Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On April 23, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The ISIS monsters chop people's heads off and that's going to stop. But free speech will not. Not in America. Not the speech of Trump critics and not the free speech of Trump. Free speech means free for all. Donald Trump is an American in a manner you refuse to acknowledge. Ditto for Trump supporters. It's a matter of holding to and living by high moral principles. Michael, First, what does Donald Trump believe? I honestly don't know. He's not exactly been out there championing free speech, for anyone other than himself. Next, the rhetoric you have used is very similar to what we presently hear from the campus hard Left, which is always complaining about having been "silenced." One appearance by a public speaker they dislike, even a single chalking of "Trump 2016' on a sidewalk, massively amplifies the "silencing" already complained of. In reality, on virtually any university campus, representatives of the hard Left are handed the microphone and administrators treat their least verbal eruption with the utmost solicitude. In no meaningful way are any of those who complain about it actually being silenced. What the campus hard Left seems to be after, more than anything else, is the power to silence its opponents, though speech codes or other means. How are you different, when you claim to represent a silent majority, yet have no time for questions about whether the part of the population you say you represent has either been pushed into silence, or is, in fact, a majority? How is Donald Trump different? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: Lawyers specialize in writing intimidating letters within the bounds of legality. Ayn Rand had her lawyers do that. --Brant Brant, She did, and it's one of her least admirable features. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 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 Michael, I didn't read what you wrote that way because for public consumption Donald Trump rather piously denies having had any dealings with the Italian Mob. While I've never believed that for a minute, I've also thought that having to buy Mob cement for your jobs, or having to hire workers from Mob-sponsored unions, is one thing, and acquiring the kinds of connections that would get a Mob boss to do certain favors for you is another. If you're saying that Donald Trump actually had those connections, you're making him out to be much worse than I'm inclined to think he is. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Next, the rhetoric you have used is very similar to what we presently hear from the campus hard Left, which is always complaining about having been "silenced." One appearance by a public speaker they dislike, even a single chalking of "Trump 2016' on a sidewalk, massively amplifies the "silencing" already complained of. Robert, Baloney. I run a website where people who disagree with me can post freely. Lefties try to silence them. You will not find any safe zones on OL. Since you don't acknowledge that the Silent Majority even exists, no wonder you don't know how or why they have kept silent and been encouraged to do so. In their world, politics is a very remote value. I'm serious about that. Politics is not all that important to them. Your posts don't sound like you believe that exists. But politics only gets important for them in ad hoc events like the Tea Party (before the establishment infiltrated and neutered it) or the Trump election. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: While I've never believed that for a minute, I've also thought that having to buy Mob cement for your jobs is one thing, and acquiring the kinds of connections that would get a Mob boss to do certain favors for you is another. If you're saying that Donald Trump actually had those connections, you're making him out to be much worse than I'm inclined to think he is. Robert, Heh. If that's the way you think getting muscle works, you don't have a clue about that world. Not a clue. And, oddly enough, that pleases me to no end (in a good way--I love your innocence--I'm serious). Let's put it this way. Given my past, I'm probably much worse than you are inclined to think I am. At least I got out after I got tired of all those damn scars from being sewn back together and the physical therapy--which is a royal pain in the ass... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On April 20, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: OL, in my conception, is to remain a pure place for intellectual discourse. As to your question, there are several people right here on this thread who have stated publicly that they have been convinced by my arguments (not persuasion techniques) to support Trump when they were hostile to him before. Here's one person who came out and said I could use his name for this precise purpose should I wish: Jon Letendre. Michael, I've seen some of Jon's posts since I returned to activity here. I'll take your word for it regarding the others. Fair enough. I have not been posting on this thread (or on Cruz Nuz, or occasionally some other where the present election comes up) with the aim of persuading anyone to drop his or her support for Donald Trump. It's not my forte, to begin with. And those who participate here and support Trump, whenever they made their decision to do so, are by and large quickly and sharply dismissive of any criticisms of their guy. (The one Trump supporter I would not put in that category is Korben, because he has been willing to discuss issues at some length, and to indicate where he has his own doubts about Trump's stated positions). I am interested in the arguments you and others make on Trump's behalf. There I see a lot of skating over what Trump actually says, a lot of facile assumptions about where anyone not aboard the Trump Train must be coming from, and multiple styles and chains of argument that I doubt the same folks would be employing on behalf of anything besides the Trump for President campaign. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Heh. If that's the way you think getting muscle works, you don't have a clue about that world. Not a clue. And, oddly enough, that pleases me to no end (in a good way--I love your innocence--I'm serious). Let's put it this way. Given my past, I'm probably much worse than you are inclined to think I am. At least I got out after I got tired of all those damn scars from being sewn back together and the physical therapy--which is a royal pain in the ass... Michael Michael, I've heard some of your stories. This is not at all about what you know, or what you've done. It's about what Donald Trump knows, and what he has done. What do you actually think Trump knows, and has done, that he is presently covering with blanket denials? By the way, I gather that SEIU would be of some use to a politician who wants off-the-books muscle. AFSCME? The NEA? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: What do you actually think Trump knows, and has done, that he is presently covering with blanket denials? Robert, Not much of anything. It's like when I came out and said I had been a crack addict. Who can blackmail me about that? Trump put his dirty laundry right out there in the public. For example, nobody can blackmail him for giving excessive donations to politicians because he said it himself, loud and clear. And he was upfront about the payoff, too. He even said, "You better believe it." Knowing Trump, he did not cross over into an actual crime like formal bribery, but he went right up to the edge. That's how I see him. There's an awful lot in court records, too, since he has been sued and has sued a lot. The fact that Trump can't be blackmailed is what is killing his opponents inside. They don't know what to do to control him and they die a new death each day at his apparent Teflon coating. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: I've seen some of Jon's posts since I returned to activity here. I'll take your word for it regarding the others. Fair enough. Robert, Most of these people communicate with me privately. I bet all of them are reading this thread. (Hi, folks. ) btw - There are not hoards of these people. Some... The fact is they don't post much on this thread or anywhere else about Trump, if at all. And believe me, they exist. But I won't betray their privacy. I figure if any of them want their views made public in our subcommunity, they will post. Take a look at how the anti-Trump people get bent out of shape all the time and you will see why they prefer not to discuss it in public. They just don't want the hassle. And some of them get pissed at the constant condescension--I know, they've told me. So they keep to themselves in public about Trump and I'm fine with it. As I've said, silencing people is not the same thing as getting them to agree. And I've also said, most Trump supporters are not angry people. These few, in particular, don't like the feeling of getting pissed from being goaded. (I, on the other hand... ) They may stay silent, but I bet you all of them vote... And they all have friends and families... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Most of these people communicate with me privately. I bet all of them are reading this thread. (Hi, folks. ) btw - There are not hoards of these people. Some... The fact is they don't post much on this thread or anywhere else about Trump, if at all. And believe me, they exist. But I won't betray their privacy. I figure if any of them want their views made public in our subcommunity, they will post. Take a look at how the anti-Trump people get bent out of shape all the time and you will see why they prefer not to discuss it in public. They just don't want the hassle. And some of them get pissed at the constant condescension--I know, they've told me. So they keep to themselves in public about Trump and I'm fine with it. As I've said, silencing people is not the same thing as getting them to agree. And I've also said, most Trump supporters are not angry people. These few, in particular, don't like the feeling of getting pissed from being goaded. (I, on the other hand... ) They may stay silent, but I bet you all of them vote... And they all have friends and families... Michael Michael, I have a lot of things going on and don't get back here every day but I'll be happy to post part of an email I sent to you a couple of weeks ago: "Michael, Unless I find something new and damning put me on the Trump bandwagon. I don't think Trump is dangerous, he is not a potential Putin as I suggested months ago. I don't expect any bad surprises about him, I think he is the genuine article. Cruz strikes me as a manipulative liar. Even if Trump is an asshole (I don't think he is) I would pick a transparent asshole with executive skill by far over a manipulative liar. I've listened to several hours of Trumps speeches and interviews and frankly I like him now... ...Thought you'd like to know you've won me over. I sincerely hope something good happens." I'll add that one of the things helping my decision is the success and evident character of Trump's children. They were obviously positively influenced by and have a good relationship with their father. I've known a few successful people, owner's, executives, CEO's of high tech electronics businesses, some have not very good relations with their families or their children, the best of them have very good relations with their families and have successful hard working children. I've observed motivated hard working happy and successful children are a strong indicator of character in the parents. Perhaps the election of Donald Trump will give some of the other republicans elected to congress in the last few years the motivation to at least give the appearance of actually having a spine. Best Regards, Mike Erickson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Thank you, Mike. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Well put Mikee! FYI - Today's NY Times... Ted Cruz and John Kasich to Coordinate Against Donald Trump Quote . John Kasich appearing in Schenectady, N.Y. Credit Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times What changed between the talks last month and now, according to Mr. Cruz’s advisers, is that there are few states left on the calendar and Mr. Cruz must stop Mr. Trump in Indiana. Continue reading the main story Mr. Trump’s landslide victory in New York last week and an expected win Tuesday in a handful of Eastern states has demoralized those Republicans hoping to halt his candidacy. They fear that if he wins Indiana after his run of recent success, the appetite and financing to block him in the remaining states will dissipate. Indiana is also one of the few remaining states before California votes on June 7 where there is much indecision. The intervening states either clearly favor Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz, or they will scatter their delegates through some proportional approach. Public polling in Indiana shows Mr. Cruz trailing Mr. Trump, in part because Mr. Kasich is threatening to win a significant number of votes, particularly in the Indianapolis area, which is filled with more affluent Republicans. Indiana awards delegates based on congressional district results and the overall winner; five of the state’s nine districts include or immediately border the county that is home to Indianapolis. A Fox News survey released last week showed Mr. Trump taking 41 percent of the vote while Mr. Cruz received 33 percent and Mr. Kasich 16 percent. But without Mr. Kasich in the race, Mr. Trump’s lead narrowed to two points. Graphic: Why Trump Is Calling the G.O.P. Delegate System Rigged The timing was crucial, too. Mr. Cruz now will have more than a week of campaigning in Indiana unimpeded by Mr. Kasich. And with Oregon starting its early voting this week, the two camps had to come to an agreement. At this late stage, it is unclear how effective the effort might be at swaying voters, especially if the campaigns do not give more explicit instructions. Unlike a similar gambit last month, when Senator Marco Rubio urged supporters in Ohio to vote for Mr. Kasich to slow Mr. Trump, there was no such request in the two statements on Sunday. Mr. Weaver said the campaign was “very comfortable with our delegate position in Indiana already,” a reference to success in lining up individual delegates from the state to the national convention. (These delegate will be bound to the results of next month’s primary on the first convention ballot but will be free agents should there be subsequent ballots.) As for why Mr. Cruz’s campaign showed a willingness to deal now, Mr. Kasich’s advisers noted that he was in a stronger position when it rejected the overture that took place over a month ago. As of late Sunday night, a website listing scheduled events for the Kasich campaign no longer included two rallies in Indiana that had been planned for Tuesday. The abrupt change placed some campaign allies in an awkward spot. Trusted Leadership PAC, a “super PAC” supporting Mr. Cruz, announced on Friday that it planned to spend $1.6 million in Indiana, unveiling an attack ad against Mr. Kasich. “He just said Republicans have no ideas,” the group says of Mr. Kasich. “He’s right insofar as we have no idea why he is still running.” First Draft Newsletter Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday. Mr. Roe said the campaign planned to “compete vigorously to win” in any other states not mentioned in the statement. But Mr. Cruz’s advisers said he was willing to punt on Oregon and New Mexico, which together account for 52 delegates, because the campaign needed to offer states with approximately the same number of delegates as Indiana’s 57. And Oregon and New Mexico are proportional states, so they are not likely to hand either candidate a significant trove of delegates. An internal Cruz campaign memo last month was bullish on New Mexico, where the campaign said it expected to earn a majority of delegates. For Mr. Kasich, who still trails Mr. Rubio in delegates, the agreement allows them a better chance at winning a handful more delegates going into the convention in proportional states where Mr. Cruz will now not be much of a factor. Ceding these delegates to Mr. Kasich is of little concern to Mr. Cruz now because the senator can no longer clinch the nomination before Cleveland. He is focused entirely on stopping Mr. Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates by the end of voting in June, so whether he or Mr. Kasich were the ones sharing the delegates with the front-runner in New Mexico and Oregon mattered little. For Mr. Trump, who has argued repeatedly in recent days that Republican leaders are conspiring to stop him as part of a “rigged” nominating system, the new alliance against him could provide further evidence for his argument to his grass-roots supporters. “Wow,” he wrote on Twitter late Sunday night, “just announced that Lyin’ Ted and Kasich are going to collude in order to keep me from getting the Republican nomination. DESPERATION!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Adam, Had I read only the headline on the Times piece (not the content), I'd be left wondering what Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort for. Is he wasting his money? Is Manafort's job simply to repeat his boss's talking points, except when assuring the RNC that Trump only plays an egomaniac on TV? Is he under strict orders not to get any Cruz or Kasich delegates to switch to Trump? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, Not much of anything. It's like when I came out and said I had been a crack addict. Who can blackmail me about that? Trump put his dirty laundry right out there in the public. For example, nobody can blackmail him for giving excessive donations to politicians because he said it himself, loud and clear. And he was upfront about the payoff, too. He even said, "You better believe it." Knowing Trump, he did not cross over into an actual crime like formal bribery, but he went right up to the edge. That's how I see him. There's an awful lot in court records, too, since he has been sued and has sued a lot. The fact that Trump can't be blackmailed is what is killing his opponents inside. They don't know what to do to control him and they die a new death each day at his apparent Teflon coating. Michael Michael, I know Donald Trump has given a lot of money to politicians (including Hillary Clinton). The question is what his Mob ties amounted to. He actually issued a denial of ever doing business with the Mob. I'm sure everyone has taken this to be pro forma. What, he was building in Manhattan without buying their cement? Without hiring from the union locals that they sponsored? You've hinted at a bunch more, without actually saying. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Mikee said: Michael, I have a lot of things going on and don't get back here every day but I'll be happy to post part of an email I sent to you a couple of weeks ago: "Michael, Unless I find something new and damning put me on the Trump bandwagon. I don't think Trump is dangerous, he is not a potential Putin as I suggested months ago. I don't expect any bad surprises about him, I think he is the genuine article. Cruz strikes me as a manipulative liar. Even if Trump is an asshole (I don't think he is) I would pick a transparent asshole with executive skill by far over a manipulative liar. I've listened to several hours of Trumps speeches and interviews and frankly I like him now... ...Thought you'd like to know you've won me over. I sincerely hope something good happens." I'll add that one of the things helping my decision is the success and evident character of Trump's children. They were obviously positively influenced by and have a good relationship with their father. I've known a few successful people, owner's, executives, CEO's of high tech electronics businesses, some have not very good relations with their families or their children, the best of them have very good relations with their families and have successful hard working children. I've observed motivated hard working happy and successful children are a strong indicator of character in the parents. Perhaps the election of Donald Trump will give some of the other republicans elected to congress in the last few years the motivation to at least give the appearance of actually having a spine. Best Regards, Mike Erickson Mikee: The argument about Trump's children is intriguing. They do seem like well-adjusted and good people. Under some circumstances, this could be a tie-breaker piece of information, in my opinion. Not sure if the Presidency is the right context for such tie breakers, but the point is certainly a plus in the Trump column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Take a look at how the anti-Trump people get bent out of shape all the time and you will see why they prefer not to discuss it in public. They just don't want the hassle. And some of them get pissed at the constant condescension--I know, they've told me. Michael, Reread a few of your own posts. Then tell me that Trump supporters don't get bent out of shape. Or that they don't condescend. Or even that their own candidate doesn't encourage both reactions. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Robert wrote: Is Manafort's job simply to repeat his boss's talking points, except when assuring the RNC that Trump only plays an egomaniac on TV? Is he under strict orders not to get any Cruz or Kasich delegates to switch to Trump? end quote KC = Kasich, Cruz. It’s a really big shew – Ed Sullivan. KC and the sunshine band may have a plan but will it really amount to keeping Trump from winning on the first round of the convention? Of course, any collusion on KC’s part could play into Der Trumpster’s hands. Will this be viewed as another INSIDER ploy? Reporters were mobbing Kasich as he tried to eat breakfast. Check. Now it's Trump's turn. Peter R. Dean Taylor – Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there I wish I had you to talk to If a man ever needed dying, he did No one had a right to say, what he said about you And it's so cold and lonely here without you Out there, the law is coming, I've been so tired of running Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 KC and the Sunshine Band... It looks to like all kinds of games are getting played on all sides in the delegate scramble. Here's one the Trump partisans didn't post here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/michigan-republican-delegates-ted-cruz-donald-trump-john-kasich/ Looks to me like Paul Manafort is earning a little of his pay at least. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 20 hours ago, Robert Campbell said: I won't say all Drumpf 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 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. Michael, Your parable will inspire only those who have already lined up behind the loudmouth, and consider all who are not the loudmouth to be full members of OGAP. As for the rest of us... Donald Trump has the highest negatives of anyone running for President over the past couple of generations (before that, polls didn't track negatives as they do now). Only one candidate for President during this time (fortunately, not one who went anywhere) scored higher on the negatives. His name was David Duke. Now maybe this is because Trump is the herald of radical transformation, and he comes not to bring peace but a sword. Or maybe it is because he's just as phony, impulsive, manipulative, and vindictive as he appears to be. He's extremely unlikely to be both. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 46 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Michael, Your parable will inspire only those who have already lined up behind the loudmouth, and consider all who are not the loudmouth to be full members of OGAP. As for the rest of us... Donald Trump has the highest negatives of anyone running for President over the past couple of generations (before that, polls didn't track negatives as they do now). Only one candidate for President during this time (fortunately, not one who went anywhere) scored higher on the negatives. His name was David Duke. Now maybe this is because Trump is the herald of radical transformation, and he comes not to bring peace but a sword. Or maybe it is because he's just as phony, impulsive, manipulative, and vindictive as he appears to be. He's extremely unlikely to be both. Robert The Donald is, as they say in Russian невоспитанный ( Russian for uncultured, loutish, boorish, ill-mannered) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Reread a few of your own posts. Robert, I was not talking about my posts. I was talking about the reason other Trump supporters don't post in public, but prefer to communicate (when they do) in private. They just don't feel like discussing "Drumpf" with a condescending person who tells them they don't think. (Like I said, I, on the other hand... ) Don't forget, these are not political people and they have lives to lead. They don't give a crap about who wins what argument or who one-ups who. They've seen enough and they're voting for Trump. And that's the end of it. If you think the condescension they find icky is annulled by an argument and saying, "Well, you do it," let's see how that works out at voting time. They have a long-standing gripe about the elites looking down their nose at them that goes back decades. It's not a current argument to win or lose. It's a reality one either accepts and works with or ignores. So far, the anti-Trump people are hellbent on ignoring it as they keep pouring the condescension on. I think it's too late to reverse what's going to happen, anyway. Trump is going to be the candidate, then president. Only Trump would be able to undo that. No argument will, as anti-Trump people keep complaining about. Rush Limbaugh had a good point early in the campaign when he kept saying the media did not create Trump, so the media can't destroy him. I say ditto for the American elite ruling class and the intellectuals and pundits who use that culture as their reference. They didn't create Trump with all his money, so they can't destroy him. They have nothing to offer him he doesn't already have or can easily get. They have confused Trump being among them with Trump being one of them. The only way I see Trump losing his growing support is to sell out. And I just don't see that happening. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: As for the rest of us... Donald Trump has the highest negatives of anyone running for President over the past couple of generations (before that, polls didn't track negatives as they do now). Robert, You mean the dwindling rest of you. If time travel were possible and one could freeze current poll numbers for a few months down the road, Trump would not even be a candidate. So I'm not too worried about his negatives right now. He's not even supposed to be in the running anymore. But, to the chagrin of those who like selective time travel, he is in the running. And he is winning the stage he needs to win right now to get to the next one. I, for one, am fine with it. btw - It's too late to anchor Trump to David Duke image-wise. That has already been tried and flopped. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Well, well... Lookee here (from Nick Gass on Politico): Cruz on Kasich deal: 'This is entirely about the will of the people' As if winning elections is not "about the will of the people." Gotta love Ann, though: If new Cruz/Kasich axis fails to stop Trump, isn't next chess move Jeb!/Jindal? Or maybe McCain/Dole! Carly/Willkie. Romney/Stassen…— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 25, 2016 I have a feeling this alliance will backfire with the voters. It smells too much like losers banding together. I mean that from a marketing perspective. The covert message to the public at large, both friend and foe, is awful. The only ones who will like this are staunch anti-Trump people and maybe some die-hards on their respective campaigns, not the public at large. And the staunch anti-Trump people are not as numerous as they constantly claim they are. They like to pretend that those who support Cruz or Kasich all hate Trump, but it's just not the case. Let's see what happens, though. I do give them kudos for the Hail Mary pass right the moment the quarterback was being sacked and two ends tripped over their own two feet. It shows spirit... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 It may be the case that Trump is a boorish, bragging, bullshit-artist, but at least he is winning what he is winning "straight up." Trump's victories are "no shenanigans" victories, in other words. The same can't be said about either Cruz or Kasich--at least not after their purported "alliance" to split up the votes and factions in various states. This really rubs me the wrong way. I get that it is technically legal and technically a strategic move within the bounds of respectable party politics. But: if the overriding objection to Trump is a stylistic objection, i.e., that he is obnoxiously the things I say above, then the Cruz/Kasich maneuver above is stylistically obnoxious in its own regard as well. The move notches them down to Trump's level, in other words. There is a real opportunity for Trump in the wake of this alliance. If he plays that opportunity like he plays so many other things (as a whiner, etc.) he will blow this opportunity. But if he plays from a position of true strength, pats them on their heads, talks about an affirmative vision for the country, and sticks to the substantive merits of his ideas, he could put the nomination in his hip pocket pretty soon.* Trump's moves over the next few days on this front will tell us a lot about whether he is a prisoner of his foibles. Or not. *God help us. 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