As more Republicans run from their presidential nominee, some have begun looking favorably on the Libertarian ticket, which consists of two former Republican governors: Gary Johnson and William Weld. A recent poll showed Johnson at 11 percent in Virginia. Retiring Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican, has endorsed Johnson.
“This is not a standard two-person race,” says Liz Mair, a spokesman for Republicans for Johnson/Weld, “and we might see Johnson gain pretty significant traction here pretty quickly.”
This news is not being greeted calmly by Team Trump.
Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of Supervisors and head of the Trump campaign in Virginia, called Republican support for Johnson/Weld “traitorous and destructive.”
“There is no such thing as an anti-Trump group,” Stewart told AMI Newswire. “Anti-Trump is pro-Hillary, and that’s what groups like this really are.”
He wasn’t finished.
“If we lose, I’ll know where to go to place blame,” Stewart said. “If they want careers in politics afterwards, they won’t get them. They’ll be destroyed. This is treason against Trump. For whatever reason — their pride, their personal interests — they will damage America permanently by helping elect Hillary Clinton. They are immature babies who are tearing down the Republican Party.”’
Gosh, we wonder what he really thinks.
The idea that one could commit “treason against Trump” has some disturbing overtones; it reeks of a personality cult. The bigger question, though, is who bears blame for the GOP’s travails.
At the start of the campaign, 16 candidates stood for the nomination, including several governors and two U.S. senators. Any one of them likely would be trouncing Hillary Clinton in the polls right now. Instead, voters chose a megalomaniac and pathological liar with zero experience in politics or government and zero fidelity to traditional Republican conservatism.
The GOP does indeed have a gigantic problem. But the Republicans opposed to Trump didn’t cause it — they were the ones trying to prevent it.
I am glad I am not calling myself a Republican. I would hate to be bullied over how I vote. That’s why I am an independent.
This article stands on its own. I can add nothing more to it.
Like you, I’m concerned over the “treason” claims Corey is making. After all, what is the penalty for treason? So when the “rigged” election is “stolen” from Trump, how many of his supporters are going to decide to take the “law” into their own hands?
This is why Trump MUST be soundly defeated in November. It’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s not about the Supreme Court. It’s about preserving a democratic system of government. Trump and his henchmen must be defeated.
Maybe Corey was being “sarcastic.” After all it was Trump who set the example of labeling hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lies as sarcasm when they backfire. He has seen rule or ruin tactics work in Prince William County and now he’s planning on taking this act statewide again next year at a convention, not a primary.
I don’t think his association with this campaign will serve him well. Too many respectable Republicans loathe Trump.
Maybe Corey ought to have his head examined to find out
what’s between his ears. I mean – health issues have become
the subject of the day. – Just being sarcastic, of course.
Hillary is ahead by double digits in Virginia. Corey is doing a lousy job of selling his candidate.
Further evidence that US foreign policy was for sale while Hillary was Secretary of State:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225–election.html
Voting for corrupt Hillary would violate the tenets of good citizenship.
Voting for Trump would violate the common sense of a nation and would represent many things most of us just consider unAmerican. I base my beliefs on what I have heard come out of his mouth, not something I read on Yahoo.
Its all on what you consider important. Then there are the other candidates who just don’t seem to have Trump’s major character flaws and who aren’t simply stupid.
Two short comments: 1. the “get behind Hillary” theme has also been strongly voiced in many quarters, including this blog. So while Stewart may not be making the most eloquent case for his man, it’s the same species of unity argument the “Berners get in line” types used. 2. third-parties have so much against them (including pure mathematics) that it often takes a coincidence of two unfit candidates whose hypocrisy is towering and who offer nothing substantive to have them getting a decent showing in a battleground state. I’d take either VP candidate over either POTUS candidate, and the VPs are about as boring white bros as you can get.
2016 will be the election where most Americans realize (openly, not in cynical moments) that their system of government has been thoroughly corrupted. Franklin said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” We have not.
Actually I can’t think of anyone of this blog who has been pushing Hillary on anyone. The truth of the matter is, this blog has been very anti Trump because of his character flaws and general lack of knowledge about leadership and governance.
I don’t think Hillary is unfit. I plan to vote for her. However, I am not pushing anyone else to.
I find Trump so unacceptable that I fear for my country.
I think that the people who are marveling at “corruption” simply lack a basic knowledge of history. A good primer might be the American Experience on PBS–the Presidents.
At some point Americans have to start matching up their values to candidates. Stop listening to what all the pundits and internet geniuses say. There is way too much National Inquirer, Infowars, WND garbage going around to dumb us down.
@MoonHowler
I do recall DemCon posts around “get in line Bernies.” Being frank, both candidates make me fear for my country. The real thought experiment for me is imagining a GOP candidate running with the same baggage as HRC. Someone who has amassed a huge fortune directly as a result of holding office, with very significant overlap between donations and access while in office. Someone whose spouse was a sexual wrecking ball who almost single handedly destroyed any cred NOW had and who made “you have the right to be believed” a laughingstock. Then the security gaffes that would have gotten a .gov employee thrown in prison. Romney got painted as a bankster, largely because most Americans don’t understand private equity, but the Clintons have amassed a similar fortune but somehow, it’s ok?
Corruption has always been with us, and certainly other eras have been more blatant, but none have approached our scale of mortgaging the future. In the past, the pendulum has swung back, opposition has rung out, and at some point confidence in the system gets restored, even if temporarily. We’re past that now. My read is most people understand the system is about transferring wealth and risk, that moneyed interests will win, the powerful will not find themselves subjected to justice, and that the best they can hope for is getting screwed less at the margin. In the Tweed era (or US Grant), corruption got things done. Today, corruption is most of what gets done. It’s not a cost of doing business. It’s the business.
It’s also what makes figures like Snowden or Assange so compelling. The usual outlets (and I include most media in that) are tepid jokes.
Not sure who here told the Bernies to get in line before the numbers were there. Feel free to leave me the link from this blog.
As far as corruption goes, if I had a choice, I would not choose someone who wants to do mass deportations or someone who stiffs contractors for millions.
@MoonHowler
https://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2016/07/26/the-democratic-convention-hows-it-working/
Not a rip, just noting the tactic. The numbers being in is incidental because the numbers are in now for Trump, too. It’s good rhetoric, act with prudential unity while recommending principled defection to opponents.
I am not pro-Trump. At all. But the question of who is least-bad (queen of pigs, cleanest dirty shirt, pick the metaphor) is far from obvious to me. Same with the question of how to invest my vote… I’ve voted for three parties and write-ins, and withheld my vote for gerrymandered lobbyists who run unopposed. Mathematically, the chances of it mattering a very small, so why vote for someone I wouldn’t trust with a child or a checkbook.
More systematically, it is scary that our selection process rewards the megalomaniacal and those who abuse whatever system they happen to inhabit for personal gain.
You don’t think the Bernies misbehaved? How about Booing and acting out during the invocation? I thought their behavior was atrocious and inappropriate. I don’t think I am in a minority, including those people who supported Bernie Sanders.
I also don’t see that I have pushed Hillary on anyone. I also don’t see the “for personal gain” aspect of her more than I do any other politician. Think about that one. Name me one other politician (current) who isn’t out for his or her own ego fulfillment.
I think my most charitable remarks were towards Donna Brazile and Michelle Obama.
To me there is no question–Hillary Clinton best represents my values. All the crap being throw out by the RNC is to me, small potatoes, from a current and historical point of view. However, I am not going to try to see my opinion on her to others. I have also admitted, publicly, to having a small case of Clinton fatigue. More than that, I have election fatigue.
I would vote for almost anyone, including that idiot Ted Cruz, if someone held a gun to my head, rather than Donald Trump.
@MoonHowler
The Bernies are doing what non-Trump GOP types are doing now: continuing to voice their preferences in vocal and disruptive ways despite others desire for unity.
Wikileaks better news source than any xNC. So charming HRC and family used fake names in communication. That’s normal.
I agree, a smaller pile of crap is better than a big one, so to speak. What’s even more appealing: non-crap. Failing that, the best course of action is pure defense… maximum opportunities to avoid consequences of others’ decisions and possibly exit. Sad lesson, but real, and at all levels of government.
My comments were directed to the Bernies at the convention. I don’t pay much attention to them now.
Hillary would be not be in serious contention if the GOP primary voters had had a modicum of common sense about choosing their candidate. Instead, they chose the only person from a large field who would demonstrably, from his own mouth, be an inferior candidate to someone whose ethical defects were well understood and well documented even before the expected links between the Clinton Foundation and State Department access. Trump’s incompetence, ignorance, character defects, and temperamental unsuitability are of such a magnitude that they make the inherent Clinton corruption seem like a relatively minor annoyance when choosing someone to lead the country in difficult and complex times.
Thanks GOP. What were you thinking?
I have to disagree with that statement. Two of the prerequisites of leadership are “service before self” and “ethics”. All the rest of it (temperament, tone, etc.) simply differentiates between good and bad leaders, but one cannot truly lead without the prerequisite characteristics.
Hillary lacks these prerequisite characteristics and so she has disqualified herself as a leader. It has been demonstrated in excruciating detail that she lacks these qualities. No one can ever trust that she will put service to the nation above herself and her financial interests. Trump has numerous bad qualities, but his desire to serve appears to be genuine– he is already wealthy, so there is no need for him to kiss up to wealthy donors. The same cannot be said for Hillary — we already know that she is corrupt and self-serving.
In fact, I would argue that we have not had a leader in the White House for eight years. Obama certainly has not put the needs of the nation above his personal goals and need for aggrandizement.
The Supreme Court voted 8-0 to free Bob McDonnell and what he did was worse.
@Kelly_3406
@Robin Hood
Justice Roberts noted that McDonnell’s actions were distasteful and might have been worse than that. He got off on a technicality. That’s enough to disqualify him from getting my vote.
Let’s put it another way. If McDonnell’s actions had been known prior to his running for governor, I would not have voted for him. As an official officeholder, he accepted things of value from someone who was interested in getting something in return. That would seem to be the classic definition of a corrupt act.
Hillary has done exactly the same thing, except that the money seems to have gone to her husband, family, and friends instead of directly to her. She has accepted millions into the Clinton Foundation from people, including foreign interests, that wanted something in return. She essentially sold out America to enrich her family and friends.
Since we know about this BEFORE the election, we should not vote for her.
Whoooaaaaa! What was done with that money? Did it go to line any Clinton’s pocket? Did they wear it on their wrist or drive it? No.
Everyone wants something. Did they get something in return? I have seen no evidence that indicates any quid pro quo. I don’t think you have either.
I think your statements on this issue are meritless. The fact that you would consider voting for that incompetent buffoon Trump really makes me question where your head is. Name me one value he purports that represents your values?
I would have to say strongly that no, Hillary has not done exactly the same thing. I also think you need to do a little research about what the Clinton Foundation really does and while doing so, take note that no Clinton draws a salary. Furthermore, Hillary doesn’t accept the money. [eyes rolling]
@MoonHowler
There is plenty of evidence that the Clinton Foundation provides huge financial benefits to the Clintons. The benefit is derived partly from speaking fees — a large donation to the Clinton Foundation is often accompanied by large speaking fees for Bill and/or Hillary. Travel expenses are paid by the Foundation when Bill goes to deliver his talk.
For example, Uranium One needed approval from Hillary for the company to be sold to Russia. It donated $2.6M to the Clinton Foundation at the same time that a Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One stock hired Bill to give a talk for $500K. It appears that the Clinton Foundation paid for Bill’s travel to Russia. The deal shifted large amounts of US uranium to Russian control.
There also is strong evidence that companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation received approval from the State Department for previously denied or larger weapons sales than those approved under previous administrations.
A prime example of this was a US weapons sales to Algeria which has a repressive record on human rights, including arbitrary killings. The sale included toxicological agents, biological agents, and chemical agents. The State Department had disapproved the sale the previous year, but allowed it in the year after the Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Sounds conspiratorial to me. Even if every word of your theory were true, and I doubt that it is, my value system still finds Trump more repugnant and dangerous than anything you have described.
Most non-western countries have horrible human rights records.
Exactly. So why would a regime with a poor record of human rights donate to a US charity? Because they hope to get something out of it.
Ask any number of nations–China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, etc.
Funny how powerful some of you all have Hillary as Secretary of State. You would think she was Obama and just worked independently.
Tell me what it is that Trump says he will do that appeals to you?
@MoonHowler
This is all about control of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS appointments by the next President could affect our lives for the next 30 years or longer. I like the list of potential appointments that Trump has released.’
Despite what Hillary says in public, she can name justices that will roll back the 2nd Amendment and erode individual liberties toward greater collectivization.
As Obamacare fails, to the surprise of no one, the issue of single payer government healthcare will eventually come up to the Supreme Court. Some state will try it first as an “experiment” to save costs.
I hope Hillary appoints Obama to the Supreme Court.
@kelly_3406
Why would she do so, Kelly? She has said that she has no intention of attacking the Second Amendment. Heller permits a great degree of regulation by states and municipalities and subsequent federal court decisions, as well as Supreme Court decisions not to take those up, have confirmed Heller’s latitude for reasonable regulation of firearms.
And why would any presidential candidate campaign on a program of “eroding individual liberties toward greater collectivization.”? Can you link something or cite something where Clinton has advocated that?
By contrast, Trump has said that he would send US citizens to Gitmo and put them before military tribunals. That sounds strongly like a very severe erosion of individual liberties.
Trump is the radical left-wing statist in this year’s election. Clinton is no prize. In any normal election year, she’d be a distant second. But she’s a center/left pragmatist, somewhat more conservative than Trump, considerably better informed, considerably more experienced, and temperamentally far superior to exercise power on a national an global scale. She and her husband are as shady as a late summer afternoon when it comes to graft and grift, but they look awfully good compared to what my party has offered as an alternative in terms of just getting the Republic through the next few years in a complex world with no easy answers available.
@Kelly_3406
Trump’s attacks on the gold star family were unforgivable for us patriotic Americans who appreciate our troops, veterans and their families. Without their sacrifices, you wouldn’t have the freedoms you enjoy. That’s something you would not understand. For that, Trump won’t get the votes of patriots.
You have no idea what I understand and do not understand.
During my >20 years in the military, I have known more than a few gold-star families. Several of them thought it was bad form for a gold-star family to use the public’s sympathy for their son’s sacrifice in a partisan way.
Yes, because the first two phrases that come to mind when you think of Donald Trump are his strong ethics and his sense of service before self.
Since you believe Trump has a strong sense of service before self than Clinton, let’s talk about his charitable giving.
http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/
Bet you didn’t know that at least through 2009, the largest gift the Trump Foundation received wasn’t even from Trump. And the Trump Foundation’s largest recipient in 2009? The Clinton Foundation.
So give an example of Trump’s sense of service before self.
Or does Trump do his charitable work anonymously, because he wants to avoid the publicity? (Yes, that’s a joke)
@Dump Trump
Trump obviously has not held any public office where service before self was required. However, he has certainly created jobs for many people.
There are several examples where he provided generous financial support to ordinary Americans that were about to go under.
Trump was the first to go to Louisiana to see the floods and to offer support to the victims. His leadership forced Obama and Hillary to make visits also.
Each time a presidential candidate visits an area, it costs the local jurisdiction huge amounts of money. Just what Louisiana needs. NOT.
BFD, he went first. Are you telling me he was the most opportunistic? What the hell is he going to do about it as a candidate?
He didnt “force” Obama to do anything. You know how much it cost PWC every time a candidate came thru last election? About $100k.
@Kelly_3406
Trump went to advance his campaign, Kelly. He didn’t make a difference in the emergency response. He wouldn’t have gone if he were not seeking office.
Obama would have gone in due course, when his presence didn’t put pressure on responders. I fault Obama for not directing attention to the problems during his holiday in Massachusetts. But the last thing the people of Louisiana needed down there in the first few days were outsider prima donnas showing up for campaign photo ops.
@Kelly_3406
You don’t see any way that a billionaire real estate developer could put ‘service before self’ in action other than holding public office? Jimmy Carter has done 100 times as much as Trump has with 1/1000th of the resources.
If Donald Trump actually wanted to do good in this world, were is the evidence of any meaningful charitable work? Here’s a hint: try googling “Donald Trump stiffs charities” You’ll get a lot of results.
What does the Trump Foundation do?
Where are Trump’s tax returns?
@Scout
Perhaps we are tired of having to pull the lever for people named Bush (the younger and the youngest), Romney, McCain, Gilmore, Gillespie, Davis, Connaughton, etc., etc., etc., those pushed down from above by the all knowing and all erring RNC, RPV and local committees. You can only vote for duplicitous turds a fixed number of times before you no longer trust (or contribute to) any of the above.
Trump is the result of a failure of leadership not the voters. If you want a poster child of what has been foisted on us at the state level in the recent past and how that worked out in recent years, see Terry Kilgore and then view his VPAP contributions. Also consider what happened to Cantor and the number of those who “retired” from the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond, eg: Stosch.
No Scout, its not the voters who created the mess, it is the puppeteers at the RNC and RPV that effed things up. Look no further than the upcoming State Central meeting for further proof.
The GOP leaders didn’t vote for Trump that was the rank and file GOP voters. There have been lots of flash in the pan candidates before: Pay Robertson, Herman Cain, Al Haig, Phil Gramm. All of them fizzled out because the GOP voters didn’t want them.
Trump is different because more GOP voters wanted him than anybody else. Sure, it was a big field at first, but Trump kept winning even when the race was down to him, Cruz & Kaisch with Cruz and Kaisch coordinating.
Face it: Donald Trump is the new face of the Republican Party. And if that prospect discomforts you (like it does me) then maybe you aren’t a Republican anymore.
I’m by no means a fan of Clinton, but she is the lessor of two evils by a wide margin this time. Pulling the lever for the GOP this election is to embrace Trump and everything he represents.
@Dump Trump
I never said whether I was fer or agin Trump, I merely took issue with Scout’s representation. Is your pulling the lever for Trump any different than my having to pull the lever for Dubya and Mittens. I can’t wrap my arms around Hillary being the lesser of two evils as I see her as being capable of far more long term damage than the Donald. That being said, her agenda is a lot further from a Conservative agenda, at least from a policy standpoint, so it really isn’t simply a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.
I can’t remember who Mittens even was.
I would pull for Dubya much quicker than for Trump. He is the nadir of having to vote, in my book.
@Mom
Well, Mom, not surprisingly, I have a different view of things. Of the candidates you mentioned, it seems to me that Romney, McCain, Davis, Connaughton all came to office through a reasonably democratic process, as opposed to being shoved down the People’s throats by state, local or national political parties. Kilgore (Jerry, not Terry) and Gilmore I’ll pass on simply because I don’t have enough memory or knowledge to intelligently comment on them. Gillespie was a well-qualified candidate, but if your point is that he was the product of convention, I can’t dispute that. None of these people were “duplicitous turds”. All of them are honorable men (again, I have to qualify that statement about Gilmore simply because I don’t know him personally – he may be a saint, but I don’t know that). All of them gave honest, competent service to the citizens of their jurisdictions.
I fail to see how Trump came to be the candidate because of the party “elites”. I think he got where he got because of primary voters, many of whom were not party regulars. The so-called “elites” seem to be solidly against him. But if you think RNC and RPV put Trump where he is, thus virtually ensuring Hillary Clinton the presidency, hold fast to that illusion. It is not based on any fact that I can identify. All of the Trump phenomenon strikes me as an experience of a kind of alternate make-believe world, where the stark unsuitability of the candidate is aggressively imagined away in favor to a kind of drug-like high on impossible policy prescriptions, and credulous, desperate belief in phantasmic, non-factual boogie men and anti-factual assumptions.
@Scout
You either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said, Trump is not the candidate of the party “elites” but rather the reaction to party “elites”. Good, bad or indifferent, Trump is what has been reaped from the discontent sown by the RNC and RPV.
Party elites have always run things.
@Mom
Sorry, Mom. I don’t buy it, at least not through your examples (e.g., Romney, McCain, Davis, Connaughton). These are all superbly competent leaders who have demonstrated their abilities in other fields. Trump isn’t a reaction against the masses being fed crap by the elites. Trump is a reaction against reason, competence, dedication to public service, and an awareness that the issues we face are complex, require expertise and nuance, and cannot be resolved by bumper sticker-size hate talk.
@Scout
And there you have it, the dictum of the past twenty years from RNC and RPV in one short paragraph. Distilled, read our lips, we know better than you so just shut up and vote the way we tell you.
But looks what happens when they don’t do that?
Perhaps the founding fathers were right…..
Look what happens when the RNC and RPV. You have an upstart supervisor accusing them of treason. [eyes rolling] 🙄
Perhaps the founding fathers were correct….about who could be trusted to keep democracy.
Oh Moon-howler, look what just landed in my email box.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/trumps-virginia-mini-me-corey-stewart-ties-his-ambitions-to-the-gop-candidate/2016/08/25/3ba4f53e-5f27-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html
I am astounded! Simply astounded that Corey can be so wrong-thinking. People will be judged by their behavior during this election. It just won’t wash off.
@Mom
I have no connection with RNC or RPV. Nor am I telling anyone how to vote. I’m challenging your idea, Mom, or at least your implicit idea, that people like Romney of McCain (to focus on the two presidential candidates you mention) were forced on the people and that Trump is a logical reaction to that. They came to their nominations the way Trump did – through a long primary process that was largely open to eligible voters (although in some states access to primaries was restricted to registered party members). What is it about Romney or McCain’s nomination that makes you think that those two were forced at the voters and that Trump was a way of pushing back on that?
If you want to go to your local examples, Davis was my Congressman for a number of years and I thought he did a great job. I never had the impression he was being forced on me by shadowy powers at RNC and his relationship with RPV was not by any means harmonious. Connaughton was actively opposed his entire tenure by both local Republican Party leadership in the County and by a sizable element within the leadership of RPV. How are these guys examples of party elites forcing voters into straitjackets not to their liking?
I find this whole current GOP narrative interesting- Clinton is self-serving and money-grubbing, and Trump is so rich he will only serve the country because he doesn’t need the money. The actual record doesn’t support this fantasy. Trump has already profited from his presidential run and is expected to profit exponentially even (or especially) if he loses, and he has been shown time and time again to have lied about charitable contributions, but it goes much further than that.
The Clinton’s have obviously made lots of money (10-20 million a year together) over the past ten years, according to their joint tax returns. Individually, that’s about the half the average salary of a CEO in this country (13.8 million a year).
While they’ve each been making half the salary of a CEO, Hillary has devoted her time to public service as a senator and Secretary of State, and Bill has directed one of the most successful charitable foundations in history, raising over 2 billion dollars as of 2016 and helping millions of people through various programs such as the Health Access Initiative, the Global Initiative, the CGI University, the Climate Initiative, the Development Initiative, Disaster Relief and many other programs. The foundation has won accolades from numerous entities, including the Bush Administration and H.W. Bush.
Meanwhile, Trump has lied, misled and misrepresented himself on numerous business deals over his entire career, almost always profiting while often leaving employees and taxpayers holding the bag, and always only looking out for himself. The idea that Trump has ever displayed ethics or service before self is laughable.
I’m no Hillary fan, but any comparison in favor of Trump on public service or public accomplishment is ridiculous. Some may dream that he’ll change if elected and be the man he’s never been, but to me that’s magical thinking.
@Kelly
It looks like Dr. Drew’s show is cancelled effective 9/22/16. There is a strong suggestion that the cancellation has to do with Dr. Drew’s speculations about Hillary’s health.
@MoonHowler
Not surprising. I have never understood why celebrities feel the need to speak out. For the most part, *I* really don’t care what they think. Second, it is risky move, career-wise.
BTW, when you sometimes ask me questions, it looks like I ignore you. I assure that is not my intention. What actually happens is that I get very busy with my work, which can go into the night if I am on a roll. Then, by the time I come back to your blog and see the question, the conversation has usually moved on to something else. In that case, I usually do not go back and provide an answer.
I hope you don’t think I am being rude.
@kelly_3406
You have never been rude to me, Kelly. I understand. I am sure I ignore when I don’t mean to also.
This sure bit Dr. Drew in the rear, I fear. I had never heard of him, but I am not one who follows celebrities.
If anything good comes out of this campaign, it will be that Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives, moderates, and independents have established a dialogue where none has previously existed. Maybe Trump will heal the worst part of the divide by default.