(Vanity) How do we solve a problem like the Donald?

Free Republic original content ^ | 08-25-2015 | grey_whiskers

[grey_whiskers]

In the past couple of weeks, ever since the Fox News GOP debates (yes, plural, there was the "kiddie table" debate with Perry, Fiorina, and Jindal, among others), there is one name on the GOP side who has dominated not only the airwaves, but most of the time and efforts of the punditocracy.

Donald Trump.

He arouses wild excitement, and withering contempt; he is an object both of fear and of hope; and his support, like his opposition, comes from all demographic groups, many different political backgrounds, and is not limited to any one state or geographic region. He is, it seems, the very embodiment of the "Big Tent" vision for the GOP (more accurately, the GOP-e, which shall be its name for the remainder of this piece) once espoused by Karl Rove.

But there's only one problem.

It's the *wrong tent*.

The GOP-e had a vision for reaching out according to the conventional wisdom: 40% of the voters, it is said, would vote for Karl Marx himself if he only had a (D) after his name; another 40% of the voters would similarly vote for Mickey Mouse if he but exhibited the (R) in the right column; and the winning and losing of elections is based upon gaining as much of your own base as possible, depressing the opponent's base, and capturing as much of the other 20% ("the mushy middle") as possible.

The GOP-e essayed to do this, over the past several elections, by quietly throwing a significant portion of their own 40% under the bus: the "crazies" or "Tea Partiers" or "closet racists" or "anti-abortion fundies" or "Fox News viewers" or "Dittoheads"... but quietly: not open repudiation, but behind-the-scenes backstabbing and betrayal, in committee assignments and deals cut with the Democrats and creative incompetence in the Kabuki theatre of opposing Obama and all his new initiatives. (The idea being that those dumb kooks in flyover country would be too, well, unsophisticated to notice the difference; and any losses could be made up by appealing to the broad middle, and to reaping the anticipated rewards of the growing immigrant class, who in the meantime make a swell source of low-cost labor for the oligarch donors behind the GOP-e.)

Or, in a more cynical light, as expressed by a number of commenters, the GOP-e might just have been infiltrated by "entry-ists" (Donkey's nose in the tent) or moles, or the leadership subject to dirty-tricks pressure; bribes, fear of exposure (Denny Hastert's structuring of withdrawals which were later connected to payments of what might have been hush money for sexual escapades with a teenage boy)...this being Washington, the possibilities were endless. And in that case, there was no longer a true two-party system, but a Uniparty, pretending to be at each other's throats, the better to exact money from partisan voters, but really with a gentleman's agreement not REALLY to advance either agenda; and to take turns, more or less, on who got to run the government and distribute the spoils.

But then...two things happened.

First, the Obama election: young, charismatic, far-left, with no executive experience except (he actually said this with a straight face on Anderson Cooper 360, once upon a time):

"...my understanding is, is that Governor Sarah Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect."

The economy melted down. Obama doubled down.

Obamacare raised its ugly head: the American people raised their voices to a fever pitch: to the point that a Republican was elected, in Massachusetts, for the express purpose of stopping it.

Obama was re-elected in 2012, and put the pedal to the medal.

To stop him, there was another wave election of Republicans in 2014; all the best efforts of Obama's magic team could not prevent the GOP from taking the House and the Senate. The people were frantically signally that they wanted effective opposition to Obama and his policies. All to no avail.

Take a brief look at the "fundamental change" loosed upon the land by Obama. Surely, the talking heads said, Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

No -- and in a surprise, it was the supposedly conservative Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote, with the more liberal Kennedy begging him not to pass it.

An economic slowdown worthy of comparison the Great Depression: the number of people in the country in the labor force, gainfully employed, at the same level as the CARTER years, despite nearly 40 years of population growth since then.

What else? The virtual imposition of Gay Marriage and its newfound discovery as a Constitutional Right, not on legal reasoning, but on flowery language worthy of a New Age greeting card. Followed by the White House being lit up in rainbow lights in a cultural "in-your-FACE!" not seen in modern times. Except maybe for Obama's vacations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Supreme Court again affirming Obamacare by overwriting the express text of the law with a sense of the intent behind the law.

Obama declaring a de facto Amnesty for illegal aliens.

The rise of a small group mocked by Obama as being "the JV" but now a household word on account of their atrocities, from on-camera beheadings to the sexual slavery of Christian women. The White House's response? The President's wife sending out a selfie of her holding a hand-written hashtag: "Bring Back Our Girls." Even Dhimmi -- err, excuse me, Jimmy -- Carter (prayers up for his cancer, btw!) had more balls than that.

The throwing away of all the gains made by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the dissolution of Libya.

With the loss of Libya, the death of Ambassador Stevens; whereupon the Secretary of State lied through her teeth to the families of the victims, blaming the violence on a YouTube video.

The open targeting of conservative groups by the IRS (one of the things which got Richard Nixon in trouble), followed by the defiance of the IRS by destroying the evidence in the teeth of a Congressional investigation.

Oh, and the Secretary of State conducted her business on a non-governmental server, refusing to hand over the server entire to investigators, despite the security risks...and the presence of Top Secret material on an unsecured computer.

Did I mention computer problems? The Russians hacked the Pentagon; the Red Chinese STOLE over twenty million sets of personal information: and that from background checks, to include social security numbers and fingerprints, from the Office of Personnel Management.

Oh, I almost forgot. The deal with Iran, the country who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, the world's leading state sponsor of terror...the deal which would give them nuclear technology: with the US committed to defend their nuclear program against Israel, with Iran allowed to submit its own samples for testing, and not even to the US...being pushed for by Obama.

In addition to an Environmental Protection Agency run amok, issuing regulations governing coal which are likely to DOUBLE electricity prices.

And did I mention all the racial healing which Obama (as the first black President, second if you count the left's fawning over Bill Clinton) was supposed to bring?

Ferguson, anyone? How about Baltimore?

And finally, an exploding national debt: under President Obama, the United States will have spent more, in the last eight years, then it has spent IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY. More than every other President PUT TOGETHER.

It was all this, that the GOP was supposed to prevent: which they had been explicitly ELECTED to prevent.

But now, it's time for another Presidential election. And the GOP-e feels it's "their turn." Or, more specifically, Jeb Bush's turn(*).

And so, when Trump first made a splash, prior to the first GOP debate, he was dismissed. "It's a publicity stunt." But as he refused to fade away, word went out from the power donors behind the GOP-e: "Take him out. NOW." Curiously enough, it wasn't the other candidates in the debate who went after him, but the moderators: and at that, those at "Faux News". The supposed propagandists for the right.

We all know how that turned out. And yet, the Trump candidacy has not been stopped; indeed, his popularity has *grown*.

Watching the reaction to this is interesting, because in their panic an desperation, the powers-that-be are inadvertently showing the contents of their ENTIRE bag of tricks for upending a non-approved candidate:

The "hates womyn" card: Megyn Kelly

The "link him to raaaaaacists" card -- online commenters have compared his Mobile speech to a Klan rally

The "try to get other members of his party to undermine him" card -- during the debates, and interviews

The "fascist" card -- this has come out in the past couple of days

The "closet Nazi" card -- this has appeared on a couple of left-wing sites but has not picked up traction

The "deny him coverage / censor his speeches and rallies" card -- Fox News, and other networks; surprisingly, CNN is covering him.

The "dirty tricks" card -- Jeb Bush flying a plane around the Mobile speech claiming Trump would raise taxes

The "talk dirt about his family" card -- Glenn Beck has done this

Complaining about the coarseness of his presentation, his lack of polish -- virtually everyone

So, with all these items, what is it that motivates Trump? A large number of hardcore conservatives distrusts him, pointing out how he cannot name a specific verse from the Bible which inspires him, the fact he has been married multiple times, that Hillary Clinton got invited to his wedding, that he donated to Democrats in the past; the list goes on and on. But even more telling, they say, is the fact that he seems, not exactly uneasy while saying conservative memes, but rather unsteady: it is as though either the thoughts themselves are foreign concepts, or at best, he has traveled so long in circles where one would have to hide being a conservative, that he is still uneasy saying conservative things out loud. They compare him to Reagan, who, though he only went to Eureka College (where?), had studied conservative thought for years, had internalized it and made it his own, so that he could instinctively defend it with with, and grace, and honor. Besides, it is reasonably pointed out, if we conservatives have already been burned by those playing Ass in Pachyderm's clothing, why should we trust someone who didn't even make a show of pretending first? Isn't that just begging for trouble?

Those are fair questions; and to my mind, not only fair, but legitimate.

But -- I do not think that they necessarily disqualify Trump. Let me explain.

When a member of the GOP-e ran for the Presidency, he did so for number of reasons: the ego boost (Giuliani, Specter), or "it was his turn" (Dole, Bush, McCain), or even because they could enhance their resume -- for a run at another office, or for lobbying positions (supply your own names here).

But Trump, (if we are to be fair), is not, and cannot be motivated by these. He's a billionaire already: any lobbying money would be Chump Change compared to what he already makes; and further, he has already lost a number of business deals and partners over his run : burning bridges is not a career enhancer within the elite. Further, he's already THE DONALD: he's already bedded and had children with supermodels. And he's 69 years old. There isn't anything left of a ladder for him to climb for money or fame's sake.

What then is left? Oddly enough, I think the clue comes from another famous former RINO and failed-candidate for the Presidency, Mitt Romney.

Romney, for whatever reason, after winning the first debate with Obama, rolled over and played dead: or was ambushed by Candy Crowley (note, in passing, how different Trump's response was to an attempted shiv from a female moderator: he turned on her with all guns ablaze, and holed her underneath the water line). But over and over, throughout the campaign, his message, though boring, was constant: America is a pretty good place, let's hire someone competent to administer it. And I, Mitt Romney, am a pretty competent administrator.

Is this quite what Trump intends? Close, but not quite, for two reasons.

First, I think Trump is personally concerned, because he is 69 years old, and he remembers the America that used to be: the America before Obama, before "fundamental transformation," before 9-11: an America where everyone believed in America, and where (unlike Michelle Obama's whine), almost everyone was PROUD of America. His very campaign slogan, and the themes of his campaign, reflect this: "Make America Great Again", the push to exclude waves of crime from illegal immigrants, the promise of tough negotiations with trading partners to America's benefit, of taking a forceful, effective stance against countries and terrorists who deign to kill Americans with impunity.

Second, Trump is looking at the country, and he sees the demographic trends: not racial, but cultural: if one imports millions of people who do not share our language, who have not grown up with stories of Washington and Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of Lincoln, and the Old West...whether they be from Mexico, Somalia, Syria, or India...and if one does NOT require them to assimilate, but only sees them as fodder to be used for cheap labor, or cheap votes...

how can that be called anything but a betrayal of America, as those who share a heritage and a history going back centuries, are displaced in favor of foreigners?

Trump may not have the political theory of Burke, and Locke, or the rhetorical skills of Jefferson or Lincoln. But he DOES love the country. And I believe, he is running, he is standing his ground, he is fighting, to preserve, protect, and defend, that which he loves.

Were it only true that the other candidates -- or, for that matter, current office holders -- did as much.

(*) It is this fact, that gives considerable credence to the idea of a uniparty: Hillary Clinton has done nothing of merit but put up with (and lie about) her husband's making oral sex a household term, adding a new word to the dictionary: Lewinsky. And she has capped this with a disastrous stint as Secretary of State. Against anyone but Bush, she would likely lose in a landslide. Similarly, Jeb Bush has little to recommend him to the common voter ("Two Bushes in the White House is enough!"), but a lot, in terms of favoring illegal immigration, to recommend him to the GOP-e; and there's always this to recommend him to the Uniparty: if he's running against anyone but Hillary, he would likely lose in a landslide.

[betty boop]

Trump has said and done some good things, but he may have too thin a skin to be president. Somebody used to taking risks and putting himself forward — good things — shouldn't be so sensitive. I think his candidacy may crash and burn and leave a lot of trouble behind.

Possibly it could turn out that way. I really have no idea: We are in totally uncharted territory here. I've never seen anything like it. And my crystal ball is completely fogged over....

As for The Donald not anticipating Megyn Kelly's question, that seems dubious to me. I think he very much expected it, and was prepared to answer it just the way he did. No surprises there — except that maybe he was surprised that this would be the first question of the "debate," and not, say, the last. But it was not as if Kelly was eliciting any new "news" about The Donald....

It seems to me Ms. Kelly is trying to become the female incarnation of Bill O'Reilly. (Heaven forfend!!!) She cares 'way too much about the "ratings."

Developments on the Democrat side are also exceptionally complex, and — given that Obama increasingly seems to have a behind-the-scenes hand in manipulating the outcome — unpredictable. Once he's done with Hillary!, he'll take on whoever is leading in the GOP. I expect to see some exceptionally dirty politics....

Lots of moving parts here, lots of balls in the air. And we still have a long way to go to November 2016.

Thanks, x, for sharing your thoughts with me.

[betty boop]

I'm sorry, dear 'pipe, but I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.

I love Cruz — he's my guy. But I could vote for The Donald without holding my nose....

As I would have to do, in the unlikely case that Jeb! wins the nomination.

Trump is exactly right about Jeb!: He doesn't have the energy, the passion, to be president.

I'd say The Donald is an astute reader of a person's character....

[xzins]

The real issue before us is what we get when voting for an approved GOP candidate. Answer: we get the current status of the US of America.

The GOP has capitulated and manipulated its way to the day when its base is totally disgusted with it. I’m one of those totally disgusted millions.

Even with Cruz, you could see the GOP maneuvering to kill him off from day one, and the Bush money and backers were preparing to do scorched earth on him. Scorched earth worked in 2012 and it will still work UNLESS the candidate has the money to fight back.

Enter Trump. He fights back, he can fight back, and he seems to have a gift for picking fights that keep his name in the news.

So, if I want more of the same. More Boehner and McConnell sliminess and deceptive back room dealing; more Corker subverting the Constitution, more Scotus republican appointments putting immorality in my community, more serf immigrants replacing American workers, and more international ownership of the USA through insane indebtedness and traitorous trade deals, then I will rush to the polls to vote for the establishment GOP.

But, if I want to gamble on an outsider like Trump, who isn’t pristine, but appears to be trying, then I will write a post like this and challenge anyone to prove to me why Bush and more of the same is better than gambling on Trump, who just might pick Cruz as his running mate.

[RinaseaofDs]

I don’t subscribe to the original premise.

How is Trump a problem again, in a world that Boehner and McConnell occupy?

Isn’t Trump the direct reaction to their inaction?

[caww]

"WISDOM"...

"PASSION"...

"THE OTHER SIDE"....

[hosepipe]

Thats was a really good assessment (of DONALD TRUMP)-South40....

I feel the same mystery is why freepers of all places fall generally for this clap trap.. of TRUMP..

When much of what he says is ECHOing Ted Cruz..

Does D.TRUMP care about the US.. Constitution?.. like Ted Cruz DOES?..

The obvious answer is for most of his life is ..NO..
Stone hard democrat even tho sometimes gave to RINOs..
AND IF NO.. How bizarre is TRUMPs deep philosophy?..

The real question (no one is asking) is, is TRUMP a Republican OR A RINO?..
A RINO with a get out of SLIME CARD on Free Republic..

AND further ( IF ) a RINO why not a democrat...
HAS Free Republic changed that much that a RINO can be touted as a Conservative?..

Has “the Brains” been sucked out of many Freepers?.
If so TRUMP is a wizard.. casting a spell..
Even Romney was vetted more fully..
Rand Paul treat more harshly..

On Free Republic there must be a “GULLIBILITY VIRUS”
Infecting many with PollyAnna symptoms..

[hosepipe]

LOL......

[South40]

HAS Free Republic changed that much that a RINO can be touted as a Conservative?..

As long as the RINO is saying what they want to hear, apparently so.

There is no question Donald J. Trump is a liberal. Few have denied it and many here have told me they just don't care. When I ask them to name another liberal they trust they can't do it. That considered, why trust liberal Donald Trump?

[Hostage]

Thanks for the ping.

Ted Cruz is my idea of a great great conservative for the White House, he’s destined for the White House.

There are two incontrovertible things of many incontrovertible things with Donald Trump that close the deal for me:

1) He loves our Vets
2) He’s tough, as in old school New York City tough.

