Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump: Let’s get to be a little Establishment so we can make great deals!

Trump: Let’s get to be a little Establishment so we can make great deals!

Do words still have meaning?

Speaking to a crowd in Las Vegas Thursday night, Donald Trump said he’d be part of the establishment if elected; a bit odd considering he’s spent the majority of his campaign portraying himself as the ultimate political outsider.

But standard rules don’t apply this election cycle. Apparently.

The abbreviated version of Trump’s remarks:

The transcript:

“Guys like Ted Cruz will never make a deal because he’s a strident guard. [Weird Ted Cruz impression] I told you, he’s trying to paint me as part of The Establishment and and somebody said, “Establishment,” well how come Sarah Palin just backed him?

And you know what, there’s a point at which, let’s get to be a little bit establishment, because we gotta get things done, folks, okay? Believe me, don’t worry, we’re gonna get such great deals, but at a certain point, you can’t be so strident, you can’t not get along, we gotta get along with people. You know in the old days, Ronald Reagan, and I remember it so vividly, I was a young guy, I helped Ronald Reagan, I really liked him…

…So what happens — Ronald Reagan would get along with Tip O’Neill and they’d sit down, and they’d make great deals for everybody. That’s what the country’s about, isn’t it? I mean, we can all be tough but at some point we gotta get our country back on track.”

Tip O’Neill, of course, was a Democrat.

Part of Trump’s appeal has been that he fights! like no other. I’m not sure how “but he fights!” is easily reconciled with, “let’s be part of The Establishment to make great deals!”

Also a bit rough for Trump’s status as preeminent outsider is his political donation history. He’s donated hundreds of thousands (aggregate) to Republicans and Democrats alike, but one of, if not the single largest donation? $50,000 to Kentuckians for Strong Leadership. Their sole purpose? Ensuring Mitch McConnell won re-election in 2014.

 

Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 2.13.55 PM

 

Nothing says “Not Establishment” like a big fat check to Mitch McConnell.

Trump has recently battled allegations from Senator Ted Cruz’s campaign that the Republican Establishment has ingratiated itself with Trump out of fear Cruz could be the nominee. Despite the Cruz campaign claims, there’s no evidence suggesting this to be the case.

I’ll explain:

A Washington Post article released a week ago suggested GOP donors were lining up behind Trump. The source? A former Romney fundraiser who only suggested that donors were thinking Trump might have a chance. He went on to say those same donors were actively talking to various other candidates as well. Our sources, however, say Republican donors are not lining up behind Trump. That’s it. That’s how this started.

Amazingly, that same article reported Cruz’s courtship of Republican Establishment donors including Jeb backers and former Cheney advisors. But I guess that’s not Establishment now?

In any case, The Establishment Totes Hearts Trump meme exploded into pundit fodder and countless hot takes reiterating the supposition found their way into the Internet. Then they wheeled out a 92-year-old Bob Dole to endorse Trump (sort of) and the rumor became certifiable truth. But such is the nature of politics.

And now, Trump is owning The Establishment attack, promising he will be a “little bit establishment.”

At this point, I have no clue who or what “The Establishment™” is. That name, term, slur — whatever, no longer has meaning. If anything, The Establishment™ is a shape-shifting boogieman with innumerable manifestations, all of which are meant to denote something very problematic. Or maybe not. At least not in Trump’s case.

lol nothing matters

_________

Full Las Vegas remarks are here, as posted by Chris Enloe at The Blaze:

[h/t Leon Wolf of RedState]

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Where is the cage match?
I must be at the wrong place.

Looks like Trump has hit upon the resonate frequency of which all weapons against him shatter.

Stuff matters. Build wall; deport illegals: enforce our laws; great trade deals; make america great again.

Trump is just offering peons to the establishment so they can save face in their capit u lation and surrender.

Latest Reuters rolling average poll out tonight. Trump 41%; Cruz 10%.

Cruz collapse continues. The lesson attack Trump at your peril continues.

Not to worry Cruz is firming up his support among the eminent domain abuse crowd.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Gary Britt. | January 22, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Whence comes this irrational faith in a mountebank who is corrupt from the tip of his toe nails to the top of his hairdo? For everything Trump says today there is tons of video of his saying entirely different things one two and three years ago, Yet you chose only the listen to what he says today.

    I’ll enjoy saying I told you so when your secular Messiah sells you out on immigration.

      He wasn’t running for president before.

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 12:09 pm

        Gary Britt: You’re saying that you really trust the guy who adopted his campaign positions just for the sake of getting power.

        And you imagine he’s the antidote to politicians who change their positions once they’re in office — and much more reliable than any candidate who’s saying the same thing today as twenty years ago!

        Is it really so hard to see how nonsensical that is?

          Radegunda is a democrat who supports Hillary and Bernie and fears Trump more than any other republican.

          No rational person would believe that Trump came out with his immigration statements on day he announced for president as statements made to garner support. Nobody democrat or republican and no news media I r political consultant or pollster beluevex saying build wall depirt illegals and many illegals coming here were rapists and murderers would in any way be popular or garner support with majority of voters.

          Therefore the only rational conclusion is Trump said these things because they are what he believes.

          It is why he has such credibility and your statements in your post are completely backwards from how things actually are.

          Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | January 23, 2016 at 4:17 pm

          …we are ASSURED by the delusional, T-rump sucking cultist myrmidon.

          What is it Rags likes to say? Oh here it is from his own orifice:

          MORE stupid, lying mindless ad hominem.

          If you HAVE any argument, make it, Cruz sucker.

          Otherwise, STFU, and stop trying to thought-police the thread.

      Cruz has a campaign finance problem if anyone cares to dig through it. But it doesn’t matter. He’s not going to be the nominee. Unless something major happens the math does not work for him. I cannot see how he gets to 1236 and win a majority in 8 states.

        janitor in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 23, 2016 at 12:18 am

        A lot of people apparently don’t know what eminent domain is, but it was so embedded in the founders’ minds that it’s embedded and sanctioned in the fifth amendment to the constitution:

        …or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        The fifth amendment doesn’t stop after the words “public use.”

          Observer in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 7:05 am

          Public use is for something the public needs (like, for example, a road), and that the public will use and own. It is different from private use, such as when a privately-owned company wants the government to take your grandpa’s farm so that they can build a shopping mall on grandpa’s land (a shopping mall that will be privately owned by the investors, not the public).

          Traditionally, eminent domain was used when privately-owned land was needed for public use, but the Kelo court expanded the concept to allow government seizures of private land to transfer ownership from one private owner to another private owner. Nothing in the constitution sanctions that.

          I also disagree with the Supreme court’s decision in Kelo. However Kelo type takings don’t involve the federal government and certainly don’t involve the President. Kelo takings are done by corrupt local politicians. States are free to pass anti Kelo protections. A few have done so. Not enough have passed good ones however.

        janitor in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 23, 2016 at 12:20 am

        A lot of people apparently don’t know what eminent domain is, and Cruz’s ad is counting on their ignorance.

        Eminent domain is sanctioned in the fifth amendment to the constitution:

        …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        If the founders had a problem with it, they would have stopped writing after the words “public use.”

          janitor in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 12:23 am

          Sorry didn’t see this post and wrote it twice. Should have been under the comment below.

          BuckIV in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 1:27 am

          “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

          Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen

          This statement should prove to any Trump enthusiast that he is in no way conservative and very likely wants to expand the scope and power of the government.

          If he becomes President you can expect the size of the Gov’t to keep growing without a pause, probably grow much faster. After all, he’ll be in charge and it’ll be a great Gov’t, a classy Gov’t, a Gov’t that you want to surrender more liberty to, it’ll be huge, classy.

          Face it, we’re farked!

          Radegunda in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 12:15 pm

          BuckVI: Trump fans demonstrate over and over that they don’t care about any facts that puncture their hero-savior image of The Donald.

          They’ve got too much emotion invested in him, and they’ve been too persistent in telling us that any “Trump-denier” is a sellout.

          Radegunda is a democrat that supports Hillary and Bernie and fears Trump.

          Trump supporters like all the rest of the population of the USA and tbe world understand that eminent domain abuse is about item 1000 on the list if things important for next president to handle.

          Even trying to pretend this is important pressing issue for country is just evidence of how badly Cruz is doing and how incompetent is he and his advisers in deciding what is important at this moment in time.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 4:22 pm

          …we are assured that property rights just don’t matta in the new world orda of magical T-rump land.

          He’s TOLD us he’ll build a wall, doncha all know? It’ll be big and marvy, an’ the Mexico will pay for it! And it’ll have a BIG, WONDERFUL revolving door, and HE will bring back the “good ones”. All you have to do is put your lips rat thar, on his big, pink ass! An’, SHHHAAAAAAAAaaaaazzzam! Magic!

          We’re told by the lying SOS who daily proves himself a delusional T-rump sucking cultist.

      Oh by the way that ad Cruz just unveiled about eminent domain is pretty deceitful. It does not mention the Guccione involvement which is actually the crux of the story. And I had to laugh it shows a bulldozer knocking the house down but the Cruz people know the house is still there. It was sold at an auction recently and bought by….Carl Icahn.

        I believe it sold for 25% of what Trump offered to pay for it. The little old lady also stopped a 200 room expansion of the hotel and all the employment that construction would have meant for the city of Atlantic City. The parking lot was needed to support the 200 additional rooms for the hotel. Without the parking lot the additional rooms construction workers maids desk and maintenance workers were not needed.

          PhillyGuy in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 12:29 am

          I stand corrected on the home. Icahn’s company bought it and demolished it. The original offer was made by Guccione for $1 million I believe.She rejected it and Guccione stuck it to her and built his property all around her. Trump got involved and the ED case happened. She won that. But she eventually left the home and moved into a nursing home outside of NJ. Her grandson tried to sell the home and couldn’t get the same price so he put it up for auction. Icahn’s company bought it for somewhere north of $500,000. That is what I recall.

        Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 23, 2016 at 11:47 am

        Here’s the funny thing, Fillygui,

        It does NOT matter what the prices were at different times.

        What DOES matter is that you did not have a willing seller…at whatever price was offered…AND the POWER of BIG GOVERNMENT was brought to bear by a corrupt puke of a Donald Trump to FORCE a transfer of property rights.

        You guys are anything BUT conservatives.

          The government did not force the sale of this property and the greedy property owner screwed both herself and the residents of the city of Atlantic City out of a heck of a lot of money and 100s of of jobs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 4:28 pm

          The “greedy” lady who just wanted to live where she lived.

          How DARE that BITCH!

          I don’t think you’re right about that “100s of jobs” lie, there, Gaghdad Bob. See the whole thing cratered not long after that episode.

          Now, here’s a thing I’ve wondered about…

          There was “T-rump THIS”, and “T-rump Princess”, and “T-rump That” in Atlantic City. Unless they were co-owned by the same investors, how was that NOT a conflict of interest by the T-rump his own sef?

      How do you know he’s “corrupt”?

      Do you have examples of some kind of pattern of illegal or unethical behavior?

        Radegunda in reply to janitor. | January 23, 2016 at 12:19 pm

        Trump fans keep telling us that when he spent large amounts of money to put or keep Democrats in power, and when he praised them effusively, he was only doing it for his own business interests.

        That is: Trump fans actually say that Trump happily betrayed the “principles” they imagine he held all along — in order to make himself wealthier.

          No he betrayed nothing he behaved as a perfectly rational and ethical consumer and citizen seeking to maximize his opportunities within the bounds of law and ethics.

          Radegunda is a democrat suppirter of Hillary and Bernie who fears Trump.

          Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | January 23, 2016 at 4:33 pm

          No, you lying SOS, as you’ve ADMITTED, he lied about people (or he’s lying about lying) to grease them for his crony capitalism in New York City.

          Showing…again…there is no lie you will not tell to tongue-polish the terds of Duh Donald.

      innocent bystander in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | January 23, 2016 at 6:30 am

      NC Mtn Girl: For everything Trump says today there is tons of video of his saying AND EXAMPLES OF HIM DOING entirely different things one two and three years ago, Yet you chose only the listen to what he says today.

      Agree completely!

        According to Gary Britt (and many others), Trump’s past doesn’t matter because “He wasn’t running for president then.”

        Of course, the only person they apply that principle to is Trump.

      “Whence comes this irrational faith in a mountebank.”

      In the political world it is best to see look at a candidates base if you want to determine how they will act in the future. Trump will remain firm on the issue he brought to the forefront, immigration, because it is the very issue that created a base of voters for him. He’s certainly smart enough to understand that you dance with them that brung ya plus moving away from this base would spell political disaster for him. The animosity towards Trump is driven by people who have different priorities from the general public, eminent domain, whatever incidental complaint that has the children at NR upset at any given time. The desire of Trump’s base to restore the borders is on an order of magnitude higher than any other issue, including abortion, eminent domain, and the NR cause de jure of the day. This is why Trump will remain faithful on the issue that matters most. Because his base is focused and so is he.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Curle. | January 24, 2016 at 3:05 am

        Your babbling presumes that Trump is concerned about political success and would want a second term if through the bizarre fluke of apparent American stupidity the lying, thieving scumbag gets elected.

        If ever sworn in he would be 70 years old. He will steal everything he wants to steal during his first and only term, then retire worth billions more in kickbacks from his largesse of public funds, new connections, the sale of “access” and all his ‘great deals’.

        He has no political concerns once he’s elected. You should work to make sure that never happens.

I actually am starting to like what Trump represents…not enough to want to vote for him but it is pretty fun watching the GOPe panic and try to blow up the party to get him out of the way.

This, for example, is full panic:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

And the profile video on fox news:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/21/leading-conservatives-unite-stop-donald-trump-winning-gop-nomination

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 22, 2016 at 11:02 pm

    FYI: Nihilism is incoherently unhealthy for its practitioners.

    Radegunda in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 23, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    You’re project onto NR the emotionalism that drives Trump fandom.

    NR isn’t indulging in “panic.” They’re presenting mountains of facts and rational arguments showing that Trump is not what many of his fans imagine him to be, and that he would not be a principled conservative president.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 23, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Hmmm. It’s just one poll. Still…
    “(according to the Reuters 5 day rolling poll) over a third of Cruz’s followers have abandoned him for Trump in the last 3 days since Palin announced for Trump.”

So just who is surrendering to whom?

Considering how quick the GOPe has been to surrender to a weak sister like Obama, the expectation that it will hold out for Trump to come crawling to it is … well, let’s just say unrealistic. And since Trump’s career as a negotiator didn’t exactly start yesterday, I’m sure he knows that perfectly well. All he has to do to get everything he wants from these weenies is wait, and he probably won’t have to wait long.

It doesn’t matter. Trumpkins live in a fantasy where it doesn’t matter what he’s said or done in the recent past, or that he has habitually violated his word on contracts he signed; they trust that not only does he mean what says right now, but that he can do it even though he lacks the first clue how to or that his promises exceed presidential authority or violate existing treaties.

Ignorance, stupidity, gullibility, mass hysteria, or a combination – they will believe in him until it all falls apart.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Estragon. | January 23, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Without disagreeing with a word you wrote, let’s note that the GOP is at a high water mark everywhere: Senate, House, Govs, state legislatures, local office holders, … Anyone detecting a roll back of Dem excesses?

      Passage of a law requires the agreement of both houses of Congress, and the President, OR a veto-proof majority to override a presidential veto. When have the Repubs had this?

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Valerie. | January 23, 2016 at 3:55 pm

        Have you seen an uptick in presidential vetoes? Are the Repubs getting in Obama’s face?
        Have you seen judicial confirmations held back?
        Have you seen federal departments punished for overreach?
        And how about state and local sectors? They’re not affected by Pres vetoes.

        Does the phrase “power of the purse” mean anything? The Founders intended it as a check on the President. Don’t like his proposals, don’t fund his crap. If that means a shutdown, good.

          Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | January 23, 2016 at 6:41 pm

          Correct-0-mundo, dude…!!!

          Re-BALANCE the branches. A good POWERFUL, confident Congress is a GOOOOOOOOOOOooooood thing in our republic.

      Ragspierre in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | January 23, 2016 at 9:24 am

      Yes, Jim. We certainly DO!

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 4:00 pm

        Yes, Texans are showing some spine. Kudos!
        At the national level, though? And how about some of those lopsided Repub legislatures outside TX?
        Is it business as usual or are they making big changes in gov’t spending? Handling of illegals?

      Jim, how is that an argument for Trump?

      What’s the reason for believing that the candidate whose views have been closest to Democrat-left views is the one most likely to push for a rollback of the Democrat agenda?

      Jim: Trump has recently expressed favor for government-paid universal health care. When has he spoken about trimming back the size and scope of the federal government?

    Estragon is a democrat that supports Hillary and Bernie and fears Trump.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Estragon. | January 24, 2016 at 3:19 am

    Well said.

Yeah, but tRump is YUUUGE and CLASSY!

/sarc

Not a damn one of the candidates is worth a vote, IMHO…

This isn’t anything to do with Trump. Anyone who cannot comprehend the idea of negotiating from a position of strength and locking in the benefits with a good deal is off my list of sane, open-minded people for life.

Sorry, it is simply so.

    Addendum. The writer takes the same stance on not knowing what “the establishment” really means that Hillary Clinton does, and that rotating graphic makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a BIC pen. Just for the record.

    Radegunda in reply to JBourque. | January 23, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Most Trump fans have been insisting that when Trump says something, by golly he’ll do exactly that. When he says he’ll deport every last illegal alien, he’ll do it, unlike the RINO sellouts.

    Trump fandom has largely rested on the faith that Trump NEVER backs down — until a Trump fan finds it more useful to say, “Well, he’s just throwing out that extravagant stuff to start the process.”

Nice try

The great deal maker paid to ensure that the establishment would stay in place. Such a deal!

Ted Cruz: “Mr. Trump, tear down those walls!”

Here are the facts:

1. despite the straw man bullshit about a Kelo-loving Progressive crony “not mattering”, we DO know it DOES matter what a POTUS thinks about OTHERS property rights. T-rump has nothing to show anything but contempt for yours or mine. And he shows it in multiple ways.

2. no great thing in the nation’s history has been done by a “let’s make a deal” negotiator.

3. in the FIRST crack at bat, T-rump has acted EXACTLY as PREDICTED, and sold out to ANTI-market, CRONY capitalist interests in Iowa. DOING EXACTLY what he said he would not do. And he showed his ass on the cheap!

4. any economy…local or national…where the GOVERNMENT acts in the manner T-rump proposes is a PROGRESSIVE, distorted economy.

5. markets WORK to benefit everyone every time you allow them. COMMAND economies (the alternative to the markets) NEVER work as advertised, but DO enrich the connected few, ALWAYS at the expense of the middle-class.

IF you want a lying, Progressive, ESTABLISHMENT, crony deal-maker and authoritarian in the Oval office for another four years of dire threat to the republic, you have your man in Duh Donald.

    If Trump wins nomination (which is all but assured), surely Rags will vote for Trump instead of Hillary. Oh wait, no he wont?

    Whenever Rags starts a post with “here are the facts” you know you need to put on your rubber waders because the bullshit and lies are about to be piled high and wide.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 4:41 pm

      MORE stupid, lying mindless ad hominem.

      If you HAVE any argument, make it, Trump sucker.

      Otherwise, STFU, and stop trying to thought-police the thread.

        Irony, thy name is Rags.

        Rags is getting extra hysterical and ready to wet himself any second. Cruz’s poll numbers in Iowa and nationally have dropped significantly since Palin endorsed Trump and Rags IQ seems highly correlated to Cruz’s poll numbers at times.

Mr. Establishment on state v. Federal lands, and their use. [Word salad alert!]

AL: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?

DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

AL: Let me ask you this—back to conservation and access for hunters’ rights to get on public land. One of the things that we’ve found is so much of this campaign—not your campaign, but this election cycle—has talked about cutting budgets and reducing the federal government. And what the budget is for managing public lands right now is at one percent. In 1970, it was two percent. Would you continue to push that number down for wildlife conservation or would you look to invest more?

DT: I don’t think there’s any reason to. And I will say—and I’ve heard this from many of my friends who are really avid hunters and I’ve heard it from my sons who are avid hunters—that the lands are not maintained the way they were by any stretch of the imagination. And we’re going to get that changed; we’re going to reverse that. And the good thing is, I’m in a family where I have—I mean, I’m a member of the NRA, but I have two longtime members of the NRA. They’ve been hunting from the time they were five years old and probably maybe even less than that. And they really understand it. And I like the fact that, you know, I can sort of use them in terms of—they know so much about every single element about every question that you’re asking. And one of the things they’ve complained about for years is how badly the federal lands are maintained, so we’ll get that changed.

Donald Trump Jr.: It’s really all about access. I mean, I feel like the side that’s the anti-hunting crowd, they’re trying to eliminate that access—make it that much more difficult for people to get the next generation in. For me, hunting and fishing kept me out of so much other trouble I would’ve gotten into throughout my life. It’s just so important to be able to maintain that, so that next generation gets into it. And it’s the typical liberal death by a thousand cuts: “We’ll make it a little harder here. Make it a little harder here. We won’t spend the money there.” And it’s not just about hunting—it’s about fishing; it’s about hiking; it’s about access; it’s about being able to get in there and enjoy the outdoors and enjoy those great traditions that are so, you know, so much the foundation of America. And we’d be against anything like that. And frankly, it’d be about refunding those—making sure those lands are maintained properly; making sure they’re not going into private hands to be effectively walled off to the general public. And that’s something really important to us.

AL: Absolutely. How would you balance energy exploration and extraction on public lands? How would you balance that with the need for recreation and multiple use? Right now, gas prices are low, but they might not stay that way.

DT: Well, I’m very much into energy, and I’m very much into fracking and drilling, and we never want to be hostage again to OPEC and go back to where we were. And right now, we’re at a very interesting point because right now there’s so much energy. And I’ve always said it—there’s so much energy. And new technology has found that. And maybe that’s an advantage and maybe—actually, it’s more of an advantage in terms of your question, because we don’t have to do the kind of drilling that we did. But I am for energy exploration, as long as we don’t do anything to damage the land. And right now we don’t need too much; there’s a lot of energy.”

So, bottom line…

Screw you, states!

I’m keeping it federal!

I’m gonna spend MORE on federal lands!

Because hunting and fishing (here at the SHOT Show)!

Oh, and NO, you can’t drill on federal land under me, Duh Donald, because…I know how your land should be managed better’n you proles.

An’ hunting and fishing (which I don’t do) ROCKS (when I’m talking to Field And Stream)!
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation?src=SOC&dom=tw

Poll Shift Following Sarah Palin’s Endorsement of Trump

Trump poll numbers increase 6%

Cruz poll numbers decrease 6%

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/333628-2/

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 10:36 am

    That would be Dim Jim Hoft’s T-rump butt boi site, right?

    Along with Trumpbart, he’s made himself an embarrassment.

    Is it the “Palin effect”, or is it the Nixonian attacks from the LEFT by Duh Donald? Some polling I’ve seen says that Palin is a wash.

    But I think very little of almost any polling.

      hahaha

      I could have selected a different citation but we all know how much you admire that communist Jim Hoft who cited that communist Reuters 5 day rolling poll. lol

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 10:51 am

        Hoho.

        Don’t try to staw man me, Fe-mal-lay. Hoft isn’t anything but a butt boi for T-rump, by his own election to BE a butt boi for T-rump. I read his site daily, and it’s embarrassing.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 11:05 am

        AHAHAHAHA…

        Jim Hoft is not bright enough to know or care.

        Plus, I’m not calling him names, I’m observing his behavior. Anybody can.

        He’s made himself a T-rump sucker. Not my fault!

          Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 11:50 am

          I used to look at Gateway Pundit for news, not for thoughtful commentary. Hoft’s headlines often showed that he had not carefully read the material he was posting or not understood it — or else he was deliberately sensationalizing it.

          I took Gateway off my bookmark list when half of Jim’s posts were juvenile gloating about how Trump really socked it to ’em.

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 11:52 am

    Obama had a massive cult following too. That didn’t make Obama a great president.

Coming as it does from so many Washington politicos who have for years said it was beyond the pale to attack fellow Republicans, and how dare conservatives not rally behind their chosen candidate, the hypocrisy here of rejecting a lifelong Republican in Cruz for a Republican of convenience in Trump is laughable. The motivations are obvious: first, there is the personal animus; second, the partisan belief Cruz would fail and Trump would succeed; third, the cynical view that Trump would be a better working partner than Cruz.

Except there’s one more thing going on here too – the recognition of a threat to the existing order not of Ted Cruz the man, but Ted Cruz the model. Yes, Cruz himself is an existential threat to the established order in Washington, someone with the potential to reorient a party coalition and blow up the existing gravy train. But everyone in Washington who depends on that order is convinced that he’s a general election loser. So why the palatable underlying fear for the disruption a Cruz nomination could bring? If they’re so certain he’s going to lose, why worry?

Because the threat smart members of the Washington political elite truly believe in is not Ted Cruz, but the model he represents: that the path for an ambitious freshman politician to achieve leadership of the Republican Party in this day and age is not the normal give and take and deference to leaders and precedent and the way we do things around here, but instead to take a flamethrower to this system from day one. Regardless of whether Cruz wins a general election, his nomination could fundamentally transform the political incentives of the Senate and change the internal dynamics of the Senate Republican Conference. It shows that you can get a shot at the presidency not by playing along, but by playing your own game.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/22/the-other-reason-the-washington-elite-hate-ted-cruz/

Remember, Jeff Smith (“Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”) was a HATED, reviled and targeted guy by his colleagues.

It WAS NOT his “grating personality”. It was his FLUCKING integrity. When you’re a sell-out, there isn’t anything more threatening or hateful than a model of what you COULD have been.

Heh…!!!

I don’t expect constancy of principle from Trump fans when it comes to evaluating Trump.

They certainly haven’t been demanding constancy of principle from Trump — even when their main argument “for” Trump is a rant against inconstancy of principle in people who aren’t even running against him.

A Trump fan’s faith cannot be shaken by facts or reason.

Don’t expect contrition from Trump-hating bullies & blowhards 😉

But do expect they will have very sad blowhard bully lives under President Trump, should he prevail as he has been doing since the day he announced he is in this fight to win it.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Say the queen bully-bitch and T-rump sucking “mean gurl” of the interwebs.

    Remember calling ME a “RINO”…???

    Remember calling another poster a “Communist” because he CORRECTLY suggested that Putin would whip T-rump’s ass in a fight? AND CROWING ABOUT RUNNING HIM OFF THE SITE?

    You’re just another lying POS bully, honey. Funny how you guys are alllllllll supporters of the Collectivist T=rump.

      Ragspierre …what an ugly thing to say.

      I abhor ugliness.

      Does this mean we’re not friends anymore, Rags?

      You know, Rags… if I thought you aren’t my friend, I just don’t think I could bear it.

      🙁

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm

      “I abhor ugliness.”

      No. You DON’T. You embody ugliness. It’s who you’ve CHOSEN to be.

        I choose to stand up against blowhard bullies like you, Rags.

        If you can’t take the heat, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I’m sure the Professor would gladly give you a sendoff.

        Frankly, dueling with you is like taking candy from a angry little baby.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 1:06 pm

        “I choose to stand up against blowhard bullies like you, Rags.”

        No. You are a liar.

        Nobody “bullied” anyone by stating reasoned opposition to T-rump.

        YOU bullied THEM for having the temerity to not put their lips on Duh Donald’s ass.

        And you LIE about it now. Because that is who you are.

          I’ve noticed, throughout life, those who are intellect-challenged resort to calling others, liars, as a last resort to sooth their batter egos. How sad for those sad little peeps 🙁

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 2:03 pm

          Nobody “bullied” anyone by stating reasoned opposition to T-rump.

          YOU bullied THEM for having the temerity to not put their lips on Duh Donald’s ass.

          And you LIE about it now. Because that is who you are.

          So you lie about lying about lying. Wow.

          You want me to put up some of your “best of bitch” posts, honey?

          Like the one where you called me an “asshole” for simply responding to your T-rump-kissing attack because I won’t plant my lips were you had?

          Just say so. I have some time.

        Irony, thy name is Rags.

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Trump fans have actually said there’s NOTHING Trump could do or say that would make their support waver. That’s an acknowledgment that facts don’t matter to them.

    Gary Britt thinks the facts didn’t matter until Trump started running for president.

    Trump fans usually respond to unsavory facts about Trump — his bullying, his inconsistency, his big-government megalomania — with deflection or name-calling, or poll numbers, or insinuations that it’s wrong to vet their favorite candidate.

      I haven’t endorsed a candidate …yet.

      However, I support the supporters of Cruz & Trump.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 1:07 pm

        You’re SUCH a lying SOS…!!!

          Rags? What does “SOS” mean? exactly?

          Save Our Ship? Are you in need of rescue?

          Come on… you can tell me, you being such a straight talker and all 🙂

          If you can find citation anywhere proving I have officially endorsed a candidate for 2016, by all means show that link here, Rags, otherwise, you are an inferring lying liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm

          IF you can post a link to any time you savaged anyone as a “RINO” or “Communist” for supporting Cruz, you LYING SACK OF SHIT, put it up.

          I could take a screen shot of your violation of Professor Jacobson’s commenting rules and send it to him via Direct Message on twitter (Professor Jacobson follows me on twitter) but I wont.

          You were just too high strung (((hugs))) so I don’t take it personally 🙂

          Oh, and that former LI commenter of which you speak? He self-deported off LI rather than abide the rules.

          As I recall, he wrote a crazed projectile-spittle comment attacking Trump and I used his own commenting style in replying to him.

          Not my fault he suffered a terminal brain detonation and went bye bye 😉

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 2:21 pm

          That should be easy to support with links.

          Huh, liar.

          Oh, and any time you want to “report” me, I have the goods on YOU, honey.

          Go for it… I’ll be your huckleberry…

          I have no doubt you have tried it and failed, you poor old thing. It’s almost a sin to spank you. Almost.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm

          That should be easy to support with links.

          Huh, liar.

          Oh, and any time you want to “report” me, I have the goods on YOU, honey.

          Go for it… I’ll be your huckleberry…

          Waiting for your links, crazy.

          (Crazy Cat Lady shakes wizened, blue-veined fist in the air, throws slipper at bird cage. Bird cowers into far corner.)

          By the way Rags, I do have a screen shot of your flagrant violation of LI Rules of Commenting Behavior for that time in the future when you will doubtlessly deny ever doing so.

          Keep a copy for yourself, for your scrapbook.

          https://twitter.com/messages/media/690997413725667332

          What is it Rags likes to say? Oh here it is from his own orifice:

          MORE stupid, lying mindless ad hominem.

          If you HAVE any argument, make it, Cruz sucker.

          Otherwise, STFU, and stop trying to thought-police the thread.

        Hello Voting Female. Please know that your diligent record keeping on other LI readers is completely unnecessary; every comment on LI is, including your own are, read by both authors and by the professor (including this one).

          Hi FS,

          Then you can attest I have never, not one time, ever gone running to LI on a back channel complaining about anyone at any time who has commented here.

          I’m not sure what you are asking here, Voting Female. I can attest that I don’t recall your ever having done so, but did you not just threaten another long-time and valued reader that you would do just that? Please do not invoke the authority of this site again. That is all.

          Actually, I did not threaten Rags with the authority of the blog. If you re-read one of my comments above I said just the opposite… that I would not do that. And, I haven’t and I won’t. It’s not my style and its not in accordance with the Marquess of Queensberry Rules (For Debating).

          Come on, Voting Female. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and neither did you. Do not threaten people on this site, particularly valued long-time readers, even by cloaking it in “I could … but I wouldn’t” Godfather-speak: “Gee, I could shoot out your knee caps, but today, I am feeling generous.”

          Uh huh.

          State your case on intellectual merit, make it if you believe in it, on facts and logic (or emotion and momentary euphoria or snark or whatever; LI is hugely tolerant), but do not again threaten–subtly or otherwise–any other reader of this site with some mysterious “tattling” ability that you imagine you possess . . . . I suddenly have visions of you popping into a blue telephone booth and hopping out again as the LI Tattler. Not a good image to evoke with your threats-not-threats, methinks. As we say on Twitter #justsaying

          I think this is clear.

          I would, of course, be telling anyone who did the same thing to you the same thing.

          Oh, I don’t take it personally. I would, and have done, the same thing as you have in this case, as a blog moderator.

          If you are stepping into the moderator roll, I applaud it.
          It means folks can depend on you to maintain a modicum of decorum and not be left to their own devices to handle it.

    Radegunda in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    “Contrition”? — for not supporting your favorite candidate.

    “Contrition”? — for noting that the real Trump does not match the image his ardent fans project onto him.

    “Contrition”? — for pointing to glaring contradictions and inconsistencies and irrationality — and, frankly, the hypocrisy that some Trump fans deploy to make their hero “untouchable.”

    “Contrition” is a word implying that someone sins by disagreeing with the messianic view of The Donald. Your use of the word reinforces my observation that Trumpism is, in my ways, a cult.

    So Trump, being “untouchable,” gets a pass on his blowhard bullying — has constant boasts about his greatness; his nasty personal attacks on people for the sole reason that they’ve become obstacles to his ambition.

    Trump thought Hillary would make a “terrific” president — until he decided he wanted to be president himself. Then he decided she’s “terrible.”

    Trump turns on a dime in judging people and issues, depending on what serves Donald J. Trump.

And, yes, Fuzzy Slippers and I co-follow on twitter.

Hey, @fuzislippers!

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    This is merely an observation/suggestion, but if you have a discernible difference in your perception by people on two opinion platforms, you might want to try to reconcile those.

    FWI

      I, uhh think I just did that.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | January 23, 2016 at 7:51 pm

        Not so much. I have a very different perception of you here, and I accept that you are different elsewhere.

        That isn’t the same as a “unified” persona.

        But its all up to you.

          Then take someone’s word for it when they tell you.

          I defend our country on multi-platforms. I’ll concede that I’m mostly not aware of anyone’s lack of understanding of where I am at politically but I can tell you this, we, you and me, agree on much more than we disagree. I just do me.

http://twitchy.com/2016/01/23/ted-cruz-left-speechless-by-glenn-becks-endorsement-in-iowa/

So, Glenn Beck has endorsed and is campaigning with Cruz in Iowa.

Natually, Bierhall Bully Britt goes full bigot…

“It is not surprising that you Rags are a followwer of the insane morman cultist Glenn Beck. [I’m not, of course. I referenced a Facebook post by Beck is all.]

I find it Ironic and a bit stupid that Cruz would try and use a morman whose faith is viewed by many evangelicals as nothing but a crazy cult almost as far out there as Scientology to try and drum up support with Iowa evangelicals.”

This is pure bigotry, straight up. The LDS people I know, and they are not a few, are people with a lot in common with any good Christian or Jew or Sikh or Hindu or Buddist or…

    Yes some evangelicals are bigoted against the morman faith thinking it is more a cult than a christian religion. That happens to be a fact. I did not say those were my own personal views as you wrongly claim in your post. I stated the truth of this matter and wondered how smart it was for Cruz to try and woo evangelical voters in Iowa using a morman. Especially a morman who often seems to be a tin foil hat insane whacko like Glenn Beck.

    Stating that group A has some biggoted attitudes about group B is in no way a biggoted statement by the person mentioning such true fact.

    Evangelicals can also be biggoted against catholics believing catholics are the church of the anti christ. Stating this true fact does not make me a bigot against catholics. It is merely acknowledgement of this true fact. Suggesting that it might not be a smart idea for Cruz to use a catbolic priest to try and woo evangelicals would also not be a biggoted statement by me.

    So you the king of homophobic slurs can take your lies and intentional mischaracterizations and shove them back up your ass from which you spew your crap all over LI.

    A person apparen5ly can be “valued” for some rather strange and not necessarily good things on LI it would seem.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 11:15 pm

      “It is not surprising that you Rags are a followwer of the insane morman cultist Glenn Beck.”

      Yeh. Right.

      Bierhall Britt, you are a lying SOS, and a demonstrated bigot.

      What a WONDERFUL exemplar for your lying Progressive puke, Duh Donald…!!!

      I LOVE exposing you and your man-crush!

        Rags: “I LOVE exposing you”

        You really need to get help and come to terms with your latent homosexuality. You need to accept yourself for who you are and love yourself in more ways than just with your right hand.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 23, 2016 at 11:33 pm

      You know what’s funny, Bierhall Britt?

      You actually think you’re good at this lying thang you do.

      I’d LOVE to try a case to a jury against you!

      They’d hate your guts by the end of closing, and they’d whizzzzzz all over your client…!!!!

      I’d LOVE that…!!!

        Well first you would have to go to law school and graduate. Then you would have to pass the bar exam. Finally you would gave to get past the fitness and character background checks.

        So get back to me once you’ve done all that.

        Then if you argued and wrote briefs the way you argue and write here you would be sanctioned and off the case before it got past discovery.

        You are just a homophobic ignorant moron who tries to compensate for his tiny little penis with a lot of shouting and screaming.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend