Watch Christie in Tuesday's debate

In a couple of days the Republican hopefuls will again assemble on a stage to ostensibly compare policy strengths and weaknesses in a rational debate.

As if.

More likely it will be battle, the likes of which has not been seen on a debate stage this primary season. Let's see why.

First, the frontrunner, Donald Trump has seen a number of opponents creeping up on his numbers. First Carson, now Cruz.

Remember when he called Jeb "low key"? That was when conventional wisdom was that the outsiders would fade fast, as they did in past primary seasons. But as in a warming world, the seasons ain't what they used to be. Trump has had to fight to defend his position.

Lately he's been trying to claim the evangelical territory from Cruz. Now I don't know anything about real estate mogul Trump's Presbyterian credentials, but I'm sure a Bible belting Iowan can see more evangelical bona fides in Cruz, the son of a preacher man, than in Trump, who couldn't quote his favorite Bible phrase earlier in the contest. Trump may not be able to fight the Battle of Jericho with Cruz, but he will likely try to paint him as soft on Muslims.

Speaking of Muslims, if any Republican on Tuesday takes a stand to denounce the rabid Islamophobia of the last few weeks, I'll convert to Islam on Wednesday because that will be a sure sign of a miracle.

Let's take a look at the candidates on the main stage to see what each has to do.

Trump

As stated, The Donald needs to hang on to his lead. In the last debate, he was pretty low key himself. I think his advisors told him to try keep it down to avoid a major gaffe. But low key doesn't work for him. Coming out of that debate, he started to fire up the rhetoric. The Paris attacks gave him a place to aim at. Since Muslims constitute only 1% of the population of the U.S. it's not a big chunk of the electorate to alienate. It was a successful strategy. Everyone hates ISIS. Why not turn that hatred onto the innocent victims of ISIS and law abiding Americans who happened to be Muslim? Why should Freedom of Religion be sacred?

Trump is likely to face attacks by Bush, but especially by Christie. Can he respond without saying something over the top? Is it possible to go over the top in this race?
Prediction: Poll numbers hold steady.

Carson

Carson's star is falling. This is his last shot and the nice guy strategy will not last. His lack of foreign policy knowledge has weakened him despite a trip to the Middle East. His attack of Obamacare no longer resonates as this contest turns into a foreign policy war. We know where nice guys finish.
Prediction: Poll numbers drop. Carson will do so badly in Iowa, followed by a defeat in New Hampshire that he will be out of the race by Super Tuesday.

Cruz

Having been attacked by Trump as not sufficiently evangelical, Cruz might be willing to come out swinging. Not sure. Cruz's strategy to stand near Trump and wait for Trump's collapse has worked. He could weather some Trump criticism and let the others go after Trump. Or he could see Trump having a moment of weakness and seize the moment. Et tu Brute!
Prediction: Numbers rise. He's the likely winner of Iowa, but if Trump gets forced out early, Rubio will be the backroom boys' favorite in a brokered convention.

Rubio

It's crunch time for the Republican Obama. We saw him acquit himself well with attacks from Bush, but can he position himself as the candidate that can unite the non-Trump majority? The only hope for the GOP is if they can get behind a single candidate soon. Rubio has the youth, charisma and intelligence. But with too many candidates hanging on through the first several primaries or caucuses, Trump may be able to nail down quite a few delegates before he's toppled. Rubio needs to hang in without saying or doing anything that will be held against him for years to come. He may need to be looking at 2020 for his day in the sun.
Prediction: numbers improve slightly. Third place in Iowa caucuses, but first in New Hampshire.

Bush

Jeb! should be getting ready to play some golf in Florida since his campaigning days are drawing to a close. Unless he scores a knockout punch on Trump, his backroom sponsors will be pushing him to retire from politics. Bush has enough money in his war chest to continue on well into the primaries, but the pressure will be on to get out for the good of the party.
Prediction: Numbers fall. Exit mid-March.

Kasich

I had to look up how to spell this guy's name. He's hoping to be the voice of reason in a part that's abandoned all  hope of reason. May try to hang in until the primaries in the more liberal states, but likely to exit soon.
Prediction: Last appearance on the main stage. Exit after New Hampshire.

Christie

Chris Christie is the man to watch on the stage on Tuesday. Need a drinking game? Take a drink every time he makes a reference to being a former prosecutor. If you're still standing at the end of the first hour, my hat's off to you. He has just fought his way back up from the kiddie table and he's the only one with the fire in the belly to take on Trump. He's looking to pick up support from the law and order Republicans. Since his bid is still a long-shot, he needs to make a mark, and there's no doubt he's a fighter. He'll come out swinging for Trump, possibly in defense of Muslims (since the alleged "thousands cheering" on 911 were supposed to be in Jersey City), but more likely claiming ground as the only one who understands how to use legitimate law enforcement to track down and convict terrorists. Some intrepid journalist should dig up Christie's prosecutorial record and see if he actually did prosecute any real terrorists.
Prediction: numbers up, but poor showing in Iowa. Second place in New Hampshire. Out after Super Tuesday.

Fiorina

Say goodbye to Carly. Her numbers have been falling since her moment in the sun. She might come out with something outrageous again, but she has been cowed by Trump in the past. She can't compete as the business expert, nor as the outsider. Some people might like her as an alternative to Hillary, but not enough. This will be her last showing on the main stage.
Prediction: She will be out after New Hampshire.

Paul

At this point it's not sure if Rand Paul is on the main stage or the warm up event. In any case his days as a presidential candidate in this race are numbered. It's unfortunate, as he's a smart guy and he is the only Republican who is as opposed to corporate welfare for the defence industry as he is to welfare for poor people.
Prediction: Out in time to spend Christmas with his family.

Application Letter to Donald Trump

In the not too distant future, Donald Trump may be returning to business from campaigning. For you up and coming executives, here's a possible letter of application to work for him. Feel free to copy and modify as necessary.

Dear Mr. Trump,

You don't know me, but I'm a terrific candidate for any executive position in your business. I know you must have hundreds of applicants for such positions but you should choose me. I know people who are applying to you and I love these guys (and women--who can be fantastic executives, most of the time) but let me tell you, they are losers. Don't hire them; hire me. I'm a winner.

First, let me give you my qualifications. I'm really smart. I went to university and graduated. I never got caught cheating or plagiarizing. I'm just sick of hearing about losers who are getting into trouble. We never win any more. I will change that. I will show your loser competitors how great Trump is. You won't believe what a good job I'll do for you. You'll make so much money from me that you won't know what to do with it. You have gold plated toilets on your plane now? You'll have gold-foil toilet paper when I work for you. You'll have gold plates that you throw in the trash instead of washing them when I work for you. Illegal immigrants will be going through your trash and taking it home to their countries--solving both the illegal immigrant problem and the trash disposal problem--when I work for you.

I have a fabulous resume. It's so fabulous that you don't want to read it. Let me tell you the highlights. I know how to buy and sell stuff. I've bought and sold lots of stuff. I've used cash and credit cards, barter and cheques. I know that, in principle, one should buy low and sell high. But the market rules. I love the market. It's fantastic. Winners understand the market. Like you. And I'm a winner, which is why you should hire me.

I know how to use the legal system to avoid consequences. Criminal, civil, bankruptcy...you name it, I know some terrific lawyers who can fix problems. People who get convictions are losers! Nothing has ever been proven against me. I'm a winner. They say winners should stick together. That's why I should be working for you.

We both know that this Presidential thing is going to get old for you pretty soon. You are going to want to exit the campaign as a winner, but before one of the primary or caucus states supports one of your loser opponents. I can help you put together an exit strategy that maintains your position as a winner. How about this: "Politics are for losers!" That could be your exit slogan. Or "I made American great again just by campaigning for six months!" Job done! You can get back to what you do best: firing losers!

It's important to plan in advance. No one wants to hear that you were drunk in a Des Moines bar after the Iowa caucuses mumbling racial epithets at Ben Carson (How do we even know he was born in the US? Has anyone seen his birth certificate? I can't hear a freaking thing he says!). No you won't be doing that. That's what a loser would do. And you're a winner. Hire me. I'm a winner, too. I will make Trump great again!

Sincerely,

 YOUR NAME HERE

Help! My Apple Watch is making me fat!

I'm minding my own business, quietly working on something and suddenly I feel this notification on my wrist. It's my Apple Watch, reminding me to get up and move around.

Now, I wish I had a lifestyle where I could alternate active things with sedentary things, but I make my living through words (written, not spoken) and that means I sit and work on a computer. Sometimes I do like to get out for a walk or even more vigorous exercise, but I can't drop everything and go jogging every hour.

But I understand the science behind this warning. It's been demonstrated that excess sitting affects circulation. You can't cram all your movement into one great sweaty ball at one point in the day and then sit and work at your desk for the rest of the day.

But I'm a one-track mind type of guy, so I like to stick at something until it's complete. When my Apple Watch says it's time to get up and move, that's what I do, and I plan to get back to work as fast as possible. At home that means a quick walk around.

But my home isn't very big. There are no stairs. In fact, of the two places I like to work both have nowhere to walk to except the kitchen.

So I'm working without any though of food or eating and the next thing, my Apple Watch is telling me to walk to the kitchen! So naturally, I start to think of food. And even if I harness all the self-restraint I can and return to my work without eating, that little idea is working its way through my brain and I know that before the next hour is up, I'll be eating a cookie, an apple, or having a cup of tea.

So thanks Apple. Maybe the movement ring is getting me to get out and really burn some calories to get my (current) 800 calorie goal, but the standing ring is only getting me to the refrigerator.

Rubio will the the GOP nominee

OK, you heard it here first! I'm calling Marco Rubio as the winner of the GOP nomination marathon.

Yes, it's early days and gaffes, pitfalls and unexpected blowback are still to be experienced, but I think Rubio's the logical choice.

Let's look at my track record. I said the second debate would be Trump's downfall. OK, I was a little off on that. But Trump's failure to stand up to Fiorina's attack showed that he could be wounded. Fiorina has soared since then. Carson has been coming on strong since the first debate. But neither of these outsider candidates will survive the media scrutiny and organizational rigors of the next few months.

Last cycle we had a number of "front runners" over the early part of the process. Voters are trying out different things and anyone could be the flavor of the month.

Going toward Iowa, Carson is loved by evangelicals. But eventually his "nice guy" demeanor will rub off a little and people will see that his lack of experience in anything like running a large complex organization will make him unsuitable for the job. Already he's had to retract statements about Muslims. Carson makes conservatives feel good about themselves because they can support a black man.

On the other hand Fiorina, whatever her record at HP, has the leadership skills to not only run a campaign, but possibly hold elected office. Fiorina appeals to the conservatives who hate women. Of all the candidates' attacks on Planned Parenthood, hers is the most appealing to the conservative base precisely  because it is coming from a woman, who should know better. She appeals to people who see her being able to siphon support from Clinton in the general election.  Unlike Trump, she has detailed proposals. However, her proposals are not really rational or effective, and now she's going to have to spend time defending herself.

Anyway, Trump still tops the polls, but he's falling. According to the Washington Post, both Fiorina and Carson are gaining on him. So if neither of them are going to last who will?

Cruz would like to take Trump's supporters when he comes to his inevitable end. I think most of those people will crawl back under the rocks that they came from.

The party will have to appeal to people who have been alienated by the xenophobic rhetoric whipped up by Trump. That's where Rubio comes in. Now tied for third with Fiorina, he's perfectly positioned to be the party's go-to guy when the freak show comes to an end.

Trump will drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, likely finishing below third in both. Carson may win Iowa, but can't sustain a front-runner status long. The establishment needs someone to get behind, and although that position should naturally be Bush's, he's not been able to campaign like a winner.

That's why I'm calling it for Rubio.

Debate could be Trump's Waterloo

Although the New York Times reports candidates are not looking to knock Trump out of the race, I think Trump may be heading for a fall. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt will be on hand to ask foreign policy questions, and he has already roused The Donald's ire over such questions.

Asked about certain leaders in the Middle East (I won't name them because I don't know them myself, but then again, I'm not running for POTUS) Trump stumbled. What is telling about this misstep is not that he didn't know the names of some long-time Middle Eastern leaders, but that he is not spending his time with advisors studying actual foreign affairs. Of course it would have been worse if he didn't know the name of the President of Mexico or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Of course Trump responded in typical fashion with ad hominem attacks, calling Hewitt a second-rate journalist. Again, we see Trump's weakness. Although his base might lap it up for a while, sooner or later most rational people will realize that Trump has no solid policy knowledge. Or am I overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate?

What I think this tells us is that Trump is flying on ego. He makes speeches that are short on detail and the public laps it up. But veteran journalists should not be fooled by this rhetoric. That's what Hugh Hewitt shows us. Anyone running for President should have a good grasp on the state of the world and how the US political system actually works.

