Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 34 minutes ago, Peter said: 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 Peter, I banter at times, but I mean what I say on the serious stuff. And I highly disagree that my support of Trump is uncritical. On the contrary, I believe you may not read what I write correctly because you want my words to say something else. Let me give you an example. I must have said about 10 times so far (if not more) that Trump is not my perfect candidate, but he is an excellent intermediary. A transition. He's a person to keep the ship from sinking and get us out of the storm, but not a perfect captain for normal times. And yet you keep treating my comments as if I were defending a perfect captain for normal times. There's a storm going on all around us. Have you noticed? It's impossible to elect a perfect captain for normal times with the corrupt Endless War machine that is grinding along right now. What is possible is to elect someone who looks like a perfect captain, but who will keep the Endless War machine in place. A toady figurehead. I want that machine dismantled. And I mean it. As do millions of Trump supporters. Trump will take the goddam thing apart and put peaceful prosperity in its place. So I intend to see Trump gets elected and I will do what I can to make sure that happens. I'm stumping. If you want another candidate, open a thread and stump. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Just in: Quote DONALD J. TRUMP ANNOUNCES U.S. HOUSE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRMEN Today Donald J. Trump is announcing that Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins will serve as co-chairs of his campaign’s U.S. House Leadership Committee. Congressmen Hunter and Collins will lead outreach efforts to their fellows Members of Congress in support of Mr. Trump’s message to Make America Great Again. Mr. Trump stated, “Congressman Hunter and Congressman Collins are conservative stalwarts. I am honored to have the support of these two well respected Members of Congress who share my vision of securing our borders, strengthening our military, treating our veterans with the respect and care they deserve and putting Americans first again." Mr. Trump is conducting meetings today in Washington, D.C. Earlier in the week, he announced that his campaign will be opening a Washington, DC based office to coordinate his campaign’s work with the Republican National Committee, Congress, and his convention and delegate operations. Chuggin'... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: 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. None of the Republican candidates have thought the issue through. It is irrational as hell to want abortion to be illegal, but to want there to be no legal consequences to women who get abortions. The mindset of wanting to punish only the providers of abortions is legally and logically absurd. It's like saying that you want theft to be illegal, but, since thieves are a voting bloc that you really desperately need, you don't want to punish thieves, but only the people who buy stolen property from them. Trump's initial position was at least self-consistent. Then, for no reason other than political pandering, he changed his position to the irrational and self-inconsistent one that Cruz and the others have already taken. Quote 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. You call that minimal baiting? Heh. Matthews was screeching and squalling. Quote 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. His first position was not stupid. It was internally consistent with his opposition to abortion. His reversal is what was stupid. It is nonsense. It's a self-contradictory position. He, and the other Republicans, have a choice between two options: Abandon the idea of making abortion illegal (and then advocate punishing no one), or support the idea of making abortion illegal (and then advocate punishing everyone involved in aborting -- killing, in their view -- a human life). Instead of making an intelligent, consistent choice, they're trying to choose both opposing views at the same time. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Let's say that a mother decides that the child she gave birth to just isn't working out for her lifestyle. Well, murder is illegal, but she hires a thug to kill the infant. We need women's votes, so should our position be that the mother should not be charged with a crime, but only the infanticide provider whom she hired? Idiocy. Insanity. None of these candidates have given the issue 30 seconds of serious thought. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: 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. Fine. But we weren't talking about any false statements. We were talking about false accusations made against his employee. 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: 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. Have you not reviewed the video evidence? Look with your own eyes rather than believing the media/social narrative. What are you talking about in claiming that Trump dug himself in deeper? He is correct. There is nothing to apologize for. The evidence shows that Lewandowski did not do what Fields had claimed. 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: 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? I'm not okay with Trump reversing himself. His original position was self-consistent, where his reversed position is self-contradictory. You don't seem to be actually reading and comprehending my posts, or understanding my positions, but rather inferring something that's not there. I know that you've just returned from having been absent from OL for quite some time, so, in case you're not up to speed on my political views this year, I started out supporting Carly, and now I've resorted to settling for Cruz. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm also not a frantic Trump hater. I like a lot of what he's doing to shake things up, but also haven't liked some of his loose cannon antics. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Then there's this: Just had a very nice meeting with @Reince Priebus and the @GOP. Looking forward to bringing the Party together --- and it will happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 DT my favorite RINO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 54 minutes ago, Jonathan said: It is irrational as hell to want abortion to be illegal, but to want there to be no legal consequences to women who get abortions. Jonathan, I agree, but I disagree that Trump's original position had much to do with abortion, even though that was the topic Mathew raised. I submit, Trump heard it as, "If someone does something illegal, should they be punished?" This is somewhat similar to what you are saying. On the abortion side, I think Trump thought it was a non-issue since abortion is legal according to the Supreme Court. And he treated the question as: speculate if you want, it ain't gonna happen. I agree the clarification he later put out was not very good, but I don't think of it as pandering to get votes. It's more like damage control to keep the press for going hog-wild. I think the anti-Trump people are pissed and talking about him flip-flopping from an "original position," because they want the story of Trump the bully against women to be true, not Trump the reality. And the clarification is at odds with the story they want to believe. The fact is, as I said above, I don't think Trump had much of a "original position" on abortion in practice because it's the law of the land. He doesn't like it and says he's pro-life (and I believe him), but I've never seen him advocate for doing much about it. I think he has other priorities he thinks about a lot more. One can be pro-life without being a fanatical activist. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The Trump-Indy 5000 race is nearing the finish line. Let me guess -- about 6:43 p.m. EDT. Edit: Make that 7:54 p.m. EDT. No post for 41 minutes. Are you guys running out of gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, tmj said: DT my favorite RINO Ha! Mine too! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 On March 30, 2016 at 0:29 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here. A word from The Donald. Michael Well, Michael, I must say that that listening to Donald Trump is quite fatiguing. Transcribing even more so (a faithful transcription wouldn't include most of the commas or the periods, but good luck reading it without them). I fully transcribed two of his long criticisms of Scott Walker, which are more than sufficient. I am now morbidly curious as to how all of this will play in Wisconsin. We'll know soon enough. Robert Quote Q: Let me ask you about Governor Scott Walker. Today he endorsed Ted Cruz. He says Cruz is the common-sense conservative, and he suggested that your brand of politics would not work in Wisconsin. A: He stole the word “common-sense conservative” from me, because I’m the one who came up with that term. He never used the term before in his life. Uh, look, I beat him very badly. He was going in as a favorite in the Presidential run. I knew he couldn’t endorse me. I never called him and asked for an endorsement. Uh, I told him, I told a lot of people what was going on in Wisconsin, the real numbers, in terms of jobs, in terms of what’s happening with trade, in terms of his 2.2 billion dollar imbalance, and lots of other problems, and after saying that, I said, “Well, there’s no way he’s going to endorse me.” Now, I will say, once I told them the facts, and once I told the public the facts, he went from 22 or 24% down to 0 and he quit the race. So obviously I would have loved to have gotten his support, but I didn’t expect it, and I’ll don’t think it’ll mean anything. Q: And he’s the guy you gave money to. You helped get him reelected. OK? A: Not only did I help him, he came up to my office a year ago or so, prior to, obviously, his run, which didn’t work out so well for him… uh, he came up to my office and he gave me a plaque, a beautiful plaque, which at some point I think I’ll bring over to Wisconsin. Five minutes later, Trump bends a question about working with Paul Ryan on policies that they agree on, to trade, whether Ryan agrees or not, then right back to Scott Walker, mid-thought. A: Our jobs are being sucked away. I have some of the statistics for Wisconsin. Wisconsin is doing very poorly, for those that that know, and the reason that Walker went way down, and even though I supported him initially, and he thanked me by coming up to my office and handing me a plaque, the reason that Walker went way down is because when I gave all of the statistics on how badly Wisconsin’s doing, the jobs that are being taken away, the businesses, the lack of growth, when I gave all of those statistics, he couldn’t dispute ‘em, I mean, they’re there, I’ll be doing that again. Q: Politifact disputes some of them. A: Well, I don’t know what Politifact, I don’t care, I get these statistics from government agencies, they’re just perfect statistics. So I’ll be doing that [trade], I’ll be doing that during my first speech. Q: Do you think he did bad on the union issue? A: Well, I can say this. Wisconsin is in turmoil, always in turmoil, I sit back in different states and I watch and I see that Wisconsin is constantly fighting and recall elections and, nuh, I’ve never seen anything like it anywhere in the country. So you can make a case it’s a good thing, because they’re fighters, you could also make a case it’s a bad thing. There’s a lot of hate going on in Wisconsin, and I think it’s bad. But worse than that are the numbers, your numbers are terrible, and I will give you those numbers. In fact, I have ‘em, if you want ‘em, I’ll get ‘em right now. Q: Scott Walker’s numbers—when you look at his approval rating among Republican primary voters, it’s very high. You’re going after him, is that a gamble? A: OK, I don’t care about a gamble. I think he’s probably a nice guy. I mean he came in dressed in a motorcycle outfit [irrelevant self-promotional riff deleted] … if the people like him, that’s fine, I think he’s a nice person. I don’t care about whether he’s nice or not, you look at the statistics on what’s happening with jobs and many other factors in Wisconsin, you look at your 2.2 billion dollar deficit, you look at your numbers, they were so negative, that I went… I didn’t even use all of them. I didn’t know how bad they were until I looked today. So he’s now fair game, I would have never said this, but he’s now fair game, because he endorsed Cruz, who’s never going to win, by the way. He’s too strident, Cruz has no chance of winning at the general election, zero. But, with, with, and I don’t think there’s a chance of his getting the nomination, frankly. Uh, and he’s way behind. He’s won 6 states, or 7 states, I’ve won I think 21 or 22 already. I say this, it’s only results-oriented, I look at what’s going on in Wisconsin, and I have so many friends in Wisconsin, it’s a great place, I think I’m going to do really well in Wisconsin, I hope. [More about winning in Wisconsin.] I will say this. When I reveal today, which I’m going to do with my speech, when I reveal how bad the numbers are in Wisconsin, how jobs have been taken away by foreign countries, it’s unbelievable, and I had no idea. Even when I beat him—and don’t forget I was the one who beat Scott Walker in the primaries, nobody else did. That’s why when he left, he started saying “We have to stop Donald Trump, we have to stop Donald Trump,” because I went after him. And all I did, I wasn’t bad to him, I just told the numbers of how poorly Wisconsin is doing, and he left the race very early. He gave up, he quit very very early, earlier than most. Jeb stayed around, and others stayed around, but he really left very early, and I frankly I don’t even know why he left that early. But his poll numbers went way down, they went from being like the leader of the pack to almost the back of the pack. The reason I was able to do that so easily is because his numbers are horrible in Wisconsin, I’ll be revealing those numbers, and they’re numbers you probably have, but you don’t report ‘em. Because a lot of people think he’s doing a good job as governor, and he’s a nice person, I don’t mind, I’m just going to reveal the numbers and you’ll see for yourself. Look at what’s happened to your jobs, what’s happened to your growth, what’s happened to trade, how horrible trade has been for Wisconsin, how devastating it’s been for Wisconsin, and you’re, you’re in the middle of the pack. So we’ll be talking about it in the speech. Trump claims he won the debate with Charlie Sykes. Trump comes back again to Walker again, and to his alleged failure to bring people together in Wisconsin, but everyone already has the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Michael wrote: I must have said about 10 times so far (if not more) that Trump is not my perfect candidate, but he is an excellent intermediary. A transition. He's a person to keep the ship from sinking and get us out of the storm, but not a perfect captain for normal times. And yet you keep treating my comments as if I were defending a perfect captain for normal times. end quote Captain Trump: Anyone notice anything peculiar about Seaman First Class Kelly? A shirt-tail hanging out of trousers is, I believe, regulation uniform for a bus boy, not, however, for a sailor in the United States Navy. These are some of the things we're going to start noticing again. Mr. Selene, who is the morale officer? Lt. Selene: We don't have one, sir. Captain Trump: Who, then, is the Junior Ensign? Lt. Selene: RINO joking TMJ, sir. Captain Trump: Mr. TMJ, you are now appointed the morale officer. In addition to your other duties, you are to see that shirttails are tucked inside trousers. Ensign TMJ: Aye, aye, sir. Captain Trump: If I see one more shirttail flapping while I'm captain of this ship - woe betide the sailor; woe betide the OOD; and woe betide the morale officer. I kid you not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Thank you Robert. Trump sounds like a vindictive person. It is almost like a dog growling. He looks away and calms down. Then he looks back and growls some more. His tail is still. The hair on his back is up. Grrrrr! Scott Walker. If he had ANY dirt on Scott he would have a dump truck unload on him. He would be the same as President. The slightest criticism and he will push the hypothetical, emotional red button. Touchy is not the word for it. Anyone but Trump except Hillary or Bernie. A big OL, OK to a future candidate to be named by the Republican delegates at the convention. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Jonathan said: Have you not reviewed the video evidence? Look with your own eyes rather than believing the media/social narrative. What are you talking about in claiming that Trump dug himself in deeper? He is correct. There is nothing to apologize for. The evidence shows that Lewandowski did not do what Fields had claimed. Jonathan, I've watched several videos, actually. And part of the media narrative with which I am familiar is from Breitbart. Both before and after a certain recent exodus/purge/whatever the combination was. As far as I can see, both Lewandowski and Trump lied, within 3 days of the incident. Trump remembered Fields approaching him, and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her and pulling her out of the way. Both pretended they didn't. Trump could have ordered Lewandowski to apologize to Fields, and the whole thing would have been over. Not Trump's style, as we know. You still don't seem to realize the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart, nor what that says about Trump and his campaign. If you're for Cruz, or even just settling for him, Trump and his operatives are no friends to you. Nor is their relationship with the truth anything to brag about. Just look at Trump's remarks on Scott Walker—the ones he made on his plane, after Charlie Sykes challenged Trump's numbers and Trump excused himself by saying he believed an article he'd read in Time magazine. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: As far as I can see, both Lewandowski and Trump lied, within 3 days of the incident. Trump remembered Fields approaching him, and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her and pulling her out of the way. Both pretended they didn't. What is the evidence that they lied? How do you know that, three days after the incident, Trump remembered Fields approaching him and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her? My understanding is that they both said that they didn't remember. You say otherwise. Based on what? Quote Trump could have ordered Lewandowski to apologize to Fields, and the whole thing would have been over. Not Trump's style, as we know. You still don't seem to realize the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart, nor what that says about Trump and his campaign. What do you believe is the significance of her having been from Breitbart? Does that fact magically make her incapable of extreme exaggeration about the incident? Does her being from Breitbart somehow override my own eyes and extensive experience with visual analysis? I'm to take her word for what happened, or yours, over my reviewing the reality of the video evidence? Is that what you're saying? Quote If you're for Cruz, or even just settling for him, Trump and his operatives are no friends to you. Nor is their relationship with the truth anything to brag about. Just look at Trump's remarks on Scott Walker—the ones he made on his plane, after Charlie Sykes challenged Trump's numbers and Trump excused himself by saying he believed an article he'd read in Time magazine. I haven't claimed that Trump and his operatives are "friends to me." There's much that I like about Trump and just as much that I dislike. But you don't seem to be able to accept that. It's like you're trying to talk me into hating Trump, and into believing that he lied or did something inappropriate on occasions that he clearly didn't. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 One thing that I've missed about the Fields incident is this: What was she asking him about? Has she said? I don't recall if I read anything about her revealing the topic(s) that she was trying to get him to discuss. Anyone? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Jonathan, I've watched several videos, actually. Just curious, but how many is "several"? I've seen, and only know of, three. If there are more, I'd like to review them and have the opportunity to adjust my view accordingly. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Blouses? Blouses?! We don't need no stinking blouses, Captain I crewed up to see you rock the boat, hopefully jettison some ballast and rats overboard, and maybe repel some boarders. You start being overly concerned about strawberries and I'll turn tail and run , probably sign on to a cruise ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) A Coalition Shattered I wrote all of this in 1996. Twenty years later, nothing has changed -- except that the 2016 GOP primaries have revealed, with painful finality, that these logically irreconcilable factions have no rational basis for continued cohesion. At the outset of the primary season, a host of candidates vied for the Republican presidential nomination, representing every shade of pragmatist (Christie, Gilmore, Pataki, Graham, Drumpf), conservative welfare statist (Kasich), tribalist (the populist/nationalist Drumpf), religious social conservative (Carson), cultural collectivist (Huckabee, Santorum), constitutional conservative (Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal), libertarian (Paul), and economic conservative (Rubio, Bush, Walker, Perry). Now, ask yourself what any of these factions have in common. Can individualists (constitutional conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists) make common cause with nationalist or populist tribalists? Can advocates of reason and individual liberty make common cause with conservative collectivists? Can anyone from any faction who is serious about his principles make common cause with -- or trust -- the unprincipled pragmatists? Moreover, with the presidential nomination of Drumpf the Tribalist (and unprincipled pragmatist) looming ever more likely, the last pretenses of any principled distinctions between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been obliterated. We are likely to face two competing forms of statism, and two equally authoritarian and thuggish candidates for our nation's highest office. Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." During the 2016 election cycle I have been raising the alarm about the rise of Trumpism in the GOP precisely because it deprives individualists of any hospitable home in a viable major party. And also because whether Drumpf wins or loses, we have finally, sadly reached my long-predicted crackup of the Republican Party. So...where do we go from here? The Path Forward Our first task is to face and grasp the cause of the problem. The problem is intellectual chaos. In terms of vision, philosophy, goals, policies -- of Narrative -- the GOP is everything, and nothing. That's why even with an electoral majority in Congress today (as in the early 1990s), the Republicans cannot rally around a single alternative to (say) ObamaCare, or a proposed budget, or a policy to deal with the looming disaster of runaway entitlement spending, or even a coherent strategy to deal with ISIS. Philosophically divided, the party is paralyzed by indecision; too many logically incompatible values, principles, and agendas are clamoring for collective agreement, with each splinter faction trying to impose its own on the others. That can't happen. Collectivist decision-making may work for those who embrace collectivism; they are used to sacrificing individual interests for the sake of the group. But it emphatically does not work for those who champion individualism, by which the ultimate evil is sacrificing one's values for the sake of group "harmony." Those who embrace constitutional conservatism, free markets, and individual rights on principle cannot sacrifice their principles and go along with the statist agendas of pragmatists, tribalists, and social conservatives, in the name of "party unity." (The same can be said of sincere, principled social conservatives.) No, individualist ends can only be advanced by individualist means. In my opinion, bright, articulate advocates of principled individualism who aspire to public office should stop trying to "convert" or "take over" the Republican Party. That's a fool's errand, a futile waste of time, and a contradiction: You can't impose individualism on others. Edited March 31, 2016 by william.scherk Image was fudged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 hour ago, tmj said: Blouses? Blouses?! We don't need no stinking blouses, Captain I crewed up to see you rock the boat, hopefully jettison some ballast and rats overboard, and maybe repel some boarders. You start being overly concerned about strawberries and I'll turn tail and run , probably sign on to a cruise ship. Please don't encourage him! Bogie will be rolling steel balls in his hand as he rolls over in his grave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: I must say that that listening to Donald Trump is quite fatiguing. Robert, If you think that's something, you are in for a long, long slog... The good news is that there will be lots of good news after Trump takes office. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chuggin'... THANK YOU, WISCONSIN! #VoteTrump next Tuesday, April 5th! #WIPrimaryhttps://t.co/4tymy651ZP pic.twitter.com/IOBhOXeBiN— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2016 Sample size is 768. Done on March 28. Not bad after the media assault with Trump taking time off for Easter and the birth of his grandson. Let's see what happens after a few days of campaigning. Looks like nobody is going to sweep Wisconsin, so there should be some delegates to go around for all. And, to read the media the last few days based on the other poll, here I thought Trump was a cooked goose. Done. Finished. If only those darn little voters would listen to their betters, huh? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Gotta love Ann. It's good to hear a voice of sanity defending Trump and, more. Objectivity. Michael EDIT: She has come out as openly disliking and disbelieving the Cruz philandering story, but I am intrigued by an allusion in the interview she made that more might be coming out about that. It sounded like she's heard things backstage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 The Cruz supporting female journalists who are demanding that Trump fire Corey Lewandowski are now getting some serious pushback at other places in the media. Greta thinks they shot themselves in the foot as journalists by taking sides before a judgment. The media is like that. Not everything that follows the initial splash continues the splash. Sometimes it's like trying to make a splash on quicksand. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Cruz supporting female journalists who are demanding that Trump fire Corey Lewandowski are now getting some serious pushback at other places in the media. Greta thinks they shot themselves in the foot as journalists by taking sides before a judgment. The media is like that. Not everything that follows the initial splash continues the splash. Sometimes it's like trying to make a splash on quicksand. Michael Totally agree Michael. I am sure that Trump would be more than magnanimous when he accepts Field's apology. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 More chuggin'... First the presidential this: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016https://t.co/aANxirUJJD pic.twitter.com/VlMynYN3sd— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2016 Then this: THANK YOU, AMERICA! #Trump2016#MakeAmericaGreatAgain https://t.co/09hTbBgPHf pic.twitter.com/uJnmDnvkUv— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2016 And this: Polls shows @realDonaldTrump with a huge lead in his home state of New York. #SpecialReport pic.twitter.com/Pk5kDkhBEJ— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 31, 2016 Drip drip drip... 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