Hannity to GOP leaders: ‘I’m getting a little sick and tired of all of you’

[jimnyc]

Kinda about how I feel with a lot of them. It doesn't mean they need to kiss ass, but at the same time, no need to help the other team. And the bold portion is what gets me the most. They are spending more time on Trump, when there is MUCH more about Hillary and MUCH more about Obama.

-----

Fox News host Sean Hannity says Republican leaders will be to blame if Donald Trump loses the presidential election.

The conservative pundit told listeners of his talk radio show on Wednesday that he was “sick and tired” of House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others who condemned Trump’s controversial criticism of the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier.

“If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain,” Hannity said. “I have watched these Republicans be more harsh toward Donald Trump than they’ve ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda.

“They did nothing, nothing — all these phony votes to repeal and replace Obamacare, show votes so they can go back and keep their power and get reelected,” Hannity continued. “Sorry, you created Donald Trump, all of you. Because of your ineffectiveness, because of your weakness, your spinelessness, your lack of vision, your inability to fight Obama.”

He added: “I’m getting a little sick and tired of all of you. I am, honestly, I am tempted to just say I don’t support any of you people ever.”

Hannity said he’s “particularly annoyed” with Ryan, whom Trump refused to endorse this week. The Fox host endorsed Trump in June and has been one of his most consistent defenders in the conservative media.

“It seems Paul Ryan and some of these other establishment Republican types have taken to the idea that they are going to be true to what it means to be a Republican,” Hannity said. “I don’t think there’s anything about Trump’s agenda that isn’t conservative except maybe with the issue of trade.”

Hannity said he’s also frustrated that the conversation among GOP leaders on Capitol Hill has been focused on Trump and not on his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. (Ryan made the same point on Thursday but placed some of that blame on Trump for igniting various national political firestorms.)

“So Trump fires back, because he’s sick and tired of these idiots,” he said. “We just had a Democratic convention where you had the single most leftist socialist platform ever written in American history. I don’t hear a peep out of any of these people about it.”

Hannity added: “We’re 96 days away. We’re 96 days away, and this election is completely winnable.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hannity-trump-ryan-sick-tired-000000010.html

[Kathianne]

Hannity should have gotten Manafort's position.

[hjmick]

Once again Hannity is wrong.


If Trump loses it's his own damn fault.

Or he did it on purpose, which, based on his antics, is entirely conceivable...

[Drummond]

Kinda about how I feel with a lot of them. It doesn't mean they need to kiss ass, but at the same time, no need to help the other team. And the bold portion is what gets me the most. They are spending more time on Trump, when there is MUCH more about Hillary and MUCH more about Obama.

-----

Fox News host Sean Hannity says Republican leaders will be to blame if Donald Trump loses the presidential election.

The conservative pundit told listeners of his talk radio show on Wednesday that he was “sick and tired” of House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others who condemned Trump’s controversial criticism of the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier.

“If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain,” Hannity said. “I have watched these Republicans be more harsh toward Donald Trump than they’ve ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda.

“They did nothing, nothing — all these phony votes to repeal and replace Obamacare, show votes so they can go back and keep their power and get reelected,” Hannity continued. “Sorry, you created Donald Trump, all of you. Because of your ineffectiveness, because of your weakness, your spinelessness, your lack of vision, your inability to fight Obama.”

He added: “I’m getting a little sick and tired of all of you. I am, honestly, I am tempted to just say I don’t support any of you people ever.”

Hannity said he’s “particularly annoyed” with Ryan, whom Trump refused to endorse this week. The Fox host endorsed Trump in June and has been one of his most consistent defenders in the conservative media.

“It seems Paul Ryan and some of these other establishment Republican types have taken to the idea that they are going to be true to what it means to be a Republican,” Hannity said. “I don’t think there’s anything about Trump’s agenda that isn’t conservative except maybe with the issue of trade.”

Hannity said he’s also frustrated that the conversation among GOP leaders on Capitol Hill has been focused on Trump and not on his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. (Ryan made the same point on Thursday but placed some of that blame on Trump for igniting various national political firestorms.)

“So Trump fires back, because he’s sick and tired of these idiots,” he said. “We just had a Democratic convention where you had the single most leftist socialist platform ever written in American history. I don’t hear a peep out of any of these people about it.”

Hannity added: “We’re 96 days away. We’re 96 days away, and this election is completely winnable.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hannity-trump-ryan-sick-tired-000000010.html

Good for Hannity. I've seen his Fox News broadcasts ... I've listened to various radio shows of his. Hannity has always impressed me.

He's right. I'm happy he spoke out as he has.

[jimnyc]

Once again Hannity is wrong.


If Trump loses it's his own damn fault.

Or he did it on purpose, which, based on his antics, is entirely conceivable...

I don't believe he's wrong, and he's addressing those working against Trump, not Trump himself. Trump's antics and other issues undoubtedly harm him as of late, or don't help him. But none of that addresses his own party continually going after him, which many have done from day one because he was an outsider. It also doesn't explain why they have time to continually bash their own party, which we know will lead to you know who for 4-8 years - and at the same time, they aren't doing a whole lot in her direction, as they do to Trump - and we all KNOW there is plenty for them to use in her direction. They are doing more to harm Trump than they are Clinton. In that respect, as to what Hannity is saying, I think he's spot on.

Theoretically, one can say that Gary Johnson, if he loses, it's his own damn fault. We both know there is a lot more that goes into it than that.

[jimnyc]

Good for Hannity. I've seen his Fox News broadcasts ... I've listened to various radio shows of his. Hannity has always impressed me.

He's right. I'm happy he spoke out as he has.

I'm not a Hannity fan. Not to say I don't like him, I just don't watch him or listen. I only posted this as I saw the story out there, and agreed with him 100%

It will and can be Trump's fault if he loses. He is making missteps and he does control his own destiny to an extent.

But when and if 2 left leaning SC judges get sworn in. And if any new gun regulations come out. Or the raising of taxes on the middle class that she is now speaking of. Or anything else she brings to the table - none of that will be Trump's fault. It won't be ANYONE's fault, IMO. But it is preventable.

