A Liberal assessment of Donald Trump


One of my frequent commenters, 4zen, wonders if I’m starting to like Donald Trump.  Bite my tongue.

No question, he’s a B candidate.  As in B-movie.

B as in brash, brazen, braggart, bumptious, bizarre, badass, bull-in-the-china-shop. And the ever-popular, bloviating.

Did I leave any out?

I like the sideshow he’s orchestrating. How not to like it.

Who hasn’t enjoyed  those hilarious moments when he’s been  exposing the Achilles heels of an assortment of GOP presidential lightweights?

Jeb Bush”s vacillating, shifting  position on the Iraq War.  Lindsey Graham’s political expediency   Rick Perry’s hebetude.

Trump is the burr in the howdah on the Republican elephant.

Of course, all the so-called serious Republicans write him off.  He’s unfit to hold the office of POTUS.  Would you want, they say, Trump anywhere near a nuclear missile?

Trump’s critics on the Right forget they foisted someone like that on us not too long ago.  Someone who paved the way for the likes of  a Mr. Trump, albeit in a very tortuous way.

How do I, a progressive and a liberal, feel about all this?

I’m lovin’ it!  Trump has the Gang on the Right, the gang that can’t shoot straight, squirming for dear life.

Now I heard Trump is playing his trump card, his nuclear option:  the unthinkable 3rd Party candidacy.  If his Conservative rivals don’t cool their jets.

Like the geopolitical aphorism reminds us: Your enemy’s enemy is your friend.

Mr. Trump, let ’em have it!




Leave a comment
  • While Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and probably every other Jimmy will be happy if Trump gets 270 electoral votes, I don't think you will.

  • In reply to jack:

    Remember he was once a Democrat.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So was Ronald Reagan, and also a union president. So, your point being....

  • In reply to jack:

    My point is that he realized his irrational posturing had a better fit in the Republican Party, but subliminally he is acting in behalf of the party he formerly belonged to.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Which reinforces the prediction that he will achieve his spoiler role by being an independent.

  • Thanks for the shout out Aquinas!

    If we were being completely honest we would admit it's the middle class crushing policies embraced by both parties that has paved the way for Trump. Policies like illegal immigrant amnesty, a porous border, TPP, NAFTA, Obamacare, 4 years of 50 million people on food stamps, etc....... Not to mention a bunch of weak Republicans that haven't done one thing the people voted them in office to do.

    Also, regardless if you except it or not, many have seen President Obama as one of the most divisive Presidents in recent memory, giving rise to an equally divisive demagogue in Trump.

  • I may agree with the divisive demagogue conclusion, but I don't recall Trump saying anything about doing anything about "middle class crushing policies," such as publicizing that he pays bellhops in his hotels $30/hour. Sounds like you are for Hillary, although I might sit out an election if the choice is Hillary vs. Duh Donald.

  • So the conservatives seem to be saying, "We know our favorite candidate is a misfit, but the Devil made us do it!" In other words, they are saying that the liberals are to blame for Donald Trump's popularity.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    This conservative isn't being made to do anything, but if your asking me if I believe liberals are much to blame for Trumps popularity I would answer 'H*ll Yes!'

  • In reply to 4zen:


  • Trump talked about the United States making bad trade deals, which have taken American jobs and caused large amounts of illegal immigration. I've asked before what does 500,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border a year for the last 20 years do to wage growth, social resources, debt, taxes and now a national healthcare.

    Not voting for Hillary, she's just more of the same. I'm still waiting for a viable candidate.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I guess we both are. I was looking for something from Rubio or Jindahl, but they really haven't got themselves out there yet. Christie and Walker seem to have imploded before getting out the gate.

    One of the problems seems that Trump has taken all the air out of the campaign news, without doing anything other than flapping his own gums.

  • Then I guess the best bet for the Democrats is to hope someone keeps goading Trump so that the extremism of the conservative wing of the Republican party will become increasingly obvious to the American electorate.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Not necessarily. Trump only reflects Trump. That could mask the extremism of Santorum, Cruz, or Paul, for instance (assuming that they actually reflect what you classify as the extremism of the conservative wing). For instance, Trump just made Lindsey Graham "the victim." That doesn't help Democrats.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Maybe more to the point is in a recent Tribune article: Perry, a GOP presidential contender [and no intellectual heavyweight], denounced Trump's campaign as a "cancer on conservatism" and a "barking carnival act" in a speech that defined "Trumpism" as "a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued." It may help the Democrats, but not in a manner reflecting the conservative wing of the party establishment.

  • In reply to jack:

    Also, to be clear, the comments in brackets were my own.

  • Here for an article highlighting my point on Obama begetting Trump.

    If the link doesn't' work, it's called 'Obama and Trump: Two of a kind' over at the National Review. I thought it was right on.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    The National Review, a Conservative rag, of course , has no axe to grind. In its latest issue I believe it calls Bernie Sanders---a Polish Jew whose family members were killed in the holocaust---a National Socialist, a..k. a. Nazi.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Is there a media that isn't a rag anymore? What about the content?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    My father has referred to Nazi Jews, but not to their faces or in public media.I'm sure the National Review (if you are quoting it correctly) meant it more as a reference to socialism, in which my father also believed at one time, but in the Swedish or California senses.

    Also, the system clock here is really messed up.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I don't see how the article supports your conclusion. Other than Obama saying in 2008 that he didn't need a political director (obviously not true), it seems that the article stresses that Obama could say whatever he wants now that he is a lame duck and it can't affect his election, while Trump is now going demagogue before having ever won anything. I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with Trump going after Rosie O'Donnell in 2006. Trump is just being Trump.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Also, if you listen to recent excerpts of Trump about how he is going to sue Univision and NBC, no different than his comments in the People article about how he was going to sue Rosie.

  • In reply to jack:

    Human see, human do...yin/yang...what comes around goes around...like attracts like...ego/shadow...drake/mallard...Karma.

    You're contradicting yourself, you already said you may agree with my divisive demagogue comment in which I said one gives rise to the other.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I only agreed with that Trump was a divisive demagogue. Regardless of whether you consider Obama to be one, I provided clear historical proof that Obama did not "beget" Trump, as you asserted 1 hour and 14 minutes ago the National Review said, but did not.

  • In reply to jack:

    My point was, that the country get's a popular divisive President that creates strife between groups A and B favoring one of the groups over the other. It's only natural that would give rise to it's opposite, a parody.

    My theory is if bombastic Obama wasn't so clearly divisive, wasn't so clearly playing favoritism, Trumps bombastic style would appear more rude to both groups, instead of refreshing to the group not favored.

    Obama begets Trump in the national political conscious, not literally on a time line. I know Trump has tried politics before, but now Obama has to some extent legitimized him.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I can maybe see the argument that Obama begat the Tea Party as a reactive force, but I don't see how he begat Trump, whose bombast predates Obama, unless there is somehow a convincing argument that Trump would not be running now if Bruce Rauner were the President. But I suppose Bruce Rauner would not have run for Governor if Quinn, Madigan, and Cullerton were not around. So, I think that is only as far as the argument goes.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Also, since subsequent to the Mexicans, most of Trump's attacks have been on members of "his own" political party, I don't recall Obama calling Hillary or Kerry jackasses, demeaning military members' service, or the like.

  • Thank you for a fascinating conversation. It's quite a spectator sport now, but let's remember that next year, it'll be a participant sport!

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    To the extent that Illinois has not been on the Electoral College margin, not here. Of course, then we avoid some of the attack ads.

  • 'Predates?' I just said not on a time line. Obama begat him by legitimizing him with a similar style, before Obama less legitimate, after Obama more legitimate.

    No, Obama didn't call anyone a jackass, he just politically destroys members of 'his own' party when they don't fall in line or insinuates they are racist.

    Yes, your Rauner example is close to what I'm saying. Those that hate Rauner and voted for the corrupt politician's that ruined this state's finances must take some of the responsibility for the Karma of Bruce Rauner, and that takes the argument far enough.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Paragraph 2: Do you have any specific names, dates, or other references?

  • In reply to jack:

    Bob Menendez. Bill Clinton, (which helped beat Hillary.)

  • In reply to 4zen:

    So, when did Obama say Bill Clinton was a jackass? Or what did he say? And on what date? And was it more than "political log rolling?" A Google search indicates that Bill was concerned about supposedly personal attacks on Hilliary. I'm sure far less than what the House Foreign Affairs Committee did to her subsequently.

    I still don't figure out how anything Obama said justifies Truimp's exchange with Lindsey Graham, nor the circus yesterday about how "scared" Trump was to go to the border with the press entourage behind him. El Chapo was going to kill Trump on ABC News?

    Your trying to say that Obama is divisive DOES NOT JUSTIFY this clown act.

  • You keep ignoring what I wrote. I gave you the answers and have been more than patient with you. Now put it together and do your homework young man.

    I didn't say anything about justify, just merely noted that IMO the Obama show paved the way for the Trump show. If you disagree, that's okay.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    "Paved the way." Yes, I certainly disagree.

    Maybe Trump is paving the way for Kim Kardashian to make a run for President. Or Jerry Falwell turned her stepfather into a stepmother. And, in any event, since Trump's pattern of conduct preceded this, you can't use "paved the way" and deny any chronological link. Mighty curious theory of causation you have there.

  • You disagree, but I think you finally have hit upon what I've been saying. As a conservative, your second paragraph describes how I've seen the Obama administration for the last six and half years.

    If you need a chronological link then think of it this way. IMO, the antics of the Obama administration have 'paved the way' for a man like Trump to make a serious run for the White House.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Obviously, you didn't get my causation point. But to get back to the point AW made and Jimmy Kimmel makes (i.e. this is solely entertainment), this is a "serious run for the White House" only in the minds of those with certain cognitive deficiencies.

  • In reply to jack:

    I got your point and I got your insult. Pathetic. Bye, bye.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Not intended as an insult unless you classify yourself as a Trump supporter. One would have to be much more wacko than say a Cruz supporter, especially since Trump doesn't have any policy other than that he would build a wall.

  • Here is an interesting piece for everyone but Jack from the liberal publication ThinkProgress, it appears someone who may or may not have cognitive deficiencies has made an interesting Progressive case for the Donald. Warning only for those with inquiring minds.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Thanks, 4zen. Very astute analysis. It doesn't make a case for Progressives to vote for Trump, but it does make a case for considering him less a threat to Pregressive policies (on balance) than his extreme Conservative opponents.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Thanks Aquinas for the input, to your comment I wouldn't underestimate the value of Trump not being a threat to Progressive policies. It is that very fact that could give way for more people to listen to what he has to say. People become intensely angry at people/policies that cause them to feel powerless...

    From the article: 'But it is also a dangerous game to be certain about the political fate of any individual. Political opponents initially “dismissed [Ronald] Reagan as a lightweight—an opinion based almost solely on the fact that he was an actor.” He went on to be Governor of California and one of the most popular Republican presidents in history.'

  • In reply to 4zen:

    It is clear that the article says where Trump has a position, it is "compared to the other 15 Republicans." That author isn't saying that Trump is taking votes away from Bernie Sanders.

    And if it is worth going back to the "tone" issue, that author mentions that Trump was the main proponent of the birther issue. I remember now that he had a reward for someone who would provide a Kenyan birth certificate. I guess by having come from his mother's birth canal, Obama "paved the way" for that insult.

    Thus,the only thing I get out of that article was what the author said about the Huffington Post, which has finally figured it out. Maybe CNN will, too.

  • In reply to jack:

    Report of a poll saying what I said in the second sentence. Also, stating it directly, not by inference.

  • Breaking news! Today long time Progressive policy crusader Ralph Nader points to Donald Trumps teachable moment and the folly in not taking the candidate serious, which 'could set a dangerous precedent for future candidates with fresh ideas, looking to shake up the controlling status quo.'

    Mr. Nader goes on to chide his benefactor The Huffington Post for their treatment of Mr. Trump citing the candidates defense of Progressive policies, and goes on to give legitimacy to Mr. Trump's political agenda.

    And the hits keep coming.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    If one wants to get into the battle of the commentators, here's one confirming that there is no substance there.

    Also, besides having bad grammar, Nader is usually credited for getting GWB elected, so we know what your real agenda is by citing him.

  • Breaking News! Reports of cognitive dissonance are sweeping the nation as the Donald stiff arms a bogus rape accusation and charges ahead in New Hampshire.


  • In reply to 4zen:

    From what I read, he isn't denying the forced intercourse, but is relying on the legalism that it isn't rape if it is your wife. That's the case in some states, but I'm sure that "will help him" get the women's vote.

  • In reply to jack:

    So Trump wants to do to the Republican party what he did to Ivana?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    "Last name Tinkle."--Bart Simpson.

    A bit, but not much different than Cosby's definition of "consent."

  • In reply to jack:

    What is this? Intellectual dishonesty? You mean the faux pas by the hired help? Have sunken to slander? Did mean to insinuate this statement was made by President hopeful Donald Trump?

    The ex-Mrs. Trump has already gotten ahead this story with apology. Are you calling this poor woman a liar?

  • Well what do we have here!? None other than Billionaire, business mogul, and fan favorite Mark Cuban praising 'The Don.'

    Mr. Cuban waxes "I don't care what his actual positions are," Cuban wrote. "I don't care if he says the wrong thing. He says what's on his mind. He gives honest answers rather than prepared answers. This is more important than anything any candidate has done in years."

    We may be witnessing the biggest political phenomenon since Bill Crosby taught Bill Clinton how to slip a Mickey.

Leave a comment