Browse By

When Does Anti-Trump Equal Anti-Freedom?

I was disturbed to read in the news today that, yet again, an anti-Trump protester at a public forum featuring Donald Trump was viciously assaulted by a Trump supporter. But I was equally disturbed to read another account in the news today of two instances — one in Tucson and one in Phoenix — in which “protesters” created blockades with their bodies (and, in Phoenix, with pickup trucks) to prevent other Americans from attending pro-Trump forums.

When Anti-Trump Equals Anti-FreedomThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution places freedom of speech and freedom of peaceable assembly at the center of our nation’s culture of civic democracy. People who accuse Donald Trump of being oppressive in one moment  and in the next moment act to prevent their neighbors from attending a political rally lack a sense of irony and a sense of moral consistency. I put the word “protesters” in quotation marks here, because people who make it their primary object to obstruct others’ rights aren’t really protesters in their acts.  Protest is an act that is primarily expressing a political idea.  But the goal of these so-called “protesters” is not to express their own vision — it is to prevent other human beings from expressing theirs.  That makes them obstructionists, agitators, provocateurs, and bullies.  They are mob-empowered oppressors.

On top of all that, such “protesters” lack a sense of strategy.  Is the goal really to stop people from being able to attend a rally?  Or perhaps to intimidate Donald Trump into shutting up? Either goal is profoundly misguided.  It’s not like the people who were blocked from seeing Trump couldn’t hear him some other way, after all — and has anyone been able to actually shut up Donald Trump?  No.  The man is many things, but inclined to retreat into silence when confronted? No. If anything, the act of being stymied from speaking will infuriate Donald Trump into speaking more loudly than ever.  Meanwhile, the people who were blocked from assembling to listen to Donald Trump will only stiffen their support for Trump as a result, solidifying the sense of victimhood among Trump’s supporters who will even more strongly hate the gays, the Mexicans, the dark-skinned people of the world, the non-Christians, everyone who is not like them, because they will have a story to hold on to, a story of the day when The Scary Other took away their right to free speech.  You can bet your boots they’ll turn out ever more strongly to vote for Donald Trump now. They’ll rile up their friends to do the same with nasty (and in this limited case justified) tales of being oppressed by mean liberals and feminazis who took away their rights.

Listen up, you Trump rally blockaders.  Open your ears for a second, you “We Stopped Trump!”  chanters: the goal is not to shut down Trump rallies.  The goal is not to prevent people from attending Trump’s rallies.  Or at least it shouldn’t be, because that’s not only brutish and counterproductive but also really short-sighted.  The goal is to STOP TRUMP… FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT.  The way to do that is to stop driving people into Trump’s arms.  The way to do that is to stop making anti-Trump equal anti-freedom.  The way to do that is to try to change people’s minds.

Protest, yes.  March, absolutely. But do it to speak and amplify your voice — not to stymie and shut others’ voices down.  You speaking, and others speaking, and you convincing more people to agree with you is how elections are won.  More participation, more discussion, more inclusion is how demagoguery is diffused and defused. That’s how disasters like a Trump presidency are avoided. That’s how positive change happens.

31 thoughts on “When Does Anti-Trump Equal Anti-Freedom?”

  1. ella says:

    And in Utah, a beheading in effigy of Trump. Don’t you believe this is more than just “protests”? There is a concerted effort, including threatening the lives of the candidates family, to run Trump out of the Campaign. A systematic attempt to intimidate his supporters with fear for their property and lives, and maybe livelihoods. Who is paying for the professionals that are leading this violation of first amendment rights, against the rights of American citizens to vote their own conscience? Who is using South American tactics to rig an election and what do these professionals have to gain from it? Who are their overlords?

    1. J Clifford says:

      Okay, you make a lot of sense, Ella, until you start talking about “South American tactics to rig an election” and “overlords”. That’s the point at which you veer off into fanciful speculation.

