PDS

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

If that is what you think the Trump supporters think and the way they think, I actually do have a leg up...

Here's just one nuance. They don't think India and so on are stealing American jobs. They think the crony capitalists and government officials are such morons, they caused this situation and ignored that they were screwing their own constituents. They don't blame the Chinese or Indians or Mexicans or whatnot. They blame the morons who are giving America away for whatever reason they do it.

Michael

I said one example.   I don't think anybody needs to be subjected to everything my father said at the dinner table. 

So you don't think Trump supporters blame the Mexicans for any of America's problems?

Come on, man. 

On 5/6/2016 at 4:34 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I'm confused.

I didn't vote for Obama/Biden and Jonathan says he didn't either.

Is your post a typo or am I missing some arcane form of rhetoric?

 

Michael

Yes, you missed the point of my rhetoric.  

You didn't vote for a Presidential candidate in 2012, did you? 

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

That is correct. I only have your words to go on.

So if I am responding to your words in a certain manner that bothers you, maybe your are expressing yourself poorly.

I'm not saying you are doing the following for the same reasons, but your argument above is used all the time by highly emotional ortho-Objectivists who mouth off spiteful moral condemnations and get strong pushback against their hatred. This often surprises them. Rather than wonder if they did express too much hatred or did give a wrong impression, they blame the reader for not having a crystal ball and start saying the reader knows nothing about them.

In their case, readers do know one thing. They know what the posters wrote. And in your case, I know one thing about you and know it well. I know what you write.

That's what they judge and that's what I judge. 

If you are going to go into a conversation, misrepresent your views whether by stating them differently than you believe or by selective omission to create wrong insinuations and impressions, then claim ignorance of you by the other party as your Trump card (pun intended  ), we can call that technique many things, but not reason.

Then there's the whole thing of one even being aware of doing it...

Clarity takes work, but it's worth it. 

It's one of the reasons this site exists--so that people can gain clarity on what they believe and what others believe. Since OL is a discussion forum, the only way to communicate clarity (or obfuscation) is by posting words. Crystal balls and cauldrons for boiling animal parts with magic herbs and potions may be in a future upgrade to the software, but so far this feature is lacking.

 

Michael

Yes, we can agree you know what I have written.   Sometimes.  [See my post immediately above, addressed to you and predicting a Trump nomination in January of this year].  

My point in bringing up my background--which would otherwise be irrelevant here--was to remind you that you simply cannot chalk up objections to Trump as being from people who don't know how Trump supporters think, which is something you commonly do.  

My background actually has nothing to do with the merits of the Trump discussion, except you love to claim that I cannot see you (and now other Trump supporters, apparently).   But, since you keeping bringing this up as a way of dealing with issues, and as merely one example of this hole in your game, I would note that my father--a life long bricklayer and cement mason--talked and acted like Trump long before this iteration of Trump ever came along.  He complained about "the Japs" stealing auto manufacturing jobs from Detroit constantly, and he hated the elites, who he never really did a great job of defining.  This was my way of suggesting to you that you have no special claim to knowledge about how Trump supporters actually think, or how or why my background might prevent me from understanding them.   

That is the reason I bring it up.          

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You have made that claim before and I honestly don't recall you ever predicting Trump would win the nomination. In my mind, it is the contrary, or more specific, I don't recall you involved much in the prediction thing. (Maybe there was something during banter with Marc that escaped me since he made no bones about his predictions.  )

Just a few days ago, you made your Trump prediction claim in a jocular fashion (the reference was to a poll on OL) and WSS posted the results of his poll. You are not there making any prediction whatsoever. Here's the link if you wish to see it.

So I face a conundrum when you claim you predicted of Trump's win. You say one thing and my memory tells me another. I admit I might be wrong and my impression due to all the negative things you have written about Trump during the campaign. So a link would be helpful.

Michael

Here you go.

What I said on January 30 of this year was the following:

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I am not talking about me personally when I say I am not seen. I don't care if you see me, Micheal, or not (except as a friend. )

I am talking about two archetypes that have emerged during this election.

1. The Trump supporter, who has not been seen for decades, but is starting to be, albeit with great resistance and resentment.

2. Anti-Trump people of different stripes, mostly elite establishment types, but there are others. They have two characteristics in common other than a dislike (or hatred) of Trump. (a) They think Trump supporters are mentally suboptimal in some manner (intelligence, morality, bigotry, etc.), thus they need to dismiss these folks and do not need to see them further, and (b) They can't believe anyone intelligent or moral could possibly support Trump if only they knew who he REALLY was.

So every time I make the claim about not being seen, it is generally to highlight a form of dismissal, condescension, etc., that anti-Trump people have constantly used to put Trump, Trump supporters and their concerns in a mental or rhetorical peg hole and forget about them.

Why do these these enlightened ones do this? Obviously so they can free up the neurons in their massive intellects and get back to the serious business of being more brilliant, wise, witty and important than everyone else.

I recall making many distinct arguments, profiles, explanations, etc.--over and over, in fact, throughout this thread--about Trump supporters and my words were constantly dismissed by those against Trump. Since now Trump is winning, I figure it might be useful for those who made such an enormous error to understand where they erred. They may not like the fact that they have been so wrong over and over, but they were so wrong over and over.

You, yourself, constantly asked me, "How do you know?" when I said Trump supporters are like this and that. I would say I am one and I interact with them. You would dismiss it just like you tended to dismiss everything of importance about Trump and Trump supporters I said. At one point, you went through a phase of saying I was playing the victim card with each post.

Just this last time you said "too many words" to a frame of mind explanation I was trying to convey and dismissed it outright as a pile of bullshit to keep from losing an argument. Poof. Wave of a hand. And all those words I took time and effort to manifest from my honest best were dismissed. You didn't see them because you didn't even look at them.

Sorry, David. If you are going to keep your eyes closed on purpose and complain about the lack of light, I am going to say you are not seeing. Why? Because you are not seeing.

And if you think that is inconvenient or silly or somehow hypocritical or whatever, I merely point to the tsunami of Trump supporters you never thought would support Trump in your wildest dreams.

You did not see them coming because you did not see them, period.

I am operating on the assumption you want to know why. It's not personal. As before when you didn't see, it's about the ideas--identify correctly to evaluate correctly--but you think it's personal and competitive. (I'm going on your words.) Maybe I'm wrong and wasting time for both of us.

Michael

Here is a category error:.  for some reason on this thread, you keep conflating a disagreement with your point(s) with not "seeing" Trump supporters.   But I do see you and I do see them.   Otherwise I wouldn't have predicted long ago that Trump would win the nomination.    He obviously wouldn't be able to do this without lots of supporters.  

Here is a diagnosis error:.  you know almost nothing about me or my background.   You don't know whether I am from a blue collar family, whether my family are Trump supporters, or whether I grew up in the very environment that Trump has been found to be a target-rich environment for support.  But I did.  I heard the points you are making at my dinner table nearly every night as a kid.  I grew up in the environment you claim to know so well.  My broad family has suffered in it for at least 30 years.    Believe me, I know how "Trump supporters" think.  That's one  reason I predicted he would win.  

Finally, if I cared to reason in such a manner, I would argue that, in fact, you are not "seeing" me, or others who have concerns about a Trump presidency.  Instead, you lump me in with the "elite" or the Establishment wave your hand.  This is true, Michael.   You have at least half a dozen friends on this thread expressing Objectivish concerns about a Trump presidency and I'm not aware of your crediting a single one of those concerns.    Not a one.  Trump temperament?  No big deal.  Trump's lack off details?   I'm too busy to explain.  Etc.  etc.  

Insread, it has been the template I have described above time and again.  

On May 6, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Really?

Cavalier dismissal?

That is a great example of refusing to see someone.

But wait! There's more!

Now you can call my comment in this post "victimization card" as you turn your brain off and dismiss the whole matter with the wave of a hand.

I have to admit, that is a lot easier than dealing with the actual ideas.

In fact, that is what Trump supporters started doing because they got tired of it being done to them.

Michael

Why are you the only one on this thread who claims not to be seen, and only then in those instances where your argument has taken a tumble?

Other Trump supporters on this thread don't feel the need to claim they are not seen.  They seem very willing to address counter arguments head on.  Why do you constantly make this claim?  

You seem to have two jabs and two counterpunches every time you get in trouble on this thread:  Jab 1 is your "gotcha" allegation; Jab 2 is your claim that others can't "see" you when in fact you can be seen perfectly well; counterpunch 1 is an attack on motives, which usually implies some form of mind reading; and then counter-punch 2 is an appeal to authority about "Trump supporters" that presumes that you have special wisdom about their (presumably) homogenous traits.  

You have mentioned in the past that you literally don't care what I have to say on this Trump subject.  

If this is still true, then just put me on ignore and I will talk to the Trump supporters who are willing to engage on the merits.  

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

That stuck in your craw, did it?

   

Gotcha is not an end in itself. It is a dominance tool people use to gain compliance.

When used for correcting an identification, it is used correctly simply because errors of identification have to be corrected before evaluations and actions can be called rational (thus one can obtain optimal/consistent outcomes). Gotcha in this case is used for reason to dominate. (Left brain stuff.)

But the gotcha crew I bash doesn't use gotcha for that. They use it to humiliate people to get them to sit down and shut up. (Rigth brain stuff.) And if they cannot get the target to feel shame from the gotcha, they use it to discredit him or her before an audience. In this case, instead of the target feeling shame, they try to get the audience to subconsciously feel in danger of being themselves being shamed if they agree with the target, thus the audience is prompted to to dismiss the target (or when it heats up, demonize and scapegoat the target).

Gotcha is merely a process. It is neither good nor evil. Not inherently. Gotcha is like nuclear energy, which you can use to power a city or blow it up.

But the gotcha compliance game is totally impotent--it just doesn't work--when the target people begin to believe the gotcha accuser is not interested in identifying anything correctly and is only using a persuasion or propaganda method to intimidate them. Once they believe that, they turn on the gotcha accuser.

You, as a lawyer, will never have this problem in a courthouse. The authority there is a judge and/or jury, the rules are written down, they automatically include restrictive presumptions about the different players, and perjury is against the law so much that it comes with jail sentences.

Out in the public, the rules are different. The accusers and the accused can lie without much danger. They can abuse their messages, including gotcha compliance games. But the people receiving the messages have to believe a minimum attempt at serving their interests are included. If they think they are being manipulated just to get compliance for some sleazy agenda, they tune out. And they get pissed at the manipulator.

This is what has happened to the establishment with the growing number Trump supporters.

Believe me, it's not that hard to wreck the reputation of someone. The establishment has used its well-funded power and influence to wreck the reputations of many innocents for a long, long time. But now, its own reputation is on the line and it is discovering that once the seed of discredit starts growing in the public, it's hard to get it to stop.

Part of the motor driving the Trump surge is a growing belief in the establishment's lack of credibility. As this discredit grows, the number of Trump supporters grow. The belief that the establishment is rotten, corrupted and filled with nothing but liars and manipulators is one of the common ground issues that unite people of widely different demographics, cultures and belief systems. That makes it easy for more and more people to get on board without sacrificing or compromising their own core beliefs.

Gotcha is not an effective tool to combat that. But gotcha is what many of the establishment folks keep trying, probably because that's the only compliance tool they ever learned with any competence. They are bewildered why it doesn't work anymore. They are learning that gotcha as covert persuasion only works when people pay attention to the hook--which is usually a leading question. But how in hell are you going to persuade anyone of anything by gotcha when they won't even listen to the question? Nor any arguments?

That is the strength and weakness of gotcha. When I have talked against it, I have not meant that unreason and lack of logic should triumph. I have been talking about the folks who use gotcha for covert compliance, generally through shaming the target--especially when these folks have some really sleazy intended outcomes driving them.

Michael

Too many words, Michael:  you have been using the "gotcha" move as an escape hatch when you paint yourself into a corner.  

Since I don't possess mind reading skills like some others on this thread, I am not going to speculate on your motives for this, but the move is pretty transparent.

This might be a situation where we simply have to let the readers decide.     

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Spot on.

Michael

Dayamm!   With guys like you and Jonathan both voting Obama/Biden in 2012, no wonder they got reelected!  

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Trump's a bright fighter, and I'm sure he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents. He has to have noticed how easily Ryan was compromised, tainted and turned, and how simple it is to kick his ass politically. Ryan doesn't have a clue what toughness or leverage are. His power has come from the opposite: ass-kissing, capitulating, and abandoning his principles. Trump will wipe the floor with him.

J

I agree that Trump's a bright fighter and that he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents.   The rest will play itself out in the highly unlikely event that Trump gets elected.

Btw, may we assume that you voted Obama/Biden in 2012, given your assessment of Ryan above?   Or did he snooker you back then? 

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Trump has rendered all the standard GOP players--call them the real big guys--irrelevant. He stomped them. To which one might say, well, what good were they in 2008 and 2012? There is also the question of whether what's left will do the job of at least keeping the GOP in control of both houses of Congress. (And there are the governorships and state legislatures.)

Trump stomped his way to the nomination. Unfortunately, he stomped too much. That is, he stomped everybody and stomping everybody wasn't necessary,unless, that is, he intended to stomp the GOP itself--after all, he is a crypto-Democrat. What we do have on the table is he gets the nomination and great ego appeasement. (Cruz, et al. didn't need ego appeasement.) This means he's not going to do a huffy walkout and run as a third party candidate. Now we're going to find out if he's going to deflate or keep stomping away. I want him to keep stomping for that would mean stomping Hillary, the PIAPS (pig in a pants suit). That might salvage the GOP this year. Unless Trump now brings more to the table, all he's got is stomping. If his ego is a balloon it's got a hole in it and stomping is his way of keeping it inflated.

Of the two narcissists, Obama and Trump, Obama is the most robust. That's because the Democrat real big guys, including the mainstream media, are there and have always been there for him. That's why he's President, along with white liberal guilt if not vote fraud. Once Trump gets to be President--I doubt he'll make it (that's up to Hillary screw ups and she's on the verge of a huge one)--the Oval Office, Air Force One and the band playing "Hail to the Chief" and the necessary to them of mainstream media suck up to power, might do for replacing the stomp stomping.

The only thing I'm sure of is Ted Cruz would have lost to Hillary Clinton, for the campaign would have been conventional. Cruz ran a conniving campaign for the nomination especially noticeable at the end. He was incapable of sublimating it. (All politicians connive.) There is also the problem that his personality is all wrong for presidential campaigning. He doesn't know how to engage the voter who has to figure him out intellectually and most voters could give a damn about using their brains that way.

--Brant

I wonder what the final post count on this thread will be--can Michael keep it up until November--or do we all go fishing?

I agree with your last full paragraph.  

Cruz would have had almost no chance of beating Hillary.   Trump has a puncher's chance of doing so.

The binary choice on the table is Trump or Hillary.   To support Trump, a lot of people (I'm talking mainly to myself here...) need to get over their distaste for Trump's temperament and style--not so much his substance--because (1) nobody really knows what his substance is, i.e., witness his 3 flip flops since earlier this week, and (2) we are electing a statist no matter who ends up winning in any event.   One wants to expand government without apology and the other seems very comfortable such a result. 

Then again, GW Bush turned out to be a pretty strong statist too, as would have Romney.    So what is really lost should Trump land an unexpected left hook late in the fight?  Mainly a sense of stability related to temperament and style.

This country just might not be so interested--or even willing to feign interest--in limited government anymore. 

9 hours ago, Newberry said:

Spot on. 

Spot off.

I'm pretty sure the presiding Speaker of the House of one of the three co-equal branches of government has "leverage."

Unless passing laws through Congress has become just another game of "gotcha" among Establishment Types.

Ironically, the only way Ryan doesn't have leverage is if Trump gets his ass kicked so bad in  the upcoming election that he brings down the House with him.   Then he won't have leverage.   And neither will Trump.  But Hillary will.  Yippie.

On 4/27/2016 at 7:04 AM, Guyau said:

Implication for further reasons, complicating ones, may be found in this perspective on theism v. atheism in Rand 1936, 1938, and 1943, from draft of my book in progress: [Deleted due to formatting problems.]

So instead, I'll put in this space a little rounding out of Schopenhauer's picture. He writes:

"It is just as absurd to grieve over the time when we will no longer exist as it would be to grieve over the time when we did not yet exist . . . .

"Epicurus considered death from this point of view and therefore quite rightly said, 'death does not concern us', with the elucidation that when we are, death is not, and when death is, we are not. . . . Accordingly, from the standpoint of cognizance there appears to be absolutely no reason for fearing death . . . . And it is actually not this cognizing part of our I that fears death, but rather 'flight from death' proceeds solely from that blind willing with which every living thing is filled." (Translation of D. Carus and R.E. Aquila 2011)

I love that Epicurus quote..."when death is, we are not..."

The zen philosopher Alan Watts said something similar that "when we die, we are not going to be placed in a dark room and 'undergo' death"...  A similar sentiment.   He said that death is like going to sleep and never waking up, just like birth is like waking up without ever having gone to sleep.  

This is funny. 

I suspect it is going to take awhile for many to get used to the fact that the election is now essentially a binary choice.

Even those disgusted by Trump are going to have shake their etch a sketch a few times and see which of the two choices makes sense.  

Not which is ideal, but which makes the most sense.

26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No.

Michael

This would qualify as a powerful, one-word understatement. 

13 hours ago, Selene said:

Peter, it was only eight (8) months ago. 

"What a fool?"

Yeah, he wasn't as smart as all the OL folks who picked Trump...oops...hmm there were only two!

This is like a bad remake of 12 Angry Men!

I play the old coot who gave Fonda/Michael the supportive vote when he needed it.

Also provided great recipes for Crow.

A...

Ahem.  

I believe there were 3 who picked Trump...

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Such hunger for a gotcha!

Would you like catchup and mustard with it? Maybe a beer?

   

I would have no problem admitting this if I could understand the logic. But I don't.

I never claimed that Coulter was a died-in-the-wool anti-establishment person. I said that she has seen what I have seen about the middle class and that is her resonance. And I just now said she has an establishment side I don't resonate with. 

Besides, you are trying to peg my position as an "us against them" thing along some kind of ideological lines when it's more like firing the staff (throwing the bums out, actually) and hiring another.

If it were us against them (like us against ISIS) I would have no problem with assuming it.

I am against crony capitalism and Endless War for profit irrespective of who practices it. And believe me, there are ton-loads of people who do. But within that, I realize there are all kinds of degrees and situations, some really, really bad and some just plain-vanilla run-of-the-mill lightweight corruption.

We'll probably never get rid of the second, but at least we can tackle the first and get the worst out. So if that's a them and a competent staff is an us, I'm an us against that them.

But I have no doubt that is not what you are trying to get at.

Michael

Easy.  Easy.  I was trying to be playful.  Your guy just won for chrissakes.   

You're getting pretty predictable, my friend.  

Whenever you get hung on the petard of your own logic, you seem to have two default moves:.  (1) claim that the point being made is a mere "gotcha" and (2) question the motives of the person making the argument.   Do you notice this?

I hope you do a lot of stretching or hot yoga or something.  

Some of these contortions might otherwise cause a severe injury.  ?

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I've never been a fan of Coulter's endorsement of Romney. And Walker in that comment was typical of her Romney sentiments--with no criticism of Walker meant. He's a conservative hero who fits many situations because he took on government labor unions in a nasty fight and won (among a few other achievements).

However, I want to mention two things (one a correction).

1. First, a comment. Did you notice how Maher mocked her when she said Bernie Sanders would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? The reason Coulter gave is that he sees the middle class and their problems and wants to fix them as opposed to merely looking at them for an angle, which is what Clinton does. Coulter didn't use that language, but that was her meaning. 

2. Now the correction. My issue is not "Us vs. Them." The only people who are going to have any bad things happen (except for ISIS and folks like that) are elitists who are abusing their power. The bad thing for them is that their gravy train just ran off the rails. They are going to be removed from power and their crony deals. And that's about it. That's the "them," I suppose.

But note, my "Us," that is, the folks I resonate with, what I call typical Trump supporters, the Silent Majority, don't give a crap about having an elite class. In fact, they're fine with it. There are always going to be elites, so there's no problem when new elites come in to replace the old.

It's the old ones who stopped seeing us that's the issue. They thought running game on the Silent Majority was all the attention they ever needed to give the Silent Majority, but they could still keep milking the Silent Majority and get away with it.

So I guess there is a "them" in the sense that there is a bunch of establishment elitists decided to live in a bubble and there is the "us" out here who makes that bubble possible with money, work, votes, kids to die for their goddam Endless War scams, etc., but this is not like a class war or anything like that.

It's more like a restructuring of a company when the stockholders vote out most of the management and get new people to run the company. It's throwing the bums out and getting the company back on track.

This is how I see it. Coulter, likewise, sees it like this, even as, in another part of her soul, she is an establishment groupie bordering on superficial.

Michael

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that Coulter's first choices for President not so very long ago sorta kick the legs out from under your anti-Establishment narrative?

There is no harm in admitting this.   Nobody loses their union card  for admitting they are wrong once in a while.  

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a video of Ann Coulter on Bill Maher's show dated June 19, 2015.

All you need to watch is the first 15 seconds. Here's a transcript:

MAHER: Ann, which Republican candidate has the best chance of winning the election?

COULTER: Of the declared ones right now? Donald Trump.

AUDIENCE AND GUESTS: Sudden loud guffawing, whooping, shrieking, yukking it up, tears streaming down their eyes.

I have supported Trump openly since July.

I lived this back then and all the rest since.

Others may not remember what it felt like, but seeing the video brought back the memories. In my own way, I lived this.

As to whether Ann Coulter is "one of the greatest minds in the history of our species," I'm sure she is not. But she saw what I saw back when everyone else was not only blind to it, they were snorting and sniggering about it.

I don't hear any of those folks laughing anymore.

Michael

Very prescient of her.  

But Michael please note the two Establishment Types she named as her first choice.   Kinda undercuts the Us vs. Them narrative you are growing so fond of...

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And the beat goes on...

 

   

Michael

This is actually quite funny.  

And a little gloating of this kind doesn't hurt anybody.   

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Thank you.

I hereby grant an executive pardon to all the crows in the barbecue murder.

Nobody eats crow unless they kill one themselves.

Michael

One point of clarification:  I always predicted a Trump nomination--although I further predicted a Cruz VP slot, which now seems a little unlikely.    

Your magnanimous gesture is therefore premature.   I should be the one crowing, since my prediction was made with, shall we say, a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the Trump candidacy.  

If Trump gets elected, however, I will be seeking to take advantage of this offer.  

Congratulations to all the Trump fans on the thread, and of course our host!

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

PDS (David) was being sarcastic.

He doesn't like Trump.

I don't mind, especially since Trump is winning.

 

Michael

Yes. 

That is all what matters in a constitutional republic. 

Winning. 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not sad or disgusted with this exchange.

It shows very clearly what I have been saying for some time--Trump supporters are no longer listening to gotcha arguments that fly in the face of their common sense. It doesn't matter what the gotcha person says, they are not listening anymore.

This is not a debate with them, it's a rejection.

Besides, what on earth was Cruz thinking by stopping his motorcade to walk into this? (Affecting a Trump tone): I mean, how dumb is he?

 

Here is another take on what happened. The Morning Joe people can't stop laughing. (btw - The exchange is abbreviated and the sound during it is a lot better than the longer video above.)

That thing about Cruz's Shakespearian pauses undoing him is a hoot. 

 

.@tedcruz crosses the street to confront @realDonaldTrump backers on the sidewalk https://t.co/G0alC50KAr

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) May 3, 2016

A couple of priceless moments:

CRUZ: America is a better country... (Shakespearian pause)

TRUMP SUPPORTER: Without you.

. . .

CRUZ: And an question that everyone here should ask... (Shakespearian pause)

TRUMP SUPPORTER: Are you Canadian?

 

Sorry for you guys who are sad, but this is some seriously funny stuff.

 

Michael

Yeah, that part where the guy with the sign talks about Cruz's wife working for Goldman Sachs was comic genius.  

I'm sure Trump would be proud, because, as we all know, Trump has never had a loan in his life, so he surely could not be accused of being in the hip pocket of any bank.   Oh wait, we don't know that, since Trump hasn't released his tax returns just yet.   

Like I said above, just some good old-fashioned rote mouthing of Trump's insults.   Nothing more and nothing less.

The only thing missing was a reference to the dad's Lee Harvey Oswald connection.    More comic gold, I tell ya.   Now that would have been downright hilarious. 

I hope someday a Trump supporter can offers the rules of the road for legitimate questions about Trump, since, you know, he is hoping to be our President and all: i.e., those questions/statements/concerns that are not merely "gotcha" questions. 

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Personally, I'm not a "Trump supporter." The closest I could ever get is hoping Hillary loses. The only thing that might contain Trump's anti-intellectualism, ignorance and it's all about Trump looking good is reality, which is too much room to romp.

--Brant

That's where I'm at, more or less.   Every time Trump does something in the neighborhood of adding to the plus column (for instance, I actually kind of liked his foreign policy speech), he does something like this.    One step forward, 2 or 3 steps back.  

The dude really has no class. 

10 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

WSS,

I didn't like it for either of them.  I kind of wish this moment never happened.

 

Agreed. 

The Trump supporter's willingness to rotely mouth the various insults Trump has thrown out there ought give everybody the shivers. 

Cruz's "stump speech" instinct in responding to the insults is almost as jarring.