All the other sales points that are used in boosting him such as immigration, no one can buy him, etc. are all derived from the above two points and those two points above are indisputable. Point one confirms and validates such things as his patriotism, putting America first, deporting alien lawbreakers, etc. and point two confirms and validates he won’t back down from such things as political correctness, ill manners and misbehavior and in fact will go on the offense to the surprise and horror of his attackers. <— ‘his attackers’, note this.

Trump’s essence is passive-aggressive as is typical of old New York City behaviors. Everybody in that metropolis who were and are players had for many many decades developed a code of ethics based on how you treated your friends and how you treated your foes. All others who are neither friend nor foe are treated respectfully but kept distant. You will often hear of people that have visited NYC for the first time that people there were so friendly to them and how confusing it is that the city has such a reputation for rudeness and meanness. That’s because outside first-time visitors are ‘innocent’ but just as soon as someone decides to move there, if they weren’t already born there, and make a ‘presence’, then they immediately learn of the underlying urban war. To survive there one has to develop a toughness unlike any other place in the world. That’s how it is that New Yorkers say that if you can make it in New York, then you can make it anywhere.

The takeaway here is there are two Donald Trumps, two faces: one face for his enemies and another face for everyone else.

New Yorkers (here meaning those in the city) are typically of the mind that they look their foes in the eye with a big smile on their face while in the back of their minds they are looking to kill and screw them over. Because a lot of what goes on in New York is about screwing your enemies. That’s where the toughness sets in.

When old school New Yorkers greet someone they very much respect and admire they typically look somber with a stern look as an acknowledgement of the respect they are paying and the esteem they hold the person.

I know it seems backwards from what most of the world expects but it really works that way in New York City.

To make it clear: if you are his enemy or a criminal, he will break all norms of behavior including lying in order to bring you down and lock you up. General George Washington defeated the World’s superpower with a ragtag army using masterful lies. So although social norms at their root promote telling the truth as an inviolate principle, those social norms are not applicable in war. And NYC is a region of passive-aggressive behavioral warfare. I infer that all is fair in war in the eyes of Donald Trump. All lawbreakers are his enemies. All contract breakers are his enemies. Anything goes when dealing with them as long as the Rule of Law is at least on the surface left intact for the law abiding. Everyone else who is not an enemy either gets a somber gesture of respect or a challenge to prove themselves.

Where did I learn this? From long time residents of NYC. These observations are not coming from me. They are merely passed on by people that know that environment. I’ve spent a lot of time in NYC with relatives, friends, business people but I’ve never lived there. When I get introduced to a New Yorker who greets me with a big smile, then I know I’ve somehow received bad press beforehand maybe from a cutthroat competitor, and I know I have my work cut out for me to establish trust if I expect to do business with that person. And I always get third parties to brief me on the persons I am meeting before the meeting because if you get caught associating with the wrong crowd, then you’ve lost before you started. Because at the top in NYC everyone knows everyone. This little tidbit of insight should help people understand why Trump is so bombastic. It’s not him, it’s the cultural exterior he’s had to adopt. To know the real Trump, all you needed was a glimpse of him while on the helicopter with those kids at the Iowa State Fair. If you ever get Donald Trump to open himself, to let his guard down like on that helicopter, then as an adult you can think you made it to his inner circle or are privileged to be close to it. And if you’re an honorable vet, then I would expect you’re already in his inner circle.

[hosepipe]

They are bewitched... Trump owns a pixie dust mine..

[betty boop]

On Free Republic there must be a “GULLIBILITY VIRUS”
Infecting many with PollyAnna symptoms..

Are you saying that Ted Cruz is "gullible," and has been infected with "PollyAnna symptoms?" If anything, Cruz evidences admiration for The Donald. He even invited him to give a speech at the upcoming Rally from the Capitol steps to protest the Iran Deal. Cruz is no fool....

So who's right here: you, or Ted Cruz?

[hosepipe]

There are two incontrovertible things of many incontrovertible things with Donald Trump that close the deal for me:

1) He loves our Vets
2) He’s tough, as in old school New York City tough.

---

1) If he loves Vets why did support and vote for democrats all those years, probably still does?

2) In New York City they disarm the decent people SO THAT the indecent people can ROB THEM.. at gun point..

TWO Reasons to question Donald Trump..

[hosepipe]

If anything, Cruz evidences admiration for The Donald. He even invited him to give a speech at the upcoming Rally from the Capitol steps to protest the Iran Deal. Cruz is no fool....

---

Cruz is cunning.. like when he was a prosecutor...

You can teach a monkey to shoot a gun at monkeys..
When a liberal is digging his grave, WHY STOP HIM?..
When a ______..... ( jeese you get the idea)..

[betty boop]

The GOP has capitulated and manipulated its way to the day when its base is totally disgusted with it. I’m one of those totally disgusted millions.

Me, too. Totally disgusted. I have come to regard the RNC as a criminal conspiracy....

You wrote: "But, if I want to gamble on an outsider like Trump, who isn’t pristine, but appears to be trying, then I will write a post like this and challenge anyone to prove to me why Bush and more of the same is better than gambling on Trump, who just might pick Cruz as his running mate."

And wouldn't that be nice??? The Donald is 69 years old, Cruz, 45 — maybe a little on the young side for the Office of the President. But 4 or 8 years of "seasoning" as veep in a Trump administration would set him up wonderfully for a run for the presidency down the road, while still a relatively young man....

Plus with Cruz there, The Donald would have a superlative constitutional, economic, and social conservative on his team.

As far as I'm concerned, the GOP-e is toast. McConnell and Boehner fill me with disgust. The are just "working the system" for their own benefit like everybody else in Washington, D.C., while America and the American people perish....

My two-cents' worth.

[hosepipe]

Trump is a Master at “PLAYING” RINOs and Wimmen..

And thats the bad part.. the Bad part is..
Most RINOs and Wimmen WANT TO PLAYED..

Used to be most Freepers get pissed off if their being “played”..
Unless most/many freepers have become RINOS..

---

Homie the Clown(me) don’t play that..

[Hostage]

> “If he loves Vets why did support and vote for democrats all those years, probably still does?”

I can see you don’t understand Old NYC.

Because in NYC you smile at your enemies. As Mario Puzo wrote the saying, and he didn’t invent it, it was always understood in NYC, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

http://elitedaily.com/life/real-reason-keep-enemies-closer-friends/913742

Elite Daily is headquartered in NYC.

> “In New York City they disarm the decent people SO THAT the indecent people can ROB THEM.. at gun point.”

Again it is quite evident you don’t understand the City.

Yes, it’s awful to disarm people but many people keep illegal guns including persons respectful of the law. That sounds contradictory and it is but it’s how it is in NYC.

The law against guns in NYC is one of many many many draconian laws that go against the grain of the Founders and American principles. To understand why such laws exist, you have to think ‘locally’ and have developed a hatred for criminals that get off time and time again. When that mentally sets in, you support hundreds, even thousands of laws to get the criminal SOB who smiles and smirks at you after they have robbed you, hurt you or poisoned your dog. So the City passes an avalanche of laws not because they think criminals will respect them, but because LEOs will have just about any reason to nab a bad guy. Someone jay walks, someone spits on the sidewalk, someone scowls at a shop owner (initimidates them, disrupts them), any damn law the NYPD can use to take out the bad guy will be used.

Of course this has the consequence of making the streets mean and it also has the consequence of stripping rights away but the alternative is unmitigated urban warfare.

I’ve looked out of my cousin’s window in Soho and witnessed a person fire a gun from a balcony at someone on the street not to hit them but to scare them. Because if the neighborhood is not a tourist path and you are not a known person, your life is at risk by walking into unknown parts as an unknown person.

[hosepipe]

I can see you don’t understand Old NYC.

---

Yes I do.. same people run NYC that run Washington D.C.
lobbyists paid by Crony Capitalists..

If it’s possible NYC is worse than Washington D.C.
Course Boston runs a close 2nd..

[Hostage]

The attitudes and behaviors started in NYC and spread.

Alright, I can see you got a chip on your shoulder and no insight to contribute.

Now move on away from me and don’t bother me anymore.

[trisham]

I’m am very much enjoying reading your posts, betty boop.

[betty boop]

I daresay the overwhelming majority of FReepers are not RINOS. Nor are they easily "played."

Me, I'm not any kind of Republican anymore. And haven't been, since 2010. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the party; the party left me.