Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Michael wrote: You can almost see the SJW Gotcha Crew bitching, "Come on! You didn't even let us squeeze any juice out of that poorly worded statement. It's unfair to say what you mean so soon after." end quote Megyn Kelly was putting the squeeze on Dump’s balls this evening for his (arrest the bitches but leave the guys alone misspeak?) on the abortion issue. On her show tonight, she was interrupting the other three ladies if they weren’t critical enough. She definitely is not fair and balanced. She is seething. But then Susan Sarandon, star of “Ping Pong Summer” set in The Real OC, Ocean City, MD, is supporting Trump and is taking some heat for it from Jamie Lee Curtis and Debra Messing among others. Oh, the horror. The movie was for teens but I went to see it just to view all the buildings and streets I know at the beach. Who would think ping pong would be her real hobby? Silly Hilly Clinton is definitely using Dump’s misogyny for fodder in a N.Y. State commercial and is ignoring the threat of Bernie. She acts like ole Bern is irrelevant, poor soul. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 On 3/20/2016 at 2:41 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: SJW What is SJW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 This is a good video, wishing more of these stories would surface: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Social Justice Warrior, Ba'al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Yahoo Canada and America, Five ways Republican bloodbath could end by Anthony Zurcher North America reporter: . . . . On Tuesday Mr. Trump announced that he has assembled a team of operatives knowledgeable in back-room party politics who will manage his convention war room. Paul Manafort, who heads the operation, is a veteran of the past Republican conventions - including the 1976 event in which President Gerald Ford entered without enough delegates to secure the nomination. . . . . Mr. Cruz has been making contingency plans for a convention fight practically since he launched his campaign more than a year ago. While his expected opponent, Jeb Bush, crashed and burned, the strategy remains the same - to ensure that he has the upper hand if no one has a majority come convention time. , , , , Although campaigns select their delegates in some states, in others the delegates are party officials who may not be sympathetic to Mr. Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric. Mr. Cruz's team could also instruct loyalists to surreptitiously pose as Trump supporters in the hope of being selected as Trump delegates. In the murky world of convention politics, what's permissible may not always be what's the most fair. . . . . Republicans at their 2012 convention implemented a rule that a candidate has to win a majority of the vote in at least eight states in order to become the party's nominee. Rule 40, as it's called, would guarantee that the 2016 standard-bearer will be either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz, barring a miraculous comeback by Ohio Governor John Kasich. . . Today's convention rules can be scrapped in July by the 112-member rules committee, however. If neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Trump can wrangle the support of a simple majority in a nomination vote, delegates could go looking for someone else to step in. And while Rule 40 would stand in the way, any prospective candidate who has enough votes to win would probably have more than enough support on the rules committee to open the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 For a summary of the Cruz scandal, Diamond and Silk have you covered: Table Talk Episode 21: Cruz Sex Scandal, Lollipop, Mistresses and Much More Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Cruz wants to run Trump over with a car. Of course he was joking, but he's learning how to create headlines from The Donald. Notice he will never joke in public he wants to run Hillary over with a car. Or Obama over with a car. The difference between him and Trump is that Trump would make that joke it if that is what he wanted to do. Cruz never would. (With all that implies.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: What is SJW? Bob, As Peter said, it means Social Justice Warrior. There is a technique called Social Justice Warrior baiting that works great for getting free publicity and Trump uses it all the time. You look for a cause like racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, American Indians, killing animals, anything where there is a victimization story with a predominantly WASP oppressor class, but there has to be a bunch of namby-pamby word nazis in the media, then you say something totally outrageous in terms of PC language. The namby-pambies explode and you get a ton of free media. Then you play it how you wish. I've written about this several times before. For example: On 8/8/2015 at 2:43 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: SJW Baiting works best when you have a crapload of defenders chomping at the bit in the wings. Now here's the end game with SJW Baiting. If you cave and apologize, an entire school of SJW piranhas suddenly appear and start feeding on your carcass. (Think Paula Deen.) If you stand up and hit back, you win. Social Justice Warriors are buzzkills, busybodies and guilt mongers who traffic in nonstop shaming. They irritate people so much, folks like to see a SJW smacked down when it happens with candor and certainty. Trump knows this and that's why, I believe, he says such outrageous things. He is baiting Social Justice Warriors to get them riled and active. When the uproar hits, lots of disengaged folks get interested to see what all the yelling is about and they end up supporting Trump simply because he doesn't back down, he smacks the detested SJW side hard, and he throws the covers off the rot underneath. It doesn't matter what rot, his own rot from his past or the general corruption and stupidity rot of others. All the suddenly-engaged folks discern is that Trump is exposing rot and those who cover it. People feel this like an Avenging Angel appeared to set things right. The Social Justice Warriors, bless their hearts, fall for it every time. And Trump's support grows bigger and bigger. Apropos, you, yourself happen to be an excellent SJW baiter, even though you never try to be. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: For a summary of the Cruz scandal, Diamond and Silk have you covered: Table Talk Episode 21: Cruz Sex Scandal, Lollipop, Mistresses and Much More Korben, I only saw the first 4 minutes so far and will watch the rest later, but if this gets proven and a press machine somewhere hammers that Cruz's call girl (Lollipop) was only 18, the press may continue to tut-tut-tut about gossip-mongering, but hardcore Christians will not stick around. A call girl is bad enough. One who is 18 is just out of highschool. Of course, it all may be nothing but gossip-mongering... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Apropos, you, yourself happen to be an excellent SJW baiter, even though you never try to be. Michael How so? I try very hard to have Good Manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I saw excerpts from the man with momentum, Ted Cruz, on Jimmy Kimmel last night. He was quick and funny, and rough-edged with a twinkle in his eye. They joked about who he liked more, Hillary or Donald. As I remember it Ted said, if he were in his car and backing out, then saw Trump in his rear view mirror, he would have difficulty decided which pedal to push. Oddly, the latest anti-woman stance, later redacted by Trump, is rational if he actually articulated *what I think he meant.* Robert Tracinski wrote about Philadelphian Kermit Gosnell’s late term abortion case: Oddly, this case is not really about abortion. It is about infanticide. According to the charges against him..., Gosnell was a cynical criminal who nominally specialized in very late-term abortions, the cases that other doctors wouldn't take. But in many cases, rather than perform an actual abortion, he would induce labor and kill the baby after he delivered it. He has been charged in seven cases where there is sufficient evidence, but he probably did it hundreds of times. end quote So if had known the issue in some depth Trump would not have been caught fumbling the ball and later changing what he said. And this highlights his yahoo, lack of intellectualism even as it comes to his late primary strategy. I am not saying he should have memorized soundbites at the tip of his tongue. But he should be expanding his base to bring in the largest fraction of the electorate, women. And to bring in that vote he needs to get serious about the major issues of the day. He won’t. He will continue to bluster. But will he continue to get away with it? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: How so? I try very hard to have Good Manners. Bob, Who's talking about etiquette? Certainly not me. But since you brought it up, the SJW baiters are hardly ever rude. The SJWs who react almost always are. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 For anyone interested in that poor little 15 year old girl who got maced at a Trump rally (as reported all over the news), she's actually 19 and here is a slightly different take. If you are a Trump supporter, you might find this most satisfying, especially the pepper spray. If not, you will probably wish the propaganda story were true, not the reality. It would play better for anti-Trumpers if the Soros puppet had not been so enthusiastic about earning her money. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Trump was asked if women should receive some sort of punishment for getting an abortion. He answered that they should, but also that he didn't know how much punishment. When pressed, he repeated that he didn't know, and that it's a complicated issue. Personally, I like it when people are capable of admitting that they don't know or don't have an answer now and then. Anyhoo, Trump quickly issued a statement reversing his view that women should receive any sort of punishment for illegally obtaining an abortion. The other candidates and excandidates jumped on it. They all had pretty much the same position. Here's the NYT on Cruz's reaction: The campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said attention should be focused on providers of abortion, not the women who receive them. “Once again, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Mr. Cruz said in a statement, adding, “Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world." Okay, so I don't understand the assertion that women shouldn't be punished for having participated in -- and in fact initiated and sought -- an illegal activity. What rational legal principle could possibly support the idea of punishing certain participants in a crime but not others? Should illegal drug dealers be punished but not illegal drug buyers? The buyers are the victims? Should "sex providers" (prostitutes) be punished but not the customers who are victims of their own libidos? It's not their fault that they've been tantalized and lured by the providers? "Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing johns; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have in feeling the urge to spread their seed and bring life into the world."? Someone, anyone, please help me out with the reasoning here. WTF? To me it sounds as if all of them are "demonstrating that they haven't given serious thought to the issue." J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) On March 30, 2016 at 0:06 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Hell, that's easy and I've said it often in this thread. It's a principle. Whenever there is a disparity between what someone says and what they do, I go with what they do as the better indication of their character, or better indication of what they will do in the future, etc. Trump builds magnificent things and doesn't go to war to get his money. He does it the old fashioned free market capitalist way. And puleeze, don't say eminent domain or buying politicians. Michael, This has not been a debate over whether Donald J. Trump is eligible for a free market achievement award. The thread is not about what anyone has produced in the market. It is a politics thread. Obviously so, because Trump is running for President of the United States. Nor do his accomplishments as entrepreneur, CEO, business mentor, show-biz figure tell us whether he would make a great President, a mediocre President, or a rotten President. Otherwise... well, Mitt Romney hasn't stolen his money or waged war to get it. Neither, as I recall, did H. Ross Perot. Nearly all of what happens on the campaign trail is, in a strict sense, what somebody says. What, precisely, is the disparity between what Trump is saying now and what he will do, if elected President? Who the hell knows? How do any disparities between what he is now saying and what he actually did in the past (the clear implication being that that what he did is much better than what is now saying) predict what he will do if elected? With buying (or attempting to buy) politicians, I care less that Trump did it in the past than how he intends to make such buying a less attractive option in the future. I'm still listening on that one. With eminent domain, it does bother me not merely that Trump tried to have Vera Coking's property seized for the benefit of one of his companies, but that, when challenged, he has lied about the case (which he and his Development Authority allies lost in court). He has even lied about there being a case. And he keeps defending eminent domain to take private property for private use. The Institute for Justice took Vera Coking's case against Donald Trump. So what follows now? Donald Trump stomps IJ? His followers then slew out reasons why the folks at IJ were terrible people all along and deserved to be stomped? Robert Edited March 31, 2016 by Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Whoever pepper-sprayed that woman was ready to go. Whether it was true self defense legally speaking seems somewhat problematical. If you are a bodyguard your primary tool is your own body. When the President is in his limo that limo becomes the primary tool. When that nut tried to jump up on Trump's podium in Dayton, the SS agents did not pull out guns and pepper spray. They got close to and stood around Trump. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jonathan said: Trump was asked if women should receive some sort of punishment for getting an abortion. He answered that they should, but also that he didn't know how much punishment. When pressed, he repeated that he didn't know, and that it's a complicated issue. Personally, I like it when people are capable of admitting that they don't know or don't have an answer now and then. Anyhoo, Trump quickly issued a statement reversing his view that women should receive any sort of punishment for illegally obtaining an abortion. The other candidates and excandidates jumped on it. They all had pretty much the same position. Here's the NYT on Cruz's reaction: The campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said attention should be focused on providers of abortion, not the women who receive them. “Once again, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Mr. Cruz said in a statement, adding, “Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world." Okay, so I don't understand the assertion that women shouldn't be punished for having participated in -- and in fact initiated and sought -- an illegal activity. What rational legal principle could possibly support the idea of punishing certain participants in a crime but not others? Should illegal drug dealers be punished but not illegal drug buyers? The buyers are the victims? Should "sex providers" (prostitutes) be punished but not the customers who are victims of their own libidos? It's not their fault that they've been tantalized and lured by the providers? "Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing johns; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have in feeling the urge to spread their seed and bring life into the world."? Someone, anyone, please help me out with the reasoning here. WTF? To me it sounds as if all of them are "demonstrating that they haven't given serious thought to the issue." J Jonathan, Donald Trump's actual fervor for banning abortion is not a matter of great concern to me. I figure he's never been against it, and isn't now either. But he's running for the Republican nomination, and all of his opponents are anti-abortion, so... We don't even know how fervent or sincere some of his opponents (I'm thinking Chris Christie or Marco Rubio, but I could have missed somebody) were in their opposition to abortion. The problem is that he has so little investment in the issue that he hasn't thought it through. I don't mean, not thought it through for 2 years—or a month—or 12 hours. I mean, not thought it through, for, like, 30 seconds. The position he took, with minimal baiting from Chris Matthews, is one that would, if he stayed with it, ensure the permanent political destruction of the anti-abortion cause. As everyone else running for the nomination has acutely sensed since, I don't know, 1973. I'm not offended by a person, even a person running for office, who admits not having an answer to something. But this is Donald J. Trump, who wants us to believe he alone has the answer when it comes to stopping Islamic imperialists from massacring Christians in Lahore. The fact is that Donald Trump just took a position, in public, on national TV, that a politician as stupid as Todd Akin had the sense never to take. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, So the National Enquirer brought down John Edwards all by itself without any contribution from the "legacy media"? Wow. I'm impressed. That tabloid is a lot more powerful than I imagined. Michael Michael, How long did it take before the legacy media took up the story about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter? A lot longer than 1 week. Also, it took two big stories from the Enquirer. Instead of one with a weird short addendum (the 3 other women Ted Cruz allegedly had affairs with—what's happened to that?). Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Jonathan said: No one is advocating lying. Jonathan, If Donald Trump makes false statements constantly, in public, about nearly everything, and his supporters keep excusing it, they might as well be advocating it. If one of Trump's opponents is Lyin' Ted, why not out-lie the liar? It's for a good cause! As for bad actors, Trump has employed Roger Stone twice that we know of. Once for his campaign. And in March 2016 Stone is only denying being paid by the campaign. Corey Lewandowski worked for Americans for Prosperity for a while. But who gave him his first opportunity as a campaign manager? You can look it up. What Trump supporters particularly want to ignore about this incident is that Michelle Fields was working for Breitbart at the time. Unless their superior political intelligence network had provided them with images of checks to Fields from Karl Rove and Liz Mair, they had no reason to doubt the identity of her employer. The CEO of Breitbart asked for an apology. Yet Trump and Lewandowski still responded as they did. What does this tell us about Trump's actual attitude toward Breitbart? Trump could have issued a quick apology on March 10, ordered Lewandowski to do likewise, and kept Lewandowski in his employ. Or he could have fired Lewandowski on March 10. Instead, he kept digging himself in deeper. I'm surprised you're OK with Trump reversing himself on his statement that women who get abortions should be punished. Shouldn't he dig himself in deeper every time? Robert Edited March 31, 2016 by Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 17 hours ago, Selene said: "legacy media" ... interesting, Robert. Your phrase? Adam, Nope. I've seen it used in a number of places. It's more accurate than "mass media," because in 2016 Fox News is mass media, and you could argue that Drudge is mass media. It isn't an insult passing for a description, like "lamestream media." Legacy refers to those who controlled the mass media before the rise of Fox News et al., and are trying to keep what's left of their grip. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 23 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Legacy refers to those who controlled the mass media before the rise of Fox News et al., and are trying to keep what's left of their grip. Robert Thanks. I thought that was what you meant. So, essentially, CBS/NBC/ABC would clearly be in the "legacy." NYT's? NPR? Urban Dictionary supplies this: Quote legacy media n. Primarily mature newspaper and television news outlets that believe they are the final word on any topic. These news organizations fail to acknowledge newly formed news sources and don't seem to understand that when they leave out information or emphasize the aspects of a story that aren't really helpful or pertinent, that they will be found out by those who understand the situation and have access to multiple news sources. Typically these legacy news sources can identified as the major broadcast television networks and major national newspapers that have been in existence long before there was cable television. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Some of the supporters of Trump on this site, especially Michael, have been outrageous. Stop it, please. I suppose he is sometimes spoofing when he says X < Y and/or > Z and a hunk a hunk a burning love, but I am taken aback. And I am someone who is an occasional spoofer and amateur satirist or is that satyr-ist? I like the puns. But Trump’s support here is too officially? uncritical. But this place means a lot to me. It is a rebirth of The Atlantis Café. Robert wrote: Legacy refers to those who controlled the mass media before the rise of Fox News et al., and are trying to keep what's left of their grip. end quote Well said. Legacy Media. I watch it half the time and not Fox – the local news is on at six and then it usually automatically goes to CBS but I may switch to NBC, or even ABC. I like to joke about them saying, “We report the truth. As soon as the liberal establishment or a Progressive President tells us the truth, then we report the truth.” I like it when Fox shows a dozen network hacks using the same talking points one after another. Rush speculates that they literally go to the same website in the morning to find the words and ideas that their controllers want them to say. It is state run media. Robert wrote: If Donald Trump makes false statements constantly, in public, about nearly everything, and his supporters keep excusing it, they might as well be advocating it. end quote Warning. Psychologizing alert. Among Trump supporters there is a tendency to focus on Trump’s lack of political correctness. “Isn’t that refreshing?” they say. “He is no insider. He isn’t afraid of the social justice warriors or the main stream media. Donald wants to win. But Donald is going to speak his mind, damn it, so, lighten up, you worry warts, on the best man to run for Presidency since TJ and that means Thomas Jefferson to you folks in Rio Linda!” Yet, there are people other than THE ESTABLISHMENT and vested interests, that Michael does not take seriously, (aah, not with the proper, aah, gravity) who are suspicious of Trump’s potential presidency. His donaldjtrump website positions are exemplary on Healthcare, U.S. – China Trade Reform, Veteran’s Administration Reforms, Tax Reform, Second Amendment Rights (with crossed flintlocks no less), and Immigration Reform. Those six positions are the only ones he has officially had for months. I want more from a Presidential candidate. I think Cruz’s off the cuff remarks are more in line with what a serious voter should expect. And certainly, what an Objectivist should expect. Trump is letting HIS voters down. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 16 minutes ago, Peter said: Robert wrote: If Donald Trump makes false statements constantly, in public, about nearly everything, and his supporters keep excusing it, they might as well be advocating it. end quote Warning. Psychologizing alert. Among Trump supporters there is a tendency to focus on Trump’s lack of political correctness. “Isn’t that refreshing?” they say. “He is no insider. He isn’t afraid of the social justice warriors or the main stream media. Donald wants to win. But Donald is going to speak his mind, damn it, so, lighten up, you worry warts, on the best man to run for Presidency since TJ and that means Thomas Jefferson to you folks in Rio Linda!” Yet, there are people other than THE ESTABLISHMENT and vested interests, that Michael does not take seriously, (aah, not with the proper, aah, gravity) who are suspicious of Trump’s potential presidency. His donaldjtrump website positions are exemplary on Healthcare, U.S. – China Trade Reform, Veteran’s Administration Reforms, Tax Reform, Second Amendment Rights (with crossed flintlocks no less), and Immigration Reform. Those six positions are the only ones he has officially had for months. I want more from a Presidential candidate. I think Cruz’s off the cuff remarks are more in line with what a serious voter should expect. And certainly, what an Objectivist should expect. Trump is letting HIS voters down. Peter Very astute gentleman. Makes him the perfect candidate to beat Evita. Now if it is Trump vs. Evita, who are you going to vote for? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: This has not been a debate over whether Donald J. Trump is eligible for a free market achievement award. The thread is not about what anyone has produced in the market. It is a politics thread. Obviously so, because Trump is running for President of the United States. Nor do his accomplishments as entrepreneur, CEO, business mentor, show-biz figure tell us whether he would make a great President, a mediocre President, or a rotten President. Robert, That kind of premise, in my thinking, is way oversimplified. Going on this basis, the only people fit to govern belong to the professional politician class. Well, we've got plenty of that. Had it for decades. How's it working out for ya'? Michael 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