Donald Trump

[anthony]

That's the crossword puzzle I was talking about when I discussed highbrow literary values somewhere around here.

Is it the case that "passion is the fabric of America"?

I don't think so. I can think of about 10-12 words that would be more accurate than "passion".

Palin really has become something of a caricature of herself.

More I think of it, more she makes sense to my far off but long-regarding eye on America. The "enthusiasts" - historically always religious (though it doesn't have to be) - have had bitter opposition from the "secular humanists", and for good reason. But things move on, and the humanists are now simply cynics and skeptics without any sure morality.

Bullschmutz. This is not a statement that makes cognitive sense. By lumping in critics with 'opposition' and then with an insalubrious 'cynics and skeptics' cohort/blob -- and assuming this blob of people are without any sure morality, well, that road leads to error. It forces you to think poorly of folks who do not share your views -- and misses several steps in rational assessment.

As to MSK's interpretation of the seven-second Vine video promoting Trump ... I don't know what he means. "All my passion."

Huh?

Sarah Palin's words were taken from stumping -- and it is not clear which rally was sampled for the Vine. But in her endorsement speech last week, similar words, verbatim. I don't see the odd looping 'nuance' that Michael perceives.

His power, his passion, is the fabric of America. And it’s woven by work ethic and dreams and drive and faith in the Almighty. What a combination.

Well, I am once more unsure of what your beef is, Will. You cover all with allusion sometimes.

Is it that I consider 'passion' to have been predominantly the preserve of the religious? Or, that I assert it has been the religious who traditionally have got things done?

For illustration, I recall lines from Yeats' great poem: "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity".

Not a necessary dichotomy, I think.

Anyhow:

Whatever you (and I) otherwise think of religion, the practitioners of religion should be distinguished apart.

The fact remains that it has been the past and present broadly-religious-minded, who have accomplished nearly all of what we inherit of Western civilisation, materially and intellectually. Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic) was evidently their driving force, not to forget their rationality too. On the face of it, do I care that so much achievement was inspired by the unearthly and "The Greater Glory of God"? Not much. But it goes to show what human passion together with reason could do for the secular.

And yes, it was such conviction that forged new nations, against huge odds, when the logical skeptic would not have bothered.

We stand on the shoulders of ...

.

-yup, you guessed it -

-Christians.

[PDS]

Now Trump's getting back on message.

The thing people resonate with here is that he responds not like a rehearsed talking point, but completely spontaneously from 100% belief in the idea. Starting with, "I don't think so darling..." and ending with, "People that came to this country legally and they worked their ass off and they've made the country great, that's the backbone."

Michael

Here is what I don't understand about Trump: why can't he hit this note all the time?

If he used the soft touch instead of the approach he takes, he would be far more effective. There are very few Americans, I think, who would disagree with what he said there, or the way he said it.

[PDS]

Here is a great article about Cruz. You can't help but admire the guy, even if you (like me) wouldn't vote for him.

David,

That's a very good article.

It confirms some impressions that I had of him before.

I used to know a guy in Brazil who said he loved being an idiot (he owned a video and DVD company). He was pretty rich, self-made, and quite predatory. He loved coming across as an idiot because it prompted people to get arrogant around him and lower their guard.

I always got that impression about Ted.

Michael

I get what you're saying, but I really doubt whether anybody thinks Cruz is an idiot. That's a very hard impression to get after even a minimal exposure to him.

Unfortunately, I think Cruz would get his arse kicked by Hillary as well--assuming, that is, she's not already in the Pokey by then...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I get what you're saying, but I really doubt whether anybody thinks Cruz is an idiot.

David,

From the way I see people respond to Cruz, they know he's smart, but they don't believe it.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but there it is.

Michael

[Selene]

Now Trump's getting back on message.

The thing people resonate with here is that he responds not like a rehearsed talking point, but completely spontaneously from 100% belief in the idea. Starting with, "I don't think so darling..." and ending with, "People that came to this country legally and they worked their ass off and they've made the country great, that's the backbone."

Michael

Here is what I don't understand about Trump: why can't he hit this note all the time?

If he used the soft touch instead of the approach he takes, he would be far more effective. There are very few Americans, I think, who would disagree with what he said there, or the way he said it.

David:

I agree with you and I do not get that part about him either.

I am still trying to figure out that part.

This was a nice, clear, and, frankly, human response that makes sense to me.

A...

comma challenged

[PDS]

I get what you're saying, but I really doubt whether anybody thinks Cruz is an idiot.

David,

From the way I see people respond to Cruz, they know he's smart, but they don't believe it.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but there it is.

Michael

No, that makes perfect sense, actually.

Semi-smart liberals have a very hard time with conservatives who are smarter than them. It disrupts their worldview.

[william.scherk]

Bullschmutz. This is not a statement that makes cognitive sense. By lumping in critics with 'opposition' and then with an insalubrious 'cynics and skeptics' cohort/blob -- and assuming this blob of people are without any sure morality, well, that road leads to error. It forces you to think poorly of folks who do not share your views -- and misses several steps in rational assessment.

Well, I am once more unsure of what your beef is, Will. [...]

Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic) was evidently their driving force, not to forget their rationality too. On the face of it, do I care that so much achievement was inspired by the unearthly and "The Greater Glory of God"? Not much. But it goes to show what human passion together with reason could do for the secular.

I could have been more careful to note my agreement with your larger point, and to establish the context for my disagreement. But the agreement aside, Tony, the 'beef' was I thought lacking in this; "humanists are now simply cynics and skeptics without any sure morality.":

I don't actually agree with David's observation: "Palin really has become something of a caricature of herself." I think she is probably just a few years older and more set in her ways. On the stump, one can speak more dramatically or become Jeb! (not that boring speakers can't get elected; see Stephane Dion). So she ramps it up.

When I read something like this: "Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic)," I see a category error, as with the Bullschmutz line in the first excerpt.

To I hope better explain, it is the statement I take issue with. It is waaaay too categorical for my tastes. It is similar in effect to MSK's "You Guys" waffle. A categorical statement, a generality too far, to my eyes unsupportable and unwarranted.

I was perplexed by Michael's being transfixed by a Vine, and by the prosody of loops. But I attached no taint to the vine. It was seven seconds, unadorned, great visual punch, remarkable, and ever so American. My advice to the honcho is More, Please. It is good Scmutz.

So, in the first instance, I merely posted a Tweet from a top Trump campaign honcho. Ascribing to Mr Trump, as Palin did, the woven qualities of The Passion that is the fabric of America -- I took no issue with this -- that was PDS/David.

I find Palin inarticulate in a striking and rich-for-parody way, but that does not matter on the stump. She gets her message across to her audience. She does not give a schmutz what I think, or what You People think. She is on the Trump Bus, and it is blitzing political America. It is a thrill even to this far-away churl.

I love your prosody too, Tony. Sometimes it is like reading German. What is like reading German? Reading Tony. Why? Because the verb and subject are often missing, cloaked, assumed, or the caboose of a given sentence. I love German, though I cannot read it above toddler level for meaning. I can actually read German text out loud and make sense to a German-speaker. There is something lush and yet clipped in German, like an over-organized and yet burgeoning garden.

For everyone's entertainment, the third time I have posted this on OL. What English sounds like to foreigners. Angela (our OL lady) said she 'liked' English the first time she heard it, and wanted to learn it because it sounded 'friendly.' Such a weird thing to say, but I think she was right.

Sorry to seem a bit snippy about categorical pronouncements. My last tutor rapped me very hard when I was too categorical. It is a sloppy way to argue.

Anyhow, I like Sarah don't always give a schmutz what other people nag about. And neither should you. Individualism requires it of certain kinds of performance. The political performance of the Trump Campaign is fascinating.

That Palin thinks Trump is driven by a relationship with the Almighty, she is sorely mistaken. I believe Trump is at best a deist, most likely an agnostic like Hillary, and in my imagination a quasi-atheist.

So many US politicians have to perform Christianity on the stump, as do the pandering Hispanics, both of them. I feel creeped out by them -- but not by Sarah Palin's recitation. Her testimony about the power of the Almighty moving in Donald Trump -- I think this is also in her heart and beliefs. I think she is sincere.

If I had to vote Canadian-style for one of the GOP contenders plus Sarah Palin, I would choose Trump. I don't think he gives a schmutz for religion, ultimately. He does not pray. He does not talk about his relationship with Jesus.

-- the worst of the crew (excepting the Adventism) is Cruz by far. He is using religion like a cloak and sword and mitre and performance art. It reaaaally creeps me out. In a Canadian race, even in the hardiest of hardy Christian Canada, he would lose with that performance.

If he had continued to be a Calgarian, gone wildly evangelical and ran for Mayor, he would very likely have won -- but only if he put religion in the side-drawer where it tends to stay in Canadian campaigns. The current Trump-style Mayor is brown and Muslim. The second quality was a side-drawer in his first and his second thumping majority wins. He would Crush Cruz as performed today. Sad, but true.

Don't let's squabble Tony. Just try to understand my POV and I will continue to try to understand yours. Back to the topic of Trump, off personalities and the danged schmutzy skeptics.

But, yes, if you ever want to get a reaction of some kind from me, type out something categorical about the blob/cohort 'humanists and skeptics.' Ayn Rans can be easily accommodated in that blob. I am with the lady in being a Humanist, concerned with Humanity and Reason as its best tool, as with the lady as a skeptic of religious claims. It is not a stain on her and it is not a stain on any unnamed others. Next time, Tony, please don't use Blob terms. It's like a red flag for some ...

More I think of it, more she makes sense to my far off but long-regarding eye on America. The "enthusiasts" - historically always religious (though it doesn't have to be) - have had bitter opposition from the "secular humanists", and for good reason. But things move on, and the humanists are now simply cynics and skeptics without any sure morality.

HTML5 Audio of the text above (please complain at Post 32 if not working for you):

http://www.spokentext.net/members/wsscherk/Category_errors_from_Donald_Trump_-_Page_160_-_Stumping_in_the_Backyard_-_Objectivist_Living.mp3

-- I choose the donnish voice of "Charles" the robot usually -- though the "Teagan" female voice sounds very seductive. Every sentence out of "Charles" sounds like an angry teacher. That vocal adds a certain zest to everything and yet beoomes a strangely neutral tone in the end. I record at 3X+

I have found in my Sarah Palin Poetry fun that Teagan is the perfect voice for Sarah in a 'beat' setting. I will post a link or two at Post 32 when I get a chance.

(Tony, the Google Translate is also a way to instantly appreciate a passage or a post in spoken Robot English. I gave your comment above a thorough listen. The default Google voice is smiling and female like Teagan, but even more natural. I got more sense of life out of that, and so the vocalized smiling Tony had a second chance to convince me he was right in his larger observation, and so he did. THX, as the kids say)

-- added bonus; I am going to use Google Translate to help my volunteer Syrian family with learning their day-to-day practical English phrases. It is a super neat time-saving tool for communication. Just for fun, what Tony and William sound like in Arabic. Ephemera.

http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/sndz/Tony%26WSSinArabic.mp3

MSK & WSS with Music by Cletus's cousin:

Edited February 5, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

See, when I read something like this: "Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic)," I see a category error, as with the Bullschmutz line in the first excerpt.

To I hope better explain, it is the statement I take issue with. It is waaaay too categorical for my tastes. It is similar in effect to MSK's "You Guys" waffle. It is a categorical statement, a generality to far, and it seems to my eyes unsupportable and unwarranted.

I was perplexed by Michael's being transfixed by a Vine, and by the prosody of loops.

William,

You just gave a perfect example of someone who thinks primarily in gotcha when thinking about the other side. And this is the main point of a lot of my rhetoric when it gets an arcane feel to it.

Palin was not making a scientific statement. She was not making a proposition as an axiomatic truth. She was making a rhetorical statement that taps into a core story. It is true within that story. Not as a category, but as a description. And as a description, it is not only true, it elicits strong positive bonding emotions. People who resonate with that core story have no problem resonating with what she said. In fact, they find it inspiring.

Palin is totally smart enough to keep things in their correct categories if that is what she wants to put her mind to. And she is totally smart enough to use rhetoric to move people's hearts and minds in the direction of a core story if that is what she wants.

She is not making the statements she makes because she has some kind of limited intelligence.

If you want to find a blatant mistake of grammar or spelling or whatever, I can even give you a hypnotic technique of making those mistakes on purpose. I don't believe Palin does this, but I'm not so sure. The technique exists and she certainly travels in circles of people who know about it. And I know she has trained public speaking. The technique is called "pattern interrupt." You use it to divert the critical part of the brain as you slip in language that is attractive to the lower parts of the brain, hopefully with embedded commands. The normal sequence is

Pattern interrupt --> Incomplete story --> embedded command --> completion of story.

Anyway, I just went out too far into the woods for this post. Back to point.

Normally, I would let the category gotcha slide and just say to myself, William doesn't see it because he's a bit aspie or something. His thing is categories, not the poetry of rhetoric.

Then I look at those long-ass posts where you took Palin's words, my words and the words of God knows who else and made modern poetry with them.

Gotchaaaaa!!!!!!

Michael

[william.scherk]

See, when I read something like this: "Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic)," I see a category error, as with the Bullschmutz line in the first excerpt.

To I hope better explain, it is the statement I take issue with. It is waaaay too categorical for my tastes. It is similar in effect to MSK's "You Guys" waffle. It is a categorical statement, a generality to far, and it seems to my eyes unsupportable and unwarranted.

You just gave a perfect example of someone who thinks primarily in gotcha when thinking about the other side. And this is the main point of a lot of my rhetoric when it gets an arcane feel to it.

No, Michael, I don't take issue with Sarah's soaring rhetoric. I love it for what it is, and with her limitations in mind. I did not take issue with your fun side-play, either -- once I understood it. It makes perfect sense, especially when considering it was a Trump honcho who Vined the excerpt from the snappy, excellent Trump web promo.

I snap to attention when Tony gets categorical about humanists and secular notions, as in this scuffle; it was with 'skeptics' as a category that I found error, not with Palin, not with you. With PDS, yes. You sometimes get categorical with the You Guys and the You People and the People Like You gambits. I ignore those for the most part. They are not so cognitively engaging with me. But, to be fair ...

You may be here showing an uncharitable reading of my intent, my group status, my psyche and its defects -- and I mark this in my mind, Michael, when you do not address the argument, but rather instead a brief, truncated snippet. I excuse you from using that fine Principle while stumping, but if you could take off the stump hat just for reading this particular entry in the OL bank, you will grok what I was pointing out -- exactly where my disagreement lies. I was neither on your case nor Palin's, just Tony's. And I love Tony.

I find it curious the wee baubles of You People quotes you retrieve now and again, dismissive adjectives, similes, elaborate metaphors, and category-making. It is curious to me, at least.

Anyway, back to Trump shortly. My Arabic-speaking acquaintances without first or second-hand exposure to American media (meaning, non-English speaking) get a really distorted view of Trump and the phenomenon of his rise in the GOP race. It is a topic of conversation on Arabic Twitter, but it is mired in ignorance and bias and non-objective thinking. Really scary sometimes.

But anyhow, Michael, to paraphrase Tony, and not appear as a churl, I don't always get your beef, and I try to figure it out from context. It's fun to read good rhetoric about Those People and Their Stupidities and adds to the zest of this thread, and so I appreciate it on its face. But I didn't initially get it in this instance. I do love your insouciance, I should note. It is infectious. That is how I felt as a 'mirror-neuron' Trump observing heading into Iowa. I half-believed the polls showing Cruz getting a trumping.

Oh, drat, back to Trump when I could just go on about personalities and Bad People In Categories. Sigh.

I repeat my bottom-line. If he can keep or top 33% through New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- in real votes and then maintain that one-third of the GOP vote in the SEC states, he is frikking golden. 33 in some places transmutes into 50, 75 or a full 100 of the delegates awarded. That is gold, not gold plate. That is a proxy for an instrument of power, that which Trump seeks. What a thrill to watch him battle for the gold.

If Hispanic Cristianos Jug-Ears and Munster can edge up near Trump's 33 before SEC, Trump is still golden. If he goes into Super Tuesday at 33 or above, gold turns to platinum and crow will be served to William and Marc for their early over-confident opinions.

Here is a picture of the crow. He is old and smart and tough, and will take some killing (click the photo to read the background to the pic -- it was snapped on the mean streets of my city, Surrey, BC. Not staged, if you can believe Mr Singh:

That is one scenario for a Trump stomp to victory. It doesn't exactly follow the betting odds today, but that is because a Circus is hard to predict. I love it when Michael blows fresh winds of hope and change and lures us into fully imagining the Trump era. I have to half-fake it, but I still feel it. The poll gap is the only thing that deflates the dang sails.

Word of the day, Churl. Churlish. Churlishly. I hate when I am churlish. Is Donald Trump ever churlish? Say thank you to the gentleman, you stupid churl.

Someone who thinks primarily in Gotcha, could that ever be me? In a pinch, in the alley, where knives were assumed, oh yeah. Always? Nope. And you? Probably never, right?

HTML5 audio of this post, delivered by smiling Google lady voice, with extra intro stings and the sweet music of REB! and the gang"

http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/sndz/WSStoMSKwithREB%21MusicAndStingsViaGoogle.mp3

Edited February 5, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, drat, back to Trump. I repeat my bottom-line. If he can keep or top 33% through New Hampshire, Sohth Carolina and Nevada, and then maintain that one-third of the GOP vote in the SEC states, he is frikking golden. If Hispanic Christians Jug-Ears and Munster can edge up near Trump before SEC, he is still golden. If he goes into Super Tuesday at 33 or above, gold turns to platinum and crow will be served to William and Marc for their early opinions.

William,

That quote of yours just about brought me to tears.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Geez the crow selected a serrated blade!

Run for cover.

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to post that goddam picture later, but I guess I was too slow on the draw.

William found that sucker somewhere on Facebook and tagged me with it.

That's a one-in-a-lifetime crow.

Is that a prison ankle-bracelet?

Better not mess with him. After Trump wins, we'll just let that one be.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Why is it that when I see Bills new avatar it reminds me of bugs bunny cartoons with the angel/devil sitting on Sylvester's shoulders?

[anthony]

Bullschmutz. This is not a statement that makes cognitive sense. By lumping in critics with 'opposition' and then with an insalubrious 'cynics and skeptics' cohort/blob -- and assuming this blob of people are without any sure morality, well, that road leads to error. It forces you to think poorly of folks who do not share your views -- and misses several steps in rational assessment.

Well, I am once more unsure of what your beef is, Will. [...]

Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic) was evidently their driving force, not to forget their rationality too. On the face of it, do I care that so much achievement was inspired by the unearthly and "The Greater Glory of God"? Not much. But it goes to show what human passion together with reason could do for the secular.

I could have been more careful to note my agreement with your larger point, and to establish the context for my disagreement. But the agreement aside, Tony, the 'beef' was I thought lacking in this; "humanists are now simply cynics and skeptics without any sure morality.":

I don't actually agree with David's observation: "Palin really has become something of a caricature of herself." I think she is probably just a few years older and more set in her ways. On the stump, one can speak more dramatically or become Jeb! (not that boring speakers can't get elected; see Stephane Dion). So she ramps it up.

When I read something like this: "Passion, conviction and certitude (not words that one hears ever from a skeptic)," I see a category error, as with the Bullschmutz line in the first excerpt.

To I hope better explain, it is the statement I take issue with. It is waaaay too categorical for my tastes. It is similar in effect to MSK's "You Guys" waffle. A categorical statement, a generality too far, to my eyes unsupportable and unwarranted.

I was perplexed by Michael's being transfixed by a Vine, and by the prosody of loops. But I attached no taint to the vine. It was seven seconds, unadorned, great visual punch, remarkable, and ever so American. My advice to the honcho is More, Please. It is good Scmutz.

So, in the first instance, I merely posted a Tweet from a top Trump campaign honcho. Ascribing to Mr Trump, as Palin did, the woven qualities of The Passion that is the fabric of America -- I took no issue with this -- that was PDS/David.

I find Palin inarticulate in a striking and rich-for-parody way, but that does not matter on the stump. She gets her message across to her audience. She does not give a schmutz what I think, or what You People think. She is on the Trump Bus, and it is blitzing political America. It is a thrill even to this far-away churl.

I love your prosody too, Tony. Sometimes it is like reading German. What is like reading German? Reading Tony. Why? Because the verb and subject are often missing, cloaked, assumed, or the caboose of a given sentence. I love German, though I cannot read it above toddler level for meaning. I can actually read German text out loud and make sense to a German-speaker. There is something lush and yet clipped in German, like an over-organized and yet burgeoning garden.

For everyone's entertainment, the third time I have posted this on OL. What English sounds like to foreigners. Angela (our OL lady) said she 'liked' English the first time she heard it, and wanted to learn it because it sounded 'friendly.' Such a weird thing to say, but I think she was right.

Sorry to seem a bit snippy about categorical pronouncements. My last tutor rapped me very hard when I was too categorical. It is a sloppy way to argue.

Anyhow, I like Sarah don't always give a schmutz what other people nag about. And neither should you. Individualism requires it of certain kinds of performance. The political performance of the Trump Campaign is fascinating.

That Palin thinks Trump is driven by a relationship with the Almighty, she is sorely mistaken. I believe Trump is at best a deist, most likely an agnostic like Hillary, and in my imagination a quasi-atheist.

So many US politicians have to perform Christianity on the stump, as do the pandering Hispanics, both of them. I feel creeped out by them -- but not by Sarah Palin's recitation. Her testimony about the power of the Almighty moving in Donald Trump -- I think this is also in her heart and beliefs. I think she is sincere.

If I had to vote Canadian-style for one of the GOP contenders plus Sarah Palin, I would choose Trump. I don't think he gives a schmutz for religion, ultimately. He does not pray. He does not talk about his relationship with Jesus.

-- the worst of the crew (excepting the Adventism) is Cruz by far. He is using religion like a cloak and sword and mitre and performance art. It reaaaally creeps me out. In a Canadian race, even in the hardiest of hardy Christian Canada, he would lose with that performance.

If he had continued to be a Calgarian, gone wildly evangelical and ran for Mayor, he would very likely have won -- but only if he put religion in the side-drawer where it tends to stay in Canadian campaigns. The current Trump-style Mayor is brown and Muslim. The second quality was a side-drawer in his first and his second thumping majority wins. He would Crush Cruz as performed today. Sad, but true.

Don't let's squabble Tony. Just try to understand my POV and I will continue to try to understand yours. Back to the topic of Trump, off personalities and the danged schmutzy skeptics.

But, yes, if you ever want to get a reaction of some kind from me, type out something categorical about the blob/cohort 'humanists and skeptics.' Ayn Rans can be easily accommodated in that blob. I am with the lady in being a Humanist, concerned with Humanity and Reason as its best tool, as with the lady as a skeptic of religious claims. It is not a stain on her and it is not a stain on any unnamed others. Next time, Tony, please don't use Blob terms. It's like a red flag for some ...

Gosh, William but you can waffle on. This reads so plausibly, but ten minutes later I realise I can't remember a single point you made.

"Category error", is one I can extract.

That's philosophy for you, old chap. Of course, philosophy doesn't fully explain the complexity of every single person all of the time. One has to dig deeper - it can often predict, and will explain, the ideological and behavioral shifts of many numbers over time. My quite neat metaphor for philosophies is of the Earth's tectonic plates, separately moving ever so slowly, bearing billions of people through centuries, creating interacting pressures and at times colliding and causing surface ructions.

And ethics, politics and political movements are logical and outward consequences of philosophies.

Over-simply:

(Mystical) intrinsicism is opposed by (philosophical) skepticism. The religious guy believes, basically, that all 'perfect knowledge' is given to him in a flash, a skeptic states, basically, that personal knowledge is impossible. They each tend, basically, to certain political directions: one to conservatism, the other to the secular Left, (today, to 'progressive' liberalism). The People (and the State) replace God, in this latter scenario, keeping intact most of the former's sacrificial morality.

Not just my "view", these are a few of the major and permanent Facts in the philosophical sphere, subsuming a myriad of tiny factoids, and they long predate Objectivism. (But you've heard it all before).

[william.scherk]

.@JoeNBC asks @RickSantorum 3 times: Can you name Rubio's top accomplishment in the Senate? Here's his answer. https://t.co/87024wzg4C

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe)

February 4, 2016

Edited February 5, 2016 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

src="http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/vdz/trumpdobald.mp4">

Edited February 5, 2016 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Trump could be nominated, but he'd be the only Rep. unable to take H. down in the presidential debates. Of course, H. might not be nominated.

--Brant

dump the Trump

Trump is a chump

Trump's all rump

Harrumph!

[Marc]

Oh, drat, back to Trump. I repeat my bottom-line. If he can keep or top 33% through New Hampshire, Sohth Carolina and Nevada, and then maintain that one-third of the GOP vote in the SEC states, he is frikking golden. If Hispanic Christians Jug-Ears and Munster can edge up near Trump before SEC, he is still golden. If he goes into Super Tuesday at 33 or above, gold turns to platinum and crow will be served to William and Marc for their early opinions.

William,

That quote of yours just about brought me to tears.

Michael

Love it !!!!!!!!!!!!

Great analysis , and my good Canadian friend stated things well but please allow me to retort .

"if" , the greatest of words , 2 letters yet so powerful !

If " ifs and buts" were candies and nuts , we'd all have a merry Xmas "

Jewish people say " if my grandmother had balls , she'd be my grandfather "

Let me play too though - if Rubio does better than expected in NH then wins SC - its all over faster than anyone can say Nevada

[Marc]

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I hate the media , literally nothing but contempt for shit like this . Attack , games , bullshit against Sarah Palin , this ridiculous bullshit and the rest .

Finish this sentence the bitch says ??????

I would finish the sentence by saying don't speak to me like I am in grade 3 and you are my substitute teacher for the day .

See ( and yeah MSK , you gotta come back on me here - FREE PASS TIME ) , DT would of ripped her head off for that insulting question .

[Roger Bissell]

I was going to post that goddam picture later, but I guess I was too slow on the draw.

William found that sucker somewhere on Facebook and tagged me with it.

That's a one-in-a-lifetime crow.

Is that a prison ankle-bracelet?

Better not mess with him. After Trump wins, we'll just let that one be.

Michael

After Trump wins? Maybe we could make this a new thread, just for fun and games.

Here, I'll start...

After Trump wins and uses an Executive Order to annex Canada (by eminent domain, in the public interest, of course), our friend WSS is going to be in a *lot* of trouble.

Reb!

[Marc]

I was going to post that goddam picture later, but I guess I was too slow on the draw.

William found that sucker somewhere on Facebook and tagged me with it.

That's a one-in-a-lifetime crow.

Is that a prison ankle-bracelet?

Better not mess with him. After Trump wins, we'll just let that one be.

Michael

After Trump wins? Maybe we could make this a new thread, just for fun and games.

Here, I'll start...

After Trump wins and uses an Executive Order to annex Canada (by eminent domain, in the public interest, of course), our friend WSS is going to be in a *lot* of trouble.

Reb!

Oh , oh oh , Oh oh OH , Mr Kotter !!!! Can I play ?????

After Trump wins , he pulls a Jean Claude Duvalier and makes himself President for life ! Simply because the election was so close and HC is taking the election to the Supreme Court re Gore/Bush and trying to question the " hanging Chad " issue de jour . Ted Cruz gets more idiotic and Trump just says fuck it and condos up the White House .

And the worst part is no one can revolt cause Obama took away all the guns and the Supreme Court killed the Constitution .

#marcorubiofolks

[PDS]

I would say that this type of demeanor bodes well for Trump's trajectory.

The question is--assuming he keeps more of this up--whether he can reel back in a decent fraction of the people who have already written him off as a clown.

[Selene]

I would say that this type of demeanor bodes well for Trump's trajectory.

The question is--assuming he keeps more of this up--whether he can reel back in a decent fraction of the people who have already written him off as a clown.

Thanks David.

I heard that on the radio, however, it plays even better visually. The lady off his right shoulder is key.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the Town Hall meeting Trump just did with Anderson Cooper.
 

 
I haven't even seen it yet (I will shortly), but it is where the CNN clip in the two posts above is from. That is where Trump said he doesn't care anymore about Cruz's monkeyshines in Iowa.
 
(Apropos, he doesn't need to care, either. He made a shitstorm and now heavies in the media and Republican world are carrying it further, including, of all people, Bill O'Reilly. )
 
Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

After Trump wins and uses an Executive Order to annex Canada (by eminent domain, in the public interest, of course)...

Roger,

You know...

Sometimes you come up with some damn good ideas.

Michael