Recommended Posts

OK. I concede the point - most Republican contenders have gone too far.

Peter,

Too far? I apologize.

I should have mentioned the quote with the politician.

Here's a part of my previous post in a modified version:

Insults major politicians have recently leveled at Trump because they disagreed with something he said (that was not about them).

Marco Rubio (about Trump's McCain comment): It’s not just absurd. It’s offensive. It’s ridiculous, and I do think it is a disqualifier as commander-in-chief.

Hillary Clinton

Racist

Elizabeth Warren

Blowhard

Rick Perry

Cancer

Lindsay Graham

Jackass

Scott Walker

DumbDumb

John McCain

He fired up the crazies

Rand Paul

Rise in polls due to the public's "temporary sort of loss of sanity"

Jeb Bush

I don't want to be associated with the kind of vitriol that he's spewing out these days

Jeb Bush

Not reflective of the Republican party

Carly Fiorina

He doesn't represent me, and he doesn't represent my party

I included Clinton and Warren because the Republican contenders allowed their respective press staffs to gleefully run these insults all over their outlets.

I know if I look for real, there's a whole lot more out there.

In light of that, I got a chuckle out of your comment:

Trump’s DELIBERATE trash talk is not reasonable.

Does that mean the deliberate trash talk of the "serious" politicians is reasonable?

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see the situation as does Michael. From the article above: Trump wasn't as generous in his assessment of Rubio and the others who came to the Koch retreat, writing on Twitter: "I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets?" end quote

As usual, Donald Trump sought to destroy everyone who isnt him. What the heck is wrong with the guy?

Peter,

That's easy.

Marco Rubio (about Trump's McCain comment): Its not just absurd. Its offensive. Its ridiculous, and I do think it is a disqualifier as commander-in-chief.

Some other unprovoked gems from other Republican politicians:

Racist

Blowhard

Cancer

Jackass

DumbDumb

He fired up the crazies

Rise in polls due to the public's "temporary sort of loss of sanity"

I don't want to be associated with the kind of vitriol that he's spewing out these days

Not reflective of the Republican party

He doesn't represent me, and he doesn't represent my party

And so on.

So it's OK to say those things about Trump when a politician disagrees with something he said. And why would that be? Obviously, because the insults are about Donald Trump.

But it's not OK for Trump to counterpunch. And why would that be, I wonder?

Maybe because he goes for the knockout counterpunch?

:smile:

Sorry.

No sanction of the victim coming from Donald Trump.

Hit him. He hits back. Hard. Immediately. Without apology.

And he wins.

Ask Sarah Palin how McCain's handler-enforced sanction of the victim worked out for her.

Not going to happen this go around.

Take a look at that string of insults about Trump from politicians who thought they were getting a free ride on the wave of public sentiment, thus getting a free bump in the polls.

Moral crusaders?

Or puppets?

Looks like the second option to me.

:smile:

Michael

This reminds me of something in the Ender Quintet. The main character responds exactly in this way to threats against him and his loved ines.

He killed an older child because he knew that the kid would never stop bullying him, and simply winning the one fight would only atagonize the bully further.

His reasoning was that he had to "win this fight and all those that follow."

Trump seems like the kind of guy who thinks this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ,

I think he does think that way.

But not with violence.

He will probably think that way with violence about ISIS if he gets elected. And I expect he will be devastating to those murderous jerks.

But violence is not what defines Trump.

He is a master builder of gorgeous buildings and other projects.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I fully understand that his remark was awkwardly put forth. However, he did not:

1) say screw veterans, actually said the exact opposite;

2) say screw Mexicans, actually said complimentary statements about Mexicans: and

3) say disrespectful statements about veterans who were captured.

However, he did speak awkwardly when he was attempting to be clever by saying that he likes people who do not get captured.

Adam,

I constantly hear Trump talk about how much he loves vets--and Mexicans for that matter. He wants to build lots of hospitals for vets and get them functioning quickly. He also hires a lot of Mexicans and intends to hire more.

About his inartful statement, he has come out many times after and said he thinks vets who got captured are heroes (except Bergdahl).

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look , they are all insulting each other and Trump sure is riding the wave right now but we still got a long time to the election , the convention and the primaries .

Bottom line is that what his numbers are right now , who really cares as I would be willing to bet that Obama , Bill Clinton , both Bushes were not in the lead 15 months before the election in their respective races .

Show me Trump in the lead at the end of September , but August 2nd , could not care less .

Don't mean shit at this point .

Its a long way to Cleveland " as the crow flies"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marc wrote: Look, they are all insulting each other and Trump sure is riding the wave right now but we still got a long time to the election, the convention and the primaries. Bottom line is that what his numbers are right now, who really cares as I would be willing to bet that Obama, Bill Clinton, both Bushes were not in the lead 15 months before the election in their respective races. Show me Trump in the lead at the end of September, but August 2nd, could not care less. Don't mean shit at this point. end quote

You make a lot of sense. And thanks for not piling on about my doomsday prediction for Trumps fall from grace. (Not that this is about me. I think I hear Adam cackling. At least I hear him cackling in my mind. Shut the effing up, Adam. I went to a root canal dentist today who found nothing wrong with my root canal but he found a bad cavity next to the root canal tooth affecting the gum but hidden on the side of the tooth. 210 bucks. Carting my xrays around, I then went to two dentists to have the cavity filled. My primary said I cant see you until October because my other partner retired in July. The second receptionist said, sorry Doctor So and So is booked. If you are in great pain go to the emergency room. I did not pull out a couple of bills (hundreds) but shit, I thought money talked. I will call around tomorrow.)

Ok. Marc. What is real at this point? Trump at 26 percent in the polls. The billionaire has Unlimited (relativistic-ally speaking) of his money to spend on the campaign. A million people (mostly men) think he is refreshing. I think there has been a paradigm shift. What was not thinkable is now do-able. He could be President.

My advice to Trump would be to do what he has lately been doing, but ignore the other Republicans. They will start to treat you as the frontrunner. By Friday, you will be looked at in a respectful light by Republicans.

So, concentrate on the Democrats. Concentrate on what you will do after the election. Reassure the voters about your Presidential access to . . . all that we fear falling into inferior hands. I hate to say it because you have been so much fun, but start acting like you would after you are elected President. We need to see President Trump now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: I think we need about three so far, though.. end quote.

Crows. Schmoes. Paint a pretty picture. Who is the best Veep for Trump? Besides that, I can only think of only one logical anthem that will galvanize the country.

New York, New York

Start spreading the news, I'm leaving today.

I want to be a part of it, New York, New York.

These vagabond shoes, are longing to stray

Right through the very heart of it, New York, New York.

I wanna wake up, In a city that doesn't sleep.

And find I'm king of the hill, top of the heap.

These little town blues, are melting away.

I'll make a brand new start of it, in old New York.

If I can make it there,

I'll make it anywhere.

It's up to you, New York, New York.

New York, New York.

I want to wake up, in a city that never sleeps.

And find I'm A-number-one, top of the list, king of the hill, A-number-1...

These little town blues, are melting away.

I'm gonna make a brand new start of it,

In old New York, and...

If I can make it there, I'm gone make it anywhere.

It's up to you, New York, New York!

Songwriters: KANDER, JOHN/EBB, FRED New York, New York lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter....

 

Witches like Evita cackle...

 

 

Apparently, so do Geese...

 

Cackling Goose      Cackling Goose Photo

© Karen Foil

 

The newly recognized Cackling Goose is a smaller version of the Canada Goose. Formerly considered the smallest subspecies of one variable species, recent work on genetic differences found the four smallest forms to be very different. These four races are now recognized as a full species: the Cackling Goose. It breeds farther northward and westward than does the Canada Goose.

 

All I do is smile contentedly...

 

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about as Randian as it gets.

From NYT:

Donald Trump’s Allure: Ego as Ideology
by David Brooks
August 4, 2015
The New York Times

From the article:

... Trump’s support base is weird. It skews slightly more secular and less educated than the average Republican, but he doesn’t draw from any distinctive blocs. Unlike past populisms he’s not especially rural or urban, ethnic based or class based. He draws people as individuals, not groups.

. . .

But ego is his ideology, and in this he is absolutely consistent. In the Trump mind the world is not divided into right and left. Instead there are winners and losers. Society is led by losers, who scorn and disrespect the people who are actually the winners.


Brooks often says a lot of crap owing to a deep-seated altruism in his soul. I know this for a fact because I got an audio version of his most recent book The Road to Character and I couldn't listen to more than about 40 minutes of it. Pure inverse Rand. It was amazing.

And he says some crap in his op-ed, too. But he nailed this appeal of Trump's.

As gravy, he says something that is pretty funny, but true:

Unlike past populisms, his main argument is not that the elites are corrupt or out of touch. It is that they are morons.


:)

All I can do is say amen to that.

Go Trump!

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about as Randian as it gets.

Unlike past populisms, his main argument is not that the elites are corrupt or out of touch. It is that they are morons.

Michael

This is a critical point that he makes and it took me a while to fully accept this about two or three decades ago.

No individual citizen/voter actually understood the reality of the total failure of these government officials, appointed, elected and civil "servanted" and that it was because of their utter incompetence.

It is almost impossible for the individual citizen to own up to the fact that they have supported an edifice of inefficiency.

Therefore, they have to invent cabals, plots and other delusions to explain the current state of collapse.

Sadly, it is simply that they are morons and frankly could not run a hot dog stand.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to believe democrat politicians "meant well" but weren't very smart. Now I believe they are just criminals. Like rotten apples they corrupted everyone around them, including their opponents (by design). Not morons: hyenas. Carrion eaters. Clever in a inhuman way. It is always a mistake to underestimate your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to believe democrat politicians "meant well" but weren't very smart. Now I believe they are just criminals. Like rotten apples they corrupted everyone around them, including their opponents (by design). Not morons: hyenas. Carrion eaters. Clever in a inhuman way. It is always a mistake to underestimate your opponent.

There is a core class of criminals that go into government because no one is watching the store.

However, the immense administrate state is populated by four (4) types:

1) political appointees[provisional] who take civil service tittles by taking the basic civil service "tests" and pass, making the list which will get you a permanent "civil service job" and are completely incompetent;

It also means that you virtually can never be fired; [bad rule number 1 that leads to generational institutional incompetence];

2) agenda driven marxists that have no integrity, no morality and hate the concepts that founded this nation;

3) the honest hard worker who wanted security and meaning with their job and are beaten down by having their intelligence and creativity penalized by corrupt agenda driven marxists and they just shut down and become the "good American[German]; and

4) the criminal who finds easy pickins with virtually no down side of getting actually found out and criminally punished.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC/WSJ poll: Barack Obama gets more positive than negative (barely), Trump more than 2 to 1 negatives over positives. Hillary more negative than positive, but not as much as Trump. Hillary against Trump: Hillary wins. Because turnout would be about 20%? The more the options sicken the more the left agenda driven voters win. Cynicism and low turnout benefits the left. Isn't that how Obama got a 2nd term? Replace Hillary with Biden, probably same result. Biden wins. I'm haunted by my laugh out loud in 2007 when Obama picked Biden for a running mate. Biden would protect an out of office Obama and his agenda, quid pro quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People talk a lot about Donald Trump's negative ratings. I don't hear them talk about the changes in these ratings.

Just a few weeks ago, I recall Trump was at 63% negative or something like that. Now it's in the 30's.

Something is shifting. People just aren't talking about it.

I tried to Google this just now to find actual numbers and the hype is too thick to cut through.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Trump going to be the Tea Party's revenge?

--Brant

it was marginalized by the media powers that be; now it's the media that are being marginalized--and their lackeys (but for how long?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more the options sicken the more the left agenda driven voters win. Cynicism and low turnout benefits the left. Isn't that how Obama got a 2nd term?

That is not correct Mikee.

Low turnout benefits the candidate who has the best election day operation.

Trust me, Trump will have one.

I intend to be part of it.

Building your election day operation begins now, actually.

This is second nature to a mind like Trumps.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

This is a perfect illustration the Trump just implemented.

Take Lindsay "Cross Dresser" Graham and his cell phone number being given out by Trump...

The asshole makes a video that shows he is an asshole.

When I heard last night or early this morning that Gawker had gotten one of Trump's cell phone numbers, I automatically knew what I would do with such a gift.

And sure enough Rush just played what all the harassers would hear which was a personal message from Trump to join his campaign.

Exactly the way to reverse these jerks.

A Tai chi political lesson by the Donald.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People talk a lot about Donald Trump's negative ratings. I don't hear them talk about the changes in these ratings.

Just a few weeks ago, I recall Trump was at 63% negative or something like that. Now it's in the 30's.

Something is shifting. People just aren't talking about it.

I tried to Google this just now to find actual numbers and the hype is too thick to cut through.

Dayaamm!

Right after I posted this, I came across the following article that discusses precisely what I said nobody talks about.

The irony is that I was no longer looking. The headline itself caught my attention.

It would have caught my attention normally, but at this precise moment I was thinking of Marc, William and Peter... and distractedly contemplating crow recipes :smile: .

Boy, was I wrong about Donald Trump. Here’s why.

By Chris Cillizza

August 4, 2015

The Washington Post

From the article:

In June, a Fox News poll showed that almost six in 10 Republicans (59 percent) would never vote for Trump under any circumstances. In a Fox News survey released Monday night, that number was down to 33 percent. It's not great that one in three Republicans say they would never vote for you. But, it's a whole hell of a lot better than if 60 percent said it.

. . .

Why did I miss Trump's appeal so badly? Simply put: I had NEVER EVER seen a reversal in how people perceive a candidate who is as well known as Trump -- much less a reversal in such a short period of time.

. . .

Never say "never" in politics. Thanks for reminding me of that old adage, Donald.

Never say never in politics...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard last night or early this morning that Gawker had gotten one of Trump's cell phone numbers, I automatically knew what I would do with such a gift.

And sure enough Rush just played what all the harassers would hear which was a personal message from Trump to join his campaign.

Adam,

I believe this is exactly the way Trump will govern.

Take an attack, turn it into an ad, and make the attacker look foolish for providing the audience.

:smile:

God knows I am not going to agree with everything this man says and does, but he sure as hell is going to have a fun administration. He'll build a lot of good stuff while he's at it. And even take out a crapload of bad guys.

Ah yes... Good money will finally be coming to middle class and lower class America.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only one could win POTUS with 65 year old white men in the northeast US , then I could maybe give the Trump believers a chance outside of the proverbial snowball chance in hell .

Marc,

Check this out.

Heh.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - Here is the story of the 92 year old woman, Beada Corum, who registered to vote so she can vote for Trump:

92-year-old registers to vote for first time, says will vote for Trump

She said for over seven decades she never found the right candidate, but that changed when she heard Donald Trump speak.

There's a video at the article page where you can hear her talk, but the video doesn't embed.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only seen 24 minutes of this video so far and it is a surprisingly interesting discussion on Trump from the perspective of Stefan Molyneux's version of libertarianism.

 

 

I intend to watch the rest of it.

 

The thing I appreciate in this discussion, so far at least, is that they try to examine facts first without judging, then judge what they identified. That is a mental process I do on purpose.

 

This process makes things easy for later agreement or disagreement. We can fight over evaluations and actually get something out of it if we agree on the same facts.

 

As an aside, it appears that Molyneux made an error at around 18:25 when he said B-52's did fire-bombing in Japan during WWII. In the comments, several people mentioned that these planes were B-29's.

 

I don't know if this kind of discussion is going to signal the start of libertarian support for Trump, but I suspect it will. Maybe not from any official libertarian entity, but instead, from a crapload of individual libertarians.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid Trump might become, in power, a proto-fascist. That'd be using government to make things better--Obama is using it to make things worse--instead of cutting back on government and letting things self correct. Crony capitalism is derivative or consequential fascism. But when the real bad boys take over the reins of governance, the capitalists all go down under the heel of tyranny along with everyone else. For them, Trump might be the ice-breaker they need to really take over. It matters little he's not one of them and never will be or he doesn't need them; they need the likes of him, assuming, once again, what he actually does. Someone should ask him if he's a freedom fighter. It might make his brain start working outside of its businessman context and into more of the ideas behind moral and proper---not only practical--government.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, Donald Trump did not consider Obama a native born U.S. citizen and that may be brought up during the debates and in the news media if he holds onto a lead.

I don’t know who wrote the following though it has an attorney named Silverlieb as its author but I have not looked him up. I just received it in my email from someone I knew in high school. Isn’t it odd that you or I did not associate much with some people you knew in high school but now you are proud to know them? The fellow I am now corresponding with was into track and other sports and hung out the jocks and the native Hawaiian kids. A reunion is planned but I am not going though a trip to Hawaii would be a lot of fun. And when I look back at my yearbook I think to myself why didn’t I date her? And her? And her? Odd. Peter

From the Dark Net:
Here are 4 Simple questions from an attorney...are there ANY logical answers? You be the judge…… Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void?

Here are 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney...This really should get your "gray matter" to churning, even if you are an Obama fan. For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy for someone to check out. 4 Simple Questions .....

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes’. So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 and Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, Right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".

3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?

4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?
Very truly yours, RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB, Attorney at Law, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston , NJ 07039

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...