Trump: I Entered During Ted Cruz’s Speech to Tweak Him
“You know what, he’s lucky I did it,” Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg published Saturday. “I walked in and the arena went crazy. Because there’s great unity in the Republican Party and people don’t know it. Had I not walked in, I think that audience would have ripped him off the stage. I think I did him a big favor.”
Trump was also asked if he had walked into the arena during the speech in order to “tweak” Cruz.
“Tweak him?” Trump responded. “I would never do a thing like that. But yes.”
P.S. Here is a fascinating piece that will be ignored by the sheep who follow Donald Trump. Baaaaaaaaaaaa!
This post will be what finally turns the Trumpers here around.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Patterico (72bd42) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:03 pmwhat was that line from nietzche line,
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-speech-wasnt-dark-or-angry-the-media-out-touch-17099
the mercer’s have given up on him, and they were cruz’s chief patrons,
narciso (732bc0) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:18 pmnationalinterest.org? And mg linked investmentwatchblog.com in the other thread. I didn’t know the woodwork was that crowded.
Want to check out an article by Trump’s co-author of the Art of the Deal? If only Patterico would link it ….
nk (dbc370) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:29 pmHeh, I see what you did there, nk. Let’s give em a minute.
felipe (d96360) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:34 pma statement made after he’s been cashing checks for 30 years, tell me another one,
narciso (732bc0) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:34 pmYeah, let’s not hold our breath.
felipe (d96360) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:35 pmNarciso, why do you hate checks?
felipe (d96360) — 7/23/2016 @ 9:37 pmHe was a professional writer. He wouldn’t have written that if he was not going to get paid for it. Trump got paid the same amount for being the character of the novel.
nk (dbc370) — 7/23/2016 @ 10:06 pmperhaps but it’s the hindsight justification that rankles, he’s an imperfect vehicle, like boris johnson for brexit, the more fitting one turns out not to be,
narciso (732bc0) — 7/23/2016 @ 10:09 pmI’m of two minds about Tony Schwartz’s comments.
On the positive side, having not paid attention to Mr. Trump for most of my life (until last year, of course), I am pleased to see that my initial impressions simply from watching the first debate were correct…sort of. The fact is that if everything Schwartz is saying is true, Trump is not the vapid, narcissistic, egotistical, manipulative, fraudulent blowhard as I thought he was. Instead, he is much, much worse — far more than I would ever have given him discredit for.
On the negative side, I can’t help but notice that Schwartz wrestled with his conscience until it was far too late to save the Republican Party from Trump’s clutches. Perhaps if he had said this a year ago, things would be different now. Of course, perhaps he waited for so long because he was absolutely sure that Trump would crash and burn. Or maybe Schwartz, a self-confessed liberal of an elite bent, waited to make sure that Trump would ensure Hillary Clinton’s election in November.
On the gripping hand — Mr. Schwartz, you are a co-author of America’s coming fate, and history will not judge you kindly for it. Nor should they. No amount of charitable donations can possibly undo the damage you’ve caused. Not even impoverishing yourself and your family would wipe the slate clean. Damn you, sir.
Demosthenes (09f714) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:11 pmRemember the 1971-1972 La race and “Vote for the crook, it’s important?”
Vote for the asshole. It’s important. Do NOT risk a Hillary win. Don’t even think of it – unless you are coming out of the closet as a (national) socialist.
{o.o}
JDow (199dc0) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:35 pmTrump won. Ted Lost. It wasn’t close. Then Ted decided to get cute, made a fool of himself and killed his own political career. You can either get over it, or keep whining. Looks like you’ve chosen the whining option. Whhhiiiiiiiiiiiiine!
Boris (bc52ec) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:38 pmThat New Yorker article is by the “Koch Brothers Father Built a Refinery For the Nazi’s” lady
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:42 pmWhich is on par with “Ted Cruz’ Father Ate Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald while Planning the Murder of JFK”
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:46 pmBoy are you off. That campaign was in 1991. And it’s funny you mention it, because I was just about to bring it up to refute the Trumpkin claim that Cruz was wrong because loyalty to the Republican Party means supporting whomever it nominates.
Cast your mind back to that campaign, please, and the fact that the whole Republican Party, both in LA and nationally, rallied to defeat Duke, its official nominee. According to you Trumpkins every loyal party member owed Duke support and endorsement, and supporting Edwin Edwards at the state convention would have been “peeing on the carpet”. But of course every good Republican did just that. Do you think they were wrong?
On the contrary, if you live in a swing state, where your vote might actually affect the result, vote for the witch. It’s important.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:49 pmBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Are you a shepherd there in Australia, Boris, or just a sheep?
Either way, this isn’t your fight. Stay out of it.
Patterico (72bd42) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:51 pmAnd therefore? Are you suggesting that she is misquoting or misrepresenting Schwartz, who is in perfect position to denounce and refute her if she does? If she is accurately representing what he told her, then what difference does it make what lies she has written on other occasions?
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:52 pmI don’t think Cruz is done politically. He’ll have to fight harder now for his seat, but could be the next Nixon (in this context that is a compliment).
My expectation of Cruz and Trump burying the hatchet… maybe even teaming up in someway was delusional and underestimated Trumps nasty bare knuckle streak towards people he dislikes.
Trump seems like one of those competitors that has to hate the opposition, who wants to destroy and humiliate them….all opposition is taken personally.
If Trump wins, it’ll be interesting how he handles foreign and domestic opposition. Will he have more tolerance for one than the other? Will he use the CIA and Special Operations to tear peoples stuff up… like an Eme shot caller sending 4 bangers to your house to tear you and your shit up because you did something he considered disrespectful, or will he be more Presidential about it?
Interesting times we live in
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:12 amActually I’m a US citizen currently working in Australia, so it is very much my fight. Whhhiiiiiiine!
Boris (bc52ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:16 amBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Patterico (72bd42) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:17 amWhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiine!
Boris (bc52ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:21 amAnd therefore, yes. and furthermore she is an artful liar who writes very well. If Cruz had won the nomination she’d be smearing him, his wife, his dad.
It is her job.
Sorry my “take that article with a grain of salt” got under your skin.
My guess is that the ghost writer is getting the Roger Stone treatment right now. He’ll either mumble and sorta retract, blame the woman, or else he’ll be “exposed” as a liar, alcoholic degenerate blah blah.
We’ll see whether or not he’s telling the truth.
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:28 amHey look it’s Ted Cruz in a sea of Borises and happyfeets
Patterico (72bd42) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:29 amGood on ya, mate. No worries Throw another shrimp on the barbie
Patterico (72bd42) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:30 amTony Schwartz, a media consultant who later joined the Carter campaign….
Same guy?
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:31 amWhhhhiiiiiiiiine some more, Mr. Patterico.
Boris (bc52ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:41 amProbably not…
Did see his Mom was an old school feminist.
Found this:
Tony Schwartz – Bronx, NY: – The Energy Project/President and CE
Donation: Feingold Senate Committee – Democrat – $1,000
Donation: ACTBLUE – $1,000
Donation: Sestak for Senate – Democrat – $1,000
SCHWARTZ, TONY
steveg (fed1c9) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:41 amBRONX, NY
10471 The Energy Project/President-Ceo $2,500 09/13/2012 P OBAMA VICTORY FUND 2012 – Democrat
SCHWARTZ, TONY
BRONX, NY
10471 The Energy Project/President And Ceo $2,500 08/05/2012 P OBAMA FOR AMERICA – Democrat
Maybe Ted Cruz is the leader America needs in 2020. Maybe he’ll be influential during the next four years.
But in the meantime, casting the Supreme Court and open borders to Hillary seems suicidal, doesn’t it?
Trump has at least committed to a conservative Supreme Court, including a justice with similar judicial philosophy as Scalia. He’s also committed to tighter immigration control, and remember that attacks from ISIS and affiliates are coming so fast around the world that they’re hard to keep up with now.
Whatever Trump’s imperfections, come on, man. Hillary is just a true disaster, a tragedy of epic proportions, waiting to happen. Like seriously. That would be bad.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:45 amIs there anything that will sop up the #NeverendingTears of certain people?
Teddy was cut lose to drift with his toiled conscience.
TaTa, bye,bye, good luck. My he find peace and solace in Hillary’s pocket.Moving on.org
Drider (340c7b) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:17 amHeh! And Trump has proven that when Russia invades Estonia, he would indeed respond by nuking Denmark. We’re supposed to vote for him because of Hillary!!1! but he’s campaigning against Cruz and Kasich.
nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:33 am@22 Patterico
Or it could be a democrat during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pinandpuller (43dde4) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:48 amStreetwalkers for Trump!
There are always people in politics who will knife anyone in the back or abandon “long held” values just to gain power. Those are the Trumptards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bernie-sanders_us_57917ddfe4b0fc06ec5c7da6
If you are comfortable associating with communists and socialists, I am not comfortable associating with with you Trumptards. You, not Obama or Hillary! are what is wrong with America. They are just the symptom. You are the cause.
It is despicable that the very people who voted for the demise of this country now claim that the people who have not yet enlisted in their disgusting cause are the problem.
Steve57 (2d3b12) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:32 amAre you ideologically committed to falling for this good cop/bad cop routine?
I honestly do not understand it.
Steve57 (2d3b12) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:36 amcruz and the DNC
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:27 amlooking for money
to help hillary
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/it_was_a_dark_and_stormy_night_for_cruz_the_media_and_hillary.html
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:47 amShe is back, narciso.
http://www.lucianne.com
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:53 amhttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/23/woah-robert-mercer-excoriates-ted-cruz-for-his-non-endorsement-convention-speech/#more-119237
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:09 amso delicous
Demosthenes,
Thank you for joining us.
Yes, had Schwartz been interested in simply warning the public about Trump, he would have done so earlier, but being a leftist, he saved it until after the nomination.
No surprise.
