Audio.
1. He didn't even know that picture of Heidi Cruz he retweeted was supposed to be a particularly bad picture of her.
2. Sykes replays that ad with women reading old Trump quotes about women. Trump's response is about all the women he's hired and put in high positions. Look at his actions. And he was "a celebrity," going on Howard Stern and such, not thinking about how it would sound if he were to run for office.
3. Trump has said Wisconsin is doing terribly. Won't that make Scott Walker look bad? Trump says he got the info from TIME Magazine.
4. Isn't Trump's claim to be a conservative just "a giant fraud"? Trump says he's a strong conservative, but trade might be an exception. When it comes to trade, he's for "smart trade."
5. What would happen to the price of goods if Trump imposed the tariff he's threatened? Trump says it will never happen. You just need a threat to get a good deal. Sykes asks how's that going to work if you just revealed it's a bluff? Sykes chuckles at what he clearly thinks is a gotcha. Trump ignores it.
6. If you can't unite Republicans, how can you unite the country? How can you beat Hillary? Well, he will beat Hillary, Trump asserts. And he's a businessman, and that's what this country needs. We're getting ripped off! Sykes breaks in: How are you going to work with Congress? How will you get along with Paul Ryan? I'm not surprised that Trump simply says he'll get along.
7. Sykes: "Mr. Trump, before you called into my show, did you know I'm a #NeverTrump guy?" Trump: "That I didn't know." Sykes splutters a bit, perhaps slightly wounded that Trump didn't care enough to find out about him. Trump makes a good interpersonal move, stating that he knows Sykes is "an intelligent guy" and "You know what's going on." And that's a segue back to an issue... NATO. Which is kind of amusingly backhanded, because Sykes wanted to talk about himself. But why is Sykes's #NeverTrumpishness significant to Trump? Trump goes on many shows and probably rarely is the interviewer a supporter. What does "NeverTrump" add to the standard opposition? It's not as if his other hostile interviewers are in a not-now-but-possibly-later frame of mind. They're all presumptively NeverTrumpers. How can it faze him?
8. Sykes gets back to the issue he began with, Trump's retweet of the photos of Heidi and Melania. Sykes couches it is some kind of statement about not beginning the show with the standard Wisconsin hospitality, but he immediately moves to badgering Trump about apologizing. Does Trump ever apologize? Sykes wants to know. Unsurprisingly, Trump brushes past the abstraction of whether he ever apologizes and goes on again about how Cruz owes him an apology for that ad with the GQ picture of Melania and there's a repetition of all the business that began the show: That ad was independent of the Cruz campaign (Sykes), but Cruz knew all about it (Trump). Sykes advises Trump about the people of Wisconsin: The people of Wisconsin would like to hear him say the candidates shouldn't be talking about each other's wives. Trump says that's great. He agrees... but Cruz started it. Sykes reacts to the "he started it" with: "We're not on a playground." Trump agrees, and: "My views are not playground views. My views are that our country is losing on every front...." And there he is back on the issues. He rattles off his issues — NATO, the Second Amendment — and the clock has run out and Sykes can only get in the thanks for coming on the show.
२८ मार्च, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१० टिप्पण्या:
210 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Hillary!! is coming to town today too. Contrast her royal appearance to Bernie's more plebian one.
Trump says he got the info from TIME Magazine.
He's just trolling us now. Nobody reads TIME magazine.
Trump got destroyed in that interview.
The man is completely unqualified to be president. But for his supporters the concept of qualifications is an establishment standard and whatever that standard is then the opposite applies. Apparently that's the thinking. Up is down and right is left.
If you were to design a candidate with the purposes to combine all of the negative qualities that one wouldn't want in a president it would look a lot like Trump.
He shows an absolute disdain for learning anything about the issues. He watches "the shows", reads an article. That, for him, constitutes studying an issue.
Trump called into a radio show? Granted, Jeb! Bush is low energy. But does calling into a radio show qualify as high energy?
We should also note a local radio host is capable of a quality interview. The national media seems incapable. What, therefore, are we to believe the qualifications of national media personalities are?
ANSWER: Properly towing the fusion party line to keep Leviathan fed.
Very impressive concern: "If you can't unite republicans, how can you unite the country?". So, Sanders just cleaned out Hillary in three western states by 50%+. How can Hillary unite the country when she can't even win over democrats? How is she going to work with politicians and tens of millions of people who she has declared are her "enemies"?
How can a presidential candidate who declared that millions of American citizens are her enemies possibly serve as leader of ALL Americans, and not be a tool of warfare for democrat party members?
Steve M. Galbraith said...
The man is completely unqualified to be president. But for his supporters the concept of qualifications is an establishment standard and whatever that standard is then the opposite applies. Apparently that's the thinking. Up is down and right is left.
If you were to design a candidate with the purposes to combine all of the negative qualities that one wouldn't want in a president it would look a lot like Trump.
He shows an absolute disdain for learning anything about the issues. He watches "the shows", reads an article. That, for him, constitutes studying an issue.
3/28/16, 10:21 AM
Funny, these statements perfectly describe the Obama candidacy/presidency. You could replace Trump's name with Obama, a sitting president who has actually stated that he learns about current issues and scandals in his administration by seeing it for the first time on television.
"He shows an absolute disdain for learning anything about the issues". Yup, Obama.
I've a feeling this guy will claim and has claimed that Trump is a coward who doesn't do tough interviews.
Trump has been doing these things for ever and knows that 9/10 you just ignore the question and get your message out.
Sykes sounds like a big dummy. #nevertrump just means #HillaryforPresident
This is about media types looking at themselves in the reflected glow of famous folks. The poor dears had no idea the Donald would blow right past them. And I bring it up again, why do journalism majors think they have the standing to tell us who to vote for, even if they applied for and got the job 'editor'. STFU and edit.
He presses Trump about never apologizing, but is in the corner of Cruz who has vowed to never compromise. Meh.
I found it quite amusing, as they both are talking past each other and Trump is good enough at playing the same game as Sykes does every day.
I get the feeling Scott Adams was listening and laughing at how Trump played Sykes. Nothing Sykes did will convince a Trump supporter, it's just preaching to his choir of #nevertrump.
Why the hell should Donald Trump care who Charlie Sykes is? He's just another backwater radio talker from a city time left behind and a state that is unimportant nationally.
Barack Obama did not learn about the issues by watching "the shows" or reading an occasional article. The man is well-read and takes matters seriously. Much seriously than Trump does. By far.
The problem is that, although he knows a great deal, much of what he knows is simply not true. But the comparison to Trump is valid when it comes to arrogance. On that characteristic the two men are remarkably similar.
In any case, Obama's not going to be on the ballot.
Talk about Media making amends for Trump's Movement starting up; all three cable TV Networks are running all Seriously Hate Trump panels all the time with not 1 0f three being a Trump spokesmen. The only Trump being broadcast is a silent clip or a pic showing Trump as a Alpha Male rooster that we all hate. It has been a digital lynch Mob all weekend and continues this morning.
The War on Trump is all we are allowed to see.Apparently the Dems campaign has started using two memes: 1) Trump seriously hates women who are too offended by his bad manners to elect him, and 2) Trump is seriously hated by the entire rest of the world, except for Czar Putin ruling our deadly enemy Russia.
IMO this is all a planned battle space prep to create an excuse for the Insider's Dump the Trump convention battle.
From AA's impressions, it sounds like Syke's was a bit on his heels, today. Can't say I'm sorry to hear that - throwing a little chaos to his radio faithful.
And I always love it when radio talk show hosts and Media talking heads start talking about International trade and how "Stoopid" Trump is. Yes, we must keep doing exactly what we've been doing before, because otherwise we'll HAVE A TRADE WAR!!!
The idea that the Chinese/Japanese/etc. need access our market more than we need them and don't want a TRADE WAR doesn't seem to register.
But then people like Sykes are just regurgitating Republican talking points and trying to scare the boobs.
And now we have the Trump supporters who show - once again - that for them substance and knowledge on the issues and policies don't matter. No other candidate can get away with this.
Trump doesn't answer questions, can't really, doesn't know substance and to his supporters this is a positive. It's great that he didn't provide substance because he got his message out. Whatever that is.
Up is down and down is up and again it's amazing.
I fear I shall injure my neck with all the head shaking I'll do from now until November.
Only the Republican party could mess things up such that Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election.
Who cares about any of this shit? The wall and not wanting to start wars with Russia is reason enough to prefer Trump to any other candidate. Sanders wouldn't be too bad, but he's too much of a wuss and a pushover to the SJW crowd. If only Republicans cared as much about America's ethnic future as they do about Israel's.
> Trump says he got the info from TIME Magazine.
Not just a Democrat, a low information Democrat.
So we "learn": 1. Trump knows nothing 2. Trump doesn't care 3. His supporters don't care 4. It doesn't matter. 5. The media will treat a pseudo-GOP know-nothing differently than a Prog know-nothing. 6. Progs don't care what anyone knows, except when ignorance or arrogance can be used against an opponent. 7. It doesn't matter.
"7. Sykes: "Mr. Trump, before you called into my show, did you know I'm a #NeverTrump guy?" Trump: "That I didn't know." Sykes splutters a bit, perhaps slightly wounded that Trump didn't care enough to find out about him. "
He didnt splutter. There is the impression that Trump doesn't want to do interviews with people who are antagonistic towards him. So, he was surprised that Trump would agree to the interview.
I've said it before, and now I'll say it again. We need a formal name, for the Trump-supporter phenomenon that goes like this:
First, there is some serious criticism of Trump. (Pick your favorite substantive -- not personal -- criticism of Trump from the phone-book-sized list of such things.)
Then, the response is, "But... Obama!"
Michael Fitzgerald did it just above. Michael, you should stop for a moment and realize that you are talking mainly to loyal Republicans who never once voted for Obama, who have opposed most of what he's tried to do in terms of major domestic and foreign policy initiatives. People who stuck by Mitch McConnell, when he said to a Heritage gathering back in late 2010 was, that the goal over the subsequent two years, ought to be to deny Obama a second term.
The answer to criticism of Trump needs to be about Trump, not Obama. The rest of us Republicans don't give a rat's ass about Obama. And it's particularly embarrassing for Trump, the one person in the Republican field who was always the softest and most generous in his speaking about Obama, and the Clintons, and other Democrats to whom he donated money.
Michael and others like him are living proof of the Wall Street Journal's editorial that blamed the Trump phenomenon on a dialectic with Obama:
"Every thesis creates its antithesis, a famous philosopher once said, and so it is now in American politics. President Obama’s insistent failure to confront the realities of global jihad has produced its opposite in Donald Trump’s unfiltered nationalist id. This is a reminder of how much damage a misguided American President can do to the country’s political culture."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obama-trump-dialectic-1449621957
So; any nominations as to a name for the "But... Obama!" phenomenon? Is "But... Obama!" a suitable entitlement of its own?
A serious question for the narrative spreaders that Trump has attacked Heidi by re-tweeting her picture next to trump's wife, is that by that RULE against hating a woman, Trump's campaign can NEVER run any picture of Hillary...any picture at all.
This is news? This is the same stock answer he has for everything--everyone loves him, everyone will make a deal with him because he's so great at deals, trust him don't worry he's got everything covered. And keep inconvenient facts away from his narrative.
Polls are great! Look how good I am in the polls! Just stick with the four polls that showed me beating Hillary, and ignore the 54 that have me being clobbered by her. I'll win because I get along with people.
"A serious question for the narrative spreaders that Trump has attacked Heidi by re-tweeting her picture next to trump's wife, is that by that RULE against hating a woman, Trump's campaign can NEVER run any picture of Hillary...any picture at all."
Is that seriously what you got out of that whole kerfuffle? Don't be intentionally obtuse, you know better than this.
MadisonMan said...
"Hillary!! is coming to town today too. Contrast her royal appearance to Bernie's more plebian one."
"Clinton will make remarks to invited guests at UW-Madison’s Gordon Commons, 770 W. Dayton Street, at 3:45 p.m. Doors open at 2:45 p.m. A UW-Madison news release says the event is not open to the campus community or the public."
I listened to some of it. Sykes comes off as a snarky Trump hater - I was amazed at the rudeness and condescension.
Funniest part is when he talked horrible it was that how Trump had insulted "famous" conservatives like Krauthammer, Will, the WSJ and National review. All of whom have been viciously attacking Trump since Day 1, and aren't very conservative at all.
Steve M. Galbraith said...
"And now we have the Trump supporters who show - once again - that for them substance and knowledge on the issues and policies don't matter. No other candidate can get away with this."
The policy positions he has taken in writing on his website are superior to any other candidate. His position on gun rights is better than the GOP platform. His position on health care reform with HSA's, removal of state boundaries, and Medicaid vouchers is excellent. He is the only candidate in the race that is trustable on immigration. Free trade does not have to be give everything to China and let them block our company's sales and steal our proprietary information.
You are bitter. You are running from the issues. You are also running from the fact that the Oligarchy is shitting their pants over Trump. Probably because you are a paid shill.
Trump is a business person who has lived and worked out here in the real world. He has had to deal with the abusive regulatory state the same way I have. I am willing to give him a shot because my other choices are lawyers who have never had a real job.
Lawyers are always great with policy details that never happen. I want someone with the correct paradigm that is not centered on DC.
If you neverTrumpers dealt with the issues it would be worth reading. You don't. You read what the media spews as if they will treat Cruz any different. The only difference is Cruz will not be as good as Trump is fighting them. I like Cruz, but he is clearly lacking media skills that Trump has. I hope Cruz gets on the USSC and sits in Scalias chair.
If you attack Trump using logic - you are called vicious.
If Trump attacks YOU (and his attacks are the very definition of vicious ) you're supposed to shut up and take it.
Dukakis would only speak to invited 'crowd s'
Trump and his supporters are blind to the fact that he's a jerk. Yeah - he gets the PC knocking right and he seems to understand some issues, but he's is an angry inarticulate revenge seeking tabloid buffoon.
Didn't hear the interview, don't know Sykes from Adam, but enjoyed Alhouse's point by point analysis. And, I think Trump won. I'm amazed by how all the Trump haters keep raising the "he's stupid and so are his supporters" flag. Seriously, to think Trump is stupid is delusional. Just today, a Stanford grad married to a Yale grad living in D. C. wrote a USA Today article telling why they are supporting Trump. Think they're outliers.? You're wrong.
Trump has dominated the entire debate from the issues that everyone claims they want to hear to the whose wife is hotter drivel that they'll despise but gorge on. NATO is now a subject of full discussion among conservatives, thanks to Trump. Immigration? Gracias, Senor Trump.. Muslim immigration? Thanks, Mr. Stoopid. Trump owns the issues debate. He owns the culture debate.
Stupid he is not and neither am I. Stop calling us that please.
rcocean,
"Funniest part is when he talked horrible it was that how Trump had insulted "famous" conservatives like Krauthammer, Will, the WSJ and National review. All of whom have been viciously attacking Trump since Day 1, and aren't very conservative at all."
This is interesting, sir. Whom would you consider to be conservative? Could you please provide some names of contemporary persons and/or publications that you would consider conservative? I'd very much like to understand your positioning here.
rcocean:
Tell us how Trump is a conservative, and George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the WSJ and the NRO are not conservative.
Because I am a sport, I'll go first.
Trump spoke seriously and glowingly about a Canadian-style single-payer national health plan. Trump speaks often about massive and even unprecedented taxes and barriers in the general realm of protectionism. Trump has personally supported some of the leading figures on the Democratic Left. Trump has spoken of large increases in income tax rates for persons in higher brackets. Trump spoke favorably of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo. Trump has said repeatedly and pointedly that he would not and will not, as president, touch national entitlements in the name of reform. Trump has spoken openly against the pro-First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Trump says he is in favor of Second Amendment rights, but he's been, by far, the most unreliable of Republicans on that issue. You can believe him now, if you wish, on gun rights and his new anti-abortion stance, and on a dozen or more other important conservative social "culture war" issues, but without any doubt, Trump is alone among Republicans in having flip-flopped on just about all of them.
Okay, now your turn. How are Will, Krauthammer, NRO, WSJ all insufficiently conservative in comparison to the Trump record.
And before you answer, let's agree that Trump's current formulation of issues (if anybody truly understands where Trump stands, and believes him as to what he's saying now) is pleasing to some. Trump has a certain popularity among his minority of supporters; I get that part. This question is exclusively devoted to whether Trump, or the critics you named, are the true conservatives.
Okay, rcocean; go.
Trump: but Cruz started it.
To which I say - Man-up, jerk. Your nuclear bomb pal at the National Enquirer (a joke tabloid) did your dirty work with a smear-job as retaliation for something the Cruz camp didn't even do. It was Liz Mair. (an idiot herself)
To paraphrase the old adage: arguing with Donald Trump is like wrestling a pig. All you do is get dirty and, eventually, you realize the pig kinda likes it.
Thank you, Chuck.
Trump supporters are delusional. It's that simple. They are unwilling to look at the guy without rose colored glasses.
If Trump reads TIME magazine, we are screwed.
Trump and Hillary are almost the same person.
Trump has mastered the art of implausible deniability.
People. Don't respond to Mary. Her comments will be deleted, as will those responding to her. Including this one, I assume.
Trump and his supporters have driven me away from Trump.
Deal.
- or - perhaps convince the idiot to stop acting like a tabloid reality star with a chip on his shoulder and a Napoleon complex.
Steve M. Galbraith said...
The man is completely unqualified to be president.
Go ahead, Mr. Galbraith tell us who is qualified to be president. Oh, and be sure to list those qualifications.
In politics appearance is a reality.Trump passed on oppo research done against Walker by the NYT back when they still feared him.
And it cost Trump nothing. That is why Club for Growth pros are pissed at Trump. He gets their slander mud to insert against political opponent free of the cost of professional writers.
I listened to the whole interview. When did Charlie Sykes turn in to Cokie Roberts?
AprilApple,
"Trump and his supporters are blind to the fact that he's a jerk."
Disagree. They know it and love it.
I'm not insulting them here. If I were a Trump supporter, I would now make an argument as to how this is a necessary quality at this particular political crossroads: Along the lines of, Yes, but he's just the kind of jerk we need! He fights, he wins, give me this jerk over a nice guy who loses (Romney? Ryan?) any day!
Sykes splutters a bit, perhaps slightly wounded that Trump didn't care enough to find out about him.
I heard that too. Sykes obviously has a bloated sense of self importance like the rest of the media.
Amazed he can speak of Wisconsin as a place of civil political discourse with a straight face. Well, he's on radio so I guess you can't see his face.
"Trump has dominated the entire debate from the issues that everyone claims they want to hear"
What he's dominated is the media. Yes, he's brought up things that didn't get the coverage before, but usually it's because what he's said is extreme and unworkable but because the MSM can't keep their eyes off him it needs to be discussed.
"to the whose wife is hotter drivel that they'll despise but gorge on."
The fact that he's turned this election into a Reality show is nothing to admire him for. The tweet comparing his wife to Heidi Cruz based on looks tells me that he's a JERK with an oak leaf cluster, the lies around that tells me he's full of crap, and the fact that he hinted at "spilling the beans" on, what, a past depressive episode tells me that he sucks as a person.
"NATO is now a subject of full discussion among conservatives, thanks to Trump." - Again, because he suggested we abolish it. OK, he's forcing us to talk about it, fine, but mainly he's showing that he doesn't really think through policy positions and instead just says things to keep his mug on the TV screen.
"Immigration? Gracias, Senor Trump.".
Because this literally wasn't an issue before he brought it up. Except it was
"Muslim immigration? Thanks, Mr. Stoopid."
Ditto.
"Trump owns the issues debate. He owns the culture debate."
He owns them the way a bull in a china shop owns the plates and cups.
I'll never vote for this guy, because he's transparently dishonest, appears to be a narcissist, and he treats people like crap. And I don't want him to have the nuclear codes or the power of the executive branch of the united states (because he won't have the ability to sue his enemies to death so he will just audit/investigate/and possibly kill them to death).
If Trump gets the nomination hundreds of millions of creative slander memes developed by and for Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Kasichby high priced talent will be donated free to Hillary Clinton.
Now who is the secret Democrat????
Trump has become a Reality Movement that wants to MAGA. Do you dare to join him?
"oh yes Mary - I cannot possibly have opinions that are negative about Trump without someone paying me."
You didn't get your GOP-establishment check for this quarter? All of us have been paid because of course no one could have a good reason for not supporting this sick joke of a candidate.
"Go ahead, Mr. Galbraith tell us who is qualified to be president. Oh, and be sure to list those qualifications."
Here's some qualifications--
1) An actual understanding of how the American system of government, particularly the executive branch, works.
2) An ability to hold coherent, thought out positions on major topics of the day.
3) A command of actual facts and not whatever made-up crap he decides to spew out to make whatever weak point he has.
4) Some level of human decency--you know, a line that he won't cross.
5) A lack of cruelty.
6) Respect for the rule of law.
7) The ability to make allies and not make enemies unnecessarily.
8) Thick skin, and self-awareness.
9) A sense of responsibility for one's actions.
10) An ability to acknowledge when you're wrong.
Trump exhibits none of this. The GOP is on the verge of nominating its worst candidate in modern history. Future historians are going to marvel at how this all went off the rails.
JPS - Yeah. You are correct and they have said exactly that. He's their jerk. I think they (Trump supporters) are blind to the fact that MOST non-Trump supporters are so repulsed by him, that his support is not what it seems.
I think the so-called Trump preference cascade is a bubble.
""Trump has dominated the entire debate from the issues that everyone claims they want to hear"
What he's dominated is the media. Yes, he's brought up things that didn't get the coverage before, but usually it's because what he's said is extreme and unworkable but because the MSM can't keep their eyes off him it needs to be discussed."
Trump is the party guest who poops on the floor and then says "now I have your attention." Technically true, but in no way does it advance the cause of floor pooping.
Trump is totally unqualified to be President? Why?
@Bill Roberts: "Immigration? Gracias, Senor Trump.".
Because this literally wasn't an issue before he brought it up. Except it was"
Not really. It was a debating point -- and the one that brought Marco Rubio down -- but only in a Marquis of Queensbury kind of way. What Repiblican dared say, "Deport all 12 million? None. I don't agree with deportation like this, but to have a real debate the extremes must be placed on the table. Trump and Trump alone did/does that.
"I listened to the whole interview. When did Charlie Sykes turn in to Cokie Roberts?"
It's interesting to observe that TDS either turns people into the juvenile emotional equivalent of your garden variety liberal or calls forth that quality from those who have it latently. It really makes them repulsive. I despise Obama but I can't imagine spinning myself into such an ugly state as is the norm for the #never Trumpers. Unhinged is simply not an option for the emotionally well adjusted.
Trump may not win Wisconsin in a blow out? Seems Cruz is polling fairly well.
1) An actual understanding of how the American system of government, particularly the executive branch, works.
What makes you believe this?
2) An ability to hold coherent, thought out positions on major topics of the day.
Examples? Seems that he has raised most of the major topics that are being discussed today.
We'll start here. Your turn.
Trump doesn't support Single payer healthcare. As for Will, Kraut, NR, and WSJ, not being conservative. No real conservative would refuse to support a Republican running against Hillary. She stands for everything conservatives loath.
However, Will, Kraut, and writers at NR and WSJ are proudly #nevertrump which just means #HillaryforPresident.
Oh you can throw in the fact that anyone who supports Amnesty and open borders - like Will and WSJ - are not conservative.
Everyone buys that polls show Hillary with high negatives. People don't trust her, and they think she's a liar. Even within her own party. Same poll show Trump with high negatives that are EVEN higher, and the suspension of belief sets it. The poll must be wrong!
Brando:
"The GOP is on the verge of nominating its worst candidate in modern history."
Yep. Against the most beatable Democrat since Michael Dukakis. Tempts me to think there's something to the Bill-Clinton-urged-him rumor, though I don't think Trump needed to be pushed.
AprilApple:
"I think they (Trump supporters) are blind to the fact that MOST non-Trump supporters are so repulsed by him, that his support is not what it seems."
Well put, and I think if I were a Trump supporter I'd be trying to make the case for why they shouldn't be, instead of getting mad at them. The poll showing Mrs. Clinton carrying Utah in a hypothetical Trump/Clinton matchup was striking.
Brando:
"Trump is the party guest who poops on the floor and then says 'now I have your attention.' Technically true, but in no way does it advance the cause of floor pooping."
If that isn't the metaphor for this campaign season I don't know what is.
Trump would never have gotten so far if he would've ran as a Democrat. He instinctually knew which party to take over.
AprilApple said...Same poll show Trump with high negatives that are EVEN higher, and the suspension of belief sets it. The poll must be wrong!
What happens when the immovable object of Clinton terribleness meets the irresistible force of Trump awfulness? It looks like we'll find out this year!
Very impressive concern: "If you can't unite republicans, how can you unite the country?". So, Sanders just cleaned out Hillary in three western states by 50%+. How can Hillary unite the country when she can't even win over democrats? How is she going to work with politicians and tens of millions of people who she has declared are her "enemies"?
Hillary, of course, will NEVER be asked that.
The idea that the Chinese/Japanese/etc. need access our market more than we need them and don't want a TRADE WAR doesn't seem to register.
Smoot/Hartley is still a terrifyingly bad thing that drives the thinking. It's a risk I wouldn't love to take. You can say they don't want a trade war, but in their eyes, we don't either. If they feel our calculus has changed, odds are, theirs will as well.
Barack Obama did not learn about the issues by watching "the shows" or reading an occasional article.
Yet he learns of major things involving his administration from the media. Odd.
The man is well-read and takes matters seriously.
Which matters does Obama "take seriously"? And does "Take seriously" always have to lead to "fuck up beyond all rational measure"?
Trump would never have gotten so far if he would've ran as a Democrat.
...have you seen who is leading the Dem primary?
"Smoot/Hartley is still a terrifyingly bad thing that drives the thinking. It's a risk I wouldn't love to take. You can say they don't want a trade war, but in their eyes, we don't either. If they feel our calculus has changed, odds are, theirs will as well."
Smoot/Hartley? I assume you mean Smoot/hawley which has nothing to do with anything. Economically, tHe world of 1929 and 2016 have little in common.
People talk about Smoot/Hawley to scare the Boobs.
Pundits say Trump has destroyed the Republican party. I say that’s one party down, one to go. The job is only half done.
AprilApple said...
"Trump and his supporters have driven me away from Trump.
Deal.
- or - perhaps convince the idiot to stop acting like a tabloid reality star with a chip on his shoulder and a Napoleon complex."
Again a nevertrumper who refuses to accept reality or respect those who disagree. Usually this comes from the left. I started supporting Cruz. I understand why people support him. You should try to understand why people who have similar paradigms to your own support Trump. We have more in common with you than the media who you seem inclined to think are going to treat Cruz any differently.
Trump is already facing the media onslaught every Republican will face. He is handling it well. Romney wilted under that pressure and failed as a candidate. I think Cruz will end up the same way Bob dole did and lose. He just comes off as unlikable when he is challenged by the media.
I also read his positions and like them better than the GoPe party planks. The same planks they ignore after elections when they try to pass amnesty. His position on health care reform is excellent. Hsa, no state borders on insurance and Medicaid vouchers. You nevertrumpers have to roll out crap from years ago about single payer.
Note my post is reasoned analysis. I would like to engage the Chuck's of the world but he pretty much has to lie and throw ad hominems to stay in the discussion.
"Yep. Against the most beatable Democrat since Michael Dukakis. Tempts me to think there's something to the Bill-Clinton-urged-him rumor, though I don't think Trump needed to be pushed."
Yeah, Bill knows his old friend Trump and probably figured just how to coax him into it (I'm sure Trump was already thinking about it--he'd suggested running in previous elections so it didn't take too much prodding but Bill needed this). And now, with a chance to beat Hillary and hold Congress, the GOP is on the verge of losing everything.
I've been hearing a lot these past couple years about how the GOP Congress is worthless anyway, that they keep selling out conservatives (never mind that the idea that Trump will serve conservative values is wishful thinking at its most wishful). But we may be about to see just how much worse things can get with the Dems having the White House and Congress for the first time since 2009-10. Remember the wonderful stuff they passed and great justices they confirmed then? Get ready for part 2, electric boogaloo.
"...have you seen who is leading the Dem primary?"
Clinton is the lesser evil, far far far lesser evil than Trump. Go Bernie!
I won't vote for Trump because he is a lying opportunistic slimeball who is of the robber baron type of capitalist using legal maneuvers and leverage to skim a vig. He embodies the parents at the Orange Ct. Pez Easter melee.
That being said, I agree with almost everything he has said about policy except the wall and the indiscriminate Muslim ban. Unless you live on Planet Claire, it was obvious that he wiped the floor with Sykes. It was like listening to a cat torture a mouse until it was mortally wounded... "thanks for coming on my crappy little show, please don't hurt me anymore. "
You Cruz/Ryan people just don't fucking get it. Trump is channeling the voices of people of all political stripes who have been seething that the Wall Street republicans, elitist democrats and the corporate media has sold this country and working folks down the river. The bit with Sykes is a perfect example. Trump acted like that insignificant twat wasn't even there. I love that because it shows that the media and their silly superficial questions can and will be ignored.
Yes, Hillary is out-polling the Donald right now. That's a fact. It's also a fact that these poles are not predictive, especially when you have a disruptive candidate who has seen the future of politics and is playing on the actual field while everyone else is sequestered in the lockerroom crapping their pants frantically thumbing through a playbook from the 1990's.
If the Republicans deny Trump the nomination, Hillary will win.
"Go ahead, Mr. Galbraith tell us who is qualified to be president. Oh, and be sure to list those qualifications."
This is the essence of the issue. We've just had 7 years of a clown who is laughably unqualified for the office. The Democrat front-runner is Hillary Clinton. And I'm supposed to throw my apron over my head because you think Trump is a boor? Please, cracka.
"Trump is already facing the media onslaught every Republican will face. He is handling it well. Romney wilted under that pressure and failed as a candidate. I think Cruz will end up the same way Bob dole did and lose. He just comes off as unlikable when he is challenged by the media."
Maybe it's our differing perspectives but I hardly see how Trump does "well" in the face of a media "onslaught"--his reactions range from childish ("he started it!") to absurd (flatly denying things he said only minutes earlier) to appalling (the Heidi Cruz flap). Romney wasn't a great politician, but let's see if Trump does any better. If he doesn't get a big improvement in polling, we're going to be looking back at the Romney campaign as a paragon of brilliance for having come so close to victory.
"It's interesting to observe that TDS either turns people into the juvenile emotional equivalent of your garden variety liberal or calls forth that quality from those who have it latently. It really makes them repulsive. I despise Obama but I can't imagine spinning myself into such an ugly state as is the norm for the #never Trumpers. Unhinged is simply not an option for the emotionally well adjusted."
There aren't any good reasons to be against Trump, if you're a conservative? Being against Trump is really just mental illness?
Good to know. See you on the dark side of the moon, I guess...
rcocean said...
Trump doesn't support Single payer healthcare. As for Will, Kraut, NR, and WSJ, not being conservative. No real conservative would refuse to support a Republican running against Hillary. She stands for everything conservatives loath.
However, Will, Kraut, and writers at NR and WSJ are proudly #nevertrump which just means #HillaryforPresident.
Oh you can throw in the fact that anyone who supports Amnesty and open borders - like Will and WSJ - are not conservative.
Don't try to pull that stupid deflection argument on me. I demanded specifics on conservative ideology, and you are giving us a pile of crap about how to win the 2016 election.
I happen to think that Trump is the WORST of all of the Republican candidates, so tell your "But we need to beat Hillary!" story to someone who cares.
Now let's get back to the business at hand. The business at hand, is my shoving this link to Donald Trump-on-single payer healthcare, in the course of this campaign:
Donald Trump might have hired some people to prepare a webpage in which it states that Mr. Donald J. Trump would like to repeal ObamaCare (he won't; not without a Senate consisting of about 65 Republicans) and establish a national, interstate market for health insurance sales. But I don't believe Trump, because he's a congenital liar, and because he's said things previously that were the opposite, and he continues to say things that prove he doesn't know much about health care, and even less about conservative principles on health care.
So, rcocean; get on your knees (not a pretty sight) and suck on this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/08/07/no-donald-trump-single-payer-health-care-doesnt-work-incredibly-well-in-canada-scotland/#46e2b6e53056
Your one-and-only issue seems to be "immigration." I defy you to show us where any of your hated GOPestablishement forces favored "amnesty." But even if you could, I'd suggest that free transit in goods and services, as well as labor, really IS a conservative notion. It isn't a nationalist notion. It isn't a pro-labor notion. But it is classically conservative. It is a stance in which the government stays out of trying to rig the markets in sales of goods or labor. Where government doesn't try to tax things to make some wages higher, or to protect some jobs.
Go ahead and support Trump if you want; just don't claim that you are working for "conservatism."
No dipshit radio person is going to trip up Trump. Ditto T.V. "pundits."
You must realize that the radio man does not negotiate his own contracts if he even has one. The TV pundits don't negotiate directly.
These people are way out of their league in trying to beat Trump.
1. He didn't even know that picture of Heidi Cruz he retweeted was supposed to be a particularly bad picture of her.
Number 1, then it means he doesn't know what he uses comes from. Number 2, does he need someone to tell him that? I mean, he saw her in person a few times, at debates, didn't he? And didn't he see other pictures of her?
"I demanded specifics on conservative ideology, and you are giving us a pile of crap about how to win the 2016 election."
Oh you DEMAND something? LOL!
Like someone said, you have nothing except anti-Trump lies and overblown rhetoric.
Brando wrote: 1) An actual understanding of how the American system of government, particularly the executive branch, works.
Moneyrunner replied: What makes you believe this?
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I do admire the fortune-cookie nihilism of the Trump supporter.
Call: He knows almost nothing about the position he's running for.
Response: The man who knows nothing is the man who can change everything.
Call: He states as facts things that are egregiously untrue.
Response: The man unafraid to be wrong is right.
Call: He takes extreme stands that are morally repugnant and politically impossible.
Response: Always negotiate from a position of hyperbole.
How the hell can a Glen Beck Mormon fast spell fool the Wisconsin folks when they are so well educated.
Don't they have NYC values that Lyin' Ted so despises?
Don't they respect Sheriff Clarke?
Don't the read Althouse?
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy. Trump is lying, but he is doing it in a manner that gives it a scintilla of plausibility. It's also a dog-whistle, reminding all of us fans that Heidi is a nasty crazy bitch who whores for Goldman Sachs. A wink is as good as a nod.
"If the Republicans deny Trump the nomination, Hillary will win."
Why? Is it because Trump's GOP opponents are more loyal to the Party, and they will hold their noses and vote for Trump, but the Trump supporters are so loosely connected, that they are liable to just stay home?
Is it because Trump supporters are not as engaged; they care more about making a statement of their own, instead of beating the Democrats for another 4-year term in the White House?
Is it because things like the Supreme Court are too abstract for Trump supporters? Trump supporters, if they were denied their man on a fall ballot, would just withdraw, and let "whatever" happen to the federal bench, because, like, what is the use?
I'm not sure why the low-level of interest/motivation/party loyalty/desire to beat Democrats on the part of Trump supporters, should be a deal breaker on the nomination going to John Kasich on the third ballot at the Cleveland convention.
I've been asked many times if I would vote for Trump if he is effectively one of two choices in a general election. My answer has always been, "I think so."
Now my question to the Trump supporters is, "Will you vote for Kasich in a general election if he is effectively one of two choices in a general election?"
And how can Ryan, Priebus and Walker get away with a conspiracy to eliminate the Trump voters?
I thought they were smarter than that.
rcocean: And you've got nothing. I called you out on your preposterous claim that Trump is conservative and George Will, Charles Krauthammer, the WSJ and the NRO are not.
And you came up with nothing.
2. Sykes replays that ad with women reading old Trump quotes about women. Trump's response is about all the women he's hired and put in high positions. Look at his actions. And he was "a celebrity," going on Howard Stern and such, not thinking about how it would sound if he were to run for office.
That's a Fair response. Trump has insulted very many people, sometimes inaccurately, and not just women. And not all women.
3. Trump has said Wisconsin is doing terribly. Won't that make Scott Walker look bad? Trump says he got the info from TIME Magazine.
Walker said they were Democratic talking points. This is an example of Trump picking up any stone that's laying around.
4. Isn't Trump's claim to be a conservative just "a giant fraud"? Trump says he's a strong conservative, but trade might be an exception. When it comes to trade, he's for "smart trade."
Is Trump conceding that's not "conservative?" It was in 1930.
5. What would happen to the price of goods if Trump imposed the tariff he's threatened? Trump says it will never happen. You just need a threat to get a good deal. Sykes asks how's that going to work if you just revealed it's a bluff? Sykes chuckles at what he clearly thinks it a gotcha. Trump ignores it.
This has an answer. It's like a strike. People don't actually want to quit their jobs, but that doesn't mean a strike is an empty threat. Trump doesn't seem to have the thinking ability to say that.
One problem not addressed here is that a lot of what Trump threatens to do violates already existing trade agreements, and can't anyway be done without Congress. Now there are some powers hanging around.
The price of goods still is a good question. The issue with imports after all, is that they are putting companies out of business because of lower prices Trump, if he wants to limit imports, wants higher prices.
Chuck: Trump will likely run as a spoiler because the party failed to live up to their deal with the Dronald. Also, if Trump stands by, his supporters will stay home and not vote for Cruz/Eddie Munster while Bernie's supporters will vote for Hitlary.
Trump has secured 35-45% of the Republican electorate.
Therefore: INEVITABLE!
#MathisHard
But why is Sykes's #NeverTrumpishness significant to Trump?
Or why should it be? Well, he does want to avoid Megyn Kelly. Sykes feels that at some point - but not too soon - he should tell Donald Trump. At least his audience would think he was honest.
What did Trump say about NATO?
"There aren't any good reasons to be against Trump, if you're a conservative? Being against Trump is really just mental illness?"
Did I say that? What a shitty disingenuous retort. I have no problem with a reasonable disagreement. What irks me is the foam flecked unhinged demonic hatred exhibited by so many anti-Trumpers. Just like I used to see against GWB. Your juvenile response only highlights my point.
Sammy: Current low commodity prices are hurting American industry and technical services while driving down blue collar wages. By squeezing trade, we will end up paying more for food, gas and heat and buying fewer iPhones and other China goods. This will boost the US job market.
Steve M. Galbraith said...3/28/16, 10:21 AM
If you were to design a candidate with the purposes to combine all of the negative qualities that one wouldn't want in a president it would look a lot like Trump.
Bill Clinton is a good politician.
He shows an absolute disdain for learning anything about the issues. He watches "the shows", reads an article. That, for him, constitutes studying an issue.
This is all riht, maybe for a start, but you would think someone with some self-respect would want to do more, if he kept talking about it. Trump had papers on his airplane that some aides wanted him to read. He told a reporter he couldn't do it. And he doesn't have the administrative ability or interest to have people prepare more readable material.
What the interview showed me was that in spite of the overwhelming hostility and lack of civility, Trump never got hostile or angry or off message. I'd give him credit for that. Charlie Sykes came across as badgering and condescending, and frankly rude. So because he's "never Trump" that's a justification? Is that really any way to treat a candidate for President? I think not. Very low level interview.
Why not ask intelligent questions and let the listeners come to their own conclusions? Sykes was fixated on the necessity for Trump to apologize for retweeting an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz --Really? That's what matters most to Wisconsinites?
Personally I believe that Cruz knew about the strategy to embarrass Trump's wife. Regardless of whether Cruz was informed before the ad on Melania was released, IMO If Cruz had real moral character he would have immediately condemned the ad and the group who put the ad out. Did he? No. Instead he claimed he wasn't responsible so therefore he didn't have to apologize. So it's the typical passive aggressive play book for Cruz. That's Sykes's "grown up" style too.
"Clinton will make remarks to invited guests at UW-Madison’s Gordon Commons, 770 W. Dayton Street, at 3:45 p.m. Doors open at 2:45 p.m. A UW-Madison news release says the event is not open to the campus community or the public."
Is this a fund-raiser? A political rally?
Maybe they are smarter than you think Traditionalguy and that is precisely why they are doing it. The Republicans in those three Wisconsin counties are no dummies either. And the disaffected Trump voters are not who Republicans embrace, they never have. If those diisaffected Trump voters would be smarter and more informed they would be Democrats. Republicans never were for the working class poor.
Brando said...3/28/16, 11:49 AM
The GOP is on the verge of nominating its worst candidate in modern history. Future historians are going to marvel at how this all went off the rails.
No, by that time, they'll explain how Bill Clinton pulled it off.
Howard said...
Chuck: Trump will likely run as a spoiler because the party failed to live up to their deal with the Dronald. Also, if Trump stands by, his supporters will stay home and not vote for Cruz/Eddie Munster while Bernie's supporters will vote for Hitlary.
So the two parts of your reply are (a) Trump will run as a third party candidate if he's denied the nomination under the exacting operation of already-existing Party convention rules, a (b) you agree with me on the loosely non-partisan and unreliable nature of the Trump voters.
Back to (a); that wasn't my hypothetical. I specifically posed the question of a Trump vs. Democrat and a Kasich vs. Democrat general election choice. Not a Kasich vs. Trump vs. Johnson vs. Clinton contest.
But since you raised it, let's deal with it. Why should traditional Republicans (and others opposed to Trump) settle for a Trump candidacy? Why not run an Independent Republican ticket, of Kasich/Jim Webb? Or Paul Ryan/Joe Manchin? Pick up the 40-60% of Republicans who hate Trump, plus a sizable percentage of Democrats who are weary of Hillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe Biden?
Lots of delusional Trump hate here. And I was so looking forward to the capitulation. Maybe people are too committed to being right on the internet and can't go back on the self-important declarations they made already
I'd like to see Trump do well in the general (he's certainly the nominee). So I also thought his ugly-Cruz-wife retweet was imprudent.
Problem is Amanda, neither are the Democrats or they wouldn't be flooding the low end labor market with competition.
R. Chatt:
I agree that Trump should be forced to disclaim and condemn anybody who supports him proposes the other guy and does something uncivil.
That is the standard you are proposing, right?
Amanda:
You think Democrats are for the poor in anything beyond rhetoric? I fear you may really be that stupid.
You just can't make some people prefer a handout to a job. These people are called "bitter clingers."
Brando said...3/28/16, 12:15 PM
Yeah, Bill knows his old friend Trump and probably figured just how to coax him into it (I'm sure Trump was already thinking about it--he'd suggested running in previous elections so it didn't take too much prodding but Bill needed this).
Bill Clinton was only lightly involved in person. He mainly used double agents like Roger Stone.
What, you think #cruzsexscandal came from Donald Trump??
That wasn't done in an attempt to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming President. That was done in an attempt to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming vice- President, and to make sure neither one endirsed the other.
"...delusional Trump hate..."
I disagree that Trump will be well positioned to win the election.
I further disagree that Trump will roll Leviathan back in any meaningful way.
Damn my hatred, LMMFAO.
"But since you raised it, let's deal with it. Why should traditional Republicans (and others opposed to Trump) settle for a Trump candidacy? Why not run an Independent Republican ticket, of Kasich/Jim Webb? Or Paul Ryan/Joe Manchin? Pick up the 40-60% of Republicans who hate Trump, plus a sizable percentage of Democrats who are weary of Hillary, Bernie and Uncle Joe Biden?"
With the right candidate, there's a lot of room to win a three way race with Trump and Hillary. Her negatives are well under water, and Trump's are worse--you could easily pick up a third of total voters just by being an alternative to those two.
For the GOP, this is made a bit easier because if they just win enough electoral votes to push the election into the House of Representatives, then their party essentially decides who the next president is. They can sidestep both lying, authoritarian sociopaths entirely.
The question though is who? It'd have to be someone with enough of an apparatus behind them to get on the ballot in every state (or most states, if it's the House strategy) and enough appeal to reach Republicans repulsed by Trump and Democrats repulsed by Hillary at the same time. The latter is key, because I don't think Dems despise Hillary at the level Republicans despise Trump.
Why should Sykes treat Trump with kid gloves? Trump should be able to face hard questions and give an answer, which he thus far has never been able to do, if he wants to be President of the most powerful nation on earth, he's going to have to work for it. Look at the completely disrespectful way in which President Obama has been treated and quit whining about Trump. Trump has been given a pass for far too long, time to see just what he is made of. Many of us knew it was bullshit from the beginning.
"That wasn't done in an attempt to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming President. That was done in an attempt to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming vice- President, and to make sure neither one endirsed the other."
Interesting--so that leaves the question, to what end? A Trump/Cruz alliance would deprive the anti-Trump forces of the "multiple ballot" option, which would help Trump and Cruz and arguably the party (by preventing a split and settling on the candidate) or hurt the party by ensuring Trump has the nomination. Who would benefit most by keeping Cruz and Trump from making amends?
I'd say the latest flap guarantees Cruz will never make up with Trump--I can't imagine anyone respecting a man who could forgive someone for that (particularly when Trump never apologizes--forgiving an unapologetic person is basically supplication).
With the right candidate, there's a lot of room to win a three way race with Trump and Hillary
Actually, the electoral college says no. Hillary takes California and New York. Cruz takes Texas. The best case for your third party candidate is to be Stephen Douglas. Worst case, John Bell.
Of course Trump doesn't know some flyover state talk radio guy, please. Why would he?
"Clinton will make remarks ... the event is not open to the campus community or the public."
This should be at a Days Inn on the outskirts of town, not on campus at the start of rush hour. What a dickhead she is.
Howard said...3/28/16, 12:29 PM
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy. Trump is lying, but he is doing it in a manner that gives it a scintilla of plausibility.
Of course he's lying about not knowing that was a bad picture, one in fact that had to have been selected out of a much bigger sample of pictures of Heidi Cruz.
The other interpretations aren't very complementary to Donald Trump. It means either that, when attacking, he just regurgitates what other people give him, or he has no ability to determine on his own that that is a bad picture. Actually both. Because even thinking the picture came to him at random, he'll still have to notice this wasn't the way she looked in person.
It's also a dog-whistle, reminding all of us fans that Heidi is a nasty crazy bitch who whores for Goldman Sachs. A wink is as good as a nod.
What hapepned here is he said he would "spill the beans" Now that sounds like he had some ssemi-naked picture of Heidi Cruz. Well, not true. Others thought maybe it is a reference to a moment of depression. Or Her job. But neither one si "spilling the beans."
Then he says, "No need to spill the beans" and sends out a comparison or two pictures, sort of saying that, well, if his wife posed nude, Ted Criuz's wife in ugly.
That looks actually like an attempt to cover his inability to spill any beans, because there are none.
"Actually, the electoral college says no. Hillary takes California and New York. Cruz takes Texas. The best case for your third party candidate is to be Stephen Douglas. Worst case, John Bell."
Well that's why it'd have to be the "right" candidate, and maybe the "right" candidate doesn't exist. It'd have to be someone who isn't just splitting the anti-Trump or anti-Hillary vote, but is taking enough from both sides to win in a majority of states (or enough states to deny anyone else a majority).
There's another reason for the GOP to run a third party candidate though, regardless of its effect on the presidential election results--a candidate who can boost turnout for their down-ballot races where Trump otherwise depresses conservatives into staying home.
"That looks actually like an attempt to cover his inability to spill any beans, because there are none."
In Trump World, this counts as "pushing back twice as hard."
See, when Putin decides to invade the Baltic States, Trump will then send out a nasty tweet about Putin's kids, something along the lines of "hey loser, your kids look like low energy losers too. Try some Trump Vodka!" and then we can hear about how he moved the Overton Window and is "changing the game" and America is finally winning again.
This is who the GOP is about to nominate.
Sammy,
"The price of goods still is a good question. The issue with imports after all, is that they are putting companies out of business because of lower prices Trump, if he wants to limit imports, wants higher prices."
That's how basic Macroeconomics 101 describes it, yes. But a lot of liberals don't necessarily agree with that. They will tell you that the revenue margin created by cheaper labor is not manifested in lower prices for the consumer, but rather in greater profits for the (evil) corporations and their shareholders. In their interpretation, if we had trade barriers that limited imports, the products would be made here in the US, prices would remain static and corporations would simply make less profit (which they should be fine with anyway, since they should have a higher purpose than making profit).
I don't buy the liberal argument, but I'm not well educated in economics, so I don't really know which is true.
Cheaper labor does not mean lower prices AND higher taxes do not mean higher prices.
Leftists everywhere: Heads, we win. Tails, you lose.
AprilApple said...3/28/16, 11:31 AM
Trump: but Cruz started it.
To which I say - Man-up, jerk. Your nuclear bomb pal at the National Enquirer (a joke tabloid) did your dirty work with a smear-job as retaliation for something the Cruz camp didn't even do.
That had to be in the works long before Trump reacted to the anti-Trump Utah ad.
Paul: "Did I say that? What a shitty disingenuous retort. I have no problem with a reasonable disagreement. What irks me is the foam flecked unhinged demonic hatred exhibited by so many anti-Trumpers. Just like I used to see against GWB. Your juvenile response only highlights my point."
Well, you said that an "ugly state" is the norm for #neverTrumpers. "Unhinged is simply not an option for the emotionally well adjusted."
I inferred that in your view to be #neverTrump meant "Unhinged". When I questioned you on it, you used words like "foam-flecked, unhinged, demonic . . ." to describe #neverTrumpers and "juvenile" to describe my response.
Demonic?
OK. You and I are going to see this two different ways, I guess. I just don't think it's a good idea to assume those who disagree with you are just emotional/unhinged/unstable or demonic. They might have a point. Even I know that avid Trump supporters might have a point and I certainly don't think they are crazy, just wrong.
Peace.
Birkel,
Well, I did say I don't buy it. I'm just trying to (as accurately as possible) describe the positions of those who do buy it. My political philosophy trends toward libertarian-esque positions, so I tend to oppose liberal positions on fiscal and ecomomic policy. But that's not a function of knowing what's true, it's a function of me gravitating toward my political philosophy. As I said before, I'm not a trained economist, so I don't really know where the truth lies.
Both the attack ad in Utah against Trump featuring Melania Trump and #cruzsezscandal are probably the work of the Clinton machine.
And maybe there are even double agents telling Trump that Cruz is responsible for that ad, and telling Cruz that "obviously" Trump was behind the National Enquirer story.
Donald Trump's circulating of the bad picture of Heidi Cruz - that he did - although maybe not entirely on his own, and he may have bene told by a double agent that there were some beans to spill about Heidi Cruz, and then later told nothing checked out enough to use, but maybe you can do this...
The American kabuki theater goes on while ISIS advances. Pathetic fools.
"Go ahead, Mr. Galbraith tell us who is qualified to be president. Oh, and be sure to list those qualifications."
Here's some qualifications--
1) An actual understanding of how the American system of government, particularly the executive branch, works.
2) An ability to hold coherent, thought out positions on major topics of the day.
3) A command of actual facts and not whatever made-up crap he decides to spew out to make whatever weak point he has.
4) Some level of human decency--you know, a line that he won't cross.
5) A lack of cruelty.
6) Respect for the rule of law.
7) The ability to make allies and not make enemies unnecessarily.
8) Thick skin, and self-awareness.
9) A sense of responsibility for one's actions.
10) An ability to acknowledge when you're wrong.
Current occupant has none of those qualities.
Trump blamed Cruz for the ad with the nude picture of his wife because it was supposed to be a pro-Cruz PAC.
And Cruz blamed #cruzsexscandal because Roger Stone is quoted in it as saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and Roger Stone has been talking about this on his web site for six months now [I need to verify this fact], and he worked for Donald Trump when he first started his campaign and because the National Enquirer's owner is on somewhat good terms with Donald Trump and the publication actually endorsed him, and endorsing a candidate is something something it has never done in the past.
Cruz did not know that similar (or maybe different - one involved the alleged existence of a sex tape) stories were spread about him in February by people, who, in that case, were claiming to be for Marco Rubio.
And Cruz either didn't realize, or decided he didn't care, that Roger Stone was FIRED by Donald Trump very very early in his campaign, back in August but he claimed he quit! and that the National Enquirer has or had the same law firm and the same lawyer as Bill and Hillary Clinton (David Kendall of Williams & Connally)
Which I acknowledge may not be too significant if the Clintons are not engaged in criminal conspiracies aided by their lawyers, but you can't say that..
Also I found it strange that among the stories that Donald Trump said the National enquirer was accurate about was O.J. Simpson.
Someone must have given him that list of good stories.
The National Enquirer from the date of the crime, up until the not guilty verdict ran nothing but story after story as to how O.J. Simpson was innocent, in all sorts of different ways, and the jury was selected by the defense for people who relied n the National Enquirer.
Immediately afterward, they turned on a dime and ran stories about how O.J. Simpson was guilty but acted entirely alone that is, without even the help and advice of Robert Kardashian. I think O.J.'s co-conspirators wanted the Goldman family to get some satisfaction.
They talked him into it and handed him the plan, telling him he needed to kill Nicole to cut short or prevent an IRS investigation of his making income from autographs and not reporting it on his tax returns, which they were involved in too.
@Birkel -- Having candidates who operate with high moral character would be appreciated, but the candidates are who they are. The game of campaigning is what the game is, a competition. Cruz's attempt to characterize himself as superior or as "the victim" is repulsive to me. He's dishonest. He does say one thing in Iowa and the opposite in Manhattan. In Iowa he claimed to be willing to fight against gay rights (he's for religious liberty), in Manhattan he attended a fundraiser for him by two (very stupid) gay Republicans.
We are electing a leader, not a national saint. A leader takes initiative when no one else is clear about what is the right thing to do. Cruz did not take the initiative. I don't see him as a leader. He's more of a figurehead for Conservatives' aspirations. He borrows ideas from Trump after Trump has introduced them and proven them to be popular.
Chuck: Those scenarios lead to President Hillary. Your only chance to defeat HillBill is to bend over and let The Dronald be your Daddy.
I originally thought Billy Jeff blackmailed Donald into running. No need to, he seduced him into running by stroking his ego. No need for a conspiracy when you can have one con man out-con another. Trump might have the last laugh since if the repubs let him run, he just might win.
Right, higher prices and jobs for neighbors, that's the deal.
"OK. You and I are going to see this two different ways, I guess. I just don't think it's a good idea to assume those who disagree with you are just emotional/unhinged/unstable or demonic. They might have a point. Even I know that avid Trump supporters might have a point and I certainly don't think they are crazy, just wrong.
Peace."
Again I'm talking about the rabid hate that some anti-Trumpers display and it's similarity to liberal BDS. It was your misapprehension to suggest that I must mean all non Trump supporters or anyone who disagrees with me. I'm talking about a specific type of virulent hatred that I've always assumed was exclusively the purview of the childish perpetually-adolescent liberal population that now has erupted on the right with TDS. It is unhinged, and it is indicative of emotional maladjustment because it's simply unhealthy to abandon oneself to, and revel in, such hatred.
If you are a reasonable man who has disagreements with Trump's policies, methods, personality, etc., that's fine, but that's not what I'm talking about. Are we clear?
"Current occupant has none of those qualities."
And the current occupant is not on the ballot this fall. Nor have most Trump critics on the right ever voted for our current occupant.
"In Iowa he claimed to be willing to fight against gay rights (he's for religious liberty), in Manhattan he attended a fundraiser for him by two (very stupid) gay Republicans."
I don't agree with Cruz about gay marriage, but I don't see why his position on it makes him "anti-gay" to such an extent that a gay person cannot support him and he cannot court their votes.
"He borrows ideas from Trump after Trump has introduced them and proven them to be popular."
Opposing immigration amnesty was already popular in GOP circles--I realize Trump pretends he invented the idea, but this issue was covered in 2012 in a dustup between Romney and Rick Perry (Romney taking the hard line). Trump himself even complained about Romney's use of the word "self-deportation" after the election, suggesting that was why Romney lost Hispanic votes. So no, Trump did not invent the hard line position, it was already there, he just decided to start saying immigrants commit more crimes than the native born (false) and the Mexicans just send us their "worst" (apparently the ones they send aren't so bad that Trump won't hire them over native born Americans). Let's stop giving him credit for things he didn't actually do.
He did come up with the nonsensical notion that we could keep terrorists out of our country by somehow figuring out which immigrants are Muslims and which ones have no problem lying about being Muslim. I guess that passes for leadership these days.
I don't see Trump getting the nod. Unless he has a wealth of huge vote wins...he will get CA and NY (irrelevant since he won't be close in a general), he isn't bringing the party behind him at all.
"I originally thought Billy Jeff blackmailed Donald into running. No need to, he seduced him into running by stroking his ego. No need for a conspiracy when you can have one con man out-con another. Trump might have the last laugh since if the repubs let him run, he just might win."
We do know for a fact that Trump and Bill were friends going back to the '90s, and we do know that Bill had a long phone conversation (over an hour) with Donny immediately before Trump announced his run for the presidency last year.
It's possible that the conversation was about golf or something, and maybe talking to Bill made it occur to Trump to go ahead and run for president. But knowing the sort of shrewd person Bill is, and that his wife could have strong headwinds in the general election (the primary was already gamed for her, this was before Bernie got momentum) and he already knew Trump had embarrassed himself with that idiotic birther nonsense four years ago. Did Bill figure getting Trump into the race would pull the other GOP candidates into a magnet of crazy? Make them all try to embarrass themselves by tiptoeing around birther nonsense or whatever new crazy stuff Trump could come up with, as they try to seem reasonable but not offend Trump's constituency? Perhaps--it is a good idea from Bill's perspective. Surely Trump wouldn't harm his wife's chances in the fall--neither Bill nor anyone else (maybe not even Trump) figured he'd win the nomination (and if he did, the oppo research would be the easiest job in the world). So no question this is what Bill wanted.
I don't think he'd have had to blackmail Trump or use any leverage at all. Just stroke his fragile ego, plant the seed, and watch the guy jump in. And now the GOP is splitting apart.
"I don't see Trump getting the nod. Unless he has a wealth of huge vote wins...he will get CA and NY (irrelevant since he won't be close in a general), he isn't bringing the party behind him at all."
I don't know--I just can't see the GOP not nominating the guy who got more votes in the primaries than anyone else. It's sort of lose-lose for the GOP this year.
Speculation that Kasich might be running out of moneyKasich might be running out of money.
Let's all send Kasich some money. He could use it to hug voters. Love makes the world go around.
I think the bad guy in Oliver was Bill Sykes.
He had a dog.
Played by Oliver Reed in the movie.
Bill Sykes, not the dog, that is.
R. Chatt:
Thank you for adding nothing tot he conversation and belittling yourself with all those inanities.
Adieu.
I listened to the audio now.
Some comments:
It actually starts out with Sykes congratulating Trump on the birth of a grandchild.
Trump says out and out that he re-tweeted the picture of Heidi Cruz, which means it came from somebody else. (It is not clear if somebody else pointed it out to him with a direct message)
Trump doesn't claim that he didn't know that it was supposed to be a particularly bad picture of her, but rather that it is not necessarily such a picture. he's arguing, in the present, that you don't have to say that's a bad picture.
He is surprised by the fact that this issue isn't dead, saying he'd rather talk about issues. That's when Sykes segues into that.
He's adamant that Ted Cruz is responsible for the ad. If asked about it, he then says that Ted Cruz knew the people who circulated the Melania ad, but when he brings it up on his own, he goes back to simply holding Ted Cruz responsible for it. This happens over and over again. Sykes simply repeats each time that Trump shouldn't be holding supporters responsible for it. He never reacts when Trump goes back to the simple Ted Cruz did it, except to say he didn't, and then Trump says Cruz knew these people. Sykes never gets, or tries to get, an acknowledgement from Trump that Cruz at least didn't originate > the ad.
Trump is also torn between saying that Melania is a model, or that it is artsy. He keeps on saying it appeared in GQ, and points out at one point near the end that this wasn't in Penthouse or Playboy but GQ. He also claims near the end that he heard that Ted Cruz (or his campaign?) bought the copyright to that picture! Who, if anyone, told him that? It doesn't sound like something a candidate would make up on his own. He doesn't sound completely certain about that.
Trump, while not being willing to apologize is happy with a proposal that he and Ted Cruz agree that their wives are wonderful people and they won't attack their wives.
The dreaded Meade endorsement-curse strikes Kasich.
I guess I still have to wait for the interviewer who gets Trump to accept that it is absolutely against federal election laws for Ted Cruz even to contact, much less coordinate with, independent PACs.
Or does Trump himself do the old wink-wink, nudge-nudge and coordinate with independent PACs who are on his side, and therefore assume that "everybody does it"?
I am tired of presidents, and presidential candidates, who think that they are above the law. I thought that that particular issue was settled in Nixon's time. Consequently I do not think Trump is presidential material.
"If you are a reasonable man who has disagreements with Trump's policies, methods, personality, etc., that's fine, but that's not what I'm talking about. Are we clear?"
yeah
Trump says he got the info from TIME Magazine.
He says it is a verbatim quote. It probably is, and somebody supplied Trump with that. I don't think Trump says he found the article on his own or even read much of it. Sykes says it is wrong. Trump responds then there's problem with TIME Magazine (and not with him)
They leave it at that.
About being conservative, Trump responds as if the only question was about his campaign contributions, which he attributes to being in business and says that in the last few years his contributions were mostly to Republicans and his business suffered a bit.
Trump also claims he never thought about a lot of issues - but he's being asked about what he did say!
Who defines reasonable, LMAO?
"The dreaded Meade endorsement-curse strikes Kasich."
haha. Birkel for President!
A real BIG LIE:
That he never thought about running for office. This is a flat out lie. Five Pinnochios.
He was interested in running for office as far back as 1988. He wanted to be considered for Vice President by George HW Bush in 1988, and actually started a campaign for the presidential nomination of Perot's Reform party in 1999 and 2000, and talked about running for Governor of New York periodically.
He very very seriously investigated that in 2014, but he wanted to be guaranteed no primary opposition, and when he was told that there were no bosses who could do this, went Rob Astoniro, who Westechester County executive who wa splanning ro run for Governor, and offered the job of Lt Governor telling him he'd soon be Governor anyway because he was going to run for president, and he would resign when he announced his candidacy a few months into his term (if I read the New York Times article right)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/nyregion/donald-trump-new-york-governor.html?_r=0
Around the same time, Mr. Trump reached out directly to Mr. Astorino, whom he knew for many years through his golf club in Briarcliff Manor in Westchester. When they met at Trump Tower, Mr. Astorino said he told Mr. Trump, “Look, my intention is to stay in.”
Eventually, Mr. Astorino recalled, he was asked (though he would not say by whom) to consider joining a “unity ticket” in which Mr. Trump would run for governor and Mr. Astorino for lieutenant governor. Mr. Astorino would become governor after Mr. Trump declared his presidential bid.
“I didn’t think that was fair to me, or the people, or the process,” said Mr. Astorino, who ended up losing to Mr. Cuomo.
Big Mike said... 3/28/16, 2:31 PM
I guess I still have to wait for the interviewer who gets Trump to accept that it is absolutely against federal election laws for Ted Cruz even to contact, much less coordinate with, independent PACs.
The problem with thata is that it might not, strictly speaking, have bene a PAC.
David Brock's running something now that Hillary can co-ordinate with.
So Kasich acquiring some common sense equates to running out of money and mayube ending his campaign?
I decline, Meade. Not sure I could run from Costa Rica anyway.
Objection, Sammy Finkleman!
You cannot assume assume facts not in evidence. There is no evidence Kasich has sense, common or otherwise.
Wisconsin (witgh an open primary and a strong Sanders vs Clinton campaign) picks 42 delegates.
There are 18 winner take all statewide delegates (including 3 party officials, bound by the statewide winner on the first ballot, regardless of their personal preferences) and 3 winner take all by Congressional district.
3 x8 districts = 24
Larry Sabato estimates Trump could get 35-40% of the statewide vote and win the 18. But a new poll shows Cruz ahead 36-35. He gives Cruz the heavily Republican Fifth District, and maybe the Sixth District next door, and Kasich two other districts. Of course if Kasich concentrates on 2 or 3 districts, Cruz might win the state and more districts, and maybe even shut out Trump, but Trumpp is strong in the 3 northernmost districts.
New York, on April 19 selects 14 statewide (11+3 party officials) and 27x3 = 81 by Congressional district. If someone winss 50% statewide, he gets the statewide 14 delegates. Otherwise it is proportional with a 20% thresshold. In the Cds if a candidate wins 50% or is the only one to get above 20% (not possible really now) he gets all 3. Otherwise they are split 2-1 between the leader and the one who comes in second. Here it makes sense for Kasich to run all out.
amajority
Re: Clinton double agents: I believe Ed Rollins was a Clinton double agent in the 1992 Perot campaign. Clinton convinced Rsoss Perot that George HW Bush planned to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
@Sammy, the ad in question was released by a PAC named "Make America Awesome."
"I don't agree with Cruz about gay marriage, but I don't see why his position on it makes him "anti-gay" to such an extent that a gay person cannot support him and he cannot court their votes." In fact Cruz was promising followers in Iowa that he would absolutely support an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage.
Birkel -- Ha ha ha! At least you've offered something to laugh about, great contribution! Adios.
Trump is smart to criticize Walker. He's shunning the loser image. America loses, Wisconsin loses, Walker's a loser, I'm going to help us win again.
Charlie's ex-wife is on Trump's short list for Supreme Court nominations. Maybe that's by he doesn't like Trump
althouse wrote:
. Trump makes a good interpersonal move, stating that he knows Sykes is "an intelligent guy" and "You know what's going on." And that's a segue back to an issue... NATO.
I dont' know that is intentional or strategic. Trump seems to do this alot. When asked a question he starts answering the question. Then he goes off on a tangent about something totally different.
"Trump is smart to criticize Walker. He's shunning the loser image. America loses, Wisconsin loses, Walker's a loser, I'm going to help us win again."
Yeah, except for the part where Walker isn't a loser. He's been elected governor twice and is the only governor ever to beat a recall attempt.
Or the part where Trump is going to help Wisconsin win again. How? By bringing the dirty polluting manufacturing jobs in China back to Wisconsin? Too late — environmentalists (there a LOT here in WI in case you've never visited the state) are not going to go for that. Even Republicans and Independents like our clean air and water here. Especially Republicans and Independents.
And then there's the part where, what, Democrats are going to cross over from Sanders or even Hillary to vote for Trump?
Or by Trump do you mean Nader?
mccullough; is that your one-word take on Scott Walker? "Loser"?
With friends and "conservatives" like you, who needs AFSCME?
I understand, if you are doing your Scott Adams 'I'm just observing how the communications game is played,' thing. I think you could have done better, had you avoided something as weirdly offensive as saying, "Trump is smart to criticize Walker."
If you really believe that, and if that is even a semi-serious proposal on your part, then neither you nor Trump have any business being in the Republican Party. If a party's presidential candidate is going to go around attacking leading governors within the party (like Walker, like Rick Perry, like Jeb Bush, like John Kasich), that is just poisonous. Maybe it works for Donald Trump's curious reality-show "brand." But it is not serious behavior from a purportedly serious presidential candidate. It is preposterous.
mccullough:
Pray, tell, what has Governor Walker lost?
Chuck,
Jeb! is not a governor.
Hell, I criticize Nixon all the time because he was God awful for expanding the federal government. Does that make me a bad conservative?
Moderation will be on while I go out to the wilds of my backyard. I'll take it off in few hours.
Meade: I know it might be beyond your, but we have figured out how to clean up manufacturing here in the States. We use these things called bag-houses, scrubbers and oxidizers. They don't use them in China, but we use them here. Most of the pollution in your rust-Belt region is from coal power plants, not manufacturing. But I see your point. Being on a fixed income, you prefer to buy cheap China shit and have Chinese children breath horrific pollution to support your "sustainable lifestyle" in the academic-environmental bubble.
Environmental Injustice: it's not just a concept, it's killing Chinese and Indian children so libtards can afford to go mountain biking on a China made bike while uploading their China made GoPro videos from their China made iPhones.
In case it has gone over your head, the only two candidates spouting progressive ideas ade teh Dronald and Feel the Bern
I'm agnostic on Walker.
But his job approval rating is about 40%, which suggests he's not well liked for whatever reason. And the state is an open primary so Trump is smart to run against Walker.
The fiscal reforms seem to have shored up the state budget, which should help going forward but they still have a lot of public sector employees for a state that is 88% white. Not many blacks or Latinos in Wisconsin so why so many government workers?
The loser comment referred to Walker dropping out of the race early. Wisconsin has a pretty typical economy.
More than 10% of Wisconsin private sector employees are fast food and retail workers. Manufacturing is hanging in there but construction is weak. Not much a governor can do about this but Walker hasn't turned it around. Minnesota is still a better state.
This is a curiosity with Trump; he goes out of his way, to talk about what a classy photo spread it was, for a classy publication like "GQ." (It was "British GQ," but I'm going to assume they are much the same thing.)
If Melania is such a classy model, having done such classy work, in a classy photo spread, for a classy magazine, and Trump was unperturbed by all of it, from the time of the photography years ago (and noting well that before the Make America Awesome SuperPAC did this ad, British GQ ran its own online reprise of the photos, without any harsh blowback from Trump)...
...Then why is anyone's use of the photos such a problem for The Donald? Nobody used illegal or unauthorized photos. This isn't Erin Andrews. These aren't photos that were taken, but promptly hidden for years as an embarrassment. They aren't much different from a lot of the Melanija Knauss photos that we've all seen for years.
Why the big fucking deal from Trump? It is only because Trump's political detractors took the existing photo(s) and displayed them in a context that, it was felt, would offend a great many conservative Utahans. That's it! How dare they? Using a photo for which Melania posed, and for which she was paid, and which was shot with the happy cooperation of all concerned as a part-promotion for Trump, or Trump Models, or Trump Airlines, or Trump's Jet-setting Image.
Has anyone stopped and thought about that? Why is Donald Trump so offended at all? Like, let's presume (wrongly, it seems clear) that Ted Cruz really did have something to do with the use of the photo. What would be the nature of Cruz's offense even if that had been true? It's like using a class picture of Donald Trump from before the time he started dying his hair; there is no imaginable wrongdoing involved in such a thing.
Mitch Daniels is the only very good GOP governor in the last 25 years. The rest range from good (W and Kasich) to adequate (Jeb and Walker) to subpar (Jindal, Romney) to awful (Brownback and Schwarzenegger).
Daniels decided not to run in 2012 because the race would hurt his family. A very sensible and same position.
The case for tariffs is absolutely not that things won't cost more. We may have to pay less to support the the people and families re-employed making things here. We may experience less social disintegration from the no longer hopeless unemployed. But we will have to pay more for some things.
If we had an electorate willing to put personal advantage aside for the good of the country, we wouldn't be here, would we?
See also "Don't touch my Social Security". And I say that as one who God help me will be dependent on same very soon now.
I'd like to see Sykes interview Clinton.
@Chuck
Please don't interact with the commenter we always delete. I have to take out your post too.
Wow, I had heard that before about her, but very honestly I thought it was argumentation and the usual trash-talk; that it was an old joke I was not in on.
I truly did not know that it was a real warning. I apologize to you and your blog, Professor. She certainly did goad me in no time flat.
"By bringing the dirty polluting manufacturing jobs in China back to Wisconsin?"
Gee, I thought we had something called the EPA. In any case, maybe Trump can bring back the odd manufacturing job that isn't a "dirty polluter".
Rush had a few good lines today. I'll borrow one. Talking trade policy on the internet is like talking about fire to a bunch of fish.
Blogger Chuck said.
...Then why is anyone's use of the photos such a problem for The Donald?
--
Well..since she is young enough to be his daughter, he might have some cognitive dissonance regarding any "exposure". To retweet the ridiculous mid sentence, non-photo shoot pick of Heidi Cruz was a very juvenile response.
"Only the Republican party could mess things up such that Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 election."
Only the Democrats could nominate a traitor for president.
Trump will blow past the #NeverTrump types without noticing.
What will really count is if the Cruz stories are true at all. Everybody seems to be assuming the Enquirer has lost its mind. I can recall a couple of other occasions.
Chuck probably thinks Kasich has an excellent chance to win.
Don't miss the Vicki McKenna interview with Trump at WISN. Contentious but she let him pretend to know something about Wisconsin state economics.
@rcocean said...
Trump has been doing these things for ever and knows that 9/10 you just ignore the question and get your message out.
Sykes sounds like a big dummy. #nevertrump just means #HillaryforPresident
The Trump Hive refuses to understand that it is guaranteeing #HillaryforPresident as evidenced by polling showing that Hillary beats Donald by double figures.
And the part about Trump ignoring questions and saying what he wants to get his message out - that is wrong. Trump ignores questions because he didn't prepare an answer or more likely, doesn't know, or care. As for his message, the Hive thinks that when Donald says he is the best qualified to fix a problem, he is - but don't ask him how he will fix the problem.
Desperado Trump blind faithers are clinging to a tabloid.
sad.
Big Mike said...3/28/16, 3:25 PM
@Sammy, the ad in question was released by a PAC named "Make America Awesome."
I didn't know the name. It sounds like "Make America Great" but they couldn't use it.
What do we find out about it?
1. Breitbart (pro-Trump but started out pro-Cruz) says "Make America Awesome" has the same mailing address (PO Box 26141 Alexandria, VA 22313) as Carly Fiorina's campaign, which has been relaunched now as a non-profit organization.
Except maybe that doesn't really mean anything:
http://bearingdrift.com/2016/03/27/debunking-breitbarts-cruz-fiorina-mair-conspiracy-theory/
Although Howley tried to dig up a scandal, what he actually found was a P. O. Box rented by Election CFO, a prominent Northern Virginia campaign accounting firm, whose services have been retained by literally hundreds of federal campaigns and committees, as well as hundreds more active within Virginia state politics.
In the world of accountancy and campaign compliance, just a handful are knowledgeable in campaign finance and qualified to keep the books of a political committee.
So, some totally non-related organizations use PO Box 26141 Alexandria, VA 22313/
Let's see:
http://www.moniquemiles.com/donate/
http://www.rwbfund.com/contact-us/
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00592527/1057181/
AMERICA ASCENDANT PAC
PO BOX 26141
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313
http://cfreports.sbe.virginia.gov/Report/LargeContribution/79756
Joe Murray for State Senate (CC-15-00189)Committee Address
PO Box 26141
Alexandria VA, 22313
cf: http://www.murrayforvirginia.com/about/
I heard Hugh Hewitt's show in the car and he played the interview. Trump thinks he can win on one issue: Trade.
And he sounds like a total moron on that one issue. *face palm*
Trump and Hillary made a deal. He's doing this to get her in.
An angry caller said that he supported Trump and he doesn't care at all about what conservatives think. He thinks Trump can win with a small club of angry dudes.
@Meade, what did you find in the "wilds" of your back yard today? Fox? Turkeys? Coyote? Surely a squirrel or a chipmunk to remind you that the winged and four-footed creatures lived in and around Madison before the bipedal hairless apes evolved on the far side of the Atlantic and made their way to the Great Lakes region.
You'd think Trump would think to ask Nikolas Sarkozy how to handle it when you are a head of state and your wife is a model who posed for nude photos. He might learn somethin ... Nah! "Trump" and "learning" just don't go in the same sentence.
@Big Mike, I found my kale seeds sprouting up. Risen, one might say.
Zeus came with me. He found something wild. I assume. I don't know exactly what it was. Down the hatch and gone before I could get his jaws unlocked. It could have been a mouse but more likely a baby rabbit. He seemed pretty happy about the whole thing.
The radio host plays the audio for the anti-Trump ad that was universally panned last week here at Althouse. LOL.
I've heard of Mark Belling, but who is this Charlie Sykes guy?
Big Mike: "Nah! "Trump" and "learning" just don't go in the same sentence"
Speaking strictly as an observer, I'd say that Trump has "learned" quite a bit from 2008 and 2012 and he is employing those lessons rigorously.
"Hope and Change!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for" "Foreign Policy: Don't do stupid stuff".
And those slogans fooled and beguiled the entirety of the establishment which, today, expresses outrage that anyone dare run for the highest office in the land with vacuous slogans.
Too rich.
Drago,
""Hope and Change!" "We are the ones we've been waiting for" "Foreign Policy: Don't do stupid stuff".
And those slogans fooled and beguiled the entirety of the establishment which, today, expresses outrage that anyone dare run for the highest office in the land with vacuous slogans."
Come on, dude, that's a total strawman. Who of the Republican establishment was taken in by any of those slogans? What conservative (or as rcocean alleges, "false conservative") opinion leaders were "fooled and beguiled" by those slogans? When did Krauthammer, Will, or any of the WSJ or National Review writers state they believed in for "Hope and Change!" or "We are the ones we've been waiting for" or even "Foreign Policy: Don't do stupid stuff"? I'm guessing you'll have no shortage of examples since you said the "entirety" of the establishment went for it.
Just because Democrats fell for stupid sloganeering in 2008 doesn't mean that Republicans who don't go for equally-stupid sloganeering in 2016 are "rich" for expressing "outrage that anyone dare run for the highest office in the land with vacuous slogans."
Chuck said...3/28/16, 5:01 PM
If Melania is such a classy model, having done such classy work, in a classy photo spread, for a classy magazine, and Trump was unperturbed by all of it,
I had a question of whether he knew her then, and thought he didn't, but no, yes he did know her:
This is the New Straits Times (Malaysia) of December 2, 1999, linked to by the Wikipedia article on Melania Trump
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19991202&id=Z_1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fRQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2818,1649658&hl=en
The article is entitled:
A Supermodel at the White House by Joyce Walder.
And it includes this at the stat of the second paragraph:
So let us discuss with the Slovenian model Meelania Knauss the notorious interview that she and boyfriend Donald Trump, who is "exploring" a run for the presidency, recently did with Howard Stern
And you can read the rest.
It also says that "Trump's political consultant, Roger Stone" said her friendly style is making her an asset on the exploratory trail.
What is this? Back to the Future?
Chuck said...
Using a photo for which Melania posed, and for which she was paid, and which was shot with the happy cooperation of all concerned as a part-promotion for Trump, or Trump Models, or Trump Airlines, or Trump's Jet-setting Image.
Actually, probably Trump's nascent 2000 presidential campaign.
I've been listening to Hewitt, Rove, and David Limbaugh. All of them, at this point, are like 'It's bad, but not fatal. Whatever happens, the delegates will hammer it out at the convention. This has happened before, and the GOP has gone on to win in November, even when the chosen candidate was not the person going into the convention with the most candidates.'
I think that this is too optimistic of an outlook. David Limbaugh, for example, is pushing Cruz as an alternative to Trump, but I don't think that Cruz will get Trump's delegates. I don't believe the trumpers are open to the 'unleash the power of capitalism and free trade!' argument, even if Cruz has moved marginally towards Trump's position on immigration. Kasich seems to be doing his best to drive out the trumpers. Barring a miracle, I think the GOP is heading for a bad split, win or lose in November.
A winner take all election system like ours guarantees that over time there will be a convergence of two dominant parties towards the middle, but this doesn't mean the point that they are converging on will be anywhere near where I would like it to be.
Achilles, you wrote: "If you neverTrumpers dealt with the issues it would be worth reading. You don't." Oh, but I beg to differ. I've seen a lot of very intelligent discussion of the issues by neverTrumpers here (and elsewhere) What I haven't seen is a lot of intelligent response to the issues raised. I'm glad to see you are game to provide that response. Seriously.
Here's an issue Trump has raised that concerns this particular NeverTrump-er. He thinks nuclear proliferation in the far east is a good thing, as per his interview with the NYT, because it would save the USA money. He appears to be serious. This is part of Trump's background. He is, as you say, a business man (but not a very good one, I would argue-- more of a confidence man), and he tends to see everything through a business lens. He thinks japan and south korea are getting "a free ride" from the US because we have such a large military presence there. He suggests they spend more and we spend less on military matters in the region and even thinks the two countries should go nuclear in order to counteract north korean nuclear capabilities. How on earth can this be a serious proposal? He wants to add more nuclear powers to the region, spur a renewed arms race with China and North Korea. He isn't concerned about the potential dangers, not least of which is the increased chances of said nuclear technology falling into the hands of terrorists? I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously as a candidate for president a man who has such a shallow understanding of just about any region of the earth you care to name. It would be funny if it weren't so scary.
This ranks up there with his complaint that Iran isn't buying airplanes from america--- because he had no clue, despite his frequent fulminations about the bad Iran deal brokered by the Obama administration--- that we do not ALLOW Iran to buy airplanes or weapons or advanced technology from the US.
Let's talk about Trump in terms of narrow, specific issues.
I have two, right now. Right out of the interview.
1. The first issue is Trump's claim that Ted Cruz "knew 100%" about the creation of the Melania-photo ad, and that Trump had been informed that Cruz or his agents had purchased the copyright to use the photos. But the photographer, a man named Antoine Verglas, says that he gave no one the rights, and he did not like the use of his photographs, and is now consulting with his attorney about the unapproved use.
Conclusion - Donald Trump is lying about the Cruz "purchase" of the right to use the photo(s).
2. The second issue is Trump's oft-repeated explanation for his numerous substantial donations to campaigns and/or organizations led by leading Democrats. Trump says that as a businessman, he would "give to everybody," and that is just how business worked. Or how it still works!
Questions - What did Trump get for his money? Was it favors? Was it access? Were they bribes? Did Trump's money get any legislation? Any regulatory action? If Trump is truly a smart businessman, and he used monetary donations to political figures to advance business interests in a clearly rational way, I'd like to hear some specifics. I'd like to know that no laws were broken along the way; but I'd also like to know how smart and how effective were Trump's giving efforts.
For the record, I have long had my own theory about Trump's donations. My theory is that Trump is an essentially cheap man, who gives away very little and certainly almost nothing to any charities that do not provide some benefit to him. My theory also holds that Trump's donations should not be seen as someone who is a secret Democrat. I don't think Trump is a secret Democrat, any more than he is a real Republican. My theory is that Trump gave money to people who were in a position to give him a personal platform, who would invite him to the best parties and best affairs, and would make certain that his name got exposed in the best places. If that is about "business," then surely the business is nothing more than the persona of Donald Trump. The favors, then, were not for a zoning variance for more condos; the favors were putting Trump's name and photograph in the right places.
Chuck,
What did Cruz give Trump for Trump's donation to Cruz back in 2014?
Since I generally consider it rude to talk and speculate in vindictive ways about people not in the conservation, I pondered whether I should write following. But considering that the object of my scorn and derision is here, it's OK.
My theory is that Chuck is not in fact a successful Michigan attorney (who loves to depose people) as he has previously stated. I base this on a number observations, but the most important one is that he couldn't possibly be putting himself out there, selling his name and legal skills with such an obvious disdain for any sort of self promotion. My guess is that he's some sort of paid shill.
So China and North Korea have nukes but it's dangerous if our allies South Korea and Japan have them? If China doesn't crush North Korea and take way their nukes then we sell nukes to Japan and South Korea so they can defend themselves from North Korea. China will understand and we can let them have Taiwan to sweeten the deal
mccullough said...
Chuck,
What did Cruz give Trump for Trump's donation to Cruz back in 2014?
A speech at Mar-A-Lago in late 2014 or early 2015, I think. But you are welcome to ask both of them.
If Chuck is a lawyer, he is a lazy, thoughtless one. He was too lazy to research how the cases interpreting the first amendment have restricted states libel laws. And he doesn't seem to appreciate that Cruz adherence to originalism means that he would appoint justices who would overturn cases like Sullivan so that some states would inevitably make it easier for Trump to sue people who disparage him.
Oh, and it was $5000 (Trump-to-Cruz), I think, which is the standard annual-limit amount for a candidate, or a candidate's committee.
2/3 of Trump's donations have been to GOP candidates or groups, including guys like Cruz. Chuck questions 1/3 of Trump's donations but assumes all the GOP ones are great. Chuck must be Reince Preibus' brother or one of Mitt Romney's sons. What did Trump get from Mitt for hosting a fundraiser for the godfather of Obamacare?
Chuck,
Cruz is cheaper to buy than other politicians. He's a first term senator from Canada. Costs much less than a majority leader like Harry Reid. In 30 years, Cruz will get more because he will be able to give more. That's how politics works and Cruz is a politician. Lyin' Ted is a cheap date for now
mccullough said...
If Chuck is a lawyer, he is a lazy, thoughtless one. He was too lazy to research how the cases interpreting the first amendment have restricted states libel laws. And he doesn't seem to appreciate that Cruz adherence to originalism means that he would appoint justices who would overturn cases like Sullivan so that some states would inevitably make it easier for Trump to sue people who disparage him.
Oh really go fuck yourself with that drivel. The last time you tried to one-up me on this, I went right around you, pulled the quote from Justice Scalia at the Aspen Institute -- the one that you were butchering and misconstruing -- and showed you, in Scalia's own words, what you should have been saying. (And why your disagreement with me was so off the mark.)
In what state(s) are licensed?
And do you really want to have a good, clear, hard, fair fight on Trump's butchery of libel law? Because I'm the guy to give it to you.
mccullough said...
2/3 of Trump's donations have been to GOP candidates or groups, including guys like Cruz. Chuck questions 1/3 of Trump's donations but assumes all the GOP ones are great.
For a stupid shithead, you really are determined.
I didn't say that Trump's donations represented bribes. And I didn't say that they represented any form of partisanship. I said my theory was that Trump's money represented neither one of those things. I said I thought they represented money spent on the real "business" of Trump, which is personal self-promotion.
So I didn't suggest that "all the GOP ones are great." I said nothing of the sort. You need to learn to read a lot better.
Lucy(D) asks Charlie Brown(GoPe) to kick the football.
She always wins.
Lucy asks Trump to kick the football. Trump boots Lucy through the goalposts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा