Well… it is pretty convincing… I must say…

Seven Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump

Trumprolled

That should be enough to convince any Trump hater, any naysayer.

Trump 2016 baby!

Now… for a similar, perhaps a little more thoughtful piece, you could read Peter Wehner.

Or not.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
The IRS Cannot Define "Fair"
  • Brucehenry

    Wehner’s piece is good, but fails to recognize that 40 years of pandering to racists er umm I mean nativists and pantysniffing religious fanatics created the Frankenstein Twins Trump and Cruz.

    • retired military

      Meanwhile the same 40 years have given the dems Cankles and the Socialist.

    • jim_m

      Yeah because 80% of the GOP voted for the CRA and afterward went and joined the KKK. You are so freaking stupid

    • Commander_Chico

      Look behind the curtain, Bruce. Things are not as they seem.

      • Brett Buck

        Bernie, pragmatic?! He’s an absolute stereotype of every ridiculous leftist gibberish idea there is. Free everything for everybody! Soak the rich! Tax everything! Free rice pudding! Pragamatism and socialism are utterly incompatible – you cannot be a socialist AND a pragmatist.

        • Commander_Chico

          Bernie was a great mayor of Burlington. Balanced budgets, encouraged private development. Burlington was a much better city after his terms.

        • He went to the Socialist Paradise on his honeymoon and never came back…

    • Hank_M

      “pantysniffing religious fanatics”?

      What do the New Years Eve Muslim sexual assaults and rapes have to do with this?

      • jim_m

        Bruce is a lefty. He thinks rape is funny.

    • I’m not a huge Cruz fan but could vote for him over Hillary… Trump however… won’t get my vote… I’ll likely not vote in the Presidential race if he’s the GOP nominee…

      I do believe Trump is leveraging the baser instincts, those earmarked by ignorance, hate and bigotry… he is a disaster and his popularity says a ton about societal decay in general and the decay of the conservative movement in particular…

  • Scalia

    Trump is no conservative, and I share many of the concerns Wehner expresses. However (you knew that was coming, right?), when he says…

    The sentiments animating these individuals [Pat Buchanan, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter] have had influence in the party, and in recent years growing influence. But they have not been dominant and they have certainly never been in control. Mr. Trump’s securing the Republican nomination would change all that. Whatever problems one might be tempted to lay at the feet of the Republican Party, Donald Trump is in a different and more destructive category.

    …he demonstrates the tone-deafness that has frustrated conservatives for decades. “We can’t do anything about spending because the press will beat up on us.” “We can’t do anything about spending because we’re not in the majority.” “We are in the majority, but we cannot override the president.” “We can’t shut down government because the press will criticize us.” “We have the presidency but we need to have compassionate conservatism…” And on and on, ad nauseam.

    Trump wouldn’t be on the political radar if both conservatives and right-leaning moderates weren’t being continually stiff-armed by snobby party elites who campaign one way and govern another. The emotion at ground level has reached a fever pitch (it’s obvious they still don’t get it), and I fear the groundswell may be unstoppable. Trump may well become president if he runs against the damaged Clinton or socialist Sanders. If that happens, those in the lets-go-a-little-slower-than-the-Democrats camp of the GOP will share plenty of the blame.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I tried voting for conservatives. All I got was a congressional majority that still manages to rubber stamp the democrats agenda.

      Here’s a thought experiment, how would things be different now, if McCain or Romney had been elected instead of 0bama?

      • iwogisdead

        I don’t believe we will really know the answer to that question for several more years. But I do know what I think.

      • Commander_Chico

        We’d be at war with Iran and have the draft back.

        • jim_m

          No one was bringing back the draft except your allies. Rangel proposed bringing it back fr the sole purpose of destroying the US military and weakening the nations ability to defend itself.

          You support such an action for the very same reason.

          • Commander_Chico

            If McCain or Romney had won they’d need the draft for manpower for all the wars we’d be in.

            Gasoline would be $8.00 instead of $1.80.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, takes all sorts of unskilled manpower to fly drones. Drafts are to increase the size of the infantry, pulling in large numbers of people who are either unskilled or with skills that aren’t needed. You demonstrate once more your ignorance and why it is that we all know you lie about your service.

            I have been all over this country. I’m not seeing $1.80 gas anywhere. $2 yes. $1.80 no.

          • Commander_Chico

            And your ignorance of military matters is again on display. Infantry are needed much more than drone pilots and need more skills and physical and emotional strength.

            Wars need infantry.

            Anyone with a 60 AFQT and some hand-eye coord and video game experience can fly a drone.

          • jim_m

            You presume that someone without 0bama’s flaccid foreign policy stance and anti-American, hate America first ideology would have to gotten into a war in the first place. 0bama has encouraged our enemies and demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything to oppose our enemies.

            You presume that 0bama’s policy failures would be everyone else’s policy failures. They would not have been.

          • Commander_Chico

            Fuck, McCain was singing “bomb Iran.” Romney wanted to fight Russia!

          • jim_m

            Liar. Romney only ever stated that Russia was the nation that was our most significant foreign threat. That is not saying he wanted an all out war with them. Only a blithering idiot would make that claim. Oh yeah it was you making that claim. ‘nuf said.

          • You and Chico could next have the perennial how many angels can dance on a pin head debate…. would be as productive and might contain the same number of conditional what-ifs…

          • jim_m

            I invite you to show everyone where Romney said he wanted war with Russia. I have stated the truth that he named them as the nation that posed the most significant threat. In terms of global influence he was dead on. Their involvement with Syria lead to an enormous embarrassment of 0bama.

            There were no “what ifs” in my comment that you responded to. Now pony up where I was incorrect.

          • Commander_Chico

            Idle bullshitting is the reason for blog comments.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Imagine if the courts had “appointed” Gore, instead of Bush. Hmmm…no misadventures in Iraq.

          • Commander_Chico

            Maybe no 9/11 if Gore paid attention to CIA warnings.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Umm ,…what?

          • Commander_Chico

            If Gore were president maybe he would have taken action when the CIA warned.

          • jim_m

            You’re so full of crap. Gore was part of the same admin that put up walls between the various intel agencies that prevented sharing of info that would have enabled someone to connect the dots and stop it. You live in a bullshit fantasy land.

          • Commander_Chico

            We’ll never know. We just know Bush ignored the warnings and then fucked everything up after. 9/11. He did not even get Bin Laden.

          • jim_m

            True that we won’t ever know, but your claim is contra-factual and without any rational support. It is pure make believe and can come only from a delusional mind wholly disconnected from reality.

          • Commander_Chico

            This whole string started with a counterfactual – what if McCain or Romney won.

            If McCain won we’d probably all be dead .

          • jim_m

            And you lied in that as I pointed out.

            As for Gore doing something to stop 9/11, not a single establishment dem has shown any willingness to confront islamic terrorism and you can count the ones who even have said that term in the last 10 years on one hand. There is no evidence that Gore would have taken a single step to deal with Bin Laden while there is plenty to suggest that he would have done nothing at all.

            If he would have done anything it would have happened when he was in office. The plans for 9/11 were set in motion during his time in the VP office. He had access to all the necessary intel according to you. SO why did he do nothing? One presumes that he, as well as Bush, had ample warnings to prevent this and therefore since you say that Bush chose to allow 9/11 to happen you must also believe that Gore did as well.

            You are so full of crap.

          • Commander_Chico

            The CIA did not hear about the plans until Bush was in.

            Anyways, Gore would not have freaked out like Bush did and there would be no neocons pushing for the invasion of Iraq.

          • jim_m

            Yeah there would have been, just like Hillary and Kerry were pushing for that very same invasion.

          • retired military

            geez. A 10 megaton on NY , Chicago, LA or SF may actually help the country. Get rid of a lot of Liberals that is for sure.

          • jim_m

            I’d accept any or all of those as bettering the country in the long run.

          • retired military

            Yet you seem to know that McCain and Romney would have been engaged in every war on earth. Strange how that works Cheeko. You can guess when someone isnt president but we cant.
            Of course you go with Option B. It’s all Bush’s fault

          • retired military

            Or BIllary since it was a joint venture.

            Of course with Gore we wouldnt have a military since Gore would have disbanded it to spend money on global warming.

          • retired military

            And your bud Obama just forced women into the infantry down the throats of the Commanders who know better.

          • You’re apparently not in Virginia then… I’m paying $1.97 for premium… regular is definitely well below that…

            http://wavy.com/gas-prices/

          • jim_m

            Granted, I live in Illinois, work in Cali, have been to NJ and New England the past month, all are not the cheapest of states. I’ll be in UT, LA, in the next few weeks.

          • I’ve been paying in the $1.70’s for gas. North of Canada.

          • jim_m

            Thank you Santa

          • Brucehenry

            It’s $1.74 in Garner, NC, a bedroom suburb of Raleigh. $1.88 in Cary, another suburb. It’s $1.81 right now in Pembroke, NC, near the SC line, and cheaper still in SC I would venture to guess — it almost always has been.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Lowest price in Detroit? $1.45

            Average price? $1.74

      • Scalia

        If McCain or Romney had been elected, I believe the Supreme Court would be more solidly conservative. That means some critical court decisions that went against conservatives would have gone the other way. Now, we’re in jeopardy of losing more ground.

        Our international standing couldn’t be any worse than Obama has made it, but the Supreme Court is the only thing I’m reasonably certain about.

    • Commander_Chico

      Wehner is the epitome of the establishment neocon. Just read his columns in Commentary. He’s a made man in the chickenhawk mafia. Bomb Iran, Israel first, the Iraq war was a good idea, etc.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/22/peter-wehners-bush-machine-progressive-hitman/

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37343.htm

      I like Trump because I like the enemies he’s making. TRUMP!!!

    • fustian24

      Many on the conservative side don’t understand why the republicans don’t seem to be nearly as effective as the democrats whether the democrats are in the majority or not.

      I think this is the effect of having the press and the culture on the democrat side. Like it or not, it really is true that republicans simply cannot be as effective for this reason. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s the fact.

      I have been extremely frustrated over the last several years. With both House and Senate, it feels like the republicans are still caving to everything. What was the point?

      But.

      We are tantalizingly close to ending governance controlled largely by democrats. At least for a while. To do this, we need to retain both the House and the Senate and to retake the Presidency. With all three of those pieces, it will finally be possible to legislate conservatively. It will still be an upwind battle, but at least it will be possible, which it is not right now.

      My fear is that we manage to snatch defeat right from the jaws of victory.

      As much as I detest what Ryan did by pushing through the democrat budget, in my heart of hearts I am afraid that he may have done the right thing.

      As for Trump, I love a lot of what he is now saying and I think he’s really managed to move the tenor of the national discussion to the right.

      But.

      I just don’t see how Trump can defeat any Democrat in the national election. The problem gets back to the enemy press. You have to know that Trump is a crony capitalist. As corrupt as Hillary is selling herself to the highest bidder, Trump is on the other side of that transaction buying and selling favors. This is no mystery to anybody. You don’t build large buildings in New York without a lot of back room, under-the-table, wheeling and dealing. And God knows what creatures Trump associates with in his casino business.

      But the press does. And as soon as Trump is the guy, we’re all going to hear about it. 24/7. At first Trump will bluster through and we’ll all give him the doubt. But after months and months of seamy revelations, it will start to slowly but surely sink him.

      It’s ridiculous because Hillary is MUCH worse. But none of that will matter. She gets the democrat pass.

      I think Bush and Rubio and Christie, and the rest, are really not especially conservative. They’re just democrat-lite. It feels to me like the only one that might remotely try to pull off some conservative legislation is Cruz. And, so far, he seems to have a pure enough past that he will be harder for the press to break. And in head to head debates with Hillary, Cruz will run rings around her.

      If the Republicans manage to get the Presidency and retain Congress and they STILL don’t legislate as conservatives, they will be destroyed and the party will go away.

      I am willing to give the Republicans one more shot. Much of their base will not. This is a big part of Trump’s support.

      • jim_m

        You are correct. Many GOP in Washington get caught up in pandering for media praise. They believe that if the media love them that they will be guaranteed reelection. But the truth is that the media will never support them for reeelection. The media only seek to undermine them and do so successfully every time a GOP politician forsakes their principles and seeks media acclamation (like McCain)

      • Scalia

        Excellently put. I think Trump will be skinned alive if he gets the nomination. And if HRC is the other nominee, it’s possible she may get arrested during the campaign. What a mess this could be.

        • Commander_Chico

          Trump doesn’t need the media but plays them like a fiddle through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc.

          Read Dilbert’s Scott Adams on Trump’s campaign.

          • fustian24

            The Garfield and Nancy cartoonists don’t think Trump has a chance.

  • retired military

    I wonder if he is Rodney’s super secret canddiate.

    • Commander_Chico

      No I am sure it is Goldman Sachs Manchurian Candidate Ted Cruz or neocon pool boy Rubio.

      • Ha, Ha!

      • jim_m

        You’re a loony

        • Commander_Chico

          What? It’s just been proven that Cruz is bought and paid for by GS. Heck, his wife works for them. He’ll be a Wall Street tool.

          • Jwb10001

            Because he took out and then paid back a LOAN? You’re nuts.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sweetheart loan. Do you know anyone who borrows personnally from GS?

          • Got any credible sources?

          • Commander_Chico

            Cruz admitted after NYT story.

    • Nope.

  • iwogisdead

    ” . . . a demagogic figure who does not view himself as part of our
    constitutional system but rather as an alternative to it.”

    Oddly, that is exactly how I view President braq obumble. And, it is exactly what we can expect from President Hillary Rodham.

    A system that can elect obumble twice has to be broken. Somebody’s gonna take the oath a year from now. I’d prefer Trump to Hillary or the Bern.

    • Sadly concur with that, but I don’t view Trump as inevitable.

      • Commander_Chico

        Either Trump wins fairly or Establishment like Wehner rigs game against him and he goes 3rd party.

        Sorry, loser.

        • Jwb10001

          So if Trump loses then goes 3rd party he’s not a sorry loser? No he’s a sore loser with an ego that completely out weighs his intellect.

          • Commander_Chico

            Trump will be first candidate to win 3rd party.

          • Jwb10001

            Sure that likely

          • Commander_Chico

            Glad you see reality.

          • Jwb10001

            Of course Trump will win even if he loses that’s exactly how Trump supporters think. He can say the most idiotic thing and people like you nod your heads up and down with your mouths hanging open.

          • Commander_Chico

            Trump will win.

            Who’s your candidate? Jeb? Neocon water boy Rubio? Stealth Wall Street candidate (like Obama) Cruz?

  • Paul Hooson

    If Mel Brooks decides to remake THE PRODUCERS, then he’s just found his wacky Hitler…

    • Commander_Chico

      Look behind the curtain, Paul.

  • Paul Hooson

    Trump reminds me of a maintenance man at the mobile home park who’s a parking nazi….

  • Hank_M

    Looks like the republican elite are really starting to panic.

    “[Trumps] nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party.”
    Exactly.

    “If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party.”
    It stopped being a conservative party years go.

    “it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one.”
    What, like the democrats?

    “Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.” Best traditions? What are those exactly? Acting like liberal-lites? Cowering every time they’re accused of being *ists? Never defending conservative principles?

    Attacking each other?

    “Trump if he is nominated,…..would be the most unqualified president in American history.”

    Ever heard of Barry Soetoro Obama?

    “During the course of this campaign he has repeatedly revealed his ignorance on basic matters of national interest”

    I’ll wager he knows how many states we have.

    Wehners piece is a temper tantrum, something we’ll be seeing a lot more of when the republican elites come to realize that their day has passed.

    As for the democrats, they can rally around the most corrupt, greediest, most vile person in politics today and congratulate themselves on their virtue and principles.

    • Commander_Chico

      Can’t see how a CEO of an international business worth billions with operations and employees all over the world is less qualified than a legislator – especially a first term senator.

      Cruz’s and Rubio’s qualifications are about the same as Obama’s.

      • None so blind as damn liars who refuse to see.

        • Commander_Chico

          True. RM proved you a liar yesterday.

          • Nope. The search tool does not search direct campaign contributions (hard contributions). You damn liar.

          • Commander_Chico

            More BS. You said to search it.

  • Commander_Chico

    Here’s really seven reasons to vote for Trump:

    1. Will secure southern border

    2. Can’t be bought

    3. Will put American workers first, not help export jobs

    4. Knows how business and the economy works

    5. No more social engineering for feminists

    6. Knows Middle East wars have been a huge waste, will not be looking to start more wars.

    7. Madman – nobody will fuck with him, but master of negotiation.

    • And the number one reason not to vote for Trump?

      The chicka-puta endorsement.

      • Commander_Chico

        As I said, Trump has the right enemies. All the neocons, chickenhawks, Israel-firsters, cuckservatives, feminists, and Chinese slaves.

        Make America Great Again.

        • jim_m

          I would not be surprised to see Trump fade as Hillary does. Much of his appeal lies in the belief that he is the only person that can beat Hillary. As more and more polls show her losing to everyone under the sun that facet of Trump’s appeal is less an attraction. People will move to more traditional candidates seeing that voting for the extreme is no longer necessary.

          • Commander_Chico

            Keep dreaming. Iowa and NH in how many days? The only way they can stop the Trump train is by rigging the game. Then Trump goes rogue 3rd party.

            “More traditional” = neocon towel boys and Wall Street employees.

          • I’m praying you’re right… seriously.

          • Scalia

            I’m hoping he’s right, but I have a strong feeling that he’s not.

          • jim_m

            Does Trump even have anything resembling a strong state by state campaign structure? As far as I can tell he has put everything into national exposure. Does his campaign have what it takes to deliver the ground game for the IA caucuses? It’s not a simple task. If he fails at that he could slide precipitously.

          • Scalia

            On paper, Cruz has a very strong ground game, but Trump’s support appears huge, and his followers are rabidly committed. I just fear that the momentum may be unstoppable. Like I said, I HOPE you’re right. We’ll know in as little while.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s hilarious that Chico’s backing GOP frontrunner and you all are backing the losers.

            Wall Street flunky Cruz would be better than Trump?

  • jim_m

    The important part is that Hillary is now losing to Bernie in Iowa.

    Quinnipiac University’s most recent survey of Iowa Democratic voters shows Sanders garnering 49 percent of the vote, while Clinton receives 44 percent. Only a month ago, Clinton was beating Sanders by 11 points, according to Politico.

    Quinnipiac’s is the second poll this week that’s found Clinton losing to Sanders in the Hawkeye State. An American Research Group poll had Clinton down by three.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      I think I hear the ghost of Joe Biden answering the clarion call.

  • For the record, Rodney is deleting his own comments…

    Perhaps he’s pissed himself off…

    • Commander_Chico

      Ha, ha!

      • Brucehenry

        Jim’s more pompous, more pretentious, more ideologically blinkered, more ignorant evil twin.

        • Commander_Chico

          Jim’s just Major Frank Burns. Rodney’s Captain Queeg or Iago.

          Both are boiling pots of neuroses, but Jim at least likes to fight and favors free speech.

  • Par4Course

    Jesse Jackson has talked about “the paralysis of analysis,” which is a good description of the GOP. Trump is popular because of what he has accomplished. Gov. Christie characterized legislators as “talkers.” Donald is a “doer” – he gets things done. Republicans are tired of electing representatives who have only made excuses for why they haven’t been able to stop the Obama agenda – why, despite their majorities in both houses of Congress, they can’t defund ObamaCare, stop the Iran nuke deal, or put a halt toany of his other programs. Trump has promised a lot and, while he may not deliver, in his business dealings, he’s shown he has the skills to get things done.

    • Brucehenry

      Trump took his father’s connections and an inherited fortune and made it somewhat larger, but not phenomenally so. Certainly nothing like, say, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. And he has “got things done” alright — like bankrupting a freaking CASINO. And four other bankruptcies as well. He also “got done” a lot of self-promotion and was the face of a cheesy and fixed reality/game show, so there’s that.

      • Commander_Chico

        It’s not a question of Trump being perfect but whether he would be better than the other clowns and the truly dangerous Hillary.

    • Donald is a “doer” – he gets things done.

      Yes… yes he does

      • Brucehenry

        A truly awful human being.

        Hillary may be, as alleged, “corrupt,” and an “enabler” of Bill’s amorality. but she at least, it seems to me, possesses some sense of empathy for others and a basic knowledge of manners and etiquette. Also not nearly as reckless or unreliable. Not a loose cannon, she would at least listen to advisors and not be so prone to shoot from the hip as the madman Trump.

        But I still prefer Bernie. Though given a choice between Hillary and any of the GOP dwarves on the stage Thursday night I’ll have to choose Hillary, corrupt enabler or not.

        • Commander_Chico

          Worse than that – a blundering warmonger who has helped get thousands killed in Libya and Syria.

        • Scalia

          If they are dwarfs, they’re much taller than Hillary…most of them.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t see it. All they do is bitch about Obama being “weak and feckless” — which is a lot of nonsense — and posture as tough tough tough guys that will scare the bejeezus out of Putin and ISIS hardy har har. They pretend that gay marriage and such like pantysniffin’ is the most important issue facing Real America, while ignoring the fact that kowtowing to shortsighted greedy corporations and banks (their base) is killing the middle class and working folks — who are the engine of American prosperity and have been since WWII.

            Hillary ain’t MUCH better, but she’s a LITTLE better.

          • jim_m

            Please show us how his ever so strong foreign policy has resulted in strengthening American influence abroad. It seems to any rational onlooker that his policy has been to cave to every enemy with little or no resistance and to pander to our powerful enemies while betraying allies.

            That, Bruce, is a policy of weakness. He has not demonstrated anything that could be confused with projecting power or resolve.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes we all know your oft-repeated narrative — blah blah apology tour something something betraying allies yada yada projecting power mumble

          • jim_m

            Has not China been more aggressive in the far east and making more threatening moves toward Japan and Taiwan than ever before? Has not Russia become far more dominant an influence in the ME than the US is today? Have we not lost our influence in the EU?

            Leading from behind is a cowards move and while you may be deceived by it the rest of the world sees it as cowardice.

          • Brucehenry

            Well actually one could say China was a little tiny bit more aggressive in the Far East when it was killing Americans in Korea in the 1950s than it is now when it is just making noise and flexing muscles. And Russia invaded Georgia when WHO WAS THAT GUY who was president in 2008? And Russia’s presence in Syria does not make it “far more dominant” than the US in the Middle East, except to hyperbolic paranoids like you and the GOP dwarves. And no, I don’t think we have “lost our influence in the EU” since we don’t belong to the EU.

          • jim_m

            By influence in the EU I meant influence in Europe and don’t be a fucking asshole by claiming that we don’t have influence in Europe because we are not a part of Europe.

            And when Russia can offer to mediate international disputes in the ME more credibly than we can(as they did recently) , yes, we have lost influence there. We had more influence when they thought that the US was a credible power. No one believes that nor will they as long as 0bama or any other dem is president.

          • Brucehenry

            Anybody can offer to mediate international disputes. Sweden often does so, as does Switzerland and Brazil and South Africa. Doesn’t mean Switzerland is more influential than the US.

            But I know it’s troubling that Russia has become more assertive in the ME. It also can be helpful if it wishes to be. There is no sense in electing a cowboy, like we had before in Bush, to antagonize them unnecessarily.

            Russia has a long term strategy to expand its influence globally, which it will implement whoever is President. Which is why I brought up Georgia, as an example of how they began to implement that plan before Obama was in power. Ditto for China. It will take a cool head and an even temperament to navigate the next 8 years in foreign affairs. I don’t think blustering would-be bullies like Cruz or Christie or Rubio have a cool head nor an even temperament.

          • Scalia

            Yes. Where did that line in Syria go?

          • Brucehenry

            If Obama had attacked Assad’s forces because he feared “looking weak” ISIS would be in control of ALL of Syria today. It was a mistake to issue the “red line” statement but it would have been a bigger mistake to depose Assad without knowing what would replace him.

          • jim_m

            It was a mistake to issue a statement that he knew he had no intention of backing up. That is why he is perceived as weak. He lacks the resolve to back up his threats. He cut and ran from Iraq. That is also why he is perceived as weak. He failed in Libya and Benghazi. Leading from behind is not leadership it is called cowardice and that is why he is perceived as weak.

            You may not think so but the rest of the world does. There are few people outside of the US left that believe that 0bama is a strong leader. Don’t look to your echo chamber, look to the rest of the world. It isn’t my opinion. It’s everyone else’s.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually no. Your first paragraph is the same boilerplate you’ve been serving up for 7 years and is factually inaccurate, especially the “cut and ran from Iraq” nonsense. Obama left Iraq under the SOFA negotiated by Bush.

            This is the part where you claim that Obama could have renegotiated the SOFA that Bush negotiated in the first place, and then comes the part where I counter that no, Iraq was insistent that they be allowed to try American soldiers in Shiite sharia courts and we said hell no. And then after that you repeat more bullshit and I grow weary of arguing with an ignoramus and tell you to believe whatever you want.

