Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 37 minutes ago, Selene said: I have to admit that I am actually not as shocked as I expected to be if the snakes started to writhe with pain and strike out at anything. Pretty sad to see your country sold out this way by people expecting the citizens to get down on their knees and take it. Adam, Now watch the master negotiator work his magic. What would be the result of Trump breaking off with a third party? Supposedly, Hillary would win. That's Trump's leverage and don't think he isn't going to use it. He's going to make them sweat, too. When it finally dawns on the majority of establishment supporters that their leaders really do want to elect Hillary over Trump, that they are not even trying to win the election anymore, they are going to pour some serious heat on said leaders. And you know what I think? We will see a few sacrificial establishment lambs skunks, sacrificed in great pungent ceremony, and the rest will fold right into Trump's arms. Maybe Cruz's arms for a while, but then Trump's. Some of the more famous Trump haters will hold out and grandstand to save face, but they will stand alone and then fade from the public discourse as the elections start winding up. Also, there are about 40 days between the last primary and the convention. And, supposing Trump does not get the magic number of delegates, don't forget he did write The Art of the Deal. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: Michael, [....] As for your views of Evangelicals and Mormons, just look at the way you have portrayed them on this one thread—for, say, the past three weeks. I think anyone reading those posts would conclude that, at a minimum, you tend to favor Trump because he is irreligious and utterly despise Cruz because he is religious. (If it were all about religion and irreligion, I would prefer Trump, hands down, over any other Republican in the field of 17 or whatever it was. I just don't think it is.) Robert I've been reading Michael's posts and have gotten no such impression. Michael's said, over and again, why he supports Trump, and he's quite favorable to a number of people who are religious (was quite favorable in the case of Beck, before Beck started going over an edge). His comments about the likely effect on Cruz's Evangelical supporters if Cruz is shown to have been philandering are just reality. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Trump builds magnificent things and doesn't go to war to get his money. He does it the old fashioned free market capitalist way. I went out to dinner last night at a restaurant near where I live. I was sitting in an area where the only other diners were a couple guys talking about the Presidential race. One, who was doing most of the talking, almost sounded as if he'd been reading your posts. He waxed lengthily on the above theme. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, You're the only one who has said that, but I'll think about how I frame this. I am saddened by Cruz because of his hypocrisy and think this will hurt him with his core supporters. If you run on integrity as your distinguishing characteristic, you have to have it or not get caught. It's just that simple. That's what I've understood you to be saying. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 You just can't make some things up. From the Gateway Pundit: MORE LIES=> Michelle Fields Said Corey Lewandowski Used “TEETH” and “FIST” in Police Report Michelle Fields didn't tell a reporter that. She told the POLICE that. There's a scan of the incident report in the link above. All I can think of is it must be a wild party in her head. I mean, how did she think she was going to get away with that? Even with the videos that were available when she filed the report, can anyone imagine Corey biting her? Slugging her? This was a police report, not a sex scene out of Atlas Shrugged. Dayaamm! Michelle Fields should write fiction. Seriously. btw - Trump himself was the one who supplied the overhead video that shows what really happened. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 https://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Wow. Such fervor over campaign tactics, lies, damn lies and statistics. And this is just the Primary! Several people have been saying anything less than a Trump win at the convention would be an act of theft. In an open convention could the winner be a surprise? Could Sarah Palin win? John Kasich? Gulp, Mitt Romney? I edited the following for brevity so if you aren’t going to read it, please skip to the end for a surprise. Anyone but Trump unless there is no one left but Trump. Peter Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman and George Rasley, Editor, at Conservative Headquarters wrote: While it is clear Donald Trump is no movement conservative, he is not necessarily an enemy of conservative policies, as we know Hillary Clinton and many establishment Republicans to be. Indeed, Trump’s record of flip-flops and turn-on-a-dime policy changes tells us that more often than not Trump likes to go with the winner and that on many issues that concern conservatives he is either ignorant or indifferent. So, on one side of the scale are principles and values, particularly the principles and values