“Get over it” say Trump supporters
I’ve noticed the line over and over from Trump supporters addressing people who aren’t the least bit happy at the prospect of a Trump nomination: “Get over it!”
It seems to summarize the feeling tone of a lot of the Trump activists online: we are the wave of the future, resistance is futile, it’s time to welcome your new insect overlords. That’s not persuasive, but they’re not trying to persuade. They’re trying to overpower and to discourage with a chant of “nah nah nah nah nah.”
Many Trump supporters also write things like, “You forced me to vote for Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney, because they were the nominees. So now you’d better vote for Trump if he’s the nominee unless you want to be called out for the hypocrite you are.” Leaving aside the fact that it’s not possible to force someone to vote for a particular candidate (short of holding a gun to the person’s head and going into the voting both with him), are there parallels here?
I don’t think so. Trump is not just a candidate with whom people differ on policy items, or think is too conservative or not conservative enough or whatever it was that people didn’t like about the aforementioned Gang of Four, he represents a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. This is no ordinary disagreement between the more moderate and more conservative wings of the party; this a difference more profound.
Here are a few reasons why Trump’s candidacy isn’t business as usual:
(1) Never having held any public office at any level, Trump has no record to look to and no experience in office-holding or governing.
(2) Trump has a history of supporting Democrats and has called himself a liberal on most issues, and if he’s a bona fide political changer he’s certainly never explained his change (unlike, for example, Reagan, who worked for conservative causes for decades after his political change, and then held office for many years at the governor level).
(3) There are multiple character issues with Trump that are well-known and dramatic and go to the heart of whether he has anything like the temperament required to be president.
(4) Trump often shows little grasp of policy issues when speaking, and is inconsistent on a host of subjects, putting out proposals and almost immediately walking them back or modifying them considerably.
(5) Trump has leveled an extremely serious charge against the previous Republican president (Bush lied!!), one that heretofore was only offered by the far left.
(6) Trump has shown a marked tendency towards strongman rule, with him as the strongman.
(7) Trump is not supported by the majority of Republican voters; he has a plurality only, and a lot of his votes seem to come in the primaries from Democrats (who may or may not actually support him in the general).
These are qualitatively different objections than the objections to previous candidates and nominees. In fact, a good argument can be made that someone as far outside a particular party as Trump is would ordinarily run Independent or third-party, and that his Republican candidacy can be likened to a hostile takeover. Whether people who think that way are alarmists is unknown, but what is certainly true is that Trump is a very, very different candidate. That accounts for both the intensity of his support and for the intensity of the opposition to him.
I won’t vote for Trump, because he’s unpredictable as hell. That, combined with his brashness, and his tendency to shoot his mouth off scares the hell out of me. I’m not going to vote for Hillary, so I’ll either drop a vote on a Libertarian candidate, or not cast a vote for president. I do understand that this guarantees a Hillary or Sanders presidency, although I’m not sure Trump would win anyway. While I despise the woman, at least I have a pretty good idea what she’ll do. I doubt she’ll have the entire world at war within 6 months of the time she becomes president. I think Trump might, and he sounds crazy enough to me that he’d take it go nuclear. Maybe a Republican congress can keep her in check to some degree. So, get over THAT!
My only quibble would be with #4. It’s more than often, more like almost always shows little grasp of policy issues. Otherwise, you nailed it. Just wish I didn’t feel like it’s preaching to the choir. His supporters don’t seem to care.
I’ve noticed that many bloggers/writers on the web who are otherwise interesting and careful writers devolve into the edge of Trumpism quickly. I wondered at why this would be but soon discovered that if they fell into a grumpy, the world is doom thinking in the past, they will support Trump as the best match to burn it all down.
Optimistic writers are the ones who never fell under the Trump spell as they refuse to accept the end is nigh.
Neo:
“(4) Trump often shows little grasp of policy issues when speaking …
(5) Trump has leveled an extremely serious charge against the previous Republican president (Bush lied!!) …”
Answers to “Did Bush allow enough time for the inspections?” and “Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?”;
Answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?”.
Reasons (4) and (5) are linked given that, one, on the evidence, knowing what we know now, the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was correct, and two, at the time of the decision, the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement had been a defining, leading, deeply engaged, headline-news priority for American leadership in the world for over a decade.
Similar to the current office holder, for Trump to miscomprehend the grounds for OIF – in Trump’s case as radically as “Bush lied!” – is a profound concern about anyone aspiring to the office with the responsibility to lead the free world.
Let’s say you believe Trump is more of a democrat and he wins the nomination. Why in tarnation would you vote for Hillary (much more leftist, if that is where you are coming from regarding Trump) or not vote at all or vote 3rd party?
This is what I don’t get. Wouldn’t you at least vote for the Republican candidate?
Would his brand of what you believe to be democrat positions be WORSE than what Hillary is offering? Maybe that is a better tack to take with the Trump dislikers.
Hillary’s record of public office is not something to aspire to. What damage do you think Trump would do in office that would be worse than a Hillary presidency?
The latest links at Drudge evidence that Ted Cruz’s most ardent supporters seemed determined to sink his campaign.
K-E:
“What damage do you think Trump would do in office that would be worse than a Hillary presidency?”
The answer by historical analogy is, quoting Chiang Kai-shek, “The Japanese are a disease of the skin. The Communists are a disease of the heart.”
In other words, (political) core survival.
Via take-over of the GOP, whether or not Trump wins the presidency in November, the Trump-front alt-Right activist insurgency that’s the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon is driving to displace conservatives in the American political landscape in the same essential manner their role model, Left activists, displaced liberals (the real ones, not the leftist masqueraders).
(1) not relevant… not the first president with that, nor will he be the last, and thats the same as obama too… for the same price you can say none of the socialist communists ran a company and that makes them unsuited to rule a capitalist country and help it.. (evne more so as that forces them to violate their oaths of office)
(2) (in this example i am NOT associating what the man did with trump, but how we pick and choose whether the associations fit) and oskar schindler would appear to be in teh same boat as both live in leftist worlds and would HAVE to appear as such whether they like it or not so there is actually no way to know if he did cause he wants to succeed, or he is so political he can accept failure for ideological reasons… its a damned if you do damned if you dont proposition when your in a place dominated by dems for over 100 years and really nothing else rules in ny from taminy to now… same wiht the mob, etc… schindler had ot deal with nazis, should he have made a stand and been murdered in the camps? would you make a stand and put your family fortune and future at risk for people who hate you and would not know you if you did?…
(3) not the first or last president with that, ford fell a lot, nixon was dirty, clinton was a sex fiend along with kennedy, the lion of the senate murdered a girl and left her to drown, another was an alcoholic, and if you dont think lbj whipping out his penis and calling it jumbo wasnt a flaw… another non point… (and evne MORE so if you put up the democrats that are this way and notice my list is mostly them)
(4) yeah, and the communists show little grasp of economics… but he will have wonks and such and make choices based on what they say to him, so its also a non issue and he isnt the first pres or last…
its just that your holding him to a level you havent held obama to, or anyone else. thats so he loses
(5) non point, even less if crus hires the banking scandal people iran contra people and lost one campaing perosn to a lying video, and more.
(6) So? he is limited the same way every other strong man is, and if you thikn they wont hesitate to throw the bum out and impeage him, your nutters… hitler was liked by his political cadre, so he could act and they would join, a strong man with no followers is just a noisy blowhard… hey.. isnt that what he is?
by the way.. the buck stops here is not a weak position, nor is talk softly but carry a big stick… care to hear others?
(7) again, irrelevent… our system does not require he be that, ours is a system of REPRESENTATIVES… so if the people want him and not the etsblished players who make the rules that this point bows to, then so be it.
[edited for length by n-n]
>>”Get over it!”
Almost parallel to The Left’s “Deal with it!”
Stinko allegations have been raised by the ghost WRT Mrs Cruz’s securities backed borrowings from Goldman Sachs.
1) As a licensed broker// trader she was and is required to keep her activity within the firm. No broker ever permits an employee to have an outside account.
2) It is normal for such employees to obtain rock bottom interest rates for such secured loans. Due to Fed policy, today such rates really are at rock bottom.
3) As a fully secured loan the matter was routine — and would not raise any concerns at all. The security for the loan could be cashed out — at will — by Goldman Sachs — truly at any time for any reason.
I don’t know if she tapped a 401-K as well.
As the wife of a sitting US Senator, we can assume that her employment status was rock solid.
4) By lending $$$ to his campaign, the loans could be paid off out of plain vanilla campaign contributions…. and probably were.
Other than a paperwork snafu — there is no scandal to be found here.
BTW, Trump has lent funds to his campaign… on a MUCH more substantial scale.
So, rather than financing his own campaign… he’s letting his supporters do so.
This is topped off by staggering amounts of free press — whereas Ted Cruz has been swarm attacked with silence.
%%%%%
The only way to stop Trump at this point is for Kasich and Rubio to drop out.
That would cause ALL of the not-Trump vote to drop onto Ted.
Trump would then lose Ohio and Florida.
If past primaries are any guide, a Trump//Cruz ticket appears to be in the cards.
If so, the Fall campaign will be one of the nastiest.
As Hillary and Trump will have to raise the negatives of the other to prevail.
Trump is a clown.
I used to think he was a silly clown.
Now I think he’s a dangerous clown, like the one from “It.”
I have a difficult time seeing a Trump/Cruz ticket.
It’s not impossible, and maybe my estimation of Cruz is too high, but I get the feeling that he is a man of principle and would not bend the knee to a man like Trump.
OTOH, I would’ve said the same about Carson before a month ago.
The Washington political establishment has hit the panic button. Not because they are afraid of any one individual or candidate, but because they are afraid of losing their own political power.
GOP SEN: PANICKED ESTABLISHMENT LOSING CONTROL
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/14/why-washingtons-political-class-is-losing-control/
A recent survey of likely Republican primary voters showed that 86 percent believe that “people like me don’t have any say about what the government does.”
Another recent exit poll in my home state of Georgia showed six in ten Republicans felt “betrayed” by their political party.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
let me point out that in this game of trump trumps, you either vote for someone who is part of the establishement (Bernie, hillary, cruz) or someone you hope is not… (trump)…
game odds on this is that, at worse, you are in the same place you would be if you voted for the known establishment person (and you can argue that cruz isnt despite his heavy hitters criminal and non jail past, or that trump isnt, despite his not being in that meleiu except when having to do some business and is forced to be there)
[edited for length by n-n]
…Brutal Honesty is the New Prozac
The truth may not always be ugly, but it is never pretty — especially when private demons are involved. You have to ask yourself “Who am I and what do I say I do versus what I actually do?” What you say you do is who you feel you need to be; what you actually do is who you really are. You have to explore that discrepancy to understand your compatibility with the world and assess the intrinsic and consensual realities of your life.
ntrinsic realities are things that are real and exist in nature, like fire, disease, breathing, body types and parades.
and given the collective consensual reality the left has been creating all around and all the time… trump is disliked for not being a part of it by those who like want or require it…
but to those who live more in the intrinsic reality, trump doesnt bother us very much… as we see it as plain speak… even if he changes his mind (as we do), or he expressesh imself poorly for getting rewards from trained seals (as we do)… or hates tip toe in the egg shell mindfield to asuage violent leftists and so on (as we do).
while the people more liked by the upper crusty and political astute, have to fake being regular guys, regular guys are hated by them for not being plastic when they want plastic.
but that is a form of blistering honesty..
its saying, take me as a person, not as a manequin that says what you want to hear, and does what it wants otherwise.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201512/brutal-honesty-is-the-new-prozac
[edited for length by n-n]
if you have to killl it can you kill the top and not the psych today passages as to brutal honesty and the intrinsic vs concentual reality?
its key cause professionals live in a consentual reality as to academics and higher social classes… but the regular joe, they think such is a lie and fakery to dress up lies and fakery… they want to open a beer not sip champaign they dont like… etc.
I am not a Trumpeteer, nor a Trump activist, nor a booster, merely a defender. Nevertheless, herewith an attempt to persuade:
Trump has consternated Mexican political elites, Deutschland’s vice-chancellor, and assorted ponces of Britain’s useless Parliament. He called the Pope out on immigration, called out Megan K., told FOX to take a hike, told Hillary to shut the hell up, and has put fear in the eyes the GOP Establishment lapdogs. The “mainstream” hates him, the media hates him, the GOP Establishment hates him – they hadn’t shown any early enmity — it was only after Trump routinely routed the Establishment’s favorite sons — first eviscerating Jeb, then dismissing Marco, that the schemers came out of their rat’s nests behind the walls.) The elite, the oligarchs, the banksters, Goldman Sachs, corporations, all disdain him. NPR and P- tele revile him. IT billionaires are out to stop him, as they simultaneously design less freedom of speech and more social justice codes of conduct.
What to make of it all?
Oh! and George ‘fuckeverything’ Soros contributes to shutting Trump up… and down. What the hell more could anyone possibly want — an endorsement carved on stone tablets from God himself?
For the first time, at least in my lifetime, there’s no need to ruminate, to dwell, ponder, mull, or cogitate over who should sit in the highest office in the land. The measure has been taken, the standard met. If any doubt the method as too much madness, recall only this. The one man perhaps most qualified to sit upon the Supreme Court, by truly conservative lights — Robert Bork – was the most vilified and lied about. He ought to have been not just defended but fought for, tooth and nail. Instead… well… most everyone is aware of the sad tale of GOP/Cons puckering on demand.
