Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It sounds like a military dress-down. I'm assuming Korbin snapped to attention reading it. This is Article 15 stuff.

--Brant

I rolled my eyes after reading it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeb Bush has spoken (see here).

He gives his allegedly principled reasons why he cannot support Donald Trump for the presidency.

From his statement:

Quote

The American Presidency is an office that goes beyond just politics. It requires of its occupant great fortitude and humility and the temperament and strong character to deal with the unexpected challenges that will inevitably impact our nation in the next four years.

Donald Trump has not demonstrated that temperament or strength of character. He has not displayed a respect for the Constitution. And, he is not a consistent conservative. These are all reasons why I cannot support his candidacy.

Jeb Bush left out his main reason.

His guiding political principle:

Political pledges are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and politicians need not honor their pledges when they don't feel like it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Wow, Robert, it sounds like you are trying to suppress Korben's freedom of speech. You must be an elitist! :cool:

REB

More like there isn't anything to say.

And if I don't respond I must have fallen into his conditional:

17 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

And if you have been doing this stuff because you are incapable of posting intelligent responses, it's best to stay out of discussions in which these are occasionally expected.

:rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:
11 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Wow, Robert, it sounds like you are trying to suppress Korben's freedom of speech. You must be an elitist! :cool:

REB

More like there isn't anything to say.

And if I don't respond I must have fallen into his conditional:

17 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

And if you have been doing this stuff because you are incapable of posting intelligent responses, it's best to stay out of discussions in which these are occasionally expected.

:rolleyes:

Falling into a reality-based conditional - a fate worse than death! Heh.

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a feel-good thingie from Wikipedia for Trump supporters and an item of despair for the Trump haters.

List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

Go on.

Click on the link and read this thing. It's quite an eye-opener.

I would copy/paste it, but as of today, it's just too darn long.

Imagine what it's going to look like by next month and beyond.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roger Bissell said:

Falling into a reality-based conditional - a fate worse than death! Heh.

REB

Only that it doesn't redown...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jeb Bush left out his main reason.

His guiding political principle:

Political pledges are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and politicians need not honor their pledges when they don't feel like it.

Michael

Just like Daddy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Selene said:
45 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jeb Bush left out his main reason.

His guiding political principle:

Political pledges are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and politicians need not honor their pledges when they don't feel like it.

Michael

Just like Daddy,

Just like the supposed rules of interaction here on OL and their Framer. :cool:

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Just like the supposed rules of interaction here on OL and their Framer. :cool:

REB

?...  What does this mean exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mikee said:

 

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Just like the supposed rules of interaction here on OL and their Framer. :cool:

REB

?...  What does this mean exactly?

I, too, want to know.

I especially want to know what "supposed rules of interaction" are.

OL has clear rules of interaction (please see the posting guidelines) and I trust people agree with them.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be a fun election.

Here's just a titbit as an appetizer.

Trump Slams Hillary Clinton as 'Nasty, Mean Enabler' of Husband's Affairs
by Alexandra Jaffe
May 7, 2016
NBC News

From the article:

Jaffe said:

An unrestrained Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton an "unbelievably nasty, mean enabler" who "destroyed" the lives of her husband's mistresses during a rally in Oregon on Friday night.

The comments, made during an evening rally in Eugene, Ore., marked the sharpest tone he's taken against the Democratic frontrunner since becoming his party's presumptive nominee, and the first time he's been so direct in referencing Bill Clinton's affairs in months.

"She's been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives," Trump said. "She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."

. . .

He charged that she would be "sleeping" when national security crises hit at odd hours, tied her to NAFTA, and called her a "tool of Wall Street." He also said he was the "last person she wants to run against…because my attitude is, I don't care."

Trump also took sharp aim at Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the liberal darling who's been the subject of vice-presidential chatter in recent weeks, with whom Trump's opened up a feud over social media in recent days.

In front of a crowd of thousands on Friday night, Trump unveiled a new nickname for the Massachusetts senator: "Goofus."

Clinton's "got this goofy friend Elizabeth Warren, she's on a Twitter rant, she's a goofus," he said.

"This woman, she's a basketcase. By the way, she's done nothing in the United States. She's done nothing."

Goofus?

Elizabeth Warren is a goofus?

LOL...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mikee said:
1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Just like the supposed rules of interaction here on OL and their Framer. :cool:

REB

?...  What does this mean exactly?

Meaning that the rules of civility and engagement on OL are not firm, objective rules, but subject to the Framer's whim.

Paraphrasing MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush:  OL's rules of civility and engagement are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and MSK need not honor and uphold and enforce them when he doesn't like it.

This is not an insult, any more than MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush was an insult. It's just a statement of fact.

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a feel-good thingie from Wikipedia for Trump supporters and an item of despair for the Trump haters.

List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

Go on.

Click on the link and read this thing. It's quite an eye-opener.

I would copy/paste it, but as of today, it's just too darn long.

Imagine what it's going to look like by next month and beyond.

:)

Michael

The list is quite extensive & covers a variety of vocations. I was surprised too. Thanks Michael for the post.  -J

Oh, now lets run the campaign with the zest & self certainty of Patton, in his push towards Nazi Germany.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Meaning that the rules of civility and engagement on OL are not firm, objective rules, but subject to the Framer's whim.

Paraphrasing MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush:  OL's rules of civility and engagement are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and MSK need not honor and uphold and enforce them when he doesn't like it.

This is not an insult, any more than MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush was an insult. It's just a statement of fact.

Actually, Roger, that is an insult.

Feel free to insult me if that rings your ding-a-ling, but not here on OL.

You have the entire Internet to do it, so there is no reason I (and donors) should have to pay for it.

Thanks.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Meaning that the rules of civility and engagement on OL are not firm, objective rules, but subject to the Framer's whim.

Paraphrasing MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush:  OL's rules of civility and engagement are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and MSK need not honor and uphold and enforce them when he doesn't like it.

This is not an insult, any more than MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush was an insult. It's just a statement of fact.

REB

You are obviously a scholar: a master at answering questions indirectly...i.e; not answering at all.  Would you care to try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Marc who asked, “How many states will Hillary win?”

I have heard she and the democrats have 21 states in the bag. It will be difficult for Trump. But, I also heard that 40,000 Pennsylvanian voters changed party affiliation so that they could vote for Trump. That trend is significant. So are any of those 21 states subtract-able from her win column? Can the Pied Piper, Hurdy Gurdy Man go where no Republican has gone before? Damn. Wouldn’t that be acceptable if not great, for staunch ideological Republicans?

I think a lot of those notable “Never Trump Republicans” will change their minds when it comes time to pull the lever. There were forty of them in one article I read, and they could potentially influence thousands of voters, but not millions. Most of them are NOT staunch ideological Republicans. They represent the elites. They do not want to lose influence. They don’t think Trump has what it takes. It is about some of his positions not his lack of ideology. Their resistance is about Trump’s not listening, and taking their advice.

Trump will be briefed by the Feds. He will listen to his advisors and pay attention to the thinkers who matter. Six months of events may change a lot of minds.

Peter  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

The list is quite extensive & covers a variety of vocations. I was surprised too. Thanks Michael for the post.  -J

Oh, now lets run the campaign with the zest & self certainty of Patton, in his push towards Nazi Germany.

Joe,

Did you notice the wide range of philosophical views and lifestyles of people endorsing Trump or saying they will vote for him?

There is Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Dick Cheney, famous Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Robert Jeffress, Ben Carson, Kirstie Alley (a Scientologist), Clint Eastwood, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tila Tequila, Phyllis Schlafly, Sajid Tarar (Muslims for Trump), Walter Block (Libertarians for Trump), Rick Perry, Laura Ingraham and on and on, not to mention a slew of rich business folks who prefer plain vanilla capitalism...

It's a long, long list.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Joe,

Did you notice the wide range of philosophical views and lifestyles of people endorsing Trump or saying they will vote for him?

There is Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Dick Cheney, famous Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Robert Jeffress, Ben Carson, Kirstie Alley (a Scientologist), Clint Eastwood, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tila Tequila, Phyllis Schlafly, Sajid Tarar (Muslims for Trump), Walter Block (Libertarians for Trump), Rick Perry, Laura Ingraham and on and on, not to mention a slew of rich business folks who prefer plain vanilla capitalism...

It's a long, long list.

:)

Michael

After seeing some of Trump's recent events and media appearances, I think, even more than before, that Rand would be endorsing and very publicly cheering for Trump. And more: she'd also be romantically crafting an image of Trump that she expected would inspire him to live up to it, she'd be connecting with him and using all of her many charms to influence and guide him.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Joe,

Did you notice the wide range of philosophical views and lifestyles of people endorsing Trump or saying they will vote for him?

There is Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Dick Cheney, famous Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Robert Jeffress, Ben Carson, Kirstie Alley (a Scientologist), Clint Eastwood, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tila Tequila, Phyllis Schlafly, Sajid Tarar (Muslims for Trump), Walter Block (Libertarians for Trump), Rick Perry, Laura Ingraham and on and on, not to mention a slew of rich business folks who prefer plain vanilla capitalism...

It's a long, long list.

:)

Michael

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

After seeing some of TrumIp's recent events and media appearances, I think, even more than before, that Rand would be endorsing and very publicly cheering for Trump. And more: she'd also be romantically crafting an image of Trump that she expected would inspire him to live up to it, she'd be connecting with him and using all of her many charms to influence and guide him.

J

I'm not on that list.

--Brant

zombie Rand can speak for herself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Peter said:

It is about some of his positions not his lack of ideology. Their resistance is about Trump’s not listening, and taking their advice.

Peter,

Heh.

You mean they feel like voters who think the politicians they put in office aren't listening to their concerns about the border, balancing the budget, trade agreements that favor foreign countries and, thus, suck their jobs away, etc.?

The politicians offering resistance to Trump feel frustrated like those people do?

That sounds pretty serious...

:)

Michael 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

I have heard she and the democrats have 21 states in the bag. It will be difficult for Trump.

Peter:

Do you have the list?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikee said:
2 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Meaning that the rules of civility and engagement on OL are not firm, objective rules, but subject to the Framer's whim.

Paraphrasing MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush:  OL's rules of civility and engagement are tools of power and persuasion, not commitments, and MSK need not honor and uphold and enforce them when he doesn't like it.

This is not an insult, any more than MSK's indictment of Jeb Bush was an insult. It's just a statement of fact.

REB

You are obviously a scholar: a master at answering questions indirectly...i.e; not answering at all.  Would you care to try again?

How's this: no!

REB
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 6, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Really?

Cavalier dismissal?

That is a great example of refusing to see someone.

But wait! There's more!

Now you can call my comment in this post "victimization card" as you turn your brain off and dismiss the whole matter with the wave of a hand.

I have to admit, that is a lot easier than dealing with the actual ideas.

In fact, that is what Trump supporters started doing because they got tired of it being done to them.

:)

Michael

Why are you the only one on this thread who claims not to be seen, and only then in those instances where your argument has taken a tumble?

Other Trump supporters on this thread don't feel the need to claim they are not seen.  They seem very willing to address counter arguments head on.  Why do you constantly make this claim?  

You seem to have two jabs and two counterpunches every time you get in trouble on this thread:  Jab 1 is your "gotcha" allegation; Jab 2 is your claim that others can't "see" you when in fact you can be seen perfectly well; counterpunch 1 is an attack on motives, which usually implies some form of mind reading; and then counter-punch 2 is an appeal to authority about "Trump supporters" that presumes that you have special wisdom about their (presumably) homogenous traits.  

You have mentioned in the past that you literally don't care what I have to say on this Trump subject.  

If this is still true, then just put me on ignore and I will talk to the Trump supporters who are willing to engage on the merits.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just on a quick Google search, I came across the principle of honoring the deal as Trump's moral basis for supporting Social Security. See here from Market Watch last year:

A quote in Trump's own words (my bold):

If I keep digging, I am sure I will come across the point of gradually phasing it out. But is this worth my time?

Keeerrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiist.

Are you giving out homework, now, and framing it by insinuating people are liars?

What value do I get out of this?

Michael,

The value you get out of responding to this kind of question is the value of being able to back up your own assertions.

You know, as opposed to such alternatives as requiring everyone to accept them on your authority.

Otherwise, why not just attribute to your guy, Donald Trump, any position you want, just because it happens to be a position that you like?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-donald-trumps-new-plan-for-social-security-crazy-2015-10-09

There is nothing in this Market Watch article about phasing Social Security out at some future time.  In fact, the passage you quoted is all about preserving Social Security, in terms that strongly imply perpetuating it.

Having done my own looking, I have yet to find a recent statement by Donald Trump that so much as hints at eventually phasing Social Security out.

What Donald Trump actually intends to do about Social Security, if elected, of course remains unclear.  His currently stated position looks like a product of naked political calculation.  From the same article:

Quote

On March 15, 2013, while addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Trump stated, "As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen."

By the way, both this statement and the one you quoted are from the same speech, back in BNTE 3—and you've often dismissed anything that Trump said about a political issue prior to NTE1 as irrelevant.  But if you're willing to accept these statements as Genuine Trump, so am I.

And in case you need a reminder why Mitch McConnell has lined up behind Donald Trump, but Paul Ryan so far has not, there's this item from the run-up to the Wisconsin primary:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/donald_trumps_social_security_heresy_taking_on_paul_ryan_and_the_privatization_push/

Quote

 

It also just so happens that Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin is the site of the next big Republican presidential primary, which is why Donald Trump phoned in to WROK radio in Rockville, Illinois (just over the Wisconsin border from Ryan’s home town of Janesville) to talk politics this week. When asked about entitlements, Trump said flatly that Ryan and pretty much the rest of the party are dead wrong:

Quote

Well, Paul, who I like a lot, he called me last week, I think he’s a really nice guy. But I disagree with him on this. You know, Paul wants to knock out Social Security, knock it down, way down. He wants to knock Medicare way down. And, frankly – well, two things. Number one, you’re going to lose the election if you’re going to do that. That’s going to be easy. I was watching Bernie and Hillary debating, and they can’t give enough on that. So you’re going to lose the election. So that’s not the purpose of it. We have to do what is right, but you will lose the election if you do that. But more importantly, in a sense, I want to keep it. These people have been making their payments for their whole lives. I want to keep Social Security intact. Now, I want to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. I want to do a lot of things to it that are going to make it much better, actually. But I’m not going to cut it, and I’m not going to raise ages, and I’m not going to do all of the things that they want to do. But they want to really cut it, and they want to cut it very substantially, the Republicans, and I’m not going to do that.

 

The Salon writer of course wants Republicans to lose, and obviously believes Trump is helping the Democrats here.

Is he wrong about this?

Robert

Edited by Robert Campbell

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...