Recommended Posts

.

“Conservatives are trying to change party rules so that they can regain control of the party in the future. Presumably after Trump loses in November.

. . .

“If trump loses, Republicans will simply obliterate Trump from history. Tea Party conservatives will retake control of the Republican Party.

“But what if Trump wins? When the populist Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, voters divided between Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians. The Jacksonians became the Democratic Party and the anti-Jacksonians turned into the Whig Party. It’s not hard to imagine a Trump party and anti-Trump party emerging in the wake of a Trump presidency.” —Bill Schneider

Clinton with 46, Trump with 33 in this July 1-5 poll. Nearly half of the Clinton supporters said their reason for support was “I don’t want Trump to win,” not agreement with her positions (39% of supporters) nor “like her personally” (13%).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newt's informal audition in Ohio for VP just a little while ago.

He did all right.

I hope Trump goes with Newt for the simple reason that I believe he will pave the way for Sarah Palin later (Newt picked Sarah for VP when he was running a few years ago and I believe there is a lot of political stuff going on backstage with those two--nothing specific, just a feeling).

As to how Newt would do on the campaign trail, I think he would contribute a little, not all that much, but more importantly, he's old and wise enough to stay out of the way. He'll echo Trump's positions and brush aside all the rest.

Michael

Share this post


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

Newt's informal audition in Ohio for VP just a little while ago.

[...]

He did all right.

I hope Trump goes with Newt for the simple reason that I believe he will pave the way for Sarah Palin later (Newt picked Sarah for VP when he was running a few years ago and I believe there is a lot of political stuff going on backstage with those two--nothing specific, just a feeling).

As to how Newt would do on the campaign trail, I think he would contribute a little, not all that much, but more importantly, he's old and wise enough to stay out of the way. He'll echo Trump's positions and brush aside all the rest.

Michael

He looked a bit rusty up there.  Newt would be formidable in the White House, I hope Trump keeps him around for a while...

Newtzilla!

:evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's tweet seems to be uncovering some secret, hidden Disney antisemitism. The princesses are even looking Aryan...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Walker endorses Trump.

Scott Walker Gets on Board the Trump Train, ‘If You Don’t Vote for Trump You’re Voting for Hillary’

I bet some Scott Walker fans are going to be disillusioned with him... In my book, he kept his word. He's also going to be speaking at the RNC convention.

Drip... drip... drip...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump, the 10 billion dollar man, better cough up a billion of that for his campaign or he's toast* in November.

--Brant

*and a fraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Morning Joe people have been doing nothing but scorch Trump for the last few weeks.

But no longer.

Mika, at the beginning of the video, picked up on the can-do spirit that Trump exudes (where everyone gets the emotional charge from him that they can succeed at their own individual goals) and Joe said the media has been lapse in ignoring this while focusing on a few negative details.

When I saw these pundits meltdown over Paul Ryan's endorsement of Trump awhile back, I became suspicious that they are--covertly or otherwise--the public mouthpiece for an insider game of one wing of the Republican establishment (not the National Review or Bill Kristol wing, read neocon, but instead lots of insider donors).

Now that Mika and Joe are gushing about Trump, this signals to me that that wing has stopped resisting Trump's candidacy. I'm going to stay tuned to upcoming events to see if this bears out.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - The video below where Bill O'Reilly just showed President Obama in Muslim garb is not directly about Trump, but this will be a big boost to Trump's campaign.

Since Clinton is running as an extension of Obama's legacy, she owns this and, whether she really does or not, that is irrelevant. That is how it will be seen in the mainstream--not the Muslim stuff per se, but a total lapse in judgment that results in danger to the world from being emotionally involved with a hidden agenda. I believe average people will start thinking Obama has been deceptive that way and Clinton will be that way, too, seeing how she is deceptive by default in their minds, especially after Comey's FBI report.

It's a big deal that O'Reilly talked about this openly. He took the "Obama is a Muslim" meme from the fringe and put it squarely in the middle of the mainstream. The meme in his mouth is tempered by the qualification "emotional involvement with Islam," but it's there.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an addition to my point above.

Clinton's credibility is being mined now without mercy to show the rot underneath. Not just eroded. They are digging big friggin' holes in it. And Trump is at the forefront of the mining project. :) 

Michael

Share this post


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

The video below where Bill O'Reilly just showed President Obama in Muslim garb

O'Reilly has never brought out Obama negatives of this sort before.  In the past, he might have reported that others had said this or that, and then he would given the speaker a mild rebuke.  I suspect that O'Reilly really wants a Trump presidency and maybe even sees himself steering the nation from behind the throne.  He sees Obama's high popularity ratings, he knows how effective Obama can be when he campaigns and he suspects that if Obama really cranks up his energy level on behalf of Hillary that it will help with the base who might otherwise have stayed home - that Obama will make then think that a vote for Hillary is a vote for him.

That is my totally unsupported theory of why O'Reilly finds himself skating as close to the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" crowd as he can and still retain credibility with the rest of his audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted Cruz will speak at the convention. Trump invited him and an endorsement was not a condition.

Cruz: Trump Invited Me To Speak At Convention, "No Discussion Of Any Endorsement"

No doubt an endorsement will happen, either before or after Trump is nominated. Politically, inviting Cruz to speak was a pretty good move...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't hurt to also get Rand Paul to speak (although I doubt he would accept an invitation). He certainly has a significant amount of steadfast supporters. The more ammo the better.  --J

Share this post


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

Here comes something else to talk about:

A curveball in Trump’s Veep search: He’s seriously considering a retired general

The person is retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.

:)

I don't know all that much about him, but I have seen him speak and I generally like what I have heard.

Michael

That would be interesting.  Picking someone like that may make him impeachment-proof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are worried about the stop Trump people's final efforts, Roger Stone yesterday gave a pretty reasonable overview of the miniscule impact they will have on anything. Mathis kept pushing him and he kept being unbothered as he patiently explained the rules.

Some people don't like Stone, but he is quite knowledgeable about election rules.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is ready for some comparison shopping. The Republican Convention is in Cleveland from July 18th to July 21st. The Democrats are having their convention from July 25th to July 28th, in Philadelphia . I wonder what the level of violence will be?

 

Well, how is racism after the first black President? Not too good. Things are worse. Blacks expect a handout and special treatment even more so than a decade ago. Welfare, crime, and minimum wage (it keeps young minority kids from working), will continue to devastate black communities. Violent Black criminals and their supporters like Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter want the police to give them a break as they murder and rob. The KKK has shrunk but we have a resurgence of the Black Power Movement. I have no problem with ethnic clubs but I do have a problem with racist clubs or organizations.  Law enforcement MUST use their wits and skills to counter crime and to protect themselves.  

 

Cities and towns are currently grouped by choice and the price of living. We will need to unofficially continue to patrol neighborhoods with different policing policies just as an individual does when they choose a path to the corner store. What would the future hold for America after eight years of Hillary? Hillary will spin her solutions to many crisis’s, as she makes things worse. Will we create more walled communities for the protection of decent people from the criminals, in spite of her mealy mouthed hypocrisy? My crystal ball says Blacks would become more militant and separatist, like the Palestinians. So. Trump or Hillary? I wonder how the police departments across America will be voting?

Peter    

 

Notes. Comedian Dennis Miller on Israel: A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver.

 

Here we go: The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

 

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

 

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel.

 

They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel. Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

 

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

 

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

 

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

 

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight.

 

We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . ooh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.) end quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2016 at 8:25 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

That would be interesting.  Picking someone like that may make him impeachment-proof. 

Flynn. He has no political experience. A life long democrat, he also is for abortion, will put him at odds with the Republicans.

Gingrich is 73. Together they'll be the ole geezers. Newt would be better as chief of staff. As a policy wonk he will overshadow Trump, so hes better in an true advisory capacity.

Pence seems to be the best choice for delivering votes, garnering Republican support across the board and has experience as a governor.

Trump has said he will make his pick based on gut.

Jesus Christ, when will this guy ever get to the business of what he intends to do for the economy and the debt. Hes been scored by CRFB at a -9.25T against HC. Here in Va, there are ads run against him every evening as he stays silent. Trump is ignoring the generally well considered approach of making contact with each potential voter 6-7 times to cement a connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will any of the candidates or media outlets address what the proper role of government is? tic toc...tic toc...

Share this post


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

When will any of the candidates or media outlets address what the proper role of government is? tic toc...tic toc...

Yoda says - do not your breath hold until  proper role of government defined is,  else blue turn you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

62689817.jpg

Feel the Force....

Share this post


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

 

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

 

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

 

You have no idea how 500 million Jews would behave compared to their numbers today. Nor can you or I know how different the world would be, only quite different. Their comparatively small numbers have greatly informed their present-day identity and this goes back several thousand years.

Your example works purely as a hypothetical construct. Take one Jew and make him 100 with the same values as the original and do that for 5 million and imagine such a world with such people starting with a stable geo-political construct. The Muslims would behave (just like many do today btw). Consider the tremendous economic and military power wielded by the United States in WWII in crushing Japan and Germany. If the Jihadists had raised their heads an inch in that context the allies would have cut them off in a thrice with hardly a second thought. They're only getting away with what they're getting away with by implicit permission and sanction and they have no way to actually prevail save through demographics in Europe, but the Europeans will revert to overt fascism by way of counter if that's what it takes. The contradiction is demographics will only work through democracy, the first thing to be discarded by either side.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You have no idea how 500 million Jews would behave compared to their numbers today. Nor can you or I know how different the world would be, only quite different. Their comparatively small numbers have greatly informed their present-day identity and this goes back several thousand years.

Your example works purely as a hypothetical construct. Take one Jew and make him 100 with the same values as the original and do that for 5 million and imagine such a world with such people starting with a stable geo-political construct. The Muslims would behave (just like many do today btw). Consider the tremendous economic and military power wielded by the United States in WWII in crushing Japan and Germany. If the Jihadists had raised their heads an inch in that context the allies would have cut them off in a thrice with hardly a second thought. They're only getting away with what they're getting away with by implicit permission and sanction and they have no way to actually prevail save through demographics in Europe, but the Europeans will revert to overt fascism by way of counter if that's what it takes. The contradiction is demographics will only work through democracy, the first thing to be discarded by either side.

--Brant

If there were 500 million Jews they would in the aggregate manifest 500 million + one opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Backlighting said:

When will any of the candidates or media outlets address what the proper role of government is? tic toc...tic toc...

Proper. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proper    Belonging to or pertaining to the person or thing in question.

Ive used the word often. When I do I hear pins drop and crickets chirp from those who are unfamiliar with how the word has been used in that context. On the receiving end I think the feeling is similar to being a dinner guest amongst future in laws where every move is studied to see where one fits in. To this day my wife feels the proper way to end a meal isnt done with a ceremonious napkin drop. Thats rude. Or stacking dirty plates. That is not proper.  

As a boy I was instructed to eat in a way that pleased my father. Which was that there was a proper way to do everything while he was watching. Breaking a slice of bread in half before buttering it. Taking a pad of butter with a special butter knife then spreading it with your own. Chewing everything as if youre considering the palette of every morsel. There was one time my siblings were made to split a stick of butter in thirds and eat it plain. They questioned the taste of butter as compared to margarine and whether it was proper to eat it when my father clearly provided only one choice. Hows that for a lesson in authoritarianism? )

I suppose that is why Ayn Rand appealed to me. Without knowing why I wanted to ask, "Proper?, I was intrigued by the thought there is a way in which in to run a government." I was but a boy who was smitten by someone who absolutely knew without a doubt something was true. I was looking for truth. And for me that was everything is done in a particular manner, I just need to discover it among the many choices available.

When is right. Where on the spectrump of rights is the candidate? The question is a good one, the answer is plain to see. At the moment he calls a thing what it is. He is sure that alone will define what he is for and what hes not for. 

You and I know what he has in mind is something quite different from what we have in mind. Why? Because he hasnt spoke it. He sees Muslims and he says wall. He sees terror and he says war. He says big hands and we say WHAT!? In order to understand this candidate we must get on the see and say level of abstraction bandwagon. Point at BAD, point at GOOD, point at UGE. And that is the problem of when. People wouldnt know, first hand, what Capitalism is if it bit them in the butt.

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...