May 16, 2011

Trump won't run.

I'm posting about this for some reason, even though I didn't see the point of posting that Huckabee won't run. What does a man have to do to get attention for not doing something?

67 comments:

Sofa King said...

What does a man have to do to get attention for not doing something?

It actually is possible to flamboyantly not do something.

traditionalguy said...

Sarah Palin is about to dive in like a screaming eagle. There is not enough Bush family power left to stop her.

Almost Ali said...

Hey, Donald - no guts, no glory.

garage mahal said...

Time to call off those fake investigators in Hawaii.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

fake investigators

How would that work?

edutcher said...

I said this was just a celebrity thing.

He served his purpose. He showed that going after Little Zero and not caring how many times they scream, "Raaaacisssst", is the way to get to Barry.

It's going to do a lot to thin out the field, especially since Chrissy Mathews endorsed Daniels.

Seven Machos said...

Told ya.

PaulV said...

The Donald was never going to run. Same with the Huck. Good for them.

Julius said...

Well, there goes the only hope.

Say hello to a second four year dose of Team Obama.

PaulV said...

AllenS said...
fake investigators

How would that work?

5/16/11 12:36 PM
They invesitigate the Fake, for sure.

phx said...

Now maybe he has just enough cachet to partner with Spitzer. That game show is just too humiliating for a grown-ass man.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Well, there goes the only hope.

Say hello to a second four year dose of Team Obama.

If Trump was your “only hope” your were fairly hopeless:
1) He wasn’t running;
2) And he would have been beaten like a drum.

Trump was never going to save anyone from Obama.

Carol_Herman said...

So Trump quit before Ross Perot quit.

Still, Perot got 19%.

If Trump's not the stranger ... than somebody else will step forward. The GOP only has stupid candidates.

And, really disgusted people, in November 2012, can still write in Trump's name.

It ain't over.

shiloh said...

And Daniels is still short ~ let's move on, shall we ...

Rialby said...

Called it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

It ain't over.


Yes it is….

Crimso said...

"What does a man have to do to get attention for not doing something?"

Not noting his anniversary/wife's birthday/mother's day, etc. Of course, that's purely negative attention.

Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julius said...

The problem is that the remaining cast of characters won't appeal to enough Democrats and Independents. Paul and Johnson could, but it is unlikely that Republicans would let go of their desire for total national control on social issues enough to consider either of them.

Daniels could perhaps have that appeal, but it's a long-shot.

So what do the Republicans do now? Well, they use their control of the House of Representatives to do everything possible to make the country as worse off as possible. Default on the debt; let interest rates go crazy, let economic activity goes to shit. Then they can try to blame it on Obama and present their candidate as a savior who is going to change all that. The more Americans suffer in the interim, the better off the Republican position is.

Destroy the country. Then elect sleazy Newt on the claim he will fix it all. That seems to be the Republican game plan right now.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roux said...

I'm just posting to announce that I will not run for POTUS in 2012.

I know many of you want me to but I just can't put my family and friends through it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

The problem is that the remaining cast of characters won't appeal to enough Democrats and Independents. Paul and Johnson could, but it is unlikely that Republicans would let go of their desire for total national control on social issues enough to consider either of them.


You’re a Paultard/Ronulan???? OMG dood/dooodette….Paul and Johnson??!?!?!



OK, I’m finished laughing…so tell me again, how many states Ron Paul carried in 2008? How many delegates he took to the convention? Don’t blame “Republicans” blame Paul…his message didn’t sell…if you want to elect a hypocritical, racist, nutjub that’s your business, but please don’t blame the voters when they recognize a hypocritical, racist nutjob when they see one. Ron Paul, Gary Johnsons, indeed….Listen, just go “full retard” and vote for the LP candidate, OK?

Fred4Pres said...

What a surprise. Not.

RuyDiaz said...

Both Paultards and Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! annoy me.

Ron Paul, well, is Ron Paul.

Paultards think that repeating the same message over and over, while screaming at the top of your lungs, is a winning political strategy.

Nitecruz on steroids.

bridgecross said...

Trump to Obama: "I could totally kick your ass but I gotta be somewhere bye!"

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Destroy the country. Then elect sleazy Newt on the claim he will fix it all.


Shouldn’t you be on NPRT with an insight so profound? NEWT? Mr. Scovvafazza (sp. But I care so little for her or him I can’t be bothered to “Bing” her), Mr. Sit on the Couch with Pelosi, Mr. Dump on Paul Ryan, Mr. Run from my stand on Libya, Mr. Run from what I said about Ryan Yesterday Gingrich? Your understanding of the “base” of the GOP surpasses that of Michael Moore, you, sir or Madame are a genius, wicked smart, you sure know your enemy….

Paultards think that repeating the same message over and over, while screaming at the top of your lungs, is a winning political strategy.
You forgot, spamming polls……

Jim said...

Trump already had his ass handed to him by Obama once. No sense in having it happen again in November 2012.

John Lynch (another) said...

Well, I thought the Drudge pointer to the article about the woman suing her husband for not having sex was worth attention.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I'm very pleased neither are running. Newt's not doing much to curry favor after yesterday's display either. Is the DNC deploying Scanners now?

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Trump has shown the way on how to campaign against Obama, the way that Limbaugh articulated first.

Go straight at him, hard, he crumbles.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Trump has shown the way on how to campaign against Obama, the way that Limbaugh articulated first.

Go straight at him, hard, he crumbles.


Agreed, but on ISSUES, not gimmicks…Drill Here, Drill Now, Unemployment, ObamaCare, Death Panels, Crony Capitalism, and the like…that’s what the candidate needs to do focus on, not whether he whips or the Long Form or is a “natural born citizen.”

Hoosier Daddy said...

By the time Obama is done bankrupting the country who would want the job?

Rialby said...

"Paul and Johnson could, but it is unlikely that Republicans would let go of their desire for total national control on social issues enough to consider either of them."

Yeah, cause we know that "libertarians" like Bill Maher would totally support a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. The myth of the "liberaltarian" raises its ugly head again.

Progressives like to believe that they would support a Ron Paul cause he's so cool about druggggs man. Unfortunately, the Progressives who support an Obama would NEVER support someone who would reduce the size of government by 1/2 of 1/2 of 1 percent.

Total farce.

Paul said...

"Trump has shown the way on how to campaign against Obama, the way that Limbaugh articulated first.

Go straight at him, hard, he crumbles.


Agreed, but on ISSUES, not gimmicks…Drill Here, Drill Now, Unemployment, ObamaCare, Death Panels, Crony Capitalism, and the like…that’s what the candidate needs to do focus on, not whether he whips or the Long Form or is a “natural born citizen.” "

Sounds like a tailor made scenario for a certain former Alaskan governor. It appears the seas are parting right on cue for her.

Hoosier Daddy said...

How about a candidate that passed an economics course? Can we substitute that for being a natural born citizen?

Scott M said...

Sounds like a tailor made scenario for a certain former Alaskan governor. It appears the seas are parting right on cue for her.

I'm not convinced she can go at him that aggressively. This isn't a comfortable study at home where you can articulate your verbiage and then post it on facebook. She would have to face him on stage in multiple debates. This latter scenario is the ONLY reason I would want a Trump on that stage. Nobody else yet seems to have the grapes to do that, pun intended.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Sounds like a tailor made scenario for a certain former Alaskan governor. It appears the seas are parting right on cue for her.



I pray so…I’ve been robbing a bunch of Church Poor Boxes and scamming Older Christians out of their life savings, as we tricksy, perfidious Jews are wont to do, and I have the money, converted into gold, of course, just waiting for her announcement…

What plans, we Jooooos, have for America, if only the Glorious Palin, can be elected!-the last for C4’s benefit…possibly the Small, Pathetic Voice it if wanders by as well.

ethan said...

Maybe if you beg The Donald to run he'll still run, silly wingers.

He is, after all, your only hope.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

shiloh said...

Total farce.

Indeed, much like the 2008 herd.

Again, how did Obama get soooo damn lucky!

Joaquin said...

He would have to divest from everything TRUMP. From the get-go, I knew this wasn't going to happen.
Why be POTUS when you can be Trump?

RuyDiaz said...

I'm not convinced she can go at him that aggressively. This isn't a comfortable study at home where you can articulate your verbiage and then post it on facebook.[..]

She's the best speaker on our side. Can bond and move an audience like no other--better than Obama. I say hire a debate coach if she needs to improve.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Trump won't run."

Neither did Darryl Strawberry near the end of his career.

'The Donald' is better off being himself and staying out of politics, I think he discovered that.

Besides, don't we need to elect someone that isn't an egomaniac?

wv - huffi

Paul said...

What Ruy says.

She will eviscerate Obama in a debate.

On the one hand you have an affirmative action red diaper baby who's been coddled and fed softballs his entire political career. We've seen him speak without a telepromter and he's none too sharp.

On the other you have the last vestige of the American pioneering spirit, wrapped up in a charismatic, good looking, gutsy woman who has endured the most brutal trashing by the craven leftist media in memory.

No way can his thin skin withstand the withering full frontal assault that Palin will have spent four years preparing. And don't doubt she has been preparing like a warrior prepares for war. Once she gets him flustered and angry he will put his foot in it. He won't be able to help himself.

She has through her own devices confronted, cut and bled Obama on every policy issue since he's been in office. She is right inside his OODA loop and he is totally unprepared for what she has in store for him.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Sarah Palin/Herman Cain '12

John Lynch said...

Scott Adams was right again!

Paul said...

Plus you have the shit sandwich that is the Obamanation. America is in decline at the hands of top down command and control socialist thugs.

Sarah can bring back the idea of the shining city on the hill once again as a counterpoint to the grey, depressing "new normal" that is all the democrats can offer.

Sencho said...

"What does a man have to do to get attention for not doing something?"

This is one of those shorts vs slacks issues, isn't it professor?

Kirk Parker said...

Sencho,

Not putting the seat back down will get you attention pretty fast.

garage mahal said...

So....Sarah Palin to the rescue? Ok....

Revenant said...

Sarah Palin is about to dive in like a screaming eagle. There is not enough Bush family power left to stop her.

Then Barack Obama will be President until 2017.

Oh well.

Seven Machos said...

Seeing people who are not Republicans make predictions about what Republicans will do is hilarious.

Julius: your oblivious stupidity makes me cackle with glee.

Revenant said...

The myth of the "liberaltarian" raises its ugly head again.

This isn't about the myth of liberaltarianism. This is about the myth of Republican economic conservatism.

Paul and Johnson are serious about economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, and small government. Palin, Romney, and Gingrich are not; they are all communicating loud and clear that they will do nothing to trim the military/welfare state back to sustainable levels.

I'm not saying Paul would make a good President. I think he would be a terrible President. But if the people who actually support small government all lose out yet again to the sort of Bible-thumping crypto-socialist the Republicans normally nominate, we as a nation are going to be in serious trouble. We're due for either massive cuts to military and entitlement spending or massive tax increases -- there's no third option.

Seven Machos said...

Paul and Johnson are serious about economic freedom

Ron Paul is against NAFTA, so no.

Revenant said...

Oops, good point about Paul and NAFTA. I'd forgotten that.

Johnson 2012! :)

Phil 3:14 said...

Well we still have Newt for comic relief.

And I'll say it again, this is not 2008. The election is a long way away. At this point its less about the potential Republican candidates than these three numbers:

Unemployment over 9%

Gas over $4 a gallon

Rising inflation

(and did I mention an exploding federal deficit?)


Now if by July of 2012 unemployment is at 7%, inflation is no longer talked about and gas is under $3 then yes there will be another BO admin. ('Cause the deficit won't matter or better put won't motivate the electorate to vote out BO)

PS And it is funny that the Republicans are loathe to nominate Mitt but will he win a war of attrition and then...)

mccullough said...

Question: Governor Palin, you say you are in favor of shrinking the size of government, but your state, Alaska, has the second highest number of public employees per capita and also received the second highest amount per capita amount of aid from the federal government. (Wyoming was 1st in both categories). In your not-quite two years as governor, what initiatives did you implement to decrease the number of public employees in Alaska and reduce the amount of aid from the federal government?

Answer: [Insert incomprehensible response]

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)




Ah the libertarian small government, Gold Standard Pipe Dream....again, please go “Full Retard” and just vote LP...The GOP isn't the l/Libertarian party, if you want it to be please don't bother.

Fen said...

mccullough, I don't know why you think thats cute:

1) Palin's response would not be incomprehensible

2) And you just reminded us that no one in the media has the balls to ask Obama a difficult question.

BTW, please tell us you didn't fall for the Hopey Change bullshit.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




McCullough can you say “12 Billion Surplus”...and as 2/3 of Alaska is Federal Land the Federal dollars are understandable. But by all means continue on with how Palin is a spendthrift...and then we can move onto her being a “quitter” if you care to.

mccullough said...

Fen,

I didn't vote for Obama. Certainly he is way in over his head. The cult of personality among his followers in 2008 was frightening.

Given the fiscal problems facing this country, it would be nice to have a President who (i) did something about the issue of growing employment in the public sector (even before it was a headline problem) and (ii) government spending.

I would love to hear Palin explain away the welfare state of Alaska. From my point of view, it is pretty much like Norway. Resource rich, homogenous, and a lot of people relying on government handouts.

I would also love to hear Palin discuss the benefits of the FOMC approach in the last year or on exports and why this is outweighed in the short run or long run by the policy's effect on inflation.

She hasn't yet posted to facebook on these, or other important issues: Should we means-test Social Security and Medicare? Given that 25% of health-care spending is on people in the last 30 days of their life, do you have any concrete proposals to address this. Should the government pay for hip transplants for 80 year olds?

I guess I'm worried that, like Obama, Palin is a lightweight who has developed a cult of personality. She would be in way over her head.

Whether a 1st Palin term would be better or worse than a second Obama term would be interesting to debate if Palin had even a remote chance of beating Obama.

But I remain open-minded. Please point to me (i) Palin's accomplishments in reducing government spending in Alaska and/or reliance on welfare and (ii) Palin's specific policy proposals on how to address rising health care costs, especially the looming crisis of Medicare. Is it her position that the government should pay all the health care costs for 80 year olds or else the government is a "death panel"? Is it really her position that the government should not ration, i.e. not use taxpayer dollars, for any care for the elderly under Medicare? The federal government should pay for nursing home care for poor seniors under Medicaid until the day they die?

It sounds to me like Governor Palin wants hardworking taxpayers who have limited income to foot all the health care bills for all senior citizens.

I suspect that Palin not only speaks in sound bites, but thinks in sound bites as well. But show me where I'm wrong.

mccullough said...

Joe,

Palin did a great job of taking money from the oil companies and redistributing that private enterprise money to Alaskans.

How is Alaska different than Norway? Why is that not socialism.

And given that Alaska gets a lot of money from oil companies, why is it the second largest per capita recipient of federal aid?

It seems to me they have a lot of freeloaders in Alaska and that Palin encouraged this mentality and made it worse by confiscating more money from the oil companies to redistribute to welfare queens. Is this socialism her solution to high unemployment in the U.S.?
I have no problem with more oil drilling. I have a problem with the government confiscating private wealth to redistribute to bums. This isn't a winning strategy.

Revenant said...

Ah the libertarian small government, Gold Standard Pipe Dream

I didn't mention the gold standard.

As for small government -- the Republican Party claims to be in favor of it. Now, if you want to you can say "we lied; we love massive spending programs and the high taxes that are inevitablity necessary to fund them. Anyone who doesn't love an ever-expanding government can kiss our Grand Old Arse".

It would be kind of refreshing to hear that much admitted, actually. :)

But the truth of the matter is that while economic conservatives are a minority within the Republican Party, we're a large enough bloc that you have no hope of ever controlling the government if we aren't convinced you're better than the Democrats. Telling us to leave the party is idiotic.

mccullough said...

Joe,

By the way, Alaska has 15,000 full-time state employees and another 15,000 part-time state employees. It's population isn't much over 600,000.

That's quite a lot of state workers. Are they all patrolling the 1/3 of Alaska that is non-federal land? Or maybe it takes that many employees to cut checks from the money the state confiscates from the oil companies to redistribute to the loafers.

Methadras said...

AllenS said...

fake investigators

How would that work?


It's garage logic. It never works.