Donald Trump

[ThomasHägg]

But I'm sure we can also agree that this guys statement was not an outrigh threat, but rather a conclusion on how things work. Right?

Thomas,

Two points.

1. The speaker did not use an overt a tone of threat, instead, he made it sound like a warning, like: "Danger! Be careful with that."

But as he inflated when challenged, it was very clear that a spike in terrorism if Trump got elected would be an outcome that he would approved of. Sort of like, "We told you not to do this, but you did it anyway. Now face the punishment and wail about your fate. Next time, obey!" This was a subtext, granted, but it was there and pretty strong.

2. There are two parties involved in communication: the one with the message and the one who receives the message. When the message is conveyed, it goes out with a hidden load from the sender (with embedded intentions and meanings that are more than the words say), but it also gets received by a receiver who has a different default hidden load. The speaker might intend one thing and the listener perceive quite another, even though the words seem neutral. This happens all the time.

So I admit there might be some of that in the mix.

But I believe in the speaker's mind above, he thought he was only warning folks and was blind (or maybe partially blind) to any self-righteous threat he also conveyed. And, because of the escalation, I believe many listeners will only hear the implied threat and discount the warning as a ruse.

On this score, the ladies who said no... no... no... perceived what he was saying (both warning and threat) and how it would be received by many. They knew. Boy did they know. They live with this crap on both sides day in and day out. They constantly try to keep their men from excesses, but they also worry about the effects of hostility from the outside on their children. In a sense, they are double victims caught in the middle.

In the video above, they were a lot smarter than he was--and, to be blunt, I believe their intentions were a lot more benign and productive than his were.

I sensed mostly good in the women. Sure, they hate Trump, but only because they feel threatened. In other words, if you leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

I sensed good and evil in that speaker. I don't think he wants to be a bad person. I think he wants to be a good person as he understands it. But even if you leave him alone, I would never trust that one to leave me alone. I sincerely believe he would try to harm me one day and/or support those who would. At the very least, he would feel sanctimonious schadenfreude at my harm. Maybe even celebrate. Most definitely use my disgrace as a cautionary example of what happens if he--or better, his religious doctrine--is not obeyed.

Watch it again and pay attention to his tone of preachiness, finger-wagging and so on. He didn't start out that way, he started out in a reasonable tone of voice, but as he went along, he escalated and the ugly part emerged at the end. Had conditions allowed him to continue, I think he would have put on quite a show.

According to the current climate in America where people know that terror attacks come from the shadows and they are wary, they think all you need is one evil person among the Muslims to do enormous damage to everyone else.

That's why Trump's approval numbers are growing. He wants to isolate the problem and figure out how to fix it, especially since the good people where the problem comes from either can't or won't deal with it.

I can guarantee that most Americans would be very happy if the women, instead of saying no... no... no... to that guy, said, "I will not have you near me! You're self-satisfaction at the thought of killing innocents is disgusting and you do not speak for me!" And they said it to his face on camera. I think most Americans would trust those who spoke such things and actually did cut off their moral sanction like that.

Instead, the women are trapped. Women could never get away with that in many of the Muslim subcultures, even in America. They would be beaten, or forced to leave behind everything they know and the people they love.

I see that--I do. I feel sorry for them. But I saw that threat bubbling up from Mr. Self-Righteous.

I know I am not alone.

Michael

Granted that there can be hidden agendas, maybee I view the context differently. I don't necessarily aprove of how he said it and why, but did he mean to "threaten", as in 'was this something he supported himself'? I'm not so sure that's what was intended. - He should have been more clear about his intentions none the less.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thomas,

Let's say it doesn't matter what your intentions are if you insist on smoking cigars while sitting on a keg of gunpowder.

So Muslim bigots (the bigoted Muslim bigots who are bigoted) need to stop smoking cigars. Just... stop... They have to be careful what they say and how they say it during these times. Otherwise, any explosion and backlash is on them. That's right. On them! And, believe me, these explosions will skyrocket if they keep talking.

