Donald Trump

[Peter]

Excellent spin, Rush. Fortunately Rush’s “spins” are usually proven correct. So, will we see a rise in Trump’s numbers? That’s the spirit, guys and gals. A rise in the polls will be the proof. El Cheapo "Mad Dog 20/20,” inexpensive but tasty “Old Grand Dad,” or “Knob Creek” 100 proof?

I must say, Hillary looked very pleased with herself after it was over, while Trump seemed like he was wearing somebody else’s slightly, smiling face. No coughing or fainting spells from Old Hickory Clinton but Trump sure did drink a lot of water.

Does anything else matter before the next debates on October 9^th with moderator Anderson Cooper of CNN and also anchored by Martha Raddatz of ABC News? October 19^th’s debate will have Chris Wallace of Fox as the moderator.

I hope Mr. Trump keeps shooting straight without using a teleprompting tablet like Clinton. Can Trump demand no electronic cheating devices? Maybe the Russians will make the auditoriums electronic dark zones so her tablets won’t work, or maybe jam them. The way the tablets kept effortlessly following the debate with suggestions for her, tells me that at least two people were feeding her the responses like a cheater on Jeopardy. No tablets or electronic ear receivers allowed.  

Peter

From Michaels link to Rush Limbaugh: . . . . Trump changes all of this.  Every day of the campaign, Trump changes this.  And you can say whatever you want about Trump missing golden opportunities, whiffing at hanging curveballs, letting Hillary off the hook, the rigged nature of the moderator and so forth.  But one thing came through crystal clear last night:  Donald Trump showed everybody and reminded many that he is not of the system. 

He is not a Washington insider, and he is not responsible for any of the mess or messes that exist today.  On the other hand, Hillary Clinton showed that that is exactly who she is.  Hillary Clinton demonstrated she is the quintessential politician for life, in it for herself.  The question is what it's always been:  Are people tired of the system and want an outsider or do they want to stick with the system?  And we are not gonna know until November.

. . . . What they don't understand is that for all of our lives, I don't care how old you are, for all of our lives we have been getting the Democrat Party recipe for dealing with racial problems and all that's happening is they are getting worse.  Hillary Clinton hasn't been able to do anything about it, Barack Obama has not been able to do anything about it, the Democrat Party has not improved race relations whatsoever, and yet we are all supposed to kowtow and behave the way they do and the way they want us to.  And if we don't, then we're racists and bigots and whatever else. BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  You remember the incident or the episode in the debate last night, Hillary making a point about Trump not paying his taxes, and she was speculating why he didn't? "Maybe he's not as rich as he says. Maybe he hasn't paid his taxes. Maybe he hasn't made all the charitable donations." You know what I was so hoping to hear? Something along the lines of, "You know, Hillary, if you keep making those speeches to the banks -- 250 grand for 20 minutes and $20 million every two years -- you might end up having a tax return that looks like mine.  Keep at it." But alas, we didn't get it.

[BaalChatzaf]

The only "poll" that really counts is the general election....

[Brant Gaede]

Trump out did and out classed Illery on the economy and foreign policy.

She smirked not understanding she was smirking at the voters. She was saying, "Let them (you) eat cake!"

--Brant

Our first Queen? Yuck!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose I am going to have to deal with Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz at sometime, but I just don't have the energy to do the links and everything. So I'll give a nutshell version.

In short, Ted Cruz endorsed Donald Trump shortly before the debate. This apparently was brokered by Mike Pence, who assured Cruz that Mike Lee would be put on the short-list for Supreme Court nominations and Trump would promise to only pick from a list of 21 candidates (all of whom Cruz approves of). That was good enough and Cruz endorsed with both feet, telling people they need to vote for Trump--need to--just like he will. There are some self-serving details (donor influence, renting email list, and so on), but I truly believe Cruz would not have come around without a strong ideological offer like the Supreme Court nominations.

Beck had a cow.

Cruz called in to Beck's radio show and listened to a mountain of shit. After the call, Beck kept going on and on, even saying he should have endorsed Rubio.

Now Cruz feels free to offer his aid to Trump for whatever he needs. And he's doing it. 

Meanwhile, Beck is losing his empire, debt by debt...

It's hard to have a media empire when your audience is deserting you like blood from an open wound. 

There's more, but those are the main highlights, Frankly, I never thought I would say this about Glenn Beck, but there are more important things to talk about.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meanwhile, back on the trail.

I want to say drip... drip... drip... 

But it's more like splash... splash... splash... 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

This video is about two weeks old, but the issues discussed are still prevalent in the race.  Bill Maher conducts a tough interview with Kellyanne Conway, and she does a great job here:

 

[moralist]

For all his flaws, Trump was real... and for all her smirking, Hillary was fake.

 

Greg

[turkeyfoot]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Maybe, maybe not, depending on the topic. (Mostly not.)

But I wasn't presenting his rational judgment.

I was presenting his panic.

Michael

 

<previously delted reply>

Heres a thought. There is something about each candidate each of us dislike.

You may have an overall positive attitude towards Trump. Conversely a negative one towards Clinton.

If your vote is for Trump, you know there is a percentage of a chance that he will  accomplish what he says he wants to do. I consider the nominal chance of a 1/3 weight given to his positions a fair tally. The other 2/3's is dependent on the SC and Congress/Senate.

I know Trumpers dont like the odds of a Clinton victory with its built in possibilities for changing the landscape and what that says about the direction politics takes.

With the exception of executive directives, in reality both candidates depend on the same pluralities that come with passing any legislation.

There are 469 seats up for reelection that can hold sway over whatever direction the president will take. 

Politics is replete with examples of platitudes, broken promises, gridlock and lengthy delay.

I consider the elections a roll of the die with no known outcome coming from either candidate.

Its too easy to make an argument for the demise of the US dependent on the election.

There are threads full of disappointment and pause stemming from previous administrations actions.

I mentioned I would abstain from voting in the nationals. Despite what Im reading upstream, I wonder what you guys are hanging your hat on. Im sure its as obvious as the air breathed. )

If it is as simple as choosing to vote for someone you view as a criminal then I understand. The additional complication is what form Congress will take and how that will translate into reform. What I dont get is the connections made and confidence assumed on the basis of Trump winning and what it is he can actually accomplish. Even if youre sure Armageddon will ensue with Clintons election, Im wondering what assurances you have with Trump?

In the past month hes changed his stance on taxes. A repeal of ACA, Ive read plenty, is almost nil. The wall being built is a bit iffy. The only definite plans are, he says, he will pause regulation and cancel out Obamas directives. Which ones and when is anyones guess.

Signed, Sitting on the fence waiting for a hail mary. )

 

[moralist]

32 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

I mentioned I would abstain from voting in the nationals.

That can only mean you prefer Clinton over Trump as President.

 

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

46 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

<previously delted reply>

Geoff,

I fixed your post.

In it, I was the author given as quoted, but your words were the message.

 

I don't know if you wanted the quote from me to be present or deleted (say, in frustration with formatting), but the link pointed to the one I left in your post.

If you want it gone and can't delete it, please let me know and I will take care of it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

50 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Despite what Im reading upstream, I wonder what you guys are hanging your hat on. Im sure its as obvious as the air breathed. )

If it is as simple as choosing to vote for someone you view as a criminal then I understand.

Geoff,

It's even simpler.

It's voting for the producer (Trump) and not for the criminal (Clinton).

Michael

[moralist]

28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

I fixed your post.

In it, I was the author given as quoted, but your words were the message.

 

I don't know if you wanted the quote from me to be present or deleted (say, in frustration with formatting), but the link pointed to the one I left in your post.

If you want it gone and can't delete it, please let me know and I will take care of it.

Michael

I knew you couldn't have possibly said that, Michael.

 

Greg

[moralist]

35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

It's even simpler.

It's voting for the producer (Trump) and not for the criminal (Clinton).

Michael

Most of the people in America have lost sight of the truth that being productive is a virtue. Capitalism cannot exist without ethics.

 

Clinton has wide appeal because most people in America are not productive, and can only exist in a state of useless parasitism. This explains why they could only have created a useless unproductive bankrupt parasitic bureaucracy in their own image.

Clinton represents the unethical values held by at least half the people living in America who are not Americans.

 

Greg

[Mikee]

How to catch a wild pig

 

Clinton wins: the gate closes.

[Peter]

Turkeyfoot wrote: There are 469 seats up for reelection that can hold sway over whatever direction the president will take. end quote  

And the polls are showing a continuing Republican House and Senate, so a Republican President has a much greater opportunity of making his agenda a reality. He would have a much greater amount of positive, political interaction and suggestions. And because Trump will NOT BE FOR PORK (or turkeyfeet) he will be an action orientated, fiscally conservative President. To be a bit flowery, Trump is a machine that is being constructed from his blueprinted eight points of action on his website, but he will be amenable to reality, and not to an agenda. For instance, I know he will want to rebuild and modernize the military, stop illegal immigration, fix the VA, destroy ISIS, and allow tax breaks for working parents, but he will not raise taxes to do it. So if the revenue is not available he will be judicious in his spending and as he has abundantly demonstrated he will not frivolously use the military . . . anywhere. I expect him to NOT ADD to the deficit. And a fiscally conservative congress can hold him to that goal.

How will he make America great again? He will stop foreign entanglement that cost us exorbitant amounts of money spent overseas. He will not give large amounts of money to our allies, but he will keep are alliances with NATO and the remnants of The Southeast Asian Alliance. He will bring American capital home AND welcome foreign, privately made money as an investment and not solely as U.S. bonds that add to the deficit. He is a bit of a Capitalist buccaneer so I expect his policies will tend towards the laissez-faire but with some arm twisting as previous Presidents did. He will speak loudly and carry a big stick. I think he will insult the French and the Canadians, and at times cause good natured booing from his own, right wing supporters. But they will be smiling.

Peter      

[Jules Troy]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

How to catch a wild pig

 

Clinton wins: the gate closes.

Or....

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

How to catch a wild pig

 

Clinton wins: the gate closes.

Mike,

That parable is fantastic--the comments on it at your link so-so.

I'm posting the parable here because I like it so much:

Quote

A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.   

A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.

The reason I didn't like the comments is because the author, in trying to balance running wild with structure and order, shifted the implications of the parable so much, he left out the gatekeeper. He wants to find a "balance" to rule the hogs, but he doesn't want to think about the person who enslaves the hogs in the first place and keeps them there.

In other words, who will control the gatekeepers if we are all hogs, including them?

 

I fear you are right. If Clinton wins, that gate will slam shut. Getting it back open will be a bitch.

Michael

 

[turkeyfoot]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

 

 

That can only mean you prefer Clinton over Trump as President.

 

Greg

Greg, Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? ;) <tongue in cheek>

I could dissect your preference for Trump. Since you really dont know what youre going to get except to say its not Clinton. In the aftermath of a Trump win maybe we would discuss how disappointed you were, maybe how utterly convinced you became over your choice having an undesired effect. If you wanted to discuss it at all.

When you buy goods to work your productive endeavor is there ever any doubt as to the benefits that will accrue? Where you find concrete I find quick sand. If I need terra firma I simply step outside. I dont expect a rational framework within the context of this political systems workings. Itd be similar to buying into the illusion of luck determining the future prospects of the US.

I gather that youre infuriated over a choice you believe Ive made where youve said twice above now, when you also dont care how I vote.

I havent meant to imply a moral relativist framework, I just have certainty and doubt about the process. I am certainly not voting for a criminal. And I doubt Trump will have an effect that you so anxiously want. Well, I am presuming that you expect a different consequence from Trump than Clinton. 

Ive seen you have a penchant for arriving at "truths" that sum up everything in brief remarks. Life is not that neat unless youre deciding something for yourself. Something like death or taxes. )

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

And because Trump will NOT BE FOR PORK (or turkeyfeet)...

LOL...

Oh, the pain... the pain...

 

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

46 minutes ago, Peter said:

Turkeyfoot wrote: There are 469 seats up for reelection that can hold sway over whatever direction the president will take. end quote  

And the polls are showing a continuing Republican House and Senate, so a Republican President has a much greater opportunity of making his agenda a reality. He would have a much greater amount of positive, political interaction and suggestions. And because Trump will NOT BE FOR PORK (or turkeyfeet) he will be an action orientated, fiscally conservative President. To be a bit flowery, Trump is a machine that is being constructed from his blueprinted eight points of action on his website, but he will be amenable to reality, and not to an agenda. For instance, I know he will want to rebuild and modernize the military, stop illegal immigration, fix the VA, destroy ISIS, and allow tax breaks for working parents, but he will not raise taxes to do it. So if the revenue is not available he will be judicious in his spending and as he has abundantly demonstrated he will not frivolously use the military . . . anywhere. I expect him to NOT ADD to the deficit. And a fiscally conservative congress can hold him to that goal.

How will he make America great again? He will stop foreign entanglement that cost us exorbitant amounts of money spent overseas. He will not give large amounts of money to our allies, but he will keep are alliances with NATO and the remnants of The Southeast Asian Alliance. He will bring American capital home AND welcome foreign, privately made money as an investment and not solely as U.S. bonds that add to the deficit. He is a bit of a Capitalist buccaneer so I expect his policies will tend towards the laissez-faire but with some arm twisting as previous Presidents did. He will speak loudly and carry a big stick. I think he will insult the French and the Canadians, and at times cause good natured booing from his own, right wing supporters. But they will be smiling.

Peter      

If he cant be for turkeyfeet how can he be for moi? ;)

His tax plan calls for child care exemptions (tax breaks). It includes dependents. It also specifies mandatory maternity leave of 6 weeks. And on and on and on. So what we have is a tax on employers on taxpayers while maintaining an appearance of difference. Look at how he was broken down with the change made by his handlers who understand whats happened to their principles and the tax code. He was over $9T on paper. Apparently he too feels the death tax adds value to his propositions. Is this in preparation to chisel out extraneous material attempting to arrive at a simple taxation edifice? Does he have a principled position? Perhaps he too is simply so bothered by the criminal that he is willing to do anything including unfiltered dumb intangibles.   

Who is this man who will make America Great again? ) Is there such a man? What is great? Is this the man. Im unconvinced. Perhaps there is nothing so convincing as a proponents semantics making the best case for his man. 

I get he sees in black and white even with the confusion over seeing details. It redounds to former cohones less Republican candidates to tell us how they will make Trump make America great again. Oh wait, I see wreckage and apparitions of the Republican party. Can he raise the dead too? ;)

In the next few weeks I will be staying at Trump International. Yes sir. Viva LV. And I will compare it to how I felt when I stayed at a Holiday Inn. ) 

 

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Mikee said:

How to catch a wild pig

 

Clinton wins: the gate closes.

I liked that.

Ole Mr Green Jeans knows pits snouts are "comparable to pry-bars connected to jackhammers." )

As I like to say one door closes, another one opens. 

https://theozarkhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/how-to-keep-pigs-from-escaping/

[Peter]

Apparently Trump complained about the microphones and electronics after the first debate and others have noted Clinton is wearing an ear plug. Of course that could simply be a hearing aid but I personally think it is a link to her handlers. And she is constantly linked to her handlers through a computerized pad, as I have mentioned. I just contacted Trump about it and it was much easier to write to him. I had to pass an “I am not a robot test”, but I won’t spoil it by telling you what it consisted of.

It is time for the body language and security experts to analyze Hillary’s cheating devices.

Peter

From WND: The report cited earlier claims Clinton wore a listening device during a presidential forum about a month ago. “During the Commander-in-Chief forum held in New York City on Sept. 7, close up photos of Hillary Clinton’s left ear showed she had some sort of earpiece in it, promoting concerns she was receiving on-the-fly coaching from her campaign while taking questions,” it said.

“Now a Reuters photo of Clinton [from Monday night] shows she may have had the same type of device in her ear again … during the first presidential debate with Donald Trump. Was she getting instructions from her campaign team while she was engaged in the debate?”

 “What does she have in her ear? There are three possibilities: A hearing aid – loss of hearing or dulled hearing is not uncommon for people of Clinton’s age, particularly for those who have suffered a traumatic head injury, like a concussion. Many different companies market hearing aids that are meant to be concealed.”

The second possibility, some say, is an “inductive earpiece.”

“Stage actors often use these to help with cues and missed lines during performances. They are meant to be concealed, and with Bluetooth technology, those speaking to Clinton through it wouldn’t even have to be in the same city.”

FEC hasn’t ruled out ear mics?

On Sept. 25, the day before the big debate, the World Tribune noted that the FEC hasn’t specifically ruled out the use of ear mics for presidential candidates, even though moderators cannot wear them.

A Maryland voter reportedly wrote a Sept. 8 letter to FEC Commissioner Matthew Petersen requesting a “clear response” to the issue.

“I read reports that during the televised event questioning each of the candidates on their qualifications to serve as Commander in Chief, that Secretary Clinton had a microphone in her ear to receive prompting and guidance from advisers off stage,” wrote Laurence B. of Columbia, Maryland, according to the World Tribune.

“Surely this is a more serious violation of competition than the doping which the Olympics have had to clean up. … Can you please confirm that your commission will take conclusive steps to ensure that no such cheating takes place during the debates?” Laurence B. asked

[Roger Bissell]

On 9/26/2016 at 11:39 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

On 9/26/2016 at 9:44 PM, Roger Bissell said:

I'd date it back to at least 1913. Think Federal Income Tax and Anti-Trust. 93 years and counting.

But FDR's New Deal was just a ramping up of all the statist stuff done half-heartedly by Herbert Hoover, who walked to the abyss of outright statism and then recoiled in horror. FDR campaigned - believe it or not - as the laissez-faire candidate, then did a total 180 once in office. He was basically the American Bismark, who gave the socialists half a loaf (way less than they were demanding) with the world's first social security program.

REB

 

Even before.  You can back into Teddy Roosevelt's administration.   Also Woodrow Wilson was a Statist from Hell. 

 

Yup. Andrew Napolitano wrote an interesting/appalling book called "Teddy and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." Here's a link to Reason TV's interview with him: 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's heat it up, shall we?

Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssss Alicia Machado!

She is the victim Hillary Clinton is now using to prove that Donald Trump calls women fat.

She was Miss Universe in a beauty pageant when Trump owned the event. Then she gained a lot of weight and took it right back off after her boss and sponsors were not amused. 

Now she is helping Hillary Clinton, whose press machine threw her into the mainstream press all over the place today.

But it's odd how the same kind of archetypes attract. Just like Hillary Clinton is Beauty and The Beast all rolled up in one, so is Alicia Machado. See for yourself:

Beauty

From The Guardian:

Alicia Machado, Miss Universe weight-shamed by Trump, speaks out for Hillary Clinton

 

The Beast

From Infowars:

Hillary’s New Anti-trump Poster Child is a Porn Star Accused of Driving a Murder Getaway Vehicle & Threatening to Kill a Judge

 

I know some people don't like Infowars, but the information is correct in this report. Besides, this stuff will be all over the mainstream shortly as some of the reporters (the ones still worried about their credibility) see what a cow-pile they just stepped in. btw - She's also the mother of a child by a Mexican drug lord.  

But don't take my word for it.

Read the stuff for yourself.

Alicia Machado is quite a piece of work. At the very worst, she's interesting in a sleazy sort of way...

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

55 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Yup. Andrew Napolitano wrote an interesting/appalling book called "Teddy and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." Here's a link to Reason TV's interview with him: 

 

An excellent discussion.