Peter Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 I can’t say I like that Devil emoticon. Do you have an angel? Michael, with evil on his mind, wrote: For instance, if Cruz had concentrated on a wider target than evangelicals and had not presumed he would have had the former Romney votes in the tank, more people would have voted for him and, as you say, "he could be turning his victory lap as we speak." end quote What an interesting angle. Mormons are leery of evangelical bible literalists, who are leery of Mormons who are leery of RINO’s (Mitt is not a RINO, he just welcomes their support) and O’ists are leery of the Witch Doctor (in Ted especially) and Tea Party’ers are leery of the Mussolini in Trump. It’s all for show. The strategy is to change emphasis but not lie, and pivot. Or get caught. Because of his unfavorable numbers an analyst cannot claim Trump is immune to losing. No one has ever run an error free campaign. I haven’t seen an ad that asks, “Need help with your campaign? Call Voto Rooter. WE can sit down with a thousand representative voters and truly get them to open up about why they support a particular candidate. We have trained staff with psychological and interrogation skills and they come equipped with a lie detector. We can turn your campaign around better than a weather vane during a gale." Maybe Trump did just hire the closest facsimile to that with his internal shake up. What’s real? Who is adequate philosophically and will live up to their most crucial promises? Who thinks in the terms, “I have a brand to protect?” Who is all showbiz? Trump, Cruz, or Kasich? Kelly Ripa or Michael Strahan? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: I can’t say I like that Devil emoticon. Do you have an angel? Peter, That's not a bad idea. I'll work on it. Just like I found a bantering devil, I want to find a bantering angel. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Peter said: What an interesting angle. Peter, I would like to take credit for it, but I read it elsewhere in several places. In fact, if I remember correctly, even Rush Limbaugh said this a few times. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Well you won that round. It took you three sentences. If you can't see a Bush connection with Ted Cruz, even as George Bush's brother is his finance man, you have lost me... Michael Michael, Yes, of course, the Bush clan only pretended to support Jeb. That Jeb! candidacy was a tactical feint. Ted was their guy all along. You have to realize this is all complete BS. Precisely as credible as making Trump out to be a Clinton plant. And I'm sure you do realize it. Trump et al. have now sought to discredit Cruz: — As a Canadian ineligible to run for President (Trump's just pulled that one back out of his bag) — As an unhinged fanatic (Rafael! Rafael!) who believes he is the Messiah — As a player with a bunch of mistresses (hence, unacceptable to his religious supporters) — As a Bushie in sheep's clothing — As a phony who only pretended to oppose the Gang of 8 — As the guy Trump could have been if only he'd thought to hire Paul Manafort last July And they'll come up with a few more, before the nomination is decided one way or another. You must be disappointed in the reception of the National Enquirer story (and its already forgotten addenda). How much time elapsed between the initial charge against Herman Cain (the first sexual harassment allegation) and his decision to drop out (because he really did have a mistress)? Yeah, I know, 2011-2012, all framed by the Establishment, therefore history a Trump supporter needn't burden himself with.... Still, clock's ticking on the Enquirer stuff; it hasn't quite hit the expiration date, but it's tasting pretty stale. Yet many Trump supporters admit they'd bite the bullet and vote for Cruz, if Trump fails to secure the nomination. And even those who don't want him on the ticket want to him to stay in the Senate, where he can serve Trump faithfully. If the Canadian thing was for real, Cruz couldn't be the nominee. Under any circumstances. Not for VP, neither. If the mistress thing was for real, Cruz's evangelical constituents in Texas would desert him, and he wouldn't get reelected to the Senate. If the Messiah thing was for real, nobody would want Cruz in any elective office. Let the guy become Mayor of Copperas Cove, Texas, and, the next thing you know, he'd turn the place into Jonestown. Most of the people who are spreading this stuff don't act like it's for real. How could they? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Just now, Robert Campbell said: Yes, of course, the Bush clan only pretended to support Jeb. That Jeb! candidacy was a tactical feint. Ted was their guy all along. You have to realize this is all complete BS. Robert, Actually not BS. Ted's finance man, Neil Bush, never changed his last name as far as I can tell. That name is a hell of a thing to ignore When it's that close to the core... Ted Cruz was Plan B and always was Plan B (or, more likely, C or D). Or do you think people as smart as the Bushes never have a Plan B in the works? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Peter, That's not a bad idea. I'll work on it. Just like I found a bantering devil, I want to find a bantering angel. Michael Hey! I wear both hats! --BANT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 15 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: You must be disappointed in the reception of the National Enquirer story (and its already forgotten addenda). How much time elapsed between the initial charge against Herman Cain (the first sexual harassment allegation) and his decision to drop out (because he really did have a mistress)? Yeah, I know, 2011-2012, all framed by the Establishment, therefore history a Trump supporter needn't burden himself with.... Still, clock's ticking on the Enquirer stuff; it hasn't quite hit the expiration date, but it's tasting pretty stale. Robert, I'm not disappointed. But I don't see this as a dichotomy like you do, either. I have a different theory. Whether Cruz did have mistresses or not, he is slated to be one of Trump's voices in the Senate. If, during the primaries, they slam him too hard and produce hard evidence during the campaign, or if they keep slamming the mistress story too hard if there is no evidence, Cruz will be such damaged goods by then, he will be useless. And politically, if the damage is kept to a level where it can be reversed later, Cruz will be a powerful ally. In your mind right now, I doubt you even think this is possible. But once Cruz loses the nomination and Trump is elected, Trump will visit him and they will talk. And if that is fruitless, all Cruz will need is a visit from Sarah Palin to ask him specifically to bury the hatchet and that sucker will get buried in a place no one will be able to find anymore. That's just one theory that falls outside of your dichotomy of hatred. And I believe it is the most plausible. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Hey! I wear both hats! --BANT Who the hell is BANT? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 6 hours ago, merjet said: Trump and Sanders have more in common than you might believe. Trump and Sanders Are Both Conservatives Why Trump and Sanders See Losers Everywhere I went to a website briefly that listed all the candidates including the Libertarian and compared them on different issues. As much as I see similarities between Bernie and Trump, or Trump and Hillary, they do not significantly coincide on any issues. Cruz, Trump, and Kasich, in that order, are to the good side of Constitutionalism. Sorry I did not note the site's name but on google I typed in Trump and Hillary agree on which issues. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Your post has some interesting info for political junkies, but you really, really don't understand what the inside looks like to a Trump supporter. I don't care much about political details if the establishment is the organizing context. {...] Don't bother trying to split hairs over what the establishment means (Democrat and Republican) or what the Silent Majority means and so on. That's the kind of rhetoric I just don't listen to anymore. Nor do Trump supporters. We're fixing a problem, not debating whether the problem exists, whether the history we lived actually happened, and so on. Trump supporters are not stupid. Michael, Where, in all of these exchanges, have I said, or implied, that you were stupid? That's not what any of this has been about. Here's what it does seem to be about: You didn't have to pay attention in 2008. Because what happened then is what Donald Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2010. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2012. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2014. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. (The most thorough coverage I ever saw of McDaniel vs. Cochran appeared in Breitbart. No need to read it, I guess. Breitbart wasn't pushing Trump for President yet.) Now if it doesn't matter what the establishment is, or what a Silent Majority is, or who today's Trump supporters voted for in the past, or what they thought they were getting when they voted, or how McCain or Romney got nominated, why should it matter what the present problem is? Surely identifying the problem, with as much clarity as you can muster, is part of solving it. Do you realize that your appeal to "the history we lived" is the exact same one that Social Justice Warriors and hard Left campus activists make, whenever they demand "safe spaces," speech codes, clampdowns on "cultural appropriation," and the banishment of any public speaker who fails to toe their political line? The exact same one they make when they demand punishment for anyone who chalks "Trump 2016" on a campus sidewalk. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 The junk mail issue seems to have solved itself on Outlook, Hotmail. Michael wrote: That's just one theory that falls outside of your dichotomy of hatred. And I believe it is the most plausible. end quote I think Robert is eminently rational. I won’t claim to channel the future, or the philosopher Rand, but use your reason and dampen the emotionalism. Cruz has credentials. Trump has positions. Cruz has a philosophy. Trump is the political outsider who has reversible philosophies and positions. Judge the candidates like a scientist. Love and hate is not the dichotomy. It is a mult-chotomy to make up a word, between truth and dare, reality and shtick, and honesty and spin. Who seems/sounds truthful but do we dare trust them? Who diverts the truth the most - by calling others liars? Just who is more willing to say the most things to get elected? Who will claim victory before they have the necessary votes? The scales of justice are an abstraction but even a child understands the concept. Don’t forget ALL the objectionable things candidates say before, during and after the election. A philosophical weighing system is available: the rational mind. Trump is the last – best Republican, future Presidential choice, of the three still in the running. He is not inevitable. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: If, during the primaries, they slam him too hard and produce hard evidence during the campaign, or if they keep slamming the mistress story too hard if there is no evidence, Cruz will be such damaged goods by then, he will be useless. And politically, if the damage is kept to a level where it can be reversed later, Cruz will be a powerful ally. In your mind right now, I doubt you even think this is possible. But once Cruz loses the nomination and Trump is elected, Trump will visit him and they will talk. And if that is fruitless, all Cruz will need is a visit from Sarah Palin to ask him specifically to bury the hatchet and that sucker will get buried in a place no one will be able to find anymore. Michael, Ahh, DDDDT is purposely reeling back on the mistress stories. Don't want to damage Lyin' Ted too much... I doubt DDDDT is that finely calibrated an operation. Do you think it is? Donald Trump keeps talking as though he is not a politician, all of his opponents are, therefore he would never beg to be the humble servant of any of them, but all will come crawling to him, and some of those who crawl might, after further drubbing, be accepted. He makes no secret of any of this. And when Paul Manafort says, "Hey, RNC! My guy isn't really unbelievably vain and tremendously vindictive. He just plays an egomaniac on TV," his boss promptly contradicts him in front of crowds in Pennsylvania. I know that plenty of Republicans will vote for Trump, no matter how they dislike him, if he is the nominee. Those are partisan alignments nowadays (not much different from Democrats getting out their clothespins and voting for Hillary). That's why i don't see a Goldwater or Mondale-level loss as a possibility. What you are not seeing is how relentless and outré Trump is in his attacks on other Republicans, how he gives every impression, every time he does it, of meaning it personally, and how unusual tactics will have unusual effects. In Republican delegates dropping him as soon as they are no longer bound, Republican officials not working with or for him, and in Republican voters staying home, voting down-ticket and leaving the President-VP lines blank, or voting third-party. I won't say all Trump supporters are doing it, because I doubt you speak for most of them. But with all your talk about how anyone who disagrees with you on these subjects can't see you, you do seem to be putting a lot of effort into not seeing them. Robert Edited April 24, 2016 by Robert Campbell Typo in last sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 52 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Where, in all of these exchanges, have I said, or implied, that you were stupid? That's not what any of this has been about. Here's what it does seem to be about: You didn't have to pay attention in 2008. Because what happened then is what Donald Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2010. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2012. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. You didn't have to pay attention in 2014. Because what happened then is what Trump is now telling you happened. Robert, If that isn't a description of stupid, I don't know what is. I think with my own mind, not with Trump's. What's more, I have a site where a lot of it is on record. Back then and now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 39 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I won't say all Trump supporters are doing it, because I doubt you speak for most of them. But will all your talk about how anyone who disagrees with you on these subjects can't see you, you do seem to be putting a lot of effort into not seeing them. Robert, That is not exactly the case. I admit I have been complicit it keeping my mouth shut in certain issues because, either I didn't know the details that were spewed out constantly when I did voice certain opinions, or it was too much of a hassle to bicker. I like to discuss things I know about and when bickering starts, I like to be able to have a few certainties. But like you said, I don't have to be an expert in details to know Romney and McCain lost their elections. And I extend that further. I don't have to be an expert to see that 11 million plus illegal aliens in our country is indicative of a huge governance problem. Or that a wall is an effective form of keeping unwanted people from crossing the boundary. Or that people blowing up and shooting civilians are terrorists. Or that YouTube videos don't inspire fanatics to kill Ambassadors. Or that Common Core is an attempt at standardizing indoctrination. Or that companies are closing all over America. Or that about half the people don't even pay taxes. Or that there is a huge surveillance state that people laughed at until Snowden blew the lid off it. Or... or... or... on and on. If fact, I will even admit if Trump, who I see as a solution, were not running, I probably would have occasional comments and stay in the same kind of complicitness I was before. When I look at my own attitude, I see a clear example that just because an environment has been engineered so that people are kept silent, that does not mean they agree with the engineers or their bosses. Silence does not obliterate one from existence. And this is what is behind Trump's support. That is why his supporters are called the old term from Nixon days, the Silent Majority. Many remained silent up to now because they were leading their own lives (hell, many didn't even vote when the choice was between Obama and McCain or Romney), and others were silent because they were bullied into silence. Well, right now I can do something about it. It's in my own little way, but I can contribute to something political and social that I actually believe in. Not something crammed down my throat and suffocates me. So I'm doing it. And several people have been looking at my arguments over time and concluded that Trump is a good choice this election cycle. That's good enough for me. I am making a small difference, but I am making one. As to seeing you, I see you. I don't talk about it much because the contest is underway and the stakes are too high, but I see you're hurting whether you admit it or not. (You and others.) It makes me feel bad to see you guys hurting that much. And I'm not taunting. I really do detect hurt and bewilderment. I try to lighten it up with banter, try to explain my perspective, but I still see the hurt. I don't know what to do about it or even if anything I could do would be welcome. But I refuse to give up this contest, not when I see a real solution to the social and political cancer that is killing the USA--and killing my wish to continue living here--on the horizon. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Do you have any similar expertise advice for Cruz to get his vote count up? And number of delegates from votes? Those numbers are kinda low... For instance, if Cruz had concentrated on a wider target than evangelicals and had not presumed he would have had the former Romney votes in the tank, more people would have voted for him and, as you say, "he could be turning his victory lap as we speak." Michael, You may have noticed that I do not think Ted Cruz is destined to win. Or even entitled to win. Never did think so. I figured that if he was going to be the nominee, it would be a hard slog, probably not over by late April. So, yup, he might actually lose. Whereas Trump, we know, will never actually lose, just get robbed. Cruz never did target just Babtists and Evangelicals. That's what Mike Huckabee did (there's a guy who really hates Cruz now). Nor did he target former Romney voters (I assume you mean people who voted for Romney in primaries; a lot of his support in the general was anti-Obama, not pro-Mittens). Check the demographics on Romney's wins (especially in the early contests, before he sewed it up and some were just bowing to the inevitable) and tell me how that was going to work. (I know, this is history for the Establishment, you didn't live it that way, so it's invalid; still, you can be pretty sure Cruz thinks it's valid, and has paid attention to it.) There's a little more to the strategy, whether Cruz chose well or poorly, than: Romney was a looooooser, so looooooser Ted went for his looooooser voters. One of Romney's constituencies was the RINOs, and those who are left are nearly all voting for John Kasich now. I'm pretty sure Ted Cruz would tell you (in private) that whatever he's gotten wrong by way of strategy, his biggest mistake was not allowing for anywhere near the full impact of Trump's entry into the race. He has to be thinking that if Trump hadn't run, many (by no means all) who are now supporting Trump would have voted for him instead. Trump's candidacy was a Black Swan, and this Black Swan blew a hole in Cruz's game plan. (It's fairly remarkable that Ted is still in the race in late April. Remember, Jeb! and Marco and several others were all supposed to have pushed him out, long before now; then, when all of those predictions got blown up because Trump pushed them out instead, Trump was supposed to push Ted out next.) What we haven't heard out of Ted (and I very much doubt we will) is any BS about how Donald stole "his" voters. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Robert wrote: What you are not seeing is how relentless and outré Trump is in his attacks on other Republicans, how he gives every impression, every time he does it, of meaning it personally . . . . end quote You nailed it. He is very emotional when he says, “Lyin’ Ted Cruz! He lies! He is a liaaarrr! He has no pathway to victory!!!” I just transcribed that tirade, I think verbatim, at 3:02 pm Saturday from Fox. He meant it viscerally when he scoffed at John McCain’s record as a prisoner of war. He meant it when he said transsexual men should be allowed in public bathrooms with little girls. Etc., etc., etc. Trump is intense. He is emotional. He is anti-intellectual. He is prejudiced. Larry Sabato, The Fox political analyst and Director for the Center for Political Studies at The University of Virginia just said “TRUMP WILL COLLAPSE IF HE DOES NOT WIN ON THE FIRST BALLOT at the convention.” (emphasis mine and his.) Peter Notes. Tracinski wrote in March: One of the lessons to be learned is about the perils of conservative populism. Over the past fifty years, the political right has invested heavily in a kind of anti-elitist populism. We see ourselves as representing the "silent majority" and the salt-of-the-earth regular folks out in the heartland, as opposed to those corrupt coastal elites in New York, Hollywood, and DC . . . But now a lot of us are experiencing the whiplash of discovering that this sort of populism can be used against us--coupled with disappointment that the salt-of-the-earth heartland types, whom we counted on to be our allies, can sometimes be talked into voting on the basis of their fears and resentment instead of heeding the better angels of their nature . . . What we need is not just intellectuals on the right but rather a dose of intellectualism, a greater regard for ideas and thoughtfulness and rational argumentation, as a corrective to the anti-intellectuality and irrational boosterism so evident in the Trump movement . . . Trump's rise is about anger and lashing out, about "burning down the establishment," without much regard for the consistency or logic of Trump's actual positions. That's what's makes it so unnerving. It's not just that Trump might do something crazy or irresponsible once he gets into office, though that's certainly likely. It's the fact that his supporters seem to be closed off to reason and arguments and are willing to support him no matter what he says or does . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: You may have noticed that I do not think Ted Cruz is destined to win. Or even entitled to win. Never did think so. Heh, No, you say (and constantly imply) Ted Cruz is the true constitutional conservative. At least he doesn't like transgendered men in public women's bathrooms in North Carolina. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 Peter, Unusual tactics have unusual effects. A candidate who doesn't win on the first ballot may end up losing on a later ballot. But a candidate with the most delegates who doesn't win on the first ballot wouldn't normally see his support collapse. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 23 minutes ago, Peter said: Larry Sabato, The Fox political analyst and Director for the Center for Political Studies at The University of Virginia just said “TRUMP WILL COLLAPSE IF HE DOES NOT WIN ON THE FIRST BALLOT at the convention.” (emphasis mine and his.) Peter Is there a reason that you constantly quote this guy Sabato? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Peter said: Trump's rise is about anger and lashing out, about "burning down the establishment," without much regard for the consistency or logic of Trump's actual positions. That's what's makes it so unnerving. Peter, And I submit you only see that if you don't see the millions of good people who support Trump. They're not angry people. Go to any rally and see if there are riots. There are not. These are good orderly people who are enthusiastic. Let's do it by analogy. Suppose there is a building maintenance company called Oceans of Greed and Power Inc. for an apartment building. And let's suppose over time, the building developed problems, small ones that started turning into larger ones--like leaks in the infrastructure. Maybe cleanup around the trash area. Paint peeling. Things like that. And the apartment owners complained to the Oceans of Greed and Power people and they said they didn't have enough money to fix these problems. So after a lot of bickering, the apartment owners voted to give Oceans of Greed and Power more money. They did a cosmetic thing or other, but the problems kept getting worse. For a few weeks, the trash area got nice and clean, but then it got so bad, rats and cockroaches were appearing. Oceans of Greed and Power put stopgaps on the infrastructure leaks, but after awhile, they all washed away. Now leaks were appearing in many apartments. Some idiot hired by Oceans of Greed and Power painted over the peeling paint so the new coat started peeling and even mildew was appearing. What's worse, now there was that crackling and burning smell throughout the electrical wiring of the building. I could extend this pattern between the apartment owners voting to give Oceans of Greed and Power more money, that company doing cosmetic things, and more problems appearing over time, but you get the idea. Now imagine this going on for a few decades. Then a loudmouth shows up and says Oceans of Greed and Power Inc. is nothing but a bunch of morons. He has one hell of a resume for getting things done, even in complicated political environments with gatekeepers and where people don't agree much with each other. But man, does he have a mouth. And he doesn't shut up for nothing. Stilll... the apartment owners want the problems solved, so they vote to get rid of Oceans of Greed and Power and hire the loudmouth. Then some people who, for whatever reason, like Oceans of Greed and Power, pop up and say the apartment owners are motivated by rage and lashing out. All that anger. All that fury. But the apartment owners want the problems fixed. Any anger is secondary. They want the problems fixed. The loudmouth fixes problems and that's why they hire him. Not because they hate Oceans of Greed and Power and want to lash out and destroy the old order or what have you, although Oceans of Greed and Power has lost credibility in their eyes. They just want the problems fixed. That is their motivation. And that is what keeps them from being swayed by arguments when someone pops up arguing in favor of Oceans of Greed and Power and bashing the loudmouth. They know the loudmouth is loud and says things that don't sound right at times, but he has a hell of a resume of fixing problems. The fact that Oceans of Greed and Power hates the loudmouth is a plus. The apartment owners are tired of paying more and more and more to Oceans of Greed and Power and not getting their problems fixed. On top of that, the loudmouth is pointing to their problems and listing them off one by one. Really loudly, too. The apartment owners like this. Finally there is a bit of hope at getting the problems fixed. Just because the apartment owners were complacent for a long time with Oceans of Greed and Power, that doesn't mean they don't know how to read a resume. Or that they have suddenly becoming homicidal maniacs hellbent on death and destruction... They just want the problems fixed. Oceans of Greed and Power Inc. does not fix problems. They know the loudmouth does. It's no more complicated than that. To make sure there is no misunderstanding, the apartment owners are the Silent Majority. The building is America. Oceans of Greed and Power Inc. is the establishment (both Democrat and Republican). The loudmouth is the magnificent Donald Trump. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: a candidate with the most delegates who doesn't win on the first ballot wouldn't normally see his support collapse. Ignorant as I am of the historical record on this matter - as well as unsure of what constitutes "normality" in the aftermath of inconclusive first ballots - I'd like to know your basis for saying this, Robert. Not knowing what you may know, I would simply assume that whether the leading candidate's support collapses depends on a number of factors, including who has the "momentum" going into the convention, how much an inconclusive first ballot undermines the "inevitability" of the leading candidates, etc. So please share what you know about this, OK? Thanks in advance. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 56 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Ignorant as I am of the historical record on this matter - as well as unsure of what constitutes "normality" in the aftermath of inconclusive first ballots - I'd like to know your basis for saying this, Robert. Roger, The last time a Republican didn't win on the first ballot was 1952 (Jerry Ford won narrowly on the first ballot in 1976, after some disputers over delegations). There have been 10 such Republican conventions since 1856 (you might not be surprised to learn that 4 of them were in a row, 1876-1888). http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/ I take a collapse to mean that the leader on the first ballot loses a large number of delegates before the second ballot. Doesn't look like a frequent occurrence, but it could happen to Donald Trump for reasons already discussed. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On April 21, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: You keep talking about Erdogan and Trump as if they had something in common. They have nothing in common. Trump has no history of using force against anyone for things they said against him. None. He just says things back and he does it well. Michael, Here's an important difference: Recep Tayyip Erdogan has held political office for many years, high political office for over 10 of them. Donald Trump couldn't use force against the Italian Mafia when it still had some power. Had he done so, his remains would have been fished out of the East River and we wouldn't be arguing about his candidacy today. And after the Italian Mob was reduced to a pitiful remnant... it didn't matter. What Trump has done, repeatedly, during his campaign is threaten to sue media outlets that have run "hit pieces" on him. His lawyer actually sent a threatening letter to Ted Cruz about a campaign commercial that merely strung together real video clips of Trump making contradictory statements on a few issues. This happened during the campaign in South Carolina so I am quite familiar with the both the letter and Cruz's response to it. Trump may not know this, but any competent lawyer in his employ knows that Donald Trump is a public figure and he has no chance whatsoever of winning a libel suit under these conditions. I'm sure at least some of the lawyers Trump has paid have actually broken this news to him. He nonetheless keeps making the threats. He has also conducted intimidation campaigns against selected media outlets that don't give him what he wants. We've talked before about his fights with Fox News, most often over the supposedly incredibly unfair Megyn Kelly. You've repeatedly defended his tactics. Trump acts as though he is entitled to constant favorable coverage from the media, just as he acts as though he is entitled to win every political contest. If he actually has political power to wield, how will he use it? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Donald Trump couldn't use force against the Italian Mafia when it still had some power. Robert, Good God, can't you read anything I write with the correct meaning? I didn't mean Trump would use force against the Mafia. I meant Trump had the Mafia (and people of that kind of... er... vocation ) available to him to use against his opponents and critics. All he needed was to say the word and bad things would have been done to any opponent or critic. With pleasure by the bad-thing-doers. And lots of CYA with fall guys and everything. Yet Trump didn't go that route. Am I really writing that horribly? Dayaamm! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Lawyers specialize in writing intimidating letters within the bounds of legality. Ayn Rand had her lawyers do that. --Brant 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