Now, think about it. Would you say there is a hidden threat in that message? (Granted, I exaggerated for comic effect.)

If you see the threat (and, God, I hope it is not a Swedish thing that causes a different perspective than mine ), why not hold everyone to the same standard in their rhetoric? Why would a Muslim get a pass in saying something like that (with Trump as the "bigot"), but not the person who says the above, even if you remove the satire?

I say the threat in both must be exposed. Let the ugly out so more reasonable minds can deal with it. We need the more reasonable minds. The ugly folks have no intention of solving anything unless it be compliance to their will.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

Now the establishment Republicans are floating the idea of a third party for themselves.

Looking at the idea of third-party challenge to Trump

After all that sanctimonious crap about getting Trump to sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee the people choose, they never had any intention of keeping up their end of it. And I put Fox News right along with them since Fox was the hitman they hired.

Hypocrites!

Or, as Trump would say: Losers!

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Woo hoo!

 

Something good finally happening where I live.

 

Great poll out of Illinois! Thank you! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/Fd48umfyCw

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 21, 2015

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Donald Trump can't stand up to Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate. Ted, Marco and Carly can run right over her.

Trump is the candidate of the Zombie Tea Party. If he drops out the Zombies will zombie onto someone else, likely mostly the Republican nominee. Otherwise as a third party candidate, say, he'll be the poor man's Ross Perot giving us another Clinton and deju vu all over again.

--Brant

"When will they ever learn? When will they learn"?

[ThomasHägg]

Thomas,

Let's say it doesn't matter what your intentions are if you insist on smoking cigars while sitting on a keg of gunpowder.

So Muslim bigots (the bigoted Muslim bigots who are bigoted) need to stop smoking cigars. Just... stop... They have to be careful what they say and how they say it during these times. Otherwise, any explosion and backlash is on them. That's right. On them! And, believe me, these explosions will skyrocket if they keep talking.

Now, think about it. Would you say there is a hidden threat in that message? (Granted, I exaggerated for comic effect.)

If you see the threat (and, God, I hope it is not a Swedish thing that causes a different perspective than mine ), why not hold everyone to the same standard in their rhetoric? Why would a Muslim get a pass in saying something like that (with Trump as the "bigot"), but not the person who says the above, even if you remove the satire?

I say the threat in both must be exposed. Let the ugly out so more reasonable minds can deal with it. We need the more reasonable minds. The ugly folks have no intention of solving anything unless it be compliance to their will.

Michael

Yes. ;) All I'm saying is I'm not sure he was counciously threatening anyone. That would be a lot worse. Doesn't make this sittuation any better, but it could have been worse. And unfortunately, I have seen much worse examples already. I'm going to take what he said as a - perhaps irresponsibly put forth - warning. He may have the wrong solution to the problem, but that is to be expected.

(Oh somone help me out here, is there something wrong with the way I do the ;) smiley? Should I switch browser from Chrome?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Donald Trump can't stand up to Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate. Ted, Marco and Carly can run right over her.

Brant,

I'm gonna Limbaugh you right now. Right over the head.

The Donald is beating the dickens out of Ted, Marco and Carly, but you say he can't beat Hillary.

However, even though Ted, Marco and Carly can't beat The Donald to save their lives, by some magical math and wisdom they will beat Hillary guaranteed.

How?

Inquiring minds humbly clamor for enlightenment.

Michael

[Selene]

(Oh somone help me out here, is there something wrong with the way I do the ;) smiley? Should I switch browser from Chrome?)

Yes...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(Oh somone help me out here, is there something wrong with the way I do the ;) smiley? Should I switch browser from Chrome?)

I gotta fix that one day.

Try the simple smiley for now (colon and end parentheses ). There seems to be a problem with the wink smiley graphic on the server side and I have not mucked around over there for awhile.

I'll get to it before long.

Michael

[Selene]

Luntz is considered "a republican pollster" which means what?

Second, why does Luntz not ask:

1) each of the women about Sharia law;

2) each of the people on the panel if they were born Muslim, or, converted;

3) each of the people on the panel if they agree with the Wahabi section of Islam;

4) each of the people on the panel for specific instances of this alleged back lash that they live in fear of; and

5) are they American citizens, or, in the process of becoming an American citizen.

That is just for starters...

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For ya'll who want to know:

 

Phyllis Schlafly: Trump is 'last hope for America' https://t.co/jCxqfVCGB6 pic.twitter.com/sk713ir5NQ

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 21, 2015

 

Drip... drip... drip...

 

 

Michael

[ThomasHägg]

(Oh somone help me out here, is there something wrong with the way I do the ;) smiley? Should I switch browser from Chrome?)

I gotta fix that one day.

Try the simple smiley for now (colon and end parentheses ). There seems to be a problem with the wink smiley graphic on the server side and I have not mucked around over there for awhile.

I'll get to it before long.

Michael

Good to know! Thanks!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What?

I thought Trump was a buffoon. Not a serious candidate.

How come nobody at the top is laughing at Trump anymore?

Here's the link to the article (NYT).

When the president himself resorts to the race card for a GOP candidate who's not even nominated yet, you know he's scared.

I think Obama is still living in a bubble and can't believe Trump is coming, but he's seeing the tidal wave approach and feels the need to explain it to himself and his followers. So race card it is.

Wait until that sucker hits.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And here comes Ann Coulter:

It’s Time For The Other 13 Candidates To Drop Out

From the article:

At what point in Donald Trump's inaugural address do you figure the GOP establishment will finally grasp what's been happening?

The establishment -- not "elites," because they're mostly bland functionaries who went to third-rate schools -- have thrown absolutely everything they have at Trump. I've never seen so many Republicans featured on MSNBC.

At least no one will be able to say the Republican National Committee didn't give it the old college try (and, again, that would be third-rate colleges).

Trump is a runaway hit with Americans for the simple reason that he's the only candidate saying anything Americans care about.

. . .

... the candidates talked about almost nothing else at the debate but carpet-bombing the Middle East, taking out this leader or that group, sending American forces to train Sunni Arabs, touting the Kurds, announcing their specific strategies for defeating ISIS, giving perfect little answers about our nuclear throw-weights and the "nuclear triad" and correctly identifying the "good guys" and "bad guys" -- all of whom live 7,000 miles away from us.

When do we get to talk about Americans?

Only Trump seems to care. Asked about dictators running the Middle East, Trump said:

"In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now ..."

The nice thing about having your own helicopter is you can see the terrain below. The rest of them keep bumping into one another, as if they're 9-year-olds trying to out-precocious one another on knowing unimportant military terminology and the pronunciation of foreign names.

. . .

These debates have turned Republicans into self-parodies of wonkery over common sense. Without Trump in the debate, the entire audience would have been asleep in 30 minutes.

Rubio lectures Americans that "we need to understand who ISIS is." Rubio needs to understand what a border is.

At this point, the most important question facing the Republican Party is: When Trump's the only one with the poll numbers to make the main stage at the next debate, what should he do? Card tricks? Juggle? Sing "Danny Boy"?

Here's the thing even Ann Coulter hasn't realized yet.

Everybody--meaning all the other GOP candidates (I suspect even Rand Paul to some extent)--wants war overseas because they are financially tied to people who make a crapload of money from war, supplying weapons and other interventions abroad.

Trump never made his money from war. He did it the old fashioned way, building stuff people want during peace-time.

That's why he thinks about America first.

And even more, he has made money in country after country building huge projects people want during peace-time. So he's very familiar with foreign governments.

Ironically, Trump, with his tough-guy archetype, is the most peace-loving person running.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kapowie!

 

" data-width="500">

">

Donald J. Trump says nobody's proven Putin put journalists in jail.  No, but Barack Obama has put journalists in jail. ...