      1. ella says:

        Truly, the South American and Overlords is fanciful speculation. Well, speculation. Considering the type of behavior that is being displayed though, it is realistically a lot like some South American elections, minus the soldiers standing around with guns, or the shootings – well then there is Chicago. When did America become so totally like a third world country? Or is this what it takes to get the people to come out of hiding, wake up and realize that what is going on is effecting their lives – now? IT appears that Washington politicians are desperate, disproportionately so, to make sure no one finds out what they have really been doing. Or maybe that no one messes up their get rich schemes? Like Obama’s current get a last year raise in pay plus increased retirement benefits and pay. Really? That is so disgusting. The taxpayers will have to foot any increase in the pay of any Washington politician, when those same elected “representatives” have run the nation into the deepest national debt in history. The CBO, several years ago, said they could cut the national debt by 3 Trillions dollars without touching any entitlement. But that was rejected by the Congressional body and this year they have signed into law a cut in Social Security benefits. The picture shows them laughing along with the President as he signs it into law. Third World all the way to the top.

  2. Charles Manning says:

    Jim Cook, your observations are right on target. I’m disappointed that Bernie Sanders hasn’t said what you’re saying, at least not in any media reports I’ve seen.

    1. ella says:

      I’m disappointed that know one has noted that the black man who assaulted the protester was also arrested and none of it had anything to do with the Presidential candidate – other than the protester was somehow allowed into the venue. I am disappointed that incendiary media is perpetuating these events to get media coverage, ratings, by agree with the protesters and blaming the Candidate. I am disappointed that one candidate, because he is Republican, and the front runner, is being targeted by media. I am disappointed that it has not been more loudly noted that protesters at Democrat rallies have not been mentioned past the early ones at Bernie Sanders rallies. Why? Because they are not allowed in Democratic rallies. Because only a few selected people are allowed at Democratic rallies. And for the most part at Republican rallies. Only Donald Trump’s rallies include all people – even the drug addicts, the extremist Democrats and Republicans, those who both agree and disagree with him. With so many people with different views in the same area, it still takes professional agitators to cause violence and disruptions. But is that pointed out – no and who is benefiting? Democrats, and doesn’t that just tell a long story? I used to be a Democrat, this third world mentality is why I changed.

  3. Korky Day says:

    Yes, Charles Manning, Bernie Sanders should say Jim Cook’s point.
    If neither he nor Hillary Clinton does, then maybe they don’t deserve to be president.

    I’ve been writing here for months that criticising Donald Trump unfairly is a bad and ineffective tactic, for the same reasons Cook writes.

    Yet Cook himself violates that by writing the unfair criticism ‘Trump’s supporters who will even more strongly hate the gays, the Mexicans, the dark-skinned people of the world, the non-Christians’. Trump never encourages them to hate thusly. Naturally, some of them will do so because they are Republicans, but Trump himself never encourages those feelings because he’s a centrist populist. I have successfully argued thus in many comment threads here in Irregular Times, refuting all such false accusations as much as I’ve noticed.

    You want to defeat Trump? Then don’t block his rallies and don’t falsely accuse him.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      There’s the difference between you and me, Korky. You identified it in a nutshell: I think it’s fine to criticize Donald Trump, even when Korky Day decides that criticism is “unfair,” and believe that such criticism fulfills our traditions of civic democracy. It’s up to people to decide what’s true and what’s not on the basis of substantiation. You think that people should stop criticizing Donald Trump when their criticisms don’t meet your limited standards, and I don’t agree with that.

      If you haven’t picked up on Donald Trump’s bigoted talk, then you must have an amazing filter between his mouth and your ear. Please get it cleaned every three months.

      1. Korky Day says:

        Many of your claims are unfounded, Jim Cook.
        I always ask you for examples, then I refute your examples, then you say I have limited standards.
        Yes, let the reader judge. Your unfairness (like that of most of Trump’s opponents) just drives people to vote for Donald Trump.
        You said he’s anti-gay. What did he say anti-gay?

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Item: Donald Trump declares he will only nominate Supreme Court justices approved of by the Heritage Foundation… which wants to take away the right of gay couples to marry.

          Item: Donald Trump interview, August 2015: ““I have been against [same-sex marriage] from the standpoint of the Bible, from the standpoint of my teachings as growing up and going to Sunday school and going to church, and I’ve been opposed to it, and we’ll just see how it all comes out. But, you know, if I was ever in that position I’d just have to explain it.”

          Item: Donald Trump interview with the New York Times, May 2011: “At one point, he compared his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage to his reluctance to use a new kind of putter: ‘It’s like in golf. A lot of people — I don’t want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.'”

          1. Korky Day says:

            Thanks for your research, Jim Cook.
            You’re right.

            However, Donald Trump has left himself lots of wiggle room there.
            Cagey politician.
            Being against gay marriage personally doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll oppose it legally.
            He might tolerate it as he does long putters (Freud, come back!).
            He knows he needs to comfort the homophobes to get the nomination, but not to win the general.
            He has gay friends, he says.
            The Heritage Foundation thing is bad, I admit. Hadn’t heard of that.

            However, if it’s just a state issue, the Supreme Court may never get involved.
            Trump is well aware that these anti-woman, anti-gay issues (abortion, marriage) aren’t going to help him in the general election. He’s obviously just going through the motions to appease religious numb-skulls.
            Nevertheless, yes, I concede, he’s publicly anti-gay.

            Similarly, he’s anti-woman, but only on abortion, not in any other way.
            His main issues are jobs, prosperity, and reducing violence in the USA and in the world.
            On those, he probably will win the election.

            The only way to beat him is to help Bernie Sanders get the nomination.
            Either of those 2 would be great for the USA.

  4. Korky Day says:

    I heard on CBC radio this morning Hillary Clinton accusing Donald Trump of not being pro-Israel enough.
    Even CBC didn’t get the point that Trump makes that no matter how pro-Israel you are, you must be neutral when negotiating a peace treaty.

    That makes me gravitate more strongly to Trump because he understands negotiation. Hillary Clinton doesn’t (or pretends not to).
    Bernie Sanders (a Jew) should be publicly agreeing with Trump on this.

  5. Korky Day says:

    One of the best short articles about Donald Trump, with which I mostly agree:

    Who’s Afraid of Donald Trump? by Scott Adams (Dilbert author)
    March 24, 2016 in #trump
    For new readers:
    I have already disavowed Donald Trump for being scary. And by that I mean he scares my fellow citizens, which I find unacceptable.
    My policy views don’t line up with any of the candidates’ positions, including Trump’s. I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party. I try to avoid identifying with any political label because doing so would make me biased and less credible.
    My interest in Trump is his persuasion skills. I have never seen better.

    A Donald Trump presidency might offer a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fire the government of the United States.
    Whatever that means.
    If you support Trump, you probably think it means he will remove the influence of big money and make common-sense decisions based on good advice. That sounds like a good thing.
    If you are anti-Trump, you probably fear he will acquire too much control and become a crazy racist dictator who declares war on China. For the record, I think that would be a bad thing.
    So how would you assess the risk/reward of a Trump presidency? I’ll help you put the question in context, then you decide.
    Sizing the Risk
    As President of the United States, Trump would be both powerful and unpredictable. Trump often says he is intentionally unpredictable because it gives him an advantage in negotiating. The combination of power and unpredictability should scare you. And apparently it does scare a lot of people. As risks go, it doesn’t get much bigger.
    But as I learned in school, you can’t compare something to nothing. You need to compare the risk of a Trump presidency to the alternatives. And that alternative is probably a Clinton presidency that is not too different from the current presidency.
    So how risky would “more of the same” be?
    Budget-wise, we are probably on the road to ruin. The more-of-the-same president is unlikely to stop the special interests and big money players from bloating the budget to the point of crushing debt.
    Nor would we have any reason to expect the economy to have any extra zip under a more-of-the-same scenario. So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
    And once the economy dies, we all die. So as risks go, “more of the same” might be the highest risk of all. The only way we would escape economic doom under the more-of-the-same scenario is for some unpredictable future event to change our direction in a positive way. Is that likely?
    Trump, on the other hand, is an unpredictable future event that can change just about anything, as we have already learned. So in terms of economic risk, Clinton is a path to probable budget doom whereas Trump can go either way.
    As far as I can tell, homeland security seems effective under President Obama, at least in terms of preventing Belgium-sized attacks. But we have a growing risk from terrorists disguised as immigrants from the middle east. There’s no way to assess that risk because we don’t know how well the vetting process in this country works. But if we assume the people doing the vetting are no more competent than your coworkers, reach your own conclusions about that risk.
    Trump adds risk to the world by suggesting a temporary end to Muslim immigration. That rubs a billion people the wrong way. It might spark violence and it might worsen the country’s reputation. The tradeoff for that risk is (Trump hopes) a lower risk of terrorists reaching our soil.
    How do you balance those risks?
    If you think Trump is a racist, his proposal of a Muslim immigration ban looks like the beginning of something terrible. But if you believe Trump is totally transparent about sacrificing “political correctness” for national security, it just looks like aggressive risk management.
    Your Psychic Abilities
    If you are sure you know how a Trump presidency would play out, ask yourself how often you have been right about this sort of thing in the past. Humans are notoriously terrible at predicting the future. Consider the fact that almost no human can pick stocks that will outperform the index no matter how much information is available. That should give you some humility.
    Some of you are not aware that financial advice is mostly a scam. Experts can’t pick winning stocks any better than a monkey with a dart board. I learned that fact when I got my B.A. in economics. I learned it a second time when I got my MBA at the Haas School of Business at Berkeley. And I learned it a third time when I ignored everything I learned in school and tried to pick stocks.
    But now I’m fairly sure I can’t pick stocks.
    If you can pick winning stocks year after year, then you might have some unusual ability to see the future. If I ever meet you, I will take seriously your predictions about a Trump presidency. And I also want some stock tips.
    Okay, okay. I realize stocks and humans are different. But ask yourself how often you thought a relationship would go one way and it went the other. And look around at your fellow citizens who are divorced or unhappy in their relationships. How good are we at predicting the future of other people?
    Have you ever been involved in hiring? I have. I’ve hired lots of people for lots of things over the years. I have also partnered with lots of folks for lots of things. And I can assure you I was surprised most of those times. No matter how much information I think I have, people still surprise me.
    Now look around at your idiot coworkers and ask yourself how well your boss makes hiring decisions.
    If you get a chance, ask the smartest venture capitalist or angel investor how they spot a winning startup. The answer is that they are all guessing. No one knows what the future holds.
    Humans are terrible at predicting the future. We are also terrible at knowing we can’t do it. Ask yourself if you are the rare exception.
    Rising Racial Tensions
    A Trump presidency might raise racial tensions and increase the odds of violence. I think most observers would agree that Trump is gaming the primary process by doing the dog-whistle racism strategy. He is transparent about being flexible in how he wins, so long as he wins. Here Trump appears to be making a conscious decision to increase the risks of racial tensions in order to protect the homeland, both economically and physically.
    Is that moral? Definitely not. Is it a good tradeoff in terms of risk? We don’t know. Ask Belgium.
    Bad Role Model
    Some say Trump is a bad role model for our children, with his rude language, his insults, his political incorrectness, and his inability to admit wrong.
    Other people say that if your kid is using Trump as a role model, you have failed as a parent.
    Trump isn’t running as a role model for your kids. He hasn’t even tried to make that case. Apparently that is a low priority for him. He’s more about national security and the economy. So while it is fair to ding Trump for the role model problem, you have to ask yourself where “role model for my kid” lands on your list of national priorities.
    Trump Talks Crazy so He Must be Crazy
    Trump talks crazy. He says water is dry and up is down except when it is up. His budget is nonsense and his policies seem to shift on a daily basis.
    That sounds unstable.
    But Trump also has nearly seventy years of track record that says he isn’t crazy or unstable in any way. The man has never had a drug or a drink. He has been appropriately hesitant to go to war and he has never stabbed anyone in the belt buckle.
    How many people change their character when they get to seventy? None, unless they have mental problems. The smart money says Trump is whatever he has always been.
    And what he has always been is a guy who wrote a book on how to be unpredictable to win negotiations. He’s doing just that, and completely transparent about it. He says he is stirring up controversy to get free television time. And we observe that to be true.
    Trump might have suddenly turned crazy at the same time that acting crazy was exactly the right strategy to win the Republican primary. But you have to ask yourself how big of a coincidence that would be.
    And Trump has already shown he can pretend to be presidential on command. That tells you he presents whatever vision of himself gets the best result.
    Trump is a Con Artist and a Narcissist
    What you call a con artist, Trump calls negotiating. I call it persuasion. And we all call it politics. It’s all the same thing. Trump just does it better than his opponents.
    And that’s exactly the skill he is offering to the country. The president’s job is to persuade people. He needs to persuade Congress, voters, and the rest of the world about all sorts of things. He needs to negotiate, cajole, and lead.
    You can call persuasion manipulation. You can call negotiating conning. But don’t lose sight of the fact we ask our president to do exactly those things.
    But what about Trump’s narcissism? Is that a risk?
    Maybe. But I have trouble seeing how he could feed his ego without doing a good job as president. Trump is proposing we staple his reputation to the reputation of the country. I can’t see a scenario in which he screws the country and thinks it will work out well for him personally. That would be more crazy than narcissistic.
    Those Business Failures
    Trump had a number of bankruptcies and failed businesses. By way of context, I have over thirty business failures on my record. Far more if you count Dilbert licensees. A typical startup has about a 10% chance of making it. Trump is entrepreneurial by nature, so you should expect a high number of failures. The number of failures don’t tell you anything.
    To judge Trump’s business skill, look for how he managed his personal risk. And apparently he did that well. The bankruptcies protected his personal assets, and his license deals probably pay him a guaranteed advance no matter how well the licensee does. In other words, he made good deals that gave him a big upside but not much downside.
    You might have seen estimates from experts saying Trump would be richer if he had simply put his inheritance millions into a stock index fund. But I believe those calculations ignore what he spends, gives to ex-wives, etc. I wouldn’t trust them.
    When to Accept Higher Risk
    Generally speaking, you want to avoid risks (such as Trump) when things are going well, and you want to invite the right kind of risk when things are not. For example, if you think the budget of the United States will reverse course and balance itself before we are broke, you probably don’t want the extra risk of a Trump presidency. Likewise, if you think there is no real risk from having porous borders, you don’t want the risks of a Trump presidency.
    But if you think the government is broken, and you want to send a wrecking ball to Washington D.C., Trump offers that possibility. We just don’t know what else he offers because we can’t see the future.

