Donald Trump Is An Unspeakable Asshole

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump.

We’re going to take just a quick moment to note the latest offensive nonsense to emanate from GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s mouth:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he does not owe John McCain an apology for saying the Arizona senator is only a war hero “because he was captured.”

Trump told Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week” that he won’t be pulling out of the presidential race over his comments, which he made Saturday during a campaign event in Iowa. Trump said he left to a “standing ovation” after speaking at the Family Leadership Council summit.

“When I left the room, it was a total standing ovation,” said Trump. “It was wonderful to see. Nobody was insulted.”

At this point, rational Republicans are turning on Trump in droves, even as he captivates the more excitable segments of the GOP primary electorate with his ability to offend, you know, just about everybody–something a fair number of angry white male ardent Republican voters wish they had the skyscraper-size pile of money Trump has to do the same with.

But seriously, attacking Sen. John McCain for being shot down over Vietnam, and held as a prisoner of war under conditions that Trump can’t even possibly imagine in all of his 24-addled psychotic torture-loving fantasies…it’s just too damn much, folks. It is totally unacceptable no matter how many billions and billions of dollars you have.

Since “The Donald’s” campaign is apparently a billion-dollar wrecking ball that can’t be stopped by anyone, we feel there’s an obligation for everyone of conscience to say so.

35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. And yet, so far he's at the top of the Republican polls. There's something (awful) to be said about allowing people to support whom they will.

    Trump is, of course, a repugnant person – and has been for as long as I've known his name. His insult to McCain – a childish response to McCain saying he stirred up the crazies with his visit to Arizona – is exactly in line with what I expect from the man.

    I see Trump as the unfiltered version of the Koch-fueled Republican Party. How many of today's Republican primary voters are fed up with McCain because of his perceived "maverick" status? How many want their heroes to be "real men" who charge out with 2nd Amendment approved guns blazing to take on their Nazi/Socialist enemies (the gayz, and the aliens, and the Satanists, and…)? Trump is none of those, but he's more than happy to prop up the image.

  2. Voyageur says:

    Trump claims he avoided military service because of a bone spur.  But in all likelihood, he was probably a victim of MRSJ — Military Related Spinal Jaundice.

       The disease is common among chickenhawks.  Its most prominent symptom is a wide yellow streak down his back. 

  3. exlurker19 says:

    My husband was old enough for the draft when Viet Nam was being fought.  The last year of the draft, his number was 269.  The year that Nixon promised to end the draft, his number was 3.  We made serious plans to send him to my relatives in Sweden if Nixon was lying like he usually was.  Because my husband is a kind, brilliant, but inattentive kind of man, and like Treat Williams' character in Hair, he would very likely have been shot and killed his first day stationed in Viet Nam.  If Nixon hadn't kept his promise, my children would be speaking Swedish right now.

    So, I don't care if LaDonald has a bone spur or not.  What bothers me is his absolute and unmitigated gall in criticizing anyone at all who did serve.  Mocking McCain for not being smart enough to get deferred the way Trump did is unforgivable, almost as bad as his hairdo.

    • Voyageur says:

      I HAVE NO PROBLEM with people who like your husband were willing to go to Sweden, etc.  and live with the consequences. My best friend went to Canada to avoid the draft and is a Canadian citizen to this day.  But I despise the Chickenhawks, rich bastards like Trump who gamed the system, dodged the draft, then have the audacity to promote warmongering policies, as Trump is doing now re: Iran.   Being so despicable as to actually smear the vets who went — and especially the POWS who suffered so much, is breath-taking.  If I ever meet your husband, I'll buy him a beer.   If I ever meet Trump, I'll spit on him.

       

      • BlueCat says:

        Amen. My vet husband feels exactly the same way.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Vger Yeah. Trump is a little older than  my ex-husband,who went to Vietnam as a patriotic, idealistic farm kid and came back with Agent Orange in his skin and internal organs, and even deeper scars on his soul.

        I protested the war, marched and did guerilla theater and civil disobedience, and helped the Quakers help conscientous objectors. In my mind, you had to do one or the other as a response to the Vietnam war;  you had to lay your body on the line one way or another. 

        Trump just avoided the issue because of family connections, and now has the nerve to trumpet his "bravery" and supposed superiority to a prisoner of war…the phrase "the banality of evil" comes to mind.

