Trump

[yumyumtree]

Today on the Medved show, RINO pinup girl Jen Rubin made the most vehement criticisms of Trump I have heard yet on talk radio. She used the phrases "huckster" and "carnival barker".


I had heard her on Larry Cudlow a few weeks ago being negative about Trump, and at that time tended to agree with her, beliieving that he would draw all the wrong kinds of tabloidish attention to the debates and races, and also drown out out more thoughtful and serious candidates and their ideas.


But after listening to some of his supporters(or at least people who are more positive about him even if they aren't planning to vote for him) on talk radio(particularly Mark Levin) I've decided that it isn't such a bad thing after all having him in the race, for whatever his real reason is. It will steer the debates and discussions toward topics like immigration and free trade that are really on peoples' minds and also frame the conversation in more plain language instead of the politically correct double talk we get so much of.


There is one criticism of Trump that I wish would get aired and I haven't seen it yet.  That may be b ecause when it first happened, it got more coverage form the left. (I first heard of it from Clark Howard.) That's the story about the "Trump University" fraud in late 2013. Trump tried to distance himself from it, and also blamed the guy who went after him, comparing him to Elliott Spitzer, and accusing him of wanting to enhance his own career.  But since they were clearly using Trump's name to market it, he couldn't have it both ways.  I think that Trump supporters would do well to revisit this story and decide if they really want to elect somebody to lead the free world who handles challenges like this.

[Quick Karl]

Trump is going to say a LOT of things that a LOT of American CITIZENS have been feeling for a LONG time, and that no other creepy scumbag politician from either shit-party has the BALLS to say.

For that, I respect him.

[DanTSX]

He's pretty good at telling people what they want to hear, and making them think he's going to do something about it.


Lots of meh here.

[Quick Karl]

He's pretty good at telling people what they want to hear, and making them think he's going to do something about it.

Lots of meh here.

I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning the nomination or the general election, but he is going to say a lot of shit that needs to be said.

[136 or 142]

Trump is going to say a LOT of things that a LOT of American CITIZENS have been feeling for a LONG time, and that no other creepy scumbag politician from either shit-party has the BALLS to say.

For that, I respect him.

The only things Trump will say are a whole bunch of inflamed rhetoric that may or may not have any basis in evidence.


Washington Post: “Donald Trump is a fact checker’s dream … and nightmare. He spouts off so many ‘facts,’ often twisted or wrong, that it takes a lot of time to hack through the weeds. So here are some of the highlights â€" and lowlights â€" of Trump’s announcement on June 16 that he will seek the Republican nomination for president.”[/font][/size]
“As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios when we do a roundup of facts in a major speech. But astute readers should be able to figure out the Four-Pinocchio whoppers.”[/font][/size]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/17/fact-checking-donald-trumps-presidential-announcement-speech/

To be sure, on reading the Washington Post article, most of it does sound like nitpicking though Trump's claim that he would impose tariffs on Mexican auto exports as well that he would bill them for building the wall on the Mexican border (which isn't mentioned in the article) are both ridiculous and are a fine example of the overheated rhetoric that has no basis in reality I mentioned above.

[Quick Karl]

The only things Trump will say are a whole bunch of inflamed rhetoric that may or may not have any basis in evidence.


Washington Post: “Donald Trump is a fact checker’s dream … and nightmare. He spouts off so many ‘facts,’ often twisted or wrong, that it takes a lot of time to hack through the weeds. So here are some of the highlights â€" and lowlights â€" of Trump’s announcement on June 16 that he will seek the Republican nomination for president.”[/font][/size]
“As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios when we do a roundup of facts in a major speech. But astute readers should be able to figure out the Four-Pinocchio whoppers.”[/font][/size]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/17/fact-checking-donald-trumps-presidential-announcement-speech/

To be sure, on reading the Washington Post article, most of it does sound like nitpicking though Trump's claim that he would impose tariffs on Mexican auto exports as well that he would bill them for building the wall on the Mexican border (which isn't mentioned in the article) are both ridiculous and are a fine example of the overheated rhetoric that has no basis in reality I mentioned above.

And every politician on the left is always perfect, factual, and free of rhetoric...

[136 or 142]

And every politician on the left is always perfect, factual, and free of rhetoric...

Had I said every Republican was like Trump, you might have an argument, though there is at least some evidence that strongly suggests Democratic politicians are far more likely to be mostly factual and to not engage in rhetorical mudslinging to anywhere near the same degree as Republicans.  There are probably 25 Republicans in the House who frequently make asinine hyperpartisan comments, with Louis Gohmert and Steve King being the most visible now that Michelle Bachman has thankfully retired and who are completely useless legislators (which they seem to think is a plus).


On the Democratic side I can only think of DWS and Alan Grayson and while Alan Grayson clearly has a temper and has made some hyper partisan comments, he is also, at least, one of the hardest working, most productive legislators who has on a number of occasions effectively grilled people in oversight hearings.

Anyway, your argument is moot, given that I made no comment here on any Republican Presidential contender other than the Donald himself.  I have on another thread also mentioned Carly Fiorina,  Bobby Jindal , Ben Carson and Chris Christie of also using overheated rhetoric while providing no substance.  But that still leaves at least 12 other declared or prospective Republican Presidential candidates who I don't believe primarily engage in that.

[Quick Karl]

though there is at least some evidence that strongly suggests Democratic politicians are far more likely to be mostly factual and to not engage in rhetorical mudslinging to anywhere near the same degree as Republicans.

You just lost all credibility.

[136 or 142]

You just lost all credibility.

I already sited the example of the Congress people and the huge discrepancy between the number of useless Congressional Republicans and useless Congressional Democrats.  There is also the Politifact (which is not the Washington Post fact checker I linked to)  study of their reporting that found that statements by Republican politicians were 3 times more likely to be rated as false or mostly false than statements by Democratic politicians.  They did add though that this did not necessarily imply that Republicans politicians in general were more likely to be dishonest than Democratic politicians, but I'd say at the least that 3 times is a statistically significant figure that certainly signifies the Republicans likely have a much bigger problem with this than do the Democrats.

[SredniVashtar]

I expect Trump has a new show or something, that's usually why he pops up and starts shouting about how he is going to save the country from itself. It's not exactly a coincidence that politicians say one thing and then do something quite different when they get in. That's because they are then in a position to get a look at the books and see that most of the radical stuff that they were talking about would have the country crashing into a ditch.

Even someone as supposedly principled as Ron Paul would do exactly the same. Politicians are just people who trim their sails to the wind and do whatever they have to to get/retain power.

[analog kid]

Trump is going to say a LOT of things that a LOT of American CITIZENS have been feeling for a LONG time, and that no other creepy scumbag politician from either shit-party has the BALLS to say.

For that, I respect him.

RANDOM caps are the CLEAREST indicator of people who love FREEDOM. Good job CITIZEN.

[DanTSX]

RANDOM caps are the CLEAREST indicator of people who love FREEDOM. Good job CITIZEN.

I'm not sure if you are over generalizing or projecting here.

But playing English teacher is usually a good indicator of attacking while lacking anything credible to add.  There is a word for that, which I'd expect you to know.

[Eddie Coyle]

RANDOM caps are the CLEAREST indicator of people who love FREEDOM. Good job CITIZEN.

   It makes ONE a GREAT AMERICAN!

[136 or 142]

I'm not sure if you are over generalizing or projecting here.

But playing English teacher is usually a good indicator of attacking while lacking anything credible to add.  There is a word for that, which I'd expect you to know.

My guess is he was making a joke.

[Quick Karl]

RANDOM caps are the CLEAREST indicator of people who love FREEDOM. Good job CITIZEN.

Thank you, sell-out.

[MV/Liberace!]

...though there is at least some evidence that strongly suggests Democratic politicians are far more likely to be mostly factual and to not engage in rhetorical mudslinging to anywhere near the same degree as Republicans.

this is the kind of team-think bullshit that usually keeps me out of internet political discussions.  i wish you could understand how dumb this statement sounds to me.

I already sited the example of the Congress people and the huge discrepancy between the number of useless Congressional Republicans and useless Congressional Democrats.

cited.  not sited.


fuck.

[Yorkshire pud]

Never trust a man who tries and fails to defy the intentions of his hair.. It's delusional.

[SciFiAuthor]

Politician = Liar. Period.

That said Trump will at least turn US politics into a circus which, if you think about, is exactly what it needs. Our system of decorum and things left unsaid is designed to protect political candidate's images and tells us nothing of their motives.

Maybe Trump will get one or two interesting questions in before Bush and Hillary are declared the candidates by the media.

[136 or 142]

this is the kind of team-think bullshit that usually keeps me out of internet political discussions.  i wish you could understand how dumb this statement sounds to me.

As I criticized at least two Democrats I don't see how you can accuse me of team-think bullshit.  But, as 'dumb' as my statement may sound to you, as your statement seems to be based on the logical fallacy that "both sides are always equally bad" your statement is clearly far dumber.



I gave two specific data points that showed far more Republican politicians are either bat shit insane and/or are outright liars than are Democrats. There are also these:



1.America's 20 Craziest Politicians
Look! A Democrat! Yes, this list is Republican-heavy, and while that may seem like standard liberal-media bias, the reality is that Democrats just aren't keeping pace right now in the crazy department.


http://www.gq.com/entertainment/celebrities/201501/craziest-politicians

2.Fareed Zakaria:
I have been described as a centrist. And I freely admit to believing that neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on wisdom or virtue. But sometimes, reality points firmly in one direction. Watching the machinations in Washington over the past two weeks, it is now impossible to talk about how both political parties are to blame for the country’s gridlock.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-party-of-gridlock/2014/02/14/308fb75a-9590-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html


3.Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

You may argue The Washington Post is a 'liberal' newspaper but neither Fareed Zakaria nor Norm Ornstein are (I believe Thomas Mann is), and I don't believe GQ has any political editorial leanings.  The writer of the GQ piece made it sound like he tried to make a false balance but simply couldn't find any quotes from the Democrats that matched those of the Republicans.  Even the one that he (s)cited was merely stating that Joe Biden hoped to run for President.


I could give you my list of the nutty Republicans and their frequent idiotic statements (though you could just google or wiki "Tea Party Republicans" yourself) and I defy you to put together a similar list for Democrats.  If you have any specific rebuttal to this beyond a spelling mistake, then make it.  Otherwise, don't feed me the lie that both sides are equally bad.[/size]

[UnscreenedCaller]

Wake me when it's over. He must have a new reality show in the pipeline. All I know is the Plaza Hotel lost a lot of its charm the day he took over. I can't wait to see what he'd do with an entire country.

[SredniVashtar]

cited.  not sited.


fuck.

What a peddant!

[MV/Liberace!]

As I criticized at least two Democrats I don't see how you can accuse me of team-think bullshit.

yes, when i see someone who thinks democrats or republicans are always better or worse in some particular way, i know i'm reading team-think bullshit.  carry on.

[MV/Liberace!]

What a peddant!

heh heh, i mean, come on.  cited vs. sited.  to me, it's in the same league of annoyance with your vs. you're... maybe worse.  when someone is cranking up to tell me how the world is or how it should be, it's best not to so blatantly start on the wrong foot.

[RickySsan]

fuck.

I think it's time for a dooby, forget about trump, like we all will soon enough, now, relax and look at the pretty floating colours

[SredniVashtar]

heh heh, i mean, come on.  cited vs. sited.  to me, it's in the same league of annoyance with your vs. you're... maybe worse.  when someone is cranking up to tell me how the world is or how it should be, it's best not to so blatantly start on the wrong foot.

My fingers itched to correct that one too (or is it 'to'?), but I resisted. 'Site' and its different homonyms are always getting confused on message boards. I try to think better of humanity by attributing it to typos rather than deplorable ignorance.

[SredniVashtar]

"They're", "There", and "Their" being another one.

English speakers forget sometimes how illogical their language is. Why should you pronounce 'through' one way and a word like 'rough', which is almost the same, totally differently? No bloody reason at all!

[SciFiAuthor]

heh heh, i mean, come on.  cited vs. sited.  to me, it's in the same league of annoyance with your vs. you're... maybe worse.  when someone is cranking up to tell me how the world is or how it should be, it's best not to so blatantly start on the wrong foot.

Your refusal to use capital letters is like a nailbat against my soul.

[MV/Liberace!]

Your refusal to use capital letters is like a nailbat against my soul.

point taken.

[PaulAtreides]

Wake me when it's over. He must have a new reality show in the pipeline. All I know is the Plaza Hotel lost a lot of its charm the day he took over. I can't wait to see what he'd do with an entire country.

[Quick Karl]

Politician = Liar. Period.

That said Trump will at least turn US politics into a circus which, if you think about, is exactly what it needs. Our system of decorum and things left unsaid is designed to protect political candidate's images and tells us nothing of their motives.

Maybe Trump will get one or two interesting questions in before Bush and Hillary are declared the candidates by the media.

+ billions and billions...