The only thing they are good for is reality television...

[pensivepoet]

https://cdn.discourse.org/boingboing/uploads/default/original/3X/4/1/410480389e96bf9f2dde0de99b6c027ad6a0d7c0.gif


The article you posted was a total, cited conservative skew of the Politico piece I linked.

And that surprised you?

 

[Aglaopheme]

And that surprised you?

It amused me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Bit of a harsh realm for libertarians this election season, eh?

I"m sure it will all work out. After the angry-prole wing of the GOP is soundly chastized at the polls this year; they'll slink back to their barstools and shuttered machine-shops until the next Wallace or Buchanan comes along, about 2036 or so. Now is the time for all humble non-coms in the war of all against all to hunker down in the foxholes, ride out the coronation, and lay the groundwork for Ted's comeback.

God only knows what will happen. At every point, I kept saying, this is where Trump fades. I still think he can reunify most of the party as it slowly dawns on them what happens to the courts and the ABCs with a Clinton administration. She is a weak candidate and her relentless pandering is already being used, quite effectively, against her as she tells the former Reagan Democrat block on one hand that she's going to take their jobs away from them and then tries to convince them that she is their bestie...



Good to see you dropping in again.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I didn't think so.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://cdn.discourse.org/boingboing/uploads/default/original/3X/4/1/410480389e96bf9f2dde0de99b6c027ad6a0d7c0.gif


The article you posted was a total, cited conservative skew of the Politico piece I linked.

However, the original article is skewed for the other team.

But, of course, you don't think so...

But the fact remains the same.

 

[renard_ruse]

First election for national office in my life I finally have a candidate I actually am 100% enthusiastic about. Even the Pat Buchanan primaries in 92 and 96 he was already eliminated by the time it got to California. I actually don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils or to stop someone, there's actually someone I agree with.

And what happens, all these piece of shit "conservatives" and their RINO friends are refusing to support the party's nominee.

Neither these self-proclaimed Cruz "Constitutional conservatives" (like Trump isn't for the Constitution ) or their establishment RINO friends will be forgiven for their behavior. National populists are the plurality or majority of the GOP voters. They will pay for this treatment of our candidate for years.

 

[renard_ruse]

If Trump loses in November we will hold the self-styled "Constitutional conservatives" and their RINO friends responsible for their behavior this week.

Their refusal to quickly rally behind the presumptive nominee has possibly irreparably destroyed his momentum. He had closed the gap with Clinton in 3 polls over the past couple of weeks. This will possibly stop his momentum at a critical moment.

If he doesn't win in November it will NOT be because Americans rejected him or his message but directly as a result of these phony "conservatives" and their RINO friends refusal to get behind the candidate at the critical moment.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The best case that can be made for Trump (and its kinda weak):

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/435138/print

 

[miles]

I liked the article, but he's making a case that we should choose syphilis over gonorrhea.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S94ohyErSw

The Republican Party hierarchy commenced the current primary season with two overriding objectives 1) make certain no constitutional conservative would win the nomination; and 2) nominate someone considered to be an ideological moderate. They have succeeded in many ways far beyond what they could have imagined.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...the_future_of_conservatism.html#ixzz489dF96gV​

 

[Lancecastor]

There is nothing to look forward to other than the bloody spectacle of the debates (if her majesty deigns to stoop so low on her way to the coronation).

This writer pretty much nails the way I feel about the two candidates:

http://spectator.org/articles/66213/trump-or-not-trump

Read it or not, I do not give a shit.

The article is too rabid for my tastes, but the disdain for trump and clinton seems accurate.

As a Canadian, neither party nor result really matters much to me, except maybe for Trump being crazy.

I do think the Hater Republicans have done a good job of smearing Clinton as a best defence-strong offence strategy.

And now they have Bozo as their karmic justice candidate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I do not think Trump is crazy, just a little too self-absorbed...



The only sane candidate running will be Gary Johnson.

 

[Lancecastor]

I wonder if Trump's ever had anyone killed?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He's into open bribery...



... Just like Clinton.

 

[Lancecastor]

I think having someone killed is probably a common denominator amongst your greatest presidents.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well he's a recent convert to presidential aspiration, so he needs some time to get with the program.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More Victor Davis Hanson this morning:

Obama's Gift of Immunity to Trump

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/obamas-gift-to-trump/

Last week, in sober and judicious tones Obama all but warned Americans that they cannot seriously support Trump, who, he implied, is little more than a reality-TV conman. But such admonitions come from a president whose chief foreign policy advisor, a failed fiction writer and D.C. insider, just bragged how he deceived the media and Washington’s insider world by feeding amateurish journalists misleading talking points. Is it serious or in the spirit of reality TV for a president to invite to the White House a rapper whose court-ordered ankle monitor goes off in a presidential ceremony, or to give an exclusive interview with YouTube personality GloZell, noted for her selfies of eating breakfast cereal floating about her in a bathtub? Obama has lectured the media that they have to vent Trump, this from a candidate who never released his medical or college records, whose speech in praise of Rashid Khalidi was suppressed by the media, and whose entire memoir was only belatedly found out to be impressionistic fiction. Obama lowered the bar and Trump skipped over it.

Can Trump mislead much more than did Obama, who assured Americans that they would never lose their doctor or health plan but rather save money and have better care, and that pulling peacekeepers from Iraq would ensure a stable and self-reliant country? Obama, remember, also bragged abroad that he had all but closed Guantanamo within a year and would stop the Bush habit of piling up more debt? After Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber, what exactly are the presidential standards on veracity that we must hold Trump to?​

 

[miles]

Interesting that the excellent Netflix series House of Cards has a fraudulent novelist as the First Lady's speechwriter.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't have the time to watch too much TV...

 

[miles]

It's no different from porn...you have to be selective.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Other than Wat's thread, I don't have time for porn either...

 

[pensivepoet]

Other than Wat's thread, I don't have time for porn either...

Perhaps if you cut down your average of 14,000 lit post per year you could squeeze some porn in.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Perhaps if you cut down your average of 14,000 lit post per year you could squeeze some porn in.

He cannot hope to compete in the Arena of Ideas with the quality of his posts, so he's basically forced into using the quantity of his posts to drown out dissent.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps if you cut down your average of 14,000 lit post per year you could squeeze some porn in.

I'm doing a lot of reading between posts.