Traffic Crazed Day From TrumpMania

Around 10 pm last night, I noticed site traffic was crazy. There were 4,000 visits an hour -- on a Saturday night. It's still going on. Almost all visitors are coming from Reddit, where someone recommended my post about Donald Trump shelling out $85,000. in 1989 for newspaper ads seeking the death penalty for the teens arrested for raping the Central Park Jogger. (They were convicted and 13 years later, exonerated and freed from prison. They are suing New York, and there was a news article this week reporting that one of them is outraged that Trump to this day refuses to apologize for the ad.)

There are more than 600 comments to the post at Reddit, most critical of Trump.

The post is still #1 at Reddit with more than 1,750 recommendations. I don't know if TalkLeft's server can withstand this kind of traffic for so many hours, so if we go down, you know why. I'll post updates if necessary at our backup site.

This TrumpMania is so odd. Do people really think Trump is going to run? I don't. Other than Celebrity Apprentice (which I watch and like) I don't get why he is such a headline-grabber. What makes him even remotely qualified? And why are people taking him so seriously?

< Sunday Morning Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Keep an eye on this traffic upsurge, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Peter G on Sun May 01, 2011 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    Your 60% "whole pie" deal when TL sells out to that megamedia conglomerate may yet be coming!

    Oh. Good catch! (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    On the internet, heavy traffic costs you! (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    (Really, it does. . . . I think you have to be pretty huge for the traffic to pay.)

    Coming soon . . . (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    My post on how Trump destroyed the USFL.

    I am surprised (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    that there hasn't been more "cancel Trump!" action against NBC. I think they would be fully justified in giving him the boot.

    No mystery. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lentinel on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    What makes him even remotely qualified? And why are people taking him so seriously?

    He is a billionaire.

    Or anyway (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    he plays one on TV.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 02, 2011 at 12:22:01 AM EST
    our standards for political candidates is in the toilet.  Decades of right wing work to destroy decent politics have paid off when people take a Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, etc. seriously.

    Billionaire?? (none / 0) (#59)
    by norris morris on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    Really. How do you know? Trump is said to owe the banks near a billion.

    I wouldn't believe anything he says. He's been bankrupt and bust several times.  Making a comment that he has more money than Romney is idiocy. This qualifies him more than Romney?

    This creature actually believes that he can be president because he's richer [he says]?

    We are wasting our time along with the media attention this blowhard attracts.


    I (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Sun May 01, 2011 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    just mean that he is a media magnet because he is perceived by the media as being a very very rich billionaire.

    So they pay attention to him.
    And he becomes a viable candidate.


    People aren't taking Trump seriously (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 01, 2011 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    What they are doing is responding to his comments regarding China and oil.

    Of the two oil and OPEC is the thing that flips the switch.

    $4.00 gasoline will do that and we haven't yet seen the anger to come.

    jim do not change the subject (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    to oil and opec. This is about Trump and Trumpmania.

    I just posted a reply (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    to Harry before I read your comment....

    And I am confused. Isn't what Trump saying the driver of the mania??


    That he's a birther who (none / 0) (#4)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 01, 2011 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    now questions Obama's qualifications for getting into Harvard has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

    And the more people learn about his "Trump" suits being made in China, the less they'll take him seriously as a candidate.


    I'm waiting for the revival of his Rosie (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    bashing videos. He'll be a great diplomat . . .   :)

    Trump has stated that he uses (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    building materials from China so I don't see that his suits coming from China will bother them.

    And the issue is transparency, not his actual scores which I assume are quite good.

    But the driver is energy costs and what that is doing to the economy. Trump is trumpeting that and that is something people are concerned about.


    Building materials is one thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    Having something with your name on it made in China is another.

    And the issue is transparency, not his actual scores which I assume are quite good.

    Sure, just like there were questions about how GWB got into Yale, not his actual scores.

    But the driver is energy costs and what that is doing to the economy.

    Is that why he polled 15% behind Obama, because of the energy costs?:

    Donald Trump would loose to Barack Obama by a massive 15 percentage points in a presidential election, a poll suggests.


    Speaking on ABC last night, he said: 'Look at what's going on with your gasoline prices.

    'They're going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don't have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, 'Fellas, it's time.  It's over.  You're not going to do it any more.

    'I don't know if you saw yesterday, Saudi Arabia came out and said very strongly there's plenty of oil.