[Kathianne]

Once again Hannity is wrong.


If Trump loses it's his own damn fault.

Or he did it on purpose, which, based on his antics, is entirely conceivable...

You made my point. Sean and Greta should have left FOX 9 months ago, let Trump pay them.

[Black Diamond]

You made my point. Sean and Greta should have left FOX 9 months ago, let Trump pay them.

Did Lee Atwater have any children?

[Elessar]

I'm not a Hannity fan. Not to say I don't like him, I just don't watch him or listen. I only posted this as I saw the story out there, and agreed with him 100%

It will and can be Trump's fault if he loses. He is making missteps and he does control his own destiny to an extent.

But when and if 2 left leaning SC judges get sworn in. And if any new gun regulations come out. Or the raising of taxes on the middle class that she is now speaking of. Or anything else she brings to the table - none of that will be Trump's fault. It won't be ANYONE's fault, IMO. But it is preventable.

Hannity is right. The ones he has pointed out spend more time on criticizing the party's candidate
than they do working toward a final objective - Keeping the Clintons out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They had a chance to get into this election race, but turned it down.

[jimnyc]

You made my point. Sean and Greta should have left FOX 9 months ago, let Trump pay them.

So you think these folks all speak out enough against Hillary in the past few months? And you think they go after Obama, his policies and other scandals as much? Didn't you even condemn Trump a few times, saying he wasn't doing that stuff when he should have been? I believe you did.

[jimnyc]

Hannity is right. The ones he has pointed out spend more time on criticizing the party's candidate
than they do working toward a final objective - Keeping the Clintons out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They had a chance to get into this election race, but turned it down.

They don't care about any objective, or the SCOTUS or the 2nd amendment. That stuff takes a back seat for now, not nearly important enough. Now, it's time to continually bash Trump for anything he may say or do, and then maybe a mention here or there that he's running against Hillary.

[Black Diamond]

Hannity is right. The ones he has pointed out spend more time on criticizing the party's candidate
than they do working toward a final objective - Keeping the Clintons out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They had a chance to get into this election race, but turned it down.

Maybe if Republicans mentioned above backed Trump he'd be down by five instead of ten.

[Kathianne]

So you think these folks all speak out enough against Hillary in the past few months? And you think they go after Obama, his policies and other scandals as much? Didn't you even condemn Trump a few times, saying he wasn't doing that stuff when he should have been? I believe you did.

Not sure what you mean here. Those two make Hillary look as bad as possible, no? Certainly deserved, but her audience hates Hillary already, so?

Condemn Trump, like to hell? Don't think so. Make clear that he was the worst possible choice of GOP? Oh yeah. I lost, he won.

[jimnyc]

Not sure what you mean here. Those two make Hillary look as bad as possible, no? Certainly deserved, but her audience hates Hillary already, so?

Condemn Trump, like to hell? Don't think so. Make clear that he was the worst possible choice of GOP? Oh yeah. I lost, he won.

In the past, you have stated that Trump was ignoring Clinton's email scandal and other things, that he was wasting his time on petty things, and should have been concentrating on the opponent. Now those in the same party do the same thing, and they don't get condemned, or told that they should be concentrating on Hillary or other things. Perhaps those working against him should take a breather, and maybe spend a few moments on the opponent as well, and not losing focus while spending time on someone in their own party.

[hjmick]

I don't believe he's wrong, and he's addressing those working against Trump, not Trump himself. Trump's antics and other issues undoubtedly harm him as of late, or don't help him. But none of that addresses his own party continually going after him, which many have done from day one because he was an outsider. It also doesn't explain why they have time to continually bash their own party, which we know will lead to you know who for 4-8 years - and at the same time, they aren't doing a whole lot in her direction, as they do to Trump - and we all KNOW there is plenty for them to use in her direction. They are doing more to harm Trump than they are Clinton. In that respect, as to what Hannity is saying, I think he's spot on.

Theoretically, one can say that Gary Johnson, if he loses, it's his own damn fault. We both know there is a lot more that goes into it than that.


They're choosing their own political lives over Trump. I'm not sure I blame them. For most of them, Trump is not the GOP, I imagine to them they see the party's demise. Hell, if I were still a registered Republican, I'd have left the party after Trump was nominated. Sorry, but Trump does not represent the Republican party with whom I registered in 1982...

[Black Diamond]

In the past, you have stated that Trump was ignoring Clinton's email scandal and other things, that he was wasting his time on petty things, and should have been concentrating on the opponent. Now those in the same party do the same thing, and they don't get condemned, or told that they should be concentrating on Hillary or other things. Perhaps those working against him should take a breather, and maybe spend a few moments on the opponent as well, and not losing focus while spending time on someone in their own party.
That might just help narrow the deficit.

[Kathianne]

In the past, you have stated that Trump was ignoring Clinton's email scandal and other things, that he was wasting his time on petty things, and should have been concentrating on the opponent. Now those in the same party do the same thing, and they don't get condemned, or told that they should be concentrating on Hillary or other things. Perhaps those working against him should take a breather, and maybe spend a few moments on the opponent as well, and not losing focus while spending time on someone in their own party.

There's no doubt that here I'm more anti-Trump than in general. I'm here more and most everyone else is on his side, figure a difference isn't a bad thing. Just look at the reaction most of my posts get, either slammed or ignored. Luckily it doesn't bother me. ;)

In other avenues I'm quite the anti-Hillary, when the members are more evenly divided. I've been anti-Hillary for more than 2 decades, the reasons are clear.

I'm no longer 'in the party' for reasons explained. I'm conservative, the Trump party isn't.

Neither by any stretch of the imagination is Hillary or the D party.

Dope jokes aside, Johnson's political positions and philosophy are more inline with mine and he's the only one who is even in the ball park. I haven't spent time pushing, would be like Gunny and the brick wall.

Same with highlighting Hillary's misdeeds and hypocrisies here, preaching to the choir. You all agree enough with one another.

[Black Diamond]

They're choosing their own political lives over Trump. I'm not sure I blame them. For most of them, Trump is not the GOP, I imagine to them they see the party's demise. Hell, if I were still a registered Republican, I'd have left the party after Trump was nominated. Sorry, but Trump does not represent the Republican party with whom I registered in 1982...

Their denunciations play right into Obama's hands, and therefore Hillary's.

[Kathianne]

They're choosing their own political lives over Trump. I'm not sure I blame them. For most of them, Trump is not the GOP, I imagine to them they see the party's demise. Hell, if I were still a registered Republican, I'd have left the party after Trump was nominated. Sorry, but Trump does not represent the Republican party with whom I registered in 1982...

Many, including Ryan did 'endorse' after he won. Because he won. So he decided to make an issue of their not 'really endorsing' or something and started off on them. Well that and their making clear that going after gold star families wasn't just stupid, but also just wrong.

On some other mediums folks are bringing up that Khan is an immigration lawyer, specializing on Muslims. Has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Belongs to some group that has ties to Clinton Foundation.

All those things may well be true. All are legal and the parents are still a gold star family.

When in a hole, stop digging. Again, just for practical purposes, perhaps Trump should listen to some of his advisors and those who've won elections and impose a bit of self-discipline. The sharks in the MSM are waiting and already have the blood scent.

[Kathianne]

I do find it amusing how the 'I'm going to blame...' seems to be the biggest meme going on right now. That's everywhere, including Hannity! LOL!

Hey, did you all see Trump yesterday listing all the things 'forgotten' that he'd done during the primary?' He was the one to do the listing, weird that.

[Black Diamond]

I do find it amusing how the 'I'm going to blame...' seems to be the biggest meme going on right now. That's everywhere, including Hannity! LOL!

Hey, did you all see Trump yesterday listing all the things 'forgotten' that he'd done during the primary?' He was the one to do the listing, weird that.

Trump is to blame for being behind. But if he had support of some prominent Republicans who currently don't support him, he may not be this far behind.

[Kathianne]

Trump is to blame for being behind. But if he had support of some prominent Republicans who currently don't support him, he may not be this far behind.

Really? Those supporting Trump hate Ryan, McCain, the rest of them. Remember, the whole point of Trump is to 'burn the house down.' To expect those that work and/or believe in the system to wholeheartedly embrace anarchy is foolish.

Trump wants to play Lone Ranger. He's doing so.

[Black Diamond]

Really? Those supporting Trump hate Ryan, McCain, the rest of them. Remember, the whole point of Trump is to 'burn the house down.' To expect those that work and/or believe in the system to wholeheartedly embrace anarchy is foolish.

Trump wants to play Lone Ranger. He's doing so.
They should endorse Hillary.

[Kathianne]

Trump chose to take the bait by attacking the Khans. Then he chose to attack, again. Then to respond. Then to respond, again. He chose to 'withold' endorsements never requested, out of petty vindictiveness. Hillary repeatedly brings up his inability to control himself when baited, whether by the convention or by a tweet. He proves her correct.



John Noonan @noonanjo (https://twitter.com/noonanjo)

Strikes me as a pretty important find by @JenniferJJacobs (https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs). Trump campaign banking on vet vote, but underperforming:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-04/trump-veterans-in-jeopardy … (https://t.co/WN2pK5kCGL)
5:25 AM - 4 Aug 2016 (https://twitter.com/noonanjo/status/761176181857218560)



Khans Jeopardize Trump Strategy Banking on Veterans’ Votes

The Republican’s chances of winning the military vote by a large margin may have been hurt by his conflict with the family of a fallen soldier.
bloomberg.com

(https://t.co/WN2pK5kCGL)






http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-04/trump-veterans-in-jeopardy


Khans Jeopardize Trump Strategy Banking on Veterans’ Votes

The Republican’s chances of winning the military vote by a large margin may have been hurt by his conflict with the family of a fallen soldier.


When national Republican officials began making a big play to leverage the military vote, a natural constituency for the party, they were happily surprised to learn Donald Trump’s campaign already had a list with the names of 25,000 veterans who liked him.

“That’s a good number,” said Bob Carey, director of military and veterans outreach for the Republican National Committee, said last week.

Now, the Trump campaign’s strategy of banking on veterans and military voters to help amass enough votes to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton is in jeopardy thanks to tensions over his comments about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a U.S. soldier killed in action.

“I’m undecided now. I was leaning for him, but the last few days, what he’s been saying about that soldier and his parents, he’s made several comments I don’t like,” said Larry Fountain, a 67-year-old Navy veteran and retired pipe fitter from Starks, Louisiana, who listened to both Trump and Clinton speak at the VFW’s national convention in North Carolina last week. “I just don’t know.”

[Kathianne]

Rush is joining Hannity in looking for whom or what to blame if Trump flames out:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/04/rush-the-gop-was-in-freefall-before-trump/

[Black Diamond]

Trump chose to take the bait by attacking the Khans. Then he chose to attack, again. Then to respond. Then to respond, again. He chose to 'withold' endorsements never requested, out of petty vindictiveness. Hillary repeatedly brings up his inability to control himself when baited, whether by the convention or by a tweet. He proves her correct.


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-04/trump-veterans-in-jeopardy






He shouldnt have engaged the Khans. But I find it amusing the double standard. Trump isn't allowed to push back at a dead veterans family but Hillary is. Trump isn't allowed to hesitate in endorsing Ryan but Ryan is allowed to hesitate in endorsing him. Trump isn't allowed to retaliate when his wife is maligned but Cruz is. If you don't think what Cruz did at the convention was a vendetta, i don't know what to say. Other than when cruz wins the nomination someday, I'll be sure to vote my conscience up and down the ticket.

[jimnyc]

I still think, if Hillary should win, it'll be very interesting to see how these same folks respond. It'll certainly be much more difficult to put in a conservative SC judge. And hopefully there will be advantages in congress for the (R), but with or without, it'll be more difficult to defend the 2nd or executive orders or whatever the witch has in mind. Tax increases and such. We all know these things are coming, hell, they have outright announced it. I hope not many within the party, or anyone on the right, get upset or bitch when these things happen. The SC is the one that scares me the most. In addition to the one waiting in wings, Ginsburg is 83 with her body having went through 2 cancers. Kennedy and Breyer are 80/78 respectively. Can you even imagine, I'm almost afraid to say it, but imagine 3 of them in one term? That would likely change things in the decision making supreme court for at least 30 years. I can't even begin to imagine potentially how many important cases will be decided during that time. And gun rights, I have no doubt at all about her intentions. It's a shame that none of us here will have any say in the matter when it comes to who gets appointed, or who writes executive orders. And will those speaking out now, like Ryan And McConnell, will they be able to help in such matters when the time comes? Nope.

[jimnyc]

Rush is joining Hannity in looking for whom or what to blame if Trump flames out:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/04/rush-the-gop-was-in-freefall-before-trump/

I believe you as well spoke of the same things, the disarray of the GOP and how it was screwed up and what not before he even came around. Were you looking to blame as well?

[jimnyc]

He shouldnt have engaged the Khans. But I find it amusing the double standard. Trump isn't allowed to push back at a dead veterans family but Hillary is. Trump isn't allowed to hesitate in endorsing Ryan but Ryan is allowed to hesitate in endorsing him. Trump isn't allowed to retaliate when his wife is maligned but Cruz is. If you don't think what Cruz did at the convention was a vendetta, i don't know what to say. Other than when cruz wins the nomination someday, I'll be sure to vote my conscience up and down the ticket.

And amusing the double standard not only from the dems...

[Kathianne]

He shouldnt have engaged the Khans. But I find it amusing the double standard. Trump isn't allowed to push back at a dead veterans family but Hillary is. Trump isn't allowed to hesitate in endorsing Ryan but Ryan is allowed to hesitate in endorsing him. Trump isn't allowed to retaliate when his wife is maligned but Cruz is. If you don't think what Cruz did at the convention was a vendetta, i don't know what to say. Other than when cruz wins the nomination someday, I'll be sure to vote my conscience up and down the ticket.

I too find the hypocrisy in the MSM, have been writing about such for years before I even found the internet. As Jim say, 'it is what it is.' Only foolish folks don't know that the Dems control the MSM and have for many, many years. The fact that so many appear shocked that they've 'turned on Trump' speaks volumes to their inattention.

They aren't fair, they don't even pretend anymore to be. Now the same is also true with the likes of Hannity and Rush, but in all fairness they claim to be entertainers, so they are truthful.

[Kathianne]

I still think, if Hillary should win, it'll be very interesting to see how these same folks respond. It'll certainly be much more difficult to put in a conservative SC judge. And hopefully there will be advantages in congress for the (R), but with or without, it'll be more difficult to defend the 2nd or executive orders or whatever the witch has in mind. Tax increases and such. We all know these things are coming, hell, they have outright announced it. I hope not many within the party, or anyone on the right, get upset or bitch when these things happen. The SC is the one that scares me the most. In addition to the one waiting in wings, Ginsburg is 83 with her body having went through 2 cancers. Kennedy and Breyer are 80/78 respectively. Can you even imagine, I'm almost afraid to say it, but imagine 3 of them in one term? That would likely change things in the decision making supreme court for at least 30 years. I can't even begin to imagine potentially how many important cases will be decided during that time. And gun rights, I have no doubt at all about her intentions. It's a shame that none of us here will have any say in the matter when it comes to who gets appointed, or who writes executive orders. And will those speaking out now, like Ryan And McConnell, will they be able to help in such matters when the time comes? Nope.

I agree with all that, though pretty sure we'll all be bitching if she wins. My best case is that Trump does and you all are right. I have more than serious doubts, but would be gleeful to be wrong.

[Black Diamond]

I still think, if Hillary should win, it'll be very interesting to see how these same folks respond. It'll certainly be much more difficult to put in a conservative SC judge. And hopefully there will be advantages in congress for the (R), but with or without, it'll be more difficult to defend the 2nd or executive orders or whatever the witch has in mind. Tax increases and such. We all know these things are coming, hell, they have outright announced it. I hope not many within the party, or anyone on the right, get upset or bitch when these things happen. The SC is the one that scares me the most. In addition to the one waiting in wings, Ginsburg is 83 with her body having went through 2 cancers. Kennedy and Breyer are 80/78 respectively. Can you even imagine, I'm almost afraid to say it, but imagine 3 of them in one term? That would likely change things in the decision making supreme court for at least 30 years. I can't even begin to imagine potentially how many important cases will be decided during that time. And gun rights, I have no doubt at all about her intentions. It's a shame that none of us here will have any say in the matter when it comes to who gets appointed, or who writes executive orders. And will those speaking out now, like Ryan And McConnell, will they be able to help in such matters when the time comes? Nope.

Thing is, even with a conservative (whatever that means) , we aren't guaranteed the Court. Souter and Stevens or even Kennedy and Roberts.

It seems the left picks judges better than the right does. And the Left resists judges (Bork) better than the right does (Ginsburg). Just off the cuff.

[jimnyc]

I agree with all that, though pretty sure we'll all be bitching if she wins. My best case is that Trump does and you all are right. I have more than serious doubts, but would be gleeful to be wrong.

Of course we'll all be bitching. I think we all know that the consequences here are a LOT LOT more than just "Clinton/Trump". I believe we will be potentially feeling repercussions from this election for many years after both are long gone, sadly.

[hjmick]

I predict we'll all be bitching no matter who wins...

[Kathianne]

I believe you as well spoke of the same things, the disarray of the GOP and how it was screwed up and what not before he even came around. Were you looking to blame as well?

Actually my most frequent criticism of GOP prior to this disaster was their failure to effectively get out their message and to hammer home their successes in Congress, especially when thwarting Obama. They truly suck at that. Now they just suck.

I do hope those that are getting slimed all over social media, now the MSM via the new order, find their way to a new party. One way or another the differences between those that are 'right' and those that are conservative-and I DO NOT mean Evangelicals as synonym for conservative-need to have separate parties, they are not going to be compatible after this. Win or lose.

To this day, though I know months and months ago I listed many, I doubt most here have a clue to what the GOP in congress did to thwart Obama. Thus open to anarchy for being ignored. I get it.

