Roger Bissell Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 From The Onion: GOP Statisticians Develop New Branch Of Math To Formulate Scenarios In Which Trump Doesn’t Win Nomination March 2, 2016 The Onion From the article: Heh heh heh... Michael The GOP Establishment is going to be peeling a lot of Onions before this is all over. I heard this morning that it is "mathematically impossible" for Rubio to be nominated. (That's assuming there isn't an alien abduction of Trump and Cruz, or some similar catastrophe that befalls the two front-runners.) REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Post-mortem ... standing on one foot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Here's something to think about. Does anyone think all these new people came out to vote for Rubio or Cruz or Kasich or Carson? Many came out to vote for Trump or against him. That's the truth. More for than against, obviously. Absolutely amazing. This is a movement! When it is your turn to vote- get out & #VoteTrump! It is time to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!Posted by Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Here's something to think about. Does anyone think all these new people came out to vote for Rubio or Cruz or Kasich or Carson? Many came out to vote for Trump or against him. That's the truth. More for than against, obviously. Michael And going the opposite way for Evita and it is beginning to be noticed the other side... Quote Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states that held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results. It declined in virtually every state, dropping by roughly 50 percent in states like Minnesota and Texas. In Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia, the number of Democrats voting decreased by roughly a third. The fall-off in Democratic primary turnout — which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting voters and attracting them to the polls — reached deeply into some of the core groups of voters Mrs. Clinton must not only win in November, but turn out in large numbers. It stands in sharp contrast to the flood of energized new voters showing up at the polls to vote for Donald J. Trump in the Republican contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ha! Did you see the difference between voter turnout for the Dems and Repubs? Not even close. A large percentage of a small number is still a small number. Michael I did. I didnt think you had a smirk. Its a full on crow! ) Unabated enthusiasm is the story line here. I wouldnt expect anything less. ) Im (scuse the lack of ') one who voted in Va.'s primary (no 3rd party ballots) for someone other than the chosen one. A belief that non Trump voters will all or in part redound to him is founded on what principle? I'll admit that since the 80's every candidate that won Super Tuesday won the nomination. You are aware that Trump has the highest negatives amongst all candidates? And the total vote for all other candidates supercedes votes for Trump. Heres an idea, maybe legs maybe not. Those who chose an alternate candidate are unhappy with Trump and go Libertarian. If the popular vote exceeds 5% in the next election that party will get matching federal funds. I only have so much to give to this discussion because in the end I am but one vote in 125M. "Many came out to vote for Trump or against him. That's the truth. More for than against, obviously." Ill take a stab at that. They voted their conscience. The American Capitalist party will be up and running (cough) in 2020. If there ever was a fully fleshed out platform for objective mentalities I would think thats it. Now would you vote your conscience or would you vote Republican? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Deleted. I hadn't seen that Roger Bissell already posted the Onion article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: I don't know what fits, since basically all I know about David Duke is that he's prominent in the KKK, but considering how desperate the Old Guard Republicans are to scotch Trump, and suspecting that some of them aren't without connections to the KKK, I wonder if the endorsement was "encouraged." Ok, that's different. You're not questioning Duke's motives, as in, he said what he said with the goal of hurting Trump. You wonder if there was a false flag operation, say, a (closet) Cruz supporter who knows Duke suggested a public endorsement would be a good idea, and Duke went along with it. Could be. Doubt we'll ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 https://audioboom.com/boos/4250118-to-make-men-free-a-history-of-the-republican-party-by-heather-cox-richardson This recording is a travelogue through history of political philosophy starting with the formation of the Republican Party. She suggests the patterns of the cultures acceptance of politicians. What happened in 1880's-90's was a pattern over whether government should be about redistribution or the producers in control. What came about was anti-trust and hatred of the good being good. I took it as a partially good when viewing Lincolns and what I knew of him growing federal powers. In the recording it was mentioned that he also brought about several things regarding individual property rights (Homestead Act). That was in part what made the Republican Party and got Lincoln elected. She puts forth an argument that Obama, the fourth great Republican president, is just to the right of Eisenhower. Obama recognizes his own republican leanings. Thus swings the pendulum. She says though she is a prophet of the past not the future and that the language of 2020 will be the language of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower. It was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, merjet said: Deleted. I hadn't seen that Roger Bissell already posted the Onion article. Merlin, Actually Roger quoted me posting it. I don't know what value that particular nugget of elucidatory gold has, but there it is. Maybe somebody out there will sleep better knowing I posted it first. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said: A belief that non Trump voters will all or in part redound to him is founded on what principle? Geoff, Not all will go to Trump during the primary. Only part. And the principle is more an attitude than a principle. It is total exasperation with the elitist establishment and wish to be seen for a change. So, for example, if (actually when, I hope ) Cruz folds, expect a good chunk of his voters to go to the other non-establishment candidate with a strong chance to win, i.e. Trump. Ditto for Rubio's voters, although less since he is the establishment's darling. Ditto for the others to a more or less degree. Especially Carson if Trump can convince Carson that he is capable of being polite for at least small stretches of time. If Cruz and Rubio made a deal after all the crap they've thrown at each other, I predict a large chunk of their voters would feel funny about it and migrate to Trump. This applies more to Cruz than Rubio, but still to Rubio. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Olive branch or deception? I'm not sure. Probably olive branch since Fox has been taking a hit with its audience for manipulating pro-Rubio so blatantly. As predicted, Trump reaching out to make peace with Republican "establishment". If he becomes inevitable party would be mad not to unify.— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) March 2, 2016 The difference between manipulation and support is the following. Some of Fox's people openly support Trump (although they support others, too): Judge Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity, the Fox and Friends crew, Lou Dobbs and maybe another here or there. But they openly say it. The pro-Rubio manipulation comes when the news is supposed to be objective. For instance, Trump wins big and regular Fox News reporters gush on and on about what a great night Rubio had. Or do they really think people don't notice that Frank Luntz's polls on the prime-time news shows always show how voters hate Trump and love Rubio? Gimme a break. This keeps happening over and over. Now that Rubio's chances are torched (one pundit is even calling him Baghdad Bob ), Murdoch is probably extending the olive branch to Trump. Still, with people like Murdoch, the best policy is trust but verify. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Geoff, Not all will go to Trump during the primary. Only part. And the principle is more an attitude than a principle. It is total exasperation with the elitist establishment and wish to be seen for a change. So, for example, if (actually when, I hope ) Cruz folds, expect a good chunk of his voters to go to the other non-establishment candidate with a strong chance to win, i.e. Trump. Ditto for Rubio's voters, although less since he is the establishment's darling. Ditto for the others to a more or less degree. Especially Carson if Trump can convince Carson that he is capable of being polite for at least small stretches of time. If Cruz and Rubio made a deal after all the crap they've thrown at each other, I predict a large chunk of their voters would feel funny about it and migrate to Trump. This applies more to Cruz than Rubio, but still to Rubio. Michael MSK, I see Trump winning the Republican nomination due in large part with voters who default on the principle of thinking for oneself. The number of voters who otherwise would have stayed home if confronted with establishment candidates are interested in his winning attitude more than anything having to do with politics. Its them youre counting on. Look, they gave up long ago, and now they have some belief that this guy is going to give back to them what was taken. I know, because I had the same attitude towards Reagan. I had little understanding of politics but he was funny, insightful, an empathetic anti government candidate and gave the appearance of being a regular joe and likable to boot. He received the same "hitlerian" treatment that Im hearing thrown from the dems now. As much as Reagan did for the country it was short lived and we are still paying for the out sized spending. Im interested in long term gains. If this is it Id say it gives the appearance of falling seriously short. Its tantamount to talking a good game. Im not sanguine over a reversal in policy matters and to be realistic am tepid in a reaction that expects a slowing of government growth. And as with all things that pendulum will swing when the strength of the emotions of the moment go back in the general direction of more not less. The country is not willing to change to any significant degree. Fact oriented folks should know, in the same way Rand came to understand the futility of her effect on the practical ideas in the mainstream, when it came to the masses willingness to absorb them, were at complete odds from actions that take hold. Boy, if Im not a debbie downer. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said: Ok, that's different. You're not questioning Duke's motives, as in, he said what he said with the goal of hurting Trump. You wonder if there was a false flag operation, say, a (closet) Cruz supporter who knows Duke suggested a public endorsement would be a good idea, and Duke went along with it. Could be. Doubt we'll ever know. Yes, I wonder if it was something like that, instigated in order to cast discredit on Trump, since to me it seems so obvious that a David Duke endorsement would be milked to the hilt by those desirous of pinning a "racist" label on Trump. Ellen === Technical Question if anyone reading this can answer: Is there a way to do a nested quote? When I hit the quote button, all that gets quoted is the reply I'm replying to, not the material to which the reply was replying. For instance, Ninth was responding to a post of mine, but all that shows when I hit "Quote" is his reply, not what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Now that Rubio's chances are torched (one pundit is even calling him Baghdad Bob ), Murdoch is probably extending the olive branch to Trump. Well this article from The Hill might be a sign: Report: Fox News 'finished with Rubio' Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 2 hours ago, turkeyfoot said: I see Trump winning the Republican nomination due in large part with voters who default on the principle of thinking for oneself. Geoff, Isn't it seductive to say that those who disagree with one do so because they are stupid? Trump supporters are really tired of hearing this. Have you noticed that they stopped listening? It's not because they don't think. It's because they're tired of this kind of thing. But suppose you are right. Imagine that! Not only don't these poor bastards think for themselves, they are under the illusion that they are thinking for themselves for the first time in a long time. Wow, what dummies! Good luck with that one. Piss on the voters. Ya' think that argument will win any votes for your man? Believe me, just because a voter doesn't know the latest elocutions handed down from on high by the think tanks, or the inner workings of the government, or hasn't read John Locke in the original, that doesn't mean they are not thinking for themselves about politics. America is made up of great people, intelligent people, independent people, and that applies to those I may disagree with (like yourself when we disagree ). The reason every citizen--not just the elite class--gets to vote for top government officials is because that is the only way they can be reflected in their Head of State as they exist. The general wave wins that election (mostly), but the general wave exists. It's real. It's not a herd of cattle, either. The elites don't know a damn thing about everyday citizens, so why should they choose? This is a country of more than minority and elite special interests. It is a country of great people (including them, even though they want all the power and do not want to include the majority). I, personally, don't want a president who doesn't know or care what an ordinary citizen is, but instead is an expert political animal, in like Flynn with the old-boy clubs, and only concerned with manipulating the power machine. I want the president to get his power precisely from people who are not experts in political philosophy and intellectual elevation. If his (or her) policies do not make sense to masses of ordinary people as they live, and he cannot explain those policies to them in terms they can understand, then he should not be president. You might be surprised at this because I study so much covert persuasion, but that is only one part of the equation. A society of people who don't think for themselves doesn't produce the magnificent society we currently enjoy. It produces cults. America may be many things, but it is not a cult society. I doubt it ever will be. And, frankly, it's a great place to live. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: Technical Question if anyone reading this can answer: Is there a way to do a nested quote? Ellen, One more thing to look into. I imagine nested quotes are no longer embedded because of the mobile friendly architecture (small screens). But I'll check it out. btw - If you hit the plus sign beside the word "Quote," it will allow you to use multiple quotes in the same post. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: Technical Question if anyone reading this can answer: Is there a way to do a nested quote? When I hit the quote button, all that gets quoted is the reply I'm replying to, not the material to which the reply was replying. For instance, Ninth was responding to a post of mine, but all that shows when I hit "Quote" is his reply, not what I said. I imagine nested quotes are no longer embedded because of the mobile friendly architecture (small screens). But I'll check it out. Here's an example and explanation of how the new software for the forum allows you to nest comments, if not nest wildly. It is both trickier and nicer than the old ways. The ways around the single-quote depth of 'quote' are simple if not intuitive. They come in two flavours. The first takes three steps. Or four, for planning. First figure out which part of what you want in your edit box. Second, use the quote plus button to 'multi-quote' from the older quotable comment. Third, quote plus again. In the edit box below should be the two quotes. Note in the upper left corner of each quote is a little +-box. If you click on that cross and hold it, you can drag it to where you want, up or down, inside the younger quote, where you want it. Another neat feature is using sequential snippet quoting. Here are lots of middle steps to let you be very selective in what you allow in your edit box: Select a quotable section of commentary in the text of the blowhard or mountebank you wish to add comment to -- click on the little black pop-up "Quote this" tip that appears when you linger over a selected passage or paragraph. Do that again or several times again, and they build up in the edit box. Each one can now be nested inside another where appropriate, and without the extra step of my first suggested modus operandi just above. It is finicky to nest more than two deep however. Phil would love it. Ellen, hope that works out good enough for you. I have adapted to the HTML-friendly edit box options. It still takes bbcodes as you type and Spoiler the preview has been replaced with WYSIWYG instant preview . I like that, and I like the zip of this over the old ways. If you need, I can do a screen recording of my MO. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: it is not a cult society. I doubt it ever will be. This is a country of more than minority and elite special interests. You might be surprised at this because I study so much covert persuasion Huzzah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Geoff, Isn't it seductive to say that those who disagree with one do so because they are stupid? Michael, Oh jeez, Im going to pretend you werent on the receiving end because youre smart. ) http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia Major population areas, college educated in the main didnt vote for Trump. Stupid no. Not low IQ's. What phenomenon do you think is owing to voting results in general in most all elections? Is it thinking errors, political indoctrination or cultural conditioning or something else? Forgetting Trump, I mean. The same kind of people who appear here at OL? What kind of person goes to a stadium to ride the wave of adulation and scream like little girls? Unless its the Stones? ) Im thinking people who constantly vote for the kind of politicians that society is willing to place on pedestals are stupid about politics. But forget what good hair, a masculine voice and manner, a handsome man can bring to the party. Forget about how Trump uses his native language that consists of mostly 2 syllable words, that his persuasion technique is in repeating himself. Yea, hes a good salesman, alright. And hes smart. But voters are more stupid than fifth graders and that mentality is where his appeal is found at least in the early rounds. His masterly technique is found in how people perceive and compare him to others not in the substance of what he offers. I dont doubt that if his nomination results in a win the congratulations will be for how smart voters were. ) Back to this idea of throwing votes. Please look at the platform and policies of the American Capitalist Party and see whether youre in agreement. http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com Would you throw your vote towards Trump if the ACP was at full throttle? If the calculation is always in favor of someone who might win rather than a philosophical ally then the result is where we find ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Mitt Romney will share his thoughts on the nomination this evening. In other news, Jimmy Carter's edgy new book, A Time To Win: How to Manage a Kickass Special Op, is coming out Saturday. And I know we've all breathlessly awaited Kaitlyn Jenner's inspirational HBO special, No More Con Man, coming Sunday, 7pm EST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I would be willing to bet anyone on this board real dollars that Trump is not the nominee and will not be the nominee . The scenario is not the issue , the black swan will appear , has appeared and will continue to form . Regardless if Rubio is being sacrificed here or not , Trumps days are very close to being over . When , how , who cares really but this thread started out as will Trump be POTUS , or at least the nominee . The chances are still the same , zero -regardless of what folks here choose to announce as fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, Marc said: I would be willing to bet anyone on this board real dollars that Trump is not the nominee and will not be the nominee . The scenario is not the issue , the black swan will appear , has appeared and will continue to form . Regardless if Rubio is being sacrificed here or not , Trumps days are very close to being over . When , how , who cares really but this thread started out as will Trump be POTUS , or at least the nominee . The chances are still the same , zero -regardless of what folks here choose to announce as fact Marc: If, by some bizarre flow of events, the Republicans are suicidal enough to "steal" the nomination from Trump and he runs 3rd party and manages to win the Presidency, which would be miraculous, do we win? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I hope you are right, Marc. I hope it is taken away. That will bring all the worthless, crony shits to disaster even faster than his nomination and election would have. Suicide is sad, but this one will be fun to watch. The focus on one man, and the fantasy that their problems are solved once his spell on their people is over, is really quite entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said: Would you throw your vote towards Trump if the ACP was at full throttle? Geoff, After seeing how people in our neck of the woods constantly screw up everything when they get power, I would still probably go with Trump. I would agree intellectually with ACP, but I would not believe the ACP people would get the job done. I would need some kind of incubation period to evaluate their competence as administrators when they deal with reality, not just ideology on paper. I do not agree with Trump on everything, but I do think he will get the country back to productive, peaceful and prosperous. I'll take my own life from there. I don't need a political party to do that part for me. I'm certainly not seeking another tribe. What about the Trump tribe? That's ad hoc. Once he's in power and fixing things, I will probably lose interest in politics again. And I believe most Trump supporters feel that way. (btw - Ayn Rand herself was all in favor of ad hoc movements. I can find you quotes if you like.) I'm not dissing the ACP. They just need to earn my respect. That won't happen with mere words. Not when the deeds of O-Land people and power have been so miserable. It's going to take time for me and the value is not just getting familiar with the idea. The value is observing what people do with power, not just what they say. So that might take a long time? I sure as hell hope so. The kind of respect and power they are seeking is not something that should be easy to earn. Let me make it concrete with just one example (and there are many) so this won't be a floating abstraction. ARI itself has been on a rewrite of history campaign regarding Ayn Rand ever since it was founded. ARI has the power to do that from controlling the archives and that's exactly what it has been attempting, even when caught and called out. (Insert list of atrocious attempts--if you need some, I will supply them.) I don't expect that to change anytime soon. In fact, people who rewrite history and think it's good to do that in one topic will tend to do it in another. I find this habit repugnant. So until that kind of thing gets better, I don't care what they say on paper. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeyfoot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 58 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Mitt Romney will share his thoughts on the nomination this evening. In other news, Jimmy Carter's edgy new book, A Time To Win: How to Manage a Kickass Special Op, is coming out Saturday. And I know we've all breathlessly awaited Kaitlyn Jenner's inspirational HBO special, No More Con Man, coming Sunday, 7pm EST. Thats funny, I dont care who you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 28 minutes ago, Marc said: I would be willing to bet anyone on this board real dollars that Trump is not the nominee and will not be the nominee . Marc, A huge cheer just came up from the crow pen. They're still sweating, though. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now