#Trumpertantrum turns into #Trumpernoia
Conspiracies hiding everywhere.
Did you hear the latest?
Yesterday in Trumpernoia: Fox News is out to get Donald Trump, after giving him so much airtime people previously had accused Fox News of being in the tank for Trump. Now, the fix it in for Marco Rubio. It’s an Open Borders billionaire conspiracy. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes’ strings are being pulled by a Saudi Prince who was photographed with Megyn Kelly. The daughter of Fox News Executive VIP Bill Sammon works for Rubio. But it goes even deeper, really deep. Someone who used to work for Dana Perino now is Rubio’s press secretary. It’s just rumor for now, but Jasper may be in on the conspiracy, but he’s not talking. And don’t trust the vote count, it’s being done by a Rubio donor.
Today in Trumpernoia: Frank Luntz did consulting for Marco Rubio almost a decade ago to help shape Rubio’s political image. But Luntz doesn’t disclose that decade-old consulting when he talks about Rubio, so all the Luntz panels on Fox News are biased against Trump and favoring Rubio. The spark for this bias claim was this Luntz focus group after the last GOP debate, and Rubio’s recent rise in the polls:
Are the focus groups biased in favor of Rubio because of Luntz’s past consulting? Luntz pushes back:
If the fix is in for Luntz focus groups, how to explain this panel favorable to Chris Christie?
And Ted Cruz:
And Carly Fiorina:
And, ahem, Donald Trump:
There is a clear pattern here, of no pattern. Certainly not a pattern of propping up Rubio.
One of our authors has been critical of Luntz’s methodology with the focus groups, but based on analysis of the questioning, not paranoid speculation about hidden connections and conspiracies.
So much for Trumpernoia. Maybe it’s time to go back to Trumpertantrums:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m so done with Trumpianism. But in closing, let me say that Donald Trump has classic father issues. IE: He’s still eager for his father’s approval or affirmation that he’s proud of his son.
Yes, I know Donald’s father died years,ago, but the desperate son remains. It’s why Donald has to be the biggest, bestest, yugest with the most expensive, most oppulent, biggest wins, crowned with the most gorgeous of trophy wives, and cheered by all.
Any dissenting ‘brothers’ must be annihilated, so the favorite son will never be denied by father.
All so father will say, “Well done, son. I’m proud.” But Donald will never hear those words as he continues to act out…
I discerned a similar issue in Michael Savage years ago (when I could stand to listen to him). He revealed that he could never be good enough to please his parents; they would never praise or affirm him. I thought: maybe that’s why he constantly boasts about how great he thinks he is, and what losers all his competitors are (and just about everyone else). And he certainly has that in common with Trump.
I think both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama aimed to overcompensate for abandonment by their fathers (and in Obama’s case, to an extent, by his mother): Both decided early on that they wanted to be the most important person in the land. But Trump exceeds them both in overt braggadocio.
Trump certainly shares with both Clinton and Obama the grandiose claims and the penchant to make every pronouncements a cascade of me, my and Is. But while Trump and Clinton share that used car salesman insincere charm and a what can I get away with today outlook on life Trump utterly lacks Clinton’s major redeeming factors, an active curiosity that fed serious policy chops. Several authors noted that Clinton had read their books and could discuss their proposals in detail.
Like Obama, Trump prefers the Cliff notes version of policies positions, if that. He is as likely to just wing it as Buffalo’s Anchor Bar.
Do you take calls on Psychic Hot Line 900 numbers? Probably not since those people know more about people than you do.
I can observe facts and put them together rationally to form a logical inference or hypothesis — a skill that seems to elude many Trump supporters.
Fact #1: Savage and Trump are both unusually inclined to boast about their own sense of greatness, and to put down other people as stupid losers and whatnot. Anyone of average perceptiveness can see it.
Fact #2: I definitely recall Savage saying that his parents were very stingy with approval, and I thought it’s a plausible explanation for his impulse to keep saying “I’m the best! I’m great!”
Fact #3: Clinton grew up mostly without his father. Obama grew up without his father, mostly without his stepfather, and often without his mother.
Fact #4: Obama has been quoted by early classmates as saying he wanted to be “president.” Obviously he has an ego out of proportion with his merits and an exaggerated sense of his unique contributions to the world.
Fact #5: Clinton evidently had very big ambitions at an early age too.
Reasonable hypothesis: There may be something about parental rejection or withholding of approval that leads some people to develop an exaggerated sense of their importance to the world.
Nowhere did I state that hypothesis as an objective truth about any of those individuals.
Down votes are a lot easier than trying to refute facts.
You’re deluded. You give an opinion labeled as fact #1, then you post a bunch of garbage labeled as fact #’s 4-5 that have nothing to do with Trump and then complain people down vote you rather than refute the “facts”.
You need to see a psychiatrist.
Trump does need to go back and rediscover why voters liked him in the first place.
1. He states his position without regard for PC.
2. He get attacked for his position, not just in the political world but in the real world. Real world business losses. In the real world people like Brendan Eich get fired for being a Republican.
3. Trump doesn’t back down even after being squeezed.
4. The national conversation actually changes and liberalism retreats.
None of the other candidates can do or will do this. They are all focus grouped and dependent upon donors who aren’t looking out for joe average. Any of the other candidates, even winning the general can’t do this, and it will be more winning elections/losing culture. (and Rubio/Cruz can’t win the general either).
Beautifully said
The notion that Trump is the greatest enemy of “liberalism” is preposterous. Trump has shifted positions from day to day when yesterday’s position doesn’t seem to help him today. His statements on immigration have not been as rock-solid consistent as his fans imagine.
He’ll call people “terrific” if they help his ambitions, but they suddenly become “terrible” when they don’t.
Ben Carson went (in Trump’s book) from an incurable nutcase and liar, to a great guy — because Trump says what serves his own purposes at the moment.
He conveniently uses the anti-PC mantra (which is getting awfully worn out) to justify his lack of old-fashioned good manners — a concept his fans seem unacquainted with.
16 years ago, pretty damn “rock solid”:
“America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally. ”
“The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.”
“It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave. ”
The America We Deserve,
by Donald Trump, p.143-45 Jul 2, 2000
http://patterico.com/2016/02/04/campaign-notes-february-4-2016/
Deputy Duh Donald caught in a lie about his own ground game in Iowa.
Why lie? I mean, what’s to gain?
The man’s pathological.
Maybe this is a case where “pathological” really does mean “incurable.”
“Luntz is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!”
If Luntz is Low Class Slob for allegedly picking an anti-Trump panel.
I can just imagine what he said about Vera Coking when she resisted the Plutocrat’s attempt to seize the widow’s property.
Yes. Making America Great indeed for work seeking Widows and Low Class Slobs.
Institute for Justice – Case Overview of Vera Coking
And there is this strange consistency about all these stories;
someone or some organization comes to Mr. Establishment as a supplicant. They come begging for money or a favor from the little yellow god of T-rump Tower.
ONLY after they are turned away are they the drek, dross, and detritus of the earth who THEN become his adversaries.
It does not matter what the paper-trail shows. It only matters what T-rump THEN claims about them and their motives. And it’s always some variation of this theme.
This is PROFOUNDLY pathological. As in, he’s nuts.
Another Psychic Hotline refugee chimes in.
You don’t seem to know what “psychic” means — just as Trump didn’t know what “pathological” means. (And he imagined that he could school a neurosurgeon on the subject.)
So, when the American voters reject Trump for the position of President, he’ll become a low class slob who came to us looking for political work? Sounds about right.
And I thought Hillary had a copyright on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
Enough of Luntz and his panel of halfwits. If his panels were that insightful, Luntz wouldn’t look like such a fool. He was shaping Rubio’s image? Well, that wasn’t a success! Luntz has no good track record with his own image. Many of us voters are sick and tired of all the deception and manipulating going on by the media. Is there anyone who isn’t a hack for one party or the other? No wonder the economy is in the dumper. Who died and put the airhead news anchors in charge of telling it how they want it?
Poll: Marco Rubio More Electable Than Donald Trump, Ted Cruz.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/poll-marco-rubio-more-electable-than-donald-trump-ted-cruz/
Friday Poll: Marco Polo More Electable Than Donald J Tirade.
Grow up.
The Only Poll: Marco Rubio’s Malleability is second only to DJ Trumpoon’s
More electable Rubio – translates to signing off on every illegal alien Obama & his GOP establishment pals have allowed into the country b/c let’s bow to the Democrat Political Machine like Swedish women being raped by 20yo “refugee” muslims.
“When the establishment pundits like to talk about which candidate is most “electable” it sure seems like they’re really saying who’s more “palatable” – to themselves.”
Guess Who Said That…
Answer is here: http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/stunning-new-statistics-about-ted-cruz-nobody-will-talk-about/
The post seems a little defensive. If… if the blog supported Ted Cruz, I wouldn’t take exception to attacks on Trump.
But no, the blog supports Rubio, which is their right.
Friends can disagree and remain friends, but let’s call a spade a spade.
Well, Trump fans have flung a lot of nasty names at people who dare not to favor Trump. Now Dana Loesch has gotten a stream of abuse from Trumpsters because she endorsed Cruz — and in TrumpbotWorld that makes her a sellout and much worse.
I monitor Dana daily on twitter… I know how she has conducted herself and it’s not milquetoast.
Does she label people w***es simply for supporting a candidate other than her favorite? I doubt it.
I first saw an unprecedented pattern of infighting on the conservative side when Trump fans started hurling insults at anyone who dared point out the obvious flaws of Trump or even suggesting that some other candidate might be preferable.
In the minds of many Trump fans, anyone who criticizes Trump must have eeevil motives. They’ll use words like “sabotage” to describe the normal process of subjecting a candidate to scrutiny in the primaries — but only when it’s applied to Trump.
I haven’t seen this kind of emotional fervor or hysterical lashing-out among supporters of any other candidate — in this or previous elections.
Glass houses…
I saw Dana Loesch say yesterday on Fox that it wasn’t so much that she endorsed Cruz but that she found “Cruz the least objectionable of all the candidates”.
Maybe Cruz just doesn’t sell that much beet juice for her after all.
Latest Boston Globe/Suffolk University Poll:
Trump RISES 2% from same poll last month. Rubio RISES 9% from same poll last month. Cruz takes sharp 5% DECLINE from same poll last month as well.
While Trump rises 2% over last month the amount of his lead over 2nd place decreased as a result of Rubio’s sharp rise. Cruz is NOT a factor in this poll.
In current poll Trump received 29 percent, Rubio took second place with 19 percent, Cruz took 5th place with 7 percent.
Ohio Governor John Kasich placed third with 13 percent, former Florida governor Jeb Bush had 10 percent , US Senator Ted Cruz had 7 percent, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fell to 5 percent, and Ben Carson had 4 percent.
Poll dancing again? Some idiots will never learn.
A lot of your arguments for Trump are just: “Look at how many other people support Trump!” Lots of people supported Obama. He was a rock star! Lots of people support Bernie Sanders.
Trump has extraordinarily high negatives — the highest ever measured, by some reports. No one with such high negatives has ever been elected president.
And most likely, no one who’s said “I will easily go down as the greatest president in the history of this country” has ever been elected.
Dems have C0-130s full of ammo to use against Trump.
C-130s. (zero key is right by the hyphen key)
“Dems have C0-130s full of ammo to use against Trump.”
So, you’re saying the republicans are too chicken shit to use the “ammo”?
Or, you’re just making shit up as usual.
“Trump RISES 2% from same poll last month.”
That poll has a 4.4% margin of error.
The poll’s an outlier.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html#polls
On today’s program of Breitbart News Daily, Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Advisor, Stephen Miller, blasted donor-class favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79% as the “front man for the open borders syndicate.”
Miller, former communications director for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 80% and the Senate Budget Committee now serving as Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser, appeared on today’s program to provide policy analysis on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the immigration issue ahead of Saturday night’s debate.
“Marco Rubio is the front man for the open borders syndicate,” Miller declared.
“Understand this,” Miller told listeners, “Marco Rubio is determined to finish what he started with the Gang of Eight bill and to be President Obama’s third term on immigration.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/trump-senior-advisor-rubio-candidate-open-borders-syndicate-represents-obamas-third-term/
Words from a world-class expert.
Hope for Cruz remains:
Trump says he could still pick Cruz for his VP when he wins nomination:
Seems Cruz also thinks media in the bag for Rubio and refers to Rubio as the chosen one. So maybe the paranoia about which Professor Jacobson speaks is in the mind of the beholder and not unique to Trump at all.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/cruz-media-establishments-chosen-one-rubio-is-unelectable-like-dole-mccain-romney/
Should I hold my breath waiting for an LI author to post about how Cruz is all paranoid about media being in tank for Rubio ??
Still waiting for the first ridiculously useless anti-Cruz click bait post from an LI author. Given all the Cruzbots here and how they outnumber Trumpbots 2 to 1. A good anti-Cruz click bait hit piece would generate at least 300 comments.
The LI authors are missing out due to their own bias in favor of Cruz.
Oops forgot the link in post above:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/05/cruz-media-establishments-chosen-one-rubio-is-unelectable-like-dole-mccain-romney/
So far you’ve pasted 4 Trumpbart links in here. Might I suggest that if we wanted to be reading Trumpbart rather than LI, we’d all be at Trumpbart rather than at LI?
When I don’t post links, then morons like you and Rags bitch for the link.
I happen to think it is only polite to provide link for excerpts from stories so interested persons can follow the link if they want more info or to dig deeper.
No, lying sack Of T-rump spunk.
When you LIE, like virtually ALWAYS, we help YOU demonstrate what a black hole of perfidity you are by challenging you to SUPPORT your lies for ALLLLLLLLLL to see.
STILL waiting for that set of links to Sessions’ OWN WORDS endorsing T-rump.
You lying POS.
Fuck you Rags. You disgusting piece of human vulgarity. Take your vulgar references to male ejaculate and your homophobic slurs and the rest of your vote for Cruz or I’ll kill you routine and shove them all up your ass.
You know how to find me. Come visit any time and tell me your chickenshit vulgar bullshit to my face. Just once. Please show me your aren’t just a vulgar pussy hiding in mommy’s basement.
Fuck Off and stop posting your vulgar messages to me and shitting all over this board with your puke.
Mih, mih…
You’re no daisy! You’re no daisy at all. Poor soul, you were just too high strung.
And STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooopid…!!!
Quite right. After 6 years, the Professor has crashed and burned. Sad to see.
Why would Trump pick a “nasty guy” who committed “total voter fraud” and has a “real problem” with eligibility for the office to be his Vice Presidential nominee.
Answer: He wouldn’t, but he was on the Hugh Hewitt show, and Hugh (and likely most of his listeners) are Cruz supporters, so he couldn’t come right out and say that. To use a popular phrase these days, pretty deceptive statement by Trump.
Especially considering the fact he said “nasty guy” and “total voter fraud” earlier that same day…
I am beginning to think that perhaps Professor Jacobson is not a Trump supporter. Mr. Pierre is quite clear(and passionate) on that. Not sure about the whole Cruzbot or Trumpbot thing. Also, that whole Trumpertantrum and Trumpermania thing, well this is the Professor’s house.. Anyway, just look at the complete and total jerk he(Donald Trump) made of himself visiting the Manchester Police Department. http://www.c-span.org/video/?404251-1/donald-trump-manchester-new-hampshire-police-department Now how is that for braggadocio? Nope, I doubt anyone here has seen that video or would bother. But that’s ok. It’s all good.
A new movie needs to be made: “Mad Tax: Beyond TrumperDome”.
Except the Mad Tax is the one proposed by Cruz. It is insane to propose a value added tax, a whole new form of business taxation, without first requiring constitutional amendments limiting the rate of such value added tax and preventing the reimposition of business income tax IN ADDITION to this new form of business taxation.
Cruz’s tax plan was written for him by Art Laffer and Stephen Moore. It is one of those ideas that only the super smart like Cruz, Laffer, and Moore can come up with. In the theoretical world of the really smart, it is a great idea. Sadly in the real world subject to corruption by greedy democrats and mega donors and global corporations it is an idea that is COMPLETELY INSANE without first getting the protective constitutional amendments.
Since getting the protective constitutional amendments will never happen then the entire Cruz tax plan is just a dangerous exercise in an intellectual circle jerk.
The DMR weighs in on Cruz
Editorial: Cruz’s campaign of deceit should worry voters
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/opinion/
The Des Moines Register, which officially endorsed Rubio for the GOP nomination back in January, does not like Ted Cruz?
::this is my shocked face::
By the way, your blessed DMR also weighed in on Trump a while back:
Editorial: Trump should pull the plug on his bloviating side show
So, Amy, you approve of Cruz’s disgusting political dirty tricks because the DMR also doesn’t like Trump?
You’re a good MoveON type.
Cruz’s tax plan also replaces the current 16% payroll tax on wages with a new 32% payroll tax on wages, which will have the effect of causing small business owners to want to reduce the number of employees they have or to reduce the total amount of wages they pay out in order to avoid the employer’s 16% share of that 32% payroll tax.
You see Cruz’s really smart tax plan works like this. It is NOT a tax on net income of a business as that term is understood by everyone today. It is really a tax on the modified gross sales receipts of a business. I say modified because the 16% value added tax is applied to the gross sales receipts of the business, but after deducting ONLY the cost of items upon which prior value added tax was paid.
But guess what is specifically NOT EVER DEDUCTED in determining taxable gross sales receipts ?? IT IS WAGES !!! That’s right wages ARE NEVER DEDUCTED.
What does that mean? It means WAGES PAID BY EMPLOYERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE 16% Cruz Value Added Tax. Now if you are a giant global corporation with huge profits that were previously subject to our very high 35% and 50% rates of business taxation then this new way of calculating the tax will result in a lower overall tax to your business.
BUT… If you are small business with little to know profitability after payment of wages to workers and payment of salary/distributions to the working owner of the business, then Cruz’s plan results in HUGE NEW TAXES.
Here is how. If your business makes no profit after payment of wages to workers and salary/distribution to working owners (and that describes MILLIONS of small businesses in this country) then the business pays no taxes at all other than the taxes applicable to wages and owners’ salaries/distributions. Because those wages and salaries are DEDUCTIBLE in computing net income and therefore there is no net income subject to the business taxes.
Now (using round numbers and avoiding considerations of certain floors and maximums for simplicity of communicating the concepts) the payroll tax on wages and salaries is 16%. 8% is paid by the employee and withheld from their gross pay for social security and medicare, etc. The other 8% is paid by the EMPLOYER.
Cruz’s plan eliminates (supposedly) this 16% payroll tax. In its place Cruz’s plan taxes the business at 16% and it taxes the wages of the workers at 16%. So that is the equivalent of a 32% payroll tax on wages with half (16%) paid by the employee and half (16%) paid by the employer.
How can a business with no net income pay this tax?? Because under Cruz’s plan WAGES ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE. So that small business that had under current law no net taxable income after payment of wages and salaries SUDDENLY HAS taxable receipts equal to the wages and salaries paid by the business and that business now has to pay 16% on those wages and salaries. Previously the business paid on 8% on those wages and salaries. So to that business the tax cost of labor. The tax cost of wages and salaries has just DOUBLED. Further, the payroll taxes paid by the employees of that business also DOUBLED from 8% to 16% individual income tax rate.
Now whether the individuals overall total taxes increase or decrease after Cruz will depend on whether they have other income and other circumstances of their income and deductions on their personal returns.
BUT for the business the tax on labor has DOUBLED. How can that business try and save on these new higher taxes on the wages and salaries it pays ?? There is only one way. Trim the wages paid. Pay workers less money. Have fewer workers. Invest in capital equipment and robots that don’t get paid wages and still yield deductions under Cruz’s plan.
So Cruz’s tax plan besides being INSANE for the reasons I stated in the prior post, HAS A HUGE BUILT IN INCENTIVE FOR MARGINALLY PROFITABLE SMALL BUSINESSES TO ELIMINATE WORKERS AND LOWER WAGES.
Cruz’s plan favors highly profitable giant corporations over marginally profitable small business and would destroy MANY small businesses and MANY MORE small business jobs.
Should we trust Gary’s analysis, or that of the Tax Foundation?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan
The tax foundation analysis doesn’t attempt to consider what I wrote about so it is irrelevant to my points and doesn’t address them in any manner. Even a monkey with a mouse ought to be able to recognize that fact.
Even a monkey can fling their feces at something they don’t understand. That’s easy to do. Much harder to read and think and post some original thinking of your own that either supports or opposes the matters about which I’ve written. But that takes thought and work, and a brain and education.
If you aren’t smart enough to do your own reading and thinking then you could hire a tax lawyer to write a response for you to post here. Or you could ask the tax foundation to consider the points I’ve raised and that they have not considered because they were doing a macro analysis projecting affects on total tax revenues and the economy, etc.
“Even a monkey can fling their feces at something they don’t understand. That’s easy to do.”
As Intercontinental Railroad Britt INSISTS on proving EVERY DAY…!!!
What a lying sack of T-rumpian MAGIC analysis…!!!
Rags instead of doing your monkey have feces will travel routine, you pretend to be a lawyer. You claim to be a WAY better lawyer than me. So should be no problem for you to read Cruz’s plan and then read what I wrote, and tell us your original analysis of what I wrote and what is right about it and what is wrong about.
Take all the time you need and we’ll wait for your pretend lawyer analysis.
Hey, dude, I KNOW what an average is, and how they work.
I don’t NEED to read your shit to know it’s shit.
But, hey, when you can point to someone who agrees with your shit…IN THE BUSINESS OF TAX ANALYSIS and not some glorified HR BLOCK-head (if you even rise to that), let us know.
With a link. Pathetic. Just a T-rump sucking moron, AND bigot.
Rags instead of doing your monkey have feces will travel routine, you pretend to be a lawyer. You claim to be a WAY better lawyer than me. So should be no problem for you to read Cruz’s plan and then read what I wrote, and tell us your original analysis of what I wrote and what is right about it and what is wrong about.
Take all the time you need and we’ll wait for your pretend lawyer analysis.
Hey, dude, I KNOW what an average is, and how they work.
I don’t NEED to read your shit to know it’s shit.
But, hey, when you can point to someone who agrees with your shit…IN THE BUSINESS OF TAX ANALYSIS and not some glorified HR BLOCK-head (if you even rise to that), let us know.
With a link. Pathetic. Just a T-rump sucking moron, AND bigot.
Ok here is link. Now if you are the lawyer you claim to be youvshould gave no problem reading Cruz’s tax plan and then my post and provide your own original commentary. Look forward to your expert analysis.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/02/trumpertantrum-turns-into-trumpernoia/comment-page-1/#comment-647489
Gary, you’re sounding more like your almighty bwana every day, “Wahwahwahwahwah!!!!!
Are your lips stuck in a perpetual “O” from pacifier abuse like humpatrump’s are?
One woman, Patricia Cooper, who is undecided but leaning toward Trump, said it seemed that the policy platform on Trump’s campaign website were lacking details.
“I’m very excited about a lot of the things … I love your ideas, we need all these changed, but sometimes when I read them, it’s a statement,” Cooper said. “But it’s not really saying how are you gonna do — they’re so many things to do. How are you gonna do them?”
Trump responded that he believes it’s more important to be flexible and committed to negotiating, rather than having “rigid” and detailed policy plans.
“I have a lot of papers out,” he said. “But in the end, the press wants them more than the people.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/donald-trump-ac360-cruz-feud/index.html
And apparently one of his people slipped him some meds, because he’s “moved on” from sliming Cruz.
So…
1. I called Duh Donald “Mr. Establishment”. Iowa’s sell out to BIG CORN proved me right.
2. I called Donald Ducks a pathological naricissist. Iowa’s aftermath proved me right.
3. I called T-rump a “campaign conservative” with no core. The above quote proves me right.
As a matter of fact, I have a new nick-name for him: “The Slider”, after the sandwich. His positions can be counted to slide all over the greasy grill of what he thinks the people want to hear, and there are no “rigid” policies.
So, Gaghdad Bob (the lying liar Britt) is in mourning.
He has to dust off some OLD BUSTED BRITT bullshit.
He cannot go a day without lying for T-rump.
Speaking of mindless monkeys throwing their own feces around .. I give you Rags.
“America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally. ”
“The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.”
“It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave. ”
The America We Deserve,
by Donald Trump,
p.143-45 Jul 2, 2000
And yet…
in 2013, T-rump was FIGHTING for the Gang Of Eight…
while Cruz and Sessions were killing it.
See? No core. He’ll say whatever is expedient, and suckers WILL suck.
I bet even that vaunted “wall” is “negotiable” and not “fixed”.
Poor suckers….
No, he never “fought for the gang of 8”. That is a lie. I think you keep reading it and repeating it because you so desperately want to believe it rather than the plain truth.
Cruz is lying about it. Here is the documentation including the “tweet” that Cruz makes so much of.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-donald-trump-amnesty-tweet-2016-1
The take away: “Trump, however, was also critical of the concept of amnesty both before and after the August 2013 tweet that Cruz cited.
“Amnesty is suicide for Republicans,” Trump wrote in May 2013. He added later that month: “The new amnesty bill is over 1000 pages. It is another monstrosity a la ObamaCare.”
“
Luntz is a paid shill, always has been. If you don’t recognize this you are blinded by something.
… because anyone who isn’t 100% for Trump has got to be a paid shill for someone.
Used to be they were all shills for Jeb! Since that meme has been so thoroughly debunked, now any non-Tump-fan is just a plain old shill for whatever. Doesn’t matter what/whom they’re shills for. They’re not for Trump and that’s baaaad.
So you flirted with supporting Walker. So do I and for all the reasons you stated you liked about him.
Sadly, Walker surrounded himself with GOPe consultants and adopted the Paul Ryan open borders immigration plans. It was the GOPe consultants and his open borders immigration combined with his less than good public speaking abilities that destroyed his candidacy. Very sad.
So now that we have cleared out who you thought about supporting, now is time to tell us about WHOM YOU SUPPORT RIGHT NOW ??
Is it Hillary or Bernie or Bush or Christie ?? Who is it ??
Uh oh. Somebody’s having a Trumper-tantrum.
Look, I know this is way over your head, but it has nothing to do with Trump.
Luntz will present a rigged set of results to whoever pays for them. Always has, going back before this election.
Your Trump hatred blinds you to common sense.
And you still will not tell us which candidate(s) you prefer.
You guys. Your tag-teaming is really starting to look a little obvious here. You do this to her on every post. What on earth do you think you’re accomplishing by that?
Even if all it accomplished was to annoy an ignorant biased little shit like you it would be worth it. At least for me. I can’t speak for Barry.
See, now you’re going FULL Bierhall Bully Brownshirt Britt again, you lying Sack of T-rump sharia ThoughtPolicing.
What a WONDERFUL example of the species!
Nobody was talking to you Rags.
She asked me a specific question and I answered her question. You are just doing your retarded puppy dog routine following me around to glom on to my posts.
No, liar. I’m counter-trolling and making you my punk. It’s FUN…!!!
So you’ve appointed yourself the official retarded puppy dog hall monitor. I bet you have a badge and everything.
I dun nEEEEEEd no steeeenkin’ badges.
I just hold you up by the scruff of the neck…metaphorically, of course. You’re too heavy a sack of shit to lift on a regular basis, which I’d have to do…
Amy: Uh oh. Somebody’s having a Trumper-tantrum.
Rags: No, liar. I’m counter-trolling and making you my punk. It’s FUN…!!!
You guys. Your tag-teaming is really starting to look a little obvious here. You do this on every post. What on earth do you think you’re accomplishing by that?
Frank Putz. Once a Putz always a Putz. You can twist your dials on it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/05/trump-yes-ill-be-at-the-next-fox-debate-with-megyn-kelly/
How humiliating…!!!
Two major defeats for T-rump (LOSER!, NYC) in less than a week…!!!
The problem with your link is it consists of lies by the anti-trump, GOPe “Hot Gas”.
Trump never “demanded” the removal of Kelly. That is what the article states and it is, surprise, a lie.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/trump-calls-for-megyn-kellys-removal-as-moderator-from-fox-news-debate/
Isn’t it odd that everyone labored under the impression he DID demand exactly that, and he never felt it appropriate to correct that perception?
See why I just don’t find you worth dealing with? You have not integrity.
Once again you post up a link that does not show what you say it does.
Trump never “demanded” Kelly’s removal.
You post lie after lie and I call you on it. That’s why you don’t want to deal with it.
Try the truth “Mr. Integrity”. Post a link, any link where Trump makes the demand. You.cannot.do.it.
For someone that claims never to tell a lie, and calls everyone else you disagree with a liar, you sure don’t mind spreading around the lies.
I can understand being passionate about one’s own position, but when it devolves to puerile name-calling and vulgar insults, it really detracts from whatever point is trying to be made. I believe there is a time and place for mockery and ridiculing the ridiculous, but these types of threads are over the top.
My two cents ~
Dittos!
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/02/nice-work-li-falwell-evangelical-trump.html#more
T-rump f-bombs New Hampshire rally, lies about it on O’Rielly.
He’s losing it.