Donald Trump may have tapped into real problems faced by many Americans, but anyone who has struggled in President Obama’s economy should know better than to vote for him.
You see, Trump’s big plan to slap tariffs on China in a “good deal” has already been tested out … and it cost Americans more than $1.1 million in added costs while saving just 1,200 jobs.
The 2016 election cycle has reached a new insane that somehow feels remarkably sane: a revolution of conservatives the likes of which we have never seen.
But just saying the word “conservative” doesn’t mean much. We should start describing ourselves so much better than that.
You, an American voter, are being conned.
Donald Trump has promised you jobs, a booming economy, security and American pride. He is lying to you. Trump has told you that he can stick it to the man, but the problem is that Trump is the man, someone who built an empire by taking his daddy’s money and then sticking it to the little guy.
Trump does not fight for you. Trump fights for Trump. Anything that gets damaged along the way—including you—doesn’t matter. Take a moment to google “Trump takes insurance from child” or “Trump kicks veterans off Fifth Avenue.” You’ll see it in about 2 seconds.
We face an election in a time when politics threaten more than ever before to intrude on everyday, ordinary life … a time when Christian business owners sometimes risk losing their livelihoods, men are being given the right to walk freely into women’s bathrooms, and the lives (and body parts) of countless unborn children are on the line.
And at such a crucial moment, are people so angry at the government and the Republican Party that they would run the risk of putting a maniac behind the wheel?
In the race to beat Donald Trump for the GOP nomination, the options are increasingly narrowing to a choice between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Fortunately for Trump, these factions in the GOP are at each other’s throats, becoming increasing furious with each other.
The real problem is that Rubio and Cruz come in way too close in the actual voting results (within 1.1 percent in New Hampshire, within 0.2 percent in South Carolina) and we have no standard for determining which nominee should step aside to boost the other past Trump. Sure there are various arguments out there like “Cruz is the only one to beat Trump” and “Rubio’s numbers against Hillary are the best” but all these arguments feel too much like “Here’s an excuse I have that supports my preferred candidate” rather than evidence that would be applied objectively.