Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

What Trump is doing to Scott Walker is not about program.  It is not about principle.  It is not about opposing an Establishment.  It is not taking apart some war machine.  It is not about putting up building.  It is not about producing anything. 

Robert,

Actually it is. You are wrong. It is this lack of not seeing Trump supporters--this is the galling thing they face all the time and the reason they stop listening to their so-called intellectual betters.

Lots and lots of people who live and think like I do (in all demographics) think the same. People like you simply don't see people like us. (btw - You are in very good company. I have had a similar conversation with Robert Bidinotto, Virginia Postrel and others.)

It's not that you disagree. You refuse to see us. You deny we exist in any form other than the one you want to believe.

And that form is wrong. I know. Why? I'm the thing under examination.

You and I disagree on the very foundation of what I am by focusing your beam on the bogeyman you claim Trump is.

To you, it's all about Trump the man. The narcissist. The monster. To people like me, it's the great things Trump embodies. Someone once asked a Trump supporter on a video (I forget where--I think it was Limbaugh) why he supported Trump. He gave all the reasons you just claimed do not exist and then some. Then he was asked what would make him stop supporting Trump. The guy was surprised by the idea, then replied, why if Trump started becoming like the establishment on all that.

And that's exactly it.

If Trump betrays these values, Trump supporters will turn on him on a dime. Well... maybe after a little while because they won't want to believe it at first. But they would turn on him hard if he stops being what he stands for and it would be ugly. 

If you want to know why Trump supporters are immune to all arguments, theories, gotchas and so on, and why no theory seems to explain it however clever, they use their eyes before they use words.

Do you want to get me to doubt Trump? Show me shoddy workmanship by him. Show me a building falling down because he cheated on building material specs to skim money. Show me his war profits. Show me the people he has ordered to be killed. Show me things like that. Then you will get my attention. 

Don't let me look at a magnificent skyscraper and tell me bullying built it. Don't let me look at bestselling books I read and liked and tell me they are nothing but nonsense and lies. Don't let me look at all the millionaires Trump  created through his free market production and say they have been trampled underfoot by a greedy narcissist. Don't let me look at all those people telling Trump how he helped them out when they were down and tell me he is a monster.

Most of all, don't let me look at all those dead soldiers and broken and maimed vets who fought in wars strictly for the oil profits of a ruler class and tell me that is freedom and the constitution (like the establishment folks do). And, by contrast, don't let me see Trump's campaign manager brush a pushy reporter out of a security path and tell me he is a thug who should be in jail.

I (including Trump supporters and Trump) am not like you think I am and I fear I cannot explain it in words only. You have to use your eyes before the words. You have to see me. I can talk intelligently about what you see when you say it. I can't talk intelligently about what you hate and fear, not when I'm among the very thing your words misrepresent.

Saying I don't exist doesn't make me stop existing. But you could probably prove I don't exist with a syllogism or two, especially if you juice it up with strong emotion and say it's Trump...

Trump reflects Trump supporters. It's not the other way around.

Once you grok that, many things will make sense to you that you never saw before. 

Michael

[Newberry]

Michael, this post was great. And the entire thread has been a pleasure to read, even the posts of J, Selene, Jon, and some of Scherk's (I have trouble following his thoughts.) It seems to have brought out the best of almost everyone. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Newberry said:

Michael, this post was great. And the entire thread has been a pleasure to read, even the posts of J, Selene, Jon, and some of Scherk's (I have trouble following his thoughts.) It seems to have brought out the best of almost everyone. 

 

Michael,

Good Lord!

Thank you muchly.

I'm making a difference!

Nah... we're making a difference!

People are actually reading this thing.

Your post was a very, very pleasant surprise.

 Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The video below is unbelievable.

It was put up a day and a half ago and already has about 600,000 views on YouTube. But on Facebook, it has over 5.5 million.

It's called: "Bernie vs Trump, Who is more Violent! (Social Experiment)" by Joey Salads.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What's Trump going to do--when he becomes President?

Brant,

That's easy.

He's going to Make America Great Again!

            

Michael

 

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

That's easy.

He's going to Make America Great Again!

            

Michael

Ya gotta do better than that circular vacuousity.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Ya gotta do better than that circular vacuousity.

Come on, Brant.

That's my first selfie.

Michael

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jonathan,

We've gotten to the core of it, finally.

Apparently this bloodlust, especially against Republicans, extra-especially against Trump, might prevail even at Breitbart.

No, that wasn’t the point. The point is that the media as a whole constitute a very hostile environment. With or without Breitbart’s existence or participation, an apology would be taken and spun by all of the rest of the media as an admission of guilt to the extremely exaggerated accusation.

Fields exaggerated. Her motive for doing so doesn’t necessarily have to have any connection to her own views of Trump’s candidacy or those of her employers. She may have been Trump-friendly at the time. It's possible that she might have even assumed that working for a Trump-friendly organization entitled her to special treatment and access to the candidate, and then she became very upset to discover that she wasn’t so special as to be exempt from Trump’s private political rally rules and those of the secret service. There are many possible scenarios and motivations other than that Trump and Lewandowski are pure fucking evil. The number of possible and realistic explanations is not limited to those few that you can come up with while weighing the facts with a biased or hostile attitude toward one of the sides.

 

12 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

One risk posed by your line of reasoning is that people can stretch it into a justification for digging in, stonewalling, lying, destroying evidence—and doing those when something really serious has happened. Something far, far worse than what Lewandowski did, if all of Fields' charges are true.

If Fields's charges are true? Heh. They are not true. You've said that you viewed "several" of the three videos. If you've actually viewed them, then you should probably get your eyes checked, because they reveal that Fields' accusations were not true.

Anyway, as for the alleged "risk posed" that you suggest, no, that's a non sequitur. Does not follow. You keep spinning the issue, and you’re not listening to my responses. No one is justifying lying. Rather, we're justifying standing up for the truth, and not caving in to the pressure of false accusations or media myths.

In an earlier post I specifically asked you about your evidence that Trump and Lewandowski lied. You skipped that question in your reply above. Why?

 

Here are the questions again:

 

"What is the evidence that they lied? How do you know that, three days after the incident, Trump remembered Fields approaching him, and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her? My understanding is that they both said that they didn’t remember. You say otherwise. Based on what?"

 

Seriously, I’m interested in your reasoning. You seem to be absolutely certain, but you also seem to be incapable of giving Trump and Lewandowski anything resembling impartiality or the slightest benefit of the doubt -- you can only imagine options in which they are evil. Very simple and obvious explanations in which they aren’t evil don’t occur to you, and you just outright ignore such explanations when they’re pointed out to you. It's unusual. I've never seen you like this.

 

 

12 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Another is that if the entire media are already especially out to get Trump, why should Trump's supporters not take advantage of their bloodlust, as long as it is turned against Republicans not named Trump?

You lost me on that one.

J

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Come on, Brant.

That's my first selfie.

Michael

I wasn't referring to the photo.

--Brant

but since you mention it --

[william.scherk]

This seems important pic.twitter.com/Le8Pz9CMcb

— David Frum (@davidfrum) April 1, 2016

[Selene]

Bill, virtually nothing David Frum thinks is important is important.

Total toady posing as a Republican.

What is a "neoconservative?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

[Brant Gaede]

I've been tossing Gallup in the garbage for over 50 years now.

--Brant

not a comment on any particular Gallup polling

[Selene]

41 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I've been tossing Gallup in the garbage for over 50 years now.

--Brant

not a comment on any particular Gallup polling

They have become a joke in the election polling.

A...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only like David Frum when he says good things about Trump.

 

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Michael you might have to change this particular forum from "Stumping in the backyard" to "Trumping in the back yard".  ?

You can't stump the Trump!

[Peter]

Shlonging, Shtumping or Shlumping in the backyard? His myriad mistakes laughed off till now are accumulating. His critics can now list two dozen or more horrible gaffs going back to ridiculing John McCain's POW status. The reasonable sounding but hostile attack ads will be all over the airwaves if Trump wins the nomination. All the ads will show Trump saying the horrible thing he said. They will be devastating. He is not helpless, but the silent majority of women are going to stick together. NO love for you, Donald, on election night.

Peter      

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, Peter said:

They will be devastating. He is not helpless, but the silent majority of women are going to stick together.

Peter,

You're a worry wort.

Trump's not even supposed to be where he is right now. But he's here.

However, you're my friend and I hate to see you keep suffering the way you do. So I have an idea.

Why don't we nominate someone with a real chance at winning? Say John McCain or Mitt Romney?

These guys are presidential as all hell and they don't have Trump's problems with women, gaffs, or any of that. Also, the National Review loves them both. 

Yeah, let's do it that way.

Hey!

They actually were nominated!

They didn't win, did they?

Michael

[william.scherk]

6 hours ago, Selene said:

Bill, virtually nothing David Frum thinks is important is important.

Total toady posing as a Republican.

Frum abandoned his country!  Or, from that side of the border, he is a fat-cat immigrant (remember his mother Barbara Frum was a titan of public broadcasting in Canada. Her primetime public affairs programme pioneered a 'talk direct to the newsmakers' format that is now as common as wireless internet).

I could give a fuck about David Frum, actually. He is merely pointing at a looming problem.  Ignoring the problem, or assigning its discovery to poor deluded Gallup or an unspecific aspect of Frum's' evul or stupidity seems nearsighted at best -- especially if one wants to be realistic about this campaign.  

The issue neither you nor Brant yet address with an analysis   is the Most Voter Ladies Don't Like Trump. The Gallup poll seems to be measuring the the size of the Gorillla on the Couch ... the Lady Vote.

In other words, he has a problem.  And the problem persists.  Of course, all the polls (Gallup included) might just possibly be foul likes and manipulation.  Perhaps there is a teensy weensy problem with the ladies. 

On the  hustings, however, Mr Trump has addressed the Gorilla and does so several times in this rally event  As ever, I urge the non-committal (and Hate Club for Men members, too) to pay attention to the magic in these Trump events. This is the real, unmediated message, where he controls the entire event.  

... addressing the Gorilla:

 

[Peter]

I was once bitten by rattlesnake. After three days of intense pain, the snake died - Yosemite Trump.

Michael wrote: They didn't win, did they? end quote

With a head hung in shame I say, Noooo. We got Barack because some traitors to the cause didn’t vote for them. What a shame. And we now have four plus four years of Barak Obama and a neutered America. For shame to all of them who did not vote for McCain or Mitt.  So who didn’t vote for them that should have? The same sort of people who are going to despise Trump. Maybe it will be even worse, with 70 percent of the women hoping to spit on his grave.

Peter

California’s primary is to be held on June 7. With 172, the state has the biggest cache of delegates. California uses a hybrid system to distribute the delegates among candidates making the margin of victory very important in the California race. Trump has the lead in the delegate count with 752 delegates compared to Ted Cruz’s 463 delegates.

From Politico: Were Trump to win the presidential nomination outright after California’s primary, more than a quarter of registered Republicans in the state — 27 percent — say they would refuse to vote for him in the general election.

From Fox Politics: Out of the “hybrids,” California is the most significant, bringing with it a massive haul of 172 delegates. California's system is essentially winner-take-all, but with a twist. The delegates are split between congressional delegates and state-wide delegates, with three delegates assigned to Republican National Committee officials. The top candidate state-wide picks up 10 delegates, while the top candidates in each district pick up three votes per district. Indiana and Wisconsin follow a similar method of distributing their delegates.

[Selene]

Quote

Conservative Tribune

Back

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics Top Story

Ted Nugent’s 20 Reasons to Vote for Trump Go Viral… Liberals Horrified

Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

 

Conservative favorite Ted Nugent is known for his straightforward approach.

It should come as no surprise, then, that a recent Facebook post by the outspoken guitarist explaining reasons to vote for GOP front-runner Donald Trump would send liberals into full panic mode.

While Nugent did not endorse any candidate, he said his list in favor of voting for “The Donald” was too special not to share.

We think you’ll agree with him:

Obama is against Trump
The Media is against Trump
The establishment Democrats are against Trump
The establishment Republicans are against Trump
The Pope is against Trump
The UN is against Trump
The EU is against Trump
China is against Trump
Mexico is against Trump
Soros is against Trump
Black Lives Matter is against Trump
MoveOn.Org is against Trump
Koch Bro’s are against Trump
Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump

The Nuge nailed it. The reason these people and organizations are against Trump is because he threatens them and their left-wing agenda. A Trump presidency would certainly shake up the infrastructure many on this list have either established or fought to maintain under President Barack Obama and his administration.

This is not "Lying Ted." a/k/a Rafael...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

Maybe it will be even worse, with 70 percent of the women hoping to spit on his grave.

Peter,

You are making an assumption that this poll number is set in stone for the next 8 months. What political poll number ever did that?

As Rand would say, check your premises.

And check Trump's poll numbers in the beginning when everyone was laughing at him, then tut-tut-tutting.

Is anyone still laughing?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 minutes ago, Peter said:

What a shame. And we now have four plus four years of Barak Obama and a neutered America. For shame to all of them who did not vote for McCain or Mitt.

Peter,

I disagree with another assumption here. I don't say shame on those who stayed home.

I say shame on the establishment geniuses who played backroom games and offered neutered Republican candidates to run. Shame on those guys. Not shame on the people who couldn't stomach it.

You say "traitors to the cause." What cause was there to vote for? More big government?

Michael

[9thdoctor]

On 4/1/2016 at 5:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

That's easy.

He's going to Make America Great Again!

            

Michael

 

How about a more ambitious goal?

[Peter]

I read the news today oh boy about a lucky man who thought he had made the grade. And though the news was rather sad, I had to look, and then I just had to shakily laugh because I had foreseen the future. November 2016: Trump lost by a landslide and the democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. Oh boy.

I am not sure it is true but I heard yesterday that outside of security and volunteers, Trump has three people working for him.

Peter

Notes. Linda Killian is executive director of Independent Americans United and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Her most recent book is “The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents.” Washington Wire Think Tank, Donald Trump’s Unfavorable Ratings By Linda Killian April 1, 2016 6:46 pm ET:

For months, Donald Trump supporters have not cared about pronouncements from the candidate that would have derailed the campaigns of traditional politicians. But recent polling suggests that what appeals to Trump supporters is hurting the candidate with other potential, and critical, voting blocs, especially women. A Gallup poll published Friday shows that 70% of women had an unfavorable view of Mr. Trump before his controversial remarks this week about abortion. In more than a dozen polls taken over the past month Mr. Trump’s overall unfavorable rating is at least 60%.

Mr. Trump is not scoring well with women, millennials, minorities, or swing and independent voters. These are demographics he needs to win a general election campaign. These numbers are why Republican Party officials are worrying not only that Mr. Trump could become the party’s standard-bearer and badly lose the general election but also that his name at the top of the ticket could cost Republicans their majority in the U.S. Senate and possibly the House.

Mr. Trump has sought to walk back his comments on abortion, but anti-Trump forces have coalesced in Wisconsin ahead of its April 5 primary, and a Marquette Law School poll out this week shows Ted Cruz leading Mr. Trump by 10 points. Early this year, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the plan is to “let Trump be Trump.” This strategy has worked well with some parts of the electorate but has growing risks with others. end quote