Chait points to this report by Benjy Sarlin: "How an army of pro-Donald Trump trolls are taking over Reddit." Excerpt:
Longtime users said Trump taps into an anti-PC counterculture within Reddit that feasts on spreading offensive material... and then reveling in the response. Certain corners of Reddit have long served as an assembly line for posts mocking “SJWs,” slang for “social justice warriors,” whom they view as a humorless cabal of left-wing oppressors. It just took the right users to recognize the crossover appeal with Trump.I can't summarize Sarlin's explanation of what CisWhiteMaelstrom did and the interplay with the mechanisms and mentalities of Reddit. As Chait puts it:
In interviews with MSNBC, r/The_Donald’s moderators declined to provide their real names, but credited the subreddit’s rapid growth to CisWhiteMaelstrom, who took the lead promoting it earlier this year after messaging its creators with a master plan....
... CisWhiteMaelstrom identified opposition to political correctness as an issue he could use to broaden Trump’s appeal. By provoking opponents to protest against his right to express himself, he attracted to his side people who were not originally inclined to support the substance of his opinion. The point is not that pro-Trump Redditors were actual victims of repression (there’s no reason to believe they were) or that there is anything attractive about their beliefs or their methods....So I guess the lesson is: If you don't like Trump, stop repressing his supporters.
[Some] people like the idea of rebelliousness and standing up against censorship, and the more convincingly any movement can depict itself as the victim of censorship, the more successfully it will recruit those attracted to this form of rebellion. In the 1950s, McCarthyist repression lent American communists the allure of the forbidden. Rather than being seen as pawns of a murderous dictatorship, communist sympathizers acquired the glamour of rebellious independent thought, and pride of place on the front lines of a cultural struggle on behalf of Americans aghast at McCarthy.
That calls to mind this passage from Justice Douglas's opinion in Dennis v. United States, which we happened to be reading in my conlaw2 class yesterday:
Communists in this country have never made a respectable or serious showing in any election. I would doubt that there is a village, let alone a city or county or state, which the Communists could carry. Communism in the world scene is no bogeyman; but Communism as a political faction or party in this country plainly is. Communism has been so thoroughly exposed in this country that it has been crippled as a political force. Free speech has destroyed it as an effective political party. It is inconceivable that those who went up and down this country preaching the doctrine of revolution which petitioners espouse would have any success. In days of trouble and confusion, when bread lines were long, when the unemployed walked the streets, when people were starving, the advocates of a short-cut by revolution might have a chance to gain adherents. But today there are no such conditions. The country is not in despair; the people know Soviet Communism; the doctrine of Soviet revolution is exposed in all of its ugliness, and the American people want none of it.Douglas was dissenting, the year was 1951, and the repression Chait calls glamorizing was just gearing up.
পোস্টগুলি
১২৪টি মন্তব্য:
I guess in dissent one can express one's opinion as if it were fact. How could Justice Douglas know all these things?
The problems we have can't be discussed or solved because of PC in the media, which comes from the narratives that their audiences will find unconfusing.
I'd say Trump support is from disgust with the media.
Megyn Kelly would be a good representative of the other side of this.
CisWhiteMaelstrom. think I'm in love.
Baptists and Bootleggers is a standard economics and public choice illustration. They have a common interest.
Political views can no longer be described as a spectrum, but a circle where the two extremes meet and become one.
Problem: how to get Trumpians to stop complaining that we're silencing them.
Solution: Silence them more vigorously.
Trump refuses to discuss entitlement reform. clown.
A nice set of examples of why Trump has become so popular right here in River City.
Richard Fernandez has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of the matter.
But it's not only the petrostates that are losing their former influence. China announced it will lay off 1.8 million "steel and coal workers" as it "aims to eliminate production capacity of as much as 500 million metric tons of coal and 150 million tons of steel by 2020." The Chinese are bust too.
Without that money the Globalization meme may also be in political collapse and in its decline liberals sense the possible resurgence of nationalism and other reactionary causes. EJ Dionne writes, “I locate the common roots of the rise of right-wing populism in globalization and technological change." A Brookings forum following the same track noted "how economic grievances and political fragmentation are fueling the rise of right-wing political movements in the United States and Europe".
Brookings would have done well to observe that grievances had been there for years and held only in check by a relentless repetition of a Narrative that endlessly described how wonderful the globalized world without passports would be.
Chuck ? Where are you ?
A guy named Robespierre is looking for you.
"How could Justice Douglas know all these things?" What, you think justices need evidence? You think they're not entitled to their own facts? You think evidence and "evidence" are the same thing? You think they have to "know" something in order to opine? I'm sure the sheer absurdity of the opining was discussed at length in AA's con law class.
Except some of us aren't trying to "silence" anyone. Note--pointing out someone is wrong or that their hero is a fraud is not "silencing" them. Much as they may savor the idea of being oppressed (cue the Holy Grail character screaming "help, I'm being oppressed!") they're not getting it from this quarter.
As for the "we must embrace this noxious freak because it pisses off the SJWs!" plan, that's just another way of saying "we care so much about what the SJWs think that we're going to let them decide who we support!" Just as the opposite of love is not hate but indifference, the idea of "making the far left angry" is not worth cutting off your own leg to do it.
Rational folks are best off letting the Trumpists and SJWs have their little squabbles over how mistreated they are--they seem to enjoy it despite the wailing--it has all the dignity of a monkey poop fight.
"Trump refuses to discuss entitlement reform. clown."
In fairness, he cannot discuss what he does not understand. It would be like expecting a baboon to understand how to install a computer system.
Since when did mocking SJW's become an example of offensive speech?
PC is a disease that infects all aspects of American life, thus making it impossible to discuss real solutions, and is our #1 threat.
Mr. Jones, Diversity Seminar Instructor...
"Yeah, I know: no one wants to be in here on a Tuesday morning for Diversity Training, I get it. I'll try to get this over as quickly as possible, unless you happen to be Trump supporters, in which case this might take a little longer..."
"Believe me, I understand you: you just want to be left alone. You're tired of having to think about what you can and can't say. Unfortunately, you do not live in such a carefree place -- maybe try Wyoming if it's that important to you. But since you're here, you gotta learn the rules..."
"Black people: try not to say anything. Really. Even your best, most innocent attempts will be turned back on you, and then you're fucked. Remember: YOU'RE the Tar Baby now..."
"Gay people: again, try not to say anything. Treat them like you would a black person. A black person who happens to suck cock..."
"Women: here's where it gets tricky, because not saying anything can get you in trouble, too. Even thinking the word 'bitchy' -- they can see it on your faces, and you KNOW you were thinking it, so, again: fucked..."
"If you must get in a conversation with a woman casually mention that you were brought up in an otherwise female household, and you learned to respect how hard women have it from your mother, your sisters, and your mother's black girlfriend. You know your mother's black girlfriend: she was the one that was denied a job because she was black and gay and then she got cancer. Mentioning cancer usually let's you get out of a conversation quickly..."
Remember: same time tomorrow. We'll talk about the appropriate looks of disgust when trump's name is mentioned..."
I am Laslo.
The comparison to the McCarthy era is interesting. It is true that anything made taboo generates interest in the taboo, especially among the young. The SJWs have made being a Republican taboo. Hence, we see the glimmerings of a rise in Trumpism among the frat boys who now are willing to confront the SJWs by building "walls" and confronting SJW protests (video of one such confrontation in Southern California was put online yesterday).
Trump is what made this possible. A staunch conservative like Cruz could never attract this kind because ideology isn't what they traffic in. They traffic in confrontation and Trump is the master of that.
It's a pity to me that the GOPe can't see the value Trump brings to the table. He is conservative enough to satisfy their needs but un-conservative enough to enlarge the tent. He is old school in his approach to many things but he tweets like a schoolgirl. He truly has the potential to make being a Republican cool, at least to a crowd who never would have considered themselves Republicans.
If it's symbiosis we're talking about, then I guess the idea is that memes are using groups of people as a means to achieve replication and dispersal.
"As for the "we must embrace this noxious freak because it pisses off the SJWs!" plan,"
Would you mind explaining why NOT ONE of the GOP "normal candidates" mention any of the issues that have catapulted Trump to the top of this process?
I can't watch him either but this is a very odd year. As Rev Wright might say, "Chickens are coming home to roost."
By provoking opponents to protest against his right to express himself, he attracted to his side people who were not originally inclined to support the substance of his opinion.
The fact that this still happens seems to me something to be celebrated.
In the 1950s, McCarthyist repression lent American communists the allure of the forbidden. Rather than being seen as pawns of a murderous dictatorship, communist sympathizers acquired the glamour of rebellious independent thought,
That doesn't resemble anything I read about the 1950s. Perhaps, on some colleges campuses, it was in the 1960s, that this was happening, and, as Chait says, it wasn't Communists it was happening to, but Communist sympathizers like Bertrand Russell. Communists were still not held in high regard anywhere.
It was only after McCarthy was censored, and probably years after, that this could happen.
Trump refuses to discuss entitlement reform. clown
Standing up to the SJW-types, and the politically correct crowd represents entitlement reform, and Trump is the only person running who is willing to even talk about such things.
"Communists were still not held in high regard anywhere."
Attend a Bernie rally sometime.
Trump gets his energy from the third rail.
Says Chaitred, the journolist, I dubbed him so because he was confident about his hatred for W..
Sammy Finkelman: "...It was only after McCarthy was censored, …"
Don't you mean "censured"? At long last, sir?
All this talk of Fifties Commie-hunting reminds me I want to read about the Venona archives, Alger Hiss, and Kim Philby. The SJW hysteria seems to have a similar flavor. But I suppose the dynamic is always the same: stir up a moral panic, stampede people into some kind of step-change ceding power to the Protectors, then rinse, repeat as needed.
Google gives us this right away. Looks interesting…
https://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/cryptologic_heritage/publications/coldwar/venona_story.pdf
A very good book about Philby is titled, "A Spy Among Friends."
I read it and then my wife read it. She said she could not put it down.
"Trump refuses to discuss entitlement reform."
Doesn't Trump realize the pure electoral gold to be mined by having rich successful men lecturing social security recipients on their greed? We need Romney to school this clownish lout on the truly principled path to Republican Presidential success!
And after Trump loses, then what?
He is the most disliked candidate ever, so it might be worth thinking about for just a second.
And after McCain loses, then what?
And after Romney loses, then what?
And after whomever the GOPe chosen nominee loses, then what?
Damn! There are some terrific posts here!
It we don't reform out ponzi scheme entitlements, we are going the way of Greece.
Trump won't touch our entitlement problems. He said so.
Why? Because he's not serious.
blah blah blah .. "but McCain and Romney."
Again - not serious.
Michael K: thanks for the book recommendation. And for your consistently awesome comments.
Trump won't touch our entitlement problems. He said so.
Why? Because he's not serious.
As opposed to which candidate that is going to touch them?
If no candidates were periwinkle, and being periwinkle was identified as a problem, you would zoom in on Trump's non-periwinkletude.
Your comments could easily be replaced by a bot that just spouted "I don't like Trump" every 20 minutes.
Michael K: thanks for the book recommendation
Ditto -- just reserved it at the library!
r/The_Donald is one of the most entertaining subreddits I've seen. (On most days. Less so on days when they're battling r/sweden.) It's also been one of the fastest growing - it had about 5000 subscribers when I started reading it in January. Now it has almost 100k.
It has lots of memes (high energy!) but also serious discussion.
It we don't reform out ponzi scheme entitlements, we are going the way of Greece.
Trump won't touch our entitlement problems. He said so.
Why? Because he's not serious.
Most politicians of the ostensibly conservative bent will at least make some noises about entitlement reform. Whether or not said politician could actually get anything substantial done on that front is a whole other discussion (personally, while I believe a lot could be done, I don't believe anything can realistically get done given the political system we're stuck with).
Allen, few people had so much unlikely stuff wrapped up in those candidates as Trumpers do with Trump. I'm just suggesting that Trumpism is likely to be disappointing, win or lose, in a visceral way that those others were not. Trumpers seem to have even more invested in unlikely change and a powerful central government than did Obamaism. Just don't blame the rest of us for that pain.
AprilApple said...
"It we don't reform out ponzi scheme entitlements, we are going the way of Greece.
Trump won't touch our entitlement problems. He said so.
Why? Because he's not serious."
Trump commented on this in 2012 when Democrats were showing Ryan pushing the old woman off the cliff. He said campaigning on entitlement reform is stupid. You get elected then you reform entitlements.
Anyone who supports entitlement reform and is actually serious about it knows you need to get elected first.
bagoh20 said...
"Allen, few people had so much unlikely stuff wrapped up in those candidates as Trumpers do with Trump. I'm just suggesting that Trumpism is likely to be disappointing, win or lose, in a visceral way that those others were not. Trumpers seem to have even more invested in unlikely change and a powerful central government than did Obamaism. Just don't blame the rest of us for that pain."
Our country is going down the toilet. We have one political party screaming they want to dissolve our borders and the other one keeps trying to help them. They all know it is insane and a recipe for disaster but that is what the oligarchy wants and the oligarchy gives them all money.
Trump will be the second try. This movement more belligerent than the tea party which is still being attacked by the IRS and other fed law enforcement. The next iteration will be even more so.
When the history of this era is written, no contemporary writer referencing "Hitler" or "McCarthy" is going to be considered a reliable or insightful primary source. Like the proverbial generals, MSM "journalists" are all fighting the last meme war, oblivious.
Everyday the "analyses" sound more and more like high-school newspaper editorials.
With all due respect, bags, all of the presidents have been disappointing to me. Perhaps it's because all of them have been politicians.
Blogger bagoh20 said...
And after Trump loses, then what?
He is the most disliked candidate ever, so it might be worth thinking about for just a second.
4/19/16, 9:54 AM
Blogger AllenS said...
And after McCain loses, then what?
And after Romney loses, then what?
And after whomever the GOPe chosen nominee loses, then what?
4/19/16, 9:59 AM"
My God, imagine the ignominy of losing to Hillary The Crooked. I pity the poor bastard. As a mercy I say the RNC should arrange to have the convention nominate McCain and Romney for a nostalgia rerun as these two already lost to the candidate that already beat Hillary.
He said campaigning on entitlement reform is stupid.
Trump may be right on that count, I don't know. There's no doubt that many entitlements are sacred cows for a large chunk of voters. The one thing that our current political system seems to heavily discourage is getting hugely unpopular things done. Obamacare was unpopular, but not hugely unpopular. And Obama did pay for going against popular opinion in the mid-term elections later that year.
All that is why I believe there will never be serious entitlement reform.
Once, just once, could we try to have a President that isn't a polished politician? I think that it would be a grand experiment for this country to elect a President that didn't come with the baggage of a political party that he would have to be beholden to.
"He said campaigning on entitlement reform is stupid."
He said the same thing about immigration when Romney was too tough on it for him.
Um, name one issue that "catapulted Trump to the lead" that Cruz hasn't addressed? His record on immigration is tougher and more credible than Trump's by far.
We have to vote for Trump to find out what is in him.
We know what's in Cruz: Bullshit.
