Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Clinton's made $238 million since leaving White House.

Made? What's that she's made? She's destroyed much. Debased much. And disinherited millions. But I can't think of anything she's made, can you?

There's only one maker in this election. One builder. The other one knows nothing but destruction.

Imagine how the billionaires who throw her the change in their pockets must laugh at the little upper-middler from Park Ridge, forever the acquisitive grasper, forever avenging her loss as senior class president. "I'll show them."

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

One can say they're not voting for the GOP but in fact you will vote for the GOP and with Pence anchoring the ticket, you have nearly the most right wing person to serve in Congress in the 2000s. I believe he averaged #430 out of 435. We all have stories we tell ourselves but I don't think it requires the media to observe that Trump is a loose cannon.

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate? For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals. This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

I think there are over 700 posts in this thread. Please point out your post where you've asked Trump supporters to not call HRC names. Then read all of the names she's been called in this thread. I don't think I've complained about it, it's just trash talk between two opposing sides. Trump is the logical outcome of the post Civil Rights Act, racist Republican, Southern strategy, the 1988 Willie Horton ads, then the more subtle racism of the '90s and later; the welfare state, welfare queen and affirmative action.

I am intolerant. I'll own that one. Among many other things, I'm intolerant of misogyny, racism, jingoism and nativism. Your candidate represents all of those values and yes, I want to see those values crushed. I want them destroyed.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Santa, the grey fuzz on my balls is all I need to understand what makes a hypocrite. And it's not that I don't want to talk about substantive issues. I just don't care to talk about them with you. You have a good day, sir.

OK, offer made. I won't respond to any more of your posts on this thread. Please do the same until you're willing to talk substantive policy. For me, there is only one short term issue that matters in this election, the Supreme Court. There are many other issues that follow-on but this one is key.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Both candidates wanted to disrupt the status quo.

I actually believed that for a moment. At the beginning of Trump's campaign. When he said he wanted to raise minimum wage. When he said the trade deals sucked. When he said he wanted to raise taxes and regulate the hedge fund crew. When he said he wanted to expand Social Security and Medicare. When he said he wanted to undo Citizens United.

There was a brief moment when I thought, "Holy shit! Donald Trump can read a poll! He realizes that even amongst rank-and-file Republicans, Citizens United is a stinker, most like their SS and Medicare, 70+% want higher minimum wage, most don't like free trade deals: Here's a candidate who gets it." I thought he was really going to run as a populist.

Instead, since the convention, he has decided to put up a Heritage Foundation typical tax plan that would eliminate the estate tax for Trust Fund babies inheriting more than 11 million, create the largest tax break for millionaires and billionaires in generations, promised to stop any and all regulation of banks and insurance companies, pulled a complete 180 to promote abolishing the minimum wage entirely, and now is open to cutting Social Security and Medicare. And his Supreme Court list, far from being populist, basically consists solely of the most Republican establishment candidates you could imagine. The only thing left he has to do is offer to sign the TPP and announce he'll never build that wall, and he's 100% exactly just like the rest of them.

So in six months he went from a candidate suggesting a menu of policies that was actually a new combination to another Paul Ryan / Ayn Rand acolyte plus an immigration wall.

It will not be enough for him to win. His mistake was not going with the original platform he laid out. And it's too late to turn back now.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

The thing that confuses me is why people think the election of Trump would lead to the disintegration of either party, or to the birth of a third party.
America is only going to change with massive protests brought on by a new milaltary adventure or financial chaos. I'm 60. I consider this the most irrelevant election of my life.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

OK, offer made. I won't respond to any more of your posts on this thread. Please do the same until you're willing to talk substantive policy. For me, there is only one short term issue that matters in this election, the Supreme Court. There are many other issues that follow-on but this one is key.

You're all out of luck on that score, Santa.

You come after me, say something stupid, something venal, something I know is false, I'll call you out the way I always do. No quarter offered, none expected.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The thing that confuses me is why people think the election of Trump would lead to the disintegration of either party, or to the birth of a third party.
America is only going to change with massive protests brought on by a new milaltary adventure or financial chaos. I'm 60. I consider this the most irrelevant election of my life.

Thai & DC, it seems to me you both underestimate the political fragility of the current form of governance. The popular revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist political parties, and distrust of elites and experts.

Depending on one's perspective, we can look at the populist insurgency spearheaded by Donald Trump as either a corrective or a threat to mainstream Republican orthodoxy. Trump has already demonstrated the ability to leap over one of those hurdles: the social conservatism of the Christian Right. A Pew survey a month ago found that 78 percent of white evangelicals said they would vote for Trump. While it remains to be seen if the GOP survives or reorganizes itself into something new, the type of conservatism long championed by the Republican Party failed the moment a candidate came along who could rally its voters without being beholden to its donors, experts and pundits.

Trump was the only leading GOP candidate who expressed the actual preference of most Republican voters, declaring his “absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and leave it as is.” Trump is now the Republican presidential nominee. And even if turns out Trump is defeated, what is left of the GOP establishment still might try to effect a restoration of the old economic dogma of free trade, mass immigration and entitlement cuts. But if the Republican Party is to survive, policies that most of the party’s core voters reject will be abandoned over the objections of traditional Republican party donors and thought leaders.

The most important consequences of the Trump campaign are the changes he has wrought in the Democratic Party. Trump support among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters has pushed into overdrive the metamorphosis of the Democratic Party. Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and low income ethnic and racial minorities.

Not only are we witnessing an inversion among the supporters of the Democratic Party, but the party will become increasingly isolated, mirroring an upper class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society. Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party has become the party of the "winners," in collaboration with many of those in the top 1% percent who are determined to protect and secure their status.

The Democrats will continue along this path of joining with false-progressives and poor minorities located in large urban centers whose concept of America is limited to a multicultural coalition of racial and ethnic identity groups operating under the false concept that they alone represent the moral people and who equate nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

The GOP will either "wither away" or reorient itself to working-class whites based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort — programs like Social Security and Medicare, but will oppose those programs whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The economic nationalism championed by Trump voters will be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as protectionism. And they will seek out as their first target those elements of unproductive finance that dominate the commanding heights of the Democratic Party elite. If they are to remain viable, the remaking of the GOP will embrace universal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare

So which side will prevail once this process is complete? Impossible to say at this point, but demographics is the key and the most important of that are Hispanic persons. And here I believe this emerging new GOP will have the advantage based on the primacy of nationalism among the working and middle-class populists that dominate the Trump block. Given Trump's rhetoric on Mexico, this seems counterintuitive, but relies on longstanding demographic and social trends of assimilation we note in every historical wave of immigration. It is based on the process of "becoming white."

As did the Irish and Italians before them, Hispanic Americans increasingly identify themselves as white. Between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, about 7 percent of Hispanics changed their self-description from “some other race” to “white.” At the same time, according to the Census Bureau, three-fourths of “white population growth” in 21st-century America has been driven by individuals who declared themselves white and of Hispanic origin. As increasing numbers of Hispanics identify as white and their descendants are defined as “white” in government statistics, there may be a white majority in the U.S. throughout the 21st century.

Trump’s unpopularity among Latino voters is surely a short-run benefit to Democrats. But there is no reason to expect that Democrats will have at their command a solid Latino voting bloc in the future. Here we can look to Texas, in particular, as a model of GOP success in winning Hispanic voters. As Latinos assimilate and intermarry, they will continue to abandon a Democratic Party unresponsive to their lived experience and move to the Republican Party, following the well-worn trail cut by so-called “white ethnic” voters like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans.

The old is dying and the new is struggling to be born.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Thai & DC, it seems to me you both underestimate the political fragility of the current form of governance. The popular revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist political parties, and distrust of elites and experts.

Depending on one's perspective, we can look at the populist insurgency spearheaded by Donald Trump as either a corrective or a threat to mainstream Republican orthodoxy. Trump has already demonstrated the ability to leap over one of those hurdles: the social conservatism of the Christian Right. A Pew survey a month ago found that 78 percent of white evangelicals said they would vote for Trump. While it remains to be seen if the GOP survives or reorganizes itself into something new, the type of conservatism long championed by the Republican Party failed the moment a candidate came along who could rally its voters without being beholden to its donors, experts and pundits.

Trump was the only leading GOP candidate who expressed the actual preference of most Republican voters, declaring his “absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and leave it as is.” Trump is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. And even if turns out Trump is defeated, what is left of the GOP establishment might try to effect a restoration of the old economic dogma of free trade, mass immigration and entitlement cuts. If the Republican Party is to survive, policies that most of the party’s core voters reject will be abandoned over the objections of traditional Republican party donors and thought leaders.

But the most important consequences of the Trump campaign are the changes he has wrought in the Democratic Party. Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters has pushed into overdrive the metamorphosis of the Democratic Party. Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and low income ethnic and racial minorities.

Not only are we witnessing an inversion among the supporters of the Democratic Party, but the party will become increasingly isolated, mirroring an upper class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society. Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party has becoming the party of the "winners," in collaboration with many of those in the top 1% percent who are determined to protect and secure their status.

The Democrats will continue along this path of joining with false-progressive and poor minorities located in large urban centers whose concept of America is limited to a multicultural coalition of racial and ethnic identity groups operating under the false concept that they alone represent the moral people and equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

The GOP will either "wither away" or reorient itself to working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort — programs like Social Security and Medicare, but oppose those programs whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The economic nationalism championed by Trump voters will be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as protectionism. And they will seek out their first target those elements of unproductive finance that dominate the commanding heights of the Democratic Party elite. If they are to remain viable, the remaking of the GOP will it embrace universal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare

So which side will prevail one this process is complete? Impossible to say at this point, but demographics is the key and the most important of that are Hispanic persons. And here I believe this emerging new GOP will have the advantage based on the primacy of nationalism among the working and middle-class populists that dominate the Trump block. Given Trump's rhetoric on Mexico, this seems counterintuitive, but relies on longstanding demographic and social trends of assimilation we note in every historical wave of immigration. It is based on the process of "becoming white."

As did the Irish and Italians before them, Hispanic Americans increasingly identify themselves as white. Between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, about 7 percent of Hispanics changed their self-description from “some other race” to “white.” At the same time, according to the Census Bureau, three-fourths of “white population growth” in 21st-century America has been driven by individuals who declared themselves white and of Hispanic origin. As increasing numbers of Hispanics identify as white and their descendants are defined as “white” in government statistics, there may be a white majority in the U.S. throughout the 21st century.

Trump’s unpopularity among Latino voters is surely a short-run benefit to Democrats. But there is no reason to expect that Democrats will have at their command a solid Latino voting bloc in the future. Here we can look to Texas, in particular, as a model of GOP success in winning Hispanic voters. As Latinos assimilate and intermarry, they will continue to abandon a Democratic Party unresponsive to their lived experience and move to the Republican Party, following the well-worn trail cut by so-called “white ethnic” voters like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans.

The old is dying and the new is struggling to be born.

i mostly agree with this analysis with a few caveats:

1. i agree the self-identification of hispanics will be key to the future of the current democratic coalition. if hispanics cease to self-identify primarily as hispanic, then the dems are going to have to find something else to try to keep them in the fold.

re: hispanics-as-whites - even if they drop or attenuate their ethnic identity, as earlier waves of other immigrant groups have done, their economic position will be dispositive. if they are urban professionals they will identify as democratic under the current set-up. if they are rural poor, they might go republican but i think that if they are rural poor they are much less likely to give up their hispanic ethnic identity. so i am skeptical of your argument about them.

2. the changes in trump's positions noted by dcarrigg, above, are REALLY significant. i, too, was attracted to a lot of what trump said INITIALLY. i, too, am disappointed that he has become the avatar of standard republican economic and social policy, with the addition of a nationalistic/mercantilist and anti-immigration stance. i wouldn't be surprised if the koch brothers change their stance about trump and start supporting him. the tax cuts he espouses, and the end of the estate tax must be music to their ears.

3. the adoption of those small-gov't-reagan republican tax positions puts his support for the middle class entitlements- social security and medicare - very much in doubt. the deficits he would create would imo quickly lead to the resurrection of republican plans to reduce those programs.

4. i agree with santafe that the supreme court is a very big deal, e.g. citizen's united and the undermining of the voting rights act. [either mississippi or alabama, i forget which, managed to keep its voter id law and then closed all the dmv offices in black majority areas. so much for justice roberts' assertion that the south had changed so much the voting rights act was no longer needed.]

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i mostly agree with this analysis with a few caveats:

1. i agree the self-identification of hispanics will be key to the future of the current democratic coalition. if hispanics cease to self-identify primarily as hispanic, then the dems are going to have to find something else to try to keep them in the fold.

re: hispanics-as-whites - even if they drop or attenuate their ethnic identity, as earlier waves of other immigrant groups have done, their economic position will be dispositive. if they are urban professionals they will identify as democratic under the current set-up. if they are rural poor, they might go republican but i think that if they are rural poor they are much less likely to give up their hispanic ethnic identity. so i am skeptical of your argument about them.

2. the changes in trump's positions noted by dcarrigg, above, are REALLY significant. i, too, was attracted to a lot of what trump said INITIALLY. i, too, am disappointed that he has become the avatar of standard republican economic and social policy, with the addition of a nationalistic/mercantilist and anti-immigration stance. i wouldn't be surprised if the koch brothers change their stance about trump and start supporting him. the tax cuts he espouses, and the end of the estate tax must be music to their ears.

3. the adoption of those small-gov't-reagan republican tax positions puts his support for the middle class entitlements- social security and medicare - very much in doubt. the deficits he would create would imo quickly lead to the resurrection of republican plans to reduce those programs.

4. i agree with santafe that the supreme court is a very big deal, e.g. citizen's united and the undermining of the voting rights act. [either mississippi or alabama, i forget which, managed to keep its voter id law and then closed all the dmv offices in black majority areas. so much for justice roberts' assertion that the south had changed so much the voting rights act was no longer needed.]

Rule #1. Never write in the AM before the second cup of coffee. Forgive the omissions and grammatical stumbling.

I think these are fair points. That said, I'm of the opinion that what you and DC consider backsliding on the part of Trump is nothing more than a nod to the trads in the old GOP who must still be mollified if he is to have their support. Once elected, much of that I expect will be jettisoned. As for the courts, I fully expect we will not see any of either of the candidates first choices, never mind their third. We may in fact operate with a short-court for a period far longer than any of us might imagine possible. Every nominee will be subject to a grueling confirmation battle that will make the Bork nomination look like a quiet Sunday walk in the park. And if the so-called nuclear option be exercised, I fully expect a congressional revolt leading to articles of impeachment. For those reasons, I am less concerned about the make-up of the Court. Whoever prevails, we are headed for a political gridlock unseen in American history. The only way that gridlock is broken is by a massive war and this I think is the ace HRC holds up her sleeve should the worst happen and she becomes the 45th POTUS.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Rule #1. Never write in the AM before the second cup of coffee. Forgive the omissions and grammatical stumbling.

I think these are fair points. That said, I'm of the opinion that what you and DC consider backsliding on the part of Trump is nothing more than a nod to the trads in the old GOP who must still be mollified if he is to have their support. Once elected, much of that I expect will be jettisoned.

Woody, totally regardless of what Trump actually believes or what he'd actually do, which I admit I know nothing about, the one thing I do know is this:

It's extremely difficult to mollify the old GOP trads and win a national election simultaneously. The policies they want are stinkers. They don't poll well. Not even amongst their own.

For the 15% or so of the electorate that votes on policy issues, by mollifying them, Trump just lost the split hard.

And for the 20% or so behind them who vote on single issues, he lost the split hard again.

There is no large anti-estate tax voting bloc. There is no large financial deregulation voting bloc. There is no 'discounted tax-rates for repatriation of offshore funds' voting bloc.

Abolishing the minimum wage is the political equivalent of sticking a wet fork in the electrical outlet, especially with the working class--you know, the voters he's trying to court. Even grandma and grandpa Greyhair Apolitical want you to leave their payments the hell alone.

At this point, the damage has been done.

