Said Donald Trump today. Does he sound like he's encouraging violence even when he's saying he hopes there won't be violence? If so, it's because he doesn't say "I don't want violence" or "I urge my supporters to refrain from violence." There's something oddly passive about "I hope it doesn't involve violence" — as if he holds no sway with his supporters, as if he's suggesting it's up to the other side to resist doing the things that will necessitate violence from my people. So I hear a vague, deniable threat. And this too contains a vague, deniable threat:
The process of courting delegates, Trump said, is "rigged" because "you're basically buying people." He said he is not interested in "playing the rules game."It's implied: I could do this — and I'd beat you at it — if you say this is the system and this is what we are doing.
"Nobody has better toys than I do. I can put them on the best planes and bring them to the best resorts anywhere in the world," Trump said. “You’re basically saying, ‘Delegate, listen, we’re going to send you to Mar-a-Lago on a Boeing 757, you’re going to use the spa, you’re going to do this, you’re going to do that, we want your vote. That’s a corrupt system."
NBC just did a poll that showed that 62% of Republican voters believe that the candidate who gets the most votes in the primaries should be the party's nominee. Chuck Todd confronted Reince Priebus with that number on "Meet the Press" today and Priebus gave the sort of answer that I think a lot of people will find irritating:
"If he was winning the majority of votes, he'd likely have the majority of delegates."Only likely, not for sure, because of the delegate selection process.
"But that's not actually what's happening. He's winning a plurality of votes, and he has a plurality of delegates."But he doesn't have a plurality of delegates that's proportional to his plurality of votes.
"And under the rules and under the concept of this country, a majority rules on everything."Which doesn't mean the one with the most votes wins, only that if you get a majority you win, but not even a majority of votes, because you could get a majority of votes but not a majority of delegates, and in the end — after the funny business — a majority of delegates will decide. Does he really think the people will see that as the good old majority-wins concept?
Just 38 percent of Republicans say it's acceptable if Trump goes into the Republican convention with the most delegates but does not become the nominee, versus 54 percent who say that outcome is unacceptable.To be fair, the poll was taken before Priebus went on all the Sunday shows and put his spin on the business that Trump is calling "rigged" and "100% corrupt."
And only 20 percent say it's acceptable if Republican delegates choose a nominee who has not run in the primaries, versus 71 percent who think that's unacceptable.
Posts
169 comments:
Trump is right.
Taking the broad and deep view, not just of the limited frame of delegate assignments and candidate selection for one election, the political and bureaucratic system is soaked in corruption. The party primary processes are just one aspect of a degenerate system.
As for violence, I still can't get over the incredible scale in which the US public is arming itself. I am convinced there is a subconscious anxiety, and more, that is being expressed here. A pre-revolutionary revolutionary condition is brewing.
Could be most Republican respondents to that poll can't think straight, but no. No one wants a system where someone with 30% of the votes wins. If you want to do it that way, you do a runoff. Which Trump would lose, no matter who was second, since the other 70% dislike him more than any other candidate.
In effect, the convention would have a runoff among the delegates.
Yes, it's a threat of violence. If you are too damn lazy to make deals, too tightfisted to spend money, and too clueless to play the game, there aren't that many options. Bring it on, Trump.
Trump often uses this sort of "just sayin'" approach.
And I really don't see why I have to be interested in Trump's complaining that he's losing the part of the contest that he isn't good at. Not after his boasting that he was winning the PR part of the contest that he is very good at.
It's a good thing that the Republican Party has some protections built in against loud popular clowns taking over. I don't want this country to become a big game show; it doesn't have to be designed so that Donald Trump will be the winner.
Trump is making a threat in a mealy-mouthed way. He's not as much of a winner as he wants us to think, but he is a sore loser.
Althouse, you made this point, but it might have slid past some. (One of your smart readers made this same point just a day or so ago as well.)
Trump, so far, has won 37% of primary votes, but has taken 45% of the delegates. Thanks to the winner-take-all provisions of many states and congressional districts, and thanks to the early crowded field.
I am tempted to say that Trump has become a huge whining baby, but I think that he always was; it isn't temporal.
So, Trump's going to fight a "rigged" primary with bribery and coercion.
I'm waiting for Scott Adams to tell us how this move is some next level, Zen master stuff.
Bill Clinton won the 1992 general election with 43% of the popular vote.
Bush 37.4% and Perot 18.9%.
Clinton won states and was was awarded ALL the electoral votes with less that 50%. Can you imagine if Bush 41 was able to flip electoral college votes by wining and dining its members with the defense of "well I know he got the most votes, but it wasn't 50.1%".
Trump is right. This is all bullshit. All the anti-trumpers don't care about these rules, and now pretend to be process experts.
This is all going to be perceived a lot differently after the NY Primary this Tuesday and the rest of the east on the 26th when Trump cleans up with REAL VOTES.
If plurality of votes decides the nominee, at least have closed primaries and no crossover votes.
Priebus is creepy, a pussy. Made to order for the current Republican Party. Clueless, too clever by half, a pussy.
I can't find it quickly, but it would be interesting to see how many GOP Congressional districts Trump has won. I'll bet it's a lot, and a good explanation as to why so many members of Congress have been silent in regards to endorsement or the nomination process.
They have to back to their districts and face voters this fall; not delegates. And they will have to explain their support for throwing out votes for Trump, while still begging for support. I don't think that's going to play very well.
The Ryan Primary challenge in South Central Wisconsin by Paul Nehlen is just getting started.
Leave Trumps character aside.
Consider the system, what we can see of it.
A couple of days ago someone observed that we object to Iranian democracy because the council of Ayatollahs vets all candidates and permits only those acceptable to this body, which has a rigid ideological position, as well as thoroughly documented economic-crony entanglements. There is no question that Iranian democracy is a sham, openly controlled as it is.
Is the US situation, with respect to the only political position that counts anymore, any better than Iran's?
As presidential elections go, what I have seen of this year's Philippine election seems more transparent and more respectful of popular will than the US. Knowing what I know of Philippine politics this is a remarkable, surprising situation.
"Wining and dining?", Maybe the Trump way, but I don't see that. And the Electoral College rules are a majority of the delegates, which Clinton got and the Republicans also require.
Ann Coulter:
"I keep asking someone to send me a copy of THE RULES that direct state parties to ignore the voters and pick their own slate of delegates, but no one can cite such a rule. So I read through "The Rules of the Republican Party" myself -- and guess what? There's no rule instructing state parties to ignore the voters!"
62% of Republicans polled by NBC think that the candidate with the most votes from the primaries should be the nominee. 62%. That's a lot to ignore, or to toss aside and say nobody cares.
Trump will probably get to 1237 anyway. Then Charlie Sykes can start telling us all that 1237 isn't enough.
What Chuck said!
BTW, just to show the incompetence the Trump little league team, the "
Ann Coulter" quote shows it. The RNC in no way tells the various state parties how to run their primary selection process. SMOD 2016!
chuck said...
And the Electoral College rules are a majority of the delegates, which Clinton got and the Republicans also require.
In a general election with more that two candidates on the ballot, a candidate needs a plurality of votes to gain 100% of a State's electoral votes. 50.1% is not required.
There's no split, there are no run-offs.
See 1992 Clinton-Bush-Perot, and 1916 Wilson-Taft-Roosevelt.
This is basic corruption from England's Monarchy and Tory Aristocracy where the Lords represented old landed Manorial Estates but the House was supposedly elected. But the power of money and privilege found a way to buy that too.
So Bribery and Rotten Boroughs have always gone together. When a territory ( a State) is assigned a certain number of Parliament Member ( or Delegates to National Convention,) but the number who voters there are not proportional to a populated city Borough (Is this New York Borough Values) you get something with a value to sell by selling the land that has just ! or 100 people living there.
So Representative Democracy represents people who vote. A Territory that votes the way a small number of owners direct is always for sale.
Andrew Jacksonian Democracy is back confronting the King.
As usual, Trump continues to insult the members of the Party whose nomination he is seeking. His latest, that the delegates are unprincipled and just being bought off. And again as usual, he provides nothing to substantiate this claim (because the media never ask him to).
I was indifferent about Trump when he started, but I have come to loathe him, even if Scott Adams does consider Trump a Master Persuader.
"And I really don't see why I have to be interested in Trump's complaining that he's losing the part of the contest that he isn't good at. Not after his boasting that he was winning the PR part of the contest that he is very good at."
How many games are there?
1. Winning primaries/caucuses.
2. Fighting for delegates.
3. Shaping public opinion about how #1 and #2 should interact and play out at the convention.
4. Flipping delegates.
5. Creating new games and directing the people's attention to those games and getting them to feel allied with a side in those games.
Cruz is doing better than Trump at game #2, but Trump seems to have chosen not to play game #2 for reasons that are being used strategically in game #3.
Drudge headline right now.
RNC DEFENDS VOTERLESS ELECTIONS!
The headline is brilliant in its simplicity illustrating the stupidity of the RNC.
If the there are no voters, then there was no actual election (CO, WY).
Let's see the GOP defend that this fall when it is asking people for support by going to the polls.
Don't forget to vote!!!
If there is to be violence at GOP meetings, then July 4th would be the likely Day. Declaring Independence from Rules of an alien loving international power is still a Yankee tradition.
All free voters are created equal.
trump
a punk
sad day
for the usa
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Yes, it's a threat of violence. If you are too damn lazy to make deals, too tightfisted to spend money, and too clueless to play the game, there aren't that many options. Bring it on, Trump.
Surely you are not threatening to grab his arm in an aggressive manner?
Trump says things like "I'm not going to call him a liar, but he's a liar" all the time.
He likes to stir up the shit, when he's experienced a loss. It's ok with him when he wins all the delegates. Then, nothing is amiss.
Propaganda is a two-edged sword. In Athens, where democracy arose; only a subset of the population could vote. Slaves and women were excluded, as were many men without property. Similarly, in early America only a limited subset of the population could vote, as one might expect for a constitutional republic. However, for decades politicians have propagandized that America is a democracy, where one person equals one vote and the majority rules. What we are seeing is the conflict between the political system as organized, where an elite oligarchy rules; and the propaganda that is used to obscure the oligarchy and convince the citizens that they all truly have a say in their governance. The resolution of this conflict will have a profound influence on our political institutions for the coming decade. If the oligarchy wins by ignoring the voters, then the political system will be discredited, further weakening the social compact. If the popular vote wins (i.e. Trump), and then he 'sells out' the people to the oligarchy, this will not only discredit the system, but suggest that peaceful means will not be sufficient for correction. I remain uncertain, however, of what will happen if Trump wins and he does not come to an accommodation with the oligarchy. There will be change, but we will be headed into the unknown. The fact that people are voting for this possibility is an indication of the extent of dissatisfaction that the oligarchy has engendered over the last two decades.
> plurality votes to gain 100% of a State's electoral vote
True in 48 states, not true in Nebraska and Maine. But given your argument, what exactly is your beef with the Colorado results? I'd think you would be a big supporter of that process.
You are inferring Trump is a demagogue who has control over his supporters and therefore he should tell them what to do. Trump is suggesting otherwise; he's stating his opinions about the nomination process now that he has discovered the details of how things work. He doesn't want to suggest he controls people, on the contrary.
The RNC chairman ducks the issue by diverting the responsibility to the states to decide how to choose delegates, not the RNC. Isn't that a ridiculously passive approach for a national political party?
Does he sound like he's encouraging violence even when he's saying he hopes there won't be violence? If so, it's because he doesn't say "I don't want violence" or "I urge my supporters to refrain from violence."
Yes
The process of courting delegates, Trump said, is "rigged" because "you're basically buying people." He said he is not interested in "playing the rules game."
I interpret this to mean that the process of courting delegates looks a little too much like work to him. Wait until he discovers that he has to win enough states to collect 270 votes in the electoral college in order to win the presidency. I'll bet he'll complain that that game is "rigged" too.
I'd really like Trump a lot better if he'd think before he speaks instead of rattling off whatever is on top of his head at that moment.
> Surely you are not threatening to grab his arm in an aggressive manner?
It's a call, let's see if he has a good enough hand to raise.
I won't abide being bullied.
Nah, he's not calling for violence. Nor would I. If someone asks, "will no one rid us of this troublesome clown?" I would disapprove. I would, even more than the Donald disapproves of the violence he hopes won't happen.
But OK, Donald, we'll give you delegates in strict proportion to your votes thus far. Because democracy.
"Rigged" process: also known as a republic. The Founders rigged the whole thing. Make America great again: stick with them.
Yeah, yeah, spare me the civics lessons about parties being new-fangled political excretions. Yeah, yeah, it doesn't mean all rigging is good. But undoing checks and balances to concentrate power in a single center exercising majority tyranny is what Progs want. The Donald is doing their bidding. Even apart from promoting amnesty, entitlements, fair trade, military retreat, lies about Republicans, and heaps of BS to be shoveled at LIVs, he is the quintessential anti-conservative candidate.
First, let me inform you that I am NOT a supporter of Mr. Donald Trump!
Secondly, his statements supporting violence in reaction to threats or violence are no more objectionable that that of the Militia Captain who at Lexington (In April, 1775)) and in the face of a British threat of violence, stated: "If they want a war, let it start here".
As the civil authorities (eg Police) have not effectively, in a timely manner, protected the civil rights of those who wished to hear Donald Trump (Or, even travel to his "events"), it becomes the right-and-duty of free citizens to take immediate-and-effective actions to suppress the guilty thugs who are TYRANTS.
"Trump is right. This is all bullshit. All the anti-trumpers don't care about these rules, and now pretend to be process experts. "
I'm reading Bruce Catton's series on the Civil War. I read it many years ago when I was in a sort of Civil War period. I decided to read again the first volume , "The Coming Fury."
I had forgotten how militaristic Lincoln's campaign was. The Republicans had a group of young men in a sort of uniform called The Wide Awakes.
In 1856, across the North, the new Republican party organized young men's marching clubs called "Rocky Mountain Clubs", "Wide Awakes", "Freedom Clubs", and "Bear Clubs." The term "Wide Awakes" became popular in the 1860 campaign. In Chicago on October 3, 1860, 10,000 Wide Awakes marched in a three-mile procession. The story of this rally occupied eight columns of the Chicago Tribune. In Indiana, as one historian reports,
1860 was the most colorful in the memory of the Hoosier electorate. "Speeches, day and night, torch-light processions, and all kinds of noise and confusion are the go, with all parties," commented the "independent" Indianapolis Locomotive. Congressman Julian too was impressed by the "contrivance and spectacular display" which prevailed in the current canvass. Each party took unusual pains to mobilize its followers in disciplined political clubs, but the most remarkable of these were the Lincoln "Rail Maulers" and "Wide Awakes,"
Sound like Trump rallies ?
This is going to be a very interesting campaign. More interesting than many of you, who may not be history buffs, understand.
FullMoon:
chuck's comment was not my comment.
chuck is not Chuck.
Sorry to disappoint you in that regard. As for my stated comment about proposing to grab Corey Lewandowski "in precisely the same manner that he grabbed Michelle Fields," it still stands. Why not? What's he gonna do? File a complaint and make a police report?
Did you see Lewandowski on Fox News Sunday? He's a little piece of shit.
buwaya puti said...
we object to Iranian democracy because the council of Ayatollahs vets all candidates and permits only those acceptable to this body, which has a rigid ideological position, as well as thoroughly documented economic-crony entanglements. There is no question that Iranian democracy is a sham, openly controlled as it is.
Is the US situation, with respect to the only political position that counts anymore, any better than Iran's?
In one respect, it is worse. In Iran there are no illusions about who is in charge. In the US, the meritocrats convinced the rest of the country that their agenda was in everyone's best interests. These paternalistic quislings decreed that free trade and low-cost labor was a universal good, despite the self-evident degradation of our manufacturing base and the US-funded rise of new great power in China. The press agreed and for a long time no other point of view was seriously considered. Trump has changed this, to a point, but resistance has stiffened recently as the quisling see their gravy train coming to a stop.
It is interesting how about the Wisconsin lead GOP is selling its soul to the Devil incarnate to get the Canadian born Canadian Citizen Religious Prophet who immigrated here to be their pawn that blocks Mr New York Values. These people have no shame when it comes to executing a secret corrupt plan to get Ryan selected.
But they still are afraid that any GOP on Trump violence at Cleveland will be a scorched earth result that helps Clinton. Soros already has detailed plans for violence outside the Convention Hall to help Clinton. That leaves Trump's Movement inside the only counter to the paid Soros Riotors.
Priebus, Walker and Ryan will never fight anyone out in the open. All they are good for is backstabbing Trump with Cruz.
Blogger Chuck said...
FullMoon:
chuck's comment was not my comment.
chuck is not Chuck.
Sorry to disappoint you in that regard. As for my stated comment about proposing to grab Corey Lewandowski "in precisely the same manner that he grabbed Michelle Fields," it still stands. Why not? What's he gonna do? File a complaint and make a police report?
Did you see Lewandowski on Fox News Sunday? He's a little piece of shit.
OK, apology accepted.
You previously stated Lewandowski was six foot, 190? Not exactly "a little piece of shit"
Trump has changed this, to a point, but resistance has stiffened recently as the quisling see their gravy train coming to a stop.
I agree. I am getting nervous about how much we agree on.
I saw Lewandowski on TV this morning and he sounded reasonable to me. He seems to have decided that he did touch her after all and his statement that he gave his cellphone records to the police to prove he had tried to call her the evening of the incident should be easy to prove. I still don't get her motive for this but I am certain it has something to do with her career plans.
I suspect it is not working out as she planned.
No, FullMoon, once again you are reading things wrongly.
I said that I was six feet and 190; not Lewandowski. Lewandowski is indeed a little guy.
Cruz supporters are forced to defend smoke filled rooms. They are being forced to defend the GoPe.
Anyone wants to guess what Fox found in the latest polls?
Trump: 45%
Cruz: A. Lot. Less.
Trump won the Colorado caucuses.
Cruz will be eliminated mathematically before May. Trump is going to be the nominee. Cruz will be the VP or first supreme Court pick whichever is best to unite the party. Apparatchiks hardest hit. Cruz supporters will be reading Trump's website and defending his positions by July 4th.
Let's hope that .. is needlessly ambiguous.
Mitchell and Webb.
Oh, he is such a crybully.
And nobody is fooled by his attempt at deniability.
Michael K:
I presume that Lewandowski did not have Michelle Fields' telephone number, and that when Lewandowski says that his own phone records prove that he "tried to call Michelle Fields" is a reference that confirms that Lewandowski did indeed call Michelle's editor.
'Good!' you may be thinking. 'That settles it, right? To think that Lewandowski called Breitbart News Washington editor Matthew Boyle, and tried to explain what he was thinking and why it happened, and moreover to extend an apology to Michelle through her editor, Boyle... right?'
But nothing is easy in this case. Here's Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast with an important story (now weeks old) about that contact:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/09/breitbart-rolls-over-after-reporter-grabbed-by-trump-aide.html
Lewandowski’s explanation to Boyle, said these sources, was that he and Fields had never met before and that he didn’t recognize her as a Breitbart reporter, instead mistaking her for an adversarial member of the mainstream media. Trump’s press secretary, Hope Hicks, didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. Nor did the usually responsive Boyle.
Michael you believe Lewandowski when he says that he called Michelle. I don't. The reason I don't, is because Lewandowski has been a consistent liar about all of this, all along. Pretty simple.
#LittleManComplexCorey
I think that the standard bearer of the Republican party should definitely be able to assault and physically punch and brawl his way to the nomination and the presidency if he's not able to get there after expending all that can be spent on trying to buy the office outright.
This party is a paragon of virtue, integrity, decency and public morality.
The RNC illustrates Conquest's Third Law: the way to understand a bureaucratic organization is to assume it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
NBC just did a poll that showed that 62% of Republican voters believe that the candidate who gets the most votes in the primaries should be the party's nominee.
Do the same 62% believe that William Seward should rightly have been our 16th president instead of Abe Lincoln? Because Seward went into the 1860 Republican convention with the most delegates, but once the "Stop Seward" movement coalesced behind Lincoln the rest was history.
... because you could get a majority of votes but not a majority of delegates, and in the end — after the funny business — a majority of delegates will decide.
I'm not even sure that your hypothetical -- that Trump might win a majority (as opposed to a plurality) of the votes but not a majority of the delegates -- is even mathematically possible at this point. Note also that Trump got all the delegates in South Carolina, Florida, and Arizona, even though he got much less than half the vote in each.
"Anyone wants to guess what Fox found in the latest polls? "
No need...
Seems to me that the convoluted nomination process embraces two very old and very American concepts, republican government and federalism. Choosing delegates is what Madison called a "scheme of representation," and the process for choosing delegates is left-up to the States! Very American and very Constitutional. It goes without saying, but I'm gonna say it anyway, that American ideals and traditions are that cool anymore.
If The Donald is such an honest outsider, why is he running as a Republican. Why didn't he forgo the corrupt, rigged Republican system and run as an Independent. I can't forget the "pandering to Republicans" comment that Trump made in Wisconsin.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
No, FullMoon, once again you are reading things wrongly.
I said that I was six feet and 190; not Lewandowski. Lewandowski is indeed a little guy.
Congratulations on your impressive stature, big fella! No doubt you worked hard to become that tall, as apposed to all the "little guys" in the world too lazy to put in the effort.
Big Mike said...
NBC just did a poll that showed that 62% of Republican voters believe that the candidate who gets the most votes in the primaries should be the party's nominee.
"Do the same 62% believe that William Seward should rightly have been our 16th president instead of Abe Lincoln?"
No we do not believe Seward should have been president. That is a stupid fucking response by a stupid nevertrumper. Stop being fucking stupid. Most Republicans disagree with you assholes deal with it.
You people have spent the last several months telling everyone else they are stupid. Get over yourselves. You are doing nothing but helping hillary. Cruz will be mathematically eliminated by the end of the month. Cruz will not win the general if he is nominated on the 3rd ballot. It. Will. Not. Happen. Cruz will be on the Trump ticket before the end of the convention.
Do everyone a favor and go read trumps positions and get ready to start defending them honestly or go join team hillary. Posts like this are just stupid.
"The reason I don't, is because Lewandowski has been a consistent liar about all of this, all along. Pretty simple."
You are an unbiased observer, of course.
Do the same 62% believe that William Seward should rightly have been our 16th president instead of Abe Lincoln? Because Seward went into the 1860 Republican convention with the most delegates, but once the "Stop Seward" movement coalesced behind Lincoln the rest was history.
I am assuming you know something about the 1860 convention. You must know that there was no voting by anyone except Thurlow Weed and a legion of office seekers. A group of New York toughs were brought to the convention to shout their candidate into the nomination but they found when they got to the "Wigwam" that their seats had all been taken by Lincoln shouters assembled by Judge Davis in advance. One of the Lincoln shouters was said to be so loud that his voice could be heard on the Michigan side of the lake.
You knew that, right ?
Right ?
Barry Dauphin said...If plurality of votes decides the nominee, at least have closed primaries and no crossover votes.
Tell that to the all the folks in Madison and Walkershau Co. who voted for Cruz. I doubt many were registered Republicans.
@Achilles, if Mr. Trump wants my support he can learn to make sure his brain is fully engaged before he spouts off.
I don't give a flying f^^k what Trump's positions are. I'm pretty sure he couldn't tell you what his own positions are if you or I asked him about them. In fact, he might say something that indicates he believes exactly the opposite. He shoots off his mouth (sort of like you, except you are typing instead of speaking) and I think that's pretty stupid for someone who wants to be President of the United States. FWIW I don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily stupid; they might just be poorly informed.
Cruz might very well be mathematically eliminated from a first ballot victory by the end of the month. But you spell Ted's last name anybody-but-Trump, and that may be more than enough for a second or third ballot win.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"I think that the standard bearer of the Republican party should definitely be able to assault and physically punch and brawl his way to the nomination and the presidency if he's not able to get there after expending all that can be spent on trying to buy the office outright.
This party is a paragon of virtue, integrity, decency and public morality."
Are there any Trump supporters trying to shut down Bernie events? No? Starting fights at Bernie events? No? What?
Oh that's right it is Bernie supporters starting fights at Trump events. Screw you. Anyone supporting Bernie and complaining about violence is a fucking hypocrite.
And yeah if you want to come to a Trump or Cruz or anyone else's event and start a fight I am all about ending that fight. One of the reasons I switched to Trump is he doesn't run from the leftist thugs that try to intimidate people they disagree with.
Big Mike said...
"@Achilles, if Mr. Trump wants my support he can learn to make sure his brain is fully engaged before he spouts off.
I don't give a flying f^^k what Trump's positions are."
I know. You are full of projection just like all the nevertrumpers.
"Cruz might very well be mathematically eliminated from a first ballot victory by the end of the month. But you spell Ted's last name anybody-but-Trump, and that may be more than enough for a second or third ballot win."
And a November loss. Tell me which state Ted will win that Obama won? Florida? Ohio? Virginia? How did Cruz do in any of those states? I am uninformed?
You are fucking delusional and it is way past time you people grew up and got on board with beating hillary.
Achilles asked: Tell me which state Ted will win that Obama won? Florida? Ohio? Virginia? How did Cruz do in any of those states? I am uninformed?
No, you're not uninformed. You just haven't come to accept Cruz as your saviour yet.
Tar and feathering are a time honored tradition in your country. Not sure what your pTb's definition of violence is. Probably just an accident caused by standing under the wrong ladder applying sealant to a building, with a chicken truck rolling by, at least this is how the witnesses described it, every single one of them. As far as my grandmother remembers, back centuries, no one has ever convicted a voluntary association of citizens of violence against when they treated a grifter to their just deserts. Especially by a jury of their peers drawn from the community. Who then would also tar and feather a confused judge took the side of the grifter. Pity the Democratic convention in the 60s didn't resort to this non violent method of expressing themselves. TandF is nowhere near the stink of throwing poo and worse.
But he doesn't have a plurality of delegates that's proportional to his plurality of votes.
If the system were changed so that the number of delegates was identically proportional to the number of votes, then why have delegates?
Oh, so you want to blame Bernie Sanders for what a few of his supporters do, Achilles?
Check out what Donald Trump's supporters do.
But hey. Donald is great and Donald is wonderful and whoever doesn't support Donald needs to be punched in the face and convicted on blasphemy charges. Meanwhile any head-to-head match up between Bernie and any Republican has him crushing the opponent - especially Trump.
So now, you're anti-America, the way I see it. Republicans have spent so much time trying to figure out which Americans to hate that after a while, they hated more Americans than they liked.
And now that great American majority are choosing their candidates. And it's not Trump. How does that feel, Achilles?
Trying being more fair, next time. Lord knows that no one can take anything Trump or any of the Republicans say seriously without heaping doses of rhetorical generosity.
You're welcome.
And yeah if you want to come to a Trump or Cruz or anyone else's event and start a fight I am all about ending that fight. One of the reasons I switched to Trump is he doesn't run from the leftist thugs that try to intimidate people they disagree with.
Lol. Neither did Schickelgruber, right?
Same pre-emptive language about predicting how all those mean people (enemies) would be against him. Same bellicosity in response.
Chuck said...True in 48 states, not true in Nebraska and Maine. But given your argument, what exactly is your beef with the Colorado results? I'd think you would be a big supporter of that process.
Achilles said...Anyone want to guess what Fox found in the latest polls?
Trump: 45%
Cruz: A. Lot. Less.
Trump won the Colorado caucuses.
That's my beef with the Colorado GOP. That's why they cancelled any participation by the voting population. CBS poll today shows Trump at 49% in California. Better cut those voters out of the process too. They'll probably put him over 1237.
Nobody is bitching about the results of the Texas primary Cruz won. Texas voters decided. Legitimately. So let it be written.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Oh, so you want to blame Bernie Sanders for what a few of his supporters do, Achilles?"