The measure of a man may well be the vituperation, calumny and political high mindedness (read political correctness) that are spit into his face by the Liberal/Progressive/Leftist cabals. One may tell much about a man by taking stock of his enemies*.
Is Trump so wonderful as to be a Constitutional scholar the like of our current demolisher-in-chief? Has he the dulcet tone and gentle demeanor the like of our present divider-in-chief? Can he praise a thing as he simultaneously works to subvert it as can our brave commander-in-chief?
No. Thank the gods and heavens.
Would he fail? He may well. But he will have set out to preserve a nation and not destroy it. And that’s a recommendation in my book; and none better, at this time, can be made.
*From Ann Barnhardt regarding the regard of demons — goes as much for the demoniacal:
“Consider this: what if, right now, an actual demon manifested in front of you. You could see it, in all of its hideousness, with your own eyes just as clearly as you are seeing these words on your screen. Now, what if this demon, hideous and repulsive, starting berating you. “LOOK AT YOU! I hate you! I can’t stand you! You’re stupid! You make me sick! You’re a terrible person! F*** YOU!”
Well, I reckon most people would NOT have their soul crushed to know that a demon hates them, right? You’d have to be one massively insecure piece of work to be all broken up because a denizen of hell didn’t hold you in high esteem. I mean, dude, it’s a demon. Of course it hates you. Duh. That is its nature. To be hated by a demon is no cause for offense. Heck, if a demon DIDN’T hate you, that would be cause for serious concern, right?”
For as much and as long as all the right culprits hate Mr Trump, I believe him worthy of at least consideration.
blert Says: Other than a paperwork snafu – there is no scandal to be found here.
WRONG blert…
campaign law comes into play here
and borrowing against a 401k is limited to 50k
so you cant get 750k loan for 50k of your 401k
and if you leave, thats comes under other things.
1) At least one of these loans (the Goldman one) was “secured” by a brokerage account.
thats why it was a margin loan.
2) You can borrow against a 401k — up to 50% of its value. to a limit of 50k / 401k couldn’t have been his, since he didn’t work for Goldman and further, if you leave a job you must immediately repay the entire balance of any loan you have out or it is considered a premature distribution and subject to a penalty tax
but they got over a million
3) no other sort of retirement account, such as a self-directed IRA, rollover from a previous 401k into an IRA or otherwise, can be margined.
loans for campaigns are not like loans for a deck, a car, a student loan…
where are the details of said loan including the interest rate charged?
what if they loaned him a million dollars with no interest? would he feel quid pro quo was in order?
your trying to avoid all campaign finance law and treat the loans as normal loans, when they were for a campaign.
but the problem here is that when he reported them, he didnt say they were for a campaign, they exceed the limit on a 401k account… and the penalty was not paid when wife left the job.
there is a lot more…
but as i have said before, its a game of your ignorance against their knowlege…
here, read the rules…
http://www.fec.gov/rad/candidates/documents/CanGuide91013-104.pdf
then answer:
what was the rate of the loan?
when were payments made and how much?
where are the proper schedule forms?
etc
you dont get to do whatever you want with a loan…
depending on use, a loan has different rules about it
so your points are non points in ignorance that sound good, but are not real given LAW.
Neo,
I’l add an (8) to your list: Trump has provided our enemies and adversaries with a goldmine of propaganda to keep their people in line: See this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/14/china-paper-says-rise-of-racist-trump-shows-democracy-is-scary/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_wv
Do you think cooperative Muslims across the world will trust the US? Or do you think they might face popular revolts? Trump is a disaster.
Even though I don’t want either one, if left with no choice the reasons I might prefer Hillary to Trump are:
1) if the Republicans keep the House and Senate, they are more likely to block her. they would probably pass any hare-brained thing Trump comes up with.
2) I think it’s more likely she would be a one term President than Trump.
3) if Trump loses, the Republican party has more of a chance to right themselves. maybe.
here is another thing you should read if your going to argue about the loans and the lack of proper filing
Congressional Candidates and Committees.
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf
by the way, this is why its illegal for laymen to give legal advice. they often imagine law as they think it should be and not law as it is… law is not reason writ to the court, law is law, and reason is reason, and often the two are not aligned
While The New York Times report does admit that “there would have been nothing improper about Mr. Cruz obtaining bank loans for his campaign, as long as they were disclosed,” he could be violating campaign finance laws by failing to disclose the sources of the loans — Goldman Sachs and Citibank — on the FEC form. Importantly, “other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures.”
Even though Cruz disclosed these loans on other forms — which Stirewalt points to in defense of Cruz — as campaign finance law expert and former election commission lawyer Ken Gross explained in The New York Times report, that would not be enough to satisfy the FEC requirement:
http://www.401khelpcenter.com/loans.html
Allowing loans within a 401k plan is allowed by law, but an employer is not required to do so. Many small business just can’t afford the high cost of adding this feature to their plan. Even so, loans are a feature of most 401k plans. If offered, an employer must adhere to some very strict and detailed guidelines on making and administering them.
If a participant has had no other plan loan in the 12 month period ending on the day before you apply for a loan, they are usually allowed to borrow up to 50% of their vested account balance to a maximum of $50,000*. If the participant had another plan loan in the last 12 month period, they will be limited to 50% of their vested account balance, or $50,000, minus the outstanding loan balance in the preceding 12-month period, whichever is less.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
his loans were several times that amount
also, while the law does not restrict what you want the loan for, businesses do. so if the companies had policies that restricted the loans to things like home, school, etc… a campaign would be a special thing that they allowed no other employee could have, that would not be legal to cahnge the company loan rules for such things
and while the reason is not illegal, there are tons of reporting requirements for EACH FORM.. you cant say i filed X on taxes but not on the FEC form, they should look at what they dont have access to and figure it out. if it says you ahve to report, you have to report and submit.
also, if you report that the loan is for X and you use it for Y and you dont amend the reporting if Y requires it, your also in trouble.. .
Cruz had spoken out about “the political clout of Goldman Sachs in particular” when he said, “Like many other players on Wall Street and big business, they seek out and get special favors from government.”
which makes it funny that his biggest contributors are the same people he accused of wanting specvial favors and whom, without loaning him money, may not have been in office.
“>>”Get over it!”
Almost parallel to The Left’s “Deal with it!”
Or “I won.”
Trump Fan never considers possible alternatives, refuses to view reality other than from a Trump perspective, and is terminally outraged about everything. Sounds like Obama Fan. The reference to the outrage about being “forced” to vote for “establishment wimps” is very typical and constantly reiterated even in the face of all kinds of evidence that Trump is OF not OUTSIDE of the establishment. Like they’re the only ones who were less than impressed by Dole, McCain, even Bush and Romney? The only ones entitled to be angry? Logic does not penetrate; anger is all and there’ no “off” switch. I think some of them are nihilists and some are just having fun #winning for once and some just love being angry and outraged. Trumpeting polls that are good and discounting polls that are bad. Yay, Palin, I love her. Boo, Fiorina, what a loser. Reporterette had it coming. Also, I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation why they never considered Cruz. It started with attempting to conflate Cruz with “the establishment.” That obviously didn’t fly so they moved on to “he’s too religiousy and that’s off putting.” Inclusive! Plus, Cruz has repeatedly taken the very conservative position that many of these social justice issues are to be left to the states so his religious views are largely irrelevant. Then they move on to the claim that Cruz is “unelectable” (even and despite polling indicating Cruz doing better against Clinton than Trump). Lastly as the Trumpwagon picked up speed, the constant jeering and calls to get out of the race, personal attacks about his looks, etc.
As worried as I am about a Trump presidency I have resigned myself to the possibility and will vote for the guy rather than given the Clinton Cartel (Let’s Make History Repeat Itself) any more access to power to debase the nation even further. BUT I’m even more depressed about Trump Voters and their neverending tunnel vision hero worship anger delivery system.
The analogy to hostile (business) takeovers is not an automatic negative, Neo.
A hostile business takeover is usually worked on a company that has been badly run, with beaten-down stock and (necessarily) suffering shareholders. The Hostiles buy enough stock to force change, either by negotiation or at the annual shareholder meeting. They get seats on the Board, change the direction and management of the company, often reaping handsome profits from the climbing stock price, and, yes, Neo, sometimes sucking the company dry. But the latter is by no means automatic.
The ones who suffer at the hands of a hostile takeover are the sitting board members, the CEO and other heavyweights. It is their resistance that makes the takeover hostile.
So the Trump (or Cruz) hostile takeover is a bad thing for the GOP biggies, but not necessarily GOP voters or Americans in general. Of course, the takeover has to succeed in order to get the Hostiles empaneled.
Voting for whichever Dem nominee instead of Trump, or sitting out, is madness. Of course I pray for Cruz!
Yeah, I’m going to overlook everything wrong with Trump, which is a really long list, because of a loan Cruz got. Maybe I just picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
“Many Trump supporters also write things like, “You forced me to vote for Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney, because they were the nominees. So now you’d better vote for Trump if he’s the nominee unless you want to be called out for the hypocrite you are.” [But Trump] “represents a hostile takeover of the Republican Party.”
I agree that Trump presents a de facto ‘hostile takeover’ of the GOP. I fully agree with neo’s 1-7 points about Trump, they are undeniable.
Tom states, “I won’t vote for Trump, because he’s unpredictable as hell.”
I agree that Trump is unpredictable. How fears of what might be with Trump, surpass… the certainty of Hillary’s predictability; utter ruination and irreversibility of the republic’s destruction with one party rule, makes no rational sense to me.
DirtyJobsGuy labels as ‘optimistic’, a refusal to accept as reality, what he cannot disprove. That’s a faith based argument, not a reasoned rationale.
blert,
Nothing is more ‘ardent’ than dogma.
“The only way to stop Trump at this point is for Kasich and Rubio to drop out. That would cause ALL of the not-Trump vote to drop onto Ted.”
That presumes that a GOPe facing a hostile takeover by Trump, prefers Cruz to Trump. But Trump, if successful is a ‘deal maker’. While, if he fails in the election, becomes discredited. Do you really think that the GOPe is scared of one-party rule?
Trump is a bump in the road for the GOPe, that’s because the democrat’s crony capitalism proves them corruptible, so the GOPe becoming another powerful (money talks) special interest group in a one-party ruled State can be easily achieved. One the other hand, Cruz’s constitutional principles and religiosity, make him a mortal threat.
Art, in a former life I was a licensed broker.
We handed out margin loans like crazy. We didn’t care whatsoever where the funds went off to. Ever.
The way the margin accounts were set up, a client could borrow against their position by merely writing a check.
This is still the standard today for all significant accounts.
As an employee, Mrs. Cruz would certainly have such a capability.
Our rates were always way underneath all other lenders.
I can’t judge the details of Mrs. Cruz’s activities from a far remove.
We are only working off of highly partisan accounts.
It’s quite likely that she’s reasonably rich — and that the entire amount came out of her margin account.
Her 401-K, if any, would’ve been tiny by comparison.
As a Goldman Sachs employee — her wages — for years on end — figure to be ‘box cars.’
The average pay at GS is well north of $400,000 per year — and I’d figure her to be earning north of $800,000 per year.
In sum, you are chasing a ghost scandal.
( Some brokers in my office were making $600,000 per MONTH — thirty-years ago. )
For the amounts you’re describing — at GS they’re peanuts.
Clarifying addendum: The GOPe will find a way to work with a Pres. Trump. While the GOPe cooperating with a Pres. Cruz ends the gravy train.
If a Pres. Trump is a dem plant, that just presents the GOPe with continued collaboration with the dems. IF Trump is sincere and elected, he’s a deal maker and accommodations can be made. If Hillary is elected, either business continues as usual or the dems gain a new special interest group. Only a Pres. Cruz presents no clear path forward.
Good piece by Jim Geraghty at National Review: No, Let’s Not Burn the System Down
from Jim Geraghty at National Review: No, Let’s Not Burn the System Down:
“You dare not call yourself conservative if you belong to this arson-minded mass. Conservatives are here to preserve, create, and build, not to ignite and destroy.”
That’s rich, and par for the NR course – talk out both sides of your lying, forked tongue, mouths.
Conservatism of the sort subscribed to by the likes of National Review by which nothing is to be conserved especially the white working class.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/12/national-review-writer-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/
After delenda est GOP; delenda est National Review.
As GB notes now, and as he and I have noted before, there are many with in GOP who believe Trump can be controlled and fear a Cruz presidency. Their mistake is failure to realize Trump can not be controlled. Hell, Trump can’t control himself.
When Sanders allowed BLM thugs to hijack one of his rallies Trump bragged that he would face down rally busters and never surrender his podium. What happened in Chicago? Trump skedaddled and surrendered his podium. Even though the anti-Trump protesters were outside the rally venue. Trump claims the CPD asked him to not continue with the rally. The CPD claims it did not ask him to end the rally. In this case I find the CPD more credible.
If Trump gains the nomination it will be “get over it” time for Trump supporters one Wednesday morning in November. I promise not to say I told you…. well, with fingers crossed.
Even though the anti-Trump protesters were outside the rally venue.
Putting the blame where it belongs – and it’s not Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thpwn4Pkfqg
JurassiCon Rex – I don’t believe that people are to be praised for the enemies they have. But let’s go with it for a second. Trump has alienated the conservative press and conservative politicians. He’s declared war on the budget hawks, the military hawks, and the socons. He’s spit on the party, veterans, W, the rich, the poor, anyone without a WASP ancestry, women, the Pope, the Constitution, and I’m getting tired of writing the same sentence so I’m going to stop. He’s not the enemy of my enemy; he’s the enemy of everyone except for his followers, and how long is he going to stay loyal to them?
Perhaps when Trump supporters say, “Get over it”, they are responding to a message that translates as, “I hate your guy, and he should not be running, and he’s ruining everything, and his policies are not perfect conservative ones, and you’re stupid for supporting him.”
Here are some factual observations:
1. It’s a free country, and anyone can run for President, as long as they are 35 and a natural-born citizen (humor break–even Canadians like Ted Cruz).
2. Seventeen candidates started out running for the nomination, with many withdrawing, leaving the current four. Those who withdrew chose to do so. Any other major Republican figure could have also run, but they did not choose to do so.
3. The rules for the Republican primary were set in place by the RNC well before Trump or any other candidate began running. Trump is doing well, and gaining delegates, according to the rules.
4. Trump did pledge not to run independent last year. Trump is a major public figure, and has flirted with Presidential runs in the past, but never as a Democratic candidate.
5. More people are voting in this year’s primaries than in previous times. Is this a bad thing, especially when only half the electorate votes in Presidential election years, and even less in the mid-terms? Getting new voters, and more voters, is good.
6. Romney might have won, or at least done better, in 2012 had he gotten more of the voters that now seem to be supporting Trump. All of the talking heads who said Romney lost because of not appealing to Hispanics were wrong.
7. It seems that Trump is tapping into a nationalist and populist and working-class sentiment that has been ignored by both parties for a long time.
If Trump does achieve the nomination, then his opposition in November will either be the face of modern corruption (Hillary) or a socialist (Bernie) or an alternative like Joe Biden. I hope that all those on the Right can set aside their differences, and look to the best interests of the country.
Nick,
There’s no such a thing as a conservative press. It’s all wind and bad smell. See my comment @6:08 for the link to National Review’s conservatism, just for one example.
And don’t mistake Trump’s bad manners for anything more than that. Mr Trump has in most every case responded to an attack on him first, including the Pope and especially members of his own party.
It’s time to take a deep breath, assess the uncertain present and stop convincing ourselves of these inevitable futures. It’s not clear that Trump will get a delegate majority. A lot of conservatives say they won’t show up for Trump in November, but what if Trump gets nominated and is smart enough to put Cruz or Rubio on the ticket — let’s wait and see. Who knows, if all else fails, maybe a stop Clinton/Trump movement will put Bernie in as a 3rd party candidate. We need to remember that a decision to not show up in November hurts GOP candidates all the way down the ballot.
I agree with Mark30339, and I have repeatedly stated that I will support whoever the Republican candidate is in November.
And having seen what happened in Chicago just a few days ago, this is why:
Here is a report from the Chicago rally that sounds credible:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/
Video from CNN, reporting inside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_S9C5qEVo
Trump supporters having to run the gauntlet as they leave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYH-eP3xbjM
And a compilation, set to Bernie Sanders’ campaign music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MburRPlmXMo
Trump made the right decision to cancel the rally. It was a very wise and prudent move on his part. Imagine if only one hundred, or even just a dozen, of those people—who were already inside and well-prepared—tried to rush the stage, just like that one guy did in Ohio the next day. Someone would have gotten killed.
The tragedy this year is not Donald Trump; the real tragedy is that the Left has gone mad, and that those people are our fellow American citizens.
JurassiCon Rex – Did that handicapped reporter have it coming? Was Donald Trump right to make fun of John McCain for not being a hero? What about Ben Carson? Why is it the only person I can think of that Trump has praised fullthroatedly is Vladimir Putin?
You’re the one who wanted to rate Trump based on his enemies. Well, let’s look at his friends. Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Vladimir Putin. Why does Trump have bad manners toward Paul Ryan but not Nancy Pelosi? And is endorsing war crimes “bad manners”? Might it not be more reasonable to conclude that his manners reflect bad judgment?
People with bad manners and no character weakness apologize once they realize they’ve made a mistake. Does Trump apologize often?
Is it bad manners to call someone a liar when he’s telling the truth about you? Is it bad manners to cheat on your wife? How bad must your manners be to have never taken a moral stand on anything throughout your entire adult life? Or maybe this is something deeper than manners?
Mr. Jurassic,
Trump was not under any threat, or fear for his safety. Do you think his decision to abandon his podium showed how tough he is, or will it embolden the moveon/blm thugs? Your video link does not make the donald morph into donald the brave. Pathetic.
This moveon/blm mob is not going away. In fact it will grow and become more ugly. Trump or Cruz, its a matter of get over it and deal with it, or get out of the kitchen when it makes you sweat and feel uncomfortable.
Yes, yes, yes, you will rationalize Trump’s retreat. BFD.
Nick,
It’s all nitpicking. Trump, a private businessman, cannot be held to the same standard as public servants. Trump’s running with the dogs doesn’t bother me in the least. Furthermore, he’s been bad mannered and dead wrong innumerable times but none of it matters, apparently, to a great mass of voters. I think they have more consequential matters on their mind than McCain’s honor or any other faux pas.
Yankee Says:
I hope that all those on the Right can set aside their differences, and look to the best interests of the country.
Not me. I’ve decided that if Trump wins, it must’ve been by cheating and I intend to “burn it down” instead. At least I’ll have the satisfaction of burning down the house around the cheaters.
Parker,
If you knew anything of the shooting gallery that is Chicago you would realize he was in danger the moment he landed in town. Furthermore, I expect the police, badly outnumbered, and the secret service would have insisted Trump quit the stage.
The video was not meant to make Trump heroic. It was meant to show the STOP TRUMP movement as dangerously anarchic and antidemocratic. To that I believe there can be no argument.
“Nitpicking”? Are we doing lines from Spinal Tap now? Because I’ve got a two-word review for the Trump campaign.
You’ve said that you are ok with electing another race-baiting narcissist for President, not that a great mass of voters is. You’re the one defending Trump. You’re defending the guy who has no record of decency or standing up for what’s right, who lies about people and encourages crowds to violence. You’re the one.
Sure, he has no record of public service. So let’s judge him on the record he has. He convinces people to support him on projects that fail, over and over again. And he’s admitted that he’s willing to negotiate away every position he’s taken over the past year, to the extent that he understands any of them. He’s either been ignorant his whole life, or he has contempt for every person who has ever backed him. What do you think he thinks of you?
The National Review lost its way — even during the final years of William Buckley’s reign.
Today’s NR is fossilized.
The stuff they put out — is all over the place.
One more thing then it’s bed time. I never served in the Marines, but on behalf of my dad, uncle, and grandfather, it’s more than a faux pas to say that they’d kill innocent women and children if Trump asked them to. That’s not a failing of social grace. Especially not from a man who’s auditioning for Commander-in-Chief.
Matt_SE,
Are you being facecious? How exactly could Trump ‘cheat’ his way to the nomination? If Trump’s the nominee, and you refuse to vote for him, how do you avoid your share of responsibility for electing the democrat? By what calculus does ‘almost certainly bad’ outweigh certain disaster?
At base, critics of Trump, who say they will not vote for him are saying that he will do more harm to America than those who are dedicated to a path that will inescapably lead to America’s dissolution. This while faced with the prospect that another 4-8 years of what we have experienced under Obama will make impossible, escaping that fate.
There will be no second chance to get it right in the next election because 15-30 million new “undocumented democrats” will have sealed America’s fate.
What do you think he thinks of you?
Couldn’t care less about what he thinks of me or McCain, or the Bushes. I care only that he had brought to the forefront the existential question of America’s continued existence.
“We either have a country, or we don’t have a country”
“A nation without borders is not a nation”
“A nation without laws is not a nation”
“A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation”
– D. Trump
Nick,
While every other criticism you cite is arguably valid, the base charge that Trump is a “race baiter” is without merit.
His criticism of the character of illegal immigrants is that, by acting criminally to get here, they are criminals. It’s one thing to steal a loaf of bread when starving, it’s entirely another to invade another’s home “in order to have a better life”.
Declaring that a reliable means of vetting Muslim migrants must be implemented before refuge can be offered is not ‘race baiting’.
Mr, Jurassic,
I lived in Chicago, 1973-79. My daughter lives in Chicago. I visit Chicago 4 times a year. So I understand Chicago, perhaps far better than you. So, don’t tell me about Chicago unless you have close ties with the Chicago machine and on the ground experience. Chicago has not changed in the past 30+ years when I lived and worked there. If Trump can’t take the heat he should exit the kitchen. Obviously, he could not, hence his speedy exit from Chicago.
AND, quoting Trump is very close to quoting Mao. Yesterday’s rice gruel for the masses. You may be Jurassic, but IMO you need to grow up by 200 million years.
Trump is not a racist, I second GB @ 10:35. But not being a racist does not mean Trump is not a bombastic, buffoon, and a clueless wannabe player pretending to be the Wizard of Oz in his imaginary over the rainbow Manhattan.
Parker,
Your experience of Chicago is woefully lacking. Chicago 30 years ago and now are two different cities. Chicago in the time of Rahm and Obama isn’t much more inviting than Detroit or Baltimore. Criminal activity has made its way to the Magnificent Mile on Michigan Ave. Police are overextended and are pissed at having to work the UIC venue for Trump without riot helmets. Sleep well.
As to Trump, look. I know you don’t care for him. He’s a coward for his speedy exit, a pussy for wearing Kevlar.
Silly Con,
Cognitive dissonance alert, you said something that wasn’t praising Sir Donald. But then Sir Donald’s lies are hard to keep up with. Don’t be Sir Donald.
NO Mr Dinosaur,
You are spewing pure bullshit if you think Chicago under Rahm is somehow magically different than Chicago under the Daley machine, its the same old same old machine. You are talking to yourself and beleiving every word you speak carries weight, but it carries weight with only those who know nothing.
My son in law who is a Chicago cop will gladly set your mind right about the CPD. Blow it out your ass for a millenium, but it remains mere flatulance. Give it up, spend your time blovating at Breitbart, you will feel at home, surrounded by fellow fools.
To you Trump is the next messiah of your liking. I don’t need a messiah. Been there, witnessed that. I know, I know you will deny you do not seek a messiah in Trump. That is a core value of your claim to be something other than a running dog lackey. Will you come back, tail between the legs, come the first Wednesday in November? (I can answer that question.) 😉
Who do you prefer for AG: Lynch or Christy?
Today we have the CIA director saying diversity is his largest goal rather than protecting America. Green energy is the Navy’s biggest goal, and Muslim outreach is NASA’s biggest goal. The army has a working group to allow trannies, and the marines are about to allow women in the fighting ranks under reduced qualifications because the military is a social experiment, not a fighting force.
You think that would continue under Trump?
Despite this I keep hearing this Trump is horrible and will be horrible for America. So “conservative” commenters on this site would vote for Hillary or sit out, giving Obama a third term despite experience living under it for 8 years.
Just remember that the president doesn’t run things, his staff does. Everyone knows Christy will be nominated AG, Carson will get something for his endorsement and so on down the mostly alt-right republican ranks. The day-to-day decisions of government are not decided by the president, but by people in government down the line.
If you want more PC, then don’t vote Trump or don’t vote at all, but after 8 years of Obama, those who would allow another Obama term are just as horrible as left wing Americans who wish for a PC America. This is why I am starting to despise republicans and “neo conservatives”. At the end of the day they would vote for more PC, more government power because the figurehead of office gives them bad feels.
And if Hillary is elected I will give up my lifelong support of Israel and throw it in with the Muslims. After 8 years of Obama’s outrageous Iran support, and Hillary supporting the same, then I will go with the flow. Especially since Jews will vote for Hillary in overwhelming numbers.
Mr, Dino,
Where were you 40+ years ago in Chicago or yesterday? Kevlar? Oh please,. I suggest you volunteer to take a bullet for the donald, an extremely safe occupation. Why not live your fantasy? Life is short, now is your chance for eternal trumpian glory. But of course you know the left has no desire to assassinate the donald. They want him to be the nominee. Why else are so many obeying the ditch and switch?
Oh, btw, how are your panties?
Neo, sometime back you admitted to having once been a follower of Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish blog. I too would read it , not so much for the politics with which I disagreed, but the scattering of subjects from Catholicism to literature and popular culture. After Obama was elected, possibly after the health care act was passed and the 2010 midterms, he wrote a piece about what he saw as the upcoming crisis within the Republican Party and conservatism. He identified the roots of it pretty well. One particular thing that stood out was the demographic changes occurring at a rapid pace in this country because of immigration. He thought that white America would feel increasingly besieged, not just because of skin color but also the quick pace of cultural and economic change.
Trump is now at the apex of that crisis, and leading it who knows where. Some of the people posting here, the interlopers, are examples of what Sullivan feared. But as much as Sullivan could identify the fracturing of traditional America, he couldn’t look inward and see that the policies he embraced and the man he voted for, were the real causes. How many years has the left practiced identity politics? How long have they sought to divide by race, gender, cultural identity, and sexual orientation?
What held the country together was a common belief in individual rights, not collective rights. The alt-right and many of those who are supporting Trump appear to have the gone the way of liberalism and given up on individualism.
Whatever,
“You think that would continue under Trump?”
Yes, in hearts, spades, diamons, and clubs Grow up and drag Mr. Dino into the sundown of adulthood.
Geoffrey Britain,
I don’t have to explain any reasons I have for saying that. I FEEL that it’s true, and that’s all that counts.
FredNerk Says:
“Cuckservative.”
Really, does anything else need to be said?
A month ago, we heard that we should not vote for Cruz because everyone in Congress hated him. Now, we are told that he is The Establishment. Which time were we hearing lies?
Parker,
You apparently have not the ability to respond with either reason or rationality. On the other hand, no comments are as entertainingly sophomoric/moronic as yours. Looking forward to your next prattle and prating.
Silly Con Rex:
Funny you seem to know more about Chicago PD than Parker via his son in law. Oh I forgot, you know more than everybody, and will tell us too.
why didnt cruz the constitutional conservative stick up for trumps rally right to free speech and peaceful assembly. by blaming trump, he blames free speech, and so is saying, mao’s might makes right. your not allowed to say things that the mob will riot for, and the mob right to beat you up like brownshirts is what makes the rules, not the first amendment nor others.
its very hard to think he is a constitutional conservative who doesnt fight for the right of peaceful assembly, the right to free speech (offensive speech needs proteciton, speech you liek does not), and more
if he cant denounce brown shirt tactics for socialist outcomes as in germany and maoist china, then i guess he really doesnt stand for free speech, right to peacefully assemble, etc… (remember the organized protestors from soros move on, and others admitted that it was a planned attack – meaning they were the brown shirts and cruz et all stuck up for the brown shirts, not freedom
“Let justice be done though the heavens should fall”. – U.S President John Adams
Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
“If there’s going to be a bloodbath, let it begin here.” Ronald Reagan (talking about the protestors who ended humphry career and turned the election to Nixon)
“Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!” – David G. Farragut in the Battle of Mobile Bay in 1864
[Farragut recieved his first military commission of a ship at the age of 12/13… today a teenager cant read as well, cant commission a candy store, and sits around wanting a communist state to give him what he wants and needs]
“I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” – Nathan Hale before being hung by the British
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, ‘Peace! Peace!’ – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” – Patrick Henry, 1775
“Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong.” – Ronald Reagan after bombing Libya
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Yonder are the Hessians. They were bought for seven pounds and tenpence a man. Are you worth more? Prove it. Tonight the American flag floats from yonder hill or Molly Stark sleeps a widow!” – John Stark at the Battle of Bennington in 1777.
test
So far i have not heard one actual argument as to why Cruz other than, i hate trump, and belittling trump fans as stupid, moronic, wont look ahead, like obama fans, and on and on.
NONE of those are reasons…
not one person wants to address the man who will defend the constitution that looked aside and defended the mob of communists and progressives and anarchists – and was willing to say that free speech is conditional on the mobs approval, and that freedom to assemble is the mobs decision too.
on top, we find out that common core is in the schools and cruz did not vote against it… why? he also didnt vote against loretta lynch? why?
its easy to call me stupid and avoid answering those things… whats funnier is that after some have called me names for years, they think that calling others names will work and is a way to debate (like the left does).
how is this leading to a better nation?
how does siding with communists, anarchists and such who want to tear up a peaceful assembly, make you a man to protect the constitution?
how does acting like brownshirts make trump a fascist? when fascists are socialists…
how does being forced to act a certain way to compete, or to survive, make trump into the same thing he is forced to act in, the way schindler did?
heck, we have more reason to believe schindler is a nazi than we have to believe trump is a progressive liberal…
even more so in that trump didnt live his life to prove anything to you for gain. he lived it for himself and took a shot at the presidency, and now, they are really afraid of him.
how afraid? well, after years of people hear asking their leader to call the left leaders out on their crap, they have someone who is, and they dont like it. so trained to the bs, they cant accept when it breaks and offers freedom to comment.
after all, speech that is agreed on is not in need of protection, is it? so how many here wanted to shut trump up and were willing to negate the constitution they are wanting to vote for cruz to preserve which he wont.
not that trump will either, but trump is not running as a constitutional conservative to trick the people into putting another establishement man up. cruz is clever, vote for things that deem him to the right when they are harmless or provide the evil wrestler roll in wwf which is all staged, or vote abstain when it really counts and negate the republican protest of it.
he creates the illusion of what he is not, and no one wants to look at it that fine as they want someone they can deem presidential, not someone who is a good president. they would rather have a sociopath who is smooth and looks good than a person like tecumsah sherman… or teddy roosevelt… etc
if he would not protect all people, including trump and followers from losing their right to assemble and speak freely to a mob of racialists, progressives, communists, and foreign contributors like soros, what do you think he will do when it comes to protecting you and your rights?
Posted below, a point of view on DJT from Australia.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/03/15/dear-nick-trumps-appeal-is-not-all-that-hard-to-see/
Although I have to admit that the incredible obtuseness that seems to invade normally sensible people is beyond me. Nick Cater has an article in The Oz today on Donald Trump’s primary appeal is that he’s not a politician. This is his point:
Americans regularly elect presidents who are not part of the political class. Eisenhower was the last, and military leaders are a consistent theme. It is executive experience that is valued, of which Obama has none at all while Trump has a lifetime of running things behind him. So for those who still don’t get it, here’s the list of policy issues that matter.
First border protection. Here’s an article by Victor Davis Hanson, who because he works for National Review, cannot actually say he supports Trump (similar to working for Murdoch), but read the article and imagine him voting for anyone else: The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration. Note the word “if” that runs through the para:
Second, the economy. Trump has spent a lifetime creating value for money. The American economy, like so many others, is being ruined by Keynesian Crony Capitalism, where the government decides how to use large proportions of our national savings and determines what ought to be built. The US is heading for a $20 trillion debt if it hasn’t reached it already. Is there seriously anyone else within a thousand miles of being electable who has a greater likelihood of getting the American economy on the right track?
Third, foreign policy. Trump wants to rebuild America’s national defence but is not in the business of nation building in third world countries. He will defend our interests, but with the additional thought that maybe those who America has been defending might chip in a bit in their own defence.
Fourth, he would get to choose the new justices for the Supreme Court. Fifth, he is not taken in by global warming. Sixth, he has the ability to achieve his agenda because he knows how to get things done. Seventh, he represents a return to traditional American values. Eighth, he opposes the thug tactics of the left. Ninth, he is the most non-politically correct politician in years and is unafraid of the American media.
Tenth, he is far and away more likely to win than any other Republican who might be nominated. Ted Cruz would lose to Hillary in a landslide and he is the only alternative. Trump is reconfiguring politics in a way that could renew the American system for a generation in the direction that might actually appeal to a conservative.
If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. But it really should not be that hard to see his appeal.
UPDATE: As for his attitude to violent protest, see this video of Ronald Reagan for a useful comparison. Thank you to Anne for the find.
Frog Says: The analogy to hostile (business) takeovers is not an automatic negative, Neo.
bingo! but they are not educated by capitalists and understand things of that system from them, they are educated and take their position from socialism, and dont even know it.
which is why they side with cruz… and hate trump, trump is expressing, good or ill, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.
its offensive… especially if you were growing up the past 50 years and learned what was the right hting to choose from the left. must be poilished, cant say a bad thing about the opposition, and on and on.
which gave the elections of the past years mostly to the dems, as they were permitted to violate that, and say things like he is hilter, fascist, and nothing that has bearing…
they even controlled thinking to the point that somewho, democrats of the south became republicans and cant protest
they turned all white males into german nazis…
they turned all whites into racists…
they claim privelege (implying who they are going to clean out as kulaks when that comes)
and they think that believing that a man who didnt stand up for his oppositions constitutional rights would defend theirs… why? why is conditional constitutional protections even bad when its the will fo the mob?
they like to claim that trump makes a mob mentality, but thats not true at all.. he is trying to represent this huge number of people who cruz is not going to represent… if he was, he would not have sided with the protesters and attack trump..
they are communist the way stalin said, and they dont know it… and they are wiling to use disrespect, belittling, and their freedom of speech to ignore what others say when its not what they want, ignore their protests as valid, then wonder why they are siding with someone who isnt ignoring those people
so sad its depressing…
after years of such high moral rhetoric
its all out the window when tested!!!!
and they wont even see that!!!
speech that offends needs protection, so trumps offensive speech draws out who are really for the constitution and freedom, and who only sides with it when its the way they want it… including the not left
same with assembly… just as long as the unconstitutional attackers go after the guy they dont protect.
they are the same as that which they would claim to oppose… depressing.
KLSmith Says: Yeah, I’m going to overlook everything wrong with Trump, which is a really long list, because of a loan Cruz got. Maybe I just picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
no… but you reduced a list of things, including a cocain crack epidemic that murdered thousands and destroyed whole families to make the point…
think… neo would cut me down if i put 50 things up in one post… so you then get to claim focusing on one post as the sum total…
preponderance is from a lot of points put together, not one point… no one is asking you to do what idiocy you just talked against
i will give you 100 if you can find where i put up that as a single issue to change yoru mind? it was in response to blert who was trying to say, its ok, no problem, when its a violation of law, by a lawyer and his wife who both know those rules better than blert does.
the list is quite long:
1) failure to side with freedom of speech
2) failure to side with freedom of peaceful assembly
3) siding with those who are not peacefully assembling cause it supresses the rights of your opposition
hiring a dirty campaign manager after firing another dirty one (one for a lying video, the other hired despite lying in texas to win)
4) failing to file papers and get loan terms into the public transparency, but cruz people dont care about the rule of law, which is why they want a constitutional conservative who cant get filings right (funny, but it turned a legal action into a illegal action!)
5) failing to vote against liberal people and causes, like loretta lynch and common core appointee
6) hiring woolsey
7) hiring Elliot Abrams
8) Hiring neil bush
HOW can a man who wants to clean up washington hire the dirty?
i have at least another 20 points…
to ME they are important just as trumps hair, bombast, nd public image created by the lef tis important to you.
i have respected your choice, and frogs choice, and have asked to explain how this will work, but instead i have gotten no answer.
how can someone who stands against freedom of speech protect freedom of speech?
no answer. crickets… denial that he did that.
want a quote from him kasisch, etc?
OM, I’ve no doubt I know more about certain things than you assume. I have lived in Chicago from the early ‘50s until 2013, at which time I’d finally had my fill and moved to a suburb of that socially disintegrating urban nightmare. But thank you for playing the game. Better assumptions next time.
blert Says: Art, in a former life I was a licensed broker.
i gave you links to the law, you give me argument by authority of your past…
wtf?
1) When she left goldman, the loan comes due
2) The limit is 50k – they got over a million
3) They are supposed to detail what this is so you and i cant argue about it (failure is a violation of election law)
4) The terms and interest amounts are also supposed to be reported (failure is a violation of election law)
your being a broker does not make you a lawyer
nor does that adress those points above
and i have more too… but those are enough.
the law is pretty clear… and if they needed defense in court, your point would be quite silly… judge, i used to be a broker years ago, so please forgive them the violations of election law!!!!!!!!!!
even sadder, the violations are what makes perfectly legal actions illegal!!!
and they are refusing to update those things with the right information, and have held out past the deadline.
please address the points. the law
i could care less if you were god in a past life
its not required in law, as you can fight pro se
i am quoting law, gave you links to the fec and the law, and what was a violation.. the failure to file correctly… and failure to update the filing to make it correct.
and there are specific things in election law under the FEC for spouses too as they are restricted like other people, not special as a wife.
yeah… hedge fund people can make huge amounts, and what they do is not easy. [i know, i wrote trading software as a quant with others before i made the idiotic mistake of moving to medical research]
if she was so rich, and the money is community property, why did he need a loan? why was it a margin loan, and why didnt they reveal that was the purpose of the loan? and why is it more than the limits? and how does that apply to citibank where she didnt work and loaned as well?
[edited for length by n-n]
@The Other Chuck – it is not just Sullivan… Frank Luntz realized this coming out of the 2012 election, causing him to stop his consulting work for some time afterward.
What he found out about the electorate he was focus grouping for the GOP in 2012 was…
“They were contentious and argumentative. They didn’t listen to each other as they once had. They weren’t interested in hearing other points of view. They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women, young vs. old, rich vs. poor. “They want to impose their opinions rather than express them,””
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/
Sounds remarkably like how we describe Trump supporters.
“Sounds remarkably like how we describe Trump supporters.”
And it’s damned well about time. Those Trump supporters hadn’t arrived on the planet just in time to upset the establishment for the fun of it. It was they, the middle class, the blue collar working class, the producers who, for over thirty years, had the Establishment’s opinions (political correctness) and policies — a sometimes blind eye, often a wave of the hand to the greatest foreign invasion in the history of nations, foisted on them. And not only a substantial amount of Mexico’s dregs of society, but also Moslems, naturally, religiously, antagonistic toward America and its citizens but oddly, not much more so than the reprobates in sheep’s wool who’d been elected to represent the people and not the fanatasists and demolishers. So, good for them. No more listening. Let them listen. And if it pains them to do so… all the better.
Sily Con Rex:
So you do “know” something about Chicago just as Parker does. I trust Parker’s judgment. And yet you still want to lord over all.
I have never lived in Chicago itself, just 35 years in the suburbs. But my son went to UIC Circle campus for 4 years. If you go one block too far in either direction after dark, you are taking your life into your hands.
The week after he moved into his apartment, one of the roommates came home a little bit drunk and went 1 block south. He was rescued by the police who investigated the crowd of people kicking and beating somebody on the ground. His jaw was broken in 2 places, and he had a couple of broken ribs.
There are safe places to be in Chicago. UIC (where Thrump’s rally was) is right in the middle of region that isn’t.
Parker’s judgement is wrong.
Y’know, when you spot an ambush, it isn’t cowardly to decline to walk into the ambush.
I’ve noticed when people say “Get over it!” they usually mean “Submit to getting screwed”–and usually they’re the ones doing the screwing (and not in the good way, either).