Somewhere around here I wrote about the 2012 election and how if Romney and Ryan simply dropped their plans to voucherize Medicare and start a war with Iran, they very well may have won. Those two policies were BIG stinkers. Only maybe 20% of the GOP, 5% of independents and 1% of Democrats wanted it. Medicare especially drew them the ire of the AARP. Turns out grandpa doesn't want to give up his 65+ health insurance in exchange for a coupon for one free knee replacement.*

Well, if you think those policies are stinkers, only 2% of the electorate (2!) thinks abolishing the minimum wage is a good idea. Just 2%. There is almost nothing this unpopular. Coming out publicly in favor of abolishing the minimum wage is the policy equivalent of wiping your ass with the American flag on camera.

I guess, long story short, it probably doesn't matter what Trump would or would not do if elected. So long as he's promoting such extremely unpopular economic policies, he'll never win.

After all, even politicians who deep down truly believe in abolishing the minimum wage have the brains never to say something like that out loud.

It's one thing to take the position, "I think the wage should stay where it is." You can plausibly defend that from the other side that says, "I want it to go up." But saying, "I want to abolish the wage," just makes the 12 million people making it, and the 40 million more making $14 or less, tremble at the possibilities. At least the fifth or so of them who are paying attention.

And like you said, the demographics aren't going to break his way either this time around with how bad he's losing hispanic voters.

And if you're on the wrong side of the demographic break, AND you pick the most unpopular policy positions possible, you don't win elections. They are a popularity contest, after all.





*Within 12 months of when you pay full price for your first knee replacement. Terms and conditions may apply. May not be used in combination with other offers, on weekends, holidays, or at other times at our discretion. Void where prohibited.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...I guess, long story short, it probably doesn't matter what Trump would or would not do if elected. So long as he's promoting such extremely unpopular economic policies, he'll never win...

Well then I suppose liberals have nothing to worry about and the left can go back to marching and chanting with righteous surety that they amount to nothing and squandered the ocean of blood, sweat and tears expended on their behalf over the last century. And the rest of us can say goodbye to our children and grandchildren - daughters included - because HRC is sending them into the fire for the sake of her "legacy." Of this you can be sure.

DC, have you ever been in a campaign? Maybe played sports in high school or college? If you haven't, it's one thing to be realistic about the odds. But get on the field thinking you have no chance, take counsel of your fears and expect the worst, well you might as well stayed home and watched it on TV. I've dabbled in defeatism, I must admit, but the older I get the more it just pisses me off.

I am working toward a Trump victory and it's the end I keep in mind. And should it happen that Trump loses and the status quo wins I will have made my best effort and taken my last shot for the kids. I'll be at peace with that even though I know all around me a (civil) war may be under way. And when my great grandchildren ask me what I did in "the war" I can tell them "the best I could" and know that I'm telling them the truth.

What are you going to tell yours?


-----
Addendum: In terms of the laundry list you mentioned, Trump supports an increased minimum wage, raising the top income tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, a temporary moratorium on new financial regs, an end to deferred taxes on corporate income earned abroad and a one-time 10% tax on cash held overseas, and other proposals - should you have any interest - that are available in his web site.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

There is no large anti-estate tax voting bloc. There is no large financial deregulation voting bloc. There is no 'discounted tax-rates for repatriation of offshore funds' voting bloc.

Abolishing the minimum wage is the political equivalent of sticking a wet fork in the electrical outlet, especially with the working class--you know, the voters he's trying to court.

otoh, these policies are VERY popular with the republican donor class.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Addendum: In terms of the laundry list you mentioned, Trump supports an increased minimum wage, raising the top income tax rates, elimination of the estate tax, a temporary moratorium on new financial regs, an end to deferred taxes on corporate income earned abroad and a one-time 10% tax on cash held overseas, and other proposals - should you have any interest - that are available in his web site.

13 days later he said he'd abolish the federal minimum wage and 'let the states decide,' which is codeword for no more minimum wage at all in the south, given that the deep south tends to have no state minimum wage laws.

Your own link to the top income tax rates has them going down, Woody. It's just an article about how Trump changed his own plan on top rates to bring his planned top rate up from 25% to 33%. That still brings the top rate down from today's 39.6% to 33%, a significant tax cut, not to mention by eliminating top brackets, it makes the whole shebang less progressive.

The elimination on the estate tax is not a good thing--just a give-away to the $11mm plus trustafarian club at Harvard. Moratorium on financial regs sucks.

I don't mind that his website's there.

I'm not telling you who to vote for or what to do.

But I will tell you this:

If you really want your guy to win, and you have any influence and energy left in you, you'd do well to push however you can to convince them to pick a more populist and less elitist policy platform wherever they can...meaning follow the polls. Don't try to convince the majority of people that policies that only help 400 rich guys are good for them. Because that's too hard, and it takes too long, and you need to win in November, not 40 years from now. Maybe in 40 years, after everyone has been sufficiently brainwashed by graduating from Ronald McDonald Charter School, Comcast® High School, and the Truth through Economics, Jesus and Liberty STEM University™ (brought to you by the Koch Brothers Family Foundation), the majority will believe that the minimum wage is bad for them. But until then, it's easier to adjust your sails than try to control the winds.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

otoh, these policies are VERY popular with the republican donor class.

Bingo. It's just they're not winners. Trump really would have rocked the boat by going with popular policies against the grain of the donor class. He almost did. But then he backpedaled.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Okay DC. I'm not running for anything. I have no platform and wrote no story so don't feel any sense of "ownership" over a particular this or that article, as you seem to think I should. And to be clear, I have no "guy." I've made a political calculus to support one candidate - not my first or fifth choice, but the choice that's been proffered - to send a message to both parties, avenge Bernie's loss, punish the DNC and do all those other things I've spoken about since it became to clear to me the DNC rigged the primaries and the media became adjuncts of the Clinton campaign. And once the Wikileaks emails confirmed what I already believed was true, it was an easy move to make.

I appreciate your advice to the Trump campaign and to me. Perhaps I've made myself misunderstood and not wanting to give the wrong impression, I hope you understand that I have no influence in the Trump campaign and neither operate under official capacity or as an informal adviser. As of yesterday, I 1) made a donation, 2) bought signs, 3) worked with friends to place them in the areas the local Trump people requested. Then we had a late lunch and early cocktails and I picked up the tab. If HRC wins this may be enough to put me up against the wall or at least kick off a nasty audit and I'll have to deal with that when the time comes. Expressing an unpopular political opinion has already cost me a lifelong friendship and I admit that I feel the pain of the loss still, so if my small bit of suffering gives succor to the "love your neighbor, unless we disagree, then murder the bastard" wing of American politics, it's my privilege.

Who knows, while installing signs for Trump, a Clinton supporter might decide to drive over me as a means of expressing his distaste for the carried interest loophole? Or maybe I might mistakenly wander into a neighborhood where Democrats dominate and get my skull fractured by someone desirous of a $15 minimum wage increase? Or perhaps I'll canvass the wrong door and be doused with gasoline and set aflame by a Clinton supporter concerned about the fiscal impact of a cut to the estate tax? Maybe I'll be shot to death by a Democrat expressing her opposition to the Second Amendment? Anything could happen now since good and well meaning folk of liberal bent have determined that Trump is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler (or Jack Kemp, shudder the thought), and so really who could blame them? It's a free country, right?

Your concerns are noted. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind taking a nanosecond to note mine as I've only repeated them about a dozen or so times and it seems I'm still having trouble making myself understood through the blinding rage that grips folks anxiously looking forward to Trump's "destruction." First things first. Upend the status quo in whatever way possible, then defeat Clinton. From there all things flow. I made that choice in spite of my personal policy preferences and in full knowledge of Trump's many defects. It's my little strategery, you see.

I'm very certain all the folks overflowing his campaign venues share your deep and abiding concerns over the carried interest loophole and other esoterica of tax policy and are confounded by why the Republican nominee might actually adopt some traditional GOP positions. I'm sure the families (whole families taking a Saturday to work a political campaign, the poor misguided loons) and young people I saw at the local Trump HQ have many sleepless nights, tossing and turning in their beds thinking, "why Donald, why lower the top marginal rate to 33%, why?" And if all those folks I encountered at the NRA event aren't just flummoxed over Trump's on again off again support for raising the minimum wage, we'll they're just not paying attention, are they?

What's wrong with these people? Don't they understand? Why don't they care? We're talking about Happy Meals in schools here; conservative Christian universities teaching Mises for ufck's sake!