Recommended Posts

Thanks, Michael.

From the oxford Dictionary:

From 2004. Swift-boat, verb, target a politician or public figure with a campaign or personal attacks. When he got swift-boated, his campaign staffers didnt sit silently. end quote

Is this tactic fair? It is used by the left continuously but I think it is only fair when the person is a scheming liar like John Kerry who maligned his fellow Vietnam veterans. Do Trumps verbal attacks on women reach that level. No. They are offensive but do not reach the level of attack used by a woman against Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. In contrast I thought it was justified when Bork got Borked, which is a term similar to swift-boating.

Will Trump be the Teflon Don? Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this shit--the pizza party is happening faster than I predicted:

 


 

:smile:

 

Let me see...

 

Hmmm...

 

There is no Kelly File on Saturday or Sunday. And last week's Friday Kelly File was still surfing on debate analysis from Thursday's debate.

 

But there is a Kelly File on Monday.

 

Hey!

 

That's today!

 

:smile:

 

Trump's fans, who are now in the millions if not tens of millions, are not too pleased with Fox. Many of them are promoting a boycott of Megyn.

 

Let's see what Megyn's ratings are tonight and how long they will take to recover.

 

Heh.

 

I can almost hear Ailes tell Trump on the phone, "All right, all right, your gotcha worked against my gotcha. You won. Can't blame a guy for trying. We're big boys and that's how the game is played. But we both got ratings and there are even more ratings out there to get. Let's move on, 'Friend Donald'--as my boss, Rupert-baby, calls you. I promise I'll play nice."

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Let's see what Megyn's ratings are tonight and how long they will take to recover. end quote

Ok. I will answer. Am I still getting paid the same amount as last time, Michael? I think her ratings will be smashing, Me’lord. Especially after the story from The X Files hits the 6 o’clock news.

Breaking news from Clark Kent reporter for The Daily Planet, August 10th, 2015. Good evening news hounds. For the first time, Super Trump has revealed to me he is wearing a body cam to inform his many fans on his whereabouts . . . and to keep the lawsuits away. Let’s look at some of the footage. (captions paid for by Marvel Comic’s new movie, “The Fantastic Four.)

Super Trump: Maybe you want this relationship to proceed at its own pace, Megan. But I think life is too short to sit and wait.

Sometimes you have to push life - take chances. And if you fail - at least you can say you tried.

Megan: Chances? Like what Super Trump?

Super Trump lets her know with a long, deep, passionate kiss. She pushes him away.

Megan: Stop it! You know I won’t compromise my Fox News integrity.

Super Trump: And that’s what I love about you Megan, your professionalism and your hot bod. Those pictures in Esquire weren’t touched up a bit, were they?

Megan: Oh, darn. How can we make this work, Super Trump? What about my ratings?

Superman: That’s easy Lois. I mean Megan. We hide nothing. If you will look right here, this live camera is broadcasting onto my Facebook account as we speak, and Rupert has assured me it will be re-broadcast once every half hour until your show airs.

Megan: You bastard! I thought you loved me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the face of a man who is getting his ass whipped by Trump--and whipped big-time in prime-time right in front of one the largest audiences on cable TV ever.

 

I refer to professional sellout toady to the old-boy old-money Republican machine, Frank Luntz:

 

 

Immediately after the debate last Thursday, this media-manipulating covert persuasion jerk packed his focus group with zombie-like Trump-bashers and showed it to almost 24 million viewer as he gleefully said, over and over, the big news of the night was the destruction of the candidacy of Donald Trump. It wasn't even a professional hit. It was pure amateurville.

 

And it came with egg all over Luntz's face as the results started coming in from elsewhere.

 

He didn't realize it was really the collapse of Frank Luntz's credibility.

 

Roger Ailes just called Trump and (I speculate) cried, "Uncle!" I wonder if Frank Luntz's participation as a Fox contributor was one of the chips on the table for Trump to go back to playing nice.

 

Luntz sure has a hang-dog look in his interview with Charlie Rose in that video, that is, when he's not looking like a scared rabbit.

 

Or a guy who just got a royal ass-whupping.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: And it came with egg all over Luntz's face as the results started coming in from elsewhere. End quote

Poor Frank. And poor everybody else. A POLL IS FINALLY IN!

PPP (Public Policy Polling. Iowa August 10, 2015 Trump Still Leads in Iowa; Fiorina on Fire; Paul Tanking. PPP's newest Iowa poll finds Donald Trump leading the Republican field in the state even after a weekend of controversy. He's at 19% to 12% for Ben Carson and Scott Walker, 11% for Jeb Bush, 10% for Carly Fiorina, 9% for Ted Cruz, and 6% for Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. End quote

Ill be damned. Iowa is first and Trump is first in Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention to Trump Deniers:

If ya ain't a heavyweight don't get in the fucking ring with Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Jack Johnson, Tyson or Marciano...

250px-Jack_Johnson1.jpg,,,,463px-Joe_Louis_by_van_Vechten.jpg---256px-Rocky_Marciano.jpg...220px-Muhammad_Ali_NYWTS.jpg...220px-Mike_Tyson_Portrait.jpg

Get my drift!

A...

Rationality is manly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from TownHall. Could it be another flip-flip? Could it be that Christmas has come early? ABC News is reporting that Donald Trump could take the pledge to not run as a third party candidate, a pledge he refused to take during the first GOP debate in Cleveland on August 6 (via ABC News):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

Heh.

You think The Donald might model the pledges Republican candidates normally make to their voters?

:smile:

btw - The source of that TownHall thing was HotAir (Ed Morrissey). I don't know how aligned the writers are on HotAir, but I read somewhere that a lady from HotAir was one of the main people who insisted that Trump's invitation to the RedState convention be canceled.

I suspect the writers are aligned because both TownHall and HotAir are owned by Salem Media Group, a strongly Christian organization that owns a ton of Christian radio programs and other Christian media. RedState is owned by them, too.

And, from what I have seen recently, they can't stand Trump. Maybe this just changed, but I'm not sure I would trust a report about Trump coming from them so recently after the RedState convention dustup.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention to Trump Deniers:

If ya ain't a heavyweight don't get in the fucking ring with Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Jack Johnson, Tyson or Marciano...

250px-Jack_Johnson1.jpg,,,,463px-Joe_Louis_by_van_Vechten.jpg---256px-Rocky_Marciano.jpg...220px-Muhammad_Ali_NYWTS.jpg...220px-Mike_Tyson_Portrait.jpg

Get my drift!

A...

Rationality is manly

Where's Sylvester?

--Brant

and Mr. T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in:

Donald Trump: I'm Not Ruling Out an Independent Run…For Now
Aug 10, 2015, 4:51 PM ET
By Jonathan Karl
ABC News

From the article:

A senior Trump adviser told ABC News Monday morning that Trump was seriously considering promising not to run as an independent if he does not win the Republican nomination.

But Trump called false any suggestion that he is on the verge of making such a pledge.

Trump added he is not concerned by suggestions the Republican Party could exclude him from future debates if he doesn’t pledge not to run as a third party candidate.

“I might like that, by the way,” Trump told ABC News of the possibility he would be excluded from debates authorized by the Republican National Committee. “People would be very incensed if that happened.”


I tried to dig, but, so far, I can't find who that "senior Trump adviser" was.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in:

Donald Trump: I'm Not Ruling Out an Independent Run…For Now

Aug 10, 2015, 4:51 PM ET

By Jonathan Karl

ABC News

From the article:

A senior Trump adviser told ABC News Monday morning that Trump was seriously considering promising not to run as an independent if he does not win the Republican nomination.

But Trump called false any suggestion that he is on the verge of making such a pledge.

Trump added he is not concerned by suggestions the Republican Party could exclude him from future debates if he doesn’t pledge not to run as a third party candidate.

“I might like that, by the way,” Trump told ABC News of the possibility he would be excluded from debates authorized by the Republican National Committee. “People would be very incensed if that happened.”

I tried to dig, but, so far, I can't find who that "senior Trump adviser" was.

Michael

I'll find out.

Success!

https://youtu.be/DItgw1mU9Us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From “The Enemy Inside” by Steve Martini, page 113:
Cheng found the justification for this American anomaly interesting. The rationale was that if you punished those in power with prison every time they lied, no one would run for public office. Cheng found it surreal that in the United States, supposedly the gold standard of modern law and justice, with its hundreds of thousands of lawyers, millions of statutes, and armies of judges, there was not a single penal law punishing officials who intentionally and repeatedly lied to their people on important issues of state.

You could no longer shock the average American, no matter the scope of the scandal or the damage that it caused. They had come to expect this from their leaders. end quote

Quiz time. Of all the Republican candidates for President which ones would not lie about important issues of state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonus questions.

If Trump will not give the pledge to not run as a third party candidate should he be barred from further debates?

If Trump is barred from further debates should he run as a third party candidate?

If Trump runs as a third party candidate what should he call his party?

If Trump is barred from further debates who in the RNC (Republican National Committee) should be tarred and feathered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

The last I saw, we are still in a free country.

I don't recall a pledge of allegiance to a political party being a prerequisite for a person to run for office or to hold it.

In fact, I recall several politicians who switched political parties after they took office.

If the Republican Party wants to change its bylaws or whatever charter documents that exist to demand loyalty oaths on pain of excommunication, they should do that. If not, who decides? How do they decide? They should decide that first.

Otherwise, like I said, it's a free country.

Freedom is messy at times. That's why it's called freedom and not cult or Big Brother. You can get real-world compliance by most citizens on just about everything within a dictatorship. Free individuals tend to be more headstrong and nonconforming.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a free enough country that Ms. Kelly could enjoy a hearty talk in 2010 with that paragon of prurience, Howard Stern, who can actually be funny at times.  Robin Quivers really made that team work.

 

 

Megyn Kelly may have suggested that she was turned off by Donald Trump’s sexist remarks, but that didn’t stop her from rollicking with Howard Stern, discussing her breasts and her husband's penis size and engaging in some graphic sex talk.

Stern has been accused of being tough on women, such as in 2013 when he called "Girls"  actress Lena Dunham "a little fat girl who kinda looks like Jonah Hill, and she keeps taking her clothes off, and it kind of feels like rape." He also is known for having women remove all their clothing during his radio broadcasts while he ogles and describes them.

 

This is no biggie since she was moving up the media chain.

 

 

 

In a 2010 interview, the Fox News star laughed with glee as Stern talked about her breasts.

"We used to call them 'Killer B's' then when I got pregnant they became 'Swimmin' C's' and Doug was frolicking in the ocean," Kelly said of her husband, author Douglas Brunt.

Stern asked whether she would have considered not marrying Brunt if his penis had been small.

"I reject the hypotheticals. There's no issues there," Kelly said, laughing. "I've never had to choose. Let's put it that way."

She also talked about having sex with Brunt even while she was pregnant – into the third trimester.

 

 

Ya think that someone on Trump's staff did not brief him on the wonderful and ever popular attorney?

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/megyn-kelly-howard-stern-sex-talk-donald-trump/2015/08/09/id/669255/

 

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that...99!   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger Ailes just called Trump and (I speculate) cried, "Uncle!" I wonder if Frank Luntz's participation as a Fox contributor was one of the chips on the table for Trump to go back to playing nice.

 

I'm getting one right.

 

Donald Trump just launched 'World War III' on a top GOP pollster

By Hunter Walker

Aug. 10, 2015

Business Insider

 

From the article:

 

Michael Cohen, who is special counsel to Trump, has said he believes Luntz's focus group was a "total setup" and that Fox News' debate coverage was part of an "organized attack."

 

According to Trump, Fox News head Roger Ailes called him on Monday morning and assured he would be treated "fairly" on the network. Trump told Business Insider he did not discuss Luntz with Ailes.

 

"Roger's a great guy," Trump said. "I think this is Frank. I don't think this has anything to do with Fox. I think Frank uses Fox, but this has nothing to do with Fox. This is Frank Luntz."

 

Trump and Ailes may not have discussed Luntz over the phone, but I have no doubt an assistant for one talked to an assistant of the other about him.

 

So it looks like Donald is doing his part and starting to get his pound of flesh tribute--even running the story outside of Fox properties just for show.

 

Now let's see if Roger does his part for real. Today it seemed he was doing it, but through gritted teeth. Megyn Kelly addressed the spat without saying much of anything (although she did look like she had something that tasted awful in her mouth and didn't want to let on :smile: ) and Eric Bolling filled in for O'Reilly, but only kinda waved a flag of peace. Trump even Tweeted:

 

 

I predict all this will settle down shortly.

 

But let's see how many more focus groups Luntz does on Fox after any current contracts expire. Maybe even before...

 

:smile:

 

PS - Krauthammer's head is probably next if another shitstorm between Fox and Trump cracks open.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From “The Enemy Inside” by Steve Martini, page 113:

Cheng found the justification for this American anomaly interesting. The rationale was that if you punished those in power with prison every time they lied, no one would run for public office. Cheng found it surreal that in the United States, supposedly the gold standard of modern law and justice, with its hundreds of thousands of lawyers, millions of statutes, and armies of judges, there was not a single penal law punishing officials who intentionally and repeatedly lied to their people on important issues of state.

You could no longer shock the average American, no matter the scope of the scandal or the damage that it caused. They had come to expect this from their leaders. end quote

Quiz time. Of all the Republican candidates for President which ones would not lie about important issues of state?

Willingness and ability to lie are requirements for high elective office, especially the presidency.

That said most of the lying is just all wrong.

--Brant

but expected--anyway, it's what most Americans already do so they feel comfortable with Bill Clinton--unlike Bill, however, doing normal, everyday lying, Obama is assumed to be lying every time he opens his mouth with truth being an unavoidable coincidental something not talked about because his lies have become truth and his truths have become lies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: The last I saw, we are still in a free country. I don't recall a pledge of allegiance to a political party being a prerequisite for a person to run for office or to hold it. In fact, I recall several politicians who switched political parties after they took office.

end quote

This is a free country. We are free to prosper and we are free to fail. No one must do what the majority thinks is right, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. So why does it bother me if Donald Trump runs as a third party candidate? Because it insures a democrat win. At least that is the conventional wisdom, and I will also discuss an alternative to that theory.

Without Trump saying why he wants to ensure a democrat win we can only conjecture about his reason based on what he reasons and says, and his perceived character. I think Nathaniel Brandon termed it *psychologizing,* and like *profiling* it is not an exact science but only a guessing tool. What kind of a person is Donald Trump? He is a builder. He accumulates wealth. He likes the limelight and being larger than life. He uses people. Sometimes he admits to his faults, displays his true virtues, or exaggerates his virtues. He is not articulate about political philosophy. He vilifies anyone who opposes him and he carries a grudge.

To look for motives I assume he is MORALLY DECENT. So why would Donald Trump run as a third party candidate? Does he want a democrat to be President? Does he want Hillary in particular to be President? If it isnt him, does he think the person who becomes President only affects the country in inconsequential ways?

Now let us shift our perspective and look for motives that assume he wants a democrat win, is MORALLY DECENT BUT ANGRY at his rejection by the voters after offering himself to the nation. He wants revenge because he was slighted in some way by the RNC? He enjoys politics but cares little for either party? He just wants to see an exciting election?

Now lets look for motives that assume he is MORALLY INDECENT. He cares little for his nation but he wants to keep his wealth and status but if he is not elected President he wants the nation to fail and decline, like a rancher who has a dam on a river running through his property. He is willing to open the flood gates so that those downstream will drown or lose their homes. He just does not care. If he is not elected then everyone deserves to be ruined. I am sure there is a fourth or a mixed reason for him to make the nominated Republican fail?

But, does Donald Trump think he could win the Presidency? I looked for a contrary view at a left wing website. From Politicus USA, Real Liberal Politics: Trumps current success in the crowded Republican race masks his weakness in a two-way contest. His commanding lead is largely a function of the size of the GOP field, rather than a testament to his political strength . . . . A Gallup Poll released Friday July 24, 2015 found that 56 percent of American adults had an unfavorable opinion of Trump, compared to just 32 percent who viewed him favorably . . . . Donald Trumps fifteen minutes of fame may go into overtime, if they havent already, but ultimately he doesnt have the numbers needed to win a presidential election. The question isnt if his campaign will eventually flame out, but rather when it will.

end quote

Yet, Trump is leading in the Iowa polls. With fair coverage I think Trump could beat Hillary in a one on one race. But if he is nominated could he overcome the wave of scorn from the media? Can anyone chart a path for a Trump victory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a combo of Howard Roark and Peter Keating. (Please note Roark was not an artist, he was an engineer or more a builder than architect as such. This is because of Rand's control freak bias. She had a lot of engineer in her.)

Peter Keating was a "second-hander" in the novel and a "social metaphysician" in Objectivism (courtesy of Nathaniel Branden), with Roark being the quintessential first-hander. These are false categories except for abstraction. Roark building something his way (or the highway, Mr. customer-client) is an expression of his personal will to power through esthetic stamping, he being the press.

Now consider a work of about as pure a piece of architectural art as is possible and generally recognized as such: Wright's Fallingwater masterpiece. The client brought in engineers who advised him to have more structural steel put in which was done to Wright's anger (but he didn't blow it up). The esthetics seemed to have been untouched. (There was a mistake in that the cantilevers didn't assume drooping from all the weight so the finished house had some unexpected droop off the center's sides.) The other reported attempt at client interference was his desire not to put in the stairway down to the stream from the very large living room directly above. I think his son, a Wright apprentice responsible for his father hiring Wright, talked him out of it. I personally have visited Fallingwater (1973--the tour guide made it clear with her eyes she wanted me sexually--true story but I was coming down with a bug in my throat so we didn't end up in her bed as badly as I wanted to, ugh, "make love" to her [i mean fuck her lights out]) and it would have been a total esthetic disaster comparable to the Mona Lisa without a smile. By all this I merely mean to say Wright was more naturally the artist than engineer and Roark was vice versa. The irony is fundamentally Roark was a real second-hander. Anybody so concerned--through his creator--with being a first-hander is thinking all the time of not being like anybody else in any respect and actually lives in the world of other people. Roark, though, is clean. He was a first-hander, however unreal, made by a second hander (Rand). This doesn't condemn Rand except by her own standards for the categories are false applied to any real-person creating the disastrous artificiality in her own life and relationships. Nathaniel Branden himself pretty much gave up using the idea of "social metaphysician" as an un-useful category for psycho-therapy. Back in the NBI days it had been used as a way to put people down.

--Brant

Nathaniel Branden bonus: how should a man behave to a woman (implying the same for a woman) on a first date?--"Just be friendly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: . . . but expected--anyway, it's what most Americans already do so they feel comfortable with Bill Clinton--unlike Bill, however, doing normal, everyday lying, Obama is assumed to be lying every time he opens his mouth with truth being an unavoidable coincidental something not talked about because his lies have become truth and his truths have become lies . . . . Trump is a combo of Howard Roark and Peter Keating. (Please note Roark was not an artist, he was an engineer or more a builder than architect as such. This is because of Rand's control freak bias. She had a lot of engineer in her.
end quote

Brant, I could handle the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would even welcome getting pissed off by a brash president if I knew he was speaking the truth and doing the best he could. And now for a very pro Trump writer who wrote, “Donald Trump reminds me of another relentless New Yorker named George Steinbrenner . . .” If I were in business or still working full time I would welcome a Trump Presidency if it lived up to its name. I wonder how other retired people on Social Security feel about Trump? I went to a few polling sites and they kept locking up. I could not get anything out of Real Clear Polls.
Peter

Trump Is Money in the Bank by Wayne Allyn Root | Aug 11, 2015
. . . “The Donald” is the very definition of “relentless.” He is relentlessly outspoken. He is relentlessly opinionated. He is relentlessly combative. He produces nonstop relentless media headlines. He produces relentlessly high ratings. He is also relentlessly successful. He is “money in the bank” for everyone around him . . . . Fox News just got the highest ratings in history for their GOP Presidential debate. Not just the highest ratings ever for Fox News. Not just the highest ratings ever for a political debate. The highest ratings ever in cable TV history for a non-sports event. Amazing . . . . Donald Trump reminds me of another relentless New Yorker named George Steinbrenner. He was also a bigger-than-life, outspoken, opinionated, combative, lightning rod and business mogul. Like Trump, when Steinbrenner spoke it made the tabloids and the front pages of the New York newspapers. Like Trump, he offended people. Like Trump, Steinbrenner had many detractors and critics . . . . Like Steinbrenner, Donald Trump is a winner. Like Steinbrenner, everyone around Donald benefits. He is relentless. He expects relentless excellence. And we all win. We all get relentlessly richer when in the presence of a Donald Trump . . . . Conservatives should stop fighting the Donald Trump effect. Let’s embrace it. Let’s celebrate it. Donald Trump is money in the bank. end quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Price Is Right is on. What would you bid for a new bedroom set in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House? What would it be like with a President who was immune to the Left Wing Propaganda Machine? What would it be like if President Trump wasn’t worried about tomorrow’s headlines, except for how it affects the stock market and the nation’s health? What if the President was not politically correct? It would be like Rush Limbaugh as President and it would be wonderful!

Imaginary President Trump on the 6:30 news: CNN, MSNBC, and some other loser TV channels just said my policies are stupid. Well screw you. And you protesters outside the White House. Make those signs appropriate for kids to read or I will put you in jail.

I am still bidding low on the Donald. I want to hear, The Price is Right’s announcer yelling, You have a chance to increase your net worth by 25,000 dollars if you vote for Donald Trump! I welcomed that Trump anti Bush video but it is time for a more comprehensive manifesto from all serious candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... it is time for a more comprehensive manifesto from all serious candidates.

Peter that would be the political play book that everyone thinks should be run...

I do not think he needs to play into that paradigm.

This is a personality that does not play by the rules and that is why he is successful, along with a great mind and a phenomenal work ethic.

Keep It Simple Stupid [KISS] is the law of sales.

Donald knows how to sell. Politics is sales on a global scale.

The more general he stays, the better he does...

See the O'bama campaign of 2008.

A...

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...