We saw a little of this in the first debate when Trump was asked for more details on his border wall proposal. He was asked how he "knows" that "criminals and rapists" are being sent by Mexico to the US. His answer is revealing of his typical tactic. He began by saying he visited the border and spoke to border agents. But instead of giving specifics detailing even one instance of an individual being sent by the Mexican government into the US illegally, he swerved into generalities and bombast. A good journalist would have gone back to the original question: "How do you know the Mexican government is sending people across the border?" But the Fox anchor dropped the ball. I have a sense that CNN will do a little better.

This may expose the weakness of the other candidates as well. I don't think any of the "outsiders" have the background knowledge to provide details about foreign policy, domestic policy, or any other policy. Possibly Fiorina has a team helping her getting up to speed, but I get no sense of that deep understanding of the job from Carson.

This may well be the turning point that Bush has been waiting for. No doubt, as the establishment candidate (not to mention brother and son of former Presidents), he has the deep understanding of the state of the world needed to lead the US. Rubio, also, is supposed to be strong on foreign policy.

It takes more than policy to lead a country, but leadership without knowledge is dangerous. It's about time the Republican Party separated the wheat from the chaff and moved toward the primaries with a much smaller field of candidates who are actually competent on policy.

I stand with Trump: To hell with political correctness!

You know, the one thing I like about Donald Trump is that he speaks his mind. You can see him clearly for the asshole he really is. He's not afraid to offend anyone he disagrees with.

But the point about political correctness should be examined. To my mind political correctness is a superficial way of expressing yourself designed to use language you don't agree with. But that's to take a position that the expressions you prefer are actually OK. In fact, we need to continually adapt our language to an evolving sense of humanity. We didn't stop using the N word because of political correctness; we stopped using it because of an evolving (yes, we are still working on it) sense of racial respect.

As this writer states, politically correct is really just respect.

Here are what some dictionaries say. Wikipedia defines it as "an ordinarily pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society." Merriam Webster calls it "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people." Notice that Merriam Webster takes away the sense of pejorative. I have to disagree with that. I don't think anyone uses that term without a sense that it's kowtowing to someone else's standards.

Megyn Kelly's segue from challenging Trump on disrespecting women to challenging other candidates on not being strict enough abortion opponents boggles the mind. To Republicans, being politically correct means being so strongly pro-life that they would deny a woman an abortion at the cost of her life. They would force a rape victim to live that pain out through nine months of pregnancy and all of its complications afterwards. I don't have time for political correctness should mean "let's talk about the truth about what happens to unplanned, unwanted, poorly cared for children." Let's talk about how we were led into a war based on lies and propaganda that killed and maimed thousands of men and women who were unnecessarily sent into battle. Let's talk about how the country is divided along racial lines and young men and women are constantly subjected to police harassment up to and including murder!

Political correctness is not doing us any good. Calling women "women" instead of "girls" and respecting minorities, disabled people, and anyone different than we are is not political correctness. It's respect.

We need more respect.

Don't worry about robots taking your job; worry about amateurs

Increasing automation in the workplace has led to a lot of job loss. This story cites one million jobs lost due to automation. (Notice the typo in the headline--I'll get back to this.) I recently listened to a podcast series by Planet Money on how robots were taking on all kinds of jobs.

Things that require any kind of repetitive task are being automated. Farming, logging, manufacturing, all these areas are much less labor intensive than they used to be. But that's not all: ATMs, self-serve gas, self-checkout at the store are also costing jobs. When you call a big business and have to negotiate your way through a maze of telephone options, that's because receptionists who used to direct your call or actually help you are out of work. When you hear a message "We are experiencing a higher than normal volume of calls right now" while you wait for the sole human being left on the switchboard to talk to you, it's because the company let go it's normal staff.

OK, but what I've always believed is that if I had skills and creativity then I would always have work. Not true. There's a cascading effect.

I graduated from university with zero computer skills. I mean zero. My computer experience was limited to playing "Where is Carmen Sandiego" on a Commodore 64. So I took a computer course in desktop publishing. I had an English degree, background in journalism and few job prospects.

Desktop publishing, the use of desktop computers to combine typesetting, graphic design and layout into one convenient program was the thin edge of the wedge that upset huge publishing empires. Previously, a graphic designer would sketch out  a design for a magazine or newspaper page. A typesetter would prepare the type in long sheets called galleys, and a layout artist would paste the galleys and photos (which were specially prepared for printing) on big cardboard flats to be taken to a special camera that was used to produce film, which was in turn used to create plates from which the document was printed.

Today, high end publications use graphic designers. Big print runs use plates. But most of the jobs in between are gone.

In fact, even desktop publishing is obsolete because more and more publishing is simply electronic. Electronic newsletters are emailed. Print is too expensive and it uses physical resources.

But what's this got to do with amateurs? Go back to the link I posted near the beginning of the post. The typo in the headline is because in the middle of that old process was a proofreader. Someone whose job was to be the grammar Nazi and to find and fix every comma splice, every misplaced modifier, and yes, every typo. That guy is gone.

Today things go straight from the writer's head to the world without anyone looking at them. And anyone can publish. Right here on this platform every manner of thought is being pushed out onto the world.

And the problem is that what's important is lost in the sea of what's unimportant. People used to pick up a newspaper to read about what is important. Newspapers were written by people who spent their careers separating the wheat from the chaff. They were dedicated to some form of objective truth, even if they didn't all agree.

But today, it's all about advertising. When I look at the New York Times online, I also see the clickbait headlines from LOLWAT, or Taboola or some such crap telling me about a man who did something and I won't believe what happened next.

Journalists are losing ground to the army of bloggers who contribute every manner of rumor and innuendo to the racket of (mis)information.

Wanna go home? Uber will take you instead of a professional taxi driver.

Looking for a President? Donald Trump, amateur politician running on nothing more than name recognition is in the lead as I write.

What is happening to the world?

I blame it on Martin Luther.

Not Martin Luther King, Jr, pacifist leader of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther, 13th century monk who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther said everyone had the right to know God in their own way, to interpret the Bible for themselves. Thus, he unleashed an army of amateur priests in the Protestant Reformation.

That began the breakdown of authority that shakes our foundations today. Today there is no authority. Scientific authority is defied not only by climate change deniers, but by the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-GMO movement, the alternative medicine movement, the homeschool movement, and more. Everywhere, people shun any process that requires years of study and dedication for one that claims equivalency for something shallow.

We never should have stopped teaching rhetoric in school. Rhetoric is the art of argument. It is the use of logic. It teaches us to recognize false logic and incorrect conclusions.

We sure could use some of that these days.

GOP's challenge is to manage Trump

Now that the GOP mob mentality has it turning on Trump, it may find its nightmare scenario is shaping up: Trump as an independent candidate.

What the GOP needs is for Trump to remain in the race for many more months, draining his financial assets. If he were to decide to run as a third party or independent candidate next spring, he would have to build an organization state by state, wending its way through various rules to get him on the state ballots. But in the meantime, he'd be spending his millions fighting for the GOP nomination.

If he drops out of the GOP race now, he can play golf for the next six months, while his team works on the details of getting on the various state ballots. He could even wait until after the conventions, all the while taking potshots at the other candidates. The cost for Trump would be minimized.

No doubt the other candidates would say his sniping doesn't warrant a response; when in fact, they quail under his attacks. Trump's style cannot be fought with normal politics. That's the source of his teflon. You either lower yourself to his level or you have to let him throw his insults without penalty.

He's already shown that his ability to garner free media attention is greater than ever seen before. Even if Fox doesn't pump him as it has done for the last month, he can get lots of attention.

This is the legacy of the current political climate. For decades it has drifted away from policy and substance toward ideology and style. Crowing on stage about who is a real conservative, rather than presenting real concrete plans is just part of it.

Trump is absolutely right that he was attacked from the get-go at the debate. The question about loyalty to the ultimate candidate and disavowing a third party run was only designed to call out Trump. He had to hold up his hand. Not to do so would have been capitulation, which is not in Trump's vocabulary.

The current feeding frenzy, if it drives Trump out of the GOP race, is just what he needs to continue to disrupt the process without bankrupting (excuse me, using the laws of the United States) himself.

And the GOP will be left without the knuckle-dragging, uninformed rabble that it depends on to swing the vote.

Trump's rise was inevitable

No one doubts that Trump will fail to become President of the United States. The most likely trajectory is that some time between now and November 2016, Trump will begin to perceive both dwindling support and rising expenses and realize that he'd rather remain a billionaire than bet it all on a losing proposition. My guess is that this will happen sometime in February or March of 2016, but it could be much sooner, if polls change.

What Trump needs to maintain his lead is a huge field of Republican candidates. As long as the 75-80% of Americans who don't support him are divided 17 ways, then Trump can triumphantly crow about winning. But eventually some of the smaller candidates, who aren't self-funding, will begin to run out of money. Their donors will pull back and they will read the writing on the wall. Once the field narrows down to a reasonable 7 or 8 candidates, support will move to one or two who will begin to overshadow Trump.

That requires neither great insight nor knowledge. What I think this particular election cycle teaches us is that there is no longer a difference between entertainment and political leadership. When Trump was challenged on his misogynistic comments, he interrupted timed exactly as it would be on a TV game show, drawing the same laughs. Trump played his part. Despite their attempts to challenge Trump (and other candidates) on issues, the Fox media could not escape its main role as entertainment. Trump is ahead right now because he is the only candidate running who has made a career out of being in the spotlight. He is bulletproof because he understands that there is no bad publicity.

Challenged about asking a woman on Celebrity Apprentice to get down on her knees (I thought this was a reference to oral sex, but apparently it was a reference to her begging to keep her job), Trump failed to give what I thought was the obvious answer: "We do things on the TV show to play for ratings, to create a character, you can no more attach those statements to me than you can use lines that Reagan might have said in Bedtime for Bonzo." But I was wrong. There is no line between entertainment and political life any more.

As I write this, I'm still waiting for new polls to reveal how the debates have shifted the standings among GOP candidates, but I'm sure Trump has not gone down. In fact, his presence dampened all other candidates. No one dared take a shot at him. That was left to the moderators, and look how they fared. No one could say out loud, this is a contest for leadership of the United States of America, not Celebrity Apprentice.

Coming from the left, this gives me no glee. Trump, either as an independent, a GOP candidate or merely a failed candidate will help the Democrats hold the White House. But the march of style of substance continues.

How many people on the left rely (relied) on Jon Stewart for their news? What a farce! (And I mean this both literally and metaphorically.) Stewart's whole schtick was to take snippets of news stories and make fun of whoever was involved. He presented no in-depth analysis. He gave no new data. He did not provide reportage of issues ignored by mainstream media. He couldn't. He relied on people having at least a little knowledge of the issue. And then he made you laugh. And he made me laugh. But he didn't teach anything new. All he did was entertain us. And people turn off their TV sets at night believing they are knowledgeable about world affairs but without any new knowledge.

Reading the Gettysburg Address, I don't see any place where Lincoln paused for a joke. I don't see humor in Dr. King's I have a Dream speech. But politicians for the last 30 years have had to show their lighter side. Obama is great at self-deprecating jokes. But democracy has become some kind of sitcom. We need our laugh track along with our ballot boxes. And who gets the biggest laugh wins.

And that's the saddest part of all.

Trump is the candidate America has been waiting for

For years wannabe political leaders have emerged from businesses proclaiming that their business skills will be just the thing to lead the country to prosperity. After all, if they can run a business, they can run a country/state/city. Now here's Donald Trump proclaiming the same thing.

Trump's big idea for border security is to build a wall from San Diego to Texas, along the entire border. Paying for the massive structure? He will force the Mexicans to pay for it, because he believes he can negotiate by strangling their economy.

This is the kind of bully tactics that can get you to the top of the heap in business. Ignore the fact that economic relations and political relations are governed by a mutual respect. Ignore the fact that the North American Free Trade Agreement is in place. Just use brute economic force. That's what dealing with a big company is like for must of us regular folk. Even when the law is on your side, big companies have armies of lawyers to fight for their ability to do whatever the hell they want.

But that's the way America operates in the world. The US does not let its military answer to the World Court. Americans cannot be tried for war crimes. America drops bombs on anyone it perceives as an enemy when they are out of reach of other means. American's armed might is disproportionately larger than any other country. The invasion of Iraq should have been seen as a war crime in itself: justified by lies, leaving millions dead, homeless and dispossessed in its wake.

No, Donald Trump is exactly the leader America has been waiting for. It's highly unlikely he will be elected and not just because the majority of Americans are actually rational, fair-minded, intelligent individuals.

Trump's rise to the top of the polls is unlikely to last because Trump misunderstands both politics and business. His billions don't match the billions of the Kock brothers, and unlike them, he doesn't understand the power of the PAC. Trump may be prepared to spend a lot of his fortune on getting to the White House, but he's only looking at the official spending of other candidates. The real money (and in this election it's particularly important) is in the unofficial spending. When the soft money starts flowing, Trump won't be able to keep up. He doesn't see how behind-the-scenes alliances make a big difference.

I just hope Trump can stay in the race until the first debate. It's bound to be hilarious and an opportunity for him to say more outrageous things. After that, there's bound to be a coalescence around a few of the other more reasonable candidates, until Trump decides to take his marbles and go home, like the schoolyard bully he is.