Trump on Trump
In his own words
By now, word has gotten around that Donald Trump has said quite a few things—either in the past or quite recently—indicating support for many liberal positions and politicians. As a result, the arguments have gone back and forth between his supporters and his opponents as to what Trump’s actual belief system might be, and what he might be willing and/or able to do if he were to hold the most powerful office in the land.
But however one wishes to label him on the political spectrum, it is instructive to watch the following video. It features a sampling of clips of Trump making some of these controversial statements. As you might imagine, the video was compiled by a new super PAC founded by Katie Packer, described here as “a veteran Republican strategist.”
Please watch the montage and see what you think:
This website contains some dates and sources for the clips,
When I checked out the quotes in the clips and took a look at the original contexts for them, I found that almost every one of them was fairly represented in the video. Actually, for one, Trump’s position is even less conservative than it seems in the video, because in addition to his praise for eminent domain, Trump is also enthusiastic about Kelo.
Only two of the many clips in the video were used in ways that seemed slightly out-of-context. After saying he hated the concept of guns, Trump had added that people still need them to defend themselves. And when asked (in 2007) about his choice among the candidates for the best potential Iran deal negotiator, Hillary Clinton was the not the only name Trump offered; he also mentioned Giuliani and Romney.
It is a peculiar and jarring experience to hear Trump speak in the video with such conviction, and in the same vigorous and seemingly sincere tones as he uses today, and yet to express so many political positions that place him squarely in the liberal Democrat camp. In some cases, such as his call for Bush to be impeached, his positions place him to the left of much of the liberal Democrat camp.
If you watch that video and imagine Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, the opposition ads practically write themselves, particularly if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee. In fact, you could probably come up with an entire pro-Hillary ad simply by compiling Trump’s many statements of praise for her. Or, perhaps that claim of his about how the economy does better under Democrats would do quite nicely as an ad for anyone who might be the nominee if it doesn’t end up being Hillary.
[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
There are two Trumps…
Trump 1.0 – the business man before entering politics
Trump 2.0 – the politician after entering politics
I believe Trump’s supporters focus on Trump 2.0 primarily because of Trump’s 1.0 accomplishments & Trump 2.0’s platform.
Pretty well said. I would add to that how Mr. Trump’s patriotism and love for the country comes through loud and clear to anyone inspired by his speeches and positions.
I agree. If Trump did not come across as a legitimate America loving patriot he would have been toast from the get go. There are other on par patriots in the race, namely Ted Cruz.
I am working to drill down on Trump’s poll numbers to date to the simplest terms possible to explain what those who just don’t get it, find inexplicable.
I think that answer is simple. The GOPe and the MSM were so used to ignoring the grass routes that they had and still have no appreciation for just how pissed off everyone yad become over their open borders pandering. I’ve been saying it sibce July. It is build wall, deport illegals, enforce our laws.
We aren’t going to accept the bullcrap like idiot McCains virtual wall that will only be good for stopping virtual people. We are tired of being ignored and played for fools.
I don’t doubt your anger. I feel it myself in fact. The establishment has to be destroyed. It’s that simple.
But is Trump the vehicle? Feels like a Sampson in the Temple move.
I don’t think it will be a Sampson in the Temple kind of thing. In fact my worry is that Trump won’t be Sampson enough. I support Trump because I think he will be more Sampson than any of the others. In other words of all the candidates I trust Trump to build the wall, deport illegals, and enforce our laws far more than I trust any of the other candidates to do those things. I think Trump will build the wall and deport some illegals, especially gang members and criminals, and others will self deport because of eVerify, etc. It won’t be perfect, but I believe Trump will do more than any of the other candidates.
I also think Trump is the ONLY candidate that will handle trade agreements and Obamatrade properly. All the other republican candidates including Cruz don’t understand the problem with the trade agreements, support unlimited free trade even when the deals are free but UNFAIR trade.
Jeff Sessions pointed out this morning how important it is to get these trade agreements fixed and Trump literally is the ONLY candidate that can and will do it.
Protectionism isn’t exactly a conservative value. Maybe that’s why the other candidates aren’t super keen on it?
Anyway, having lived through Schwarzenegger in California, I think that is a pretty good analogy of how a Trump presidency would go. Lots of promise, then same old same old. Be prepared to be bitterly disappointed.
Trump doesn’t feel like Sampson at all. He feels more like Judas to me. Waiting for the right moment to give us a kiss and hand us over to our persecutors.
I don’t doubt that Cruz is patriot but he doesn’t connect on this issue or others on a hearfelt emotional basis tge way Trump does.
I believe you to be quite intelligent and fairly representative of Trump supporters in general, Gary.
It is an accepted given that every person on the planet has negatives.
What do you see as Trump’s negatives?
He gets up and starts work every day at 4 am. I couldn’t handle working for someone who doesn’t need sleep.
On a serious note. I don’t think I know him well enough to be able to say what negatives he might have.
Is it safe to assume that whatever negatives Trump’s opponents have tendered don’t register with you?
“Registered” is the wrong adjective. I understand what people opposed to Trump are trying to say. It is just what they say is either:
2. Not persuasive
3. Based upon the failure of the objector to properly understand what entrepreneurs and their personalities are like which leads them to believe nonsense.
LALALALALA…I can’t hear any heresy….LALALALA
Same Same. Protectionism for protectionism’s sake is bad. Say like Japan refusing to open their markets to our beef not because they don’t have access to our markets but solely to protect their ranchers from fair competition.
On the other hand the threat of protectionism or a tarriff or some other loss of access to our markets in order to make sure that our companies get fair access to foreign markets is not only a good thing but a necessary part of negotiating trade deals that are both free and fair.
Jeff Sessions all but endorsed Trump today because of the need for us to make our trade deals better and bring jobs back to this country.
The triumph of hope over experience. Sad, that.
An excellent article by Paleo-conservative Boyd Cathy explaining why Trump is the better pick. The article goes into great detail about how the establishment took over the Reagan Admin. and how Cruz is likely unable to counter that same establishment. It ends on this note:
“So, I repeat: what we need this year, a year critical to the very fragile existence of what is left of the republic, are drastic measures by someone who is truly outside the tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum kleptocratic duopoly that has dominated American political discourse for decades.”
“Someone recently compared Ted Cruz to Ronald Reagan. This year we don’t need another Reagan. No; the times are far worse today. We need a Reagan with fangs.”
“So, I repeat: what we need this year, a year critical to the very fragile existence of what is left of the republic, are drastic measures by someone who is truly outside the tweedle-dee/tweedle-dum kleptocratic duopoly that has dominated American political discourse for decades.”
Which EXACTLY what describes T-rump, the Mr. Establishment who SOLD OUT first crack off the bat in Iowa to crony capitalists.
I have no patience with idiots.
Choosing not to die like Ted Cruz on Corn Hill is NOT a sell out of anything. It is a strategic decision not lose the vital and important over the trivial and not important.
Ethanol fuel standards are going to expire in 5 years. Cruz unwisely chose to fight to his death over his proposal to reduce the ethanol fuel standards by 20% next year when the entire standard will expire anyway in 5 years.
Cruz decided to fight to his death over the trivial and not important and as a result does not live to fight for the vital and important.
Trump is smart. Cruz not smart.
“Ethanol fuel standards are going to expire in 5 years.”
ANOTHER slimy lie.
T-rump just called for them to endure AND increase.
Under the Cruz plan, they WILL be phased out over 5 year.
You simply cannot deal in the truth. You HAVE to lie.
“Someone recently compared Ted Cruz to Ronald Reagan. This year we don’t need another Reagan. No; the times are far worse today. We need a Reagan with fangs.”
I’ve posted similar statements here in the past.
You’ve admitted that he decided to take different positions on issues when he starting actively seeking political power.
So how do you simultaneously believe he’s more sincere than all the other candidates — you know, the ones that Trump fans are always slamming for saying things just to get elected?
It’s very strange that Trump fans don’t even notice how they contradict their own arguments for Trump the Savior-Hero.
That answer is quite simple. Nobody would have come out with his statements on immigration if they weren’t his truly held beliefs because NOBODY thought then and they still can’t believe their own eyes today that those statements were and are still hugely popular today!! All the pundits and all the consultants and all the media thought those statements would never work and affirmatively tried to make those statements the death of Trump. So Trump saying them had to be saying his true beliefs. It turned out his true beliefs were yuugely popular with the grassroots.
So his very first statements the day he announced gave him credibility and authenticity and that credibility carries over to everything he has said and done to date.
Its simple. You just don’t like the answer because it contradicts what you want to believe.
But, Gari, that’s ANOTHER delusional cultist lie.
Jonah Goldberg was calling for a wall/fence/barrier over a decade ago, and he’s hardly the Lone Ranger.
You are simply nuts. T-rump was calling for support of the Dreamers and the amnesty bill that Cruz and Sessions killed in 2013.
This is why, of course, you openly say that history has to be truncated at June, 2015. We all know this.
rambling non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks increase in intensity as the panic in the Cruz crowd grows and grows.
Cruz is done. If not in Iowa immediately after Iowa. But you can console yourselves that he fought to the death for a 20% reduction in an ethanol fuel standard that is set to expire in 5 years.
(Yes Rags he wants 20% a year phase out versus a cliff phase out in 5 years, but only next years 20% reduction has to be passed this year before election. So that is all he is fighting for this year).
“…rambling non sequiturs and ad hominem attacks increase…
Point to one of each, you moronic liar.
“But you can console yourselves that he fought to the death for a 20% reduction in an ethanol fuel standard that is set to expire in 5 years.”
That has already been identified as just another one of your lies. T-rump called for the crony system of BIG GOVERNMENT supports to be EXTENDED AND INCREASED, you lying SOS.
“(Yes Rags he wants 20% a year phase out versus a cliff phase out in 5 years, but only next years 20% reduction has to be passed this year before election. So that is all he is fighting for this year).”
THIS is from Intercontinental RR Britt, the genius who can’t comprehend AVERAGES. A 20% phase out is one that happens over five years, moron.
Great exemplar of a T-rump sucker!!!
Trump 3.0 – Fired!
After further consideration…
Trump 1.1-Trump 1.4 – Bankrupt
Trump 2.1 – Corn fed
Trump in 7 days..Iowa caucus winner.
I can’t wait to see the old familiar rationalizations and excuses. Like old, boorish guests who refuse to leave the party.
We might even be treated to some new ones by our delusional T-rump sucking cultists! (This, of course, does not apply to non-cultists who may support T-rump.)
There is only one Duh Donald, and he IS Mr. Establishment. A Progressive crony capitalist with New York City values and a pathological personality disorder.
VotingFemale – You belive that there are two trumps? Trump managed to re-invent himself for the politician. Do you think he changed his core beliefs to do so?
There is only one person called Trump just there is only one America.
One can model multiple Americas for various reasons, including the pre-911 America vs the post-911 America.
This approach is using the two Trump model as scaffolding to model public appeal of him over decades factored with his appeal as a first-time politician.
Everyone can find things objectionable about Trump, including his supporters.
The model focuses on positives instead of negatives because his positives propel him as the leading contender, by a notable margin, when weighed against his negatives.
His opponents focus on his negatives for competitive reasons.
Obviously, his positives outweigh his negatives with a plurality of voters or he would not be in the lead.
Now, some will argue that his supporters are stupid/blind/whatever for giving his positives greater weight than his negatives. It’s not working. So far, it appears to have the opposite effect.
Someone want to take a stab at rationally explaining that?
(I have a few theories that go towards explaining it)
So you’re comfortable with blatantly contradicting yourself to shore up your apologetics for Trump — just as you’re obviously comfortable with Trump’s contradictions.
The rules are different for other politicians, of course.
I am sure I will regret jumping in, but I read @VotingFemale as trying to understand the dynamics that are powering Trump’s followers, neither apologizing nor demonizing the man himself. Even those of us who would prefer someone other than Trump must recognize that there is a significant portion of the vocal population who are responding to him—thus his poll results. Trying to understand the phenomenon is a worthy use of time, if for no other reason than a better understanding of the near-surreal psychological turn this election has taken.
I read @VotingFemale the same, and I note that when she engaged Gary Britt politely he responded in kind.
Well put, Avraham. It’s nice to have a civil voice jump in! 🙂
As Limbaugh said, this article, http://www.unz.org/Pub/Chronicles-1996mar-00012?View=PDF written in the 90s by a Buchanan adviser says it all. A large percentage of the American Right has NEVER been about what passes as NR style conservatism but is that group of people who hated the Left and had no other banner to assemble under.
The Trump folks don’t give a diddly damn about what passes for NR style conservatism with all of its incidental battles (to them). They don’t care about Obamacare, or care little, they don’t care about eminent domain, or care little. They don’t care about ethanol subsidies. They care about crime, good schools, the balance of trade and securing the borders. Trump has shown that this is what he’s all about. Not only is Cruz less clear on these matters, he’s simply a less appealing personality and therefore less electable.
This only becomes a conundrum when you accept the flawed premise that the American Right, identified as a voting bloc, has always cared about what think tank conservatives care about.
That’s a very good point; it sorta-kinda describes me.
For me the issues are:
2. Border security.
3. Everything else.
Even Obamacare doesn’t matter as much as 1. and 2. If we don’t get those right we won’t be around long enough to tackle 3.
Thank you for posting it.
Here’s the Trumpists’ Golden Rule: “It isn’t bad when Trump does it!”
Katie Packer is a K Street lobbyist and political consultant who was a deputy campaign manager for Romney. She is Bush and GOP establishment as they come. This is just a K street lobbyist GOPe establishment attack ad from an GOPe PAC. It covers no new ground.
Last gasps of an increasingly irrelevant Bush GOP establishment before they are extinguished by Trump.
This is the “ad hominem” blue-plate special that is Bierhall Britt’s favorite fallacy…though he uses several.
Assuming everything he said is true…which history tells us would be a unique event in his commentary…how does it deal with the revelations regarding T-rump?
Or would he like to propose, as he did last night, that the tapes were doctored?
(We all should watch the video several times to assure ourselves the weren’t. HEH…!!!)
Saying someone is a K street lobbyist and politucal consultant is a statement of fact not an attack. As you have shown repeatedly you have no ability to discern what is and is not a straw man or ad hominem attacks.
As for the videos it is obvious they are edited and spliced together. There is no question about that. Some of the edits make the video more misleadind than others.
The I could shoot somebody video obviously was edited to omit Trump saying “they say I could…” when he related this humorous statement.
“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump boasted, as he formed his fingers into the shape of a gun and pointed at the crowd…”
And here’s the tape…
Gaghdad Bob Britt just lies and lies and lies.
And when T=rump says, “My people are so smart…” Gaghdad Bob feels a tingle run down his leg…and has to reach for a tissue…
Watch the tape…repeatedly. Just to see if there’s any truth to Britt’s lies.
Ad hominem fallacy essentially means “attack the speaker”. Britt is either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to admit, or both, that’s all he did. He cannot make cogent arguments, so he resorts to fallacy.
Defend T-rump’s positions, liar.
Once again, you leave out the multiple times he says “they say” before and after the comment
No, stupid, the TAPE has everything T-rump SAID on it.
The “they say” is just the straw man T-rump uses to introduce the fallacy HE is supporting.
Nobody REAL said, “Oh, that T-rump, we have polling showing his supporters are so strong, he could shoot someone, and they’d follow him”.
THAT was a type of lie by T-rump, just like Obama uses.
You are a liar. Trump didn’t walk up to the microphone and tbe first words out of his mouth were “I could shoot”. So obviously the video is edited and leaves out the words spoken before that. It just so happens that Fox played the full unedited video this morning. It is just as stated. Trump is making a point about the loyalty of his supporters and then jokes about what those like you suffering from TDS say and he says “They say I could shoot…” to the laughs and applause of the crowd.
So stop lying nobody buys your schtick any more. You have no credibility.
But, Gari, you lying butt boi, you know I never lie. You know you do every day.
T-rump doesn’t say in the tape, first off, ANYTHING about the shooting someone thing.
Have you even viewed the tape, liar?
On the tape, he says, “The people…my people…are so smart”.
He THEN goes into his riff about how strong his support is.
You are a liar. Fox played the undoctored video on tv this morning. You link to a faked up edited and spluced together lie. Because lying is what you do. It is you.
Link to the video YOU sponsor, butt boi.
This is ridiculous. Even if he didn’t say “they say” (and I have no idea), it’s a witticism for petessake.
On the order of “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”.
Every so-called “writer” who professes to not get it is making themselves look stupid, parsing words literally like a three-year-old or new-English speaker.
It’s a brag…based on a straw man…from a narcissist dick.
Exactly right. And the crowd laughed when he said it.
Trump fans are busily declaring that Trump is absolutely right about their blind faith in him: nothing will ever make them waver!
One Trumpist claimed that we just didn’t understand Trump’s “sophisticated” literary hyperbole. Of course, the Trumpists’ central argument for Trump is that he always says exactly what he truly believes (unlike “politicians” who are only “putting on a show”). When that argument becomes inconvenient, they do a back flip: “Trump is a showman, didn’t you know?”
