The law of political equilibrium tells us the level of buffoonery by one party will eventually and generally be matched by their opposition in such a way that the voters only meaningful choice is which group of self-serving cretins do you believe will make things less worse!
So, Mr. Goldberg - what is your answer? Is it - don't vote? Honest, perfectly qualified nonpartisan people don't run for public office. Why it that? If you, or I, were such a person we would have to have the financial assets of a multi-billionaire to even get our name on the ballot. Ah, but if you are a truly honest forthright citizen who is going to present your message to the people? Our system is broken and I don't know how to fix it. So, I vote for the lesser of the two Weevils. And I don't think you know either.
I have no problem, Ron, sitting out an election when I find both major candidates unacceptable. I'm not looking for perfection. But sometimes I'd rather it it out than support a candidate I really don't like. I understand that some -- maybe more than some -- don't buy my thinking on this matter. Some even think it's unpatriotic to not vote. All I can say is that people disagree. I have no problem with that.
The individuals that run for public office most often represents a party affiliation. The party affiliation should keep track of the individuals that are elected to Office. This is the way it should work, but There are exceptions. Donald Trump is the exception.
BERNIE dislikes President Trump for his Various reasons. I look at President Trump as a down to earth business man. A successful successful one and for that to happen you have to have a lot of confidence in yourself. I like that! He has great children and that represents his parenting. successful people is who should be our politicians. most of our founding fathers were successful people.
Bob, I spent one year in the Connecticut school for boys for not going to school because I was 15 years old and I dropped out. That was my juvenile thinking back then. We have juveniles now that think the same way as I did 70 years ago, they don’t care to go to school and therefore they know not what they do. We have to help them as a society and our schools. Teachers should inspire them to do their best, but it appears we have FAILING teachers that teach failing students. What else could I conclude out of that statement?
I think we need to look thoroughly at what caused the decline and fall of the Whig Party, and how the Republican Party wound up being the party that could consistently challenge the Democrats.
In simple terms, the Whigs broke apart over slavery, because it tried to hold a "big tent" stance on slavery. Republican views varied between "no new slave states" to total abolition. But, it was definitely a party for people opposed to slavery.
I think both parties could do well to splinter. Unfortunately, whether for a "rational" Drmocrat Party or a "rational" Republican Party, that will require people skilled in political organization, people skilled in political media, politicians willing to walk away from the Establishment and into a "wilderness," and very wealthy people willing to spend a lot of money.
Comparing a Nazi rapist to Trump is a bit much. Come on Mr. Goldberg you said you were going to be even handed. Where can I go to get even handed journalism?
I didn't compare Trump to a Nazi racist, John. My point was that we choose candidates who lack character -- candidates like Mr Trump, Platner, and Paxton. They have different flaws. Trump's is his chronic dishonesty, his crudeness and a few other things. Platner's we know. Paxton has enough baggage to open a luggage store. Again, John, I did not compare Donald Trump to anyone else. Sorry if I gave that impression.
To submit the constitution for ratification to the 13 states, there was a ton of compromise by the founding fathers, and I suspect a lot of them held their nose when they signed. Three refused to sign. Picking the lesser of two evils isn't new in our republic. Look at the Three-Fifths Compromise in example and how people interrupt that compromise today.
Bernie, I subscribed because I respected your judgment and wanted to read a thoughtful perspective—even when it differed from mine. But I can’t continue reading essays built on a premise I fundamentally reject.
Yes, Donald Trump is flawed. So am I. So are you. So is every person who has ever held public office. The relevant questions are: Compared with whom? At what cost? And what were the actual results?
I don’t support Trump because I somehow failed to notice his personality. I support him because I believe he has been the best thing to happen to America—and to the broader fight of good people against bad actors—in a very long time. I value his strength, instincts, policies and willingness to confront people and institutions that desperately needed confronting. I will take blunt, imperfect and effective over polished, respectable and ineffective every time.
You portray Trump voters as people who overlooked or even “embraced” dishonesty, vulgarity and vengeance. That is condescending and, in my view, intellectually lazy. Millions of intelligent, reasonable and informed Americans knowingly weighed his faults against his abilities, his record and the available alternatives—and chose him twice.
That isn’t a mystery requiring a psychological explanation. It is a rational judgment with which you happen to disagree.
Politics is subjective, and you are certainly entitled to your view. But I am equally entitled to conclude that your relentless contempt for Trump—and, by implication, the people who support him—has made these columns impossible for me to enjoy or respect.
I subscribed to read insight, not another variation of “Trump is awful, and what is wrong with the voters who can’t see it?” I’ve heard enough of that. I’m done.
Sorry to see you go, Steve. For the record: Here's a list of my most recent reports -- columns or audio: Graham Platner in Maine ... pride in America ... Democratic Socialists may be heading to your neighborhood... the rise of democratic socialism.
Liberals, progressives, Democrats in general would not embrace what I said or wrote in any of those reports. And Donald Trump, if mentioned at all, was only in passing.
So I write about matters other than Donald Trump. But while I like some of the things he's accomplished, I do not like his chronic dishonestly or his vengeful attacks on political enemies or his crudeness, which I think demeans the office.
Do I think some of his supporters embrace him because of his pathologies? Yes. SOME. Not all. I'm guessing, Steve, you'd agree with that.
Just wanted to set the record straight... be well.
I notice you say in your comment that the voters "chose him twice". So, do you believe Trump lost the 2020 election? If so, how do you justify your support for a guy who tried to overturn an election whose results he didn't like?
I didn’t think Congress could reach a new low, but yesterday the House passed legislation to prohibit insider trading by its members while in office. The issues with this are well documented, if not outright corrupt. Sounds good, right. Well, they also attach the Save Act Voter ID to it, which immediately guarantees it dies in the Senate. And of course, Nancy Pelosi voted against it, because there is no way she was voting for any Voter ID legislation. And predictably, the GOP is scoring partisan political points that she voted against insider trading, as if the Bill was stand alone legislation. Fed up.
Bernie, lumping Trump along with Platner your TDS comes shining through! I support the Trump agenda and I believe the good outweighs the bad for this President.
The law of political equilibrium tells us the level of buffoonery by one party will eventually and generally be matched by their opposition in such a way that the voters only meaningful choice is which group of self-serving cretins do you believe will make things less worse!
Bingo!
I think you one said Bernie, just like in physics, in politics, every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction.
I did
It is the sad nature and disposition of almost all people as soon as they get a little authority that unholy pride takes hold of them.
So, Mr. Goldberg - what is your answer? Is it - don't vote? Honest, perfectly qualified nonpartisan people don't run for public office. Why it that? If you, or I, were such a person we would have to have the financial assets of a multi-billionaire to even get our name on the ballot. Ah, but if you are a truly honest forthright citizen who is going to present your message to the people? Our system is broken and I don't know how to fix it. So, I vote for the lesser of the two Weevils. And I don't think you know either.
I have no problem, Ron, sitting out an election when I find both major candidates unacceptable. I'm not looking for perfection. But sometimes I'd rather it it out than support a candidate I really don't like. I understand that some -- maybe more than some -- don't buy my thinking on this matter. Some even think it's unpatriotic to not vote. All I can say is that people disagree. I have no problem with that.
Agree and can only hope that Rubio is the next Republican candidate. While I largely support Trump's agenda - secure borders, deporting illegal immigrants, energy, defense, regulatory reform, what he is attempting to do with tariffs, just not sure tariffs are the right approach - his public persona as Bill Maher noted is, to put it mildly, seriously flawed. But, I would likely vote for any republican candidate against what democrats now appear to support. This is truly frightening. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/07/19/sunday-talks-martha-maccallum-interviews-dsa-co-chairman-gustavo-gordillo-about-using-vehicle-of-democrat-party-to-install-communist-government/
The individuals that run for public office most often represents a party affiliation. The party affiliation should keep track of the individuals that are elected to Office. This is the way it should work, but There are exceptions. Donald Trump is the exception.
BERNIE dislikes President Trump for his Various reasons. I look at President Trump as a down to earth business man. A successful successful one and for that to happen you have to have a lot of confidence in yourself. I like that! He has great children and that represents his parenting. successful people is who should be our politicians. most of our founding fathers were successful people.
I left something out of my comments.
It seems nowadays unsuccessful people are running for Office and the illiterate voter vote for these people. There’s the problem! Illiterate voters.
Let me guess - you're pulling for the Save Act to pare down the number of voters you don't like.
Bob, I spent one year in the Connecticut school for boys for not going to school because I was 15 years old and I dropped out. That was my juvenile thinking back then. We have juveniles now that think the same way as I did 70 years ago, they don’t care to go to school and therefore they know not what they do. We have to help them as a society and our schools. Teachers should inspire them to do their best, but it appears we have FAILING teachers that teach failing students. What else could I conclude out of that statement?
It sounds as though you successfully evaded a real education
Relevance???
Is there a translation here? Or are you simply getting something off your chest?
To be clear Bob, I am.
At least you're honest, that you see the Save Act as a vehicle for voter recession, especially those voting for candidates you don't like.
I think we need to look thoroughly at what caused the decline and fall of the Whig Party, and how the Republican Party wound up being the party that could consistently challenge the Democrats.
In simple terms, the Whigs broke apart over slavery, because it tried to hold a "big tent" stance on slavery. Republican views varied between "no new slave states" to total abolition. But, it was definitely a party for people opposed to slavery.
I think both parties could do well to splinter. Unfortunately, whether for a "rational" Drmocrat Party or a "rational" Republican Party, that will require people skilled in political organization, people skilled in political media, politicians willing to walk away from the Establishment and into a "wilderness," and very wealthy people willing to spend a lot of money.
Comparing a Nazi rapist to Trump is a bit much. Come on Mr. Goldberg you said you were going to be even handed. Where can I go to get even handed journalism?
I didn't compare Trump to a Nazi racist, John. My point was that we choose candidates who lack character -- candidates like Mr Trump, Platner, and Paxton. They have different flaws. Trump's is his chronic dishonesty, his crudeness and a few other things. Platner's we know. Paxton has enough baggage to open a luggage store. Again, John, I did not compare Donald Trump to anyone else. Sorry if I gave that impression.
To submit the constitution for ratification to the 13 states, there was a ton of compromise by the founding fathers, and I suspect a lot of them held their nose when they signed. Three refused to sign. Picking the lesser of two evils isn't new in our republic. Look at the Three-Fifths Compromise in example and how people interrupt that compromise today.
Bernie, I subscribed because I respected your judgment and wanted to read a thoughtful perspective—even when it differed from mine. But I can’t continue reading essays built on a premise I fundamentally reject.
Yes, Donald Trump is flawed. So am I. So are you. So is every person who has ever held public office. The relevant questions are: Compared with whom? At what cost? And what were the actual results?
I don’t support Trump because I somehow failed to notice his personality. I support him because I believe he has been the best thing to happen to America—and to the broader fight of good people against bad actors—in a very long time. I value his strength, instincts, policies and willingness to confront people and institutions that desperately needed confronting. I will take blunt, imperfect and effective over polished, respectable and ineffective every time.
You portray Trump voters as people who overlooked or even “embraced” dishonesty, vulgarity and vengeance. That is condescending and, in my view, intellectually lazy. Millions of intelligent, reasonable and informed Americans knowingly weighed his faults against his abilities, his record and the available alternatives—and chose him twice.
That isn’t a mystery requiring a psychological explanation. It is a rational judgment with which you happen to disagree.
Politics is subjective, and you are certainly entitled to your view. But I am equally entitled to conclude that your relentless contempt for Trump—and, by implication, the people who support him—has made these columns impossible for me to enjoy or respect.
I subscribed to read insight, not another variation of “Trump is awful, and what is wrong with the voters who can’t see it?” I’ve heard enough of that. I’m done.
Sorry to see you go, Steve. For the record: Here's a list of my most recent reports -- columns or audio: Graham Platner in Maine ... pride in America ... Democratic Socialists may be heading to your neighborhood... the rise of democratic socialism.
Liberals, progressives, Democrats in general would not embrace what I said or wrote in any of those reports. And Donald Trump, if mentioned at all, was only in passing.
So I write about matters other than Donald Trump. But while I like some of the things he's accomplished, I do not like his chronic dishonestly or his vengeful attacks on political enemies or his crudeness, which I think demeans the office.
Do I think some of his supporters embrace him because of his pathologies? Yes. SOME. Not all. I'm guessing, Steve, you'd agree with that.
Just wanted to set the record straight... be well.
I notice you say in your comment that the voters "chose him twice". So, do you believe Trump lost the 2020 election? If so, how do you justify your support for a guy who tried to overturn an election whose results he didn't like?
I didn’t think Congress could reach a new low, but yesterday the House passed legislation to prohibit insider trading by its members while in office. The issues with this are well documented, if not outright corrupt. Sounds good, right. Well, they also attach the Save Act Voter ID to it, which immediately guarantees it dies in the Senate. And of course, Nancy Pelosi voted against it, because there is no way she was voting for any Voter ID legislation. And predictably, the GOP is scoring partisan political points that she voted against insider trading, as if the Bill was stand alone legislation. Fed up.
ROB, how would you handle this situation? The republican both bills passed, but the Democrats only want to pass one of them. How would you do it?
Well said Bernie !
Bernie, lumping Trump along with Platner your TDS comes shining through! I support the Trump agenda and I believe the good outweighs the bad for this President.
see my comment above about “lumping” Trump in with Platner.
Similarly, many Democrats saw the good in Platner outweighing the bad.
The "good" that they saw, was the (D) next to his name.
The "good" that the Trumpsters saw was validation of their alienation and a wrecking ball.
If a person doesn’t know what he’s doing, and that person shouldn’t be doing it.
>They like “free” stuff.>
Yo Bernie, what is the free stuff that supporters think they'd get from their candidate of choice? Give some examples.
HINT: Bus service is not stuff, daycare is not stuff, healthcare is not stuff