Trump supporters said don’t vote for Cruz because after he is nominated they would begin the “he’s ineligible, he is Canadian” line.
Some of us said, “So what? They will find ways to attack anyone.”
Lucy, bring out the football.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:35 amSo actually he was tweaking all conservatives!
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:37 amDenver Guy, Trump “committed” to those? You just lap up the con.
SPQR (0cce45) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:41 amvote for the witch. It’s important.
I was thinking of “Vote For The B*tch — It’s Important” but more people will think I mean Trump than will think I mean Hillary.
Those pansy kisses. Ewww! Where did he learn those? From Roy Cohn? I didn’t watch Angels In America. Was Al Pacino doing that?
nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:18 amsteveg,
It’s true that Tony Schwartz has <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=tony+schwartz&cycle=All&sort=N&state=NY&zip=&employ=&cand=&soft=Y&submit=Submit”>given religiously to Democrats/liberals for two decades. This is the guy Trump hand-picked to help him write about his principles, such as they are.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:20 amTony Schwartz’s donations from Open Secrets:
Schwartz put all that money he got from Trump to use supporting other liberals like Trump. Hey, but Trump picks the best people.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:28 amIf you ask why we should trust Tony Schwartz, it’s because Trump trusted Tony Schwartz. He trusted his life story to Schwartz. Trump picked a liberal to write for him and he picked a liberal to be his national finance director. This is who Trump trusts and who he will pick to staff his Administration. Are they better than Hillary will pick? Maybe, but it’s hard to tell.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:35 amOne of the reasons I like Cruz is that he has a career as an appellate advocate that will support him if he leaves politics. He doesn’t need the job so badly that he will sell out his principles to keep it. This is what the Founders wanted in our leaders, and it was a good idea.
Trump looks like someone who fits this mold but he isn’t. He has burned so many bridges in his business dealings that the biggest American lenders haven’t dealt with him in over 20 years. Trump ran out of gullible people to scam until he hit the jackpot in politics.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:42 amRe: the New Yorker piece: Although I agree with Patterico’s view of Trump, I have a distinct feeling that the story the New Yorker tells is unreliable. The story identifies Schwartz as a lifelong liberal. He donates significant amounts of money to liberal causes. The comments above state that the author of the piece is also the author of a recent book slamming the Koch Brothers. I read reviews of the book, not the book itself. The story also mentions a writer named David Cay Johnston favorably. I’ve read a lot of David Cay Johnston’s writing because his area of expertise is income taxes, which is the same as my area of expertise. Everything David Cay Johnston writes is distorted and misleading. My experience with liberals is that they see things the way they do because they see things the way they do. If the New Yorker interviewed Don Quixote about his career as a knight errant and then published everything DQ said as fact I would consider that an unreliable article. The same goes for information from liberals about things that I can’t verify from other sources. Also I tend to agree with Trump that a ghostwriter should generally keep his mouth shutout his subject’s weaknesses.
Charlie Davis (3b4769) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:48 amSeriously, Patterico, just start banning the FecesBirds.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:53 amSure,
We know that the New Yorker has an agenda,
We know it is intended as a hit piece
Planned for a time when it will do the most damage to Republicans and help Clinton the most.
We know this is expected no matter who the Republican candidate would be,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:58 ambut as DRJ pointed out, this is the person Trump chose to ghostwrite his auto.
But thank you for your perspective and corroborating information.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:59 am“If you are comfortable associating with communists and socialists, I am not comfortable associating with with you Trumptards. You, not Obama or Hillary! are what is wrong with America. They are just the symptom. You are the cause.”
You know, sometimes getting whacked on the head with a carrot hurts just as much as with a stick. Read a bit of Orwell, esp the stuff about the theory of newspeak and Inner Party/Outer Party, and stop calling other people retards until you can come around to my neck of the woods and prove you’re not a retard yourself. And my standard of proof is, you may find to your dismay, demanding.
“It is despicable that the very people who voted for the demise of this country now claim that the people who have not yet enlisted in their disgusting cause are the problem.”
One doesn’t even know what this means.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:59 amSo Schwartz was either party to a fraud then or now. And now David Johnston sounds reasonable?
narciso (732bc0) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:01 amTrump is far more narcissistic than Obama.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:04 amTrump is far more unintelligent than Obama.
Trump is at least as lawless and corrupt as Obama.
Trump is at least as vindictive as Obama.
Trump is at least as dishonest as Obama.
Trump is as Leftist as the Clinton Clan.
“I am not comfortable associating with with you Trumptards. You, not Obama or Hillary! are what is wrong with America. They are just the symptom. You are the cause.”
Sometimes getting whacked on the head with a carrot hurts just as much as with a stick. Read a bit of Orwell, especially the stuff about the theory of newspeak and Inner Party Outer Party, and stop calling other people idiots until you can come around to my neck of the woods and prove you’re not an idiot yourself. And my standard of proof is, you may find to your dismay, demanding.
“It is despicable that the very people who voted for the demise of this country now claim that the people who have not yet enlisted in their disgusting cause are the problem.”
One doesn’t even know what this means.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:05 amHeil Hitchcock!!!
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:05 amAgain, Charlie, we can trust Schwartz because Trump trusted him. If Schwartz has bad judgment or is disloyal, that reflects on Trump’s judgment as well. This is the person Trump picked and trusted to handle his most important topic – himself and his business career.
Do you only listen to people who believe in Trump enough to give money to him? Then it will be a short list: Just three of 68 RNC primetime speakers donated to Trump (and Cruz wasn’t one of them). Twenty-one of the speakers did donate, however, but to other candidates or their committees. Also, one of the three speakers who did give to Trump is the manager of Trump’s winery.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:06 amAustralians say ‘prawn’ not ‘shrimp’.
Johnny Mustard (b996d4) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:09 amF U, mg, and please self-deport. You’re the one voting for the National Socialist, not me.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:11 am“Trump is far more narcissistic than Obama.”
I don’t think you understand what big words like ‘narcissistic’ mean. In fact I don’t even have to make the conjecture, you’ve already illustrated it.
“Trump is far more unintelligent than Obama.”
Heh. Says the Chief Officer of Intelligence. I believe George Carlin had a good line about that.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:14 am“Australians say ‘prawn’ not ‘shrimp’.”
Australians say all sorts of zany things. It’s kind of why we love you folks so much.
No, it’s not sarcasm, we really do.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:18 amComing from a “White people are our people” Canadian who has been multiply banned here, your words mean less than zero.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:19 amclinton/Hitchcock/2016
mg (31009b) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:26 amhe kinda tweaked himself with that awful speech i think
but the narrative always has to be that the cruz’s are hapless victims of everything
i abjure this
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:31 amCruz had he won , would have been subject to the fate of Stockwell day.
narciso (732bc0) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:31 amBernie is going to speak at Philadelphia tommorrow (sic) night. He has already endorsed Hillary!1!!. If I were writing his speech, I would add a stand-up routine about Trump dreaming that he will get his supporters.
nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:35 ammg’s reasoning is fallacious. He believes the false dichotomy fallacy is cold, hard fact. You can’t expect Trump worshipers to be all that logically solid, else they wouldn’t want anything to do with Trump.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:45 am“If I were writing his speech, I would add a stand-up routine”
And just out of curiosity, would there be anything funny in your stand-up routine? Il est necessaire qu’on s’amuse, after all.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:47 amChristoph, go clear out your blowhole.
nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:49 amSaying I have more logic and reasoning skills than a Trumpist is like saying I know more English words than the average 2 year old Czech kid from the farm communities. It’s not a high hurdle to clear.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:49 amPeople, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we ge BOOM!!!!!!!!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:49 amPatterico
Your musings will not alter the fact that you are a GOP traitor and Hillary enabler.
PTS (0e41dc) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:57 amThe people asking “can we all get along” reminds me of the one that made it famous. He was a drug-addicted criminal asking those who stood against drug-addicted criminals to quit being mean to those who stood in defense of drug-addicted criminals criminalizing. The ones now doing it are all-in with a narcissistic, corrupt, lying Leftist and against all those who refuse to vote for such evil.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:57 am@nk — I asked you to say something actually funny, and that was what you came up with?
This just gets better and better.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:58 amLike Eric Blair would have said, were he still here, you’re an alphabetist. The Republican leadership is traitorous, as is the entire Democrat machine. Patterico already removed himself from the ranks of Republicans. I shall no longer call myself a Republican, either. I am a Conservative. And there is no longer any room for Conservatives in the Republican party.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:00 am“Saying I have more logic and reasoning skills than a Trumpist is like saying I know more English words”
So, I don’t know, just for instance, do you happen to know English words like “pompous” “self-involved” and “jackass”? Enquiring minds wish to learn about your vast store of erudition.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:02 amIt was kind of the New Yorker to provide Schwartz with a platform to disclose the fact no NDA exists to cover the material he acquired while pimping for Trump. He should be able to provide a few months worth of infotainment while needling Trump into lying in response.
Rick Ballard (04482a) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:09 amYes, Hitchcock, though un attributed, it was straight from St. Rodney’s mouth…
Happy Sunday, all.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:09 amThis place is becoming a pitiful pit of pusillanimous pabulum personified by petty parsing and pointless pontifications. Period.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:11 amTrump knew what Cruz was going to say two hours before it happened. That gave them plenty of time to start the booing operation among the delegates. That’s politics. If Cruz didn’t anticipate something like this happening then he’s a moron.
brightdarkness (dedf5d) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:15 am@76: somewhere in Hell, Spiro Agnew is smiling with gratitude.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:15 amThose words define Trump, Trump Worshipers, and a certain particular “White people are my people” Canadian. That you have eyes yet refuse to see, and ears yet refuse to hear is not my problem, but it is representative of all worshipers of Trump and other Leftist narcissists.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:20 amDRJ (#43 and #53), I see no indication that Trump trusted Schwartz any more than Reagan trusted the Soviets. In other words, I very much doubt that Trump let the book be published, and paid Schwartz, without verifying that the book was well-written. Schwartz Schwartz Schwartz. He now says he lied, so why believe that he’s not lying now? Has he given back the money he says was ill-gotten? Anyway, since I’m discussing Schwartz and not ignoring him, then presumably Patterico will agree that I’m not one of the sheep who follow Donald Trump. Baaaaaaaaaaaa! 🙂
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:20 amMr. Trump is a good force against stinkypig. There’s so much about what he’s trying to do that’s both noble and fortuitous.
