Trump did what he needed to do last night. Meager as it was, it was enough to keep his running mate from abandoning him. It riled his base and that makes it very difficult for folks like Ryan and Pence to abandon him. It keeps him in the race. But it's not enough. He needs more than his base to win. Thank God for that! America isn't yet that crazy.
I thought I told you to quit gaslighting. The idea that you're pretending to be shocked because someone used Twitter to say something only considered inappropriate by conveniently-constructed personal aesthetics is pretty much emblematic of the hypocrisy and basic human failure of Donald Trump and his supporters. See, the bit where you demand of others what we are to believe you inadequate to achieve for your own self―diplomacy? civility? try getting some, Sculptor―is a hallmark of bullies, liars, and political conservatives―but I repeat myself with that last. It's kind of like we say about internet arguments: It ain't an insult if it's true. You can't expect people to keep handicapping the public discourse as if it was a round of golf.
follow the bouncing ball: "Foreign policy spokesperson" tweets "go fuck yourself" Is this the guy you would want speaking for you? Is this the guy you would want speaking for your country? Is childish and belligerent the best we can hope for?
Such myopism is interesting in itself. Or maybe scultor is learning diversionary tactics from the "Great Leader"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Frankly, I found everything that "riled his base" downright creepy. In a CNN Opinion piece, Mel Robbins writes: But she goes on to say: Really? I'm not so sure about that, though a truly honest poll on such a matter would be an impossible feat. Still, did you notice that much of the shit that evoked such a strong visceral response from the Trump crowd seemed to involve humiliating Clinton in some manner?
While it is true that nothing ever begins, I reject your deliberate exclusion of "Donald Trump insults the hell out of fallen service members over and over and over again". See, as long as you fail to account for that, you will continue to experience the confusion you express. As I said↱: The idea that you're pretending to be shocked because someone used Twitter to say something only considered inappropriate by conveniently-constructed personal aesthetics is pretty much emblematic of the hypocrisy and basic human failure of Donald Trump and his supporters. No, I didn't hire him as a spokesperson; if I want someone speaking for me in a spokesperson capacity, I will retain a spokesperson. Meanwhile, I will second Mr. Lehrich, and as I'm not part of any campaign and simply speaking for myself, I have no particular care toward ritual apology for the severity of telling Donald Trump to go fuck himself. Because, quite frankly, going and fucking himself would be the least Donald Trump could do for these United States right about now. Earlier↑ you suggested, "Maybe that explains some of the problems with the department of state?" Mr. Lehrich is a campaigner; the twenty-seven year-old did not work at State and does not appear to have that kind of public service record. Much like the present, you required a straw man. Still, though, sure, inasmuch as the young man can only speak for the country as a spokesman, or some such, I'd certainly take him over Kellyanne Conway, Marco Gutierrez, Rudy Giuliani, or other such deplorable human beings. Even if it was, it's still a far sight better than anything you have to offer, Sculptor, by your support of Donald Trump, his white supremacism, his male supremacism, his Christian supremacism, his disrespect for military service, and the general danger he presents to society. To the other, I don't think anyone is surprised that Donald Trump fans can't come up with anything better than ignorant, self-righteous fallacy. Look, Sculptor: You support that manner of hatred; that your aesthetics are offended might seem like a big deal to you, but for many of the people around you, your aesthetics are so corrupt and awful that, you know, we just don't care that you're offended. That you have to make stuff up and hope to deceive people into feeling sorry for you is another question. It's kind of antisocial, Sculptor, and it's really, really unhealthy. Mr. Lehrich has made his decision; he has since apologized for using inappropriate language, and we will see how dearly it costs him. So here's the thing about the best we can hope for and speaking for our country: There is pretext for Mr. Lehrich to resign in shame. And maybe he should. Right after Messrs. Trump and Pence set the example. Mr. Trump is such a spectacular bigot it is easy enough to forget how awful a person Mr. Pence actually is, and, quite frankly, I don't want a two-bit politician willing to pander thoughtlessly to Vladimir Putin when he thinks it will help his ratings speaking for our country, either. Just like I don't want someone who hates women as much as either of those two do. Look, people can be human; we are, after all, human. But, no. Mr. Pence's bigotry is generally disqualifying insofar as he must defy the oath he hopes to take in order to fulfill it; he regularly challenges the oath he swore in Indiana, including deliberately and blatantly by signing the RFRA; his prosecutes women for the sake of personal aesthetics; he lied so much during the vice-presidential debate. Really, Sculptor? You want to pitch a fit about a twenty-seven year-old getting carried away with Twitter? While supporting Donald Trump and Mike Pence? I mean, we've kind of been through this bit, already↗, with you saying stupid things without thinking through what happens if anyone legitimizes your argument. Especially during the debate period, there is a rising fallback, and how's that for not quite oxymoronic? More and more Trump supporters are falling back on the idea that the problem is that the candidates are so awful. Let us be clear: One candidate is awful. The other is a really good politician, which is why people pretend to be so pissed off at her. But that's just the thing, we've already started the process by which even Trump supporters can't admit that they are the ones who put that awful candidate on the ticket. Among the points I'm watching in terms of the GOP post-electoral psyche↗ is whether or not conservatives will actually argue that the Republican nomination process denied them a voice. As it is, Trump supporters can already be heard discussing how awful the candidates are not only according to the equivalence I noted, but also as if the Republican nominee was somehow inflicted on Republican voters. But Trump supporters are starting to fall back to a weirdly dissociated argument about how awful both candidates are. We get how this works with the so-called independent voters who are looking for an excuse to vote against Hillary Clinton because they were gullible enough to believe a quarter-century's hype, and even more so when the House Majority Leader freaking boasted about manufacturing hype↱; they're not really "independent" voters. But, yes, as Republicans who threw in with Trump face reality, they, too are falling back to the awfulness of the candidates. As Sen. Lindsey Graham↱, who never endorsed the GOP nominee, put it a few months ago, back when the outrage was Mr. Trump's verbal abuse of a federral judge overseeing a fraud case: "If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary." The Palmetto Republican is telling his fellows that they need not enjoy the prospect of a Clinton presidency, but the GOP just cannot go there, cannot lead the American people to a Trump presidency. And he's one of the few who gets to say a damn thing at all about both candidates; not only did he never hop on the Trump bandwagon, he actually tried to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president by running for the GOP nomination himself. Even still, the liberal critique is that Hillary Clinton is to conservative in her centrist compromise; the conservative critique―well, as the view from abroad puts it, "Trump calls Clinton 'the devil' and says she should be 'in jail' in astonishing presidential debate"↱. Conservatives have done this to themselves. And you're going to pitch a fit about a twenty-seven year-old having a Twitter moment? Seriously? Oh, wait, that's the problem, ins't it? What of Trump and his supporters are we actually supposed to be taking seriously? That they're so angry about some playtime make-believe of theirs that American society must strain to accommodate their wailing temper tantrums? Tantra? Tantri? No, tantra. Never mind. Tantrums. Whatever. No, seriously, the only part anyone else knows to take seriously is the dangerous part. It would probably help if Mr. Trump and his supporters showed something else, for a change. ____________________ Notes: Graham, David A. "Which Republicans Oppose Donald Trump? A Cheat Sheet". The Atlantic. 9 October 2016. TheAtlantic.com. 10 October 2016. http://theatln.tc/2dOZRwj Robertson, Jamie. "Trump calls Clinton 'the devil' and says she should be 'in jail' in astonishing presidential debate". ITV. 10 October 2016. ITV.com. 10 October 2016. http://bit.ly/2e8DWDV
I think you are flogging a dead horse with this "gaslighting" thing. You are using it way out of its intended context. Do I need footnotes in order to make my point? Maybe you need to participate more and lecture less?
And therefore the wise guy Tiassa has to decide what is better for you. Everybody with a different opinion than Tiassa is something like a drug addict. The Soviet leader Breshnew has also liked to send political dissidents, who wanted some sort of bourgeois freedom against their own self-interest, into psychiatric hospitals.
Well, it was more than just Breshenew. It was and remains the Russian way. You remember....Russian gulags, insane asylums, and outright executions for dissidents. You don't have to look far to find examples. Tiassa is just expressing his opinions based on his observation. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, that's what we do in the West. Taht doesn't make us like drug addicts. It just makes us normal freedom loving civilized people.
Alternately: Clinton’s choice of Jesse Lehrich as her foreign policy spokesperson wasn't such a bad decision? Maybe, I'm just a tad "old school" in that regard? A professor friend who spent his morning discussing Chaucer suggested that the "Go fuck yourself" comment may have been intended to attract a certain percentage of voters who appreciate that sort of comment. If accurate: Does anyone wanna hazard a guess as to the number and ages of said voters?
Who friggin cares? Is that really the best you can do? Are you going to tell me you have never used a colorful word? You can't talk substance. So you are reduced to this nonsense.
Not these debates, or any debate involving a Republican Party candidate for national office since about 1994 in America. The word "debate" itself specifies grounds of reason and fact for "winning" - and no amount of subjective adjustment can move the pile of debris that is a modern Republican media campaign effort into the realm of reason and fact. And that's the regular Republicans. The Donald doesn't even dissemble. You're missing the issue. It doesn't matter who wins a debate like this on grounds of reason, or fact, if there's a Republican on the stage. Even the Donald. That's the point. My favorite comment so far: Donald Trump just emptied the entire contents of a Breitbart comment thread unto a stage in front of 80 million people - and 40 million of them cheered and squealed with pleasure. The good thing about this is watching the "reasonable" and "both sides" and "respectable" Americans get their noses rubbed in the dirty underwear of the United States. That thing on the stage? That's the side of this country that rolled into Iraq, and set up Abu Ghraib first thing, and flew the American flag over it. That's "stop and frisk", in actual operation, far from Wall Street. That's the American flag, waving Republican Party style. This country's been in denial about that. In the first place, we have the Republican Party incompetence problem since Reagan's influence, which came to a flagrant pinnacle under W and has been years in slow recovery under Obama - what happens when actual civil service jobs with real responsibilities are filled with Regent University grads and nephews of big campaign contributors regardless of capability, incompetents and ideological twits who after a few years of tenure are hard to fire. You can find a few Dems in this category of trouble, of course, but not horseshow scenes like we got with W and will get with Trump. Think "Supreme Court Justice Harriet Meiers", only Trump style - maybe Ivanka? Then there is the Republican Party ideological problem not classifiable as rank incompetence, that we are not allowed to name - such as we saw with the W administration's dealings in Syria, marking the origin of the current horrorshow in that country. Here's your "skilled and effective diplomacy", as directed by a recent Republican administration: http://www.truth-out.org/progressiv...d-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath Notice that the "Iranian influence" he's talking about was significantly a matter of hundreds of thousands of Shiite refugees from the American occupation of Iraq, and the initial Sunni violence in Syria targeted them when it all started falling apart. Here's the kind of guy we used to get under Republicans and Democrats alike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Crocker Donald Trump doesn't know anything about the US foreign service. His foreign policy advice is coming from guys who have been setting up business deals in Putin's Russia. I'd take him over Trump - he's more of an adult, and less belligerent, than Trump. But he's too young to run for President - maybe he will regress to Trump level by the time he's an adult man of 70.
Maybe. I'm not certain that "spokesperson" isn't to political campaigning, these days, like "producer" is to msnbc. That is to say, everyone has an impressive title. "Producer" sounds better than "staff blogger", and "spokesperson" sounds better than "staff writer" or "talking points coordinator". Actually, I'm wondering how many veterans landed where on the issue. There are plenty of reasons why "go fuck yourself" is viewed as excessive, but there are also veterans who left friends behind, who had to come home to tell a widow, "I'm sorry", who had to tell the children, "He loved you very much". And last I ever heard from them about any such issues pertaining to the dead, it just doesn't seem, "He wouldn't be dead if I had sent them!" is the sort of thing they really want to be hearing. Honestly, nothing about that harmonizes with anything I've ever heard from any veteran about the dead. That is to say, if there's a gamble there, it's that a bunch of veterans heard about that "go fuck yourself" and said, "Ayuh." • • • I think you need to stop trying to change the subjet. Let our neighbor answer for his deliberate distortions and misrepresentations. Don't prove the point trying to rescue him. (Edit: Revise and extend my remarks; not worth wasting an individual post on the neighborhood troll. 10 Oct. 2016; 16.07 PDT.)
So, to be clear, you prefer a person who does something bad and then keeps quiet about it to a person who points out that the first person did something wrong.
This is the day of the final debate. After getting his but whipped in the previous debates, The Donald is finally preparing for the debate. I think it has finally dawned on the The Donald that this is his last opportunity to address a national audience. The question is what Donald will we see this evening? Will we see the irrational Donald of the previous two debates? I'm guessing we will. Then there is the matter of debate moderation, the debate moderator is a Fox News anchor, Chris Wallace. Will the Wallace be a crutch for The Donald? Some have suggested Wallace was selected by the debate commission to ensure Trump would show up for the final debate as Trump would view Wallace as a friendly moderator, and as a result wouldn't decline the final debate.
uhm... try global audience... live and also later via recorded video. Billions will view this debate would be my guess... There may be more than a few surprises.. either way it may prove Hil----arious! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes a global audience, but the world will not be voting on November 8. I'm sure "The Donald" will be entertaining.
Donald isnt a Republican...as his primary rivals pointed out often enough. Republican are usually anti trade restrictions and pro empire...meaning endless war. Trump wants a trade war...not nuclear war.
Well, you do realize "The Donald" is the Republican Party nominee. So if "The Donald" isn't a Republican why did Republicans elect him, over his Republican rivals, to become their presidential nominee? It's kind of difficult to argue Trump isn't a Republican when Republicans voted to nominate him as their presidential candidate.
They really are gonna try, Joe. It really is starting↗. (Hmm ... that's right, I need to repost to the v.2 thread; I already reposted the one↗, and, oh, right, there is also the first speculation↱; and, yeah, I'm probably having too much fun with the idea because I just can't wait to hear or read the first formulation of "Republican voters were denied their voice in the primary".) But, yes, the more they remind that Trump isn't a Republican, the more we might wonder, then, how he became the Republican nominee. How did Hillary Clinton trick all those Republicans into supporting Donald Trump? Honestly, that's such an obvious candidate for the delegitimization pretense, I don't mind making the joke in public. (I apparently forgot to post the Politico↱ article to the Life After Trump thread. What a shame, I even wrote a post for it. The quote of the day comes from California RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel: "Should Hillary get 'elected' she is immediately delegitimized." This is now the Republican mission, and I'm starting to wonder about it's role in the primary psyche. To wit, if Republicans felt doomed by a Hillary Clinton candidacy, then it almost makes perfect sense to send a gaslighting asshole to the top of the ticket. No, it's not a conspiracy, but when people talked about voters sending a message, this is the message conservative voters wanted to send about the prospect of having their arms torn off and then being beaten with the bloody stumps―as one Republican from New Hampshire suggested once upon a time, though he was referring to ... Benghazi, I think―by the first female President of the United States. But, yeah, there's also a line about being doomed that I don't think I have up anywhere, yet, from Salon↱, an unnamed strategist in a quote of a quote explaining, "If she runs, it’ll be almost impossible, I fear", circa March, 2013. But delegitimization is now the Republican strategy; it's all they have left.)
