What I find disturbing about Trump...

[LetterRip]

What I find most disturbing about Trump, isn't the people voting for him in the primaries, but rather the number of politicians who are pledging to support him and that have endorsed him.

[JoshuaD]

I think that just confirms that his campaigning persona is an act, and that he is, in fact, good at making deals.

[AI Wessex]

Mebbe, but if he had invested his inheritance ($200M) in the S&P 500 when he got it, he'd have more money today than he does from his lifetime of making deals and no bankruptcies.

[JoshuaD]

C'mon AI. Don't give me cookie cutter arguments, especially when they don't fit the thing I said. :-)

[D.W.]

I'm just trying to figure out if you are giving him some credit or suggesting he paid for his endorsements? 

[JoshuaD]

I'm just trying to figure out if you are giving him some credit or suggesting he paid for his endorsements?

Yes, I'm giving him credit. He's been running a highly effective campaign.

Of course he paid for the endorsements. I don't think he paid cash, but he certainly made deals. And the endorsements have been really good for his campaign. He's lined them up, one-by-one, and it's helping guarantee him the nomination. Every week someone new that has a big group of followers is endorsing him.

I dislike him. Moreso, the political wave he's tapped into and amplified scares me. That doesn't mean I can't be honest in my analysis.

[LetterRip]

JoshuaD,

I think the reason for the endorsements are purely cynical.  They think he can grant them power.  I don't think it is in a sincere belief that he will make a better President or Presidential candidate.

My concern is about what it says about the nature of these individuals.

[Fenring]

I think the reason for the endorsements are purely cynical.  They think he can grant them power.  I don't think it is in a sincere belief that he will make a better President or Presidential candidate.

My concern is about what it says about the nature of these individuals.

LR, I'm somewhat mystified that behavior that is entirely normal in politics is being brought to light by many people as somehow evidence of dark tidings when the same thing is done by Trump. I'm all in favor of people becoming aware of the dark side of politics, but it seems strangely unsatisfying to me that people are doing so only because they don't like Trump. If that's really so then I'm thankful for him, because it means that if people were given satisfactory and standard candidates they'd go back to sleep, and I'll take controlled chaos before that any day.

[LetterRip]

Fenring,

he makes it more stark, generally the naked self interest is hidden behind some sort of plausibility and it is difficult to differentiate between merely questionable judgement and screwing over the public.  It isn't deeply surprising to me that there are such individuals in politics (after all, psychopaths are attracted to power), but the numbers are surprising.

[AI Wessex]

C'mon AI. Don't give me cookie cutter arguments, especially when they don't fit the thing I said. :-)

Making deals is making deals.  He's a one trick pony in that regard, and the only legacy he's created is a monument to his ego. Investing in that hasn't gotten anyone else much in the way of returns.  I would venture to guess that he'll end up with fewer legitimate endorsements than any other modern era GOP candidate.

[rightleft22]

Yes, I'm giving him credit. He's been running a highly effective campaign.

What I find troubling are those that would condone and give credit to methods that appear to get the job of ‘winning’ done without evaluating the methods and the seeds those methods are planting. 

In another thread I rather badly associated Trump to Mussolini.  My intent was not political comparison but a comparison in style, rhetoric and method. One just has to watch or listen to each to see how closely they mirror each other.

Another similarity is that Mussolini defined Fascism as he went along just Trump is defining ‘Trumpism’ a political ideology of ‘winning’. (Once can’t help wonder if Trumps holds to a narcissistic belief that if he Wins, America wins, what is good for Trump is good for America.  And sometimes if you watch him closely there are moments where I wonder if he’s not scaring himself – what if he wins does he really want the job or just the title and foot note in history??)

Mussolini was very effective, and for a time he was a ‘winner’ but today history would not give him or his methods much credit

[AI Wessex]

LR, I'm somewhat mystified that behavior that is entirely normal in politics is being brought to light by many people as somehow evidence of dark tidings when the same thing is done by Trump.

Saints need endorsements and supporters too, but what they offer their followers is a lot different from what Trump will tell those who sign up for him.  If he's the CEO of 500 corporations, self-styled entrepreneur extraordinaire and famous for making deals that let people use his name on their enterprises, what do you think those who endorse him will hope to get out of it?

[Fenring]

If he's the CEO of 500 corporations, self-styled entrepreneur extraordinaire and famous for making deals that let people use his name on their enterprises, what do you think those who endorse him will hope to get out of it?

Are you suggesting that (gasp) people might benefit from assisting a man who might become president of the U.S.? That's crazy talk! Aren't you the one who was arguing in favor of Hillary because you think she can get things done? Well this is how you get things done, but it seems you don't like it when it's a candidate you don't support.

It strikes me that people are more frightened of someone honest about participating in a corrupt system than they are about liars. Curious, that.

[AI Wessex]

No, I'm kind of drawing a comparison between the kinds of people who run for the office and make promises.  Saints are at one end and Trump is (IMO) nearer to the other. Hillary (gasp!) and most of the rest of humanity fall somewhere in between.

[JoshuaD]

Yes, I'm giving him credit. He's been running a highly effective campaign.

What I find troubling are those that would condone and give credit to methods that appear to get the job of ‘winning’ done without evaluating the methods and the seeds those methods are planting. 

As someone who finds politics fascinating, I am fascinated by Trump. He is playing the game very well, despite my expectation that he'd be long gone by today's date.

He understands the American public better than most people, it seems.

I hate his methods. They're dishonest and manipulative. I see a cheap used car salesman, but other people seem to see a savior. I don't understand that.

I think he's tapping into and amplifying really dangerous sentiments in this country. I think he's acting irresponsibly, and I think he would be a train wreck as a President.

All that being said, I'm don't think I should have to give the "I don't like Trump" disclaimer every time I say something relatively positive about him.

[LetterRip]

He has a very good understanding of the worst impulses of human nature.  The comparisons to Hitler (not as some sort of monster bent on extermination, but in skill in manipulating and appealing to those resentments and impulses) are very much spot on.

JoshuaD, agreed that one can admire or be impressed by his skill while abhoring his methods.

[JoshuaD]

Something that astounds me is how resistant his supporters are to even basic reason.

I had a guy, a middle class blue collar nice guy who is otherwise basically reasonable, say to me with a straight face that it doesn't matter if Trump tells his followers to be violent; they're adults and no one can control them.

He first tried denying Trump encouraged violence. Then he tried saying the left does it too. Finally, when I dealt with both of those, he came through with the above haymaker, and I tapped out.

It's just amazing. They like the guy for reasons of personality, and he gives them enough ammunition and confidence to be able to say nonsense with a straight face. They eat it up.

[NobleHunter]

LR, I'm afraid he's also like Hitler in that the upper echelons of his government will be a complete mess. Extreme responses will prosper because there's no one willing or capable to restrain subordinates with enthusiastic ideas about what Trump wants them to do.

[AI Wessex]

Generally on topic, I've heard numerous interviews with out-and-out racists who deny that they are.  They think they are just making the simple observation that everyone has a place in society, and blacks' place is not in elected office, and doesn't call for marrying whites or owning businesses.  It's just nature, y'all.  Goldwater's position against the CRA was the same as Rand Paul's, and I'm sure both would claim no animus and that "some of their friends" are black.

[JoshuaD]

LR, I'm afraid he's also like Hitler in that the upper echelons of his government will be a complete mess. Extreme responses will prosper because there's no one willing or capable to restrain subordinates with enthusiastic ideas about what Trump wants them to do.

I don't know. I get the sense that he knows how to setup an organization with clear lines of power and without the extreme fear and backstabbing you had in the Nazi party.

My thing with Trump isn't that he's incompetent or incapable. He's obviously competent and capable.

My thing is that he has never shown any moral convictions; he seems completely amoral. 

That can work in business. All you've got to do is follow the dollar.

I don't think it can work for the Presidency. The measurement of success isn't as easy, and I don't think he knows how to do it. In fact, I think he's particularly ill-equipped.

[NobleHunter]

I don't know. I get the sense that he knows how to setup an organization with clear lines of power and without the extreme fear and backstabbing you had in the Nazi party.

Point. Though I'm not sure that he'll want or bother to. Chaos and infighting will just give him more opportunities to exercise personal power.

[TheDrake]

I think too much gets made of Trumps bankruptcies. His companies have done very well overall, whether due to his own personal efforts or to the efforts of people working for him.

The one odd situation is Trump Entertainment Resorts, which filed for bankruptcy in 2001, 2004, 2009 and then a fourth time in 2014. If you can't make money on a casino...

The history is pretty interesting. Most of these were restructuring deals agreed to by the bondholders. Trump lost controlling interest in 2004, which makes it difficult to personally blame him for the later bankruptcies. As part of this deal, he basically paid off the bondholders with his own personal equity (about half).

Most of this stems from Trump when he rescued the Taj Mahal project from Resorts International, which was failing at the time. He only managed to complete the project using junk bonds to finance. The interest rates were massive, and it was in pretty bad disarray. This makes me think a lot of this was ego driven

Unlike many of his investments, TER was publicly traded from 2007 to 2012. It had a profitable year in 2006, but losses mounted with 2009 hitting hard. You might remember what was going on at that time, job losses and other economic hardship dropped gaming revenue by 14%.

So, when he talks about building a wall at billions of dollars, I understand why he wants Mexico to pay for it. Presumably, failing to get Mexico to invest in his plan, he would back off from that rather than issuing the US treasury equivalent to junk bonds.

[AI Wessex]

You can argue that with 500 (so-called) separate enterprises  under his belt a few would be expected to fail amid the vast number of successes.  I accept that, but a careful analysis of his business acumen is still in order.  Since he's cagey about releasing details and those details shift from one telling to the next, it's hard to get a handle on what he owns and how much accountability he bears for either successes or failures.  Time Magazine has a list of 10 of his failures, and other sites list the "top 16" or other collections.

Trump recently touted 4 of his successes to prove that Romney was wrong to attack his business genius.  He claimed they were all highly successful self-owned products (steak, wine, magazine, water) at a press conference.  First, it was bizarre that he used a press conference the day after big wins in primaries for an infomercial, but even more bizarre that the companies behind the products either aren't actually owned by him (wine) or failed years ago (steak - displayed steaks were purchased for the event), one for which he is a private-labeled re-seller (water), and one (magazine) isn't a product at all but a brochure.

Somebody please hand him the launch codes so he can put us out of our misery.

[TheDrake]

His infomercial WAS odd. He didn't actually pick those products as the best representatives, he was responding directly to them being pointed out and trying (failing) to say they were great.

Then there's the ones that are at least borderline fraudulent, like Trump University.

Some true examples of his acumen, from the wiki (as you note, its odd that the press doesn't have articles detailing his successes):

Trump World Tower made $290 million in profit.
Trump golf courses and resorts generate $200 million in cash flow.
His investments in Boeing, BofA, and Facebook netted over $14 million, as part of profiting on 40 of 45 stocks that he owned between 2011 and 2014.
He somehow made $1.1 million in men's wear licensing.
Miss Universe nets him $3.4 million annually.

The question is, does making a lot of money qualify you as a candidate for President? I say it can, depending on the character of your work. So I look at things like how he has used eminent domain and agrees with the Kelo decision that says the government can use eminent domain to take land from property owners and then hand it over to private enterprise, (i.e. Trump)

I look at him suing people for defamation, and wanting to change law to do more of that. That isn't a person I'd want to do business with. Look at all the trashy stuff that's been written about Gates or Jobs or Iacocca. I look at his reaction to foolishness, like the "tiny hands" thing. He seems thin-skinned and too concerned about his ego or image to be a great CEO or a great President. What will happen when the cabinet (or his CFO) challenges his opinion?

How does he treat his employees?

After she joined Donald Trump’s real estate business, Louise Sunshine struggled to maintain a steady weight while managing her new career alongside the busy schedules of three young children.

Trump must have noticed, Sun­shine said. She recalled that he kept an unflattering photograph of her in a drawer — a “fat picture,” as she called it — that he would pull out when she did something he didn’t like.

Now, the person in question actually says she valued him as a mentor. To each their own. To me, this is a horrible sign of disrespect. How will he treat generals who tell him its not such a good idea to bomb terrorists families or torture prisoners?

What else? He doesn't let employees participate in 401k plans until they have been with the company for a full year. And there is no employer match until six years. As well, there is no automatic enrollment. What does this say about how he will guide social security programs? link

[Pyrtolin]

Mebbe, but if he had invested his inheritance ($200M) in the S&P 500 when he got it, he'd have more money today than he does from his lifetime of making deals and no bankruptcies.

Would he have all of the contacts, resources, power, and influence, or just a stack of cash? You don't exactly make waves by letting money ride in an index fund, and productive wealth is, fundamentally, a measure of all the non-financial resources taht one has at ones command to produce things or get things done.

[Pyrtolin]

You can argue that with 500 (so-called) separate enterprises  under his belt a few would be expected to fail amid the vast number of successes.

You're mistaking the success of the company with whether or not he walks away with more money/wealth in the aftermath. Killing a company after draining it of what little value it has left and getting as many other people to eat the costs of the loss as you cvan that aren't you is a success by our current corporate/business environment. He doesn't even have ii have made the money himself to come out ahead- if he ensured that a handful of peopel that he wants to be able to cash in favors with in the future come out a head, such that he now has leverage over them, then he's come out a head, even if it looks like he took a loss on paper.

[Pyrtolin]

First, it was bizarre that he used a press conference the day after big wins in primaries for an infomercial, but even more bizarre that the companies behind the products either aren't actually owned by him (wine) or failed years ago (steak - displayed steaks were purchased for the event), one for which he is a private-labeled re-seller (water), and one (magazine) isn't a product at all but a brochure.

Ho much did that stunt cost him vs how much trying to buy an equivalent amount of media coverage? Especially when you consider that he was showcases stuff taht his businesses already buy under contract, not things that he needed to work out a specific purchase for in order to stage the event.

He's a con man, and knows just how to run a con that's putting PT Barnum to shame. It's amazing to watch once you put aside that our natural political future is up for grabs in this particular game.

Keep in mind that, at the moment, he's playing to an audience that's been conditioned to suspect and outright deny the general media. So if he can get that media to call him out and keep attacking him for doing crazy things, he actually _raises_ himself in the esteem of his target audience. He becomes the shining example of just what they've been told all along about how the media is out to smear the peopel looking out for their best interests.

This is the long running GOP "Liberal media" smear coming home to roost in a way taht they can't unwind quickly enough to mitigate, since it's now being turned against them and their attempts to try to expose him.

[AI Wessex]

Would he have all of the contacts, resources, power, and influence, or just a stack of cash? You don't exactly make waves by letting money ride in an index fund, and productive wealth is, fundamentally, a measure of all the non-financial resources taht one has at ones command to produce things or get things done.

Is he smarter than the average bear?  Having done (in theory) less well than your hibernating conservative investor, I wouldn't say his high-wire act is a sign of a particular talent; more that he loves traipsing across the chasm shouting "Look at me!".  No Wallenda, he.

You're mistaking the success of the company with whether or not he walks away with more money/wealth in the aftermath. Killing a company after draining it of what little value it has left and getting as many other people to eat the costs of the loss as you cvan that aren't you is a success by our current corporate/business environment. He doesn't even have ii have made the money himself to come out ahead- if he ensured that a handful of peopel that he wants to be able to cash in favors with in the future come out a head, such that he now has leverage over them, then he's come out a head, even if it looks like he took a loss on paper.

Suggesting that he would apply his skills in the business of greed to the politics of greed.

This is the long running GOP "Liberal media" smear coming home to roost in a way taht they can't unwind quickly enough to mitigate, since it's now being turned against them and their attempts to try to expose him.

I can't figure out what exactly is happening here.  There's some of what you say, some of the lizard-brain impulses he flushes out of his supporters, some legitimate anger at the establishment and a lot of manufactured anger that is the legacy of 50 years of GOP attempts to undermine anything that doesn't fit the Conservative brand.

Ramble/on
Newt Gingrich was as big a con man as Trump, but focused his attention on political ambitions more than commercial ones.  Bush II was the most incompetent President in 150 years, but was elected twice.  In 2008,  McCain picked a backwoods hillbilly as his running mate, and she is *still* popular in Republican circles.  In 2012 Herman Cain, Constitutional illiterate pizza magnate, at one point led in the primary cycle. This year we have Trump and Cruz, where Cruz hinted he might appoint Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty as UN Ambassador, presumably after he abolishes 5 federal agencies, though he can only remember the names of 4, which is better than the 3 federal agencies Rick Perry, then the leading contender for the nomination, couldn't name four years ago.

Things are far more rational on the Democratic Party side, even if you don't like what they say they will do and don't trust them, either.  Clinton is trying to build on her political brand, which is a plausible platform that is far better than that of any GOP candidate, even if she is not nearly as pure of heart as Bernie.

There's just too much to hate in today's politics, way more than I can wrap my mind around.  At least in the old days, you had one idol and one demon and everybody knew exactly where they stood in relation to them.  Now we have people in the same Party saying and doing irrational things. Mitt Romney, pretending he is somehow more principled than Trump trashes him and endorses Cruz, or maybe Kasich, or is maybe looking to steal the deal at the convention. Lindsay Graham calls Cruz poison and then endorses him.  Jeb Bush raises his head from his political death bed to endorse Cruz, saying that however godawful he would be as President he wouldn't be nearly as bad as Trump.  The Republican Party itself is trying to undermine its leading candidate, hinting that will hold its nose and support the most hated man in the GOP, grimacing as they call him "principled", realizing how dismal their choices and prospects are for the election.

If this is an orderly world, Clinton should win the election by 20 points, and I do think she will win but by a much smaller margin against whoever the GOP puts up to face her.  Then we have to live with and somehow recover from the damage done to all of us.

Disramble...

[cherrypoptart]

Why are those against Trump worried about him being dishonest so much?

Do you not believe he will build that wall and make Mexico pay for it and then deport millions of illegals?

Do you not believe he will try to better vet Muslims from hostile countries before letting them into America?

Do you not believe he will at least have a go at birthright citizenship?

The thing that scares me most about Trump is that he won't do what he is promising, but it doesn't scare me very much because frankly nobody else would do it either and in fact they say they won't so there is zero chance they will get anything useful done whereas with Trump at least there is a chance he will try. Trump is a can't lose proposition. And if you do think he's lying that should give you comfort because you don't want him to do any of that stuff anyway.

In my opinion, if those three things are the only three things that Trump gets accomplished during his Presidency he will have accomplished more to secure the future of America than the past ten Presidents accomplished put together. One thing I will say about the vetting of Muslims coming into America is that of course it shouldn't just apply to them but to everyone coming here. Nobody should be allowed into our country unless we know who they are, where they are from, and what is their purpose. So what if Trump doesn't get any of this done? Well if he fails then he fails. As I said we will be no worse off than we would be with anybody else because no one can succeed without the intention to even try.

Here is something for you Al about Trump's inheritance: https://www.quora.com/Did-Donald-Trump-inherit-a-lot-of-money-and-then-increase-his-net-worth-at-an-unremarkable-rate. So you do have a good point but if he had done that he never would have learned the art of the deal and wouldn't be running for President to make America great again. I think it's fair to say he had more fun doing it his way.

[AI Wessex]

Trump is a can't lose proposition. And if you do think he's lying that should give you comfort because you don't want him to do any of that stuff anyway.

I think he's a can't win proposition, because he is promising (PROMISING) to do radical things that there is almost no chance will happen.  It gives me great discomfort to think that a loose cannon will be firing the shots either domestically or internationally.  What if he points out that Angela Merkel is almost as ugly as Ted Cruz's wife?  At a state dinner would he try to sell Francois Hollande Trump wine instead of something drinkable - Merde!!