[Black Diamond]

I predict we'll all be bitching no matter who wins...

I'd rather be bitching about Trump

[Kathianne]

Of course we'll all be bitching. I think we all know that the consequences here are a LOT LOT more than just "Clinton/Trump". I believe we will be potentially feeling repercussions from this election for many years after both are long gone, sadly.

I agree, thanks to the two choices. Right now it looks like Hillary and I'm pretty sure we all know what will happen if she wins.

If Trump should somehow pull out of his self-made spiral, well she's not a strong candidate, nor liked.

I can't imagine what happens if he wins. I just hope I'm wrong.

[Black Diamond]

I agree, thanks to the two choices. Right now it looks like Hillary and I'm pretty sure we all know what will happen if she wins.

If Trump should somehow pull out of his self-made spiral, well she's not a strong candidate, nor liked.

I can't imagine what happens if he wins. I just hope I'm wrong.

Lots of things will be exposed.

[jimnyc]

I'd rather be bitching about Trump

I can handle Trump losing, I certainly don't see him as the perfect person.

I can't handle seeing Voldemort in office. ( yes, we shouldn't say her evil name!)

I don't know if I can handle seeing the SC having a generation advantage to the left. This is monstrous.

I won't be able to handle any executive orders that involve gun rights. Can she do so? Only time will tell. But it would be easier for her, if things were to be challenged, and sent upstream to the SC, which now would lean heavily to the left.

[revelarts]

So you think these folks all speak out enough against Hillary in the past few months? And you think they go after Obama, his policies and other scandals as much? Didn't you even condemn Trump a few times, saying he wasn't doing that stuff when he should have been? I believe you did.

For me this just points out how close the establishment GOP are with the establishment Democrats anyway. none of their actual polices have been that different. From Bush to Obama on many issues it's been a SMOOTH transition. (despite all the hate the rank and file manage to generate against the rival CiCs) Both parties have been just as corporate bought, just as anti-constitution, just as BIG gov't, just as much destabilizing of the M.E. for no good reason.

Trump would be a change, but my concern is it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. either way were cooked seems to me.

[Black Diamond]

I can handle Trump losing, I certainly don't see him as the perfect person.

I can't handle seeing Voldemort in office. ( yes, we shouldn't say her evil name!)

I don't know if I can handle seeing the SC having a generation advantage to the left. This is monstrous.

I won't be able to handle any executive orders that involve gun rights. Can she do so? Only time will tell. But it would be easier for her, if things were to be challenged, and sent upstream to the SC, which now would lean heavily to the left.
With 3 Clinton appointees and 2 Obama appointees? What's your stop her?

[Black Diamond]

For me this just points out how close the establishment GOP are with the establishment Democrats anyway. none of their actual polices have been that different. From Bush to Obama on many issues it's been a SMOOTH transition. (despite all the hate the rank and file manage to generate against the rival CiCs) Both parties have been just as corporate bought, just a anti-constituion, just as BIG gov't, just as much destabilizing of the M.E. for no good reason.

Trump would be a change My concern is it out of the fringe pan and into the fire. either way were cooked seems to me.
If George W had been given two more terms, does he load Iran's nuclear rifle? I can't see Hillary even doing that. I think the left is going to be shocked at what a war hawk Hillary is.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hannity is dead on the mark..
Such truth will be adamantly criticized but its the damn truth nonetheless.
TRUMPS WORST ENEMIES ARE THE TRUMP HATERS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP/RINO'S IMHO..

PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THAT WORK AGAINST HIM, CAN NOT LATER WITH ANY VALIDITY OR HONOR CLAIM HIS DEFEAT WAS ENTIRELY HIS OWN FAULT.

Either one will man up or they will not..
Its a damn two horse race, shooting at our own horse only helps the other horse win.
Thats the damn reality that far too many choose to ignore, IMHO.-TYR

[hjmick]

You have got to read this, it is so funny it's awesome...

That's right, I used it. Now you know I'm serious...

Fireworks (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/fireworks)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You have got to read this, it is so funny it's awesome...

That's right, I used it. Now you know I'm serious...

Fireworks (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/fireworks)

AHH, NO MENTION OF HILLARY......

Well, perhaps she does not rate to be criticized?????..... not worthy enough to castigate..
Shine enough light and the shadows dance......

Well hoss, you aint tha only one serious...

IF TRUMP IS FALLEN LIT FIREWORKS THEN HILLARY IS LIT DYNAMITE .......

SO WHICH ONE SHOULD BE FEARED THE MOST????

Now you know I am serious..-TYR

[hjmick]

AHH, NO MENTION OF HILLARY......

Well, perhaps she does not rate to be criticized?????..... not worthy enough to castigate..
Shine enough light and the shadows dance......

Well hoss, you aint tha only one serious...

IF TRUMP IS FALLEN LIT FIREWORKS THEN HILLARY IS LIT DYNAMITE .......

SO WHICH ONE SHOULD BE FEARED THE MOST????

Now you know I am serious..-TYR


Lighten up Francis. I've done my share of criticizing Hilliary. In case you haven't been paying attention, this thread is about Trump. If that cartoon doesn't explain his odd behavior, I don't know what does...

Remember, it's okay to laugh, it's the best medicine...

[Black Diamond]

Hannitys argument would have held more water pre Khan for sure. But I think there are several components that go into Hillary's 10 point advantage.

[jimnyc]

You have got to read this, it is so funny it's awesome...

That's right, I used it. Now you know I'm serious...

Fireworks (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/fireworks)

The oatmeal rocks, and is downright awesome!! And gotta admit, that one had me chuckle, even if I saw it coming after the 2nd picture.

I liked them ever since you posted the one about dogs a long time back, some funny stuff.

As for Hillary, she just needs to accidentally fall down the white house stairs, and then maybe a cinder block falls at the same time on her poor little ugly head. <--- I know, I know, but if I say it enough it may come true!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Lighten up Francis. I've done my share of criticizing Hilliary. In case you haven't been paying attention, this thread is about Trump. If that cartoon doesn't explain his odd behavior, I don't know what does...

Remember, it's okay to laugh, it's the best medicine...

