"There's nothing - there's no gift, no Christmas gift, that could be given better than Rick Santorum to the Democrats," Trump said in a radio interview which aired in Michigan. Democrats, he continued, "are just salivating at that. And, you know, I don't think they believe it's going to happen. But boy, would they like it to happen because that would be an easy election."
I agree. But does Trump’s support of Romney carry any weight? I’m still annoyed at Trump for saying that he had these private investigators looking into Obama’s background and implying that they found some shocking stuff. But then they never found anything. What happened, Donald?
I don’t think that Trump carries much weight with Santorum supporters who are evangelicals. Trump isn’t a religious figure. He’ a Presbyterian (not a sect associated with the Christian Right) who only seems to believe in God when he’s doing interviews, otherwise he appears to not respect the sanctity of marriage very much, and I won’t forget the episode of The Apprentice in which he made fun of one of the male contestants for being a virgin.
"I won’t forget the episode of The Apprentice in which me made fun of one of the male contestants for being a virgin."
Beta male solidarity, bro!
[HS: In any event, it was unchristian of him to make fun of the guy for being a virgin.]
Posted by: IHTG | February 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM
I think once the voters are done kicking the tires, Romney will be the nominee. But watch out, because Obama will go after the LDS church mercilessly. The commercials have already been written, I'm sure: "Romney's church discriminated against blacks until very recently, and it still discriminates against women."
Anyway, Obama is going to be re-elected I'm afraid. There are too many people who will feel discomfort or guilt if they have a hand in "firing the black guy."
What happens after that will be interesting though. After the election is over, Obama's people (and the media - but I repeat myself) will feel unconstrained and we'll hear endlessly about how the 47-48-49% who did not vote for Obama are all a bunch of bigots and crackers etc. etc. etc. Thanks to that and $5/gallon gasoline, by the time Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2013 his approval rating will be in the high 20s or low 30s, I imagine.
Posted by: Sgt. Joe Friday | February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Trump is a relentless self-promoter and full of bluster. Everything Trump does is the best!
Posted by: outlaw josey wales | February 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Being a male virgin is the lowest status marker in America. Having a felony is less socially damaging than being a virgin.
Posted by: Conquistador | February 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM
And Trump's daughter is now a Christ killer.
Posted by: ScarletKnight | February 21, 2012 at 01:43 PM
There's a clear difference between a virgin aka usually involuntary celibacy hence loser and religious voluntary celibacy. The latter takes conviction, faith and self-control, which are all admirable traits. If someone is an involuntary virgin by their mid-20s they are socially inept and something psychologically or physically is wrong.
Trump is right though, Santorum won't win by campaigning against birth control. That would be alienating 50% of the vote and 90% of female Catholic voters.
Posted by: Champagne | February 21, 2012 at 03:21 PM
" If someone is an involuntary virgin by their mid-20s they are socially inept and something psychologically or physically is wrong.'
Why would an adult make fun of someone like that? That's pretty childish and cruel.
Posted by: Twain | February 21, 2012 at 08:58 PM
The only influence Trump has with the public is by virtue of being a rich celebrity, but as far as the Republican party goes, he doesn't have any. He's only decided to pontificate on politics rather recently and gets positive attention from the right by virtue of talking crap about Obama.
But the average Republican vote doesn't care any more about his opinion than the average Democratic voter.
Posted by: lil mike | February 21, 2012 at 09:53 PM
I have had it with the three stooges, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul delaying the main event.
It's time for the trio to stand aside so Romney can be justly coronated GOP nominee and we can move to the hilarious spectacle of watching Obama's rock bottom African IQ attempt to defend his record in office against the attack ads from the high IQ white male candidate, Mitt Romney.
[HS: I really don't appreciate the comments about Obama's IQ. This is a blog dedicated to the truth, and the truth is that Obama is quite intelligent and he uses his intelligence for evil purposes.]
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | February 22, 2012 at 09:19 PM
"This is a blog dedicated to the truth, and the truth is that Obama is quite intelligent"
List three things he's said as president, unscripted, where he demonstrated intelligence above a 105 IQ.
I've never heard him say anything interesting or intelligent.
[HS: I am sure that if you spend a week hanging out with people who have a 140 IQ, and then a week hanging out with people who have a 105 IQ, you will place Obama in the 140 camp.]
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | February 22, 2012 at 09:45 PM
And I am serious about how informative a person's emotional, verbal, and eye movement reaction times indicate their level of intelligence.
Watch Youtube videos of Obama answer a question without a teleprompter and you can see how slowly his eyes and speech take to show awareness of the question compared to politicians in the 115-125 range.
Then watch Youtube videos of Romney's swift eye movements, emotional reactions, and rapid fire verbal responses (people with high IQs tend to talk very rapidly because their brain can process information faster than they can speak) and you'll be able to get a better feel for how far Obama is intellectually compared to Romney.
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | February 22, 2012 at 09:53 PM
There is no way anyone below 125 IQ could be an editor of the harvard law review, let alone graduate magna cum laude. Law school grades are a reasonably good gauge of intellectual ability. The IQ of harvard JDs is probably north of 135. Its hard to think of a harder IQ threshold than Harvard JD cum laude outside of STEM.
I wouldn't read too much into how fast the man talks. Small mistakes in speech carry higher consequences for him than perhaps literally anyone else. Not surprising he takes his time.
Posted by: Tractal | February 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Is BO the only editor of the Harvard law review who was never published in it? I know plenty of people with IQ's higher than 140 and I wouldn't put him in the 140 camp, either. I agree with the Undiscovered Jew. But the discussion is pointless because it's all just speculation. None of us have any real evidence to support our opinions. Harvard JD cum laude blah blah blah. That's not evidence.
Posted by: destructure | February 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM
"Law school grades are a reasonably good gauge of intellectual ability."
When you're dealing with NAMs, all bets are off.
I agree with TUJ.
Still, there was something today at VFR that supports the HS view that Obama uses his high IQ for evil:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021732.html
Posted by: JP | February 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM