Recommended Posts

The woman and baby who Donald Trump jokingly kicked out of the Arena is being interviewed on Fox. She is still a big fan.  One reason she will vote for Trump is because she can relate to him. He is so real. I think she is right. He says stuff we wish we were brave enough to say, and he has the Presidency to lose. That does translate into an “open” and “transparent” Prez.

Notes from his speech on reducing taxes. America is back. We are bigger than before. Get rid of the death tax, etc.

Say, amen, brothers and sisters. If there is booing at a Trump rally it is booing at the protesters. Behind 8 points, plus or minus 4? How can Donald possible win? Joke. He’s back.

Peter  

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

1 hour ago, Peter said:

The woman and baby who Donald Trump jokingly kicked out of the Arena is being interviewed on Fox. She is still a big fan.  One reason she will vote for Trump is because she can relate to him. He is so real. I think she is right. He says stuff we wish we were brave enough to say, and he has the Presidency to lose. That does translate into an “open” and “transparent” Prez.

Notes from his speech on reducing taxes. America is back. We are bigger than before. Get rid of the death tax, etc.

Say, amen, brothers and sisters. If there is booing at a Trump rally it is booing at the protesters. Behind 8 points, plus or minus 4? How can Donald possible win? Joke. He’s back.

Peter  

I do not think loosing the election is that big a deal to Trump.  Trump has made his living as a businessman,  not a politician.  Win or lose, he has turned the Republican party on its head,  and if he wins, he will make the biggest dent in American politics since Lincoln.

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

Bob,

I assure you it would be a big deal to Trump if that happened, which it won't.

And it would be a big deal to lots of people. I know. I'm one of them.

Michael

Trump had honest work to do prior to his  involvement in the political scene.  He actually made money the Old Fashioned Way.  He Earned it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The media isn't hiding what it is doing.

It is literally trying to take Trump out and has no compunction about adhering to the journalistic standard: who, what, when, where, why and how. Take a look at the following New York Times article.

The link on Drudge is called: "MEDIA: OPERATION 'GET TRUMP'..."

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
Jim Rutenberg
Aug. 7, 2016
New York Times

From the article:

Quote

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.

. . .

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

In other words, according to this featured New York Times writer, you are no longer bound by objectivity if you are a journalist who is against Trump. He even puts this in his headline.

Instead, you are bound by what you imagine history will see and this gives you the right to be "true to the facts" (or not) according to your opinion of what will happen later. This bonehead, Rutenberg, even says it is now "untenable" to report facts objectively in the present because being opposed to Trump erases his need for journalistic integrity.

That's pretty close to making an admission that this particular boneheaded journalist, speaking for himself and others, sees his sacred mission to be a propagandist, not a journalist. Notice how eager he is "to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century." 

Look at that headline again. Like all sleazeballs do, this idiot is blaming his own lack of integrity on the person he attacks, in this case on Trump. He claims Trump is the one testing journalistic objectivity, not him. He's essentially claiming that poor little him is the victim, that he is being forced by big bad Trump to lie and betray his profession.

I weep for our press... They have sold out their souls for a political bumper sticker...

But that's not all.

It's getting physically dangerous to be a Trump supporter.

Look at the following main Drudge headline:

08.08.2016-15.14.png

That links to the following article: 

Woman’s Home Vandalized Because Of ‘Trump’ Signs
By Gabriel Roxas
August 7, 2016
CBS-DFW

(DFW = Dallas, Fort Worth in Texas)

This lady plastered Trump signs all over her yard in reaction to vandalism and hostility.

From the article (and video at the link):

Quote

The homeowner said she never planned for her yard to look like the way it does with giant Trump signs even on her roof. She says she started with a couple of small lawn signs, but after repeated vandalism, this was her answer.

. . .

“Go home. We’re building a wall. And I’m going to help,” Kimberly Loyd yelled to a group heckling her as they drive by her home.

This kind of war of words doesn’t bother her.

What does bother her is the repeated vandalism over the last two months. Her surveillance camera caught someone painting a swastika on one of her signs.

. . .

McKinney Police said they’ve received multiple complaints about vandalism.

They also had to get involved Saturday when protesters showed up with signs mocking some of Donald Trump’s statements from the campaign.

. . .

Police say officers did have to advise the protesters what they could and could not do.

As for Loyd, she says no one needs to tell her how she can express her views.

“It’s not political. It’s more like, this is my right. This is my property,” Loyd said.

But that's the tame story.

Take another look at that Drudge image above. See the upper left? It links to the following story

Trump Voter Shot After Bar Political Debate Turns Violent
August 8, 2016 
AP
CBS Pittsburgh

From the article:

Quote

CLEVELAND (AP) – An Ohio man accused of shooting another man in the leg during a fight over presidential politics last month has turned himself into police.

Cleveland.com reports 45-year-old Darnell Hall has been charged with felonious assault.

. . .

But at Saturday’s hearing, defense attorney Harvey Bruner said the bar owner tried to grab Hall’s gun, which caused the gun to fire one shot.

Bruner said the 60-year-old man had said Republican Donald Trump would be a good president. Hall disagreed.

I'll be frank about it.

Where I live (Evanston, Illinois) is extremely liberal. There is a bus stop on the corner near the front of our house. I don't want to subject Kat or our autistic-spectrum son to vandalism and hostility and possibly physical aggression, so I don't put a Trump sign out. If I were alone, I probably would.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tell the anti-Trumpers are scared, too.

There were spaced protesters at his Detroit rally yelling about small hands.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Clinton News Network (CNN):

Ironically, the protesters were the ones doing the schoolyard taunting as Trump stayed in smooth speaking professional mode.

:) 

Michael

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

The media isn't hiding what it is doing.

It is literally trying to take Trump out and has no compunction about adhering to the journalistic standard: who, what, when, where, why and how. Take a look at the following New York Times article.

The link on Drudge is called: "MEDIA: OPERATION 'GET TRUMP'..."

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
Jim Rutenberg
Aug. 7, 2016
New York Times

It looks like I'm not the only one who saw what this really means.

Rush Limbaugh did, too:

If Bashing Trump Were an Olympic Event, the Media Would Win Every Medal

It starts like this (I'm cutting out the opening banter):

Quote

Brian came in moments ago to hook me up here for the particular tech I need to do the program, and they flashed a picture on CNN of Trump looking the scariest, most mean, vicious person you've ever seen.  I looked up at it, and I said, "Brian, these guys are doing a bigger job on Trump than they've ever done on me." 

He says, "Yep.  It's incredible."  It's so bad that the New York Times has written a piece justifying it.  Our old buddy, Jim Rutenberg, who has taken over the media analysis responsibility at the New York Times has a piece: "Balance, Fairness and a Proudly Provocative Presidential Candidate."  What this piece is about -- it prints out to like six pages -- what this piece is about is how the media has had to abandon all of its known norms. 

The media has had to abandon all of its objectivity.  The media has had to abandon all of its impartiality, because Trump is so bad that the media has nothing else to do; they have no choice but than to try to destroy him.  For the sake of humanity, for the sake of decency, for the sake of saving the planet. 

I've never seen a piece like this.  It's written with ringing hands, "Oh, we feel so bad about this, it's just horrible, but it's a necessity.  We've never been in a situation -- everything we learned in journalism school has had to be thrown out the window." I'm paraphrasing.  These are not actual quotes.  But we'll get into it here 'cause it sets everything up.  It sets everything up for the -- well, the rest of the campaign, the rest of the program today, you name it.

I have a feeling the public is seeing this, too, and public perception is growing. Not only is the sheer over-the-top nature of the attacks on Trump near the surface, now people like this idiot is even admitting what they are doing right in the New York Times.

But there's a reality the media "geniuses" are not taking into account. Public opinion at this level is like a gigantic ship. This dishonest manipulative media assault on Trump (essentially, media-wide propaganda) will sway some tuned-out people right now, that is until they discern they are being duped. Then the ship of public opinion of the "low information" folks will slowly turn (all big ships turn slowly), while media manipulators will frantically try to run it like a small powerboat and not understand what happened to public sanity.

And what will have happened will have been them, being sleazebags, and pissing on their audience.

Michael

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

It looks like I'm not the only one who saw what this really means.

Rush Limbaugh did, too:

Those Hillary articles that WaPo published looked dishonest to me from the beginning, giving the appearance of objectivity to sucker more people into reading anti-Trump articles.

I you wanna tell a good lie, you gotta sprinkle some truth into it.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Fox:

Parents of 2 Benghazi victims sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/08/parents-2-benghazi-victims-sue-hillary-clinton-for-wrongful-death-defamation.html


The parents of two of the four Americans who died in the Benghazi attack in 2012 filed a lawsuit Monday against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, alleging her "reckless handling" of classified information contributed to their deaths.

[...]

The lawsuit suggests that Clinton's use of a private email server contributed to the deaths of Smith and Woods, adding that terrorists were able to "obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now infamous September 11, 2012 attack."

"Having used a secret private email server that we now know was used to communicate with Ambassador Christopher Stevens with confidential and classified government information, and which we also now know was likely hacked by hostile adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea aligning with terrorist groups, it is clear that Hillary Clinton allegedly negligently and recklessly gave up the classified location of the plaintiffs' sons, resulting in a deadly terrorist attack that took their lives,” Klayman said in a statement announcing the suit.

In addition to the wrongful death and negligence charges named in the suit, the parents also claim that Clinton defamed them in statements to the media, according to court documents.

"During her campaign for President, Defendant Clinton has negligently, recklessly, and/or maliciously defamed Plaintiffs by either directly calling them liars, or by strongly implying that they are liars, in order to protect and enhance her public image and intimidate and emotionally harm and silence them to not speak up about the Benghazi attack on at least four separate occasions," Klayman wrote in his complaint.

 

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

deleted

Trump is now saying he fell for Fox's storyline on the $400 of Iranian repatriated money.

He fell for it.

He said many many many people believe Clinton emails resulted in the death of an Iranian physicist.

He fell for it.

He said a photo depicted Cruzs father with Oswald.

He fell for it.

He said Cruz was responsible for a Melania photo.

He fell for it.

He said Russia would not invade Ukraine.

Just where does Trump get his news? We know he praises the Enquirer.

How can a man be soooo right and be so wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Here's a good summary and discussion on Trumps'  ((9 billionaire businessmen and investment managers, 1 oil magnate of questionable credibility, 1 economist, a visiting fellow, 0 women and a part time poker player) less costly 2.0 economic plan.

 

I thought Trump liked women. )

Wait, is this the Trump humor thread? )

Well, Im sure they're very smart. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

He fell for it.

Geoff,

The geniuses you prefer to have power instead of Trump said a lot of things like there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and I didn't have sex with that woman. Lots and lots and lots of things.

And we all fell for it.

Except now some of us aren't falling for it anymore...

:evil: 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben,

Geoff thinks the video below is a brain freeze, see here:

2 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Trump was interviewed this morning on Maria Bartiromos show. He was asked several times about his economic plan and ACA. Fascinating stuff watching brains freeze, like hearing records skip or lips move where nothing particularly useful comes out is annoying.

He's talking about this interview (I'll try to get the whole thing later):

I can't find the freeze and I'm pretty sure you won't find one, either.

But he does. So he sees things about Trump differently than you and I do.

:)

Michael

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

Geoff,

The geniuses you prefer to have power instead of Trump said a lot of things like there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and I didn't have sex with that woman. Lots and lots and lots of things.

And we all fell for it.

Except now some of us aren't falling for it anymore...

:evil: 

Michael

Huh? That I prefer? Whered you get that idea from?

 My flag hangs upside down here. . 

 

52 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I don't understand

Maybe ask a question?

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

Huh? That I prefer? 

Geoff,

It works like this, at least in this election.

Barring illness, we either get Trump or Clinton. (Some third party stuff is happening, but nothing I've seen stands a realistic chance.)

If you don't prefer Trump, you prefer Clinton by default. Ditto the other way around.

If you don't prefer either and refuse to vote, or if you vote for a third party, you actually prefer both Trump and Clinton because you are intelligent enough to know that one of them is what you are going to get.

The people who truly don't prefer any of it leave the US and go live elsewhere.

I know.

That's exactly what I did for 32 years.

Michael

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

Maybe say something coherent

They are jokes with smiley faces. Upthread, where I crossed out Trump are the people responsible for the speech that Trump gave. Youre not going to ascribe everything he uttered as his own thought are you? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff,

If you don't like Trump's speaking style in public, you are really not going to like Carl Icahn:

Now let's watch the mainstream media tell us Carl Icahn doesn't know what he's talking about.

That is, until they think about the millions Icahn says he wants to put into Trump's campaign...

They don't understand average productive Americans, but that, at least, they understand...

:)

Michael

 

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

They are jokes with smiley faces.

Ah okay, we're on the same page now.

4 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Upthread, where I crossed out Trump are the people responsible for the speech that Trump gave. Youre not going to ascribe everything he uttered as his own thought are you? 

No, but Trump did have something to do with the plan, quite a bit, actually.  To be as successful as he is in business he has to understand the economy to a large degree, external forces can affect his business(es) big-league :)

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