2016-05-01 – So now the pundits are saying they never thought for a million years that Donald Trump could get as far as he has (while they have been not-so-covertly promoting him all this time with ha-ha-ha free publicity).
Well, let me say that Trumps ascendancy was entirely predictable. Though obnoxiously flamboyant, he was never the most extreme candidate on the Republican side. He never proposed a single program that was to the right of the so-called mainstream candidates. They all wanted walls. They all maligned Mexicans and women. Some more than him. They just spoke in code. He’s in your faces.
They were all odious.
So why wouldn’t it make sense for angry Republicans prefer the out-in-the-open Angry Man to the hateful men who stood on the stage with him and tut-tutted at his Eddie Haskel brashness.
I tut-tut them all.
Eightoh9 
Steve, take a deep breath. Politicians, political candidates, and people (like me!) who don’t share your political views aren’t “odious”. They simply differ. Justices Scalia and Ginsberg had dramatically opposing political (and legal) views yet they were best friends not in any way considering the other ” odious”. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, I am withdrawing from political debate because over the last seventy years I have never won one. To keep my this record in tact, I will heed Wittgenstein’ advice in his Tractates that “whereof we do not know we cannot speak.”
Oops. It’s Greg DEloia not “anonymous”. I wouldn’t want to sully anonymous with my (odious) views.
Greg– I knew kit was you…. Taking deep breaths makes me cough. As a fellow allergy sufferer, I knew what Bill Clinton really meant when he said he didn’t inhale. As for the word “odious,” you tell me what word I should use for a team of candidates that couldn’t rise above Trump. Even George Will is saying that Republicans should vote to ensure Trump a 50-state defeat in November. He’s a Cubs fan, you know.
That you and George Will are Cubs fans only proves that bad judgement has a broad reach. Although “odious” is a linguistically incendiary choice it is pregnant with significance. We are, unfortunately, in a celebrity culture (common or pop culture) where entertaining sound bites by a charismatic figure are embraced by the populace (Cubs fans) without reflection. Susceptibility, however, is present on both sides of the political spectrum (including pseudo-intellectual George Will fans). So your choice of words is ok when you apply it to both sides, not just one side, HLMenken, though, had a good term for the America electorate: “booboisie”. I hope this helps.
Cheers, — Greg
Greg– I didn’t say I was a Cubs fan, only that George Will is. George Will rarely shows good judgement. My point is that a pretty wide spectrum of people have regarded the Republican field as unusually bad. And the Republicans have rejected the lot of them and turned to Trump as the best they got. This is their choice not mine. I, of course reject the lot of them, but I also reject Trump. At the same time, though, I don’t reject the Republican voters. I believe many of them have important concerns that are ignored or sneered at by Republican politicians. I believe that Dems could come closer, but they regard these voters as boobs. While, I’m sure that some of them are, I believe that most of them are not. The reason that the results of these primaries is nonsensical is because every single candidate on the Republican ballot is odious. How would you vote if the ballot question was “when did you stop beating your child?” Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer.
I disagree that “every single candidate on the
Republican ballot is “odious”. Opinions are sacrosanct so I can’t argue against your opinion. I regret accusing you of being a Cubs fan. Perhaps you have better judgment than George Will–but you should hold yourself to a higher standard.