        Pollster Zogby, who's usually right about these things, predicts that we won't even be talking about Trump as we get closer to the 2016 election. I hope so – I'm sick of him already. The best thing about his candidacy was the "Trump Your Cat" meme.

        • MichaelBowman says:

          There were a lot of Republicans who said the same thing about Dan
          Maes in 2010.  It begs the question: who will successfully
          audition for the part of Tancredo in a national election?

  4. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Given that the USA is head over heels in debt, Trump, as president, could help the country file bankruptcy since he has so much experience in doing that.

    Trump is an asshole; I agree; and a gaping asshole at that. His comments about Mexicans were abhorrent, but also raise a question of population. We have largely open borders; not so much on the southern borders any more as much as those who overstay visas and are not pursued. Liberals want to help poor Mexicans. Business, particularly in agriculture, wants the cheap labor to do jobs that citizens don't seem to want to do. 

    What is the carrying capacity of this country? We're now at somewhere between 300 million and 320 million, counting all the undocumented residents. How long before there is just too much impact on our environment? Here in the West, what about water? Now underway is a proposal to dam the Poudre; another "entrepreneur" wants to dam the Yampa and pump the water back uphill to the Front Range (ignoring the fact the the Colorado River system is over-appropriated already) 

    Here in Colorado, the population is now 5 1/2 million and expected to grow by another million by 2025. What is the impact, on what is a rather fragile environment, of all those people? The I-70 mess is already well documented. In recent years, I've heard talk of permit systems to climb some of the 14ers, which are being loved to death.

    I'm a strong supporter of basic support for veterans after their service years. But for how long? Where is it written that an individual who serves a 4 year hitch in their early 20s; without seeing combat; becomes entitled to medical care for the next 60 years? I take no sides on this matter. But with the mammoth growth in entitlements that is underway (baby boomer retirement anyone?); and the trillions in unfunded liabilities that this country has; this discussion has to occur.

    Long overdue is an audit of the Pentagon; as advocated by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Any such audit has to include the VA (Aurora hospital overruns, anyone?). Medical and other care for vets has to be considered as part of the overall defense budget.

    • Half Glass Full says:

      So are you considering voting for Trump?

    • MichaelBowman says:

      C.H.B/ – I personally push back on the 'we've reached our carrying capacity'.  We have no shortage of natural resources to feed everyone if we simply transitioned the way we 'do things'.  Take my own home, Yuma County.  Once the largest corn-producing county in the nation, we still withdraw something over 300,000 acre-feet of water each year to produce (almost exclusively) corn.  With a fraction of that water and even less-of-a-fraction of the land devoted to that production, I could grow/feed legions of people health, local food.  We have built a model of food production around a scarcity model – akin to a coal-based energy model (while we're literally drowning in solar and wind resources).  But, like our economic system, while we produce more calories per global citizen than at any other time in history, the rates of obesity and hunger are at all-time highs.  We've met the enemy…it's 'us'. 

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Michael: note that I said "have we reached our carrying capacity?"  Regarding the Eastern Plains of Colorado, I have marveled for the 34+ years I've lived here about the water intensive crops grown in a semi-arid state. Corn, alfalfa, sugar beets, all are better suited for planting east of the 100th Meridian (maybe eventually further east as the Oglalla Aquifer runs out. 

        I won't argue about the solar and wind resources available in this state, and on the Great Plains. I pay a few extra dollars per month to Xcel and buy all my electricity from the company's WindSource program. Funny that one of the best places on the Western Slope for wind energy potential is Moffat County, home of the problematic ColoWyo coal mine.

        Overall, how many people are enough in the US? 350 million? 450 million?

        • MichaelBowman says:

          Duly noted!  As to your question on carrying capacity, who's to say we couldn't be a billion people? I'm not advocating it, but could we handle that many?  That would likely require that the growth be in the non-urban sectors (anyone trying to traverse the Denver highway system right now probably thinks thats an idea they'd entertain).  If we keep trying to pigeon hole the growth in exclusively urban areas, then that is a different question.  And I get it why people are moving away from Dumphuckistan, not into it, but it doesn't have to be that way either.  Lofty thoughts – but from a pure resource standpoint we have lots of room to grow. 

