Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 This is the 6,000th post in this thread. Dayaamm! Anyway, here goes: Thank you Fort Wayne, Indiana!#Trump2016 #INPrimary pic.twitter.com/mDGrmMmk5T— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 1, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 45 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's somebody else who thinks like I do, principles, Endless War and all: Michael Watched it twice, loved it. Thanks Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: Is this [Drumpf Nuke Gabble Wonk] clip unedited? I believe it is unedited -- but I will track down a longer version of the town hall and compare. He was speaking of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, then went all Sarah Palin Beat Poetry, drunk history on India and kinda that nukey neighbourhood and on the other hand and so on and blah blah blan. You got a problem with that? Poetry rules the heart, could be. He could well be reciting a pancake recipe. I just knows I love him, I really really love him when he does poesy. Again, I say too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 2 hours ago, william.scherk said: He could well be reciting a pancake recipe. William, If he was doing that, a sudden thought might have crossed his mind about Kasich as potential VP. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 For those who liked the lovely judge, here is some more delight with Bobby Knight. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 On April 29, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: On the issue of Social Security, Trump said he is not going to mess with it. Well, it's easy to claim he's a Democrat based on this, until you dig a little deeper. If Social Security did not exist, I don't think Trump would ever enact it. Why? Because at root, I'm almost sure he believes that retirement accounts is something the government should not be managing. So why will he not mess with it, then? For the simple reason that the government made a deal with its citizens and Trump wants to make sure the government honors its end. It's that simple. I expect him to plant the seeds of phasing out Social Security by making parts of it, then probably all of it, optional for younger people. But for older people who have paid all their lives, he will make sure they get their due consideration (in the legal sense). That is not a Democrat. That is a man who does not want to welch on a deal the organization he will come to command made in the past. I believe he finds it repugnant to take people's money for years, then when they get near retirement, say the rules of the deal have changed, which many constitutionalists are even saying right now. I don't think Trump minds getting the USA out of a deal it made with the bad guys (like the Iran deal), but not with the good guys (like the American citizens--who had that imposed on them, anyway). This is how I grok Trump and I imagine many, many others do, too. Michael, You might want to ask Donald Trump what he actually plans to do. All he has said is that Social Security MUST BE PRESERVED and he will work an economic miracle that will insure it's all paid for (along with Medicare and what have you). The second portion of the claim is pure vaporware, but we have to admit it's unique to Trump. Neither Hillary nor Bernie is proclaiming an imminent economic miracle. Trump's Republican opponents are talking about promoting increased economic growth, but not at levels exceeding those claimed in official Chinese statistics. The first portion is exactly what every Democrat says (unless they're like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and they add that Social Security MUST BE EXPANDED). If Trump wants to start phasing Social Security out for the young, while keeping current benefit levels for those who have reached a certain age, he could run on that proposition. Some Republicans have called for similar measures, and taken their lumps politically. Some are still in office. Since we are never to think that Trump adopts any position out of raw political expediency, we should conclude that if he intends to do as you say, he'll announce it. 'Cause otherwise, all you are doing is projecting your values, your factual assumptions, and your policy preferences onto your guy, without any evidence that he shares them. Robert PS. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to receive "entitlement" benefits from the Federal government. Congress has ordained them, and Congress can modify them, or take them away, by passing a new law. Screwing over those who have seen money taken from them over many years that they could have saved or invested for themselves is politically imprudent as well as unfair to those affected. But the fact is that politicians lied to everyone when they created the system, and have persistently lied to everyone ever since (pretending it's "insurance," that there's a "Trust Fund," that there are individual accounts, that anything has ever been going on except taking this year's tax revenue from those who are in the workforce and transferring it to those who are retired this year). The Donald once realized, or claimed he realized, that politicians lied and have kept lying about Social Security; he even called it a Ponzi Scheme. But that was 15 or so years BNTE, and we're never supposed to construe any of his political stands then as having any bearing on his political stands as we approach NTE 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Heh. They let him? Double heh. I have seen several TV personalities say on the air--during their shows--that they have a standing invitation for Trump to do that anytime he wishes. News shows don't let Trump call in. They beg him to do it. This gives them standing and ratings. Ironically, the one exception is Trump's most friendly outlet, Fox and Friends. They don't beg Trump because they developed this call-in thing with him as a schtick over years. In this case it was mutual. Michael Michael, You're not denying that this is a privilege. Nor do you seem to be claiming that it's a good idea, in general, to let candidates for high political office to give phone interviews to TV shows. For if that were the case, you'd be all for phone interviews from the non-Trumps of the world. I guess it's Le Droit du Donald. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Social Security will be financed by taxes and deficit spending. All the trillions of dollars of federal obligations will be paid that way, mostly to the long term detriment of the country. (State and local pensions and private debts are another matter entirely.) It's quite simple schematically: the federal government has to send out checks (now electronic deposits). It merely pushes a button and money (dollars) appears in the requisite bank accounts, both its own accounts to be paid from and the recipients' accounts. --Brant flee Illinois, flee, flee, flee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: You're not denying that this is a privilege. Nor do you seem to be claiming that it's a good idea, in general, to let candidates for high political office to give phone interviews to TV shows. For if that were the case, you'd be all for phone interviews from the non-Trumps of the world. Robert, Dayaamm! How many negative qualifications do I need for every sentence? Is always saying what I do not say the best you've got? If you had bothered to ask rather than pontificate , you would know that I am "all for phone interviews from the non-Trumps of the world." For the current election cycle, I understand that any of the candidates can phone in almost anywhere and their calls will be taken. I think that's great. It's a shame so few understand the effectiveness of this running opportunity during election time and avoid it on purpose. I don't know why they do that, but I do know I have seen several TV personalities complain about it and not one politician in the running deny it. As for the rest, let those who have the skills in public life advance according to their merits. The space is small at the top and the elbows are sharp, but I have no problem at all with contenders. Why do you presume I would be against competition and the free market? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Meanwhile, Trump is still winning. Michael, First you said that you and I don't understand the political establishment the same way. The reason apparently being that I can't grasp what it is and you can. So I suggested that, if this is so, you must not be able to define the establishment, give clear examples of it, or explain it. Not, at any rate, to persons with my cognitive limitations (or my insidious and, to me, imperceptible ties to that establishment). You then turn around and give me instances of the establishment that, while kinda short on specifics, are in broad terms what I, too, consider instances thereof. Which doesn't exactly attest to my inability to grasp what it is. And you still haven't answered my questions about particular political actors. Establishment or anti-establishment? How do we know which they are? Is it possible for anyone, already on the political scene or in the media or in the commentariat, to be establishment one day and anti-establishment the next? If so, what are the indicia of this deep transformation? If the validity of your arguments really depends on whether Donald Trump wins recent and upcoming primaries; comes out on top in the contention for pledged and unplugged delegates; gets nominated at the Republican Convention; and wins in November... You could claim a lot of really wild stuff—much wilder than anything you've said about political establishments, their relation to Donald Trump, and the relative ability of Trump supporters and Trump opponents to understand and discern who belongs to one—and, given its pure dependence on Donald Trump winning or losing... then if Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2017, these claims will all be true. But this does lead me to wonder what will happen, if at any point in this sequence, Donald Trump loses. If he loses, will it suddenly then be the case that Mitch McConnell is part of the establishment, and Donald Trump sucked up to him? Whereas if Trump wins all the way to the White House, then McConnell was never part of the establishment—or, if he was, Donald Trump never sucked up to him? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: If you had bothered to ask rather than pontificate , you would know that I am "all for phone interviews from the non-Trumps of the world." Michael, Isn't one of the selling points of interviewing politicians on TV precisely that viewers can see their faces as they talk? You know, because otherwise radio or podcasts would suffice? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Michael, Isn't one of the selling points of interviewing politicians on TV precisely that viewers can see their faces as they talk? You know, because otherwise radio or podcasts would suffice? Robert Isn't there a way to do that on the phone? --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 52 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: ... all you are doing is projecting your values, your factual assumptions, and your policy preferences onto your guy, without any evidence that he shares them. Robert, Actually I'm not. I remember him talking about this in interviews in the terms I said (unless my memory is wrong and I don't think it is). There have been so many interviews, finding where he talked about this would be a hassle, but if anyone wishes to look, the videos are out there. I recall it from last year. Let me ask you a question. Are our interactions going to keep to this pattern? ROBERT: You believe (yada yada yada). ME: Actually I don't (yada yada yada). or... ROBERT: You have not shown (not commented on, not addressed, etc. yada yada yada). ME: Actually I have. It's here (link or mention of where). You know, after the first 50 times, that pattern is no longer about the ideas... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: First you said that you and I don't understand the political establishment the same way. The reason apparently being that I can't grasp what it is and you can. Robert, I didn't judge whether you can. You, on the other hand, flat-out claimed I couldn't give an example of who was part of the establishment (according to the monolithic way you want to use the concept in this discussion) because I couldn't, didn't know or whatever. When I did give a name and where to find others, you said that wasn't enough. Offhand, that does not sound like someone who cannot grasp a broader concept like I was talking about exists. It sounds like someone busting my balls over nothing on purpose. It's not Robert doesn't know. It's Robert hates Donald. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 btw - If anyone hasn't noticed. Donald Trump is still winning. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Isn't one of the selling points of interviewing politicians on TV precisely that viewers can see their faces as they talk? You know, because otherwise radio or podcasts would suffice? Robert, You're asking me? Why not ask Anderson Cooper, Greta Van Susteren and so on? These, and others of their stature, are people who have said the candidates have an open invitation to phone in, but they rarely do and Trump is the only one who is constant. Chris Wallace and O'Reilly won't allow it--they demand interviewees appear in person, and I'm sure there must be a few on the other channels who have the same policy, but in general, most TV news celebrities want to interview Trump as often as they can in any way they can. They can pan through stills and use B-roll up a storm during the conversation if the image of the interviewer gets too tiresome. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Here's a visual that says it all. I got the image from here, but I don't know where the Trump rally was as the poster did not say, nor did anyone in the comments. I presume it was a recent rally. Even if it is not, this division is pretty darn accurate for Trump rallies in general. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Any presidential candidate is toast without publicity. Toast without publicity? In the military mess halls, they have another name for it. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 13 hours ago, Peter said: Should we wait for the Indiana vote to be concluded on Tuesday before dismissing the Cruz / Fiorina ticket? Of course, Peter. It doesn't really matter to me who wins the primary as the winner will automatically get my general election vote. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 21 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: I certainly wouldn't blame Trump, nor credit his abilities, for this thread. Not so much abilities... but rather simply who he is generates buzz... negative as well as positive. Just this thread alone is ample evidence. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: Toast without publicity? In the military mess halls, they have another name for it. REB Do they still serve that crap? --Brant it actually tasted pretty good (what?--I'm not a gourmet?--how could you tell?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said: Do they still serve that crap? --Brant it actually tasted pretty good (what?--I'm not a gourmet?--how could you tell?) You must be talking about SOS (shit on a shingle). Never ate it...looking at it was enough to discourage me. -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Michael Michael, the only potential future danger in the picture I can see is this... The heightened expectation of Trump supporters that the government will make their life better... when only they themselves possess the power to do that. This reminds me of the insanely heightened expectations 8 years ago for Obama, the Black Messiah. Politically, the two are totally flipside. Ok, now it's a White Messiah... but essentially they're exactly the same unreasonable expectation. Granted, Trump is FAR better ideologically than Obama, but as long as people expect the government to do for them what they should be doing for themselves, it will end in a similar economic disaster as the Great Recession". It is my hope that Trump might one day find the wisdom to say: "From now on the government will leave you alone... now go tend to your own lives." Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Government will never "leave you alone." That's what government does. Save up to 15% . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 27 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Government will never "leave you alone." That's what government does. Save up to 15% . . . . Brant, I discovered that the government does leave me alone... when I leave it alone. The scariest thing for government is people who don't need it... because it's ONLY control over people is through their NEED of it. NO need... NO control. Not needing the government is a uniquely American value. Greg 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