Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
Oh. Now it's clear. An essay in
praise of The Donald is temperate and objective, an essay criticising him in
any way, shape, or form---never mind one written rather in rather temperate language (certainly, temperate
compared to that customarily deployed by The Donald himself)---is a screaming tirade.
And, speaking of thinking about points, I note you say absolutely nothing about one of the keys to The Donald's
threat against the Ricketts family: he fumed over their "secret" spending---spending which was just about the
worst kept secret on the turf. Funny, too, how The Donald speaking against any other candidate or idea isn't
"aggression," never mind that any other candidate or activist doing nothing more devastating than standing
athwart him isn't exactly "aggression."
One thing I have noticed is that an awful lot of people standing with The Donald now, on the grounds that
he'll blow up the house while he's exterminating the vermin therein, are some of the people who, in other
forums, once stood with George W. Bush and his then-Republican majority and did nothing but run down,
dress down, and if they could run out of town (meaning those forums) anyone who saw that administration
and that Congress for what it was, the very thing about which Mr. Michael Tanner wrote against in
Levia-
than on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. (And,
while that administration and Congress were at it, tilled the soil that could be farmed into the world of His
Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life
President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States.) When these people now fume that the
house is rotten and only The Donald can blow it up to be rebuilt the "right" way, they fume about the
monster they suckled.
