The argument that “The Establishment caused Trump” is really just indulgence of lazy and incoherent thinking.

Trump was a known quantity from day one of his campaign. As one of the most well known people in America, his previous history as a social liberal and a repeat abuser of the crony capitalist system was well known. He talked about them openly and repeatedly on television, where he frequently appeared. The fact that he is a good friend of – and repeat donor to – Hillary Clinton was known well before he even announced.



The liberalism and crony capitalism of the Establishment did not cause people to revolt and support… a known liberal recipient of crony capitalism. So stop saying that it did. The evidence of that can be seen in the way that the Establishment is now eagerly embracing Trump in order to prevent even the possibility of a Cruz presidency – and in the way Trump is praising them in return.

The Establishment created Ted Cruz. Lazy and slipshod thinking created Donald Trump



more at http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/25/sick-lame-excuse-vote-trump/

crony capitalist system? figures, liberals don't understand how our country got to be great, and seem to forget everything they are and own is a direct result of that same system...

I didn't think liberals were electing Trump

or creating a website called 'red state'

no, the goofy libtards elected a lying POC twice... as far as red state, who cares?

BLM has a website and thousands of idiots posting stupid tweets about it, they can speak their mind, but DT is not allowed to? just more of your one sided arguments again...


the country needs help, and he wants to help it, but you find fault because he says what needs to be said, not just saying things that would make him a "Messiah", like the lying fool in office now...

the country needs help, and he wants to help it, but you find fault because he says what needs to be said, not just saying things that would make him a "Messiah", like the lying fool in office now...

clapping sound effects: http://youtu.be/bG0WMquKUM4/ 00:07

You couldn't be more right.
Good thing we do the electing :-)

The linked article...blog?...opinion piece? is little different than the average dating site forum thread OP.

I mean:

Ultimately the article is no better than a forum thread of:

"I wrote to one woman once on a dating site and didn't receive a response....I wish all those women would respond to an email even if not interested...(all) women shouldn't ignore me and walk away when I say something to them!"
Add in all the Cruz fanboy junk you could finish the op with: "I don't ignore people, women, so you shouldn't."


The same thing got Clinton, Bush, and Obama elected. Twice.
So I guess we know who our next president is most likely to be.

The same thing pretty much dominates all message boards, forums, and most especially comment sections to articles.
I wonder if that's how people are getting "journalism" jobs these days?
Make prolific comments all over the internet, save them as well as how many return responses generated, apply to a "news" site, start writing articles that are no better than the crap that comes after an article or the mental ejaculate that's prevalent on most social media.

Or maybe "journalists" are paid by the number of responses they receive to their online articles.


Yeah.
That's what the country needs.
"Hi, I'm from the government, I'm here to help."
The country needs less "help" from government.
Jesus. "country needs help, and he wants to help it."
How is that different than any liberal or democrat or socialist or fascist? "It's for your own good! You need help! I'm here to help you! It's for your children, I'm supporting the troops, so you know you can trust me!"

Presidential campaigns are little more than fancy vacuum cleaner salesman knocking on your door asking you to let them in because they just want to show you what a good job they can do on your stains.

And then it's all "my carpets are dirty! He just wants to clean them!"

Insert face palm here.

We get what we deserve that has been true since the 60s to my knowledge when I met john connaly and he would talk to farmers in overalls on Tuesday and sound like a farmer then the next week be seen by bankers in a Brooks Bros suit and be articulate and persuasive. Femember he changed parties from democrat to republican and then become the secretary of the treasury not bad for a man who moves adroitly among politicos for his own advantage....

everyone is able to speak their mind

and everyone is allowed an opinion on the MINDS that are shared when people publicly voice those opinions

and of the millions of people that post on the internet,,,only a limited few choose to run for PRESIDENT

and stating that they are electable just because they are able to voice opinions on the internet, or in the media

is lazy thinking nonsense,,

no double standard at all

matters not WHO They are


the presidents purpose is a lot more serious than to give his personal opinions

which is obvious by how many trump supporters whine and cry whenever our current president did the same


its childish,, really, to admire people for 'speaking their mind' when they have no consequences to worry about

its only when doing so will be a sacrifice, that its admirable and still not what distinguishes a president from other jobs,,,

I partly agree with you OP, and partly don't. Strongly.

The thing is, that it IS true to an extent, that "the establishment" created the phenomenon of the so-far successful Trump candidacy.

But then, that's because EVERYTHING causes whatever else happens.

I agree that there's a lot of lazy thinking going on, but that's standard too. There's ALWAYS an element of laziness, or if you want to refer to that more charitably, "shortcut" thinking.

It is simple math, that people who are generally happy under a regime, do not rebel. This is universal, ironically because people on the whole ARE "lazy," in the sense that they only rarely seek to change, when all is well.

It's ALSO certainly "lazy" politics, to proclaim that someone who you want NOT to gain power, only has it because someone else you already don't like, has screwed things up.

yeah, Sharpton should have been a shoe in in 2004

yet,, we never heard the argument that 'we elected him cause we were so sick of bush'


lol

and yet obarry won... a pig in lipstick could have won the 08 election because people were so sick of repubs...just like now, i don't think any dem has a chance of winning...

people have been 'sick' of things every election since I was a teen

Obama didn't run in 2004


and in 2008, there was a choice of candidates who actually new something about the job and Obama was not the shoe in from jump that the current pig in lipstick for the republicans has been


and dems don't have to win, each party gets a candidate to RUN,, and the current republican front runner makes NO SENSE whtasoever'

well, thats your opinion, one out of a few hundred million...to bad most of America disagrees with you...

that's what you think

'and you are welcome to YOUR opinion

think? no one has beat him yet, in any state...

maybe when he does win, you can pack your bags like raven and al? Canada is nice during the winters...

still not evidence of what the 'majority' of americans think'

just an indicator of what the majority of the voting republicans think,,,,,

not even that since the vote is still divided amongst several candidates,, and I don't recall him getting more than 50 percent anywhere

"i don't recall"... your favorite words...

do you remember him winning every state so far? all the blah, blah,blah doesn't really matter...

BTW its not the votes that count but the ones who really run the country that put puppets in place. Unfortunately, you need a history lesson on what founded America and perhaps know how to think critically instead of spewing what is subliminally fed to you in the media!