Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 35 minutes ago, PDS said: This really rubs me the wrong way. David, Even with your reservations about Trump, your statement is exactly what I am talking about with this weird election alliance between Cruz and Kasich. There there are millions of people who feel just like you do. I would put good money on that bet and win. And each one votes. I'm not saying all will vote for Trump, but my guess is most will if this feeling is alive in them in the voting booth. btw - When you say Trump wins straight up, that is an example of what I mean when I say he is a highly principled man. Even if he were losing, he would not cheat with delegates and things like that. He might walk away after saying a big steaming mountain of bullshit, but he would not play the "lose with votes, but win with delegates on technicalities" con. Trump may be many things a lot of people don't like, but, for the most part, he plays straight up. Believe it or not, fairness is one of his principles. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Don't forget, these are not political people and they have lives to lead. They don't give a crap about who wins what argument or who one-ups who. They've seen enough and they're voting for Trump. And that's the end of it. If you think the condescension they find icky is annulled by an argument and saying, "Well, you do it," let's see how that works out at voting time. They have a long-standing gripe about the elites looking down their nose at them that goes back decades. It's not a current argument to win or lose. It's a reality one either accepts and works with or ignores. So far, the anti-Trump people are hellbent on ignoring it as they keep pouring the condescension on. I think it's too late to reverse what's going to happen, anyway. Trump is going to be the candidate, then president. Only Trump would be able to undo that. No argument will, as anti-Trump people keep complaining about. Michael, This is why I made my remarks about your Silent Majority rhetoric. You don't get to be part of a majority just because you want to be (or because you want the feeling that that a majority is standing behind you, you are meeting its needs, or whatever.) Anyone remember the Moral Majority? They didn't get to be a majority just because they proclaimed they were. A majority is, you know, more than 50% of the adult population of the United States. Everyone now motivated to vote for Trump may persist, course unmodified, till the first week of November. I grant your premise here. In fact, if they think as you're describing, even if they'd developed serious doubts about him they'd still vote for him—to spite the anti-Trumpians. Got it. The question is not whether anyone's current inclination to vote for Trump can be reversed. It's how the "Silent" Majority actually becomes ... a majority. 39-40% of Republican primary voters through the third week of April is not a majority. So what you are claiming is irreversible is not just the persistence of the already converted. It's the rapid, uninterrupted addition of new converts. If you insist your group is a majority when empirically it does not exceed 50% of the population, or even of those who turn out to vote in November, what might you do in the face of evidence that it is not? And... if your group turns out not to be an actual majority, will it be because everyone else is among the elites? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Poor Kasich. I don't think he knows how to fight this kind of battle. Maybe in Ohio, but not at a national level. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: When you say Trump wins straight up, that is an example of what I mean when I say he is a highly principled man. Even if he were losing, he would not cheat with delegates and things like that. Michael, Is the "box out" story from Michigan false? If it was true, has Donald Trump fired his people who cut the deal with Kasich's people, and disavowed their actions? For surely, if the story is true, he must have by now. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, PDS said: If he plays that opportunity like he plays so many other things (as a whiner, etc.) he will blow this opportunity. But if he plays from a position of true strength, pats them on their heads, talks about an affirmative vision for the country, and sticks to the substantive merits of his ideas, he could put the nomination in his hip pocket pretty soon. David, My prediction: Fuhgeddaboudit. Just like yours, it's testable. Give Trump two weeks and we'll see what he does. Whether he even knows what a position of true strength might be. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: This is why I made my remarks about your Silent Majority rhetoric. You don't get to be part of a majority just because you want to be (or because you want the feeling that that a majority is standing behind you, you are meeting its needs, or whatever.) Robert, I agree. You get to be part of a majority when things like this happen (from Breitbart): Exclusive Data Analysis: Donald Trump Wins More Than 2 Million More Votes Than Mitt Romney in 2012 in States Voting So Far Now where did all those new people come from, I wonder? Did you ever see them? And that's just so far in primaries. Imagine the election... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: My prediction: Fuhgeddaboudit. Robert, Now there's an improvement. I'll convert you to Trump, yet. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Is the "box out" story from Michigan false? If it was true, has Donald Trump fired his people who cut the deal with Kasich's people, and disavowed their actions? For surely, if the story is true, he must have by now. Robert, See? There you go again confusing a counterpunch with a habit. Trump will play dirty with those who play dirty, but he vastly prefers to win by sheer competence. Don't forget, one of his favorite Bible verses is "An eye for an eye." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, PDS said: There is a real opportunity for Trump in the wake of this alliance. If he plays that opportunity like he plays so many other things (as a whiner, etc.) he will blow this opportunity. But if he plays from a position of true strength, pats them on their heads, talks about an affirmative vision for the country, and sticks to the substantive merits of his ideas, he could put the nomination in his hip pocket pretty soon.* Trump's moves over the next few days on this front will tell us a lot about whether he is a prisoner of his foibles. Or not. *God help us. Except for the last line, I agree that I am very interested in his "stance" between now and Indiana...I always wanted to be Gary... At any rate, he is completely unpredictable. Therefore, I am not sure how he is going to "present" himself. I also think that he can seal the deal this week. I expect him to get at least 120 delegates tomorrow. I will be making a more accurate prediction later. Both Kasitch and Cruz are running out of "spendable" operational cash. That is the real reason for this coalition. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Here's Milton Friedman on why illegal immigration should be kept illegal (hint: we have a welfare state). Could somebody please see that this video is sent to the geniuses running the Drumpf and Cruzafix campaigns? REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Michael wrote about the Teeny Weeny Alliance, “Let's see what happens, though.” And Adam wrote that lack of funds is the reason for the unholy alliance: “That is the real reason for this coalition.” end quote No bread, is my thinking too Adam. I think the coalition stinks and I voted for Cruz. But if it works, it is not immoral. No one will be coerced or forced to vote for Cruz in the adventurous state of Indiana-Jones, but it still stinks. Trump doesn’t even need to spin it. I can’t remember a pre-convention deal out in the open like this, though it is better than a conspiracy. Already, it is generating the he-said, she-said between the KC camps. Das Trumpatrumptrump handled it well in Warwick, RI, with the usual Donner and Blitzen (literally “thunder and lightning” in German.) Donald used a word I have already used, “collusion,” though he does admit in politics you are allowed to collude. Not much works against Trump and this twisted sister may also fail. Is Trump the most honest? Michael has a point. If you want to unify the party, then Trump oddly enough, could be more of a unifier. KC MUST explain their reasoning in depth. They are shrinking the political tent and it could backfire. However, none of the three are pandering to minorities. None of them are ‘overly’ promising free stuff. I’m mad as hell and I am not going to take it! Vote for Cruz, Trump, or Kasich. Fox Biz is saying Trump is still polling poorly among the general voting population, around 30 percent. Not good. I’m ready to rumble. Well, I am ready to watch a rumble at the Convention. I will stock up on beer and chips. This does show weakness on the part of KC, and lessens their chances at being VP. Or does crap like this matter if Trump wants to win? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Ah memories... Quote GOLDWATER MAN LOSES IN QUEENS The regular, Chester Schwimmer, proposed a compromise by which the regular alternate, Douglas W. Hughes, would go to the convention. If Senator Goldwater accepted a platform adopted by the convention, Mr. Schwimmer said, he believes he could persuade Mr. Hughes to vote for the Arizonan. The insurgent, Vincent L. Leibell Jr., who had been declared the winner in East tals were 3,735 and 3,733—irately declared that “Schwimmer should have thought of these things before,” Mr. Schwimmer, he said, “jeopardizes the city to the extent of $60,000.” Mr. Lebell insited he he would appeal. Supreme Court Justice Daniel E. Fitzpatrick ordered a new primary as a result of a showing by Patrick Beary, Mr. Schwimmer's counsel, that three votes in the Republican primary had been cast by persons who admitted having changed enrollments this year from their former Republican affiliation. De Sapio Case Cited Justice Fitzpatrick cited a May 7 decision by the State Court of Appeals ordering a new Democratic district leadership primary in Greenwich Village, after Carmine G. De Sapio as defeated candidate, had shown improper casting of votes. Ironically, Mr. Leibell's counsel in the Queens ease was James J. Leff, an election expert who won the Court of Appeals ease for Mr. De Sapio. The justice held that the three challenged votes could have changed the Queens result. He said, “Party members have a right to have their policies, party officers and candidates selected by voters in sympathy and pledged to the support of their principles.” “The mere activities of one or both of the candidates in securing the votes of those who have changed their enrollment before the primary in order to achieve a favorable result should not prevail,” Justice Fitzpatrick wrote. “Such a rule would permit industry to triumph over principle.” Any other holding, he asserted, would “allow ‘lame duck’ transferees to control or determine party organization and party candidates for a party which they may have turned away from and with which they are no longer in sympathy.” Justice Fitzpatrick directed the Board of Elections to hold “a new election at such time and place as it may determine.” Mr. Schwimmer suggested there might be enough difficulty in getting inspectors and polling places before the convention opens July 13, so that the alternate plan might be used instead. Mr. Schwimmer had run uncommitted in the Sixth Congressional District. The other Queens regulars also ran unpledged. Goldwater forces elected two delegates elsewhere in the state —Vincent J. Walsh of Garden City and Parry R. Trimmer of Snyder, near Buffalo. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to archive_feedback@nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/23/goldwater-man-loses-in-queens.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOLDWATER MAN LOSES IN QUEENS The regular, Chester Schwimmer, proposed a compromise by which the regular alternate, Douglas W. Hughes, would go to the convention. If Senator Goldwater accepted a platform adopted by the convention, Mr. Schwimmer said, he believes he could persuade Mr. Hughes to vote for the Arizonan. The insurgent, Vincent L. Leibell Jr., who had been declared the winner in East tals were 3,735 and 3,733—irately declared that “Schwimmer should have thought of these things before,” Mr. Schwimmer, he said, “jeopardizes the city to the extent of $60,000.” Mr. Lebell insited he he would appeal. Supreme Court Justice Daniel E. Fitzpatrick ordered a new primary as a result of a showing by Patrick Beary, Mr. Schwimmer's counsel, that three votes in the Republican primary had been cast by persons who admitted having changed enrollments this year from their former Republican affiliation. De Sapio Case Cited Justice Fitzpatrick cited a May 7 decision by the State Court of Appeals ordering a new Democratic district leadership primary in Greenwich Village, after Carmine G. De Sapio as defeated candidate, had shown improper casting of votes. Ironically, Mr. Leibell's counsel in the Queens ease was James J. Leff, an election expert who won the Court of Appeals ease for Mr. De Sapio. The justice held that the three challenged votes could have changed the Queens result. He said, “Party members have a right to have their policies, party officers and candidates selected by voters in sympathy and pledged to the support of their principles.” “The mere activities of one or both of the candidates in securing the votes of those who have changed their enrollment before the primary in order to achieve a favorable result should not prevail,” Justice Fitzpatrick wrote. “Such a rule would permit industry to triumph over principle.” Any other holding, he asserted, would “allow ‘lame duck’ transferees to control or determine party organization and party candidates for a party which they may have turned away from and with which they are no longer in sympathy.” Justice Fitzpatrick directed the Board of Elections to hold “a new election at such time and place as it may determine.” Mr. Schwimmer suggested there might be enough difficulty in getting inspectors and polling places before the convention opens July 13, so that the alternate plan might be used instead. Mr. Schwimmer had run uncommitted in the Sixth Congressional District. The other Queens regulars also ran unpledged. Goldwater forces elected two delegates elsewhere in the state —Vincent J. Walsh of Garden City and Parry R. Trimmer of Snyder, near Buffalo. This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to archive_feedback@nytimes.com
Peter Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Political Guy Draco Malfoy: Ok. We have, “If Trump says there is going to be a riot or a revolt he may be correct, but the revolt will be if people vote with their feet and leave the Republican Party. We need to see how things shake down, but I am beginning to think Trump may be the future of the Party.” Trump: Good, good. But add how I will be the great unifier. So, you really were the spokesperson for African dictators? Slytherin Political Guy: I was! And certainly, Mr. Trump, I will add the unifier bit. Want me to get this to the lame stream media? Trump. Yeah. Hire someone famous, but has never supported me say it first. Kevin Bacon? No, his wife, the blond babe from "The Closer." And get her to say Melania reminds her of Jackie Kennedy. This will be the death of the Never Trump crowd. Do you think people would go for it if I wear a crown when I am President? Political Guy: Maybe . . . well, no. Too much like a half - blood Prince. Start wearing your hair more like JFK and we’ll dress Melania in vintage Oleg Cassini, like Jackie. Still want me to send a million to Hogwarts University? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Trump will play dirty with those who play dirty, but he vastly prefers to win by sheer competence. Don't forget, one of his favorite Bible verses is "An eye for an eye." Michael Can't wait to see the anti-Hillary counterpart to this one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Poor Kasich. I don't think he knows how to fight this kind of battle. Maybe in Ohio, but not at a national level. Michael Cruz & Kasich will be bringing, what amounts to, a knife to a gunfight. Not a chance against the Punisher who's a New Yawker. lol. 00:30 "do you want that for your president?" Funny guy. -Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Looks like Cruz has definitely lost the evangelical vote: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Backlighting said: Cruz & Kasich will be bringing, what amounts to, a knife to a gunfight. Not a chance against the Punisher who's a New Yawker. lol. 00:30 "do you want that for your president?" Funny guy. -Joe Joe, Trump is definitely not impressed with Kasich. Kasich just announced that he wants the people of Indiana to vote for him. Typical politician - can't make a deal work.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 25, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said: Can't wait to see the anti-Hillary counterpart to this one: Dennis, He might do something like this (from CBS April 20): How Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won the New York primaries From the article (my bold): Quote Trump ran strongly among a broad range of New York Republican primary voters according to results from the CBS News New York exit poll. He did almost as well among women (59 percent) as among men (63 percent). Does that seem counterintuitive? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Roger, your "portrait of evangelicals" is as inaccurate as the left's view of Ayn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Joe, Trump is definitely not impressed with Kasich. Michael I know...neither am I. -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Dennis, He might do something like this (from CBS April 20): I meant that I'm looking forward to the attack ad where he's going to do the "eye for an eye" thing vis a vis Hillary. Seriously. The attack ads are going to be extra nasty this time around, and I'm sort of looking forward to it. I don't like Trump either, but Hillary, man does that witch have it coming. I hear that the secret service won't allow any buckets of water within, like, a mile of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Selene said: Roger, your "portrait of evangelicals" is as inaccurate as the left's view of Ayn. MY "portrait of evangelicals"?? How can I say this politely? M. Wuerker might beg to differ with your attribution. In case that's not clear enough: . REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 49 minutes ago, Backlighting said: I know...neither am I. -J I'm not impressed either--or with Trump. --Brant the low down dirty dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 49 minutes ago, Backlighting said: I know...neither am I. -J I'm not impressed either--or with Trump. --Brant the low down dirty dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Ninth Doctor wrote: I meant that I'm looking forward to the attack ad where he's going to do the "eye for an eye" thing vis a vis Hillary. Seriously. The attack ads are going to be extra nasty this time around, and I'm sort of looking forward to it. I don't like Trump either, but Hillary, man does that witch have it coming. I hear that the secret service won't allow any buckets of water within, like, a mile of her. end quote What if Trump can cast Old Hickory out of Oz or evaporate her substance? For Patriots it would be like seeing the American flag being raised over Iwo Jima. For the relatives of men killed because of Hillary’s dereliction of duty it would be revenge, and justice served. For the hard working employees of the FBI, military intelligence, The Justice Department, and dauntless Congressman it will be satisfaction that they made the system work. For evangelicals it could be like seeing a splinter, with a drop of blood, from the old rugged cross. Thank you Jesus. I could contribute to a fund that facilitated that outcome, even if it were set up by those joking Koch Brothers. Trump will be fighting attack ads from PACS for the votes of the people. He will be fighting the Al Sharptons and black lives matter, George Soros crowd. He will be fighting the crooks who are supposed to be honest journalists in the Progressive Media. Trump will be fighting the Saul Lewinski play book and the remnants of Obama’s regime. Career government spies will abound. He must be vigilant for the lone gunman. So brother? Can you spare a dime? Peter 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