Posted by Rush Limbaugh on Monday, December 21, 2015

 

 

Michael

[MereMortal]

Donald Trump can't stand up to Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate. Ted, Marco and Carly can run right over her.

Trump is the candidate of the Zombie Tea Party. If he drops out the Zombies will zombie onto someone else, likely mostly the Republican nominee. Otherwise as a third party candidate, say, he'll be the poor man's Ross Perot giving us another Clinton and deju vu all over again.

--Brant

"When will they ever learn? When will they learn"?

I'm trying to picture what you are saying and all I do is laugh. There is no way Trump cannot stand up to someone, I don't care who it is.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a nice headline story. What I mean is you can get the entire story from the headlines alone.

Clinton: ISIS Is Literally Using Videos Of Donald Trump To Recruit New Jihadists

Hillary: ISIS ‘Showing Videos of Donald Trump…to Recruit More Radical Jihadists;' Trump: ‘Clinton Lied’

No evidence for Hillary Clinton's claim that ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool

Clinton Campaign Walks Back Her Claim That Trump Was Featured in ISIS Recruitment Videos

Donald Trump demands apology from Hillary Clinton after 'disgusting' debate claim

It Is Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Not Donald Trump, In An ISIS Recruiting Video

Now that's a screw-up.

Like I said, you don't have to read the articles or see the videos to get the story. But if you want to, go right ahead. It's all as in the headlines.

Michael

[Selene]

Evita's lies, damned lies and statistics...

I love the highlighted paragraph...

she is such a poor candidate...

The purchase came as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is increasingly reviewing core functions of the party committee such as research and communications, which whoever wins the Democratic nomination will use to augment their message and their efforts to shape criticism of the Republicans.

The task has become more urgent as the Republican presidential primary has moved away from where many of Mrs. Clinton’s aides originally saw it heading, with a likely nomination of former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Instead, the race is a tossup, with insurgents like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and the New York real estate magnate Donald J. Trump either at the top or on the rise in most polls.

The Clinton campaign already coordinates on communications with another of Mr. Brock’s groups, Correct the Record, which developed as an offshoot of American Bridge.

Correct the Record has handled research about Mrs. Clinton and has done some tracking of other Democratic candidates, while American Bridge has handled research about the Republicans. Correct the Record was paid $275,000 by the Clinton campaign earlier this year, records show.

Maggie Haberman, today's NY Times...

[PDS]

Here's a nice headline story. What I mean is you can get the entire story from the headlines alone.

Clinton: ISIS Is Literally Using Videos Of Donald Trump To Recruit New Jihadists

Hillary: ISIS ‘Showing Videos of Donald Trump…to Recruit More Radical Jihadists;' Trump: ‘Clinton Lied’

No evidence for Hillary Clinton's claim that ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool

Clinton Campaign Walks Back Her Claim That Trump Was Featured in ISIS Recruitment Videos

Donald Trump demands apology from Hillary Clinton after 'disgusting' debate claim

It Is Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Not Donald Trump, In An ISIS Recruiting Video

Now that's a screw-up.

Like I said, you don't have to read the articles or see the videos to get the story. But if you want to, go right ahead. It's all as in the headlines.

Michael

I was surprised that Trump asked for an apology. That seems too main-line and predictable, i.e., like something Bush would do.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was surprised that Trump asked for an apology.   That seems too main-line and predictable, i.e., like something Bush would do.

 

David,

 

Trump doesn't want an apology.

 

This is just a knife stuck in her belly he can twist. Look at the latest tweet, which is way after he asked for the apology.

 

Do you think that Hillary Clinton will apologize to me for the lie she told about "the video" of me being used by ISIS. There is no video.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 21, 2015

 

My imagery is kind of graphic, I know, but it's metaphorical. 

 

She plays hardball. He plays hardball. Don't expect mercy on either side.

 

But, of course, you can expect Trump to win. He used to bribe her, so he knows her secrets...

 

 

Michael

[tmj]

If only the West would stop doing things they can use as recruit tools in their videos maybe they would go away, or stay put, or reform.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This speaks for itself.

All It Takes to Turn Peace-Loving Muslims Into Terrorists Is Trump?
Rush Limbaugh
(Transcript of radio show)
Dec. 21, 2015

By the way, a little observation here. If Hillary Clinton thinks that a little thing like Donald Trump saying there should be a moratorium on Muslims can drive Muslims to terrorism, stop and think about that. She's out there saying that Trump is a recruitment for ISIS. He's a recruitment for terrorists, that Donald Trump and what he says and the things he does end up being recruitment videos or messages for ISIS.

Now, stop and think of that for a second. What is she saying? She's basically saying that Donald Trump saying there should be a moratorium on Muslims can drive them to terrorism. Well, then isn't Trump right? I mean, if all it takes is suggesting there's a moratorium for a while on Muslims entering the country 'til we get a handle here on who's coming in, who's already here, what their plans are, and if that's gonna cause them to go join ISIS, isn't Trump right? And isn't Hillary an abject fool for trying to make that point?

. . .

But then Islam's a religion of peace. How can people of a religion of peace end up joining a terror group when Islam isn't about terror?

The thing is, I don't think Hillary groks the contradiction.

She and Obama keep claiming that Islam is a religious of peace, but then claim that Trump calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration drives Muslims to become terrorists. How does one transform a follower of a religion of peace into a terrorist with a simple call for a moratorium? Maybe Islam, to them, is a religious of peace except for when it isn't?

Or another contradiction. If ISIS, according to Hillary and Obama, has nothing to do with Islam, how can Trump calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration be a recruitment tool? Doesn't Muslim mean Islamic person?

Dorks!

Michael

[PDS]

If only the West would stop doing things they can use as recruit tools in their videos maybe they would go away, or stay put, or reform.

Good one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Read it and weep, anti-Trumpers.

This one's from the LA Times, not exactly a Trump-friendly outlet.

Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds

Some people on the mainstream news Titanic are actually getting up from their chess games after that sickening crunch sound.

Michael

[Selene]

Read it and weep, anti-Trumpers.

This one's from the LA Times, not exactly a Trump-friendly outlet.

Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds

Some people on the mainstream news Titanic are actually getting up from their chess games after that sickening crunch sound.

Michael

I saw this earlier also...

The study yielded four principal, albeit preliminary, ndings. First, Donald Trump receives about ve percentage points more support among registered Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents online compared with live telephone interviews.

Dierences in online versus phone were more limited for the other Republican candidates. Second, the dierence in support for Donald Trump between online and live telephone is at least as large when we examine likely voters { those adults who have voted in previous elections and who are keenly interested in the current campaign.

In fact, Trump's advantage in online polls compared with live telephone polling is eight or nine percentage points among likely voters. Third, education is an important variable helping to explain these dierences across types of surveys, whereas gender and age play a more minor role. Adults with higher levels of formal education appear to exhibit the largest mode eects in Trump's favor online, whereas adults with high school degrees or less tend to favor Trump on the phone compared with online. Fourth, the results among online are very similar to results obtained using

self-administered IVR polling. In both methods, Trump outperforms live telephone polling.

This study represents a rst step toward understanding Donald Trump's overall level of support, a topic that has important implications for the 2016 race and the public opinion research sector more broadly. It also builds on an authoritative report by the Pew Research Center demonstrating that there can be striking dierences between self-administered and internet-administered surveys. Much work remains to better understand which types of polls are actually right in predicting Trump's support levels, but a key implication of the study is that many national polls may be underestimating Trump's support levels. Finally, the study suggests that divergent ndings in online and phone polling are at least partly explained by adults answering identical questions dierently online versus on the phone, that is, a social desirability bias in which respondents answer questions in a manner they believe will be viewed favorably by others

Also, a quite amusing "discovery" by these "geniuses" as to intelligence and polling platform differences.

A...