Said Corey Lewandowski at the election post-mortem at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, covered by The Washington-Post in "Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides."
The Post snarks that Lewandowski was complaining that "Journalists accurately reported what Trump said."
I missed the event, but it sounds to me as though Lewandowski was saying that the media didn't understand — or pretended not to understand — they way Trump was reaching people. I presume that Lewandowski was making the same point that was made in the widely admired and shared piece by Salena Zito that appeared in the September 23, 2016 issue of The Atlantic, "Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally":
When he makes claims like [only 41.5% of 16 to 24-year old blacks are employed], the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.The WaPo article has lots more about the Kennedy School event, with particular emphasis on the Clinton aides beating up on Kellyanne Conway. I don't think I need to say that Conway held her own, but don't look to WaPo to present her as a feminist heroine. Her performance is predictably underplayed, making the article rather boring, as WaPo, on December 2nd, sinks back behind its paywall for me.
When I presented that thought to him, he paused again, “Now that’s interesting.”
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
The Paywall of China.
I liked Colbert at the Kennedy School of Government.
He actually didn't strike me as posing as a right winger but as just tweaking the leftists he was dealing with, with foregrounded awareness that he was accomplishing that.
I was encouraged by the article (my WaPo account expires soon and will not be renewed) which I read in toto. The Left has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Consequently look for eight or more Democratic Senate seat to flip in 2018, not to mention a state house or two. Winning!
Kellogg's delenda est.
A woman who is minimally capable of doing a man's job is a feminist hero.
No feminist credit for being good at doing women's jobs.
"don't look to WaPo to present her as a feminist heroine. Her performance is predictably underplayed, making the article rather boring" Sometimes getting bored easily serves you well.
You can listen to he entire Harvard School event on a Soundcloud audio clip through HotAir.
Listening to them is like over-hearing a demonic deliverance session of the poor people still possessed by ClintonSpin.
Kellyanne certainly is a hell of a strong lady.
When you win, don't say much. When you lose, say even less.
If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am proud to have lost,” she said. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.
They really are hateful people.
Let's remember this is from the party trying to make racist and anti-Semite Keith Ellison their party Chair.
They are paid to think what they think and to say what they say, there is no point in discussing anything with them. They are rented machines, thats all.
They snark because they can't face the truth. That they might be wrong.
Which is a good thing. They are lemmings all running off the cliff. Together.
"Clinton’s campaign aides insisted, again and again, that their candidate had been held to a different standard than the other contenders — as evidenced by the controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state.
Palmieri said that many political journalists had a personal dislike for the Democratic nominee and predicted that the email issue will go down in history as “the most grossly overrated, over-covered and most destructive story in all of presidential politics.”
“If I made one mistake, it was legitimizing the way the press covered this story line,” Palmieri said."
I am aghast. Do you think these people really believe this?
No wonder Mrs. Clinton lost. These sorts of lectures from multi-millionaires who benefit from affirmative action and open borders is out of touch. And did these people believe that simply accusing Donald Trump of racism was enough to obliterate his chances of victory? Heck, it seems kind of pathetic and crazy!
"The raw, lingering emotion of the 2016 presidential campaign erupted into a shouting match here Thursday as top strategists of Hillary Clinton’s campaign accused their Republican counterparts of fueling and legitimizing racism to elect Donald Trump."
Say the people who've been riding the race horse for years.
The number is too high for me to remember the reasons why I distrust the WaPo.
"You can listen to he entire Harvard School event on a Soundcloud audio clip through HotAir."
I'd like to know who's the Clinton aide heard yelling "You people are pathetic! You people are pathetic!"
Morning Joe claimed the fight at the Kennedy School debate happened because the Trump contingent were ungracious winners.
I suppose when smeared as a white nationalist racist, Kellyanne was supposed to smile sweetly and not respond.
“I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.
Biggest lie ever or simply most transparent lie ever?
The taking things literally was a problem, but getting outraged at everything was the bigger problem
Remember when we had a couple days of coverage over Trump being so mean to a woman with a crying baby and how that would just kill him with women?
Let's remember this is from the party trying to make racist and anti-Semite Keith Ellison their party Chair.
I have a lot of Jewish friends. Keith Ellison scares me, and the fact that there are Democrats pushing anti-Semites like him for leadership roles scares me even more. Kristallnacht is coming, and it's coming from the left.
