Peter Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I think Senator Ted Cruz would be a sure thing for the Supreme Court. Imagine the howling from the alt left. And he is Hispanic, the racists! Of course we would need a likely Texas replacement for Ted. But Ted is still young at 46, so the U.S. might get 30 “good years” from him. Peter From The Washington Examiner, OXON HILL, Md. — Sen. Ted Cruz predicted Thursday that President Trump will have the ability to fill a second vacancy on the Supreme Court in 2017. "I think we'll have another Supreme Court vacancy this summer," Cruz said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "If that happens, as much as the left is crazy now, they will go full Armageddon meltdown because the next vacancy is where we'll have the ability to act and restore basic Constitution protections." The Texas Republican didn't elaborate on who he believes will be leaving the court, although Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy is reportedly thinking about retirement. The remark comes in the midst of Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court. While Democrats are mulling a potential filibuster of the federal judge, Cruz thanked former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for changing the filibuster rules in 2013 to push through former President Barack Obama's nominees for lower court positions, saying that it may lead to the changing of the rules again this year to put Gorsuch on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Perez clinched the DNC. The Bernie left is livid. For President Trump, that's a good thing. Obama backed Perez. This means Hillary Clinton could be up for a rematch to lose against Trump again in 2020. Oddly enough, I think Ellison would have been a far greater threat, not because he's Muslim. But because he's more ideologically pure. I believe conservative-libertarian ideology beats left-wing ideology still and President Trump would have no problem carrying it off, but running as an alternative to sleaze and compromise and creeping nanny state is a lot easier. Not for all politicians, but for President Trump, it's a breeze. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Perez clinched the DNC. The Bernie left is livid. For President Trump, that's a good thing. Obama backed Perez. This means Hillary Clinton could be up for a rematch to lose against Trump again in 2020. Michael You assume two things: Trump will last until 2020 and that he will want to run again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Just now, BaalChatzaf said: Trump will last until 2020 and that he will want to run again. Bob, Those are great assumptions. It's called common sense. btw - Didn't you imply (and even predict) countless times--on this very thread--that Trump would lose or drop out along the way to being elected? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For President Trump, that's a good thing. Obama backed Perez. This means Hillary Clinton could be up for a rematch to lose against Trump again in 2020. Looks like I'm not the only one to see this: Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017 Oh... and there's this: I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Bob, Those are great assumptions. It's called common sense. btw - Didn't you imply (and even predict) countless times--on this very thread--that Trump would lose or drop out along the way to being elected? Michael I was wrong at that point. But as soon as I saw the BREXIT vote in Britain I was fairly sure he would be elected if he ran. That one turned out right. I figured the Plain Folks would give Hillary the heave-ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Ba’al wrote: I figured the Plain Folks would give Hillary the heave-ho. end quote I think the plain folks would denounce Capitalization. Get it? Wunnerful, wunnerful as Laurence Welk would say. Just call them “plain folk” or wee folk. It is so odd that “they” try to link President Trump to the alt left or the Nazi’s. There are so many old farts in the demoncrat party who hold power who are Nazis. Schumer? That old yenta is worse than Bernie. No offense. No offense. No offense. If Old Hickory Clinton ran it would be mind - numbing. They need a young “Der Fuhrer” for 2020 not her. Of course some bad crap could happen between now and then but Great President Trump’s actions so far have been exemplary. And he eats sensibly and doesn’t drink or do drugs. Does he exercise other than playing golf? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Trump will last until 2019. He'll resign and let Pence take over. --Brant I can dumb speculate with the best of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 On a lot nicer, more beautiful note, here's a stereotype-busting interview with mega-star singer, Joy Villa, and Alex Jones. If you are not familiar with her, she's the lady who wore a MAGA Trump dress at the Grammy Awards. She has since seen some powerful sales numbers. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Korben, Tony Schwartz? Really? You're going to start presenting stuff that's been discussed over and over on OL during the election as if it's new? Dayaamm! That's a lot of hate... I mean, OL readers are not idiots... Michael Gonna take a guess that you didn't watch the video. But I agree that the OL readers are not idiots, they can watch the video and use their independent judgment, unclouded by Trump Worship. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 "A True Narcissist Sociopath". Nah, I don't think so. I made something of a research into both types several years ago. Trump doesn't quite fit the bill, but anybody in our "Humble Businessman with a Social Conscience" age who is loud and brash in his financial dealings has been rendered unpalatable by dripping anti-capitalist sentiment. Go back to 19C USA, by today's standards every tycoon then would be 'narcissistic'. It's the "self-less" type who dazzles you with charm, you more want to look out for and avoid. Ironic that, his accusers who've been taken out of the warm spot light are closer to narcissists than Trump. They have lost their "Narcissistic Supply". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, anthony said: "A True Narcissist Sociopath". Nah, I don't think so. I made something of a research into both types several years ago. Trump doesn't quite fit the bill, but anybody in our "Humble Businessman with a Social Conscience" age who is loud and brash in his financial dealings has been rendered unpalatable by dripping anti-capitalist sentiment. Go back to 19C USA, by today's standards every tycoon then would be 'narcissistic'. It's the "self-less" type who dazzles you with charm, you more want to look out for and avoid. Ironic that, his accusers who've been taken out of the warm spot light are closer to narcissists than Trump. Trump is not a sociopath. That video had nothing to do with him being a narcissist or sociopath. Like I said, the title was clickbait but the video was a good documentary with the title, "Trump - What's the Deal" from 1991. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 15 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Gonna take a guess that you didn't watch the video. But I agree that the OL readers are not idiots, they can watch the video and use their independent judgment, unclouded by Trump Worship. Enjoy! 5 minutes ago, anthony said: "A True Narcissist Sociopath". Nah, I don't think so. I made something of a research into both types several years ago. Trump doesn't quite fit the bill, but anybody in our "humble businessman with a Social Conscience" age who is loud and brash in his financial dealings has been rendered unpalatable by dripping anti-capitalist sentiment. Go back to 19C USA, by today's standards every tycoon then would be 'narcissistic'. It's the "self-less" type who dazzles you with charm, you more want to look out for and avoid. Ironic that, his accusers who've been taken out of the warm spot light are closer to narcissists than Trump. For the reader, these two posts reference something that got moved to the Garbage Pile here. Tony's post is a bit of collateral damage. Sorry about that... (btw - The documentary that got moved has been posted to OL at least two times in the past. Probably more.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 On February 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Bannon said President Trump's agenda is "deconstruction of the administrative state." Progressives are going to have to open one more definition for deconstructionism in their dictionaries. I don't think Bannon's meaning will have anything to do with postmodernism. Michael How about "demolition"? Bring out the wrecking ball! Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: How about "demolition"? Bring out the wrecking ball! I wouldn't call Trump's proposal to increase military spending $54 billion offset by $54 billion spending cuts elsewhere anything close to "demolition" or "using a wrecking ball" (link). Trump added, "We're going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people." Spending neutral is not "doing more with less" nor does it "make the government lean and accountable". His claim is mere hyperbole -- like much of what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Merlin, I think you are operating under a different assumption about what "administrative state" means according to Bannon. Think EPA, NEA, the unelected regulatory deep state, the whole governmental climate change structure, Obamacare, etc. If you don't believe President Trump is taking a wrecking ball to the administrative state, ask the civil servants who work there. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Merlin, I think you are operating under a different assumption about what "administrative state" means according to Bannon. Michael, I am not a Trump worshiper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 20 minutes ago, merjet said: Michael, I am not a Trump worshiper. Merlin, Neither am I. I just like what the guy stands for. I also like cognitive precision. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I also like cognitive precision. I practice it. Spending neutral is not "doing more with less." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 minute ago, merjet said: Revenue neutral is not "doing more with less." Merlin, I agree. Doing more with less sounds like profit to me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Doing more with less sounds like profit to me. Your failed to practice cognitive precision. Trump said "with less" proposing $54 billion more military spending offset by $54 billion less spending elsewhere. Spending-neutral is not "with less." Adding infrastructure spending, which he also proposed, calls for more spending, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 31 minutes ago, merjet said: Your failed to practice cognitive precision. Trump said "with less" proposing $54 billion more military spending offset by $54 billion less spending elsewhere. Spending-neutral is not "with less." Adding infrastructure spending, which he also proposed, calls for more spending, not less. Merlin, Less is more. Riiiiiiiight... And I'm the one suffering from cognitive imprecision. I guess I missed my Newspeak class in accounting... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, merjet said: I wouldn't call Trump's proposal to increase military spending $54 billion offset by $54 billion spending cuts elsewhere anything close to "demolition" or "using a wrecking ball" (link). Trump added, "We're going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people." Spending neutral is not "doing more with less" nor does it "make the government lean and accountable". His claim is mere hyperbole -- like much of what he says. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Merlin, I think you are operating under a different assumption about what "administrative state" means according to Bannon. Think EPA, NEA, the unelected regulatory deep state, the whole governmental climate change structure, Obamacare, etc. If you don't believe President Trump is taking a wrecking ball to the administrative state, ask the civil servants who work there. Michael I interpreted Bannon's meaning the way Michael does. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I expect to see the following criticism soon: President Trump is betraying his supporters!!!!! He is creating more government regulations!!!!! They will leave out the provision he signed where any new regulation can only come into being when two regulations on the books are abolished. I see the same logic with this revenue neutral gotcha stuff. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: And I'm the one suffering from cognitive imprecision. I guess I missed my Newspeak class in accounting... I agree. Donald Trump taught how to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now