Donald Trump

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I don't doubt that Donald Trump hears a command to rise.

But to whom does it apply, besides himself?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

and not rely solely on mainstream press storylines or political biases.

Michael,

Do you think that it is possible for anyone to make an objective appraisal of Donald Trump's character?

In particular, if one must know Donald Trump personally to do so ... do you know him personally?

You've said that a true narcissist can't have a good family.  Barack Obama appears to be a counterexample.

You've said that a true narcissist can't produce anything.  Camille Paglia's favorite example of a narcissist is Elvis Presley.

Robert

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

58 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Leonard Peikoff lets him.

Robert

It's not clear to me why writing for Huff would be bad if they didn't screw over your work--not unless what you wrote was bad. I can come up with an idea, maybe two.

Leonard Peikoff: Objectivism's greatest disappointment. They got much too tangled up with each other when the detangling with Rand should have started. He spiked that by replacing her--not well, but there he was. Objectivism is now a chicken running around with its head chopped off and in a very small chicken yard.The Mormons got the idea of sustainability right, not the Shakers.

Properly speaking Objectivism is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism is what's left over when you take a lot of Ayn Rand out: reason applied to reality, rational self interest and freedom (protection of individual rights). The philosophy of Ayn Rand is the philosophy of Ayn Rand which includes Objectivism and a hell of a lot more (take of that what you want and leave the rest). That that "Objectivism" got slathered onto and into an entirety only corrupts and dilutes Objectivism. Rand did not create or discover any of the philosophy's basic principles, but gathered them up into an integrated whole and pumped in fresh and dramatic life, which was one hell of a feat, especially combined as it was with a withering critique of collectivism and its premises.

--Brant

but I digress (as usual)

 

[Roger Bissell]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

13 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great.

And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation.

Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House.

REB

 

Oh, Cruz can. The problem is I don't think enough voters want that much of a conservative as POTUS. I think the popular vote will be 52/48 against him and the electoral worse. Another problem--like I said before--is his face can't keep up with his brain so he tends to keep it too much in neutral. Not good for a politician.

 

 

You may be right, Brant, but I tend to think that because altruism has so deeply rotted out our culture and politics, anyone running against a committed, pushy altruist on the left (like Hillary) will be pressed to go leftward (and welfare-ward) himself in order to defuse smear-claims that he is "not even" Christian enough to care about the needy and those (like women and minorities) who are economically deprived and underpaid.

Trump has already indicated that he will not let the (supposed) repeal of Obamacare compromise the providing of medical care to those who would otherwise be bleeding in the streets - code for: we're not touching Medicaid or Medicare, and if we have to increase or expand them, we just will.

I think that if the GOP pick is Cruz rather than Trump, he - by virtue of his cross-on-his-sleeve approach - will have his religion rubbed in his face and his hypocrisy made the focus of Hillary's attacks. (If he's not even Christian enough to play fair with his Republican opponents, how can we expect him to treat women and minorities and the poor and the sick fairly?)

This is Ayn Rand "The Anatomy of Compromise" come home to roost, as I see it - and it won't be pretty. Republican and social-conservative pea-shooters are no match for Hillary's nuclear ammo, and she won't be shy in using it.

If Trump is the GOP pick, as soon as they discuss domestic policy in the fall debates, he won't know what hit him. He'll tap dance and back pedal and make generous offers (on the taxpayers' behalf, of course), in order to duck her broadsides, but he will appear to be "me, too," and she will appear to be the "real deal." And that's why she will win.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

58 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Michael,

I don't doubt that Donald Trump hears a command to rise.

But to whom does it apply, besides himself?

Everyone: after eating--and after . . .

--Whatever

he thinks he's already risen, like any proper narcissist, and he just wants all and sundry to know it too (personally, I lack the energy)

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

I don't doubt that Donald Trump hears a command to rise.

But to whom does it apply, besides himself?

I'd say the majority of his supporters.  The majority of his supporters are sick of 8 years of Obama's policies affecting their standard of living (and quality of life)--more taxes, higher CPI, higher health care costs, less discretionary income, less jobs.  Most Americans are below the line of what they consider acceptable, and are pissed off.  Trump isn't issuing a command to rise and having people follow him, the people already want to rise and Trump's ideas and campaign is seen as facilitating that.  Is it populism to speak directly the people about what they want to hear--yet that is what is going on in reality?  No, it can't be.  Populism would involve some kind of faking reality, and in the words of Rand: "just look"--look at what he's built, what he's done, what he is.  That is what attracts the American people to him.  He is the real deal.  He has built a great company, has many great people--and now he wants that for America, for its people.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

I don't doubt that Donald Trump hears a command to rise.

But to whom does it apply, besides himself?

Robert,

I don't know what you are trying to do, but you will not persuade me (nor I suspect anyone) by repeating the same kind of biased questions over and over where it's obvious you are not interested in the answer because you have already answered it for yourself and are not open to looking further.

If you want to learn some persuasion strategies, I can help with that. Off the top of my head, I can give you at least 20 books or so to look at. But this stuff you are doing doesn't work, it never worked and it will never work. That's just human nature. (I can give a ton of reasons--with sources--if you are ever interested.)

But the reader is reading and this is a public forum, so let's look at an answer or two. If not for you, then for him or her.

Since you are very intelligent, I presume you are familiar with the TV Show, The Apprentice. The whole theme of the show was a command to rise to excellence. If that's not a "command to rise" in a Randian sense, I don't know what is. Trump did not present this idea at some arcane lecture series that nobody ever sees. He, like Ayn Rand, sold this idea, this "command to rise," on the open market and made a bestseller out of it. He embedded a serious pro-life idea in entertainment, just like she kept saying people should (and she, herself did when she was still doing fiction).

But let's go further. You can find material like the following all over the place:

You may think this is hoaky, but I assure you people who are in business for themselves do not. They have to look inside themselves to keep their morale up. They have to look to their heroes. And if one of them is telling them they can do it, that they can be great, well goddam it, they feel they can. And they get up and get to work after they hear this. And they go back for more when they feel worn out.

Another one. There's a clip that is constantly mashed in with reports on Trump where a young lady asked in a very insecure voice, "How do I, as an average person, begin?" And Trump responded, "First of all never think of yourself as average. You started off with the wrong question, because you’re not average, you’ve got a lot going, I see you’re smart, you’re very beautiful... You just have to get that word 'average' out of your vocabulary and you have to tell yourself that you're great. And you have to believe it. If you can say it and don't believe it, it doesn't matter. So just go out there and work hard.”

You can see this exchange in the mashup below:

How about some books with command to rise written all over them? Here's a list I presented earlier in this thread:

On 3/6/2016 at 3:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump: The Art of the Deal

Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again

Time to Get Tough: Make America Great Again!

Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life

Trump Never Give Up: How I Turned My Biggest Challenges into Success

Trump: The Art of the Comeback

Midas Touch: Why Some Entrepreneurs Get Rich-And Why Most Don't

Trump 101: The Way to Success

The America We Deserve

Think BIG and Kick Ass in Business and Life

There are others, but that small list should keep you busy for a few nights if you decide to read them.

Is that enough or do you want some more examples?

The world's top beauty pageants, maybe? 

And I haven't even started on the subject of how inspiration and "command to rise" works with mirror neurons. When hard working people have a role model like Donald Trump, he gives them precisely what Ayn Rand called "spiritual fuel" to keep going. Ayn Rand was talking about art, but larger than life "spiritual fuel" can also apply to an inspiring celebrity. One of the reasons it works is mirror neurons.

I could go on and on and on if you like since Trump has a lot of "command to rise" material out there.

But something tells me I'm boring you.

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

You've said that a true narcissist can't produce anything.

Robert,

Really?

Did I say that?

Hmmmm...

Look again.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

he thinks he's already risen, like any proper narcissist, and he just wants all and sundry to know it too (personally, I lack the energy)

He hasn't risen?  Rand was adamant about people of achievement talking about those achievements, she said in doing so it helps other people see that value is possible, that people can efficate, what ought to be can be--that it might inspire them to be part of the good--to think for themselves, to do something, to be something.  (I'm sure you know this angle, I'm saying I apply it here.)

The braggidicio?  Much of it is to snap malevolent universers out of their spell.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Can you name one book, article, TV segment, whatever, critical of Donald Trump in any respect that you do not deem a hit piece?

Robert,

Sure.

Just about any interview with Bill O'Reilly (except that once after a debate where it was rumored O'Reilly was drunk). That's just one example.

Another. I'm not a fan of the way Trump tried to use eminent domain for private projects and there are plenty of valid criticisms out there, some accompanied by hit piece rhetoric and some reasonable.

But I'm only going to mention these two because I'm not interested in going into the same old things that have been discussed over and over (discussed generally while blanking out Trump's achievements), and I'm tired of trying to explain for the gazillionth time that I don't find Trump to be an ideal candidate, but instead a transition one. 

He's a dude with the experience, skill and talent to face the impending catastrophe the geniuses who have led the country for the last few decades have engineered and/or allowed to grow. He's tough, a good guy (producer), and a survivor. That, in my view is exactly what the country needs at this point in history. 

But since this is an election and I want my man to be elected and I don't think you are persuadable re Trump, let's leave it at this:

I'm a Trump sycophant and there is no criticism of him on earth that is not a hit piece. If I could kiss his ass I would and say it smelled like roses.

There. I just gave you a nice visual to go along with your inner image of me. You're not going to believe otherwise, anyway.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

He hasn't risen?  Rand was adamant about people of achievement talking about those achievements, she said in doing so it helps other people see that value is possible, that people can efficate, what ought to be can be--that it might inspire them to be part of the good--to think for themselves, to do something, to be something.  (I'm sure you know this angle, I'm saying I apply it here.)

The braggidicio?  Much of it is to snap malevolent universers out of their spell.

This would be a lot better if it came with a referenced Rand quote. I tend to disregard--not discount, disregard--if it doesn't. I don't have time to salvage nuance if not the substance. No one can lecture me about her, not this way. Quote her.

--Brant

[MereMortal]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

This would be a lot better if it came with a referenced Rand quote. I tend to disregard--not discount, disregard--if it doesn't. I don't have time to salvage nuance if not the substance. No one can lecture me about her, not this way. Quote her.

--Brant

Perhaps this is what he had in mind.  

[Brant Gaede]

That's very supportive of John's point. Now we can talk off it without fearing lack of a proper foundation.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's very supportive of Korbin's point. Now we can talk off it without fearing lack of a proper foundation.

--Brant

Uh, thanks?

 

[Robert Campbell]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Is it populism to speak directly the people about what they want to hear--yet that is what is going on in reality?  No, it can't be.  Populism would involve some kind of faking reality, and in the words of Rand: "just look"--look at what he's built, what he's done, what he is.  That is what attracts the American people to him.

Korben,

Donald Trump said in Iowa that he was in favor of increasing ethanol mandates.  He said it where the people could all hear it.  Who wanted to hear that, and how it relates to reality, are other matters.

Donald Trump said in Wisconsin that Scott Walker was at fault for going after the public employee unions and getting laws passed that reduced their power, causing all kinds of unpleasantness when the unions did not let go of power easily.  He said those things where the people could all hear them.  Who wanted to hear them, and how they relate to reality, are other matters.

Will ramping up ethanol mandates (instead of abolishing them) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

Will discouraging anyone from challenging public employee unions, or from undercutting their power, improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

While we're at it, will slapping 45% tariffs on Chinese goods (either by getting Congress to pass a law and signing it, or saying to hell with Congress and simply ordering it) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

If Trump had been campaigning for the past 9 months on getting Congress to pass a bill overturning all Federal regulations that have been put into force since January 20, 2009 (or January 20, 2001), it might be different.

But he hasn't been campaigning on that.

He's been campaigning on the imperative that Social Security and Medicare MUST BE PRESERVED and he will make sure there are never any cuts to them.  Unlike Hillary or Bernie, however, he also insists he will cut taxes, while at it, will eliminate the entire Federal debt in 8 years.

The question is not whether Trump has built anything.  It's how much he falsely claims to have built, on top of what he actually built.

The question is not whether Trump has done anything worthwhile.  It's whether he has claimed additional worthwhile things that were not his doing.  It's whether in the process he's also done any destructive things.

(A very small example.   In one of his Wisconsin press conferences, Trump complained that Scott Walker had stolen the phrase "common-sense conservatism" from him.  He asserted he had invented it.  I'm not sure anyone should be too proud of an invention so dull and vapid.  But it was already a politician's cliché back in 1970, which is surely not its date of origin—just as far back as I can remember it.)

Finally, who Donald Trump is surely includes every bit of vaunting, every riff about how everyone loves him, every "perfect statistic" he recites, every lie he tells for political gain, every occasion on which he reminds the audience of his superior status (I will never approach X, X will have to come and beg me), every deflection of blame when he screws up, every putdown of a woman on account of her looks.  These don't all form some detachable layer that, come May or come July or come November or come January, he will suddenly cast off, allowing us all an unobstructed view of his unclouded magnificence.

This columnist is a faithful member of the Obami, hence his access to White House aides.   But he is admitting that Obama's approval ratings haven't been inching up on account of any positive accomplishments.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0417-mcmanus-obama-polls-20160417-column.html

Quote

In the CNN-ORC poll, 67% of adults said they had an unfavorable impression of the real estate magnate, the highest negative rating ever recorded for a major party's presidential candidate.

if the American people are attracted to Donald Trump, why would 67% of them so strenuously deny it?

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

20 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Uh, thanks?

I'm a grumpy old man.

I'm trying to do something about it. Face lift, hair implants, Viagara. Nothing is working so far.

--Brant

[Selene]

On 4/15/2016 at 2:26 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And now the thug, monster, misogynist, bully, baby-eater, and all round human scummy scum scum speaks.

Man...

That didn't sound like a thug...

He even left to door open to having a sit-down with Fields.

Where did the Gestapo Commando go?

 

Michael

Appears that Ms, Fields is still playing the field on this issue...

Quote

 

Former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields stuck to her guns Sunday in her first televised appearance since battery charges were dropped against Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

"Corey lied. Donald Trump lied. They defamed me," Fields said on "Reliable Sources."

They "went on this huge smear campaign against me, and I think it sheds light on the character of campaign," Fields said.

Fields said the manner in which Trump and his people handled the Florida incident caused it to become a huge story. She rejected the Trump campaign's past claims that she raised the issue to seek attention.

 

Strange how these two story lines on an incident that we have a significant visual record of is still disputed.

Quote

 

"A lot of people were surprised by their blatant lies about me," she said. "That's why it became a huge story."

Field says that all she wanted was an apology, which she never received.

"I do think that this shouldn't have been such a huge story," Fields said.

"If I had just received an apology, as I was told I was going to receive, which is why I was quiet the first two days, this wouldn't have been a huge story," Field said.

Fields also expressed frustration that Palm Beach County prosecutors declined to pursue its case against Lewandowski after charging him with battery.

 

"The prosecutor's decision, the way that they handled this entire situation was very unprofessional," Fields said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michelle-fields-corey-lied-donald-trump-lied/article/2588766

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

What's more, Corey told Chris Wallace earlier that he actually called Michelle Fields soon after her boyfriend's article came out on the Internet (it looks like someone pointed it out to him), but she didn't answer and she didn't get back to him. As I understand it, he submitted the telephone records to the courts to prove it.

Funny that she never mentions this...

I think she has a hard time understanding that a campaign manager for a presidential run has other things to do than stay worried about a mediocre pushy attention-seeking reporter.

Michael

[Selene]

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Adam,

What's more, Corey told Chris Wallace earlier that he actually called Michelle Fields soon after her boyfriend's article came out on the Internet (it looks like someone pointed it out to him), but she didn't answer and she didn't get back to him. As I understand it, he submitted the telephone records to the courts to prove it.

Funny that she never mentions this...

I think she has a hard time understanding that a campaign manager for a presidential run has other things to do than stay worried about a mediocre pushy attention-seeking reporter.

Michael

Yep.

I believe it was her boyfriend tweeting that he was a "thug" and a friend of Mr. L's told him about the tweet.

I have seen this act before with false domestic violence complaints to gain leverage in a case.

A...

[Peter]

BaalChatzaf said: While the Republics are in power, the interests of the Mega - Corporation are borne up by the best government money can buy. end quote

Is “the deck” stacked before the election too? Sununu is on Fox today at 10:40 am and said the party is in charge until a short time before the convention and the current rules are in affect at that time. And then the committee which Sununu headed in 2012 takes charge of the process. That IS the way it legally must be. But then he vented saying a lot of Trump’s delegates can’t stand him and will abandon him forever on the second or subsequent ballots. So he better nail  the nomination on the first ballot. Obviously, Trump is rubbing the guys who do the convention ground work the wrong way. Is that the way Trump’s rebels want it? He says the system is corrupt. He says the system is rigged. To revolt against the machine is what a lot of Trump supporters want.

Then the question is, “Will influence and graft influence a Trump administration, because he will wheel and deal?” And will The Republicans be out of power? Wounds heal. The RINO'S will be back. So, I hope Trump lives up to his own hype . . . if he is elected.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

49 minutes ago, Peter said:

Obviously, Trump is rubbing the guys who do the convention ground work the wrong way.

Peter,

When has Trump ever rubbed them the right way?

Can you cite an example of that?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sure.

Just about any interview with Bill O'Reilly (except that once after a debate where it was rumored O'Reilly was drunk). That's just one example.

Michael,

Great...  So there are criticisms of Donald Trump that aren't hit pieces.

Was it so hard to say so?

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Another. I'm not a fan of the way Trump tried to use eminent domain for private projects and there are plenty of valid criticisms out there, some accompanied by hit piece rhetoric and some reasonable.

Eminent domain for private projects isn't golden.

Was it so hard to say so?

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But I'm only going to mention these two because I'm not interested in going into the same old things that have been discussed over and over (discussed generally while blanking out Trump's achievements), and I'm tired of trying to explain for the gazillionth time that I don't find Trump to be an ideal candidate, but instead a transition one. 

Since I've returned to participating here, you've been mentioning everything except these two.

How is it that I can prefer Cruz over Trump without pretending that Cruz is ideal?  You know, as in Cruz would have been well advised to let Mike Huckabee go to to Kentucky for a photo op with Kim Davis, all by himself...  I doubt I am alone in this.

Yet when it comes to promoting Trump, you clearly want everyone to extol Trump as ideal—as magnificent, to employ a word that keeps showing up in your accounts of him—and to condemn Cruz as the worst possible.

Robert

[Selene]

On 4/2/2016 at 0:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

==========================================================================

 

Gee Michael, I wonder if their is a connection between those two (2) facts?

Even today, "they" bring Mittens off the top of his carrier on the family vacation station wagon roof to do an interview:

Quote

The David Gregory Show/SoundCloud

By Sandy Fitzgerald   |   Monday, 18 Apr 2016 02:02 PM

 

 

 

• 
  inShare

 

A continued three-way race for the GOP nomination will allow Donald Trump to clinch the top spot during the first ballot of this July's Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and if that happens, the New York billionaire will lose the White House to Hillary Clinton in the fall, Mitt Romney is warning.

"If (Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Ted Cruz) are both going at it aggressively until the very end then I think Trump gets it on the first ballot," the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP nominee said in an interview on "The David Gregory Show" podcast, reports CNN.

 

Trump is already defeating both Cruz and Kasich in the polls by double digit leads, but Cruz has the only chance of catching Trump. However, Kasich earlier this month told CBS News that he hopes to win the nomination by swaying delegates in a contested convention, and has often pointed out that he is the only one of the three candidates who consistently bests Hillary Clinton in polls that measure potential race match-ups.

Romney though, warns in his interview with Gregory that Trump will woo delegates if he falls short of reaching the 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination in the first ballot.

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

And who is better about knowing how to lose than Mittens!

Remember the infamous condom question that led to a public Fluking and the birth of the "war on women!"  Thanks Mittens.

And the 3rd debate?   Great job!

Then an election day system that they did not test run!

Who better than you Mittens to do the white glove test on the establishment and the glove come out crystal clean.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/romney-trump-win-presidential/2016/04/18/id/724516/#ixzz46D27wqnY
 

A...

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/romney-trump-win-presidential/2016/04/18/id/724516/?ns_mail_uid=6735229&ns_mail_job=1664320_04182016&s=al&dkt_nbr=opvu8haj

 

 

 

[Peter]

Michael asked: When has Trump ever rubbed them the right way? end quote

Oh, that does it. Making fun of us. Like we’re cats or something. Just you . . .  what is that at my feet? It looks like a lamp. Very funny. Where’s the camera. I will rub it for the heck of it. I wish I wish I wish. I wish Donald Trump would come to Delmarva. Wow. She looks like she does on TV. 

Shazzam, Peter! He will be appearing Wednesday night at 8pm at Stephen Decatur High School!

Ah jeez, Jeanie. It’s happening. I am morphing into a big fan of The Donald. The quicksand is up to my waist already. Do I have two wishes?

The Secret Service came today to the school and checked it out. On Wednesday, the teachers and students must be out by 3pm and then you can get in at 5pm to see the one, the only, The Trumpster. I wonder if Barbara Eden will attend?

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Was it so hard to say so?

Robert,

All this was so easy to say, I've said it many times in this very thread.

Maybe not after you joined the conversation. I strongly suspect the contrary (I vaguely remember a few things...), but I would have to look to be sure. 

Lighten up and stop the finger-wagging and you will start to see that the things you constantly accuse aren't there.

Or not and keep condemning others from within a fantasy... It's your choice...

btw - I still don't see you acknowledging the large number of massive productive projects Trump has achieved. But that's OK...

Also, Trump actually is magnificent. That is one magnificent human being. I'm serious.  

Ted Cruz isn't the worst possible, he's still OK, but I'm not going to say much in his favor until after the elections. There's a reality thing called winning an election involved. The name of this section is called "Stumping in the Backyard" and I'm stumping for my guy. Only a person not interested in winning would keep praising his opposition to the skies.

I can say this for now. I used to have a far greater opinion of Ted Cruz before I saw him embrace dirty tricks--openly and blatantly--and then tell the public they are not dirty tricks, what me?, no you don't understand, technicality, technicality... yada yada yada. That's not a deal-breaker, but it sure as hell tarnished his image for me. I thought he had more integrity than that.

So when I see things like the following, I am not surprised: Revealed: Colorado Lawmakers Who Voted to Scrap Election Are Ted Cruz Delegates.

To you, that might be a "superior ground game." To me, that's the same old shit establishment politicians do all the time. 

I've already said I would vote for Cruz over Hillary, but I'm not happy about that choice like I used to be. Frankly, I no longer trust Cruz, so I would hope at least some of his actions matched his rhetoric should he get executive power.

Here's where I'm at. After all that has transpired, when Cruz talks about his platform, he sounds to me like George Bush the elder, "Read my lips. No new taxes." We all know what happened afterward.

But as words, these words sound great, just like Cruz's do. I like their sound...

Michael