It appears that some of the more hysterical members of the conservative punditocracy and intelligentsia have decided to pursue a pogrom against those media personalities that do not toe the line and repudiate Donald Trump and the people that support him.
In a post at Breitbart.com it is described this way:
"Conservative movement professionals in Washington, D.C. are plotting to form a “blacklist” of Donald Trump supporters that they can kick out of the movement, never to return.
Several conservative talking heads and Beltway consultant types have been very angry about the rise of businessman Trump, who is pushing for American sovereignty, a reversal of neoconservative foreign policy, and competitive bidding for pharmaceuticals even though the drug companies that fund the Republican Party would take a financial hit. So far, anti-Trump think pieces referencing William F. Buckley have been ineffective. Memes comparing Trump to Hitler haven’t worked. So these Republicans are getting more Nixon-y. They’re coming out with an Enemies List."
This is not unusual. You see it all over the internet. People can't get over the fact that you think Donald Trump is a better bet than Little Marco or the One True Ted or Uncle Greenjeans Kasich. They will wail and tell you that Trump is a failure. A fraud. A Hitler. A Mussolini. A poet a pauper a prince and a king. They will throw everything into the argument. The new tactic is not to attack Trump but to attack the people who support him. That the white working class is stupid and evil and their communities should die. These so called conservatives don't attack the criminals that attack the police and the communists that shit on cars when they occupy Wall St. It is the plumbers and carpenters and the out of work drywall guys who get the back of their hand.
Rush had an interesting take. He said the panic of the consultants and the pundits and the media mavens is that Trump is doing this without any of them. So they can't sell their services and rape the Treasury of dupes like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush. Trump broke their rice bowl. So now they want to start a third party. They are so afraid that Trump will get Hillary elected that they want to start a third party to make sure that Hillary gets elected. Or something. Anyone who stands in the way will be read out of the movement. They just forget one thing.
They don't get to decide. Jonah Whaleberg and Bill Kristolneoncon and George Ignore the Peoples Will and the Megyn Bloody Kelly don't decide what talk show hosts and politicians other media personalities get to feel. Their listeners and voters determine if they keep their job. Their popularity and their rice bowl is determined by how they represent their audience. These people are painting themselves into a corner. Maybe they should stop and take a breath. It is getting a little ridiculous. The process will continue. If Trump gets the delegates he will be the nominee.
I think that it is really stupid of them to insist that we choose their side or they will never be on their team. Don't they remember why they were always picked last in dodge-ball? How quickly they forget.
Maybe if the Donald gave them a wedgie they will remember. Better yet he can have Chris Christie do it. He was famous for that in grammar school. And in state government. Governer Wedgie. Yeah that's the ticket.
45 comments:
Let them steal it. Let the corruption be naked. For all to see. I don't have a crystal ball but it's hard to believe the United States can hang together much longer. Most of the country is fine with corruption and being cared for state serfs. Fine. That will be most. After the election of Hillary or Jeb and the continuing horror the liberty lovers will petition to secede and best case scenario will be allowed to leave the Union. Worst case there will be blood. At the end of the process at least there will be an outpost of liberty somewhere on the territory of the former United States. Let the watering begin.
Fuck em.
I do not hate any Trump supporters. I want Cruz to win, but would take Trump any day over Kasich. I would stay home and let Hillary win over Kasich.
There's a post over at Insta confirming what I've been thinking since the primary season started. Since the Libertarians can't get the Conservatives to come over any other way, they're going to start claiming all the old Conservatives (Goldwater, Reagan) were actually "proto-Libertarians".
All others are to be declared non-Conservatives (kind of like Stalin's non-persons, but the NKVD doesn't take you out into the back of Lubyanka and shoot you).
I guess this is what happens when The Donald turns up the heat on Hillary, saying she's been involved in corruption for most of her professional life.
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
Fuck em.
I do not hate any Trump supporters. I want Cruz to win, but would take Trump any day over Kasich. I would stay home and let Hillary win over Kasich.
Such desperation (not EBL's, he/she's been very even-handed through all this) gives us the spectacle of Marco endorsing the One True Ted (if Cruz were smart he'd decline). So does this mean the Marco squishes now love the One True Ted?
It also gives us Kasich, who is still in the race and whose plan to get the nod consists of Convention hanky-pank.
Myself, I think Kasich's holding out for an offer he can't refuse.
Troop and nd may be able to advise.
Frankly, I think he'll get it IYKWIMAITYD.
Lou Dobbs on Fox Business is an unrepentent Trump supporter. We record and watch his show nightly.
Fox Business in general seems to be treating the Trump campaign in a much more fair manner than the rest of the news media, including Fox News. Highly recommend you watch Fox Business!!
Fox Biz is run pretty much by Cavuto and he and The Donald are buds, have done many interviews.
The Trump on Cavuto FWIW always was a lot more Conservative than the Erick Ericksons have wanted everybody to believe.
Something for all from our Lamb To The Slaughter files
Vote for Cruz for an open convention to nominate a Republican.
The tweet is phrased so it appears to be an endorsement of Cruz, but leaves out the word "Conservative" Who believes he would be the Republican nominated?
When Cruz wins the nomination are you Trumpaholics gonna vote for him or pout?
You think the Whigs will let him win anything?
bagoh20 said...
When Cruz wins the nomination are you Trumpaholics gonna vote for him or pout?
I've always said I'm not a Trump supporter, but if he's the nominee, I'll support him, same for Cruz. No problem.
Trumpacoholics. Noted.
I recall in that little book "How to Antagonize Friends and Dissuade People" that derogatory mean-girl epithets work wonders in insulting people into shape negatively influencing them to do exactly what you don't want. Seemed an expert technique given the double negatives and tricky psychology.
Where "supporter" will do.
You gotta love Trumpers getting all civility bullshit on ya. That's true Chutzpa. It's not like I called you a pussy, a loser, or a lightweight, and I never suggested you should be carried out on a stretcher.
As for Whigs, it's 2016, and it will be decided by voters and delegates according to the same rules in place when this started. Hey, lets blow it all up!
To continue something I started a few days ago ...
When I got disgusted over what was happening in my senior year in high school, I didn't entirely drop out (I knew, or at least *thought* I knew how to weigh consequences, and I do confess that to...um...a bit of naivete, so to speak). I dropped six of seven classes, which meant I maintained one (also, just so you know, the only reason I maintained that one was for a stupid reason). Anyhoo. What I did was get a late arrival and an early dismissal. I signed up for a college courses in what was then known as Winterim and spring semester. I got jobs. A couple of them. And then I applied for, worked for, and got a job at the Chrysler plant in Newark, Delaware. True, it was just as a cafeteria worker, but still. I worked there full-time for a while.
My husband's first job out of college (and he did get an engineering degree, and specifically at a time when the University of Delaware had excellent and especially tough engineering programs of all kinds; it was hard to get those degrees, and something like at least half flunked out early on and switched to other majors, neither of which he did: he survived and therefore onward ho, so to speakk) was at a...textile plant/factory in South Carolina. Later he worked in...steel plants/factories. How shocking! Does that shock you? It shouldn't.
Many years later re: all of ^ that, for example, here's how we ended up in Iowa, less than year after we married, btw, ftr, just so you know: My husband got hired to actually help *start up* a steel plant, from the ground up, and by ground up, I do mean ground up. Boots required due to the mud churned up. I recall letting clothes dry out in order in to whack them hard against the back-door concrete stoop before considering putting them in a washer. (Specific and clear enough for you, Troop? For you, Bagoh? For you DBQ? For you anyone?) Dang. Do any of you actually understand that you guys aren't the only ones who have experiences. I wonder.
Now, I get that you don't like how I move back and forth between time and back and forth between experiences. In fact, I just did that. It's been clear to me for a long time that you despise that sort of thing. I think it's because you assume, as always you have assumed, that I'm only about what you assume and therefore have assigned an assumption.
You're wrong, because, quite literally, you do not know what you're denigrating. You're wrong about what you think you know, and you've done a very bad job at extrapolating even from what you're wrong about.
Hey, so it goes!
You guys need a better clue-bat.
So many things you demand, or at least have pretended to insist upon, we have done most likely before it even occurred to you to demand of people.
Mock, mock, mock all you want.
And, Troop, about those little conversations you enjoy saying I have only in my mind?
Shit, man, they are on account of our doing a whole lot of things, way, way, way, way, way before I ever encountered you online, specifically at Althouse.
You want laughing at? I'll give you laughing at.
We're laughing at you.
It was clear as day, from at least the mid-80s, that the manufacturing life of the USA was being, and was going to continue to be, sucked out.
Now, you guys are all worried and shit about all of that. You johnny-come-latelies.
I first started thinking about homeschooling in the middish-80s, well before I met my husband and many, many years before my son was born. Just a couple of years after I first started thinking about that, there I was, interviewing some of the pioneering home-schoolers who were fighting against even [their own] state's authoritarian stance as against what individual-parents ought get to decide for their own kids.
I learned something from that, way back 25-ish years ago.
You johnny-come-latelies.
You mock me? Pftuie. I could cite many other areas and examples. But I do not have to. I don't owe any of you a damned thing, much less any explanation.
I've read you guys, all of you guys and gals, for such a long, long time, and what I have learned, at the end of the day, is that the majority of you prescribe solutions that you yourself never tried, by which you have never lived, and yet you use as swords of proscription against even more others you don't like.
You all say I am stupid? I say you all are weak. You all say I am crazy? I say our smart has lived, committed, real-life experience going for it ...
...
and also, by the way, the likelihood is that what we have been doing has cost you nothing as against our likely supporting so many of the likes of you.
Stop mocking. Be sharp.
bagoh20 said...
You gotta love Trumpers getting all civility bullshit on ya
Nothing to do with civility, but everything to do with common sense.
If you're trying to win people to your point of view, calling them cutesy little nasty names isn't the way to do it (does Erick Erickson send out a newsletter with this kind of drivel? it sounds like his sort of thing).
I've noted this to people like you on other sites, but they, like you, fail to get the message. And if you honestly believe the Whigs, having barred Trump from the nomination. with hand it over to the One True Ted, you really need some time in a hospital.
If you're trying to win people to your point of view, calling them cutesy little nasty names isn't the way to do it ..
What complete, utter crap. You don't believe what you just wrote ^ yourself, edutcher. How do I know that? Because I've read your comments over many, many, many years, and you've never been above using cutesy little nasty names. And you've never believed that doing such a thing isn't the way to do it. Quite the opposite: In fact, you DO believe that doing such a thing is exactly the way to do it, which is why you've been doing that sort of thing for years and years.
Try again.
That was keeping it light. Trying to be fun. If you're talking about here.
Yeah, back at TOP, there were nasty people and I got nasty right back at them, but there's a difference between pointing out deliberate lies and trying to win somebody to your side. Lem doesn't want this place turned into a barroom brawl and I've tried to abide by his wishes.
The worst thing I've ever called anybody who supported Cruz was a Cruzzer (although, in the spirit of can dish it out, but can't take it, a couple have gotten "offended"). I'd like the Cruz people to at least see that their guy isn't the Second Coming, which a couple here do.
But I haven't gotten nasty, unless you call pointing out the inconsistencies in Cruz' background and standing up for Trump when I think he's being unfairly castigated being nasty.
Which some have because they don't like being disagreed with.
"If you're trying to win people to your point of view, calling them cutesy little nasty names isn't the way to do it ."
Absolutely true. Now consider the truth you have known all along and yet apply so selectively.
I don't think for a second that you are able to be persuaded by anything. No fact, no logical argument based in them, and certainly not a verbal ass-kissing by me. There is only Trump and anti-Trump.
I prefer "Cruzadore", because he's so damned cute.
I don't know where else you read, but nobody here has ever praised Cruz as anything more than just the most conservative, the most hated by the D.C insiders. I also think he's the smartest guy with the best policy ideas, which are detailed, workable, and probably far more in line with what most Trumpers want then even Trump is. His record is certainly better on Trumper issues than Trump's is. Can you imagine if it was Cruz with all those failed businesses, or all those illegal hires of immigrants, or all those jobs outsourced to Asians and Mexicans, and all the payments to insiders, especially Democrats. Just think what you'd be saying about him.
When Cruz wins the nomination are you Trumpaholics gonna vote for him or pout?
If Cruz wins the convention fair and square. Without involving arcane changes in the rules to disqualify Trump. Without disenfranchising the voters who went to the polls and voted for their delegates by throwing out those delegate. FAIR and SQUARE.
Yes. I would vote for Cruz. Reluctantly. Holding my nose like all the other times. Although, it really doesn't matter who I support since I live in California.
However, if the GOPe does what I think they are going to do. Cheat and ignore the voters in order to put in THEIR chosen candidate over the ones chosen by the voters....there is going to be LITERAL Hell to pay. Expect the Republican party to collapse and Hillary wins.
I prefer "Cruzadore", because he's so damned cute.
That point isn't lost on the rest of the internets, either. Google images search "Ted Cruz drag" and behold the results.
Ok fine, here they are:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i3NIm-nD3QA/VRBlk7hEDfI/AAAAAAAA41s/Mb0N8bCXLDg/s1600/Ted_Cruz_Liberacei_01.jpg
http://imgur.com/qZz3Kne
http://impiousdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/ted-cruz-busted.jpg
Expect the Republican party to collapse and Hillary wins.
Don't worry. Hillary's basically an establishment Republican anyway.
@ rcommel
Yes. Everyone has real life experiences to bring to the table. Points of view that all have validity. Validity /= I must agree with them. Just means try to understand. Thank you for sharing. Sharing those experiences, in a clear and intelligible manner is great. I personally get annoyed when people try to allude to things and are unclear in their statements. My first husband was a master at Gaslighting, innuendo, incomprehensible statements that I was supposed to somehow intuit..... until I figured it out.
Calling people names (Trumpaholic, Trumpkins, Tea Baggers etc) while trying to persuade someone to your point of view is really quite counter productive. It may make you feel good and superior about yourself, but it isn't working.
I recall letting clothes dry out in order in to whack them hard against the back-door concrete stoop before considering putting them in a washer
Cool. Get back to me when you need to hose off your husband's clothes, boots and his hair and body to remove the human feces, kitchen grease, septic tank gunk, wet toilet paper shreds, food remnants, bacteria, dead animal debris from the cat carcasses under the houses etc. :-)
What candidate has used the most name calling, and consequently, who has the the least right to complain about it?
Among the delegates the nonTumpers are the majority. If Trump does not have enough to secure the nomination on the first round they can go to whoever they want. It's very possible Cruz could win it fair and square with no rule changes or shenanigans. Besides, why would Trumpers be opposed to shenanigans if they like Trump? It's his very appeal.
What candidate has used the most name calling, and consequently, who has the the least right to complain about it?
I'm not talking about the candidates. I'm talking about YOU.....sweetie :-)
Most entrepreneurs have more than their share of bankruptcies. It goes with the territory.
As for idolizing Cruz, bag has a short memory. My God, the hyperbole visited on us about how we'll all be reduced to poverty if we don't support the One True Ted would have been beyond belief a couple of months ago.
bagoh20 said...
If you're trying to win people to your point of view, calling them cutesy little nasty names isn't the way to do it .
Absolutely true. Now consider the truth you have known all along and yet apply so selectively.
You're the one doing the name-calling - when did I ever say anything like Cruzaholic. Most of the time, I use Cruzzer as a generic. I've even tried being nice and explained things (for all the good it's done). Spare me the projection. When all this clears, I hope you can look back on this and realize how over the top you got.
I don't think for a second that you are able to be persuaded by anything. No fact, no logical argument based in them, and certainly not a verbal ass-kissing by me. There is only Trump and anti-Trump.
For you.
For some of us, the One True Ted just isn't Mr Conservative, especially when he's backed mostly by Libertarians. His policies, when he's decided on what they are, aren't as good, but you can only see it in terms of "He said something nice about Hillary in '99" and don't want to listen to anybody else.
For a lot of us, it's really anti-Hillary, but you seem to have let your eyes drift from the prize because, if Cruz can't beat Trump, - and he can't - how does he beat Hillary?
bagoh20 said...
Among the delegates the nonTumpers are the majority.
Barely. About 700 - 680.
At the end of April, you think that's still going to be true? The proportional states are over and the big winner take all states are with us.
Trump is about 40 over Cruz in NY and 65 ahead of Kasich.
Look at the schedule: AZ, UT, WI, NY, CT, DE, MD, PA, RI.
How many are Cruz country? How many votes will Kasich siphon off?
There's your Trump and anti-Trump.
and conjure with this. Cruz gains almost nothing from Rubio dropping out, if you believe the polls
"Most entrepreneurs have more than their share of bankruptcies. It goes with the territory."
Not at all, and certainly not successful ones. I don't know of any other billionaire with so many failures. Do you, and very few started out with Trump's wealth and connections. He's just lousy at it, but let's be honest: you don't care anyway.
As for the name calling, I wasn't referring to you, or any other Trump supporter, but rather the man himself. You can't be sensitive about name calling and then revel in it every time he does it, which is daily.
"I'm not talking about the candidates. I'm talking about YOU.....sweetie :-)"
I'm not complaining about name calling. I don't care what you call me. I'm saying - and quite clearly if you are not trying to avoid it - that the people who are getting their civility bullshit on are in no position to be doing so, and that would include you, sweetie. None of this is with animosity, which is even more why I don't get the over reaction in here. Why the sensitivity among those who are currently championing the very style of being insensitive. You really don't see that hypocrisy?
bagoh20 said...
Most entrepreneurs have more than their share of bankruptcies. It goes with the territory.
Not at all, and certainly not successful ones. I don't know of any other billionaire with so many failures. Do you, and very few started out with Trump's wealth and connections. He's just lousy at it, but let's be honest: you don't care anyway.
No, you're looking for any excuse to knock the guy.
Trump's filed for bankruptcy 4 times, mostly because of his AC ventures. That doesn't strike me as high, given the political mess in Jersey and the fact that AC is sinking by the bow these days.
I know, doesn't matter, he's evil and will impoverish us all.
And, God knows, you ignore anything bad about the One True Ted.
You really don't see that hypocrisy?
No I can't. Because "I" have the capability of being able to distinguish between what a flamboyant candidate does and what individual people do. Just because the supporters of the candidates disagree with each other does not give the right to belittle or call each other names. Nor does it give the right to blockade streets, using violence to prevent people from attending the events of the candidates of their choices.
Calling individual people here on this particular blog, which has seemed to be one of the most civil blogs, is the objection. You can dislike Trump all you want and try to persuade people to support Cruz or your candidate with arguments of substance. Calling people Trumpkins, Trumpsters, Trumpaholics, Tea Baggers etc is NOT addressing the ideological differences or using logical arguments to convince.
I believe the worst that I may have called you is a Chamber of Commerce Republican. That surely doesn't hurt that much does it?
Frankly, when someone addresses me with such juvenile epithets, I turn them off and don't listen. Even when you guys do have some good points, and you do, when you start of lacing them with insults....la la la...can't hear you. The animosity isn't that we disagree, it is the methods with which you guys are arguing. After years of being called racists and all sorts of other insults we are sick of being told we are dumb, knuckle dragging, morons, who didn't go to college (I did but that's beside the point), who need to listen to our betters, stupid Tea Baggers, bitter clingers, too stupid to understand the oracles from on high. So....continue calling names, if you never want to persuade anyone to your point of view.
FYI: early on in this campaign we donated some funds to Cruz. However, his actions and things that I have learned about him caused us to turn away from being a financial supporter. In fact, we are sorry we ever did send money because all it got us was a barrage of calls at all hours of the day and night from his robocallers who refused to take NO for an answer. They sent us mountains of mailers. Mailers that probably cost 5 times the amount of money to produce and send than the funds that we sent to his campaign. We politely asked to be taken off of their mailing and calling list and it eventually descended into a screaming match of WHAT PART OF TAKE ME OFF YOUR FUCKING LIST DO YOU NOT GET!!!!! STOP CALLING US IN THE EVENING!!!!! STOP CALLING US EVER!!!!!! Plus they must have sold our name down the river because of all the other calls we are getting. GAH!!!!! Thank God for caller ID.
We later sent some small amount of funds to the Trump campaign, to show support and we have received NO calls and the only mailer we got was a nice thank you card with a small bumper sticker in it. That's it. No robo calls, no bulk mailers. Just a nice thank you for your support card.
This in and of itself makes me like Trump over Cruz :-)
As to the constant claim that Trump has filed bankrupty
How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?" The answer is "He didn't." Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times.
By filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the corporation is allowed to continue running while restructuring and reducing its debt. By allowing the business to continue, employees still have their jobs and the business is still making money. Corporate debts still need to be repaid but they may be reduced. The corporation must develop a repayment plan and corporate budget. Both must be approved by the creditors and by the bankruptcy court.
Read the entire article. I know it seems like a distinction without much distinction that the Corporations are the entities that filed bankruptcy and not Trump personally, however, facts are facts. Chapter 11 (reorganization of debt with the entity continuing) versus Chapter 7 (disorganization and liquidation)
Cool. Get back to me when you need to hose off your husband's clothes, boots and his hair and body to remove the human feces, kitchen grease, septic tank gunk, wet toilet paper shreds, food remnants, bacteria, dead animal debris from the cat carcasses under the houses etc. :-)
Cool. Get back to me when you can prove that I don't appreciate that, and good luck at it.
You know, DBQ, you have surprised me. So be it.
As many differences as we might we have, I always did think we had large number of things in common, even if experienced in [at least slightly] different generations, however differently those experiences played out.
I will accept your judgment as to whether that was wrong.
I sometimes wonder if too many of you actually thought that no one "out there in" [now known as "here in"] the Internet were paying attention to what you were writing about when you were expressing your experiences in real life, cogently and urgently.
Well, with regard to a number of everyday people, I did--not that it's turned out to matter, at the end of the day. : )
My first husband was a master at Gaslighting, innuendo, incomprehensible statements that I was supposed to somehow intuit..... until I figured it out.
I am not a gaslighter, DBQ. I also managed to not marry a gaslighter. So sorry that you married one. Perhaps this has to do with how differently I spent my time for a significant period of time from my teen years, during my twenties and so on as opposed to how you spent your teens, twenties & etc.
You want clear speech? Are you sure?
Didn't you tell us, at one time, in one place or another, how you got to spend time traveling around folk-singing, or blues-singing, or something or whatever? So free and 'n' all. Then you figured it out and became a financial adviser (an excellent one: I have no doubt about that, and make no mistake about it, and for good reasons). Etc.
Why that makes you look down on the likes of who, 1/2 generation or so later, skipped the "traveling around being free 'n' all" and just got down to it, even skipped the first ill-advised marriage, I will leave to you to explain. Or put down. Whatever.
Post a Comment