Opinion of Donald Trump's convention speech?

[136or142]

The old line is "I'd like to hear that speech in the original German."

I predict Rapist Trump is going to indeed get a negative convention bounce.

[136or142]

The idea that a corrupt businessperson who routinely engaged in pay to play with politicians is going to be the person to 'clean up the system' is laughable and only an idiot like the idiot Trump supporters could believe it.

I know the 'conversion on the road to Damascus' but I also know of "Trust but verify."  If Rapist Trump really wants to 'clean up the system' I want to know what specific reforms he has.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to both support a Constitutional Amendment on campaign finance reform, and that she will only appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Citizen's United.


Rapist Trump has pledged nothing other than "I'm so great, you can believe me."

Idiot Trump supporters are such idiots it's a wonder that they still know how to breathe. (Necessary attribution: Bob Dylan from the song Idiot Wind.) 

[136or142]

The idea that a corrupt businessperson who routinely engaged in pay to play with politicians is going to be the person to 'clean up the system' is laughable and only an idiot like the idiot Trump supporters could believe it.

I know the 'conversion on the road to Damascus' but I also know of "Trust but verify."

"Trust and verify" is a Russian saying (доверяй, но проверяй),  and I remember Reagan saying it in Russian.  
As a foreigner I don't care a bean for students' debts and other   domestic problems. I'm more interested in foreign policy. Let's verify what Trump said.
He stated that when Clinton took office Lybia and Syria were stable countries while Iraq was in chaos ensued by American invasion. When she left office all three countries were in chaos, Egypt ruled Muslim Brothers, ISIS spreading its influence and seizing territories, American diplomats murdered in Beghazi.
And what is wrong here? These are obvious, undeniable facts.
To ignore them is really idiotic.

Those are all facts, but I wasn't referring to any of them.

The degree to which Hillary Clinton is responsible for those things though is up for debate.

It is also a fact that at least 50% less American Diplomats died under her watch than died under Colin Powell or Condi Rice's watch.  That is also a fact, but you don't hear about that because Republicans don't care about the death of diplomats. They only pretend to care about this one incident because they want to pin those deaths on Hillary Clinton.

I was not aware Trust and Verify is a Russian saying, but I am aware that the phrase 'Trust but Verify' was used to describe the attitude Ronald Reagan should take into meetings with Gorbachev.

[136or142]

The idea that a corrupt businessperson who routinely engaged in pay to play with politicians is going to be the person to 'clean up the system' is laughable and only an idiot like the idiot Trump supporters could believe it.

I know the 'conversion on the road to Damascus' but I also know of "Trust but verify."  If Rapist Trump really wants to 'clean up the system' I want to know what specific reforms he has.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to both support a Constitutional Amendment on campaign finance reform, and that she will only appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Citizen's United.


Rapist Trump has pledged nothing other than "I'm so great, you can believe me."

Idiot Trump supporters are such idiots it's a wonder that they still know how to breathe. (Necessary attribution: Bob Dylan from the song Idiot Wind.)  

Never, EVER, ever quote my favorite song by my favorite artist in such a face-palming way ever again. That song is sacred to me and I'll be damned if I let you abuse it .

I think there are better Dylan songs.  I also think Dylan must have had Rapist Trump in mind when he wrote "Jokerman."

I also believe the original lyrics of "License to Kill" were:
...For Man has invented his doom
first step was the Republican nomination of Rapist Trump for President...

[136or142]

David Duke was so inspired that he's going to run for the Senate.

Duke said in the video, “I’m overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I’ve championed for years. My slogan remains America first.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/22/david-duke-senate-run/87437334/



See how the Drumpfenfuhrer reaches out to hearts of Americans

David Duke had said that he would primary Representative Steve Scalise.

If you can't trust the leader of the KKK to keep his word, who can you trust? 

[136or142]

Norman Ornstein
‏@NormOrnstein
If Leni Riefenstahl were alive, Trump would hire her to film this speech. Then not pay her.

[136or142]

The idea that a corrupt businessperson who routinely engaged in pay to play with politicians is going to be the person to 'clean up the system' is laughable and only an idiot like the idiot Trump supporters could believe it.

I know the 'conversion on the road to Damascus' but I also know of "Trust but verify."

"Trust and verify" is a Russian saying (доверяй, но проверяй),  and I remember Reagan saying it in Russian.  
As a foreigner I don't care a bean for students' debts and other   domestic problems. I'm more interested in foreign policy. Let's verify what Trump said.
He stated that when Clinton took office Lybia and Syria were stable countries while Iraq was in chaos ensued by American invasion. When she left office all three countries were in chaos, Egypt ruled Muslim Brothers, ISIS spreading its influence and seizing territories, American diplomats murdered in Beghazi.
And what is wrong here? These are obvious, undeniable facts.
To ignore them is really idiotic.

Those are all facts, but I wasn't referring to any of them.

The degree to which Hillary Clinton is responsible for those things though is up for debate.

It is also a fact that at least 50% less American Diplomats died under her watch than died under Colin Powell or Condi Rice's watch.  That is also a fact, but you don't hear about that because Republicans don't care about the death of diplomats. They only pretend to care about this one incident because they want to pin those deaths on Hillary Clinton.

I was not aware Trust and Verify is a Russian saying, but I am aware that the phrase 'Trust but Verify' was used to describe the attitude Ronald Reagan should take into meetings with Gorbachev.

At least you admit that Clinton is responsible, i. e. you seem to have some common sense; so I'll take the trouble to explain the following.
1. The last American ambassador to be killed in the line of service was Dubs merdered in Kabul in 1979. Clinton outperformed all succeeding state secretaries.
Maybe in you country murdering ambassadors is a trivial thing, but all over the world this is an extraordinary event that ensues resignation, punishment, etc.  Did Clinton resing? No. Was she punished? Not at all.
2. Bill Clinton was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by 5 women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations And he himself admitted extramarital relationships with 2 of them. The investigation presented many clues, such as Lewinsky's dress with Clinton semen, sigar tubes that President Clinton inserted in Lewinsky vagina, etc.
And what about Trump? No investigation, no clues, no hearings, mere conjectures . How can you call him a rapist? It is Clinton who is a rapist,   this fact  proved  by FBI investigation.  

1.I should have said 'embassies' not 'ambassadors'
Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

Of course, you aren't aware of this, because Hillary Clinton can't be blamed, so Republicans couldn't care less about those deaths.

2.Your second argument is too stupid for me to even comment on except to point out that the FBI has said no such thing.

What I imagine Rapist Trump would say if he found out I refer to him as Rapist Trump:

Trump: he calls me Rapist Trump!
Trump: unfair!
Trump: As if I'm the only man to ever commit rape!
Trump: Oops, did I say that out loud?
Trump: I'll sue who ever releases this!
Trump: It's not like I raped Ivanka...As much as I want to!
Trump: And they say I have no self discipline!
Trump: the most I did was rip all her clothes off!

[136or142]

I'm not posting this in its own thread because it's over the top, but I would like to hear people's thoughts.  Prior to this speech and Trump's unbelievable Presser yesterday, I used to think that he was unstable and erratic, but now I think he is outright deranged. 

The speech was crazy enough but to spend a presser in which he seemed more concerned with seeking revenge on Ted Cruz and repeating insane allegations and, even more stupidly, to spend the presser going after Ted Cruz and John Kasich who are popular Republican politicians in Texas and Ohio respectively, two states Trump is not guaranteed to win, and which he almost certainly can't win the Presidency without, is downright deranged.

I realize Trump has never been charged with any crime, yet alone convicted, but does anybody think, as I think is possible, that he may have committed murder some time in his life?  Obviously he's wealthy enough that he wouldn't have had to have actually carried out the murder himself, but it's also rather obvious he has a violent temper and he's certainly deranged enough that he could easily have lost his head.

[136or142]

Trump's speech got a 75% approval rating from a CNN poll, leading them to discredit their own poll right away.

I agree that folks are more pessimistic than the immediate circumstances may justify, but older folks have seen America go backward over a longer span of time than, say, millennials.  For those folks, even for some folks who aren't Trump partisans, Trump's view of the way things are in America are quite realistic, because while things may have gotten better on the margins over the last few years, things have gotten markedly worse over their adult lifetimes, all things considered.  They have seen their social contract discarded, as if it never existed.  Many of them have lost good jobs due to globalism, and they've lost them late in life.  It's one thing to tell a 25 year old to go out and get another job; they can start at the bottom and go somewhere.  But a 55 year old?  They face age discrimination at every turn.  Many of them are offered employment of a nature where there is no upward mobility, as if their life experiences matter not one whit.  Yes they can go back to school; if they don't deplete their retirement accounts to do so, they can enter their Golden Years with student debt and face age discrimination even in professions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants. 

What Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter have in common is disregard for law.  Hillary's disregard is well-documented.  BLM actually believes that folks have the legal right to resist a lawful arrest.  BLM actually believe that they have the right to use intimidation and coercion to interrupt folks at their own rallies and take over the podium, and they don't seem to understand why folks have a problem with Donald Trump assert that he's not going to be rolled at HIS podium.  They get it that black folks have, indeed, been mistreated by police, but they also get it that Michael Brown had committed a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store just prior to his being shot by an officer (for which the officer was not charged), and they get it that Eric Garner, a man with over 30 arrests, was actively resisting a lawful arrest by NYPD, albeit, for a misdemeanor.  They see the attacks on police and they remember 1968, and regardless of how crime rates have dropped over time, they realize that it's in no small measure BECAUSE of the so-called "militarization of police" and tougher sentencing laws that have taken habitual criminals off the streets, and they see "reform" proposals as things that undo what has helped make the public safer.

Older Americans lived through violent attacks and they lived through 9/11, but now they see deadly attacks becoming commonplace, and they don't understand why the enemy can't be named.  We named Communists as our enemy.  We named Nazis as our enemy.  But we can't say "Radical Islamic Jihadism" as our current enemy ideology?  What's the deal here? 

Why, then, would it surprise folks that Trump's negativity would play well?  They have a longer view of the world, and the long-term trends haven't bode well for them. 

Gibberish.

[136or142]

I realize Trump has never been charged with any crime, yet alone convicted, but does anybody think, as I think is possible, that he may have committed murder some time in his life? 

Если бы,  да кабы, то во рту росли бобы.

Are you an FSB disinformation agent, or just an idiot Trump/Putin supporter?

[136or142]

Trump's speech got a 75% approval rating from a CNN poll, leading them to discredit their own poll right away.

I agree that folks are more pessimistic than the immediate circumstances may justify, but older folks have seen America go backward over a longer span of time than, say, millennials.  For those folks, even for some folks who aren't Trump partisans, Trump's view of the way things are in America are quite realistic, because while things may have gotten better on the margins over the last few years, things have gotten markedly worse over their adult lifetimes, all things considered.  They have seen their social contract discarded, as if it never existed.  Many of them have lost good jobs due to globalism, and they've lost them late in life.  It's one thing to tell a 25 year old to go out and get another job; they can start at the bottom and go somewhere.  But a 55 year old?  They face age discrimination at every turn.  Many of them are offered employment of a nature where there is no upward mobility, as if their life experiences matter not one whit.  Yes they can go back to school; if they don't deplete their retirement accounts to do so, they can enter their Golden Years with student debt and face age discrimination even in professions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants.  

What Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter have in common is disregard for law.  Hillary's disregard is well-documented.  BLM actually believes that folks have the legal right to resist a lawful arrest.  BLM actually believe that they have the right to use intimidation and coercion to interrupt folks at their own rallies and take over the podium, and they don't seem to understand why folks have a problem with Donald Trump assert that he's not going to be rolled at HIS podium.  They get it that black folks have, indeed, been mistreated by police, but they also get it that Michael Brown had committed a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store just prior to his being shot by an officer (for which the officer was not charged), and they get it that Eric Garner, a man with over 30 arrests, was actively resisting a lawful arrest by NYPD, albeit, for a misdemeanor.  They see the attacks on police and they remember 1968, and regardless of how crime rates have dropped over time, they realize that it's in no small measure BECAUSE of the so-called "militarization of police" and tougher sentencing laws that have taken habitual criminals off the streets, and they see "reform" proposals as things that undo what has helped make the public safer.

Older Americans lived through violent attacks and they lived through 9/11, but now they see deadly attacks becoming commonplace, and they don't understand why the enemy can't be named.  We named Communists as our enemy.  We named Nazis as our enemy.  But we can't say "Radical Islamic Jihadism" as our current enemy ideology?  What's the deal here?  

Why, then, would it surprise folks that Trump's negativity would play well?  They have a longer view of the world, and the long-term trends haven't bode well for them.  

Gibberish.

How so?

Oh, by the way:  How old are you, sonny?

Old enough to have a functioning brain, which you clearly don't have.

I've addressed comments like most of the ones you've made here previously, and if you want to see them you can search through my posts.

[136or142]

Trump's speech got a 75% approval rating from a CNN poll, leading them to discredit their own poll right away.

I agree that folks are more pessimistic than the immediate circumstances may justify, but older folks have seen America go backward over a longer span of time than, say, millennials.  For those folks, even for some folks who aren't Trump partisans, Trump's view of the way things are in America are quite realistic, because while things may have gotten better on the margins over the last few years, things have gotten markedly worse over their adult lifetimes, all things considered.  They have seen their social contract discarded, as if it never existed.  Many of them have lost good jobs due to globalism, and they've lost them late in life.  It's one thing to tell a 25 year old to go out and get another job; they can start at the bottom and go somewhere.  But a 55 year old?  They face age discrimination at every turn.  Many of them are offered employment of a nature where there is no upward mobility, as if their life experiences matter not one whit.  Yes they can go back to school; if they don't deplete their retirement accounts to do so, they can enter their Golden Years with student debt and face age discrimination even in professions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants.  

What Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter have in common is disregard for law.  Hillary's disregard is well-documented.  BLM actually believes that folks have the legal right to resist a lawful arrest.  BLM actually believe that they have the right to use intimidation and coercion to interrupt folks at their own rallies and take over the podium, and they don't seem to understand why folks have a problem with Donald Trump assert that he's not going to be rolled at HIS podium.  They get it that black folks have, indeed, been mistreated by police, but they also get it that Michael Brown had committed a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store just prior to his being shot by an officer (for which the officer was not charged), and they get it that Eric Garner, a man with over 30 arrests, was actively resisting a lawful arrest by NYPD, albeit, for a misdemeanor.  They see the attacks on police and they remember 1968, and regardless of how crime rates have dropped over time, they realize that it's in no small measure BECAUSE of the so-called "militarization of police" and tougher sentencing laws that have taken habitual criminals off the streets, and they see "reform" proposals as things that undo what has helped make the public safer.

Older Americans lived through violent attacks and they lived through 9/11, but now they see deadly attacks becoming commonplace, and they don't understand why the enemy can't be named.  We named Communists as our enemy.  We named Nazis as our enemy.  But we can't say "Radical Islamic Jihadism" as our current enemy ideology?  What's the deal here?  

Why, then, would it surprise folks that Trump's negativity would play well?  They have a longer view of the world, and the long-term trends haven't bode well for them.  

Gibberish.

How so?

Oh, by the way:  How old are you, sonny?

Old enough to have a functioning brain, which you clearly don't have.

I heard that loud and clear.  

When I was your age, I would have reacted the same way to me.

Now you'd just say "get off my lawn, sonny."

I feel a great deal of sympathy for those who have lost due to globalization, but when they look to a strongman with no plan to be their savior, I have nothing but contempt for them.

[136or142]

Trump's speech got a 75% approval rating from a CNN poll, leading them to discredit their own poll right away.

I agree that folks are more pessimistic than the immediate circumstances may justify, but older folks have seen America go backward over a longer span of time than, say, millennials.  For those folks, even for some folks who aren't Trump partisans, Trump's view of the way things are in America are quite realistic, because while things may have gotten better on the margins over the last few years, things have gotten markedly worse over their adult lifetimes, all things considered.  They have seen their social contract discarded, as if it never existed.  Many of them have lost good jobs due to globalism, and they've lost them late in life.  It's one thing to tell a 25 year old to go out and get another job; they can start at the bottom and go somewhere.  But a 55 year old?  They face age discrimination at every turn.  Many of them are offered employment of a nature where there is no upward mobility, as if their life experiences matter not one whit.  Yes they can go back to school; if they don't deplete their retirement accounts to do so, they can enter their Golden Years with student debt and face age discrimination even in professions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants.  

What Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter have in common is disregard for law.  Hillary's disregard is well-documented.  BLM actually believes that folks have the legal right to resist a lawful arrest.  BLM actually believe that they have the right to use intimidation and coercion to interrupt folks at their own rallies and take over the podium, and they don't seem to understand why folks have a problem with Donald Trump assert that he's not going to be rolled at HIS podium.  They get it that black folks have, indeed, been mistreated by police, but they also get it that Michael Brown had committed a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store just prior to his being shot by an officer (for which the officer was not charged), and they get it that Eric Garner, a man with over 30 arrests, was actively resisting a lawful arrest by NYPD, albeit, for a misdemeanor.  They see the attacks on police and they remember 1968, and regardless of how crime rates have dropped over time, they realize that it's in no small measure BECAUSE of the so-called "militarization of police" and tougher sentencing laws that have taken habitual criminals off the streets, and they see "reform" proposals as things that undo what has helped make the public safer.

Older Americans lived through violent attacks and they lived through 9/11, but now they see deadly attacks becoming commonplace, and they don't understand why the enemy can't be named.  We named Communists as our enemy.  We named Nazis as our enemy.  But we can't say "Radical Islamic Jihadism" as our current enemy ideology?  What's the deal here?  

Why, then, would it surprise folks that Trump's negativity would play well?  They have a longer view of the world, and the long-term trends haven't bode well for them.  

Gibberish.

How so?

Oh, by the way:  How old are you, sonny?

Old enough to have a functioning brain, which you clearly don't have.

I heard that loud and clear.  

When I was your age, I would have reacted the same way to me.

Now you'd just say "get off my lawn, sonny."

I feel a great deal of sympathy for those who have lost due to globalization, but when they look to a strongman with no plan to be their savior, I have nothing but contempt for them.

Sympathy doesn't lead to solutions.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (and, of course, both Bushes) did nothing to reverse Globalism.  They are more concerned with discrimination against foreigners wanting to enter the US than against loyal, taxpaying Americans who have been screwed and tattooed by Globalism.  

"America First" gets a bad rap, but why shouldn't Americans come first in their own country?  Why should immigration policies increase the competition for jobs for them?  Why should trade agreements make it profitable for companies to relocate to Mexico or China?  Why should taxpaying Americans have to accept poorly vetted Syrian refugees in their country if THEY don't want to?

Globalism has brought about a more Cosmopolitan America, but it has come at a cost of working class jobs, lessened opportunity for American citizens, and the labeling of American citizens as bigots and Xenophobes because they are not happy about THEIR lives being diminished and THEIR futures trashed.  Whether Trump has solutions to this remains to be seen, but Trump, and Trump alone, has EFFECTIVELY changed the conversation.  Indeed, Trump has been more effective in this than Bernie Sanders; the Democrats are nominating the FLOG (First Lady of Globalism) who's position on NAFTA is "My bad!  Let's move on!".

Trump's changed the trajectory of the conversation.  That's a key first step.  If you have sympathy for folks impacted by Globalism, what do you offer besides sympathy?  I'm challenging you to give some evidence that you give a crap, because I'm not convinced yet that you really do.

1.There are no obvious solutions.  There are things the government has tried that hasn't had much success like re-training and there are things people have to try and do for themselves if they can like re-locating, if necessary.  

This is exacerbated in manufacturing by technological change, which the latest research shows that for every one job in the United States lost to a foreign competitor, two jobs are lost to automation or  to other technological improvement.

Personally I'd rather support somebody like Hillary Clinton and the Democrats many of whom have clearly made a choice to go after the winners of globalism but still tries things like re-training than an obvious fraud like Rapist Trump who is clearly just mouthing support for people he clearly cares nothing about.

2."Why shouldn't Americans come first in their own country?"  American employees don't won't foreign competition, but American consumers (the same people, btw) do.

So which of those two categories of the same person should come first?

3.For what it's worth, globalism far predated 'free trade' agreements.  It goes back since World War II (the world was also pretty globalized before the outbreak of World War I)  when Japan around 1960 decided to become the low cost, low quality manufacturer to the world, much as China has been for the last 20 years or so.

The U.S lost jobs to Japan starting in the 1960s even though the U.S did not have any free trade agreement with Japan at the time. After Japan started producing higher quality goods starting in the early 1970s, South Korea then pretty much replaced Japan as the low cost, low quality manufacturer to the world.

Of course, after Japan starting making higher quality products, their automobiles for the mass market devastated the U.S auto manufacturers, which by the late 1970s produced mass market 'rust buckets.'  

Again, Japan still did not have any free trade agreement with the United States at that point.

4.The negative effects of globalization were being discussed long before Rapist Trump came along.  Among others, John Edwards ran his 2004 and 2008 primary campaigns on the 'Two Americas' concept.  It appears though that he was just as cynical and just as much mouthing platitudes as Rapist Trump is.

On another matter, it's time for a change for me.  I think I've used the term 'Rapist Trump' enough and after hearing him at his convention speech and seeing some of his latest presser, I no longer need the irony of referring to him with an unproven charge just as he states unproven accusations as facts all the time.

I can now accurately refer to him as Deranged Donald as that is clearly what he is.

[136or142]

Trump's speech got a 75% approval rating from a CNN poll, leading them to discredit their own poll right away.

I agree that folks are more pessimistic than the immediate circumstances may justify, but older folks have seen America go backward over a longer span of time than, say, millennials.  For those folks, even for some folks who aren't Trump partisans, Trump's view of the way things are in America are quite realistic, because while things may have gotten better on the margins over the last few years, things have gotten markedly worse over their adult lifetimes, all things considered.  They have seen their social contract discarded, as if it never existed.  Many of them have lost good jobs due to globalism, and they've lost them late in life.  It's one thing to tell a 25 year old to go out and get another job; they can start at the bottom and go somewhere.  But a 55 year old?  They face age discrimination at every turn.  Many of them are offered employment of a nature where there is no upward mobility, as if their life experiences matter not one whit.  Yes they can go back to school; if they don't deplete their retirement accounts to do so, they can enter their Golden Years with student debt and face age discrimination even in professions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants.

What Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter have in common is disregard for law.  Hillary's disregard is well-documented.  BLM actually believes that folks have the legal right to resist a lawful arrest.  BLM actually believe that they have the right to use intimidation and coercion to interrupt folks at their own rallies and take over the podium, and they don't seem to understand why folks have a problem with Donald Trump assert that he's not going to be rolled at HIS podium.  They get it that black folks have, indeed, been mistreated by police, but they also get it that Michael Brown had committed a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store just prior to his being shot by an officer (for which the officer was not charged), and they get it that Eric Garner, a man with over 30 arrests, was actively resisting a lawful arrest by NYPD, albeit, for a misdemeanor.  They see the attacks on police and they remember 1968, and regardless of how crime rates have dropped over time, they realize that it's in no small measure BECAUSE of the so-called "militarization of police" and tougher sentencing laws that have taken habitual criminals off the streets, and they see "reform" proposals as things that undo what has helped make the public safer.

Older Americans lived through violent attacks and they lived through 9/11, but now they see deadly attacks becoming commonplace, and they don't understand why the enemy can't be named.  We named Communists as our enemy.  We named Nazis as our enemy.  But we can't say "Radical Islamic Jihadism" as our current enemy ideology?  What's the deal here?  

Why, then, would it surprise folks that Trump's negativity would play well?  They have a longer view of the world, and the long-term trends haven't bode well for them.  

Excellent insights from Fuzzy, as usual. (And very little in the way of useful followup comments from Adam T, as usual).

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.