His record on immigration is tougher and more credible than Trump's by far.
We live in a time where saying something that gets more peoples attention, like "We should build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it" is far more convincing than anything someone may have actually done. Appearances are far more important than action in our society.
I was surprised to find out that what's inside of Hillary is hot sauce. Who knew?
I Googled "ted cruz voting record on immigration", and didn't have any success to report on what he's actually done.
I Googled "ted cruz voting record on immigration", and didn't have any success to report on what he's actually done.
He drove some illegals into town, I think.
Are you kidding? He led the fight against the Gang of 8 bill. By even Rush Limbaugh's reckoning at the time that it happened, if it weren't for Cruz that amnesty would have passed. Tell me how you could have a *better* record on immigration than that.
My opposition to Cruz during the primary is not his positions. I started supporting him and still want him in the white house.
My opposition to Cruz is that he has only won in smoke filled rooms and deep red states. He cannot connect to a wide swath of voters. He is defenseless against the Overton window that Trump is smashing. Ohio? Teens. Florida? Teens. Virginia? Was he even on the ballot? He has fewer votes than Trump. He has fewer delegates than Trump.
At this point in the primary it is up to anyone who values this country and culture to focus on defeating hillary. She is promising to completely dissolve our border. That clearly means a Trump Cruz ticket. The alternative is hillary being elected and the complete breakdown of the rule of law.
Oh, and the Texas GOPe was railing at Cruz to stop opposing the Gang of 8 bill. He ignored them, and won.
Contrast with Trump, who now claims he never said he would ban Muslim immigrationb (lie) and who says that as soon as we deport all the illegals, we'll just let them right back in.
The SJWs have made being a Republican taboo. Hence, we see the glimmerings of a rise in Trumpism among the frat boys who now are willing to confront the SJWs by building "walls" and confronting SJW protests (video of one such confrontation in Southern California was put online yesterday).
I think even more so the chalkings. We are seeing that on campus after campus now, inevitably with Trump's name being in there somewhere. The school administrations are falling all over themselves trying to stop it, since it threatens, through apparently micro-aggressions, a lot of the special snowflakes and crybullies that inhabit those campuses these days. Esp. vulnerable are the state colleges and universities that are prevented by the 1st Amdt. from discriminating based on viewpoint that they so desperately want to do.
Look, the Dems have told you who they're afraid of, the Tea Party, by siccing the IRS on them. And Cruz, the most prominent Tea Partier so far, is an option for you. You could get revenge on the Dems for the IRS thing by voting for him.. or maybe you're scared they'll come after you too. Either way, you're spending all your efforts in denigrating Cruz. Lois Lerner thanks you.
"Michael K: thanks for the book recommendation. And for your consistently awesome comments."
Thanks a lot. I stumble into flame wars with a few here but I try to avoid them.
I am not a Trump supporter but get into arguments with those who are extremely anti-Trump because they often describe him with terms that come from other enemies, not from him.
I think we are in a pre-Revolutionary era and I wish some other GOP politician had adopted a couple of his themes, especially questioning global trade and immigration, especially of Muslims.
Right now I am rereading Bruce Catton's history of the Civil War which I have had on my bookshelf and last read when it came out about 50 years ago. I think we may be reliving that era.
Lest those who ridicule Trump think he and his issues are beyond the Pale, I suggest two blogs. One is Diplomad, by a retired foreign service officer who has lots of other FSO commenters from around the world. The other, of course, is Belmont Club which i read every day.
We are entering a period as dangerous as that before WW II or even WW I.
"Would you mind explaining why NOT ONE of the GOP "normal candidates" mention any of the issues that have catapulted Trump to the top of this process?"
Except that's not true--they've all discussed immigration reform, it was an issue before he came on the scene, and they've represented a variety of stances on it. Wherever you stand on the issue, any one of the other candidates may have stood for your position. Trump was unique in throwing in a lot of untruths and trolling, almost as though it was his goal to convince everyone else that immigration restrictionists were uninformed bigots.
"blah blah blah .. "but McCain and Romney."
Again - not serious."
Not only that, but bad as McCain and Romney did, neither faces the prospect of losing handily to one of the Dems' most beatable candidates while also losing one or even both houses of Congress at the same time. This isn't just lost opportunity, this is handing Hillary exactly what she needs to accomplish her wish list.
"Anyone who supports entitlement reform and is actually serious about it knows you need to get elected first."
I suppose that argument could be extended to any issue--maybe elect someone who says they're pro-amnesty, then once elected they can get that wall built. Of course that creates the twin problems of (1) never selling the issue to the public in the first place and (2) all the political capital you lose when you flip flop.
The issue with Trump seems to come down to trust. Trump fans (at least many of them that I know personally) say that you have to ignore the stupid things he says, that that's just what it takes to run the campaign this way, and that deep down he knows better and will do the right things when in office. They have faith in him. Where I (and many others) differ is we have seen nothing in Trump over the past (and I've followed him since the '80s) or in this more recent campaign to give me any reason to trust him in the slightest.
Communism in the world scene is no bogeyman; but Communism as a political faction or party in this country plainly is.
Well, except of course for all the Comintern types who rose to prominent positions in academia, the Media, and government, yeah, of course, total boogeyman. Hey, how'd the USSR catch up to us on nuclear weapons development, again? Eh, at this point what does it matter, am I right?
The country is not in despair; the people know Soviet Communism; the doctrine of Soviet revolution is exposed in all of its ugliness, and the American people want none of it.
Really, is that so? Well I must have imagined all those Che posters and t-shirts I saw all of 10 years ago--that is, more than 6 decades after this was written. Yeah, yeah, the Left can't stand the Commies, they were anti-communists all along, now I remember!
"they've all discussed immigration reform, it was an issue before he came on the scene,"
Of course it was and the GOPe was all about recruiting Hispanic voters. Remember ?
I'm avoiding this topic because there are some people who will never give an inch. No matter if they are wrong.
Remember that debate that Trump skipped, the one where Google brought in an illegal and a Muslim to confront Trump? Remember how Cruz placed the illegal woman under citizen's arrest?
Me neither.
Darrell, that has got to be the most hilariously lame, pathetic gotcha in the history of political gotchas. If that's the best you've got, wow, Cruz is spectacular.
Qwinn,
Remember when Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we could improve the vetting process to insure that all Americans are safe and you lied about it?
I do.
Qwinn said...
"Look, the Dems have told you who they're afraid of, the Tea Party, by siccing the IRS on them. And Cruz, the most prominent Tea Partier so far, is an option for you. You could get revenge on the Dems for the IRS thing by voting for him.. or maybe you're scared they'll come after you too. Either way, you're spending all your efforts in denigrating Cruz. Lois Lerner thanks you."
You are being ridiculous and ignoring the reality smashing you in the face.
Cruz needs Trump. The Overton window has been set. Cruz will always be extreme and unlikable to the vast majority of voters. It doesn't matter how much I like his politics he cannot win. He does not have the ability and charisma to break through the media and break that perception. Without Trump Cruz would be out of the race by now.
We need president Trump so we can get president Cruz.
Darrell,
I lied about nothing. Trump lied, by claiming he never said what you just confirmed he did say. Thanks for that, by the way.
Surprise, surprise. Kicking a hornet's nest always unites the hornets who will then not stop chasing you until you are dead. Running you off from their nest is not enough. They seem to know that you remain an existential threat to them just from that little kick, and they will not stop until you are attacked, permanently.
And that is Presidential.
Brando: Except that's not true--they've all discussed immigration reform, it was an issue before he came on the scene, and they've represented a variety of stances on it. Wherever you stand on the issue, any one of the other candidates may have stood for your position. Trump was unique in throwing in a lot of untruths and trolling, almost as though it was his goal to convince everyone else that immigration restrictionists were uninformed bigots.
Still peddling this bullshit? And no doubt you'll keep on peddling it from now to November.
If it weren't for Trump you'd have ¡Jeb! for a candidate right now, babbling the same old crap about "comprehensive reform" on the rare occasion when somebody managed to get a question past the handlers.
The issue with Trump seems to come down to trust.
That's an issue with anybody running for office, Pollyanna.
Qwinn said...
CDarrell, that has got to be the most hilariously lame, pathetic gotcha in the history of political gotchas. If that's the best you've got, wow, Cruz is spectacular."
I remember when a woman with a history of filing false accusations against other people like Cnl West falsely accused a Trump campaign manager of nearly throwing her to the ground and Cruz siding with the gold digging SJW even after the video came out and shredded her story.
I still see Cruz bots citing this as a negative against Trump though he acted with honor and courage when the easy thing to do would have been to throw the poor guy under the bus. Cruz acts more and more like a person who lives and breathes government and political expediency. You people don't seem to realize that we all need to fight them together.
Achilles,
Oh, give me a break. ALL Republicans are deemed "unlikable" and "extreme", no matter how charming and milquetoast they are (see Romney). All of them. If you're waiting for someone who won't get those labels, might as well vote Democrat because they're ALL labeled cerebral and charismatic. All of them.
if you want to play "well, in Cruz's case it's true!", too f'ing bad. 40 continuous years of crying "uncharismatic extremist wolf", and it's lost traction. I have no problem liking the guy because he's great on policy, he's been more.consistent and principled than anyone else running (see running against ethanol subsidies in Iowa and *winning*,, something even super likable charming people have never pulled off before). But don't let me stop you from letting the Democrats convince you of the same tired smear they *always* play, or even stop you from doing their smear work for them. You go ahead and vote on looks and charisma and charm instead of policy and leadership. And if there's anyone with tons of those qualities, it's certainly Donald Trump!
Brando said...
"Would you mind explaining why NOT ONE of the GOP "normal candidates" mention any of the issues that have catapulted Trump to the top of this process?"
"Except that's not true--they've all discussed immigration reform, it was an issue before he came on the scene, and they've represented a variety of stances on it."
Brando is right. People like Rubio and Jeb have discussed it. Walker, Ryan, Boehner etc have spent a lot of time trying to weasel amnesty and open borders through. And they just can't figure out why us plebes can't get over them trying to dissolve our borders and turn us into Mexico.
None of those others are still in the running. Cruz is. And his record on immigration, leading the fight and actually stopping the Gang of 8 Amnesty is spectacular. Which is why you'd all rather keep bringing up Jeb. (And the idea that Jeb would be winning now if not for Trump is LSD overdose level delusional).
Qwinn said...
(A bunch of stuff that completely missed the point.)
Seriously you are thick. Cruz is great politically. He is bad at politics.
He sided with SJW's. He fell into the trap of siding with the GOPe. Now he is known as the GOPe choice and his poll numbers are dropping.
I keep telling you guys Trump won the Colorado primary and you all seriously say "nuh uh!" and link an article about the results. Trump has widened his lead nationally against Cruz since then and Cruz is going to come in 3rd more often than second for the rest of the month.
Cruz is no leader just like Don Quixote was no leader. Cruz would have thrown his campaign manager under the bus.
In fact, the only way the notion that Trump stopped Bush makes even the smallest amount of sense is if you think Jeb would have been the Trumpist's second choice. That's pretty freaking funny right there.
Right now I am rereading Bruce Catton's history of the Civil War which I have had on my bookshelf and last read when it came out about 50 years ago.
A bit of a sidetrack - Bruce Catton is buried in the next family plot over from my ancestors in Benzonia, Michigan. My grandparents knew him well, having grown up with him and his brother. If you ever are interested in why he got so into the Civil War, you may be interested in his autobiographical "Waiting for the Morning Train". Part of it was the romance/excitement of watching the GAR vets march every year (you can still see a lot of metal GAR grave markers in that cemetery).
I keep telling you guys Trump won the Colorado primary and you all seriously say "nuh uh!" and link an article about the results.
I really don't think that there was a CO GOP primary, or even straw vote.
"We need president Trump so we can get president Cruz."
At the risk of stepping a toe into this hot water, I have been saying for several months that I hoped Cruz and Trump would get together and run as a team with Trump at the top but a one termer and Cruz as VP ready to help govern and take over in four years.
I fear the heat has gotten too high and the Cruz supporters think he can win and not get stabbed in the back by the GOPe who cheered on Rubio when he joined the Gang of 8.
Now, I will duck and go talk about evolutionary biology somewhere.
Right now the GOPe needs Cruz way more than Cruz needs them. And I'm pretty sure he knows that. He's not owing them any favors for their current support. Frankly, watching the GOPe have to eat crow and support the guy they hate is among my favorite things about him.
Cruz has been trying to screw Phyllis Schlafly--91-yo Phyllis Schlafly, out of her own organization. What a cocksucker!
Qwinn said...
"In fact, the only way the notion that Trump stopped Bush makes even the smallest amount of sense is if you think Jeb would have been the Trumpist's second choice. That's pretty freaking funny right there."
Again a total inability to think critically.
Without Trump the Republican primary turnout would be at historic norms which is a bit lower than democrat turnout in years without an incumbent. The trumpist's as you call them wouldn't be Republicans. Nearly half the people voting in Republican primaries would be staying home because nobody is speaking up for them.
Cruz would be getting trashed by the media/GoPe machine just like newt did. Cruz would have focused on gay marriage, protecting Israel, and saying a bunch of stuff about the economy the media would change into tax cuts for the rich. We would be anointing rubio/bush because they had the most money just like Romney.
You people need to think. Cruz would be out of the race by now.
Qwinn said...
"None of those others are still in the running. Cruz is. And his record on immigration, leading the fight and actually stopping the Gang of 8 Amnesty is spectacular. Which is why you'd all rather keep bringing up Jeb. (And the idea that Jeb would be winning now if not for Trump is LSD overdose level delusional)."
You have stopped engaging. Now you are just flinging poo. We have also noted every Republican member of the gang of 8 has endorsed Cruz.
Owen said: "I guess in dissent one can express one's opinion as if it were fact. How could Justice Douglas know all these things?"
The sentence before where I started the quote is: "If we are to take judicial notice of the threat of Communists within the nation, it should not be difficult to conclude that, as a political party, they are of little consequence."
So the answer to your question is: judicial notice.
This would be judicial notice of "legislative facts" as opposed to "adjudicative facts":
"Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case. Legislative facts, on the other hand, are those which have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process, whether in the formulation of a legal principle or ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a legislative body. The terminology was coined by Professor Kenneth Davis in his article An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, 55 Harv.L.Rev. 364, 404–407 (1942). ...
The usual method of establishing adjudicative facts in through the introduction of evidence, ordinarily consisting of the testimony of witnesses. If particular facts are outside of reasonable controversy, this process is dispensed with as unnecessary. A high degree of indisputability is the essential prerequisite.
Legislative facts are quite different. As Professor Davis says:
“My opinion is that judge-made law would stop growing if judges, in thinking about questions of law and policy, were forbidden to take into account the facts they believe, as distinguished from facts which are ‘clearly * * * within the domain of the indisputable.’ Facts most needed in thinking about difficult problems of law and policy have a way of being outside the domain of the clearly indisputable.” A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience, supra, at 82.
An illustration is Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958), in which the Court refused to discard the common law rule that one spouse could not testify against the other, saying, “Adverse testimony given in criminal proceedings would, we think, be likely to destroy almost any marriage.” This conclusion has a large intermixture of fact, but the factual aspect is scarcely “indisputable.” See Hutchins and Slesinger, Some Observations on the Law of Evidence—Family Relations, 13 Minn.L.Rev. 675 (1929). If the destructive effect of the giving of adverse testimony by a spouse is not indisputable, should the Court have refrained from considering it in the absence of supporting evidence?
“If the Model Code or the Uniform Rules had been applicable, the Court would have been barred from thinking about the essential factual ingredient of the problems before it, and such a result would be obviously intolerable. What the law needs as its growing points is more, not less, judicial thinking about the factual ingredients of problems of what the law ought to be, and the needed facts are seldom ‘clearly’ indisputable.” Davis, supra, at 83.
“Professor Morgan gave the following description of the methodology of determining domestic law:
“In determining the content or applicability of a rule of domestic law, the judge is unrestricted in his investigation and conclusion. He may reject the propositions of either party or of both parties. He may consult the sources of pertinent data to which they refer, or he may refuse to do so. He may make an independent search for persuasive data or rest content with what he has or what the parties present. * * * [T]he parties do no more than to assist; they control no part of the process.” Morgan, Judicial Notice, 57 Harv.L.Rev. 269, 270–271 (1944).
This is the view which should govern judicial access to legislative facts. It renders inappropriate any limitation in the form of indisputability, any formal requirements of notice other than those already inherent in affording opportunity to hear and be heard and exchanging briefs, and any requirement of formal findings at any level. It should, however, leave open the possibility of introducing evidence through regular channels in appropriate situations. See Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281 (1934), where the cause was remanded for the taking of evidence as to the economic conditions and trade practices underlying the New York Milk Control Law.
Similar considerations govern the judicial use of nonadjudicative facts in ways other than formulating laws and rules. Thayer described them as a part of the judicial reasoning process.
“In conducting a process of judicial reasoning, as of other reasoning, not a step can be taken without assuming something which has not been proved; and the capacity to do this with competent judgement and efficiency, is imputed to judges and juries as part of their necessary mental outfit.” Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence 279–280 (1898).
As Professor Davis points out, A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience, in Perspectives of Law 69, 73 (1964), every case involves the use of hundreds or thousands of non-evidence facts. When a witness in an automobile accident case says “car,” everyone, judge and jury included, furnishes, from non-evidence sources within himself, the supplementing information that the “car” is an automobile, not a railroad car, that it is self-propelled, probably by an internal combustion engine, that it may be assumed to have four wheels with pneumatic rubber tires, and so on. The judicial process cannot construct every case from scratch, like Descartes creating a world based on the postulate Cogito, ergo sum. These items could not possibly be introduced into evidence, and no one suggests that they be. Nor are they appropriate subjects for any formalized treatment of judicial notice of facts. See Levin and Levy, Persuading the Jury with Facts Not in Evidence: The Fiction-Science Spectrum, 105 U.Pa.L.Rev. 139 (1956).
Another aspect of what Thayer had in mind is the use of non-evidence facts to appraise or assess the adjudicative facts of the case. Pairs of cases from two jurisdictions illustrate this use and also the difference between non-evidence facts thus used and adjudicative facts. In People v. Strook, 347 Ill. 460, 179 N.E. 821 (1932), venue in Cook County had been held not established by testimony that the crime was committed at 7956 South Chicago Avenue, since judicial notice would not be taken that the address was in Chicago. However, the same court subsequently ruled that venue in Cook County was established by testimony that a crime occurred at 8900 South Anthony Avenue, since notice would be taken of the common practice of omitting the name of the city when speaking of local addresses, and the witness was testifying in Chicago. People v. Pride, 16 Ill.2d 82, 156 N.E.2d 551 (1951). And in Hughes v. Vestal, 264 N.C. 500, 142 S.E.2d 361 (1965), the Supreme Court of North Carolina disapproved the trial judge's admission in evidence of a state-published table of automobile stopping distances on the basis of judicial notice, though the court itself had referred to the same table in an earlier case in a “rhetorical and illustrative” way in determining that the defendant could not have stopped her car in time to avoid striking a child who suddenly appeared in the highway and that a non-suit was properly granted. Ennis v. Dupree, 262 N.C. 224, 136 S.E.2d 702 (1964). See also Brown v. Hale, 263 N.C. 176, 139 S.E.2d 210 (1964); Clayton v. Rimmer, 262 N.C. 302, 136 S.E.2d 562 (1964). It is apparent that this use of non-evidence facts in evaluating the adjudicative facts of the case is not an appropriate subject for a formalized judicial notice treatment.
Yes, of course, Cruz is doomed because of Colorado. Just like the Republican Party was doomed, doomed, doomed after that DISASTROUS government shutdown that Cruz orchestrated that would haunt republicans forever.... or at least until their historic across the board congressional victories 1 year later.
Forgive me if I've stopped caring about your flavor of conventional wisdom about Cruz, which incidentally was also saying he had no chance at all at the beginning of the primaries. 10 less opponents later, winning delegates right and left, I think I'll take m6 chances on him.
The italicized material is all from the notes of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Qwinn said...
"Right now the GOPe needs Cruz way more than Cruz needs them. And I'm pretty sure he knows that. He's not owing them any favors for their current support. Frankly, watching the GOPe have to eat crow and support the guy they hate is among my favorite things about him."
The GoPe needs the true conservative to lose and take the fall so they can say "see, conservatives can't win we need to listen to the media and pass amnesty." We can all see the GoPe sharpening the knife they plan to put in Cruz's back. A 3rd grader could see it. What you said is fucking delusional and pure weapons grade stupid.
I just recently saw the movie Trumbo. Here's my takeaway: Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten were brave and idealistic. The anti-Communists were, for the most part, bigots and anti-Semites. In the movie, they were generally fat and bald........Hollywood can't quite make Communism look good, but they spare no expense in making Communists look sympathetic and anti-Communists look like dangerous extremists.
Look, my primary reason for posting in these threads is to counter the infinitely repeated mantra that Cruz is a Rubio-level squish on amnesty, which is a flat out lie of staggering proportions being blasted everywhere by the Trump fans. THAT is flinging poo. I notice you've had no problem with that though. Only the bad deeds of all the Cruz supporters bother you. Thanks for your concern.
Qwinn said...
"Yes, of course, Cruz is doomed because of Colorado. Just like the Republican Party was doomed, doomed, doomed after that DISASTROUS government shutdown that Cruz orchestrated that would haunt republicans forever.... or at least until their historic across the board congressional victories 1 year later.
Forgive me if I've stopped caring about your flavor of conventional wisdom about Cruz, which incidentally was also saying he had no chance at all at the beginning of the primaries. 10 less opponents later, winning delegates right and left, I think I'll take m6 chances on him."
There is a windmill over the hill. Here is a wooden sword.
Trump has more votes, delegates and popular support. If they give the nomination to Cruz despite all that, Trump would get more write in votes in the general than Cruz.
When you are done looking like an idiot we will look forward to your help defeating hillary.
Wait, what exactly did *I* say that qualified as "just flinging poo" that you didn't just escalate by a factor of 10?
Qwinn said...
"Look, my primary reason for posting in these threads is to counter the infinitely repeated mantra that Cruz is a Rubio-level squish on amnesty, which is a flat out lie of staggering proportions being blasted everywhere by the Trump fans. THAT is flinging poo. I notice you've had no problem with that though. Only the bad deeds of all the Cruz supporters bother you. Thanks for your concern."
We all know no candidate is perfect. But if you worry about people bringing up Cruz's past support for massively expanding h1b's do you also get upset about Cruz claiming Trump supports obamacare? You can't go a day without seeing a hundred Cruz bots saying Trump wants obamacare or single payer. Trumps plan is the most market based reform put up by a serious candidate. Trump's second amendment plank is the best I have seen from any politician ever.
I am concerned and I am looking at the entire race. I am concerned a bunch of Cruz bots cannot get past their emotions and think critically. They are siding with SJW's for God's sake.
Lol, hilarious, I had just decided you had to be a concern troll when you actually use the phrase "I am concerned" twice in your final paragraph. That and your insane hysterical screams of "idiot!" And "delusional!" And my favorite "now you're just flinging poo" at someone merely for thinking the candidate you supposedly support politically is capable of winning is all the confirmation I needed. No one sane could rail so passionately and emotionally *against* someone they actually support, as you claim to. Again, thanks for your concern.
Qwinn said...
"Wait, what exactly did *I* say that qualified as "just flinging poo" that you didn't just escalate by a factor of 10?"
Flinging poo refers to making statements completely ungrounded in reality.
Saying things like Cruz coming in second in the primary in votes and delegates but winning on a 3rd or 4th ballot at the convention is anything other than a 48 state loss in November.
Being unable to accept that Trump is responsible for injecting massive enthusiasm into the Republican race and that Trump has media skills that allowed our concerns to be heard. Not giving Trump credit for standing up to the media and forcing them to act somewhat honestly. Not giving credit to Trump for standing by his employee against a false accusation from an SJW's.
Qwinn said...
"Lol, hilarious, I had just decided you had to be a concern troll when you actually use the phrase "I am concerned" twice in your final paragraph. That and your insane hysterical screams of "idiot!" And "delusional!" And my favorite "now you're just flinging poo" at someone merely for thinking the candidate you supposedly support politically is capable of winning is all the confirmation I needed. No one sane could rail so passionately and emotionally *against* someone they actually support, as you claim to. Again, thanks for your concern."
You are getting destroyed by specific examples and points. You are acting out.
All you get from here on out is mockery until you grow up and get serious about beating hillary.
And Michelle Fields is not an SJW. SJW's claim supporting a candidate or disagreeing with them is a violent act. Fields, accurately or not, claimed she was bruised physically. Conflating the two only makes SJW's look better in the comparison, which is probably your goal. Thanks for your concern.
I fear the heat has gotten too high and the Cruz supporters think he can win and not get stabbed in the back by the GOPe
Agreed. Cruz support is a mile wide and a millimeter deep. In the heat of the election it will evaporate away.
Oh no! The concern troll is going to subject me to mockery for the crime of thinking his preferred candidate can win! What will I do?
Again, thanks for your concern.
I see that Achilles is still throwing out his insults, as though insulting people is a good way to convince them to vote for his candidate.
Cruz is great politically. He is bad at politics.
Well, Cruz has been very good at the hard work part of politics. The kind where you put together organizations that will build lists of voters who are favorably inclined towards your candidate and see to it that they have absentee ballots if they are going to be out of town. And call on election day to make sure they got to the polls, offer to drive them if they lack transportation. And identify key locations for yard signs and find people to put the signs up in their yards. That sort of stuff (as a past county vice-chairman for Reagan-Bush, I know about this sort of hard work, even though I became fairly inactive when my career took off and wife and I had kids and free time got short).
One of my quarrels with the Trump campaign is that they don't seem ready to do the hard work of politics. I guess they plan to insult the regular Republicans who show up to do the hard work and then ask those people to do that same hard work on Trump's behalf between the convention and November 8th. I'll vote for Trump if he's the Republican candidate -- both of the leading Democrat candidates are so far beneath contempt that there's no choice -- but I'll do the hard work for Barbara Comstock and only Barbara Comstock.
It's not so much that Trump is lazy, it's just that he's utterly clueless about this part of the campaigning. Just a few days ago Trump said that he "can put [delegates] on the best planes and bring them to the best resorts anywhere in the world." And “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."
Look, most of the people running for convention delegate -- not all, but most -- take their politics seriously. If I was trying to become a convention delegate then being flown to Mar-a-Lago would be exactly the wrong way to win my vote. Talk to me about immigration. Talk to me about your support for the Second Amendment. Talk to me about reining in the EPA. Talk to me about geopolitics. Don't just slap a piece of medium-rare Kobe beef on my plate and say "we want your vote." That would about guarantee that you would not get it. And I'm not an outlier.
Qwinn said...
"And Michelle Fields is not an SJW. SJW's claim supporting a candidate or disagreeing with them is a violent act. Fields, accurately or not, claimed she was bruised physically. Conflating the two only makes SJW's look better in the comparison, which is probably your goal. Thanks for your concern."
Cnl West disagrees with you. So do the 4 other organizations she has sued. Even a cursory investigation shows she has a history of false accusations. Now she is famous for what? A false accusation.
Notice you don't mention she made a false accusation proven by video evidence. You are as opportunistic, hypocritical and cowardly as Cruz. Cruz would have fired Lewandowski to save his own skin. He is not what we need right now.
I appreciate you momentarily delving into an actual argument even if it was just to get destroyed again.
Douglas's observation predated the ginning up of social revolution as an alternative to economic revolution. The communists are back in business and are an organizing presence at moonbat and ethnics' rallies and protests. Millennials and younger are too ignorant or too indoctrinated to notice.
Cruz would have fired Lewandowski to save his own skin.
Cruz would not have hired a nincompoop like Lewandowski in the first place. Lewandowski seems to have thought his job title -- campaign manager -- meant he should play the role of security guard and not the role of (1) understanding how to get the maximum number of delegates from each state, and (2) executing that strategy.
Big Mike said...
"I see that Achilles is still throwing out his insults, as though insulting people is a good way to convince them to vote for his candidate."
Pardon me for a moment. I have been at this for months and all I get from Cruz people is short fingered vulgarian liar wants single payer all women everywhere hate him it is OK to ignore voters and steal delegates. I will engage your post because it gets to the core of the issue here. Note character limit had to abbreviate quotes.
"Cruz is great politically. He is bad at politics.
Well, Cruz has been very good at the hard work part of politics..... I became fairly inactive when my career took off and wife and I had kids and free time got short)."
I totally agree. Cruz has an exceptional attention to detail and has the drive to do the work. We need him in the white house. Not only do we need to win we need to take advantage of winning and post election Cruz would be good organizing that effort.
But he is a bad leader and has poor instincts. He is trusting the GoPe. He sided with SJW's for short term gain. He fell straight into Trump's trap in Colorado and his polls are falling for it. Hillary and the media will eat him alive when it is his turn.
"One of my quarrels with the Trump campaign is that they don't seem ready to do the hard work of politics...... I'll vote for Trump if he's the Republican candidate -- both of the leading Democrat candidates are so far beneath contempt that there's no choice -- but I'll do the hard work for Barbara Comstock and only Barbara Comstock."
I agree with this. I think our only path forward is a Trump Cruz ticket to unite the party. But the opposite is also true and any serious observer will note that the NRO crowd started with the attacks on Trump supporters. I am a little tired of the garbage.
"It's not so much that Trump is lazy, it's just that he's utterly clueless about this part of the campaigning.... you’re going to do this, you’re going to do that, we want your vote."
Most of us want to go to work, go home and play with the kids, watch a football game and do it again tomorrow. We don't want to have to go to a dumb convention or schmooze some crony who doesn't have a real job. The government has way too much involvement in our lives. These people should not matter but they do. I recognize Cruz's value. But you have to understand Trump's appeal as well.
"Look, most of the people running for convention delegate -- not all, but most -- take their politics seriously. If I was trying to become a convention delegate then being flown to Mar-a-Lago would be exactly the wrong way to win my vote. Talk to me about immigration. Talk to me about your support for the Second Amendment. Talk to me about reining in the EPA. Talk to me about geopolitics. Don't just slap a piece of medium-rare Kobe beef on my plate and say "we want your vote." That would about guarantee that you would not get it. And I'm not an outlier."
Trump has promised to eliminate the EPA. He has lived under their thumb like I have as an entrepreneur. I promise he hates bureaucracy.
Trump has the best second amendment position I have ever seen from a legitimate candidate.
I am a veteran. When Trump talks about terrorist families it is because he is talking to veterans. We know what it will take to defeat Islamism. We cannot for the life of us understand why they are allowed to practice sharia law. It is disgusting and evil.
You talk about the nuts and bolts of a party. That is fine. But you also need to realize that campaigns require marketability to the masses. I think Trump and Cruz are both absolutely necessary and make the Reagan coalition possible.
But I am sick of lies and childish crap coming from the Cruz supporters. I have more perspective and understanding of the race because my goal is to save this country from what happens when hillary becomes president and the rule of law dies.
"Of course it was and the GOPe was all about recruiting Hispanic voters. Remember ?"
Some Republicans advising a "pro-immigration reform" campaign hardly taints all candidates.
"Still peddling this bullshit? And no doubt you'll keep on peddling it from now to November."
Yes and I see you're still peddling Trump's BS about him being the first to bring up this issue which apparently everyone else swept under the rug. Which is almost believable if history began last summer. Romney must have been pro-amnesty, and Trump was the one who criticized him for that after the election. Except the opposite happened. But in Trump World, I guess anything is possible.
"People like Rubio and Jeb have discussed it."
Were those the only two candidates in the race? If that really was such a common GOP position to take it's surprising Bush and Rubio did so poorly.
Besides, Cruz was the first candidate to announce, and he's still in it. If you believe immigration is the premier issue in this race, your candidate is right there. Far as I can see it the only added feature Trump brings to this issue is his fantasy about getting the wall built, his sudden conversion on immigration four years ago, and his ability to throw in a lot of bigoted nonsense.
Feel free to persist in this fantasy that all 17 other candidates and the entire GOP establishment was about to grant blanket amnesty until Trump stood on the barricades and yelled "stop". Maybe you need that for your candidate, because otherwise you'd have some uncomfortable things to consider about him. But much as you're entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
"Cruz would not have hired a nincompoop like Lewandowski in the first place. Lewandowski seems to have thought his job title -- campaign manager -- meant he should play the role of security guard and not the role of (1) understanding how to get the maximum number of delegates from each state, and (2) executing that strategy."
Well I'd add that sometimes a good boss needs to fire an employee who is not doing their job or doing it so poorly that it harms the whole organization. Loyalty is a great virtue, but if your employees basically know they can do anything and your loyalty will keep them from ever being fired, your organization will be a mess very soon.
Big Mike said...
"Cruz would have fired Lewandowski to save his own skin.
Cruz would not have hired a nincompoop like Lewandowski in the first place. Lewandowski seems to have thought his job title -- campaign manager -- meant he should play the role of security guard and not the role of (1) understanding how to get the maximum number of delegates from each state, and (2) executing that strategy."
But the nincompoops Cruz hired thought schmoozing delegates to steal them in states Trump won would be popular. The nincompoops Cruz hired would have appeased the SJW's and fired an innocent person on their side. The nincompoops Cruz hired think a 3rd ballot convention win after coming in second in votes and delegates is a path to victory in November.
I don't think Cruz thinks he can side with the GoPe and win without Trump supporters. I don't think he is that dumb but vanity does crazy things. Thinking anyone who ran for president is not a textbook narcissist is foolish and Ted is textbook.
Brando said...
" But much as you're entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."
This is the childish shit I am talking about Big Mike. These people who refuse to acknowledge that without Trump in the race Cruz would have said something stupid about gay marriage and the media would have made that the focus of the Republican primary and Cruz would be a solid second to whichever oligarch pet rose to the top. Cruz does not have the charisma or mass market skill to change the agenda. The ratings were for Trump because he knew what to say and how to say it to set the agenda.
Without Trump in the race half the people voting in the Republican primaries would not be participating and yes jeb/Rubio would be getting a majority of a much smaller pool of Republican primary voters.
" These people who refuse to acknowledge that without Trump in the race Cruz would have said something stupid about gay marriage and the media would have made that the focus of the Republican primary and Cruz would be a solid second to whichever oligarch pet rose to the top. Cruz does not have the charisma or mass market skill to change the agenda. The ratings were for Trump because he knew what to say and how to say it to set the agenda."
So Trump served as a lightning rod and sacrificed himself to save the others? I guess we should be thanking him then. Except for the fact that the GOP is about to nominate a total loser, who may take down GOP officeholders around the country.
NY Voters To Cruz: Go To Hell
As for communism not having a chance in this nation, the candidate polling the best in the general against all others is Bernie Sanders, because the idea of this article is valid in that Trumpers, and Lefties, and young empty heads all want a big powerful central government to make their problems with competition, hard work, and sacrifice go away by force, and to hell with the consequences.
Darrell:
You misspelled Republicans.
@Achilles, just when I'm ready to write you off as a one trick pony, here you show up with a well-reasoned comment.
A couple notes.
First, I'm not in favor of eliminating the EPA. I was around when Lake Erie used to catch fire. Yes. A lake so polluted it burned. I remember looking at part of the Cal-Sag Canal when was so full of pollutants that it was the color and consistency of milk (and smelled something like rancid milk). I have no desire to go back to those days. Once upon a time the EPA did great work. But I understand that under Obama it has cleaned up no Superfund hazardous sites. Those sites won't clean themselves. Instead, under Obama, EPA has itself polluted at least one river (and tried to cover it up) through negligence and stupidity. I think the EPA needs to go back to what it was under Reagan and Bush.
You write that "Trump hates bureaucracies" but a corporation is itself a major bureaucracy. During the course of a career that started (more or less) when I worked my way through school as a contract programmer back in 1967 I've worked for small firms, really small firms (could fit the whole company in a minivan!), medium-sized firms, and a medium sized firm that was swallowed by a large defense contractor. The bigger they are the more bureaucratic they get, and no matter that "Trump hates bureaucracy," he not only runs a large bureaucracy, but he is campaigning to run the world's largest (and least efficient) bureaucracy. How does he plan to get his arms around this crazy conglomeration of agencies that are set against each other? As one wag put it, correctly, it doesn't matter which side of any issue you're on, there's an agency somewhere in the Federal government that has your personal issues as part of its charter. What's he going to do to fix that?
I disagree with you over Trump's position on the Second Amendment being superior to Ted's, but he says the right things in a more accessible way than Cruz does (there are disadvantages to being a lawyer). What's Trump going to do about Illinois and DC and New Jersey and other crazy states like that? The George Washington Parkway runs along the Potomac river from the American Legion Bridge to Alexandria. There's a short portion where it is technically in the District of Columbia, though the road is always on Virginia's side of the river. If stopped by DC police in that part of parkway, you can be arrested and jailed for having an empty shotgun shell on the floor of your car. What's he going to do about stupidity like that?
I'm a veteran too -- Vietnam era. And I agree being nice to people who want to murder us because we're non-Muslim Americans isn't going to work. I picture Cruz being better able to address the Middle East than Trump, but Trump would be way better than Obama has been, too. But Arabs are very touchy people, and mortally offended by all sorts of minor things (like whether they can see the soles of your shoes). Trump can be like a bull in china shop, and this worries me.
I think you and I can be allies, but don't dismiss everything from the "Cruz camp" as lies and childishness. Trump needs a better campaign manager than Lewandowski, who is a flunky, not a manager. And especially I think Trump needs to watch the insults and make sure he's well briefed on topics, and to think before he speaks. There's a reason for the "Stop Trump" movement, and the way to defuse it is not by beating your fists against the wall but by removing the reasons it exists. And, no, I don't blame Cruz for co-opting the "Stop Trump" movement any more than I blame Abe Lincoln for co-opting the "Stop Seward" movement 156 years ago.
Darrell:
You misspelled Republicans.
I'm sure that means something. Somewhere.
Brando said...
"So Trump served as a lightning rod and sacrificed himself to save the others? I guess we should be thanking him then. Except for the fact that the GOP is about to nominate a total loser, who may take down GOP officeholders around the country."
No he didn't sacrifice himself. He gave voice on a national stage to those of us who are getting screwed by open borders, crap trade deals, and an over-regulated crony state economy that crushes small businesses. Cruz couldn't do that. He can't do that.
That is why Trump has more delegates, more votes, and more popular support than anyone else in the race. That is why the Republican primaries are far out drawing the Democrat primaries. That is why more of us support him than Cruz and all you can do is whine and birch and make up a bunch of petulant crap.
@Big Mike
The EPA is a state job. The states would do a better job for the people in their states.
There is one fundamental difference between a corporate bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy. Corporations must attain assent. Governments use a monopoly on force. Trump has more experience with bureaucracy and management on a large scale than anyone running for president outside of governors. But his experience comes from the point of view of someone who needs to ask to achieve a sale. That is key.
Trumps second amendment policy includes a national right to carry and reciprocity. It is strictly unconstitutional for the states you mentioned to do what they are doing. I would expect Trump to stomp on their faces and humiliate them publicly because he would be right to and would take pleasure in doing it.
Talk to veterans who have been to the Muslim countries. Their culture is sick. The practice of pocket boys is universal in Afghanistan. Women are property. They literally cannot leave the compounds they live in. Sharia law is absolutely horrifying. Listening to judgements passed in the towns near your fob is awful. Everyone I know knows me and knows the lengths I go to to protect them. They might be sheep but they believe me now. We need a bull in the China shop.
Trump already replaced Lewandowski. But Lewandowski served his purpose and did what he could. Sacrificing him on the altar of political correctness would have been wrong. I think you need someone like Cruz to organize but Trumps ability to go over the media is more important right now.
At the core this campaign is about whether or not the government serves or rules. Cruz hasn't figured out why delegate shenanigans usurping the place of voters is unpopular. That is why he is a good VP candidate. His policy positions are fine and he is brilliant. He would have been better if he had had one real job in his life.
Ah yes, the Trump World rules--if you don't believe the Trump BS or trust this most honorable messenger, you're being "petulant." Got it.
Ah Digong! You say you woulda coulda shoulda been the first to rape and then murder the Australian tourist. No landing on a wet deck for you--you have your standards after all.
All your macho bravado and bull dust proves is that you think some pigs (I'm looking at you Digong) are more equal than others. If the Pilipino people elect you, they deserve what they get.
Sad to say we are faced with four unpalatable choices here in the USA in November and the American voters in their infinite wisdom will pick one. I suppose the Republic will survive--maybe--and the American voters will get what they deserve for making the choice.
We are getting closer to actually living in the famous two word history of the world, "Jesus Wept".
Brando: Yes and I see you're still peddling Trump's BS about him being the first to bring up this issue which apparently everyone else swept under the rug.
Lol. I don't think you're being deliberately obtuse here, Brando. Nor do I think you are dishonest. That leaves one alternative explanation, which adequately covers why you continue to believe that, because the GOP babbled the babble they babbled about immigration before Trump showed up, it meant that, honest guys, they cared about Americans' concerns and wanted immigration controlled. I mean, the word "immigration" came out of their mouths, right? So Trump changed nothing.
Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know). What makes eyes roll is your inability to understand what is flamingly obvious to anybody who has eyes in his head: that the national GOP is open borders, anti-national and globalist, no different on this point than the Dems, and has not - and will not unless forced to do so by devil-and-the-deep-blue-sea circumstance - support any candidate who looks to get serious about reducing the massive inflows, legal or illegal. Anybody who doesn't understand that can't be taken seriously, and you very obviously don't.
Well said, Anglelyne.
Ha, you sure got me Angelyne, yes I just don't understand why such worldly smart people like you and other Trumpists have so much trust in that creep and I foolishly don't understand that the entire GOP establishment is all open borders until your lord of light woke everyone up, except of course when he backtracks. And I must be a fool for not believing he totally truly will build that wall with magical Mexican money. But I'm the foolish one, of course! Only in Trump World. Whatever you people smoke, I'll steer clear of it.
Do yourself a favor and don't bother responding to my posts. Clearly my pea brain is on too slow a wavelength to understand Trump Rules, as I don't see the magic, and by dealing with me it will only slow you down.
Brando, I have barely more trust in Trump than I do Cruz, or any of the others that are running. You are correct that I'm worldly smart, because I've listened to what the GOPe has been selling election after election, and I don't believe anything that they are saying. That's not my fault, Anglelyne's fault, or yours.
Brando said...
"Do yourself a favor and don't bother responding to my posts. Clearly my pea brain is on too slow a wavelength to understand Trump Rules, as I don't see the magic, and by dealing with me it will only slow you down."
When projection fails throw a little sarcasm.
You got owned on this thread. Point by point. Stop crying.
Brando: Ha, you sure got me Angelyne, yes I just don't understand why such worldly smart people like you and other Trumpists have so much trust in that creep...
"Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know)."
I cut and pasted the above from the post you're responding to. Guess you missed it.
...and I foolishly don't understand that the entire GOP establishment is all open borders...
Read and understood that part, though.
...until your lord of light woke everyone up..
Actually lots of people were kinda figuring that out, which kinda explains why Trump got traction.
...except of course when he backtracks.
"Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know)."
I cut and pasted that from the post you're responding to. Guess you missed it.
And I must be a fool for not believing he totally truly will build that wall with magical Mexican money.
"Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know)."
I cut and pasted that from the post you're responding to. Guess you missed it.
But I'm the foolish one, of course!
"Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know)."
I cut and pasted that from the post you're responding to. Guess you missed it.
But I'm the foolish one, of course! Only in Trump World. Whatever you people smoke, I'll steer clear of it.
"Nobody's criticizing you for being skeptical or cynical about Trump's current views on immigration. That's perfectly reasonable (and you're not telling anyone anything they don't know)."
I cut and pasted that from the post you're responding to. Guess you missed it.
Do yourself a favor and don't bother responding to my posts.
OK, but you need to put that at the beginning of your response, not the end.
"Brando, I have barely more trust in Trump than I do Cruz, or any of the others that are running. You are correct that I'm worldly smart, because I've listened to what the GOPe has been selling election after election, and I don't believe anything that they are saying."
See, if you don't trust any of them then we have no disagreement. My contempt for Trump as a particularly untrustworthy character doesn't translate to me thinking "hey I think Jeb, now there's a guy I trust" either.
"You got owned on this thread. Point by point. Stop crying."
What a shock, Trumpists throw personal insults backed up by nothing and decide that means the Trump critic is "owned". Achilles, I'm perfectly willing to respond to any point you have to make as to why you think I'm wrong, but simply saying "you're stupid because you obviously believe in the GOPe" isn't really something I could or would respond to.
Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( agbazara@gmail.com ) or call him on Whatsapp: +2348104102662
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন