A Quote by Lisa Kennedy Montgomery

Conservatives who decried Trump's rise (and those who scoffed at his chances of winning a single primary were legion) are the same 'purist' boxing snobs who could never grasp the popularity - and populist legitimacy - of wrestling.
It's easy to see why conservatives would be salivating at the thought of a Hillary primary challenge. Presidents who face serious primary challenges—Ford, Carter, Bush I—almost always lose. The last president who lost reelection without a serious primary challenge, by contrast, was Herbert Hoover. But in truth, the chances that Obama will face a primary challenge are vanishingly slim, and the chances that he will lose reelection only slightly higher. No wonder conservatives are fantasizing about Hillary Clinton taking down Barack Obama. If she doesn't, it's unlikely they will.
As for whether what happened in Britain improves[Donald] Trump's chances of winning, I don't think so. He has the same chances; we may just be more aware of what they are now.
Much of the media failed to anticipate the potential Trump represented as a disruptive populist force, understand why his supporters trusted him, or offer honest reporting on the underlying trends that made his rise possible.
When you put party over principles, you can't avoid tripping over your own hypocrisy and contradictions eventually. The GOP establishment refused to stand up to Trump during the primary because they wanted his voters in order to beat Hillary Clinton. Then he won the primary, and then the general, and the GOP both times decided it was better to cling to their grasp at power, to cling to Trump and all he stands for, a decision that should destroy the party or drag it down for a generation.
...Those laws are within the grasp of the human mind. God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts... and if piety allow us to say so, our understanding is in this respect of the same kind as the divine, at least as far as we are able to grasp something of it in our mortal life.
I've never quite been a peer of Donald [Trump]. When I knew him it was more in a social way. We were single at kind of the same time. You know having fun in that sense, but I've watched his career with great admiration, and now to really see him as an employee sees him as an aspirant within the corporate structure of the Trump enterprises is really fascinating.
The chances of you winning are the same as the chances of HELL freezing over.
Coming from Buffalo, N.Y., I recognize the distinct difference between inside-the-Beltway conservatives and lake-shore conservatives. It's populist conservatism.
What Trump is not smart enough to even grasp is that the kind of popularity that Putin has can only be achieved in the context of retro-totalitarianism.
If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.
Trump is a populist in the same mold as the nineteenth-century Populists who gave their name to American grassroots political movements. Historians and pundits argued themselves blue in the face over whether Populists were reactionary or progressive, but they were both.
Has Donald Trump ever called himself a populist? I don't think Donald Trump's ever called himself a populist. I think other people have called him a populist, and other people have called Steve Bannon a populist. But I don't think Trump's ever called himself that and he may not know what one is, within the political realm or definition. He's not a political person, and that I think is leading to many people having just a devil of a time translating the guy, analyzing the guy, predicting the guy, projecting the guy.
I liked wrestling a lot better than boxing. I remember thinking at that time that wrestling was a pure demonstration of strength, which I was interested in, while boxing was just hitting somebody or getting hit, which didn't appeal to me. But a demonstration of strength was okay, so I chose wrestling.
The New York Times had a headline on its website - Trump Turning To Ultra Wealthy To Steer Economic Policy. This doesn't sound very populist to me. Today's commerce secretary, the names being talked about for treasury secretary, I think there will be populist talk but maybe no populist action.
No matter what Donald Trump says, he has deep socialist leanings. He's a nationalist and a populist. And throughout history, whenever you combine those three things it never ends well.
I knew the HIV virus was something anyone could get but also believed the chances were very slim... I honestly believed I had a better chance of winning the lottery than contracting this disease. I have never been so wrong in my life.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!