So, The Donald, Eh?May 4, 2016 Tim WorstallPolitics56 CommentsWhatever else it’s going to be it’s going to be a fun ride. previousTimmy elsewherenextTrying it on somewhat 56 thoughts on “So, The Donald, Eh?” Rhyds May 4, 2016 at 7:16 am Time to buy popcorn maker shares… Chris Miller May 4, 2016 at 7:31 am Everyone laughed at Leicester City leading the Premier League after the first week … bloke in spain May 4, 2016 at 7:53 am Going to be fascinating. So far Trumps attracted the antagonism of both the conservative & liberal establishments. And succeeded by playing that antagonism straight back at them. Depends, now, doesn’t it? Are the right going to carry on slinging bricks & help Shrillery towards the White house? Or STFU & let him get on with it? In which case, he only needs to be fighting on one front & could start looking a whole lot more acceptable & electable to a much wider range of people. John Price May 4, 2016 at 7:58 am Look on the bright side: at least it’s not going to be President Trump and Prime Minister Boris. David Moore May 4, 2016 at 8:07 am Watch him tack hard left when he’s up against Clinton. Henry Crun May 4, 2016 at 8:14 am If the alternative to Prime Minister Boris is Prime Minister Jeremy, I know which one I prefer. Tim Almond May 4, 2016 at 8:15 am bloke in spain, It really doesn’t matter. Trump won’t win. Those floating voters just aren’t going to vote for him. His whole agenda is ‘old man complaining about how things changed’. It appeals to old men who want their youth back, the sort of people who will turn out for primaries, but moderate voters just aren’t going to vote for a candidate like him for all sorts of reasons. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 8:16 am David Moore: Yeah–that would be a real clever plan. Get the nomination and a chance–despite every Establishment arsehole trying to sabotage him–and then piss off all his supporters because he is such a big friend of the Toxic Couple. Because it is such a shrewd scheme to spend vast sums of his own money to help out an evil cow who would probably have won anyway if Trump had keep out in the first place, Interested May 4, 2016 at 8:18 am It’s like people think he’s actually some sort of Republican. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 8:23 am Tim Almond–a more comprehensive misreading of the situation would be hard to imagine. Yes–just as over here–a lot of older people want back the country they knew. But lots and lots of people want back a better life–not the bullshit we now have. If “moderate” means dumb enough to stand there like a fucking idiot while the scum of Elitism and Cultural Marxism set your country to become a world-class shithole then we are all up a very nasty creek indeed. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 8:29 am There is no such thing as a good President for the same reason shite will never be a popular sandwich filling. But if Trump has the guts to stay the course and bring in a raft of anti-elite measures –including America ( and thus her stooges such as Mr Pig-Fuck) out of the war game–then the lad will have done good. He may turn into Clinton-lite–which would still be better than the Cunt herself. But a businessman should be able to spot an opportunity and Trump has one to go down in history. Ben S May 4, 2016 at 8:30 am Yup, with this and Brexit, politics just got a whole lot more interesting. Though in the case of Trump possibly not for the best of reasons. If we accept the “master manipulator” theorem, I would expect Trump to change tack dramatically as soon as he’s up against Clinton, as David Moore implies. Though not in order to help her win, but to grapple back all those people who the media say he has ‘offended’. Jonathan Abbott May 4, 2016 at 8:38 am Trump is a salesman. He has just done one sales job on the Republican base. He will now do a different sales job on the American public as a whole. Why can’t some people see this? Edward Lud May 4, 2016 at 8:45 am Why is it that my powers of judgment, such as they are, are suspended by people, such as Trump, merely because of their ability to antagonise those I consider most worthy of being antagonised? absent the fact that he reduces certain types to foam-flecked, gibbering insanity, I doubt I’d give him the time of day. Ironman May 4, 2016 at 8:45 am Jonathan Abbott Some people can. The problem I have is that Trump and Clinton will now spend the next six months trying to sell more of the same protectionist rubbish than the other. By the end of the process Colin Hines style anti-trade nonsense will have cone to be seen as common sense. It’s depressing. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 8:58 am Maybe and maybe not. If Killery wins then shitloads of bad is coming anyway. Trump is getting support from all over not just the Redud party. Protectionism is a bad idea. But stopping the wars and cutting the state isn’t. Stopping legions of vote-power migrants isn’t. Because America and the West are finished if demographic takeover isn’t halted. Nor do I think Trump would have come over here as a shill for the fucking EU. Like C J –Trump hasn’t got where is today by pandering to the left. He is not going to start campaigning now as Killery-lite. Unless he enjoys wasting the fortune he must so far have spent. If he wins he may well be a flop or disappointment. Do you think Cruz wouldn’t be? Jim May 4, 2016 at 9:00 am I’d hazard a guess that Trump will now hammer Hilary on the economy. She is the epitome of the globalised elite exporting jobs to the Far East, he’s going to hammer that line for all he’s worth. Forget the Muslim/immigrant shtick, that’ll be sidelined and the edges smoothed off. No more rampant rhetoric on that front, he’s already done the job there. Every town and city Trump rolls into he’ll ask ‘Got any factories here that closed down because the production went East? I want to bring those jobs back.’ And hear the roars of approval. The funny thing is, Hilary is going to have to spend a huge amount of her campaign defending globalisation and liberalised free trade. Its going to be brilliant to watch! agn May 4, 2016 at 9:04 am https://fyiaka411.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/bush-miss-me-yet-billboard-021020104.jpg Johnnydub May 4, 2016 at 9:06 am Two things: 1) Just wait until the debates – Trump will destroy Shrillery. I mean absolutely destroy her. There will be lots of women voters who will vbote for him after that, and a lot of Bernie Bro’s 2) Buy a Trump T-Shirt off eBay for £4. Then troll your colleagues at work for the LOLZ Andy May 4, 2016 at 9:07 am Trump is going to destroy Hilary. He’s the next President. ukliberty May 4, 2016 at 9:13 am “I want to bring those jobs back.” Out of interest, are all the clothes in the Donald Trump Signature Collection now made in the USA? Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 9:15 am The market process would be that jobs that can be done cheaper migrate and we create new jobs in new and advancing fields of technology. The first bit has happened but the second bit isn’t –or not anything like as much as it should. Why? * The fucking state is sucking up most of the available capital to finance its handouts. *Welfareism is killing the work ethic. The actual working class are derided by the poisonous middle-class Marxism that oppresses the West. * Grade-Z state schools are worse than those in the third world and training opportunities are crap. Hence we are short of skilled workers. *Taxation and regulation stifle creativity before it gets started. And most of the cash stolen–that could have been the seedcorn of entire new industries —is pissed against a wall by the state. And on and on. Good jobs could be created in the West to replace those gone East. Not by the scum of the state but by the market. All that is needed is the state to smashed down to 1% of its present size and power. Trump has no clue about the above. But nor do the rest of them. Monoi May 4, 2016 at 9:20 am http://blog.dilbert.com This guy has been consistently right about trump, and explains why and how. Trump is no fool, carrying on saying that he is says more about one than him. abacab May 4, 2016 at 9:20 am The question is, is he in it to throw it to Clinton, or in it to win it for his ego? Ironman May 4, 2016 at 9:25 am It’s funny go heat that Trump is going to roll back the state. Because part of his appeal to disaffected Republicans seemed to be centred around measures that are the exact opposite. I have never before heard of a populist announcing he’s going to cut back on his target market’s handouts; still haven’t. BraveFart May 4, 2016 at 9:26 am Personally, I would never vote for a woman politician I would not shag and in that category I put, amongst many others, Shrillary Clit-ton and Angler-fish face Merkel (and in the UK of course Diane Knob-rot at the top of the list). Because the munters of the female of the species have a true hidden hatred of humanity and men in particular due to the way they have been passed over all their lives for prettier specimens. Matthew L May 4, 2016 at 9:26 am Cruz should be forced to carry his campaign to full term. Ljh May 4, 2016 at 9:33 am There is so much materiel to throw AT Clinton which the MSM have been discreetly ignoring (uranium, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, arm sales to Qatar, arms to Syrian rebels, emails, Willy’s willy….) I hope Trump is not going to bury her too early for the Dems to run Boehner on as a substitute. The ruling elite need to be annihilated and Trump is the US best chance. I don’t think he can make the world a more dangerous place but she could. Ironman May 4, 2016 at 9:48 am I do agree with Ljh, Trump is the sort of guy who will go after Hillary with this stuff. Jim May 4, 2016 at 10:02 am “Out of interest, are all the clothes in the Donald Trump Signature Collection now made in the USA?” So Trump calling for manufacturing to come back to the US means he has to voluntarily bring his manufacturing back to the US while all his competitors can still produce in the Far East, but when Leftists demand higher taxes on everyone they don’t voluntarily pay any more first. Funny that. ukliberty May 4, 2016 at 10:26 am So Trump calling for manufacturing to come back to the US means he has to voluntarily bring his manufacturing back to the US while all his competitors can still produce in the Far East, Surely people would be pleased to buy “The Donald J. Trump Signature Collection – made in the USA by American workers”. How could his competitors compete with that? but when Leftists demand higher taxes on everyone they don’t voluntarily pay any more first. I don’t suggest Trump has a monopoly on saying one thing and doing another. Nor does he have a monopoly on criticising others for doing what he does himself. PJF May 4, 2016 at 10:42 am So it will be a Democrat president (even if one is called Republican). It’s just a choice between a ghastly, establishment, politically-correct Democrat and a rude, populist Democrat (both corrupt). Either way, amnesty happens and the end will come for the Republican party, and eventually for the republic itself. But, as Tim says, it’ll be a laugh. Richard Allan May 4, 2016 at 10:43 am @ukliberty Textile manufacturing is the most shit-tier manufacturing there is. Why the hell would anyone want to bring that back? It’s high-tech manufacturing he wants to return, you utter, utter fool. Jonathan Abbott May 4, 2016 at 10:52 am Matthew L – 🙂 ukliberty May 4, 2016 at 10:56 am @Richard Allan, When was Trump explicit about onshoring “high-tech manufacturing”? Is an Oreo the product of “high-tech manufacturing”? Gamecock May 4, 2016 at 12:54 pm Well said, Mr Ecks. Government is a throttle on business. Perhaps Mr. Trump will open it up. But . . . . Trump has publicly suggested tariffs on Ford cars coming from Mexico, since Ford is moving much production there. A tariff is an awful idea. The way to get jobs back into America is to cut the government shit that makes companies move in the first place. Making them move, then slapping them with tariffs, is a Smoot-Hawley step towards global economic collapse. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 1:18 pm Gamecock: Agreed. But Trump isn’t as dumb as he appears. “Bring jobs back ” is a slogan that sells. New high-tech jobs are what is needed. The state can’t create anything but shit jobs and that at others expense. But it could get out of the way and let jobs happen. Trump may be ignorant of this. If so –he is no worse than the others –including Grandpa Munster Cruz. Jack C May 4, 2016 at 2:03 pm What Trump has been banging on about half the time is “unfair” competition. The manipulation of exchange rates and so on. On this, he has a point. Trade barriers on, for example, companies that move to Mexico is rather more worrying. Regardless of which, Clinton is the “managed decline” candidate, while Trump is the “things can be fixed” candidate. Normal election logic says that Trump wins, though he is not normal so who knows. He may well be a total arse, but Trump clearly connects with people. Game on! Liberal Yank May 4, 2016 at 2:47 pm It is an odd world when I mostly agree with Ecks’ comments: * The fucking state is sucking up most of the available capital to finance its handouts. There are a few people this doesn’t apply to, Romney paying an effective federal rate of 14.1%, but for at least 95% of the country it is true. *Welfareism is killing the work ethic. The actual working class are derided by the poisonous middle-class Marxism that oppresses the West. Would you work more hours for less total reward? The main concern of the welfare to work people I’ve met is not making too much to lose their welfare. * Grade-Z state schools are worse than those in the third world and training opportunities are crap. Hence we are short of skilled workers. There is something wrong when it takes a college degree to be an assistant manager at the GAP. *Taxation and regulation stifle creativity before it gets started. And most of the cash stolen–that could have been the seedcorn of entire new industries —is pissed against a wall by the state. I’m sure we disagree on many of the specifics but I’m staying on the happy side for this point. In principle we agree. New high-tech jobs are what is needed. Finally I can disagree. There are millions of Americans that can’t do a high-tech job, for various reasons. If trickle down worked this wouldn’t be a problem. Since it doesn’t focusing on high-tech only works if we redistribute income. In the end I accepted President Trump months ago. I won’t vote for him but at least the Republican party will be forced to change. Tim Almond May 4, 2016 at 4:23 pm If you guys are so sure about Trump, bookies are offering 2/1. Easy money. BniC May 4, 2016 at 4:24 pm Is an Oreo the product of “high-tech manufacturing”? Having been in a few large scale food production plants I’d say the answer to that question is yes Jack C May 4, 2016 at 4:54 pm “If you guys are so sure about Trump, bookies are offering 2/1. Easy money.” What were his odds on winning the nomination? Get the average Westerner to talk about politics for a moment, and they’ll want to know why x isn’t done, why y is allowed, why something isn’t bloody well done about z, etc. Sanders, Trump and Corbyn have offered something outside The Usual. Yes, they’re all entirely unelectable, but on the other hand they’re 2 out of 2 in elections so far. Cruz was also fringe. Everyone hates Trump, with the possible exception of voters. Jim May 4, 2016 at 5:11 pm “Everyone hates Trump, with the possible exception of voters.” Thats why, if I had a vote in the US election, I’d vote Trump. Not because of what he is, or stands for, but because of who he’s pissing off. I can’t stand the people who hate Trump, ergo the thing to do is vote Trump! Richard May 4, 2016 at 5:45 pm I’m hoping that Cruz withdrawing means that he’s done a deal, and that it’s for Trump to appoint him to the Supreme Court. He’ll do far more good there than he would have done as President. OriginalMichael May 4, 2016 at 6:17 pm FWIW I think there are a not insignificant number of voters who are sticking to their Never Trump guns. I’m closest to a classic liberal and have always made common cause with the Republican Party at the Federal level, but this is the break for me. I’ll be casting my ballot for the Libertarian candidate in the hopes that we can get them to the 5% threshold to qualify for Federal Election Commission Grants during the next election cycle. Just the Federal grants are quadruple the amount the Libertarian Party spent in the 2012 cycle and distributing Federal tax dollars to the two major parties but not any third parties is a powerful tool put in place by the major parties to prevent third party challenges, this will be the best chance to break that hold since the Democrats and McGovern in ’72. Mr Ecks May 4, 2016 at 7:11 pm A Libertarian who wants a Federal handout. You will go a long way mate. With downward mostly being the direction. OriginalMichael May 4, 2016 at 8:39 pm You compete by the rules of the game. It’s not selling out, it’s buying in. Andy Dan May 4, 2016 at 10:03 pm Jim: I can’t stand the people who hate Trump, ergo the thing to do is vote Trump! Similarly, I can’t stand the people who hate Brexit, ergo…. Liberal Yank May 5, 2016 at 12:38 am Why can’t a Libertarian, who doesn’t want to live in Somalia, support some government programs? OriginalMichael May 5, 2016 at 1:44 am The cornerstone of Libertarian tax programs is moving to a consumption tax to fund government because it has lower deadweight costs. They want the state governments to govern healthcare and education programs and decriminalize activity that doesn’t hurt others. God forbid people be allowed to buy the kind of milk, toilets, or light bulbs that they prefer. Mr Ecks May 5, 2016 at 2:41 am OM “You compete by the rules of the game.” No –that is how you lose. The Libertarian Party has been playing that game for 40+ years with zero success. And now you want tax money to keep playing? Gamecock May 5, 2016 at 3:21 am ‘There is something wrong when it takes a college degree to be an assistant manager at the GAP.’ The market place can’t be ‘wrong.’ My son, with his college degree, is a part time counter man at a car maintenance place. It’s what he could find. 94,000,000 American adults can’t find anything. It’s not what he wants to do, it’s what’s available. With a surplus of educated young people, employers can discriminate on who they hire for what. Hopefully, the economy will explode next year and better opportunities will become available, and employers won’t be able to be so choosy. Liberal Yank May 5, 2016 at 4:12 am Gamecock, Careful, someone might accuse you of socialist talk. Seriously how do we create the demand for all of the college graduates we are churning out? OriginalMichael May 5, 2016 at 2:47 pm Ecks – A two party system designed rules to take money from tax payers and give it to two private political groups to keep themselves in power and your apparent solution is to not challenge that? Breaking up the FEC grants is one of the top two prizes in American politics for third parties, right after proportional representation. Gamecock May 6, 2016 at 1:29 pm ‘Seriously how do we create the demand for all of the college graduates we are churning out?’ What’s this “we” shit? If government left business alone, growth would become extreme. The national debt would become irrelevant (a $19T debt in a $50T economy doesn’t matter). Gamecock May 6, 2016 at 1:34 pm Jack C: ‘Regardless of which, Clinton is the “managed decline” candidate, while Trump is the “things can be fixed” candidate.’ Amazing. This is exactly the Carter-Reagan election of 1980. Carter thought government best to manage scarcity fairly. Reagan said, “Screw that! We’re America; we’ll just make more!” Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.