted back into his real self. So, your position is that anyone who disagrees with you is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

        Good grief, old chappy, consider that most of the sane world disagrees with your view of life, as you wish it to be!

        Just look at the number of “replies” you’ve made on this article by itself. An objective person might believe that LI is your personal blog; except in fact it isn’t, thankfully.

        OBTW: The count, is that you’ve made 17-comments, on this article up to this exact point, either as “original” comments or as replies. Truly, a work of …. What exactly?

        Ah well, as long as LI exists, LI followers can read what the Professors and his merry band of excellent authors have to say, while also skimming past your comments, which are mere rubbish and fill-in junk.

        Ta Ta.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 12:18 am

    There we go, there is the real Rags.

To the Author Fuzzy Slippers:

Quoting David Frum?????

SERIOUSLY?????

DAVID EFFin FRUM??????

    Sure, why wouldn’t Barro interview and quote Frum? He’s a reform conservative (i.e. a rebranded “compassionate conservative”), and as such it makes sense to get his opinion about reform conservatives.

    As noted in the post, many of Trump’s positions seem to mirror those of Frum and other reformocons, so why wouldn’t Barro quote Frum (and I quote Barro quoting Frum)?

I am very concerned, though this might be slightly off topic, about Ben Carson, M.D.

He’s a good human being, but he only went to the border after Trump rocketed. It was a problem before Trump mentioned it.

At least he learns, unlike Jeb Bush, who keeps sticking to his “For Love” trash. And Rick Perry doesn’t learn either.

Well, it helps pare them down. So many choices!

    Ragspierre in reply to CloseTheFed. | September 6, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    Perry has DONE more that the other 49 governors in the U.S.

    And each of THEM has done more than just talk, which is all T-trump has done.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 6, 2015 at 9:53 pm

      Is that the same Rick Perry’s whose Iowa campaign co-chairs have exited to the Donald Trump and Rick Santorum campaigns, and the same Rick Perry whose New Hampshire political director has defected to John Kasich?

      I guess that’s because he didn’t DO ENOUGH to keep from being DONE IN by Trump.

        Radegunda in reply to jayjerome66. | September 7, 2015 at 1:02 am

        Looks like the “strong horse” syndrome. And Trump can probably pay better. That doesn’t mean his promises are any more credible than other politicians’ promises.

If Perry drops out, the illegals will still at least have Bush, Graham, Rubio, and Kasich to represent them and attack Trump. Any of them signed an Official Republican Party Loyalty Oath?

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | September 6, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    Why would any illegal alien attack T-rump unless he or she had a criminal record?

    T-rump plans to let them come back as soon as they’ve touched base.

    Or were you fooled by that Trumpian fraud, too?

I can’t help wondering what has happened to Ragspierre.

    Radegunda in reply to Juba Doobai!. | September 7, 2015 at 1:06 am

    What has “happened to Ragspierre” is evidently that he has been paying attention and remembering things and putting facts together in logical ways — as opposed to saying things like “We’re tired of politicians! We want Trump! He’s listening to us!”

NC Mountain Girl | September 7, 2015 at 2:30 am

He’s an old fashioned populist demagogue. Because of his career in reality TV Trump knows how to appeal to the the lowest common denominator. Trump also benefits from a press that treats him as a celebrity rather than as a politician because the press wants an old, rich, mean spirited white man devoid of fresh ideas to be the face of the Republican party.

    The press doesn’t give a hoot about “ideas”.

    The press will follow Trump around because it’s long since decided that he’s a celebrity.

    This gives Trump an advantage, obviously; the press can ignore the other candidates at whim, but the whole country will know about anything Trump does or says (for better or worse). So he already has his megaphone; it’s up to him to decide how to use it.

    Carson and Fiorina also have novelty value (which is almost as good as celebrity status, so far as press coverage is concerned) but they also have vulnerabilities due to press expectations (or, if you prefer, bigotries). The press will dwell on every statement by Carson to divine whether he’s a “proper” Black, and on Fiorina’s to verify that she conforms to somebody’s expected standard as a … whatever, a feminist, I suppose. But Trump won’t have to run this particular gauntlet; whatever he does or says, he’ll still be a proper Trump.

http://twitchy.com/2015/09/06/donald-trump-posts-letter-from-the-club-for-growth-asking-for-1000000-donation-cfg-responds/

Oh, dear! It looks like that “non-politician” Mr. Establishment is lying again about some one or some entity that’s been critical of his goofy policies.

    The letter does request a 1 mill donation. Maybe you should read the whole article again, then read the letter. I have no idea who approached who, nor do I care. If the CFB was so put off by trump, then they are less than whores, as they requested the donation anyway.

    That article does nothing for your anti trump crusade.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 7, 2015 at 10:48 pm

      T-rump invited them. T-rump gives money to lots of people, buying influence or trying to make a show.

      Duh.

      But they are NOT what T-rump says they are, just because they criticized him.

      The man is sick.

        Facts are just so damn difficult.

        The CFG asked trump for a 1 million dollar donation. June 2nd, 2015 letter. There is no question this happened.

        Trump said “no”.

        The CFG now goes after Trump.

        The CFG is sick.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 9:13 am

      But, Barry, the CFG has criticized T-rump before, and over one of his several political, crappy books.

      http://www.clubforgrowth.org/crazy-liberals/chris-chocola-oped-trump-is-not-an-option-for-conservatives/

      “Trump even hewes to some of the worst, protectionist orthodoxy that would make the far-left blush. He’s said that he’d “love to have a trade war with China” (a job-killer), that he wants a 25 percent tax on all Chinese imports” (another job-killer), and he opposed NAFTA (a job-creator). No true believer in free markets would ever take such positions, but the Donald has.”

      From 2011. Over exactly the kinds of things CFG has criticized T-rump over this year.

      Facts, indeed, hard…and strange WRT T-rump.

        Yes, true, prior criticism. The CFG is not entirely a monolithic entity.

        It is still true the asked for the donation. And were turned down. Odd, isn’t it, that trump would turn them down after (supposedly) requesting a meeting with them? So, what do you think took place? They made it clear they would go after him, but still had the cojones to ask for a million bucs?

          jayjerome66 in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 1:44 pm

          Yes Barry, you were called a liar for expressing your opinion AFTER reading Trump’s book. From a person who disparaged all of Trump’s books as ‘crappy’ without having read them all; more likely without having read any cover to cover. His ‘crappy’ remark was made in association with a link to a negative review by CFG – not of Trump’s books in total, but of an economic position. Therefore without having read ALL of Trumps books, the ‘crappy’ remark is ‘crappy.’
          Nor is it any wonder Trump refused the CFG request for a million, sent to trump’s associate on June 2, 2015, after CFG made such disparaging remarks about Trump in their April 21, 2011 hatchet-job op-ed review, whose sub-headline says: Trump in not an option for conservatives.”
          Here, however, is what Breitbart.com(as Conservative Tea-Party as they come) had to say had to say on July, 2015 about their review of Trump’s 2011 book, “Time To Get Tough” (referenced above by Peppermint) :

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/12/time-to-get-tough-trumps-blockbuster-policy-manifesto/

          Among Trump’s many bestselling, anecdote-filled books, Time to Get Tough (originally published in 2011) stands out as his most penetrating, serious, and detailed enunciation of his political philosophy and policy views. Trump says it’s the “best book I’ve ever written” and is “better than The Art of the Deal.” Trump added, “It’s the hardest I’ve ever worked on a book. And it’s the most thought I’ve ever put into a book.”

          It’s easy to see why. Backed up with nearly 250 endnotes, citing everything from Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports to Sherman Antitrust Act amendments to the Theory of Moral Sentiments, Trump’s book clearly lays out serious policy solutions to vexing U.S. problems. Welfare reform, cyberwarfare, energy, illegal immigration and crime, taxes, healthcare, national defense—you name it, Trump offers his plans, often including specific bills and amendments. Best of all, Trump does it all in his refreshingly blunt and authentic voice—the very voice now resonating with a citizenry fed up with the Political Class and its conceits.

          Is Trump lying, is he bluffing, is he insincere about those views? Breitbart doesn’t seem to think so. Therefore whose opinion should be valued more: Breitbart’s or blustering pseudo-intellectuals with zero history of professional authenticity?

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm

          Well, here’s your answer.

          The CFG stands for principles of small government and free markets.

          I don’t think they care about who their donors are, and I’ll bet they include some T-rump types who are trying to polish their images or buy some slack. So long as that doesn’t alter the CFG’s mission, I doubt they give a fig, and there’s no evidence that anything has altered their mission.

          As for what happened in this train of events, I’d be guilty of pure speculation until we have more information. Could it be that if T-rump made any contribution it would be made with conditions by T-rump that CFG would not accept? Dunno.

          Could it be that T-rump reviewed what CFG stands for, felt he was opposed to those ideals, and just decided he didn’t want to support them? Dunno.

          Are there other possibilities? Sure.

          But are the CFG people “a pack of thieves” because they oppose T-rump’s BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivist polices? Certainly not. If they were asked by T-rump what he could do and what races he should support, are they “pathetic” “hypocrits” if they told him?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 2:47 pm

          JJ, buzz off. I don’t need any help from pond scum. I’ll take Rags any day, warts and all.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 2:53 pm

          Rags, I know what CFG is.

          Do you suppose they go to Soros for donations as well? No, I don’t think they do. I’m not disparaging the CFG as an entity. I also will not agree with every damn member or every position. They’re free to go after trump all they want. But they probably should not ask for money, get turned down, and then cry about it. Looks petty and small to me. Everything you see in trump I see in them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 3:01 pm

          I can’t say what CFG would do if invited to see Soros. I’d go to see him if he invited me, but I deal with slugs pretty commonly. And lawyers!

          But I really doubt that T-rump is held in the same circle of hell as Soros! By much of anybody, including ME!

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm

          “But they probably should not ask for money, get turned down, and then cry about it.”

          Unless you can show me otherwise, I think the order is inverted, with T-rump blowing the snot bubbles about being criticized, and throwing his (disturbingly) common bitch that someone or some entity is after him solely because he didn’t give them money.

          CFG is doing only what they do, and that’s fight for market economics and small government.

        “Unless you can show me otherwise,”

        I cannot. I don’t know the order. Don’t care either. As a conservative I am not going to ask for a donation from someone I plan to criticize as not being conservative. I’m damn sure not going to cry about it later, regardless of the “order”.

        As a lawyer I would probably speak to Soros. But I’m not and so I would not. Might not even if I were a lawyer…

Is Trump a Reformocon? Is water wet? Is the Pope Catholic? Is LI one of the most read blogs in the blogosphere?

Reformocons? Aren’t they the same as Decepticons?

I’ve started reading Trump’s 2011 book “Time to Get Tough” which was just reissued. It is engaging and readable, and since it is about government policy, I think by the time I’ve finished reading it, I will have a pretty good idea of whether or not Trump is a “reformocon.” I would suggest that the pundits who write about Trump at least go to the trouble to read his major books.

    “I would suggest that the pundits who write about Trump at least go to the trouble to read his major books.”

    Forget it. They simply don’t want to know the truth. Content to cherry pick the record to support their fears, they will never read the entire story.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 7, 2015 at 11:34 am

      “Content to cherry pick the record to support their fears, they will never read the entire story.”

      No, see, THAT’S a lie. What critical thinkers WILL NOT DO is buy the bullshit on its face. We will insist on looking BEHIND the words, and into the deeds.

      For instance, you will not find a small government notion in T-rump’s crappy “immigration” paper. I challenge you to show one.

      Don’t come back with repetition of crap like “nationalism good, unk”, because that’s just boob-bait. Show me a place where T-rump suggests a small government fix to anything instead of a BIG GOVERNMENT expansion, trade war, or PC pander.

        “No, see, THAT’S a lie.”

        I’d like a nickel for each time you call someone a liar. I’d be a rich man in a month.

        So, you’ve read the book? No, I didn’t think so. Which means my comment was not a lie, just my opinion.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2015 at 9:16 am

        So, nobody can meet the challenge?

          It is, of course, a gotcha question. You cannot solve the problem the BIG federal government created without using the BIG federal government to solve it. Once solved, then we can drop the immigration requirement down a notch or 2.

          Trumps plan as outlined on his website is fine with me. Once you have the wall up in the required places, have e-verify in place, defund sanctuary cities, stop the catch and release, wipe out the gangs of illegals, stop welfare payments to the illegals, and end birthright citizenship, you’ve hit all the bases.

          What’s not to like?

          Who else has a plan? A real one, not scamnesty or scamnesty lite?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2015 at 2:05 pm

          You or I could write a better plan. Much of it is merely stating tautologies.

          How ’bout the explicit call for a trade war?

          ONLY BIG GOVERNMENT does that.

          Given any thought to the “impounding remittances” BIG (even tyrannical) GOVERNMENT? How does THAT work? How is it different than asset forfeiture, which we deplore?

          “You or I could write a better plan.”

          Who, including Cruz, has such a plan that does not include amnesty first? Cruz has no plan anywhere I can find, only a collection of what he has said and efforts in the Senate to stop other plans. Not to mention he could not/would not answer Megan Kelly’s simple question. The same question trump did answer.

          “How ’bout the explicit call for a trade war?”

          War against an enemy is fine. Mexico is pushing illegals into this country, not all of them Mexicans. When they stop doing so then we can stop the war.

          “ONLY BIG GOVERNMENT does that.”

          So, you think a small government wouldn’t or shouldn’t stop the illegals? It’s a moronic statement.

          “Given any thought to the “impounding remittances” BIG (even tyrannical) GOVERNMENT? How does THAT work? How is it different than asset forfeiture, which we deplore?”

          That one is more difficult. Since they are illegals making the remittance, with money earned illegally, I’m not certain it is a problem. It is different than asset forfeiture of citizens. No plan is perfect. I cannot answer this one.

          Very simple, only Trump has vowed to stop the illegals. Period. Everyone else has nothing, short of amnesty. Trump doesn’t hedge on it. He has made it clear.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          “So, you think a small government wouldn’t or shouldn’t stop the illegals? It’s a moronic statement.”

          Which is why I never suggested any such thing.

          I’ve been all over the place advocating for a system in the U.S. that…

          1. ends “birthright citizenship” and…

          2. makes earning a living here or receiving government benefits impossible.

          I think both those are small government, and they’d work wonderfully well to STOP illegals, and induce them to leave over a short span. AND not just from Mexico, but from wherever!

          Yet, the shortest, least expanded-on part of the T-rump plan is about eVerify. A tossed-off sentence.

          BUT he does go into futzing with wages (also a BIG GOVERNMENT concept) at considerable length.

          THEN there’s the social engineering and PC pandering!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm

          “Since they are illegals making the remittance, with money earned illegally, I’m not certain it is a problem. It is different than asset forfeiture of citizens.”

          1. you suppose you know that “remittances” even means. I don’t know WTF it means. Does it include money due to Mexican investors in American businesses? What would THAT do for foreign investment in the U.S.?

          2. what law did even illegals violate in earning money? I know what you want to say, and I’d agree in principle, but what law, specifically? On what legal basis would we seize earnings?

          3. Juan and Maria typically send money via Western Union. WHO is going to police that and cut it off?

          4. IF Juan and Maria have their money seized by Big Brother once, why would they NOT just send money by mail? Which is not strictly legal…but illegals…??? Do we then have to open every letter into Mexico or south of there?

          5. the hundreds-of-thousands of American retirees living in Mexico get money from the U.S. How ’bout the Mexicans just impound all that in retribution?

          “1. ends “birthright citizenship” and…

          2. makes earning a living here or receiving government benefits impossible.”

          So, you and trump agree on two things. Except it will not stop criminal wages.

          “I think both those are small government”

          Agreed, they only require not doing things. I just don’t think it will end illegal immigration like you do. They will still come, not as many, but way too many. I want to see it all stopped. That requires more effort.

          “Yet, the shortest, least expanded-on part of the T-rump plan is about eVerify. A tossed-off sentence.”

          Yes, short, to the point, but not tossed off. And that will require Big government to apply it.

          “BUT he does go into futzing with wages (also a BIG GOVERNMENT concept) at considerable length.”

          Trump did not invent the H1B visa program which does “futz” with wages, if that is what you are talking about. Since it is already “futzed”, I’d rather see it “futzed” to benefit American workers, not immigrants.

          “THEN there’s the social engineering and PC pandering!”

          I don’t see that in the plan. Unless you reference the attempt to take money spent on J1 visa jobs and spend it on American kids instead.

          Your plan will not get rid of the huge number of illegals here that are engaged in criminal operations. Trump makes an effort to go after the gangs and criminals. Your plan will not stop those nefarious types crossing the border for something other than better wages. Nor will it do anything about the fact that the Mexican government promotes the border crossings in order to get rid of undesirables and alter the voting patterns of the USA. That requires more. trump address’s it.

          “you suppose you know that “remittances” even means. I don’t know WTF it means.”

          As I stated, this one is more difficult. I’m running low on time so I’m not going through each. This one is an issue. How big, I don’t know. Don’t throw the baby out with bath water applies.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 8, 2015 at 4:12 pm

          “I just don’t think it will end illegal immigration like you do. They will still come, not as many, but way too many.”

          Why would they? Why don’t Canadians come here in droves? Because they can earn a good living where they are!

          Which is WHY illegals from all over the world come here. They can earn a BETTER living HERE. Cut that off, and what’s the draw?

          Criminals and smugglers (who don’t stay anyhow) will always come here. When we catch the criminals, I want to put them away for life. T-rump wants to let them bounce back after deporting them.

I usually like reading the comments on this blog…but the insults are getting really tiresome. I’m with the Prof – I’m Trump curious. He does seem to bring out the worst in people.

Donald Trump’s economic vision has won the approval of arch-conservative Nobel laureate economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Paul Krugman, no less! This changes everything, lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    Yah. Ok. I’m beat. There’s just no fight the Krug…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 10:42 pm

      If I were Trump I’d pay Krugman a billion $$$ NOT to publish his endorsement of me.

      “But Henry, all the right people don’t like Trump!”

      Not any more, lol.

      Whoa Nelly, 30-comments by yourself on this one LI posting. Wow, maybe not a world record, yet quite an effort by itself! But, to what end, Sir, for what reason, to achieve what goal, Sir?

      What would you do if LI were not here? Would you take over a different blog? Just asking. Peace. Out!

        Ragspierre in reply to Doug Wright. | September 8, 2015 at 11:51 am

        Well, Doug, part of my purpose is to illuminate areas of interest where I know SOME damned thing, as opposed to many people who demonstrably DON’T.

        For instance, if not for me, you’d still be totally ignorant of who ROBSPIERRE was. As with so much else.

        But you hate me for helping you. Disgusting.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Doug Wright. | September 8, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        Hey Doug. Just to let you know it’s useless to expect rationale discourse, on line or anywhere else, from those suffering from “Flamer Personality Disorder” – a neurotic sub-category of NPD – Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

        On-line Flamers are compelled to hurl insults at others. They may have deep-seated neurosis of low self-worth, and often over-compensate by presenting themselves as “arrogant, elitist snobs, and are known to hurl insults at anyone who threatens their fragile self-esteem… “

        http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_narcissistic_personality_disorders.htm

        Narcissistic personalities often recognize their own neurosis in others – the old ‘it takes one to know one’ proverb – and I bet you get right on the first guess who on the site has accused Trump of narcissism.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | September 8, 2015 at 1:59 pm

          You are just trolling, troll.

          “Narcissistic personalities often recognize their own neurosis in others – the old ‘it takes one to know one’ proverb – and I bet you get right on the first guess who on the site has accused Trump of narcissism.”

          Please post to some links for your support of that bullshit.

          I mean, to several authorities besides an idiot who claims a BA in psychology on the internet.

JJTrombone lies. Of course.

“Yes Barry, you were called a liar for expressing your opinion AFTER reading Trump’s book.”

This was what I commented on…

“Forget it. They simply don’t want to know the truth. Content to cherry pick the record to support their fears, they will never read the entire story.”

That was NOT stated as an opinion, but as a fact. It was facially false, and even slanderous.

Do I have to read T-rump’s crappy books to know what his policy positions are? Hell, no, I don’t.

He’s a BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivist thinker, as he’s told us.
He is anti-market, and a life-long crony capitalist who is fraudulently running as a “conservative”. He is not.

    “JJTrombone lies. Of course.”

    Yes, he is a liar. Always has been. I’ve earned another nickel 🙂

    OTOH, your facts are opinions, and my opinions you call facts. I think you confuse the two.

    And no, you have not read the whole story. Unless you have, and I missed that revelation, then that is a fact.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 3:44 pm

      I dunno about all that.

      My opinions are pretty forcefully stated, but they’re always subject to argument.

      OTOH, “They simply don’t want to know the truth. Content to cherry pick the record to support their fears, they will never read the entire story”, was stated as a fact.

      Maybe we’re both a little too didactic. It could happen…

      I’d have to admit to never reading “Das Kapital”, but I’d say I have a good grounding in what was stated in it.

        “OTOH, “They simply don’t want to know the truth. Content to cherry pick the record to support their fears, they will never read the entire story”, was stated as a fact.”

        Alright, one more 🙂

        That statement was not directed at a singular person, but at a group, which may or may not include Ragspierre (operative word “they”). Therefore it is not a lie, as it is my opinion, stated factually or not. I stand by it. As much as you despise trump, 75% or more of the anti trump group are just statist idiots that haven’t read much of anything other than opinions of those with vested interests.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 8, 2015 at 4:19 pm

          Just for the record, I don’t despise T-rump. I wouldn’t expend a thought on the man if he weren’t running for POTUS, and…unlike some other people I feel differently about…I wouldn’t just beat him on sight. Might be an interesting guy to have a Scotch with, but I hear he does not drink.

“Therefore whose opinion should be valued more: Breitbart’s or blustering pseudo-intellectuals with zero history of professional authenticity?”

Eric Erikson, who is a terrible, horrible, RINO, Jeb! sucking squish also wrote a glowing review of one of T-rump’s crappy books (the latest).

Who you believe is up to you. I believe T-rump himself.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend