February 26, 2016

"I saw him use the word that he used. I can only tell you, if I would have used even half of that word, it would have been national scandal."

"This guy used a filthy, disgusting word on television, and he should be ashamed of himself, and he should apologize, OK? Number one. Number two, we have a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion a year. And that doesn’t include all the drugs that are pouring across and destroying our country. We’re going to make them pay for that wall. Now, the wall is $10 billion to $12 billion, if I do it. If these guys do it, it’ll end up costing $200 billion. But the wall is $10 billion to $12 billion. You need 1,000 — you need 1,000 miles. The Great Wall of China, built 2,000 years ago — 2,000, is 13,000 miles. We need 1,000, because we have a lot of natural barriers. We can do it for $10 billion to $12 billion, and it’s a real wall. This is a wall that’s a heck of a lot higher than the ceiling you’re looking at. This is a wall that’s going to work. Mexico will pay for it, because they are not doing us any favors. They could stop all of this illegal trade if they wanted to immediately. Mexico will pay for the wall. It’s a small portion of the kind of money that we lose and the deficits that we have with Mexico."

That was said at last night's debate by — obviously — Donald Trump (who is "not having Oreos anymore, which is true, by the way").

The "filthy, disgusting word" was "fucking," spoken by former Mexican President Vicente Fox, In an interview with Jorge Ramos on Fusion: "I declare: I'm not going to pay for that fucking wall. He should pay for it. He's got the money."

AND BY THE WAY: What would it sound like to use "half of that word"? Here, Obama will show you:



IN THE COMMENTS: David Begley says:
Trump surely says "fucking" all the time in private. What a fake distinction.

Trump is a loose cannon. A loose cannon who wants to be Commander-in-Chief with his finger on our nukes. Not a good idea.
I react:
I don't understand how it works to just crudely throw insults at Trump when your substance is that Trump speaks bluntly. David Begley, you, in particular, sound like the very problem you are trying to attack. Except your type of attack has been plainly unsuccessful, and Trump's speech — whatever it is, however it is the same or different from yours — has been phenomenally successful. Don't you think you need to analyze this communications problem? Or do you just spout simple insults that pop into your head? Is that what you imagine Trump is doing? Because you are wrong, and you don't even bother to find out exactly how you are wrong. There is an art to blunt, clear, surprising speech. Most politicians don't try to do it because it's too hard to do right. At least KNOW that you're not doing it right. Otherwise, this is just headslappingly stupid.

154 comments:

Clayton Hennesey said...

So at least Fox and Trump agree there should be a wall. That's how great deals begin.

AllenS said...

"He should pay for it. He's got the money." -- Vinny Fox

Translation: "I'm not against the wall, if I don't have to pay for it."

Trump just told Vinny to go to hell, and Vinny is looking forward to going on the trip. Trump is amazing.

Limited blogger said...

Vincente getting another 15 minutes of fame, thanks to the Donald.

David Begley said...

Trump surely says "fucking" all the time in private. What a fake distinction.

Trump is a loose cannon. A loose cannon who wants to be Commander-in-Chief with his finger on our nukes. Not a good idea.

tim maguire said...

Of course Mexico should pay for the wall. Mexico is the problem, it should be the solution. No rational person disagrees with that (though many pretend to for their own reasons). And there are many ways to get Mexico to pay for the wall. So Vincente Fox won't be paying for it personally? So?

Bay Area Guy said...

Not only should Mexico pay for the wall, but Trump should hire illegal immigrants to build it.

AllenS said...

Actually, Mr. Begley, you don't know what Trump says in private. Do you?

traditionalguy said...

Dreams of Ronnie Raygun telling the Russians we would start the bombing, over the dead mike.

Unpredictable Presidents are the best Presidents in the world.

If a man can master his tongue, he can master himself and a nation. And Trump's tongue is always under control his control.

David Begley said...

AllenS

No, I don't know the private Trump but it is reasonable to assume it is not too different from the public Trump. Probably cusses like a sailor. All "tough guys" do.

Ann Althouse said...

I don't understand how it works to just crudely throw insults at Trump when your substance is that Trump speaks bluntly. David Begley, you, in particular, sound like the very problem you are trying to attack. Except your type of attack has been plainly unsuccessful, and Trump's speech — whatever it is, however it is the same or different from yours — has been phenomenally successful. Don't you think you need to analyze this communications problem? Or do you just spout simple insults that pop into your head? Is that what you imagine Trump is doing? Because you are wrong, and you don't even bother to find out exactly how you are wrong. There is an art to blunt, clear, surprising speech. Most politicians don't try to do it because it's too hard to do right. At least KNOW that you're not doing it right. Otherwise, this is just headslappingly stupid.

Curious George said...

"David Begley said...
Trump surely says "fucking" all the time in private. What a fake distinction."

The issue is he said it on TV. Are you too fucking (oops) stupid to differentiate what is okay to say on TV versus what is said in private?

chickelit said...

David Begley comes across as a Vincente Fox cheerleader.

Kelly said...

What I want to know is what's wrong with Obama. Is it lack of sleep or what? In that clip it took him quite a long time to spit out his thought. It was very halting, his eyes look sleepy. The man is a mess.

Ken B said...

Be still my heart.

tim in vermont said...

I am not yet persuaded that Trump has the temperament to be a good president. I like a lot of what he says, but I feel like his lack of substance on issues is a real thing. But on the other hand, there is a concept in project management called "rolling wave" meaning that you can't really predict to far into the future accurately, so don't plan in too much detail, but make decisions from the crest of the wave, when the facts are more fully known.

David said...

I would not be so sure that Trump uses the F word all the time in private. He is retro proper in someof his attitudes and that might be one of them.

There are people who don't use such words. My father was one of them. That's why I was in a lot of trouble when I came home as a freshman in college and thoughtlessly asked by mother to "pass the fucking salt."

mccullough said...

Rolling wave is a good description of US policy the last 20 years. Also known as short term decision making

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

"With a year left, practically, in office"

WTF is he talking about. We're almost in March. In early November we will have a new occupant in "The office of the President-Elect". I just hope Obama hasn't misplaced that seal.

Freder Frederson said...

And there are many ways to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

Really?! Care to explain just a couple of those ways that will actually be effective? Like Trump, you just believe in the magic of will.

There may be many ways to try and get Mexico to pay for the wall. But I can't think of any that wouldn't violate NAFTA and WTO regs. Unless Trump is willing to ignore international law and trigger a trade war with most of the rest of the world, I don't know how he could do it.

Trump's faux outrage is ridiculous. "Fucking" is barely more "filthy [or] disgusting" than shit--which he has used in at least one speech. He also mock chastised someone for calling Rubio a pussy, while making sure that the comment was heard by the entire crowd.

David Begley said...

AA

Just fighting fire with fire. Trump called Bush "low energy" and it worked.

Trump is a coward, four time bankrupt loser, con artist, bully, 12 time business failure, WWE character, hypocrite, liar, dullard, loose cannon and has very poor character. He will lose in November and people need to wake up to that fact. Otherwise, hello President Hillary.

I think Vietnam vets will especially be interested in Donald's own personal Vietnam, as told to Howard Stern. Google it.

Michael K said...

" David Begley, you, in particular, sound like the very problem you are trying to attack."

Dave, you have been a great source of information at Powerline. I understand you don;t like Trump. I don;t like him much either but he is the vessel, the flawed vessel, of American rage at the political system that has gotten us in this hole.

I think he may very well be the next President. I hope that Republicans are starting to consider that reality and think about tempering the vitriolic language being used about him. I don't care if you damn him but the extreme bias is alleging all sorts of things that you have no basis for knowing about him is going to be a problem when it comes time to staff an administration.

There used to be a concept of "The Wise Men" who staffed an administration of either party and who provided a level of competence that got us through the Cold War.

Bill Clinton pretty much used such a group although the old bipartisan members like Max Kampelman who served both Carter and Reagan, had died off.

Obama's administration was staffed with young ideologues and few experienced hands even most of the old "Wise Men" were Democrats. I read Robert Gates book and Obama centered all policy in the White House which hated and was suspicious of all military advice even though we were in two wars.

Does Dave Begley prefer to have a Trump administration staffed by business associates who have no experience in government? Or worse, by Obama type acolytes who know nothing, like Rhodes whose education was in fiction writing and who is now his foreign policy advisor ?

It is time for Republicans to think about how to staff a Trump administration. They can do it quietly but the vitriol should taper off.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

@Curious George:

This comes down to our hypocrisy about language, in general. If we take as an assumption that Vincente Fox says "fuck" in private--as we can safely assume any President of any country does--why is it scandalous for him to almost say it on television? How does this make Fox worthy of special criticism, especially by someone else whom we assume also uses the word privately? (And especially given that there are much more serious things for which Obama can be criticized.)

David Begley's pointing out of Trump's phony outrage is well taken. (And didn't Trump recently call someone a "pussy" publicly? If it is no longer, it certainly has not been long since such language by a public figure would have been beyond the pale.)

chickelit said...

Surely Vincente Fox believes in the eminent domain of the Mexican people regarding certain regions of Norte America. That is why he had to curse the wall in the first place.

AllenS said...

David Begley said...
I think Vietnam vets will especially be interested in Donald's own personal Vietnam, as told to Howard Stern.

I guess that that was addressed to me. Well, let me tell you, I have a lot of friends that did this or that to avoid the draft, and I still consider them friends. In 2014 I was part of the 50th high school reunion committee, and not surprisingly, a lot of the "star athletes" did not serve. Not a problem. Get this: I have probably an equal number of friends that are conservative or liberal.

Were you all worked up about BJ Clinton avoiding the draft, Mr. Begley?

Curious George said...

Robert Cook said...
"@Curious George:

This comes down to our hypocrisy about language, in general. If we take as an assumption that Vincente Fox says "fuck" in private--as we can safely assume any President of any country does--why is it scandalous for him to almost say it on television? How does this make Fox worthy of special criticism, especially by someone else whom we assume also uses the word privately? (And especially given that there are much more serious things for which Obama can be criticized.) David Begley's pointing out of Trump's phony outrage is well taken. "

LOL Gonna need help unscrewing yourself out of the ground Robert? What a steaming pile. Trump did not criticized Fox for saying "fucking". Trump criticized Fox for saying "fucking"on TV. You know it's okay to masterbate in private. It's not OK to masterbate on TV. You're as dumb as that Begley moron.

"David Begley's pointing out of Trump's phony outrage is well taken. (And didn't Trump recently call someone a "pussy" publicly? "

No.

David Begley said...

Michael K

Trump can still be stopped and he must be stopped as he is a certain loser in November. That's my goal.

I understand many GOP primary voters are spitting angry. I've seen them personally and Trump twice. But anger is not a plan. I submit that Trump followers are the mirror of Obama's "hope and change" cult. Make America great again is his meme. A historic businessman President. Obama is a disaster, but a President Trump would be worse.

Trump is not inevitable and to suggest he is only helps Trump. Trump talks more about the polls than about policy. Revealing.

Michael K said...

The Vietnam War was a unique example of draft behavior. The only people I went to college with who served in that war were the doctors I knew. All doctors served. My two partners and I had been in the military before medical school as enlisted men. Nobody else I knew in college served in the military. I have lots of friends, made later, who served, just not my friends from college. I just recalled that one guy who was a fraternity pledge was later a fighter pilot.

Nobody cares about the draft anymore. Clinton and Trump did not get drafted. Clinton made a rather obvious effort to avoid it.

Reagan was criticized for serving as an actor in WWII but he was actually a long term member of the Army Reserve in the 1930s who failed the physical for active duty. Nobody now cares.

David Begley said...

AllenS

Be assured I was against all aspects of Bill Clinton. Same for his so-called wife.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"Obama is a disaster, but a President Trump would be worse. "

You are very certain but I am concerned about Republican potential staff members who might be getting too far out on a limb to be considered. Bill Kristol, who was Cheney's Chief of Staff, is threatening to run a third party candidate, as if he could find one to commit suicide like that.

I see more hysteria on the anti-Trump side than even the pro side. This is a unique period in our history and the GOP has done a lot to cause it.

Bill said...

At a public convention four years ago, Trump used the Gerund F in public, and was absurd in saying so to boot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkVH4z5Aazw

His argument was that a touch negotiator would get the "f'ing price" of oil reduced just by use of the magic word. The rational OPEC response would have been: why yes, I am going to raise the f'ing price, if the market can bear it.
I don't fool myself that pointing out Trump's phoniness is a path to his destruction, but neither it is a sign we should not point out that phoniness.

traditionalguy said...

Declaring that normal bodily function words are bad words is asserting that we are still children under parental discipline. Bad people.

Trump is just showing us an Equal Protection Argument. He can J'accuse words as good as anyone.

David Begley said...

Michael K and Allen S

The POINT is that Trump said his actions of having unprotected sex in NYC was the moral equivalent of serving in Vietnam. That's the epic fail of the campaign. Especially coming from a guy who claims to love vets. Trump is a moron. How could anyone in the public eye say something so stupid?

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Trump talks more about the polls than about policy.


Trump does have a detailed, granular understanding of the polls. Since he has to win the polls to win the presidency he takes an interest in this. Hypotheticals are not his thing. He is no philosopher king. On the other hand, neither are the other guys, who are just paid shills for someone else who dictates policy.

Snark said...

What I saw more than anything in there was paving the way for an out for having Mexico pay for the wall on their own. "Mexico is not doing us any favors..." This leaves some hypothetical future shift in Mexican drug policy as relevant to who pays for the hypothetical future wall.

David Begley said...

ReasonableMan

Horse race talk does not advance the public discourse. Nothing like that in the Kennedy-Nixon debates.

Trump does it to appeal to bandwagon voters and make himself seem inevitable. It also uses his limited time so he doesn't have to talk about stuff he knows nothing about. Like our nuclear triad.

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Nothing like that in the Kennedy-Nixon debates.


Nixon lost.

Michael K said...

The era of TV in elections has as much to do with Trump as it did to bring us Obama.

I agree that it has devastated politics. The tallest candidate always wins, etc.

Railing against fate does nothing to alter it. I am just saying that you, Dave, are unlikely to be asked to serve in a Trump administration but some people who might be should temper their language. I'm not asking for agreement but "National Review" and "The Weekly Standard" are supposed to be conservative sources of wisdom.

Right now, "City Journal" and "Claremont Review of Books" seem to be the only sources of sanity in the right wing world.

Oh, and I read Derbyshire and Mark Steyn, both missing from NRO.

tim in vermont said...

Rolling wave is a good description of US policy the last 20 years. Also known as short term decision makin

OK, then you tell me what features an iPhone should have in ten years. Excessive detail in planning is time wasting.

Bobby said...

Michael K,

"Bill Kristol, who was Cheney's Chief of Staff, is threatening to run a third party candidate, as if he could find one to commit suicide like that."

Beg your pardon, sir, but I believe that Bill Kristol was VP Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff. I don't believe he ever worked for Cheney.

David Begley,

"The POINT is that Trump said his actions of having unprotected sex in NYC was the moral equivalent of serving in Vietnam. That's the epic fail of the campaign. Especially coming from a guy who claims to love vets."

But that's how he is about everything, David. He's an egomaniac. Look, he couldn't name any of the players or organizations in Syria, but that didn't stop him from saying that "I know more about ISIS than the generals do." Because he did high school at NYMA, he has said that he had "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military." Now I know NYMA very well from my previous life at West Point- that statement is literally absurd. But his ego is so colossal that he can't help but believe himself.

Regardless of who wins the election, I'm going to serve the nation's defense loyally and dutifully as I have during the last two Administrations. But I worry immensely when people tell me that "Unlike Obama, Trump would listen to his generals!" When a guy thinks he knows more than his expert advisors, I'm not so sure that he will. In fact, my experience with the current White House occupant is that, all too often, they don't.

mccullough said...

Tim,

You have planned to have the I-phone around in 10 years. Congratulations, you now have used more foresight than most politicians.



David Ragsdale said...

This stupid NUCLEAR TRIAD HUGH HEWITT Hobby Horse!

What's to know?!?! That the US has three platforms to deliver our nuclear arsenal.

Land, Sea-subs, Air. Ok, got it, thanks Hugh.

It's one of Hugh's hobby horses because it makes that dweeb who has never come close to serving in uniform but is a Major in the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb brigade seem 'tough.'

JEESH, let's talk about engineering specs on our Aircraft Carriers next.

This is a HUGE problem w/ the Right, they've been grifted for so long by supposed 'experts' like the failed OC lawyer and not military guy Hugh Hewitt that instead of spending their precious time TALKING ABOUT ISSUES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CARE ABOUT, like trade, immigration, jobs, they end up following moron-grifters like Hugh Hewitt down the rabbit hole of esoteric issues that are on the very wedge end of tangential.

UGH. Go Trump

David Ragsdale said...

p.s. Cause you know what didn't make the US safer? The wretched War that Hewitt and his chickenhawk comrade Kristol amped us into.

Enough with them and their corrupt military-procurement tangents.

Alexander said...

@Freder,

First, a trade war with Mexico. Yeah, that's something I stay up at night worrying about.

Two, international law violations? Well Europeans are beginning to break Schengen left and right and Mexican citizens aren't particularly worried about breaking international law crossing the border, so I'm not worried. Hell, if Trump came straight out and said "We're going to war on NAFTA," he'd probably see a 10% rise in the rustbelt overnight.

In short, 'international law' is right up there with 'won't someone think of the environmental impact of a wall!': last ditch efforts that are used only when convenient for the person using them.

But to answer your direct question: we could require that every single truck coming up from Mexico had every single tomato hand inspected. You know, because 'terrorism'. Or Zika. Gotta protect the American people. Or ever cargo container. Same reasons. Nothing wrong or illegal or in violation of international law over that.

We can tax money sent back to Mexico. We can ratchet it up high enough that after the first wave of cash, it becomes prohibitive to do and some of them go home anyway.

And we also - and Mexico knows this - have a Mexican civil war primer kit ready to go. Mexico pays for a wall... and maybe we take our time sending back the Mexicans, kick out the really bad eggs, require proof of citizenship for government benefits, turns the screws but give Mexico some time.

Or we don't, and we commandeer the school buses of the country and mobilize the national guard, tighten all the screws at the exact same time legally via executive orders while rolling convoys of Mexicans down to the border, and if who knows how many millions of people suddenly repatriated back to Mexico causes their economy to completely collapse and plunges the nation into civil war... well hey, was it really that big of a problem to pay for the fucking wall?

Now personally, I prefer the drip-drip. Require English for benefits. Require citizenship for benefits. Ban dual-citizenship. Tax remittances to Mexico and Latin America. Immigration holiday, yes, for legal immigration. Get rid of the 1965 system of quotas that completely flipped the immigration numbers despite promising not to.

But if that's not gonna work, either because of leftists jamming up the works with 'sanctuary' cities to filibusters to riots, or Mexicans refusing to accept the idea that someone else's country has as much right to sovereignty as Mexico does... then I'm willing to go with option two.

rhhardin said...

I don't swear in private except for oh shit.

It's only in public that curse words are appropriate, owing to their finely honed effectiveness.

rhhardin said...

There's the wailing wall and the fucking wall.

Paul said...

The Begleys of the world, with their spun up rantings, steadfast dire bullshit predictions, absurd claims like Trump will be worse than Obama (one hates the country and one loves it) etc., aren't really trying to convince their skeptics. They are just emotionally venting and frantically virtue signalling. Just like any run of the mill leftist brat. There's not a speck of difference between them in the end. They are both the kind of people you cross the street to avoid when you see them coming with their mutterings and crazy eyes.

Anglelyne said...

David Begley:

I understand many GOP primary voters are spitting angry.

It doesn't take much to "understand" that people are angry. Understanding why they're angry, different matter, and the latter is what you must do first to have any chance to achieve your stated goals.

The GOP seems to be stuck alternating between "lashing out at the stupid proles" mode and "we just haven't hit on the right way to say 'honest, guys, we really mean it this time'" mode. This indicates to me that they still don't understand much of anything.

I've seen them personally and Trump twice. But anger is not a plan. I submit that Trump followers are the mirror of Obama's "hope and change" cult. Make America great again is his meme.

David, you can submit that until the cows come home. (It's a meme, too.) But being contemptuous of angry voters isn't a plan, either. By all means, aggressively work to persuade those stupid Trump supporters that your guys really will work in their interest. May I humbly suggest that endless fuming re-bleats of "Trump talks more about the polls than about policy", and like, hasn't done squat to help you persuade people of that?

Trump is not inevitable and to suggest he is only helps Trump.

If you don't want Trump to be inevitable, it's time to quit believing that the power of positive thinking is going to save you. There's a huge re-alignment going on, or, rather, a revelation of what's been bubbling underneath for a long time. I think the GOP is past its sell-by date, and not fit for purpose. Your job is to persuade angry voters that that ain't so, not cement their perception that the GOPe wishes they would just eat shit and die.

Michael K said...

" I believe that Bill Kristol was VP Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff. I don't believe he ever worked for Cheney."

You're correct but my point was that he had actually been a senior staff member in a GOP administration and he seems to be going insane at the thought of a Trump presidency. That can be counter-productive.

Thanks for the correction,

khesanh0802 said...

This site estimates that we provided $209 million plus in aid to Mexico in 2012. Over twenty years that would be about $5 billion which is about half of what Donald said his wall would cost. See, some of the money's there already. The Mexicans can provide a match and everybody's happy! Alexander lays out the negotiating position. Let's get it done!

eric said...

Michael K, I like where your head is at, but that's not where they are. You'll see. If Trump wins the nomination, they will do what they can to get Hillary elected.

To many, this sounds rediculous. But, they would rather Trump lose and preserve their positions as wise men and say, "We told you so" than have Trump win and lose all their power. They've done this to tea party candidates.

I just hope Trump is too good for them to stop.

If he is, expect them to attempt to undermine and criticise his presidency at every turn.

khesanh0802 said...

@Angelyne 10:00 Well said!

David Begley said...

Anglelyne

Both Cruz and Rubio are solid conservatives. Marco made one mistake with his Gang of 8 bill and he has repented. The fact that he is supposedly "sweaty" is not a basis for not voting for him.

And it is laughable for the guy who started Trump University to say Cruz is a "liar" and to cite some election mailers.

Trump has a very poor character and his long record backs that up. Only Hillary is worse. We can do better.

Robert Cook said...

"Trump did not criticized Fox for saying "fucking". Trump criticized Fox for saying 'fucking' on TV."

So? What's the difference? At worst, it is a minor indiscretion, poor manners, nothing more. Trump would have us believe that for Fox to almost say "fucking" shows Fox to be some sort of depraved reprobate, unfit for public service. Given that we can assume the word "fuck" passes Trump's lips frequently, he's a hypocrite.

"'David Begley's pointing out of Trump's phony outrage is well taken. (And didn't Trump recently call someone a "pussy" publicly?)'"

"No."


Yes, he did...he called Cruz a "pussy." (Cruz had apparently expressed reservations about our using torture--which is the least one should expect from a public figure, given torture is grotesque, not to mention illegal--and Trump gleefully repeated the resulting insult of Cruz that had originated with a woman in a Trump audience.)

Bay Area Guy said...

@David Begley

Trump can still be stopped and he must be stopped as he is a certain loser in November. That's my goal.

Are a Conservative or a Leftist? If you claim to be conservative, wow, you parked a truckload of pretzel logic in that one succinct sentence. If you are a Leftist, well, that's simply par for the course.

Trump can still be stopped..

Yeah, by whom and how? I supported Rubio in the primary, sent him a few shekels, and, last I looked, Donald has bested him in every primary so far, and is leading him in Florida. Sometimes, you lose. It's not fun. But it happens.

.. and he must be stopped

Why? He's winning the nomination fairly & squarely. The worst thing that can happen is that he loses to Hillary in November. But that doesn't answer the question whether he will lose in November. RCP average has him down only by 2 -3 points.

...as he is a certain loser in November.

See above. 2-3 point deficit certainly isn't a certain loss. How on earth can any sentient being state that Trump is certain loser in November, given all of Hillary's political problems. When amateurs talk about "certainty," head for the hills!

That's my goal

That may be your stated goal, but, in effect, you are doing exactly what Hillary's political operatives want -- freak out irrationally about Trump, not vote for him, convince others to not vote him, help elect Hillary.

If you are a liberal, I forgive you. If you are a Republican, oh boy.

AllenS said...

After the wall is built, I want to see signs every mile or so on both sides of it, that says: THE FUCKING WALL

Anglelyne said...

David Begley @2/26/16, 10:16 AM:

I see that the point of my comment eluded you entirely.

Thorley Winston said...

Trump surely says "fucking" all the time in private. What a fake distinction.

Yes and he probably expels bodily waste in private as well. Obviously if he objects to people doing that in public, that makes him a hypocrite.

Drago said...

David Begley: "Anglelyne, Both Cruz and Rubio are solid conservatives. Marco made one mistake with his Gang of 8 bill and he has repented."

Wrong.

Failure on immigration is the slicing of the "policy Gordian knot" that delivers everything, EVERYTHING, into the dems hands for generations.

To minimize that gives you away as someone who will sell the conservative movement completely, irretrievably, down the river.

Drago said...

David Begley wants to know if it's too late to coalesce around an sure winner candidate like Romney, McCain and Dole.

Paul said...

"Failure on immigration is the slicing of the "policy Gordian knot" that delivers everything, EVERYTHING, into the dems hands for generations.'

This. Demographic replacement is the left's long term strategy and there is no recovering from it.

Howard said...

Trump might be a liar, but at least he's not a fucking Canadian or low energy choke artist.

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "So? What's the difference?"

LOL

There is no difference. None at all. Period. You are absolutely correct that was is said in private is positively no different than what is said in public.

Thanks for the "nuanced" view.

Here's a hypothetical: suppose a VP candidate for the out-party in an election year steals an SR-71 (while no one is looking of course) and flies it to Paris to meet with terrorists holding Americans hostage all in service to conspiracy to have the terrorists keep American citizens hostage longer in order to secure a certain electoral victory.

Now imagine that VP candidate toggles the mic on the aircraft and speaks into it. Would you consider that public or private speech and would you say there was distinction.

Next up for Cookie: TailWind!!!

David Begley said...

Angleyne

Voters are angry at the elite establishment - of both parties - because they have not protected us. See Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ. His appeal is simply "throw the bums out" and burn down the house.

I am not lashing out "at the stupid proles" (your words, not mine) but trying to wake people up to the fact that Trump is no conservative and has a number of demonstrated character flaws. And the Dems with MSM will display Trump's faults for all to see.

And since my persuasion ability has been called into question, try this. Other than Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton, has there ever been a more unlikable candidate than Trump? He is unlikable in a thousand ways.

Paul said...

The Begelys of the world are also like the fuming leftists in that they make a lot of noise but are a relatively small portion of the electorate. Their frustration at their impotence just riles them up to further turn up the volume but it will be for naught. Thankfully.

Bobby said...

khesanh0802,

The problem is that much of those funds go through things like the Merida Initiative, where the dominant source account is International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Foreign Military Financing and the Economic Support Fund. Withdrawing those funds is likely to significantly reduce Mexico's already-insufficient capabilities to combat drug trafficking and disrupt the operational capacity of organized crime. I suppose we could undercut the cartels by just decriminalizing "narcotics" and letting Americans grow and sell marijuana and the like, but I think American politicians (and especially conservatives) tend to believe that it's more important that government have the power to tell citizens what they can or can't put in their body.

I think a lot of wall advocates simply believe that border security can be raised to the extent that drugs couldn't come over an impregnable border, but the Israeli experience in Gaza tends to demonstrate that significant protection is not possible without cooperation on the other side. But then we're talking about the same dynamic with liberal ideologues (who believe, for example, that outlawing guns will mean there will be no gun violence) and conservative ideologues (who, for example, believe that outlawing abortions will mean there will be no abortions), so why should the border wall be any different?

Paul said...

"And since my persuasion ability has been called into question, try this. Other than Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton, has there ever been a more unlikable candidate than Trump? He is unlikable in a thousand ways."

And yet he's wildly popular and headed for a landslide victory...

Drago said...

David Begley: "I am not lashing out "at the stupid proles" (your words, not mine) but trying to wake people up to the fact that Trump is no conservative and has a number of demonstrated character flaws."

That a comment like this can be written after the elected repubs have handed Obama everything he ever dreamed of in terms of funding and non-challenging attitudes is truly something.

Worse, these "betters" load us up with "Failure Theater" events one after the other and we are not supposed to notice.

You know, those types of actions strike me as "character flaws". What do you think David?

Oh, that's right, we can't speak about those and of course, harrumph harrumph, you certainly don't "approve" of that behavior, but let's not speak of that right now, right? We must focus on that Trump guy who might not do conservative things once in office!!

David Begley said...

Trump's attack on Cruz and suggesting that he was not a natural born citizen was totally disgusting. A giant legal joke. He was just gaming the legal system and the uninformed. It infuriated me. And then Trump turns around and attacks Ted for a mailer.

Trump repeatedly has exploited the stupidity of the American public. He tried it with his birther thing on Obama and replayed it against Ted. And where is all "the great stuff" his investigators found in Hawaii?

Do you really want a casino owner as President? The casinos were all built with losers' money. Only the House wins at a casino. Trump wins. We lose.

cubanbob said...

I'm starting to believe God loves Donald Trump. Why I don't know and perhaps its a setup but Fox's comment is yet another sign. While Fox's comments might be great politics in Mexico, Trump isn't running for President Of The United Mexican States. Some people need a clue. When the Democrats start again with the undocumented alien nonsense again I would not be surprised if Trump declared that he and Hillary are running for President, She and the Democrats for President and Congress of Mexico and he and the Republicans for President of the United States and for the US Congress.

@Alexander; well put. If the Republicans actually stated something along those lines they would quite likely carry 45 states and win an absolute control of Congress.

Drago said...

David Begley: "It infuriated me."

If only once, just once, you would be infuriated by Rubio working with the dems to hand permanent majority control over to the dems for remainder of ours and our childrens lives.

Then, and only then, you might be able to recover the slightest tidbit of credibility in your complaints about Trump.

But you will never do that. Why? Who knows what is in your head. Perhaps, as Paul has pointed out above, the dem policy of LITERALLY replacing the bulk of the American electorate with a more 3rd world, socialistic and subservient group is quite alright with you.

It must be actually. For if it was not, and you understood the implications, you would be screaming from the highest rooftop that Rubio could not be trusted.

But you don't.

The conclusions are unavoidable.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

“You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!' and they go nuts.”

If you really believe a wall will happen, Donald has a real estate course he'd like to sell you.

David Begley said...

Paul

Ipse dixit.

For now.

Writ Small said...

Except your type of attack has been plainly unsuccessful, and Trump's speech — whatever it is, however it is the same or different from yours — has been phenomenally successful.

Trump's style has been successful at putting him in the lead in the Republican primaries, but that means that Donald has gotten a solid 1/3 of the 1/3 of the country that are Republican primary voters. While his style entertains and attracts attention, it also alienates many, many people who support those Donald has gone after.

Right now, Rubio and Cruz combined have exceeded Trump's vote totals. Of course, when one or the other drops out, many of those voters will go to Trump, but actually, based on "second choice" polling, far fewer than would be Trump's expected share. That is a knock off effect to Trump's "phenomenally successful" style.

I do agree that criticisms of Trump should be as accurate as possible. Scott Adam's "I know you are, but what is Trump" defense notwithstanding, Trump is clearly a narcissist of the highest order. Yes, I'm not a trained psychologist, but it is the job of voters to make judgments of those we would give power, and it would be a kind of political malpractice to ignore Trump's blindingly obvious symptoms.

Trump clearly has fascistic leanings. Watch this video of Trump encouraging supporters to "knock the crap" out of tomato-wielding protesters.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/01/trump-tells-crowd-hell-pay-legal-fees-if-they-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters/

The vile Melissa Click was fired for something similar, but Trump's actions should be more concerning given the greater power he seeks.

Lastly, Trump is pretty obviously a con man. A lot of success in real estate involves getting another person to part with property with greater potential value than they realize and doing the reverse when you sell. That is business, but the incontrovertible evidence is Trump University. Most Americans realize that these late night infomercials that promise to make you a real estate genius are scams. Who falls for them? The "poorly educated" so loved by Trump. Donald Trump saw an opening and launched his own "school" to cash in on the gullible.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/trump-university-fraud-claims/

Said New York Attorney General after filing suit in 2013: ""We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam, starting with the fact that it was not a university. . ."

The best that Trump can do is to argue as he did last night that he has won "most" of the lawsuits, although I suspect the Donald, never afraid to exaggerate, is including out-of-court settlements in the win column.

I worry that Althouse is so invested in her preference cascade prediction, which it must be admitted could easily come to pass, she is looking the other way at the very real warning signs of Trump deficiencies.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Howard said...
Trump might be a liar, but at least he's not a fucking Canadian or low energy choke artist.

2/26/16, 10:38 AM"

And he isn't an Kenyan-Indonesian crypto-communist Muslim liar, grifter and Goddamn America Church member.

Drago said...

cubanbob: "I'm starting to believe God loves Donald Trump. Why I don't know and perhaps its a setup but Fox's comment is yet another sign. While Fox's comments might be great politics in Mexico, Trump isn't running for President"

As Cruz supporter this is the sort of thing that keeps hitting home. Trump, who is no Reagan make no mistake, does seem to possess that uncanny ability to utter a phrase, a comment or take an action that sort of cuts through all the clutter and goes to the heart of things that many/most people feel and sense in the recesses of their very being.

This can be used for good and (Mike Myers Voice) eeeevvveeeeeeelll (like the Fruuuu-iiittts of the dev-eeeeeeeeeeeel), but there it is nonetheless.

I half wonder if Donald worked a backdoor deal with Fox to say those very things in those very ways to drive more of the blue collar and working class into the Donalds camp.

Amazing.

BTW, you would be hardpressed to find a government more corrupted than the current PRI disaster led by Pena Nieto. There is no longer ANY line between the Mexican government and the cartels. None.

Drago said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi: "If you really believe a wall will happen, Donald has a real estate course he'd like to sell you."

Or perhaps you would like another "defund Obamacare Failure Theater" production, or perhaps a "Corker: gee, we really won't be able to stop Obama from removing sanctions against Iran because we Republicans already voted to put that power into the minorities hands" or "wow, we really just couldn't pass a budget that in any way limits the dems".

I understand what you are saying Bushman. But what you are not saying is what would make that any different from what all the current "good republicans" have been doing for years.

And that is quite telling indeed.

And if you believe that Marco will hold the line on immigration, well then, I've got an Obamacare defunding bill to sell you.

Bay Area Guy said...

Begley is ..trying to wake people up to the fact that Trump is no conservative and has a number of demonstrated character flaws

Have you been dozing off the past month?

True, Trump is not conservative on many issues; true, Trump has some character flaws -- yet a bunch of GOP primary voters know this, still love him and vote for him. That's why he's winning.

Make a decision: Trump or Hillary as your next president? And stick with it.

As a Rubio supporter (who is losing fair and square), it seems to me that the only sane decision I can make is to learn to love The Donald. How about you?

Fabi said...

It's almost as if David Begley doesn't like Trump. I need more data to be certain.

David Begley said...

Drago

He admitted his mistake. Can't you forgive Marco?

Michael K said...

If Trump wins the nomination, they will do what they can to get Hillary elected.

To many, this sounds rediculous. But, they would rather Trump lose and preserve their positions as wise men and say, "We told you so" than have Trump win and lose all their power. They've done this to tea party candidates.

I just hope Trump is too good for them to stop.


I doubt that you are correct but I fear such a scenario. They remind me of a story my mother used to tell about a relative who was so concerned to not look foolish that he would walk slower and slower toward the street car that was about to leave so he would not be seen to run futilely after it. He would rather pretend he didn't really want to catch it.

He missed a lot of street cars.

Michael K said...

" Can't you forgive Marco?"

That's not all. I could forgive him if he was more competent. It would also help if he looked older than 15.

kennymac said...

David Begley, you are pathetic. You actually think we DON'T know that Trump isn't conservative?? Newsflash spanky, we do know. And we don't fucking care!! In fact I'd wager that that is one of his selling points. Conservatism has been a complete failure for the last 60 years. Drago's point about demographic replacement is correct, how many more "conservative" judges or policies do you think you'll get when there are 30 million more 3rd World peasants voting for the Free Shit Party? That you can't see this plain fact is a very poor reflection on you, are you in favor of it or are you just stupid?

chickelit said...

David Begley: He admitted his mistake. Can't you forgive Marco?

Another problem is that Rubio represented vested interests who wanted him to write that legislation. Now they're allowing him to distance himself from it for political expediency. But they will be back, once he's in office, compelling his interest. Trump is not beholdered to such special interests.

chickelit said...

Plus didn't Marco already earn the anti-endorsement from Jeff Sessions?

David Begley said...

Next up. Romney attacks Trump as the failed and BK casino owner.

Trump is like the Corelone Family but he can't even make money as the House. #loser

Anglelyne said...

eric: Michael K, I like where your head is at, but that's not where they are. You'll see. If Trump wins the nomination, they will do what they can to get Hillary elected.

To many, this sounds rediculous. But, they would rather Trump lose and preserve their positions as wise men and say, "We told you so" than have Trump win and lose all their power. They've done this to tea party candidates.


Oddly enough, I really don't fault them for this, as I don't think it's entirely a matter of cynical maneuvering to maintain power/sinecures. (Though there is of course a heapin' helpin' of that.) What's being revealed here is real political affiliation, for which existing labels (Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative) no longer serve.

People like Kristol are merely on the "right" (neo-con) branch of neoliberal globalism, as opposed to left-branch liberal neoliberal globalsim. (Forgive the clunky formulations. It'll be a while before we have a new set of more accurate, simpler conventional labels.) And that's pretty much where they've always been. Hillary really does represent something more in tune with their consistent political weltanschauung, and it makes sense to me that they would end up over there in opposition to an as yet inchoate reaction against rule by Davos Man.

"Conservatism, Inc" was the niche for their flavor of the neoliberal globalism that has been consolidating through the post-WWII period up to the present. That system is now straining at the seams. So it's something a lot deeper than Trump that's driving them off the deep end. Really, why would they be losing their shit (and boy, are they ever losing their shit) over this clown, this buffoon, if he was just one of those ugly blips of ignorant populism that often turn up when a fundamentally solid and robust system hits a rough spot?

Bobby said...

Drago,

"BTW, you would be hardpressed to find a government more corrupted than the current PRI disaster led by Pena Nieto."

Not that hardpressed at all, really. Transparency International ranked the world's ten most corrupt governments as: Somalia; North Korea; Afghanistan; Sudan; South Sudan and Angola (tied); Libya and Iraq (tied); Venezuela and Guniea-Bissau (tied). Of the 168 countries ranked, Mexico is tied with Armenia, Mali and the Philippines for 95th. That's bad. But it's nothing near "hardpressed to find." Unfortunately, the world is a very corrupt place.

David Begley said...

Bay Area Guy

This election is not over. Few delegates selected. Still in the first inning.

Birkel said...

As for me, I just hope the Vandals are nicer when they sack Rome this time around.

cubanbob said...

@ Drago at 10.55: I'm a Cruz guy myself, but I have to admit so far Trump has been far more masterful at the game of politics than any of the candidates of either party so far. Trump's appeal is he is an American Nationalist, not to say that Cruz isn't or for that matter any of the other Republican candidates aren't (notice I state Republican and not Democrat) but Trump has the Reagan ability with the quip, the short and to the point remark and rebuttal.

Anglelyne said...

khesanh0802 @2/26/16, 10:10 AM:

Thanks for the upvote!


(I assume, that, unlike David Begley, you actually understood what I was talking about. Blimey, that boy is thick.)

Howard said...

Watching you wing-nuts flail about trying to slap and scratch each other is the definition of schadenfreude.

eric said...

Blogger David Begley said...
Drago

He admitted his mistake. Can't you forgive Marco?


If I thought he knew the mistake he made and admitted to it, then yes. But the mistake he made wasn't trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The mistake he made was rising as a tea party candidate, getting elected, and then allowing himself to be so easily coopted by McCain and Lindsey Graham.

He went to Washington and instantly became a member of the machine. Rather than taking the Cruz route. Rather than being his own man like Rand Paul, he joined ranks with the old school Republicans and thought to himself, "Making deals with Chuck Schumer is a great idea!"

Now he is clearly on a side. And voting for him sends a message. You can go to Washington and be coopted by the old school, surrender monkey, we can't ever shut down the government oh noes! Republicans, and still get elected by the base.

Well, the base is sending a message. No, you can't.

Che Dolf said...

Michael K - They remind me of a story my mother used to tell about a relative who was so concerned to not look foolish that he would walk slower and slower toward the street car that was about to leave so he would not be seen to run futilely after it. He would rather pretend he didn't really want to catch it.

That's marvelous.

Howard said...

cubabbob and drago: What's the appeal of Cruz? His stereotypical looks, manners and speaking voice of a pedophile? This is what Trump means when he calls Teddy a pussy. The only thing I can think of is that you find him non-threatening to your weak masculinity.

Barry Dauphin said...

Although I think Trump looks to be the nominee, Marcwbot did a pretty good job of getting to him. Trump has debate flaws too. He's done well by setting the rules by which the debates are played. But he did not look good in the face of Marcwbot attacks. The strong horse has to keep looking like a strong horse. He's capable of re-grouping but he can't have too many repeat performances of not looking very strong in the face of attacks from someone who looks as young as Marcwbot.

eric said...

Blogger David Begley said...
Bay Area Guy

This election is not over. Few delegates selected. Still in the first inning.


It's over for Rubio. He pushed all his chips in last night and today. Someone convinced him that Trumps appeal all along has been a childishness. So they told Rubio, go childish! And he has gone all in. Ugh. It's embarrassing.

It's embarrassing because he is being so childish, but it's even more embarrassing because his fans snicker and think it's a winning strategy.

My favorite thing about it is, it leaves Cruz looking like the adult in the room. Thank God.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Drago, while I do like Rubio I understand the anger some have over the issue. If it costs him the election, so be it. Cruz is my second choice and I would happily support him in the general. In my opinion, both of these individuals would be capable Presidents and both could beat Hillary.

What I find interesting is that you don't believe Rubio can change his position on immigration but you're willing to buy Trump's many reversals based on little or no evidence. I don't see anything in Trump's history that makes be believe he cares about any of his campaign talking points.

Personally, I've tried to give Trump a chance. I've listened to numerous stump speeches and debates and I just don't get the appeal. I enjoy the shots he takes at the media but I see nothing that makes me think he could competently lead the country. He is a salesman. A good salesman. He should stick to that.

Michael K said...

Trump is not just a product of anger about immigration and Muslims.

I think a lot of it is political correctness.

That's why he does not pay a price for his crude belligerence. Breaking things and blowing things up is what this election is about.

Bobby said...

Anglelyne,

Here's what I find fascinating:

If in fact it's the populist issues (i.e., opposition to immigration and free trade) that are fueling Trump's ascension in this race, Donald Trump does not really seem to me to be the perfect vessel to be taking up this mantle - that is, it's not like he's established a track record on these issues throughout his career and personal history.

I'm not saying that he's flawed on these issues (as, for example, McCain was on campaign finance reform or Gore was on the environment), but as opposed to, say, a Patrick Buchanan, he doesn't have a track record of actually being stridently against illegal immigration and free trade. It's interesting to me that a more genuine populist - like Howard Jarvis was on taxes, for example - never appeared on the scene.

Howard said...

Michael K: exactly anti-PC plus the Washington outsider card. Sanders' appeal is the anti-wall street card. Finally, non-centralized media is having a real impact on politics. The establishment wonks on all sides are still fighting this as a fad.

Tank said...

David Begley said...

Drago

He admitted his mistake. Can't you forgive Marco?
?

It was not a "mistake." And no.

This is the kind of "mistake" that maybe you can be forgiven for after years of showing by your actions that it was out of character for you and you've learned better. You can't solve this problem by changing your position for the next election.

Also, HE HAS NOT CHANGED HIS POSITION ON IMMIGRATION. He is for amnesty. He has shown that it was no mistake. If he's elected President, he is going right back to Schumer to cut another "bi-partisan" deal.

I Callahan said...

Let me put this succinctly for Dave Begley. It's not so much people are voting FOR Trump, as much as is against voting for the establishment. And to me, there is nothing wrong with that at all. The Republicans let Obama get away with way too much over the past 7 years. They had majorities in both houses for the past year, yet gave him exactly what he wanted. If the GOP had spent 1/2 the energy going after the president that they are going after Trump, we wouldn't have a Trump issue to begin with. The logic is this: Trump can't be any worse than what we've been getting, and if it blows up the establishment to some extent, that's just icing on the cake.

If it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, or Trump vs. Sanders, please tell me how Trump isn't a better choice.

Dude1394 said...

I Callahan... You are incorrect, many of trumps supporters ARE voting for Trump. They are voting for him because he is talking about things that directly effect their lives and the lives of their families.

Republicans need to wake up to the fact that one of the reasons they keep losing national elections is because their constituency is NOT large enough to get it done. They need to get those Perot voters back supporting them.

Trump is the only candidate that comes close to addressing their concerns.

Bay Area Guy said...

Begley asks:

He admitted his mistake. Can't you forgive Marco?

I actually can forgive him on this. I see the political machinations. The House was never gonna support it, it never passed, it is a theoretical blemish on Marco's resume (in my view). I think the anti-amnesty crowd can force Rubio not to stray again.

Begley states:

This election is not over. Few delegates selected. Still in the first inning.

I disagree, but I could be wrong. I say it's the 5th Inning, Trump is up 4-0, and nobody can hit his fastball. I say on Super Tuesday -- Trump cleans up.

Cruz beat Trump 27-24 in Iowa. Except for that slight defeat, this nomination would be over. Period.

Michael K said...

"If the GOP had spent 1/2 the energy going after the president that they are going after Trump, we wouldn't have a Trump issue to begin with."

Yes. If we had 12 appropriations bills in Congress last year, there would be no Trump. Instead Boehner and Ryan gave us another Continuing Resolution which is a rope around our necks with Obama at the trap door ready to shut down the national parks if we even twitch toward refusing to pass it. We could have had 12 appropriations bills two and even three years ago when we had the House.

Christie may be the first to see the preference cascade. He is a realist.

tim in vermont said...

To many, this sounds rediculous. But, they would rather Trump lose and preserve their positions as wise men and say, "We told you so" than have Trump win and lose all their power. They've done this to tea party candidates.


What? No way! You mean like Obama withdrew from Iraq and then said he told us so when it went to hell and ISIS filled the vacuum? Nobody would ever do a strategy like that!

David Begley said...

I Callahan

Mostly agree.

Hillary Clinton must be defeated and that's why I am so negative on Trump.
Trump is unelectable because he is unlikable to purple voters. His negatives ramp up once the MSM and Dems do their thing on Donald.

Google Trump University. Google Trump Howard Stern and personal Vietnam.

readering said...

Trump's inability to control himself was exemplified by his treatment of Hugh Hewitt. He must have known he would get a question about his tax returns, yet he reflexively reacted to Hewitt's question with an insult about his radio show ratings. This against a guy who has gone out of his way to be "Switzerland" in the primary so as to get all the candidates to appear on his show and to keep his CNN debate gig, and who repeatedly calls Trump the best interview in America. Why gratuitously respond to a debate question from a friendly moderator with an insult unless you are pathologically incapable of reacting any other way?

Drago said...

Bobby: "Not that hardpressed at all, really. Transparency International ranked the world's ten most corrupt governments as: Somalia; North Korea; Afghanistan; Sudan; South Sudan and Angola (tied); Libya and Iraq (tied); Venezuela and Guniea-Bissau (tied). Of the 168 countries ranked, Mexico is tied with Armenia, Mali and the Philippines for 95th. That's bad. But it's nothing near "hardpressed to find." Unfortunately, the world is a very corrupt place"

I should have been more complete with my statement by adding "right next door" and "soon to be 1/3 of our population".

Drago said...

David Begley: "Hillary Clinton must be defeated and that's why I am so negative on Trump."

Uh huh.

Sure.

Not to worry, with 30 million more dem voters given to us by the Dave Begley's of the world working in a decidedly "non-ugly fashion" all you will ever get in the future are the Hillary Clintons

More "Failure Theater". Over and over again.

Pull the other one Begley.

Bay Area Guy said...

Begley states:

Hillary Clinton must be defeated and that's why I am so negative on Trump.

Love the first part, but the second part is a non-sequitur.

Hypothetically, if Trump has a reasonable shot at defeating Hillary, then you'd support him, right?

Drago said...

Bushman: "What I find interesting is that you don't believe Rubio can change his position on immigration but you're willing to buy Trump's many reversals based on little or no evidence. I don't see anything in Trump's history that makes be believe he cares about any of his campaign talking points."

First, stop mischaracterizing what I've written (I write that with no animosity).

It's not that I believe Trump, it's that I absolutely don't believe the establishment types. And why don't I believe them? Because they've lied to me over and over and over and over again.

Besides, I'm a Cruz supporter, but I see the strategic envelopment happening before my very eyes and the increasingly effective (though at times off-putting to many) communication strategy of Trump and I don't see a pathway for Cruz to make enough in-roads to seize control of the process.

I usually train my fire at Hillary/Obama 'cuz "duh", which is far, far more than I can say about the Chucks/Begley's of the world.

Trump isn't my cup of tea. But if he is the nominee, I'm going to swill that cup of tea by the gallons to avoid the arsenic that Hillary represents.

David Begley said...

Bay Area Guy

I don't agree that Trump can beat Hillary. High negatives for Trump. Hillary beats Trump in all the polls.

The media and social media campaign against Trump will be devasting. Landslide loss for the GOP against the unindicted criminal Hillary.

Anglelyne said...

Bobby @2/26/16, 11:29 AM:

Great post. It is fascinating. What has to come together to make that "populist moment"? Usually, they fizzle out. This one may yet, but it has more juice than any I've seen in my lifetime.

It's a cliché to say it's the juncture of the fullness of time and the man with the right temperament for the times, but it's still true. I don't think that the more genuine populists you mention would have had what it takes, temperamentally, to push back against a political culture that has become a weird morass of hysteria and timidity, even if the time was ripe. ("I'm not wrong, I'm not sorry, and it's probably gonna happen again", is a predictable feature of that requisite timely temperament.)

Bay Area Guy said...

@Begley

I don't know yet if Trump can beat Hillary. RCP says he has 2-3 point deficit.

I don't think you know either; that's why I gave you the hypothetical:

If Hillary must be defeated (as you said), and if Trump has a reasonable shot at beating her in Nov, you'd support him, right?

Freeman Hunt said...

There's a big difference between cursing in public and private. Some people really are bothered by those words. Why go out of one's way to offend them and make them feel upset or uncomfortable? But if one is around another person who doesn't mind such words, using them is not a problem.

David Begley said...

BAG

I'd vote for any one other than Hillary. But NE is solid for GOP. We know OH FL VA PA and other big purple states are the only ones that count.

Bay Area Guy said...

Begley,

"I'd vote for any one other than Hillary" means that you will vote for Trump over Hillary.

That's my point.

Next week, after Super Tuesday, I suspect that Trump will have become the de facto nominee.

So, why go on a limb trashing him, when next week, you're gonna be embracing him?

The objective is to defeat Hillary. I thought (and still think) Rubio had the best shot in the General against Hillary. However, the primary voters, so far, have rejected Rubio, in favor of Trump. That means we have to pivot -- the only question is whether it's a slow pivot or fast pivot. I say do it fast.

Learnin' to love Trump

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy (to Begley): "So, why go on a limb trashing him, when next week, you're gonna be embracing him?"

Because something tells me that Senor Begley is a concern troll and the giveaway is that he is now saying Hillary defeats Trump in a landslide.

elcee said...

tim in Vermont:
"You mean like Obama withdrew from Iraq and then said he told us so when it went to hell and ISIS filled the vacuum?"

Answer to "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?".

Paul said...

"The media and social media campaign against Trump will be devasting. Landslide loss for the GOP against the unindicted criminal Hillary."

Jeez you are thick. The biggest, or maybe second biggest after immigration, reason for Trump's meteoric ascent is that he has completely neutralized the media. The more they attack him the more people rally to him. The media is despised by the majority of the country and Trump has completely changed the game by standing up to them and basically telling them to go fuck themselves. And the people love it. You are so slow on the uptake you still think the media is going to sink him. Pathetic.

rehajm said...

There's a good chance Hillary has Martha Coakley's infection. If you're reprehensible enough or unlikeable enough or woman enough they'll back you in public but not in the voting booth no matter how important the election is.

Jonathan Graehl said...

1. he reaches people who actually are triggered by 'fucking' (not me, but probably 1/3 of the US?)

2. even if you don't care about 'fucking', that trump avoids it completely in public is evidence that trump *is* in control of his actions. let him have the nuclear football (recall that clinton misplaced the codes for weeks). people who are 'fucking' all the time in inappropriate company are less impressive - they seem to have less awareness + self control. it's fine if you're using it to reach a particular audience.

David Begley said...

Paul

Google Trump Tower and Polish workers.

Trump hires illegals to make his millions. Still hires foreigners to this day.

Can you spell epic hypocrite? Trump can't even spell choker.

David Begley said...

Paul

Forgot to add. The Dem's attack on Trump will come via Facebook and Google. Obama did it in 2012. Big Data. Target the right demographic and hit them on Facebook.

People hate MSM but love social media. MSM won't acknowledge social media because it takes ad money from this. I wrote about this at Power Line.

David Begley said...

"takes ad money from them."

Paul said...

"Paul

Google Trump Tower and Polish workers.

Trump hires illegals to make his millions. Still hires foreigners to this day.

Can you spell epic hypocrite? Trump can't even spell choker."

Way to miss the point. But that's what the phrase stuck on stupid is for. You are like an addict who can't control himself. Like the obnoxious lefty relative who can't shut up about how Bush=Hitler. Get a hobby or go workout. Do something to try and pull out of this tailspin.

Paul said...

Trump won't be sunk by the junk that excites you Begely. You are in a small minority that seems not so to you because you obviously don't get out of the bubble much.

Immigration.

Political correctness.

USA getting pushed around and being denigrated and run down by the people in charge of the government, media, and education.

These issues are what matter most to the most people and Trump is the most conservative on these issues.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Love Begley's "finger on the button" hysterics.
Thought experiment. If you're so convinced that Trump is actually like his brash, buffoonish, made-for-reality-TV, public persona, then surely Hillary must be the honest, humble, competent public servant that she claims to be. I believe both personas are entirely calculated and neither represents the real person.

David Begley said...

Trump is a total hypocrite on immigration. Con artist.

Political correctness? What is that? He says ban all Muslims from entry. How does that actually work? He just runs his mouth and uses lots of adjectives.

USA pushed around by unnamed elites in government, media and education? Vague. Yes, sir! I am against "they," whoever "they" are. Send the folks with pitchforks to burn down the castle.

You've proved nothing.

If you were an unsecured creditor or shareholder in one of his Chapter 11's you wouldn't be singing his praises. Bernie Ebbers for Secretary of the Treasury in a Trump Administration.

Michael K said...

One of the few factors that works for Trump in my estimation (aside from resigning to the rape, of course) is the behavior and personalities of his children.

Most rich celebrities' children are a mess. Movie stars children must have a mortality rate from drugs that is astonishing. The rich in this celebrity obsessed culture have a really hard time raising normal children and yet Trump's kids seem pretty normal. Even Carly Fiorina had a child she lost to drugs. I don't blame the parents really, I had a son who was an alcoholic, but these people live chaotic lives. Trump may not or else he has very good genes.

Anyway, his kids are a recommendation for him in spite of everything.

Sarah Palin's kids are not but Alaska is a crazy place to raise kids.

Michael K said...

"If you were an unsecured creditor or shareholder in one of his Chapter 11's"

Dave, you are an attorney. Do you tell us that Chapter 11 creditors don't get paid in full ?

Now, I had an ex-partner who declared BK and I got stiffed $100 k. but that was the judge's fault. He said the amount was not worth appointing a receiver. The ex-partner's wife and I were prepared to work together to collect all the assets and split them. The judge threw them away, which meant he got them.

I doubt Trump's Chapter 11s were that way.

David Begley said...

Cracker

Hillary is an unindicted criminal who is just out for herself.

We have no idea about how Trump would handle foreign affairs and the military. He doesn't either. We know he loves the murderer Putin and that Hamas and the PLO are the moral equals of Israel.

Trump is a dunce. He's not the Wizard of Oz. Stop your magical thinking. Get real.

David Begley said...

Michael K

I don't know all the details of all four of Trump's four BKs. Generally speaking, only secured creditors get 100%. Equity and unsecured creditors get haircuts of various degrees. There is a story on the net how an unsecured creditor who made bill changers got stiffed. MSM should do its job and get the details out.

chickelit said...

Begley wrote: Big Data. Target the right demographic and hit them on Facebook.

Though I'm not on Facebook (personal disgust with their CEO), I understand that people like it because it's "grassroots" (I'd like to use the word democrat (small d without party connotations). But if Zuckerberg were to start overtly manipulating his product, I'd hope people would react negatively, just as they do against the MSM.

chickelit said...

I don't know all the details of all four of Trump's four BKs. Generally speaking, only secured creditors get 100%. Equity and unsecured creditors get haircuts of various degrees. There is a story on the net how an unsecured creditor who made bill changers got stiffed. MSM should do its job and get the details out.

Who were all the risk takers who were "fleeced" by Trump? In previous posts you have sounded like they were elderly investors deprived of their life savings. I agree, the MSM should do an exposé on the bag holders.

David Begley said...

How about a drywall, plumbing or painting sub? Carpet store? Beer distributor?

People lost money.

And since Trump is so smart, why file BK four times? One would think Trump would have learned after one or two. #Wharton

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Fox is avoiding the issue. It's not the wall. The issue is a persistent mass exodus (e.g. refugee crises) from second and third-world nations, including Mexico.

On our side of the border, it is advocates for abortion rites and cannibalistic trials that debase human life and sustain the mass exodus.

chickelit said...

@Begley: From the stand point of preserving the Republic and divided Government, can't you see the value of keeping Cruz and Rubio in the Senate where they can counter the alleged imperial tendencies of Mr. Trump?

Hell, if Democratic Senators had done the same, we'd have never gotten to the point of having such Executive Power overages.

jerpod said...

Just wanted to say, this is an awesome comments thread.

chickelit said...

Fox is avoiding the issue. It's not the wall. The issue is a persistent mass exodus (e.g. refugee crises) from second and third-world nations, including Mexico.

Fox probably believes that Mexicans are entitled to a good chunk of the American Southwest. Has anyone bothered to ask him?

Sebastian said...

"Or do you just spout simple insults that pop into your head?" Late to the party, but as an attack on DB and a defense of Trump that's funny. Or is this just an effort to illustrate the predicted preference cascade? Looking forward to a "how Trump lost me" post, though. I predict his attitudes toward women will be part of it.

Sebastian said...

@Drago, late: "Failure on immigration is the slicing of the "policy Gordian knot" that delivers everything, EVERYTHING, into the dems hands for generations. To minimize that gives you away as someone who will sell the conservative movement completely, irretrievably, down the river." But this is the oddest thing about the support for Trump: he favors mass amnesty and has no proposal to stop the actual, legal flow that actually endangers the identity and future politics of the country more than the illegals. And of course, as one occasionally sensible Trump supporter on this blog has correctly said, his illegal immigration plank is itself the "stupidest" thing he ever said.

David Begley said...

Trump in OKC. Polls. Marco sweats. I fund my own campaign. More polls. Pathetic.

The Cracker Emcee said...

We have no idea what anyone will actually do in the White House until they occupy it. In an odd way, Begley seems to believe that Trump is some sort of malevolent God. Magical thinking, indeed.

Moneyrunner said...

The country is in an "Eff you" mood and that's what Trump embodies. Is he going to be a good President? Who knows? Can he do something about the nation's problems? I hope so; he has managed to do some pretty great things in his chosen field. Can he do something for the Middle Class; the men and women without the fancy college degrees who are living paycheck to paycheck and running up credit card debt? Can he do something about the cost of higher education which has now gotten so expensive that it's unaffordable to people who are not millionaires? Can he build that wall? Can he bring good paying jobs back? Who can be sure?

But he has not been flaked and shaped by the Washington food grinder into a homogeneous mush. He has accomplished his dreams despite opposition from the political establishment, often by paying them off, often by using publicity. He knew how to use the Bully Pulpit before actually acquiring the ultimate Bully Pulpit.

Lots of people are saying that after the spectacular failures of the current Ruling Class: it's worth a shot.

Anglelyne said...

Sebastian: He favors mass amnesty and has no proposal to stop the actual, legal flow that actually endangers the identity and future politics of the country more than the illegals.

I'd say they both endanger the identity and future politics of the country, but I'm glad that you acknowledge that immigration is an existential issue. Now that you've realized that I'd recommend you take the trouble to inform yourself of the reality of the consequences of in situ amnesties (lots of date from all over the world). It also makes no sense at all for you to continue having hysterics about Trump on this point, since the other candidates are not addressing the issue at all, proposing in situ amnesties, or advocating significant increases in the legal immigration you see as a danger.

And of course, as one occasionally sensible Trump supporter on this blog has correctly said, his illegal immigration plank is itself the "stupidest" thing he ever said.

I guess it's flattering that you're so taken with my comment that you repeated a snippet from it several times, but if you're going to reference someone, reference them, ahem, correctly. I don't think his illegal immigration plank, in toto, was the stupidest thing he'd ever said. I think the "let 'em back in after deporting them" part of the plan is "the stupidest thing he's ever said". That tells you nothing about what I think about the relative stupidity of anybody else's illegal immigration plank, e.g. an in situ amnesty, which I think is an order magnitude more stupid than that. Don't get me started on the stupidity of people who keep presenting variants of this idiotic "how stupid do you have to be to vote for that guy who sucks on this issue and is going to screw you, instead of voting for this guy who sucks on this issue and is going to screw you" argument, which you are doing here.

It's the stupidest thing anybody ever says on these threads. You can quote me on that, too.

Joe said...

Why are people failing to see that Trump is merely taking the first step in negotiation, which is to propose something extreme. Compare that to most other "establishment" Republicans whose opening moves were hardly distinguishable from the Democrat opening moves.

Most so-called Republicans have moved so far left that just about any genuine fiscally conservative proposal is seen as radical. Likewise, the Democrats have moved so far left that their traditional views on civil rights are now seen by them as extremely conservative.

David Begley said...

Joe

I've seen that theory before that Trump just says stuff that he doesn't really mean and that it is just the first step in a negotiation, but how do you know that? You can't.

Trump has a very poor character and very low credibility. He threatens and insults people constantly. An epic hypocrite that got nailed with a one million dollar judgment for hiring illegals. He is a massive liar and then calls Cruz a liar.

Joe said...

David,

So?

Cruz has no character and has less credibility that Trump, Rubio is a lightweight hypocrite who believes in nothing.

Are you going to threaten to stay home again?