Skip to main content

Finally, Donald Trump gets a taste of his own medicine

If you didn't watch last night's Republican presidential debate, you missed a doozy.

Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz came out swinging like boxers on a mission, challenging Trump on everything from his reluctance to release his tax returns to lawsuits and his traditionally left-leaning views on abortion. At times it felt like a 2-on-1 affair.

Unfortunately, Cruz and Rubio may have awoken from their slumber a tad too late.

It's jarring that it took these men ten debates to finally stick it to Trump. The fact of the matter is that, like many political pundits, the candidates (with the exception of Jeb Bush, who recently exited the race) underestimated Trump. They figured he would fizzle out eventually, so they never took his candidacy seriously -- that is, until he started racking up victories in the primaries and caucuses.

Now they're trying to do anything they can to slow his momentum, but polls have him with sizeable leads in many of the states up for grabs on Super Tuesday. He's leading Rubio in Florida, the young senator's own state, and is giving Texas senator Ted Cruz a run for his money in the Lone Star State.

Many people say this election is reminiscent of the election of 1980, when a former Hollywood actor and liberal-turned-conservative named Ronald Reagan took the world by storm and defeated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter to become president. Even evangelicals turned out for Reagan despite Jimmy Carter being one of the most religious presidents to occupy the Oval Office. The same situation played out in the South Carolina primary, where the more religious Cruz was expected to be buoyed by such voters.

This is an election year unlike any I've seen before. The stakes are high. The drama is real. People seem to be clamoring for an outsider who could take the United States in a different direction.

Is this the year of Trump, at least as far as the Republican nomination goes? We'll have to wait and see, but it is certainly looking that way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you have Isolophilia? Find out...

You're probably asking yourself, "What in the world does Isolophilia mean?" It sounds like it would be something negative, doesn't it?  After all, words that end in "philia" (e.g., pedophilia) tend to involve things we want nothing to do with. But Isolophilia isn't something all people deplore. In fact, introverts like me welcome it. Put simply, Isolophilia is defined as having a strong affinity for solitude. It describes a person who relishes being alone. While extroverts can only take so much solitude, we introverts find that it rejuvenates us. In order to recharge our batteries, we need to retreat to a quiet environment where we we're left alone to rest and/or gather our thoughts. Extroverts, on the other hand, become bored and drained when they're alone for a lengthy period of time. Social interaction is the fuel that drives them. So while an extrovert would probably do anything to avoid feelings of Isolophilia in most cases, an...

No response from someone IS a response

Make no mistake about it: When you don't get a response from someone -- whether they fail to answer your texts or return your phone calls -- it is  still a response, and a powerful one at that. When a person fails to respond, it's a direct reflection of their interest -- or lack thereof -- in the relationship. Few things are more aggravating than having to hound a partner, friend, or relative for some sort of reply after we've reached out to them. Yes, we get busy from time to time, but that doesn't give anyone the right to leave the other person hanging. A terse text with something like "Been busy, will reach out soon" doesn't say much, but at least it shows some effort to bring the other person up to speed on why they've fallen off the radar. Failing to provide a response for weeks -- if not months -- communicates that you are just not a priority, and that you'll have to wait your turn to get this individual's attention. This is n...

Women vs. Men: Who likes to backstab more?

Whether it's on TV or in the workplace, the general consensus seems to be that women gossip, backstab, and stir up more conflict than men do. But, as with every other topic, I thought it only fair to put this so-called stereotype under the microscope. If you watch reality shows like Celebrity Apprentice, you'll notice it's the women who spend far more time bickering. While the men do at times become embroiled in tit for tat, it's the women who are portrayed as meaner and more hostile. In the workplace, I have noticed that women seem to gossip far more than their male counterparts. I haven't really seen any cases where a person blatantly backstabs the other, but I have caught both men and women in little white lies. If it is true that women are generally more into backstabbing and gossiping than men, why is this the case? I believe that it isn't fair to make a blanket statement like "all women play these games while all men keep to themselves and pre...