    If this blog post seems too long, you would hate my book. It is even longer than this.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Synopsis: don’t take the man seriously when he says he would do immoral, outrageous things, do take him seriously when it makes him look good, imagine he could possibly change his tune, ignore the finger on the nuclear button problem entirely, and buy Scott Adams’ book while you’re at it.

      What could possibly go wrong with this excellent plan?

      1. Korky Day says:

        I think Donald Trump is very moral, especially compared to the other candidates. He thinks (and maybe he’s right) that if the USA stops torturing and killing civilians, what incentive is there for the ‘enemy’ to stop that and worse?

        Trump could impress us all and clinch the election if he said he planned to make that offer to the enemy: ‘We’ll stop if you’ll stop.’ That would be genius. We’ll see if he measures up between now and November. He’s learning the ropes of being a politician.

        Besides, if you think Hillary would be more moral, you’ve been hornswoggled.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          At a basic definitional level, what you describe as Donald Trump’s approach is not moral — deciding to do or not do on the basis of values. It is amoral — values be damned, I will do what I think will accomplish the best result for me or my side in a conflict.

          1. Korky Day says:

            True, Jim Cook, but what Donald Trump says is no LESS moral than war itself.

        2. Charles Manning says:

          I see Trump as completely lacking moral sense. His comments about torture, discriminating against Muslims and other groups, his lies — all this shows a basic lack of morality. He even morally devalues his own supporters by accusing them of being inclined to commit violence against innocent persons if he doesn’t get nominated or elected, and corrupts them by encouraging them to commit violence against anti-Trump protesters. I respect his humanity, but at the same time recognize that he’s a real low-lifer.

          1. ella says:

            Oh, Charles Manning! You know better. Trump has simply read the cards right and it is recognized by law enforcement and others. Protesters have caused a violent atmosphere at Trump rallies. Someone started a violent anti-Trump movement and Trump has supporters not easily intimidated or frightened by bullies who want to steal their rights. Of course it was obvious that if the most popular candidate was denied his respective place there will be a violent reaction. It has all played out before at other conventions, though usually it has been Democratic conventions.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            That’s not precisely true. The anti-Trump movement has engaged in civil disobedience (and I don’t agree with their “Trump shouldn’t speak message”), but violence has largely been coming from pro-Trump members of crowds, not from anti-Trump protesters.

          3. ella says:

            Have you watched what the protesters do? A shoulder bump after a nasty insult, and hand gesture. Granted that would not incite me to violence, but loud insults do tend to aggravate the macho type of males. And how mush “in the face” can a person take in a crowded space?

          4. Jim Cook says:

            Stop making excuses for violence. A shoulder bump and a hand gesture never merit a beating.

            You know, you’re kind of making the anti-Trump case pretty well. Your kind of thinking is exactly what he encourages.

          5. ella says:

            Only one time did a Trump supporter beat a protester. It was the other way around before that. After that black man kicked the protester on TV it hasn’t happened since. Kinda makes you wonder if fighting back made the difference. It was only pushing and shoving inside before that.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            No, there was punching and beating before that.

          7. ella says:

            “No, there was punching and beating before that.” Jim Cook

            Chicago and St. Louis are the only to rallies I find that had actual physical violence, inside and outside of the rally. The Chicago rally was cancelled because of the violent protesters attacking Trump supporters inside the rally. Of course there was reciprocation. The media just hammered both occasions into the ground, and had a heyday blaming Trump for it. Maybe he canceled all of the other rallies that violence was threaten at.

          8. Jim Cook says:

            Slate counts at least twelve incidents as of March 19:

            Since then, violent incidents toward anti-Trump protesters by Trump supporters have continued. Here’s one:

            “On Wednesday morning, the Janesville police released a statement detailing the incident.

            “A male in the crown [sic] groped the 15-year-old girl, when she pushed him away; another person in the crown [sic] sprayed her,” the statement said. “We are currently looking for two suspects, one for the sexual assault and one for the pepper spray.”

            “The Daily Beast has kept a running tally of arrests and police reports filed in connection with Donald Trump rallies since January 2016. Thus far, we’ve found police-reported criminal activity (including assault, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and disturbing the peace) at a minimum of 12 of his rallies, resulting in 55 arrests or citations. The Beast has also found at least 12 reports filed by victims alleging they had been pushed, shoved, punched, called racial slurs, or had their signs ripped from their hands.”

            Trump and his supporters are like one another: violent and not to be trusted with power.

            Why do you keep standing with Donald Trump, given the illegal acts Trump promotes, given Trump’s directly recorded incitements to violence, given his cheers for supporters who have committed violent acts?

          9. ella says:

            I have read the articles and found three that were “rough”. The rest were removals and the one you cited that was disgusting. For public rallies this is not so unusual. They stopped reporting them at Sanders rallies and the groups made deals with Sanders campaign. Of course he too, now, has private or closed gatherings. Do I approve? No, absolutely not. This is a segment of American society that has been left out and now they are floating into view. It doesn’t help to ignore a problem, and Trump, of course does not condone the actions, but has compassion on all sides of it. Those angry people have been pushed aside and, like the racial groups, need time to be aired. Other need correction, having no idea that what they do has consequences, or what those consequences are. I noticed the very young faces of many of the “protesters”. Children being used for political purposes. And that is the shame.

          10. ella says:

            Really, I wish there had never been any violent protesters! But I do support a persons right to defend themselves. Trump should close his rallies, put them in plush restaurants, and clubs like Clinton and Cruz do, with tons of security, and the press limited to only those who are supportive. That way he could say what he had to say without interruption and have a positive review. Do you see that as a proper alternative?

          11. Jim Cook says:

            What I see as an alternative is the kind of environment at Bernie Sanders rallies, which are energetic and populist and full of spirit — but at which there hasn’t been violence.

            The difference? At Trump rallies, Donald Trump has repeatedly called for his followers to engage in violent acts against people who are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. At Sanders rallies, Bernie Sanders doesn’t encourage his followers to be violent.

            Why are you following the candidate who encourages mob violence, Ella?

        3. ella says:

          Now let us fast forward to March 28 and the some evidence that Ted Cruz has once again lied about having “nothing to do with it”. Whatever “it” is at the time, that unethically has been done. Cruz openly admitted to the lies about Carson, Rubio, and Kasich quitting the race, telling the voters to not vote for them. He demanded they vote for him [Cruz] so their vote would count for something. When? In the last Republican debate. He said it in front of the entire crowd and television.

          Trump has never made unethical remarks, although he has shown a sense of humor in the past that some of us understood. He has made many comments that have made America’s detractors and enemy’s think twice. He has done what a good future President should do, make the world sit up and pay attention. Not like the current way of doing things? Well, where has that gotten us? $23 Trillion dollars in debt!

          “…”From what I hear, he and his [Cruz] campaign went out and bought the cover shoot. Melania did a cover story for ‘GQ,’ …”
          Breaking News at

    2. ella says:

      Korky Day, you have done it right!

      1. Korky Day says:

        Thanks, ella.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!