Trump became upset late last week when he learned from media reports that Manafort privately told Republican leaders that the billionaire reality TV star was “projecting an image” for voters and would begin toning down his rhetoric, according to the sources....Elsewhere in Politico: "9 photos of John Kasich eating on the campaign trail."
“I think it pisses him off that [Manafort] was getting free television by going on the shows and now Paul Manafort is out there resurrecting his career,” said one campaign operative. Citing Manafort’s advocacy within the campaign for an expensive advertising push in upcoming states, the operative said Trump is “saying I can get on every show I want for free and you're telling me not to do that and that I should pay for my advertising? That doesn't pass the smell test to me.”...
On Monday, as [Trump] again mocked the idea of behaving in a more “presidential” manner at two rallies in Pennsylvania, Trump called John Kasich a “slob” after calling attention to his penchant for eating too much on the campaign trail and blasted him and Cruz, whom he called “an ass,” for “colluding” to stop him — every broadside delivered in his trademark vernacular and an implicit rebuke to those handlers looking to rein him in.
“He has a news conference all the time when he's eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion,” Trump said, imitating the noshing. “This guy takes a pancake and he's shoving it in his mouth. It’s disgusting.” While Trump has managed to avoid the cameras during mealtime, Kasich has broken bread with them, as readers can see from these flavorful shots from the campaign trail.Isn't Kasich trying to make up for that one time he got caught on camera eating pizza with a fork? He's trying to look "disgusting" — i.e., like a man of the people, chomping hard into hand-held stuff — isn't he?
Food-eating used to be a cliché campaign photo-op. Bob Dylan sang about it in 1963:
Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote
He’s a-runnin’ for office on the ballot note
He’s out there preachin’ in front of the steeple
Tellin’ me he loves all kinds-a people
(He’s eatin’ bagels
He’s eatin’ pizza
He’s eatin’ chitlins
He’s eatin’ bullshit!)
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
Trump's function is like chemotherapy's. Kill off the fast-growing bureaucracy.
Hillary up by 3 over Trump. LOL. BTW, I am back to undecided re Trump.
Poor Trump. He uses his Momma's perfect table manners and insists on perfection in his Properties and the services offered there.
But he still has the Media Church Ladies aghast and condemning over his bad word language compared to silver tongued Queen Hillary whom they pretend is easily offended by the tone of Alpha male speech. But she is not that offended by Huma's internet Weiner wagger.
Wasn't it Trump who was caught eating pizza with a fork and Jon Stewart asked to see his birth certificate to prove he was born in New York?
And pizza with a fork is fine to start with, depending on the structure of the pizza. Sometimes it flops down and you don't want to spill hot cheese and sauce on your lap.
"And pizza with a fork is fine to start with, depending on the structure of the pizza. Sometimes it flops down and you don't want to spill hot cheese and sauce on your lap."
Not in New York. You're supposed to know how to fold it.
You got to know when to hold it and know when to fold it
"Not in New York. You're supposed to know how to fold it."
See, those of us outside the Pizza Belt (which runs from central New Jersey up to central Connecticut, and inland about 100 miles) are often subjected to pizza crust with poor structural integrity and there's no "folding" to be had--it'd be like folding a cup of crab chowder.
Pray for us pizza exiles!
Every time I start to find Trump somewhat less unappetizing, he goes and opens his pie hole.
It never crossed my mind that we would see a kinder, more presidential Donald Trump after he secured the nomination. I was sure that was a lie, the only question being who was telling the lie.
And I don't care how Kasich eats pizza, nor would I care what Trump thinks of how I eat pizza. I would, however, like him to discuss things like the implications of Brexit. You know, things a President should be thinking about.
"Every time I start to find Trump somewhat less unappetizing, he goes and opens his pie hole."
Yep! We need candidates that don't get in the mud.
Like McCain. Like Romney. Who both beat Obama, because Obama was really beyond the pale, especially in 2012 with the endless nasty, juvenile attacks. Like binders full of women. Put yall back in chains. So of course Obama and Biden didn't win, being so nasty.
Oh wait. They won. People like you are going to have to realize that dumb people vote too, and if you let only the progressives use rhetoric, you will always lose.
Why do you think it's set up that way, where Democrats get a free pass for nastiness and Republicans are excoriated?
Because effective rhetoric WINS. Now do you want to win, or lose nobly yet again? Quit following Marquis of Queensbury rules while you're getting kicked in the balls.
Pizza should be cut in a horizontal and vertical direction so that you end up with bite size pieces. Fold it over once, and stick the whole thing in your mouth. I might vote for Trump two or three times this year. He has most of the votes.
If that's the best Trump can come up with, then Kasich must be a man of few faults.
You would think that nothing could burn Trump's tongue.
I'm not convinced about the Manafort story because this is Politico.
"Lewandowski’s allies responded by privately questioning whether Manafort has done anything to improve the situation. They grumble that Manafort has spent a disproportionate amount of time on television — just as Trump himself has been avoiding the Sunday morning talk show circuit at Manafort’s urging."
Sounds like a servants' brawl that Politico is using to damage Trump. Politico is MSNBC-lite.
It was Kasich who ate pizza with a fork, not Trump.
No one looks good when photographed while eating. Catching you mid bite with your mouth wide open and shoving some food into it is just not an attractive look. Politicians should avoid eating in public. Spare us an themselves the gross and unattractive photos. Thank you.
No photos of Hillary eating. Yet, look at those thighs. We know the woman eats.
I think Manafort must have misunderstood his duties. Manafort is supposed to be handling the delegate-buying behind the scenes in each of the remaining primaries and attending to the other arcane details in connection with delegate-gathering. He was hired as a technician. He was not hired to tone down Trump’s rousing campaign technique.
As an aside – it looks like the Kasich/Cruz collusion strategy may backfire badly. I think it may have even elevated Trump’s numbers in today’s primaries. And I see Kasich is now instructing his supporters in the Indiana primary on May 3 to go ahead and vote for him anyway. Things seem to be getting more and more confused in the #neverTrump camp.
So TCom I want to get back to your fondness and admiration for any Republicans (I know that you think there are far too few of them) who will get down in the dirt and fight. That is the essence, right?
And Trump is proving to you that he is willing, even eager (he routinely does it, unprovoked) to get into the dirt and fight with the Republican candidates, with heavy doses of name-calling and personal attacks. "Scorched earth" is just about the best term for Trump's style, right?
Are you willing to accept Republicans who do the same to Trump? Or is this technique one that you allow only to The Donald ?
Nobody, Chuck, has been under personal attacks more than Trump. And, yet he still has most of the votes.
AllenS;
With Trump's ability to corral no more than mere plurality hovering around 28-37%, but still gaining an outsized percentage (about a 45% minority) of first-ballot delegates, and doing it in such an offensive style, Trump has earned all of the attacks. And more.
This binary thinking of "McCain/Romney didn't fight, so it must be Trump" doesn't make sense to me. Yes, we need a candidate who will put up a strong fight for what's right and convince the American people that he/she has the answers and leadership they need.
Trump just generates a LOT of noise, insults, whining, etc. He's not an "alpha male" (at least not in my book). His schtick appeals to a significant minority of Republican party primary voters. I'm not sure how it will play beyond that.
Being President is way more than just winning an election. You have to be able to be President. That's *kind of* what "being Presidential" means. Trump isn't interested in that. I sometimes wonder if this is all just a game to him.
His supporters LOVE it. But - at least at this point - the majority of likely voters don't.
Maybe it was just about burning everything down the whole time. At the end of the day we'll have a democrat in the White House again unless something changes, rapidly. My opinion.
Uh oh...
Poll: Trump Reaches 50 Percent Support Nationally for the First Time
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-reaches-50-percent-support-nationally-first-time-n562061
Chuck, the other Republicans didn't go scorched earth on Obama, EVEN WHEN OBAMA DID IT TO THEM. Only Trump. Doesn't that say it all? Once they get rid of Trump, they'll try to go back to milquetoast. The GOPE doesn't consider it beyond the pale when Democrats do it. Only Republicans. They might as well be controlled opposition.
The fact that they only use this against Trump says it all. They only attack seriously the man who is attacking the enemy. They have a perverse desire to win elections with only the "smart people" vote.
Which doesn't work. Universal suffrage doesn't equal smart people suffrage.
Donald is using some of the tactics the left has used so effectively to win, except to push an America First narrative, and he has undoubtedly changed the narrative.
Learn from your enemies once in a while, Chuck. You'll never win by simply being reasonable.
"Being President is way more than just winning an election. You have to be able to be President."
Trump will be a fine president. He knows how to listen to others and he readily changes his mind for new information. He isn't an ideologue. He also has a hell of a lot more executive experience than Cruz or Obama ever did.
"This binary thinking of "McCain/Romney didn't fight, so it must be Trump" doesn't make sense to me. Yes, we need a candidate who will put up a strong fight for what's right and convince the American people that he/she has the answers and leadership they need."
That's where I am on this. Absolutely you need a "fighter"--but that requires fighting effectively. I like General Patton smartly and aggressively leading tank divisions into enemy territory to smash the Wehrmacht, but if he instead drove his troops backward into the Atlantic I wouldn't be saying "see? He fought the Atlantic Ocean, not like those wussy generals!"
I want to see good, effective attacks. Go after Hillary for her corruption, incompetence and lies, there's plenty of good material to work with and whittle down her support. But attacks on people's eating habits, or height, or his wife in a bad photo? Who on earth sees that and says "yes, that's the fighting we needed Romney to do!"?
Maybe it's been so long since we've seen an effective GOP nominee that much of the party has no idea what that should be. So a petulant jerk making schoolyard taunts counts as a "fighter" now.
Brando said...
I want to see good, effective attacks. Go after Hillary for her corruption, incompetence and lies, there's plenty of good material to work with and whittle down her support.
You first, Brando. Maybe you get Chuck to help you.
"But attacks on people's eating habits, or height, or his wife in a bad photo? Who on earth sees that and says "yes, that's the fighting we needed Romney to do!"?"
You illustrate my point so perfectly, Brando. You're a smart guy, but you're too self centered. You know who sees those insults and gets excited? Simpler people. Who don't know all these political details, but they know something is wrong. They see Don saying AMERICANS FIRST and killing everyone trying to stop him. They like it.
You want to win an election with only voters like you. Can you not see how silly that idea is? I think some of what he says is silly, but I laugh and move on because I get what he is doing. Also, he says a lot of important points nobody else will, and he's really got a good sense of humor.
And if you think cheap insults don't work to win elections, just go ask Barack Obama. Put yall back in chains, baby!
When will you intellectual republicans figure out that most of the electorate isn't like you? Donald has that figured out.
One more point. How do you think it looks to these simpler people when you Republicans are attacking the man shouting AMERICANS FIRST 100 times harder than you ever attacked Obama?
It looks like shit, that's what. And that's why the party very well could fracture. It's not Trump that is the problem. It's you lot. You don't understand the electorate. You're focused on forcing your doctrinaire ideology down their throat. You won't bend. You won't learn. And now your party is so outdated it's on the verge of collapse.
It's not too late to get a clue.
"Trump has earned all of the attacks. And more."
The cluelessness of the GOPe sheep is breathtaking.
You know how you can tell the pioneers ? From the arrows in their backs.
Trump has a hotel in Vegas but it doesn't have a casino. Something rather strange about that since Trump doesn't have a moral problem with owning a casino. I suspect the Democrats know something and are waiting for him to become the nominee, that something that might be the only thing that immunizes Clinton from his attacks on her criminality. All the same, if it comes down to a corrupt public official and a sleazy businessman I'll go for Trump. Perhaps others differ but to my mind the person who takes the bribe is worse than the person who offers the bribe.
"You first, Brando. Maybe you get Chuck to help you."
I've covered it on other posts, but for starters, how about focusing on:
1) No legitimate reason for her private server setup and media blindness of this?
2) He signature achievement as Secretary of State was the Libya mess and trying to get us involved in Syria's mess?
3) Why she won't address Juanita Broaddrick's charges?
4) Why she is suddenly against all the free trade agreements she supported until six months ago?
There's obviously a lot more, but I'd rather hear about that than her cankles.
"You want to win an election with only voters like you. Can you not see how silly that idea is?"
I know I'm in the minority--I've long said that to win, you have to unite enough factions on the Right and Middle to pull off a victory. The problem is, who is doing that? For all Romney's weaknesses as a candidate (though I think he would have made a good president) he at least tried. The theme this year seems to be "my side is a hidden majority and screw everyone else, we really outnumber them". That's not exclusive to Trump--Cruz hasn't made any efforts with moderates--but I'm not seeing any other way to get that math to work.
I believe Trump will be the GOP nominee. I also think all this current acrimony aside, voters will drift back to their respective parties (Sanders fans to Hillary, GOPers to Trump) for the most part. But that's not really a good thing for Trump or the GOP, as the Dems have a wider base to work with.
TCom:
The problem with your lot is that you haven't been reading the careful non-racist takedowns of Obama policy in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard.
Your lot, for reasons that I will never understand, seems to have preferred attacks like Trump's nauseatingly stupid attacks on Obama's birth certificate.
If you insist that the problem in the general elections of 2008 and 2012 were low Republican turnout (your position; not mine), then I blame the people who didn't turn out. Not the Republican candidates. If anybody couldn't see the clear distinctions apparent in that electoral choice, I can't help.
And if the Trump cohort now wants Moar Stuff from the gubmint, they ought to like the Democratic Party administration that will follow a Trump nomination.
Please don't bother me with any bull shit about who has been insufficiently critical if Obama. Criticizing Obama could have gone a lot more effectively without the Orly Taitz / Donald Trump "birtherism" idiocy.
"If you insist that the problem in the general elections of 2008 and 2012 were low Republican turnout (your position; not mine), then I blame the people who didn't turn out. Not the Republican candidates. If anybody couldn't see the clear distinctions apparent in that electoral choice, I can't help."
If I recall correctly Romney had a little over 60 million votes in 2012 to Obama's 65 million, compared to McCain's 59 million and Bush's 62 million in 2004. Romney did better than McCain, and worse than Bush, but even Bush's numbers fell below Obama. Obama simply had a much better turnout operation and a larger base to work with.
Either the GOP is going to have to materialize more voters (I'm skeptical, as this implies they can appeal to a lot of voters who simply stay home while not losing any that they already have) or expand their appeal into Obama's base (without losing their own, again). The only solution I see is a skilled enough politician who can appeal beyond their own base enough to cobble that coalition together. Not a "bland" person, mind you--but one who can make the case to those outside their comfort zone.
The alternative is for the GOP to be a state-level and congressional party that cannot win nationwide elections.
"The problem with your lot is that you haven't been reading the careful non-racist takedowns of Obama policy in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard."
Actually, yes I have. But guess who doesn't read that? Most people.
People like you and me, who study politics, ARE OUTNUMBERED, Chuck. The difference between me and you is I get that and you do not.
And National Review wonders why it is irrelevant. Maybe it should have slung some bombs like Trump at the man destroying our country. As long as you insist on fighting a gunman with a water pistol, YOU WILL LOSE.
But the fact that you immediately assumed that I am uninformed says it all. I am very well informed. The difference is, you are just informed on conservative doctrine. You don't know the electorate to save your life.
Trump's function is like chemotherapy's. Kill off the fast-growing bureaucracy.
What a twisted, ugly perversion this is. Who is Trump going to get, to do his 11 million deportations? Or his 2 million carefully-vetted re-entries?
Who is going to enforce Trump's Byzantine trade-protection rules, with all if the new taxes?
Perhaps it will be paid for, out of Trump's massive new federal income taxes and wealth taxes. But of course that will just distort the economy all the more, and necessitate a whole new corps of IRS agents. To locate a whole new era of tax shelters.
Let's not pretend that Trump's negatives are from anything other than the entire establishment calling him Hitler, either. To pretend it's his fault is patently absurd. You political lot don't want normies involved in politics, and Trump is flooding the system with people who don't care about your careful, non-racist takedowns.
So when anyone mentions his negatives, what they are saying is "we must pick someone the ruling class won't try to destroy." No thanks!
By the way, WSJ and your other publications are generally free trade and cheap immigration. You clearly don't get it yet.
Chuck, cut off the goodies, deport a few, and most will self deport. It's hilarious you still use the 11 million number, too.
I thought you were well informed? It's much higher than that. You're just exposing why your party is dead. You have no intention of protecting the citizens of this country.
Cut off all public assistance to illegals, and fine employers of illegals, and the illegals will self deport eventually.
So TCom what part of the Conservative Ethos does Trump's trade protection, his refusal to reform entitlements, and his legendary mushiness in social issues fall into.
I'd be delighted to acknowledge your conservative credentials, if you would simply start by acknowledging that Donald Trump is the least-conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in this campaign, and perhaps the least-conservative candidate since Nelson Rockefeller, another paragon of New York values.
LMFAO.
Somebody please go review what Mitt Romney suggested about self-deportation (which isn't such a bad notion).
And then find the several quotes from private citizen Donald Trump on the politics of Romney's position. Way, way back in the year of 2013.
Trump's substantive positions on immigration change almost as often as his hair color. Or his wives.
So, Chuck, what is your candidate going to do about illegals? By the way, who is your candidate?
Trump is running his campaign like the run-up to a big WWE match, something he has some experience with. So far, it's working a lot better than anyone expected, probably even Trump.
Right now, my focus is on "Not Trump."
I voted for John Kasich in the Michigan primary. (I think I have answered that previously.)
You might know, better than I, the details of any plans formulated by Cruz and Kasich. Immigration is a topic that holds limited interest for me. I have a much greater interest in election law, and the immigration issue plays into that. I've said many times that I liked Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, the two big pro-Trump hard asses in the media; each of them possessing good minds and superior legal credentials. I missed Ann Coulter at Michigan by a couple of years.
I very much want a seat at the table for Ann and Laura. I have sympathy and considerable interest in their immigration views, expressed intelligently, even passionately,
Trump is just stupid.
Count on the Daily Mail to report in pictures the candidates' eating styles (mostly Kasich, but also Trump and Cruz):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3558297/Trump-mocks-Kasich-giving-interviews-eats-s-disgusting-want-president.html
By far, the best image of them all is:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/25/20/33881C6400000578-3558297-image-a-17_1461613996293.jpg
Chuck has, like the proverbial idiot, opened his mouth and removed all doubt. Why would anyone wade through all that text when we already know the amount of honest+competent thought we'll find in it?
I sure don't trust that Trump says those things as ostensibly reported (trust Politico?) by Manafort's enemies in the Trump camp (presumably L+friends).
Maybe if we called illegals by the right name for most of them, "scabs", people might understand Trump's appeal.
Chuck thinks that John Kasich, who is funded by George Soros and a total establishment banker hack, is more of a conservative than Trump because he supports all of these free trade deals.
You also admit that you do not care about immigration. You do not care to preserve the culture of this country, do you? Some conservative you are.
You're not a conservative, Chuck. You are a globalist. Or maybe just a useful idiot for them.
As for Trump, he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. His mind changes readily when he comes across new information. Unlike some people we know. He read Ann coulter's book Adios America, and changed his mind. Imagine that.
I'd be delighted to acknowledge your conservative credentials, if you would simply start by acknowledging that Donald Trump is the least-conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in this campaign, and perhaps the least-conservative candidate since Nelson Rockefeller, another paragon of New York values.
This was hilarious to read. First off, I don't give two rips about having your approval or support. Your brand of conservatism is dead. We're making a new one that works. Sorry. Your brand of conservatism results in foreigners flooding in and jobs flooding out. Great job, skippy. By the way, Obama is also in favor of these free trade deals. Is he a conservative too? Is he more conservative than Trump? It's so hard to keep this nonsense straight.
The fact that you think banksters and global free trade deals and open immigration are just fine exposes you for what you are. A conservative? What the Hell are you conserving, Chuck?
You're conserving your ideology. That's all. One you believe represents the heart of America. Except it doesn't. And you want to force it down our throats. You've validated every point I made in this thread. Congratulations.
"You don't know the electorate to save your life."
Boy, is that true !
These guys live to insult Trump voters like Kevin Williamson who I used to have great respect for.
I've subscribed to the WSJ for 30 years. Maybe 40. They are all for open borders and absolute free trade no matter what it does to our middle class.
When NR fired Derbyshire for telling a truth that everyone knows but doesn't talk about I started to drift away.
Now they have distanced themselves from Mark Steyn.
I am not yet a Trump supporter and I began as hostile to him but he keeps saying things that make sense. I can't watch him as he is bumptious but Obama is smooth and a fool.
"i am not yet a Trump supporter..."
Lol. And I am not yet a jock supporter. But it sure smells like it, huh? Your evolution has been interesting (here, PL, etc.). I've been watching. Used to respect you like you used to respect good ol' Kevi. (And Derbyshire Schmerbyshire; I/we respect him too or used to or will again or... whatever. Respect is hard.).
There's a reason why conservatives insult Trump. He's a fraud and an unprincipled demagogue who can't be trusted.And a sure fire loser.
Welcome to Hillaryland. I'll see you at Civil War II. Wonder if we'll be on the same side. Look me up. I'll be over there with the fuckin' cannibals.
Cut off all public assistance to illegals, and fine employers of illegals, and the illegals will self deport eventually.
Right. But Trump carefully avoids calling it “self deportation.” Why? Because the MSM made Romney’s phrase of “self deportation” a scary phrase signifying cruelty when in reality “self deportation” is the safest and most humane way to handle all the illegals ensconced all over the nation.
Cut off employment, cut off free stuff and they’ll go back south of the border on their own. And they won’t come back until another Democrat is back in office – which could be, if we are lucky, a long time.
And then find the several quotes from private citizen Donald Trump on the politics of Romney's position. Way, way back in the year of 2013.
Actually, it was 2012, but who cares about accuracy, right?
You know, back when Trump was a mere TV celebrity real estate mogul instead of a winning first time national presidential politician, he said a bunch of stuff. It was BS typical of the type you would hear from any alpha male spouting off at a Kiwanis Club beerfest – right off the top of his head.
Us Trump supporters forgive him for that because he straightened out and got it right on most of the issues in the 4 years since. But to the ideologues those verbal pop-offs years ago are scary stuff. The ideologues are used to listening to life-long career politicians who wouldn’t dare step outside the establishment box in any of their public pronouncements. It must be quite a shock to their sensibilities to be confronted by the unpredictable Trump.
On another subject:
It looks like Manafort earned his pay last night. The Manafort ground game beat Cruz’s highly vaunted ground game and that with Manafort having only a short time on the job.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा