Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Tale of Three Mark Levins:

Let's start with Mark Levin No. 1:

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark Levin has been harsh on Trump, but at least he's not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.

If Trump is the candidate, after this video, does anyone have any doubt who he will actively support?

 

 

Now on to Mark Levin No. 2:

GOP Establishment Money Funding Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson To Attack Trump
by Roger Stone
04/08/2016
The Daily Caller

From the article:

Stone said:

The Conservative Tree House blog exposed the financial nexus supporting prominent “conservative” pundits to promote in their media outlets Ted Cruz as the last, best hope to block Trump in Wisconsin, a state considered by the Washington-based GOP establishment as perhaps the last establishment firewall to block Trump from the GOP presidential nomination.

“These financial/media relationships have largely and historically, remained hidden,” a blogger identified simply as “sundance” noted in an article posted on TheConservativeTreeHouse.com on Wednesday. “They have sure never been publicly, clearly, and regularly stated so the consuming audience would know the presentation was fraught with financial conflict.”

“The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Conveniently hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created,” the blog pointed out.

On Jan. 13, Ben Jacobs in an article published by the Daily Beast headlined “Pay to Play?” noted that Politico, in an article that now appears to have been scrubbed from Politico’s website, reported on how the GOP establishment seeks to buy Levin.

. . .

The Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a “conservative” fund founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina that backed Cruz in his Senate fight against Obamacare, spent $427,000 to buy copies of radio talk show host Mark Levin’s four-year-old book “Liberty or Tyranny” to distribute to donors – a purchase that should have earned Levin approximately $1 million in royalties.

Despite his many diatribes against Trump broadcast to his national radio audience, Levin hid the fact the son of his fiancé is a full-time staffer for Cruz.

 

Now we come to Mark Levin No. 3:

He's really pissed at Roger Stone. And he should be.

But which Mark Levin is the real one? The Mark Levin who claims that putting Hillary in office is the worst thing that could ever happen to America and whoever does this is not a conservative but a fraud (his term), the Mark Levin who makes gobs of money from pro-Cruz connections, including a job in the family (see here in case you missed the link above), which is sleazy but not treason to use a term he likes, or the Mark Levin who is now fine with Hillary over Trump? He said openly he is disposed to tell his audience not to vote for Trump if he gets the nomination. But he is fully aware this would elect Hillary.

Levin calls Stone Nixonian, which he is, but Stone's article is not. I'm not a fan of a lot of Stone's sleaze. I admit to the entertainment factor as I like gossip just as much as the next person (us primates love to stare at our celebrity monkeys ). But I always take Stone's stuff with a heaping helping of salt. 

In this article, I just don't see much here. Stone merely posted information on the Internet that he got from the Internet and commented about it. There was no wiretapping or made-up false rumors or anything like that.

Stone thinks the Cruz money connections taint Levin's integrity. Well Levin has been blasting Trump's integrity for quite some time now. There's nothing Nixonian about any of that. It's normal campaign bickering.

But more to the point. I don't think Levin understands yet what he just did to himself. He had a pristine image of someone who can't be bought because he holds his commitment to principles above everything else, especially his love of America. I don't think the article by Stone would have made any impact on that image. It didn't shake mine, although that thing about Levin's son-in-law being a Cruz staffer--and his posture of keeping this hidden until exposed--did a little. But he's human, I thought. He's not his family. Let it go.

Now, because of feeling personally insulted because his money got exposed to the light of day by a smear merchant, Mark Levin wants to trash America in exactly the same terms he cautioned against before. Principles be damned.

He also called Ann Coulter a pretty nasty name while he was at it, and started slinging crap against a bunch of conservative commentators and making veiled threats...

I'm not the only one who is looking at this and shaking my head...

The Mark Levin I used to look up to just lost his luster. It looks like his integrity does have a price after all...

Michael

 

[Peter]

Michael wrote about Trump’s core convictions: Also, strong country, live and let live, command to rise (similar to Rand's) and achieve one's best, productive achievement, calculated risk taking for productive goals, refusal to be ripped off, intolerance of morons on the job, and so on. end quote

And then in a later post, he mentioned Mark Levin’s flip flopping on his support of Donald Trump: But which Mark Levin is the real one? end quote

If any of you become convinced Trump’s core convictions are political image and he is truly a Progressive on sixty percent of the issues and a Statist “wanna be” President, would you switch to Cruz?

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

I have said many times, and I will say again, if Cruz gets the nomination, I will vote for him in a heartbeat over the Democrat (Clinton or Sanders).

I will do that holding my nose, but I will do it. That's because I have little doubt Cruz will keep the Bush Endless War machine running right along and the blood money pumping to the evil bastards.

But Cruz might chop away at the size of the government a little. And that's the essential difference between him and Kasich or the Democrats. All of them are committed to Endless War, though. They don't say it, they say the contrary, but I have 100% certainty they will do it--even Sanders. 

Unless Cruz gets the nomination, I'm all in for Trump.

And, no, no amount of neocon-supporting blah blah blah about Trump being a progressive (including that line of crap from Glenn Beck) will change my mind.

Michael

[william.scherk]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Tale of Three Mark Levins:

On 4/8/2016 at 8:57 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf, but at least he's not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.

Unpack ... 

Mark Levin ... is not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.
Mark Levin ... does not think suicide is the best approach.
Mark Levin ... thinks suicide is not the best approach.

Possible best reading:  Mark Levin is not going to kill himself.

Unpack ...

Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf, but 
Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf, however ..
Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf 

Key concepts:

Mark Levin has been 'harsh on Drumpf' but 
Mark Levin is not going to kill himself.

Assumed but unspoken concepts:

Mark Levin has been 'harsh on #NeverTrump'
Something something Mark Levin is pissed with Roger Stone
Mark Levin will commit (analogous) suicide if ... something something.

So, how does all this fit together in the jam jar?  Don't know yet. But in the meantime, here is a bit of Levin explaining why he is pissed off ... and what he intends to do about #NeverTrump going forward.

As a result of attacks, I am NOT voting for Trump, If the thug Stone hacks at me One More Time, I'm a gonna-

This is the guy Mark Levin is pissed with.  This odd passage is excised from the cult leader's Youtube corpus, Though we haven't remarked upon the video here on the porch, this passage caught a lot of attention off the main stream.

I can't quite put my finger on what Trump Support thinks about Stone. It is all very well that he was fired/let go/resigned from the Trump HQ.  The suspicion remains that he fucked Ted Cruz's wife. Oops, I mean the suspicion remains that he is tied into Trump Borg by the means of telepathy, that he is part of the Trumpstablishment, despite the 'look ma, no hands' resignation/firing/tip-toe through the tulips.

Here I switch back into the thread's tone of exaggeration and overblown drama.

My take-home message from this Mark Levin kerfuffle is pretty simple. He got sickened by the sleaze of #TrumpByAnyMeans, and attaches the sleaze to the body of Trump.   A pretty dodgy causal attribution in itself, but perhaps not so different from the You People and Endless War Party causal attributions being flown like kites here and there.

Winnowed down further, the Levin turn may be as he told it, sans hoopla.  He got shat on by one of the Trump Dogs, and issued an ultimatum: if you shit on me again, Sleazeburger, I will go further in my mouth-microphone actions. Yes, you have known I support Ted Cruz. That was a given . But if shat on further by the dogs, I will actively campaign against your man.  You are fucking with the wrong guy. I am not just some schmuck to be sleazed.

In other words, "Push me one more time, and I will  use my platform for #NeverTrump."

In other words, You People Turned Me Against Him.

In other words, Good Thinking, Shitheads.

So, a Cruz-backer emotionalizes into a NeverTrumper, slaps on the fright wig from the Hate Club for Men -- and this is good for Trump how?  What is the Trump Borg reflecting back to the candidate upon this intent to oppose? Mark Levin is fucked? Fuck Mark Levin? Fuck his audience? 

The new Trump slogan should come in handy here:  Unity (or Else).

Please remember to squeeze the bag, everyone. It won't hurt the 'pig.'

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Unpack ... 

Mark Levin ... is not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.
Mark Levin ... does not think suicide is the best approach.
Mark Levin ... thinks suicide is not the best approach.

William,

How about this one?

• Mark Levin ... would never be a hypocrite about his patriotic values and principles.
• Mark Levin ... is sometimes a hypocrite about his patriotic values and principles for money, but he would never outright betray them.
• Mark Levin ... is a hypocrite about his patriotic values and principles and will happily betray them when he gets mad at someone.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

So, a Cruz-backer emotionalizes into a NeverTrumper, slaps on the fright wig from the Hate Club for Men -- and this is good for Trump how?

William,

This is bad for Trump how?

You presume Levin would not make this NeverTrump leap over time. Are you sure about that?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

43 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I can't quite put my finger on what Trump Support thinks about Stone. It is all very well that he was fired/let go/resigned from the Trump HQ.  The suspicion remains that he fucked Ted Cruz's wife. Oops, I mean the suspicion remains that he is tied into Trump Borg by the means of telepathy, that he is part of the Trumpstablishment, despite the 'look ma, no hands' resignation/firing/tip-toe through the tulips.

William,

I want to take a swat at this.

Before, let me say I reference Stone when I feel his sources and thinking are correct as quickly as I reference left-wing people like Rachel Maddow, or ARI folks, or anybody. That doesn't mean I go along with the rest of their agendas.

About the Trump camp per se, my impression is the following. They do not consider as respectable the establishment Republican machine because it traffics so much in dirty tricks. The Trump campaign people don't want to be associated with dirty tricks because their campaign is precisely against the dirty tricks the establishment Republicans and Democrats have played on average people for decades.

But if a dirty tricks loose cannon like Roger Stone is out there on his own fighting anti-Trump dirty tricks folks, they don't mind.

If Stone went too far and targeted, say, Cruz's daughters, I have no doubt Trump & Co. would disavow him. But dirty tricks against dirty tricks? It's entertainment.

Stone has been friends with Trump for decades, which I believe is partially why he is doing this on his own. The story both told when Stone left Trump's campaign is that Stone wanted to promote himself too much. You know... that sounds about right to me. But I think there is something else. Stone kept telling Trump about delegates and technical election stuff like that and Trump got impatient with him. I only speculate about that, but it seems reasonable in hindsight.

I have no doubt after the election they will get closer again if Trump can find the time. However, I expect Trump to take the duties of the presidency seriously, so I expect him to work really long hours. In that case, he will probably have minimal time for old friends.

I doubt Trump will use Stone's dirty tricks talents once elected (I am almost sure he will not), but some of his staff might get tempted. So this is one thing to watch out for.

Michael

[Peter]

With some exceptions, keep all Muslims out of America. Any Potus can do that. I watched that Michael Douglas film from 1995 with Annette Benning tonight. Excellent liberal propaganda, love story, romance, sometimes a fairy tail but very good overall. I laughed multiple times. Keep the bastards out.  

Peter 

[Selene]

If this is indicative of Trumps new hire, it is very promising.

Also, the Jim Baker video is a cold hard wake up call to political neophytes. 

Quote

Michigan Cruz leader Saul Anuzis said they were "double-crossed" by Kasich's campaign. The Kasich delegates were supposed to vote with Cruz delegates, he said, but switched sides and voted with Trump behind closed doors Saturday afternoon.

It is trench warfare time folks...

Quote

Kasich's delegate director in Michigan, Jeff Timmer, said the Cruz campaign broke their end of the deal when they tried to win all eight delegation seats.

He said they finished their slate of Trump and Kasich candidates about 10 minutes before walking into the delegation meeting.

"The Cruz campaign tried a takeover and they failed miserably," Timmer said. "It backfired and they ended up with nothing. There's been all these reports about how they're out-organizing everybody. Not here."

Trump's national delegate director, Brian Jack, called it a "big win" for Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/michigan-republican-delegates-ted-cruz-donald-trump-john-kasich/index.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The pushback against the (partially) coordinated media storytelling attempt to brand Trump as a misogynist starts:

Here (from ABC):

Meet the Pro-Donald Trump Women Who Defy His Negative Polling

And here:

HELLO BOYS! this is my formal endorsement of @realDonaldTrump & I'm a woman! (last I checked) And Rudy, U R amazing! https://t.co/0IrenUh8fa

— Kirstie Alley (@kirstiealley) April 8, 2016

It's like Omarosa Manigault said on TV the other day (I don't recall where), she has trouble with taking the anti-women polls seriously because half the people who vote for Trump are women.

Michael

[william.scherk]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mr. Manafort speaks about Mr. Stone:

He sounds very, very confident about a Trump win and not dismissive of Stone, but I sense a tone of not considering him at all.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone is interested in following the money on the Michelle Fields kerfuffle, $25 million committed to Cruz's campaign is a pretty good incentive to slant a story all over the friggin' place.

tsk tsk tsk... All that journalistic integrity of all those conservative journalists sold down the river like that...

Breitbart and The Daily Wire’s $25 Million Dollar Trump Take Down
by darindamme1
March 31, 2016
Reality Check

I don't like that headline because Trump was not taken down at all.

But all the rattling on the Fields grain bucket did cause a stir among the sheeple. And what do the sheeple do?

The sheeple go, "Baa..."

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who think I've been a bit tough about insisting on being seen, consider this.

I said I would support Cruz if Trump doesn't win the nomination--and I said this with full clarity that those who don't want to see Trump supporters as who they are continue to play the same old word games, hoping somehow I will learn their hatred of Trump.

It doesn't work, but I'm not the one they should be worried about. I'm not like other Trump supporters. Check this out:

One-Third of Trump Supporters Say Won’t Back Another Republican Candidate

Not if Trump has millions more votes and is denied the nomination in a contested convention.

Let that sink in a bit.

These Trump supporters will not back another Republican candidate. You can count on it, too.

Does anyone doubt a major walkout would happen at the convention?

I don't.

This is not a word game. This is not an argument. This is not a gotcha. This is not a reframe. This is not a shaming session. This is not a rhetorical battle. This is much, much deeper.

In the StopTrump movement, there are diehards, but most will end up supporting Trump if he is nominated. Why? Because that's what they've always done, even with candidates they can't stand. Once a few of their people start caving, the stampede will form.

But if anyone thinks Trump supporters who feel like above about not supporting another candidate will come around, in most cases, it ain't gonna happen. Why? Because a huge part of Trump supporters are people who hate politics and all Trump supporters hold the establishment in contempt.

So if Cruz supporters want to reason and dialog with Trump supporters, maybe find common ground, it's time to stop pretending Trump supporters are not the way they are and learn how to talk to them.

So far Cruz supporters don't know how to talk to Trump supporters.

Not a clue.

And as I said earlier, Trump supporters are not interested in persuading those hostile to Trump. So it doesn't matter what the anti-Trumpers say. 

It could matter, but apparently there's a learning curve involved and those against Trump are too stubborn or too dumb to learn it.

(I mention this because I love the people who post here, even those who despise Trump. I'm trying to give them a heads up. Qua Trump supporter, what they say against Trump or for Cruz doesn't matter to me. Qua friend, it does.)

As Mike said above about supporting establishment politicians, you can't keep making the same mistake and expect a different result to occur. That's insane. It works the same for communication. The anti-Trump folks keep making the same mistake with Trump supporters--over and over and over--and expecting it to be different this time around. And it never is.

Or as Nathaniel Branden once said, doing more of what doesn't work doesn't work.

If anyone wants to see something not work big-time, I say to Cruz supporters, keep stringing the problem along hoping it will resolve itself and watch a huge critical chunk of people walk out of the GOP convention.

Then wonder what the hell happened.

Michael

[MereMortal]

Has anyone seen this?  The Boston Globe's attempt to scare everyone against electing Trump.  Think this stuff actually works?

[Peter]

Should we worry about saboteurs who will dump Cruz if he legitimately wins? And will they then not vote, vote third party or vote for Old Hickory Clinton? I will take it as a warning, but those people sound like destroyers to me. Potential rioters. Unfortunately I will be royally pissed too if Trump OR Cruz don’t get the nomination.

This is Walter Cronkite. Will Forrest Gump and the white sheet wearers walk out if Trump can’t steal the convention? Stay tuned for more coverage from Meercat Mortal. Those are great spoof headlines, Merecat, and seem prophetic. Welcome to the CBS team! We only require a grain of truth.

Peter

[Peter]

I just had a thought. The great deal maker WILL do anything dishonorable and crooked to win, so won't Trump try to buy and fix the Convention even more so than the supposed RINO insiders who want to keep their influence and graft?

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm putting this in the Trump thread and not the Cruz thread because it is such a great pro-Trump ad for the following primaries.

 

Seriously.

This is going to get a lot of voters--independent voters who haven't decided yet--hacked off. 

And guess who's going to be there waiting for them when they turn away?

Michael

 

[william.scherk]

On 4/9/2016 at 10:35 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 4/9/2016 at 10:24 AM, william.scherk said:

So, a Cruz-backer emotionalizes into a NeverTrumper, slaps on the fright wig from the Hate Club for Men -- and this is good for Drumpf how?

William,

This is bad for Drumpf how?

"How is your other stupid friend?"

A tale of visible and invisible people arguments.  The claim under the scope was ...

Mark Levin has been harsh on Drumpf, but at least he's not silly enough to think suicide is the best approach.

Analytic outfall:

Mark Levin has committed (analogous) suicide by threatening to go full #NeverTrump. In other words ("in other words"), Mark Levin is guilty as charged and Roger Stone's insinuation is true. In other words, Mark Levin can be dismissed.  He is crazily suggesting Republicans stay home and let Hillary Clinton win in November.  He hates America.

On the other hand, an alternate reading might be:

Mark Levin took a cue and went war party  with his rhetoric. He sharpened his usual tone of outrage and upped the stakes, he upped the partisan amplitude, upped the heat of the moment.

Or, 

Mark Levin 'did to himself' something something. He wants to destroy America and it doesn't matter if he isn't aboard the good ship Trump. Because Trump is gonna win.

 

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
23 hours ago, william.scherk said:
In other words, "Push me one more time, and I will  use my platform for #NeverTrump."

In other words, You People Turned Me Against Him.

In other words, Good Thinking, Shitheads.

So, a Cruz-backer emotionalizes into a NeverTrumper, slaps on the fright wig from the Hate Club for Men -- and this is good for Drumpf how?  What is the Drumpf Borg reflecting back to the candidate upon this intent to oppose? Mark Levin is fucked? Fuck Mark Levin? Fuck his audience? 

William,

This is bad for Drumpf how?

:)

Well, first let me mention a curious thing.  Often, presumably for quicker reading and 'getting to the point,' you excise a small line from the end paragraph/s of a comment. By this habit, I presume you zero in on a small item -- not for gotcha, but for analysis or clarification.  In this case, I have re-inserted a slightly larger context for your remarks. To revisit ...

My paraphrase or winnowing of the Mark Levin remarks came from several listenings.  In the simplest, pithiest terms, I squeezed out what I thought was his message or possible multiple messages. Above them all is the "You People Turned Me Against Him." In You People, we can read Roger Stone.

So, what happened and what does it matter to a Trump campaigner?  I paraphrase myself:  Having Mark go haywire and upping the ante to even consider becoming a full mouthpiece for #NeverTrump -- how can this help Trump?

I will answer the question Michael seems to have implicitly answered ("in other words," nothing bad can happen to Trump because of Mark Levin's going haywire)

Mark Levin going haywire helps Trump how?

-- first off, it can effect a consolidation of voter intentions, which come in two quantum flavours, positive and negative.  Having been a critic of Trump, but a presumably loyal Republican voter, his listeners could have assumed up till now that he would be in the bag for whomever was on the GOP ticket come November.   But since his listeners are not 100% this or that (neither fully Cruzfixed nor Trumpfixed), his strange relaxation of Anybody But Hillary rules will tend to consolidate Trump-leaners and in-the-bag voters.  

So, consolidation.

Secondly, the haywire moment is a meme, and in this meme are co-valent bonds knitting it all together. The meme is already being transmuted in the medium-level hooplasphere. Roger Stone is in the news -- even if banned from the mainstream broadcasters.  Stone's interventions (claims and charges) are rising in the gush and burp of hard-core not-beanbag politics. In other words, a stain will attach, and the stain will attach to Levin, not to Stone or Trump.  And the stain will be semi-permanent. 

Thirdly, this kerfuffle elevates rumour to the level of  "as reported" ... and adds a load of weight not insubstantial to the burden of Ted Cruz.  In other words, I mean, you know, the word on the street is that mud sticks. The meme, reduced to a bumper-sticker slogan is kind of this:

Mark Levin is bought and paid for.  Fuck him.

Quote
You presume Levin would not make this NeverTrump leap over time. Are you sure about that?

Michael, old pal, this is kind of a sloppy way of asking my opinion, waiting three microseconds, and then spinning the imaginary answer.  You know what I mean?  You are telling me what I presume, not asking.

Anyway, fuck Mark Levin, the muck will stick and the Levin listeners were probably half-in-the-bag for Cruz in any case. 

What concerns me in my 1/3 personality as William Pollyanna Scherk?  As before, trade, borders, religious bar to entry, refugee policy, pigs in pokes, NATO and nukes. What Michael might call 'blah blah blah' ...

But, oh -- a remaining question. Context again: "So, a Cruz-backer emotionalizes into a NeverTrumper, slaps on the fright wig from the Hate Club for Men -- and this is good for Drumpf how?  What is the Drumpf Borg reflecting back to the candidate upon this intent to oppose? Mark Levin is fucked? Fuck Mark Levin? Fuck his audience?"

Michael asked "this is bad for Trump how?"

-- I will give only one proposition, thus leaving lots of room for additional 'bad' items.  I invite Michael to put some 'bads' on the board, if only to be able to shoot them down one by one. 

Mark Levin threatening to join and promote NeverTrump, onward to November, contingent on his caveat ('one more time") -- this is a bad for Trump because of the more-than-negligible influence of Mark Levin. 

I look forward to the skeet-shooting of Trump 'bads' -- either resulting from an analysis of the Mark Levin Effect or just for stumping fun.

-- one last puzzler to kind of leave hanging. Before David went back to the Muggles world, he was hammering a small tin gong called Victim, citing our Michael again and again. I have been thinking about it, and I think David is wrong. Wrong to merely label a behaviour.  I see the Victim stance as more of a dramatic exaggeration. I remember overhearing a conversation at a wedding.  The lady was asking her adult kid about some named friends, ,something like this ...

Ma:  How is your other stupid friend?

Kid: Ma, why do you ask about these people?  You don't like any of my friends.

Ma: Why don't I roll in the ditch and die, then?

-- for me, this is a better heuristic/analogy/filter for the martyr ploy.   It is evidence of a tendency to wild exaggeration and excess, and it is kind of fun. Does it advance Reason?   Food for thought.

Visual equivalent to sound file: Fright wig.

Edited April 10, 2016 by william.scherk
Added fright wig image

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, MereMortal said:

Has anyone seen this?  The Boston Globe's attempt to scare everyone against electing Trump.  Think this stuff actually works?

MM,

In Trump's speech today, he said there is a lot of backlash happening against the Globe, but I haven't found much yet on search. Here's a start on Mediaite: Boston Globe Tries, Fails Miserably with Fake Anti-Trump Front Page; Here’s Why.

I have a feeling this will grow and become an embarrassment for The Boston Globe. Let's see what happens.

My gut tells me this will not affect anything election-wise, pro or con. Maybe it will tarnish the reputation of the newspaper a bit with independent voters. For anti-Trump people, they will love it. Pro-Trump people will think it's stupid (which it is  ). I believe the independents will think it's stupid, too. Not something a serious newspaper should do. 

But in terms of swaying support, I doubt it one way or another.

I did like Trump's comment. He said the Boston Globe totally tanked its finances and is almost out of business, now they want to tell him how to run things.

 

And it did tank it's finances, too. In 2001, the NYT bailed out The Boston Globe by buying it for 1.1 billion dollars, then in 2013, the NYT sold it for 70 million dollars.

Maybe those folks should have read The Art of the Deal.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Say what you want about Roger Stone's crazy idea, it is having a positive effect. 

Stone wants to publicize the hotel room numbers of the delegates who would be doing monkeyshines in the Cleveland GOP convention. His idea is to give the massive number of angry voters who will be descending on Cleveland a chance to personally hear from the delegates their reasons for wanting to steal the election.

 

I mean, what could go wrong, right?

 

So I have not paid that much attention to this because I don't think it will go anywhere. However, I didn't expect to hear Glenn Beck say the following, not in this lifetime and not if hell froze over (from The Hill--and there is a video at the site).

Beck actually said it would be proper for Trump to get the nomination. He supports Cruz, obviously, but he said what he said.

Beck sees 'end of the GOP' if Cruz, Trump denied nomination

And Beck cited Stone's idea.

Frankly, he looked a little beaten in that video.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

 

 

Here is some very interesting reading to go along with this image.

The headline below is now on the Drudge page (upper left and in red) whereas it is not on the earlier screenshot above:

DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention – Cruzers Listed TWICE
Jim Hoft
Apr 10th, 2016
Gateway Pundit

I have a feeling more is coming. This article, so far, only shows (1) a photo of the Cruz delegate repeated number in the place of the missing Trump delegate number, (2) a formal-sounding resolution passed around prohibiting delegates for vote for Trump, (3) a video of Trump delegate Larry Wayne Lindsey who was removed because he supported Trump (boy is he pissed!), and (4) a tweet from the Colorado GOP's Twitter account (later removed) saying: "We did it. #NeverTrump."

Cruz supporters are celebrating this "astuteness" and "ground game." Even Biddibob on Facebook, with satisfaction, called it Cruz's "winning ways behind the scenes."

Paul Manafort, Trump's RNC manager called it Cruz's "Gestapo tactics."

I'll let the reader decide for himself or herself what to call it.

I think people might have an idea of my proclivity.

If you want to know why I don't trust Cruz, it's because he sanctions this stuff, while denying it, of course.

I feel he will govern this way, too. I've had enough secret backroom dirty tricks with deniability. Cruz is like Nixon was...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's the offending Tweet.

So the @GOP, @Reince, and @cologop are colluding with #NeverTrump; I hope someone files a lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/NnSXEIy8XF

— MicroChip (@WDFx2EU) April 10, 2016

Now the Colorado GOP is in full damage control mode. (I didn't do it, he did it. No. That guy over there did it. Actually it was that lady over there. Or those folks. See 'em? Damn, somebody did it. But one thing's for sure, it wasn't us.  )

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you want to know why I don't trust Cruz, it's because he sanctions this stuff, while denying it, of course.

I feel he will govern this way, too. I've had enough secret backroom dirty tricks with deniability. Cruz is like Nixon was...

 

Well, if that's your reasoning, then you should support Cruz. Despite his "dirty tricks," Nixon did one incalculably wonderful thing for every individual in the United States (and in particular, young men): he promised in his Presidential campaign to abolish the military draft, and he actually followed through and did it. Sure, he also did stupid, destructive things like imposing wage-price controls (which were temporary, unlike the abolition of the draft), but in the scheme of things, we should all be hugely grateful that he was elected President.

Of course, Nixon had some horrendously dirty tricks played on him, too - namely, the voter fraud in Texas and Illinois, which cost him the election in 1960. LBJ was reportedly behind the fraud in Texas, and thanks to his being elected VP, he moved into the White House in 1963 (when JFK was assassinated), and played horrible smear tactics in his re-election campaign against the very nearly libertarian Barry Goldwater in 1964, then got us deeply into the Vietnam conflict, in which 55,000 young drafted men were sent to die FOR NOTHING. And he started the fraudulently named "War on Poverty," in which 5 Trillion dollars were spent FOR NOTHING (the poverty level which had been dropping for decades locked in place and hasn't budged in 50 years).

Dirty tricks do not equate with bad Presidential records, nor do immaculate campaigns and behavior equate with good Presidential records. What matters is what policies do they put into effect - do they pass good laws and repeal bad ones? On balance, are they pro-freedom or anti-freedom in their actual results? In the present context, we have to examine candidates both in terms of what they have already stood for consistently in their policy speeches and what they have actually voted for and passed into law (good things) or repealed (bad things). Cruz is the only one of the remaining GOP candidates who is even in the ballpark for consistent words and actions on policy.

While I'm on the subject, you and others have mocked Cruz for reading excerpts from Atlas Shrugged on the floor of the Senate, as if this was empty posturing. Well, who in the HELL would do such a thing if they didn't believe it and want it to be the direction for our country? Are you oblivious as to how deeply unpopular Rand's ideas and vision are in this country? Almost as reviled and hated as Cruz is by most of his fellow Senate members. Do you think he was just trying to irritate them further? Heh.

No, Cruz's reading Atlas may have been a purer statement of principles he likes than the sum total of his Senate votes might indicate, but it is very similar to his stand in Iowa against ethanol subsidies. He is willing to go into the lion's den, as few others are, and to say what he's for or against and not back down. When he says he wants to eliminate subsidies, and he is willing to forego the votes of the constituents for subsidies, that means something very important to me. I'm surprised you disregard or discount it, as you clearly do.

This is why when Cruz says he wants a flat tax and to abolish the IRS, I believe him. I take this as being on the same or higher level of believability as I did Nixon's (Quaker-faith-supported) promise to abolish the SSS (draft). I hope he gets the chance to campaign on this promise in the fall. Trump hasn't shown me anything faintly worthy, by comparison. Cruz is the only remaining GOP candidate who is even 50% acceptable to me. If he's not nominated, I'll definitely be voting (write-in) for Gary Johnson (assuming the Libertarian Party nominates him) - and speaking out on his behalf, as well.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

... you and others have mocked Cruz for reading excerpts from Atlas Shrugged on the floor of the Senate...

Roger,

I mocked Cruz for that?

Where?

I can tell you already it didn't happen.

I do recall saying that many Objectivists tend to sell out cheap. All they need is words, like someone reading AS in the Senate, and they won't bother looking at deeds. They'll rewrite history (which they love to do, anyway  ). They're like puppy dogs wagging their tails because they got petted. But that was not mocking Cruz. That was mocking those Objectivists who think in kneejerks. 

I'm glad Cruz likes Rand. If he gets more power than he has, I hope her ideas have a strong influence on him. (I actually think some will.) 

I just don't like his character, I don't like his resume of achievement, and I don't like is love of dirty tricks. I especially don't like the money strings that go back to the neocon Bushes...

Michael