Mikee Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 "Trump is like the fabled Honey Badger of YouTube fame: he doesn’t give a shit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 The bizarre waffle about NATO is repeated in today's rally (at around 21:30, as Mr Trump lurches from slagging the extremely popular (among Wisconsin GOP voters) Walker to a riff on the alliance that is 'obsolete.' . I again urge interested parties to watch/listen to the content of the rally appearances. Re "Grabber" Lewandowski, his role in the campaign is apparently shrinking. The Family is not apparently pleased with him. Drumpf campaign shrinks Lewandowski's role Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Peter said: Thank goodness no cultists or rino’s need enter here! Peter, LOL... And also, no one preaching that Trump should practice sanction of the victim. You've got a good heart, Peter. I don't see you as the enemy--not even among the enemy. Not in your heart. Believe me, neocons are nasty-ass critters. Including those useful idiots down at National Review. They make their money on the graves of your children. They don't mind blood for money so long as the blood is not theirs, but the money is. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 minute ago, william.scherk said: Re "Grabber" Lewandowski, his role in the campaign is apparently shrinking. The Family is not apparently pleased with him. William, Are these the same folks who let us know--with all due certainty--that Trump was done with Sarah Palin? So much wishful thinking... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: you guys of the gotcha crew Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, Mikee said: "Trump is like the fabled Honey Badger of YouTube fame: he doesn’t give a shit." Mike, LOL... Kunstler ain't no friend to Trump, but he sure got the Honey Badger part right. And we all love him for it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Just now, william.scherk said: Yeah. William, I don't mean an organized group or collective. I do mean a way of thinking. It's a past-present-future thing. Gotcha people are always scouring the past to destroy someone in the present. That's their focus, their payoff, their bliss. Producers are always looking to a future vision they are building. Their standard is the project they are working on. And that's their bliss. When I say "gotcha crew," I am using a smartass way to say that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Are these the same folk I don't believe so, but then I did read the highlighted article. Here is is in audio form, for when you get the time. What is it that you believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: What is it that you believe? William, I often don't listen to your audio because the audio player you post doesn't work more times than it does. This is one of those times. As to what I believe about Lewandowski, it's pretty obvious. So long as the press is in a feeding frenzy, Trump is having him lay low. Once the piranhas have found new meat, Lewandowski will be back stronger than ever. It's like the Sarah Palin thing. When her hubby crashed, she had to be with him. The press wrote her off as a political liability. Now she's back working the stump in overdrive. Before that there was a lull in her presence. She was probably dealing with some private issues that had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And the press wrote her off. People talk... I've actually been on the inside of these press firestorms when I produced a famous protest singer in Brazil (Geraldo Vandré). I was constantly amused about what reporters said was going on. It rarely had anything to do with what we were doing. But who cares? It sold newspapers... The funniest ones were about me being in jail, being tortured along with Vandré and God knows what all. btw - I meant Politico, not those particular reporters. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Michael wrought: Believe me, neocons are nasty-ass critters. Including those useful idiots down at National Review. They make their money on the graves of your children. end quote Opinion subject to change if Caesar wins the Nomination. Is that graves/children hyperbole in line with “global warming is more important than global terrorism?” Tell us it ain’t so Msk, (Mikhail s'Dicaprio, ah. . . Kornicopia!) That sounds like a Michael Douglas, left wing movie too. The Crony Capitalist is Trump. The Crony Capitalist is Vlad Putin. A huge mistake would be made if you think Trump is anything other than what he has been for the last 60 years. Did he wow you on Celebrity Apprentice? Promises? Campaign speeches? Trump dumps the establishment? NO. He has ALWAYS attempted to use the Establishment but if he is elected he will be the Establishment. Trump will be a better Establishment you say? He’s not a career politician you say? After he wins he will be a career, rule by fiat, politician and in four years when he is running again, he will be an even worse career politician. Oh the horror. Trump will build government. Opinion subject to change if Caesar wins the Nomination. Some fears I legitimately have about Trump? He will give or sell arms to the world to supposedly embolden those on our side and fight our legitimate fights. Weapons will be everywhere for the terrorists to pick up. He will weaken or get out of mutual assistance pacts like NATO which will allow the hegemony’s of China and Russia to grow. He will imperil prosperity and freedom while posing as the opposite. Is anyone encouraged by what they see? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Raccoons are pretty nasty too. --Brant jus sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Jonathan said: False. I merely rejected one of your claims against Lewandowski. I reported that the evidence does not back up Fields' exaggerated claims of what happened. You keep evading that evidence. Your backward thinking seems to be that, since you've decided that Lewandowski is a "bad actor," then any accusation against him must be true, even when the evidence shows that it is not. You seem to think that ignoring the evidence makes it magically disappear. And? Do you imagine that you're making a rational argument in the above? Guilt by association? Bob Ney was bad, and he had once hired Lewandowski, therefore Lewandowski is bad, and therefore he is always bad in every situation, and any and all accusations made against him must be true? That's a whole pile of fallacious arguments. Illogical as hell. The video evidence does not support Fields' accusations. And there are also other, similar incidents of Lewandowski's alleged horrifically violent abuse of people which also contradict the accusations made against him. I'm always amazed at how much difficulty certain people can have in looking at video evidence, and how easily they can be talked into believing that the physically impossible happened. J Jonathan, Lewandowski worked for Ney for several years. He's claimed he never had any idea Ney was on the take. A Congressman's campaign manager has no idea that the Congressman is on the take? (It's not as though Ney was particularly careful.) If Lewandowski weren't now working for Donald Trump, would you be inclined to believe his denial regarding Bob Ney? Why not apply the same evidentiary standards to Corey Lewandowski that you apply to John McCain? Meanwhile, please explain what you think I believe happened that is actually physically impossible. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, If you want to call it a walkback. I'm paraphrasing right now, but if you find the video, you will hear I got the gist right. Trump said something like, "I would not use that picture if I could do it over. But I didn't do anything wrong. Cruz went after Melania first." If that's a walkback, you have a very low bar for walkbacks. Michael Michael, Trump could announce that he was dropping out of the race and you would find a way to minimize it. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This is probably a screw-up by a local Fox affiliate, but if it is real, that's a hell of a short-term turnaround in poll numbers and I want it on record in this thread. Especially since all the media have been hawking the Trump is tanking storyline. It is from KTVU, the Fox affiliate for San Francisco. NOTE: I tried to embed this video from Facebook, but it is not playing. Go to this link to see it. For those who just want what it says, it gives the new Fox poll for Saturday (April 2) for the upcoming primary in Wisconsin as follows: Trump 41% Cruz 32% Kasich 19% I don't know anything about the time of the broadcast, but it was posted on Facebook on April 2 around noon. Michael Michael, This may in fact be a distorted rendition (without quite the right percentages for Trump or Kasich) of a poll by ARG, which is just now listed in the Real Clear Politics roundup. The ARG is the only one within the last two weeks to show Trump ahead in Wisconsin. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, What should Trump do media-wise. Give interviews to National Review, the very same that devoted an entire issue to bashing him? Trump is running an election, not a neocon Republican cult operation. Michael Michael, What should he do? You know, like, maybe get his priorities straight? What is the point of making multiple stinks, pretending that Megyn Kelly has it in for you—then consenting to be interviewed by Maureen Dowd, who you know for sure has it in for you? Is that going to make Donald Trump more popular with female voters? So if Trump succeeds in stomping every Republican political figure, and discrediting every media outlet that isn't constantly hostile to Republicans, he's going to win the presidency in a walkover. Is that how you see it working? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, I have listened to two Trump speeches in Wisconsin and I did not hear him devote more than a small spotlight on Walker: the story where Walker visited him for a donation and brought a plaque, and that he looked at the economic data for Wisconsin and it wasn't good, so he mentioned it in the debates, Walker tanked instead of continuing a coronation, and since then Walker has not liked him. Trump improvises around those two things, and, unless my memory is faulty right now, I don't recall him saying much anything else about Walker. We're talking about 2 minutes or so out of an entire speech. Believe me, he devotes a hell of a lot more time to Cruz. But that's the crux of your beef? Frankly, I don't think many people even notice that much. Most people at Trump rallies are thinking about things other than a feud between Scott Walker and Donald Trump. Michael, Republicans at Trump rallies in Wisconsin don't care what Trump says about Scott Walker? Apparently Walker has only ever existed as a very-short-run Presidential candidate. One who opposed Donald Trump, no less. End of bio. No other place in the cosmo-drama for him. Let's talk about Donald Trump's "perfect statistics," the ones he trots out each time he indicts Scott Walker... At the Appleton rally, Trump read some handwritten markings off a couple of pieces of paper. One was his claim that the unemployment rate in Wisconsin is presently... 20%. Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm Average U-3 (the conventional "unemployment rate") for Wisconsin in 2015 was 4.6% (below the national average). We all know what's wrong with the conventional unemployment rate. So, OK, let's go with U-6 (sometimes called the "underemployment rate"). For Wisconsin in 2015, the average U-6 was 8.3%. Again, below the national average. Without giving numbers, real or invented, Trump also talks about labor force participation being low in Wisconsin. It's down from 2007, but at 68.7% for March 2016 it's about 5 points better than the national average: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-vs-scott-walker-1459722449 Lying about a Republican governor's record for political gain. It would all make perfect sense if Trump were a Democrat. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Trump could announce that he was dropping out of the race and you would find a way to minimize it. Robert, And if Trump wins 1300 delegates, you're going to find a way to say he didn't. I'm stumping. It's a campaign. This section is called "Stumping in the Backyard." You're stumping against him. I get it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 45 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Republicans at Trump rallies in Wisconsin don't care what Trump says about Scott Walker? Robert, I hate to break your heart, but it's not about Scott Walker for them. It just isn't. (I feel like I'm telling Kat that someone doesn't like the Beatles. ) They care about immigration, jobs, security, things like that. And they're going to throw out the establishment. Unfortunately, Scott Walker sided with the establishment. So when they think of him at all in the context of the presidential election, it's not in a very good context. You don't have to like it, but that's what's happening. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: What should he do? You know, like, maybe get his priorities straight? Robert, You mean like win the election? That's a priority... I saw a person talking on MSNBC today (I didn't catch his name--I was just switching channels), one who hates Trump, but does not write him off. The person said when Trump started, his unfavorables were close to 70%. A few weeks after, they had inverted and he never saw anything like that in politics before. Ever. So even though he wants to believe the current bad numbers will stick to Trump, he can't ignore the reality of the anomaly he's seen. He wants to say they will not improve, but his experience tells him it might happen again. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 On March 31, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jonathan said: You call that minimal baiting? Heh. Matthews was screeching and squalling. Jonathan, That's mild—for Chris Matthews. (One might ask why Donald Trump won't allow Megyn Kelly to ask him questions, but he's OK with the likes of Chris Matthews.) But, look, both the anti-arbortion ("pro-life") and the pro-abortion ("pro-choice") positions have serious difficulties, in the forms into which they hardened in the early 1970s. If the anti-abortion advocates are correct, and all stages of prenatal development, starting from the moment of conception, are fully human from the rights standpoint, then, as you note, abortion is murder, the murder of an embryo or fetus, and it should in every case be penalized like the murder of a child or the murder of an adult. So, of course, the woman who gets an abortion is just as guilty of the murder as the doctor who performs it. Yet the pro-life crowd never endorses this proposition or campaigns on it. There are other propositions that the pro-life crowd tends to shrink from. Logically, if abortion is murder, there can't be an exception for rape, or for incest. The embryo or fetus has just as many rights in those cases as he or she would in any other. And even an exception for the life of the mother gets dicey. Why not set priorities the way some Catholic hospitals once did? Because he didn't care for the rape exception, Todd Akin made his stupid remark about conception supposedly being unlikely after rape, and ended his political career. Richard Mourdock ended his when he merely indulged in some theological speculation, about God's view of an embryo conceived as the result of rape. Now, to the pro-choice side. It has become dogma for the pro-choice that abortion is OK all the way till, I don't know, 10 seconds before labor begins. This pays no heed to the stage of development that the fetus has reached in the third trimester, or a premature baby's viability outside the womb. Worse yet, viability is partly a function of advances in medical technology. So, the anti-abortion crowd wants a ban on the abortion of any fetus past 20 weeks gestational age, or extremely heavy restrictions. Of course, this isn't all they want. The pro-choice crowd doesn't want to set a gestational age limit, and make it clear that this is it. The pro-choice crowd wants no gestational age limit at all—and wants to cover up any abuses, as we saw in the Kermit Gosnell case. Maybe it will get sorted out quicker than there will be peace in the Middle East... The point is that, illogical though their move may be, the anti-abortion crowd has long and largely learned to refrain from endorsing certain consequences of their position. If they call for pregnant women to be tried and punished for murder if they get an abortion, they forfeit their political support (much of which comes from women). If they don't allow exceptions for rape or incest, they lose most of it. (We might also mention that their position logically requires a right to life pre-implantation, yet Ron Paul memorably refused to push for a ban on RU-486.) The pro-choice crowd, meanwhile, keeps defending their own sclerotic position à l'outrance, and it is costing them support. I don't think that they would have to give up that much, but obviously they don't see it that way. So that, unfortunately, is where we are. As I noted previously, I very much doubt Donald Trump sees anything wrong with abortion now, or that he has ever seen anything wrong with it. He has merely proclaimed his sudden devotion to the pro-life cause because, unfortunately, that is among the terms of entry into Republican politics. (His recently proclaimed love of the 2nd Amendment, a term of entry that I think a lot more highly of, may not be any more sincere, but at least he knows how to make it sound convincing.) So when asked whether a woman who gets an abortion should be punished, Trump put his foot in it. In a way, truly, that a man as bigoted and stupid as Todd Akin would never have thought of doing. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, You mean like win the election? That's a priority... I saw a person talking on MSNBC today (I didn't catch his name--I was just switching channels), one who hates Trump, but does not write him off. The person said when Trump started, his unfavorables were close to 70%. A few weeks after, they had inverted and he never saw anything like that in politics before. Ever. So even though he wants to believe the current bad numbers will stick to Trump, he can't ignore the reality of the anomaly he's seen. He wants to say they will not improve, but his experience tells him it might happen again. Michael Michael, Hmmm. So if Trump is able to leave no other Republican unstomped, and no media outlet that doesn't hate Republicans unpunished, everyone who presently votes for Democrats will admire his handiwork, every media outlet that favors Democrats will fall in love with him, all of them will flock to him, and Hillary won't get a single vote outside of DC. Meanwhile, I guess all of those who were previously stomped will either have learned to love their stomper—or they won't have recovered enough to be able to vote in November. 535 to 3 in the Electoral College. Unstoppable. Of course, if Trump is merely a vessel for the aspirations of those who vote for him, the program he puts into effect after being elected probably won't much resemble the one he presently is pretending to run on. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You don't have to like it, but that's what's happening. Michael, We'll know what's happening tomorrow night, when the returns are in. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, And if Trump wins 1300 delegates, you're going to find a way to say he didn't. I'm stumping. It's a campaign. This section is called "Stumping in the Backyard." You're stumping against him. I get it. Michael Michael, If Trump has 1300 delegates before the convention, it will be awfully difficult to dispute that. Should it come to pass, I certainly wouldn't try to deny it. Are political campaigns 100% fact-free zones? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: So if Trump is able to leave no other Republican unstomped... Robert, There's that mistake again. It's the Trump supporters who are doing the stomping, not Trump. He's the mouthpiece, not the soul. And they're not stomping as in the politics of destruction. Nobody is being killed under mysterious circumstances. The families of enemies are not being harassed. People are not being carried off in the middle of the night. And so on. Trump supporters are simply rejecting a corrupt system, lock, stock and barrel. And they're replacing it with a producer and see how that works. Let me ask, do you forgive the neocons? Are you OK with the world as they have run it? If not, how on earth do you look at that anti-Trump issue of National Review and not call that an attempt at stomping? Just because it didn't work? Michael 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