That's one way to get attention for your state-senate race

naked hypocrisy: ask Dick "Deficits don't matter" Cheney. But the rank-and-file angry old white people who came out to those early Tea Party rallies, with their clearly racist signage? I don't ascribe the same sophistication to their motives that you do.

Regardless, you're still pretending that the GOP hasn't been playing dog-whistle racist politics since the Civil Rights era, and that is clearly patently false. The only difference between Trump and every GOP leader since the LBJ administration is that Trump has dropped the whistle.

And MA also has the third highest cost of living after NY and CA. And ranks quite low on govt transparency. Keep on enjoying the echo chamber, though.

Edit: Oh yeah. Now that I recall, two Speakers in a row convicted of corruption and a third one who willed away the term limits for the post. And a state senate president whose brother...well you know.

Compare to, say, my home state of PA where the (Republican) president of the senate got primaried and lost his job for voting himself a pay raise.

I believe there are other landmarks in his own district to preen beside?

Let's see ... there's the Town of Concord's water supply, Nagog Pond -- it's very scenic, but if you loiter near its shore, the police will interview you. Maybe they would pose for some photos with the candidate before hustling him off the property. Could bolster his Law n' Order cred, if he can keep the context quiet.

There's a town arboretum, but I suspect our candidate would try to avoid being associated with that. Some tree-huggers or flower children might spoil his photo op.

There's a nice Children's Museum, but that doesn't seem to resonate with the candidate's message.

The Kelly's Lanes bowling alley is popular for kid's birthday parties, but again, no real support for the agenda.

I guess a random photo of some Boston buildings is as good as anything for a background on his website.

I suspect you and I share some of the same qualms about Hillary.

You may well contend that she is only modestly competent, only barely more qualified by experience than anyone else who has run for the job in the last twenty years, and maybe even speculate that she is extremely corrupt.

If your argument is that you would prefer a more pure alternative, I'm with you. But as grownups, we have to make a responsible choice between two less-than-savory alternatives, a douche and a turd. At the moment, that's our system: it's all we've got. Too bad it's a fallen world.

I'll even give Trump credit for being a successful businessman, even if it's obvious that his empire was built on getting a huge head start in life, repeatedly fucking over his investors, committing outright fraud, and puffing up an empty brand through canny media exploitation. It's the American way! (Of course if you really believed in his yuuge success, you'd be calling for him to release his tax returns. Funny how you're not doing that, sucker.)

Want to talk me into Trump over Hillary? You'll have to convince me that he's not a racist, vindictive, narcissistic sociopath who lacks the faintest grasp of macroeconomics, realpolitik, science, the Geneva Conventions, and the Constitution.

Go ahead. I'm listening.

and the Belligerent Jersey Lap-Band, a/k/a Gingrich and Christie. I suspect Trump knows that a two-hideous-old-white-guys ticket is not a winning look.

It would also be classic Trump: choosing a running mate based on surface, not substance, a reality TV mogul's choice, not a thoughtful consideration of who would be most qualified to step into the Presidency if necessary.

I threw away a vote on a third-party candidate once; not gonna make that mistake again.