delete

I'm going to a Trump rally on Monday. Very excited!
   

Make the First Lady a Woman Again.

She looks quite similar to porn star Madison Ivy

Fucking autistic Anti-Trump protesting here already in Houston for the debate.

All I know is the fat girls I see right now will be out in full force protesting while I get laid at my boy's watch party we're having.

(02-24-2016 08:06 PM)rainy Wrote:  This fucking clown is starting to piss me off.



Ben Ferguson, one of the biggest anti-Trump tools on CNN who's now grasping at straws in an attempt to cover his own ass after how wrong he's been. Looky at this pudgy punk, he couldn't pull a 2 if there were three men left on this continent.

Essentially argues Trump supporters are uneducated workers on low wages and/or are people who lead angry lives. No substance, no understanding of the actual issues and why Trump is garnering so much support.

It is however somewhat amusing to see the establishment losing control over their message and reaching at anything to explain it away. Anything aside from reality that is, which is :

1) We're sick and tired of the corruption in politics and know more of the same won't change a damn thing
2) We're sick and tired of our open borders and many want our country back
3) We're sick and tired of catering to and caring for non-citizens, illegals, everyone and anyone but our own
4) We're sick and tired of the behind the scenes corruption surrounding healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and education
5) We're sick and tired of overseas nation building/wars halfway around the world while our country disintegrates from within
6) We're sick and tired of government regulations encouraging American businesses to head overseas for a fraction the labor cost
7) We want a leader, a true leader who'll stand up and speak the truth without hesitation, who's genuine, who represents what America was
8) And we're not fucking clueless to what's going on in Europe with the Muslim invasion and we want no part of it!

Instead, tools like Ben Ferguson, other contributors, the GOP, want to sit there and pretend we're all the problem, we don't have a clue what's happening domestically and internationally and want to brush this movement off as a few uneducated idiots who are simply attracted to Trump's anger.

These fools don't understand they're burying themselves. The GOP is burying itself, the MSM is burying itself and more and more people are awakening to the fact truth/reality and the reporting of it isn't important to them, they're simply a PR arm for the establishment.

Hey, Ben

I can't wait to release my short little tome about how Trump stumped everyone through the intersection of sales/marketing/game, social dynamics, and political trends to stump these fools like a good Trumpian political scientist too (yes, I actually am one, believe it or not, which perhaps explains my posts here, I have a history of working in politics as those of you who met me know). After strong engagement elsewhere from people who are generally apolitical I decided to do it.

What we're seeing is a perfect storm, but these people are stuck in the pre-scientific revolution with their narrow-minded theories. The ivory tower is basically just faith. They can't explain how the storm formed with their much ballyhooed pollsters, charts, and models, so they lash out, while guys like us, Mike, Scott Adams, and others who know game were right from the beginning (or near the beginning).

The cornerstone of my hypothesis: they put too much faith in rationality. Trump is winning not only because of rational considerations, but more importantly, because he has the best game I've ever seen in my life. Turns out, my election model is pretty historically accurate.

Perhaps by the end of this year I'll be well-known and courted like Nate Silver is now.

(02-24-2016 08:08 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 03:18 PM)Eastside Wrote:  Colorado:
No recent poll, and I think the process in Colorado is different from other states so who knows what will happen.

Colorado is a caucus state, but otherwise I'm not sure how the process is different. It'll be like Iowa is all.

Colorado's caucus is weird isn't it? Something to do with the delegates not being bound to whoever theyre assigned to heading into the convention.

They also changed the straw poll process but I'm not too familiar with it

(02-24-2016 07:41 PM)whateverfuckit Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 11:10 AM)redonion Wrote:  Nice video of Melania, she's a good role model for young girls.

Here is my dream: Trump wins the presidency and Melania becomes first lady. American women are inspired to be like Melania and American men try to become men capable of pulling a girl like her. The residual effects of those aspirations would be amazing. America would naturally be made great again just on the basis of having good role models that inspire self-improvement.

Melania, if Trump is elected, will be the only first lady since Jackie Kennedy that women will look up to, model, and seek to emulate. She's beautiful, intelligent, and highly successful (married to one of the most successful men in the world, beautiful son, full time mom, etc etc)

Gentlemen, compare and contrast:

Melania might single handily revive the home lifestyle and fashion/beauty magazines that housewives eat up at the grocery check out counter.

Time has been rather fair in their coverage of Trump, they know they'll benefit from a Trump white house look at how many magazines they publish:
http://www.timeinc.com/brands/#home-design
http://www.timeinc.com/brands/#fashion

(02-24-2016 12:20 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 02:00 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  "I'm moving to Canada if Trump becomes president."
"What about Mexico?"
"I don't want to live in Mexico, it sucks!"
"Me either, that's why I'm voting for Trump!"

This is a fantastic counter-punch to the libtards who scream about moving to Canada/other western nations.

I've been hearing a lot of "I'm moving to Canada!" statements lately since it is obvious to the simpletons now that Trump is gonna be the nominee. Not a single one of these libtards has mentioned Mexico; it's always Canada or some western European country.

These sort of libtards are the real racists. They live in their nice middle-upper class communities (mostly white with some token Asians) and have zero issue selling out middle-class and below neighborhoods to appease their retarded libtard views regarding immigration/multiculturalism. It's not their neighborhood so they don't give a shit about the possible ramifications; they are just giddy that they can buy some "ethnic" food some time and be around people with some "culture" occasionally.... as long as they don't have to live near them.

But when the original middle-class and below native residents get fed up seeing their neighborhoods and schools going to shit due to reckless immigration/illegal immigration, these middle-upper class libtards call you a racist and threaten to move to rich western nations which are mostly white.

I really hope these libtards put their money where their mouth is and leave. Imagine a USA with no illegal immigrants and a decimated libtard population?

You know the liberals from California that love diversity? well when they want you to visit they do not show you the over 40% Hispanic, they show you the 99% white with a few not whites in the mix.




They think the only thing they have to do to not appear racist is to eat foreign food, they will upload countless of pictures in restaurants eating whatever is trendy at the moment, I have seen that with my own eyes, middle class white liberals will go into panic attack they moment their homogeneous neighborhood start getting some not white, they love Pedro and Lupe as long as Pedro keeps cutting the grass and Lube keeps cleaning the toilet, if Pedro and Lupe give any signal of moving into the neighborhood, they will show their true color.

Want to see what happens when groups intersect?

Below is a video of the cases in SF, because the tech industry is rising the rent in the area, blacks and Hispanics barely can't afford to live anymore.

Some staff member of Dropox took over a public playground, put a fence around it, remember this is the liberal Californian tech from Silicon Valley, the place that push for diversity and integration.











They like minorities, as long as they know their place, this is why Hispanic like me need to understand that beside a pat in the back and cheap labor, they don't care about us.

(02-24-2016 02:25 PM)Charles Martel Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 01:25 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 12:56 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(02-24-2016 12:20 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  I've been hearing a lot of "I'm moving to Canada!" statements lately since it is obvious to the simpletons now that Trump is gonna be the nominee. Not a single one of these libtards has mentioned Mexico; it's always Canada or some western European country.

<snip>

I really hope these libtards put their money where their mouth is and leave. Imagine a USA with no illegal immigrants and a decimated libtard population?

KEEP YOUR GOD-DAMNED LIBTARDS TO YOURSELF!!!!! WE DON'T WANT THEM WE'VE GOT ENOUGH OF THEM AS IT IS!!!!!!

It's for the greater good.

Canada's sacrifice will be honored in the coming empire.

Trump will annex Canada and make them great again also.

Trump will conquer Canada and create the Great Empire Of North America, remove Justin Trudeau and make Sarah Palin Prime Minister, Alaska and USA will not longer be separated.

(02-24-2016 02:54 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Trump scored two representative endorsements

Quote:After big Nevada win, Trump gets first lawmaker endorsements

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-...ndorsement

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has secured his first two endorsements from members of Congress following his big win Tuesday in Nevada's caucuses.

Hunter is the former Marine that vaped during a hearing

There is a good strategy here, those against Trump in the GOP do not look anti GOP, they look anti America, Trump never speak about making the party any good, he speaks about making the country good, lawmakers know midterm election will be epic with Trump as a president, the American people will want Trump and whoever support him to stay in office.

Good move.

(02-24-2016 02:55 PM)Enoch Wrote:  I just noticed I have never seen Trump trending on twitter despite the huge media coverage of him. Trump shadowban?

Twitter and Instagram block not progressive news in the trending topics, they did it with Bruce Jenner:

How Instagram and Twitter HID the hash tag #CaitlynJenner during the ESPYs after a slew of violently aggressive tweets

Instagram and Twitter censored the hash tag so only positive posts show

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...weets.html

With #gamaergate, Milo getting unverified, and Twitter filtering newsfeed based on what progressives in the staff allow, is not surprised they are hiding Trump presence in social media.

Poll: Who should drop out next between Cruz and Rubio.
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/bl...-race-next


Man, Rubio is aging fast. Yet, despite his wrinkle, there is something about his face that makes him look boyish. Maybe it's his eyes, and hairstyle. Or just facial structure in general.

Goddamn that smile from Cruz makes him look like a Halloween character.

(02-24-2016 09:15 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Man, Rubio is aging fast. Yet, despite his wrinkle, there is something about his face that makes him look boyish. Maybe it's his eyes, and hairstyle. Or just facial structure in general.

Maybe it's because he reminds you of this guy.

Been thinking about Texas. Here's the breakdown so everyone knows there's more at play than the raw statewide vote percentage.

There are 44 at-large delegates and 108 district (3 per 36 districts). There's also 3 "RNC" delegates but I always exclude those from my calculations since I figure they're pure party hacks. The delegates are apportioned as follows:
-50% winner-take all threshold which won't be hit nationally and, ideally, won't be hit in any district (maybe Cruz's hometown or something?)
-If nobody hits 50% in a district, but at least one person hits 20% (extremely likely) then the top vote-getter in the district gets 2 delegates and second place gets 1 delegate

Note that Trump got 32.5% of the vote in South Carolina but I recall seeing on election night that he won all but 2 districts.

If Cruz wins Texas overall by 5% on Trump, let's say 35-30 on Trump; and let's say Cruz wins 75%, or 27 of the 36, districts due to the vote advantage, while Trump gets the remaining 9.

15 + 63 = 78 for Cruz
13 + 45 = 58 for Trump

Under this scenario, let's say Rubio gets 25% and never finishes top 2 in any of the districts. He'd end up with 9 delegates, or what the media calls "a strong third place". Of course, Texas has a proportional percentage minimum of 20% so final totals would probably be closer to 81-60-11.

Big whoop, Cruz gets 21 more delegates than Trump - small fry in the grand scheme of things considering Trump's lead and Super Tuesday is Cruz's last gasp of relevance.

Just gotta get through tomorrow's debate.

Falsely accused of rape, recant, now voting for him.

Woman who accused Donald Trump of trying to rape her and turn her into his 'sex slave' says she would now vote for him

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...e-him.html

So the National Review Charles Cooke is having a meltdown about Trump, and the comments section has totally rebelled. lol

It’s Time for an Anti-Trump Manhattan Project

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...be-stopped

Quote:If I sound frightened or eschatological in my tone, that’s because I am — not, pace Trump’s obsessed chorus, because I am worried about the security of my job or scared that I will lose some mythical umbilical link to Reince Priebus’s champagne parties, but because we are fighting for everything here and a plurality of the Right’s voters are sleepwalking in lockstep with the other side. How, one wonders, will future generations look back at this behavior? How will they comprehend that at the end of February 2016 under 10 percent of all super PAC spending had been trained on Donald Trump? How will they see John Kasich’s admission that he doesn’t know if he should even be president, or process that Ben Carson put the construction of his own political shopping network above the country he supposedly loved? And what will they make of the fact that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio wasted so much time pretending that they meaningfully disagreed with each other?

Now is the time to throw everything at Trump, and to stop this disaster in its tracks. Will our children wonder why we were so reluctant? Tomorrow night, as they stand on either side of Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz must find their resolve and all-but-machine-gun the man to the floor. Incidentally, when I say “everything,” I really do mean everything. Without breaks for water or silence for applause, they must explain that Trump is an entitled mess whose business record is so questionable that he managed to bankrupt a casino; that he is an unashamed fraud who didn’t even wait to be elected president before folding on Planned Parenthood and Obamacare, exactly like the “feckless” Congress he is running against; that he is feigning religiosity to appeal to people he believes are rubes; and, above all, that whatever he may be pretending now, he has spent a lifetime screwing the little guy. They must repeat verbatim his previous words on amnesty; they must outline in detail how his policies will make life worse for everyone; and they must point out that a Trump nomination designed to “mix things up” will result, eventually, in more of the same. In the meantime, conservatives who are not running for president must ensure that every spare dollar is spent attacking Trump. Melt down the fences if you have to; we need long-range bombers here. If Donald Trump can flood the airwaves with his nonsense, his opponents can counter it incessantly. And while they are at it, they can tie him up in court, just as he’s trying to do to Cruz. There are a good number of “just asking” questions ready to be put to them, among them “Trump’s mother was Scottish, can he really be president?” and “Trump ran a host of scams designed to rip off the poor; surely one of them would like to sue him?” Thus far, part of Trump’s media strategy has been to say something outrageous and then to move on before it can be rebutted or fact-checked. Why are his rivals not doing the same thing to him? Why, moreover, are the men in charge of the big guns all-but flirting with the snipers on the other side?

The guy sounds completely unhinged, and almost calling for Trump's assassination.

He also says Ben Carson's love of country is not real.

He's being absolutely brutalized in the comments sections (until NRO deletes them).

(02-24-2016 09:15 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Man, Rubio is aging fast. Yet, despite his wrinkle, there is something about his face that makes him look boyish. Maybe it's his eyes, and hairstyle. Or just facial structure in general.

He's at a child like intellectual level. Plus, gay face.

Jesus, that Cooke guy is totally unhinged

Best comment so far:

Quote:So, how's this strategy working out for you? Won any elections lately?

Will Texans remember in 2018 that their sitting Senator didn’t bother to tell them in 2012 that he was Canadian?

   

Breaking:



After Nevada China has begun to be seriously worried about Trump.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/china-war...da-caucus/

Matt Taibbi came out with an article today about Trump's rise, and was very negative about Trump.

How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable

The surprise was that he had some good things to say too.

On Trump winning the election:

Quote:In person, you can't miss it: The same way Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, Donald on the stump can see his future. The pundits don't want to admit it, but it's sitting there in plain view, 12 moves ahead, like a chess game already won:

President Donald Trump.

A thousand ridiculous accidents needed to happen in the unlikeliest of sequences for it to be possible, but absent a dramatic turn of events – an early primary catastrophe, Mike Bloomberg ego-crashing the race, etc. – this boorish, monosyllabic TV tyrant with the attention span of an Xbox-playing 11-year-old really is set to lay waste to the most impenetrable oligarchy the Western world ever devised.

It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.

And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He's way better than average.

It's been well-documented that Trump surged last summer when he openly embraced the ugly race politics that, according to the Beltway custom of 50-plus years, is supposed to stay at the dog-whistle level. No doubt, that's been a huge factor in his rise. But racism isn't the only ugly thing he's dragged out into the open.

Trump is no intellectual. He's not bringing Middlemarch to the toilet. If he had to jail with Stephen Hawking for a year, he wouldn't learn a thing about physics. Hawking would come out on Day 365 talking about models and football.

But, in an insane twist of fate, this bloated billionaire scion has hobbies that have given him insight into the presidential electoral process. He likes women, which got him into beauty pageants. And he likes being famous, which got him into reality TV. He knows show business.

That put him in position to understand that the presidential election campaign is really just a badly acted, billion-dollar TV show whose production costs ludicrously include the political disenfranchisement of its audience. Trump is making a mockery of the show, and the Wolf Blitzers and Anderson Coopers of the world seem appalled. How dare he demean the presidency with his antics?

But they've all got it backward. The presidency is serious. The presidential electoral process, however, is a sick joke, in which everyone loses except the people behind the rope line. And every time some pundit or party spokesman tries to deny it, Trump picks up another vote.

On the media's hate for Trump and love for his opposition:

Quote:Trump had said things that were true and that no other Republican would dare to say. And yet the press congratulated the candidate stuffed with more than $100 million in donor cash who really did take five whole days last year to figure out his position on his own brother's invasion of Iraq.

At a time when there couldn't be more at stake, with the Middle East in shambles, a major refugee crisis, and as many as three Supreme Court seats up for grabs (the death of satanic quail-hunter Antonin Scalia underscored this), the Republican Party picked a strange year to turn the presidential race into a potluck affair. The candidates sent forth to take on Trump have been so incompetent they can't even lose properly.

One GOP strategist put it this way: "Maybe 34 [percent] is Trump's ceiling. But 34 in a five-person race wins."

The numbers simply don't work, unless the field unexpectedly narrows before March. Trump has a chokehold on somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the Republican vote, scoring in one poll across every category: young and old, educated and less so, hardcore conservatives and registered Democrats, with men and with women, Megyn Kelly's "wherever" notwithstanding. Trump the Builder of Anti-Rapist Walls even earns an estimated 25 percent of the GOP Latino vote.

Moreover, there's evidence that human polling undercounts Trump's votes, as people support him in larger numbers when they don't have to admit their leanings to a live human being. Like autoerotic asphyxiation, supporting Donald Trump is an activity many people prefer to enjoy in a private setting, like in a shower or a voting booth.

The path to unseating Trump is consolidation of opposition, forcing him into a two- or three-person race. Things seemed headed that way after Iowa, when Ted Cruz won and Marco Rubio came in third.

Rubio's Iowa celebration was a classic. The toothy Floridian leaped onstage and delivered a rollickingly pretentious speech appropriate not for a candidate who just eked out wins in five Iowa counties, but for a man just crowned king of Jupiter.

"For months, they told us because we offered too much optimism in a time of anger, we had no chance," he thundered. Commentators later noted Rubio's language was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's florid "they said our sights were set too high" 2008 Iowa victory speech.

The national punditry predictably overreacted to Rubio's showing, having been desperate to rally behind a traditional, party-approved GOP candidate.

Why do the media hate Trump? Progressive reporters will say it's because of things like his being crazy and the next Hitler, while the Fox types insist it's because he's "not conservative." But reporters mostly loathe Trump because he regularly craps on other reporters.

He called Fox's Kelly a period-crazed bias monster for asking simple questions about Trump's past comments about women, and launched a weirdly lengthy crusade against little-known New Hampshire Union-Leader publisher Joseph McQuaid for comparing Trump to Back to the Future villain Biff Tannen. He even mocked the neurological condition of Times reporter Serge Kovaleski for failing to ratify Trump's hilariously fictional recollection of "thousands" of Muslims celebrating after 9/11, doing an ad hoc writhing disabled-person impersonation at a South Carolina rally that left puppies and cancer kids as the only groups untargeted by his campaign. (He later denied the clearly undeniable characterization.)

But Trump's thin-skinned dealings with reporters didn't fully explain the media's efforts to prop up his opponents. We've long been engaged in our own version of the high school put-down game, battering nerds and outsiders like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich while elevating "electable," party-approved candidates like John McCain and John Kerry.

Thus it was no surprise that after Iowa, columnists tried to sell the country on the loathsome "Marcomentum" narrative, a paean to the good old days when reporters got to tell the public who was hot and who wasn't – the days of the "Straight Talk Express," "Joementum," etc.

"Marco Rubio Was the Real Winner in Iowa," blared CNN. "Marco Rubio's Iowa Mojo," chimed in Politico. "Forget Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio Is the Real Winner of the Iowa Caucuses," agreed Vanity Fair.

Rubio, we were told, had zoomed to the front of the "establishment lane" in timely enough fashion to stop Trump. Of course, in the real world, nobody cares about what happens in the "establishment lane" except other journalists. But even the other candidates seemed to believe the narrative. Ohio Gov. John Kasich staggered out of Iowa in eighth place and was finishing up his 90th lonely appearance in New Hampshire when Boston-based reporters caught up to him.

"If we get smoked up there, I'm going back to Ohio," he lamented. Kasich in person puts on a brave face, but he also frequently rolls his eyes in an expression of ostentatious misanthropy that says, "I can't believe I'm losing to these idiots."

But then Rubio went onstage at St. Anselm College in the eighth GOP debate and blew himself up. Within just a few minutes of a vicious exchange with haran​guing now-former candidate Chris Christie, he twice delivered the exact same canned 25-second spiel about how Barack Obama "knows exactly what he's doing."

Rubio's face-plant brilliantly reprised Sir Ian Holm's performance in Alien, as a malfunctioning, disembodied robot head stammering, "I admire its purity," while covered in milky android goo. It was everything we hate about scripted mannequin candidates captured in a brief crack in the political façade.

Rubio plummeted in the polls, and Kasich, already mentally checked out, was the surprise second-place finisher in New Hampshire, with 15.8 percent of the vote.

"Something big happened tonight," Kasich said vaguely, not seeming sure what that thing was exactly. Even worse from a Republican point of view, Dinkley McBush somehow finished fourth, above Rubio and in a virtual tie with Iowa winner Ted Cruz.

Now none of the three "establishment lane" candidates could drop out. And the next major contest, South Carolina, was deemed by horse-race experts to have too tiny an "establishment lane" vote to decide which two out of that group should off themselves in time for the third to mount a viable "Stop Trump" campaign.

All of which virtually guarantees Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through Super Tuesday. So he might have this thing sewn up before the others even figure out in what order they should quit. It's hard to recall a dumber situation in American presidential politics.

"If you're Trump, you're sending flowers to all of them for staying in," the GOP strategist tells me. "The more the merrier. And they're running out of time to figure it out."

On Trump's populism:

Quote:Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content.

His pitch is: He's rich, he won't owe anyone anything upon election, and therefore he won't do what both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people.

He talks, for instance, about the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurance companies, an atrocity dating back more than half a century, to the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. This law, sponsored by one of the most notorious legislators in our history (Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran was thought to be the inspiration for the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary in The Godfather II), allows insurance companies to share information and collude to divvy up markets.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats made a serious effort to overturn this indefensible loophole during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.

Trump pounds home this theme in his speeches, explaining things from his perspective as an employer. "The insurance companies," he says, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies going all over the place bidding ...  It's so hard for me to make deals  ... because I can't get bids."

He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ...  Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers."

Trump isn't lying about any of this. Nor is he lying when he mentions that the big-pharma companies have such a stranglehold on both parties that they've managed to get the federal government to bar itself from negotiating Medicare prescription-drug prices in bulk.

"I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price."

It's actually closer to $16 billion a year more, but the rest of it is true enough. Trump then goes on to personalize this story. He claims (and with Trump we always have to use words like "claims") how it was these very big-pharma donors, "fat cats," sitting in the front row of the debate the night before. He steams ahead even more with this tidbit: Woody Johnson, one of the heirs of drug giant Johnson & Johnson (and the laughably incompetent owner of the New York Jets), is the finance chief for the campaign of whipping boy Jeb Bush.

"Now, let's say Jeb won. Which is an impossibility, but let's say ... "

The crowd explodes in laughter.

"Let's say Jeb won," Trump goes on. "How is it possible for Jeb to say, ‘Woody, we're going to go out and fight competitively' ?"

This is, what – not true? Of course it's true.

What's Trump's solution? Himself! He's gonna grab the problem by the throat and fix it by force!

Throughout his campaign, he's been telling a story about a $2.5 billion car factory that a Detroit automaker wants to build in Mexico, and how as president he's going to stop it. Humorously, he tried at one point to say he already had stopped it, via his persistent criticism, citing an article on an obscure website that claimed the operation had moved to Youngstown, Ohio.

That turned out to be untrue, but, hey, what candidate for president hasn't impulse-tweeted the completely unprovable fact or two? (Trump, incidentally, will someday be in the Twitter Hall of Fame. His fortune-cookie mind – restless, confrontational, completely lacking the shame/veracity filter – is perfectly engineered for the medium.)

In any case, Trump says he'll call Detroit carmakers into his office and lay down an ultimatum: Either move the jobs back to America, or eat a 35 percent tax on every car imported back into the U.S. over the Mexican border.

"I'm a free-trader," he says, "but you can only be a free-trader when something's fair."

It's stuff like this that has conservative pundits from places like the National Review bent out of shape. Where, they ask, is the M-F'ing love? What about those conservative principles we've spent decades telling you flyover-country hicks you're supposed to have?

"Trump has also promised to use tariffs to punish companies," wrote David McIntosh in the Review's much-publicized, but not-effective-at-all "Conservatives Against Trump" 22-pundit jihad. "These are not the ideas of a small-government conservative ... They are, instead, the ramblings of a liberal wanna-be strongman."

What these tweedy Buckleyites at places like the Review don't get is that most people don't give a damn about "conservative principles." Yes, millions of people responded to that rhetoric for years. But that wasn't because of the principle itself, but because it was always coupled with the more effective politics of resentment: Big-government liberals are to blame for your problems.

Elections, like criminal trials, are ultimately always about assigning blame. For a generation, conservative intellectuals have successfully pointed the finger at big-government-loving, whale-hugging liberals as the culprits behind American decline.

But the fact that lots of voters hated the Clintons, Sean Penn, the Dixie Chicks and whomever else, did not, ever, mean that they believed in the principle of Detroit carmakers being able to costlessly move American jobs overseas by the thousands.

"We've got to do something to bring jobs back," says one Trump supporter in Plymouth, when asked why tariffs are suddenly a good idea.

On the general election:

Quote:The unexpectedly thrilling Democratic Party race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, too, is breaking just right for Trump. It's exposing deep fissures in the Democratic strategy that Trump is already exploiting.

Every four years, some Democrat who's been a lifelong friend of labor runs for president. And every four years, that Democrat gets thrown over by national labor bosses in favor of some party lifer with his signature on a half-dozen job-exporting free-trade agreements.

It's called "transactional politics," and the operating idea is that workers should back the winner, rather than the most union-friendly candidate.

This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband's efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted. In New Hampshire, for instance, a Service Employees International Union local backed Sanders despite the national union's endorsement of Clinton, as did an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers chapter.

Trump is already positioning himself to take advantage of the political opportunity afforded him by "transactional politics." He regularly hammers the NAFTA deal in his speeches, applying to it his favorite word, "disaster." And he just as regularly drags Hillary Clinton into his hypothetical tales of job-saving, talking about how she could never convince Detroit carmakers out of moving a factory to Mexico.

Unions have been abused so much by both parties in the past decades that even mentioning themes union members care about instantly grabs the attention of workers. That's true even when it comes from Donald Trump, a man who kicked off the fourth GOP debate saying "wages [are] too high" and who had the guts to tell the Detroit News that Michigan autoworkers make too much money.

You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump's speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the "terrible anxiety" they feel about jobs.

"I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump," says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. "I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don't know who he is. Or they've just heard he's a socialist. Trump they've heard of."

This is part of a gigantic subplot to the Trump story, which is that many of his critiques of the process are the same ones being made by Bernie Sanders. The two men, of course, are polar opposites in just about every way – Sanders worries about the poor, while Trump would eat a child in a lifeboat – but both are laser-focused on the corrupting role of money in politics.

Both propose "revolutions" to solve the problem, the difference being that Trump's is an authoritarian revolt, while Sanders proposes a democratic one. If it comes down to a Sanders-Trump general election, the matter will probably be decided by which candidate the national press turns on first: the flatulent narcissist with cattle-car fantasies or the Democrat who gently admires Scandinavia. Would you bet your children on that process playing out sensibly?

In the meantime, Trump is cannily stalking the Sanders vote. While the rest of the GOP clowns just roll their eyes at Sanders, going for cheap groans with bits about socialism, Trump goes a different route. He hammers Hillary and compliments Sanders. "I agree with [Sanders] on two things," he says. "On trade, he said we're being ripped off. He just doesn't know how much."

He goes on. "And he's right with Hillary because, look, she's receiving a fortune from a lot of people."

At a Democratic town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, Hillary's strangely pathetic answer about why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman to give speeches – "That's what they offered" – seemed doomed to become a touchstone for the general-election contest. Trump would go out on Day One of that race and blow $675,000 on a pair of sable underwear, or a solid-gold happy-face necktie. And he'd wear it 24 hours a day, just to remind voters that his opponent sold out for the Trump equivalent of lunch money.

Trump will surely argue that the Clintons are the other half of the dissolute-conspiracy story he's been selling, representing a workers' party that abandoned workers and turned the presidency into a vast cash-for-access enterprise, avoiding scrutiny by making Washington into Hollywood East and turning labor leaders and journalists alike into starstruck courtiers. As with everything else, Trump personalizes this, making his stories of buying Hillary's presence at his wedding a part of his stump speech. A race against Hillary Clinton in the general, if it happens, will be a pitch right in Trump's wheelhouse – and if Bill Clinton is complaining about the "vicious" attacks by the campaign of pathological nice guy Bernie Sanders, it's hard to imagine what will happen once they get hit by the Trumpdozer.

Ah, Charles Cooke, the lispy Brit who's not just low T, but negative T.

Here's an old video of him vs. Coulter on Hannity (around August 2015).





Every time I've seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher his voice annoys the fuck out of me. Tears from guys like this will taste even sweeter than liberal tears when Trump becomes president.

The misspelling is hilarious. At any rate this label is going to stick, more than the robot thing.


Scott Adams on Trump's killshot last night.
Choking has something to do gay fellatio slang it seems.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/14002832698...sman-trump

If Cruz drops out and his "supporters" back Rubio, will that be enough for them to defeat Trump?

Even the people who didn't like Trump at the Watch Party were going



at every come back he had against Cruz and Rubio.

Sure they were cheering at attempted stumpings, but the oh shit response was infinitely more pronounced. The Trump train ain't stopping any time soon.