(12-13-2015 03:39 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I never got the hatred for Palin, but I never got the love for her either.
I understood it in 2008, because the sense was that she was a conservative whereas John McCain was a liberal, and so everyone was happy to have an actual conservative on the ticket. But now? Who cares about her?

She had/has nice tits so the flyover states jizzed themselves. That is all. Her daughter cracks me up. What a whore. A WHORE!

Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson:

‘So What? They’re Muslim!’





Trump really knows how to pick the right person.



WB and make America great again

This might be the year the GOP implodes. I can see Trump winning the vote but the nomination going to Rubio. If that does happen, the GOP will end up fractured and no better than a 3rd party runner.

The Republicans in Congress are trying to stop more Syrian refugees from coming in yet attack Trump for saying essentially the same thing. The people see through their bullshit.

Half a million people sign the petition to block Trump's entry to the UK; around half are UK residents: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015...ation.html
(Trump has the Midas touch-all he has to do when confronted is sit back and watch some opposing idiot destroy themselves.
I've never seen someone who galvanises this much popular support-even the dishonest attempts to undermine him barely slow him down.)

(12-13-2015 03:39 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I never got the hatred for Palin, but I never got the love for her either.
I understood it in 2008, because the sense was that she was a conservative whereas John McCain was a liberal, and so everyone was happy to have an actual conservative on the ticket. But now? Who cares about her?

Rich Lowry of National Review:


“

Quote: I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

Quote:I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

God, that's fucking pathetic. Do you think he sliced off his testicles before he wrote that, or after?

Rich Lowry is the editor for National Review, which makes him one of the most influential conservatives in the country. And he's jizzing himself over a 50 year old Alaskan hillbilly mom. No wonder we lost in 2008. And 2012.

I'm beginning to wonder how Republicans ever won any elections at all.

(12-13-2015 04:33 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote:I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

God, that's fucking pathetic. Do you think he sliced off his testicles before he wrote that, or after?

Rich Lowry is the editor for National Review, which makes him one of the most influential conservatives in the country. And he's jizzing himself over a 50 year old Alaskan hillbilly mom. No wonder we lost in 2008. And 2012.

I'm beginning to wonder how Republicans ever won any elections at all.

It's been said before but a lot of cuckservative types in the U.S. put pussy on the pedestal just like the liberal white mainstream. Political affiliation has less to do with this than just the culture in general. It's anglosphere nonsense.

(12-13-2015 04:33 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote:I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

God, that's fucking pathetic. Do you think he sliced off his testicles before he wrote that, or after?

Rich Lowry is the editor for National Review, which makes him one of the most influential conservatives in the country. And he's jizzing himself over a 50 year old Alaskan hillbilly mom. No wonder we lost in 2008. And 2012.

I'm beginning to wonder how Republicans ever won any elections at all.

Almost as bad as Chris Matthews describing Obama back in 08': "I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

That woman on the left in that video is staggeringly dumb.

Wasn't Palin the one who thought africa was a single country?

She was mercilessly mocked for this and other idiocies, such as:

Quote:"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" --a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010

Quote:"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." --Sarah Palin, botching the history of Paul Revere's midnight ride, June 3, 2011

Quote:"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

What is Donald thinking?

(12-13-2015 03:39 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I never got the hatred for Palin, but I never got the love for her either.
I understood it in 2008, because the sense was that she was a conservative whereas John McCain was a liberal, and so everyone was happy to have an actual conservative on the ticket. But now? Who cares about her?

She's one of those rare breeds of people who is a borderline illiterate imbecile, and yet condescending at the same time.

(12-13-2015 04:11 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson:

‘So What? They’re Muslim!’





Trump really knows how to pick the right person.



WB and make America great again

^ S.E. "what's her" Cupp Size : moving up and down in her seat arguing like a woman with too much emotion.

Trump's spokes lady Katrina Pierson: sticking to the facts, keeping calm and making a rational, virtually irrefutable argument based on current conditions and reality.

Love it.

(12-13-2015 04:43 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 04:33 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote:I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

God, that's fucking pathetic. Do you think he sliced off his testicles before he wrote that, or after?

Rich Lowry is the editor for National Review, which makes him one of the most influential conservatives in the country. And he's jizzing himself over a 50 year old Alaskan hillbilly mom. No wonder we lost in 2008. And 2012.

I'm beginning to wonder how Republicans ever won any elections at all.

It's been said before but a lot of cuckservative types in the U.S. put pussy on the pedestal just like the liberal white mainstream. Political affiliation has less to do with this than just the culture in general. It's anglosphere nonsense.

Absolutely true. Cuckservatives put pussy on the pedestal albeit in a different way from liberal male feminist types.

Palin was an idiot and had zero business being the immediate replacement to an aging would be President. Whatever chance McCain had went straight down the toilet when he picked Palin; she turned off A LOT of moderate and liberal people open to voting for McCain. Too stupid. Too extreme.

This is one of my fears with Trump that I think could kill Trump's chances of winning: picking Cruz as VP and having a mini-repeat of the Palin experience. Cruz is not Palin. He is very smart and he seems to stand by his convictions mostly but he is VERY conservative in values and political positions. Cruz also rubs A LOT of people the wrong way and has very little cross-over appeal like Trump does; majority of Cruz's appeal seems to be similar to Carson's: the Evangelical religious wing of the GOP.

While Trump has been getting lambasted lately as some New Age Hitler in the media, the reality is Trump is a very moderate candidate; he just has a very pro-American perspective with a no-nonsense attitude about it. Cruz on the hand is a pretty deeply conservative guy who comes off to some people with a very "thinks he is super slick" personality. I could see Cruz getting a cabinet position and/or Supreme Court appointment but a VP position could be a major gamble for the Trump campaign. He would shore up some conservative votes for sure but at what cost? McCain thought picking Palin (a very conservative woman) would be some kind of silver bullet for his campaign and it killed it instead.

There are a lot of liberal and moderate people in this country who are very sympathetic to Trump's positions but have a genuine fear of a religious lunatic getting control of the oval office. These people are not against people of religious faith (Trump has made christian references before and no one cares) but do get really apprehensive with the idea of someone in power where their religious convictions drive a majority of their respective political positions or perspectives. Bible thumper types in power scare the living hell out of a lot swing voters. This is what Palin did to McCain in 2008; scared the absolute shit out of potential swing voters to vote democrat. I have concerns Cruz could do the same to Trump.

Ultimately, I have to see how things play out with Cruz during the election cycle and investigate further before making a more concrete judgment. But a Cruz VP pick does give me pause at the moment.

You know what the media is doing is really just giving seriousness to all of Donald Trump's remarks. He is given attention to every word he speaks at rallies, interviews, Social Media(Twitter), etc. and this is only giving him a better standing in looking as a serious Presidential candidate.

What does Donald Trump say next? It's like everyone in America is sitting at their dinner tables and reflecting on the words that the Trumpster said the day before.

They could vehemently disagree with the man and hate him and his guts. But that same hate is showing their views that Donald Trump is a very serious candidate, and he is here, and he isn't going anywhere.

It's as if people wouldn't even know what to do with themselves if he left the race. Who else is left that can entertain the narcissistic dopamine seeking culture of people that we have today?

It would turn into another boring old election where people in the bars would instead tell you that they're more interested in watching reruns of Breaking Bad or the "Hit new show everyone's talking about", at least for the time being.

I'm intrigued at how much you could learn about the social psychology of people and how they react to an emboldened representation of the Perfect Alpha. He is like a shaman tribal leader with magical powers that can sway masses of people to do certain things, and think a certain way.

Even RooshV Forum has changed it's views on certain positions, and brought from deep down in their thoughts very subconscious idealogical concepts into becoming somewhat of a very possible reality.

Donald Trump is the candidate that is changing the state of Politics which has been stagnantly drawn down by upper level elite bureacracy and big money. He is uniting this country in ways that it'll finally be able to start to formulate what the American Identity is really all about.

Talk to people and ask them what it is to be American? They will hesitate to give a clear cut answer that could be part of a greater idea of American pride. Trump is bringing American patriotism back.

This is the reason the elites are scared. In their efforts to create a globalized uniform identity with a complete lack of any national pride but rather commercialist intentions, Donald Trump is the only thing standing between complete world control by the elites, and instead, like Putin, he is demonstrating why it's so important to deny the globalist agenda and to free ourselves from Capitalistic greed in the form of complete abandonment of any sort of National Pride.

