Peter Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 - February 20th, 2016 – Thank you south carolina! Dear Peter, We have won our second primary in a row, with many more victories to come. I cannot thank you enough for your support. We have traveled all over the country and met so many incredible voters. The enthusiasm and momentum is amazing and it is so important we keep it going! Tuesday is the Nevada Caucus, and if you don't know your Caucus location you can visit Donaldjtrump.com/nevada/caucus-finder/ to find out where you should be Tuesday night to show your support! Also, we are little over a week away from Super Tuesday and early voting has begun in Texas and Georgia - find your polling location at DonaldJTrump.com/vote . Thank you for your support- I could not do it without you! The silent majority is no longer silent. We will no longer be led by the all talk, no action politicians that have failed us all. Together, we are going to Make America Great Again. Best Wishes, Donald J. Trump P.S. Show your support with official Trump campaign merchandise: http://shop.donaldjtrump.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I have stopped receiving email from OL for some reason. zip. nada. I received the above from Trump today or last night to be precise. What should I do about the mail? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Yeah, me too. I'm not getting notifications of fan mail any more. Please advise. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 This is so well done.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Email notifications: That should do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 MSK, why would we want to access *your* account settings? ;-) Seriously, Michael, the Messenger function is disabled (apparently by you, the administrator), and won't allow toggling to enable it. Could you raise the hood and fix this feature, please? And thank you. (I don't really want a desktop notification. I prefer them in email. Not as easily missed that way.) REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Quote This is so well done.. It certainly is. Clear and sotto voce. Smooth, seamless and strong. His son was aglow with pride. Thanks. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: MSK, why would we want to access *your* account settings? ;-) Seriously, Michael, the Messenger function is disabled (apparently by you, the administrator), and won't allow toggling to enable it. Could you raise the hood and fix this feature, please? And thank you. (I don't really want a desktop notification. I prefer them in email. Not as easily missed that way.) REB Roger, What part of "email notification" in my screenshots was hard to understand? Confucius say: One must read before complain about words." If the images are hard to read from me making them smaller, simply walk through the process once on your end and you will not only see all the "email notification" stuff you want, you will be able to choose it. On another point, when the upgrade happened, a lot of default settings got changed automatically. So did the names for some things. So I'll check the messenger thing. But could you send me a screenshot of where it is disabled on your end? I just looked at your profile page and I can send a private message to you just fine. If private messages were disabled, I would not be able to do that Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Heh. OMG! Looks like the latest DRUDGE REPORT poll results! How can that be? ? pic.twitter.com/PZ0CxiAh6O— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) February 21, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) On 2/18/2016 at 9:00 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Not that many people read his stuff on Facebook anyway, so he's not even influencing anyone. He's singing to his choir. A couple of fun if only slightly bizarre articles concerning Trump. The first is by Steve Berman at The Resurgent website. These guys are mostly in the bag for Cruz, and have energy enough to pump out ten or so articles a day when lit by enthusiasm. The site is I think a project of Erick Erickson, or has ties to him ideologically. The funnest one is "Pax Trumpanius" -- because it takes an analogy and does taffy-pull on it. Schweet and kooky: The key to Julius was his populist bent and need for public adoration. He placed this above the need for Rome to maintain a democracy, or for the messy defects that go along with principled citizen rule. He only wanted to make great deals, conquer Gaul (who was eating Rome’s lunch before Julius), and bed Cleopatra because she was a beautiful Nubian. Men do not change much in 2,000 years. Human nature and DNA haven’t really altered the human race to the point where basic drives, ego and self-fulfillment are fundamentally different for Donald than they were for Julius. The public’s drive for bread and circuses (which would come much later for Rome) was also about the same as it is today. The populist shift which elevated Julius Caesar is really comparable to the one elevating Donald Trump in many ways. However, one thing is different. Technology has made the world much smaller today than it was in Caesar’s day. News and time pass much faster and people’s wishes are fulfilled or denied in much less than a month, a year, or a decade. Julius Caesar transformed Rome in his lifetime from a Republic to an Empire. Donald Trump might do it in four years, should he be elected. The next snippet from ABC news -- a good article on exit polls, food for the wonks. I found it to