...during a Q & A with CNN’s Dana Bash at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland, he thrilled the crowd with a series of sharp jabs at the Republican frontrunner and the media that covers him
Bash asked the Florida senator why so many conservatives seem to be voting for Trump, who he calls a fake conservative and a con artist. “I’ll tell you one of the reasons why – and I don’t mean to take you on this, but I want to be clear,” Rubio said. “Because I’ve now been sitting here for 5 minutes, and 2 out of the 3 questions have been about Donald Trump –” He tried to go on, but was drowned out by a massive standing ovation – undoubtedly the loudest crowd response any speaker received over the last three days. ...
Clinton's bull is just not in the same league. No one's is. Trump is in a league of his own.mheslep said:I'm aware of Trump's bull. It's common knowledge. But do you imagine that somebody can't quickly fill up pages here with Clinton's bull?
You ought to consider it. Declaring her a deliberate liar, as you did, fails to take the circumstances of the incident into account. If you would like to see politicians reduced to panic, try yelling "Sniper!," at a political rally. People's memories go south when they're scared.I'm not interested in false memory explanations.
Most people appear to disagree. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274zoobyshoe said:Clinton's bull is just not in the same league.
The most common word associated with Clinton was "liar"; for Trump, "arrogant"Trump and Clinton have the worst scores among top candidates on honesty:
- Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever;
- Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 54 - 38 percent.
You ought to consider it. Declaring her a deliberate liar, as you did, fails to take the circumstances of the incident into account. If you would like to see politicians reduced to panic, try yelling "Sniper!," at a political rally. People's memories go south when they're scared.
How about these? Are these truths? Is it narcissistic to get angry about them?jim hardy said:One man speaks a few truths and it throws RNC's whole self aggrandizing dreamworld into narcisstic rage ?
"...The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
“...She starts asking me ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever,” he said.
...I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction,”
Months ago, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver crunched the numbers and found it was extremely unlikely that Trump would become the nominee. He wasn't wrong, and yet here we are. So why is this election so unpredictable? Silver talks to Brooke about why the rules of politics seem to be broken this year, and how electoral predictions are based on a short history. Plus: could the country be due for a political realignment?
From Bradley Says He Won't Seek 4th Term (NY Times, August 17, 1995)NEWARK, Aug. 16— Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey announced today that he would not seek re-election next year to a fourth term, depriving the Democratic Party of one of its most respected thinkers at a time when the party's loss of Congress is forcing it to re-examine just what it stands for.
In a speech here, Mr. Bradley gave no reason for his decision, but he left the impression that he had grown weary of working in a political system that he called "broken." He castigated both major parties, accusing them of being more interested in feuding than in addressing the needs of the nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_HallTammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was a New York City political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789, as the Tammany Society.
By saying Trump was in a league of his own I was referring to the quality of his lies, not the quantity. It's the kind of lie he tells that boggles the mind. His logic and debate style reminds me of Charles Manson's. They're both berserkers. And also arrogant.mheslep said:Most people appear to disagree. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274
The most common word associated with Clinton was "liar"; for Trump, "arrogant"
Because she said they were told (I assume by whatever security agency was with them) there had been snipers at that airport at some recent time, and it was Bosnia, after all. She repeated the story about three times before being corrected, and I think there's a strong possibility that is because that is the way she remembers it, having run through internal scenarios where they might have to run to the cars when they landed, scenarios that stuck in her head for being more vivid than what actually ended up happening. Recall that was a lot closer in time to Representative Ryan having been ambushed and killed when departing Jonestown: fresher in everyone's mind. Also a lot closer in time to the Kennedy, Kennedy, King, and Reagan shootings.Why do you suggest she was scared of snipers on the trip? Because she said was running from snipers?
I thought it was a reducio ad Trumpum. But, maybe Manson doesn't deserve that.mheslep said:Manson? Another form of reductio ad hitlerum.
Asked by moderator John Dickerson about Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department staffer who helped set up her private email server and was granted immunity by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to give an interview, Clinton said she's "delighted" he's cooperating in the investigation. Questions about whether or not anyone will be indicted in the situation are overblown, she said.
"There is no basis for that. It's a security review," she said. "I'm delighted that he has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we'll be moving toward a resolution of this."
I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.Astronuc said:Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-email-scandal-moving-toward-a-resolution/
Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.zoobyshoe said:I wonder if she's being overly optimistic in assuming there's not going to be any bad consequences for her, or if she's actually been told something to that effect by someone who knows.
Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?zoobyshoe said:More seriously and without sarcasm, I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump. He already has a whole country we used to get along fine with pissed off at him.
http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2015/07/17/trump-pinatas-a-hit-in-mexico-come-to-sacramento/
Dotini said:... that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
That's what I suspected. I saw the immunity as a bad sign for her, indicating it was granted to him in exchange for his helping them gather evidence against her.Dotini said:Judge Napolitano asserts that a grand jury must have been empaneled to investigate and indict Hillary Clinton, as that's the most likely reason for granting Pagliano immunity from prosecution for his sworn testimony.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/47848061...ing-to-unveil/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.Dotini said:Isn't the whole point of nationalism to put the interests of your own country ahead of all the others?
It isn't just the RNC, indeed I think the "narcissistic rage" is stronger coming from the left.jim hardy said:One man speaks a few truths and it throws RNC's whole self aggrandizing dreamworld into narcisstic rage ?
The price of self delusion is vulnerability to that.
Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.zoobyshoe said:That's a good enough characterization. But, how is gratuitously pissing other countries off good for the U.S.? It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, it's the way he so grotesquely insulting about it.
The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?zoobyshoe said:I am getting very alarmed at the people who don't see all the clear warning signs of a very destructive leader when they look at Trump.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?Dotini said:Trump is most definitely a very imperfect vehicle for the fears and aspirations of millions of US voters. Flamboyant billionaires from New York City all seem repulsive to me. But IMHO Trump is the only candidate appealing to the nationalism and populism of the Republican base, especially important on the key issues of immigration, jobs, debt and anti-war.
It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.anorlunda said:The very word revolution implies something destructive. Why is it so hard to understand that Trump and Sanders supporters have destructive intentions in the Jeffersonian sense?
Says Clinton.Astronuc said:Meanwhile - Clinton: Email scandal "moving toward a resolution"
...
No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt actual hard line action and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.zoobyshoe said:... It's normal for Republicans to adopt a hard line on illegal immigration, that's not the issue, ...
This is my perception of what happens every election:mheslep said:No, its hardly normal in the GOP to adopt a hard line and thus is *the* issue behind Trump. One can not understand the rise of Trump under such a misconception.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Jeb Bush on *illegal* immigration: "it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htmStrategists generally agree that to win the White House a Republican nominee needs to secure 40% of the Latino vote, the portion George W. Bush won in 2004. 4 years later Republican John McCain got only 33% when he lost to Democrat Barack Obama.
But for Republicans seeking their party's nomination, the calculation can be different: it is more important to gain white working-class votes by staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants than it is to court the ascending bloc of Latinos, whose influence registers mainly in the general election. So in the 2012 primary the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney promoted the idea of a high-tech fence stretching the entire length of the US-Mexico border, nearly 2,000 miles long.
Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.zoobyshoe said:This is my perception of what happens every election:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Immigration.htm
So, every election you have GOP candidates "staking out the position of being the toughest candidate on illegal immigrants" to get the nomination, and then softening up on that to get the popular vote.
This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.mheslep said:Agreed, there's been all kind of pose adoption. In reality, very little action has been taken, thus Trump.
It's a regime change. One of the key things that makes the US great is that we pretty much invented the concept of a smooth/peaceful regime change.zoobyshoe said:It's not a revolution, it's a presidential election.
Nationalist was your word choice and I believe it to be inaccurate. I would say that no candidate should be considered who isn't an obvious patriot. But that's just my opinion and didnt, for example, keep Obama from being elected. My hope is that isn't a new trend.I'msorry, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying no candidate is worth considering unless he's an obvious nationalist?
Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?zoobyshoe said:This is the wrong thread, (the right one is now locked) but my theory of Trump's popularity is not the particular stand he takes on any issue, it's the fact he enthusiastically bulldozes over any and all politically correct stands. He's not selling a wall, he's selling the promise of a future where anyone can blurt out whatever politically incorrect thought that might blow through their minds without fear of someone jumping down their throats. He promises they are going to be able to turn off their internal censor, relax and "tell the truth." They're not applauding the wall, per se, they're applauding his defiance of socially imposed censorship. That's my take on it.
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
Meanwhile, Florida senator Marco Rubio is polling a distant fourth among those likely to vote in Tuesday's Republican primary with just 13 percent, which is below the threshold of 15 percent is necessary to claim any delegates in Michigan.Trump led the way with 36 percent, followed by 23 percent for Cruz and 21 percent for Kasich, the governor of Ohio who has pinned his hopes both in Michigan and, like Rubio, on his home state's March 15 primary.
Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."mheslep said:Disagree that PC is the main issue. PC is a problem but it has not made blue collars angry in the way that immigration abuses do. GOP candidate after candidate keeps getting the anger about immigration abuses wrong. For Trump to be believed by his followers on the wall, his anti-pc , establishment go to hell language is convincing. Consider, does anyone believe Trump would take office and be turned around on the wall by those saying he had to court the hispanic demographic, as GOP politicians have for years, or by negative opinions on Telemundo?
Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video. I think we're talking past each other.zoobyshoe said:Of course you're right that no one thinks he's going to get turned around. However, I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."
...
Of course, you may question if these people are authentically representative, I suppose.
If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.jobyts said:
Here's the exchange you're referring to:mheslep said:Immigration and the border are the first specific mentioned, the third sentence in that panel video.
I think the general impression "He speaks the truth," is more what's operating on his supporters than any specific like "He'll take care of the illegal immigrant problem."
First, no, that's not a scientific study, it is a [alternative] news article. It cites a bunch of studies, but it isn't itself a study. Next, on checking, the very first stat I checked in the article was wrong: a critical qualifier was omitted that vastly changes the meaning of the stat. This does not meet our guidelines, so it is deleted.jobyts said:
No specifics? " Immigration control and the border" was the first issue she mentioned when questioned about more specifics. Must she have addressed the number of proposed fence miles to be specific? She did not start with, "He says it like it is ..." on the budget, on military spending, on college loans. I don't understand a line that labels this observation irrelevant, so I won't continue on this point.zoobyshoe said:...All her comments describe his frankness, and not the specifics of his proposals.
Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.mheslep said:If you have an actual reference to a topical scientific study, please demonstrate. Amanda Taub, the "Senior Sadness Correspondent" at the left leaning Vox is not the author of such a study.
It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.zoobyshoe said:Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.
jobyts said:
Gleem, what you do with information you choose to read on your own, none of our business, of course you can't discuss that here. We post only the most accurate information we can.gleem said:Thank you Russ for your concerns for my 75 year old impressionable mind but I still have the link and am studying the left leaning information presented and drawing my own conclusions. Time and time again news articles are quoted and allowed.
Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost. I recall that Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You are correct. Googling the stats I think you're referring to (the first one mentioned) I see an important difference between what she said, "In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States," and what the poll actually asked: "How do you feel about temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S.?" That is certainly a significant change of meaning, as you say.russ_watters said:It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.
That's a confusing statement since I would have thought Trump was the "bogeyman" that others are trying to make go away, but I think you are referring to me as a "Trumpist", trying to make criticism of him go away (which is a bit vague to be a "bogeyman"). Regardless, for the record, I am not a Trump supporter.gleem said:Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost.
I don't see the point of Sanders campaign continuing, unless he suspects an indictment. There's no chance of an open Democratic convention, and he does not have even a slight chance by trading states with Clinton in the North and being completely blanked in the South.Astronuc said:...
Sanders is leading in the Michigan democratic primary. Clinton won Mississippi with about 83% of the vote.
Although Clinton is just past the halfway point to 2,383 delegates, I hope Sanders stays in the race, if only to be a voice for those who would like to see him win. The point is that we are a democracy with many differing and conflicting ideas. Besides, it ain't over 'til it's over.mheslep said:I don't see the point of Sanders campaign continuing, unless he suspects an indictment. There's no chance of an open Democratic convention, and he does not have even a slight chance by trading states with Clinton in the North and being completely blanked in the South.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.htmlRepublican front-runner Donald Trump moved to staunch scathing criticism of his national security views on Friday, executing an abrupt about-face by declaring that he would not order the U.S. military to violate international laws to fight terrorism.
...in a statement Friday, Trump said that he understands "that the United States is bound by laws and treaties" and that he would "not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters."
He added, "I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."
I agree. Both because it is the sportsmanlike thing to do and because 10 years from now it will make a bigger mark in the history books if he has a lot more delegates. If he quits now, they'll look like Clinton ran unopposed, anointed.Astronuc said:Although Clinton is just past the halfway point to 2,383 delegates, I hope Sanders stays in the race, if only to be a voice for those who would like to see him win. The point is that we are a democracy with many differing and conflicting ideas. Besides, it ain't over 'til it's over.