of our fellow cultural conservatives, and our desire to have leaders and elected officials who respect and live those values and principles. On the other side is the white-hot anger of millions of grassroots limited government constitutional conservatives and conservative leaning populists who are not only angry with the leadership of the establishment Republican Party, but disappointed and frustrated with many leaders of the conservative movement as well. The millions of disenfranchised country class voters who have been turning out for Trump look at the Republican establishment and see enemies who have been complicit in – if not the actual authors of – the three-decade long destruction of their quality of life. But they have not found relief through many of Washington’s conservative leaders, some of whom have often failed to even try to fight the government policies that have contributed to the degradation of our culture that is enforced by political correctness, the vast increase in the spending and the reach of the federal government and the hijacking of middle class prosperity by crony government policies on trade and immigration. Don’t get us wrong – Donald Trump’s lack of interest in many elements of the cultural conservative agenda is no small thing – that’s why we prefer Ted Cruz over Trump. But when faced with a choice between Trump’s lack of interest versus the deep and abiding hostility of Hillary Clinton, and the betrayals and lies of the Republican establishment, Trump’s indifference to much of the conservative agenda would leave us with a candidate who, unlike John McCain and Mitt Romney, might at least be educable. . . . . Into this environment barreled Donald Trump, who better than anyone else grasped how to channel this country class anger into a political movement. And “Trumpism” is not as alien to conservatism as some would like us to believe. . . . . Of course one cannot dismiss the idea that the master negotiator will negotiate his own deal with the Republican establishment, but in the eyes of some of his strongest supporters this seems unlikely. To them the idea that Trump will form an alliance or reach an accommodation with the establishment would be such a deep betrayal of his most ardent supporters that it seems even less likely than the idea of a conservative #NeverTrump alliance with the Republican establishment. . . . In a negotiation one has to make an offer to get a counter offer and so far conservatives aren’t at the table with Trump, even though the numbers indicate that a conservative – populist alliance is much stronger and more likely to defeat Hillary Clinton than an establishment – conservative alliance or an establishment – Trump alliance. .... If conservatives form their own cultural conservative Third Party to oppose Trump in the General election they are certain to elect Hillary Clinton. If conservatives sit out the election they are certain to elect Hillary Clinton. Based on the historical evidence, the results to-date in the 2016 primaries and 2016 exit polling if conservatives make a deal at the Republican National Convention to deprive Donald Trump of the nomination they are certain to elect Hillary Clinton. The only scenario that does not, on its face, result in the election of Hillary Clinton is an alliance at the Republican National Convention between Cruz’s conservative delegates and Trump’s populist delegates who unite to guarantee that the two leading post-primary candidates are nominated as President and Vice President – as they were in 1980. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I missed the Anderson Cooper Town Hall with Cruz but I saw most of Trump’s and Kasich’s. Both came off better than I thought they would. Trump would not let Cooper interrupt him or switch the narrative with gotcha’s. Kasich sounded better than Trump’s generalities and boasting but he spoke too many platitudes. If it were between Kasich or Klinton I would vote for John Kasich and cross my fingers. To me Trump is an ignoramus. It’s the same crap over and over again. Stock speech. Bluster. Brag. Attack. I would not say he sounds like a five year old as Anderson Cooper charged, but he does sound like a sixteen year old, not ready for primetime candidate. Cruz, Trump 2016. For the children. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 “America First,” was Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh’s slogan. I like straight talk, not propaganda but it’s time for some critical analyses of Trump filled with hyperbole and name calling just to give his detractors a chance to make their case. Think of it as what the Democrats will throw at The Donald. Trump really does need a good briefing and to be educated. He should stop wearing his old body out with campaigning and sit down with a teacher. Lawdy. What he don’t know, Matilda. Peter Why Trump is a Security Threat by Max Boot 2016-03-27, / Mar. 27, 2016: Some have dismissed my assertion that Donald Trump represents the No. 1 security threat to the United States today as “hyperbole.” It’s not. It’s simply reality — because Trump is the most radical and most ignorant major-party presidential candidate in our history. Examples both characteristics were on ample display during his latest foreign policy interview with the New York Times. All you have to know about Trump is that he proudly asserts that his foreign policy is “America First.” When Ted Cruz used the same description, one could imagine it was a dog whistle because this Princeton and Harvard Law graduate presumably knows that “America First” was the isolationist, Nazi-sympathizing movement led by Charles Lindbergh before World War II. In Trump’s case, it’s no doubt an accurate reflection of his quasi-isolationist philosophy and also of his almost limitless ignorance. He probably hasn’t heard of the original “America First,” and now seems eager to repeat all of its errors. For example, he called NATO — the most successful alliance in history and one that is still vital to America’s defense — “obsolete.” Spoken like a true, if unconscious, disciple of Lindbergh. . . . . Trump has no idea what’s in the federal budget. “One of the reasons we’re a debtor nation, we spend so much on the military, but the military isn’t for us. The military is to be policeman for other countries. And to watch over other countries,” he says, suggesting that the federal budget deficit is caused by excessive military spending to defend ungrateful allies. Reality check: The entire defense budget — of which only a small portion goes to troops stationed abroad — constitutes just 16% of the federal budget. . . . . Trump is not just ignorant, but aggressively so. Even when better-informed interlocutors (a category that includes just about anyone that Trump talks to) try to set him straight about his errors of fact, he refuses to admit he is wrong or correct himself. The Times interview provided two glaring examples. First, Trump complained that after signing the nuclear deal Iran is “buying from everybody but the United States.” Times correspondent David Sanger interjected: “Our law prevents us from selling to them, sir.” Trump: “Uh, excuse me?” Sanger: “Our law prevents us from selling any planes or, we still have sanctions in the U.S. that would prevent the U.S. from being able to sell that equipment.” Trump: “So, how stupid is that? We give them the money, and we now say, “Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,” right? So how stupid is that?” Actually, it’s not so stupid since we have sanctions in place on Iran because of its support of terrorism and illegal testing of ballistic missiles. Is Trump implying that he’d like to lift those sanctions? Or is he simply unaware that they exist? Another example of Trump’s ignorance: He said not once, not twice, not three times, but four times that “Iran is the No. 1 trading partner of North Korea.” Finally, Sanger challenged him: “Mr. Trump with all due respect, I think it’s China that’s the No. 1 trading partner with North Korea.” Trump’s insouciant reply: “I’ve heard that certainly, but I’ve also heard from other sources that it’s Iran.” What sources does Trump have in mind? It would be great if he would cite them, since every source I have seen — e.g. the CIA Fact Book and CNN — asserts that some 70% of North Korean trade is conducted with China and 20% with South Korea and most of the rest with India and the EU. Iran barely registers beyond serving as a destination for some North Korean missile sales. Far from being North Korea’s top trading partner, Iran is probably one of the smallest. Trump seems to think he is entitled not only to his own opinion but to his own facts. He not only doesn’t know much, but he also doesn’t know what he doesn’t know — and he’s made no effort to educate himself. That’s a dangerous combination in someone who aspires to the most powerful job in the world. . . . . Trump thinks that lack of predictability is a virtue while ignoring the need for predictability in international affairs. In the Times interview, asked for policy specifics regarding China policy, he said, “There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing.” One suspects that his praise of unpredictability is merely a tactic so that he doesn’t have to provide answers that he doesn’t have. But if he’s serious, he is trying to emulate Richard Nixon’s “madman” theory. Nixon thought that by suggesting he was capable of anything, even irrational acts, he would coerce North Vietnam into ending its aggression against South Vietnam. It didn’t work then, and won’t work now. . . . . What will he say tomorrow? Who knows? After all, he stresses his unpredictability, which would leave every American ally, including Israel, guessing as to whether he would stand with them in the clutch. In sum, it is hard to come away from his Times interview — which comes just a week after his interview with the Washington Post editorial board, which was just as bizarre — without concluding that Trump is singularly unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Handing him the nuclear codes would be the riskiest and most irresponsible act imaginable. With Trump in command, our enemies would have a field day — Moscow and Beijing must be licking their chops at his desire to abandon U.S. allies in Europe and Asia — and our friends would face mortal threats. If that isn’t the single biggest threat to U.S. security, I don’t know what is. end quote From the movie, “Doctor Strangelove.” Major T. J. "King" Kong: Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 My favorite part last night was, "But is that Presidential?" Trump: "I'll tell you what's Presidential, victory. Victory is Presidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Brant wrote: nothing. The Big Debate. Donald Trump: . . . and so that is why we are in the mess we are today. Hillary: Oh, come on. You sir, are an ignoramus. Your supposed facts are lies. I want to look straight into the camera and beseech all the watchers of this debate to fact check his crazy assertions. He is a raving lunatic. He is not Presidential! Trump: I'll tell you what's Presidential, victory. Victory is Presidential, you douche bag. Moderator. Please keep name calling out of this debate. I suggest everyone look to the facts to make a decision about Mr. Trump’s assertion. Donald Trump: I am right and she is ugly. Look at that face. Do you want that on your TV every day? Moderator: Mr. Trump . . . Hillary: Ladies, do you want this man who thinks women are second class citizens and their competence is determined by their looks? Moderator: Let us go on to the next question. Trump: Losers! Morons! You’re in this together! The papers will prove me right. I’m out of here. The next day in the NY, and LA Times, Breitbart dot com, The Conservative Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox all outlets except The National Enquirer it is proven Trump was wrong and because of his outburst has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: https://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector Brant, Have you not been following this thread? I'll repeat a link I gave earlier from the left-leaning Snopes, who is calling BS. Cegielski was NOT Donald Trump's communications manager and top strategist. Also, Rush Limbaugh openly mocked this story because of the many verifiable reasons: Debunked Claim: Trump Never Wanted to Win, Like Perot in '92. Read it and weep. You are witnessing the initial stage of the "trading up the chain" media strategy. But, surfing on Rush's research, let's have a little fun with Stephanie Cegielski since she likes National Enquirer-like media outlets and important-sounding headlines. Her Trump article proudly took its place on the site, Xojane, beside some other cultural articles posted on the same day: I Love My Baby, But I Regret Becoming a Mother IT HAPPENED TO ME: I Was Born Without a Vagina Hole (This is fun. ) Shall I go on? There's more... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Peter said: “America First,” was Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh’s slogan. I like straight talk, not propaganda but it’s time for some critical analyses of Trump filled with hyperbole and name calling just to give his detractors a chance to make their case. Think of it as what the Democrats will throw at The Donald. Trump really does need a good briefing and to be educated. He should stop wearing his old body out with campaigning and sit down with a teacher. Lawdy. What he don’t know, Matilda. Peter Why Trump is a Security Threat by Max Boot 2016-03-27, / Mar. 27, 2016: Some have dismissed my assertion that Donald Trump represents the No. 1 security threat to the United States today as “hyperbole.” It’s not. It’s simply reality — because Trump is the most radical and most ignorant major-party presidential candidate in our history. Examples both characteristics were on ample display during his latest foreign policy interview with the New York Times. All you have to know about Trump is that he proudly asserts that his foreign policy is “America First.” When Ted Cruz used the same description, one could imagine it was a dog whistle because this Princeton and Harvard Law graduate presumably knows that “America First” was the isolationist, Nazi-sympathizing movement led by Charles Lindbergh before World War II. In Trump’s case, it’s no doubt an accurate reflection of his quasi-isolationist philosophy and also of his almost limitless ignorance. He probably hasn’t heard of the original “America First,” and now seems eager to repeat all of its errors. For example, he called NATO — the most successful alliance in history and one that is still vital to America’s defense — “obsolete.” Spoken like a true, if unconscious, disciple of Lindbergh. 1]. . . . Trump has no idea what’s in the federal budget. “One of the reasons we’re a debtor nation, we spend so much on the military, but the military isn’t for us. The military is to be policeman for other countries. And to watch over other countries,” he says, suggesting that the federal budget deficit is caused by excessive military spending to defend ungrateful allies. Reality check: The entire defense budget — of which only a small portion goes to troops stationed abroad — constitutes just 16% of the federal budget. . . . . Trump is not just ignorant, but aggressively so. Even when better-informed interlocutors (a category that includes just about anyone that Trump talks to) try to set him straight about his errors of fact, he refuses to admit he is wrong or correct himself. The Times interview provided two glaring examples. 2] First, Trump complained that after signing the nuclear deal Iran is “buying from everybody but the United States.” Times correspondent David Sanger interjected: “Our law prevents us from selling to them, sir.” Trump: “Uh, excuse me?” Sanger: “Our law prevents us from selling any planes or, we still have sanctions in the U.S. that would prevent the U.S. from being able to sell that equipment.” Trump: “So, how stupid is that? We give them the money, and we now say, “Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,” right? So how stupid is that?” Actually, it’s not so stupid since we have sanctions in place on Iran because of its support of terrorism and illegal testing of ballistic missiles. Is Trump implying that he’d like to lift those sanctions? Or is he simply unaware that they exist? 3) Another example of Trump’s ignorance: He said not once, not twice, not three times, but four times that “Iran is the No. 1 trading partner of North Korea.” Finally, Sanger challenged him: “Mr. Trump with all due respect, I think it’s China that’s the No. 1 trading partner with North Korea.” Trump’s insouciant reply: “I’ve heard that certainly, but I’ve also heard from other sources that it’s Iran.” What sources does Trump have in mind? It would be great if he would cite them, since every source I have seen — e.g. the CIA Fact Book and CNN — asserts that some 70% of North Korean trade is conducted with China and 20% with South Korea and most of the rest with India and the EU. Iran barely registers beyond serving as a destination for some North Korean missile sales. Far from being North Korea’s top trading partner, Iran is probably one of the smallest. Trump seems to think he is entitled not only to his own opinion but to his own facts. He not only doesn’t know much, but he also doesn’t know what he doesn’t know — and he’s made no effort to educate himself. That’s a dangerous combination in someone who aspires to the most powerful job in the world. 4] . . . . Trump thinks that lack of predictability is a virtue while ignoring the need for predictability in international affairs. In the Times interview, asked for policy specifics regarding China policy, he said, “There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing.” One suspects that his praise of unpredictability is merely a tactic so that he doesn’t have to provide answers that he doesn’t have. But if he’s serious, he is trying to emulate Richard Nixon’s “madman” theory. Nixon thought that by suggesting he was capable of anything, even irrational acts, he would coerce North Vietnam into ending its aggression against South Vietnam. It didn’t work then, and won’t work now. . . . . What will he say tomorrow? Who knows? After all, he stresses his unpredictability, which would leave every American ally, including Israel, guessing as to whether he would stand with them in the clutch. In sum, it is hard to come away from his Times interview — which comes just a week after his interview with the Washington Post editorial board, which was just as bizarre — without concluding that Trump is singularly unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Handing him the nuclear codes would be the riskiest and most irresponsible act imaginable. With Trump in command, our enemies would have a field day — Moscow and Beijing must be licking their chops at his desire to abandon U.S. allies in Europe and Asia — and our friends would face mortal threats. If that isn’t the single biggest threat to U.S. security, I don’t know what is. end quote From the movie, “Doctor Strangelove.” Major T. J. "King" Kong: Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff. end quote 1] Then it is "one of the reasons." Winner: Trump. 2] This is just another failure to disturb the point Trump was making. He was saying they get all the billions freed up to spend in places not the US (he's probably thinking his deal would limit them to spending the billions on US grains, automobiles, etc.) To imagine that a billionaire who has built skyscrapers all over the world has forgotten that he is not allowed to build in Cuba, Iran, etc., is just silly. Boot is silly here. 3) Trump did a similar thing last night. There will be write ups about it. He answered "what are the 3 most important functions of the US government?" (It was on screen incorrectly, as "federal government.") He said defense, health and education. Then he said health should be private and education left to the states. It does sound confused, I think because he's thinking of the question as: important places to focus change. At no point in the answer did he seem to me to be considering the question the way most of us would: the important and legitimate functions, ideally. Similarly here, I think he was thinking about important links. One could say for example, that Iran is South Edit, sorry, not south, North Korea's top buyer of missile tech and of nuclear tech and that Iran is thereby the party keeping those programs afloat. He could be tired, he could be on the 500th question that day, he can be thinking of the question another way, but Boot wants me to imagine he doesn't know how far they are from Iran and that they trade mostly with their one friendly land-border neighbor, China. Trump is a billionaire who has erected skyscrapers all over the world, so I want to say to Boot: No, that's obviously not one of the reasonable explanations, dummy. 4) Boot seems unwilling to try to understand Trump. I often tell my kids, try to find some way for what was said to make sense. If you stop at, oh there's the dummy part again, then you'll never find the not dummy part. Find a way to interpret them so that what they say is not stupid, because that's often exactly the way they meant it. Later tuneups are faster: "If a not stupid person says something stupid, don't talk yet." Boot seems not to understand that imprecisely anticipated repercussions carry more deterrence than precisely anticipated ones, even when the estimate of the unknown former are smaller than the known latter. Perhaps Boot is unfit to understand Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Michael, I just threw you a piece of meat. I have not been assiduously enough following this thread. I got this from another site where the owner has gone so anti-Trump over Trump dumping on Cruz's wife that give and take--ratiocination--is no longer possible there. --Brant edit: that primary link you came with doesn't do much to rebuke S.C.'s letter's content--Rush did more of that same, but better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I really liked the old Objectivist Living first screen that showed the last several topics started. I think readership will falter if that is not reinstated. I also like old antenna TV, but I think I am right. Jon wrote: Find a way to interpret them so that what they say is not stupid, because that's often exactly the way they meant it. I heartily agree. It is disingenuous to deliberately misinterpret a supposed gaff without the context and intention. Many gaffs have cost candidates the election and other gaffs have made a President look ridiculous, like VP Dan Quayle’s inability to spell potato. From Time online: During a 1976 presidential debate against a then obscure Georgia governor named Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford famously uttered, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.". . . But Ford refused to back down from his original statement, insisting that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference. end quote Ford was apparently referencing a top secret briefing that Poland was about to leave the Soviet Union and the Soviet Empire was about to dissolve BUT he could never openly say that. Nixon when debating Kennedy looked like a skinny, unshaved derelict, thanks in part to a recent illness. George H. W. Bush said No new taxes and then raised taxes. From Time: Hillary Clinton debating Obama in 2008: She seemed savvy enough on Russian politics. But in a Feb. 26, 2008, Democratic debate against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton just could not get the future Russian President's name right when asked by moderator Tim Russert. "Dmitri Medvedev" proved too difficult for Clinton to say; instead, she opted for "Medavedeva ... whatever." And locally for me, from Time: For all her talk about being a "constitutional conservative," Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell seemed more than a little fuzzy on the First Amendment during an October 2010 debate with opponent Chris Coons. end quote But giving Trump the benefit of the doubt may prove to be impossible if he makes too many gaffs against the Mighty Progressive Machine. He will be ridiculed to death. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: What's more, she grabbed Trump first. It's right there on the video. I think a closer look will reveal that we can't see whether or not she grabbed Trump, and that what you're interpreting to be Trump lifting his arm to pull away from her is actually Trump lifting his arm so as to reach into his jacket pocket and retrieve what looks like a notebook/calendar. In the later frames you can see the item in his hands more clearly, and that he is looking down at it. 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You just can't make some things up. From the Gateway Pundit: MORE LIES=> Michelle Fields Said Corey Lewandowski Used “TEETH” and “FIST” in Police Report Michelle Fields didn't tell a reporter that. She told the POLICE that. There is the possibility that Fields did not claim that Lewandowski used feet, teeth and fists, but that her reporting that he used his hands automatically put her claims into a default police report category of "hands, feet, teeth, fists." Other such categories might be "pistols, rifles, bows and arrows," and "knives, axes, trebuchets, garrotes," etc. If you report that your attacker used a knife, the cops put it into the proper category, but that doesn't mean that you also used a trebuchet. Having said the above, I like the blowback. I like the fact that Trump is fighting back, and matching his tactics to his opponents/accusers/smearers. I have very little doubt that Lewandowski made at least gentle if not somewhat firm contact with Fields in trying to remove her from being where she wasn't supposed to be, and perhaps stopping her from physically impeding Trump while pestering him. But it's quite clear that she wasn't assaulted or abused, and possibly may have done more to Trump than Lewandowski did to her. Imagine recent Republican candidates McCain, Romney, Bush or Rubio in the same situation. Maybe even Cruz. When confronted with mere accusations that one of their upper campaign employees threw a woman reporter around, almost tossed her to the ground, and very badly bruised her arm, would those squishy Republican "pussies" wait to review the evidence and then stand behind their loyal supporter and fight for what's right, or would they immediately cave in to the media narrative/fantasy and throw him under the bus? I think they'd cave. They'd destroy a loyal advisor's career for the sake of political expediency in the face of a concocted mere appearance of impropriety rather than take even the smallest effort to correct that mistaken appearance. Trump fights back. And he blows the illusion to pieces. That's so much more appealing than a candidate who has the right philosophy and message but doesn't know how to fight back, or won't because it won't look presidential or whatever. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Peter said: Jon wrote: Find a way to interpret them so that what they say is not stupid, because that's often exactly the way they meant it. I heartily agree. It is disingenuous to deliberately misinterpret a supposed gaff without the context and intention. Peter I heartily third that - as we know, called granting "a charitable reading (hearing)." Contrarily, you well know what a person is driving at, but it is mispoken/mistaken and you emphasize the superficial interpretation. Quite likely why Trump commonly cites "unfair" from media. Of course it is an old ploy of reporters who have one eye on tomorrow's headline and byline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: Boot is unfit to understand Trump. Jon, You can say that again. But I don't know. I think Boot secretly does understand Trump and is putting out disinformation. I've lived overseas and I suspect, from your posts over the years, that you understand something about international trade. There is one phrase that is totally left out of Boot's whole approach, and I really, really suspect the phrase (or concept) was left out on purpose. The phrase is: surrogate, or front organization, or front company. For example, Trump said that Iran is the biggest trade partner with North Korea. And Boot comes with the gotcha, no, dummy, it's China. Well, how about China having a bunch of front companies for Iran to go through? After all, business-wise it makes sense. China controls access to North Korea and shit that Iran can't get elsewhere because of sanctions can come from a murky place like North Korea. So China sets up the fronts and skims off the top. This is kind of duh level obvious to me. And I believe it is for Trump, too. Especially since, as you said, he builds all over the world. I think the reason Trump doesn't mention this is because he doesn't want to throw a big honking spotlight on his own foreign dealings. Is there any doubt at all there are some surrogates he's had to use to get the jobs done, depending on the country? And these front organizations are kinda hidden right now? But I also think he doesn't want to broadcast that he might know a lot more than it seems about the front organizations of others. OMG! I just looked at Max Boot's entry on Wikipedia to see if there was anything else I wanted to add or correct. Boot is a big-time modern military historian. The article doesn't say, but when you read it, you know he is in like Flynn with the Pentagon and CIA and God knows what else. I quote from Wikipedia: "He is now Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations." And a guy like that never heard of front organizations? Or doesn't think they are worth mentioning when talking about sanctions? Gimmee a friggin' break! This guy is a toady for the Endless War establishment. Trump isn't "the No. 1 security threat to the United States." Trump is the No. 1 threat to the monkeyshines the jerks pulling this toady's strings do when they make a mess of the world. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 That's funny, Michael. I wrote and posted above about Boot guessing he was just a journalist, an article writer. Then I saw the wiki. Then I saw your post about his wiki. He knows better top to bottom! What an insincere piece he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Edited March 30, 2016 by william.scherk Gary Johnson is running for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Jonathan said: I think a closer look will reveal that we can't see whether or not she grabbed Trump, and that what you're interpreting to be Trump lifting his arm to pull away from her is actually Trump lifting his arm so as to reach into his jacket pocket and retrieve what looks like a notebook/calendar. In the later frames you can see the item in his hands more clearly, and that he is looking down at it. There is the possibility that Fields did not claim that Lewandowski used feet, teeth and fists, but that her reporting that he used his hands automatically put her claims into a default police report category of "hands, feet, teeth, fists." Other such categories might be "pistols, rifles, bows and arrows," and "knives, axes, trebuchets, garrotes," etc. If you report that your attacker used a knife, the cops put it into the proper category, but that doesn't mean that you also used a trebuchet. Having said the above, I like the blowback. I like the fact that Trump is fighting back, and matching his tactics to his opponents/accusers/smearers. I have very little doubt that Lewandowski made at least gentle if not somewhat firm contact with Fields in trying to remove her from being where she wasn't supposed to be, and perhaps stopping her from physically impeding Trump while pestering him. But it's quite clear that she wasn't assaulted or abused, and possibly may have done more to Trump than Lewandowski did to her. Imagine recent Republican candidates McCain, Romney, Bush or Rubio in the same situation. Maybe even Cruz. When confronted with mere accusations that one of their upper campaign employees threw a woman reporter around, almost tossed her to the ground, and very badly bruised her arm, would those squishy Republican "pussies" wait to review the evidence and then stand behind their loyal supporter and fight for what's right, or would they immediately cave in to the media narrative/fantasy and throw him under the bus? I think they'd cave. They'd destroy a loyal advisor's career for the sake of political expediency in the face of a concocted mere appearance of impropriety rather than take even the smallest effort to correct that mistaken appearance. Trump fights back. And he blows the illusion to pieces. That's so much more appealing than a candidate who has the right philosophy and message but doesn't know how to fight back, or won't because it won't look presidential or whatever. J Agreed. It is easy to forget the unseen, in this case the same treatment Trump is getting but heaped against any other nominee if they were in the lead. And they would be caving, not fighting, and already today we would start to see around the bend the repeat of Romney 2012 coming into view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 41 minutes ago, Jonathan said: There is the possibility that Fields did not claim that Lewandowski used feet, teeth and fists, but that her reporting that he used his hands automatically put her claims into a default police report category of "hands, feet, teeth, fists." Jonathan, I can go with that. But to get nit-picky, if you look over and over at the different video footages, it looks like Lewandowski grabbed her sleeve, not her arm. Look how stretched her sleeve appears. So where did the bruises come from? Hmmmm?... Anyway, here's a little tidbit that is going to sell some more newspapers: Gotta love this election. Here's the WND article by Jerome Corsi the Drudge headline links to: LEWANDOWSKI PROSECUTOR OUTED AS HILLARY SUPPORTER. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 That libertarian commercial was great ~ though it convinced me of nothing. Thanks Michael, I did not realize that Boot guy I quoted had that many credentials. Now the assertion that China is a front for North Korea is plausible but perhaps unproven. Is that a headline from The Daily Crock? I know North Korea uses ships with foreign flags to do business. Is Trump getting top secret briefings from his financial advisors? I don't automatically attribute superior knowledge or being misunderstood as a Trump attribute. He IS a character from "Doctor Strangelove, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb." It bothers me to think of him dealing with a crisis. North Korea? Russia? China in the South China Sea? If Trump were riding an atomic bomb down like Slim Picken's character I would imagine him doing it to the song, La Bamba. He is a hothead. He is emotional and juvenile. A local Wisconsin newspaper has Cruz ten points ahead. I wonder if Trump thinks of this campaign as the culmination of a life of work and success? Imagine the let down for him and his supporters if he loses. Prepare, sinners! Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Some questions. Is this the strangest campaign ever? Fox was just calling it that. None of the candidates are going to support the other candidates in spite of their written promise. The Primary doesn’t have a big third party candidate like Perot or Wallace but it has a rebellious and hated political inside/outer in Cruz and a beloved rank amateur and outsider like Trump. Where are the Obama babes or The Goldwater girls this time? How can Trump win with a 70 percent disapproval rating from women? Trump is calling for Japan and other countries to get nuclear weapons to defend themselves from attacks from countries like North Korea or China. The pentagon is not in favor of this policy. Is he rash to say that? Too soon to answer? Just wondering. Will the RNC will have extra security because of Trump? I see the Secret Service is not allowing guns at Cleveland’s Quicken Loan Stadium. "Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states," Secret Service spokesman Robert K. Hoback said in a statement. "Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site." The stadium is near to the lake and near The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jonathan, I can go with that. But to get nit-picky, if you look over and over at the different video footages, it looks like Lewandowski grabbed her sleeve, not her arm. Look how stretched her sleeve appears. I agree. It's all pretty inconclusive, well, except for the fact that the evidence does not show what Fields initially claimed to have happened. The reality of it is quite gentle compared to her hysterical version. J 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