          PS: thanks for supporting the wind industry!~

          • Davie says:

            Assuming we have enough water to support the population in 50 years, we'll probably just have skywalks connecting the buildings downtown in the city, eliminating the need to use streets 🙂

            I was astonished this weekend as I took a little drive up Pena Blvd to Tower Road.  The suburban sprawl has really taken off at Reunion on 104th between Chambers and Tower Road. Remnants of the old farms and pastures abound, so there is plenty of room to keep on expanding horizontally.

            I was almost at the eastern edge of development when I bought a home near Buckley and Illiff 30 years ago.

            • MichaelBowman says:

              I remember my first trip down E470 years ago and wondered to myself, "will I live long enough to see development encroach this far east?".  I was indeed a naive eastern plains inhabitant then!  As far as water goes, agriculture still uses something north of 70% of our water supply.  If we adopted irrigation technologies that have been deployed in Israel – there would be enough to go around.  With our arcane 'use it or lose it' water laws we'll never get there. As I said, I'm not advocating for a billion people, but I think if someone did the math we could accommodate them if we brought agriculture and urban planning in Colorado in to the 21st-century. 

  5. BlueCat says:

    I agree with this part anyway:

    Given that the USA is head over heels in debt, Trump, as president, could help the country file bankruptcy since he has so much experience in doing that. 

    wink

    • BlueCat says:

      PS. Not really. We're not the next Greece. We're not going bankrupt. Raising taxes to pre-GW levels on the top tax bracket, eliminating the cap on social security taxes and, yes, welcoming young hard working immigrants who will pay in to social security, mandating living wage instead of forcing the government to subsidize the huge Walmart and Walmart like work force with tax payer funded aid, thereby turning all those workers into job creating contributors to a burgeoning economy with their buying power and avoiding unnecessary and unfunded wars of choice should do the trick. No need to rely on The Donald's thorough and oft repeated experience with bankruptcy. 

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        "We're not the next Greece……"  Fortunately no. We don't have a flock of overpaid government employees nor pensioners who can retire early on 96% of their salary. US is not facing a Germany where 85% of responding voters in polls say no more money for Greece. We're not facing the the governments of Lithuania and Slovakia that say "we got through our austerity and things are a lot better. Why can't you do likewise." Government of Finland says no more. Netherlands says no more. Only entities saying "more, more, more," are fringe parties like Syriza in Greece, National Front in France and Podemos in Spain. Need I go on?  Problem with Greece is that it finally ran out of other peoples' money with which to sustain its fiscal profligacy. 

        I'll support raising the cap on social security. But why is raising taxes always the solution? Why not cut spending where it is appropriate? Does the US really need 87 different job training programs? Maybe we could get by with 30?  Do we really need 2,300+ F-35 fighter planes, inflicted with massive cost overruns and latest news is that it can't "dogfight" as well as the planes it is replacing?

        "Mandating living wage……."  Interesting that you side-stepped my point asking why the Dems did nothing about your concerns when they had the power in D.C.

        • exlurker19 says:

          But why is raising taxes always the solution?

          TANSTAAFL.  That's why.  You want all the benefits of government, like cops and firefighters who show up when you call them, pothole free roads, etc., etc. but somebody else needs to pay for it. 

        • mamajama55 says:

          Minimum wages have increased under Democratic congresses, for the most part. Presidents of both parties have presided over increases, but the Democratic congresses brought home the bacon. This Kos article, written in 2014, noted that Obama is the only Democratic president who has not presided over minimum wage increases. Now, O has partially remedied that with his executive orders on overtime pay, and raising the wage for federal workers.

          He, and congressional Democrats, have been trying hard to raise the minimum wage for years.  CHB, you know perfectly well who is blocking those proposals – congressional Republicans, some of whom you would probably vote for.

            I would think that a libertarian like yourself would prefer that people work and be able to support themselves, rather than relying on government social programs.

          On some of the wasteful programs you mention, I don't have time now to look into it; probably, there is some duplication of programs. I know that there is wasteful defense spending. I advocate spending smarter before spending more, which in my mind involves consulting with the target population, to find out what will be most effective. I've experienced "top-down" government programs, and some are in fact wasteful.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            mamajama:  let me assist you in your research. Check out this group: Citizens Against Government Waste. Even better is Taxpayers for Common Sense. Especially check out TCS's report from April, 2014 on the century of government subsidies to the oil & gas industry. Another option is to review the annual waste books produced by now retired Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). 

            And for Blue Cat and your apparent desire to "soak the rich" with tax increases as the solution for all that ails society, check out the waste first. You might be surprised at all the “spare money” that’s available out there.  

            • BlueCat says:

              You are so full of it. Returning  only part of the way to what were considered perfectly reasonable levels of taxation on the top brackets in the Reagan era is "soaking the rich"?  Seriously? And about waste? Sure we should be concerned about waste but there is no evidence that privatizing eliminates waste. See the disappearing billions in the privatized war in Iraq. And, no, there isn't enough waste to make up for the completely inadequate revenue resulting from trickle down theory. That's why we can't do big things anymore, like the space program or the building of the interstates or maintaining an infrastructure that used to be the envy of the world, just to name a very few of the things we can't do anymore and not because there wasn't any waste back then. 

              You believe in these things the way kids believe in the tooth fairy and on the basis of less evidence. At least kids have their parents planting phony evidence. And you use ridiculous hyperbole about "soaking the rich" when all that is being suggested is an adjustment back to historic norms from today's out of proportion reverse Robin Hood tax policies, the largest and fastest growing wealth gap and wealth concentration we have ever experienced.  

              But most of all reality speaks for itself. Your idea of responsible small government has been a disaster for the middle class, stagnating or slipping for over 40 years while the concentration of wealth at the top keeps ballooning. That's not liberal thinking or socialist thinking. It's simple recognition of facts on the ground reality, facts conservatives have to ignore in order to cling to their utterly nonsensical economic theories.

              All that scrunching your eyes closed, holding your hands over your ears and singing lalala as loud as you can to keep the reality of the total failure of your quasi-religious economic beliefs out must be exhausting. 

        • BlueCat says:

          Taxes on the top bracket wouldn't need to be raised had they not been so severely cut. They were never this low during periods when our economy was thriving for all, fueled by an upwardly mobile, prospering, expanding middle class. Austerity measures(you call them small government) have likewise never been shown to have any beneficial effect. They just mean fewer people with good jobs contributing to the economy(small businesses don't care whether their customers are paid in the public or private sector as long as they have money to spend) and deteriorating schools, infrastructure, public amenities, quality of life. 

          So why is cutting taxes on the rich and shrinking government (read laying off workers and letting all manner of things go to hell in a hand basket because, no, the private for profit sector does not take over and do these things more efficiently) always the solution? It's not as if there's ever been an instance when doing so has made for a more vibrant, prosperous economy for the majority.

          Conservative belief in tax cuts at the top trickling down to benefit everyone as the solution to everything is based on absolutely no real world evidence, no real world facts, no real world stats, no history, no results whatsoever. In fact, we have decades of proof that Trickle Down doesn't and decades of proof that no economy was ever revived by austerity (bathtub drowning sized government). Those pillars of conservative economic theory have been demonstrated to be, by any objective measure, entirely irrational beliefs. You may as well believe in unicorns.

  6. notaskinnycook says:

    Trump knows he's not going to be president. He's running to have an explicitly political platform to spout economic Republican (as opposed to religious Republican) slogans from.The longer he talks, the less anyone with a functioning brain will take him seriously. Thank goodness.

  7. Half Glass Full says:

    That must have been one huge bone spur in his head.

    Trump is so stupid he thinks the Hanoi Hilton is one of his competitors' properties.

    • BlueCat says:

      Pretty sure a person would remember which foot he had a bone spur in that got him out of 'Nam. And it would have been bothering him. He probably just isn't sure of exactly what the doctor Daddy paid wrote in the record.

  8. marklane1351 says:

    Did Trump get a standing ovation because of what he said before he left or because he left?

    • BlueCat says:

      He got a lot of gasps and grumbling over the McCain remarks but still got a standing ovation when he left.  Those people ought to be ashamed but then they are the bottom of the barrel hateful, fearful racist, bigoted nut bags.  Family Leadership Council, they call themselves. Got help the poor children being raised in those families according to their version of "values".

  9. ajb says:

    Where were all of those Republicans attacking Trump today when the GOP was attacking Kerry, Cleland, et al? 

    • BlueCat says:

      That was OK because Kerry and Cleland are Dems.  Also Kerry came home and protested the war. Everyone agrees it was a huge mistake that accomplished nothing but getting lots of people, mainly Vietnamese, killed but I guess Kerry was supposed to keep his mouth shut about it for for a few decades.

  10. davebarnes says:

    The Donald is awesome. For all the "right" reasons.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.