Glenn Beck Has an ‘Honest Question’ for Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter: ‘I Really Want to Understand’ (why they support Trump)

[NavyCanDo]

I really want to understand.

I get that Trump is reflective of what people are feeling; secure the border; fight to win; don't give in to china etc. I really do understand that he is saying things that people are feeling. Justifiably.

I get the fact that he is saying that America is a great place and that we can be great again. That is rare and refreshing.

I understand that he is seen and has the proof in New York City, as a guy who can get things done.

I understand and like the fact that he just says what he is thinking. No politically correct bs; no focus groups and he does it with out apologizing.

But here is what I don't understand.

He is part of the problem when he by his own admission, buys politicians; he said he identifies his "policies more as a democrat"; he makes President Obama look truly humble; he was very pro abortion until very recently; he still says "don't defund planned parenthood"; he is pro "assault weapon ban"; he is in favor of a wealth tax that would just "take money out of people's bank accounts"; he is for boots on the ground in Iraq and 'taking the oil' from the Iraqi people; he is a progressive 'republican'; he says single payer health care works; he said he would give people more than just Obama care; the First Lady would be the first to have posed nude in lesbian porno shots; he said that he keeps all the bibles he is given in a "special place" out side the city - and he only goes to church on Christmas and Easter; he is generally not a likable guy; he has around 16% favorability with Hispanics and he has gone bankrupt 4 times.

This is an honest question. I really want to understand:

Why are big name "conservatives" supporting him? I get it if you are tired of politicians, a republican progressive, or you are only about winning (although those who say they would NEVER vote for him is over 50% of REPUBLICANS). Perhaps you are angry and you just want to make someone pay or just want something done and you don't care how it gets done, but what PRINCIPLES does he have that they are attracted to?

I am not talking about the average Joe, I am talking about Sean Hannity or Ann Colter. How about Savage or Rush?

These are smart people. What am I missing? Just based on his favorability ratings he could never win in a general. Research shows that he may be near his ceiling now.

Are they just trying to hold on to those disenfranchised republicans and keep them in the fold? (Maybe I am wrong for not holding my tongue) I think that is a good goal, but that doesn't seem to ring true to me as they are actually fighting for him, at least in the case of Ann.

I want the system to play itself out and I want the people to decide. It is why I didn't like idea of a ban of him on the radio show while I was gone. (Although that was misrepresented. Pat and stu didn't want to talk about him for two days)

I really do want him to be heard as I think it is important to discuss the things like the border. I wish he would bring up the fed and money printing. But I just don't understand those who claim conservative, small government values and principles saying he is their man. Am I misreading what they are saying?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/14/glenn-beck-has-an-honest-question-for-hannity-limbaugh-and-coulter-i-really-want-to-understand/

[NavyCanDo]

 I would expect Coulter to be a Trump supporter, after all she had salivated over Chris Christie last time he ran. And Hannity is a media wonk, and Trump makes good highly watched interviews - good for ratings. But Rush? I have been listening to him since his show went national, and he has always stayed away from endorsing a candidate, or even appearing to.

[Bigun]

I am very interested in hearing the answer to Glen's question myself!

[kevindavis007]

He should add Mike Gallagher to the list as well..  I'm trying to understand it as well..

[NavyCanDo]

Just answer this simple question. On the issues explain where Trump is more conservative that any other candidate running?  He may have sold a lot of people with his talk - but history does not back any of it up. Without that history, he is just the loud-mouth guy at the end of the bar.

[truth_seeker]

Just answer this simple question. On the issues explain where is Trump is more conservative that any other candidate running?  He may have sold a lot of people with his talk - but history does not back any of it up. Without that history, he is just the loud-mouth guy at the end of the bar.

But the truth is contemporary "conservatism" craves the "loud-mouth guy at the end of the bar."

There are fewer and fewer widely agreed aspects that define "conservative."

He is leading. This proves personality above principles carries the day, just as with Obama.

The big dog barks the loudest.

[Longiron]

BUT you have a junk yard dog in this race not a poodle like Obama and no dis respect to poodles or their owners! Beck the World should be over by NOW. The RIGHT's Al Sharpton. About time for BECK to go Liberal to gain some badly needed ATTENTION. 888ohnoes

[NavyCanDo]

BUT you have a junk yard dog in this race not a poodle like Obama and no dis respect to poodles or their owners! Beck the World should be over by NOW. The RIGHT's Al Sharpton. About time for BECK to go Liberal to gain some badly needed ATTENTION. 888ohnoes

So what you're saying is, what America needs is the loud-mouth guy at the end of the bar...and can't answer the question of where Trump is more conservative than the others.

[Longiron]

So what you're say is, what America needs is the loud-mouth guy at the end of the bar...and can't answer the question of where Trump is more conservative than the others.

This is the guy most want in their. The Trump haters will love this.






http://conservativepost.com/3-yr-old-is-dying-airline-refuses-to-help-so-trump-does-this/

[olde north church]

My take on it:

1.  Trump is a mean to an end, that end being a destruction of the current political class.  Politicians, lobbyists, commentators, reporters, all of them.  They see him the same way the dinosaurs saw the comet in the "Far Side" cartoon.
That, my fellow citizens, is why they are all Hell bent on destroying him.

2.  Would you prefer a President Clinton II, a President Bush III or a President Trump?  Walker is a wet dream.  Cruz ain't going anywhere.  Kasich is an also ran.  Fiorina will be toast.  That's just those who MAY be around in two months.

3.  Some of the other governors and senators are running interference for Bush.  They know they don't have a chance but are working as favorite sons.

4.  Beck is a concern troll.  He is pretending to be "just the average guy", the "every man".  His teddy bears and warm milk at the border is a play.

[Oceander]

Trump is a gadfly, a fool with too much money.  He's also a liberal and a statist/crony capitalist.  Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo - that the government can take a bunch of peoples' houses because the neighborhood isn't "nice" and give it private developers - is an abomination cannot at the same time give any sort of serious consideration to Trump without suffering massive cognitive dissonance.

Here's a National Review article from April 2011:

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain

by Robert VerBruggen April 19, 2011 3:30 PM

A brief history

In a free market, there’s a pretty simple process for dealing with the situation that arises when one person covets another’s belongings:  The coveter makes an offer to purchase them. If the offer is rebuffed, the coveter can make a new proposal, but he cannot simply take what he wants. It’s an effective way of recognizing the impracticality of the Tenth Commandment while enforcing the Eighth.

Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property.

This is called, of course, “eminent domain.” The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one. In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights.

A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.” Today, however, it takes a push from the Club for Growth to remind us of Trump’s lack of respect for property rights.

The problem dates back to at least 1994. That year, Trump promised to turn Bridgeport, Conn., into“a national tourist destination by building a $350 million combined amusement park, shipping terminal and seaport village and office complex on the east side of the harbor,” reported the Hartford Courant. “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”

The wrinkle? “Five businesses and the city-owned Pleasure Beach now occupy the land,” as the Courant put it. The solution? “The city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc. and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.”

Here’s how the story concluded: “The entire development would cost the city nothing, Trump said, and no private homeowners would be affected because there are no dwellings on the land. Trump would own everything.”

That brings us to the story of the aforementioned elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines.

He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000.

Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed. The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case.

In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision. Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.

Trump agrees "100 percent" with the government having the right to seize someone else's property, pay them a pittance for it, and then hand the property over to some blowhard private developer with a really, really bad hairdo.

How, in the name of God, can any so-called conservative who claims to believe in the sanctity of individual rights, freedom, and private property, with even a smidgen of self-respect have anything but contempt for Trump?

[EC]

I think it is much simpler than that, in terms of the headline question.

Trump gets attention. Column feet of coverage rather than column inches.

If you make your wedge by commenting on the news and the state of the world, you are a fool not to devote significant time to him. Eyes and ears, especially now-a-days, are yours for 3 seconds - no longer. If you don't hook your readers in the first two lines, they click on to something else. Trump is a guaranteed eye grabber at the moment.

[Bigun]

My take on it:

1.  Trump is a mean to an end, that end being a destruction of the current political class.  Politicians, lobbyists, commentators, reporters, all of them.  They see him the same way the dinosaurs saw the comet in the "Far Side" cartoon.
That, my fellow citizens, is why they are all Hell bent on destroying him.

2.  Would you prefer a President Clinton II, a President Bush III or a President Trump?  Walker is a wet dream.  Cruz ain't going anywhere.  Kasich is an also ran.  Fiorina will be toast.  That's just those who MAY be around in two months.

3.  Some of the other governors and senators are running interference for Bush.  They know they don't have a chance but are working as favorite sons.

4.  Beck is a concern troll.  He is pretending to be "just the average guy", the "every man".  His teddy bears and warm milk at the border is a play.

Wish I could buy in to the idea that Trump is the pathway by which we return to citizen/statesman government but I just can't.  Not yet anyway.  I would be much more inclined to trust a Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson in that role than Trump at this point in time.

[ABX]

I've noticed that Rush has been doing something very interesting. While yes, he is talking a LOT about Trump in a very positive light, not critically mentioning all of his negatives, he also has been dropping some hints that either he is completely missing the connection himself or he knows full well and is hoping to get people to think about it.

For several days, I've caught that while mentioning Trump, he also goes into how people are tired of the corrupt political class, specifically cronyism and how politicians are bought through lobbyists.

He hasn't actually said so, but I think it is his way of getting people to think about Trump in this. He is a major part of the corrupt political class and the cronyism people hate. He is just the other side of the coin. Instead of the elected official being bought, he is the guy doing the buying. Trump was the guy buying politicians and paying lobbyists. He is probably the worst example this side of George Soros of the corrupt nature that is modern politics.

It seems to me Rush is trying to get people to think while, at the same time, avoiding speaking negative about any of our candidates.

That, or as I mentioned, for some reason he completely misses his own point.

[musiclady]

I would expect Coulter to be a Trump supporter, after all she had salivated over Chris Christie last time he ran. And Hannity is a media wonk, and Trump makes good highly watched interviews - good for ratings. But Rush? I have been listening to him since his show went national, and he has always stayed away from endorsing a candidate, or even appearing to.

I've had to turn Rush off several times in the last couple of weeks because he's on a Trump tangent.

You're right.   He's NEVER endorsed a candidate before this, and he certainly appears to be endorsing Trump.

It is, IMO, very troubling, because Rush has always been, IMO, principled.

[musiclady]

I've noticed that Rush has been doing something very interesting. While yes, he is talking a LOT about Trump in a very positive light, not critically mentioning all of his negatives, he also has been dropping some hints that either he is completely missing the connection himself or he knows full well and is hoping to get people to think about it.

For several days, I've caught that while mentioning Trump, he also goes into how people are tired of the corrupt political class, specifically cronyism and how politicians are bought through lobbyists.

He hasn't actually said so, but I think it is his way of getting people to think about Trump in this. He is a major part of the corrupt political class and the cronyism people hate. He is just the other side of the coin. Instead of the elected official being bought, he is the guy doing the buying. Trump was the guy buying politicians and paying lobbyists. He is probably the worst example this side of George Soros of the corrupt nature that is modern politics.

It seems to me Rush is trying to get people to think while, at the same time, avoiding speaking negative about any of our candidates.

That, or as I mentioned, for some reason he completely misses his own point.

I hope you're right about that, because I've been listening to Rush for decades, and every time I've listened lately, he's appeared to be supporting Trump.

Maybe he'll let us in on his secret sooner or later.

(I hope it's not too much later, because if so, he's lost me as a regular listener.... )

[libertybele]

I too would like to know those answers.  I just read an article (link below) that names who Trump would consider putting in his cabinet; Jack Welch and Warren Buffet.  I understand that his cabinet picks would have to be approved by Congress, but I think we should all really think about what a Trump presidency would be like.  Heads of corporations with no political experience lining their pockets at the expense of American citizens.  Secondly, I see him even worse then Obama.  If he doesn't get his way - he will sidestep Congress, sign an executive order and that will be it.  He will certainly use his veto power.  I see him also negotiating without the consent of Congress; just like Obama.

A vote for Trump would be like voting for another term of Obama only Trump is much more narcissistic and arrogant.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-talks-potential-cabinet-picks-sean-hannity

[Machiavelli]

Beck is a concern troll.

I keep seeing that expression thrown around. What is a concern troll? Seriously.

[bkepley]

I keep seeing that expression thrown around. What is a concern troll? Seriously.

I guess no one knows.  Most likely it is an abused internet phrase that once had a specific meaning but is becoming mis-used like the term "troll" itself.

[EdinVA]

Heads of corporations with no political experience lining their pockets at the expense of American citizens.

Are you talking about Trump or the 535 public servants that enter office with a few bucks in their pockets and retire with 10's of millions in their bank?
Career politicians are the biggest thieves in the nation..

Secondly, I see him even worse then Obama.  If he doesn't get his way - he will sidestep Congress, sign an executive order and that will be it.

So, go along to get along?
So if congress refuses to do something about obamacare, illegal immigration etc, the president should just sit there and say ok?
Not me...

He will certainly use his veto power.  I see him also negotiating without the consent of Congress; just like Obama.

An occasional veto would be refreshing.

A vote for Trump would be like voting for another term of Obama only Trump is much more narcissistic and arrogant.

Trump more ego than McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner?  Come on, that is not possible.
So lets get more sheep in there and ride the ride until it dies, is that the answer?

[EC]

I keep seeing that expression thrown around. What is a concern troll? Seriously.

Pretty much what it says on the tin.

Someone who trolls a site or forum by posting replies which "raise concerns" or "view with alarm." It's difficult to do well, way easier to actually Poe a site.

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually mean anything beyond "He's not a member of our little club house" since almost anything can concern anyone, so 99% of the time a poster's concern about something is genuine.

[bkepley]

Pretty much what it says on the tin.

Someone who trolls a site or forum by posting replies which "raise concerns" or "view with alarm." It's difficult to do well, way easier to actually Poe a site.

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually mean anything beyond "He's not a member of our little club house" since almost anything can concern anyone, so 99% of the time a poster's concern about something is genuine.

Long and short it's BS.

[olde north church]

I keep seeing that expression thrown around. What is a concern troll? Seriously.

Apologies for the delay, stepped away as the "real" world called.  It's one of those Internet terms is a lot like pornography.  It's hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

[massadvj]

I think it is much simpler than that, in terms of the headline question.

Trump gets attention. Column feet of coverage rather than column inches.

If you make your wedge by commenting on the news and the state of the world, you are a fool not to devote significant time to him. Eyes and ears, especially now-a-days, are yours for 3 seconds - no longer. If you don't hook your readers in the first two lines, they click on to something else. Trump is a guaranteed eye grabber at the moment.

This would be my take on things as well.  Trump means ratings and these people are in the media business first and foremost.

[bkepley]

Apologies for the delay, stepped away as the "real" world called.  It's one of those Internet terms is a lot like pornography.  It's hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

In other words it's a term you use to try to shut someone up whom you disagree with.  That is how I've seen it used.  It's BS and "concern trolls" are about as real as the mythological trolls.