          • jim_m

            You can believe that if you want. The reality is that 0bama has never learned to compromise. He is a rigid fascist ideologue and has never once compromised with anyone. A new SOFA could have been negotiated and Iraq’s leaders were interested in reaching a compromise bu 0bama rejected that because he was eager to cut and run.

          • Brucehenry

            Zzzzzzzzzzz

          • jim_m

            Yes. Anything that doesn’t match the leftist narrative is uninteresting to you. That’s why you get duped like a dumbass by fake memes that pander to you ignorant fucking ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            What? Huh? Oh, I nodded off while you claimed on the one hand that Obama “caves to every enemy with little to no resistance” and also on the other hand “has never once compromised with anyone.”

            That’s because, see, your unreasoning, no-matter-what hatred of “0bama” — childish Rodneylike bullshit btw — is boooooring.

          • jim_m

            Compromise politically you ignorant ass. Name one time the nations most ideologically bound politician has ever compromised his ideology.

            Oh, and getting out of Iraq was not a compromise with him.

          • Commander_Chico

            Cause you are an Iraqi government insider. Sadrists, IIP, others vetoed. After Blackwater massacre etc. Iraqis sick of USA.

          • Scalia

            It was way more than a mistake. It was monumentally stupid and it shot his credibility. You don’t make that kind of statement without standing by it. To shoot his mouth off like that without thinking it through shows he’s very Trump-like…and you voted for him.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said, there is no sense doubling down on a loudmouth mistake by following through with an action that would only make matters worse. Yes, it was a bonehead mistake to say it but I give him credit for not getting people killed to make himself look macho.

            EDIT: Unlike Reagan, who cut and ran from Lebanon then got Americans, Cubans, and Grenadians killed a week later in his tough-guy routine.

          • jim_m

            So you think that the way that it encourages our enemies because he looked weak and incompetent hasn’t cost lives?

            You’re a bigger fool than we previously suspected.

          • Brucehenry

            zzzzzz

          • jim_m

            You’re a pussy too ignorant to defend your position.

          • Brucehenry

            Too tired of rehashing the same old talking points you get from your wingnut websites.

          • jim_m

            What talking point. It is a straight forward point of discussion. Do you or do you not believe that a nation that looks weak encourages aggression from other nations? If so then 0bama has arguably cost American lives already and his actions are almost certainly going to cause more in the future.

            You are the kind of asshole that believes that by appeasing Hitler no lives were lost. I am sure you have an argument how there would have been 60 million dead anyway.

          • Brucehenry

            Go Godwin yourself you loony ghoul chickenshit.

          • jim_m

            I take that as your admission that you are OK with 0bama leading the world into greater conflicts through his cowardice ad you are OK with the potentially thousands of lives that will be lost due to his negligence. It isn’t a Godwin violation to point out that in the past people made that mistake to disastrous consequence, but if you want to run and hide like the pussy you are and not face the fact that a flaccid foreign policy is creating more danger then be my guest. You are such a pussy.

          • Brucehenry

            Here’s my final word to you on the subject:

            The idea that a pencil armed pencil necked cowardly little pampered middle-class puke like yourself, who has never even been in a grown-man fistfight, calling ANYBODY else a “coward,” is laughable. When you or anybody in your family puts his ass on the line for ANYTHING, from patriotism to road rage, come back and talk to me about cowardice. Go strap on your hogleg that you’re afraid to leave the house without and fill up your manlyman SUV with $1.75 Obamagas.

          • jim_m

            I’m not the ignorant fuck up like you that boasts about getting into a fist fight. Nor are you some manly man patriot the way that you root against your country and celebrate caskets coming back form overseas. Nor do I carry concealed or drive an SUV because I am able to manage my life without such things, but apparently you find the existence of both threats to your teeny tiny manhood. Your invective prove what a worthless pussy you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha sure you don’t. What part of “final word” do you not understand?

          • jim_m

            Actually, which part do you not understand? You said it was YOUR final word. You don’t get to choose whether I have said all that I have to say.

          • Scalia

            Gotta scoot now… spending time with my sons…

          • Scalia

            I have no problem with a man trying to avoid making a greater mistake. That doesn’t change the fact that his credibility was severely damaged. He was rash and impulsive for drawing the line and proved to the world that his word could be second-guessed.

          • Brucehenry

            So do you think that, once he issued the statement and then realized it was a stupid thing to do, he should have thrown away Syrian and American lives in a military gesture that would have resulted in ISIS coming into power on Israel’s border?

          • Scalia

            I gave a one sentence reply to Jim. My point was (and is) that Obama has diminished our nation’s standing among the world community with his line in the sand being a prime example.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you want to weigh in on Reagan’s action/inaction in Lebanon in the 1980s? And how or why he was not accused of shooting his credibility when he sent peacekeepers there and then withdrew them with their tails between their legs when they encountered resistance? And, you know, got 241 Marines killed ENTIRELY IN VAIN? And how or why he was not accused of cowardice or fecklessness or weakness when he paid off kidnappers REPEATEDLY?

          • Scalia

            Why should I “weigh in” on that? That sounds like deflection. We both agree that Obama made a bonehead statement, so it follows that doing such things diminishes the nation you represent. Any other president, Reagan included, who did similar or worse things diminished his nation as well. Lebanon was a fiasco, no question.

          • Brucehenry

            My point has been that Reagan did not get called weak and feckless for doing worse (in my estimation) than Obama did. That’s because Tip O’Neill and Walter Mondale were patriotic and John Boehner and Ted Cruz are not.

          • Scalia

            Congress did everything it could to destroy Reagan after Iran-Contra, so politics didn’t stop at the water’s edge back then, but you’re right about O’Neill. His passionate plea to his caucus to support President Reagan after the Beirut disaster is a stellar example of patriotism.

            As you can probably recall, the political rhetoric was pretty severe back then (after Vietnam, Watergate, etc.), and though O’Neill privately urged Democrats to support Reagan, he made some severe public comments as well:

            The Speaker of the House, Thomas P. O’Neill Jr., Democrat of Massachusetts, said it was ”ridiculous” for the President to compare the incomplete security measures at the embassy to the typical delays in a kitchen remodeling job. Mr. O’Neill said it was a ”blatantly stupid alibi for the destruction of our embassy in Beirut.”

            Mondale also joined in:

            Mr. Mondale, in his criticism today, said of the bombing last week in Lebanon: ”Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.”

            Later, Mondale’s remarks were more pronounced:

            Walter F. Mondale, using words reminiscent of the Iranian hostage crisis, says President Reagan is “letting terrorists humiliate us, push us around and kill our people” in Lebanon.

            Campaigning in Texas, where polls show him far behind, the Democratic presidential nominee said Monday that Reagan has demonstrated “an atrocious abdication of leadership…We need a president who will take charge…”

            Yes, the rhetoric hasn’t changed much.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? All the rhetoric you cited above was about specific incidents and actions, arguably justifiable criticism.

            In contrast, Obama is accused by prominent Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann and many many others (and also blog commenters like Jim and M. Soi Pissant, anong others here) of actively wanting harm to come to the US, of siding with terrorists, of being a “coward” and a “traitor.” Routinely, and has been since BEFORE taking office.

            How many times in the last 7 years have you heard Obama compared to Neville Chamberlain? How many times did you hear Reagan compared to Chamberlain? If you answered “innumerable times versus zero times” congratulations you are correct. Yet REAGAN’S actions are responsible for 241 US Marine deaths, all of which were entirely in vain, while Obama has done nothing comparable. Nor has he paid ransoms to kidnapping terrorists or sold sophisticated weapons to avowed enemies. So what’s up with the rhetoric?

          • Scalia

            You forget so soon, Bruce? You said that Reagan wasn’t called weak and feckless for doing worse than Obama did. I don’t see how being called “blatantly stupid” and someone who allows terrorists to humiliate and kill our people is substantively different.

            Reagan wasn’t called a traitor?? Just Google “Reagan traitor” and you’ll find a plethora of websites saying just that.

            How about Roger Wilkins (The Nation, 11-3-84):

            George Wallace vowed never to be “outn*****ed” again. Well, it is clear that Ronald Reagan is not going to be “outcolored.”

            And Mike Barnicle (Boston Globe, 3-2-87):

            Maybe you noticed that since the whole Iran mess began, Mrs. Reagan’s husband has shown the command decision instincts of a glazed donut. He sat there like a stone for months, acting like someone whose IQ equals the mean temperature of St. Petersburg, Fla., as the entire government came crashing down around his Day-glo orange hair and wax-filled ears.

            And Jack Thomas (Boston Globe, 3-5-87):

            Having heard the president’s awkward words upon release of the Tower Commission report, and having read the columnists who have been making fun of his forgetfulness, and having seen the clips of Nancy Reagan whispering to him when he could not answer simple questions, and having been warned that she may be playing a larger role in governing the nation than perhaps the Constitution intended for the wife of a president, the American people were watching carefully last night for what conservative columnist Ben Wattenberg called “Senile-gate.”

            And Richard Cohen (Washington Post, 10-9-87)

            Bork, the intellectual, anguished over the rights of proprietors. Reagan, no intellectual, nevertheless struck the same note: even bigots “have certain constitutional rights.” Not since John Steinbeck teamed George with Lenny have two such intellectually disparate people found such common cause.

            Remember the 80s as “The Decade of Greed” the not-so-subtle reference to Reaganism? Want more? How about Bryant Gumble (Today, 3-31-93):

            “In the greedy excesses of the Reagan years, the mean income of the average physician nearly doubled, from $88,000 to $170,000. Was that warranted?

            How about this gem from that patriotic Tip O’Neill?:

            The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.

            And Geraldine Ferraro?:

            How Reagan can say he’s a good Christian and then walk around with these domestic policies is incredible.

            And we can’t forget Congressman William Clay’s patriotic remark that Reagan:

            …was trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf

            Bruce, I could provide many, many more, especially about George W. Bush. Liberal hate speech has been in high gear for a very long time. You may think that such speech is justified because in your view it’s true, but if that’s the standard for acceptability, then everything said about Obama is acceptable because his accusers believe they’re telling the truth. Go ahead and complain about the rhetoric, but liberals have shown no inclination to to slow down even a smidgen. Conservatives won’t either.

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico was at Grenada in 83, got the medal, even got ashore.

            Could not let the USSR get another major base in Caribbean.

            Plus Stalinist Coard et al killed populist leftist Bishop, scores of followers.

            The “rescuing medical students” reason was not the real reason.

            Reagan was dumb to put Marines in Beirut but smart to pull them out. That was another US operation 4 Israel.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, sorry, but neither the “rescuing medical students” thing NOR the “preventing a Soviet base” thing were the real reason.

            The real reason, in my opinion, was that Reagan looked feckless and weak after putting Marines in and then fleeing after 241 of them were blown up, so he looked around for an easy target and found one in Grenada. The fact that it “only” cost 18 Americans their lives was a bonus, and fuck the Grenadians and Cubans who got killed they were brown anyway.

          • Commander_Chico

            Soviets were planning an airbase for their maritime patrol aircraft there.

            Preparations and movement for the invasion were well underway at time of Beirut bombing.

            Coard’s guys killed more Grenadans than USA did.

            We were on the way to Grenada before Beirut bombing. Invasion happened 2 days after bombing. Even invading a small island takes more planning and prep than that.

          • Brucehenry

            Even if I’m wrong about the reasons for the Grenada action, it is laughable to me that conservatives NEVER EVER bitched that Reagan “lost his credibility” when he cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists blew up our Marines. Reagan did more than TALK about a red line — he SENT AMERICAN TROOPS WHO GOT KILLED, and then fled when they were killed. Meanwhile he paid ransoms to kidnappers in Lebanon THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY, culminating in the SELLING OF ARMS TO HOSTILE IRAN, who was sponsoring said kidnappers, and GETS A PASS on being “weak and feckless.”

          • jim_m

            That’s because Lebanon is the exception to the rest of his Presidency, whereas 0bama has been consistent in his passive, weak, surrendering policies. The only time he tried to take a stand was his idiotic red line in Syria and when his bluff was called he looked the fool when he had to back down. Much like he cannot stand up to Iran even as they violate the agreement that he pushed so hard for and said was so critical to forcing them to get in line. They have violated the agreement that he demanded we make and he refuses to enforce it.