(12-13-2015 06:22 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  You know what the media is doing is really just giving seriousness to all of Donald Trump's remarks. He is given attention to every word he speaks at rallies, interviews, Social Media(Twitter), etc. and this is only giving him a better standing in looking as a serious Presidential candidate.

What does Donald Trump say next? It's like everyone in America is sitting at their dinner tables and reflecting on the words that the Trumpster said the day before.

They could vehemently disagree with the man and hate him and his guts. But that same hate is showing their views that Donald Trump is a very serious candidate, and he is here, and he isn't going anywhere.

It's as if people wouldn't even know what to do with themselves if he left the race. Who else is left that can entertain the narcissistic dopamine seeking culture of people that we have today?

It would turn into another boring old election where people in the bars would instead tell you that they're more interested in watching reruns of Breaking Bad or the "Hit new show everyone's talking about", at least for the time being.

I'm intrigued at how much you could learn about the social psychology of people and how they react to an emboldened representation of the Perfect Alpha. He is like a shaman tribal leader with magical powers that can sway masses of people to do certain things, and think a certain way.

Even RooshV Forum has changed it's views on certain positions, and brought from deep down in their thoughts very subconscious idealogical concepts into becoming somewhat of a very possible reality.

Donald Trump is the candidate that is changing the state of Politics which has been stagnantly drawn down by upper level elite bureacracy and big money. He is uniting this country in ways that it'll finally be able to start to formulate what the American Identity is really all about.

Talk to people and ask them what it is to be American? They will hesitate to give a clear cut answer that could be part of a greater idea of American pride. Trump is bringing American patriotism back.

This is the reason the elites are scared. In their efforts to create a globalized uniform identity with a complete lack of any national pride but rather commercialist intentions, Donald Trump is the only thing standing between complete world control by the elites, and instead, like Putin, he is demonstrating why it's so important to deny the globalist agenda and to free ourselves from Capitalistic greed in the form of complete abandonment of any sort of National Pride.

/rant.

I'm not sure I'd get my hopes up. America very well might end up cucking itself for good like France just did. Stay cautious.

(12-12-2015 10:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The problem with his analysis is that he assumes everyone can compete equally in a global playing field. But it's not even close to the case. Other countries impose tariffs or only support certain American companies (often stuffed with foreigners) to do business with them. Regular Americans are shut out of production markets in this way while these same companies then sell goods at fire sale prices.

To make matters worse, these production companies in places such as China, Mexico, etc, have a set of laws in place to keep their population enslaved while they work to produce crap for America. China, for example, has a currency peg set at roughly 6:1. So no matter how much a Chinese worker saves, his dollars of value are always worth six less than American dollars. So if America prints 3 trillion dollars, that means his base currency supply has also necessarily devalued by 18 trillion.

The end game is that the Chinese man works until he dies because he will never accumulate savings, and the American man goes without real work until he dies because his country men have no jobs and cannot accumulate capital to start new businesses.

The only reason this state of affairs occurs is because of collusion between both American and Chinese elites; American elites know they can use Chinese slave labor to sell dirt cheap goods in American markets and hog all the cash and profits for themselves (which is why the income disparity has gotten so bad in America), while Chinese elites secretly use the immediate profits they gain to buy American goods and convert to American dollars yet simultaneously placing capital controls on the average Chinese person so they cannot do the same.

The reason why bitcoin and gold are so popular in China is because it is a way for the average Chinaman to escape the capital controls and brutal currency peg. By changing his Chinese dollars into bitcoins he can avoid the steady devaluation of his money. This is also the reason why the Chinese elites buy up tons of American property in major cities, because these places are priced in American dollars which are worth 6 times as much as Chinese dollars, via the peg.

The ultimate situation today is not much different than the old slavery system of the American south. You had the working black slaves (chinese), high unemployment among free whites (Americans), and the rich plantation owners (corporate shareholders). Since slaves are forced to work below a market wage, just like the Chinese are via their peg, there is no chance for the free men to compete with their labor on an open market because free men would never work for the pitiful wages given to the slaves.

Libertarian and classical economists got it wrong on free trade. They did not consider how international markets could be manipulated to turn groups of people into slaves for the sole benefit of an elite few. I don't know many libertarians who support slavery, so usually when I point out the above analysis they quickly change their opinion on how free trade is supposed to operate.

Trump has a very sensible plan regarding free trade. His official policy paper states that total free trade will not occur unless the country America does trade with also applies the same labor laws and currency standards that we do. There will be no more enslavement of third-worlders in the name of global profits under the Trump administration. Countries, such as China, who refuse to comply will be met with huge tariffs that will force American companies to think long and hard before they start opening up sweat-shops in these countries.

(12-13-2015 10:18 AM)Orion Wrote:  The problem with free trade as libertarians preach it, is that it is an utopian ideology. It stretches far beyond scope of economy.

Any economy that isn't totally utilitarian, stripped of any religious rituals (DONT TOUCH MUH FREE MARKET), has some kind of ideology ingrained into it. Hence we name them, socialism, capitalism, whatever.

Purpose of economy is to serve people. Since people are by their nature wicked and imperfect, so is their economy. To imagine an infallible economic system in an world filled with crime, war, fraud, corruption is the next most stupid thing in the world after communism.

Point is, don't meddle in free market as long as the benefit outweighs the cost. If cost becomes too high (huge income gaps, corporations becoming stronger than state, interests of corporation hurting population such as waste, global warming, oil prices), then intervene and fix the problem.

Flawless mechanisms don't exist, kids.

Mercantilism/protectionism is basically the government acting on behalf of a small group of producers against the rest of the economy as a whole. It's a tenet of the welfare state, corporate egalitarianism basically.

Samseau, your first sentence says that free marketers are wrong to say that differences in fortunes for domestic vs foreign competitors are not down to unequal competition, with the implication that tariffs are therefore needed to even the playing field. This is the same rationale used by feminists to explain why women are underrepresented in STEM and therefore we need quotas or some other forced madate to increase their numbers. Both comparative advantage and biology are natural occurrences which have to be ignored to placate domestic producers and women on the short end of things, when they should both focus on what they're good at.

Orion states that the economy should serve people. I agree, but I don't understand how arbitrarily forcing regular consumers to pay artificially high prices serves anyone (except the few recipients of artificial high prices). The extra money spent on the 'protected' interest could have been spent elsewhere. That elsewhere is now not getting paid, and the consumer is also deprived of what 'elsewhere' would have sold him. The only person who wins is the protected class the government chose. The same government which is made of people, who Orion says are inherently evil or prone to mistakes. Why are they magically qualified to be arbiters of who and what individuals should deal with in the market? Everyone else loses.

The US lost its manufacturing base over the last three decades or so is primarily because because of poor regulatory policy, not cheap labor overseas. To argue that cheap third world labor undercutting the US worker is the cause is to argue that such labor was invented 30-40 years ago, when US manufacturers started to offshore. The reality is that this cheap labor has always existed. Yet US manufacturers preferred to pay high US wages, because they came with high US productivity, among other benefits that don't exist in some third world sweatshop.

What happened over the last 30 years was a constant, increasing layering of taxes, fees, licenses, healthcare costs, and other regulations that slowly made it uneconomic to hire and produce in this country. Slapping a tariff on foreign goods won't magically bring jobs back the US because the underlying impetus to production is mired in red tape. Administrative, compliance and legal jobs are what we produce now.

What a tariff will end up doing is forcing the already broke US consumer to go into an increased amount of debt in order to buy the same goods. A Honda or Toyota which costs 35% more isn't going to change the fact that hiring more workers to produce Fords in Detroit is an extremely high risk way to make a profit. What would probably happen is American production wouldn't increase, but rather they'd merely raise their prices to a level that was still under the foreigners. In the end you'd have consumers going deeper into debt, buying the same amount of cars. The only winners are the auto companies and their shareholders, who end up getting extra money forced down their throats by the tariffs.

The fact the Chinese manipulate their currency, to the detriment of the Chinese worker and to the benefit of Chinese elites, does not mean we should engage in counter manipulation of any kind, which will be to the detriment of our workers and the benefit of our elites. Right now all the production in China is basically unavailable to Chinese workers because of the peg. This is why they gravitate to gold and bitcoin like Samseau said. The production ends up as consumption in the US. The Chinese elites win, as they get paid either way.

If the peg was lifted, and the yuan rose, the only thing that would change is that the production would be consumed by Chinese instead of Americans. The manufacturing base is already in China; they are doing the producing. The change in currency values determines who the consumers are. This is different to the problem we're ostensibly trying to solve here, which is who the producers are. The peg can't see to that, it has to come from the other factors I mentioned before.

I absolutely agree that the current set up is detrimental to Americans, but not because foreigners have 'stolen' our jobs or manufacturing base. I don't like it because we've shot ourselves in the foot with poor regulations, and then used China, debt and the fact that the dollar is the world reserve currency to shield ourselves from the negative consequences of those actions, meaning we're resistant to the meaningful changes needed.

Samseau writes that the classical economists couldn't have understood how international markets can be manipulated, so they were wrong in that we should be allowed to manipulate back. At the end of the day that Chinese manipulation has left their workers unable to consume the fruits of their labor, going to Americans who didn't produce it.

Reverse manipulation from us is going to leave American workers less able to consume Chinese goods they didn't produce, while doing nothing to bring about more American goods, all things left equal. It's not a case of American goods vs Chinese goods, but Chinese goods vs less Chinese goods. There is no option for more American goods because of the high regulatory and tax burdens involved.

The classical economists understood the errs of mercantilism/protectionism 200+ years ago precisely because their economies were constantly bogged down by tariffs in one sphere or another. The fact that the US has a long history of tariffs leads people to believe that it was those policies which created the wealth and production booms it experienced.

The truth is that no tariff in the history of the world has ever created wealth. They have merely transferred wealth from one entity to another, more specifically from the rest of society to (usually inefficient) producers, under the guise of the national interest.

That is the limit government can aspire to, transferring wealth, yet so many apparent conservatives look on mercantilism as a positive force. I'll never understand that, but my guess as to why people cling to it so tightly is because of wanting to avoid the 'globalist' aspect, and the fact that protectionism pays lip service to the 'national interest.'

I'm as much opposed to 'globalism' in that Marxist one-world government, NWO, Soros sense as anyone here, but most people wrongly associate terms such as 'free trade' with that nonsense. The reason being that many think that free trade = garbage such as NAFTA and TPP.

I've said before that real free trade doesn't need 'agreements.' Free trade just means that two entities, who may be based in different countries, can choose to associate and exchange resources with one another to their mutual benefit. As long as there is no criminal element to it all, there is no problem.

This perversion of language, which parallels the perversion of language seen in the cultural area as we discuss on this forum, then leads to the following logic: NAFTA/TPP/Trade with manipulators like China is bad. But it is free trade. Free trade is a core part of the free market. Thus, since NAFTA/China is bad, the free market giving us a bad thing.

So we turn to the government to fix the flawed market with tariffs. Yes, markets, as anything man made, is flawed. However tariffs add to the flaws by wasting resources favoring interests, which by their nature of 'needing' favors suggests that they're a drag, at the expense of the economy as a whole.

This is my biggest beef with Trumps campaign so far, I've touched on it before. It won't prevent me voting for him in the slightest, and encouragingly I've heard him touch on the real issues of regulation, taxes and health care specifically as they pertain to business formation. If he wins and goes through with his tariff plans, I'll be disappointed, but if he does the right things elsewhere it won't matter too much. The rest of the Trump platform will outweigh the mercantilist element, the same way modern economic progress has generally outweighed the mercantilist factions which it has dragged along for the last 300+ years.

(12-13-2015 06:22 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  You know what the media is doing is really just giving seriousness to all of Donald Trump's remarks. He is given attention to every word he speaks at rallies, interviews, Social Media(Twitter), etc. and this is only giving him a better standing in looking as a serious Presidential candidate.

What does Donald Trump say next? It's like everyone in America is sitting at their dinner tables and reflecting on the words that the Trumpster said the day before.

They could vehemently disagree with the man and hate him and his guts. But that same hate is showing their views that Donald Trump is a very serious candidate, and he is here, and he isn't going anywhere.

It's as if people wouldn't even know what to do with themselves if he left the race. Who else is left that can entertain the narcissistic dopamine seeking culture of people that we have today?

It would turn into another boring old election where people in the bars would instead tell you that they're more interested in watching reruns of Breaking Bad or the "Hit new show everyone's talking about", at least for the time being.

I'm intrigued at how much you could learn about the social psychology of people and how they react to an emboldened representation of the Perfect Alpha. He is like a shaman tribal leader with magical powers that can sway masses of people to do certain things, and think a certain way.

Even RooshV Forum has changed it's views on certain positions, and brought from deep down in their thoughts very subconscious idealogical concepts into becoming somewhat of a very possible reality.

Donald Trump is the candidate that is changing the state of Politics which has been stagnantly drawn down by upper level elite bureacracy and big money. He is uniting this country in ways that it'll finally be able to start to formulate what the American Identity is really all about.

Talk to people and ask them what it is to be American? They will hesitate to give a clear cut answer that could be part of a greater idea of American pride. Trump is bringing American patriotism back.

This is the reason the elites are scared. In their efforts to create a globalized uniform identity with a complete lack of any national pride but rather commercialist intentions, Donald Trump is the only thing standing between complete world control by the elites, and instead, like Putin, he is demonstrating why it's so important to deny the globalist agenda and to free ourselves from Capitalistic greed in the form of complete abandonment of any sort of National Pride.

Excellent!

Gentlemen, let us be honest...

Trump is not just a man or a politician. Trump is a movement. Trump is the revolution against the cultural Marxism that 80% of Americans deep down find reprehensible and are waking up to it.

I can already sense a difference in many men. They walk a little taller, they talk a little deeper, and they no longer are putting up with shitty American women's attitudes. And we all know that the American women love this new masculine energy.

I only hope that if Trump is not our next President, he launches a large media outlet so his message can grow and spread. Just maybe the west can be saved, and if it is, Donald Trump will go down as a hero in the likes of George Washington, president or not.

Why, if it isn't my good friend Mr. Casus Belli! Fancy seeing you here this beautiful Sunday.



I'm interpreting this tweet to mean that Trump now sees Cruz as a threat, and is getting ready to smack him down like he did Carson. Since he's played by an "I won't hit you unless you hit me first," rule so far, he'll use Cruz's supposed remarks about him as justification.

I guess this means we're moving into the next stage of the campaign.

Since this forum has smarter people than most pundits, I think it would be interesting if we all tried to predict what the result of Trump's upcoming attack on Cruz will be. Pick your favorite, or tell me which option I missed.

A.) Trump's attacks will destroy Cruz like they destroyed Carson. Cruz's poll numbers will collapse, and that will be the end of his presidential hopes. Trump's mastery of persuasion is unparalleled, and he's already smashed two candidates (Carson and Bush).

B.) Trump's attacks will be mostly ineffective against Carson, whose evangelical base isn't likely to desert him over anything Trump says. Nonetheless, Cruz's climb in popularity is going to stop soon, and while he may win Iowa, he won't be a serious threat.

C.) Cruz's rise in the polls is real. He's been carefully preparing for his moment, and now's the time to put his plan into action. He'll be able to deflect Trump's attacks, and position himself as either Trump's equal, or maybe even the new front-runner. He's got all of Trump's positions with none of the "loss-cannon" baggage that's dragging down Trump, and now that his rise in the polls means he'll get serious media attention, he's in a good position to pull away big numbers of Trump supporters. This week was the high-water mark for the Trump campaign, and it's gonna be Cruz'in USA from here on out.

I'm going with A. B sounds more reasonable, but nothing about Donald Trump's campaign is "reasonable". Every time I think he's put his foot in it, his poll numbers have just kept rising. I don't think anything can stop him now.

But what do you guys think?

Dismal:

Quote:Samseau, your first sentence says that free marketers are wrong to say that differences in fortunes for domestic vs foreign competitors are not down to unequal competition, with the implication that tariffs are therefore needed to even the playing field. This is the same rationale used by feminists to explain why women are underrepresented in STEM and therefore we need quotas or some other forced madate to increase their numbers. Both comparative advantage and biology are natural occurrences which have to be ignored to placate domestic producers and women on the short end of things, when they should both focus on what they're good at.

But it's not biology or comparative advantages which give jobs to third-worlders over Americans. It is all done by fiat. None of it is natural, in most instances.

Notice, when America has open trade with European countries, you do not see production facilities offshored to France or Germany. Instead, production between "developed" countries go to the most talented workers.

Conversely, with countries like China and Mexico, who peg their currencies to stay low and keep their workers enslaved, of course Americans cannot compete with slave wages and lose their jobs to it. It doesn't matter how talented American workers are if they won't work for $2 a day.

Go back to my post and carefully re-read how Chinese citizens are turned into slaves. FREE TRADE IS NOT SLAVE TRADE. I am a libertarian. I support tariffs against unjust nations that enslave their citizens. You are confused and do not understand that a Chinaman has no fucking chance when his currency is constantly devalued in a capital controlled environment (he cannot take his money out of the country). It is not right to create sweat-shops in other countries with the help of evil governments.

(12-13-2015 06:54 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Why, if it isn't my good friend Mr. Casus Belli! Fancy seeing you here this beautiful Sunday.



I'm interpreting this tweet to mean that Trump now sees Cruz as a threat, and is getting ready to smack him down like he did Carson. Since he's played by an "I won't hit you unless you hit me first," rule so far, he'll use Cruz's supposed remarks about him as justification.

I guess this means we're moving into the next stage of the campaign.

Since this forum has smarter people than most pundits, I think it would be interesting if we all tried to predict what the result of Trump's upcoming attack on Cruz will be. Pick your favorite, or tell me which option I missed.

A.) Trump's attacks will destroy Cruz like they destroyed Carson. Cruz's poll numbers will collapse, and that will be the end of his presidential hopes. Trump's mastery of persuasion is unparalleled, and he's already smashed two candidates (Carson and Bush).

B.) Trump's attacks will be mostly ineffective against Carson, whose evangelical base isn't likely to desert him over anything Trump says. Nonetheless, Cruz's climb in popularity is going to stop soon, and while he may win Iowa, he won't be a serious threat.

C.) Cruz's rise in the polls is real. He's been carefully preparing for his moment, and now's the time to put his plan into action. He'll be able to deflect Trump's attacks, and position himself as either Trump's equal, or maybe even the new front-runner. He's got all of Trump's positions with none of the "loss-cannon" baggage that's dragging down Trump, and now that his rise in the polls means he'll get serious media attention, he's in a good position to pull away big numbers of Trump supporters. This week was the high-water mark for the Trump campaign, and it's gonna be Cruz'in USA from here on out.

I'm going with A. B sounds more reasonable, but nothing about Donald Trump's campaign is "reasonable". Every time I think he's put his foot in it, his poll numbers have just kept rising. I don't think anything can stop him now.

But what do you guys think?

Trump has said before that eventually he would have to go after Cruz.

How serious should we even take this Iowa poll?

I feel like every week or two the MSM is trumpeting some new poll that shows Trump's "demise".

So far they have all panned out to be bullshit.

Trump SCHOOLS Pompous Saudi Prince: “Has YOUR Country Taken ANY of the Syrian Refugees?”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/...z3uFbh52gT

   

If you could drop the mic and walk away on Twitter, Donald Trump just did it.

(12-17-2015 10:44 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Great article:

Trump, Borders and Masculinity

http://www.thisblogisdangerous.com/trump...sculinity/

Great piece. THX for sharing

   

Latest Polls Numbers from Real Clear Politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-3823.html

The RCP aggregate poll:

Trump: 33.1
Cruz: 16.4
Rubio: 12.6
Carson: 11.3
Bush: 4.4
Christie: 3.1

The rest are at 2.5% or below.

If Carson continues to fall (which I think will happen), the donors for the good doctor may call it a day. Same goes for Jeb and Christie. You can't keep throwing good money after bad and after fat.

Rubio and/or Cruz probably picks up Jeb and Christie votes; but Trump will pick up most of the Carson supporters.

Things are looking better than they ever have for Trump. He just had to stay on message and he’s finishes in first or second place in Iowa. He’s leading in NH and SC. If he wins in both those, it is a done deal.

The establishment has 40 days to derail him. But the next 10-15 days are irrelevant because of holidays. So that leaves 25 days. Not much time. And the establishment has shown that it is not as smart as they (or the people) thought it was.