be pretty salient for Canada (We are a long way from South Carolina, but more trade goes over the Ambassador Bridge at Detroit/Windsor than all the USA trade with Japan. We are for reciprocity, NAFTA, trade trade trade. So the support for the temporary ban on Muslims is striking. It's large, it is real. Of the 25 percent of the voting public in the South Carolina GOP primary an overwhelming majority want the ban. Perhaps the Democratic voting public is entirely skewed the other way .. but the temptations of Trump make me uneasy. It is emerging as my primary concern for a Trump presidency. What's in it for me? More than a billion dollars of trade each and every day). What would Caesar do? Oh, and another tidbit from the exit-poll entrails and bone-cracking, by way of Mr Trump's lovely speech congratulating his opponents Rubio and Cruz. In the speech he showed a quicksilver awareness of the boneworms, wonkpunditz and the ilk. He mentioned that the boneworms were trying to do arithmetic, trying out the bozo line that 'combined' totals of 'drop-outs' by candidacide would shift in any way but proportionally to him. Eg, Bush's miserable three to nine percent support might bleed Rubiocruz way, but is just as likely to bleed down Trump Avenue. Here's the Donald to say it much simpler than me: Your browser does not support the Video tag. Further in these results, nearly three-quarters of GOP voters identify themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians – again a record if it holds in final data, up from 65 percent in 2012. It was evangelicals who lifted Cruz to victory in Iowa; they made up 64 percent of voters there, vs. just 25 percent in New Hampshire, where Trump won. Trump appears to have lost to Cruz in the debate over who’s run the most unfair campaign: Four in 10 say it was Trump, while a third point to Cruz, with three others (Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich) in single digits. That said, there’s a Trump-or-bust aspect to his support: More than four in 10 Trump voters say they’d only be satisfied if he’s the nominee. For comparison, just a quarter of Cruz’s supporters say they want only him, and just two in 10 Rubio voters say they’ll be satisfied only with their man. The ABC News exit poll found record turnout by conservatives and evangelicals in the state. Strikingly, nearly three-quarters of voters supported temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States – exceeding the 65 percent who said so in New Hampshire. They were a key support group for Trump in both states. Considering again the boneworms and pundits and stabs at arithmetic, I will sound my gong again: the Magic Number for the Trump campaign is 33%. As shown in South Carolina, it doesn't fucking matter if your opponents collectively amass 60+ percent of the votes -- the plurality trumps second place and returns close to 100% delegates nine times out of twenty, and an SEC sweep is not crow schmutz but probably reality. Gong tune two: keeping both Rubio and Cruz alive is in Trump's best interest; as long as the Cruzbio votes are split, a mere 33% will bring home the whole hog every time. -- the only caveat I might offer, and not from the bone-worms, is that Trump does need to be aware of the 'Survivor' aspect of the race just now. Off to hospice goes Jeb (on which subject I eat crow today in the appropriate predictions poll thread from last summer), and the measly stringy vote bleed means fuck all. On the horizon, though, is another candidacide. I think both Cruzbiots are in if for one more month. The longer each stays standing -- no matter if they together best Trump showings by double digits, the more winner-take-most/all delegates Mr Trump will have jingling in his cash-out bowl. It is all pretty simple, and not even math Edited February 21, 2016 by william.scherk Removed errors, clarified :"boneworms" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 This bothers me... Thank you @SarahPalinUSA for your amazing help and support. Big win, leaving now for Atlanta and Nevada.The people of South Carolina got it!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2016 Why hasn't Sarah, Bristol or any of the Palins come out with congratulations or manifestations of happiness at Trump's win? I hope it's negotiation (Sarah's a quick learner) and not rift... Hmmmmmmm... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, What part of "email notification" in my screenshots was hard to understand? Confucius say: One must read before complain about words." If the images are hard to read from me making them smaller, simply walk through the process once on your end and you will not only see all the "email notification" stuff you want, you will be able to choose it. On another point, when the upgrade happened, a lot of default settings got changed automatically. So did the names for some things. So I'll check the messenger thing. But could you send me a screenshot of where it is disabled on your end? I just looked at your profile page and I can send a private message to you just fine. If private messages were disabled, I would not be able to do that Michael You think *you're* Confucius - what about those of us who read your words and find they don't apply to what we're asking about!? I'm getting the private message just fine - just not the notifications. At the top of your post, you wrote "Email notification," but in the screen shot, we saw this: As you can see, "Method to use..." has the 1st item selected. It says *nothing* about an email (while the 2nd and 3rd items *do*). This indicates that the 1st item refers to notification in general, not via email. As I mentioned, I prefer email rather than desktop notification, because I'm not likely to notice the latter. Below this are some Notification preferences, none of which are helpful to me. Then, there is the Notifications List & Email, which shows this: As you can see, under Messenger, "I receive a message" is disabled for Email, and when I pass the cursor over it, it says the Administrator (not blaming you, but the software, right?) has disabled the toggle function. Just to clarify - yes, I *am* getting notifications via the "bell" icon at the top of the OL page, but I want my notifications via *email* as I had them set before. Is the fix something I need to change on the page in screen shot 1 - or do you need to tweak something on the page in screen shot 2? REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Roger, The screenshot helped. Believe it or not, I use such a big view on my computer screen, I didn't realize there was more on that page if I kept scrolling. Duh... It should be OK now. However, I defaulted everything to "notification" (most people prefer not to receive emails and treat them like spam), but you can now edit it and toggle email on. Let me know if there is any further problem. Thanks, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, The screenshot helped. Believe it or not, I use such a big view on my computer screen, I didn't realize there was more on that page if I kept scrolling. Duh... It should be OK now. However, I defaulted everything to "notification" (most people prefer not to receive emails and treat them like spam), but you can now edit it and toggle email on. Let me know if there is any further problem. Thanks, Michael Hey Michael - thanks for the tech support! I'll let you know if I have any further difficulty, but the email toggle is definitely enabled now, so yay for that! REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) I have been trawling places where the electoral boneworms and wonks show their work, such as it is. This indicates that I have been quite thoroughly steeped in Trump Wisdom, electoral-style. Most analyses agree with me on three larger points: 1. Magic 33% 2. Plurality=Majority with three-man field 3. If nothing changes, 1236 to Trump -- the 33% floor for Trump primary support showed its ultimate value in South Carolina. Just shy of 33%, the map+math of the state did as predicted, and gave the lion's share to the plurality. Though not put in so many words, it doesn't fucking matter if the non-Trump votes are a majority, unless and until .. -- five-man, four-man, three-man race favours Trump majority: a mere plurality is all you need to win a majority of delegates. Some analysts get deep into the GOP primary rule-book, explaining that there is a method behind the plurality=majority output under three-man conditions. This is the way the party planned it -- to give extra weight to the front-runner, to shorten the season, to deliver a unity candidate long before Cleveland. -- 1236 to Trump, if nothing changes. All the pundits have absorbed the math+map reality (except for the deranged and party-hacked or bought mouthpiece, or those too stupefied by Trumplove to think straight). There are only two possible routes to a non-Trump being nominated in Cleveland. I will sketch those two routes and some speculative tracks and short-cuts for next time out. In the meantime, a bit of Hate. A two-minute hate. If you prefer, the complete Hate Rant is encapsulated in the audio file. Even though the audio voice is sexy and inviting, nothing can remove the insensate reaction, the lizard, the hateful zombie core-story awfulness of its primary assumptions, right? SOUTH CAROLINA POST-MORTEM THOUGHTS. First, Trump won handily, again getting a third of the vote. (The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls had given him 31.8%; it looks like he got 32.5% -- almost exactly as predicted.) In a two-person race, given his high negatives in the polls, he'd possibly get trounced. But it isn't a two-person race and won't be any time soon. That works to his advantage in the electoral calendar, which has other candidates -- and the GOP Establishment -- sweating bullets. Unless they rally around a single candidate, fast, his path to the nomination is unobstructed. Second, Ted Cruz needed either to beat Trump or come in a close second. This was supposed to be a good state for him. Instead, he came in ten points behind Trump and, as of this writing, about a thousand votes -- just a tiny fraction of one percent -- behind Rubio, too. Given that 72% of the South Carolina GOP primary electorate call themselves evangelical Christians, and that was Cruz's main target audience, he underperformed with them: He won 27% to Trump's 33%. Cruz did outperform his pre-election polling: The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls gave him 18.5% of the vote; at my last check, Cruz got 22.3%. I think that spread speaks well for his "ground game. But while Cruz underperformed with evangelicals -- not a happy sign for his chances going forward in the South -- S.C. is an "open primary" that allowed for Dems and independents to cross over into the Republican voting. Exit polls tonight said that 22% of those voting were "independents," and 33% of them went for Trump, while Rubio got only 19% and Cruz 17%. That won't be the case in upcoming southern primaries, which are closed primaries. In those states, with his great ground game, Cruz may have a better shot against Trump. [...] Rubio's problem is different. The exit polls showed that he has no significant lead over Trump with ANY demographic group. He barely edged out Trump among college graduates, tied him among those earning $100k - $200k and those aged 30-39, and beat him soundly only among those with post-grad degrees. However, all those demographics are only smallish fractions of the electorate. Trump beat him soundly among all other groups. It is hard for me to see how he consolidates a passionately motivated following that can challenge Trump's. Edited February 22, 2016 by william.scherk Removed 'autoplay' in borrowed code; edited for taste; removed link to Hate Speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 William, In your meanderings, did you notice if these wisened souls were the same who said Donald Trump would never win the nomination? Then said he was absolutely capped at 20%? And so on? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: William, In your meanderings, did you notice if these wisened souls were the same who said Donald Trump would never win the nomination? Then said he was absolutely capped at 20%? And so on? Well, I do have a historical memory, so of course. I also remember choosing Bush on our OL poll. I haven't seen you react to my eating of crow -- nor to my "Why I was wrong." I would be happy to dwell on that topic for a while. I am on record. This is my primary forum. I have a name. It would be way more interesting to the list, I imagine, than the unnamed souls who make noise about a 20% cap back when. Bring up a quote and I will have at 'er. Otherwise, snore. Move on, please. Pollyanna and I had hoped you might comment on the quiddities of the South Carolina election, not some murky somebody somewhere who was stupid. Maybe you would have commented on the quote above under some other circumstances, if say Sarah had taken time out from her busy family sport fun in the wilds of Alaska to comment on the hard magic numbers for Trump, or to congratulate his win. But then, why should she? You don't, Michael -- you don't congratulate Trump, let alone crow, on either Twitter or Facebook. You don't seem to use those platforms for anything but observation, and perhaps for not-so-funny reasons, because you fear being unfrenzed or 'banned.' I say fuck it, say what you think. You say something about 'and so on' about numpties not here, not speaking here, not quoted here. I want some reciprocity, Michael. I want some discussion. I want some good faith engagement. I mean, with what I say, and with what I present, and with your reactions. As the great comic might say, I got nothin. I got nothin for you. That is too bad. I want us all to be like the Imaginary Trump-WSS, always never leaving a question on the table. There, I answered your question, and await requests for clarification or expansion, or more pointed inquiries. It is February 22 and 67 delegates are in the Trump bag. I am apprehensive about Trump, about what Trumpism means for me. I suggest he has a sure road to the convention, and so does our mystery quoatee above. What do you suggest, Michael? Edited February 22, 2016 by william.scherk I decided to pepper my message with smileys, in case the tone came off as Hater and the Hatey Hates; added MP3 version with Bossa Nova soundtrack; added link to "Why I was wrong about Trump"; added pic of Todd Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: I mean, with what I say, and with what I present, and with your reactions. William, Really? After all the stuff I've written directly to you, you say this? Dayaamm! You don't have to like the way I discuss the things you raise. For example, instead of going into the damn poll-weed patch and looking at every damn bug on every damn leaf and every damn blade and every damn twig to say bugs are in the weed patch , I might say I see it differently and talk about how the triune brain works in communication and how that is the reason the polls keep getting confounded since they don't poll that stuff. But to pretend I don't react? Here... let me come up with some groupthink liberal phrases to communicate my selective outrage: We can do better... Why not use this as a teachable moment?... Let's not be obstructionist... We should agree on some common sense measures... Be careful with outreach deniers... So much depends on acknowledgment of otherness... We must strive for inclusion... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 How about an effort to not "force" folks into discussing only the way William wants to discuss stuff? Additionally, not throwing out all sorts of sour grapes with different emoticons in another long and complex view of the 3,078 th bug's wing pattern and indicating that we all should want to analyze the wing pattern also. Just a suggestion William. A.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Michael, let us discuss something besides other people and things unsaid, please. I think it is fair to say that have given much material. A request: please comment on my Trump crow-eating and first attempt to explain what where when why I was wrong. That would be fun for both of us, and for readers. Here, truncated part-quotes seems to indicate a mere Gotcha thing -- a staged conflict -- and I am not interested in that. We both have teeth. Let us use them not in display but to chew over thoughts and arguments given by the other. A chunk of a quoat this time did not lead to a chew. It led to a spit. At least it reads like a spit from this vantage, That is the general impression I am getting. You resort to dismissal, and sort of spit on Trump-doubters without considering their arguments. If I give you lots of argumentative material to work with, your responses thus seem different than would obtain in a conversation. Conversation that isn't about seizing on small phrases and over-interpreting them into Grave Suspicion. Maybe that is a better way of putting it. I would rather have a conversation -- and in so doing hit my three salient points a few times. I don't know what you would want to talk about in this conversation, but hopefully there would be lots of listening and give and take, and mental notes taken on both sides. It isn't a conversation to seize on phrases and disregard context and conclusions. It beggars good faith. But, to your point again, on reflection. My post including the Mystery Quoat was about three things. You did not mention one of those things in your 'reaction.' You brought up nameless others. To my points you indeed did not react, and this is repeated in your last comment. Instead of giving the most charitable interpretation (William would like to hear more engagement with his various points as presented as an argument), you give the worst: I cannot be trusted. I cannot be trusted to tell the truth that I do not see engagement. So, if you do not trust the 'the truthiness' of my desire to communicate, to discuss -- and if you do not accept my perception of a lack of engagement with my points and arguments, what to do? I will wait for engagement. You will do what you do. And let the smileys fall where they fall. -- your other material is not directly cogent to a conversation continuing on Mystery Quoatee or contingent on my earlier points unaddressed. But here is how I will answer it, in plan, once I clear other duties from my desk. I will try to put your entire comment in its best light. I will paraphrase the main thrust of argument, and deal in turn with each claim or assertion or point made. I will be fair and diligent as I can be on a heated political topic. I will strive not to use "You People" or even "you" in the response ... One more time, for emphasis: I say fuck it, say what you think. You say something about 'and so on' about numpties not here, not speaking here, not quoted here. I want some reciprocity, Michael. I want some discussion. I want some good faith engagement. I mean, with what I say, and with what I present, and with your reactions. Edited February 22, 2016 by william.scherk OL for the blind, audio added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 15 minutes ago, william.scherk said: One more time, for emphasis: I say fuck it, say what you think. You say something about 'and so on' about numpties not here, not speaking here, not quoted here. I want some reciprocity, Michael. I want some discussion. I want some good faith engagement. I mean, with what I say, and with what I present, and with your reactions. William: Your needs, wants and desires are not a claim on other individuals. Individualism 101. Ayn 102 A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 William, You're making up a problem where none exists. I mentioned something that was all over the news awhile back and you start talking about "nameless others." Weren't you alive when all those pundits kept making predictions of Trump's demise and giving out limited caps on his support? Or his high negatives at the time? Or any of that? But to humor you, I just Googled: Trump cap 20% ... and I got a shit load of sites selling the Trump "Make America Great Again" cap. I tried a few other phrases and Google is not helping... It is serving up only recent stuff on the first dew dozen SERPS... I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching this. If you are interested, go sifting, it's there in abundance once you can find the right search terms... As to why you were wrong about Bush, I don't know what you want me to say. Ever since the beginning, I kept saying the elites and intellectuals don't see people like me. It's not that they see the essence of what makes me tick and disagree with it. They don't see it. It's not something to be discussed or thought about unless one wants to look in that direction and feel good because one is so obviously indubitably irrefutably inherently metaphysically and spiritually superior to all that. You are one of the few who actually look at me, but when you look out beyond me, your blinders come back on. It's exactly like the establishment Republicans were with Obama supporters during two elections. (Frankly, the Obama intellectuals did not really see their supporters, either. They hit on some great persuasion techniques at the right time in history, allied to an indoctrination program of the young in schools, and basically got carried along for the ride. That's why they are having trouble reconnecting this time.) In the worldview of most intellectuals, the world runs top-down. Trump supporters take that with a grain of salt and let the little Superior Ones have their little thrones so long as they (the Trump supporters) can live a decent life without people fucking with them too much. But now they can't get jobs, yet they're told from on high that unemployment is at 5%. And that's just one thing. Do I really need to make a long list of the incredible amount of absurdities they are told to swallow? So they say, "You are not seeing me. You are patting me on the head and telling me to go away. I'm not going away this time. In fact, I'm going to organize with others like me and take your power away, then straighten out the mess you made." And the intellectuals and elites still won't see them. They are still looking for the right words or persuasion techniques or whatever to pacify them and make them go away. They refuse to take the values of Trump supporters seriously. And you have done that consistently. That is why you messed up with your Bush prediction. If you want statistics and polling and yada yada yada, I can't help you. The pollsters don't see Trump supporters except as manipulated multiple choice answers to precanned questions. Until you start seeing who Trump supporters really are and stop looking at them only for ways to yuck it up at their expense, I can't do much better as explanation. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: We can do better... Why not use this as a teachable moment?... Let's not be obstructionist... We should agree on some common sense measures... Be careful with outreach deniers... So much depends on acknowledgment of otherness... We must strive for inclusion... I love these quoats. i can do better. I have much to learn, less to teach. Obstructionism for the sake of Obstructionism is Obstructionism. I agree with the common sense measures. The Outreach Deniers are not to be trusted. The Outreach is real and measurable. If you don't define "otherness," I am going to divorce you. We must strive to Rock. 1 hour ago, Selene said: William: Your needs, wants and desires are not a claim on other individuals. Individualism 101. Ayn 102 Yes, I need reminding. I guess I need reminding that listing my preferences is a form of polling. I was giving the polliing results from a sample of one. I want a more nimble, thoughtful discussion with our Fearless Leader on matters Trump. I want to do better in coaxing interesting things out of him. I wish for fewer glittering generalities and put-downs and nursing of wounds. In wanting reciprocity, I make a Golden offer. Treat me right, I treat you right. Let disdain creep in to your treatment, I will still treat you right. Scratch that, I will try to treat you right. In the meantime, cautioned, I try again to understand what is excluded from interesting topics -- from the point of view of the Leader. I won't be as wont to utter boring stuff addressed in part to him, the better I understand the exclusion zone. And on further reflection, taking the POV of a transgressor of bounds ... The only claim made on me as an individual on this forum is that I be honest and forthright and follow the guidelines. My errors are better understood when I discuss them specifically. It may be upsetting an applecart to appear to demand better apples on show, but I am one of the apple-peddlers myself, so I can really only work on my own apple offerings, and only tangentially affect apple sales of my competitors. The market for apples in this Trump thread is pretty broad. Some like the crisp tartness of Washington apples, others the dreamy soft sweetness of Southern pippins. But I digress. I rock, but I digress. Oh, yeah, Individualism. This celebrates individualism. I am an individual. Disagreements always accrue benefits to the individual who best understands the disagreements. Ayn Rand celebrates Individuals. She celebrates me. Yay. I am getting a pony for Super Tuesday. Let the mindless grumping about Trumping resume. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: the intellectuals and elites I know. Bastards. I can't get over it, me. Edited February 22, 2016 by william.scherk Spelking, grammar, humour, blood. MP3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 On February 21, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Gotta love Ann. I did, too. (Well, July in my case, as this thread attests.) Michael Big props for AC and our own MSK - massive props to them both and who thought he would be winning here ??? Not me , not many . Thing is , is the game is not SC - as WSS states , March 1st . He has not wavered . Its about the nomination and until I see that , I really don't want AC , or MSK to get too comfy . I think that WSS stated that there are still many delegates left at this point . Until I see Nominee Trump , or nominee Rubio then its all nothing / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 9 hours ago, william.scherk said: SOUTH CAROLINA POST-MORTEM THOUGHTS. First, Trump won handily, again getting a third of the vote. (The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls had given him 31.8%; it looks like he got 32.5% -- almost exactly as predicted.) In a two-person race, given his high negatives in the polls, he'd possibly get trounced. But it isn't a two-person race and won't be any time soon. That works to his advantage in the electoral calendar, which has other candidates -- and the GOP Establishment -- sweating bullets. Unless they rally around a single candidate, fast, his path to the nomination is unobstructed. Great posts everyone !!!!!!!!! I do though see a 2 man race right now . Cruz is done , we all know this . Kasich , yeah ok . Etc etc etc . It is a war , its the establishment lining up and its down to 2 Generals and its a bloodless military coup . Rubio , status quo against the new Emperor . The establishment aint giving up here and DT has already won , its been amazing , his net worth is now real firm . The Art of The Deal . This thread will soon turn to a chorus of Yeah , but Trump would have won if . See , I don't give a fuck what the if is , don't care , not even really hoping for it - but its there . It is a war . This is like the first 3 hours of the 6 day war . Yeah , and whats your point . Its only been 3 hours 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