    'They wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for us. If it weren't for us, they wouldn't be there. These 12 guys sit around a table and they say, 'Let's just screw the United States.'

    Trump went on to suggest the U.S. should threaten to remove key military assets from countries such as Saudi Arabia in order to force them to produce more oil, thus lowering the domestic gasoline price.

    168 words.

    How Trump never had a career in diplomacy, I'll never know, and neither will you, PPJ.


    TRUMP DISGUSTS (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by norris morris on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    The language used about China and other foul talk by Trump is disgusting.  Does this creep thinks he's capable of leading anything like a country?

    Trump is an overweight clown with a clump of ridiculous hair... trash talking to angry voters
    and using the foulest language possible.  This is a leader? A diplomat?  A what?

     The evasions and fact twisting amid outright lies is one thing. His disrespect for the country, the office of the Presidency, and the ears of those who expect civilized and decent speech make Trump far more than a joke. He's a disgusting joke.


    Trump's positions on China, Defense and Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by souvarine on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    Digby posted a series of videos of Trump speaking in Las Vegas. She seems put off by his use of profanity, but I hear an echo of Reagan, in a "conservative whack-job sounds almost reasonable" way:

    1. he addressed China's currency manipulation, a Krugman favorite.
    2. he pointed out international free-riding on American defense spending (OPEC, South Korea). A popular issue in the progressive foreign policy community.
    3. he pointed out the insanity of invading Iraq, which, he said, "had nothing to do with 9/11." Echoing the progressive base all of last decade.

    I would never vote for the man, just as I never voted for Reagan or any other plutocratic, racist, jingoistic populist. But I can understand the relief of conservatives, struggling to reconcile their personal situations with an increasingly bizarre and incoherent Republican party, when they hear a like-minded person embrace the reality liberals have been pointing out for decades.

    Sure, but its not the issues (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    he brings up that are so disconcerting, its his solutions to fixing those things.

    If your child pilfers an extra cookie you may try to reason with them, or maybe even scold a little bit.

    Trump would take a 2x4 to their wrists.


    El Bizarro Trump (none / 0) (#56)
    by norris morris on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:48:18 PM EST
    The constant stream of trash talk with a dash of populist notions doesn't make a strategy.

    This overblown egomaniac cannot be serious.

    There is no impulse control.

    It gets more bizarre by the minute.



    Reagan Really? (none / 0) (#61)
    by norris morris on Sun May 01, 2011 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    I did not vote for Reagan or agree with his political positions at all.

    But..Trump's absurd vulgarity, appearance and demeanor are delusional. Whatever positions he pretends to have are worthless.


    people thought Reagan delusional (none / 0) (#87)
    by souvarine on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    Reagan was a far right celebrity promoting insane ideas. Most people thought he was too extreme to win, hence Republican John Anderson's independent moderate candidacy.

    But Reagan managed to transform himself, in the public mind, from whack-job to plain spoken voice of reason. Much to the surprise of people like me, who saw through the act and thought his vulgar race baiting and delusional economics disqualified him from office.

    Now I try to avoid underestimating whack-jobs.

    Trump is deftly using racism to position himself for the Republican primary, while avoiding the Republican tar pit of Randian policies. He gets credibility with tea partiers without embracing their truly stupid policy ideas, so he can maintain credibility with the business elite. I can see him navigating the Republican primary field with the least damage across the Republican coalition.

    I also think Obama wouldn't mind Trump as his opponent.


    Well, it seems like (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 01, 2011 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    the Republican establishment (Wall Street, Banksters, other donors) is worried about TrumpMania, if not for the normal attraction given a clown, then for the abnormal distraction it is giving to the Republican field.

    A full court press of Trump ridicule by the media is acceptable to these Republicans when the same treatment, although missing,  is deserved by most of the likely candidates, from their slightly less blatant birther rhetoric to their even more economically destructive policies.   The NYT (Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg) report the anxiety to the party's initial presidential field and a puff piece in the same edition by Michael Wines extols the virtues of Jon Huntsman, the retiring Ambassador to China and, maybe, a candidate for president.

    That poll for Trump apparently scared the big boys in the back-room--time to put down both the cigars and TeaRepublicans.--this thing was getting out of hand..

    My informal survey reveals ONE (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    TL commenter who watches Trump's reality show and is of the opinion he is not a serious candidate for President.  

    i thought BTD thinks he won't run (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    see his comment here.

    As for there being virtually no commenters here who watch Celebrity Apprentice, that may be true, but I think the same can be said for every reality show from the Bachelor/ette to  Survivor, Big Brother,  Jersey Shore and even American Idol. I happen to watch all of them. [As lawyers, it's a good idea to know what potential jurors are watching and reading :)]


    I understand your (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by brodie on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    reasoning -- I might do the same if I were in your position.

    Fortunately I don't have to do that, so have kept myself "pure" as to never having once clicked over to any Trump show ever.  Only know about it from some clips shown on the blogs.  

    Near-pure re the other so-called reality shows.  Yrs ago I saw one or two of the first season's shows of Survivor, didn't care for the cutthroat Darwinian survival of the most ruthless approach, and never went back.  Seen one or two Idol shows, only because they were doing Beatles music iirc.

    Hard to believe Trump would run after the recent backlash against him from various quarters.  I think from here on out, his polling numbers will be headed southward, and so he'll be thinking more about cutting losses and saving his teevee career.


    I've watched a few minutes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    of Celebrity Apprentice in a kind of jaw dropping disbelief.  I couldn't believe how petty and obnoxious these public figures behaved when you would think reputation would be a valued asset.

    Truthfully I'm not one for reality TV shows.  Agree with you on Survivor.  

    I am, however, an avid watcher of "So You Think You Can Dance" but I prefer to think of it as a competition and not a reality show :)


    That's how I justify my appetite (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    for Top Chef.

    I might tune in a show (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    called Top Vegetarian Chef.  Or Top Vegan Chef.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    Frankly, that sounds like a parody of Top Chef.

    It does, doesn't it? LOL (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    Much as I respect the dietary choice.  

    I'm no vegan, but next time you're home (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    in Philly, Andy, you might try to talk your mom into taking you here.  It's amazing.

    Did she pay you to say that? ;-) (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    Seriously, though, between Bar review and my job search, I don't have a clue when I will be in Philly next. But thanks for the rec.

    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    I would much prefer those shows devoting more of their time and attention to the actual meals being prepared and less to the helter skelter, frantic, running around, sweating, swearing, and crying aspects.

    Not sure how much I'd enjoy a meal knowing the chef had a stroke preparing it.


    Me too. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:52:56 PM EST
    Even though I watch Top Chef from time to time, I really learn a lot more from watching the food network or the cooking channel.

    I, too, think it's important to (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    get a glimpse of what the public is watching, if not because they could be jurors, but because they are surely voters!

    I've seen snatches of Celebrity Apprentice and American Idol (good gawd to both) but not the others you mention.

    I confess, however, that as a 'libber' I am transfixed by the "Housewives of ...." reality shows.  And Runway.  And America's Next Top Model.

    Still, I miss Boston Legal.


    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    forgot about Runway...

    What's your feeling about potential jurors (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by steviez314 on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    watching shows like the CSIs and Law and Orders?

    Does that make them too deferential to the police, who always seem to catch the right guy?

    Or does it make them act like amateur criminologists and give them some reasonable doubt?


    depends on whether there is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:07:39 PM EST
    DNA evidence in the case. If there isn't, and particularly if there was something that could have been tested but they didn't, those jurors are great, they want proof. If there is DNA pointing to your client,  not so much.

    I watch Survivor and Amazing Race (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    None of the rest. I guess I'm interested in the most unrealistic of the reality shows. I call them game shows on location- reaility has nothing to do with it.

    I did watch a season or two of The Apprentice when it first started, pre-celebrity, and actually seemed a little more tied to actual business skills. It jumped the shark pretty quick I thought. Trump is obviously just a carnival barker now, as Obama said.


    Correct. But he hasn't responded to my (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    survey as to whether he watches the show.  

    P.S.  My daughter was on a state court jury in which plaintiff's attorney moved the podium up to the rail of the jury box.  The jurors all thought he was a newbie and watching to much L.A. Law.


    What does it say about the jury pool (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    that they referenced L.A. Law, a show that's been out of production for 17 years?

    My daughter was a younger member (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    of the jury and this was a number of yrs. ago.  The younger jurors scoped out that the deceased in the wrongful death case had copied the lyrics of a Guns N Roses song on the birthday card he sent to his daughter.  The older jurors thought it was original and very sweet.