The reports I've read about that meeting indicate the Clinton supporters kept talking about white supremacy as being the reason Trump won. They're stuck on stupid. A lot of the "deplorable" people in "flyover country" voted for Trump as a big fuck you to people who call them names like racists and white supremacists. Imagine that, going around slandering people doesn't win their support. Who could imagine such a thing?
One sign of intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. Last night's meeting just goes to show that they're incapable of learning. Like I said, they're stuck on stupid. Go ahead and stay stupid. In 2018, 10 Democrat senators are up for reelection in states Trump won. Keep calling people in those states racists and white supremacists and see how many of them will vote for your candidates.
So they would rather "lose than win the way you guys did"?
Since they don't have the first clue as to how or why he won they don't really have that option.
But, by all means, continue to call everyone who disagrees with you a white supremacist. Why stop now just when you are losing?
Am I the only one who remembers learning about hyperbole in high school English?
They aren't stupid.
They are paid to put forward messages, not to discuss matters honestly and reasonably.
Might as well argue with a record player. You won't get anywhere, no matter the defects of the recording it is playing.
exactly buwaya, that is their purpose.
Gahrie said...
Am I the only one who remembers learning about hyperbole in high school English?
Even my cat remembers learning about hyperbole in high school English!
"white supremacy as being the reason Trump won."
Could Nate Silver please point them in the direction of the statistical evidence that shows tons of 2012 Obama voters switching to Trump in 2016? Please? The cognitive dissonance on this is astounding. A simple glance at several Ohio counties proves this fact out.
These people are "strategists" and "analysts" the way TV actors are "doctors" when they are brought in to Congress to testify on health policy. They aren't worth talking to, because they are simply reciting lines someone else has given them.
Althouse nailed the money quote from that article.
“This is the problem with the media. You guys took everything that Donald Trump said so literally,” Lewandowski said. “The American people didn’t. They understood it. They understood that sometimes — when you have a conversation with people, whether it’s around the dinner table or at a bar — you’re going to say things, and sometimes you don’t have all the facts to back it up.”
Sometimes, people just talk shit. Facts, schmacts. Sometimes, "you're going to say things." Lewandowski gets the essence of Trump. No wonder he was an early-adopter. And that is the essence of why I find Trump so loathsome. And it has nothing to do with any "mainstream" media. I've been rejecting the mainstream media for decades. Trump simply can't get away with blaming others, for the things he says. The notion that the Trumpkins are angry at the press for (in many cases) reporting accurately what Trump says, is completely true.
I know that the press has made many errors, in their partisan and ideological hatred of Trump. I read the Althouse blog, and I get it. I know that the same NYT/NPR/PBS/CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC axis has been running down Republicans for years. But I can defend virtually all Republicans. I can't defend Trump's words. And I won't.
As for the Democrats on the Harvard-Kennedy School panel...
They sound incompetent. Blaming "white supremacy." Little wonder, they lost.
Still making excuses for the shit Trump says.
EMD said...
"white supremacy as being the reason Trump won."
Could Nate Silver please point them in the direction of the statistical evidence that shows tons of 2012 Obama voters switching to Trump in 2016? Please? The cognitive dissonance on this is astounding. A simple glance at several Ohio counties proves this fact out.
I'd like to talk to some Obama/Trump voters. I am sure there are some; I can't imagine how many there might be, or what they might be thinking. What an interview that might be.
BTW, I played that audio yesterday. The real fussing started a bit after an hour and a half, iirc.
The WaPo article has lots more about the Kennedy School event, with particular emphasis on the Clinton aides beating up on Kellyanne Conway.
WAR ON WOMEN!!!
They really are hateful people.
They also stole money from their poorest donators. Charging them repeatedly after a single donation and making them jump thru hoops for a refund (many of them live on a thin wire and that added expense was nightmarish).
Kristallnacht is coming, and it's coming from the left.
The original one also did.
Lewandowski sounds like a lefty to me, the sort who believes there's no such thing as a fact, it's all socially constructed by the narrative. STory is all; facts are nothing.
That's pure balderdash. In life you don't get to invent your own facts.
The thing is, I believe that most of them really do believe their own nonsense. They have to. Nobody could get that upset about this otherwise. They all really and truly believe that the campaign was a platform for white supremacists. They really believe that the only reason anybody could possibly take issue with anything that Hillary Clinton has done is sexism. They really are that deluded. It must be terrifying for them looking out at the world through the dark hazy surface of their bubble.
Does the Washington Post "sink back" behind its paywall? Considering the quality and amorality of their reporting/op ed writing--the two are so commingled that it's hard to know just what you are reading--it might be more accurate to say that the WaPo "slinks back" behind its paywall. Only subscription paying acolytes are allowed to read their precious "stuff". It's a dirty job and I suppose someone has to do it---but to borrow from our Nobel "poet", it ain't me babe!
I wonder how being told they are White Supremacists is playing with middle Americans. Trump won, in part because people are sick of having insane lefties assume they are raging racists, sexists and homophobes if they don't agree with far left BS.
Why would anyone take literally anything a politician says?
Remember when Bill Clinton said Obamacare is the craziest system because it's too expensive and the deductibles are too high, and then Hillary said, "Oh no, he corrected himself"? Should we take that literally?
" I am sure there are some;"
Chuck, one county in Ohio went from +22 Obama in 2012 to +8 Trump in 2016. Another went from +27 Obama to +2.5 Clinton. That's not some, that's a lot.
Chuck said...
But I can defend virtually all Republicans. I can't defend Trump's words. And I won't.
12/2/16, 12:17 PM
Don't you see? That is not the point. Sure Trump says stupid stuff. Everyone gets that. The nut of the issue is that every time Trump says some stupid thing or another AND the press gets their panties in a wad over it, regular folks can easily point out stupid stuff said by Democrats [including Obama] that the press gave a pass to. At this point most people just don't care anymore what the press says. They feel either that it is blown out of proportion, made up crap, or the press getting worked up "this time" cause it is Trump saying it. Their power is gone and it is driving them INSANE!
Trump is a salesman. Big theme stuff. Don't bother parsing the words because the specifics don't matter. What plays and matters is the overall concept/idea. It's marketing 101.
That's how you hire Presidents.
Wonks rarely become Presidents.
EMD said...
" I am sure there are some;"
Chuck, one county in Ohio went from +22 Obama in 2012 to +8 Trump in 2016. Another went from +27 Obama to +2.5 Clinton. That's not some, that's a lot.
You misunderstand me. I don't doubt that there were some (you say "a lot") voters who voted Obama '08, Obama '12, Trump '16. We both probably remember the stories from New Hampshire rallies last winter, where reporters interviewed rally attendees who essentially said that, "Bernie is my number one, but Trump is my number two." Or some combination thereof. Or words to that effect.
What on earth are those people thinking?
The old quote, "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," is widely (and erroneously, it is thought) attributed to Churchill.
Todd said...
...
Don't you see? That is not the point. Sure Trump says stupid stuff. Everyone gets that. The nut of the issue is that every time Trump says some stupid thing or another AND the press gets their panties in a wad over it, regular folks can easily point out stupid stuff said by Democrats [including Obama] that the press gave a pass to. At this point most people just don't care anymore what the press says. They feel either that it is blown out of proportion, made up crap, or the press getting worked up "this time" cause it is Trump saying it. Their power is gone and it is driving them INSANE!
But Mitch McConnell doesn't say stupid shit. Neither does Paul Ryan. Nor does Mitt Romney. Nor did Cheney, or Rumsfeld. Mitch Daniels doesn't say stupid shit. John Kasich doesn't say stupid shit.
If I am in an argument with smart liberals, and I am called upon to defend Trump, I can't do it.
"What on earth are those people thinking?"
Obama/Clinton/Status-Quo/Beltway hasn't helped me. I need a quasi-populist outsider independent type to burn some of it down and start over.
"The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter,"
Good thing we don't have a democracy. We have a republic.
"But Mitch McConnell doesn't say stupid shit"
No, Mitch just does stupid shit. Repeatedly.
What on earth are those people thinking?
@Chuck, they were thinking that if Iran wants to test the nuclear bomb Kerry and Obama have given a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the mullahs building, that downtown DC would be a great place to do the testing.
Chuck said...
If I am in an argument with smart liberals, and I am called upon to defend Trump, I can't do it.
12/2/16, 1:04 PM
OK, since you brought it up, if they are so smart, why are they liberals?
Big Mike,
You need a better story. "Nuking D.C." explains how the Aryan Nations cohort of Trump voters felt. But they weren't Obama voters in '08 and '12.
Some JournoLists will require more time and effort to retool than others.
Good for Lewandowski. This suggests that Trump did not "throw him under the boss." Good for Trump. Good for Americans.
As for Conway, she is a woman who stands her ground. With the right principles, good for her, good for us.
I expect some more "dewomanizing" of Kellyanne Conway so that the left doesn't have to realize exactly how many glass ceilings she shattered to keep Clinton from winning.
"Palmieri said that many political journalists had a personal dislike for the Democratic nominee and predicted that the email issue will go down in history as “the most grossly overrated, over-covered and most destructive story in all of presidential politics.”"
-- ... They really ARE dumb.
EMD you are in for a very long fucking four years if you don't like Mitch McConnell's way of doing business.
"EMD you are in for a very long fucking four years if you don't like Mitch McConnell's way of doing business."
I'm a Libertarian. I'm in for a very long fucking forever.
But Mitch McConnell doesn't say stupid shit. Neither does Paul Ryan. Nor does Mitt Romney. Nor did Cheney, or Rumsfeld. Mitch Daniels doesn't say stupid shit. John Kasich doesn't say stupid shit.
True. As part of the professional political class, they are far too skilled to make unforced errors in their (make-believe) game.
Trump isn't playing the make-believe game (at least for now). The folks who elected him (50-year old white blue collar guys in Penn, Ohio, Mich & Wisc) don't really care that the upper crust of the political class use grammatically correct English at all times.
They mostly just want jobs. And, at least for now, they hope that Trump will provide them.
EMD wrote:
"Trump is a salesman. Big theme stuff. Don't bother parsing the words because the specifics don't matter. What plays and matters is the overall concept/idea. It's marketing 101.
That's how you hire Presidents.
Wonks rarely become Presidents."
Exactly. This relates to the post Ms. Althouse did the other day about Dukakis in 88.
"If I am in an argument with smart liberals"
Assumes facts not in evidence.
"But Mitch McConnell doesn't say stupid shit. Neither does Paul Ryan. Nor does Mitt Romney. Nor did Cheney, or Rumsfeld. Mitch Daniels doesn't say stupid shit. John Kasich doesn't say stupid shit. "
-- Actually, ALL of those people have been run down by the media for "saying stupid shit." Mitt Romney's 47%; Rumsfeld known-unknowns; Paul Ryan's debate performance was treated as a Simpleton Vs The Genius Joe Biden.
That's the real reason that no one cares if the media says Trump said "stupid shit." Because they say that WHENEVER someone on the right says something.
[Also note, that just like some of Trump's bon mots, Rumsfeld's known-unknowns is actually smart. Likewise, sometimes Trump says something that is thematically strong, that is treated as just "stupid shit" by the media, that turns out true (like his comments about one of the recent terror attacks being a terror attack, and the media claiming 'we can't ever really know,' only for a few hours later the police to confirm it was a terror attack.)]
Chuck wrote:
"Bernie is my number one, but Trump is my number two." Or some combination thereof. Or words to that effect.
What on earth are those people thinking?
My father, who has voted Republican for President every election since 1984, was one of those Bernie first/Trump second voters. I find it quite illuminating that you don't get it, but it actually is very easy to explain- both were outsiders to D.C. This explains every single election we have had since 2006. The only time we didn't get a real distinctive result along that axis was 2012 when both presidential candidates were clearly D.C. insiders.
But Matthew-
Mitt Romney was right about the 47%. I can defend that surreptitiously-recorded remark. I couldn't defend Romney if, on that same recording he had said that he could get away with grabbing women by their pussies because he was famous.
Ultimately, I suppose, I agree. Trump says things beyond the pale/kind of dumb, frequently. But, the powder is all spent. The doubts have all been given. The grains of salt all used up.
The left tried to convince us Romney would murder people with cancer to make a quick buck; they squandered their moral authority, and now we've got Trump -- someone I didn't want to win, but the left treated McCain and Romney -- two guys I thought would make decent to good presidents -- as equally flirting with White Supremacists as Trump.
So, a lot of people on the right decided: Why nominate a polite, non-confrontational person if we're ALSO going to get tagged as being hate-filled racists? Trump's got enough going for him you can argue he isn't racist, given his work desegregating that club and the like. So, when you look at that, you come to the conclusion: Any Republican would've been "racist" to the media. So, the primary voters decided, we might as well get a fighter who punches back since, no matter who we pick, they'll be called "racist."
Trump is a reaction to the media and the left's stupidity, but polite and statesmanship lost in 2008, and this is what grew out of that loss.
Why is anyone listening to Lewandowski? I thought it was agreed that a key to Trump's victory was transferring him to the CNN payroll.
Lewandowski did some good things getting Trump through the early/mid days. He was just a disaster when it came to the late game. He still has useful insights, but Kellyanne Conway is the relief pitcher who stepped in to turn the game around and get the save. Both still "win," but she's the star.
[That's "good" in a strategic/political/tactical sense, not moral. Don't know the guy, so no judgements there.]
Yancey;
What bullshit. Your father is a complete idiot if he didn't think there was a fundamental difference between all the Republicans on one hand and all the Democrats on the other.
What a fantasy jerk-off it is, with Americans who think they can pick "an outsider." To what end? "Shake up Washington"? What does that even mean?
A Bernie presidency looks like a Hillary presidency which looks like an Elizabeth Warren presidency.
And a Trump presidency is now rather clearly looking like what I think a Santorum presidency, a Gingrich presidency or a Walker presidency would look like.
"And a Trump presidency is now rather clearly looking like what I think a Santorum presidency, a Gingrich presidency or a Walker presidency would look like."
-- But with more tweeting.
Matthew Sablan, try looking at it this way. Lewandowski was hired to get Trump through the primaries, which Trump won. Paul Manafort was hired to get Trump through the convention, where Trump was nominated. Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon were hired to manage the general election campaign, and Trump is now President.
That kind of makes sense, since those are three very different jobs.
If you're puzzled by the MSM reaction to Trump's victory, it might be useful to read this: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148844611656/the-greatest-cognitive-dissonance-trap-of-all-time
TL;DR version:
1) MSM receives information that doesn't fit their Narrative;
2) They have a choice: a) change their Narrative; b) do something completely stupid
3) Right now, they can't change their Narrative.
Not sure what it's going to take for them to "get it", but they clearly don't Get It yet.
Neither does the Clinton election team, apparently. They're still hung up on White Supremacy memes.
"John Kasich doesn't say stupid shit."
The hell you say.
You misunderstand me. I don't doubt that there were some (you say "a lot") voters who voted Obama '08, Obama '12, Trump '16. We both probably remember the stories from New Hampshire rallies last winter, where reporters interviewed rally attendees who essentially said that, "Bernie is my number one, but Trump is my number two." Or some combination thereof. Or words to that effect.
What on earth are those people thinking?
They thoroughly dislike Hillary is what I get out of it. People wanted change and nobody is less about change in the world than Hillary.
I'm a lot like Trump, for example if I say, "Jennifer Palmieri should wipe Hillary's smegma off her chin" or " Mr. Mook should wipe Hillary's shit off his soul", don't take me literally. See what I mean?
I see "Long-time Republican" Chuck is still in deep, deep denial that Trump won.
Chuck, the electorate got desperate for any kind of change. They bought it whole-hog with Obama, and didn't get it. They did so again in 2010 and 2014, and didn't get it. So, they went with Trump in 2016. Will they get? I have no clue, but I understand the reasoning.
Noted above your quibbling about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 and then turned to Trump. The evidence at the county level in the midwest is statistically overwhelming that Trump won the electoral college with precisely those kinds of voters. Sure, I get it that you don't understand their reasoning, but trying to deny they exist in quite large numbers is absolutely baffling.
"Not sure what it's going to take for them to "get it", but they clearly don't Get It yet."
They are paid to "get", or not. Their owners will "get" whatever needs "getting" depending on where their perception of their interests goes. So far they seem to be trying to maintain a threat display.
damikesc:
None of you guys seem to be able to get outside of yourselves even for just one question.
Sure, you hate the liberal/elite/insider/Washington/establishment candidates. And so you proudly and defiantly voted for Trump.
That is not what I questioned.
I asked about the group of voters who voted for Obama, and then Trump. How does anybody explain that?
A few posts above, somebody tried. The answer us supposedly they voted for anybody who promised them jobs. Of course the are going to be as disappointed in Trump as they are in Obama on that score.
The Left and the Media are currently terrified - not by anything Trump says, but by the growing suspicion that he may be a successful President, and that in 2020 not only PA, MI, and WI will go for Trump but also NH, VA, MN, CO, NM, NV, and OR. If not IL. Not to mention the outlook for the Senate. Far from assured, but he's been pretty deft so far.
Trump thinks Obama was an incompetent disaster. Are the Obama-then-Trump voters in agreement that they fucked up with their votes in 2008 and 2012?
It's not just that the media took him literally. It's that they willfully misinterpreted many of his comments to show him in the worst possible light. For example, his "call" for the Russians to hack US servers.
Chuck: Trump is the white Obama, an empty vessel into which we pour our hope for change.
buwaya puti @ 11:24: "They are rented machines, thats all."
This. Says everything.
President Mom Jeans:
I'll see y'all in Congress. And then we'll see you in court.
The entire 2+ hour discussion is as entertaining as it is informative. The Clinton camp’s butthurt is palpable; Jennifer Palmieri sounds like she’s on the verge of sobbing several times. Kellyanne Conway’s comments are withering and contemptuous. Beyond that there’s a great discussion of the art of winning with half the resources as your opponent. Toward the end it’s obvious the audience is fascinated by the Trump team’s strategy and couldn’t care less about the Clinton team. Highly recommended.
Earnest Prole said...
Chuck: Trump is the white Obama, an empty vessel into which we pour our hope for change.
You may have just won the Internet for today.
"Rumsfeld known-unknowns" Calling that stupid was stupid even by MSM standards.
Chuck said...
I asked about the group of voters who voted for Obama, and then Trump. How does anybody explain that?
12/2/16, 2:54 PM
I can't speak for them as I am not them (I was a Never Hillary from the get go) but from what I have read/heard, I believe their reasoning is as follows:
- We want to be part of something "BIG" and helping Obama get POTUS is BIG, first black president, etc.
- This is a big deal for minorities as they get to vote Democrat (which a majority of them do) and they get to vote for a minority candidate, a two-fer.
- Obama talked "hope and change". I thought his policy ideas were pure crap but he talked a good game for those not paying attention and he PROMISED good things. Obama voters wanted that.
- The media was/is in love with the idea of Obama and did all they could to support him. They presented anything they could in a positive light and tried to smother everything else. This left a lot of people believing in an Obama that just didn't exist but that dream was everything they wanted.
That hope and change did not work out for many, many people especially those that needed the dream of Obama most, minorities and the poor.
With the media's help, Obama made a second term. He continued to not live up to expectations. That is why a number of prior Obama folks went Burnie. A lot of Obama folks could SEE they were worse off than they were. They could see they were discarded. Then the DNC emails showed that the poster child for an insider (Hillary) worked with the DNC to ensure she got the go instead of Burnie. Those folks either stayed home (many may have anyway when a minority wasn't running) or went to Trump as he clearly was NOT an insider to DC.
That at least is my $0.02 for what it is worth.
Chuck said:
Mitt Romney was right about the 47%. I can defend that surreptitiously-recorded remark. I couldn't defend Romney if, on that same recording he had said that he could get away with grabbing women by their pussies because he was famous.
Trump's voters blew that awful statement off because, 1) it's true, and 2), it lights up why Trump is different. We all know that famous Democrats grab women all the time- Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein. There is a difference between Trump, who probably did it a lot, and then admits it, and the Dems, who do it even more, lie about it, get disbarred in Clinton's case for it, and then accuse their opponents of being sexist abusers of women. I won't try to convince you, or myself, that Trump is a paragon of honesty. I will tell you that this statement may have been the only honest statement made by either candidate during the campaign, and it likely earned him a few votes just for being that- an honest statement.
So if I am called upon to defend Trump in the matter of "grab 'em by the pussy," I hope you won't mind if I refer that work to you.
"Rumsfeld known-unknowns"
That schpiel was one of the most astute and brilliant things I've ever heard come out of the mouth of someone in Washington, D.C. in my lifetime.
I went to Soundcloud and actually listened to the it.
Why are people so fucking hysteria?
I didn't hear a "Shouting match" or or people screaming and attacking each other.
I heard a left-wing Campaign manager try to explain her loss by attacking the American people as "racist" and attack the Trump campaign for trying to get racist votes. And then I heard the Trump people defend themselves and say the Clinton people were just sore losers.
The aggressors were the Clinton politicos. Conway, IMO, was WAY too nice to the Mook who was your typical Left-wing asshole. But then they were in 'enemy territory'.
Not surprising that the dimwit Jennifer Palmeri is involved. Given a chance Conway would slice her into little pieces. (Metaphorically).
" the art of winning with half the resources as your opponent. "
Only true if you do not think the candidates are a resource.
Off topic, but Tucker Carlson on FOX is savaging his guest Liz Spayd public editor of the NYT and her employer right now. Damn that guy is good at prosecuting a case.
I feel sorry for her, well, not really.
Chuck, the Trumpkins don't care if you defend the guy or not. He won, so he doesn't need your help.
Me, I didn't vote for Trump and if his administration goes Tango Uniform, it won't surprise me in the least. I'm comfortable not defending him, and I'm pretty sure he'll sleep well without my help.
On the other hand, dumping on Trump supporters sounds like a great way to set up a second term for the guy. One of the worst mistakes Clinton made was the basket of deplorables thing. Insult people who had issues with Hillary and those on the fence will vote for Trump.
If you want to avoid the spectre of a Trump re-election, stop being an ass about the folks who voted for him. You need to convince the ones who voted for him reluctantly that they made a mistake. Feeding into their view of elitist dick-wads (by burning flags or calling them racists) won't do that.
Here's Tucker and NYT's Spayd tonight. enjoy
Chris Lopes said...
Chuck, the Trumpkins don't care if you defend the guy or not. He won, so he doesn't need your help.
On the other hand, dumping on Trump supporters sounds like a great way to set up a second term for the guy.
If you want to avoid the spectre of a Trump re-election,
12/2/16, 6:33 PM
How quickly you penetrate to the heart of the matter, that Chuck is a Democrat and opposes Republicans.
WTW
While the Clinton people sit at Harvard calling Trump supporters racists Trump saves 1,100 jobs at Carrier. Some of those workers whose jobs were saved were black, some Hispanic. The story specifically mentions Trump shaking hands with black and Hispanic workers.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/01/trump-pence-and-carrier-live-updates-indianapolis/94689946/
WTW
I know Bernie Sanders would not have saved those jobs unless the CEO crawled on the ground before him and agreed to render his company completely unable to compete; I know Hillary would have raised a goddess-like arm and turned all Carrier management into whining, cringing dogs unless they paid her for a speech.
WTW
I know Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon realized which approach the American voter preferred and I see President elect Donald Trump carried out his promise about Carrier even though it was only made to American voters.
WTW
Only true if you do not think the candidates are a resource.
Not at all. Despite Trump's formidable retail skills, he won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and thus the electoral college and the Presidency) by a grand total of 107,000 votes, which (as many have noted) is the number of people that will fit into a Midwestern college football stadium. Eking out that victory required strategic virtuosity deploying scarce resources. Without that Trump would have failed. Have a listen to the Harvard discussion for details.
See? Perfect illustration--the Media is hot for nuance and for context when someone on the Left says something stupid or is caught in a lie. Context, you dumb hillbilly rubes! It's not the words that Larry Lefty said, it's what he meant--he was appealing to this nuanced political theory that only the smart, educated people understand. You just can't get it...maybe you should try thinking deeply for a while and see if you can puzzle out the esoteric truth.
Reverend Wright it's a horrible racist & bigot who badmouths the nation: he's just speaking the language of Black Liberation Theology. Since you unwashed masses don't hold advanced degrees from Lefty-approved universities in x-Studies, well, you just can't be expected to ever understand. Nuance! Context!
Oh, someone not on the Left said something? Context doesn't matter. In fact, the Media will happily re-edit a clip specifically to remove the relevant context! Katie Couric's worthless hide is being sued for something like that right now, and it's how John Stewart made a living for the better part of a decade. Nuance goes right out the window, too--"we're just reporting his exact words!" Laughable bullshit--it's not just a double standard, it's a partisan weapon and the Media's all too happy to use it. They go so far in the other direction they spend most of their time inventing dog whistles and secret signals the Right must be using...so even when someone the Media doesn't like says nothing objectionable they Media will still claim they picked up a super-secret dark signal (and/or that the person, by not addressing issue X, is doing some harm).
Fuck the Media.
Here's the link to the discussion.. Very long but also very interesting. Amazing to me that the Clinton team actually seems to believe all the smears they spewed about Trump being a white supremacist. I honestly never saw any evidence of that during the campaign. Makes me even more grateful Clinton lost. We wouldn't have survived a government not based in reality.
Chuck: You are released from this burden of "defending Trump" that you keep denying you will carry. Don't worry. You don't have to. Just forget about all this political crap and live your life man! Okay, I really don't believe you are being asked to defend Trump. Nope. I don't think one single person on earth has actually put you in the position of defending Donald Trump. So I real don't see why you get so worked up over it. After all, so many of us have figured it out. The fact you list a bunch of POLITICIANS and then whine about how "Trump don't talk like them" ... Well it shows you whiffed on the whole point there, Sharpie. Donald Trump doesn't fit the behavior of a rat politician because he's not a rat politician.
There is poetic irony in the current situation where so many liberal, Hillary supporting, college educated journalists are arguing now AGAINST the postmodern relativism that they have been inculcated with for years. It's all relative...right? Suddenly - with Trump - it's very within the text close reading that would make Allan Bloom and Popes John Paul 2 and Benedict darn proud. Kind of fun to observe.
That is not what I questioned.
I asked about the group of voters who voted for Obama, and then Trump. How does anybody explain that?
They voted for Obama for change. He didn't deliver. They still wanted change as their situation certainly never improved. Hillary is as status quo as humanly possible. Trump is most "change" of the candidates.
The answer was provided.
"Rumsfeld known-unknowns" Calling that stupid was stupid even by MSM standards.
Up there with their bitching about his "You go to war with the army you got" comment. You can always find flaws in any military. You cannot hope to have perfection. You work with what you have, not what you wish you had.
If I am in an argument with smart liberals, and I am called upon to defend Trump, I can't do it.
Are you really a lawyer, a lawyer unable to argue the other side?
The pro-Trump argument is the one that Althouse has been making for months; that Trump is messaging on a level beyond the plain meaning of his words. I hate that shit. Presidents and the greatest of world leaders should be elevating the language, not debasing it. This has nothing to do with any particular policy or principle. It has to do with Trump borrowing stupid standup comedy lines like he prefers people who weren't captured. Or patently false historical examples like General Pershing executing Muslim prisoners with bullets dipped in pigs' blood.
You all are so much like Trump; I can see the attraction. I question the particular cohort of voters who did the inexplicable votes for Obama and then later for Trump. And the reaction is to attack me personally, accuse me of being a Democrat, and otherwise failing to maintain any sensible dialogue on the discrete class of Obama + Trump voters.
Chuck, you are beyond sensible dialogue. For one thing, you don't offer it. "Wipe out" 75% of the Trump voters, will you? Your credibility is zero here. Like the name of Hitler is going to be forever associated with evil, the name of Chuck is now and forever associated with objectively Democrat-serving bullshit pretending to be other than that. You say you've been around, but nobody remembers you.
You have nothing to offer but blind rage. You are not useful or valuable. Who should have any concerns about pleasing you or meeting your needs? It's funny, from time to time I run into people who say, I don't want your respect, I don't need your respect. When you treat them accordingly, they suddenly find that they didn't mean it that way. It's pretty funny, but not to them.
So, yeah, you're dogshit on our boots. You get what you get. Frankly I'm enjoying your very real pain and fear, masked as aggression, and I want it to continue. So please don't learn. Don't have humility. Don't recognize that you were wrong. Don't seek to change or improve. Above all else, don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. As a lawyer of course you already knew that, but I mean, don't risk gaining knowledge or being corrected in error. Just go on exactly as you are, and bleed out your a******* for the rest of your life. Because despite what you said elsewhere, you'd rather not be right, then to admit that you were wrong.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा