Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Have some mercy!

Mika just got divorced--I think it was today. :) Seriously...

 

Michael

Uh, no. The offspring of the wretched Brezinski gets none. Apparently I am not merciful enough and was uninformed until recently over the role Zibignew played in creating ISIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, merjet said:

MSK, I suggest you give Trump a call and inform him that Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are traitors to his causes of trade protection and anti-TTP (link). :)

 

My knowledge on currency manipulation is sparse, but in debate a known liar can easily make mincemeat out of a lazy inattentive erroneous statement. Im trying to parse through what is worse, a liar who debates with a knowledgeable grasp of a situation, who is able to point out the errors in his presentation or a bombastic personality who boils everything down to a common denominator, make America great again even when its founded on unreliable information.

I lean heavily towards believing they are both mistaken or worse, liars until proven correct because of the fast paced rhetoric that passes for truth and justice.

The scorecard kept by CRFB (Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget), as dubious as the name sounds, has Trump leaving a $11.25T stain on the deficit based on his stances compared to HC. http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-fiscal-guide-2016-election

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

MSK, I suggest you give Trump a call and inform him that Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are traitors to his causes of trade protection and anti-TPP (link). :)

 

Merlin,

The thing with Trump that many people don't get is that he is--underneath--a problem solver and builder, not a gotcha player. It's a whole different mindset. In fact, America runs on this mindset while the media runs on gotcha. That's why the media is unable to destroy him.

Oh, everybody loves a gotcha, even productive folks. And gotcha players do produce. It's just that problem solvers prioritize the solution while gotcha folks prioritize humiliation. A problem solver constantly wants to fix things and gotcha is sporadic amusement, while gotcha players constantly want to humiliate others with inconsistencies and fixing things is sporadic amusement.

So it really doesn't matter what Kudlow and Moore did in a different context. They have highly-honed skills and are on board with Trump's current analysis. They agree with him that, like a growing addiction, these international trade agreements started out with (mostly) great intentions, but they have grown into monsters in their own right. And Kudlow and Moore can help solve the problem.

That's good enough for what Trump wants (and what gobs and gobs of voters want). We can yuck it up about gotchas after the monster is slain.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - I think Kudlow and Moore (and Laffer, for that matter) will end up saying how much they learned from Trump about international trade.

There's nothing like working with someone who is actually in the ring with his own hide in the game and has been for decades as opposed to what they do, which is just talk about playing.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump keeps on effectively injecting his core story into the mainstream.

Here is a news story (ABC) on what he is talking about:

Girl, 13, Stabbed to Death in West Bank as She Slept Was US National, Officials Say

The pundits will shortly be talking about Trump talking about this. Meanwhile, his image of a law and order guy gets stronger.

But those who think this is a simple campaign tactic (and one anti-Trumpers will undoubtedly call tasteless) should think again. I believe Trump is aware of the marketing part of what he is doing. This is called future-casting in persuasion and marketing--in this case, he is showing people in advance how a Trump presidency would respond to a tragedy like this. It's a nice contrast to the overly-groomed focus-group filtered deceptive euphemisms of, say, President Obama.

But you can be a good marketer and still mean what you say.

Trump means it.

And people are responding to it with their support.

Michael

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

Trump keeps on effectively injecting his core story into the mainstream.

Here is a news story (ABC) on what he is talking about:

Girl, 13, Stabbed to Death in West Bank as She Slept Was US National, Officials Say

The pundits will shortly be talking about Trump talking about this. Meanwhile, his image of a law and order guy gets stronger.

But those who think this is a simple campaign tactic (and one anti-Trumpers will undoubtedly call tasteless) should think again. I believe Trump is aware of the marketing part of what he is doing. This is called future-casting in persuasion and marketing--in this case, he is showing people in advance how a Trump presidency would respond to a tragedy like this. It's a nice contrast to the overly-groomed focus-group filtered deceptive euphemisms of, say, President Obama.

But you can be a good marketer and still mean what you say.

Trump means it.

And people are responding to it with their support.

Michael

It is good to know Trump is no anti-Zionist and he won't make excuses for Palestinian thugs  as many do here in the U.S. and Europe.  Trump may be bad for the U.S. but he probably is not bad for Jews. 

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

Trump keeps on effectively injecting his core story into the mainstream.

Here is a news story (ABC) on what he is talking about:

Girl, 13, Stabbed to Death in West Bank as She Slept Was US National, Officials Say

The pundits will shortly be talking about Trump talking about this. Meanwhile, his image of a law and order guy gets stronger.

But those who think this is a simple campaign tactic (and one anti-Trumpers will undoubtedly call tasteless) should think again. I believe Trump is aware of the marketing part of what he is doing. This is called future-casting in persuasion and marketing--in this case, he is showing people in advance how a Trump presidency would respond to a tragedy like this. It's a nice contrast to the overly-groomed focus-group filtered deceptive euphemisms of, say, President Obama.

But you can be a good marketer and still mean what you say.

Trump means it.

And people are responding to it with their support.

Michael

Was it an assault knife? We need to ban assault knives!

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: I believe Trump is aware of the marketing part of what he is doing. This is called future-casting in persuasion and marketing--in this case, he is showing people in advance how a Trump presidency would respond to a tragedy like this . . . . But you can be a good marketer and still mean what you say. end quote

Well said and I agree. For instance, I don’t think he will add trillions of dollars to our debt. I think Trump will work with the facts as they appear, so if he is going over budget he will adjust. Duh.

Ba’al wrote: It is good to know Trump is no anti-Zionist and he won't make excuses for Palestinian thugs  as many do here in the U.S. and Europe. end quote

I think Trump WILL cut off payments and associations with people like the Palestinians and countries that go against his policies. That will be refreshing.

The Republican convention is 17 days away and runs from July 18–21, in Cleveland. How will he pick his Veep? If Trump’s reasoning is to add to his electoral college vote count it will not be as good a choice philosophically - though it would be good for his governance. Newt would add intellect and political prowess, but he is getting old, and he is from Georgia which Trump should already have in his column. That “toady” Christy will not add New Jersey to the win column and I don’t like him. So, Newt and “Toad” Christy are not good choices if he is in danger to losing in the electoral college. Cruz might add some states though Texas is already Trump’s. Rubio could help secure Florida but when he said he wasn’t going to run for reelection in Florida and then decided he would run, I assumed he got some info from Trump that Little Marco wasn’t in the running for VP. Governor Susana Martinez from New Mexico would only add 5 electoral college votes.

Peter

Notes from Wikipedia. Susana Martinez (born July 14, 1959) is an American politician who is the 31st Governor of New Mexico and chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association. A Republican, Martinez was elected governor on November 2, 2010, and was sworn into office on January 1, 2011, becoming the first Hispanic female governor in the United States . . . . While at UTEP, she worked for her father's security guard company. Martinez patrolled a parking lot of a Catholic bingo hall and has said she carried a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum while on the job. In 1981, Martinez pursued her J.D. degree from the University of Oklahoma College of Law and graduated in 1986.

When Martinez took office she set out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 and 2013, as well as establishing a moratorium on all state vehicle purchases until 2012.[21] She barred all state agencies from hiring lobbyists.  On January 31, 2011, Martinez signed an executive order rescinding sanctuary status for illegal immigrants who commit crimes in New Mexico.[23] Martinez counts among her legislative victories: "the cap on film [tax] credits; a bill that would exempt locomotive fuel from state gross-receipts tax; and an expansion of Katie's Law, which will require law-enforcement officials to obtain DNA samples from all suspects booked on felony charges". She supported and signed a bill that will "assign schools the grades of A to F based on student achievement and other factors, such as high-school graduation rates. Martinez described her push for education reforms as 'a hard-fought battle against those who continued to defend the status quo'". In April 2011, Martinez signed

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Bill Clinton’s recent attempt to bribe a public official (or in some way influence the investigation) demonstrates, the Republicans cannot rely on the justice system to win the election. Or can we still trust the FBI to do their job in a just and timely fashion? The Progressive enemy we seek to destroy is like the StarTrek “Borg.” Is resistant futile? I am not ready to become too disheartened. On top of the evidence in the following two articles, I wonder if the Republican Convention will be a raucous affair? Will Trump come out of the Convention with a bump in the polls or gloom and doom? I don’t want the Rino’s to affect the outcome, though their campaign money would be useful.

Peter

Byron York wrote on Jun 29, 2016: The latest national polls show Donald Trump in dire shape. In the RealClearPolitics average, Trump has dropped below 40 percent -- 39.1 percent, to be precise -- while Mitt Romney, in the entire losing 2012 campaign, never fell below 43 percent. In a nation roughly evenly divided, the thinking goes, even an unpopular candidate should be able to muster 40 percent support, and yet Trump is falling short . . . . The bottom line is that the Clinton-Trump numbers in some critically important states are more in line with the Obama-Romney race than they are with some sort of doomsday blowout suggested by the national poll numbers. And that suggests that after all the noise and drama and weeping and gnashing of teeth, Trump could be headed for a loss that looks, not like a party-ending calamity, but an ordinary Republican defeat. Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush might have lost in much the same way. end quote

Excerpts from: Trump’s baffled: ‘Why am I not doing better in the polls?’ 07/01/16 12:50 PM—Updated 07/01/16 02:07 PM 62By Steve Benen: “We have thousands of people standing outside trying to get in, and they’re great people and they have such spirit for the country and love for the country, and I’m saying, you know, ‘Why am I not doing better in the polls?’” First, the fact that Trump is even asking the question is notable, given the campaign’s pretense that Trump is doing just fine in the polls. “I don’t see how I’m not leading” is the sort of thing a candidate says when he knows that he’s … not leading. Second, and more important, is the fact that the first-time candidate doesn’t seem to understand the difference between having fans show up at public events and actually winning at the national and statewide level. Bernie Sanders also saw “massive” crowds, and as impressive as that was, the senator still came up short in the race for the Democratic nomination. Every major presidential candidate can draw an audience. That doesn’t mean he or she is going to win. That said, these comments from Trump aren’t just amateurish, they also shed light on why he assumes the polls are wrong. In the Republican’s mind, if the surveys were correct, he wouldn’t have thousands of people showing up to cheer him. That doesn’t actually make any sense, but from his perspective, it’s easier to believe “crowds = victory” than to accept polls showing him trailing. end quote

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Peter said:

As Bill Clinton’s recent attempt to bribe a public official (or in some way influence the investigation) demonstrates, the Republicans cannot rely on the justice system to win the election. 

Peter

 

How do you know Bill Clinton tried to influence an investigation, let alone bribe somebody?

Link to post
Share on other sites

PDS asked: How do you know Bill Clinton tried to influence an investigation, let alone bribe somebody? end quote

You are the Secretary of State. As you make decisions about Arab Countries that subjugate women and Christians, and murder gays, millions of dollars are funneled from those countries to you, through the Clinton Foundation. Is there a connection? Is it legal? Your brother is in prison. You buy the warden a new car. Your brother gets single living quarters with TV, full bathroom and a view. Is there a connection? Your wife could be indicted. You are a crooked ex President. You come to visit a public official who is in charge of the possible indictment. Is there a connection? It has generally been declared VERY improper if not criminal. She has recused herself. The Clinton’s have been one step ahead of the law since the day they were born, but instead of one of the Dukes of Hazzard I would call her “Boss Hog.”

No, PDS, I know . . .  but I have no proof. Now a question for you. When Donald Trump is President will he task law enforcement to do their jobs without hindrance, concerning the Clintons?    

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Days Are Here Again from The Essential Barbra Streisand:

. . . . Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again

Altogether shout it now
There's no one
Who can doubt it now
So let's tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again . . . .

 

White House Watch, Thursday, June 30, 2016, From Rasmussen Reports, White House Watch: Trump 43%, Clinton 39%

Bottom of Form

The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.

Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties. 

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

The Trump grapevine.

 

Bummer, but not unexpected.

 

Michael

Like I said.  The Fix is in.

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

The Trump grapevine.

 

Bummer, but not unexpected.

Michael

Unfortunately many will see this as proof of innocence, and likely how Hill will spin it.

 

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

The Trump grapevine.

 

Bummer, but not unexpected.

Michael

Downstream in Phoenix, BC met with Lynch on the tarmac for "social" reasons. By that time HC leveraged 18 emails (known) between she (as Secretary) and Obama who has shielded them under executive privilege (but not classified them, equaling implicit guilt). We have criminal negligence by a former Secretary/to be President, a sitting President and a former President (he paid for the server) all culpable and all exempt from justice. If one is guilty under the law then all are.

The public ideologically aligned with HC and Obama will never question the shenanigans based on their roles in National Security and Intelligence. That would be accepting earth shattering truths.

So now, the firepower of justice is gone.

If Trump were really really wanting the job, he could explicitly educate voters with the unvarnished truth linking details with the crime. Everyone knows the system is rigged! If he knows how the system works (ed) he might explain it to those who can entertain these notions or donate to the cause. He should be proud of his moral beliefs and values, if he values them, but stand in defense of and speak about the objective facts and reasoning not his feelings or code words or ham fisted barbs. Not anymore, not if hes fighting for truth and justice and the thing he appears to want more than anything else. WHERE IS THE BEEF?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is always too quick. Melanias quicker than a New Yawk minute man. 

Too early. Wth? Comey has yet to report although Lynch has "pledged" to take the FBI's recommendations. DOJ will have to prosecute if an indictment is forthcoming.

Thats the law. )

Shouldnt Trump know this too? )  

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

Trump is always too quick. Melanias quicker than a New Yawk minute man. 

Too early. Wth? Comey has yet to report although Lynch has "pledged" to take the FBI's recommendations. DOJ will have to prosecute if an indictment is forthcoming.

Thats the law. )

Shouldnt Trump know this too? )  

Trump is a but fuzzy on law and The Constitution.  His main expertise is Let's Make a Deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yada Yada, Badda Bing, Ba’al wrote: Trump is a but fuzzy on law and The Constitution.  His main expertise is Let's Make a Deal. end quote

Did you mean to say “Butt fuzzy?” or “a bit fuzzy?” To compare Trump’s shows or what he watches on TV to being an expert on a dumb game show is over the top. Yeah, Bob I get the humor of comparing, “Let's Make a Deal” with his book “The Art of the Deal.”

Our contract with government, The United States Constitution, does not say the reins are in the hands of the President alone, or in the sole hands of Congress. The Constitution is formulated with checks and balances so that our freedoms are preserved. For instance, the Founding Father’s did not formulate an income tax, but we have one now. The President cannot declare war alone - but even Thomas Jefferson overstepped his *emergency* war powers when he went after the Barbary Pirates. There is no inevitable history set in motion when American politicians err - so we are not rotten to the core. The core just needs to be reinforced. (A Dyson Sphere of law?) Our country exists, as an ideal, as it WAS then, and as it IS now, and that is with what the Constitutionalists and theorists of Limited Objectivist Government must deal. Man’s volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his nation's character; if he does, the change becomes a *fact.*

There have been decent countries before America and thriving civilizations. There was Greece and Rome, The Magna Charta, the Reformation and Renaissance Europe. And “Rule Britannia.” Americans are a unique group of people. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING! At its inception we created the most *moral* system of government to have ever existed. Ayn Rand wrote “You have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours - but I am speaking of the essentials.”

An Objectivist Government must address the Constitution and rewrite portions of it and add some crucial amendments to it. When we do change the Constitution we must keep one principle as an absolute. Ayn Rand wrote, “There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept *the separation of force and whim* (any whim including his own). Such in essence is the proper purpose of a Government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to one another.”

So, Bob how are you going to vote? Check out Trump’s web site's position on taxation. The absolute principle of renouncing the initiation of force still requires funding. How will voluntary funding pay for Government functions, general military and police readiness, pay for a military build-up and a war on terrorism? Rand wrote, “The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing – how to determine the best means of applying it in practice – is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law.”

Of course Trump is fuzzy on the law and the Constitution. He needs to get his fuzzy butt in gear. And I think he will.

Peter 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conspiratorators are saying that the real reason for Clinton meeting Lynch was to give her a small piece of paper. This, they claim, gav info on career investigators and prosecutors (and maybe even her): A is a pedophile, B is secretly gay, C has gobs of money offshore at Bank Z, D's wife goes to S&M adult establishments, E snorts coke and/or is addicted to opiates, F's kids are serial shoplifters who haven't been caught yet (for special reasons), etc., and we got the goods on all of them. 

The understanding is that if Hillary is indicted, the press will have an awfully good time with leaks.

I'm not in deep on the conspiratorators's theory, but I do think there might be some of this kind of monkey-business going on. It's what the government has always done, left and right.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Trump is a but fuzzy on law and The Constitution.  His main expertise is Let's Make a Deal. 

You have him rightly figured for his boorishness. I certainly agree. But I prefer that attribute to a coward or a criminal/liar. In a dust up, manners matter little to me other than basic civility. 

Im more interested in honesty of the man which poses a serious challenge for him and I.

And there is this, a fascinating psychological portrait of the man. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

 

His high score is a trait to be weary of, his talent is leading but in the political sphere hes dwarfed by those who carefully craft their words and probably know policy like the back of their hands.

 So much for psychologizing, no one knows what Trump will accomplish were he to become president.

 

"Assessing the truthfulness of the 2016 candidates’ campaign statements, PolitiFact recently calculated that only 2 percent of the claims made by Trump are true, 7 percent are mostly true, 15 percent are half true, 15 percent are mostly false, 42 percent are false, and 18 percent are “pants on fire.” Adding up the last three numbers (from mostly false to flagrantly so), Trump scores 75 percent. The corresponding figures for Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, respectively, are 66, 32, 31, and 29 percent.

In sum, Donald Trump’s basic personality traits suggest a presidency that could be highly combustible. One possible yield is an energetic, activist president who has a less than cordial relationship with the truth. He could be a daring and ruthlessly aggressive decision maker who desperately desires to create the strongest, tallest, shiniest, and most awesome result—and who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind. Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough. Bellicose. Threatening. Explosive????

Are we talking about sweet Donald or “Napoleon B. Howard Hughes?" It twill be interesting how he greets, meets, and conflicts with the world's leaders. I don't think he will rattle any sabers.

Peter 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now