    There was a survey? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    I watch the following TV -- Justified, Fringe, Dr. Who, Chuck, sports, the occasional documentary.

    That's it.


    Oculus did her own (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:15:29 PM EST
    unscientific survey.

    Justified is great, and its the only show about law enforcement I watch. I've never seen the other shows you mention.


    Sci Fi type shows (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    and sports is well, sports.

    What makes you so sure the judge doesn't (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    watch these shows?

    Okay now (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    that just cracked me up!

    Actually, he got his (none / 0) (#27)
    by scribe on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    start with his father's money.

    He made the money he made through creative applications of the Bankruptcy Code.  He is one of those businessmen who routinely screws over people by going bankrupt rather than run a business properly.

    FWIW, someone I know well used to work for one of his partners, in an office suite adjacent to his in Trump Tower.  Frequent, though not everyday, contact with The Donald and more with his office and entourage.  Not nearly the half of the stories I've heard that could come out, have come out.  And if you think what's come out is bad, well, heh.  He's worse than you think....

    Sorry, but I can't tell any b/c I'd wind up burning this person and myself.

    Donald's comment that you replied to (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    has been deleted for name calling and personal attacks on Trump. Not allowed here.

    Thanks for leaving mine up, TL. (none / 0) (#55)
    by scribe on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:48:16 PM EST
    you can have as low an opinion (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 09:03:38 PM EST
    of him as you want, but you can't call him names. You can express yourself more articulately than that, you've been doing so here for years. It's the words you used that were objectionable.

    I obviously don't think highly of him myself, particularly as a political candidate, but I don't resort to name-calling and semi-libelous accusations. Nor will I put TalkLeft in potential jeopardy by hosting your's. Aloha.


    To "Donald & scribe"..... (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    A slight correction.....

    @Donald from Hawaii:

    The Donald's father, from my information, wasn't a Manhattan "Magnate & Tycoon," but rather a developer of modest apartments and "Brownstones," mostly in Queens and Brooklyn.  While quite successful, he was from the old school: hard working, solid reputation, and realistic goals. I was also told that his father was quite disappointed at the direction Donald took after coming into the family business and argued strongly  that longevity was more important than "flashy." He told Donald that his approach would only succeed in boom times and that his (the father's) approach would succeed in up markets and in down ones.

    Also, in response to "scribe," Regarding Donald's, " [making] money ........through creative applications of the Bankruptcy Code:"
    that makes it sound as if Donald purposely bankrupted businesses in order to gut, and strip them of any assets ala the Mafia. Unfortunately Donald isn't quite that smart. He bankrupted businesses because he's a world class failure as a business man ala George W, Bush. After attempting to be a successful business man, and failing spectacularly, he showed his true "core values," and did what any inept, spoiled brat would do, screw everyone he could.

    Personally, having spent a lifetime in business, I can't tell you how many second, and third, generation beneficiaries of successful founders I've witnessed take successful businesses and drive them straight into the ground. I can't remember what the percentage of failures 2nd generations produce, other than they're extremely high. And 3'd generation successes are practically non-existant.

    finally, I basically agree with both you guys, and I just wanted to clarify those couple of points. If I misinterpreted anything, I apologize, but there's a limit on how much you can express in these short posts.


    Trump leads in the most recent Ras poll (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    And he is colorful and  basehes Obama--Republicans like that.

    He's not going to play in Iowa (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    or, for that matter, New Hampshire. He's this season's Rudy Giuliani. Except that Rudy actually won an election once or twice.

    Yup. Agree with him or not (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    at least Rudy made a career in public affairs. Trump is just a publicity hound. And not even a likable personality. I really am confounded by the attention. It really must be all about the money. I'm just glad he is a Republican.

    It's all about the birtherism (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    There's nothing else to him.

    Who could have predicted Obama would (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    "play" in Iowa.  Not me, and I'm "from" there.

    Understand that, (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    and you can unlock the entire mystery of Obama's win. I frankly would have expected him to win in New Hampshire (and then only narrowly, a la 2000 Bradley, but with a bit more support).

    Ethanol. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    Yes, but all candidates who (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    compete for Iowa make stupid corn promises.

    NH has lots of Independents (none / 0) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 01, 2011 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    (which was supposed to help BHO in 2008) but an economy somewhat dependent on defense contracts (which was supposed to help HRC).

    Caucuses, not primaries (none / 0) (#78)
    by Towanda on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    and all of the problems therefrom.

    And why caucuses, not primaries?



    Colorado has both (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    caucuses and primaries.  I've run my share of caucuses and I always loved the process and the way of getting planks on the party platform.  And yes, caucuses are cheaper.  The local party is responsible for renting the venues (usually schools these days due to ADA).  State iirc provides printed materials which basically outline the process.  Can't quite recall whose budget produced the voter lists.  It's a lot of volunteer time.

    Me (none / 0) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    I was very confident that BHO would win in Iowa.

    In her defense, (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    which I can't believe I am making, while Paris Hilton got her name recognition due to the last name and an unfortunate personal tape, I wouldn't compare her to Trump at all.  

    When I've seen her on talk shows she has been unfailingly polite and relaxed.  And the hosts all seem to genuinely like her -- which says a lot, actually.

    It's quite different to how Trump presents himself in public.

    she's also a (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    successful businesswoman as I've pointed out before and she's not a publicity hound. She gets paid to attend events. Although she does have a new reality show that's starting soon.

    Trump took over his father's business. Paris' parents may be rich, but she started her businesses from scratch. In several countries. Even if she had the money, they wouldn't be successful unless she ran them properly and she understood her customer base and produced the items they wanted.


    Paris made a bundle (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by scribe on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    working in advertising (endorsements, etc.) and celebrity appearances, particularly in the German-speaking parts of Europe.  She's no dummy and understands how to make an honest buck.  Yes, she had a famous name and, if stories that made the gossip columns are to be believed, cut a wide path through the NYC club scene in her late teens and early 20s.  But (a) the NYC club scene was and is a small, insular world that few people outside Manhattan care about, and (b) she outgrew that behavior and turned into a grown-up.

    The Donald?  Not so much IMHO.


    It's not quite fair of me to say this, (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sun May 01, 2011 at 05:48:50 PM EST
    but from what I've heard from her, she reminds me of several people I've known that I now avoid.  

    Well, we have a lot of Trump bashing (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 01, 2011 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    But no one has yet addressed the central issue, which is why people listen??

    I mean he is always outspoken, sometimes vulgar, often simplistic and obviously, according to the Democrats and some Republicans, not qualified to be President.

    The thing is that no member of the power structure can stand up and say, "Ain't things great!"

    Because they aren't. They are terrible and getting worse. People voted for Obama because he promised change. He didn't deliver. The current crop of Repubs have resumes that are no better.

    We live in interesting times.

    Why do people listen/ (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Sun May 01, 2011 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    I think carnival barker about sums it up.

    And $$$ (or the perception thereof) (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    There are people that attach a kind of virtue to those with lots of money...actually, that is why it is so complicated to "run against the rich." I recall that some earlier sociological studies always demonstrated that a number of middle-worker types--e.g., office workers--identified with the boss more than other employees or those perceived somehow "beneath" them. It is the ole' go-for-the-golden-apple incentive.

    That is why I think that using his truer type "carnival barker" as has now been done can be built on to show Trump's "loser" aspects in the wasting of his dad's monies, etc. 'Love the tag of "carnival barker." Tho "snake oil salesperson" fits too...and, that kind of con man often does quite well too until exposed & run out of town.


    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    I don't know why anyone is making the qualifications argument because nobody bought it in 2000 or 2008. He's certainly more qualified than Bush was in 2000 or Obama was in 2008.

    I think the press is reporting on what he does because if it bleeds it leads and Trump is something for them to write about. He knows how to find a product and sell it.

    I think some people do appreciate his bluntness against all the evangelical speechifying of Obama and the nothing but sound bytes from Palin.


    if by "listen" you mean (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon May 02, 2011 at 05:45:55 PM EST
    take seriously, the answer is that most people don't. The one's that do are doing it out shear desperation for any leader with an R after their name with any (possible) credibility left at all.

    After the country was lied into a war, deregulation was definitively proven to be the utter farce it always was, the Rapture didn't happen, and Bush left office with a 28% approval rating, the only options left for winger diehards are the ritual of the sacred Teabag and a new spokespersons not tainted by the radioactive field of Bush/Cheney.

    Also rich celebrities with big mouths are a ratings coup.  


    The topic is Trump (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 01, 2011 at 07:20:26 PM EST
    not the 2008 primaries, Obama and Edwards. Please discuss those in an open thread.