So you do have a good point but if he had done that he never would have learned the art of the deal and wouldn't be running for President to make America great again.

If only!  If only!

[NobleHunter]

His dishonesty is worrisome because it makes it impossible to know what he'll actually do. For all Clinton's dishonesty, her goals are reasonably easy to figure out.

[Gary238]

The Trump phenomenon scares and disturbs me. The thing that bothers me about the opportunistic endorsements of mainstream republicans is that they lend credence to Trump's overt appeals to xenophobia and anger.

He has a ton of experience manipulating public opinion, and he's a skillful wheeler and dealer. His business history is about building his own brand, manuvering so that his partners and employees bear the lion's share of the risk, and feeding his own ego.

I don't know where the act stops and the real motives begin, but I've seen no indication of any sort of principles anywhere in the picture. Picturing that impulsive, ego driven posturing from the helm of the world's most capable military scares me. I don't know what Trumps motivations would be as president, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't put up with being made to look weak while holding the biggest stick in the room. I'm sure he's more sophisticated than he's letting on, but I don't have any idea how much more sophisticated.

[D.W.]

The dishonesty doesn't bother me.  It's that he is giving people license to behave poorly and act offensively and labeling it as being a winner, or patriotic, or just honest.  And people seem more eager than I would have guessed to take him up on that offer.

On top of that, he can't make good on his promises.  Nothing new there, but instead of the low simmer of excitement which tends to end up flaming out in disappointment he's working people up to more of a frenzy.  What happens when this crowd is let down?  What happens when Trump (wholly incapable of accepting responsibility for failure) points them at a scapegoat and says, "There!  Those are the ones who are in OUR way!"?

A dishonest politician is nothing to get worked up over... sadly.  Trump is something else.

[Greg Davidson]

The interesting scenario for deal-making would be a contested convention, because there is literally no law or rule that says that Trump can't bribe delegates. Many (but not all) are committed to vote a certain way on the first ballot, but after that, it's on them. He could buy votes at $1 million/delegate and there is nothing to stop them from taking the money.

[Gary238]

...and if you vote for me, you drive away in... A BRAND NEW TRUCK!!!

Trump channeling Oprah from the mic to secure the nomination would just put the cherry on the top of the whole surreal mess.

[Fenring]

The interesting scenario for deal-making would be a contested convention, because there is literally no law or rule that says that Trump can't bribe delegates. Many (but not all) are committed to vote a certain way on the first ballot, but after that, it's on them. He could buy votes at $1 million/delegate and there is nothing to stop them from taking the money.

Maybe you can explain to me how this is different from how the Democrat unpledged superdelegates work. 

[Pyrtolin]

The superdelegates make no bones about nominally being for sale at the start?

Or you can go the other way and say that while they initially appear to be free agents and can use that to manipulate perception, they ultimately line up behind the party and make sure that it looks like there's a wide margin in favor of the favorite candidate.

[AI Wessex]

The latter is the most likely scenario.  They are lining up behind a winner, since they get nothing for picking the loser.  As to Trump buying delegates, I find the suggestions here amusing partly because it give confirmation to my bias that he will lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants, and partly because it would be *very* interesting to watch play out.

OTOH, everyone keeps looking for him to jump the shark.  Calling Cruz's wife ugly does nothing for him and a lot for Cruz.  Imagine, if you can, feeling sympathy for Ted Cruz.  Trump has made the unthinkable thinkable.

[Pyrtolin]

OTOH, everyone keeps looking for him to jump the shark.  Calling Cruz's wife ugly does nothing for him and a lot for Cruz.  Imagine, if you can, feeling sympathy for Ted Cruz.  Trump has made the unthinkable thinkable.

Just the opposite. Attacking Cruz's wife can't hurt him, because he's already established that there are no depths to which he won't sink, but it pushes Cruz's buttons and increases the odds of him messing up in a self destructive way, as did Rubio before him. Trump can't fall any lower, but Cruz has some semblance of dignity that he can lose, and he'll lose votes right along with it.

[D.W.]

Which appears to be happening today.  The dignity.  We'll have to wait and see on the votes.

[Fenring]

To be fair the tussle about their respective wives began with Cruz firing shots and Trump firing back, with Cruz of course losing out in the volley. It's wasn't an unprovoked attack by Trump this time.

[AI Wessex]

Attacking Cruz's wife can't hurt him, because he's already established that there are no depths to which he won't sink

That's what the Fonz thought.

[Pete at Home]

Trump has a long history of attacking his opponent's wife. 

See, e.g.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/donald_trump_has_one_core_philosophy_misogyny.html

"But Trump’s primary method for asserting dominance was sex. The school’s yearbook—the perfectly named Shrapnel—anointed him the official “ladies man” of the class. He began his lifelong practice of advertising his bedroom exploits as a means of demonstrating his authority over the rest of the locker room. Decades later, he’s still trumpeting his sexual exploits. When Tucker Carlson once mocked him on air, Trump called the pundit and left a voicemail: “It’s true you have better hair than I do. But I get more pussy than you do.”

Such boasting is an essential part of his patter. In 2001, he phoned into The Howard Stern Show to discuss his feats of cuckoldry. The occasion for the call was the guest appearance of a gossip columnist from the Daily News named A.J. Benza, who was shilling for his book, Fame, Ain’t It a Bitch. The tome included the admission that Benza’s girlfriend had left him for Trump. Most men who would go on to become major-party nominees would have run in the other direction from such a spectacle; Trump couldn’t resist. “I’ve been successful with your girlfriend, I’ll tell you that,” Trump told Stern’s audience. “While you were getting onto the plane to go to California thinking that she was your girlfriend, she was some place that you wouldn’t have been very happy with.” It was characteristic bit of braggadocio. As he wrote in The Art of the Comeback: “If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller.”* It’s an entirely Darwinian view, where the alpha male has his pick of females, both as a perk and a means of flexing his power over lesser men. It’s the mindset that made his assertion of his penis size in a national debate almost an imperative—if he let the attack on his manhood slide, his entire edifice might crumble."

[Pete at Home]

OTOH, Mrs. Cruz does say some things that should give concern ...

[AI Wessex]

We know that Trump is obsessed with people thinking his fingers are short and the apparently obvious implication of that severe corporeal malady.  I heard a story on NPR back when it was a hot topic for Rubio and Trump at one of the debates with two reporters who had started that as a joke back in the 80's.  Trump jumped all over them for saying that and followed up at least ONCE A YEAR for years and years afterward reminding them that he had no problem in that or any related department.  He is one deeply disturbed little man (not short, but little - I can't remember the literary character who went on a murderous rampage to prove his "size" because someone had (correctly) pointed out that he was short).  For people who measure their importance - literally - by the size of their dick, there is no salvation, just never-ending attempts to prove an unprovable and meaningless fact.

Trump gets smaller and smaller every time he talks about how big he is...

[cherrypoptart]

I don't agree with what Trump and Cruz supporters and perhaps even the candidates themselves are doing to each others' wives but let's not pretend that Obama is any better after what he did to Seven of Nine. Of course that's a story the media will never tell you.

[Fenring]

I don't agree with what Trump and Cruz supporters and perhaps even the candidates themselves are doing to each others' wives but let's not pretend that Obama is any better after what he did to Seven of Nine. Of course that's a story the media will never tell you.

Damn, I had to Google this because I had no idea. I quickly found details on her separation from her husband, but what did Obama 'do to her'?

[Pete at Home]

Cherry, do you have a more credible source for Obama being the mover on Jeri Ryan's court docs, ... more credible than say, Ann Coulter?

[AI Wessex]

Why do we need a more credible source?  Obama benefited from it, so he is a lying, cheating, scandal-mongering cheating - did I say that already? - depraved, uh, lying, this is all you know need to know to know what he is.  Remember, he's lying, yeah.  Vote for Trump, because Obama!

[Fenring]

To be fair the docs illustrated the Jack Ryan was kind of scumbaggy, so even if nefarious motives motivated the release of the docs what they revealed was still the truth.