So true, laughter is the best medicine.
I by no means claim that Trump is perfect.
My thing is it is a two horse race and only one can win to get the laurels and the treasure.

I dont know, how would anybody act, if both (supposed) allies/friends and foes were shooting at them?
Myself, I'd shoot every son of a bitch that was firing at me.. and not worry about the deaths..
For if they are my friend then they'd not being trying to shoot me- thus they are my enemies..
Then again, I learned how to be a survivor long ago... had to because my world was not a gentle one....-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Usually this is Jim's job, unless he goes awol or screws up his arm; but I just went to read at RCP and hadn't seen these results in a couple days. Wow!

RealClearPolitics Election 2016

[*=center]President
[*=center]Senate
[*=center]House



<tbody>
Election 2016
Clinton
Trump
Spread


RCP Poll Average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)
47.4 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)
40.6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)
Clinton +6.8 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/bg_election_2010_trend_up_dem.gif


Favorability Ratings (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html)
-9.7 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html)
-25.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html)
Clinton +15.3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html)


Betting Odds (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/betting_odds.html)
77.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/betting_odds.html)
23.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/betting_odds.html)


</tbody>

<tbody>
4-Way Race
Johnson
Stein



RCP Poll Average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)
8.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)
3.9 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)


</tbody>

<tbody>
Electoral College
Clinton
Trump
Spread


RCP Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
226 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
154 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)
Clinton +72 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html)


No Toss Up States (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml)
357 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml)
181 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.h tml)


</tbody>

<tbody>
Battlegrounds http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/bg_battlegrounds_off.pnghttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/bg_battlegrounds_on.png
Clinton
Trump
Spread


Virginia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html)
42.3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html)
37.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html)
Clinton +5.3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html)


New Hampshire (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton-5596.html)
45.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton-5596.html)
38.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton-5596.html)
Clinton +7.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_trump_vs_clinton-5596.html)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/bg_election_2010_trend_up_dem.gif


Georgia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html)
42.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html)
46.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html)
Trump +4.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html)


Missouri (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html)
38.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html)
44.3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html)
Trump +6.3 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html)


Colorado (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton-5751.html)
44.6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton-5751.html)
36.6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton-5751.html)
Clinton +8.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_trump_vs_clinton-5751.html)


Nevada (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton-5891.html)
43.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton-5891.html)
40.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton-5891.html)
Clinton +2.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton-5891.html)


Arizona (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton-5832.html)
43.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton-5832.html)
43.0 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton-5832.html)
Clinton +0.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton-5832.html)

</tbody>


It's looking to me this is moving beyond 'convention bounce' perhaps even beyond the gold star stuff. This looks like the beginning of a pull away.

Look at the battleground, much more important that the national polls.

I find it hard to believe people are 'liking' Hillary more, so the difference is coming from the other one.

[Kathianne]

listening to 'morning news' and what Trump has been tweeting. Brilliant. There's been a story percolating that Trump asked in some briefing 'why not use first strike nuclear weapons?' not once, but 3 times.

So today he decides that a good talking point would be demanding that Hillary not get intelligence briefings, because you know, 'She's not to be trusted.'

This should be interesting.

[Kathianne]

What could he be talking about? Several brought some ideas up last night, '$400 million to Iran.' The whole Iran agreement, made in opposition to the will of the people and Congress?

But let's bring up 'trustworthiness' and 'stability' two things both candidates get hammered for.

[Kathianne]

It's Friday and if true to form there will be the recaps of the week and a weekend where things may change in big ways, not really analyzed until Sunday night, Monday morning.

Here's a typical Friday one:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-week-they-decided-he-was-crazy-1470354031


The Week They Decided He Was CrazyTrump inflicts one wound after another on his campaign. By PEGGY NOONAN
<time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: &quot;Whitney SSm&quot;, sans-serif; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background: 0px 0px;">Aug. 4, 2016 7:40 p.m. ET

I think this week marked a certain coming to terms with where the election is going. Politics is about trends and tendencies. The trends for Donald Trump are not good, and he tends not to change.
All the damage done to him this week was self-inflicted. The arrows he’s taken are arrows he shot. We have in seven days witnessed his undignified and ungrateful reaction to a Gold StaThe mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count—again, the compulsion—Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: “Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy.” Minutes later: “Look at this. It’s all Trump all day long. That’s why their ratings are through the roof.” He’s all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad.r family; the odd moment with the crying baby; the one-on-one interviews, which are starting to look like something he does in the grip of a compulsion, in which Mr. Trump expresses himself thoughtlessly, carelessly, on such issues as Russia, Ukraine and sexual harassment; the relitigating of his vulgar Megyn Kelly comments from a year ago; and, as his fortunes fell, his statement that he “would not be surprised” if the November election were “rigged.” Subject to an unprecedented assault by a sitting president who called him intellectually and characterologically unfit for the presidency, Mr Trump fired back—at Paul Ryan and John McCain (http://topics.wsj.com/person/M/John-McCain/6226).
The mad scatterbrained-ness of it was captured in a Washington Post interview with Philip Rucker in which five times by my count—again, the compulsion—Mr. Trump departed the meat of the interview to turn his head and stare at the television. On seeing himself on the screen: “Lot of energy. We got a lot of energy.” Minutes later: “Look at this. It’s all Trump all day long. That’s why their ratings are through the roof.” He’s all about screens, like a toddler hooked on iPad. (I saw this and it struck me too, as a weird sort of 'pep talk' that should have stayed in his head, not aloud. I figured I was letting my disdain for the candidate color my perception. Maybe not.)
Mr. Trump spent all his time doing these things instead of doing his job: making the case for his policies, expanding on his stands, and taking the battle to Hillary Clinton (http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Hillary-Clinton/6344).

By the middle of the week the Republican National Committee was reported to be frustrated, party leaders alarmed, donors enraged. There was talk of an “intervention.”

<iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/opinion_declarations_story_4" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/opinion_declarations_story_4" width="1" height="1" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; width: 1px !important; height: 1px !important; background: rgb(245, 245, 245);"></iframe>


Here is a truth of life. When you act as if you’re insane, people are liable to think you’re insane. That’s what happened this week. People started to become convinced he was nuts, a total flake.

...
</time>

There's no doubt that most here have an above average interest in politics. For us, even those like myself that are against both candidates, the choice between them has been along the lines of 'a criminal or a con man?'

If Trump choose to be 'the nut' instead of the con man the media and Hillary will most happily go along with the change.

Those undecided votes will likely not go with 'the nut.'

[Gunny]

So you think these folks all speak out enough against Hillary in the past few months? And you think they go after Obama, his policies and other scandals as much? Didn't you even condemn Trump a few times, saying he wasn't doing that stuff when he should have been? I believe you did.

I can condemn Trump all day. He's a piss-poor leader, has no tact, and talks a bunch of crap he'll never accomplish. Ain't no secret here. Been doing it for 14 months.

I'm going with elessar on this one. Time to fish or cut bait. We go with what we got. That doesn't make Trump better than he ever was. It makes him a better choice than a criminal no one wants to prosecute.

Personally, if either of them worked for me? Trump would be fired and Hitlery would be in shackles. Neither could lead a marching band to the 50 yard line.

I'll STILL go with the lesser of two evils rather than vote or an idiot nobody.

[Kathianne]

I'm going to add a bit to the above post, it sounds a lot like what we've been discussing here the past 24 hours:


...This is what became obvious, probably fatally so: Mr. Trump is not going to get serious about running for president. He does not have a second act, there are no hidden depths, there will be no “pivot.” It is not that he is willful or stubborn, though he may be, it’s that he doesn’t have the skill set needed now—discretion, carefulness, generosity, judgment. There’s a clueless quality about him.

It’s not that he doesn’t get advice; it’s that he can’t hear advice, can’t process it or turn it into action.“He’ll reach out, he’ll start to listen. He’ll change, soften.” No, he won’t. Nor will he start to understand that his blunders are a form of shown disrespect for his own supporters. They put themselves on the line for him, many at some cost. What he’s giving them in return is a strange, bush-league, pull-it-out-of-your-ear, always-indulge-your-emotions campaign. They deserve better.

And while Mr. Trump was doing this, Mrs. Clinton was again lying about her emails, reminding us there’s crazy there, too. She insisted to Chris Wallace that FBI director James Comey endorsed her sincerity and veracity. No he didn’t, and everyone knows he didn’t. She’d have spent the past week defending her claims if it weren’t for Mr. Trump’s tireless attempts to kill Mr. Trump.

His supporters hope it will all turn around in the debates: He’ll wipe the floor with her; for the first time she’ll be toe-to-toe with someone who speaks truth to power. But why do they assume this? Are they watching Mrs. Clinton? She doesn’t look very afraid of him. “No, Donald, you don’t,” she purred in her acceptance speech. In debate she’ll calmly try to swat him away, cock her head, look at the moderator, smile. She’ll be watching old videos of Reagan-Carter in 1980: “There you go again.”

She is aware no one believes she’s honest and trustworthy. If there’s one thing Mrs. Clinton knows it’s how to read a poll. She has accepted that people understand her. Her debate approach will be this: In spite of what will no doubt be some uncomfortable moments, she will, in comparison with him, seem sturdy and grounded—normal. That, this week, could be her bumper sticker: “Hillary: Way Less Abnormal.”

It must be said that all this is so strange on so many levels.

Donald Trump is said to be in love with the idea of success, dividing the world between winners and losers. But he just won big and couldn’t take yes for an answer.

He got it all, was the unique outsider who shocked the entire political class with his rise. He should be the happiest man in the world, not besieged and full of complaint. All he had to do was calm down, build bridges, reach out, reassure, be gracious. In fairness, could not unite the party. That isn’t possible now—it is a divided party, which is why it had 17 candidates. Mr. Trump won with just less than half the vote, an achievement in a field that big, but also while representing policies that the formal leadership of the party in Washington finds anathema. He was the candidate who would control illegal immigration, who wouldn’t cut entitlements, who opposes an interventionist foreign policy, who thinks our major trade deals have not benefited Americans on the ground. And he won, big time.

From what I’ve seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base’s views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands. The only signs of life I see are among young staffers on Capitol Hill, who understand their bosses’ stands have been rebuked and are quietly debating among themselves what policy paths will win the future. (This is what I've been saying from the start, he seems to intuit the issues that most engage many if not most of the middle class, yet he was not going to be the best messenger for his messages. Unfortunately there was no opening for a more able leader to be heard above the MSM created bullhorn for Trump. He had his core and they were striking down any attempts to insert someone able.)

Beyond that, anti-Trump Republicans treat his voters like immoral enablers of a malignant boob. Should Mr. Trump lose decisively in November they’ll lord it over everyone, say “I told you so,” and accept what they imagine will be forelock-tugging apologies. Then they will get to work burying not only Mr. Trump but his issues.

That’s where the future of the GOP will be fought, and found: on whether Trumpism can be defeated along with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump would care about that if he cared about that.

I end with a new word, at least new to me. A friend called it to my attention. It speaks of the moment we’re in. It is “kakistocracy,” from the Greek. It means government by the worst persons, by the least qualified or most unprincipled. We’re on our way there, aren’t we? We’re going to have to make our way through it together.

[Gunny]

And btw .. I'd love to get in the ring with MR MMA Hannity. Punching him in the mouth for 3 5 minute rounds would make me the happiest camper in the world. First thing I'd do is mess up that plaster hair-do. THEN I'd punch his ass in the mouth.

I can't stand him. He does NOT represent conservatives. He represents the media.

[Kathianne]

Another 'going into the weekend' op-ed. BTW, Krauthammer is a psychiatrist. ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438692/donald-trump-gold-star-family-can-trump-cross-fitness-threshold


by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER August 4, 2016 8:00 PM @KRAUTHAMMER

Trump’s latest gaffe shows clearly how unfit he is for the presidency.

Donald Trump, the man who defied every political rule and prevailed to win his party’s nomination, last week took on perhaps the most sacred political rule of all: Never attack a Gold Star family. Not just because it alienates a vital constituency but because it reveals a shocking absence of elementary decency and of natural empathy for the most profound of human sorrows — parental grief.

Why did Trump do it? It wasn’t a mistake. It was a revelation. It’s that he can’t help himself. His governing rule in life is to strike back when attacked, disrespected, or even slighted. To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion — whether or not it/he is “nice” to Trump.

...

You’re a fan of his, he’s a fan of yours. And vice versa. Treat him “unfairly” and you will pay. House speaker, Gold Star mother, it matters not.

Of course we all try to protect our own dignity and command respect. But Trump’s hypersensitivity and unedited, untempered Pavlovian responses are, shall we say, unusual in both ferocity and predictability.

This is beyond narcissism. I used to think Trump was an eleven-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about ten years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him.

Most politicians seek approval. But Trump lives for the adoration. He doesn’t even try to hide it, boasting incessantly about his crowds, his standing ovations, his TV ratings, his poll numbers, his primary victories. The latter are most prized because they offer empirical evidence of how loved and admired he is.

...

Trump’s greatest success — normalizing the abnormal — is beginning to dissipate. When a Pulitzer Prize–winning liberal columnist (Eugene Robinson) and a major conservative foreign-policy thinker and former speechwriter for George Shultz under Ronald Reagan (Robert Kagan) simultaneously question Trump’s psychological stability, indeed sanity, there’s something going on (as Trump would say).

In 1980, Reagan had to do just one thing: pass the threshold test for acceptability. He won that election because he did, especially in the debate with Jimmy Carter in which Reagan showed himself to be genial, self-assured, and, above all, nonthreatening. You may not like all his policies, but you could safely entrust the nation to him. Trump badly needs to pass that threshold.

If character is destiny, he won’t.

[Kathianne]

Off to work I go! :coffee:

Just an observation, for the 4th day Trump is not the 'big story' on Drudge-who seems to live by 'when in a hole, stop digging.'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Another 'going into the weekend' op-ed. BTW, Krauthammer is a psychiatrist. ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438692/donald-trump-gold-star-family-can-trump-cross-fitness-threshold

Kraut-hammer's validity and integrity is exhibited in the first part of his name, Kraut.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraut


Kraut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Kraut (disambiguation).

Kraut is a German word recorded in English from 1918 onwards as a derogatory term for a German, particularly a German soldier during World War I and World War II.[1] Its earlier meaning in English was as a synonym for sauerkraut, a traditional Central and Eastern European food.

Contents

1 Etymological foundations
2 Slang
3 Demonym
4 Music
5 See also
6 References

Etymological foundations

In German, the term means "herb", or designates the leaves and stem of a plant as opposed to the root. The term is more often used in compound nouns for herbs, and also for cabbage and cabbage products:

Weißkraut = white cabbage (also called Weißkohl)
Blaukraut or Rotkraut = red cabbage (also called Rotkohl)
Sauerkraut = fermented white cabbage or 'sour cabbage'
Unkraut = weed
Bohnenkraut = savory
Rübenkraut = thick sugar beet syrup

The plural Kräuter is commonly used (herbs, weeds), but when talking about spices, the singular is often replaced by Gewürz which can refer to any spice.
Slang
Although recorded as a colloquial term for Germans by the mid-nineteenth century, it was during World War I that Kraut came to be used in English as a derogatory term for a German. In World War II it was used mainly by American soldiers and less so by British soldiers, who preferred the terms Jerry or Fritz. The stereotype of the sauerkraut-eating German dates back long before this time, and can be seen, for example, in Jules Verne's depiction of the evil German industrialist Schultz, an avid sauerkraut eater, in The Begum's Fortune.


Bear in mind that my grandmother was German/Dutch, THUS I MAKE THIS COMPARISON WITH A BIT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GERMANS.

ONLY REDEEMING QUALITY THEY (THE MEN) HAD WAS A VALIANT WARRIOR SPIRIT..
And that does not in itself outweigh the treacherous nature of the people.
I can not stand the man myself, as its obvious to me, that he is an arrogant, self-serving -- "feige Arschloch"....

Right or wrong, I measure a man by his honor, courage and loyalty to not just himself but to others that have a sense of justice and integrity..
Krauthammer is, as we say, "alles tun, etwas Bastard zu gewinnen"!
And right now that piece of shit wants to be popular and goes the direct path to curry favor with the wrong side at the cost of both this Nation and We The People, IMHO.
HIS CRITICISMS SERVE ONLY HIMSELF AND HILLARY.....
I DESPISE THEM BOTH...--TYR

[fj1200]

Trump is to blame for being behind. But if he had support of some prominent Republicans who currently don't support him, he may not be this far behind.

A. He shouldn't say things that are unsupportable.
B. He shouldn't say things that distract the news cycle towards his errors.

[Black Diamond]

A. He shouldn't say things that are unsupportable.
B. He shouldn't say things that distract the news cycle towards his errors.
that accounts for some of the deficit.

[Kathianne]

A. He shouldn't say things that are unsupportable.
B. He shouldn't say things that distract the news cycle towards his errors.

C.He shouldn't pick on folks that he wants support from.
D. He really shouldn't remind everyone of the things he said back in the primary, when they're already incensed with what he's said since he became the nominee. I couldn't believe he went on the other day about how unfair the press was regarding Meghan Kelly, his McCain comments, his Bush arguments with the war, etc. Honestly, was weirdest thing I've ever seen.

Who's certain he's not trying to throw this to Hillary?

[fj1200]

that accounts for some of the deficit.

Taking your postulate as true then he's still in a hole. How is that a good thing? I'm seriously looking at why he was supported in the primaries.

[Kathianne]

Taking your postulate as true then he's still in a hole. How is that a good thing? I'm seriously looking at why he was supported in the primaries.

Same people saying he's in a hole and should 'stop' what he's been doing, are the same folks that love him dissing Ryan and his other antics. What they don't like is the price, without all the noise. Ryan just calmly said about Trump's hissy fit on not backing him regarding the Khans, "Endorsements are not blank checks. He won the nomination, so he's endorsed."

Not going to get enthusiasm from those who fundamentally disagree with him.