Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

I'm saying that your notion that she will be able to march right up to Donald Trump after HE has gone rogue is a fantasy.

Roger,

That's horseshit.

You don't know Sarah.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

21 minutes ago, Selene said:

Michael, I am kinda glad that many of these Orthodox Oists don't vote.

They should be encouraged to never compromise and vote for those types of  "people" who are not pure...

A...

 

I'm not an Orthodox Objectivist - and many/most people wouldn't even acknowledge me as an Objectivist.

But I do have a pretty good B.S. detector, and I call B.S. on this.

Donald Trump *is* pure. He is a pure pragmatist-populist, one of the most dangerous kinds of politician there is.

I would rather vote for a person of deeply mixed premises and principles, than someone with no principles or premises at all, except to say and do whatever is necessary in order to get elected and gain power.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

You're apparently comfortable with this kind of deceit and thuggery. I'm not.

Roger,

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

Please read The Art of the Deal to get an idea. Then we can discuss it.

I'm not going to argue against strawmen arguments based on fear.

These strawmen in your head that you are attributing to Trump, then attributing to me, don't exist and I don't like to bicker qua bicker.

Michael

[Selene]

1 minute ago, Roger Bissell said:

I'm not an Orthodox Objectivist - and many/most people wouldn't even acknowledge me as an Objectivist.

I would rather vote for a person of deeply mixed premises and principles, than someone with no principles or premises at all, except to say and do whatever is necessary in order to get elected and gain power.

REB

 REB:

I know you are not an Orthodox Objectivist.  You have stated that you are not an Objectivist numerous times.

So again, if it is just Trump vs. Evita, you will vote for her, or, another party, or, not vote at all.

I am fine with whatever you choose, I just am inquiring what you are going to do in that particular case?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Word is Mike Huckabee is getting ready to endorse Trump (see here). Still to confirm, but looking good seeing as his daughter recently started working for Trump's campaign. 

The Trump Train is chugging...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

And what the HELL is a "negotiated punishment"???

Roger,

This is called a counterpunch.

Trump is not into sanction of the victim.

I hope you don't want him to turn the other cheek to nasty folks who screw people when they start screwing him. Those are the folks he counterpunches.

But it won't matter if you do. Trump ain't turning his cheek to bastards. And I, for one, don't want him to. No more vicious bastards demanding that America turn the other cheek. 

Thank God that phase of American history is going to take a breather. 

We can get back to altruism later after we get some actual capitalism running for a change...

(Dayaamm! I just said I wasn't going to argue against strawmen arguments.)

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

15 minutes ago, Selene said:

...if it is just Trump vs. Evita, you will vote for her, or, another party, or, not vote at all.

I am fine with whatever you choose, I just am inquiring what you are going to do in that particular case?

I see. Well, no, those aren't all the options. I'm glad that you are accepting of the choice I will make, but I'm not going to discuss my vote here at this time.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about.

Please read The Art of the Deal to get an idea. Then we can discuss it.

I want to clarify something here.

I didn't mean this as an insult. I mean it literally.

When certain liberals argue against Rand and do not have familiarity with her, it's easy for Rand people to detect because they usually attribute things to her that don't exist.

Ditto for Trump.

So I suggest getting familiar with the man's work, not just familiar with what others say about him or recent appearances on TV news shows and the debates. This applies to all readers unfamiliar with Trump.

Here are some relevant things I wrote about this yesterday to a friend on Facebook. (I don't want to mention his name because I'm pretty sure he does not want to be dragged into things over here.) It's from two different posts. Also, I bolded a few things

MSK said:

I'm not on board with a lot of what Trump says. (Nor what the media does with it.) I am on board with what he does, especially when he builds magnificent projects. A friend of mine (on my forum) stayed in one of the Trump Tower hotels recently and said it was one of the best hotel experiences of his life. Try running something like that sometime.

Trump never made his profits from war. All the people you prefer to be elected in his stead either profit from war or are funded by people who do so. Both sides.

So what if there's theater with Trump? Have you ever seen that theater result in death and destruction? Or death and destruction on a massive scale like a war? On the other hand, look at the holy mess the so-called civilized politicians have done. I could ask you, are you on board with that? In other words, is it OK to kill all kinds of people and destroy things galore just so long as you are polite and the public doesn't cause a fuss? How many such killings are OK to ignore just so we keep up appearances? 

I use this criterion. When I see there is a difference between what a person says and what he does, I go with what he does as a better indicator of what he will do in the future. 

Using this criterion, Trump will build magnificent things as president and there will be a great market for everyone. He will also talk a lot of crap. Aren't those what he's done? When he will have to use the military, I expect him to resolve the issues decisively and leave--in other words, treat a destruction project just like he would a construction project.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Your view of Trump's stuff is one-sided and, frankly, it's the media talking points from anti-Trump people. There are some truths in it, but there are also huge insinuations, omissions and spin that don't reflect reality, not to mention the total blank-out on what it takes to be an entrepreneur. 

All great entrepreneurs fail some of the time. Those who don't fail don't try and they never become great. If I don't like a particular entrepreneur, I will look at his failures--only his failures--and say what a scumbag and idiot he is. If I want to be objective, I will look at the good stuff he has done, too. That is what objective people do, isn't it? Look at both sides?

From your comments above, especially that talking point about his net worth, you don't sound familiar with Trump's work or even familiar with him other than political spin. I wager you have never been in a Trump hotel or on a Trump golf course, never read a Trump book, never used Trump clothing, rarely if ever watched The Apprentice, and so on. I bet you've seen him in the news and more recently in the debates and that's the massive brunt of it. Yet the reality is Trump is all those things, his failures and his successes. 

But then add them up. Gazillions of successes all over the world and a handful of failures. (You will only know this with certainty if you look with your own eyes instead of reading the press. I invite you to do so and prove me wrong.)

Try to find disgruntled Trump employees. You'll find an occasional one, but when you scratch him (or her), he turns out to be a ringer with an agenda. Or maybe like the crazy lady in Iowa the press loved until they found out she was walking around dressed like Melania all the time. Those people don't last with him, but the competent people who work for him have nothing but praise for him.

You say he has not had a chance to do war. Baloney. He's dealt with the mob for years like he had to do with New York and New Jersey construction unions. There are no hints at all that he ever used the mob's... er... peculiar services.

Trump dealt with them because they were in his way as a producer, just like he has dealt with politicians all his life. He made deals with them to move them aside. If they were not blocking his construction, he probably would not have ever put them in his life. So, yeah, he's shown how he handles deployment of lethal force. He's had access to it for decades. He's a friggin' peacenik who talks tough.

I think the anti-Trumpers prefer vicious bastards and killers who get others to do their dirty work by stealth, including the US military, but talk like peaceniks. That's what we have had all this time and the only thing the anti-Trumpers have done for years is treat that with indifference or like an inconvenience. Going by their words and actions, that's the way life is supposed to be for them. Appearance has become reality in America. 

Well, for people like me, it isn't. Lots of Americans think like I do now. The age of crony deception and nonstop war is going to end. It doesn't matter what words anti-Trump people say, not when they have been complacent about the deception and show signs of continuing that complacency. (And I'm not even going into complacency with the PC language bullies, lack of jobs, etc.)

The power of the crony corporatist forces that have been ruling America ever since George Bush the senior (and even the end of the Reagan years) is going to end. Making nonstop war and making it look like peace to get labor and oil and other raw materials dirt cheap from other countries is going to end. 

We will have to see what the new power will look like wielded by a successful entrepreneur, but from where I sit and from all the things I have seen, it's going to look awfully good for everyone except elitists and bums. Some good people might bitch in the future under Trump, but they are going to do it while realizing their dreams. 

Michael

[Selene]

So who is against free speech again?

Quote

Watson says the chant was uttered three or four times before administrators stopped the students. He declined to say whether the students were disciplined, citing privacy policies.

Apparently...

Quote

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A group of Iowa high school students has been admonished for seeminly using Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's name as a racial insult during a boys' basketball game.

The chant occurred Monday during a playoff game between Dallas Center-Grimes in West Des Moines, a largely white school, and Perry, a more diverse school north of Des Moines.

According to DCG activities director Steve Watson, roughly a dozen students out of the 120 or so in attendance chanted Trump's name after their team lost to Perry.

Curious isn't it...

https://youtu.be/fusREMo4K9w

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/iowa-high-school-students-admonished-for-chanting-trump-trump-trump-after-basketball-game/

 

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

So many people in the press are suddenly trying to play the racism card on Trump, you know it's an organized PR manipulation.

There are lots of headlines now about how Trump REFUSES, REFUSES DO YOU HEAR ME? to disavow David Duke's support. I prefer the following headline from The Hill.

Trump brushes off David Duke support

Here's what I wrote as a comment to one of the gotcha attempts:

MSK said:

 

I think Trump's playing the press in their gotcha game. Keep 'em talking trying to figure out what he means so long as they're talking about him. 

I don't think Trump gives a crap about David Duke one way or another. But he'll take the vote if it comes. If not, not. 

And he doesn't give a crap about the Duke gotcha game. It's like he's yawning in the press's face.

 

Come to think of it, that deserves another smiley.

There. 

Michael

[Selene]

Precisely.

I have always handled the press on my terms because you are not going to effect them by being submissive to their game...

A,,,

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

The National Review, which could never ever ever support Trump under any circumstances even if it rained in hell, so much so they did an entire issue called "Against Trump," when asked directly if they could support Trump, now says... through its editor, Richard Lowry... wait for it... wait for it... it's coming...

(drum roll)

"We'll see."

 

 

Sure, Lowry said some face-saving things, but now that it looks like Trump is going to get power for real, that means they will be cut out.

So "never" turns into "we'll see."

That's kinda predictable.

Republican hardline intellectuals talk a good game and come in a good stiff wrapper, but poke 'em a little and pull away the brass ring of power and you find out they're made of mush.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,

Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech?

He would never do that and, like I said, Sarah Palin would slap him silly.

He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him. He's scaring them to get them to pipe down. He's being unpredictable. Since they are playing dirty with him, he's playing dirty right back. That's not 100% accurate, but it's in the ballpark.

Trump is not preaching or taking a test of ideological purity. He's winning an election against some very powerful, nasty, immoral people who have been screwing this country over for a long, long time. And he's beating them at their own game.

Don't expect it to be pretty. If you want pretty, you are going to get more of the same people who are screwing over the country.

I, as a typical Trump supporter, see all this clearly. I have little doubt others like me see it, too.

Just look at how many people are voting for Trump. And keep watching because they are going to keep voting.

Don't forget, many of these people are died-in-the-wool freedom of speech folks. They cling to guns and Bibles, especially guns when their freedom of speech is threatened for real. 

Michael

Michael,

You said, "Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech? He would never do that ...", followed closely by, "He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him."

But "propaganda" is speech, so the right to free speech implies the right to free propaganda or, more precisely, the right the freely engage in propagandizing without any interference from government or anyone else.  So, to say that Trump is "negotiating the level of propaganda" is to admit that he is negotiating freedom of speech.  There is no essential difference.

When George W. Bush was president, he was compared to Hitler.  During Obama's presidency, he has also been compared to Hitler.  If Trump becomes president, it is likely that he will also be compared to Hitler.  If he is, what will he do?  Will he threaten to sue those who compare him to Hitler?  If they continue the comparisons, will he actually sue?  Will the courts have the guts to stand up to the bombastic president?  I wouldn't count on it.

Bush was exceptionally mild.  As far as I know, he never did anything to try to silence his critics.  Obama, of course, has been different.  People who have criticized him have been subjected to IRS audits and investigations by the FBI and BATF.  Some of us don't like that.  Obama has turned this country into a banana republic.  This election should be about reclaiming Constitutional government in America, not continuing down the road of lawless rule.

This isn't about ideological purity.  Of course I have my favorite candidate, but I'd be willing to support one of the other candidates as well, within certain bounds.  For example, I would never support Jeb! because he also fails the free speech test, believe it or not.  

At one time, I also considered supporting Trump, but as things have congealed, certain problems with his behavior and demeanor have really started to bother me.  It didn't bother me when he threatened to run a third party campaign, because a person's support for a particular political party is negotiable.  Trump can't treat everything like a business deal.  Government and business are fundamentally different.  That's something a lot of business people and their supporters don't seem to get.  Maybe it's not surprising then that a lot of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are left wing Utopians.  They understand how to run a business, but not a country.

Darrell

[KorbenDallas]

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

You can mock it as aliens, but there it sits right on the top of Drudge.

Here's a screenshot:

 

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In honor of the aliens, here is the full interview between Roger Stone and Alex Jones.

MSK,

Alex Jones' claim to fame is conspiracy theories.. I don't see this Romney business as anything other than that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, drhougen said:

But "propaganda" is speech, so the right to free speech implies the right to free propaganda or, more precisely, the right the freely engage in propagandizing without any interference from government or anyone else.  So, to say that Trump is "negotiating the level of propaganda" is to admit that he is negotiating freedom of speech.  There is no essential difference.

Darrell,

I disagree with this attribution since it conflates two different things that don't belong together into one.

The first is the right to make propaganda. That right is something Trump would never negotiate or even dream of infringing.

The other is the right to be immune from the consequences of attacking someone. Nobody has that right. This is a person thing, an individual citizen thing, not a law thing. If someone runs nasty propaganda against you, you have every right to punch back. And punch harder if you can. All citizens have that right. And if you punch harder, the person who got walloped by the counterpunch and is seeing birdies circling over his head has no right to expect the government to protect his right to make nasty propaganda and be immune from all consequences from the victim. The counterpuncher has the same right the puncher does.

Do you agree with the rights of both?

Free speech and immunity from all consequences are two very different rights. 

In practice, I don't think Trump will do anything with the libel laws, but let's look at what he is threatening that you find so horrible. Have you even looked at this beyond the spin in the news and pegging that to your principles? Your arguments don't sound like you have.

So let's look a bit. If I come out and attack you, Darrell, in print and knowingly publish incorrect facts to smear you, and you can prove some kind of loss because the public believed that information, you can sue me for damages. If you win, I will have to make a public retraction of those incorrect facts and will probably have to pay you something to compensate for your losses for the public acting on my malicious misrepresentations.

The libel law gives a lot more leeway to people who smear political figures, but not normal unfamous people, not even celebrities like movie stars (movie stars have a bankable asset in their reputation, so loss is more measurable).

I'm going on memory and I'm too rushed to look it up right now, so I can't give you the legal provisions, This means I may say something where a detail is off. But legal provisions exist for what I am saying. Actually, I might look into it later for better precision if I get some time.

All Trump is threatening to do is to line up under the law politicians with movie stars, sports celebrities, etc., and normal everyday people so they all get the same legal protection. 

Here's the idea. If I publish an article claiming you, Darrell, are a pedofile who sleeps with your own daughter and publish a photo her sitting on your lap as proof, you can sue me for damages and probably win. (This is hypothetical--I don't know if you have a daughter.) If you lose your job over this, I better have deep pockets.

However, when a large news company does the same with Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka, Trump as a politician doesn't have the same legal protection as you, unfamous citizen, does. His burden of proof of damage is a lot more difficult.

Note that the standard is not what is said. That can be as gross as possible and still be protected speech. The standard is objective fact. If I say I think you, Darrell, are a pedofile who sleeps with your own daughter, but that is my opinion, you could not sue me. If I present it as fact and I have no proof, you can. Trump wants the same factual legal condition to apply to politicians as it does to others, meaning people can give their opinions, but not knowingly give out false facts to damage a politician's reputation. (How can a politician prove damages except by loss of votes and extrapolation of what might have been? Good luck with that in the courts.  )

So there is no threat to the First Amendment. Legally, even if Trump does get some law passed to make this adjustment, it will be a field day for lawyers and nothing but a settlement here and there will ever happen in really nasty cases.

This is stuff for buzz, not law or rights.

The correct metaphor is tempest in a teapot.

You don't have to like Trump. I'm not arguing for that. (It would be nice , but not my call to make.)

Accurate identification of facts and principles, including contexts, are important.

I argue for that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Alex Jones' claim to fame is conspiracy theories.

Korben,

I used to think like that and likewise, without looking, immediately dismissed him as a kook every time his name came up. 

Then I kept seeing his stuff appear on Drudge. Time after time after time. What's going on?

So I started looking to see why.

Alex Jones has morphed over time. He started out as a fringe kook and he still puts out a lot of kooky stuff, but now he is documented as all hell from unimpeachable places and there is an increasing group of serious high-level people who are interviewed by him. Some of these people would surprise you. Even Trump have been interviewed by him more than once during the current campaign.

Take a look some time.

Nowadays, I take what Jones says with a grain of salt (you have to ) and get amused at his paranoia antics and espionage jargon (for example, everyone bad is an "operative" and so on  ), but I no longer dismiss him outright. I have learned a lot looking at his material and I don't even look all that often.

Fact-wise, he has his shit together. And he has a lot of shit to look at that is together. The man is prolific and accurate if nothing else.

Interpretation-wise, he can really go off the rails. And even on this score, he has been getting gradually more objective as serious people have been coming on board. (He can still get awfully kooky, though.  )

If you use the system of identify correctly, then evaluate, and apply that to Alex Jones for a reevaluation, you will be pleasantly surprised. If you prefer the system of instantly evaluate, then look for stuff that backs this up, Jones will certainly give you a lot of material to do just that.

btw - I think his worldwide audience is something like 28 million (that's what he claims and I can't find many people who dispute it). Even adapting for spin, that's way more than Fox News shows.

Michael

[Selene]

Big endorsement just prior to Tuesday!!!~

[Roger Bissell]

  1 hour ago, drhougen said:

Quote

But "propaganda" is speech, so the right to free speech implies the right to free propaganda or, more precisely, the right the freely engage in propagandizing without any interference from government or anyone else.  So, to say that Trump is "negotiating the level of propaganda" is to admit that he is negotiating freedom of speech.  There is no essential difference.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,

I disagree with this attribution since it conflates two different things that don't belong together into one.

The first is the right to make propaganda. That right is something Trump would never negotiate or even dream of infringing.

The other is the right to be immune from the consequences of attacking someone. Nobody has that right. This is a person thing, an individual citizen thing, not a law thing. If someone runs nasty propaganda against you, you have every right to punch back. And punch harder if you can. All citizens have that right. And if you punch harder, the person who got walloped by the counterpunch and is seeing birdies circling over his head has no right to expect the government to protect his right to make nasty propaganda and be immune from all consequences from the victim. The counterpuncher has the same right the puncher does.

[....]

So there is no threat to the First Amendment. Legally, even if Trump does get some law passed to make this adjustment, it will be a field day for lawyers and nothing but a settlement here and there will ever happen in really nasty cases.

This is stuff for buzz, not law or rights.

[....]

Accurate identification of facts and principles, including contexts, are important.

I argue for that.

No, you don't. This issue is *all* about rights and law - in particular, the Bill of Rights, the constitutionally limited powers of elected officials, and the principle that government officials should *never* interfere in the private lives and businesses of law-abiding citizens, that officials are our *servants* not our masters or, especially, our "negotiated punishers."

No threat to the First Amendment? You have *got* to be kidding! Do you not recognize the principle of the "chilling effect" on freedom of speech from even *threats* of interference with, or "negotiated punishment" (your phrase) of, that speech? Apparently not. Yet, just a few hours and posts ago, you wrote:

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think Trump would find some form of negotiated punishment of the libelous propagandists, like getting a banker friend to pull out on a loan at the last minute and things like that. I don't see him overturning the First Amendment. I don't even see him wanting to. He would have to relive his life in a different manner for that to happen.

Now, I acknowledge that these are *your* words, not The Donald's. I am not accusing *him* of using such tactics, since he has never said he would (though I worry that he would). You, however...the first (and only) thing out of your mouth is for him to "get a banker friend to pull out a loan at the last minute and things like that." Things like that? Like what? And what does "getting" mean? What if the banker friend doesn't want to pull out the loan, but The Donald makes it clear the *he* (the banker friend) will have certain hinted-at difficulties if *he* doesn't cooperate. Does this threat of further "negotiated punishment" of the banker friend fall under the category of "getting"?

(Further, if he's a banker *friend,* it wouldn't even be necessary to "get" him to do it. He'd do it in order to protect his crony, The Donald. Only if he's at least relatively neutral would "getting" be necessary. And the "getting" would be pretty ugly, involving threatened coercion, i.e., intervention into the *banker's* business.)

You don't think this is "overturning the First Amendment"? In other words, if it's still on the books, it's still in effect? Think again. Fascism (German, Italian) leaves property rights on the books, but for all practical purposes they are non-existent, because regulations and behind-the-scenes intimidation by government officials force people into complying with the wishes of the government. The same would be true of the empty shell of the First Amendment, once we start down the slippery slope you are eagerly wanting us to slide down.

Michael, this is *not* what government officials should do - and it is not what they *may* (permissibly) do. It is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and anti-individual rights. A President who engages in such "negotiated punishment" is a tyrant. This is how Obama used the IRS and other agencies (and yes, he has behaved as a tyrant, too). Darrell has already point this out, and I second it - and you have not responded to it. You think that once Trump gets a modification he likes to the libel laws, he will let the lawyers and judges handle it. Then what is all this horse-pucky about "negotiated punishment"??

The right to "punch back"? Boy, *there's* a package deal, if I ever heard one! Yes, Trump has the same rights as a counterpuncher that the puncher does. So yes, Trump has the right - now and as President - to *speak* back, even viciously and falsely, against people who say untrue and vicious things. But *not* to interfere, using the power of his office, in the private and business lives of his critics. Not unless they have violated the law. And then, it's a matter of enforcing the law - not "negotiating punishments" behind the scenes, like some kind of special op's waterboarding in Tunisia.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Woo hoo!

Senator Sessions!

I suspected the following but I am now certain. I used to wonder where are all the big endorsements with Trump? Now I know.

I have no doubt there is a huge line-up of top people waiting to endorse Trump and they have been waiting for awhile. He is holding them back so he can usher them in, one by one, at the proper time for best media impact and best political impact.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

ou, however...the first (and only) thing out of your mouth is for him to "get a banker friend to pull out a loan at the last minute and things like that."

Roger,

Since when is that a law?

I thought we were talking about individual rights. Free speech.

And where was your outrage when folks actually did this kind of crap to Trump?

Or even worse? For example, they made him sign a pledge not one of them had the intention to honor and the backstage boys tried to use Fox to humiliate him about it in front of the 24 million people who tuned in to see him in the first debate. Note, this was Trump's audience, not theirs. They didn't even have the capacity to generate their own audience to do it. They were expecting 3 million tops. 

They fucked up and got outplayed by Trump from being too conceited (they never imagined they would be called on to honor it), but this stuff is not a question of rights or law. It is a brawl to win an election.

btw - Trump doesn't call these conceited manipulators cunning and he certainly is not squawking about someone violating his rights. He merely beats them at their own game and calls them morons.  

You are making the same mistake Darrell is, mixing private action everyone has a right to do with infringing actual individual rights and calling the person who acts in his own interests a dictator. I believe it's an honest mistake because it's based on misinterpreting words (attributing strict academic meanings on words that are used in a brawl), ignoring contexts, and not looking at what someone habitually does, but it's still the same mistake.

Also, there's this. When your guy does it, that's acceptable. When Trump does it, the world is crashing into the rebirth of Hitler.

(smiling innocently and sweetly)

You might as well get used to it. Trump is winning and he will win.

Your guy is going to lose.

Nyah nyah nyah!

Yup. If things keep going like they are, Trump most definitely will win.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

The right to "punch back"? Boy, *there's* a package deal, if I ever heard one!

Roger,

Well, you could bend over and take it, I suppose. Just blank out the reality that this is your only real alternative in a fight and you will get all the package deal you could ever dream about.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Big endorsement just prior to Tuesday!!!~

Adam,

For those who do not follow politics, here is the Jeff Sessions Wikipedia article. Sessions is Mr. Conservative Tea Party in Congress. He's also causing Ted Cruz to lose sleep tonight.  

Add the Jeff Sessions endorsement to the following before Tuesday and things are looking awfully good.

Biden Apologizes to Mexico for GOP Comments

Even though this apology will get less media buzz than the Sessions endorsement (I believe), it will probably have a greater impact on swaying people to vote for Trump.

In fact, I think Trump should hire Vice President Biden for his campaign staff.

Biden is one hell of a vote-getter for Trump

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

This is how Obama used the IRS and other agencies (and yes, he has behaved as a tyrant, too). Darrell has already point this out, and I second it - and you have not responded to it.

Roger,

Trump follows the law. He always has.

He would never use the IRS for intimidation. Your lack of familiarity with him is making you invent scenarios in your mind that have nothing to do with the way Trump does things.

I could make up stories that you are a serial killer and go around explaining to everyone why being a serial killer is evil. Is that you? Of course not. But I remember you were once loudly in favor of nuking an entire city, the entire city of Tehran, to glass. Men, women, children, dogs, cats, everyone and everything. One minute they exist, the next there is a radioactive desert.

Then I could go on about how you want to deny the right to life of millions of innocent people (the "collateral damage") and so on. And then start calling you a monster worse than Stalin and so on.

But you're a friggin' trombone player who worked for Disney. That's the reality context of your murderous urges.

It is true that Trump does use leverage in business, and he will exact punishment on those who fight him (and who intend to punish him), but he fights fair. He just fights a hell of lot better than others do and constantly breaks the unwritten tut-tut-tutters intimidation schemas.

Winners who win like that do scare people.

They don't scare me, though. And it looks like Trump isn't scaring a hell of a lot of people who are voting for him...

America is built by people who like winning like this and they are now going to come out to vote. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Big endorsement just prior to Tuesday!!!~

Here's the video:

Michael

[Selene]

Check this out, Evita gave them the "Nudge" is her screech last night.

#BlackLivesMatter Protests Trump In Alabama, Trump Responds: "All Lives Matter"

(Adam--I fixed your links... MSK.)