Just like every other case you, the Bernie supporter, started it by associating Trump and his campaign with violence, and I ended it by pointing out Bernie supporters are starting all of the fights.
What really bothers the legions of fascist lefties out there who are now banning chalk is someone is standing up to them.
"I hope it doesn't involve violence. I hope it doesn't. I'm not suggesting that"
Haha.....I command you.... do not think about Donald Trump in a Speedo, I CAN'T SAY IT ANY MORE CLEARLY....DO NOT THINK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP IN A SPEEDO.
Actually, it is a form of suggestion.
Just like every other case you, the Bernie supporter, started it...
“Look, I didn’t start it,” Trump said.
“Sir, with all due respect, that’s the argument of a five-year-old,” Cooper retorted.
You gonna tell me about the size of your penis, now?
Lol. Where does it end? Trump's supporters mirror Trump in his unwillingness to take responsibility for anything.
chickelit said...
"Achilles asked: Tell me which state Ted will win that Obama won? Florida? Ohio? Virginia? How did Cruz do in any of those states? I am uninformed?
No, you're not uninformed. You just haven't come to accept Cruz as your saviour yet."
That is the thing. I want Cruz in the white house. I started supporting him. But during the campaign he made it abundantly clear he will not expand the Republican voter base. He would do better than Romney because he actually wants to win but better is not enough.
Trump is giving us a chance at the Reagan coalition again. But it will require Cruz supporters to open their minds and actually look at the world as it is not as they want it to be.
> That's why they cancelled any participation by the voting population.
Don't be ridiculous, all they had to do was show up and pick delegates. The fact that Larry let down his neighbors and blew off attending the county convention was his problem. Cacuses were introduced in 1912 in order to undercut party bosses and let citizens have a choice, but they have to show up. Now it is true the Trump supporters probably needed direction and education on the process if they had never participated in Colorado politics before, and the Trump campaign certainly let them down there. Plus Trump turned down his invitation to speak at the state convention, which didn't help.
Did you see the Trump supporter protest at the state capitol last Friday? About 200 people showed up.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Lol. Where does it end? Trump's supporters mirror Trump in his unwillingness to take responsibility for anything."
Bernie's supporters are responsible for far more violence than Trump supporters. Most of the Bernie violence is instigatory. Most of the violence from Trump supporters is reaction to violence of others.
I am fine with stupid women getting maced in the face after they assault people. I actually prefer vicious college brownshirts leaving campaign rallies they tried to disrupt with black eyes.
Responsibility taken.
Will you take responsibility for Bernie supporters starting these fights? Will you take responsibility for all of the Melissa clicks that weren't caught on video? For the fascist environment lefties are creating on campus's everywhere? For Bernie supporters trying to ban chalk?
Trump is giving us a chance at the Reagan coalition again. But it will require Cruz supporters to open their minds and actually look at the world as it is not as they want it to be.
In a normal year, I would be for Cruz too, or Romney for that matter. I happily voted for the latter last time. This time, I too recognized Trump's crossover appeal early on and see it as a feature. I have found this whole "purity testing" (who's a real Republican) incredibly offputting. And the #NeverTrump thing is puerile. Never say never as they used to say.
"Achilles asked: Tell me which state Ted will win that Obama won? Florida? Ohio? Virginia? How did Cruz do in any of those states? I am uninformed?
@Achilles, I live here in Virginia, and I think that Cruz has a very good chance at winning. That's particularly true given Hillary's association with the gun grabber crowd and recent actions taken by her surrogate McAuliffe. You are aware, perhaps, that the NRA has its national headquarters here? I think Cruz will carry Florida. How well he does in Ohio depends on Kasich. There may have to be a deal.
I am assuming you know something about the 1860 convention.
@Michael K, yes I do. I'm a Civil War buff (though not a Civil War reenacter -- wearing wool uniforms in Virginia summers is a bit more than I would think of as fun). Thurlow Weed was Seward's campaign manager; I assume you knew that. Lincoln's campaign managers were David Davis (at that time a US Senator; he wouldn't become an associate justice of the Supreme Court until 1862 so calling him "Judge Davis" is IMO very mildly anachronistic) and Norman Judd (then an Illinois State Senator). Davis certainly outfoxed Weed. By today's standards Davis and Judd were unscrupulous; by 19th century standards the 1860 Republican convention seems to have been pretty normal. You might want to compare the 1860 Republican convention with the 1860 Democrat convention in Charleston -- it might be pretty eye-opening.
@chicklit, I think you and I agree pretty well. I see Trump's crossover appeal, but I think I've explained why I am nervous about him. Could you picture him saying something very foolish in his off-the-cuff way that leads to World War III? Because I can. It's a low probability event, I'll grant you, but "low" does not equal zero.
"In your heart you know he might."
Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:
I don't like Trump.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Cruz is gross,
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Hillary is like my mother.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
If it made him President I would give Bernie a blow-job.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
The idea of giving an old man a blow-job kinda makes me sick, but I would do it.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I bet he doesn't have much jizz left.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Maybe a couple of slow drops, that's all.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I'd do it for Bernie.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Bernie'll pay off my college debt.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
That's worth a blow-job.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
Even with an old man.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I hope he doesn't smell 'old' down there.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I'd still do it.
(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)
I am Laslo.
"calling him "Judge Davis" is IMO very mildly anachronistic"
I believe he was a judge before the Senate. That's how he knew Lincoln. From the Circuit, which was literally a circuit.
I did read about the Charleston convention but it was pretty much a foregone conclusion after Yancey made his rounds.
Douglas had a lot of courage and said some things in the South that they should have listened to.
"By today's standards Davis and Judd were unscrupulous" they were pretty much by the standards of the time. Lincoln had clearly told them to "make no bargains in my name." They promised Cameron a lot, maybe not Treasury, but a lot.
I was a bit surprised reading Catton's book, after having read "Team of Rivals by Goodwin that Bates was opposed by the Germans because of his association with the Know Nothings. She wrote (as I recall, Its been a few years) that he was the candidate of the St Louis German community.
Anyway. I think this year may resemble 1860 although not completely.
Could you picture him saying something very foolish in his off-the-cuff way that leads to World War III?
Seriously? No. Not his words, but perhaps his deeds. Some people in this country and particularly allies in foreign countries are nervous because Trump's words threaten the status quo. Those who attack him for singling out China and Mexico have to own that they are just fine with the status quo. They certainly haven't suggested otherwise. For example, what's wrong with pointing out that North Korea owes its very existence to China and exists solely at its pleasure? Why do we countenance such a pariah state?
The thing is, if you ask your supporters to not be violent (before any have been) it's a statement that they are likely to be.
I ask Althouse to not dox commenters she disagrees with. See?
And that would be the story.
If the Donald had just said "No justice, no peace" everything would have been cool.
I am fine with stupid women getting maced in the face after they assault people. I actually prefer vicious college brownshirts leaving campaign rallies they tried to disrupt with black eyes.
Responsibility taken.
Will you take responsibility for Bernie supporters starting these fights? Will you take responsibility for all of the Melissa clicks that weren't caught on video? For the fascist environment lefties are creating on campus's everywhere? For Bernie supporters trying to ban chalk?
We agree that there are people who could probably use a good knock to the temple every now and then. You don't need to take responsibility for brawls any more than I do. It's enough to hold candidates accountable for their rhetoric and how that encourages or discourages violence, particularly unprovoked violence as you know that this famous clip details. I think both Trump and Sanders have given violence a pass. Both in passive aggressive ways that blame the violence on others. There's no excuse for that. I think they're both worth holding to account.
Why should I have anything to say about Melissa Click other than the fact that I find her a detestable cretin, the best example of the worst of regressive leftism, and someone about whom the best thing you can say is that they were very rightly fired? I hate people like her. Teaching "communication" and providing a case study in fascist clamp-downs on free speech. She is my ideological enemy, as far as I'm concerned. I will make no alliance with the likes of her or her fellow-travelers. They and their PC religion form what we now call the "regressive left," and we offer them no quarter. Check out Twitter, YouTube, and the tons of secularists who have issued a proclamation of cultural war against these cancers. With the eclipsing of power of the former right, true liberals and freedom-lovers and progressives and our conservative allies will do all we can to block these termites from gaining power in any and every new coalition from here on out. You can count on it. The revolution is being live-streamed and there are no shortage of leftists doing their part to make sure the Glenn Greenwalds and the George Galloways and the Hillary Clintons and the Ben Afflecks and the Islamist apologists are called to account, called out on the rug, and exposed for their dangerous sedition against basic norms of freedom and civilization.
> Trump is giving us a chance at the Reagan coalition again.
I was hoping that might be the case early on, but I suspect his crossover appeal is overrated. Plus, he is making some of the same mistakes that Romney did by needlessly alienating a significant part of the Republican party and potential allies. Why insult Romney, Mormons, Walker, Kelly, etc., etc." The guy doesn't pick his fights and I think it will cost him, Reagan was wiser in that regard. Reagan also benefited from the Iran hostage situation and the failed rescue attempt, in a word, "Events, dear boy, events." Who knows what events might play a role in the coming election, or whose side they will favor.
Big Mike said...
"Could you picture him saying something very foolish in his off-the-cuff way that leads to World War III?"
No.
But I do see him telling putin to stop buzzing our ships and being taken seriously. I see him telling China they have to open up their capital markets and stop stealing intellectual property. I see him maybe just maybe enforcing the border as extremely as Mexico or Canada enforce theirs.
Crazy ideas world War 3 and stuff! Stop being childish please.
I see him telling China they have to open up their capital markets and stop stealing intellectual property.
Trade secret is the default setting for intellectual property; our own notions of intellectual property were first codified by Jefferson (and he was improving on European systems). The history of silk and the silk trade is good place to start if you want to know where China wants to take intellectual property.
buwaya puti said...
As for violence, I still can't get over the incredible scale in which the US public is arming itself.
It's mainly just nut jobs buying a lot of guns. The rational middle is as complacent as ever.
"Who knows what events might play a role in the coming election, or whose side they will favor."
I expect several including BLM riots at the Cleveland convention and high probability of an ISIS attack before the election. If it doesn't happen the FBI will get a lot of the credit.
there are no shortage of leftists doing their part to make sure the Glenn Greenwalds and the George Galloways and the Hillary Clintons and the Ben Afflecks and the Islamist apologists are called to account, called out on the rug, and exposed for their dangerous sedition against basic norms of freedom and civilization.
I'm afraid that is a bit beyond my powers of suspension of disbelief. I don't think they can see it.
"The rational middle is as complacent as ever."
Complacency is defined by that sentiment.
I'm reassured that we still have a few disagreements.
My son and my 10 year old grandson were out shooting my AR 15 a month ago. The Colt 1911 is too big for his hands and the Walther PPK was just right. I first fired a Colt 1911 when I was 10 but my hands might have been bigger.
I'm afraid that is a bit beyond my powers of suspension of disbelief. I don't think they can see it.
Because you are a very sheltered and prejudiced man. You probably actually think that Ben Affleck and Hillary Clinton and Reza Aslan are where the relevant conversations on the left are happening. They are not. They are happening with Bill Maher, Dave Rubin, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Gad Saad, etc., etc., etc. Basically the polemical heirs more or less to the post-9/11 Christopher Hitchens.
The Muslim equivalents BTW are Irshad Manji, Majid Nawaz, Ayan Hirsi Ali, etc., etc., etc.
He's being exactly as coy about violence as he was about the size of his penis.
No one is fooled. No one who argues otherwise is arguing in good faith.
"Just 38 percent of Republicans say it's acceptable if Trump goes into the Republican convention with the most delegates but does not become the nominee, versus 54 percent who say that outcome is unacceptable."
That's not what the poll asked. And if the poll had been phrased that way -- neutrally, without naming any candidate -- the answers would surely have been different.
If the poll asked, "Do you think any candidate should get the GOP nomination without demonstrating that he can win support from at least a majority of the delegates" -- which is the relevant question -- the results would have been the opposite.
Tell me what result you want, wire-transfer me $100k, and I'll give you a public opinion poll endorsing any conclusion you want. You'll be the sucker, and I'll be $100k richer.
Seriously, I can write a poll that I guarantee you will prove both that Americans are pro-choice and that they're pro-life -- based on exactly the same poll respondents, just depending on what I ask and how I ask it.
Only suckers fall for this stuff.
" The revolution is being live-streamed and there are no shortage of leftists doing their part to make sure the Glenn Greenwalds and the George Galloways and the Hillary Clintons and the Ben Afflecks and the Islamist apologists are called to account, called out on the rug, and exposed for their dangerous sedition against basic norms of freedom and civilization."
Nothing about the violence from Bernie supporters in there. Dawkins is as intolerant of the religious as Muslims are of atheists.
The problem I have is that after Bernie is done with wall street he is going to destroy my businesses as well not that they are thriving as is. Central planners always fail. Eventually I hope you will admit I can utilize the capital I generate more efficiently than the bureaucracy that takes it from me.
true, and the response rate is a significant element,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The worst of leftism isn't Melissa Click. She is a garden variety idiot that could pop up anywhere, and the substance of her obsessions could have been anything that was popular at the time.
The worst of leftism, actually, is, for instance, the government of the State of California - it's hard to pick out individuals, because it is in fact a criminal conspiracy on a tremendous scale. This is the poison that goes down easy and kills slowly, a neuroparalyzer (pyrethin, say) that makes breathing progressively more difficult.
If you want to put a face to this, consider Kamala Harris, though she is one among hundreds. She is mostly just a tool.
Beldar said...
"He's being exactly as coy about violence as he was about the size of his penis.
No one is fooled. No one who argues otherwise is arguing in good faith."
He doesn't have to. I will save you the trouble.
If the GoPe rigs the convention and someone other than the person who got the most votes and has the most public support wins the GoPe is finished. Hillary will be elected and you will get your violence. And we will treat the GoPe apparatchiks in DC just like the dem apparatchiks because you are all trying to get the same things and supported by the same people.
Selling out our freedom and our borders and our culture so you can get invited to dem cocktail parties is not a legitimate occupation. Nominating anyone other than the person with the most votes and delegates and popular support is tantamount to voting for Hillary.
We will not go quietly. Do a poll of vets and you will get your majority Trump support. We get lawyers like Cruz and people who win the smoke filled rooms. Trump would have won in Colorado and Wyoming if there were votes. A Trump Cruz ticket is what the voters want. Subvert that with rules and delegate manipulation if you want but it will be the end of the party.
We don't need no stinkin' laws! We know in our hearts the dreamiest candidate deserves everyone's love and devotion! Bow! Bow to Trump! He'll fill you with righteous outrage against things that aren't worthy of him!
Needlessly ambiguous...
If I'd taken care of you when I wanted to, I'd be out by now.
Beldar said... [hush][hide comment]
"Just 38 percent of Republicans say it's acceptable if Trump goes into the Republican convention with the most delegates but does not become the nominee, versus 54 percent who say that outcome is unacceptable."
That's not what the poll asked. And if the poll had been phrased that way -- neutrally, without naming any candidate -- the answers would surely have been different.
If the poll asked, "Do you think any candidate should get the GOP nomination without demonstrating that he can win support from at least a majority of the delegates" -- which is the relevant question -- the results would have been the opposite.
Tell me what result you want, wire-transfer me $100k, and I'll give you a public opinion poll endorsing any conclusion you want. You'll be the sucker, and I'll be $100k richer.
I'll do it! Give me your savings account number and password, and I will transfer funds immediately.
"However, for decades politicians have propagandized that America is a democracy, where one person equals one vote and the majority rules."
And anyone with a decent education knows that the United States of America is a republic.
If we can keep it.
Pure democracy is mob rule.
"But it will require Cruz supporters to open their minds and actually look at the world as it is not as they want it to be."
I'm entirely open and I've been interested in seeing Trump really step up. I forget who it was, but a commenter a few weeks ago really got me thinking. I've been totally open to Trump, but I can't vote for someone based on the same arguments that got Obama elected. I appreciate Trump has good policies on his website, but I'm honestly not convinced that he knows what policies are there or what he'll actually do in office. Reagan had popular appeal but he was a genuinely good man with a strong record of leadership. He helped make California strong before he went on to be a great President. All Trump has is bluster, and his supporters blust that even more.
I'm not drawn to New York bluster, and his public persona is quite off-putting without seeming like he really is committed to the cause. I know his supporters are, but it really seems they're investing in Trump as a symbol of a cause, rather than seeing him for who he is and what he's bringing to the table.
That's why I'm interested in the debates and in good analysis, but Trump hasn't sold me on his actual capability for the job. We're all so angry that we want to rage against the establishment, meanwhile the establishment is sneaking back in with Trump and Hillary, both of whom have shown their whole lives that they only care about themselves and making money for themselves.
I can't vote for Hillary whether the D one or the R one. Even if people are convinced that Trump is going to shake up the system. He is the system. He's invested in the system. He has played the system his whole life. But he's also ver good at getting people to invest in him and his goals, making them take risks he won't personally take to further his goals.
sophisticated discussion, snorfle,
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2016/04/16/maher-slams-religion-tax-sunday-school-so-children-dont-get-stupid
Paddy O wrote: He is the system. He's invested in the system. He has played the system his whole life. But he's also ver good at getting people to invest in him and his goals, making them take risks he won't personally take to further his goals.
In other words, you disbelieve his Saul/Paul conversion. That's OK, I disbelieve Cruz's sincerity on issues that he's flip-flopped around.
Cruz's orthodoxy isn't going to win him more support this fault. Cruz's entire outreach to Trump supporters is essentially as Chuck outlines it: "You will vote for me in the fall or else."
Also, Cruz is horribly aligned with NR and pundits like Kevin Williamson who purposefully call for the death and demise of aging sectors of the American economy. Not a winning strategy.
Dawkins is as intolerant of the religious as Muslims are of atheists.
Lol. Okay. You go throw in with "the religious" to deal with Islamofascism and the rest of us will throw in with the secularists and atheists to get the job done. "The religious" have had their chance to deal with Islamofascists and over the last fourteen hundred years they've failed. Miserably so by now. I guess you must need a lot of "faith" to believe that this time, with the Shiite hand on the nuclear button, that they'll somehow succeed. But I'll put my faith in rationalism on this one. Sorry if that makes you more emotional about your precious religionists than you already are. I think that emotion is bred of knowing that you're fighting the wrong fucking religious war.
Good luck believing that Christianity will defang Islam and jihadism better than rationalism and their own reformers will.
The problem I have is that after Bernie is done with wall street he is going to destroy my businesses as well not that they are thriving as is.
Lol. Whatever.
Central planners always fail.
You are not against "central planning." You are against a republic that is not beholden to the same unregulated Wall Street interests that don't give any less of a damn about your businesses than the Republicans that are bought out by them. Idiot.
Eventually I hope you will admit I can utilize the capital I generate more efficiently than the bureaucracy that takes it from me.
What you do with your "capital" is your business. It's what you are doing with your vote that is stupid, that I can easily take issue with, and that your precious Republicans are using against you!
You are being screwed on two fronts. Your power to irrationally convince yourself of delusional priorities never ceases to amaze me.
Achilles wrote "If the GoPe rigs the convention and someone other than the person who got the most votes and has the most public support..."
Rigs the convention is shamelessly duplicitous.
And person who won the most votes and had the most support was Seward. Damn that usurper, Abraham Lincoln.
You want an outcome. Start there. Be honest.
You want an outcome. Start there. Be honest.
So now you're comparing Cruz to Lincoln?
You want an outcome. Start there. Be honest.
A man who lies to himself as much as Achilles is now doing can't be expected to tell the truth with others.
It's frankly bizarre that Trump is getting blamed for violence, when the violence is occurring at his rallies, not, say, at Clinton's or Sanders' (or Cruz's) rallies. In other words -- his supporters aren't going out and instigating violence. His opponents are the ones fomenting violence here, in the finest tradition of Weimar Germany. That's what the SA were for originally, after all -- going to other parties' meetings and stirring up trouble.
The association of Trump with violence is classic victim blaming. I suppose, though, he is an attractive nuisance, like uncovered meat to a stray cat. Or a provocatively dressed woman.
My son and my 10 year old grandson were out shooting my AR 15 a month ago. The Colt 1911 is too big for his hands and the Walther PPK was just right. I first fired a Colt 1911 when I was 10 but my hands might have been bigger.
Took my kid, their SO, and another couple their age out shooting for a birthday. Thought that we were going to have to rent some guns, so bought another box (1,000 rounds) of 9mm (need to use the range's ammo for rentals), but they ended up using the two 9mm that we had. And the other guy also brought an AR-15. That was great - the first time I have ever shot one. It has a front handgrip (which I think was illegal under the Clinton AWB) that turns into a bipod. Started off with it as a bipod. My groups were good at 25 yards, which for me was great, but uniformly low. He thought it needed to be sighted in better. Then shot it later using the front handgrip and did ok, but, not surprisingly, not as well as with the bipod. Definitely my next firearm purchase (after a 10mm bear handgun though). This was the first time shooting handguns for the two women, and they had fun. Ended up shooting almost 400 rounds of 9mm and 150 rounds of .223. At the end, they were playing battleship, but not very well, but using up a decent amount of ammo. Which I think was a good end for the two who had never shot handguns before.
"Rhythm and Balls"
You used the word deregulated without any understanding. That is the sort of nonsense that idiots repeat after politicians duped them.
For the record, I do not care if Wall Street gives a damn. In fact, get the government to quit pretending it gives a damn.
FACT: Trump's "businesses" would have been worth more today if he'd simply put the capital he inherited into a fund than the growth (and bankruptcies) he'd had while trying to manage them.
Trump will do the same with the country. He doesn't care. As with his multiple bankruptcies he sees gaming the system, any system - including his electoral support, as a good unto itself.
chickelit:
Act stupid or be stupid. Don't make me guess.
Whatever, Birkel.
Thanks for the specifics. I always learn a lot from you. Especially in the art of vagary, emotion, partisanship and illogic.
R&B wrote: FACT: Trump's "businesses" would have been worth more today if he'd simply put the capital he inherited into a fund than the growth (and bankruptcies) he'd had while trying to manage them.
Stop shilling for Wall St.!
@Birkel: I sincerely believe that you are the Ted Cruz of this commentariat.
"Rhythm and Balls" @ 10:11 PM
A good reason to reduce the influence of government. The debt cannot possibly be paid.
It's a fact.
You're probably trying to be funny, but it must be pretty hard to run from the fact that the "Super-Businessman-Billionaire" Trump brand that he's trying to sell you so as to ride him into the presidency on a white horse is a bit of a sham.
Would you send your kids to Trump University? Tell the truth.
"Rhythm and Balls"
You must pay if you want lessons. About $400 an hour with a minimum of 20 hours should get us started.
You're probably trying to be funny, but it must be pretty hard to run from the fact that the "Super-Businessman-Billionaire" Trump brand that he's trying to sell you so as to ride him into the presidency on a white horse is a bit of a sham.
I was trying to funny, because you're basically saying he should have sat n=back and played it safe, relying instead on Wall St.
Suppose that Traump wanted to do something independent with his money...to do things like take risks and lose sometimes. Suppose he didn't want a safe hedge-funded portfolio and wanted bricks and mortar instead?
A good reason to reduce the influence of government. The debt cannot possibly be paid.
You're talking about ideology and ambiguity. The rest of the country is done with these things.
I don't want ALL of what Bernie says he wants. I just want the direction to change. Debt is paid down faster under Democratic presidents, for some reason. I'm not worried that the Congress won't somehow be Republican enough or DINO enough to prevent a Sanders administration from compromising. If it even happens. Since you know we'll still probably be left with President Hillary - perish the thought. But it's true.
In any event, the states and cities are moving forward on their own. I would have been fine with a $10 minimum wage (as the economists advised) although perhaps with opportunity for heads of households to move up to $12. And yet, now there will be strong momentum for others to copy NY and CA and move to $15. Perhaps you would have been better off compromising on how Republicans are screwing over the poor before this had to catch on on its own.
Now is not the time for Republicans to get cocky. Yes, they have the representation. No, their power is no longer real. They are riding the phantom political coat-tails they had with all that power that was real up until 2006, and isn't any more.
Things change, and that's that. No matter how old and sheltered and white your primary voting demographic remains.
Here's a start for any lesson:
Name one positive thing the federal government does better than private enterprise that is not a constitutional monopoly. This excludes the military, the monopoly on legal force and the post office.
It must be an unadulterated good.
You must pay if you want lessons. About $400 an hour with a minimum of 20 hours should get us started.
Sorry. I leave paying idiots for bad results to the donors of the Republican party.
@R&B: In a sense, you're denigrating risk-taking.
I don't have time nor do I care for theory, Mr Blackboard Professor. There's real shit going on right now. I'll draw titties and Sarah Palin graffiti on your blackboard, Professor Birkel. I'm so glad that you can make a simple point. So can the rest of us. Connecting two and two is where you have problems. Always have always will.
"Rhythm and Balls":
"Debt is paid down faster under Democratic presidents, for some reason."
Yes, President Obama has only run up slightly more than ten trillion. That is slightly more than half of overall debt.
The reason you seek is innumeracy on your part.
...slightly less than ten trillion...
@R&B and Birkel: You two hash it out. I feel dirty and need a shower.
Suppose that Traump wanted to do something independent with his money...to do things like take risks and lose sometimes. Suppose he didn't want a safe hedge-funded portfolio and wanted bricks and mortar instead?
You're missing the point. The point is that he not the world-changer business genius that you're too distracted to admit that he isn't.
He created nothing of value. He put his name on buildings and helicopters and gilded giant letters and made a huge brand out of himself.
This is not the experience that America's leaders need.
You really are have a hard time following the point.
@R&B and Birkel: You two hash it out. I feel dirty and need a shower.
Birkel is obsessed with me.
It makes him feel important, I guess.
except when they aren't that solid,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peak-donald-trumps-mutual-funds-120012162.html;_ylt=A0LEVjozVBRXrV8AfQ8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
of course, the regulations were designed to express engender subprime financing,
You are a dime a dozen, "Rhythm and Balls", but you say the most indefensible shit. When other people say indefensible shit my responses are similar. But you are unrelenting and such a damned easy target.
Plus, I like it when you call me various and sundry names.
"@Birkel: I sincerely believe that you are the Ted Cruz of this commentariat."
Yes, I see the resemblance.
Plus, I like it when you call me various and sundry names.
Oh. So you are from the masochist wing of the Republican party, then.
That's good. There are already many sadists among them. Masochists will be needed, too.
Masochists and sadists and people who get distracted by big, shiny, sparkly things. Made of gold gild and arranged as letters to spell "TRUMP" optional.
The party of pizzazz.
Good night, gold diggers.
Trump is a fatuous ass. And that is on his good days.
Again, not a member of the Republican Party. Again with the various and sundry names.
Have you noticed, "Rhythm and Balls", that I rarely call names? Weird,I know.
You seem to like finding other ways of insulting me and strawmaning me nonetheless.
As for Republicans and other anti-Democrats, I get the image of a guy with a big bag of gold who says, "Follow me!" as the party faithful and not-so-faithful parade with him in circles, through the desert, barefoot and threadbare. Indefinitely.
Party of Gold Diggers.
I see you desperately trying to turn acting in economic self-interest into the party of greed while excusing the self-interested greed of government. Do, go on. It is always amusing to read the same, tired arguments again.
As for strawmen, you point them out as you misperceive them. Amuse me.
Further, it is not an insult to correctly identify your intense misunderstandings.
"Government" is a vague, intentionally ambiguous term. Government of, by and for the people. It's a way for you to avoid identifying an actual, concrete problems, without staying silent and perpetuating enough meaningless rhetoric to pretend to remain involved and worthy of being taking seriously. It's just a shortcut for lazy politicians (and their followers, like you) who want a seat in government in exchange for doing nothing but gaining influence and graft. Such as The Clintons and The Republicans. When they get desperate enough, they will blame the people, though. That takes courage.
Party of Gold Diggers wants to dig some gold. Dig dig dig gold diggers. They don't want no broke, broke.
Obama has sold a lot of firearms. People are upset. People are voting with firearms in place of political donations.
Achilles said...Trump won the Colorado caucuses.
4/17/16, 5:53 PM
Huh? Joking, or alluding to something?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/275743-cruz-sweeps-colorado
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Good luck believing that Christianity will defang Islam and jihadism better than rationalism and their own reformers will."
Are you seriously thinking you can talk Islam out of jihad? I am putting my faith in the US Armed Forces led by anyone other than Barack Obama.
"The problem I have is that after Bernie is done with wall street he is going to destroy my businesses as well not that they are thriving as is.
Lol. Whatever."
15$ minimum wage? Over. Only big corporations will be able to afford the automation. Already paying 5-10 times net in taxes. I paid the government 120k plus change last year. I got paid less than 10k. We still owe them payroll taxes. You know the government costs 25 cents for every dollar we pay our employees? That is before they take payroll taxes out of the employees paycheck. Government regulations and taxes are far and away our biggest costs. Rent? Electricity? Only payroll comes close and that is only because government makes it so expensive.
Central planners always fail.
"You are not against "central planning." You are against a republic that is not beholden to the same unregulated Wall Street interests that don't give any less of a damn about your businesses than the Republicans that are bought out by them. Idiot."
You throw idiot on the end as a declarative. You are as ignorant as a floating turd in a toilet. I wish Chase Bank was my biggest concern. But it isn't. It is a close competition between 4 municipalities, L&I, the IRS, the LCB, Department of Ecology, or the Department of Revenue.
"Eventually I hope you will admit I can utilize the capital I generate more efficiently than the bureaucracy that takes it from me.
What you do with your "capital" is your business. It's what you are doing with your vote that is stupid, that I can easily take issue with, and that your precious Republicans are using against you!"
No it isn't. Government at several different levels is sucking the life out of our business. The Republicans have pissed me off because they are letting it happen and eliminating destructive entities like the IRS.
"You are being screwed on two fronts. Your power to irrationally convince yourself of delusional priorities never ceases to amaze me."
You don't have any clue what you are talking about. I doubt you have even talked to someone who self funded their own business with money they saved up with their own work. I am doubting you have ever had a real job. That or you can't read. You are falling down the Republicans are responsible for everything bad rabbit hole again.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"You're missing the point. The point is that he not the world-changer business genius that you're too distracted to admit that he isn't.
He created nothing of value. He put his name on buildings and helicopters and gilded giant letters and made a huge brand out of himself.
This is not the experience that America's leaders need.
You really are have a hard time following the point."
You are pig ignorant. Have you ever been involved in brand building? Any sort of marketing? It takes work. He built many buildings from the ground. I guarantee he has had to pull thousands of permits. He has had to pay for many environmental impact statements. He has produced more in 10 minutes than those environmental science majors have produced in their lives.
He has had employees and made payroll. You have no clue what that is like. How hard that is.
Go out in the world. Talk to some small business owners. Right now you really have no clue what is going on out here. Sanders sounds great because he is honest and I get that. But his policies will turn us into Cuba where we are all shit poor or Mexico if we can grow lots of drugs.
Michael Fitzgerald said...
"Achilles said...Trump won the Colorado caucuses.
4/17/16, 5:53 PM
Huh? Joking, or alluding to something?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/275743-cruz-sweeps-colorado"
Nevertrumpers are completely incapable of critical thinking right now for some reason. Somewhere around 90% of parents think their children are above average.
As a clue read your question, then go re-read my post. I didn't even leave room for you to actually have to do more than first level inductive reasoning.
How routinely R&B blathers.
Achilles said... 4/18/16, 1:45 AM
First off, douchebag, I'm not NeverTrump or any other soundbite put-down you copy from Twitter. Secondly, your post is clear about nothing except your hemorhoidal and paranoidal enthusiasm for a reality tv star. I'll bet you were a big booster when Schwarzenegger was running for governor of California.
Apparently your cryptic, elliptically constructed comments are meant to imply that Cruz "stole" Trump's delegates in Colorado. This assertion was completely debunked by none other than Team Trump itself who went on lamenting that they "didn't know" the rules of game in Colorado, and that they never even had a field office in Colorado. Many pundits addressed this weakness in the Trump organization, and observed that Colorado is not an outlier, but illustrates exactly how Team Trump has failed to establish a national local network, instead depending on the deluge of national news and interviews which invariably focus on him, the reality tv star running for president. And this goes to the heart of the Trump myth, that he is some kind of master CEO, when the reality is, he's a figurehead for a hopelessly disorganized and dysfunctional political apparatus. Yes, the genius wizard master businessman who is the Great Negotiator didn't know the fucking ground rules to the state he was competing in. Not real impressive, not #Winning, embarrassing to admit. So instead of admitting that Cruz won delegates because he worked for them, dumbshit reality tv star fans prefer to whine and bluster about backroom deals, the exact kind of backroom deals Trump proclaims to be the master of.
But sure, continue persuading likely voters skeptical of Trump by insulting them and puking about conspiracy theories. "First level inductive reasoning"= whiny bitch conspiracy theory.
Trump is into Homeric epithets.
"Crooked Hillary" is the latest one, to go with low-key Jeb and lyin' Ted.
I'd have gone with strong-ankled Hillary.
There's not going to be violence--no more than the usual punching of protesters at rallies. Trump fans at most will get pissed, rage a lot, and then decide whether they're going to sit out the election.
But this does illustrate just what an irresponsible piece of human garbage Trump is. A halfway worthwhile leader might say something like "my fans will be justifiably outraged" but if anyone raises the subject of riots or violence (such as a generation ago, when assassination attempts and street riots did actually occur around elections--something someone of Trump's age should be aware of) he would be quick to condemn the possibility. Instead, with Trump we get the veiled threats of an insecure, whiny thug.
This guy is a wannabe Putin fan-boy. Sad!
"It's frankly bizarre that Trump is getting blamed for violence, when the violence is occurring at his rallies, not, say, at Clinton's or Sanders' (or Cruz's) rallies. In other words -- his supporters aren't going out and instigating violence. His opponents are the ones fomenting violence here, in the finest tradition of Weimar Germany. That's what the SA were for originally, after all -- going to other parties' meetings and stirring up trouble."
I would be in total agreement with this, except there's an obvious reason Trump is getting blamed--he has made so many public statements encouraging violence. You could argue that Trump was letting off steam, and he was joking about paying legal bills for anyone who beat up a protester, etc., but when he has publicly stated several times that he'd like to punch the protesters himself, asking supporters to "knock the crap out of" anyone throwing tomatoes, suggesting wistfully that a protester be taken out on a stretcher--well, don't be surprised when people blame him for such things (particularly when it's often his fans who do the attacking).
If you think the "left" is unfairly blaming him for this, then aren't you a little frustrated that Trump makes it so easy for them to blame him?
"He created nothing of value. He put his name on buildings....."
Building which he caused to be built. Which, oddly enough, have value. You really don't get this "capitalism" thing, do you?
You're frightened. It's understandable.
Trump (and his cult-like followers) are essentially saying "Nominate Trump whether you like it or not, or we'll make certain Hillary wins." So the Republicans either a) give the nomination to the least Conservative person to EVER run as a Republican - and the most hated person to run for President since David Duke, period - therefore losing the Conservatives forever and almost certainly the election, b) nominate Cruz and keep the Conservatives, but upset the Trump cult, who will turn their energies to attacking Cruz 24/7 (acting as a free Hillary PAC), possibly costing him the election out of sheer childish spite, or c) nominate someone else entirely, losing Conservatives, Trump cultists, AND the election. The only sure way to win would be to find out what would convince Trump to drop out and still keep his promise to support the nominee, and give it to him. Extortion is too kind a word for what he's doing.
The spammer seems to have left the most intelligent comment since I went to bed.
Trump has bragged, repeatedly, about how he has bribed his way to prosperity for years.
As for violence, I still can't get over the incredible scale in which the US public is arming itself. I am convinced there is a subconscious anxiety, and more, that is being expressed here. A pre-revolutionary revolutionary condition is brewing.
I firmly believe violence is inevitable. One side feels their desires are ignored and they are constantly required, by force, to do what the other side wants. When a group feels that they lack a legitimate outlet for their concerns, illegitimate ones become acceptable.
I look at white folks. We have been demonized for decades. We're the only group who is attacked, at all times, for just being white. If we're going to be castigated, then why be nice and friendly? Why ACCEPT the abuse that is exceptionally unfair to us?
Trump will probably get to 1237 anyway.
It seems very unlikely.
And if doesn't hit 1237, he is just not getting the nomination. Cruz has schlonged him on delegates.
In a general election with more that two candidates on the ballot, a candidate needs a plurality of votes to gain 100% of a State's electoral votes. 50.1% is not required.
And Trump is getting that in winner-take-all states. He doesn't seem to mind "disenfranchising" the majority of voters who didn't vote for him in THOSE states.
Trump won the Colorado caucuses.
No, he did not.
It's like saying "Well, Football Team A gained 500 more yards than Team B. They WON THE GAME!" when the scoreboard shows they lost 14-7.
You don't win the contest playing by rules the contest isn't playing by.
Trump SHOULD demand a large chunk of his delegates be released from him, if he's consistent about not "disenfranchising" people.
No we do not believe Seward should have been president.
Why not? By YOUR own standards, he should've won.
Do everyone a favor and go read trumps positions and get ready to start defending them honestly or go join team hillary. Posts like this are just stupid.
There's little difference between Trump and Hillary. Trump doesn't appear to know what his "views" on his site are.
If the GoPe rigs the convention and someone other than the person who got the most votes and has the most public support wins the GoPe is finished. Hillary will be elected and you will get your violence. And we will treat the GoPe apparatchiks in DC just like the dem apparatchiks because you are all trying to get the same things and supported by the same people.
Remember, NeverTrump is immature and stupid, but OnlyTrump --- THAT is some rational stuff there.
Selling out our freedom and our borders and our culture so you can get invited to dem cocktail parties is not a legitimate occupation.
Trump uses the immigration system to his benefit now. He criticized, harshly, Romney's immigration stances in 2012. He's not opposed to illegal immigration or H-1B visa abuse AT ALL based on his personal behavior.
Nominating anyone other than the person with the most votes and delegates and popular support is tantamount to voting for Hillary.
Funny. Trump voted for Hillary.
Suppose that Traump wanted to do something independent with his money...to do things like take risks and lose sometimes. Suppose he didn't want a safe hedge-funded portfolio and wanted bricks and mortar instead?
But if his returns were below what they'd be doing nothing, then it makes one question his ability as a businessman.
Debt is paid down faster under Democratic presidents
A Dem has basically doubled it in 7 years.
Just sayin'.
Trump has a constituency and not much else. One-third of GOP primary voters have voted for him, which probably translates to something like 20% of the general election popular vote. Trump. Can't. Win.
The GOP's primary process is broken if a single-constituency, unelectable candidate like Trump can win the nomination because his pluralities in some states give him a disproportionate share of delegates. The primary process is meant to choose the party's standard bearer, not to permit a hostile takeover by one group. Cruz is proving that while the process may have unfairly given us Trump as the front runner, the process also has rules that allow it to bend and adapt to prevent catastrophe.
The primary process is not a democratic process for the sake of democracy. The idea, I think, is just that running for the nomination is good training for the general election. In both contexts you have to debate ideas and defend your record against other candidates, you have to go out and shake hands, you have to participate in town halls, etc.
Depending upon how you count a couple of the caucus states (and esp. MI) candidate Hillary Clinton by some counts received around 300k more primary votes than had candidate Obama at the time she suspended her campaign. At that time, of course, he had more than 200 more delegates than she had...but I haven't read much about how unfair or undemocratic that particular primary was (well, not lately, anyway).
Michael Fitzgerald said...
Achilles said... 4/18/16, 1:45 AM
"First off, douchebag, I'm not NeverTrump or any other soundbite put-down you copy from Twitter. Secondly, your post is clear about nothing except your hemorhoidal and paranoidal enthusiasm for a reality tv star."
"But sure, continue persuading likely voters skeptical of Trump by insulting them and puking about conspiracy theories. "First level inductive reasoning"= whiny bitch conspiracy theory."
Yeah. Whatever. Go side with the GOPe like Cruz. They are totally popular right now. It isn't like Cruz's poll numbers started falling after he teamed up with the SJW's and the GOPe to win. Cruz knows he can't win the general like that.
The only reason to nominate the person who got second in the primary is to get fewer votes and lose the general. That aligns with GOPe goals nicely. They want to stay on the gravy train and discredit conservatives.
If Cruz gets the nomination and Trump ran 3rd party Trump would get more votes than Cruz. Cruz knows he would lose the general. He will be on the ticket before the end.
Trump has a constituency and not much else. One-third of GOP primary voters have voted for him, which probably translates to something like 20% of the general election popular vote. Trump. Can't. Win.
Yet, more people (by far) voted for Trump than for Cruz. Ergo, Cruz is the biggest loser. Goodbye.
BDNYC said...
"Trump has a constituency and not much else. One-third of GOP primary voters have voted for him, which probably translates to something like 20% of the general election popular vote. Trump. Can't. Win."
Brilliant reasoning. So we should nominate someone even less popular and who got fewer votes than Trump. We should nominate someone who is doing very well in smoke filled rooms and deep red states.
We should nominate someone who can't get out of the teens in Florida, Ohio, or Virginia. That. Is. Fucking. Stupid.
This is either really stupid or a mendacious plan to get hillary elected. The GOPe seems to be both.
damikesc said...
"Trump has bragged... "
Long, boring, full of projection. I actually want Cruz in the white house. Start contemplating those challenges and solutions rather than pining for pyrrhic victories in July.
Michelle Fields wants a job at one of the MSM majors, not the blog gig she had to take at a fraction of the salary. WaPo was running an article that Sunday about the violence surrounding the Trump campaign. In addition, the media "NEVERTRUMP" pushback was just kicking into high gear. Whoever hurt Trump most would be an overnight star. It's not too hard to imagine that Fields would conspire with the WaPo reporter to stage an incident similar to her Occupy Wall Street performance, with a WaPo photographer in place. Lewandowski's sheepdogging of her was so quick, she was left confused and facing the wrong direction--she didn't even have the presence of mind to fall down and start moaning. The photographer didn't get a usable shot--even claiming later he wasn't there, even though he had posted photos with his credit tag on social media. The WaPo reporter rushed to her so they could try to salvage the incident by using a voice recorder, and he included his account in his published story.
Does he sound like he's encouraging violence even when he's saying he hopes there won't be violence?
Here’s some headlines that I’ll bet that the MSM is just dying to unleash:
RIOTING TRUMP SUPPORTERS TRAMPLE REPORTER
SAVAGE RAMPAGE AT GOP CONVENTION
TRUMP RIOTERS CAUSE CIMATE CHANGE
TRUMP’S SECRET RIOT PLAN
IVANKA FANS RIOT FLAMES
TRUMP SIBLINGS ARRESTED IN BOMB PLOT
You know, I might give this silly fear a second thought if only we had some examples of rioting Trump rally-goers. But we don’t. We have two examples of violence associated with Trump supporters: An old man elbowed a protester and a black supporter roughed up a KKK demonstrator. That’s out of many rallies with thousands in attendance in each. A Tupperware party has a better chance of rioting than Trump supporters do.
Us Trump supporters don’t riot. We vote. Sometimes we get a bit miffed when we are disenfranchised by powerbrokers but we answer THAT democratically by voting in greater and greater numbers for Trump, futile as that may be if the powerbrokers have their way.
Long, boring, full of projection.
Come on now. Your posts aren't usually that long.
Such self-criticism is almost depressing.
No one wants a system where someone with 30% of the votes wins.
But if the powerbrokers have their way someone with LESS than “30% of the votes wins.” That’s OK, I guess.
… it would be interesting to see how many GOP Congressional districts Trump has won. I'll bet it's a lot, and a good explanation as to why so many members of Congress have been silent in regards to endorsement or the nomination process.
They have to go back to their districts and face voters this fall; not delegates. And they will have to explain their support for throwing out votes for Trump, while still begging for support. I don't think that's going to play very well.
I believe they will jump on Trump’s bandwagon after Trump wins the nomination. In the meantime most of them will play it safe and keep quiet.
The RNC in no way tells the various state parties how to run their primary selection process.
Funny, but the Denver Post believes otherwise.
Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus … The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.
http://tinyurl.com/pua54gn
Do the same 62% believe that William Seward should rightly have been our 16th president instead of Abe Lincoln? Because Seward went into the 1860 Republican convention with the most delegates, but once the "Stop Seward" movement coalesced behind Lincoln the rest was history.
The problem with this flawed attempt at analysis is that primaries did not exist in Lincoln’s era. Read a little history.
"And under the rules and under the concept of this country, a majority rules on everything."
Well, unless you've read the Constitution and know how the Senate works or how the Electoral College works.
Then you know the majority is tempered by little-r republican institutions, quite deliberately, and it's no shame for a party's internal structure to do the same.
@ FullMoonMan: You'll have to contact my intermediary, Crown Prince Kwento Abegunde, in Lagos. You can reach him at realnigerianprince@hotmail.com.
My, my. A lot of idiots out there supporting Trump. To be expected.
Building which he caused to be built. Which, oddly enough, have value. You really don't get this "capitalism" thing, do you?
When the capital bequeathed by Mrs. Trump's baby daddy grows at a rate lower than the rest of the economy, that's negative value - Rocky Caveman.
Pretty amazing that capitalism's biggest self-proclaimed chest-beaters seem to be the stupidest at understanding how economics works.
You're frightened. It's understandable.
You're projecting. It's deplorable.
But that's what people who don't understand the reality outside of their tiny skulls tend to do.
"When the capital bequeathed by Mrs. Trump's baby daddy grows at a rate lower than the rest of the economy, that's negative value - Rocky Caveman."
And yet. It grows. Hardly negative.
"Pretty amazing that capitalism's biggest self-proclaimed chest-beaters seem to be the stupidest at understanding how economics works."
Aw. Look. it thinks it understands economics and it's voting for Bernie.
You go, assertion boy.
And yet. It grows. Hardly negative.
Lol. This is as stupid as cheering on the growth rate of a young midget, since he is taller as an adult than he was at birth.
Your stupidity is really quite impressive, but surely capable of further improvement. Might I suggest a self-lobotomy? Or maybe just bashing your head against the nearest wall until you hear a loud cracking noise. Improving the intellect of someone as remarkable as yourself will surely take some drastic measures.
Post a Comment