The Donald Hate is Getting Hilarious

You listed all the reasons needed like undeserved inheritance-based ego, thinly-veiled superfluous sentiments that pander to racist morons, fluidity or invisibility on real issues ("we're gonna make the best contracts, the best!"), and yet you question why liberals are disgusted by him? Did you not read what you just wrote?

Do you think the majority of Drumpf supporters were against the Iraq war? They were the peace-loving doves out protesting our involvement?

Mr Sucks - No I did not wonder that, I wondered why Liberals want to *interfere* with him destroying the Neocons. I doubt his supporters were the ones protesting, doesn't mean they can't admit is was a mistake now. Speaking of the protesters, where the hell did they all go when Obama started bombing more countries than Bush?

Letter to John Galt: You bring up a bunch of interesting points, but I'd have to say you miss the biggest problems with Drumpf: 1) He's a bigot 2) He has no edit function in his brain 3) He's a misogynist 4) He's in it for his ego (that's pretty evident, based on a number of his self-serving pronouncements, especially when he says really inane stuff like "I have the best words." He is narcissism personified. 5) All mouth, no muscle Let's talk a little about your supporting "documentation". "...Mr. Drumpf is deconstructing and tearing down the Neocons". Well, actually that's an article by David Stockman. He doesn't like the Republicans because he got hung out to dry by the Reaganites. He was absolutely correct when he resigned from the OMB in protest over "Reaganomics" and wrote about how Congress didn't do enough (raise taxes) to offset the debt created by increased military and deficit spending. Also to his credit, he thought the Laffer Curve (which he called the "laugher curve" on The Colbert Report) was a bunch of hooey. While I was in Graduate School, in Economics (University of Washington, a "Chicago" school), we all thought it was stupid for Reagan to hang his hat on that "theory". It still is; "trickle down" doesn't. More to the point: Drumpf doesn't have the ability to verbally articulate deconstructing and tearing down the neocons - he speaks in populist sound bites. It's above his mind level. Yes, he condemned the Iraqi invasion (rightfully so), I think that was a great move. But he isn't the first to do so, and he's a little late (and recidivist) in this game. He initially stated “Isn’t George W. doing a marvelous job?” (https://goo.gl/kLR49E). On Sept. 11, 2002, Drumpf actually said he supported the invasion (http://goo.gl/b0nsAR). When it became politically expedient to do so (2004 bid for the GOP Presidential nomination) he changed his tune. Just like people like to say that Hillary was for the war before she was against it, Drumpf changed his mind. But he can't back track and state he was against it all along. BTW - I'd love to see a brokered RNC. These bastards deserve it for (1) Nixon's Southern Strategy (2) The racist War on Drugs (https://goo.gl/5UqSdp) (2) Reagan's shenanigans (Just Say No, Iran-Contra, CIA "inventing" and selling crack cocaine in the inner cities, decimating education, ... christ, it's a long, long list). I agree that NATO has outlived most of its usefulness, but maybe that's just appeasement for his good buddy Putin. There needs to be a little thought given to this. We can and should scale down our military involvement in a lot of countries; it would be good to see just 1/2 of those funds go to education. Give people opportunities to advance. With regard to "Obama killing Americans": your source article states "Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country." I'm sorry his kid got killed. It's the "fog of war", and has been a problem with all military conflicts throughout time. It was by no means deliberate; the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered. (https://goo.gl/8fvP5T) Besides - Drumpf has no problem with going after Muslims. They're all terrorists, right? "Sorros-funded protesters" - really? MoveOn gets funds from a lot of sources. Your reference an article in www.wnd.com, a true wing-nut site and a Drumpf rah-rah site. It also has articles by such noted "unbiased" conservatives as Laura Hollis, Patrick Buchanan, Alan Keyes (now there's a Wing-Nut's wing-nut) and Rush Limbaugh's little brother David. Not so credible. The video by Sonny Black, who has "the lord on his side". Yes, let's invoke Jesus to make it all better. Regardless of whether Drumpf funded this rally and paid for the facility (note: most politicians do have to pay for the facilities they preach in), it's still a PUBLIC EVENT. This video is inconsequential and doesn't "prove" squat. Middle class headed for extinction - true, but not for the hacked reasons given at zerohedge.com. First off, productivity has been increasing, not decreasing. Really, this site is just all screwed up. I prefer this "analysis of the site (http://goo.gl/LzHYyG), which calls it a "a batshit insane Austrian school finance blog run by a pseudonymous founder who posts articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club. It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.", LOL - where do you get this crap? It really is a lot more straight-forward than that: The middle class is headed for extinction for a number of reasons, some of which were given above. To recap: (1) Decrease in taxes on the highest wage earners, allowing for a very few people to be very wealthy and a concomitant decrease in public expenditures that did, in fact, create real jobs - not just those at fast food restaurants. (2) A larger (relative) share of the public pie going into defense, which is a non-productive endeavor with only localized multiplier effects. (3) Lack of investments in education. Nowadays, public funding of research has dried up and has moved to private sources (e.g.,big pharma). As a consequence, the things that used to be created in the public domain are no longer. Remember the Internet - oh yeah, we're using it! It's pretty damn inexpensive, and it has become fairly ubiquitous, thanks to it having been developed using funding from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and in particular its predecessor ARPA. It started in the Universities. (4) Citizens United and the impact of unknown large donors and the entrenchment of lobbyists in our political process. An indirect impact in that they disproportionately influence the National political climate. In a lot of ways I believe we're on the same page, but not for the same reasons. And I believe Drumpf is more of a personality than a serious leader. He's only been successful in business because he started with Daddy's money (let's not forget his multiple bankruptcies), then turned himself into a showman who now collects fees for licensing his name. That's really productive - creates lots and lots of jobs, right? Voter disgust is fueling Drumpf's political rise, but only because the Teabaggers couldn't get the black man out of the White House. Jingoistic drivel such as "Make America Great Again" plays well in Michigan, which was decimated since 1974 because of oil shocks, the "Big Three" not paying attention to their long-term bottom line or the direction the market was going, the state not doing enough to lure different industries to develop locally and create decent jobs, racism (Flint is the epitome of this crap) - it's a long list. Out here in California it's not too bad, but there are big cracks as well. Unless you bought a long time ago, you cannot get a house in the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area without an income (duel or single) of $250,000. And the traffic sucks. You know, I love Michigan - it's one of the prettiest states around. However, the wingnut coefficient is way too high there. You can tell people are desperate - the two populist candidates, Drumpf and Sanders, won their respective primaries. John Galt - mythical character in a very lousy book. Don't you have the courage of your convictions to use your real name>? Hiding behind the veil of anonymity is pretty cowardly. Let me leave you with a (longer) re-wording of a quote one of my professors used to give: "Be careful of comparing the ideal world of Socialism with the real world of Capitalism". Be wary of confusing the mythical world of Libertarianism with a democratic republic. Laws protecting people from corporations, environmental degradation, pollution, dishonesty and special interests are there for a reason: The market is very imperfect because understanding market information is way beyond most people's attention span. It gets back to education: People aren't taught (or given any real reason) to think. George Head

Thank you for the feedback Mr Head. I would encourage you to get off the bandwagon of “shooting the messenger.” For instance, Mr Stockman's article on the deconstruction of the Neocons isn’t a false premise simply because he was hung out to dry by some of that same crowd. Or of Mr Black, Sorry, but the images of protesters screaming in a mother’s face who is trying to shield her child’s ears from the profanity is not something that is going to make the news about the Trump rallies, nor is repeated messages of non violence by them. Heck, even Mr Trump disavowed David Duke repeatedly in the week prior to his infamous flub, but that won’t stop people saying he panders to the KKK. Perhaps you are missing the point. And you read the graphs wrong if you think they said productivity is decreasing, that would be the productivity growth. Reading is fundamental Mr Head. However, I think that point is lost on you, as you seems much more interested in name calling than objective discussion. P.S. The name of the 16 year old American citizen who was NOT accused of being a terrorist and was targeted in a drone strike is - Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

I admit I glazed over some of your response, was a little difficult in a big blob like that. I guess the Reading is Fundamental comes right back to me, huh? lol. I see you did name the son, however, some of your info seems to conflict with these sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki . It's interesting you find comfort in 'anonymous' sources while attacking me for the same. I cede I have no proof that the son was targeted, the only official comment we have from the administration is his killing is "he should have had a more responsible father" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g . The strike was at an outdoor restaurant. Is there no moral problem with this?

Also - on Zero Hedge, your trusted analysis claims it predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions (citation not needed) <--- and of course that's the point, isn't it? It was a low blow that lacked facts. If someone points out the fundamentals are wrong and there is an impending recession; if the recession doesn't happen in a few months, or even a few years, does that make it a wrong call? There were economists calling out our crash of 08/09 in great detail back in 2005 because of the market fundamentals. Did that make them wrong because it took a few years? Your very article trashing the site for using a pen name (most people that read from that site believe there to be at least 4 or 5 Durdens) comes back to praise it for market flaws it did expose with high frequency flash trading. Also, the article I linked was not telling the reasons for the extinction of the middle class, but rather graphs that showed trends, that if not reverse, show it happening. Shoot the messenger is the wrong approach. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

One more point - on noting the funding of the protesters that you seem to defend. I find it interesting those that attack big money in politics (Citizen's United, agreed a horrible ruling), but warm to it when it suits their opinions, like this. My point was more towards it's not as grassroots as it appears on TV, but a lot of it is organized by big money too. I also find it interesting when people attack the character of those who exercise or mention their faith when it comes to Christianity, yet valiantly defend it when it comes to Muslims. There is much to both agree and disagree with in your comment Mr Head. You have certainly inspired me for some new topics for next weeks blogs sir. :)

Essentially your sh#tpile of a story is nothing more than an attempt to call liberals hypocrites. Just a (s)hit piece that left out all the hypocrisy of libertarians that are clamoring to get up on the Trump bump.

Liberal hit piece? Lol. It’s too bad that 1 anti war line got to you so severely. Truth hurts sometimes. Must’ve hit a sore spot I guess. Just because I pointed out a few good positions of Trump, talked about some things the mainstream media is not talking about, and reasoned why people support him DOES NOT equate to me supporting him! You should try not to allow your emotions overpower your logic like that! ;)

Just pointing out that your viewpoint is small in scope and doesn't address the hypocrisy of your own ilk, Johnny boy... And btw it's pathetic they let you write for this ill-fit-for-fish-wrap local zine without requiring you to put your real name on your shite. However I imagine that your daddy probably buys advertising time so...

And fuck you it ain't the truth that all liberals are behind Obama. Short sighted shit from a guy that tells you he's a libertarian in the first five seconds you meet him/her/it.

And guess what? You're not the only libertarian in the world. Even though all libertarians think the world revolves around them. There's a shit-ton of moron libertarians that are jumping on the Trump bump, even if you claim you're not.

Obviously the point of the article went entirely over your head Mr. Sucks. Thanks for making that clear. Most intellectual circles, name calling and petty insults are an immediate concession of defeat in a disagreement. I know of people that claim to be Libertarian that support Trump, Sanders, and Cruz! Imagine that! I personally think they are all horrible candidates; yet that doesn’t stop me from being objective enough to recognize good stances in each of them in addition to the bad. Unless I had an in-depth ideological discussion with any of these so-called Libertarians, I wouldn’t call that hypocrisy; my take would be they don’t understand the philosophies of Libertarianism enough. Hypocrisy is more like, being an anti-war protester until your candidate bombs even more countries than the previous president that was protested against. Then suddenly *silence*. That’s a hypocrite. A bad sport with delusions of liberal purism would then likely spout off with petty insults and name calling when confronted with this conflict of interest. Then maybe claim not all Liberals support what Obama does… Of course the glaring problem is the question I first asked you ---- Where the hell are all those protesters now? Yea, I won’t hold my breath. And I realize what I wrote *really* got under your skin, but don’t worry, your insults are neither true, nor do they get to me. Re-read the title of this article. I am literally LMAO right now at these comments. The surging emotional hate. It’s truly funny to me. I mean, it wasn’t enough I demolished Trump in the thumbnail of the article and 4 hard hits in 2 sentences? Sorry exposing not-so-known parts of the story which seems to have endangered your confirmation bias. Carry on. :)

The insults ARE true. You do tell someone that you're a libertarian the first 5 seconds they meet you, I guarantee it. Fuck, you're pen name is John Galt! Is it not? And both us commenters have asked why you don't use your real name. Why don't you? Too much of a risk? Also, would you not consider Glenn Greenwald a liberal, or most of those that write for Intercept? Maybe you want to ape him as one of your own (as your ilk have done with Orwell and other liberals). Also, " I am literally LMAO right now at these comments", thanks for proving that you are nothing more than a hypocritical troll. And really the most hilarious component of our discussion is boiled down here, 'exposing not-so-known parts of the story'... you really think that there is not a single point that you've made that I couldn't find already posted on some other Ayn Rand smegma stench shit rag, given 10 minutes of Google time?

Where are those anti-war protesters?

See that's just the thing, like many of my brethren, we are far different than the folks your lazy hazy shitstory that, again, you intended to do nothing more than paint all liberals as hypocrites. You opened yourself up for ad hominem attacks by this broad brush approach, and are fully deserving of them.

Accusing me of putting all liberals in a brushstroke for generalizing while over and over you have done exactly that of Libertarianism, with name calling, accusing specific things about my personality or life you have no clue about; and then use the word hypocrite. You keep using that word. (insert Inigo Montoya meme) I don't think it means what you think it means. Your anger and refusal to answer the protester question is quite telling. I will request admin to quit publishing your posts if you can't avoid this excessive name calling, swearing, or not coming up with anything intelligent to say. Good day Mr. Sucks.

Sorry it was so hard to read, Galt. I realize it was tough to understand. You might want to copy it and break it up into paragraphs, which is how I originally posted it. The LEO's Youtube piece was an account. Not a defining statement, In a court of law it would be classified as hearsay. And he's dead-ass wrong about it being a private venue. I'm glad you "... cede I have no proof that the son was targeted". As for "anonymous sources", the statement I made was a quote from Wikipedia: "Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered." I really don't know why that's an issue. Your comment just sounds a little petulant. Re Stockman: You state "Mr Stockman's article on the deconstruction of the Neocons isn’t a false premise". I don't believe that's even implied. You made a statement about Drumpf and cite Stockman. Whatever. I didn't bring up Duke - you did. And it isn't relevant. I said Drumpf is a bigot and a misogynist. Actions speak louder than words. Re " I find it interesting those that attack big money in politics (Citizen's United, agreed a horrible ruling), but warm to it when it suits their opinions, like this." George Soros is "big money"? Not by a long shot, especially when compared with Citizens United. Besides - who cares if an organization like MoveOn protest at a Drumpf event? When he keeps saying incendiary shit, he's going to get it thrown back at him. Did you complain much about the so-called Tea Party being funded by the Koch brothers and holding rallies with pictures of the president doctored to make him look like Hitler? Or the whole inane fiasco about his birth certificate (Drumpf jumped on that bandwagon...) And I cannot understand how you conflate my remark about invoking Jesus as a justification for a stupid YouTube video with Drumpf saying some of the shit he says about Muslims. Quite the stretch. Regarding your defense of that stupid web site: It most definitely is "a batshit insane Austrian school finance blog run by a pseudonymous founder who posts articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club. It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.", Austrian school "finance", based on Austrian school economics, is junk economics. If you want to prove otherwise have at it. No disagreement about the fact that the middle class is suffering. But you need better sources. Just as Drumpf has the best words, I have the best sources. You still haven't responded to my statement: "Don't you have the courage of your convictions to use your real name? Hiding behind the veil of anonymity is pretty cowardly."

Mr. Head, the LEO was a witness of an event. While repeating someone’s words are usually inadmissible as hearsay (not always), but in a court of law, much of his testimony describing events would not be hearsay FYI. Funny you start with your standard as court rules to reject my link, yet again and still, you put so much faith in anonymous sources… Where are those standards now? Any right leaning source is a bad source, but left leaning is one a good sources? Lol ok I get your angle. I find it a bit despicable the only official statement we have on bombing an American kid at a restaurant is what I posted above, which shows absolutely no remorse, and doesn’t even imply he wasn’t targeted. No attack on the ‘cowards’ in the government for being anonymous? I brought up Duke as an additional example of media unfairness of what the pundits will continue to repeat regardless of reality. And yes while you did point out a couple good things he did, I felt you were entirely dismissive of Stockman’s point. You seem to reject him giving his reasoning of the article because he was hung out to dry by that crowd. Oh yea, and Trump isn’t smart enough to do that. Way to dismiss and avoid discussing the context of his article. For as focused on facts, you seem awful insistent about you and your trusted analysis site for a quite biased opinion on Zero Hedge Mr. “I have good sources,” but have little to really say other than petty ideological insults, name calling and slamming the use of a pen name. Well if that’s the best you can do, then good for you man. So far, I understand you seem to be entirely intolerant of others opinions you can’t rebut, so attack the messenger instead, right? Soros isn’t big money? He’s worth over half of both the Koch brothers put together, and no I don’t want ANY big money in politics. I don’t really care which side of the aisle it’s on. Sick of that crap. Invoking Jesus as justification? As justification for what? A profession of faith in fear of his safety? Seriously, what are you talking about? As far as my name, you can call it cowardice I don’t care, that’s fine, paint me in a class with some other great historical writers who chose no recognition with a pen name. And seriously, do you see the vicious venomous of this other commenter? (the other comments they stop publishing got even worse than what is published) And you want me to put my name out there with this emotional angry intolerant Liberal wishing me death for writing things that contradict with his opinion? Focus on the context. Stop attacking the messenger.

I will continue responding without the name calling I am receiving... I also have no problem admitting when I am wrong; in relation to my concession of no proof that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was targeted in his killing, regardless there is no proof he was not targeted (other than a shady anonymous source) with the only official statement blaming him for his father, even though they were killed in strikes 2 weeks apart. I did remove the word 'targeted' from that statement in my article. I stand by the point that this is a moral dilemma bombing restaurants, killing American kids, and in some countries as high as 89% non combatant kill rate are being reported from our bombings; and that the outrage is way off balanced.

Oh, I misstated Soros vs Koch value, he is only over half of one of them who are each tied for a little over 40B nw. However, a fairly recent analysis from a year ago of their past few decades of political giving puts the Koch brother at 118M and Soros at 77M. http://ivn.us/2015/02/02/koch-bros-george-soros-americas-high-profile-political-donors-compare/ Also, we already know Soros has pumped millions into this election cycle for Hillary alone, how is that not considered big money?

Starting to miss that "Your paper sucks" writer. Sounds like he made have been a too unlatched