I hope in the end the sillies and the poopers will unite and not let corrupt imperious stinkypig do the partial birth judges all up America.
Please Jesus answer my prayers.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:26 am“The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you true conservatives these fifteen…[drops one of the tablets]… Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!”
— Moses
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:28 am@ pinandpuller (#30): No, you stupid Trumpkin, Americans do not do a Sieg Heil! salute when we pledge allegiance to the flag. We place our hands over our hearts.
I guess you’re probably used to Klan rallies or whatever, so I forgive you the idiotic mistake.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:42 am@82 col haiku: dude, that one was actually, really funny! Not kidding, first time I think I’ve ever seen it out of you. Oscar Wilde, the Godfather of Soul, would be proud. Wit is a sign of intelligence, however flickering.
Onya, mate! Keep up the good work, you’re getting there!
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:45 amDRJ #53: Thanks for your comment. I haven’t posted on this site for at least 6 months but I look at it every day and I think it’s a great bunch of people. I voted for someone other than Trump in the Republican primary and if the election were today I’d vote for Gary Johnson. Trump could convert me but I’d be surprised if that happened.
Charlie Davis (3b4769) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:55 am@ Charlie Davis, who wrote:
Of course, having been bought off to pretend that Trump actually contributed to the book he wrote, the ghostwriter’s normal etiquette requires that he stay mum. The byline of “TRUMP: The Art of the Deal” says “Donald Trump with Tony Schwartz,” so he wasn’t remotely anonymous before, and indeed on past occasions Trump has admitted that flacks have mostly written his books for him. Another suck flack, Meredith McIver, was apparently sufficiently loyal when she wrote a book under Trump’s name that it got her hired full-time as a flacker for the Trump Organization, from which job she had the superb good judgment to plagiarize from Michelle Obama’s 2008 DNC speech for Mrs. Trump’s 2016 RNC speech.
But Trump has — as always — voided the normal rules of etiquette by his own prior misconduct. He constantly refers to “The Art of the Deal” as if it’s some sort of brilliant Bible of Business, a chronicle of a brilliant if unconventional executive who’s now fit to Make America Great Again. In fact, it was written by a committed life-long Democratic journalist of the lowest degree of ethics and prestige who knew not squat about business, which, with its subject, explains the book’s vapidity and banality. Now said life-long Democratic journalist — whom, as my friend DRJ points out, was selected by Trump to promote the Trump brand and tell the Trump story — is telling a story Trump doesn’t like.
I don’t doubt that the New Yorker piece is a hit job, slanted against Trump with deliberation and malice aforethought. But that doesn’t mean that its factual anecdotes are untrue, nor does it mean that the piece is wrong. It’s possible to be both biased and correct, and in this instance I suspect that’s closer to the mark.
Regardless, it’s another low-rent episode in lives of the Richer-Than-You-Even-If-I’m-Lying-About-By-How Much and the galactically egotistical.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:56 am@ Andrew Hyman (#79): I will compliment you, sir, as being among the best-mannered — and possibly the very best-mannered — Trump supporters I’ve seen comment here. Because you sing his praises (rather than holding your nose for lack of alternatives), I think you fall into the Trumpkin category. But you’re avoiding the misstatements and over-arguments common to the breed when they take to the internet, so I wouldn’t by any means call you a shill for Trump yet. So good for you for that.
I will agree with you that if Trump has ever read any books cover to cover, those would be the books he paid to have ghost-written under his name. Where I depart company with you, though, is your further assumption that any “verification” was involved, or even any care. Rather, as is related in the New Yorker piece about the earlier New York Magazine piece I linked, Trump sometimes is thrilled after a superficial glance at stories written about him, even though the stories are quite hostile and unflattering, if he thinks that the story will nevertheless get him a great deal of publicity. He cares not that all publicity be flattering; bad publicity is better than being ignored, in the Trump world view.
You’re an awfully articulate person to be so blithe and trusting, hoping that Trump will grow or evolve or reveal some other, more thoughtful aspect of himself on the basis of which we might hope he could cope with the pressures and demands of the Oval Office. I don’t share your ability to block out the real Trump while I imagine the Trump you think he might become in office.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:07 amRon Goulart, a decent writer in his own right, but who also ghosted books including the novelization of Capricorn One, wrote a series of stories about a ghost-writer who labeled himself a “hack”. Professional writers grind out stuff that they would never write unless they were paid for it, in the same spirit that plumbers rod out clogged toilets.
nk (dbc370) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:08 amI remember when Little Green Footballs jumped the shark. This site is now in the crouched position.
Paul (75c17a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:10 amI apologize to Ms. McIvor for my typo in #85 above where I wrote: “Another suck flack, Meredith McIver ….”
That ought to have read “such flack,” not “suck flack” — although the term probably does fit a flack stupid enough, after her principal says “I’ve always admired Michelle Obama” and starts reading from her speeches over the phone, to plagiarize that language for her principal’s convention speech on national television.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:14 amWon’t miss you, Paul. Buh-bye.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:15 amPaul, you should probably comment at a site where most of the people think we give Sieg Heil salutes when we pledge allegiance to the American flag.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:17 amBeldar,
Even if Trump doesn’t evolve into a good President from a conservative perspective, at least we’d have Chris Christie as AG, and possibly a John Bolton as NSA, and maybe a Scott Brown running the VA. And we’d probably get someone to run the IRS who isn’t a total crook.
And we’d probably get the pipeline pushed through.
That stuff’s really important.
Barack’s EPA and Department of Interior have been harassing lots of western landowners over puddles of mud, which are being characterized as “bodies of water” and “streams of running waters,” thereby placing them under the protective jurisdiction of the Feds.
It’s insanity.
We can’t have four more years of this crap.
What I’m saying is, maybe Trump won’t be all that great, but the people running the bureaucracies and agencies will undoubtedly be a marked improvement over what we’d get from a Hillary Administration.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:17 am#90. Beldar Blog was once a great site too until the digital dust settled over it.
Paul (75c17a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:25 am@86 Beldar:
“Come come, dispatch! Tis bootless to exclaim!” — Shakespeare, Richard III
We’re down to the wire here. This country’s political system is, granted, very silly, but the unfortunate fact is, we’re stuck with it. You can have Hitlery, or you can have Trump. There is no alternative sea-salt caramel ice cream flavor to choose from instead. The imbecile GOP had their chance, they’ve had eight years to think about this, and they fielded as they say a clown-car of absurd candidates, and not one of them was sharp enough to beat…. Donald Trump. Think about how silly that is; but as military folks like to say, amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals examine the terrain. As Henry Ford famously said, They can have any color they like, so long as it’s black. The Pink Floyd roadie said that too. So it’s got to be true, right?
You can have Hitlery, and the long march down the road to civil war and ruin, or you can have Trump, who may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but who at least gives a decent speech, has built a skyscraper or two, and probably knows he didn’t make his buildings with his own bare hands, and so understands how to put together a competent team. We used to call it a Cabinet, now I’m not sure what the nomenclature is.
But I don’t see Jesus on the ballot.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:26 amYah, well, when Moses looks suspiciously like Mel Brooks….:)
Bill H (971e5f) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:28 amPaul, you need to take a walk along the Damascus Road.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:29 amBarack said on ‘Face the Nation’ that honesty is absolutely necessary from a President.
“Hey, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!!!” (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:35 amThree things for now:
1. I don’t need Tony Schwartz to tell me what I’ve known about Trump since the eighties. His soullessness, selfishness, petulance and arrogance have been on full display to anyone willing to listen. But before, he was New York City’s problem. He was Atlantic City’s problem. He was Palm Beach’s problem. But now, he wants to have power over all of us. Which means he’s our problem. And as someone who refuses to worship anyone but Almighty God, he’s MY problem.
2. The lowercase babytalker has come to refer to Hillary Clinton as “stinkypig.” This is interesting because it seems to me that Trump, the most unqualified person ever to be nominated by a major party, is the pig — a pig whose stench is so overwhelming that I cannot ever hold my nose tightly enough to tolerate voting for him. Hillary, in my personal estimation, shares that stench, and is also intolerable. The difference is that for many, the threat of America under Hillary is the proverbial perfume that, if sprayed in copious amounts over the TrumPig, will allow them to cast aside all sanity for the moment and cast their lot in with a man who doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.
3. Eight years ago in this space, I looked around at the left-of-center world treating the hologram of a statesman that was Senator Obama as if he was The Second Coming and wrote this:
This nation may finally be lost if the only major party that even gives a show of standing for freedom follows suit and looks to rally around personalities rather than principles. That’s what happened Thursday night: Ted Cruz stood up for principles, not a man, and was called a traitor for doing so (I’ll leave for another time the way people expected him to endorse the slanderer of his wife and father for the supposed good of the country). I hesitate to make comparisons to the Pontius Pilate incident because I don’t think of Ted Cruz as Jesus Christ. But the similarities are striking.
We don’t know what became of Barabbas once he was freed by the hordes that demanded his release. But if he was unrepentant, and robbed them all blind once again, they got what they deserved.
