Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Donald Trump is helping Republicans by exposing other candidates’ weaknesses

Donald Trump is helping Republicans by exposing other candidates’ weaknesses

Love him or hate him, Trump has done us a general election favor by shaking the tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P38UqPDbpjo

This election season has had so many surprises, I’m staying away from making predictions.

But one thing is clear — Donald Trump has done Republicans a favor by exposing weaknesses in other candidates, in many cases such fatal flaws that they could never survive a Clinton-Media onslaught.

That weeding out process is not over, but already it has dispatched Rick Perry and Scott Walker. I wasn’t surprised with Perry, but the Trump phenomenon exposed weaknesses in Walker as a national candidate.

While it ain’t over until it is over, Jeb Bush has been damaged more than anyone by Trump.

From day one, Trump has been humiliating and emasculating Jeb with taunts. That would not have had much effect unless those taunts exposed Jeb’s inherent weaknesses as a candidate.

When Trump taunted Jeb as being low energy, it rang true and Jeb didn’t know how to react. When Trump raised the issue of Jeb being soft on immigration because his wife is an immigrant, Jeb on stage at a debate demanded an apology to Jeb’s wife, who was in the audience. Trump refused, and Jeb had nowhere to go with it — Jeb looked weak.

Now Trump is zeroing in on Jeb’s biggest problem — George W. Bush.

While Trump clearly insinuated that George W was responsible for 9/11, though he denies it, there is no doubt that he broke longstanding Republican refusal to implicate George W.:

Ezra Klein at Vox nailed the issue, Trump has figured out Jeb Bush’s greatest weakness:

Trump has a bully’s instinct for finding someone else’s true weaknesses. His continued crack that Bush is a “low-energy” candidate is devastating precisely because it identifies a weakness not just in Bush’s campaign style, but in the nature of his campaign.

Now Trump has pulled Bush into an even more dangerous quagmire: his brother’s presidency. Trump is reminding every Republican voter that nominating Jeb Bush will mean running a general election campaign with two disadvantages. First, Republicans will have to answer for George W. Bush’s failures in a way they wouldn’t if they nominated Marco Rubio or Carly Fiorina or Donald Trump, and second, they’ll need to somehow explain why they’re holding Hillary Clinton responsible for Obama’s presidency even as they don’t hold George W. Bush responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency.”

As if on cue, Jeb once again jumped to a family member’s defense, but it fell flat as this interview with Jake Tapper today:

Klein continued:

And Trump, having realized how weak Bush is on this issue, isn’t stopping. He’s moved from 9/11 to the Iraq War:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/655737356344016896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I find blaming George W. for 9/11 or second-guessing the Iraq decision based on 20/20 hindsight odious — those are Democratic talking points.

But they point to why we don’t want another Bush as nominee. Democrats and the media will go there in a general election.

We don’t want to spend the entire general election re-arguing the Bush presidency. That is how Democrats, with the full power of the media behind them, will win.

My feeling about Jeb is the same as my feeling was about Mitt — they are both ideal candidates … for Democrats to run against.

That’s why I supported Newt, with all his warts. I knew in my gut Mitt would lose. And I have that same gut feeling about Jeb. And apparently a lot of other do also, because Jeb has gained no traction and has withered under the Trump assault.

The Trump primary assault is nothing compared to what the Republican nominee will face.

Not all candidates have suffered Jeb’s fate.

Dr. Ben Carson seems to be thriving, but I don’t know what to make of his current success. Ted Cruz has held his own, and has positioned himself to pick up much of Trump and Carson’s supporters should they fade. Marco Rubio also has excelled; he’s not in a leading position, but he also hasn’t been hurt and may benefit when the Jeb donors finally figure out Jeb is done. Carly Fiorina has lost some of her debate bump, but has shown an ability to respond effectively to Trump’s taunts.

Love him or hate him, Trump has done us a favor by shaking the tree.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Ted Cruz today: I benefit from Trump’s campaign. And, he explained why.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    “I think my record is markedly different in terms of actually standing up and taking on the Washington cartel,” Cruz said. “And I think that’s why we’re seeing particularly…as voters get more and more educated, study the candidates, listen to the candidates in person, I think that’s why we’re seeing the grass roots momentum…we’re seeing…is conservatives…coalescing behind our campaign.”

    Yes. Conservatives…as the scales fall from their eyes WRT Duh Donald…will coalesce behind the principled conservative many of us have been militating for.

      This election is not about principled conservatism. That is what the GOPe wants to pretend it is about. Instead this election is about building the wall, jobs, trade, etc but with non global corporation chamber of commerce GOPe “principled conservative” solutions.

      The GOPe and the media are desperate to avoid admitting that the reason Trump is popular are his ideas. His non-GOPe approved policies combined with his can do spirit, patriotusm and love f9r the country. A guy who proudly proclaims the non-pc ideals that we need to make the USA rich again, we need to be a winner again, we need to make USA our top priority. In short we need to make america great again.

      Trump 2016.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 18, 2015 at 11:11 pm

        “This election is not about principled conservatism.”

        Certainly not for you. You have neither principles or a conservative notion in your head.

        But you ARE one Linus in The Pumpkin Patch WRT Underwear Gnome…well…everything!

        “..actually standing up and taking on the Washington cartel.” PU

        Donald Trump has shown we the public his remarkable negotiating skills time and time again during the past few months right up to last week when he partnered with Dr. Ben Carson limit the debate to 2 hours and to ensure the republican candidates had opening and closing statements just as the democrat candidates did.

        What Donald Trump says in wonderful in my ears. Any risk in supporting him is: “Will he do what he says he will do?”

        That is a risk I am willing to take since I know from history the others blow past their campaign promises with out even a sideways glance.

        What have I got to lose? And I just may assist in the re-birth of this magnificent experiment for the sake of my children and grandchildren.

          betty in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 9:36 am

          What did I tell ya?

          Reports now surfacing that the GOPe has entered negotiations with Nancy Pelosi to support Paul Ryan.

          According to Roll Call the Democrats are willing to elect Ryan if the GOPe promise to give them comprehensive immigration reform and amnesty legislation. Representative Steve King warns of the political bloodbath which would follow such a deal.

          Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 9:41 am

          What you really need to do is listen.

          You want single-payer “health care”? T-rump does.

          You think Kelo is swell? T-rump does.

          You like the idea of “campaign finance reform”? T-rump does.

          You think that trade wars are great? T-rump does.

          You think that INCREASING the debt is swell? T-rump’s tax plan does.

          You think that “leading from behind” is great foreign policy? T-rump does.

          And I could go on…

          Reports now surfacing that the GOPe has entered negotiations with Nancy Pelosi to support Paul Ryan.

          Trump is a Pelosi fan too. He would have gotten into bed with her (metaphorically speaking) in order to see Bush impeached. Is he GOPe too? Or is it different when he does it, because shut up.

          BLITZER: [What do you think of] Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?

          TRUMP: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot.

          But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.

          BLITZER: Impeaching him?

          TRUMP: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.

          BLITZER: Because of the conduct of the war.

          TRUMP: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies.

          As the regulars here all know Rags is the foul wind that never stops blowing his childish nonsense.

          Trump says he will repeal obanacare and replace it with free market competition solutions plus negotiate deals with lical clinics and hospitals to care for uninsured.

          Presidents don’t have anything to do with KELO so irrelevant.

          Trump wants to get rid of McCain Bush finance reform and replace it with full disclosure of all donors.

          Trump supports fair trade and bringing jobs back to this country.

          Trumps tax plan is reaganesque and will supersize our economy and incomes.

          Trump is a leader. That is obvious to all.

          Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 12:17 pm

          Gary lies, AND he loves BIG GOVERNMENT.

          “Trump says he will repeal obanacare and replace it with free market competition solutions plus negotiate deals with lical clinics and hospitals to care for uninsured.”

          1. Presidents don’t “negotiate” with local clinics and hospitals.

          2. T-rump has EXPRESSLY said the Federal government will pay for “everyone” to have insurance.

          3. Duh Donald has EXPRESSLY said his plan is “not Republican”, and consistently advocated “a Canadian plan”.

          Don’t lie, Gary.

          Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 12:35 pm

          “Presidents don’t have anything to do with KELO so irrelevant.”

          Again, a lying talking-point. I wonder where Gary derived that?

          Presidents DO have a LOT to do with property rights.

          T-rump has no respect for the property of others, and has demonstrated his personal use of crony connections to TAKE what belongs to others.

          When Michelle Malkin and John Stossel exposed his avarice and corruption, he called Malkin names.

          Presidents NOMINATE justices for the Supremes. T-rump can be relied on to be who he’s always been.

          Respect for private property is a CONSERVATIVE value, which Gary (liar) and T-rump do not share with conservatives.

          Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm

          Trump wants to get rid of McCain Bush finance reform and replace it with full disclosure of all donors.”

          This is just a flat-footed lie.

          Rags you ignorant slu*t (credit to SNL – Dan Ackroyd)

          “Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.” (Joe Pesci – My Cousin Vinny – opening statement to the jury).

          Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          Ad hominem is all you’ve got, Gary (lying liar).

          You’ve made your position clear. You’d vote for a Deemocrat.

          You have no particle of “conservative” in you crap-filled skull.

          Radegunda in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 8:05 pm

          It didn’t occur to you that looking for the candidate who has most consistently acted on principle in office might be more rational than a faith-based, what-the-hey support of Trump on the grounds that MAYBE he’ll do what he says?

          What is there to lose by supporting Trump? The chance to elect a thoughtful, principled conservative to the presidency — that’s what.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to betty. | October 20, 2015 at 12:57 am

          Gary, you sound like another proud graduate from the University of Gullibility: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/trump-university-fraud-claims/

        cantor4massat4 in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 9:56 am

        After knowing what Obama was all about, Trump voted for him in 2012. How much does he really love this country voting for O the second time? Trump, no doubt, would choose a liberal SC justice, if that came up. The more they ask him about issues, the more he reveals just how little he knows. Trump is the “severely” conservative type of conservative. In other words, a flaming liberal.

        This election is not about principled conservatism.

        That’s fine, if you want to take that point of view, but then you all need to stop fingering all non-Trump candidates as “RINOs”.

        Because it’s really a weird look to admit that your guy isn’t conservative, and that you’re cool with that, but then have as your main criticism of all the other candidates the “fact” that they’re not conservative enough. Try to have a little consistency here.

          Amy, you think RINO = non-conservative, but RINO = democ4qt lite or a republican who is unwilling to fight against the democrats. The go along to get along republicans. RINO also equals republicans whi vote with the global corporations and against the wishes of the gop base that elects them. The gop base are small business main street republicans and the RINOs of the GOPe are global corporation republicans. In short RINO has many more meanings than just the simple “not conservative”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | October 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm

          Gary, NOW with new and improve Underwear Gnome definitions that NOBODY every heard of before.

          Very convenient when lying is your forte…

          Rags you ignorant slu*t (credit to SNL – Dan Ackroyd)

          “Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.” (Joe Pesci – My Cousin Vinny – opening statement to the jury).

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | October 19, 2015 at 2:23 pm

          Ad hominem is all you’ve got, Gary (lying liar).

          You’ve made your position clear. You’d vote for a Deemocrat.

          You have no particle of “conservative” in you crap-filled skull.

          AND you are a coward. If you had any balls, you’d call me a “slut”, instead of playing cute.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 10:56 am

        For me, the election is about immigration and jobs. Everything else falls behind that.

      Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 11:42 pm

      If Cruz were truly a principled conservative he, as a non-natural-born citizen, in fact he’s a naturalized citizen, would not be running for president, an office for which he is disqualified.

      Then there are the non-principled, ignorant, or corrupt so-called conservatives that support Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, or other illegal candidates.

        Sanddog in reply to Skookum. | October 19, 2015 at 2:37 am

        Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all citizens by birth. Rubio and Jindal by virtue of being born in the USA and Cruz by virtue of his American mother. None of them had to apply for citizenship. None of them had to go through a naturalization process. Their citizenship was automatically granted at birth… just like yours.

        Lady Penguin in reply to Skookum. | October 19, 2015 at 4:00 am

        You’re either trolling or plain ignorant. Even high school civics taught that you only had to have one parent be an American citizen and the offspring were automatically citizens. Been true from the beginning…whether the birth occurred in transit on the high seas, in another land, or on the American continent, they’re citizens.

        If you’re a Republican spend your energy fighting the Lefties; if you’re a Democrat, go and help Hillary – she’s going to need more people to help cover up her lies.

Trump all the way to the White House!!

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Merrymary. | October 18, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Be careful, by liking Trump you have opened your self to all sorts of scorn and insults by Ragspierre and Amy in Fla.. After they finish telling you what a ,., well I’ll skip that part.. they will tell you
    to go join the other knucledraggers at TheLastRefuge.

    Of course there will be no action taken. Despite this post https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/john-boehner-tells-donors-cruz-is-a-jackass/comment-page-1/#comment-612320. In fact in an email exchange today, the prof has told me if you object to being insulted by Amy in Fla and Ragspierre “You don’t have to visit our website.”

    After the brief exchange I believe I know why. I suspect that Ragspierre is William Jacobson . That way he can get nasty without getting blamed for it. That’s why Ragspierre gets away with acting like troll and a piece of human excrement.

Henry Hawkins | October 18, 2015 at 9:03 pm

I think I’m like many who had no intention of voting for Jeb Bush before Trump ever declared.

I do know I cannot trust a candidate who has changed party affiliation 4-5 times since 1999.

My short list is down to Cruz and Jindal.

    I would vote for Trump if he were running as a democrat and I have never voted for democrat for president in my life. So I could not care less about whether he was ever a registered democrat or not. I like his ideas and what he stands for and party labels are becoming meaningless at least the republican label is meaningless. Just look at GOP leadership in congress.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 3:03 am

      Mud is not an idea and mud throwing is all Trump has to offer.
      .

        Ragspierre in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | October 19, 2015 at 9:28 am

        Among the “ideas” Gary (the liar) is so fond of is one that Bernie Sanders loves, too.

        T-rump thinks the POTUS has the right to tell you what to do with your property, who you can trade with, and under what conditions.

        This, you see, will somehow “Make America Great”.

        It is pure BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivism, and that’s all T-rump really believes in. Which is swell with Gary!

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 2:06 pm

          Not to defend Trump, but he doesn’t support eminent domain for trivial purposes. It has to be something important before Trump spends money ousting some grandma from her home, you know, like a limousine parking lot for one of his casinos.

          forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 9:57 pm

          Isn’t a parking lot for limousines a necessary public utility? It’s right up there with public sanitation, transportation, and the common defense.

    Another Voice in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 2:37 am

    Since Walker pulled back and showed himself to be a “Big Fish, Little Pond” kind of guy, I’ll agree Cruz is looking good to be one of my “Ripe Fruits” who will be still hanging strong from the tree. I’ll show my bias and go with Carly as VP. We would have (as demonstrated in debate) a strong willed person who would be able, if nothing else, to articulate well at the table and podium. Something novel to be had in the office of V.P. She has shown to do her homework and the capacity to lean in to a challenge and appears (as of now)to have the stuff to do the job she professes. Don’t forget she also fits the qualification for VP as a hugger, but unlike Joe who is closer to the “leech” variety.

    If my choices were Jeb or Hillary, I’d have to seriously consider sitting out this election. I am adamantly opposed to ANY Bush or Clinton becoming President, ever again. Even if Jeb were the 2nd coming of Reagan, I’d have to take a pass. It’s time to jettison America’s political dynasties.

      Carl in reply to Sanddog. | October 19, 2015 at 7:52 am

      Please reconsider. All we need is for anyone to “sit out” for Hillary to get in and screw the country for 8 years. Unthinkable. And let’s all stop thinking about who we like best, or who might be the Perfect Conservative. Not the way to go. Think hard about who can beat Hillary. I think a Rubio/Carly ticket could do it. Yes, they each have defects, but so does Hillary and they appeal to the masses. So could a Kasich/Carson ticket. Yes, Kasich is squishy beyond belief but he can get stuff done and has shown he can not only govern but win a crucial state. Stop this mindless search for the Perfect Conservative! And, please, if Jeb or Trump or Bobby or Christie (etc.) end up, God forbid, winning the nomination do not just abandon the cause. The bright light at the end is to keep Hillary (and Bill) away from the Oval Office. Don’t ever forget it.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Carl. | October 19, 2015 at 2:08 pm

        If GOP voters sit out the election and Dem voters do not, is it the fault of the voter or of the GOP?

        When a candidate of any party fails to get any voter to vote for them it is never, repeat, NEVER, the fault of the voter.

The Professor analyzing from down town… analyzing… analyzing… and it’s all net! 3 points on the board for the good guys!

Another Voice | October 18, 2015 at 9:24 pm

I was all for Scott Walker, if only for the fact he was brazen enough to take on the Wis. War Machine of Unions. It may have been a rough opening act with Trump and I can’t support him on HIS take of national policies but will concede I find him making observations, ideas and reflections of both parties. I like that he hasn’t been shy about bringing them out and “slapping” them down on the table. The responses to them from both sides are similar to shaking a tree with over ripened fruit; it just keeps raining down opposing positions and exposing personalities. Perhaps when picking season is over, we’ll have a what it takes kind of candidates to choose from and find ONE who is a natural born “fruit picker”.

“I find blaming George W. for 9/11 or second-guessing the Iraq decision based on 20/20 hindsight odious — those are Democratic talking points.”

Yep. Showing his stripes once again. And his delusions…

T-rump said if he’d been POTUS, 9/11 would not have happened. The man exhibits magical 20/20 hindsight.

    One must also remember the vast number of Dems who signed off on the Iraq war, only to backtrack and whine when things did not go the way they wanted. (The name ‘Hillary’ comes to mind in there somewhere…)

    I will still stand my previous statements: Every single Republican candidate running (and most of those who dropped out) would be a superior President than what we have now, or any of the candidates the Democrats are running now.

    dorsaighost in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    he claims his immigration policy would have deported or stopped most of the 19 hijackers … he’s not claiming he would have foreseen the attack … he’s claiming the open borders Bush got played by Osama BL … and he’s right …

      Ragspierre in reply to dorsaighost. | October 18, 2015 at 11:03 pm

      That’s easily the most delusional thing…both by you and T-rump…I’ve seen this weekend. And THAT is going some!

      T-rump, as POTUS at the time, would be bound by immigration law in force at the time. You don’t just give him a time-machine to go back in time with perfect information that NOBODY had or has, you give him dictatorial powers he would not have had.

      Besides, T-rump imports his own H2B workers, and I bet he never personally vets them. Or even has them vetted.

      Asinine…!!!

      Ragspierre in reply to dorsaighost. | October 19, 2015 at 9:17 am

      “In fact, prior to September 11, most foreign terrorists were LPRs or nationalized U.S. citizens. Excluding the hijackers, more than half (17 out of 28) of the foreign-born Islamic terrorists in the last decade were persons living legally in the United States as permanent residents or as naturalized citizens.”
      http://cis.org/HowTerroristsGetIn

      Even if you give T-rump his time machine, and a few of the hi-jackers are deported for over-staying their LEGAL visas, you still have more than enough pilots to execute the plan.

      Oh, and T-rump ONLY talks about “being so, so tough on immigration”. He has NO HISTORY of ever actually DOING anything about it, even in his own little fiefdoms where he could impose all the control in the world. Both in his own operations and on his contractors. Zip. Nada.

      Your “magic T-rump” does not exist, never did, and never will.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 11:04 am

        9/11 hijackers had improperly filled out visa applications and were given them anyways.

        http://www.wanttoknow.info/021022post_9-11_hijackers_visas

        We have been, and still are, pretty sloppy in the way we hand out visas, including student and refugee visas. That’s something that definitely needs to be tightened up. Rand Paul, for one, was quite vocal on this long before Trump came on the scene. Determined terrorists are still going to manage to slip through the cracks, and I don’t think Trump is right to claim that had he been President at that particular point in time, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened, but you can’t look at the situation regarding the 9/11 terrorists (or the Boston Marathon bombers) and say “the system worked.”

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 2:29 pm

        If PhillyBoi is so stupid as to think that T-rump COULD…in his WILDEST dreams…prevent federal bureaucrats from making errors, omissions, or general screw-ups…

        well, THAT’s a level of stupid that boggles the mind.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 3:38 pm

          You have to be dumber than a box of rocks to think that couldn’t have been fixed. When you see what was allowed on the applications, you can see they weren’t just small screwups. It was pure negligence. So don’t give me that baloney.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          …and the Magical Donald was going to stop that?

          Please, don’t rile me with your stupid.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 4:17 pm

          Well stupid would be a step up for you Rags. And yes anyone could have fixed that, certainly Trump could have. Very simple to do. Important as well.

          Do you truly believe that Trump, having been elected less than a year before, and with the same Congress, courts, FBI and CIA Bush had, and with the same general atmosphere (remember, we weren’t on “terror footing” until /after/ 9/11), would have somehow found and ejected those 19 men in time to stop the 9/11 terror plot? Because truly, that does not seem even slightly plausible. He’s not Superman. The tens of millions of background checks of those already in our country on various types of visas alone would take more than 7-1/2 months. Remember, he’d be starting off with the same dysfunctional systems and agencies Bush had.

          You guys seem to be crediting your Fantasy President with super-powers a US President just doesn’t have.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 6:25 pm

          Yah, FillyBoi is an idiot. But a true believer in the Jonestown sense! You have to give him that, at least…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to dorsaighost. | October 19, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      None of the 9/11 attackers entered the US during Bush’s administration, so I guess it’s Clinton’s fault? Right?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 2:13 pm

        Could be Clinton’s fault, Henry. After all, Clinton enacted the ‘wall’ between the FBI and CIA, ensuring that intel the FBI had on Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons but disinterested in how to land an airplane could not be shared with the CIA.

          Rags, you forgot to log out and then log back in under different name before answering your Henry Hawkins post. You’ve got Henry Hawkins answering his own post.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 4:11 pm

          Yeah, you moron. Hawkins does that as a device he uses (look up “device”, idiot).

          If you doubt the identity of either of us, ask the Professor. You stupid, lying SOS.

          Wait, I thought the Trumpeteer consensus was that Rags was Professor Jacobson. Now he’s Henry Hawkins, too?! What is this madness? What if Gary Britt and Mouse are also Rags? Mere one-dimensional Trump-addled foils he’s created to argue against? What if we’re all Rags?

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 5:32 pm

          All is proceeding as I envisioned…

          (Laughs manically…rubs hands together)

          I blame the hijackers. And our immigration system that allows so many illegals and criminal invaders that we can’t even keep track of them. The clowns even extended the visas of some of the hijackers after 9-11.

          If we had control of our borders and immigration and yes profiled people we could keep out most of the bastards.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2015 at 10:53 pm

    Jeb! should’ve had the foresight to bring a pair of gloves with him to the debate knowing that he would demand an apology from The Donald. Then, fully expecting The Donald’s refusal to apologize, Jeb! could’ve gone old school and slapped Trump in the face with the gloves. So, there was an an answer; it just required Jeb! to have some ‘nads. Trump’s response? It would’ve enlivened the debate, fer sher.

    One would think after all the years the GOPE would’ve had an answer to 9/11. How lame can th Stupid Party be? Isn’t there someone in the GOPE who is not a pansy and who can make the argument that 9/11 was the failure of Clinton and the Democrats to protect us.

    “Yep. Showing his stripes once again. And his delusions…”

    I’ve been busy and missed this tidbit. As I had mentioned to you long ago, it would be smart of you to read a bit of what trump has said in the past. There is nothing delusional about trumps views regarding bush pre 9/11. You might disagree with his views, but he correctly predicted an attack on a major city and bin Laden’s hand in it. This in 2000, before 9/11. There is nothing delusional about it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 21, 2015 at 8:20 am

      As acts of prescience go, I’m profoundly unimpressed!

      There had already been the World Trade Center bombing, which was intended to take out the supports and bring the building down. OBL had his nasty hands all over that, and he was not…like…a secret, having appeared in many newscasts and magazine articles.

      We all knew OBL was gunning for us. We all knew he had attempted or executed attacks on the US. I can’t remember the sequence, but I think we had convictions of some of his people by that time.

      So, T-rump writing the obvious in his crappy book is NOT close to presaging the attacks that took place on 9/11, though I do give him credit for some high-school-level synthetic thought.

      I his wild ravings on the matter, he certainly IS delusional, as I’ve pointed out. He thinks he’s god, and hasn’t the wit to see he’s a pretty middling mortal with LOTS of problems.

Trump and Carson are going to win the general election with a historic landslide.

Release the Trolls….

    DaMav in reply to DrJim77. | October 19, 2015 at 12:39 am

    If that happens then Cruz should be the first nominee to the SCOTUS, after serving as AG for a year or two.

      Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 19, 2015 at 8:18 am

      Cruz would not more serve as AG under T-rump than under Obama. You don’t know the man at all.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 10:23 am

        Nor do you. You actually don’t have any idea.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 10:40 am

        Yeah. I actually DO. I helped get him elected as our senator.

        You?

        Cruz would not serve under the Collectivist, Duh Donald. T-rumpian policy is anathema to conservatives, and Cruz is a conservative.

        See now?

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 11:06 am

          So what Rags. You can’t pretend to know what Cruz would do at the moment he is asked. That is just absurd. People change their minds.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm

          Sure. Cruz could abandon his principles. People have.

          But I do know who Cruz has proven himself to be, and that man will not serve under T-rump.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 4:52 pm

          I repeat. Rags you have no idea what Cruz is thinking. None. The call to serve a president is a powerful one. I wouldn’t even begin to speculate who would actually serve a Trump WH. I don’t know. Maybe Cruz would under the right circumstances. He’s a very talented guy.

          I never thought Hillary would work for Obama but she did. And she has no talent.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 5:16 pm

          Cruz would not serve under the Collectivist, Duh Donald. T-rumpian policy is anathema to conservatives, and Cruz is a conservative.

          See now?

Jeb! is symbolic of what is wrong with the GOP in general. The leadership is weak and ineffective, lacking guiding principles. Jeb! embodies that weakness. Trump is the best thing to happen to the GOP in over 20 years. They have slowly been dissolving into irrelevance and Trump is shining a spotlight on that fact by slowly dissolving the Jeb! campaign one jab at a time.

I would vote for Trump if he were running as a democrat and I have never voted for democrat for president in my life. So I could not care less about whether he was ever a registered democrat or not. I like his ideas and what he stands for and party labels are becoming meaningless at least the republican label is meaningless. Just look at GOP leadership in congress.

When you find agreement with Ezra “Journolist” Klein, renowned for being wrong about every single prediction about the effects of ObamaCare as well as for organizing a nefarious propaganda ring of newsmen to twist the news to favor Obama and Democrats, it’s a pretty good hint that your position is neither conservative nor correct.

Those who backed Newt Gingrich last cycle, forgetting what a backstabbing, self-serving jerk he was after his first year as Speaker until driven from office in disgrace, ought to be more circumspect about evaluating viability of candidates.

    The problem is this: if not Trump, then who, Jeb Bush?

    No way. Sooner vote for Mittens Romney ( – and because of his incredible wife Ann, who, who is the antithesis of the gorilla shilling as a wife for the traitor/idiot occupying the White House.)

    Each Bush presidency has pretty much sucked, and resulted in a freak being elected subsequent to each Bush (Clinton, then Obama) leaving the White House. We don’t need another episode. Nor another democrat freak that would surely follow a ‘President Jeb.’

    betty in reply to Estragon. | October 19, 2015 at 8:12 am

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Trump has not only shaken the tree, but he’s knocked more than a couple of coconuts loose, including the scummy John Boehner and rino Jeb!Bush.

He keeps shaking the tree, he’ll earn himself a place on Mount Rushmore (after, of course, the addition of Ronald Reagan.)

    He needs to find a way to diminish Mastercard Mario as soon as he can. Gosh I really dislike Rubio intensely. Fiorina next. Two raging phonies.

      Gosh I really dislike Rubio intensely. Fiorina next. Two raging phonies.

      When others express the same distaste for Trump as you do for Rubio or Fiorina, you accuse them of derangement. Can you not understand and accept that there are people who see Trump as a “raging phony” in much the same way you see Fiorina as one, without writing them off as “deranged”?

        PhillyGuy in reply to Amy in FL. | October 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm

        My my. You are sensitive, I only said YOU had TDS. And that’s true. I am merely expressing my opinion about those two. I don’t spend as much time talking about Fiorina and Rubio as you do talking about Trump.

I’m surprised by the thread. I’ve always found the authors here at LI to be well-reasoned and insightful. While I don’t agree with all of them on everything, especially when you can see them pushing one candidate or another, as the Texas writer had been doing, the rest has been tolerable.

Professor Jacobson makes good point, and he is right. Say what you will about Trump, but he has peeled back the veil – of the Republicans – the very ones who have been stabbing conservatives in the back as soon as the elections are over. Don’t believe me…go and look up McConnell’s and Boehner’s campaign rhetoric, speeches and promises, and then look at their behavior.

At first, I was annoyed about Trump saying what he did about George W. Bush, but to be honest, had never done any thinking about the early months of his presidency…and what he should have done, instead of continuing the political correctness Clinton and the Left had in place. That said, his response after 9/11 deserved a much greater respect than the media gave him. But that won’t ever happen. Bush also made a major mistake of keeping Dems in jobs (State Dept. & other Depts who the Left infiltrated and took over and is now “weaponized” against the American people.

There are many of us who pretty much rather see a Martian in the WH at this point than a Democrat or Establishment GOP person.

    Lady Penguin in reply to Lady Penguin. | October 19, 2015 at 4:21 am

    Edit: that should be “look at their behavior after they won their elections.” And, “…the Left infiltrated, took over, and are now ‘weaponized’ against the American people.”

    (It’s 4AM and time to try and sleep again.) 🙂

Jeb on stage at a debate demanded an apology to Jeb’s wife, who was in the audience.

Wow. A tactical blunder of the first magnitude. Apparently Jeb still hasn’t figured out that that shit just won’t work on Trump. Trump just holds up a fist, and a guy like Jeb walks straight into it.

This implies some serious stupidity on Jeb’s part. If he misses the obvious stuff like that, how can he be sufficiently alert to handle, well, anything more momentous than the White House Easter Egg Roll?

Has anyone mentioned the obvious as concerns Jeb Bush?

Every time his name was written in a comment or article, numerous commenters expended the energy to type any variation of: Go home Jeb, no one wants you. I know because I made it my mission to do it and a lot of times I didn’t even have to.

One of the earliest things Jeb said about his campaign was “I might have to loose the primary in order to win the general” So he was well aware no republican, conservative or otherwise, wanted him anywhere near the American Presidency. He postponed his entry into the campaign in order to amass over 100 million “shock and awe” dollars in order to destroy the people’s choice like Mitch McConnell and Haily Barbour did to Chris McDaniels.

He knew he would never attract an appreciable amount of individual small donors and needed PAC money to do his dirty work, and he needed a lot of dirty work done.

All that I just wrote is true – think what the mind set of Jeb Bush was/is to either plan this or go along with it.

In my book Jeb either planned his campaign himself (doubt that) or he was closes enough to the planners to know they needed a stooge.

Either way Donald Trump didn’t destroy Bush, just as the media, McCain, and one failed attempt after another right up to today and the prat Jeb –

couldn’t/can’t destroy Mr. Trump.

    betty in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 9:14 am

    I meant to write: Every time over the last 8 years in any comment or article, numerous commenters expended the energy to type any variation of:
    Go home Jeb, no one wants you.

Trump ‘helped’ Scott Walker by LYING about his record as Governor of Wisconsin.
Trump just slashes and burns others with no thought to the truth.
Thanks but no thanks, we can do without his ‘help’.

    betty in reply to Lee Jan. | October 19, 2015 at 9:16 am

    Are you sure Donald Trump lied about Scott Walkers record? That would be the type of mistake I doubt Donald Trump would make.

      Ragspierre in reply to betty. | October 19, 2015 at 9:20 am

      He aped Deemocrat talking points. This should not surprise you. T-rump lies all the time. It’s how he “corrects himself”.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 2:18 pm

        Well, not to mention Trump has been a registered Democrat. More than once! And an Independent too! And a Reform Party guy, too! Trump is all things for all people whose anger and disillusionment have clouded their judgment.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm

          The article is, surprise, BS. Trump did not deny advocating for a gambling casino in Florida. He denied donating to bush to do so. Nothing in that article proves otherwise.

          Keep trying. But do try and use your normal standards and don’t let TDS push you into the gutter.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 7:09 pm

          No, Berry. Please don’t try to lie. That’s beneath you.

          What T-rump said was that IF he’d tried, he would have succeeded.

          That was a narcissist’s lie. He DID try. He DID NOT SUCCEED.

          He LIED.

          “No, Berry. Please don’t try to lie. That’s beneath you.”

          Sorry Rags, calling me a liar doesn’t work. The article is BS, the typical “media” hackjob seen all the time.

          The context is what matters. Casino gambling was already legal in Fl. Bush was opposed to it, both before and after trump made his donation to bush. There is no proof trump donated to bush to try and sway his opinion and that is what bush asserted. I have no way of knowing the truth, nor do you, of why trump donated at that time to bush. That is what this whole nugget of disinformation is about.

          I repeat, Bush claimed trump donated to him in order to sway him to support the gambling venture he was interested in. Trumps denial might be a lie, but no one but trump knows the truth. Bush can be called a liar just as easily.

          It’s beneath you to insinuate someone is lying that has a difference of opinion on something unproven, and un-provable.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 10:47 pm

          You’re full of shit, Barry.

          Trump tried. HE failed. He LIED about failing.

          When all else fails, use name calling. Your deranged.

    To be fair, if Walker couldn’t withstand Trump’s attacks (fair or not, honest or not), he wouldn’t have been able to withstand any subsequent attacks by the Left, who don’t exactly have form for being fair or honest either.

    I really liked Governor Walker, and am still really impressed by what he was able to accomplish in his home state of Wisconsin, but I think Professor Jacobson makes a good point here. “The Trump primary assault is nothing compared to what the Republican nominee will face.”

    Of course, should Trump win the nomination, he will be the one the Left will be gunning for. The questions Megyn Kelly fired at him during the first “debate” (I use that term loosely), impertinent and awkward as they were, are still nothing compared with what the Left will throw at him. He’s got a lot of baggage, and is open to attack on a number of fronts, and many of those on the Left would jump for joy if he ended up being our nominee.

      PhillyGuy in reply to Amy in FL. | October 19, 2015 at 11:31 am

      So now you’re worried about what the left thinks about Republican candidates? Oh darling, they are going to try to destroy any of the candidates that get nominated. It’s not going to be limited to The Donald. All of them will get questions that are vicious and nasty. Look what they did to Mitt. Your TDS is showing.

        You should probably read peoples’ comments before you reflexively snarl and bite, lest people think it’s you who suffer TDS. Darling. You are as thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive to the slightest perceived criticism as your candidate is.

        Read my comment again and tell me what exactly I’ve written that you disagree with.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Amy in FL. | October 19, 2015 at 4:29 pm

          Ok darllling I will. You made this statement as though it were unique to Trump

          “Of course, should Trump win the nomination, he will be the one the Left will be gunning for. The questions Megyn Kelly fired at him during the first “debate” (I use that term loosely), impertinent and awkward as they were, are still nothing compared with what the Left will throw at him. He’s got a lot of baggage, and is open to attack on a number of fronts, and many of those on the Left would jump for joy if he ended up being our nominee.”

          My point is that the Democrats (or their Super PACs) will be unrelenting to ANY of the Republicans. They fight mean and dirty. This is not going to be limited to Trump. In fact, all of the R candidates have weaknesses that can be capitalized on. Face it, you just like taking potshots at the guy. Otherwise you would have noted how vulnerable the other candidates are.

          This post is about Donald Trump. I should be concentrating my comments on Chris Cristie or Mike Huckabee? Seriously, the only thing I got “wrong” in that comment was that I used the conditional tense to discuss the probable outcome should Donald Trump win the nomination, in comments to a post about Donald Trump?

          And you don’t even disagree with my main point, do you. That “should Trump win the nomination, he will be the one the Left will be gunning for.” There’s nothing in my comment that is wrong, and there’s nothing even in there that you actually disagree with. You’re just reflexively jumping on it because something something MUST DEFEND DONALD.

          Now that’s TDS.

lol, you’d think nobody anywhere had a problem with the GOPe until Trump entered the race.

    They need to pretend that the whole Tea Party movement never existed, for one thing. Being a Trumpeteer requires a real “Year Zero” mindset.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Well until we stop nominating establishment candidates, just “knowing” won’t change anything. This election has the potential to actually do something about it. I am crossing my fingers that the base actually

      Henry Hawkins in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 19, 2015 at 5:15 pm

      Who is “we”? I did not vote for Romney and I did not vote for McCain.

      And “doing something” includes all good things – and all bad things.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Well until we stop nominating establishment candidates, just “knowing” won’t change anything. This election has the potential to actually do something about it.

The only difference between Trump and other GOP / Dem politicians is that he is his own attack dog, whereas in the past commercials and political operatives did all the dirty work. This allowed the politician to pretend to be above the fray, with an aura of faux dignified royalty.

Trump is aware of the extremely short cycle of the public’s attention span; he’s making efficient use of it. He’s been using verbal “kill shots” on his competitors before they know what hits them. And he understands how to manipulate the media better than all the expensive consultants sucking the other candidates dry.

Last note: Hillary went after Trump regarding Obama and Muslims, because he didn’t “defend” the President during a townhall in NH. Subsequently, her polling among African Americans dropped by the largest margin. She needs that demographic.

Why did it happen? Trump reminded everyone on Twitter Hillary’s campaign and Puma allies started those rumors. She backed off; a critical weakness was exposed. Trump seems to be the only person who can find them – and is willing to use them! So, it’s not just other GOP he can take on.

trump sucks.
good chance of winning though solely due to immigration.
then we can spend years fixing his screwups.
yay

    mariner in reply to dmacleo. | October 19, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    I believe that illegal immigration is an existential danger to the United States.

    No other candidate–Republican, Democrat or Socialist–is even speaking clearly about illegal immigration.

    Trump may suck on a lot of things, but if he is elected on his opposition to illegal immigration and actually stems that tide, at least we’ll have a chance to fix mistakes he might make in other areas.

    If we don’t fix illegal immigration, we will NEVER have the chance to fix anything else.

    forksdad in reply to dmacleo. | October 19, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    You write as if we have a chance to control illegal immigration without serious measures and the will to do it. The country has the means, the wherewithal and the ability to fix the problem. The elites of both parties conspire to keep the flood flowing.

    Both want bigger government both want a dependent population both want anarchotyrany to control the common man. Either we take back our country now or it will cease to be America.

“Trump supports fair trade and bringing jobs back to this country.”

T-rump thinks he has the right to tell others how they MAY use their own property, who they MAY trade with, and under what circumstances. He has EXPRESSLY called for trade wars, tariffs, and other moves that will COST Americans jobs, impose costs on ALL consumers, and a hidden tax on the middle class.

“Trumps tax plan is reaganesque and will supersize our economy and incomes.”

It isn’t “T-rump’s” tax plan, first. Second, it has been scored by a CONSERVATIVE tax policy outfit that reports that it will NOT be “revenue neutral” as T-rump lies about it being, and will MASSIVELY increase the national debt.

Third, it is not a “tax the rich” plan, as T-rump lied about it being, again. It leaves the rich better off, in fact. Fourth, it leaves MORE non-tax-payer Americans than ever, which is just terrible policy if you’re a conservative.

Finally, it is NOT tax reform at all. All it does is dick with the code, leaving the MOST corrupt affront to American freedom…along with the MOST corrupt and dangerous agency…completely intact.

Gary should really stop lying.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | October 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    “It isn’t “T-rump’s” tax plan, first. Second, it has been scored by a CONSERVATIVE tax policy outfit that reports that it will NOT be “revenue neutral” as T-rump lies about it being, and will MASSIVELY increase the national debt.”

    Worse yet, Trump’s tax plan raises that 47% freeloader rate of Romney infamy to 51% freeloaders, at which point the game is up. It is Trump’s goal and plan to do this incredibly liberal thing just to get himself elected, consequences be damned.

    Bill Clinton did the same thing – ran on a promise of tax cuts for the middle class only to announce there would be no tax cuts for the middle class just three months into his administration.

    As I’ve oft stated, if Trump gets elected he’s going to break a lot of hearts among his supporters.

      “47% to 51%”. A distinction that is a meaningless difference.

      Actually, that’s the brilliant part of Trump’s tax plan. He goes for simplicity and it keeps the dems from being able to effectively attack his plan as just tax cuts for the Rich. That plus Trump is the only republican candidate that can sell any of the republican tax plans.

      Trump 2016. I see Bruce Willis was on tonight show Friday wearing a Trump Make America Great Again hat. I always liked that guy !!

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        47% is a defeatable plurality. 51% is an undefeatable majority. If that escapes you, your support for Trump is explained.

          Your argument is wholly dependent on the assumption that the 4% that make up the difference from 47% to 51% currently vote republican and will start voting democrat if a republican gives them some tax relief. The fact that it is an illogical and wholly unwarranted assumption without any basis for its assertion is as self-evident as are our unalienable rights. You are also assuming that 100% of the 47% vote democrat right now and will continue to so do if a republican gives a couple of their neighbors some minor tax relief.

          Perhaps you should rethink what you think you “know”.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 3:21 pm

          Ah, so your support for Trump is explained. Thank you.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        “He goes for simplicity and it keeps the dems from being able to effectively attack his plan as just tax cuts for the Rich.”

        You lying SOS II, T-rump SAID his was a “tax the rich” plan.

        He LIED. Like you lie.

        You ALSO lie about my position, which is FOR real, ACTUAL tax reform. I support a sales tax AFTER repealing the 16th, as you know, you lying SOS.

        My opinion of how the “NOT T-rump” plan scores is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that…in the VERY unlikely event it ever sees the light of day…it WILL increase the national debt.

        You don’t have a conservative notion in that lying, crap-packed skull.

        AND you’re a coward. Use the words if your calling me names, you lying SOS.

    Rags you ignorant slu*t (credit to SNL – Dan Ackroyd)

    “Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.” (Joe Pesci – My Cousin Vinny – opening statement to the jury).

    Grover Norquist likes Trump’s tax plan. So does Stuart Varney who said it was Reaganesque. So does Mark Levin, etc. Rags doesn’t like how it “scores” but it would score basically the same as any other republican tax plan so I guess that means Rags loves the Bernie Sanders tax plan or the Hillary Clinton tax plan.

    Trump 2016. If we don’t get immigration right, nothing else matters. Not even the Ragsters principled conservatism.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      Appeal to authority:

      “An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.”

      Gary, does it strike you as at all idiotic for people to throw endorsements at one another, because for every endorser there is someone who does not endorse – and none of it addresses the plan itself. This is why it is a logical fallacy and a certain path to error.

      (I know, I know…. WHOOSH).

        Henry, does it ever strike you that when it comes to tax plans and the economy and conservative principles that Grover Norquist, Mark Levin, Stuart Varney and many others maybe have just a tad more credibility than do Ragzini and Henry ??

        I know whoosh…..

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 3:25 pm

          All you need to do now is explain why you ignore the opinions of people who are every bit as ‘expert’ as your list, but are against the Trump tax plan.

          Confirmation bias:

          “In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to errors.”

          You aren’t convinced by Norquist, et al. You award them infallibility because they confirm your support of Trump.

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 3:15 pm

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/trump-s-tax-plan-would-add-more-debt-obama_1038452.html

        There is the link to the CONSERVATIVE scoring of the NOT T-rump plan. Read it. Critique it, Mr. CPA.

        Lying SOS, does it ever occur to you that Mark Levin said he would prefer my proposal? He did, and in the same segment he expressed SOME approval of the NOT T-rump tax plan.

        Does it ever occur to you that Varney is NOT a tax guy? He isn’t.

        You don’t give a flying fluck about OTHER conservatives or their ideas, so WHY are you pretending to care about what Norquist says? Norquist, BTW, is a very dubious cat. Did you know that? No? You’re just aping his shit because you’re a complete hypocrite.

        And a lying SOS.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 19, 2015 at 2:52 pm

      “He goes for simplicity and it keeps the dems from being able to effectively attack his plan as just tax cuts for the Rich.”

      Showing our COMPLETE idiocy!

      Bush passed ACROSS-THE-BOARD tax cuts.

      The Collective STILL lied about them being “tax cuts for the rich”.

Sammy Finkelman | October 19, 2015 at 2:35 pm

I said months ago that I thought that Jeb Bush was not a deep thinker (August 20 and September 1) and on December 7, 2014 on Patterico, and it looks true.

He can’t handle (paradoxical or false) statements that need a complex reply.

I think his positions or conclusions are basically right, but he can’t dig down to the crux of a matter and untangle things.

It’s persisting.

See what I wrote in comments 29 and 51 here:

http://patterico.com/2014/12/06/jeb-and-hillary-making-up-their-minds/

I also noted it here:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/trumps-jabs-at-jeb-scoring-points/

Jeb Bush’s problem is that he is not a deep thinker, or not an overly analytical thinker, and he can’t hack his way through the logic traps and thickets that have been thrown up.

He doesn’t come up with original, or extremely good, responses to anything.

He doesn’t know, or can’t figure out, the refutation to unconvincing arguments, and he doesn’t know that he needs to find someone who can help him, and that’s causing a real problem for him.

I mentioned it here too.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/09/jeb-bush-fighting-the-last-war-against-trump/

I didn’t mean “deep thinker” in the same way that Karl Rove did (who said he was one) where he meant Jeb Bush had an awareness of a lot of considerations. I mean, an actual ability to think and get to the crux of an argument.

Rags? When did calling your fellow commenter a lying SOS become acceptable blog conduct?

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    1. when you calling a fellow commenter a “communist” (which was a flucking lie) became acceptable blog conduct

    2. when him calling me a slut was acceptable conduct

    3. please post your link to where you call Gary (lying SOS) down for his conduct

    You crazy cat lady. You may want to stay away from me.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | October 19, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    VotingFemale:

    “IMO, Trump would be a good president as would Cruz, regardless of what these LI assholes say or do.”

    Hypocrite pot, meet kettle.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/ted-cruz-vs-the-sierra-club/#comments

    Hypocrite: : a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

      Henry, you know that before the Professor laid down the law about personal attacks being unwelcome it was a free for all of name calling here, right?

      Until then one was left with a choice: either fight fire with fire or be bludgeoned by the likes of Rags & his ilk.

      If you want to pitch your tent with Rags and defend hm calling someone a lying sack of shit today, that’s your call.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 11:57 am

        Oh, hunny, YOU are the queen of rationalizations!

        You were calling people names for simply stating true facts about T-rump, me included and especially!

        You were using every filthy trick in the book to try to shut down opposing comments, and you still DO. You GLORIED in it! (I can post your crowing, if you insist.)

        I look forward to you actually making good on your threat to leave LI to “the RINO swamp creatures”, but I suppose that was another of your lies.

        You’re a pathetic hypocrite. (An observation of your conduct, not “name-calling”.)

          Hate me, Rags. I love it.

          Nothing you say erases your track record of being the worst behaved commenter on this blog.

          I was pissed off when I said I was not coming back here. At the time I meant every word. Later, I realized that there were alternatives to letting you win.

          I changed my mind.

          You, however have not changed for the better.

          You are a serious asshole. Not name calling… A statement of fact of which you are undoubtedly proud.

          You are also a liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 20, 2015 at 12:35 pm

          You have just proven everything I said about you.

          And you lack the self-awareness and integrity to even realize it!

          Hilarious!

          Thanks for helping me with this demonstration!

          There he goes again, butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth, lol.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 5:03 pm

        Justify your hypocrisy to yourself any way you need to, but hypocrite you are.

      Additionally, I singled out no one by name in that comment.
      There are assholes commenting here. That is factual.

      That the Prof is reticent to expel commenters gives said assholes license to ignore his wishes.

Professor, I enjoyed your article, especially the end where you said, “Love him or hate him, Trump has done us a favor by shaking the tree.”

I had been in mourning since I realized that the country I love was gone, after the Manchurian candidate had been elected twice; Trump has given me hope that my country may yet be resurrected. It’s a pity that the opposition GOPe is still trying hard to leave me once again without hope.

Trump is the only candidate willing to stop the constant flood of illegals. He is an American who loves America and he understands business. I do not care to “discuss” the matter further, as most of this “discussion” is just name-calling. (Preparation H may help some of you.)

For actual discussion without all the foaming-at-the-mouth, I recommend http://theconservativetreehouse.com/ where I am now going.

I spend much less time at this site than I used to; I only return for the Professor’s articles, those by Andrew Branca, and of course the indispensable Branco’s cartoons. Hopefully once Donald Trump is elected, more sanity will prevail, and reasoned discussion can resume!

With all the fighting going on, the hate and fear of GOP of anyone other than Jeb, I have to wonder, if Cruz or Carson wins the nomination whether they’ll get any real support from the party at all?
This is assuming Donald implodes at some point which I think he will.
Or will the dems implode? Will hitlery ever get her deserved perp walk in chains? Will someone finally break through the lib media and actually show people how much socialism actually costs? Will some woman sue Joe Biden for sexual harassment with video proof, or maybe he’ll show up drunk for one of the few dem debates.
Any which way I look at the future it seems to be bleak regardless of who wins. Just a matter of how fast we end up going full fascist/socialist.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | October 19, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    The GOPe would support either Cruz or Carson were either to win the nomination, but only out of self-interest and fear that one might win the White House to become the head of the party. The GOPe is not known for principles or bravery.

      Henry, no they wouldn’t. They would prefer shrillary to Cruz or Carson. It would pay better.

      You might want to take notice of just how much the GOPe has expended on trying to marginalize Cruz. Effectively. Which is why he doesn’t poll very well.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Barry. | October 19, 2015 at 7:10 pm

        My premise is based on Cruz (or Carson) having won the GOP nomination, which is an entirely different situation that Cruz’ upsetting the Senate applecart from the GOPe point of view.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 19, 2015 at 7:10 pm

          *than* Cruz’ upsetting, yada yada

          IMO, you are completely wrong. As the nominee (cruz) they would say nice (well sorta) things, and then stab him in the back. Cruz would take away their free lunch plan. Shrillary would let them keep it.

          Carson, I don’t know. Doesn’t matter, he has no chance IMO. But at this point in time, I suspect he will be the VP to trump. It’s a can’t lose ticket. And the GOPe will do everything in their power to defeat them. It just won’t work.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 20, 2015 at 9:18 am

          I have no doubt that every effort will be made by the GOPe to knock out Trump or Carson before they win the nomination, but once won and irreversible, they will crumble like the cowards they are and start sucking up to the ‘new boss’.

          Possible. But unlikely, IMO. Now, after trump is the president, different story, they’ll line up with their rice bowls in hand. That is when we will find out just who Mr. Trump really is.

      Sure they would.

      Like they supported that guy in Mississippi?

        Barry in reply to mariner. | October 19, 2015 at 9:49 pm

        Good point. It is how the GOPe operates. You are either “one of them” or you are an enemy.

          What more proof is necessary than to observe RINOs using Liberal weapons on the Conservative base with campaign ads calling us racist extremists to win elections? And, George Will, calling anyone who supports Trump as the “trash” that needs to be purged from that big ole tent?

          Same kind of tactics are used here by the usual comment section assholes.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

          Which, of course, is a black lie.

          Pointing out T-rump’s record, positions, words are, of course, nothing of the kind.

          Your tactics and name-calling are despicable. And they always were. What a execrable hypocrite!

          Up pops the lying lier of lying liars who only surpasses his lying by his hypocrisy to defend himself by more hypocritical attacks. 🙂

          Your track record of personal attacks is legend here or did your memory of it leak out?

          Going to forget you repeatedly called commenter Barry a sack of shit, or hypocrotically attack me for calling you on it?

          Your move.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 20, 2015 at 1:26 pm

          No, stupid. Gary Britt (the Deemocrat voter) is the lying SOS, as he demonstrates (below).

          Hawkins and I don’t lie. What we’ve said about T-rump is all true. Britt can’t refute it. Neither can you.

          Ragspierre | October 20, 2015 at 1:26 pm
          No, stupid. Gary Britt (the Deemocrat voter) is the lying SOS, as he demonstrates (below).
          Hawkins and I don’t lie. What we’ve said about T-rump is all true. Britt can’t refute it. Neither can you.

          So you defend your hypocritical lying attacks with more hypocritical lying attacks…

          That is par for the course for a lying hypocrate.

          Got any other stunts or is that it, lying hypocrite?

          Then we have this lying hypocritical attack by Rags including a thinly veiled threat of violence against me personally…

          Ragspierre | October 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm
          1. when you calling a fellow commenter a “communist” (which was a flucking lie) became acceptable blog conduct
          2. when him calling me a slut was acceptable conduct
          3. please post your link to where you call Gary (lying SOS) down for his conduct
          You crazy cat lady. You may want to stay away from me.

          That was *after* repeatedly calling your fellow commenter Barry a “sack of shit.”

          That is a clear ‘do as I say, or else.’

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 20, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          Nobody believes that, including you, you lying harpy. You’d poked your lying, hypocritical nasty old nose where you had no business in an apparent attempt to provoke me.

          But TRY to sell that to Prof. Jacobson. Please!

          Be aware that I’m WAY smarter than you and Britt (the Deemocrat voter [who’s a coward]). I can see your lame and corrupt attempt to draw me into a name-calling match. I won’t play! Poor old stupid thing!

          Heh!

          Then Rags says…

          I can see your lame and corrupt attempt to draw me into a name-calling match. I won’t play! Poor old stupid thing!
          Heh!

          So you again attack me in a lying hypocritical way denying your attacks and… Top it off with name calling.

          Not very bright of you, is it?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 20, 2015 at 8:21 pm

          Hey VF, leave me out of your insanity. Rags and I get along just fine. He and I are capable of defending our positions without any help from those that left LI along time ago…

          Barry comes to the aid of Rags.

          Isn’t that special: Rags has a White Night to defend his maniacal behavior. lol

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm

          “Isn’t that special”

          I’m a special guy. You, on the other hand, are a complete dingbat.

I see the latest polls out today have Trump expanding his totals and leads over last month according to NBC/WSJ and CNN/ORC. Carson despite a full press DC media assault to demonize him because he is a black conservative wholly failed and he has also improved his poll numbers.

I see Fiorina falling back to earth after continuing to try and attack Trump losing 11 points back to 4% from last month. Maybe she will learn that attacking Trump is not an accomplishment its just an activity.

The poll internals show Trump does better with tea party people than any other candidate. I guess no matter how many times the Rags and Henrys of the world try to lie about Trumps tax plans, KELO, campaign finance reform, etc. the more the majority of the republican party and conservatives determine that the Rags and Henrys of the world are in fact the “lying sacks of Sh*t” and not those to whom Rags loves to apply his favorite term of childish invective. Not name calling Rags, just a factual observation. At least that is how you characterize it.

    Trump is the de facto lead Tea Party candidate with fellow Tea Party candidates Carson and Cruz also rising.

    Fiorina has a problem and is fading.

    Why is she fading? Not sure even she knows but I know why she has lost favorability with me… Not likable.

I see Trump has increased his lead according to new polls as has Carson and Cruz.

George Bush 43, in typical RINO fashion, attacks Cruz as the hijacker of the GOP.

Is he afraid of attacking Trump? He should be…

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    This is a hilariously stupid comment!

    W was NOT a pure conservative, but he WAS the leader of the Republican party, and Republicans elected him twice.

    T-rump, on the other hand, IS Mr. RINO. The very embodiment of NOT EVEN a Republican! Much less a “conservative”. He’s the quintessential switch-hitter! Or political whore.

Stupid is your lying hypocritical attacks to defend your lying hypocritical attacks.

That is quite stupid behavior, Rags.

Bush failed to act to prevent 911. He should have resigned for his disgrace.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    So you support T-rump’s ass-kissing of Nanny Pelosi, and his advocacy for impeaching W?

    Good! Keep it up, you lying harpy! Let’s get ALLLLLLL your Collectivist shit out in the open!

Then Rags, you launch yet another lying screeching hypocritical attack…

Ragspierre | October 20, 2015 at 4:01 pm
So you support T-rump’s ass-kissing of Nanny Pelosi, and his advocacy for impeaching W?

Good! Keep it up, you lying harpy! Let’s get ALLLLLLL your Collectivist shit out in the open!

Stupid behavior defended with stupid behavior is not defending, Rags, its reinforcing the lying screeching hypocritical nature of your cronic rage.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    But, lying harpy, where is there any lie in my question?

    Why are you incapable of making a response that is not a personal attack?

      Still name calling, I see. lol

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | October 20, 2015 at 4:27 pm

        Still name-calling, and incapable of an answer to a question, you lying old harpy!

          Trump is now a conservative and Palin and Cruz are in cahoots with him and him, them. Bush family knows it and now we know they know it.

          This Conservative triad is their worst of the worst nightmares imaginable.

          After the 2016 election is done and a new president is in power, books will be written about it.

          This is so far above your head you can’t process it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 20, 2015 at 5:39 pm

          Wow! THAT’S totally insane…!!!

          Since I have you…(heh!)…why don’t you link to something from the period right after 9/11 saying you thought it was all W’s fault and he should resign. Any time within that year would be swell.

          Then, you can tell us all about that hallucination…er…theory you have where Cruz, Duh Donanld, and Palin are working together.

          Please… Just lie back on the couch and tell us all about it…

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend