Marc Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 On February 17, 2016 at 2:44 PM, william.scherk said: I interpret the smiley as an ironic gloss. I don't know what 'everyone' knows or what you think about polls -- and I don't believe you hold the opposite corollary to your one-liner: "We all know Polls are Reality." Maybe somewhere in between is your considered opinion. You haven't really given a one-stop-shopping comment that covers your broader views. I might be alone in this, but I would be quite chuffed to read your particular thinking about polls -- from which polling firms you have confidence in, relatively, and which you assess as less valid samples of opinion, to what makes a poll a good poll, and which are the caveats you hold in mind when interpreting particular types of polls. I get the feeling you get a good buzz from positive polls and kind of disregard information that might cause other Trump supporters a smidgen of concern. Did you read into the poll I mentioned above that broke out Trump supporter's views on various issues of policy, preferences and attitudes? Do you find yourself represented in those soundings? Anyhow, you are probably unlikely to give us an essay on polling. There is so much more exciting stuff to share and analyze. And I also think you may tend to 'go with the gut' in some cases of interpreting signs and soundings of support. All of which leads to a more particular, non-polling-related question: What does your gut tell you about South Carolina -- are we more or less on the same page (I laid out my wonk notes above)? I fully expect Trump to come close to his highest soundings there -- up to 40%. -- one more question: at what point will you more or less know that Trump has it in the bag? I am thinking it will not be March 1, but on Super Tuesday. For the wonks, here is the Quinnipiac poll in full. Man , if I only could write like you - I would be so happy . I love how you freaking write - seriously !!!!!!! Ok , that being that - here is the issue . Its a war , its a revolution . Even Obama basically said whoever wins the nomination is the Pres , where he should have stated the nominee is the motherfucking nominee cause I am President and we got a Democratic nominee thing going on here too ??? How about : we need the Democratic nominee to continue our struggle , our mandate . Why the fuck does POTUS talk like that ?????? Cause even he knows that HC and Bernie Castro aint gonna beat anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Gotta love Ann Coulter. This tweet is brutal. Michael Wow , love it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Want to chime in on the polls . The polls remind me about stocks pre earnings , announcements , etc . Wall St will state that Linkedins earnings are estimated at X , when the actual results come out - usually the stock or the market as a whole ( Job #s , new housing starts , etc ) react based off the anticipated earning rather than the actual earnings . Apple stock says we made 10 billion last quarter , but the earnings estimates were at 9 billion so the stock goes up crazy based on reaction to the streets earnings estimates . In this case Apple stock takes off . Same here , IF the election was today etc etc etc . They obviously discount that so and so will happen if there are no black swans But there will be black swans because its a war . And the war is for the United States establishment to retain its way of life or " change blah blah blah " .. Obama had the same rabidness going on regardless of why or whatever . Trump has it now . War will start , well before March 1st and by then its over , or on the floor its over , or by any means necessary its over . The establishment will do what they must to keep the Goose who laid the golden eggs ( each 4 year election cycle ) coming. Some crisis , some this , some that . Who cares . The people against the establishment , yeah .... thats gonna go the way of the people now ? Next few elections, maybe . Now ???? They kicked at the wall , aint no wall coming down yet but thank god for the soldiers who are trying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 11:46 AM, KorbenDallas said: My take? Someone needs to remind the pope the reformation happened. It is an hilarious confrontation for this atheist. On the one hand a freshly-minted politician declares a religious honcho is venturing into politics, venturing into a forbidden zone. Freshly-minted tries to warn off the man in a long white dress and beanie. Man in beanie has a big plane, partially-gated community-cum-museum/church/tourist wonder. Man with loaf of hair and fresh mint smell says Beanie should shut the fuck up about political things. Fresh mint has a big plane, but cannot speak or read Latin, though he went to a really good military prep school and a top-drawer university. Beanie man has a Masters in Fucking Up Argentina With Socialism and Liberation Theology. Beanie is not a nice man. You don't get the white smoke until you have clobbered all opposition by sheer will and personality. On the plane the beanie is asked about the big ass wall planned for the border he visited in a vast showbiz-mass media-religious hoopla. He is asked to comment on fresh mint media: "Donald Trump, in a recent interview, said you are a 'political man' and that maybe you are a pawn of the Mexican government as far as immigration policy is concerned." Beanie, who answers to your holy whatever the fuck, pope, papa, excellency, etc: "Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt." Points to Beanie. 23 hours ago, william.scherk said: Mr Trump's declarations about Carson's suspect sect of Adventism not quite American enough for Iowa, and the 'not many evangelicals out of Cuba' shite still swirl in the effluent pool of Trumpisms. Points to Hoopla. 22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jonathan, I share you hope, but my experience reading [Bidinotto], discussing Trump with him, and reading his comments to others who try to explain these things to him, tells me it's a long shot. That makes me sad, but there it is... On another angle, I wonder if I should serve up a barbecued falcon with all those crows? 22 hours ago, Jonathan said: The tough thing is when a friend turns into a hater. I don't know what the best thing to do is in that case. Let them blow off their steam and cool off? The problem is that a lot of time they're not happy unless they can drag you into it by insulting you and signaling that they're willing and eager to destroy your friendship over the issue. So, what to do? Walk away or give them their war? Treat them as they treat you? Attack their candidate for his vices, and misrepresent them as being what your soon-to-be-exfriend admires about the candidate? Forgive and forget? I look to the Golden Rule and wonder if it applies to the contempt/apprehension between Robert and Michael. If I read the situation half-assed correctly, after having reviewed the 3+ contretemps alluded to, Michael is apprehensive that discussing Trump and Trumpism further with Robert publicly will lead to a 'break' ... The Golden Rule suggests to me that I conduct myself the way I would prefer others to conduct themselves. I would open a communication channel with the parties and seek clarification. First things first, and to Michael for definitions or identifications, correct identifications. I am not sure he would insist upon calling Robert Bidinotto a Trump Hater full stop. But I do believe Michael implicitly when he says he does not care about what Robert thinks about Trump. If I read correctly, he does care what Robert thinks about him, and wishes to preserve a friendship precisely at its highest ratchet. Michael does not want to 'lose' Robert's regard over a mere political lust. Golden ruling would only apply to me, and my imperfect understanding of the relationship at stake prevents me from empathizing fully with both men. But to the point I believe I understand, I think MSK's words speak for themselves. He holds that Robert's anti-Trump attitude is best explained by a broad generalizaton about Hate. On the other hand, I surmise that Robert thinks Michael is in the grip of emotionalism. Probably neither one has an interest in a blow-out argument, nor even a polite round of disagreement. Perhaps it is because Michael's passions are so fully engaged in Trumpism. It is still weird to read harsh words about Robert's words here without the courtesy of a quote. Ho hum. A better example might be the strong disagreement between Jonathan and I over issues snarling under the tent Climate Change. The disagreement does not harm my regard for and friendship with him, within the limits of actual friendship imposed by internet-only communication. We can and have and will tackle that tangle again, and I foresee our internet cross-forum 'friendship' to thrive. Why? I cannot explain simply, maybe J will cut to the heart of the answer, and compare it with the MSK/Bidibob 'break.' 22 hours ago, william.scherk said: I would argue with Bidibob on B, definitely (taking a pass on the demagoguery, strongman-ism, insane trutherism and low-bar 'ignorant and statist' points). I got a Facebook 'frenz' request accepted by Bidibob, and he invited me to hop in to comments on Trump, Trumpism and sundry topics. I must adhere to the Golden Rule going forward. Facebook is so much larger a platform for my lengthy discursions. People don't read that shit on Facebook, so I will have to curb my enthusiasm for my own expression. Sigh. 16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You probably should read more than the spin in that article before crowing. [,,,] Read and delight those pretty little anti-Trump eyes of yours [...] The birds sitting in the Death Crow cage would like it, though. Oh, the immense feast of black bird that will be served to the person who repeats the 'future humiliation' metaphor past its sell-by date. The metaphor is sour, despite the smileys. The revelling in another's humiliation in fantasy is a little bit repulsive to me. It is not Golden. What I want out of a 'crow' eater come July is 'why I was wrong' material. If by hideous happenstance, donor-class diktat or convention skullduggery, Mr Trump does not secure the GOP nomination, the number of crows to be consumed will be large, but I don't give a schmutz about the crow -- I want an honest and wide-ranging explanation. I don't want humiliation -- I want to see some reciprocity. Michael, every time you mention crow this way, you are implicitly asking for a vast humiliation to be attached to you. This is Golden. 3 hours ago, Marc said: Man , if I only could write like you - I would be so happy . I love how you freaking write - seriously !!!!!!! I appreciate that. I collect fan mail, and into the bag you go. On the subject of Who Can Beat Hillary, I have no idea. By current polling, only Rubio can do it convincingly ... but we are so far out from November it is like predicting weather. Ask me again closer to the contest. We have no nominees yet. To boringly rephrase my bottom line: Magic 33%. Maintain. Win. Win. Win. Win. March 15. LOCK. Panic, exhilaration. Crowing allowed. 2 hours ago, Marc said: Want to chime in on the polls . The polls remind me about stocks pre earnings , announcements , etc . Wall St will state that Linkedins earnings are estimated at X , when the actual results come out - usually the stock or the market as a whole ( Job #s , new housing starts , etc ) react based off the anticipated earning rather than the actual earnings .[...] War will start , well before March 1st and by then its over , or on the floor its over , or by any means necessary its over . I hate war metaphors. I hate that polling has replaced opinion sampling by other means in some quarters, and I hate capital h Hoopla most days. But your metaphors have a certain elegance, which means they bear paying attention to. The one thing to bear in mind with polls is that you are attempting to sample human minds. As MSK points out, human minds are both malleable and 'fixed' in mindsets, capable of great cognitive achievements that take one's breath away, and grossly in error, ruled at times by Amygdala and other lizard brain tropes. Polls are like maps to territory, and the territory is opinion, thinking, cognitions and conclusions. In all such territory there are blocs and rough 'alliances' and tendencies to measure to limn and hem and gate and scrutinize the 'collective' opinion. This is where MSK"s metaphor of a football cheer hints at an aspect of the map; enthusiasm and the polarity of personal identification with a Movement. The sample to be valid must approximate the demographic of the territory. A human mind is both changeable and capable of intense fixations. I will bang that gong and let the sound reverberate. If there wasn't a chance that Trump would not win the nomination and the Electoral College, there would be no excitement due to doubt. I wish MSK could understand that doubt is good, that disagreement needs tending, and that doubt should not be translated as Hate. But he is flying on pure Trump Air. He is up in the clouds, higher than a kite, in love with tomorrow. Would that my tiny functioning heart muscle could feel the same exaltation now and again. I say bah to Robert Bidinotto (well, I plan to say 'bah' to him on Facebook, taking the MSK devil's advocate role in lieu of MSK, viz fair play), and I utter a heavy sigh at fixity. [This comment rendered into sexy Middle America NPR accent. Ephemera: http://www.fromtexttospeech.com/output/0181833001455909461/10714957.mp3 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Latest Emerson tracking poll in SC GOP:Trump 36%Rubio 20%Cruz 19%Bush 10%Kasich 10%Carson 6%https://t.co/JALyBl95RW— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) February 19, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Doesn't that add up to 101%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Scarborough incorrectly typed the results: Trump 36 Rubio 19 Cruz 18 Bush 10 Kasich 10 Carson 6 http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_f9d8e10c8831404e9ea2f1af759d1426.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 3 hours ago, william.scherk said: I don't want humiliation -- I want to see some reciprocity. William, Ha! If I believed that, I would ask you for a tip on a good bridge for sale. Bitchy becomes you. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 6 hours ago, william.scherk said: As MSK points out, human minds are both malleable and 'fixed' in mindsets, capable of great cognitive achievements that take one's breath away, and grossly in error, ruled at times by Amygdala and other lizard brain tropes. William, My last post was a quip. Only that. For this post, I've been dying to embed a video of a totally befuddled Joe Klein talking about the lizard brain appeal of Donald Trump. And, man, did he screw it up. Nobody knew what the hell he was talking about. They still don't. (But we do. ) This guy lives in such a bubble, I don't think he groks that not everyone understands this lingo. His own lizard brain has gone to sleep, lulled by his sense of superior vanity, and all that's left is an incoherent social attitude floating around in anti-gravity. Kind of like a conceited snarky Mr. Magoo. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: William, My last post was a quip. Only that. If only it *was* your last post. The crow poop is getting really deep in here. My prediction for the SC GOP primary is Trump 30, Cruz 25, Rubio 20, Bush, Kasich and Carson in that order, each less than 15 and totaling 25 (e.g.,13, 8, 4). REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Roger, So long as you predict Trump winning, you are a sage and wise prophet. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 23 hours ago, william.scherk said: A better example might be the strong disagreement between Jonathan and I over issues snarling under the tent Climate Change. The disagreement does not harm my regard for and friendship with him, within the limits of actual friendship imposed by internet-only communication. We can and have and will tackle that tangle again, and I foresee our internet cross-forum 'friendship' to thrive. Why? I cannot explain simply, maybe J will cut to the heart of the answer, and compare it with the MSK/Bidibob 'break.' Possible explanations: We recognize in each other that we're open to discovering that we were mistaken in any of our opinions. We think tentatively, doubtfully, and, most importantly, self-critically. We don't resent the prospect of recalibrating our mindsets based on new evidence, but are usually happy, if not excited, to do so. We can get emotionally invested in issues, but not to the point of closing our minds to reality. I think we both find the idea of seeing others adamantly denying obvious, overwhelming evidence of reality to be embarrassing, disturbing, and deserving of heaps of ridicule. Golden Rule time: I think we'd both expect to be heavily ridiculed if we ever rejected reality as we some folks in O-land do. I think we'd both have the attitude of "Yeah, I guess I had that coming" when taking the an intellectual punch in the mouth from reality. We're upfront and direct, and we don't dodge or ignore challenges. We don't leave others' questions on the table unanswered or unacknowledged. We actively seek to understand and address the meat of others' arguments, rather than employing tactical maneuvers designed to skirt the substance and save face. We're all about the ideas. We don't have phony images of ourselves as being deeply respected and important public figures, intellectual leaders, gurus, and revered published scholars. We don't pose and preen, and we don't dish out what we can't take. We don't whine that we're not being properly respected. We're fun and creative. We like to laugh, especially at closed-minded, emotion-driven twits who pose as geniuses and saviors. Our senses of humor blend well together, and I think we each enjoy our differences in style: You bring much beauty and elegantly stylized wit to your decimating of fools, with vivid original strokes and shadings, where I dump buckets of acid on them. And there are unexplainable parts to it too. Various other personality compatibilities, general fondness and affection from years of consciously and subconcpsciously absorbed information, attitude and kinship. I love you, Billy. If I were gay, I'd divorce my wife and marry you. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Perhaps by nightfall, with the closing of South Carolina voting we will know if we will need to grit our teeth and start accepting and reluctantly promoting The Greatest Showman Since P.T. Barnum. I hope he understands that if he ever debates her, she will be prepped by some outstanding media minds to make him look less than Presidential. Will we have to watch her grow old in office? Shudder. More emails were released today. I’m still waiting for someone other than Bernie to oppose Old Hickory Clinton in the Demoncratic primary because of the following: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally. (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. end quote I GUESS Hillary could claim the enemy was about to attack and she had to destroy or alter her emails to avoid letting them fall into enemy hands. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) I love this so much. It is definitely going in the bag. Thanks, J! Within the bounds of internet frenzhip, our mutual regard can serve as an example that strong disagreements need not lead to personal enmity. Robust disagreement can complement and enrich a frenzhip, given certain conditions of reason, fair play, and The Principle. I know I learn most in the midst of disagreement. Following Rand, how can a contradiction be resolved? Only by application of reason. If in the application you excoriate and dismember and rhetorically stomp out the error, who can argue against that? It seems to me that a bare minimum mutual respect must operate. Perhaps that is why there is a gulf between MSK and the sad shell of a man ... That said, I only read J's paean once quickly, did a Sally Field on the front patio to an audience of green succulents, and then had an overwhelming impulse: replace all mentions of WSS+J=We with some reference to Donald Trump. I cannot be responsible for the story it tells ... 2 hours ago, Jonathan said: Donald Trump is open to discovering that he was mistaken in any of his opinions. He thinks tentatively, doubtfully, and, most importantly, self-critically. Trump doesn't resent the prospect of recalibrating his mindset based on new evidence, but is usually happy, if not excited, to do so. He can get emotionally invested in issues, but not to the point of closing his mind to reality. I think we both find the idea of seeing others adamantly denying obvious, overwhelming evidence of reality to be embarrassing, disturbing, and deserving of heaps of ridicule. Golden Rule time: I think we'd both expect to be heavily ridiculed if we ever rejected reality as we some folks in O-land do. I think we'd both have the attitude of "Yeah, I guess I had that coming" when taking the an intellectual punch in the mouth from reality. Trump is upfront and direct, and he doesn't dodge or ignore challenges. He doesn't leave others' questions on the table unanswered or unacknowledged. He actively seeks to understand and address the meat of others' arguments, rather than employing tactical maneuvers designed to skirt the substance and save face. Donald Trump is all about the ideas. He doesn't have a phony image of himself as being a deeply respected and important public figure, intellectual leader, guru, and revered published scholar. He doesn't pose and preen, and he does not dish out what he can't take. He doesn't whine that he is not being properly respected. Donald Trump is fun and creative. He likes to laugh, especially at closed-minded, emotion-driven twits who pose as geniuses and saviors. Our senses of humor blend well together, and I think we each enjoy our differences in style: He brings much beauty and elegantly stylized wit to his decimating of fools, with vivid original strokes and shadings, where I dump buckets of acid on them. And there are unexplainable parts to it too. Various other personality compatibilities, general fondness and affection from years of consciously and subconcpsciously absorbed information, attitude and kinship. I love Trump, Billy. If I were gay, I'd divorce my wife and marry him. With apologies to J and to all those who believe in True Political Love. Edited February 20, 2016 by william.scherk Edited for hilarious spelking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 William and Jonathan, The real secret is you guys rock. Seriously. On another point, a guest on Fox News just made a comment I found both surprising and insightful--in fact, it cut so deep, I stopped in my tracks to think. Her name is Nicole Graham, an attorney and Democratic Party strategist. She said that the supporters of Trump and Sanders had one thing in common. They are like the hippies of the 60's. They are tired of all the lies and games, so they are saying they're done. No more. I was a hippy in the late 60's and early 70's (a half-assed live-at-home long-haired bell-bottom trouser hippy, but still leaning that way--I only read Rand at the start of the 70's). At any rate, I know exactly what this lady means. You don't have to be a hippy to feel that. But when that feeling kicks in, it's an irreparable break. It takes on the dimensions of a Randian rejection. Done is done. No more and fuck ya'll. I'm doing something else now. That's the feeling. Here's the video of Graham saying that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 27 minutes ago, william.scherk said: ... replace all mentions of WSS+J=We with some reference to Donald Trump. I cannot be responsible for the story it tells ... 55 minutes ago, Jonathan said: Donald Trump is open to discovering that he was mistaken in any of his opinions. He thinks tentatively, doubtfully, and, most importantly, self-critically. Trump doesn't resent the prospect of recalibrating his mindset based on new evidence, but is usually happy, if not excited, to do so. He can get emotionally invested in issues, but not to the point of closing his mind to reality. I think we both find the idea of seeing others adamantly denying obvious, overwhelming evidence of reality to be embarrassing, disturbing, and deserving of heaps of ridicule. Golden Rule time: I think we'd both expect to be heavily ridiculed if we ever rejected reality as we some folks in O-land do. I think we'd both have the attitude of "Yeah, I guess I had that coming" when taking the an intellectual punch in the mouth from reality. Trump is upfront and direct, and he doesn't dodge or ignore challenges. He doesn't leave others' questions on the table unanswered or unacknowledged. He actively seeks to understand and address the meat of others' arguments, rather than employing tactical maneuvers designed to skirt the substance and save face. Donald Trump is all about the ideas. He doesn't have a phony image of himself as being a deeply respected and important public figure, intellectual leader, guru, and revered published scholar. He doesn't pose and preen, and he does not dish out what he can't take. He doesn't whine that he is not being properly respected. Donald Trump is fun and creative. He likes to laugh, especially at closed-minded, emotion-driven twits who pose as geniuses and saviors. Our senses of humor blend well together, and I think we each enjoy our differences in style: He brings much beauty and elegantly stylized wit to his decimating of fools, with vivid original strokes and shadings, where I dump buckets of acid on them. And there are unexplainable parts to it too. Various other personality compatibilities, general fondness and affection from years of consciously and subconcpsciously absorbed information, attitude and kinship. I love Trump, Billy. If I were gay, I'd divorce my wife and marry him. Dayamm, that's beautiful! I'm getting choked up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The results are mostly in. For South Carolina, it's all over but the cawing. Trump 2016. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Getting a kick watching Major Garrett right now on CBS News trying to restrain his pro-Trump enthusiasm. Go Trump! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Gotta love Ann! I'm so happy, I feel like a moron college student watching Obama win in 2008!— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 21, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I'm making the rounds to see what the pundits are saying and it's hilarious how many are emphasizing how Trump did not win by as big a margin as he had going in. And how if the others drop out and coalesce around one candidate, Trump is toast (as if all the votes of the drop-outs would go for anyone but Trump). Then you look at the campaign story: 1. Most of the South Carolina government heavies endorsed Rubio near the end. 2. Trump said "they lied" about WMD and most people understood that to mean George Bush--right in the middle of Bush country. 3. George Bush showed up to campaign for his brother. 4. I don't know how many millions of dollars were spent on attack ads against Trump, but there were many--double digits. 5. Trump said he didn't think the goddam health care mandate was a bad idea. 6. Judging from the "bad taste in mouth while smiling" reaction of the Fox News people and practically all the other major news stations on announcing Trump's win, they have been against Trump all along--and if you look, it will be clear that this slant has been in their reporting all during the campaign. 7. Trump called for a boycott of Apple. (That alone should have killed him. ) 8. Even Pope Francis himself attacked Trump. I could go on, but with all this, Trump still won the primary by double digits. I'm almost afraid to go on Facebook right now and show how happy I am. I might get defriended and banned left and right. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Here is something that needs looking at hard. And nobody in the news is commenting on it. I pulled this screenshot off the New York Times tonight. Notice that Trump won the majority in ALL voting regions except two that went to Rubio. Where the hell is Cruz and the others in this? Not even one voting region? And of the two that went to Rubio, he won Columbia and surrounding area where all the government people are and Charleston and along the coast nearby where the rest of the government jobs are. Trump won the rest of the entire state. There's a message there... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Gotta love Ann. CNN: Let's go back to last June -- would anyone have thought Trump would be winning this? I DID!— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 21, 2016 I did, too. (Well, July in my case, as this thread attests.) Michael 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, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 6. Judging from the "bad taste in mouth while smiling" reaction of the Fox News people and practically all the other major news stations on announcing Trump's win, they have been against Trump all along--and if you look, it will be clear that this slant has been in their reporting all during the campaign. Don't believe me. Believe this: "@mikeliberation: This is the best reaction shot I've ever seen lol #Trump2016" pic.twitter.com/jqxI7QoxEY— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2016 Priceless. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I want to give this Trump thread a rest, but too much good stuff keeps coming up. I'll try to stop tonight with this one since it's so positive. Newt gets Trump in a manner few in the mainstream do. The only thing he gets wrong is his advice. In other words, he gets the past and the present right about Trump more than anybody, but his vision of the future is lacking. Can anyone imagine Trump suddenly turning into a noble statesman of few modest words like George Washington, like an on-off switch, and people taking him seriously? Only Newt. But his comments on how Trump learns are spot on. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 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