What I think is that Rafael destroyed his candidacy and that he will get beaten badly in Iowa. He has gotten outflanked by a superior strategist. The slimy Cruz had it coming too. He’s a phony – a pawn being used to knock Trump down while they try to get Rubio or Bush back in the game. Interesting that not a single Senator will endorse him – in fact Jeff Sessions all but endorsed Trump this morning.
The only thing that’s left is to watch the hatchet job FNC has up its sleeve in their attempt to nullify the will of the people.
“The only thing that’s left is to watch the hatchet job FNC has up its sleeve in their attempt to nullify the will of the people.”
See, this is delusion with a sprinkle of paranoia.
Without a vote anywhere having been cast, this delusional cultist feels he can speak about some cable news channel plotting to “nullify the will of the people”.
It’s just nuts. And note who the nuts support.
Let’s see ..so Megyn Kelly has been non stop trashing Trump. She even hosted a show with Richie Lowry and their Gang of 22 nonsense. And then followed it the next night again. So it is reasonable to assume she is anything but impartial and that FNC condones her behavior.
But go ahead and scream louder pugs.
“She even hosted a show with Richie Lowry and their Gang of 22 nonsense.”
First, cultist, the National Review spread was not “nonsense”. You can’t attack it by argument, so you attempt to dismiss it by “hand-wave”.
Second, that spread is NEWS, and what Kelly does is a news program.
A true cultist (YOU) cannot tolerate…and is threatened by…ANY heresy.
But thanks for further self-identifying…!!!
The first author listed by National Review in their bullcrap hit piece is Glenn Beck.
You don’t get more insane and out of touch than Glenn Beck. Let’s not rehash all his insane whacko religious studies and beliefs. Lets just jump to his straight up political statements.
Beck says if its Trump versus Hillary or Trump versus Bernie, Beck will support Hillary/Bernie.
So let’s get this straight the lead off author in the National Review hit piece that Lowry claims had to be written because conservative purity demands it SUPPORTS SOCIALIST BERNIE SANDERS !!!!!!!!
If that doesn’t scream bullcrap nonsense follows in flashing neon lights then I’m not an old fat guy.
The line I loved was The Glenn Beck Insane Clown Posse Tour brings his revival show to Waterloo Iowa.
By the way new ARG poll confirms the Trump surge +7 over Rafael in Iowa. Likely voters. Race to the first finish line.
Philly, don’t take this the wrong way, but I have concluded that a true Trump supporter is someone that will take the BS he’s feeding them (uncritically) and swallow it without gagging. You are one such. You stand on as many lies, omissions, slanders and ad hominems as necessary to bury the most conservative candidate we’ve had in decades in favor of a NYC liberal who condemns himself from his own mouth. Trump loves the establishment you claim to hate. It is corrupt and Trump knows how to manipulate corrupt people. He also knows how to manipulate fools. You are one of them.
Trump is a shock jock and he likes to say shocking things to get attention, not matter how ridiculous. What has probably surprised him is that he can’t come up with a shocker so unbelievable that his biggest fans won’t believe it. He’s like a kid with a new toy: an army of people who will do his bidding without question. Too bad there are no historical parallels.
Oh, and when I said “don’t take this the wrong way,” I meant to please not construe this as positive or complementary. If I’ve left any doubt as to my utter contempt for your brand of Trump supporter, I’d like to banish it now. Thank you for understanding.
How could he possibly take it the wrong way…
Don’t take this the wrong way, but the GOPe needs to be destroyed and your boy Cruz isn’t up to the task.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but Cruz may not be qualified to be President under the constitution.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but Cruz can’t win a general election against the democrats, and it is far wiser to support the less conservative Trump who will both destroy the GOPe and win the general election.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but Cruz wasn’t even smart enough not to die on Corn Hill.
Taking only your last amazingly stupid statement…
how did Cruz, by showing integrity and NOT selling out, “die” on “corn hill”.
If you follow this line of “thinking”, Mr. Establishment will “live” by selling out.
Just as I’ve predicted.
You’ve been told the answer to that question many times in many threads. See this thread above for one more repetition of that answer.
Choosing to live to do what is vital and important is far better than choosing to die to do what is not vital and not important.
Neither choice has to do with selling out. Each choice has to do with good judgment and perspective.
Trump has it and the dead or dying on corn hill Cruz not so much.
But, lying SOS, NOTHING compelled Mr. Establishment to SUPPORT BIG GOVERNMENT crony subsidies.
He could have decided to simply stand pat.
INSTEAD, he sold OUT. He didn’t JUST support the CRONY BIG CORN, he CALLED FOR ITS INCREASE.
Kind of like he did WRT public lands in the West the other day at the SHOT Show. He keeps showing you who he IS, and you keep denying the evidence of your own lying eyes.
And LYING about it all
The GOPe does need to be destroyed. Of all the candidates running, who has ever done anything in their life that either caused the GOPe discomfort? Which one has ever acted in such a way as to indicate that they would cause the GOPe discomfort? Notice I didn’t say “said they would”.
Cruz has been a burr under the GOPe saddle from day one. Trump has stated he will work with them to secure his agenda. In this case, I assume he’s referring to his actual agenda, and not the Jeff Sessions agenda on Trump’s website that I’m relatively sure Trump isn’t familiar with. If he was, he’s accidently blurt some of it out on the stump now and then. It defies imagination that Donald Trump, with his famously poor impulse control, would have the message discipline to exclude the cool stuff that he cribbed from Sessions if he actually knew something about it.
The rest of your hornswaggle has been reduced to he-said-she-said dirty politics that Trump and the rest of the Democrats are past masters in weeks ago. That you still repeat it shows your lack of self-awareness.
The irony is that your debasing yourself in an orgy of dishonesty is completely unnecessary. Unless Trump is eaten by a pack of rabid lemmings, he’s going to win the primary, whether he wins Iowa or not. So it’s all just mental masturbation. What does matter is the general, and I’ll do what I can to make sure that Trump is a has-been on November 9th.
Jeff Sessions all but endorsed Trump this morning so it would appear that Jeff Sessions thinks much more of Trump and his plans than you do.
You can cast your vote for Hillary or Bernie. That is your right. It certainly gives me a good reason to discount your opinions and thoughts forever. Since you would complain Trump supporters don’t support the more pure conservative Cruz so you are going to show them by voting for the Socialists.
Yeah, and you think Trump people are dumb and not logical. You are just a sore loser plain and simply don’t confuse yourself and others that you do what you do for principle.
“You can cast your vote for Hillary or Bernie. That is your right. It certainly gives me a good reason to discount your opinions and thoughts forever.”
This is a straw man fallacy, coupled with an implicit lie.
“Since you would complain Trump supporters don’t support the more pure conservative Cruz so you are going to show them by voting for the Socialists.”
This is ANOTHER straw man fallacy, coupled with an implicit lie.
“You are just a sore loser plain and simply don’t confuse yourself and others that you do what you do for principle.”
This is ad hominem.
There isn’t a valid argument in the whole post. Just more of what Gaghdad Bob, T-rump sucker, does every day.
I expect Sessions can read the writing on the wall as well as I can, and he’s falling into line behind his party’s candidate. He’s still invested in the establishment through long association and I don’t condemn him for his congeniality. He comes from a different world.
I will never vote for Hillary or Sanders. Don’t say stupid things just because they pop into your head. I will vote for someone on the ballot that I believe in or I will write a name on the ballot that I believe in. I will not vote for someone I don’t believe in out of spite. I can understand why you would project that I would.
As far as being a sore loser, as I explained to others recently, I am not invested in Ted Cruz. He’s the best of the lot right now, but he wasn’t my first choice as I prefer Governors to Senators for executive experience. I’ve backed lots of candidates that didn’t make the cut. Until recently, I was fine with Trump winning in spite of his warts because I thought he would hit the system reset button. It was only when he affirmatively stated that there would be no reset button for him that I had to acknowledge that my hopes in him were unwisely placed.
I don’t feel betrayed by Trump. He’s the person I always thought he was and zebras eventually show their stripes. What aggravates me is people like you who are so deeply mired in the fiction that you’ve created for yourself that your beliefs have become unfalsifiable. If Trump came out tomorrow and said “F’ the wall, I’m going open borders with Mexico,” you’d find a way to hair-split that into a positive.
You would rather back a first term senator with no record of achievement in the Senate? A Canadian born one at that? No thanks. He’s not tough enough nor talented enough.
I want someone completely outside of the political system. Conservatives has been lots of talk for years but they never get what they want done. They have failed. It’s time to say thank you, we’ll incorporate the best ideas you have brought and move into a new phase. If Trump succeeds, he will usher in a new kind of big tent Republicanism. He is already re-defining what can be said in the public arena when confronted with the blatent distortion of the media. People love this country and Trump represents a rekindling of that spirit.
The conservative thought leaders can’t stand that someone as flawed as Trump is ripping that sense of authority away from them. They want to slice and dice everything about him but they are missing the point. It’s time for them to sit back and look at this in a more curious mode and use it to advance the party in a positive way. Untl then we are going to get the incredible screeching from people slowly realizing their importance is slipping away.
Build a wall, Stop illegal immigration. Enforce our borders. Far and away the number 1 issue in my book. Everything else flows from this.
Now conservatives are the GOPe? How do you get so far removed from the reality of the world around you without sensing that something is amiss?
If George Soros said he’s build a wall and deport all the illegals, would you vote for him?
You don’t get it. Trump said he would build, deport, enforce when NOBODY thought that was a good or popular or winning thing to say. Therefore, Trump MEANT IT and whether it was popular or winning be damned.
That is why he has credibility in what he says now because he said what wasn’t supposed to be popular, but he said it anyway.
The conservatives talk a lot. They write articles. They put together blogs. They appear on Fox. And they lose national elections. A lot. They have convinced themselves the grassroot republicans support them and they get shocked when they don’t. The grassroots are patriots. They want to see our country great again. They don’t see it coming from the establishment they don’t see it coming from the conservative wing. The party needs a major shakeup. Now get aboard. You’re welcome to join. Much of what you believe in can still happen.
I want to see our country great again. I don’t think it will happen through another liberal vanity presidency, just because this vain president will love America. The most damaging liberal is the one the establishment doesn’t feel like they have to be seen to fight, i.e. the one with an (R) beside his name.
If Trump becomes president in spite of my efforts, I will root for him to do right by America just like I did with Obama. However, I will be no more surprised when he defaults to the NYC zeitgeist than I was when Obama defaulted to Chicago’s.
Impressive riposte. hat/tip
The true Donald Trump. This man is dangerous to our republic.
If Trump said Michele Malkin was a dummy and born stupid my reaction would be he left out ugly. Maybe he was trying to be politically correct.
No. Trump was trying out his NY values, like you do every day now.
Well Said. I missed the Jeff Sessions stuff this morning. Will have to find that.
As for the upcoming FNC hatchet job debate I hope Trump skips it for 1 hour town hall on another network. There is no question that FNC will try to do hatchet job.
The segment on universal health care was deceptively edited to show Trump in favor of government as the single payer. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover the other segments were deceptively edited as well.
Trump has supported single-payer in the past. That part of the video is factual. The issue is many of Trump’s supporters don’t want to focus on his past statements or even some of the issues with his current policy statements because they believe his rhetoric that everyone else in the field is a GOPe lackey and only he can bring their life back into focus through his bombast. Of course the problem with believing Trump’s own hype is that you can’t point to a single issue or action of his in the past that supports his current views or proves that he’ll follow through with what he’s promising.
So you are saying with regard to health care the video is FAKE BUT ACCURATE. Gee where have we heard that kind of BS before. Hmmmmmmm
Reading comprehension. You said Trump doesn’t support single payer, I simply stated that he has in the past. I didn’t say the video was accurate, only correct on that one point. Care to refute the rest of me statement?
That interview was conducted in September 2015, and it distorts Trump’s position in September 2015.
It was dishonestly edited to create an impression different from what Trump said.
The complete transcript can be found here:
The portion in bold above was cut from the video, to dishonestly make it appear that Trump supports single-payer for all people.
If you don’t like Trump’s actual positions we can politely disagree about that. (Actually, based on what I’ve read here for the last several months, many here are NOT able to politely disagree. It’s why I post here much less than in the past.)
But to constantly make false claims about Trump to provide convenient straw men to attack? Let’s just say I’m pretty disappointed in the people who post here.
I’ve noticed that no one here calls attention to anything Trump said 20 years ago that could be construed as support for conservative or Republican positions, only things he once said that can be construed in favor of leftist or Democrat positions.
Sorry, but no amount of pie in the sky rhetoric from someone whose solutions all consist of “it’ll be great” and totally lacking in any details can overcome this statement:
Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?
Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it…
So what if the rest of Trump’s statement is cut off? How is “the government is going to pay for it” in anyway not single payer? It doesn’t matter if healthcare will be setup in various competitive pools, if “the government is going to pay for it” it’s single payer. Period. The video isn’t false, it cuts out Trump’s trumped up answer that doesn’t explain how single payer will be any better than the failed exchanges of today. And it’s not gong to be better just because Trump says so or spends money on gold plated health care ID cards. If it’s single payer, it’s single payer.
I’m not much interested in what Cocktail Conservatives have to say who spend all their time and our money supporting Campaign Conservatives.
The Republicans we sent to Congress to stop the real threat to our Republic couldn’t wait to get into bed with the Democrats. Now they’re full steam ahead to destroy not only Trump but Ted Cruz.
I’m for Cruz, but will vote for Trump if he is the nominee. People need to remember what actually giving a damn about America really means and stop buying the kool-aid our own “side” is selling. They gave us Dole, McCain and Romney and it’s clear that they wouldn’t have done one thing different.
It makes me laugh to see the hand-wringing; yes, the same hand-wringers who laughed behind the scenes pushing Paul Ryan in there to continue working with McConnell, Reid and Pelosi.
I used to be where you are now, supporting Cruz but willing to vote for Trump. That is before he clued us in how excited he is to start making deals with the establishment. Guess who that is? He’s not talking about the Dems, although you can bet he’ll use them when he needs to. He’s talking about McConnell and Ryan. He’ll reform the RNC out of existence the same way he reformed the corrupt government machine in NYC out of existence. He will enable them to become even more rooted by giving them what they need in order to get what he wants. Do you think that the GOPe is adverse to deal-making?
I won’t vote for Trump. Not in my name.
Oh, good grief.
Whoever we elect President will need to make deals with those on the other side.
All I ask is that those deals have something for us. For the last 16 years, the GOPe’s deals have been all for themselves and the other side, with nothing for us.
I don’t see Trump selling us out just because he indicated he would work with the GOPe and Democrats. If he’s President and I’m wrong, we’re still no worse off than we have been.
We don’t elect presidents to make deals. We elect presidents to drive the agenda and to temper the worst instincts of the legislature, not to enable them.
Are you denying that part of Trump’s appeal was the idea that he was going to burn down the GOP? People who are going to burn it down don’t make overtures of cooperation. Obviously, presidents have to work through the legislature to enact their agenda. It goes without saying. Therefore, when you say it, you’re signalling your willingness to deal.
The Trumpians and the Obamabots are exactly alike in one way. They only hear what they want to hear, and what they want to hear is the only thing that matters to them. Emotion over substance.
I read an intriguing piece the other day, which may or may not have any verity, but in researching to find factors that T-rump presents to people who support him, the single most identified factor was “authoritarianism”.
Here’s T-rump calling another conservative young women an “idiot” for a minor criticism, this one concerning his support for bail-outs for Wall Street.
The guy makes Nixon look like a well-adjusted, self-assured paragon of manliness.
He’s dangerous. Giving him power would be irresponsible.
But isn’t it true that Amanda Carpenter is an idiot?
So here we have ladies and gentlemen Cruz’s biggest supporter attacking Trump from the LEFT using the old tired Hillary Clinton war on women canard.
How many times has old Rags tell us attacking Cruz from the left made Trump Mr. Establushment. Now it is Cryz that is Democrat Mr. Establishment.
The wheels have come completely off the Cruz humvee. He has died fighting on corn hill Iowa.
The desperation in the Cruz camp is getting palpable.
“…attacking Trump from the LEFT using the old tired Hillary Clinton war on women canard.”
But that’s a lie, and you’re the liar we have to put up with every day.
I don’t do PC, you lying SOS, but your man-crush DOES.
“We have to take care of the women” would never be spoken by me, but it was by Duh Donald, Progressive fraud for POTUS.
The point being that Mr. Establishment is also a sick man-child who cannot take any criticism, in need of some therapy.
Just like you need some therapy concerning your pathological lying.
Attacking from the left Rags. Yep you did it.
Hypicrite thy name is Rags.
Chanting a lie never improves it.
You know you’re lying, and don’t care, because it is just who you are.
Trump made Trump Mr. Establishment. Nobody helped him. Listen to his words and believe them when he is making statements against interest. Vote for me because I’ll make the best deals and that Cruz character won’t. Did you brain not process that? Did you have a failure to cogitate?
On a side note, do you not suffer embarrassment when your guys says stuff like “we’ll make all the best deals”? You must have a high cringe tolerance.
So now we’ve established that you’re okay with:
National healthcare like Canada and Scotland
Abortion up to and including partial birth abortion
Eminent domain to claim private land for private projects
Cutting deals with the GOPe leadership in Congress
Hostility toward the idea of guns
A positive appraisal of Obama as president
A positive appraisal of Hillary Clinton as SOS
A positive appraisal of Bill and Hillary as people
A positive appraisal of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker
George W. Bush should have been impeached
Let’s see, that leave you with what? Immigration. Okay, you’re also in favor of:
Amnesty to the vast majority of illegal aliens who Trump intends to legalize after a vanity deportation
A border fence that Mexico will pay for
Banning Muslims from immigrating
I have to tell you, that sounds like a liberal with a conflicted protectionist streak to me. I don’t doubt I could find a few Democrats who would vote for your platform all day long.
In other words, you and your candidate are not the solution. You are an exacerbation of the problem.
You hear the word deal and give it your understanding of the word. Your understanding is obviously quite limited.
You know who else talks about deals and the need to make good ones? Senator Jeff Sessions. And Jeff Sessions thinks TRUMP is the guy NOT CRUZ, not anyone else who can make the trade deals that need to be made.
Making a deal doesn’t mean caving in. That is the Ryan/Boehner/McConnell method of deal making.
You project onto Trump that making a deal means making a LOSING deal.
Those aren’t the kinds of deals that Trump makes.
Jeff Sessions understands that. Trumps supporters understand that.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.
Get off your high horse or be a sore loser and go vote for one of the democrat socialists, but stop boring us with the repakaged bullcrap about what Trump said 20 years ago or 2 years ago.
Wall, deport, enforce. That is the first and most important existential question of our time. Trump will do it. None of the others will.
Amnesty, that ain’t Trump so peddle that repackaged lie over on DailyKos.
But YOU’RE the delusional liar, here, Gaghdad Bob.
T-rump has SAID he intends to impose “touch-back amnesty”, as EVEN you have had to admit.
You simply rationalize it by saying he’s probably cleverly LYING again. Like you ADMIT he has over that last DECADES.
And you and the other cultists here are ALLLLLL saying, “T-rump has SAID”.
But you cannot deal rationally with what he’s DONE!
So STUFF your “Kos” bullshit.
I’ve answered all of your nonsense in another post in this thread so I won’t bother.
If you’re bored with responding to me, you’re not showing it.
I don’t read Kos. Too tiring. Which part of Trump’s unambiguous statements am I misunderstanding?
But Rags, you regularly call people liars and assholes merely for disagreeing with you, so why would you have a problem with this?
I regularly identify people who lie.
Like you just did.
Well, when you don’t have much else, you can always insist on ideological purity.
I’m trying to think of some historical examples where ideological purity seemed to matter much to the voters. No really good ones come to mind so far, though.
Again, if the border isn’t closed, then the Republican Party doesn’t exist. Conservativism doesn’t exist. 80% of the worlds population lives in countries poorer per capita than Mexico.
The Republican funded executive amnesty is still in the courts, where democrat judges will vote to implement it.
This has to be issue #1. All of the other conservative issues are lost if this one is lost.
Most of the other Republicans are pro amnesty or can’t be trusted. Even a guy like Ted Cruz, nominally for border control, takes too much campaign contributions from the Club for Growth and Koch brothers.
Charles and David Koch knocked him by name for not backing a bill they support that could give thousands of federal prisoners a chance at early release.
“We are disappointed that some members, including Senator Cruz, who have supported the need for reform and been strong supporters of the Bill of Rights, did not support this bill,” according to the Koch Industries company Web site.
Correction: Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their cash from fracking in Texas, donated $15 million to a Super Pac supporting Sen Ted Cruz’s presidential bid. The Koch brothers did not donate to the PAC.
Maybe you have some support for big Koch contributions to Cruz.
I haven’t found any, and I damn sure haven’t found where they influenced him on bit.
Bingo !! WDE. Wall, Deport, Enforce.
You left out AMNESTY. But that would mean being truthful, and you are not capable.
How many terms will Trump need to get Mexico to pay for a border fence? That’s Trump’s stated plan. Help me understand the mechanics. Because if Trump’s plan is just for laughs, which would seem to be the case, then we don’t know what he actually does plan to do about the border, do we?
Also, the Republican party may cease to exist, but conservatism will never cease to exist. It may not have a party to represent it, but then it doesn’t have that now.
Mexico makes 55 Billion a year extra in trade with USA. I believe the amount of money sent from USA residents to mexico is over 10 billion per year. There are many ways for a President to make Mexico pay for that wall.
The fact that you lack the imagination to understand that a President of the USA determined to get money out of Mexico can do it with some phone calls and a stroke of his pen does not mean that it can’t be done.
It just means you are small ball small thinker.
“…a President of the USA determined to get money out of Mexico can do it with some phone calls and a stroke of his pen…”
Well. Who does that sound like?
See why I call this puke “Bierhall Britt”. He’s one stop short of openly calling for a dictatorship under T-rump.
You have just summarized why, more eloquently that I could have done, that people of your ilk are the bane of representative democracy. You embody the spirit of a fascist.
It isn’t fascism to explain to mexico that we will no longer tolerate their complicity in shipping their poor and uneducated to our country rather than spend some of their oil money getting them jobs and an efucation. It is not fascism to tell mexico we will no longer tolerate their complicity in shipping billions of dollars of drugs into our country. It is not fascism to require mexico to contribute to the costs of housing educating and caring for their citizens in this country illegally. It is not fascism to require Mexico to secure its border with the usa and to stop violating our sovereignty with their drugs and exports of their poor and uneducated.
In short it is not fasc8sm to tell mexico we will no be their patsy thei sucker their willing idiot.
No. BIG TALK is not fascism, you bleeding moron, which is all we’ve had from Mr. Establishment.
When you have the REMOTELY conceivable implementation of that BIG TALK is when you run the risk of fascism with a Progressive puke like Duh Donald.
And when some slavish POS like YOU suggests all he’d need is a pen and a phone, we’ve arrived.
Well, another liar or idiot heard from.
The Club For Growth has NEVER taken any position on immigration.
They only stand for two things: small government and free trade.
More Trump on Trump:
and Cruz “speaks truth”:
While always leaning toward Cruz, wife and I enjoyed Trump and were Trump fans.
Comments on this site, however, have contributed to our moving into the Cruz camp and to becoming non-fans of Trump. In particular, for Trump supporters to say on this site that pre-candidate statements by Trump should be ignored, because he was not then running for president, are the equivalent of obama supporters in 2008, including obama himself, who intoned that earlier statements and actions by obama were not an indication of how obama would conduct himself as president. Much of Trump’s statements and conduct are worse because he claims, now, that he did those things and said those things only because he was working the system, which he brags about doing with such success. It is beyond our understanding how people of seeming good will and intelligence can ignore Trump’s earlier, now self-proclaimed false, statements and conduct without understanding that Trump could at-least equally be playing them now.
We like a lot of what Trump says, but we will not become part of the Trump cult, which carries with it all the dangers to America that obama carried into his presidency.
It’s heartening to see that some Trump fans may be willing to start judging Trump by the same standards they apply to every other candidate — and to critics of Trump.
Trump fans dismissed all the NR statements against Trump (without reading them, of course) by pointing to NR’s endorsement of Romney and other perceived heresies against rock-ribbed conservatism. But they think it’s unfair to point out that Trump was still supporting Democrats then!
Trump fans often display the same inconstancy and contradiction that they’re willing to accept in Trump — while insisting that he’s more reliable and trustworthy than anyone else.
National Review led off with the SOCIALIST BERNIE SANDERS supporting Glenn Beck, because conservative purity demanded it.
STILL waiting for that link to T-rump’s “shoot someone” video you endorse.
google is your friend.
Here are the links you need. Google.com FoxNews.com
Oh, you chickshit liar, I’ve done the search.
Nothing. As I would have predicted. I did find a FOX morning show video that showed nothing like you lied about.
You’re lying. Beck does not “support” Sanders. And it’s infantile to claim that everything that everyone else wrote in that issue of NR is discredited because Beck was published in the same issue.
You also haven’t responded to the plain, glaring fact I’ve pointed out: Trump fans insist that we must ignore Trump’s Democrat-support history and even his Democrat-leaning present policies — at the same time as they declare that anyone who once endorsed Romney is not conservative enough to judge Trump.
By Trumpist standards, Ann Coulter is clearly not fit to pronounce on Trump’s credentials, because she endorsed Romney (after asserting that “Any Republican who doesn’t vote for Chris Christie is an idiot”). In fact, she still says that Romney was far and away the best candidate that year.
Coulter endorses Romney: GOOD.
National Review endorses Romney: BAD.
That’s Trumpist “logic.”
Trump has openly favored socialized health-care very recently.
Trump wants higher ethanol subsidies.
Trump said that Obama’s economic policies were correct.
Trump doesn’t want any restructuring of Medicare or Social Security.
Trump is very enthusiastic about the Kelo decision.
Trump has no problem with Big Government — as long as he’s running it.
Radegunda is a democrat that supports Hillary/Bernie and fears Trump more than any other opponent.
You repeat the same tired list of bullcrap that has been asked and answered 100 times before.
I’m not wasting my time telling you yet again why your list is bull and meaningless. Just read all the comments starting at the top. You’ll come across the answers more than once.
“Radegunda is a democrat that supports Hillary/Bernie and fears Trump more than any other opponent.”
Ad hominem. Again.
“You repeat the same tired list of bullcrap that has been asked and answered 100 times before.”
More ad hoimen, with no rational argument, coupled with a resort to “history” fallacy.
“I’m not wasting my time telling you yet again why your list is bull and meaningless. Just read all the comments starting at the top. You’ll come across the answers more than once.”
Again, no cogent argument, but a resort to “history” fallacy.
PLUS, a lot of the thread is littered with your lies.
But, naturally, what you say about Beck’s piece is simply a lie.
Yeah, Trump can’t be trusted. Better we stick with the GOP CINO’s who were elected with promises to repeal Obamacare, roll back Obama’s executive orders and stop our hemorrhaging federal budget deficit. The only rolling they ever did was to roll-over for Obama and immediately abdicate budget control with continuing resolutions.
This fallacy is called “the false choice”.
In other words, you can’t explain why you find Trump trustworthy.
Trump has actually given more affirmative support than any of his rivals to the Democrat policies you trust him to roll back.
Again: Trumpism rests on faith, not facts.
When Trump was a businessman he spake as a businessman and acted as a businessman in the best interests of his company but always within the bounds of law and ethics.
When Trump became a candidate for President he put away his businessman talk and he spake as a candidate for President who loves his country and wants the best for his country.
Wall, deport, enforce. When Trump was for it, NOBODY thought it would be popular. That’s how you know it was true and from his heart.
“When Trump was a businessman he spake as a businessman and acted as a businessman in the best interests of his company but always within the bounds of law and ethics.”
More outright lies. T-rump has OFTEN told DOCUMENTED lies to various interests including regulators, partners, and investors, and he’s KNOWINGLY acted FAR outside of “ethics”.
Four bankruptcies do NOT speak of a guy who has flawless business judgment, and DO speak loudly of a man who has left people in the grease.
“When Trump became a candidate for President he put away his businessman talk and he spake as a candidate for President.”
How can we trust him when we know he talks out of both sides of his mouth?
Trump has spent most of his life materially supporting Democrats and praising them and their policies. But suddenly he’s become the only person who will roll back the Democrats’ policies.
Do you not see how weird that is?
Trumpists fell for a showman and ignored the candidates who actually had a record of governing on principle. Apparently, quiet competence and integrity weren’t flashy enough.
The fallacy of a resort to “authority”, and one that is beyond dubious.
Trumpbart is not an unbiased source. Or do you want to lie about THAT, too?
Showman don’t say what everyone believes would be hated by the audience.
Yet Trump spoke WALL, DEPORT, ENFORCE when EVERYONE believed that would never be popular, never get applause and never get one elected president.
That is why your showman bullshit is a big NO SALE. Trump spoke what he felt without concern for its popularity.
It turned out it was popular. Who knew?
This is why Trump brings back the old Reagan democrats and why Trump seems like Reagan to many:
The Week: GOP Establishment Doesn’t ‘Care About the Economic Problems’ of Working Class (and by Establishment he means Conservatives because they are the establishment).
Michael Brendan Dougherty declares: “The conservative movement has become the GOP establishment” in view of National Review’s “symposium” of authors “against Trump.”
The fallacy of a resort to “authority”, and one that is beyond dubious.
Trumpbart is not an unbiased source. Or do you want to lie about THAT, too, butt boi?
Confused much? How old were you when Reagan was elected? Your thoughts, such as they are, betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what kind of man he was and what he meant to the conservatives of his day.
I understand Reagan far better than you apparently. I was plenty old sadly in 1980 when he ran. Still the only presidential campaign I ever worked on. I followed Reagan and supported him in 1976 when ran against Ford.
That you would compare Reagan to Trump is the greater sin then, because you should know better. Reagan’s establishment unpopularity was because of the strength of his conservative values, not because of his strength unmoored from values.
You are wrong. It was because he was an outsider, and as they always do they thought their boy (Bush) was more electable in the general election.
Reagan’s victory was also NOT because he was conservative or the most conservative candidate. It was in spite of that fact (at least in 1980).
Pat Caddell just happened to mention this today while deriding how GOPe consultants are ruining the GOPe.
It is a myth that “Reagan landslide victory in 1980 was a conservative wave election. Caddell believes that election was more of a revolt by voters against a terrible economy and the hostage situation in Iran than an embrace of conservative ideology.”
I’ll agree to disagree with you on this one Gary as I’m convinced you walked the walk back in the day and have a right to claim an informed opinion.
Cheers to you as well for being a Reagan man. We owe him so much. Really loved and admired him. We may never see his like again.
Oh Oh, Cruz has lost the Dixie Chicks.
Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines attacked Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
on Twitter saying that she is “ashamed Ted Cruz claims to be American.”
What are you twelve? Did you know that the Dixie Chicks are pretty much hated by the right side of the blogosphere?
Maybe I meant it as humorous comic relief. Ya think??
You should probably resist the impulse as it will tempt people to assume that everything you say is parody, since it is equally scoff-worthy.
But it didn’t tempt “people”. Just one old pretentious fool named Immolate.
Rick Perry (and Texas) endorses Ted Cruz.
National Review Enlists Open Border Zealots to Trash Trump
National Review’s effort to take down GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has been billed as a symposium of “conservatives against Trump.” However, that billing may be undermined by the discovery that several of the contributors National Review relied upon to pen their anti-Trump manifesto are supporters of the open borders immigration agenda.
Did you quote Pravda to argue for communism?
Do you think that one person who disfavors Trump is reflective of all others who disfavor Trump by virtue of their common conclusion?
If so, then I judge you as having the negative qualities of Hillary Clinton, because you both hate Ted Cruz.
You are a king-sized grab bag of logical fallacies. You’ve employed ad hominem, appeal to authority, argument by assertion, begging the question and black or white fallacies in a single thread.
I understand that it’s easier to disqualify the arguments you can’t refute by associating them with the arguments you can, but you’re not even bothering to do that.
Immolate, A somewhat more civil and mature version of Rags usual windbaggery, but just as meaningless and unresponsive to the post to which it is appended.
You’ve employed ad hominem, appeal to authority, argument by assertion, begging the question and black or white fallacies in a single thread.
Making claims like the above without any substantive response to the matters asserted or specific application to the specific objectionable words is nothing more than an obfuscation to duck having to deal with those issues One might argue that it becomes itself nothing more than an example of the grab bag of the logical fallacies listed.
Here is a clue. Making such a list is NOT a substitute for actual cognitive thinking and presenting a rational response applying arguments and theorems to the the facts.
What are you trying to say? That Breitbart is Pravda and Cruz is Communism?
I’ll try to limit my metaphors to the rainbows and kittens variety in the future.
You wouldn’t use Pravda to argue the merits of communism because Pravda has no credibility.
You wouldn’t use Brietbart to argue the merits of Trump or the demerits of his competitors because they have no credibility.
They were interesting when Andrew was alive but since then have become virulent, reactionary and short-sighted. I came to this conclusion long before Trump became a glimmer in the electorate’s eye. The are the Democratic Underground of the blogosphere’s right side.
When you can’t defend Trump, just find someone you don’t like who doesn’t like Trump! That’s certainly easier than trying to explain away the contradictions of Trumpism.
But I can play that sort of game too. Here’s a Trumpist kind of syllogism:
1. Anyone (such as NR) who supported Romney is discredited as a judge of Trump and is necessarily wrong about him.
2. Ann Coulter supported Romney and still believes he was “far and away” the best candidate in 2012.
3. Ann Coulter is therefore discredited as a judge of Trump, and she is totally wrong to support him.
1. We keep hearing that a lot of Democrats are supporting Trump.
2. Democrats are wrong about most things.
3. Therefore it’s totally wrong to support Trump.
Trumpbot-style thinking can get very interesting.
Radegunda is a democrat that supports Hillary/Bernie and fears Trump.
That fact may also explain the incoherent post to which I am replying.
Oh, that’s hysterical. You didn’t even understand that the “incoherence” if that post is simply a demonstration of the same kind of “reasoning” that Trumpbots use in an effort to shoot down any fact-based criticism of their savior-hero.
And I challenge you to find any comment I’ve made on this site or any other site to support your jaw-droppingly obtuse claim that I’m a democrat supporter of Hillary and Bernie!
Frankly, it’s an insane conclusion. But it’s just one more example of a familiar Trumpbot trope: “Anyone who points out Trump’s pro-Democrat history cannot possibly be a real conservative!”
Thanks for demonstrating — again — what I noticed long ago about the irrationality of Trump fans.
It must really hurt that you can’t keep up with a girl intellectually, so you just flung out the most preposterously counterfactual accusation you could come up with.
The assurance with which you made a bizarrely false assertion about me (and it should be obviously false to anyone who has read many of my previous comments) is a nice indicator of the kind of mental processes that support your unshakable faith in Trump.
Whom do you support in primary? Will you vote in democrat or republican primary and for whom?
Waiting for a clear and definitive response.
Has Trump fired the illegal aliens he said he had working at his golf courses?
He paid for them to take citizenship classes and helpex them all at his expense to get green cards.
So T-rump is conducting his own ‘MINI-amnesty’ while knowingly hiring, harboring, and fostering illegal aliens and illegal immigration.
Exactly as many of have been saying for months. He’s DONE nothing that supports what he NOW SAYS.
Well it could be what I wrote was just a bit of a joke. Just to see who might bite.
STILL waiting for the video link that PROVES the T-rump tape I posted was doctored.
Or, put another way, YOU are proven a liar yet again.
Not that it’s hard…
Trump fans try to make a pro-Trump case by saying “We’re angry at Congress!” or “Boehner and McConnell betrayed us!”
So, do they want Emperor Trump to abolish Congress? Or just hold a gun to Boehner and McConnell’s heads and order them to build a wall personally? (Heck, he could shoot them on TV and his fans would prostrate themselves before him; Trump has their number on that score.)
The fans blithely ignore the fact that Trump bashed Cruz for not being deferential to McConnell, and that Trump said he’ll be better at sitting down with Democrats and making deals.
After all, Trump very much wanted Harry Reid to beat his Tea Party opponent, so of course Trump will be happy to cut deals with Harry.
Trump acknowledging the act: “When I’m president, I’m a different person. I can be the most politically correct person you’ve ever seen.”
At about 1:48.
Which a lot of us already knew. There is no core there.
By the way, on the topic of who was talking about a wall and when, see Ted Cruz in 2011. Note also his position on amnesty.
Watching it will only take two minutes of your time.
Cruz does not describe the kind of wall a real wall that Trump will build. He merely goes through if laundry list items to “secure” the border listing fencing (which isn’t a wall) border guards, electronic surveillance, a wall etc.
No way in heck is he talking about building a 30 foot high 1000 to 1500 mile long Trump wall of solid conrete and steel like the Israelis use.
Oh, so it doesn’t count because Cruz wasn’t talking about exactly the sort of wall Trump described? Because he didn’t say, in 2011, “I would like the great Trump to design and build the wall to his specifications?”
Cruz’s strong support of a secure border (wall, fence, and several other things) in 2011 runs counter to the assertions of many Trump supporters that no one was talking about this before Trump was. What’s more, Cruz actually supported more than a wall, as you can see from the tape; he was being inclusive and expansive about all the solutions to the main problem, which is to secure the border.
Over two years ago, the El Paso Times wrote this about Cruz and the border (I copied the text a while back, but unfortunately the link is now dead):
“A double-layered border fence”—ah, but it wasn’t what Trump described, so it’s no good, right? The Trump way is the only way!
The text of Cruz’s speech announcing his run for president is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-ted-cruzs-speech-at-liberty-university/2015/03/23/41c4011a-d168-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html
In this speech this is the entirety of his comments on the border and immigration.
“Instead of the lawlessness and the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders.
And imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the American dream.”
“Secute the border” John McCain and Chuck Schumer would say the same words. You couldn’t tell one from the other. There is no mention of a wall. It isn’t important enough to make it into his speech.
Then do a compare and contrast to Trump’s announcement of his run for president.
Trump says we are going to build a wall. A real wall more than 1000 miles of real wall. Trump says he will deport illegals and enforce our laws. Trump says many of illegals are rapists and murderers and this all has to be stopped. It is a big beautiful important centerpiece of his speech.
Nobody could look at the words used by Trump and think those words could have been spoken by McCain or Schumer or anybody excrpt Trump.
Nobody could deny that the wall and stopping illegals and deporting illegals wasn’t an important centerpiece of Trump’s speech. For Cruz on the other hand it is just a check the box I mentioned it tiny insignificant part of the theme of his speech.
Cruz already says he will not deport illegals. He says he will use everify to pressure illegals to self deport. Trump says he will round up illegals and deport them lije Eisenhower did. He will start with the criminals and gang members and round them up and move them out. Cruz says nope he isn’t rounding up anybody.
The choice couldn’t be more clear. Only Trump will build a wall a real wall. Only Trump will deport illegals. Only Trump will enforce our laws. All of our laws and deport illegals.
Trump will also not agree to expand legal immigration. His work with Jeff Sessions shows he understands legal immigration needs not to be expanded but curtailed. He sure as heck won’t propose expanding h1b visas by 100s of thousands like Cruz.
Finally Trump isn’t beholden globalist corporate mega donors and their lawyers and bankers. Cruz is. And they want more visas and more legal immigration. They want the insane any willing worker programs where american workers have to compete with an unlimited supply of low wage college educated workers. They will pressure Cruz for these things.
Tied to immigration problems affecting usa workers is the subject of trade deals. Jeff Sessions says only Trump understands what is needed and how to fix situation. Cruz being a pure ideologue conservative thinks unlimited free trade whether fair or not trade is good. He like all the others who say this and have said this for the last 40 years are wrong. Trump knows it. Jeff Sessions kniws it and the decimated middle class workers in this country know it. The country club conservatives and open borders conservatives of the National Review don’t know it. They are theorists. Trump is a realist. They are thinkers. Trump is do’er and a man of action.
America needs a Trump not a theorist or canadian visiting professor of constitutional law.
“Cruz already says he will not deport illegals. He says he will use everify to pressure illegals to self deport.”
That’s a lie, and you’re just lying again.
“Trump says he will round up illegals and deport them lije Eisenhower did.”
Well, you’re supposed to be a NOMINAL lawyer. What’s changed since Ike’s day? Nothing? Or LOTS of things?
“He will start with the criminals and gang members and round them up and move them out. Cruz says nope he isn’t rounding up anybody.”
Another lie. Cruz said there will be no new jack-booted BIG GOVERNMENT force created, ala T=rump.
Nobody NEEDS to have such a force to “round up criminals”. The existing LEOs are quite up to the task. All they need is a clear direction and some political will backing them.
This is funny. I distinctly remember Gary saying over and over that Cruz was a follower and his boy Trump was the clear leader in everything. Not exactly true so he has to change the definition. Sad really.
“Oh, so it doesn’t count because Cruz wasn’t talking about exactly the sort of wall Trump described? Because he didn’t say, in 2011, “I would like the great Trump to design and build the wall to his specifications?”
You are being silly. Cruz could have said he wants to build 1000 to 1500 miles of a real wall like the walls built by the Israelis.
Cruz could have also not tried to raise h1b visas by 500,000. Cruz could have also not gone shaky and back and forth on amnesty.
Jeff Sessions doesn’t support Cruz. There is a reason for that. Probably several reasons.
“Jeff Sessions doesn’t support Cruz.”
More of your butt boi bullshit, Britt.
Donald Trump has hired one of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) top aides to help guide his presidential campaign, according to the Washington Post.
Stephen Miller, a trusted aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, will join Donald Trump’s presidential campaign on Wednesday, serving as a senior policy adviser to the Republican front-runner…
Miller has worked closely with Sessions on immigration policy, especially in 2013 when Sessions played a leading role in blocking the “Gang of Eight” immigration-expansion bill that was pushed by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) His expertise contributed to the Trump campaign when Trump’s first policy paper embraced pro-American immigration reforms long championed by Sessions.
“Trump’s first policy paper embraced pro-American immigration reforms long championed by Sessions.”
Oh, I don’t doubt that Sessions had some input in writing it, since Duh Donald sure as hell DID NOT…!!!
Jeebus, the man can’t even speak about its contents coherently!
PLUS, it’s a MANDATE for BIGGER GOVERNMENT, panders to blacks, hispanics, and women, and calls for all kinds of market tinkering.
Along with “build a wall and making Mexico pay for it”, which is a pure fiction.
Oh, and we DO know Sessions had a hand in Cruz’s position paper on immigration.
For a fact.
“…especially in 2013 when Sessions played a leading role in blocking the “Gang of Eight” immigration-expansion bill that was pushed by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).”
THAT would be the one that Cruz teamed with Sessions on to kill, while Duh Donald was pushing it.
Heh, and double HEH….!!!!
I’d say that T-rump NEEEEEEEDS some “advising”, and someone to lend his some creds.
‘Cause he ain’t got any of his own, and quite the contrary…!!!!
Hey, Gaghdad Bob…!!!
About 24 hours ago, you called ME a liar and said the video tape of T-rump I’d posted was doctored, and that YOU’D seen the REAL tape on FOX.
I challenged you to put it up.
STILL waiting, lying SOS. Tick-tock…
Yet ANOTHER conservative with years in the trenches for the Jonestown T-rumpian cultists here to slime and hand-wave away.
Levin CRUSHES T-rump on his sell out to the establishment in Iowa, and his loathing of property rights.
Gotta give it to Levin he knows how to capture the pulse of the nation. Lectures on mega issues like ethanol and eminent domain abuse are bound to capture 1 or 2 votes for Cruz.
Vote for Cruz, visting Canadian constitutional law professor. He can decimate ISIS in a debate over free speech. He can talk illegals into going back to Mexico.
So true to form, Gaghdad Bob.
NO argument, so ad hominem attack on Levin and belittle the FACTS.
Yep. You’re pig pizzle!
“The Establishment created Ted Cruz. Lazy and slipshod thinking created Donald Trump.”
Trump endorsed for president today by Jerry Falwell. He is the choice of christians.
New CNN/ORC poll out today Trump 41%, Cruz 19%.
Trump leads with all voter groups, income levels and education levels. Over 60% believe Trump will be nominee and over 60% believe Trump best candidate to beat democrats in general election.
Nobody cares what Levin or the idiots at Red State think.
This election is not about who is more qualified to be constitutional law professor or has deeper roots with the insane end times dreams of Glenn Beck.
I have family attending and working at Liberty U. None of those Christians nor do I, also a Christian, support Tpump.
NBC Poll: Trump leads Cruz with evangelicals 37% to 20%
“Major Pro-Life Leaders Come Out Against Trump”
The biggest and original pro-life leader Phylis Schlaffly endorsed Trump.
These women, from my link above, are all the more impressive:
Jenifer Bowen, Executive Director, Iowa Right to Life
Denise Bubeck, Member and Iowa Volunteer, Concerned Women for America
Kendra Burger, Director of Educational Outreach, Iowa Right to Life
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List
Christine Hurley, Iowa Pro-life Activist
Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women for America
Marilyn Musgrave, Fmr. Congresswoman, VP of Government Affairs, Susan B. Anthony List
Penny Nance, President and CEO, Concerned Women for America
Star Parker, Founder and President, Urbancure
Luana Stoltenberg, Iowa Leader, Operation Outcry
It is a nice list of pro-life women’s groups. It just isn’t going to sway enough voters for Cruz. Trump has written a nice op-ed/interview about it with the Christian Broadcasting Network:
Donald Trumps tells David Brody at the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN): “One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago. One of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story. He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.”
With the Sarah Palin endorsement and Jerry Falwell endorsement Trump’s pro life credentials are established.
Further bad news for Cruz is he keeps running in the wrong election. This election is not about who is most conservative or who is most pure on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Cruz keeps trying to fight on the wrong battlefield.
This election is about immigration, the wall, security, the economy, and foreign dangers/foreign affairs. The social issues like abortion and gay marriage are just not high on the list of issues for this election.
The endorsements of Jeff Sessions on trade agreements and immigration and tonight the endorsement of Sheriff Joe Arpaio are far more important than Cruz’s pro life group endorsements.
Which is SOOOOOooooo strange, given he was all for Federal funding of Planned Abortionhood just a matter of days ago…
And mere days before that, cool with partial-birth abortions.
AND his sister, the pro-abortion judge.
Makes you wonder…
IF you have the brain cells to wonder about anything, right Gaghdad Bob…???
Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is reportedly heading to Iowa to endorse GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
“Joe Arpaio, the hard-line anti-immigration sheriff from Arizona, will appear with Donald J. Trump in Iowa today and endorse his candidacy, according to Mr. Trump’s campaign,” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman reported.
Haberman wrote Arpaio “espouses some of the Republican Party’s most conservative views about undocumented immigrants.”
Arpaio is expected to appear with Trump in Marshalltown, Iowa this evening.
I wonder if he’ll recount how T-rump supported amnesty, the Dreamers and the Gang Of Eight in 2013, when Cruz and Sessions killed that effort?
Whaddaya thank, Gaghdad Bob…???
And I wonder if Sherf’ Joe knows that T-rump (according to you) has been running his own private illegal amnesty and harboring program?
I bet he doesn’t.
Sheriff Joe is known for telling the truth and telling it like it is. JUST LIKE TRUMP.
So I’d say you couldn’t pay Sheriff Joe to repeat your laundry list of lies about Trump. Sheriff Joe knows the TRUTH and he knows which candidate will do the right things on the border, security, and immigration, and
SHERIFF JOE KNOWS THAT MAN IS PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!
Actually, T-rump is known for lying.
He does it pretty much every day, but certainly several times a day on average.
That “averages” thing may be above your intelligence. Sorry…
I love Sheriff Joe…but I still am voting for Ted Cruz, Constitutional Lawman.
The key bit comes at 5:40 of the clip. Money line: “I always had a great relationship with Harry Reid. And frankly, if I weren’t running for office I’d be able to deal with her [Pelosi], I’d be able to deal with Reid, I’d be able to deal with anybody.” This point has been made often, most recently by Andy McCarthy, but it can’t be repeated enough: This guy is on the verge of beating Ted Cruz as an “outsider” by touting his record of cronyism. How can you be anti-establishment, wonders McCarthy, when you’re crowing about your history of essentially bribing politicians, including politicians from the other party? It’s a perfect complement to Trump, the least socially conservative candidate in the Republican field, landing the endorsement of the son of the man who founded the Moral Majority. Trump’s success is like a flashing road sign, “Republicans don’t actually care about most of the things they claim to care about.”
Well, some “conservatives” who have no real concept of what that means, yeah.
#NobodyCares about the crap being fed to you by the Cruz campaign. All old news cancelled out by Trump and his endorsements from Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and Jeff Sessions.
Sessions has NOT endorsed T=rump. Put up where he has.
Nobody matters if they don’t #SuckTrump.
You’re are lying, cultist, fascits lil’ bastard.
“I’ve always had a good relationship with Nancy Pelosi and was close to Chuck Schumer in many ways.”
My GAWD, where is that vat of brain bleach when I need it…!?!?!?
Trump, accidently telling the truth: “I’ve been in politics all my life”.
Idiot child and Bierhall Britt hardest hit…
Don’t those people know that the ONLY thang that matters is the marvy wall T-rump SAYS he’ll build…??? The one with the motorized revolving door…
Huh. You mean Millinials CARE about the Constitution…???
That’s unpossible, because WAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL…!!!
I wonder if Dana Loesh will work in plugs for Cruz when she is acting as carnival barker pitchman on one of her miracle anti-aging cream infomercials on FBN ??
Hard to take her serious as a “conservative thought leader” when she is simultaneously the darling of the informercial pitchman set.
Maybe the Cruz people paid her and she thinks she is showing up to play straight man on some infomercial for Canadian imports.
Have you seen the T-rump adds for his hecho en Mexico clothing lines?
His cheap, gaudy “made in China” faux bling.
What a lil’ pink pig pizzel.
Just curious, pig pizzle. Are you attacking Sean Hannity for the same commercials?
Rush for the burgler alarm and data back-up commercials that are the last half hour of his show?
Stupid pig pizzle.
You are trying to compare commercials to infomercials. You are a dumb ass that doesn’t know the difference. Buy a dictionary.
Infomercials are 30 minute “programs” where some sham wow huckster pushes some product. Sometimes they take the form of a fake news or interview program. Dana Loesh likes to play the fake news/interview person who tag teams the advertising and sales pitch with her co huckster for 30 minutes.
Gari, T=rump butt boi…
Where’s that link to the REAL video you promised, you lying SOS?