Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael's having fun and providing a consistent frame of reference. He's not going to be humiliated.

Brant The Wise has spoken.

The doubters would do well to listen and seek wisdom.

Michael

[Marc]

I know , I know ...... Its not the same thing cause of blah blah blah but for all the folks here who love the comparison to the Reagan years :

Yet, in January and February of 1980, Ronald Reagan, during the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary, never got closer than 25 points behind President Jimmy Carter, who led Reagan, on March 1, 58-33. Yet, that November, 1980, Reagan won a 44-state landslide.

Now , I shall wait for all the reasons why its different this time , by the folks who love comparing all the other elections to this one ,

Just saying ...

How you like them apples , er ..... crow

[Marc]

The following is not about Trump, but it catches the essence of what Trump supporters believe so well, I think it is instructive.

It is attributed to the comedian Jeff Foxworthy, but I haven't been able to find the original link. Also, one site claims it is not confirmed that Foxworthy wrote it.

Another reason I'm posting it is that this thing is all over the Internet, posted precisely by typical Trump supporters (granted, mostly the conservative type Trump supporters).

A Nation Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

If plastic water bottles are okay, but plastic bags are banned, — you might live in a nation (state) that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots WE DO LIVE IN SUCH A DUMB COUNTRY!!

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman who is confined to a wheelchair or a three-year-old girl can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE.

Big government people (all sides) are currently at a loss why no arguments from them seem to register with Trump supporters.

Trump supporters have given up on them as rational human beings--except when they want to promote their own power. So it doesn't matter what they say.

And if a person merely hates on Trump without seeing that this angle is core to Trump's appeal, they give up, also. It gets worse when a Trump-hater (but a good guy) uses the very arguments of the power-morons against Trump while ignoring this angle. It causes a total tune-out.

This is called discredit.

I don't think I've ever seen political discredit this acute and rampant in the culture before. Bush managed to get close (war and financial meltdown over cronyism), which led to the election of Obama, but he merely got it started. (Well, maybe not started, but he did get the ramped-up part kicked off.)

Michael

Thats an amazing post !!!! Jeff Foxworthys ( not yours MSK , but yours was good - his was great ! )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To eat crow means to be humiliated by having to admit you were wrong.

Roger,

That is exactly right.

Michael

[Marc]

Are any of those statements completely false?

Also, again Peter, do not be so sure that Evita is going to be the nominee.

Sanders is tied in Iowa and ahead in New Hampshire...remember Satchel Paige's alleged advise, "Never look behind you because someone could be gaining on you!"

A...

All due respect but a 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat a Clinton ?

A 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination ?????????????

I will come to Jersey , put down some stacks and you do the same . Lets let a trusted friend of your hold the money . Then I will come back and grab the stacks in the summer .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yeah, it's a foursome made in Heaven -- Objectivist Living, the Nation of Islam, Infowars, and Trump.

William,

Why don't we shave a couple off and look for commonalities for things that matter to an election? Trump is running so cut him off the list and OL is relatively small. Besides, there is no political unanimity of spirit on OL.

That leaves Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. What could those two possibly have in common?

You will probably keep saying they are both kooks and I respect that. Who needs to worry about people like that during an election. Right?

I can't help but notice, though, that they both have massive audiences that vote according to their recommendations. Their followers are quite active when the respective leader calls. And both fearless leaders say they endorse Trump.

Strongly.

I wonder if that means anything concrete election-wise.

Michael

[Marc]

To eat crow means to be humiliated by having to admit you were wrong.

Roger,

That is exactly right.

Michael

Folks , MSK will not and should not get humiliated . He was the first on the Trump parade , and will be last off . Thats like FILO and FIFO but MSK is all about FILO !!!!!

Somewhere around page 135 - 140 I am very confident that MSK will be stating something to the effect of

Dear Marc , and Sir William :

I do apologize for ever doubting my great friends to the north . Your knowledge of US politics is pure and simply brilliant . How I continued to underestimate your knowledge has been shocking .

That being said , I feel very confident that Trump will run , and win in 2020 for these reasons .

Kind thanks for your contribution on OL , and I will be setting up a corner called " US Elections " , and I am offering you two to run it.

MSK

I think it will be a brief , well thought out apology . Classic MSK .

[Selene]

Are any of those statements completely false?

Also, again Peter, do not be so sure that Evita is going to be the nominee.

Sanders is tied in Iowa and ahead in New Hampshire...remember Satchel Paige's alleged advise, "Never look behind you because someone could be gaining on you!"

A...

All due respect but a 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat a Clinton ?

A 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination ?????????????

I will come to Jersey , put down some stacks and you do the same . Lets let a trusted friend of your hold the money . Then I will come back and grab the stacks in the summer .

Mary is married to James Carville who is a Clinton insider and she used to be a Bush employee.

Tuesday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” Republican political consultant Mary Matalin said Hillary Clinton’s support comes from the support for her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Thus if she loses the first primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, Matalin predicted it was very likely someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

15%

or Vice President Joe Biden will jump in the race.

Matalin said, “Losing Iowa and New Hampshire is going to be the pivotal moment to see the prowess of her campaign and the depth of her support among Democratic regulars.”

She continued, “She doesn’t have a depth of following Her following is derivative of her husband. She doesn’t have that big loyal faction in the Democratic Party. She may have some loyal followers — some feminist and such but she is just there because she is the the wife of.”

“I’m saying when she loses those two states it makes others—however the rules are—rules are made to be broken—jump in the race. Whether it’s an Elizabeth Warren or a Joe Biden or Jim Webb is going to run an independent candidacy.”

Host Malzberg asked, “You don’t think they will coalesces behind Sanders? You think they will say uh-oh and a Biden or a Warren or a Kerry will get in?”

Matalin answered, “Yes.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/11/mary-matalin/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Somewhere around page 135 - 140 I am very confident that MSK will be stating something to the effect of

Dear Marc , and Sir William :

I do apologize for ever doubting my great friends to the north...

Humph!

Michael

[Marc]

On 1/8/2016 at 5:05 PM, william.scherk said:

A gentleman in New Jersey writes in:

Dear Infantile Chatterer,

I read with interest your links and comments about the Birther gambit with Cruz, led by Mr Hippopotamus. But what puzzles me is that you haven't apparently understood the most simple thing, despite your chatter. There is a difference between 'natural born' citizenship and the other kinds. And you haven't apparently even given this a shake of your infantile head. I am not impressed. So not impressed that I am just going to drop one arch bomb of a question. Let's see if you people answer. I doubt it. I might have used the OL search function to see what WSS has said on the issue of "Birther" and "Natural Born" ... and I might have even searched up my own earlier comments. I vaguely remember how stupid WSS was when we were talking about how serious the Birther questions were for Obama going in to 2012. If he didn't know anything about 'natural born' back then, then he sure as hell doesn't know anything now.

Anyways, post this question to that schmuck WSS:

Did you consider that under the US Constitution there is a difference between a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen?"

 

This made me nostalgic for days gone by.

On 4/25/2011 at 11:40 AM, william.scherk said:

No one has yet rebutted the Certification of Live Birth, and its prima facie evidence that your President was born where his folks said he was born, that the state of Hawaii said, yup, he was born where his folks said he was born. After four years the claims of the birthers have proliferated and but gained no more support. Yes, Republicans by a plurality continue to 'have doubts' -- but the numbers haven't budged over last year or the year before. Donald Trump has had no effect on the stated beliefs.

No political demand nor demand of law forces Obama to do anything but what he has done, produce certification. In no state or province of our two countries is a person required to do more than your President has done. The facts haven't changed, although the political hoopla ebbs and flows. Where it matters, in terms of votes and support, Obama has a much larger plate of worms to deal with, from recession to debt to war to political calculations. If the birther rhetoric rises -- he chuckles, since he probably believes as do I that no political glory attaches to birther campaigns. A Presidential mien, a chuckle, a renomination, a ballot . . . he knows what is coming his way. How did he get on the ballots for 2008? By battling the first wave of birthers? [...]

As for allusions to trust and persuasion and manipulation, and a beloved Franklin, a rising tide of anger, this is a pot of beans -- Franklin speaks for himself, he is a crank on the subject of Muslimobama already. He did not inherit the slightly queasy respect given to his father. Here's what was on his mind a year ago:

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name."

Ick.

And here me and Bob mused beyond Born an American, beyond Born a Muslim. It now makes me think about Trump's gambit about Cruz's religious bona fides. I mean, was Cruz really Born an Evangelical? Not a whole lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba. Can a child be Born an Objectivist? What happened to choice?

Oh well.

On 4/25/2011 at 12:31 PM, william.scherk said:

On 4/25/2011 at 11:57 AM, 'BaalChatzaf said:

On 4/25/2011 at 11:40 AM, 'william.scherk said:

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name."

In TNKH (what the heathens call the Old Testament) tribal membership is inherited from the father. In later times the Rabbis decreed that with all the rapine committed against Jewish women the only sure thing that could be determined was who the mother of the child is. This is rabbinic, not biblical. It is a practical measure. Also, it is the mother who brings up a child and shapes the child's religious outlook. So in later times, Jewishness is reckoned to come through the mother, not the father.

Right. So . . . the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother, and the seed of Islam is passed through the father, and thus Obama was 'born a Muslim.'

'Would an Objectivist Child be taught that one could be 'born a Muslim'?

Back to Cruz and the danged issue of his eligibility, hats off to Adam for zeroing in on the important legal distinctions. We do know that no eligibility case has ever gone anywhere, so in a sense the legal issue for Cruz is 'open' for any zany nitwit to bring suit ... I mean, if he is on the fucking ballot in Iowa, I blame Iowa for not getting their shit together.

But first, sex. Trump sex.

[Note from MSK: Embedded photo disabled. But photo may be accessed here.]

Cruz was born to an American mum who fit the criteria for passing her citizenship along to her spawn at the moment of his hideous birth. Under US law at the time, emerging from an American vagina conferred upon him the blessing of being born American. What is so fucking hard to figure out? Where is Objectivist epistemology when you need it?

His parents' time in Canada were as US-permanent-resident working-family 'guests' of my country, on permission, not in any way on track to become landed immigrants (Canadian permanent residents) and citizens of Alberta and Canada. When they finished their stint in Canada, they went 'home,' Cruz's father still holding his green card, mum passing easily across the border with her husband and son. Home they were, a permanent resident on track to citizenship, a mum, and her little American child who had been American since the vagina.

I have mentioned it before in a question about 'sanctuary' cities in Canada, that educational and child services 'sanctuary' is given any child resident, and that any child not born in Canada is still accepted into school in every jurisdiction.

Ted Cruz, if he had been born during a visit back to Texas, and flown back to Calgary afterwards, he would be still enrollable at Canadian school as if he were a citizen. That he became a citizen of the nation of his birth is neither here nor there -- it is a fact of North American jurisprudence in this matter. If a Vancouver Canadian lady gave premature birth on a shopping trip across the border in Bellingham, she would take that baby back north as a Canadian citizen -- and she would use the baby's USA birth certificate to prove that the baby was a Canadian citizen.

The exact same applies if the roles are reversed.

The baby born in Vancouver to an American woman goes effortlessly across the border south with mum, because of the birth certificate rendered by the Canadian authorities. At his first encounter with American jurisdiction, Cruz was indisputably welcomed to the country as a full citizen ... even if the proof of his natural American birth was a Canadian birth certificate!

Now, what is most interesting about this current schmozzle is that some folks are all over the map, kooky, crazy, sleazy, foxy. I consider those who argue for the Birther legal side to be the OL equivalent of Orly Taitz. Gravely compromised in their epistemology. Those who argue that This Will Hurt Cruz ... well, nobody is actually arguing that out loud in the thread so far.

To the memory banks again for some more nostalgia. I won't attach the names of the folks who wrote these lines in the Birther thread from 2011. I won't add links. And I won't be answering any more questions on this topic from the gentleman in New Jersey with quite such alacrity. If he is too slack to check our last conversations, these are here for him to consider. Who said which, Brant, William, Adam, Bob? It may not be immediately apparent.

But first, back to good clean sex in the White House. Trump sex.

[Note from MSK: Embedded photo disabled. But photo may be accessed here.]

• Also, I thought 'natural born' is fairly well understood in common-law [as opposed to naturalized/adopted]. Isn't there any jurisprudence in America that has settled this?
• My personal position is that, regardless of the original interpretation and intent of the Framers in regards to "natural born," [Obama] was born from an American citizen. End of story. He is qualified to run for President.
• Anyone born in U.S. territory is a U.S. Citizen according to the 14th Amendment and since that is the latest definition of what a born citizen that is the one that applies. The man was born in Hawaii to an American woman. That makes him a natural born citizen of the U.S.A.
• I think this is the end of the Trump presidential *candidacy*
• "By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, 'dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.' Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribd by congress. Acts March 26, 1790, c. 3 (1 Stat. 103); January 26, 1795, c. 20 (Id. 414); June 18, 1798, c. 54 (Id. 566); April 14, 1802, c. 28 (2 Stat. 153); March 26, 1804, c. 47 (Id. 292); February 10, 1855, c. 71 (10 Stat. 604); Rev. St. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993"
• Anyone who can be arrested by a U.S. cop is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which means illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be arrested and deported. Reading the plain language it means there children born in the United States are citizens. If this upsets somebody they should write to their Congress Creature and suggest an amendment to the U.S Constitution.
• Only Congress has the power to establish "citizenship."

Snatched from the headlines! --

• Glenn Beck viciously attacks Donald Trump’s wife with unconfirmed rumor: SHE IS A LESBIAN PORN STAR.
• Hijacked by the votes of angry white men, the GOP could be primed for disaster: Brent Larkin
• A Warning from a Canadian Conservative to the Republican Party

• Donald Trump's Pro-Discrimination Spokesperson Once Sued Employer for Racial Discrimination
• Trump is a man who likes to be on the couch with a good cheeseburger
• Obama said gun owners would support his new restrictions. He was right.
• Trevor Noah Unveils New Hashtag About Donald Trump Wanting to Bang His Daughter
• The Bill Clinton scandal machine revs back up and takes aim at his wife
• From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton Scandal Primer
• GOP women urge Trump to drop talk of Bill Clinton sex scandals

• Donald Trump’s big tent: The GOP should stop fooling itself. Trump is reaching more than just undereducated, angry white men.

http://www.fromtexttospeech.com/output/0595773001452295166/9964741.mp3

Hmmmm , polls or betting ???

Putting ones money where their mouth is , instead of rhetoric .

Follow the money ,

[Marc]

Somewhere around page 135 - 140 I am very confident that MSK will be stating something to the effect of

Dear Marc , and Sir William :

I do apologize for ever doubting my great friends to the north...

Humph!

Michael

LOL !!!!

[Selene]

 

 

All due respect but a 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat a Clinton ? 

 

A 76 year old Jewish socialist is going to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination ?????????????

 

 

And of course you are absolutely correct ...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another totally, completely, absolutely, no-question-about-it, unambiguously useless poll:

 

New Iowa poll. Thank you! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/19sshZ8dSu

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 11, 2016

 

I mean, we all know polls don't mean votes, right?

 

(smiling sweetly and a little too innocently)

 

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

I'm wondering about this whole "eat crow" thing.

It's a kind of a theme in this thread, mostly light-hearted and in service of a good cognitive cause. As noted above, there is eating crow and there is crowing. In a sense they are mutually-implicated concepts.

To eat crow means to be humiliated by having to admit you were wrong.

There are multiple entailments. Crow is carrion eater, historically unfit and tainted, excoriated in Leviticus, a dark cultural icon in the European tradition.

So the very act of eating it is either distasteful or disfavoured or bizarre. Five and twenty blackbirds notwithstanding.

The humiliation reflects a need for social correction -- correction a kind of punishment for overweaning confidence in a position. Doubting or questioning is never occasion for eating crow in the same sense as eating crow for a proven wrong. See the difference in phrasing:

• I doubt Donald Trump will be elected President
• Donald Trump is unlikely to be President
• I am not a supporter of Donald Trump
• I prefer another candidate
• Donald Trump will not win the Presidency
• No way will Trump win, not a chance.

The humiliation attached to eating crow is made greater by the confidence with which a claim or statement or opinion or pronouncement is given. Wikipedia says it more pithily than I:

Eating crow is an American colloquial idiom, meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position. Crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proven wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow.

Eating crow is of a family of idioms having to do with eating and being proven incorrect, such as to "eat dirt" and to "eat your hat" (or shoe), all probably originating from "to eat one's words", which first appears in print in 1571 in one of John Calvin's tracts, on Psalm 62: “God eateth not his words when he hath once spoken”.

Dewey Beats Truman! is a lasting testament to the shame of Calling It Too Early.

Of the numbered items above, I think only the last requires Crow Eating. The only OLer to go that far is Marc, though my doubt is expressed in such overkill that I too will eat crow on Inauguration day, if not before, as I come to realize my terrible series of cognitive errors, as I noted above.

• Trump will conceivably win the GOP nomination
• Trump has a good chance to win in Cleveland
• My preference is for Trump
• I think Trump can win the nomination, and here's why
• I am convinced that only Trump can go all the way, and here's why
• Trump is going to crush the GOP field and stomp Hillary, and you all are going to eat crow

Number six might be heading for a fall. The other guys are just expressing preference, opinion and probabilities.

1. If you merely oppose Trump because you think he would be a bad President, how does his being nominated by the Republicans - or even elected - prove that you are wrong? Wouldn't that proof or disproof come only after some time in office, presumably after one or more crises were dealt with by POTUS, and we could actually evaluate (and by what standard?) whether he was actually a good or bad President? That's my position, and not only does that mean that my crow-eating day of reckoning is way more than a year down the line, but also that I can change my mind if I hear enough good things from the man (though I'm not holding my breath).

-- opposing Trump for the presidency is what good American Republicans may do. They do so by working for and supporting their favoured candidates. Opposing Trump is a perfectly normal thing to do. He isn't Jesus or Mohammed come to lift all to heaven.

It could be said that you are morally wrong or squalid to oppose him in America's time of need ... but if you do not favour him and he does win, you will not be wrong to think he would make a bad president -- until he has made a good president. The wrongness is too fine and temporal and contingent to be punishable by humiliation.

It is not clear why you would oppose Trump or which policies you prefer. Since you are not proclaiming a Number Six certainty, Michael is not going to offer you the unclean thing until you have earned it.

2. If you merely predict that Trump will not get the nomination because you think not enough Americans will want him to be President to get him nominated, how does his being nominated constitute a humiliation? It may be disheartening to see how many people have been drawn into supporting him, but how would it be humiliating?

It depends on the weight you put on your prediction, your certainty, your arrogance, and your good humour. If you are a big fucking jerk about how your guy cannot fail, and suggest anyone who doesn't agree with you is a chump, then you are ripe for humbling at the day of judgment.

3. On the other hand, as much as MSK has emotionally invested in all this folderol - with a tsunami of smiley emoticons and the rest - it seems that he is *very* vulnerable to potential humiliation.

The stumping for Trump is fun and instructive. The GOP race itself is engaging. Interest is high. It is hard to balance big electoral stakes with the emotion of the stump, with the ebb and flow and hoopla of a marathon ...

Only insofar as Michael has desired humiliation of others, only in proportion to the certainty of his pronouncements, only in terms of Number Six is he vulnerable, and only if his confident assertions are proved wrong. Any such humiliation will not need to be public. If there will be sad times for Michael, I don't think any of us will try to feed him a bitter dose when he will already be sick at heart. When our friends are heartsick and disappointed and even grieving, we do not savage them for cognitive errors, tease them or torment them. We are not vengeful or thrilled with a humiliating mistake for One of Us. Thus my intermittent cautions.

Anyway, to happy thoughts:

Trump will storm across the primaries. Trump will crush all the other GOP contenders and be crowned Imperator in Cleveland. Then he will storm across America in the general election and ultimately deliver a devastating defeat to the Democrats.

Sure, if not, some people will be disappointed. Let us not worry so much about crowing about victories ahead. The victory is now. Trump is 'winning' and all is right with the world of politics, and not only for our Fearless Leader.

Edited January 12, 2016 by william.scherk

[Roger Bissell]

All right, I'll confess: the real reason why I oppose Trump (and I'm not saying he won't be nominated or elected or even be a good President - though I doubt the latter) is that MAGATrump2016, the acronym of his campaign slogan (Make America Great Again Trump 2016), can (and perhaps should) be pronounced:

"maggot rump 2016."

I take this as a very bad omen.

REB

[william.scherk]

“God eateth not his words when he hath once spoken”.

[Peter]

Carly and Rand are out of the main Fox debate. Rand Paul says he won't show up at the kid's table but he still thinks he is positioned to get the nomination.

Good stuff on this thread.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"maggot rump 2016."

I take this as a very bad omen.

Roger,

That's not fair!

(btw - For the record, the crow thing started as a formal bet between Marc and me way earlier in this thread. Others joined as we went along.)

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Sorry, Michael. It was like Everest. Had to do it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll put up the video when it's available:

 

Will be on @FallonTonight with @JimmyFallon on @NBC at 11:35pmE. Enjoy! #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/Z9zbKfXJqb

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 11, 2016

 

Drip... drip... drip...

 

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

?? I only see two drips.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here we go. These videos are from Jimmy Fallon's own YouTube channel so they are merely the highlights.

 

Going from the gist of them, the mood is really toned down. Fallon is now treating Trump like a politician.  Add to that he is treating Trump almost like the next president. No fireworks. So highlights work for me.

 

Anyway, think of the size of Fallon's audience and those among his audience who are on the fence about Trump. I bet Trump gets a more than a few more supporters and voters from this show, especially those who were waiting to see how Trump would act in statesman mode, so to speak. 

 

Job interview

 

 

Muslims, President Obama and Hillary Clinton

 

 

Loves Doing Presidential Debates

 

 

Drip... drip... drip...

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones has no ambiguity.

 

Neither, I suspect, will his gazillions of followers.

 

Trump or die!

 

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just watched Obama's State of the Union, then the reaction from the pundits.

On Fox, MSNBC and CNN (I bounced back and forth), they were all talking about Trump, including how Nikki Haley's measured civil response is showing a turn away from Trump and anger, yada yada yada. They did this as they continued talking about Trump. And then talked about Trump some more.

And his reaction to the speech?

The #SOTU speech is really boring, slow, lethargic - very hard to watch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2016

Michael

[william.scherk]

Another Trump Hater. Sigh.

It is worth re­mem­ber­ing that 94 per­cent of the 2,472 Re­pub­lic­an con­ven­tion del­eg­ates are not from the Feb­ru­ary states of Iowa, New Hamp­shire, South Car­o­lina, and Nevada; these del­eg­ates are picked on or after March 1, and the win­ner-take-all states don’t come on­line un­til Flor­ida and Ohio on March 15. Fifty-eight per­cent of del­eg­ates are picked in March, 16 per­cent in April, and 8 per­cent in May, with the fi­nal 12 per­cent in early June. It’s a long slog to the nom­in­a­tion.

In short, take a deep breath and be­ware of talk­ing heads be­hav­ing as if their hair is on fire. This pro­cess only starts be­gin­ning in three weeks with Iowa and doesn’t start in earn­est un­til March 1.

Michael, you may enjoy the side-by-side Twitter-feed comparison here at Slate.

Oh, and how many is a gazillion? More than a plain old zillion?

Anyway, as an antidote to the National Journal hate speech, some love speech from the Washington Examiner, another outlet with at least eleventy-five bazillion followers.

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa — Nathan Hanson and Rich Lewerke are perhaps the most discussed, most invisible and most important people in Iowa politics: Long-time Iowans who have never attended a caucus before but say they will do so for the first time on Feb. 1 to vote for Donald Trump.

"I just never really paid attention to politics as much as I do now," Hanson, 36, who works in an auto dealership, told me as we waited for Trump to appear at the historic Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake Saturday. "Everything that's happening around us now, and the way things are going — it's just sparked my interest a heck of a lot more now."

"It's almost like Republicans don't want Trump, even though a lot of the American people do," added Lewerke, 52, a building contractor. "So I do think it's very important to caucus this time."

Bob and Donna Marreel, just retired, are two more of those non-caucusers who plan to show up Feb. 1.

[...]

The future of Republicans, establishment and otherwise, who seek to defeat Trump lies in the hope that Hanson and Lewerke, and thousands more like them, don't mean what they say and won't show up on Feb. 1. Maybe that will happen. But after a cold night in Clear Lake, that's not at all a safe bet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SovVhjNYpBE

Edited January 13, 2016 by william.scherk