My question: What is the original of the phrase "warts and all"? It's quite literal, based on Oliver Cromwell's instructions to his portrait painter in 1660:
[Sir Peter] Lely's painting style was, as was usual at the time, intended to flatter the sitter. Royalty in particular expected portraits to show them in the best possible light, if not to be outright fanciful. Lely's painting of Charles II shows what was expected of a painting of a head of state in the 17th century. It emphasizes the shapely royal calves - a prized fashion feature at that time.As Horace Walpole wrote in "Anecdotes of Painting in England" in 1764 — a century later — Cromwell was reported to have said: "Mr Lely, I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts and everything as you see me, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it."
Cromwell did have a preference for being portrayed as a gentleman of military bearing, but was well-known as being opposed to all forms of personal vanity. This 'puritan Roundhead' versus 'dashing Cavalier' shorthand is often used to denote the differences in style of the two opposing camps in the English Commonwealth and subsequent Restoration. It is entirely plausible that he would have issued a 'warts and all' instruction when being painted and it is unlikely that Lely would have modified his style and produced the 'warts and all' portrait of Cromwell unless someone told him to.
No one knows how close that is to whatever instructions Cromwell gave to Lely, but Walpole's version inevitably got shortened, and by 1824, it had become: "Paint me as I am, warts and all!"
There's something beautiful about a person saying show me how I really am, warts and all that's missing when the phrase is aimed at someone else, as is the case with Bobby Jindal. To say "warts and all" about yourself is to liberate the other person to see and to tell what is true. The way Jindal used it, it means: He's ugly in many ways, but I still accept him. I guess there's a touch of liberation in that. It's saying: Come on, we can support Trump, even though he is, in many ways, ugly. It invites others into realism, into seeing the world as it is.
And here's the idealized Lely portrait of Charles II.
The funniest thing about it is: He's still ugly, even with his face back there in the shadows. But: nice gams!
By the way, "gams" originally referred to thin, unlovely legs. One of the earliest examples from 1789 (G. Parker Life's Painter): "If a man has bow legs, he has queer gams, gams being cant for legs." "Gams" has the etymon in Italia "gamba," which we know from viola da gamba.
Posts
60 comments:
"viola de gumbo"
Which brings us back to Bobby Jindal.
A death mask of Cromwell used to be in Warwick Castle, in the great room. He had a big wart on his face although I doubt it was an actual virus caused wart.
"warts and all" is a more gracious remark when pointed at one's self. But that's true of all negativity. Most Republicans who are reluctant to support Trump are reluctant because of his personal defects, Jindal is trying to give them permission to support him anyway. Jindal's endorsement, IMO, is more powerful for the "warts and all" line.
Come to think of it, the glorious Revolution brings to us Donald of Orange who combines Charles II's immoral Royal life style and Oliver Cromwell's dogged Calvinist perfectionist traits in one Protector-King . And you could say both of them were replacements for Charles I who fooled no one.
He could have said he was supporting Hillary, "cankles and all." So that's cool.
Just before his execution by Cromwell, Charles said words to the effect that if they can treat the King in such a way just think how they can treat you. Sometimes they come for the Jews and sometimes they come for the king. Mostly they come for the rich people........Cromwell allowed the Jews back into England. It was not a gesture of religious toleration on his part. The Spanish Jews that he allowed to enter had knowledge of the routes and schedules of the Spanish treasure fleets. That's the way it worked. The Aztecs looted the neighboring nations, the Spanish looted the Aztecs, and the English looted the Spanish. Everyone involved had high minded justifications for their crimes.......Over several centuries, the Spanish Inquisition killed less than five thousand people. Cromwell knocked off that many Irish Catholics in a single campaign, but his reputation is somewhat higher than that of Torquemada. Cromwell had Milton and Marvell, two of England's greatest poets, praising his virtues and efforts to redistribute the wealth. Just as a propaganda tool, it's more useful for the poets to praise your moles as beauty spots than for the artists to exclude them.
This reminds me of another outrageous Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. In 1904, the New York Sun endorsed him by headlining "Theodore! With All His Faults"
WARTS - How to Cure
"Say -- what is dead cats good for, Huck?"
"Good for? Cure warts with."
"No! Is that so? I know something that's better."
"I bet you don't. What is it?"
"Why, spunk-water. . . You got to go all by yourself, to the middle of the woods, where you know there's a spunk-water stump, and just as it's midnight you back up against the stump and jam your hand in and say:
'Barley-corn, barley-corn, injun-meal shorts,
Spunk-water, spunk-water, swaller these warts,'
and then walk away quick, eleven steps, with your eyes shut, and then turn around three times and walk home without speaking to anybody. Because if you speak the charm's busted. . .Sometimes I take 'em off with a bean."
"Yes, bean's good. I've done that."
"Have you? What's your way?"
"You take and split the bean, and cut the wart so as to get some blood, and then you put the blood on one piece of the bean and take and dig a hole and bury it 'bout midnight at the crossroads in the dark of the moon, and then you burn up the rest of the bean. You see that piece that's got the blood on it will keep drawing and drawing, trying to fetch the other piece to it, and so that helps the blood to draw the wart, and pretty soon off she comes."
"Yes, that's it, Huck -- that's it; though when you're burying it if you say 'Down bean; off wart; come no more to bother me!' it's better. That's the way Joe Harper does, and he's been nearly to Coonville and most everywheres. But say -- how do you cure 'em with dead cats?"
"Why, you take your cat and go and get in the graveyard 'long about midnight when somebody that was wicked has been buried; and when it's midnight a devil will come, or maybe two or three, but you can't see 'em, you can only hear something like the wind, or maybe hear 'em talk; and when they're taking that feller away, you heave your cat after 'em and say, 'Devil follow corpse, cat follow devil, warts follow cat, I'm done with ye!' That'll fetch any wart."
- Adventures of Tom Sawyer
"...cankles and all!" -- Heh!
"A death mask of Cromwell used to be in Warwick Castle, in the great room. He had a big wart on his face although I doubt it was an actual virus caused wart."
You can see a photo of it at the link in the post.
"Warts? Whaddayamean, warts? I have perfect skin. Ask Melania. Ask my docs. I am the healthiest candidate evah. No warts anywhere. Who is this Bayou Bobby anyway? Did he run for President or something? Student body president, I guess. Thanks anyway, Bobby. I love Indians!"
I get that saying warts and all about someone else is different than saying see me for who I am. However, did Althouse, Chris Matthews, David Brooks not see the warts of Obama? Recognizing the failings in who you support is part of keeping them accountable. I don't see that with many of the elite policy makers who, maybe, are more worried about image and narrative than performance, or from media and pundits. It is much more, our side is great, a gift from Heaven that will the tide on global warming and win Nobel Peace Prizes in just 2 years they are so awesome. And your side is so abhorrent we can just ignore you since 'I won'.
Nobody cares about Jindal's opinions aside, damned by faint praise ...
I love finding out the meaning behind words and phrases. "Warts and all" ttat's a new one.
I just learned, by watching a british gangter movie about the origins of both the word "Fuck" and "Posh". The etymology of Fuck may or may not be true, as I'm reading conflicting versions of its etymology. But the history I just saw repeated (in the movie) is that it stands for "Fornication under consent of the King" Could that be possible? Another one I heard was that it meant For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.
For Posh its a nautical term Port Outboard Starboard Home. Which basically was how the rich people got the better cabins on the shadier side of the boat. But even here, Im reading that the word POSH was already in use for twenty years or so before it was taken up as a nautical term. So what the hell do I know?
Do we really know the etymology of a lot of these words? Or was stuff made up after the fact and then repeated often enough so we have knowledge of etymology that we repeat as if its true, but which may in fact be false.
It's not the warts, which are merely cosmetic, and harmless. It's the smallpox of top-down authoritarian government which is debilitating, fatal, and contagious. I see a long-infected man being invited in as a doctor.
Cromwell was a tough Military man and therefore a realist. Charles II was a weak playboy of the western world and wholly controlled by huge Bribes sent from Louis XIV who also sent him over specially good courtesan lovers.
The Wars after the 1660 Restoration, that followed Cromwell's natural death, were Naval wars with the Dutch Empire over trade and colonies (Charles II stole New Amsterdam) and near continuous religion based wars between Protestants and Catholics over Flanders, Spanish Netherlands and Ireland. Spain and France were nearly always near war. Keeping England on the sidelines was a French goal. And whoever got Austria's help was usually temporarily a winner.
When it comes to Trump there are a LOT of warts. DId he make out with a toad for about a month? Because he's covered head to toe in warts. (metaphorically) So, YEAH, you are voting for him warts and all.
I'd say if he wants to get more votes he might apply some creams to those warts to maybe remove a few. (that would be called reconciling with party members who have noticed how wart filled he is). But that's just me. You keep doing what you're doing Trump.
You don't need anyone outside your base. Where would you get that crazy idea.
@Sebastian. Well done. LOL.
If Jindal was a better troll he would have said "I'm supporting Donald Trump, small hands and all."
But: nice gams!
By the standards of the day he'd be called "spider shanks" for having legs that are too thin and insufficiently muscular.
Despite his looks Charles II seems to have been very popular with the ladies, including his wife as well as his numerous mistresses.
Formal portraits exist of James II and William III in upper body armor. Both had a genuine military identity, but this was well into the age of firearms.
Who was the last monarch to have formal portrait done without body armor?
Yea, it's a big joke, until you learn too late that Compound W is one of Trump's many planned interment camps.
If only Jindal was in charge of Education reform.
"Warts and all" could present The Bern with a great passive/aggressive simile for his inevitable endorsement of a candidate whose running on her genitalia.
I love how Trump says we can fix our debt by getting creditors to accept less. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html?_r=1
then when he needs to clarify, he says we can't default because we can just print up more money. Where have I heard that before? Is Paul Krugman on his team or something? Just print up money.
This, is a totally conservative/Republican idea. I understand exactly why Sarah Palin jumped on board. It makes total sense.
Is this what Jindal means by "warts and all"? Do you see why Ryan, might have a problem with endorsing Trump and putting his name behind the idea that we'll just print up money and get creditors to accept less.
With friends like this, who needs enemies. i'm going to love to have Sean Hannity explain this to his viewers when the Fed prints up all this extra cash so we dont go into default? Wow. so Krugman was right the whole time? Thanks Trump!
It is a good thing Hillary doesn't have any warts. She has no soul but at least she doesn't have any warts either.
jr565 said...The etymology of Fuck may or may not be true, as I'm reading conflicting versions of its etymology. But the history I just saw repeated (in the movie) is that it stands for "Fornication under consent of the King" Could that be possible? Another one I heard was that it meant For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.
There's a great podcast called Stuff You Should Know that did an episode on this. The short answer is, no, FUCK is not an acronym.
Achilles, but I already know that Hillary has warts. She's on the opposite side. It should be so easy for me to sign on the Trump train simply because of who hes facing. Yet, Trump is so odious a character you have hard core Repubs who'd rather have hillary than him. THat should tell you something.
(cont) I'm not saying I personally am a Never Trumper. But I can certainly see why some are. Because he SUCKS as a candidate. Its true. My calculation though is that at least with Trump in office there is a chance that repubs can make him toe the line, since he needs to at least appeal to his base to get anything done. and if he proposes qualitative easing as a solution to our debt they can shut him down and say "NO". That wont happen if Hillary is president. Then again, I fully expect Trump to then take his case to democrats who will then either reject his stance or adopt it, because its essentially their stance too. And then, I get to yell at Sean Hannity and all the Trumpbots about how they foisted a big govt democrat on us. And ACTUAL republicans can say no and put their foot down. ANd the Ted Cruz's and Marco Rubio's can cut their teeth dealing with the world's biggest RINO. Next election they can run AGAINST Trump.
Either Trump governs as a conservative (unlikely but possible) which is a win win, or he doesn't, which can still be a win win. So, I'm actually against Never Trump, at this point.
But they are perfectly rational when they express disgust at him for being disgusting.
And he keeps making gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. I have no need to save him from himself. If he can't bring the party together, its on him. I actually feel like Batman when he's fighintg Raz Al Ghu'l on the runaway train at the end of Batman Begins. Raz is hanging from the train at the end of the fight. Batman says "I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you. Then he flies off leaving Raz to plummet to his death. if Trump plummets to his death (metaphorically) , well, such is life. Shouldn't have been such a douche. Shoulnd't have shit on people who you expected to actually vote for you.
"You can see a photo of it at the link in the post."
I'm not even sure it is still there. The Beauchamp family sold the castle to the London Wax Works people and they have made a sort of Disneyland of it. I can't recall if it was still there the last time I visited which is about 8 years ago.
Re Charles II...I don't find him ugly. The image is of a man with strong features and olive/dark coloring, which some people (including me) find attractive. He looks like he's *aging*, as do all who are lucky enough to live past their youth, and some age more attractively than others. So to me, in this portrait, Charles II looks well past his first flush of youthful beauty, but to call him "ugly" seems a bit strong. (I'm basing this on the painting only - I know nothing about Charles II and probably he is more handsome / less ugly in the painting than he was in real life.)
Unsolicited advice to Republicans concerned with Trump:
Shut up.
If you can not bear to do so try this for size:
There are no flawless candidate for any office, of either party, at any time. But Donald Trump is so far superior to Hillary Clinton that I will support him as the Republican nominee.
If you can not bear to say either, change parties.
"And he keeps making gaffe after gaffe after gaffe."
Some these are not gaffes. Whether the national debt will ever be repaid is a question that I don;t know the answer for.
Read Zero Hedge on this question.
Then again it is not capitalism, but crony capitalism that has a crisis: after all, how can one call a world in which both China and the US actively bail out not only money losing companies but the very capital markets every time there is even a modest deviation from centrally-planned trendlines, capitalism?
Even so, if Konstam is right, the Fed - which has staked not only its credibility but its very existence on keeping the US stock market propped up and artificially inflated - has a big problem.
Much of his talk is not written by others and some is musing about problems. He is NOT a politician who practices in front of a mirror and whose lines are written by gray faced men with MFA degrees in fiction writing.
Despite his looks Charles II seems to have been very popular with the ladies, including his wife as well as his numerous mistresses.
It's good to be the king!
Michael K wrote:
Some these are not gaffes. Whether the national debt will ever be repaid is a question that I don;t know the answer for.
And a lot of these ARE gaffes. Actual republicans wince when they hear some of these answers. And they ask themselves "I'm voting for this, why?"
The latest news from The Donald is that he will raise tariffs 45% as did Smoot-Hawley in 1930, thus introducing us to a real depression; and he will raise taxes more than he said that he would; and he will totally solve our economic problem by printing more money.
But who cares? Just shut up and vote for the narcissist asshole. Bobby Jindal is caving on his conservative principles, following Limbaugh and Hannity who did so some time ago.
As for me, I am reading up on Gary Johnson.
gadfly wrote:
But who cares? Just shut up and vote for the narcissist asshole. Bobby Jindal is caving on his conservative principles, following Limbaugh and Hannity who did so some time ago.
As for me, I am reading up on Gary Johnson.
But Gary Johnson has no chance of winning, therefore you are giving your vote to Hillary. Look, I've already stated Trump is lousy candidate. But, if he were president and attempted to impose tariffs on China, couldn't Repubs say no? This could be a great defining moment to weed out the actual repubs from the liberals. Who stands on principle and opposed Trumps attempts to push policy. Therefore, we still need to get Trump into office Even if its counterintuitive and even if we know he sucks.
Oliver Cromwell was the Commanding Officer of a military unit fighting fpr Parliament. The unit used close thigh to thigh calvary charges all dressed in a gray body armor. The unit came to be known as Ironsides.
When a Catholic Army refused to surrender the Walled city of Drogheda, so they could hold onto that port across Irish Sea at the River Bourn which was the usual place from which invading French Armies departed for Scotland and England, Cromwell ordered no prisoners be take, which was the rule of siege war.
Neither Charles I nor Charles II would give up secret treasonous deals with Catholic French Kings to invade England and slaughter the Presbyterians and the Puritans, not to mention the Anglicans who had been given the Catholic Church in England by Henry VIII and his bastard daughter Elizabeth I.
Yet, Trump is so odious a character you have hard core Repubs who'd rather have hillary than him. THat should tell you something.
Yep, it sure does. It tells me that some self-appointed gatekeepers are about to become irrelevant.
grackle wrote:
Yep, it sure does. It tells me that some self-appointed gatekeepers are about to become irrelevant.
Or the Trumpster and his Trumpbots become irrrelevant in turn.
grackle wrote:
Yep, it sure does. It tells me that some self-appointed gatekeepers are about to become irrelevant.
Ben Sasse seems to be pretty principled and articulate as a conservative. If you think that he shouldnt be the standard bearer for conservative ideals but Trump should, I think you want to be in a different party.
I recall just a few days ago; Trump's merciless ridicule of Indiana governor Mike Pence's endorsement of Ted Cruz before the Indiana primary. "That was an endorsement?" Trump asked.
Same thing.
here's a report card for conservatives and who is who and who is less conservative: http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members
Sasse gets a 98. Ted Cruz got a 100. Trumps not on the list, but if he was do you think he'd even break 60%. Those hard line conservatives are the ones saying Trump aint a conservative. For the good of the party, Cruz might ultimately cave and support Trump. But considering what Trump said about him and his dad do you really think he will? OR should?
The onus is on Trump, not these Never Trumpers, to make the case for why Trump should get their vote. If he doesn't even bother to make the case, then he deserves to not have their votes. As Trump said, the party doesn't need to be unified. So deal with it. Can Trump win without the Never Trumpers? Is it his goal to grow THAT movement? If/when Trump goes down and you bolt from the Republican party lets at least let it be known that the problem emananted from Trump. not those who have 100% ratings from Heritage.
@jr565:I just learned, by watching a british gangter movie about the origins of both the word "Fuck" and "Posh".
Both are bogus. The first probably goes all the way back Indo-European, related to words meaning "strike". ("Viking" is one of these related words.) The second, no one knows.
Do we really know the etymology of a lot of these words?
Yes.
Or was stuff made up after the fact and then repeated often enough so we have knowledge of etymology that we repeat as if its true, but which may in fact be false.
Also yes. The second process is "folk etymology". Real etymology comes from painful and exhaustive perusal of historical documents and linguistic relationships.
Ben Sasse seems to be pretty principled and articulate as a conservative. If you think that he shouldnt be the standard bearer for conservative ideals but Trump should, I think you want to be in a different party.
Naw. Haven’t you heard? It’s Ben Sasse that wants “to be in a different party.”
Headline: “Sen. Sasse's call for third party candidate is a slap in face to Nebraskans”
Some quotes:
And although Sasse has, for several months, publicly voiced his dislike for Donald Trump, the inconvenient fact remains that Trump is the preferred choice of Nebraskan Republicans, and has been since July of 2015.
Sasse may like to view himself as a conservative icon, but virtually every pundit and strategist, regardless of party affiliation, will agree that a conservative third party candidate will result in a general election victory for Hillary Clinton. Many experts also agree that a Clinton presidency will result in the appointment of liberal Supreme Court justices. In other words, Sasse's call for a third party candidate is sheer madness because it is a vote against his own interests, as well as the interests of Nebraska Republicans.
I guess the commentor will be one of the first to join Ben Sasse’s third party.
BTW, I am NOT a Republican. I’m an independent who votes Republican most of the time. I’ve been holding my nose and pulling the GOP lever in the voting booth for years. Finally, with Trump I have someone that I can vote for with real enthusiasm. He is the one who we have been waiting for, not Obama.
Forgot the link, dang it.
http://tinyurl.com/h6bfv2b
"And a lot of these ARE gaffes. Actual republicans wince when they hear some of these answers. And they ask themselves "I'm voting for this, why?"
Oh some are, no doubt, as he seems to talk in a stream of consciousness fashion some of the time.
I'm an "actual Republican" having voted for Nixon in 1960.
I am not a big fan of Trump and would have preferred that another candidate had adopted a couple of his issues. Chief among these are immigration, Muslim and illegal, plus excessive H1B visas and very lax controls on all visa holders.
I think we are heading into major trouble in both the economy and foreign affairs thanks to Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al.
I agree with Victor Davis Hanson that the next president will be hated >| as all the neglected problems crash down on us.
Bill Clinton skipped out of town with the White House silver and left Bush to deal with bin Laden.
You may agree with what Bush did or disagree but he was left with the bounced check from Clinton.
The next president is going to get Obama's bad check. It might as well be Trump. He might even do a couple of good things.
grackle wrote:
guess the commentor will be one of the first to join Ben Sasse’s third party.
BTW, I am NOT a Republican. I’m an independent who votes Republican most of the time. I’ve been holding my nose and pulling the GOP lever in the voting booth for years. Finally, with Trump I have someone that I can vote for with real enthusiasm. He is the one who we have been waiting for, not Obama.
I can see why you are voting for Trump. I wish you had had your guy run as third party rather than hijack the Republican party.
From The Man Himself: “On my plan they’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” Trump said. “Look, when I’m negotiating with the Democrats, I’m putting in a plan. I’m putting in my optimum plan. It’s going to be negotiated" Art of the deal, baby. We've been told, by an insightful commentator right on this blog, that we should listen to Trump and he will do what he promises. So, now we know. He will negotiate.
(cont) but regardless. Its on the table that people like Sasse, are now willing to go third party rather than vote Trump. I dont know if, when push comes to shove they wont vote Trump. But that's Trumps weakness. If he wants more people to vote for him, he has to actually bridge the parties. he keeps saying we need reconciliation. But what has he done to bring the Ben Sasse's back to the fold? Sasse, in going 3rd party is becoming an independent. Like you are or were. You displaced him in his own party by sabotaging it. He's threatening to go elsehwere. If Trump REALLY is a good Republican he will make the steps to throw said repubs about to jump ship some bones. But, he seems like he can't do it. Its actually a character flaw. Since he can't win withouth the whole party rallying behind him, he may be up shit's creek.
"From The Man Himself: “On my plan they’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” Trump said. “Look, when I’m negotiating with the Democrats, I’m putting in a plan. I’m putting in my optimum plan. It’s going to be negotiated" Art of the deal, baby. We've been told, by an insightful commentator right on this blog, that we should listen to Trump and he will do what he promises. So, now we know. He will negotiate."
I dont think he's a very good negotiator. He can't even negotiate with his own party to get them to vote for him. Where's the art of the deal when you need it.
I dont think he's a very good negotiator. He can't even negotiate with his own party to get them to vote for him. Where's the art of the deal when you need it.
Well, unlike Hillary, he has closed the deal with the voters. Hillary's past is so revolting to young Democrats that she can't say the same. She is the final destroyer of the Roosevelt coalition. There will be a new Democrat Party when this is over, maybe not this year, but the Titanic has taken the hit and it's rent below the waterline. Maybe this new party will deserve to be called "Democratic."
Cromwell bought that the Irish were an "idolatrous and barbarous race" who had no right to live on the arable land of Ireland. He forced them off it. This land he granted to members of his New Model Army in small lots in lieu of back pay owed. Those Irish who objected too vehemently about being moved off their land were killed or sold into slavery.......The soldiers, for the most part, sold their land parcels to rich men who since became the absentee landlords of Ireland. Those who actually worked on the land given them moved beyond the pale and became Irish, not English.......It is to Cromwell that we owe the endlessly FUBAR state of English/Irish relations. Cromwell was to Ireland as Cortes was to Mexico. It is interesting to note that Englsh historians generally disparage him more for regicide than for the numerous crimes he committed in Ireland. It is my understanding that his memory is not universally revered in Scotland either--although, to be fair, he did not consider Presbyterians idolatrous. Perhaps at that time they didn't have enough property to loot. He certainly gave the English Catholics and Anglicans a hard time.
Cromwell died in 1658.
So I doubt very much that he gave instructions about his portrait in 1660.
The wars in Europe post 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) were not wars of religion, but, as traditional, wars about power.
Religion certainly spiced up the wars with France. But the English had been fighting wars with the French since the time of the Conqueror. Remember the Hundred Years War? We don't need religion to fight the French. Any old excuse will do.
Cromwell was certainly one of the best military strategist of his day and someone I admire greatly. To suggest that religion had no role in his military and political struggles is to ignore the intense anti-Catholic sentiments in England at the time. Yes, all wars are about power and the Church of Rome has always been about power.
tim in vermont wrote:
Well, unlike Hillary, he has closed the deal with the voters. Hillary's past is so revolting to young Democrats that she can't say the same.
Even though Bernie Bots say as much they are still going to vote for Hillary. Which is why Never Trumpers need to bite the bullet and do the same. It pains me to say it. I dont have a lot of faith in the morality of liberals to vote on principle. They still want control. And a Hillary is better than a Trump (i'm not even sure if thats so. there are so many areas of overlap between Trump and Bernie that he might prove to be the more appealing candidate to them were he to win. They wont see past the R in his title to ever give him a chance to prove them wrong.
(cont) sorrry, a hillary is better than a Trump. To THEM.
"Cromwell died in 1658. So I doubt very much that he gave instructions about his portrait in 1660."
Maybe shortly before his beheading after they dug him up? ("Warts and all" would've had some real meaning.) His reanimation would at least explain the need to behead him 2 years after his death.
Re: a non-vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
Would it help if I declared that I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past 30 years.
You didn't want a RINO's vote anyway, did you?
PS And I'm not voting for Hillary.
"On my plan they’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,"
I believe this is taken out of context and ignores the overarching Trumpian concept of negotiations and his 25% figure.
Trump is saying (IMO) the current top rate is 39.5%. I will propose it be 25%. But that is for negotiation purpose. The Democrats, and many Republicans, will say 25% is impossible. So Trump will give a little above 25, the other side will give a little below 39. Back and forth until a deal is struck. Where that deal will settle is unknown. And it is true that "by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up". But that is UP from 25%, NOT the current top rate. It will be substantially below that figure.
If he wants more people to vote for him, he has to actually bridge the parties. he keeps saying we need reconciliation. But what has he done to bring the Ben Sasse's back to the fold?
Trump is a busy man. He doesn’t have time to cater to every junior senator who wants to get some airtime on the cables. Sasse needs to savor his ten minutes of fame because in going against Trump Sasse is going against his own constituents in Nebraska where Trump is popular. And, as Eric Cantor has found, if you are a politician dependent on the voters ignoring your constituents can earn you a place in the unemployment line.
I dont think he's a very good negotiator. He can't even negotiate with his own party to get them to vote for him.
Trump has gotten more votes than any other GOP candidate in history. That’s a fact. But the commentor seems to be interested more in fantasy than in fact.
Post a Comment