L.N. Smithee (797d3a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:35 am@86 Beldar:
“Come come, dispatch! Tis bootless to exclaim!” — Shakespeare, Richard III
We’re down to the wire here. This country’s political system is, granted, very silly, but the unfortunate fact is, we’re stuck with it. You can have Hitlery, or you can have Trump. There is no alternative sea-salt caramel ice cream flavor to choose from instead. The imbecile GOP had their chance, they’ve had eight years to think about this, and plan a winning strategy, and instead they fielded as they say a clown-car of absurd candidates, and not one of them was sharp enough to beat (wait for it) Donald Trump. Think about how silly that is; but as military folks like to say, amateurs talk about strategy and tactics, professionals examine the terrain. As Henry Ford famously said, you can have any color you like, so long as it’s black. The Pink Floyd roadie said that too.
You can have Hitlery, and the long march down the road to ruin, or you can have Trump, who may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but who at least gives a decent speech, has built a skyscraper or two, and probably knows he didn’t make his buildings with his own bare hands, and so understands how to put together a competent team. We used to call it a Cabinet, now I’m not sure what the nomenclature is.
But as far as I know, Paul Morphy isn’t on the ballot.
hunson abedeer (80144e) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:35 amMr. Trump’s no stinkypig he’s a thoroughbred and a solon, a plum lolly and a prophet, and he bids us to look at the path ahead and to imagine a more better one!
A place of never-ending happiness and possibility, where freedom and prosperity are regnant and the land fears not the foul molestations of a stinkypig.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:46 amon Trump the solid rock we stand all other ground is sinking sand
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:47 amBeldar (#86), I’ve said several times that I supported Cruz until he withdrew. And I did! I now support Trump because Hillary. Likewise, if you or Patterico were the GOP nominee, I would support you because Hillary. If that makes me a Trumpkin, then I proudly admit it! Cheers. But please note that I am not completely indiscriminate, and would support Hillary as against many many many people (e.g. Michael McCrum, David Duke, Bernie Sanders, Maryanne Trump Barry, Michelle Obama, Alan Grayson, et cetera).
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:48 am@ Paul (#93), thanks, but if I were still writing on my blog, I’d be saying the same things about Trump I say here.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:49 amAt this point, I almost want Trump to win so we know if he wants to be a strong leader or an indulgent monarch. I know what I think he wants. He will be the same greedy, inconsistent, arrogant, lustful person as President that he has been as a businessman.
What his supporters are counting on is that Trump will either completely change his personality or that he will turn the country over to Beltway Republicans like McConnell, Boehner and the like, where they will spend like Democrats with taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Trump will build the best White House ballroom, hire the best ghost writers for his memoirs, and fly around the world on Air Force One.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:50 am“having been bought off to pretend that Trump actually contributed to the book he wrote, …”
I suppose you are SHOCKED when you read that sometimes big name movie stars don’t do their own stunts. I suppose you think that “It takes a Village” was actually written by H. Clinton and not Barbara Feinman.
Most people figure out by the time they are teens that a book written by “[famous person] with [somebody you’ve never heard of]” is written by the latter based on statements, interviews, and editorial oversight of the former.
There’s even a word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter
You guy’s hate for Trump is so strong that you make embarrasingly weak arguments against him. Especially you, Beldar.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:50 amWhen somebody says, “88. I remember when Little Green Footballs jumped the shark. This site is now in the crouched position.” you need to take a close look at yourself.
No, voting for Trump doesn’t make one a Trumpkin.
Pretending he’s worth voting for, and attempting to persuade others to do so as well: That makes one a Trumpkin. Is that not what you’re doing, Mr. Hyman?
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:51 am@ fred-2 (#103): Did you actually read anything I’ve ever written about Trump? Because I didn’t say I was shocked he used a ghost-writer. You’re making stuff up — like he does.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:54 amI am not pretending, Mr. Beldar. I am gambling.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:54 amWhat his supporters are counting on is that Trump will either completely change his personality
In short, they are behaving like some women, who get into a relationship with a man planning to change him, and feel betrayed when he doesn’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:58 amCruz Supporter:
I think that’s a thoughtful point, Cruz supporter, and I hope you will give me a thoughtful answer to my concerns:
Do you agree that Trump will decide what his Cabinet does, and he won’t hesitate to fire people who he thinks make him look bad? Do you think Trump will back Cabinet members who fight for conservative positions, or will he turn on them the way he did on Cruz to enhance his media standing?
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:00 am“1. This post will be what finally turns the Trumpers here around.”
Around to what?
Around to voting for Hillary?
Because these are the only two people in contention for President. Cruz, Johnson, French, etc. are not going to be President. And most (most, not all) people who are un-enamored with the Dem & Repub choices throw their vote away on a fantasy candidate, they go ahead and vote for the one they dislike least.
And for sure, Trumpers or Trumpkins — or whatever is the current abusive name for people who like Trump — are not going to be turned around by such showmanship like this.
What are you thinking, by such a claim? That’s why #88 made a refrence to Little Green Footballs.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:00 amWhat so many of you don’t seem to “get” is that the election is a zero sum game.
A non-vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary basically.
Taking the high horse moral stand about Trump only helps Hillary.
But I suppose for you anti-Trumpers, Hillary in the WH is preferable… or is she?
PTS (0e41dc) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:00 amfred-2,
Ted Cruz wrote his own book. No ghostwriters. And we know he read it.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:02 amBarack said on ‘Face the Nation’ that honesty is absolutely necessary from a President.
Were his next words “…and if I were to do it over …”?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:02 amJDow (199dc0) — 7/23/2016 @ 11:35 pm
It was 1991. Elections that are not for the U.S. Congress or president do not take place in November, or even in even numbered years. David Duke came in second in the first, “jungle” primary, which is the system now in place also in California.
He keeps running for office, not much set back by a short prison sentence in 2003-4 for mail fraud (telling his suppporters over a six year period that he was about to lose his house and his life savings) and filing a false 1998 tax return. Prior to 1991, Edwin Edwards had been indicted but was acquitted, but he eventually did go to jail in a later case in the late 1990s.
Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:09 amKevin M:
Maybe. I think there are women and men who do that when they make important choices about mates, jobs, etc. It makes us feel empowered when we are insecure.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:12 amPTS,
We understand choices. Everyone here makes choices each day. Whether he wins or loses, I think Trump has crushed conservatism in national politics for the next 4 years. I don’t want to crush it for 8 or 12 years. Do you?
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:18 amThere is nothing conservative about Clinton. I think she is a disaster.
Depending on your definition of conservatism, Trump is a great deal closer to it than Clinton.
I truly cannot understand why you’d prefer Clinton over Trump.
PTS (0e41dc) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:22 amI don’t prefer Clinton and I won’t vote for her. I plan to write-in Ted Cruz on my ballot.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:25 amBut I also voted for Perot, so maybe voting on principle is easier for me than it is for you.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:27 am#ForeverHillary! #Furward #LeprechaunTimKaine #AffablyLaughable #Entonces!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:29 amI have to go so let me anticipate your next comment now: No, voting for Perot did not elect Bill Clinton.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:30 amOne more thing: I’m not trying to change your vote or anyone’s vote. I can’t see the future and, liie Cruz, I think each voter should vote for the person theor conscience dictates.
I am concerned with conservative principles like limited government, the rule of law, freedom, and preserving our Constitutional rights. I also support Judeo-Christian values, not only because I am a Chistian but because I think they are important pillars of our system of government. My goal in these discussions is to support these principles.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:44 am#108 DRJ,
I suppose any President will use their personal discretion to ask for the resignation of any Cabinet head or head of an agency if that person is not performing well enough.
I think Trump would put good people in those high profile positions, simply because he is egotistical and DOESN’T want to be embarrassed.
I don’t know that we can draw the analogy to what he did with Cruz, because Cruz wasn’t actually working for Trump, rather he and Trump are competitors.
Chris Christie was a really strong federal prosecutor. That was the entire predicate for him running for Governor. So I think he would be a good nominee for AG.
And I bet Rudy Giuliani might be appointed to a Cabinet position. Rudy is very, very competent.
Perhaps Scott Brown as the head of the VA? John Bolton as NSA or Secretary of State? He may be the smartest guy in all of DC.
Ben Carson as the head of HHS?
Mike Huckabee at HUD?
Sarah Palin at Energy? She’ll push for the pipeline.
I’m just speculating on these names, but they’re all better names than the ones that Hillary has on her short-list. After the famous Sky Harbor tarmac meeting of a few weeks ago, I think it’s safe to assume that Lynch would be re-nominated to continue as AG, should Hillary win.
Barack has done untold damage as the Occupier of the Oval Office, but it’s his appointments and nominees who’ve done all the heavy lifting for the Alinsky Cause.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:45 amSotomayor and Kagan at the Supreme Court. Tom Perez at Labor. Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch at AG. The Dept of Interior, the EPA, Bureau of Land Management … the damage goes on and on, and there’s so many horror stories about western landowners (Republicans!) being sued, penalized, harrassed, et al, by the feds for the most minute infractions.
Thanks for that informative article, DRJ, best discussion I have ever seen on it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:46 amTwo things need to occur for your wish list to happen:
Bill H (971e5f) — 7/24/2016 @ 11:14 am1) The Republicans need to hold onto the Senate. I think that’s going to be a very tall order with a President Trump.
2) Those Republicans will need to be a bit more steely in their resolve viz the Democrats. They can’t cave every time Harry Reid’s replacement says “BOO!!”
Anyone who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 probably remembers Perot’s references to the “giant sucking sound” of NAFTA draining the U.S. economy. And perhaps also remembers that Perot pulled out of the election mid-summer, and did not re-enter the fray until October (claiming he’d been forced out of the race by a blackmail plot involving his daughter). His candidacy very likely would have affected the election outcome if he hadn’t withdrawn. Moreover, if everyone had voted as they did except that the Republicans who voted for Perot had instead voted for Bush, then Bush clearly would have beaten Clinton. I don’t see how it’s voting your conscience if your vote helps your last choice win.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 11:43 amI’m counting on him making more conservative SCOTUS appointments than Hillary. I haven’t really seen any intelligent responses to that. Him complimenting his sister is not one.
I’m confident he wouldn’t bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees. If someone tries to argue he would I will regard them as delusional or a pathological liar.
I’m confident he wouldn’t keep adding more fuel to the “the police are racist” narrative, and his Justice Dept. wouldn’t seek to criminalize every incident where a white police officer shoots a black even when the facts show the cop did nothing wrong. Again if someone tries to argue he would I will regard them as delusional or a pathological liar.
There’s other things I’m confident he’d do differently than Hillary (though I don’t believe he’d do everything he said, like ban all Muslims or deport all the illegals). I believe he’ll try to get Congress to fund a wall (but won’t get Mexico to pay). I see nothing to suggest otherwise. If the Dems take the Senate he probably won’t be able to get it, but the same would be true of Cruz.
To me this is how an intelligent person decides who to vote for. The comments here increasingly fall outside anything I consider intelligent.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 11:51 amIf the Democrats who voted for Perot still voted for Perot but the Republicans who voted for Perot voted for someone else…. in what world is that a valid set of parameters? The article DRJ linked showed that Perot did not cost “read my lips” the election. Also, voting your conscience requires that the person who gets your vote is not unconscionable. Regardless of who wins, who gets your vote has to be not unconscionable. If both the major party candidates are unconscionable, then a person voting his conscience cannot vote for either one.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:11 pmTrump is:
Pro-partial birth abortion
Anti-First Amendment
Anti-Seoond Amendment
Anti-Fourth Amendment
Anti-Ninth Amendment
Anti-Tenth Amendment
Pro-Tianenmen Square Massacre
So un-Christian as to be anti-Christian
In what world does that add up to anything other than a Leftist Jurist?
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:17 pmJohn Hitchcock,
Voting one’s conscience is a noble exercise, however, we’re all subject to the authority of any douchebag who wins the electoral college.
So what we’re saying is when there’s a choice between two douchebags, which one would do lesser damage?
You think Trump is as leftist as Hillary?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:18 pmI totally disagree, but let’s accept your premise.
Even then, don’t you think Chris Christie is a likely nominee for AG?
Wouldn’t you rather have Chris Christie as AG than Loretta Lynch?
Compare. You vote for the lesser of two evils, and so the lesser of two evils wins. Or, instead, you vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance, and so the greater evil wins. For me, the correct vote is clear.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:20 pm125. Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 11:43 am
I think NAFTA was later. (I checked it was being negotiatied then) But he did talk of jobs going to Mexico and wages leveling somewhere in he middle. I didn’t believe that, nor did I care about the budget deficit, where he was entirely wrong.*
But I felt he was both more honest than Clinton and more competent than Bush. And perhaps also remembers that Perot pulled out of the election mid-summer, and did not re-enter the fray until October (claiming he’d been forced out of the race by a blackmail plot involving his daughter). He revealed the reason after he got back in. I’ve always thought that was political dirty tricks by the Clinton campaign.
In the end, most of the people who otherwise would have voted for Bush, didnot vote for Perot. The votes Perot collected on Election Day 1992 had more people who would have voted for Clinton than would have voted for Bush.
That is voting your conscience, but maybe people shouldn’t do that most of the time.
* The deficit went down to zero without any of things Perot recommended being done. The problem was he ignored the possibiliy of greater economic growth, and was unaware of the unreliability of budget projections, something Reagan had learned from David Stoockman when he attempted to explain himself after the article in the Atlantic in 1981. Reagan wanted to stop making budget projections past 5 years after that, IIRC.
Here’s how Perot was wrong on NAFTA:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/ross-perot-was-wrong-about-nafta
Donald Trump seems to believe this stuff. That’s because the refutation only works in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory. (at a microeconomic level)
Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:24 pmChris Christie is also Anti-Second Amendment. And he has proven he can become the serf of the emperor. He’s as reliable as a Conservative as Michael Mann is as an honest man. And he’s got as much backbone as a jellyfish, proven by his kowtowing to Trump.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:35 pmI see we’re never getting over macho Grande.
narciso (732bc0) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:41 pmJohn Hitchcock,
So would you prefer Loretta Lynch to Chris Christie as AG?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:52 pmThanks for getting it. Trump has already promised to use what wealth he has (still waiting for those tax returns) to crush every Republican who doesn’t agree with him (e.g., Jeff Flake, who objected to his disrespect for John McCain).
I guess some people don’t mind more Lois Lerners in D.C. if they’ve got the “R”. To them, if Trump wants to screw them by using the government, they must deserve it. Like, for example, Vera Coking.
L.N. Smithee (a0489d) — 7/24/2016 @ 12:59 pmCompare. You vote for the lesser of two evils, and so the lesser of two evils wins. Or, instead, you vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance, and so the greater evil wins. For me, the correct vote is clear.
The argument boils down to this: Hillary is unfit to be President, so we must vote for her opponent. Which would work, except Trump is equally unfit. And possibly given his blatant narcissism (Hillary at least knows enough to put a facade over her narcissism) he is more unfit.
There is no lesser evil this time. Or as a comment I saw on a nominally nonpolitical blog put it “I never thought I would see an election in which I was asked to choose betweeb two tyrants.“
kishnevi (37d538) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:19 pmI don’t know, would you prefer to have Joseph Stalin as your dictator or Mao? Your false dichotomy is rejected.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:28 pmkishnevi,
Oh please stop with the moral equivalency.
There’s always a lesser of two evils.
We choose the lesser of two evils every day in our lives.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:31 pmYou ever worked for a boss you disliked? Worked with colleagues who were jerks? You still showed up for work because you needed the paycheck, right? Ever had a neighbor who was a punk? You don’t live in your absolute dream house, right? You chose the home that was available to you at the time you happened to be looking, right? It goes on and on.
Did you ever drive an old junky car in high school or college? Because that was better than NO car, right?
You can only date and marry the woman who says “yes” when you ask her out. You only asked out “Susie” because “Mary” and “Jane” and “Karen” all turned you down — can we admit to that hard truth?
Or is everyone a big handsome stud who has never been turned down by a gal? (LOL)
You are planning a journey to colonize the moon. In your plans, you have to decide what to take with you. There will be no other trips to your colony for a year. You have limited space, so you will have to do without a lot of things you would prefer to have in order to make your life on the moon survivable. List these items in order of importance:
Housing unit
Cold-weather clothing
Hot-weather clothing
Food
Excavation tools
Compressed air
Lunar maps
Water
Lunar compasses
So, what did you decide was most important for your trip? Air, perhaps? Without air, nobody will survive longer than a few short minutes. Without water, nobody will survive more than a few days. Without food, nobody will survive more than a few weeks. Without proper shelter or clothing, it is highly unlikely you could survive a week. So it’s quite possible that air is the most important on the list. Or is it?
If you will not gain anything for a year, what importance is the fraction-of-year survival without a certain item compared to the importance of the fraction-of-year survival without a different item? No matter how you order it, if you’re missing one for that duration, you’re still just as dead after the year is up.
(Taken from my “Easter Is Important” article, which discusses which day is the most important)
You are saying if we elect Clinton to be President, our trip to the moon for a year will lack air but if we elect Trump to be President, our trip to the moon for a year will lack water. I am saying if we elect either one, our trip to the moon for a year will be the death of us all.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:35 pm#137 John Hitchcock,
How is having a preference between Chris Christie and Loretta Lynch as AG, a “false” choice?
Loretta Lynch is currently the AG, and many people speculate Bill Clinton offered her a re-nomination as AG in a Hillary Administration.
And Chris Christie is the conventional wisdom choice as Trump’s nominee to become AG.
So, again, why is that “false”?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:37 pmIt’s just a Goddamn parlor game, there’s no reason to play the “Joseph Stalin!!!!” card.(LOL)
Come on, John, I bet you prefer Christie to Lynch, huh?
Puts, traitor because we won’t vote for Trump? Go back to your Blackshirt buddies before I invite you to perform oral gratification upon me.
SPQR (0cce45) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:41 pmJohn Hitchcock,
Ah, the fallacy of your argument is that you say “IF” we elect either Trump or Clinton, we’re screwed.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:42 pmIt’s not a question, big man — because one of them is going to be elected.
So I’ll accept your premise that we’re screwed either way.
… but we’ll be screwed less with a President Trump than with a President Hillary.
No, CS, I prefer neither one. I don’t want either tyrant’s choice to be anywhere near the levers of power. It is a false dichotomy fallacy to declare I have to choose between two tyrants.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:42 pmCruz Supporter, Trump won’t have anyone like Bolton in his administration. Trump likes vulgar yes-men. Plus Putin wouldn’t sign off on Bolton.
SPQR (0cce45) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:43 pmTrump is an (admitted, proud) America-Firster, not a Neocon.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:45 pmwhy would he do tweak on Mr. Cruz
Mr. Cruz is lovely
he is a constitution and also he is lovely
do tweak on him?
i don’t believe this would ever happen
never ever ever
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:46 pmIf you put me in a room with a child murderer and a bunch of kids, and the child murderer tells me to pick one child to be murdered or he’ll murder them all, I will not pick one. I will not be a party to that murder. That’s on him (and you for putting me in there in the first place), not on me. I am guiltless, but you are both equally guilty.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:47 pmAnd what if you have reason to believe the killing would stop at one child vs. all the children? Will you stand on your principle and get a room full of children minus one killed?
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:48 pmPut another way, if I was responsible for a tactical breach and I knew a child or two was very likely to die in the attempt, but all the children would likely die if no attempt was made, I would breach.
A year later, in the same situation, having experienced the horror of the dead children and the relief of the saved children, I would breach again.
God you people care more about your own feelings than you do about either innocent children or your nation!
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:49 pmCruz Supporter, you give examples that are not evil.
Less desirable does not mean less evil.
Voting for a person who is manifestly unfit for office, however, is evil. And both Trump and Hillary are manifestly unfit for office.
I would refrain from criticising you if you at least do what some others here at the blog have done: admit that you do dislike Hillary you are willing to vote for Trump even though you know he is as unfit for office as she is–and if you then stop criticizing those of us who think even the threat of Hillary does not justify voting for him.
kishnevi (37d538) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:50 pmThe principle point is that John Hitchcock (and you Never Trumpers) shall be “guiltless.” To hell with the innocent children you could protect.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:51 pm#143 John,
I’m not trying to sound snarky when I say this, but I don’t think you understand what a “false” dichotomy is.
Trump and Clinton will actually be on the goddamn ballot this November — so it’s not a “false” choice to choose between them.
Lynch IS the AG. Christie has probably been promised the AG nomination as the consolation prize for not becoming the VP nominee.
So, Christie VS Lynch as AG is not a “false” choice as you assert.
You may not personally care for the choices, but that doesn’t mean they’re “false.”
I imagine after a few brewskis, you’d admit that when push comes to shove, you prefer Christie to Lynch as AG.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:51 pm^ What Cruz supporter said.
I didn’t support Cruz, but by God I would support him when compared to Hillary. You people would let your nation (and its people and freedom) die so your principled feels can remain intact.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:53 pmI didn’t support Cruz, but by God I would support him when compared to Hillary. You people would let your nation (and its people and freedom) die so your principled feels can remain intact.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:53 pm
Cruz is not unfit for the office of President.
Voting for a person who is unfit for office is how you let this nation die.
And the dichotomy is false because there is a third choice: the only moral choice at the moment–give a FU to the system.
kishnevi (37d538) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:58 pmCruz has lied a lot. I would still pick him over Hillary who has lied far more and about far more consequential things.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 1:59 pm#150 kishnevi,
Are you really suggesting I’ve never said anything negative about Trump?
You literally torpedo your entire credibility when you allege such nonsense. What a joke, dude!
Why don’t you go ask happyfeet or papertiger or ropelight about that. (LOL)
Trump was my 17th choice among the 17 GOP candidates. But Hillary is my 18th choice, so Trump gets my vote in November.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:01 pm19th. Jim Webb would have been better.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:02 pmMr. Trump is the best choice cause of how awful malodorous and fundamentally unamerican stinkypig is.
This is not even up for debate.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:02 pm#157 Denver Guy,
I was merely using a rhetorical flourish by listing Hillary as choice #18, but yes, I do agree that Jim Webb is much preferable to Hillary.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:10 pmCruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:01 pm
kishnevi (37d538) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:10 pmI was away from here for almost half a year.
But in the time I have been here, I have yet to see you acknowledge that Trump is completely unfit for office, and that you know neither he nor Hillary should be allowed into 1600 Pennsylvania.
I think many of you have an exaggerated sense of yourself: like you’re all perfect integrity or something.
Yeah, I don’t think so.
Letting America and your progeny burn so you can feel better about yourself is not good evidence of that.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:11 pmSeen.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:12 pmThat’s already been deciding. You’re deciding which one is going to hold the flamethrower. I will not help pick the person who will torch the country. They both will. That is a guarantee.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:14 pmAt the end of the day, remember you have a secret ballot. You can virtue signal to your heart’s content, then save your country by voting for Trump.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:18 pm#160 kishnevi,
If you’ve never seen the way I’ve trashed Hillary and Trump, that’s a you problem — not a ‘me’ problem.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:21 pmIf you weren’t too lazy to even read this thread, you’d see that I referred to them both as “douchebags,” and asserted that we’re going to be screwed either way — just less so, with Trump.
Next time, bud, do the bare minimum of homework, eh?
Beldar @89
I’ve never been to a klan rally but I have been to a Charlie Daniels concert in Skullbone, TN. Easy mistake to make.
You do realize though, don’t you, that some people like Jehovah’s Witneses, certain atheists, commies, muslims et al feel like there’s an equivalency to the gestures?
I’m just wondering out loud if I’m being a sheep by reflexively taking off my hat at the National Anthem or saluting during the Pledge of Allegiance.
People get mad enough when you try to wear a ball cap inside an Evangelical church no matter how many times you tell them God wants your head covered.
Pinandpuller (03ce06) — 7/24/2016 @ 2:48 pmHe trusted him to follow him around for a year, listen in on his conversations, get to know him better than any man has ever done.
To whom should he return that money? Trump didn’t make it or give it to him. Should he track down the people who bought the book?!
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:10 pm“Do you agree that Trump will decide what his Cabinet does, and he won’t hesitate to fire people who he thinks make him look bad? Do you think Trump will back Cabinet members who fight for conservative positions, or will he turn on them the way he did on Cruz to enhance his media standing?”
I think it will go down as a CEO and his major department heads. Their job is to do what the CEO assigns them to do. If they are ineffective, or if they try to undermine the CEO, or if they try to privledge their own agenda over the CEO’s, they will get fired.
I liked Dubya, but one of his failings is that he kept cabinet officials that he should have fired.
“Do you think Trump will back Cabinet members who fight for conservative positions…”
Well, what will Hillary do with Cabinet members who fight for conservative positions?
Oh, right. Nothing.
She won’t have any conservatives in her cabinet.
=============
“Ted Cruz wrote his own book. No ghostwriters. And we know he read it.”
Cool. Who cares?
The question is, who else has read it? Okay, his mom, his wife, a handful of his supporters. Anybody else?
Hmm, just checking book rankings at Amazon:
Ted Cruz, “A Time for Truth” #13,749 IN ALL BOOKS
D. Trump, “Art of the Deal” #130 IN ALL BOOks
D. Trump, “Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America”, #873 IN ALL BOOKS
Although I wasn’t aware that Cruz had written a book. The remainder shelf at the book store is full of books written by politicians.
=============
“Whether he wins or loses, I think Trump has crushed conservatism in national politics for the next 4 years. I don’t want to crush it for 8 or 12 years.”
No, Trump didn’t crush conservatism.
He just pointed out that conservatism is a minority electoral position. He was the person who shined a light on the corpse.
And if you think Trump wil be bad for conservatism, wait until you see what it’ll be like after Hillary finishes with it.
==============
“130. Compare. You vote for the lesser of two evils, and so the lesser of two evils wins. Or, instead, you vote for someone who doesn’t have a chance, and so the greater evil wins. For me, the correct vote is clear.”
YES!!!! Why doesn’t Patterico get this? Virtue signalling?
=============
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:27 pmIt doesn’t matter if you think that both Hillary and Trump is manifestly unfit to be President. One of them will be, regardless of your opinion.
Your voting for neither will not change anything. One of them will be.
Cruz Supporter,
Thank you for your detailed, thoughtful reply. I hope you are right since Trump could win, but his rhetoric and history suggests he won’t do what you hope for. He is not a conservative. He has told us that, and he doesn’t want to be one. He doesn’t understand conservative ideas or principles or founding documents.
Trump is a dealmaker. He wants to go to Washington to make “great” deals, and he has never really said what he meanswered by that so voters are guessing when they say they know what he will do. He definitely won’t reduce the size of government. He wants new plans and rules that make him powerful. If you liked Medicare Part D, No Child Left behind, amnesty by the Gang of 8, and endless surrender on the debt limit, you will love the Trump Administration because making deals with the Democrats is what he has promised to do.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:28 pmGerald A,
Trump has told us what he wants in a Supreme Court Justice. He wants someone like his sister, the liberal federal judge. Yes, it’s probably true that he won’t nominate her, although nepotism doesn’t seem to bother him so he might. But what you are ignoring is that his sister is almost certainly the person he will turn to for advice on who to pick.
Trump definitely won’t ask conservatives like Cruz who he should pick. Do you think McConnell and most of his fellow Republican Senators will encourage Trump to pick a Scalia, Thomas or Alito? They won’t, and you know it. They don’t like conservatives any more than Trump does.
In theory, there is hope that Trump will pick and successfully confirm better justices than Hillary, so I understand why people will vote for him as a result. But don’t try to convince me that no one has ever given you a reason to doubt that he will be better. The Democrats will almost certainly control the Senate so they are the people Trump will be dealing with. Do you really believe Trump can negotiate a winning deal with them? I don’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:39 pmit’s funny how it’s the most morally preening ones what have the hardest time making a moral distinction between Mr. Trump and stinkypig
you’d think they’d have tons of practice at this
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:41 pmSo?
Hillary Clinton is the alternative. She’s a national security criminal, among other things.
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:41 pmPlease post a quote of Cruz and some evidence what he said was a lie. Trump has often called Cruz a liar without backing it up, and you just did the same thing.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:54 pmDustin, he can’t provide a quote and evidence, because it doesn’t exist. That would make people like Denver Guy … liars.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:00 pmI also think there is only one issue that will matter to Trump when he picks a justice. He wants someone who agrees that the First Amendment should not require actual malice in defamation suits involving public persons, because Trump wants to be able to successfully sue every single person who criticizes him.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:11 pmHe certainly won’t nominate her — she’s about 80 years old! But yes, of course he would consult her on whom to nominate, and it won’t be anyone from that Heritage Foundation list he released and then backed away from.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:13 pmI understand this doesn’t matter to you any more than it matters to Trump, but it matters to me. Differences like this are why we each get a vote.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:14 pmThat’s because there is none to be made. The distinctions are practical. Most of their flaws are similar, but she’s not pig-ignorant or boorish, and he’s (probably) not a career felon.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:16 pmI disagree, because that would require actually understanding the first amendment, its judicial history, and the questions it raises.
It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with Sullivan, and to want to appoint the sort of judge who would have decided it differently. But Trump has never read Sullivan, doesn’t understand what it says, has probably never even heard of it, and knows only that when he’s angry at someone and tells his lawyers to use the law as a weapon to harm that person, sometimes the more competent ones tell him he can’t, and he’s frustrated.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:22 pmThe evangelicals agree with happyfeet 171:
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:41 pmyes yes this is so not even hard
even though me personally my bread is probably more buttered by stinkypig in the short-term
in the long view she is death she is stinky she is destroyer of whirls
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:52 pmNot all evangelicals have fallen for the very obviously false Christian Donald “I never ask the Lord for forgiveness” Trump. I am an evangelical.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 4:55 pmI agree. I keep making the point that Trump owns a gun and understands the Second Amendment is at stake with the next SCOTUS appointment. It’s something he can understand in a personal way. It’s one reason why I’m pretty confident he’d appoint at least a Kennedy type justice, if not Scalia. Possibly he senses that some stuff he might want to do would be likely to be blocked by liberal justices, such as roll back Obama’s illegal aliens executive order, which would be another reason to appoint non-liberal judges.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:09 pmI am, too, John. My link is about evangelical leaders.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:24 pmGerald A,
Trump has told us what he wants in a Supreme Court Justice. He wants someone like his sister, the liberal federal judge. Yes, it’s probably true that he won’t nominate her, although nepotism doesn’t seem to bother him so he might. But what you are ignoring is that his sister is almost certainly the person he will turn to for advice on who to pick.
Trump definitely won’t ask conservatives like Cruz who he should pick. Do you think McConnell and most of his fellow Republican Senators will encourage Trump to pick a Scalia, Thomas or Alito? They won’t, and you know it. They don’t like conservatives any more than Trump does.
In theory, there is hope that Trump will pick and successfully confirm better justices than Hillary, so I understand why people will vote for him as a result. But don’t try to convince me that no one has ever given you a reason to doubt that he will be better. The Democrats will almost certainly control the Senate so they are the people Trump will be dealing with. Do you really believe Trump can negotiate a winning deal with them? I don’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 3:39 pm
Trump has told us what he wants in a Supreme Court Justice. He wants someone like his sister, the liberal federal judge.
He said nothing about wanting someone “like his sister”. He said she would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He was just lavishing praise on his sister as far as I can tell. I doubt he even follows her rulings, so the idea he’s looking for someone like her doesn’t make any sense to me.
But what you are ignoring is that his sister is almost certainly the person he will turn to for advice on who to pick.
Unless you can substantiate that DRJ, I consider that a made up “fact”.
I don’t believe he has any clear cut philosophy on Constitutional issues at all. He doesn’t think about things that way. As I keep pointing out, he understands the Second Amendment is in jeopardy. That’s crystal clear. I believe he is genuinely pro-Second Amendment. He owns a gun. He has argued that having unarmed people around in the Paris shootings enabled terrorists to kill more people.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:26 pmI suspect Trump knows more about defamation law than you give him credit for. He frequently sues or is sued and many of the cases involve defamation.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:27 pm“Almost certainly” indicates this is my opinion, not a fact, but it is a reasonable opinion that others here have agreed with. Will you only accept as fact things that Trump says? If so, then by your standards Trump saying he would appoint judges like his sister (because she would be a phenomenal judge) is closer to fact than opinion.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:36 pmChristie has been inconsistent on guns. He recently loosened concealed carry in New Jersey..
The Second Amendment’s in the control of judges anyways, not the AG. The AG doesn’t set such policies in any way. As Trump’s AG I anticipate that rhetorically at least he’d be pro-Second Amendment. Persecuting police departments is something the AG can actually do.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:39 pmHere is what Trump said:
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:41 pmAnd here is the full excerpt:
Do you still believe he wouldn’t consult her?
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:44 pmSince he didn’t say anything about appointing judges “like his sister” accepting as fact things that Trump says would not lead me to conclude he’d appoint judges like his sister”.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:49 pmThis is the least consequential Presidential election of my lifetime.
This was the most consequential Presidential Primary of my lifetime. The future of the US rested on it. And now that the Primary season is over, the Undertaker needs to come measure the US for its coffin.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:51 pmit may be our last chance to vote for an actual american
i wouldn’t squander this chance pickle-poo
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:52 pmI think Trump backtracked from the sister-talk: “My sister — she happens to have a little bit different views than me, but I said that in a very joking matter, and it was all lots of fun and everything else.” And then he put out a list of potential nominees completely unlike his sister, and pledged that the Federalist Society would have a huge role in his pics.
As far as I can tell, Trump was just trying to be nice to his sister, and then clarified his nominees would be nothing like her.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:53 pmDenver Guy, on the side of people saying that I have to vote Trump are people like you, who call Cruz a liar with zipola to back it up. Like Trump does. Which isn’t something that I find worthy of anything but contempt. Or Puts calling me a traitor in his very loyal Blackshirt style.
And while a few people I respect are holding their noses to vote for Trump, on the #NeverTrump side I find a lot of people I hold in high regard like Patterico, DRJ, and Beldar.
So if you want me to abandon #NeverTrump, all you have to do is gain more of my respect than, and out argue, Patterico, DRJ and Beldar.
Good luck with that.
SPQR (a3a747) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:54 pmyou don’t have to vote for Mr. Trump but stinkypig is all on you lol
lap it up slurp it up huff it deeeeeeeeeep and above all do it do it for Jesus
and then you can pretend that writing in greasy oily harvardtrash ted absolves you
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/24/2016 @ 5:56 pmhf should have been banned a very long time ago to someplace far, far away. He brings nothing of value to the table.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:00 pmHere’s a question: Has his sister been an adviser to his campaign?
As far as I’m concerned he just wanted to compliment her. He tends to like throwing compliments around (as well as insults). I don’t think he follows his sister’s legal opinions generally.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 6:48 pmNo, he doesn’t understand the second amendment, any more than he understands the first or any of the others. He doesn’t understand the concept of natural rights. He was a long-term open supporter of restrictions on gun rights; when do you suppose he got enlightened, and how? Certainly not from anything he read, because he doesn’t read. As recently as a month ago he wanted to ban gun sales to anyone on the watch list; that the NRA talked him down from that doesn’t mean he finally learned, and now is sincerely committed to the RKBA, it just means he was told to shut up about his views until after the election.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:06 pmAnd that is precisely the evidence that he knows nothing about defamation law, or the first amendment. And that he’s actively opposed to the freedom of speech; he already tries his best to squelch it, and would do so on the national level if he could. His abuse of the law as a weapon is deeply disgusting, and illegal.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:10 pmAnd you believe him?!!!
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:14 pmThere’s only one reason I can think of to support Trump; the hope that once elected he will be quickly impeached, or something will happen to him, and we’ll have President Pence.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:16 pmSo what? Donald Trump owned a handgun and had a license to carry it in NYC. All that proves is he understands in a personal way that there are “special rules for special people.” If you’re rich, powerful, and politically connected in NYC you can get a concealed carry license and a handgun. If you’re not rich, powerful, and politically connected, by and large you can’t.
Actually it works the same way throughout the country. Lot’s of gun grabbers own guns, and they would exempt themselves from the same laws banning everyone else from doing the same. Lot’s of gun grabbers fit the profile you’re describing. They own guns and they understand the Second Amendment (I agree, Trump does not). But you left out one thing. They hate the Second Amendment would much rather use George Orwell’s Animal Farm as a guide to legislation. Specifically the part that says “Some pigs are more equal than others.”
Steve57 (2d3b12) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:21 pmYes, I believe him more than I disbelieve him. He’s often spoken about how great Scalia was and Thomas is, and has never walked that back, unlike his walking back of the sister stuff. I find it amazing that people would essentially opt for a sure disaster with Hillary than a realistic chance with Trump.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:25 pmA third grader can understand the Second Amendment and the fact that liberal judges oppose it. Who said anything about him understanding the concept of natural rights?
He’s not an absolutist on the Second Amendment. Neither is Romney. Is Romney anti-Second Amendment? I don’t think so. If someone had claimed he was I would have been strongly disagreed with them as well.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:26 pmSteve57 knocks that one out of the park. Every 2nd amendment millionaire has plenty of guns. If Trump was such a true believer as Gerald thinks, why would he be donating to Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and Hillary?
It’s one thing to say Trump sucks less than Hillary. It’s another to say Trump is predictably conservative on judges, guns, or immigration when his record is awful and his political activities helped democrats. Some of you Trump fans know better and by taking up the task of conning us, are basically saying you think the readership here is stupid. And it’s not.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:29 pmDustin, Trump sucks much less than Hillary. So I’m voting for him. Please consider doing likewise. Thanks.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:32 pmWhat, exactly, has Trump ever said that paints him as a gun grabber? He’s a lifelong NRA member. Gun grabbers belong to the NRA?
Nov. 18, 1999, interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”
This is getting stupid.
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:34 pmFYI a Cruz commercial just showed this part of the above interview:
Now, I hate the concept of guns, I’m not in favor of it
Gerald A (76f251) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:42 pmIt’s not stupid, Gerald. It’s a good illustration of Trump.
He says whatever sounds good and seems politically expedient. So he said no fly = no gun. Then the NRA made him realize it was expedient to say the reverse, so he flipped. If he is ever President he will say and do whatever sounds good, whether progun or proguncontrol.
In this instance he probably is more sympathetic to the Second Amendment, but that’s pure luck, not principles.
kishnevi (0dce2b) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:52 pmSpeaking of gungrabbers, there is the news Bloomberg will give a proHillary speech at the DNC.
Totally unexpected and shocking, I am sure.
kishnevi (0dce2b) — 7/24/2016 @ 7:54 pmIt’s hard to pin Trump down on the issues. Either he changes positions or he promises to “look at it”. I think it’s unlikely anyone outside his family knows where he stands.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:09 pmkishnevi gets it. The reason Trump so easily flip flopped to his current position on the 2nd amendment is that he doesn’t really care and was trying to secure the nomination. Same reason he pandered on ethanol. Same reason he tells one crowd he’s gonna make Mexico pay for a wall, and another crowd that he’s going to make the illegals legal.
The only person Trump is concerned about is Trump. He will ditch the mother of his children for a younger model and brag about it.
I can’t think of a thing Hillary has done successfully or any controversy she’s been right about.
But I do not understand how Trump is “much” better. Hillary never smeared the parents, children, or spouses of her election opponents. I don’t think she ever praised massacres of protesters or threatened riots or encouraged violence as a political tactic. She’s also much more experienced than Trump, who didn’t even know who the Kurds were.
But you gotta pick from a set of poor options and protest votes, and I respect your choice. We’ll both vote our conscience… May God watch over this country. This election is going to have a poor outcome no matter which is elected.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:09 pm@212 Dustin
Hillary just smears her husband’s victims. The ones who were physically accosted as opposed to being memed on Twitter.
And Donald Trump didn’t incite any violence. It was a Youtube video.
Pinandpuller (928ad9) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:26 pm“But yes, I do agree that Jim Webb is much preferable to Hillary.”
“By the time I get to Philly, she’ll be sucking…”
— Jimmy Webb
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:43 pmwe’re just trying to keep the wrong lizard out, is that so wrong?
narciso (732bc0) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:46 pmDRJ ” I think it’s unlikely anyone outside his family knows where he stands.”
I doubt those inside have a clue either. I suspect family dinners see a lot of fatuous bombast.
SPQR (a3a747) — 7/24/2016 @ 8:51 pm“I hate the concept of guns, I’m not in favor of it, except for one thing: the bad guys are going to have them” is not a pro-2A position. He said that if he could take away everyone’s guns he would do so, and the only problem he sees is the practical one of enforcement. That’s not the RKBA. The RKBA doesn’t depend on the bad guys having guns; the whole point is that guns are a positive good, and good guys should have them even if bad guys don’t. “Abe Lincoln made men free, Sam Colt made them equal.” The ideal world would be one in which only good guys had guns; bad guys having them too is the price we pay for making sure that good guys can have them.
But then there’s his position on the Clinton-era “assault weapon” ban: “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”
And of course in 2008 he supported Hillary Clinton. ‘Nuff said.
As recently as 2012, he tweeted “President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown Connecticut.” 0bama’s remarks didn’t explicitly call for more restrictions on gun rights, but the call was very loud between the lines.
Just this May, after initially calling for the end of schools being gun-free zones, he “clarified” that he only meant schools should have armed guards or resource officers, not that anyone with a carry permit should be able to carry there. That’s not a 2nd-amendment position.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:34 pmWe’ll have to take him at his word he owns a gun, because — unlike many other famous gun owners — he’s never been photographed with it and has never spoken at length about it.
But back the truck up and read what you just wrote: “I don’t believe he has any clear-cut philosophy on Constitutional issues at all.” You speak as if he his ignorance is preferable to Hillary’s proto-socialist ideas of what she’d like to do with the Federal courts. I contend that his lack of interest in such things can potentially be just as dangerous.
People with long memories will remember the name Bretton Sciaroni, a lawyer whom the Reagan White House cited as providing the legal opinion that there was nothing illegal about the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal that funded revolutionaries in communist Nicaragua. In a hearing it was discovered that Sciaroni, named chief counsel to Reagan’s Intelligence Oversight Board, wasn’t the typical Washington attorney. His degree wasn’t from the Ivy League, or Georgetown, or Virginia. It was from UCLA. That, in itself, doesn’t disqualify you from being one of the President’s lawyers in your first legal job. What ought to do the trick is failing the bar exam in three previous tries in three different states.
Sciaroni, who today is a big wheel in Cambodia after becoming persona non grata in U.S. legal circles, wasn’t hired because he was an expert. He was hired to be The Guy With a Law Degree Who Says What We Want To Say Is Legal Is Legal So There. Nyaah.
Trump already has a guy like Sciaroni in his
Sea OrganizationTrump Organization EVP Michael Cohen, equal parts lawyer and hockey goon. There’s no reason to expect he will hire anyone who doesn’t go into the job knowing his job is to be a yes-(wo)man, and fire anyone who somehow missed the message.Mona Charen says this better than I just did in this NRO post from the other day (bold mine):
L.N. Smithee (797d3a) — 7/24/2016 @ 9:35 pmFuck you, happyfeet.
Patterico (55b816) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:00 pmI’ve been saying that for a VERY long time.
John Hitchcock (a647ad) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:42 pmMy point is simple. Maybe that’s why everyone has a problem with it. He’s against taking everyone’s guns away. He’s not interested in the underlying theory of exactly what the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is – but he doesn’t want judges who will throw it out. Whether he takes a correct doctrinaire position on the Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant to that.
Gerald A (945582) — 7/25/2016 @ 6:13 amWhy don’t you two compare notes and get back to me.
Gerald A (945582) — 7/25/2016 @ 6:18 amPatterico (55b816) — 7/24/2016 @ 10:00 pm
Because I’m sure I can’t quote it. Impressive, though. In a morally preening kind of way.
Now I understand what your problem is with fractional reserve banking. You’re simply too bull-headed to consider you might be wrong or that you might not understand part of the picture or that your underlying premise may be flawed and once you’ve made up your mind you’re right, there’s no changing it. It’s a common problem with elitists. They’re convinced they’ll be proved right…eventually…Though I suppose you’re in good company. Even Einstein went to his grave disbelieving quantum physics, one can find other examples. You ain’t them, though.
WTP (8894aa) — 7/25/2016 @ 6:43 am“220. hf: it’s funny how it’s the most morally preening ones what have the hardest time making a moral distinction between Mr. Trump and stinkypig
you’d think they’d have tons of practice at this
Patterico: Fuck you, happyfeet.”
Mr. Happyfeet plays the part of the Court Jester, the Fool who says unpalatable truths.
I’m wondering …. will there come a time when you guys realize that the primaries are over and that Trump is the 2016 Republican Party candidate? I get trying to tear him down about guns, justices, ambiguous positions, etc. when there are other competing RNC candidate(s) that you like better.
But what’s the point when there are no other competing candidates, and he is not only the last one standing but is now the Official RNC candidate?
To convince people to not vote for him and thus get Hillary elected?
As bad as you think Trump is, do you think Hillary is better?
What are you trying to accomplish here? You can’t be trying to keep him from being the nominee — because as of last week, he is.
He has said some things that you have interpreted as being weak on the 2nd amendment. Hillary has said that she wants to overturn it. You like her position better?
Or do you just like complaining?
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 7/25/2016 @ 12:48 pmGerald A (#185) wrote:
Here’s Ramesh Ponnuru’s stunned reaction:
Did Ponnuru take Trump out of context? Decide for yourself: Full video of interview between Mark Halperin & Donald Trump on August 25, 2015. For those willing to wait through Nanny Bloomberg’s advertisement, the SCOTUS discussion begins at 15:46. Here’s my transcript of the relevant quote:
So you’re correct, Gerald A, that he didn’t use the phrase “like his sister.”
But, sir, the follow-up question wasn’t about “in the mold of.” The follow-up question was about his actual sister. And the reason this interview was newsworthy is because he said his actual sister would be “phenomenal” and “one of the best.”
So your statement, while technically correct, is grossly misleading, to the point of dishonesty. I hope you’ll apologize to DRJ.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/25/2016 @ 7:51 pmExcept that she’s way too old.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/26/2016 @ 10:25 am[Trump]:
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/25/2016 @ 7:51 pm
Oy.
He’s incapable of speaking too long without talking about the greatness of Trump. It’s like he’s wearing a vest of explosives and if he doesn’t display his narcissism within moments of opening his mouth, he’ll explode like that dude in The Fury.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 7/26/2016 @ 10:46 amok so we whine like whiny whiners when someone does a tweet on harvardtrash ted’s wife
then we get all pissy-cakes when Mr. The Donald doesn’t trash his sister
family values are complicated
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/26/2016 @ 10:59 amNobody asked him to mention his sister in the first place. And if he really intends to nominate a very different type of judge, he could have said so without trashing her. A simple “My sister and I don’t share the same judicial philosophy, so I wouldn’t appoint her even if she were young enough for that to be a serious consideration”.
Milhouse (5a188d) — 7/26/2016 @ 11:06 amSaid very well. Lots of wisdom there! ^
Denver Guy (4750ec) — 7/26/2016 @ 11:18 amHillary might become President. Ted Cruz most definitely won’t become President.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/26/2016 @ 11:36 amSo let’s keep talking about Ted Cruz. (LOL)
“Nobody asked him to mention his sister in the first place. ”
…
This whole discussion is rather silly. Any nomination would have to have consent of the Senate. You people speak as if we’re electing a dictator. Get a grip.
WTP (d553bf) — 7/26/2016 @ 12:57 pmEspecially for Trump.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 7/26/2016 @ 12:57 pmI can’t figure out what your point is. I already said that he called her “phenomenal”. That applied to his sister. He said it because she’s his sister IMO. Not because she’s some kind of model for the kind of judicial philosophy he’s looking for. He’s not looking for someone “like” his sister.
It’s relevant that Halperin brought her up. Trump didn’t. What’s he supposed to say?
As I said I doubt he even follows her decisions. I’d be very surprised if he does. So he couldn’t possibly be looking to duplicate his sister’s philosophy. I have no idea what this apology is that I owe.
Gerald A (945582) — 7/26/2016 @ 1:06 pmAre you talking to the folks here, or to Trump? Because he’s the one who keeps making it about Cruz.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 7/26/2016 @ 1:06 pmMr. Trump’s a serendipity on all of us. We have so much to look forward to, and that future’s looking much brighter than before Mr. Trump entered the picture.
Let’s just take a sec today and be grateful for that.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/26/2016 @ 2:36 pm