          • Brucehenry

            Reagan paid off kidnappers sponsored by Khomeini’s Iran THROUGHOUT HIS TWO TERMS, yet virtually no one, Republican or Democrat, hectored him about being “feckless and weak.” That’s because patriots don’t undermine a president unrelentingly for political gain.

          • jim_m

            And yet somehow Reagan is viewed by history as a strong leader who pushed the USSR to the point of breaking and who defended freedom and democracy. What that tells us is that you are failing to look at the whole truth. Just like you are unwilling to look at the whole truth about 0bama.

            And it is laughable that you complain about undermining a President for political gain when that is all the dems did to Bush. They would gladly have seen 10s of thousands of dead soldiers if it gained them the WH.

          • Brucehenry

            Reagan is seen BY WINGNUTS that way. He is seen by “history” as a man who supported D’Aubisson in El Salvador and Contra death squads in Nicaragua. Also as a man who pursued a policy in Afghanistan that, while bankrupting the USSR, had the unintended consequence of creating the Frankenstein monster Bin Laden, father of Al Qaeda.

            I mean, speaking of “the whole truth” and all.

            Please Jim, don’t embarrass yourself trying to argue about history. As usual, all you do is prove you know less than nothing.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and it’s nice to see that you finally come out in favor of communist gulags, and death squads in Nicaragua and in Asia. How many hundred million have died due to the communism you support? If opposing communism and the genocide that routinely accompanies it is embarrassing then I am gladly embarrassed.

          • jim_m

            And let’s be clear on this point: islamic fundamentalism and terrorism predates Reagan. Your bullshit that he is ultimately responsible for that is a gross lie and shows what a dishonest asshat you are.

            Too fucking bad you forgot about the Iran Hostage crisis and the Munich Olympics, and Entebbe. But then the real issue here is that you are going to blame all this on the Jews because you are a bigot.

          • Brucehenry

            Duh Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism has been around since Muhammad dumbass. But not every terrorist act committed by Arabs or Muslims has been “Islamic terrorism.” You mention Entebbe — not done in the name of Islam but in the name of Arab nationalism ( and actually perpetrated by German Baader-Meinhof types you ignoramus.) Munich was done in the name of Palestinian nationalism and nobody claimed Allah as its justification. The Iran hostage crisis has roots in the 1953 Mossadegh coup. Again, you should shut the fuck up, you just keep demonstrating you have no knowledge of history.

          • Brucehenry

            One can oppose communism without supporting the murder of nuns and peasants but is that too subtle for you?

          • jim_m

            Nope. You are full on for genocide. As usual

            The Misurasata, the Indians’ political-religious leadership organization, reported 46 villages in all were firebombed by the Nicaraguan armed forces, that 393 Indians were killed in the operation and that 600 of their pastors were imprisoned. The Sandinistas admit to having moved at least 10,000 Indians to concentration camps, which they call relocation centers. Over 30,000 Indians fled to Honduras, and 8,000 fled to Costa Rica. This is how the Indians ”welcomed” the Sandinistas.

            All done with your blessing,It might as well have been done in your name. you would have supported it. You sure as hell protested any opposition to it.

          • Brucehenry

            Not with my blessing and not with the support and financing of the US government, as was the case with Reagan and the Contras. Ignorant. Not a gotcha.

          • jim_m

            Either you oppose it or you oppose the efforts to stop it. Were those universally pure? Nope. But you opposed all efforts against the Sandanistas and you supported their take over to begin with. When you support them coming into power and you oppose all opposition to them you own their atrocities too.

          • Brucehenry

            What a dumbass. Using the same logic, the Sandinistas fought to depose the monster and murderer Somoza. Were all the Sandinista’s efforts “universally pure”? No? Oh well, Somoza was a monster, collateral damage, whatever.

            You know less than nothing, and keep proving it.

          • jim_m

            Many people opposed Samosa and worked for democratic reforms. You instead suported a murderous communist revolution. It seems that you don’t care as long as the murderers are on your side.

            You have demonstrated multiple times here that you are incapable of seeing the value in morality and truth and that you only see things through the lens of who holds the power.

          • jim_m

            All I heard was your praise of 0bama for the release of the 10 sailors and now silence at the $150B in ransom and the release of multiple terrorists back into their hands.

            You’re a worthless lying hypocrite. You don’t give a damn about paying off a foreign government. You only care when it isn’t your side. You have no moral compass. Your outrage is exclusively reserved for a conservative government. It doesn’t matter to you what 0bama does as you believe it to be in the service of a far left agenda.

          • jim_m

            Correction, the Iranians released were convicted of espionage and returned in exchange for Americans held illegally, along with $1.7 B in reparations and a promise to remove economic sanctions so Iran will NOT sign a nuclear arms treaty that they have already said they have no intention of living up to.

            An you wonder why 0bama is viewed as weak? He gives away the store and gets NOTHING!! He’s an epic idiot and only cult of personality drones like you believe any of his bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            Please cite a quote of my praise for Obama for the release of the sailors.

          • jim_m

            You were quite smug about their release the other day.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I pointed out they had been released in the middle of y’all having a wingnut temper tantrum. I smirked at the fact that the bloodlust you have for other people’s kids to die in counter-productive wars will for now go un-slaked.

          • jim_m

            And again you are smug that we paid huge sums of money to a criminal regime. You think it is great fun that 0bama does it but when Reagan did it you make it sound like a war crime.

          • Brucehenry

            It is my understanding that these were frozen Iranian assets, not money we “paid.” The money belonged to Iranians in the first place — not the Teheran government, to my knowledge — and not US Treasury funds. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am mistaken.

          • jim_m

            $400 M in assetts. the rest in reparations for holding them

          • Brucehenry

            $00M???? And says who? I haven’t seen that report.

          • jim_m

            400

          • Commander_Chico

            That is true.

          • Commander_Chico

            Question was whether line was crossed. Many indications that chem attacks were Al Qaeda false flag, not Syrian govt. US intel, UN were not sure.

            Rebels have been proved worse than Syrian govt since then (ISIS). Russia is doing the right thing.

          • Scalia

            No, that’s not the question, Chico. At that time, the president never said that the chemical attacks were a “false flag.” The president said,

            First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

            He made that statement in the context of what would trigger U.S. military intervention. So what if it turns out that Syra did not use chemical weapons? The point is that the president did not state that when challenged on his red line. He made a rash, stupid statement that shot his credibility.

            EDIT: In other words, his red line was not the world’s, for the world did not authorize a unilateral military option; that was Obama’s bravado and saber rattling. He simply put his foot in his mouth.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes Obama never said attacks were false flag because either not sure or could not attack “our allies” Saudi Arabia and Turkey and their clients Islamist rebels.

            It is more important Obama did the right thing and did not attack Syrian government. Many guys get their asses kicked in bars trying to look tough.

          • Scalia

            You’re late to the dance, Chico. We’ve already discussed that, and as I’ve stated directly to you, it is irrelevant. His STATEMENT was stupid and rash. Not being certain about the perpetrators of those attacks isn’t something he cited. He was called on his stupidity and dishonestly tried to blame the international community for the line he drew. So, not only was his bravado ill-advised, he lied about it afterwards.

          • Commander_Chico

            That was no more than typical US saber rattling and weasel words.

            Actions more important than words. The most important thing is that Obama did not attack Syrian government despite neocon pressure and propaganda. That is a mark in Obama’s favor.

          • Scalia

            Committing yourself to to military action and lying about it afterwards is not what saber rattling is.

          • Scalia

            The “little better” you speak of represents your agreement with her policies. I don’t think that under any rational standard a person can credibly argue that she’s a better person than most of the GOP candidates.

          • Brucehenry

            George McGovern was a far far better person than Richard Nixon. Do you think a vote for McGovern was a wise choice for a voter to make in 1972? For that matter Humphrey was a far far better person in 68, too but I bet if you were voting back then you’d have voted for Nixon.

          • Scalia

            Isn’t that what I said? Your “better” comment relates to policy agreement, no? If so, then an ardent Democrat such as yourself can only manage a “little better” over the “dwarfs.” As human beings, they are far ahead of Hillary, so I must disagree with you (nothing unusual). If the policy differences are only “little,” and the other person is a far better human being, I’ll vote for the better person (if I’m forced to vote).

          • Brucehenry

            See my other comment, beginning with “correct me if I’m wrong…”

            When I say Hillary “ain’t much better” than the Dwarves, I mean she is beholden to banks and corporations to nearly the degree they are — she just retains some shame and doesn’t possess quite the arrogant these-sheep-will-believe-anything cynicism as they do.

            If you want to talk about who is the most honest, can’t-be-bought good guy of the bunch, we are talking Bernie, without a doubt.

          • jim_m

            No one can afford Bernie. He plans to spend something like $17T. When your price is that high no one can buy you because you’re a fucking moron.

          • Scalia

            …she just retains some shame and doesn’t possess quite the arrogant these-sheep-will-believe-anything cynicism as they do.

            I don’t think anybody who lies to family members of those killed in Benghazi (and to the country) that their deaths were due to a YouTube video has any shame. I don’t think that a woman who runs down her husband’s accusers when she knows what kind of man he is has any shame. I don’t think that a woman who stands in front of news cameras and claims she avoided sniper fire in Bosnia when she knew good and well she was lying has any shame. I could go on, but I’ve already made that case in several posts.

            Hillary Clinton is far lower than most of her GOP rivals.

          • Commander_Chico

            I call a woman who runs down her husband’s attackers a loyal wife.

            Brodderick, Willey just full-of-shit scorned women. Money and attention trawlers.

            Hillary has many faults, that is not one of them.

          • Brucehenry

            Correct me if I’m wrong, and also if you disagree as to the relative merits, as men, of the 3 candidates I mentioned.

            As to whether these GOPers are “better persons” than Hillary, well, there are real questions as to whether Rubio’s start in politics was due in part to his brother-in-law’s drug money. Christie has been dogged by scandal as NJ governor, some more well-known nationally than others. Cruz just admitted getting a million-dollar sweetheart loan from Goldman Sachs while pretending to be a “man of the people.” Jeb is a member of a corrupt dynasty with plenty of ethics questions swirling about his term as governor. The reason Hillary SEEMS more scandal ridden, perhaps, is because we’ve known her longer.

          • Scalia

            “Real questions” about Rubio (btw, like the real questions about Obama starting his political campaign in a terrorist’s house?), do not equal the proven duplicity and dishonesty of HRC.

            I’m no fan of Christie, and he’s barely registering in the polls, but comparing him with Hillary’s scandals in no measure makes her a “little better” than he. I said “most” of the GOP candidates are way better than Hillary. Even conceding that Christie may be equally bad has no bearing on what I said.

            As for Cruz, when putting his “man of the people” against Hillary’s classified email issues (under criminal investigation at present)…yes, Ted is WAY BETTER.

            Jeb? Can’t stand him.

            So, of the four you mentioned, you get two maybes and two strikeouts. Yes, most of the GOP opponents are far above the despicable Hillary Rodham Clinton.

            EDIT: Sorry, I forgot Trump. As you can probably tell from my other posts, I’m not a fan. Yes, I believe he is every bit as dishonest as Hillary.

          • Brucehenry
          • Scalia

            But it isn’t right now, so your appeal to them doesn’t work.

  • retired military

    This should have been the Caption contest this week. My entry would have been

    NOT Rodney’s super secret 2016 presidential candidate.

    • fustian24

      7 reasons to vote for Trump:

      1. Creates much less CO2 than Hillary.
      2. Slightly more likable than Rosie O’Donnell.
      3. Natural born New Yorker.
      4. White House plated in gold.
      5. It takes too much money to bribe him.
      6. Trump to the IRS: “You’re fired!”
      7. Watching all the establishment Republican’s heads explode!

      • Scalia

        Lol!

  • Brucehenry
    • This is bogus… a number of sites have deemed this meme, as truthful as it might sound, to be completely false.

      • jim_m

        I believe that this is called (and Bruce will defend it as such) as “Fake, but accurate”.

    • jim_m

      Not holding my breath for Bruce to retract his lies

      And a public relations representative with People told us that the magazine couldn’t find anything like that quote in its archives, either. People‘s Julie Farin said in an email: “People looked into this exhaustively when it first surfaced back in Oct. We combed through every Trump story in our archive. We couldn’t find
      anything remotely like this quote –and no interview at all in 1998.”

      • Brucehenry

        When I’m wrong I’m wrong.

        Should I delete the comment and leave a “this comment was deleted” message up as M. Soi Pissant has several times done on this thread, to pretend I didn’t embarrass myself?

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    Ed Grimley, nice one Rick.