Everybody and his brother is shitting their pants about what Trump said about the military. The question arose at the debate was what would Trump do if the military refused his orders to torture terrorists or kill the families of the terrorists. Of course Trump didn't realize the trap they were setting for him. You see he doesn't see waterboarding as torture or even other means that are harsher as a problem for terrorists. He sees it as just what they deserve. Also I guess killing a whole family with a drone attack is no biggie when Obama does it but if a Republican does it then it is a war crime. I get it.
What freaked everyone out was Trump's response. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” he said. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”
I think that is right. Most of the military will do as it is told. They follow orders. Some will not. But you have to ask what they are being ordered to do. Torture a terrorist to get vital information about future attacks and the existence of further threats? Some how I don't think there are a lot of people who would resign in protest. Some for sure. All of the politically correct politicians and the affirmative action women and homosexuals that are the backbone of Obama's new military might balk. But I expect most of them to have resigned or have been weeded out quickly in the new administration. But what if they are ordered to do something that they want to do anyway? To torture some raghead who set off a bomb and knows where other bombers might reside. Are they really going to refuse that order? I wonder.
What if they are told to bomb an area that might have collateral damage? That is really what Trump was talking about. I don't think he really meant that they were going to assassinate the mothers of terrorists. Of course that is the spin the pussies in news media will put on it. Trump is talking about bombing the shit out of ISIS and not sweating it. I think the guys whose asses are on the line are not going to sweat that either. I could be wrong. But I don't think so. I would ask guys like AllenS or Aridog to weigh in. They would know much better than me. I would respect what they have to say and take it to the bank.
What really makes me laugh is that this is the avenue that FOX and Megyn bloody Kelly wants to go down. Have they been watching Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe on the AMC channel? What a bunch of elitist maroons.
What Trump is going to do is unleash the Military to do what they have to do. The ones who don't have the stomach for it will quit. And sue. That's what people do these days. And you might rightly ask what if they are prosecuted. Well that's what pardons are for.
Not just for people who give the Clinton's tons of money or drug dealers that are Obama's constituents. I am fine with that. How about you.
149 comments:
I've heard on Twitter Trump has issued a correction. I think they told him he could be impeached over that.
He is what I saw from a former military guy... I made a storify post out it.
Link
They can't even keep McGarret from torturing suspects on Hawaii Five O every episode. It is all a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the media.
You say wait a minute that is just television.
Well guess what? Television is about to become real life when the Big Guy gets in there. Wait and see.
I bet that makes the piss run down your legs.
Have to go with Troop.
A lot of this is about rolling back all the drivel about "torture" we've been hearing from the Lefties for 13 years.
When good men like Allen West have to resign because they tried to scare a prisoner into talking, it's time somebody got the military's back.
Because I doubt the One True Ted would.
If I was POTUS, waterboarding would be outlawed, and in its place would be this:
Going medieval.
I thought an "apologist' was bad thing, but everything bad is good now, so good luck with your new career, Trooper. I bet you'll keep very busy.
Apologist? Really. I don't think I was apologizing for what the Big Guy said. I don't think it requires an apology.
I asked for the opinion of a soldier who knows about this stuff. AllenS gave it. Thank you sir.
There are plenty of things he should apologize for.
I would start with the crab cakes at the Trump Taj Mahal. Plus the puke pink motif of Trump Plaza. And the fact that he sold an apartment to A Rod.
But torturing terrorists and bombing the shit out of them and their home bases which includes their families? Nothing to apologize for there buddy.
We're getting into weird territory, with some (I said some) of the Cruz people (and not just here; here it's relatively civil) going off the deep end.
Rabel mentioned a couple of reasons why she has problems with Cruz and his style having to do with self-righteousness. The "pound the Trump crowd into the ground" mob seems to be taking that a lot farther than the Lightworker crowd did 8 years ago (yes, I have mentioned this before). They call the Trump people a cult. Slide on over to Insta or HotAir and take a real gander at a cult.
No concern trolling, just an observation - keep it up if you want to turn off people. This stuff will not wear well.
PS Does that break his promise?
Not really. Just the whining of the Left in this country.
If Trump reverses himself I would be greatly disappointed. In fact if he buys into the left wing bullshit that terrorist need to be coddled and cosseted that is one thing that could turn me off. I think his advisors told him to back track and he did. That was a mistake. Which I think does not reflect his real thinking. What he said in the debate is what he really thinks. And I think what he will really do when the time comes. He will put people like Giuliani in charge of taking out the terrorists.
But lets see. He might disappoint me. I have been disappointed before.
I mean the dog ass Mets made it to the Series for fucks sake.
They send their families into battle strapped with explosives, and they have fought people much more willing to do the unspeakable than we ever will be. Maybe we can fire up some wood chippers and rape rooms. This place is getting to be a fever swamp like Daily Kos or LGF.
The Cruz people and the media are pulling out all stops. The big guy has to pick his spots.
I think he should have blow off the FOX debate. Hillary is doing that tonight. She refused to be on FOX because she felt that they would not be fair to her. I think he should take a leaf out of her book and talk directly to the people.
It was politically smart (sort of, in a short term sense) but a disaster in the long run.
We blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knowing it was full of civilians. But it ended the war (saving millions of lives)--that's justified.
If you blow up a house with known terrorist in it, fair enough. He's a target. If his wives and kids happen to there, well it is unfortunate (Reagan bombed a Qaddafi's tent that had his infant son in it--remember that). What Trump is saying its okay to intentionally target their families (like the terrorist is out terrorizing and we go blow up his wives and kids anyway). That is not okay.
Is Trump serious? Who knows. Trump is going way beyond just saying waterboarding is justified. He is pandering to his base. I think it is mostly theatrics, but it is over the top. It will work for him politically to a point. But it is not a good thing in the long run.
We are supposed to be a country with rule of law. Obama threw that shit out the window long ago and never looked back. W was a chump (from a Democrat perspective) who actually took this stuff seriously and managed to get Scooter Libby convicted of a crime on an investigation that was really the result of crimes committed by Colin Powell's office. Powell is an Obama darling now.
But if both sides go no rule of law, it is just the personality of the leader that matters we are so fucked. That is the difference between North America (Canada and the U.S.) and the rest of the Americas (when they are at their worst).
Troop, none of that would make you change your mind about the man, disappointment or not. You'd sign up for Trump University today if you could.
A fever swamp? Really. What a load of bullshit. You really think that bags? You are nuts.
Killing terrorists is a good thing. Using enhanced techniques that can even be defined as torture to find out about terror cells even if they are distasteful and vile is a good thing. Bringing the full wrath and might of the destruction capability of the military on the homeland of these terrorists is fully warranted.
It will save lives in the long run. American lives of course. I don't care about anyone else.
I guess you want an apology for that right?
Trooper York said...
If Trump reverses himself I would be greatly disappointed. In fact if he buys into the left wing bullshit that terrorist need to be coddled and cosseted that is one thing that could turn me off. I think his advisors told him to back track and he did. That was a mistake.
Saying he won't ask US personnel to violate international law doesn't walk back much.
His people saw how the Cruzzers, as well as the Lefties (note how they're on the same side), jumped on that line. I think it's just a preventative against the inevitable ads telling people he's going to turn the US military into Einsatzgruppen.
Be interesting to see how the Average Joe or Jane reacts. I'm betting they're with The Donald.
If Trump was smart about this he would say he would be tough on terrorists, he disagrees water boarding is torture, and leave it at that.
I want some common sense to these rules, not drumming Col West out of the army for threatening an Iraqi on the battle field or punishing some special force operatives who opposed some real rape culture. AT the same time, I am not cool wish sadists running wild at Abu Ghraib (a situation that turned into a propaganda victory and helped the enemy in Iraq).
As for Meade, he a stay at home blog troll who is kept by Madam A. Sort of like "the gimp" in Pulp Fiction.
The issue of illegal orders to the military has been addressed already, since we have seven years of a lawless administration doing whatever the hell it wants, regardless of Congress or the courts...or the US Constitution. Now that someone without a "D" after their name might want to push the envelope, suddenly it's a problem.
Suck it, lefties.
And suck it, terrorists.
Waterboarding used to NOT be torture, then it was. It might not be torture again.
I'm torn, as always on some subjects, and this is one of them.
I don't like the idea of inflicting harm on other people....but.....waterboarding is not permanently harmful unlike the tortures that McCain and others experienced. Uncomfortable, frightening, could cause a heart attack, but you will get over it. No long lasting physical disabilities.
The idea that people can do these things to others makes me uncomfortable. The idea that some people even like to do it makes me really uncomfortable. If we do bring back these techniques it should be done by people who will not be enjoying the process. Like Evi said. Not cool.
But...you know what makes me even more uncomfortable? The idea that if we do nothing at all, but say pretty please and mother may I?..that the terrorists will go on to kill hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent people going about their daily tasks. Innocent people killed because we are too squeamish to use some uncomfortable and distasteful methods.
If we can prevent those deaths of innocents by some mildly persuasive techniques, like waterboarding, then we would be complicit in those deaths if we refrain from using methods to save lives.
It is like the ethical dilemma about whether you throw a switch on the railroad tracks and knowingly kill one person when you know that by killing that one guy, you can save 10 others on the other track. There are many variations of this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. What would I do? I don't know and hope to never have to make those decisions. I think I would save the most people at the expense of the one.
Think of the situation where you know your loved ones are in the way of harm and if you could just tweak some information out of the terrorist who knows about it....would you let your loved ones be slaughtered? or would you tweak and save them and others? Just because those in harms way are not your actual loved ones, doesn't mean that their lives are worth less in order to save yourself from facing unpalatable choices. Putting your principles above OTHER people's lives. You can play God with your own life and your own principles...but other people?
Listen Mary. You are not welcome here.
Stop with the repetitive posts. You are banned on my threads.
(I would like to apologize for not always deleting the nonsense fast enough. I am doing other things)
I say Mary because you are repeat the actions of the commenter at your blog that you bemoan all the time.
Stop being a hypocrite and go away.
How dare you question what Trump does? Do you want the terrorists to win? Yea, we never heard that excuse before. I'm not paying my taxes from now on, because Obama broke the rules.
Yep, I said fever swamp.
Of course you can question what Trump does bags. That is all you do buddy. But you know what? There is no torture or act of violence that appears on "Game of Thrones" that would be out of bounds for terrorists. None. Up to and including being roasted by a Dragon. Sorry if that gives you the vapors.
You can question and disagree and fight it all you want. That is what elections are for.
General Curtis LeMay spoke on that subject, he was a wise man, and back when this country contained Americans who believed in America, his words were heeded and we were victorious in war.
Exactly right.
Until the politicians gave up the victory.
Who were supposedly "conservative Republicans" by the way.
But they bought into the political correctness of the time and we ended up with the helicopters on roof of our embassy.
Of course if Hillary wins they won't even send the helicopters. They will just let them die.
bagoh20 said...
How dare you question what Trump does? Do you want the terrorists to win? Yea, we never heard that excuse before. I'm not paying my taxes from now on, because Obama broke the rules.
Yep, I said fever swamp.
You sound more like someone hectoring people questioning the actions of the One True Ted.
But we don't sound like we're intoxicated by "Trump love", do we? Just people discussing issues.
Fever swamps are where you find them.
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Where the conservative establishment meets the liberal main stream media to mock belittle and nullify the vote of those stupid plebes.
Catch it or you are infected by the Trump Fever and the Boogie Woogie Flu.
Please do not answer or refer to the troll. Even if his posts are up while I am away from the computer.
Thank you.
"That is what elections are for."
They may be in other countries, but this one has a Constitution, and it's designed specifically to make sure the law is not at the whim of whoever gets elected. Again, could you and Ritmo leave just one nation to us people who respect liberty even when we are unhappy.
Trump will follow the Constitution or he will be impeached. Do you really think he can get away with the shit that Obama pulls? Or what Hillary would do?
He will not be violating the Constitution if he changes the rules of engagement and uses enhanced torture to question terrorists.
This is another Trumped up Anti-Trump bowl of bullshit.
You guys really believe that a President can and should do whatever he wants because he won an election. Now where have I heard that before?
All the rest of us, our representatives, and our courts are just supposed to suck it up and let that go? That's a real nice nation you imagine there. Where is it?
Nice stawman you constructed there bags. Of course President Trump will obey the laws and follow the dictates of the Constitution. He will not have the leeway that our current affirmative action President has in doing what he wants. But let me ask you this. Isn't your man Cruz promising to undo all of Obama's executive actions by his own executive actions? Or is that wrong.
Trump will be taking action on the lines he has outlined. Enforcing immigration law. Building a wall. Ending the coddling of terrorists. Negotiating trade deals that will benefit our country. He has specifically said he would go to Congress to make the deals he has to make. Not just use a phone and a pen like Obama. The difference is that Trump can muster the support of the people to get these things done. At least that is how I see it.
He will of course be fighting both the entrenched left wing arm of the Democratic Party and the entrenched Right wing arm of the permanent conservative opposition that can never win anything because that would be the end of their fund raising and tit sucking.
Trump can be a trans-formative President in the way that Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were in there own time. All despised by the intelligentsia and the establishment but beloved by the people who knew they had their interests at heart.
He will of course be fighting both the entrenched left wing arm of the Democratic Party and the entrenched Right wing arm of the permanent conservative opposition that can never win anything because that would be the end of their fund raising and tit sucking.
Trump can be a trans-formative President in the way that Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were in their own time. All despised by the intelligentsia and the establishment but beloved by the people who knew they had their interests at heart.
How do you feel about the Yazeedi girls being raped on an industrial scale by ISIS, Meade?
Think your beloved Hussein is correct as he ponders the delicate balance of ethical issues involved rather than do something "simplistic" about it, you worthless turd from hell?
Please do not engage the Schmendrick ric. He ain't worth it.
I'm just waiting for the part where there is a willingness to admit that torture might not work, or that Trump might not be right on everything.
I'm willing to see through a process where all the fake "rules" are broken so that people could actually say what they want. What I'm not interested in is a guy who can't appreciate a victory when he gets it, who thinks that no rules apply to him, or that his ego is the same thing as America the country.
What Bags is saying with the word "apologist" is a strong and unpopular defense. It might be a warranted defense, and anyone is certainly free to offer one in this barely still-free country. But now that Trump has gotten to the part that should matter most to him, his lack of personal boundaries is starting to get a little scary.
The presidency is an important job - too important for one man to assume he's going to get everything right about it or to just reduce his assessment of its success to how his ego feels that day. That's where things start to get dangerous. For crying out loud, he actually felt a need to defend (and "guarantee") his penis size, unprompted, in a national debate with two barely runners-up and a longshot for a single state. It's time to admit that he might be getting to the point where he doesn't realize that the joke is on him, on account of inability to stop making it about him.
Just beware of narcissists, is all I'm saying. We already know how a long relationship with a certain narcissist who shall not be mentioned turned out. They can turn on you. And they will. Their ego stops at no bounds - and will kill to be redeemed. Yes, it seems silly to us. But we don't have their disease. We shouldn't pretend that we can ever understand it fully.
Look Trump was just being a dick. That is what he does. He is a New York guy. In fact he is acting the way we act here in the comments. Not like he is being measured for Mt. Rushmore.
There is no dignity to the White House. To the Presidency. Of if there was it is overrated. Andrew Jackson didn't have dignity. When somebody pissed him off he shot him. How about that for impulse control.
If torturing terrorists and blowing up their misbegotten hell holes is where you draw the line that is fine. But there is a whole lot of people who don't have a problem with it. Of all shapes and sizes.
Did you know that a whole bunch of nuclear material was stolen recently. Enough for a dirty bomb that could take out NY and Philly. Do you think anybody would be upset if we tuned up Abdul to find out where that shit went?
Theres the rub Ritmo. Theres the rub.
"Douchebag" is a term of (mild) social opprobrium.
Disease is something much worse.
Someone who, on an occasional New Years Eve every now and then, has a bit too much to drink and vomits a little in their own toilet, does't have a disease.
Someone who walks down the city streets, vomiting recklessly and strongly at every block, before wiping their mouth, smiling and waving at onlookers, and continuing on their way... that person has a disease.
There are certain diseases that are not only impossible to self-diagnose; their patients' very sense of normalcy requires seeing their disease as a good thing. A valuable trait.
Narcissism is a disease.
Of course we have to beware of narcissists. Which of the current candidates is not an off the wall narcissist? Trump is just the most obvious and easily understood.So he would be easier to reign in.
Much more so then the oh so pliable Rent Boy Rubio and the stiff backed pole of rectitude that is the One True Ted.
If torturing terrorists and blowing up their misbegotten hell holes is where you draw the line that is fine. But there is a whole lot of people who don't have a problem with it. Of all shapes and sizes.
I have nothing against salts-of-the-earth desiring vengeance - especially toward barbarians with a poor record of self-control.
I am worried about a free-world leader who mistakes vengeance with effective action.
Or wanton retaliation against however many family members with a righteous drone on a criminal hajji in an open field in a lawless borderland.
I don't mind a president getting a little passionate now and then.
I am worried about one who can't rein it back in though and remember when and how a cooler head might prevail.
Put it this way - Trump, on a good day, trounces Jeb by pointing out his proud failure to admit that Brother W. made some mistakes.
There were as many good arguments for invading Iraq as there were bad ones.
But does anyone question whether a sense of vengeance was at its core? It was.
It was a multi-trillion dollar exercise in vengeance. We had to go into the neighborhood and fuck up anyone with lingering and outstanding debts to us in the "stop being a vile douchebag" department. And Saddam fit that bill.
Was it worth it?
I think I felt somewhat avenged.
But was it right?
Who today feels it was worth it?
Not even Trump.
Troop is right about the terrorists. There is nothing they wouldn't resort too. Hell, we have seen it on YouTube.
That said, I do not want to see us decent to their level. That does not mean we can't kill them. But I would not be so flippant about it as Trump has been.
Trump is a dick. I do not have a problem with that, to a point. But I want him to be smart about it too.
PRES TRUMP AND VICE PRES KASICH
I'm completing OK with torturing terrorists or not. Leave it up to the experts.
People who get all worked up about the poor terrorists getting waterboarded scare me. You mean with all the injustice in the world, with all the victims, you're concerned about Terrorists? That's the victim group you cry tears for?
Its like people who really, really, get upset that some mass murderer suffered a second of pain when executed.
Weird.
We'll see if opinions change after the next attack in the US or if they capture an American serviceman. If they put a captured American pilot in a cage and burn him alive like they did the Jordanian I'll be voting for the man who promises to do them the most harm.
That's what this will all come down to.
All the pictures of IS and the stuff coming out of Europe is what has made the Trump campaign successful.
The rest of them don't want to talk about it and we all know how Hillary feels about Americans in the hands of cutthroats.
As I say, this year will be event-driven.
Trump and Kasich would be a strong ticket and would appeal to moderates and independents. I think Kasich is more conservative than people know, but he reinforces the legitimacy of Trump's "outsider" appeal. Unless Trump went weird and chose a complete stranger to the system - a la James Stockdale or something like that - I would be surprised if he didn't choose him. For him to go with almost any other Republican politician seems like it would have been a wasted campaign. Kasich brings Trump establishment legitimacy while simultaneously bolstering his effectiveness and innovation creds.
It's possible Trump already knows this and is therefore keeping his powder dry on Kasich. They would probably win more purple Midwestern states than if Trump chose anyone else.
Hillary's from Illinois. Her appeal is probably most effective in the Midwest.
Trump needs a Midwesterner with moderate/cross-over appeal - but who's still a politician. If Kasich isn't that man then I'll be a monkey's uncle if the powers that be have someone else in mind.
It's probably the only reason Kasich ran, come to think of it.
I realize I'm beating a dead horse but I just have this strange premonition that despite how obvious the ticket is, nothing Trump's done or said could have led anyone to predict it.
Trump's a wily guy. It's impossible to know how well he thinks things through because of how offhanded and freewheeling he likes to go off on things. If I get this one right then I'll feel a bit more confident in being able to predict the always-keep-em-on-their-toes Trumpster.
Kasich is the only guy with the energy to keep up with Trump, frankly. (By Trump's standards). He's a dynamo wizbang of frenetic verbal-tude. He practically has ever-present tics at the corner of his mouth and neck to keep himself ready to respond. And usually in an intelligent way.
Kasich is also the least offensive Republican who ran this cycle. That's another score for his "ticket balancing" powers.
Pair the most offensive front-runner in recent memory with the inoffensive Kasich on the back end.
There's your ticket, pundits.
You're welcome.
I mean Troop's a busy man. Liberty Valance is on AMC tonight.
Pop quiz - is Lee Marvin still alive?
No cheating.
Andrew Jackson didn't have dignity. When somebody pissed him off he shot him. How about that for impulse control.
And when Clinton saw a babe he liked, he shot her. Sort of makes him sound Jacksonian or something.
No Rabel. He's been dead I'd say for 15 years or more. But, even dead, he makes way more sense than Ritmo.
I wonder what it says about a guy's intelligence if he thinks dead people's brains are the easiest for him to understand.
AJ can't predict what flavor of donuts he's going to have in the morning. Or whether he should spread peanut butter on the jelly-filled ones.
So, anybody think after the Mambo Kings' performance at the debate, they think an all-Cuban ticket would fly?
Correction. It's on the Outdoor Channel. I was thinking dead, AJ, but wasn't sure.
There will not be a wall.
Unless you mean an electronic wall, or a psychic wall of will and resolution. An Area 54 perimeter control on a larger scale. Increased enforcement and reduction in federal interference. A wall of attitude. What a bummer.
Mexican dictator summed up Mexico's attitude, it's repeated enough, "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States." You poor thing. United States is hell for you, is it?
I got ideas. Plenty of ideas. Seems a lot of Mexicans want to come to the United States. It so happens a lot of Americans want to go to Mexico too. I know them. They live there. And Mexico's laws are very restrictive toward foreigners owning property. There is a very large mismatch between us. As we get closer and closer, as our two countries wed, we will find there need to be adjustments. This relationship is give and take. Mexico is insisting on affecting our laws. And we too will be insisting on changing theirs until we are more alike. This is going to take a lot of money and a lot of advisors, and a lot of shifting assets to and fro, capital and labor and politics and governance. We tend to come on a bit strong. We show irrepressible tendencies. We already took California and Texas from Mexico we may as well have the rest. One way or another.
Is it so impossible to see under a Trump presidency Mexico building a wall of their own to keep Americans out?
Trump says, "I told you they'd pay for it."
Do you comprende le vous that I just now told a joke? They don't all have punch lines, you know. Gawl!
I love how Trooper knows exactly what Trump will do, what his motivations are, and what his limits are. How it will all work out just swell.
Which one of Trumps numerous failures do you you base this on? The one where he convinces people like you that he will be great?
All this popularity is not Trumps success - it's your failure.
Was Bernie Madoff a great success, or were there simply a lot of suckers? Does Madoff's seeming success matter to the suckers now? How about the people who depended on the suckers for their support, and protection and discernment? All they expected and deserved was some vigilance, some skepticism, a little wisdom. It not like this kind of thing never happened before.
Is someone going to ask you: How could you...?
You can always just tell them: I was mad, I was fed up, I really wanted change.
What happened to blowing it all up? Now he's gonna follow all the rules.
I don't know who is going to be more disappointed: his cheerleaders or the rest of us, and who will be surprised? I think none of us.
Wow, bags! What are you talking about? What does Madoff have to do with anything? You sound like a Cruzer off his meds.
Bags: John Oliver makes the case as effectively.
"All this popularity is not Trumps success - it's your failure."
Sorry buddy. Your condescension is showing. Thanks for setting all us poor rubes straight.
Yes, I know you are such a victim of us elites.
Trump - will build a wall. (He won't)
Hillary - needs as many illegals "casting votes" for her as possible.
Trump supporters love, adore, worship, blind faith, grovel at his feet, imagine his glorious rainbow and unicorns, and would still support his majesty even if he shot someone.
Trump supporters hate Trump rivals so much they would prefer to hand it to Hillary, than lose. Trump agrees. Hillary will never build that wall. Illegals continue to flow unabated.
The circle is complete.
Fascinating election year. I am thinking about staying home, thus avoiding guilt I might feel for how things turn out. Plus I could never vote for a Canadian, a sweaty cabana boy, anyone from Ohio, a Y*nkee, a communist or a felon. Too bad that bland fellow from the midwest dropped out - I liked his idea of building a wall to keep the Canucks out.
But by all means, keep ranting - I do ever so much enjoy the spectacle - it is quite entertaining.
Did anyone read waht ACE had to say about Trump's debate performance?
Donald Trump "Repudiated the Jeff Sessions Immigration Plan -- which was the only reason to support him -- by declaring he was "changing" and "softening" it because we need all these highly-skilled people to take our jobs. Then said he would be "flexible" on the wall and deporting illegals and pretty much admitted he'd said as much to the New York Times editorial board, and then, in case you were unsure if you'd heard him right, praised Marco Rubio's Amnesty plan as "fine" and a good opening bargaining position.
Kept talking about his hand-size and then, just when you thought this was getting weird, brought it back into a more sensible area by assuring the world that his penis size was sufficient for most.
He then added some substance to his foreign policy platform by declaring that he would force American soldiers to break the law and murder children.
On other issues, he was less reassuring.
His answers to questions about Trump University and the budget were somewhat uncomfortable to watch, in much the same way that it is uncomfortable to watch a bus full of circus clowns crash into a school for blind children and even worse the clowns were doing their "Gasoline Comedy" act that day and now all the blind children are on fire and the clowns are trying to squirt water on them with their stupid lapel-flowers but the flowers are just squirting out more gas and the children are crying tears of fire out of their Unseeing Dead Eyes and holy shit a couple of the clowns look like they have boners and they're chasing around the fiery blind children trying to rub up on them with these bobbling clown-boners with big red bulbs on their tips.
In other words, as Trump would say: Not the best. Really not terrific. A real mess!
Grade: I don't even know how to even start grading this. As far as a letter grade, I give a red X carved crudely through the face of a rotting pig with a bunch of stripper-glitter tossed on it."
That is some serious heretic mind crime right there.
So, we need Ace or somebody else to do our thinking for us?
Yeah, he had a bad night. A few of us here think they idea he might actually let US troops go after the enemy regardless of how the Lefties like it is a good thing.
And, if we're talking flips on immigration, when do we get to the One True Ted and his many positions, or are those not important?
bagoh20 said...
What happened to blowing it all up? Now he's gonna follow all the rules.
Last I looked, that was the Cruzzers' motto.
Debate Scorecard
Ted Cruz: Generally stayed out of the Rubio-Trump tangles, which is tactically smart, but gets few points for courage. Had good understated line, though: "Donald has a tenuous relationship with the truth."
Generally did a good job, but sometimes gives the impression that he is not actually a man, but rather a robotic man-suit piloted internally by a team of ultra right-wing ducks standing on each other's backs and quacking Fredrick Hayek quotes to each other.
Continues making the strategic mistake of telling people what he actually believes and what he'd actually do, which our current culture reads as "insincerity" and "sanctimony."
Damn him! Preachy weirdo.
Well, Ed, I know it's a yuge disappointment, but I'm not going to let blind faith Trumpsters do my thinking for me.
As I said, the Cruzzers like to claim Trump support is a cult.
Go to Insta or HotAir (or even CPAC, apparently)and look at the lynch mob hysteria in the name of the One True Ted.
PS I see Breitbart has a little piece where the One True Ted has said a brokered convention would lead to a revolt.
Does this mean he would support the nominee, regardless?
Tell it not in Christendom!
AprilApple said...
Well, Ed, I know it's a yuge disappointment, but I'm not going to let blind faith Trumpsters do my thinking for me.
But it seems you will let blind faith Cruzzers.
I think Trump and his supporters need to do a better job convincing us low-life elites that Trump is the grand wizard he says he is.
Trump just abandoned his major platform. Stopping the flow of illegals. His supporters? *Nothing to see here.... move along*
I'd say the same about the One True Ted and his acolytes.
I don't have blind faith in any candidate. I support the ones that have principles, not bullshit rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky promises without a history to back it up.
I've said so numerous times, ed. I will support the nominee. It's you Trumpsters that will stay home and pout or vote for Hillary if you don't get your way.
AprilApple said...
I don't have blind faith in any candidate. I support the ones that have principles, not bullshit rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky promises without a history to back it up.
Honey, you sure sound like it.
First, you liked Rubio, whose record is in the wastebasket, now it's the the One True Ted whose many flip-flops aren't up for discussion and whose "accomplishments" consist of solely shutting down the government for a couple of days.
I've said so numerous times, ed. I will support the nominee. It's you Trumpsters that will stay home and pout or vote for Hillary if you don't get your way
If memory serves, it was the sorehead Conservatives who bragged about staying home in '12.
All of us "squishes" went out and voted for Romney because we had enough of the Obamanation.
I'm not going to let this turn into a flame war, but I am going to ask you to think about some of the things I said.
I can live with it if you don't like the guy, but there seems to be no disagreeing with the people on the other side.
And, frankly, the hysteria surrounding Cruz is really starting to scare me. That I don't trust the guy is one thing, but the "Our way or no way" attitude of a lot of his followers is getting unreal.
ed-
Instead of obsessing about me, tell us why you still support Trump after he, for the most part, abandoned his tough immigration stance.
while you are at it, settle once and for all, what will YOU do if Trump isn't the nominee? Will you stay home?
Our way or no way" attitude - are you kidding us? That's the Trumpster manifesto.
Trump has been lousy in at least the last three debates when they degenderate into insults back and forth. I dont watch the debates but do follow via Twitter and I think the only really good one was conducted by Fox Business Neil Cavuto and Maria Bartimiro IMHO.
And after 8 or so debates, some issues seem to have been unaddressed:
Sanctuary Cities
Kate Steinle
TPP
Size and cost of fed govt
States rights. 10th Amendment
Clinton's email and server have not gotten enough attention
Presidential exec orders
Enforcing laws on the books
Did VAJ Lynch just make up a word: "degenderate"?
Pretty funny to think that any average voter actually cares about the "size and cost of fed govt" or "states rights. 10th amendment". What are we... a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats and Byzantines? Most people with a brain figure they'll elect the people to run the bureaucracy whose job it is to RUN the bureaucracy and we'll make up our minds on their progress by the results we see in our own daily lives. But all this time the manginas like Lynch have been trying to convince us that we're all just a bunch of philosophers looking for the right KING to run the show - despite the majority of them lacking, as Lynch does, much of a college education in the first place. This is like having preschoolers run the kindergarten. People who hate science and knowledge gettin' all philosophical and bureaucratic on government priorities. No wonder the country's a mess so many decades after letting their guys run the show. Talk about not giving a shit for practical results.
From where do states get rights?
From the powers vested in AJ's jelly donut, and from Waffle House, and from anthracite, and from St. Peter (or maybe Jesus), and his dream muscle car before it turned into an SUV, and from all the things that make up all the goodness and power and wonderment in his very sophisticated brand of philosopher-king imagination, while he reclines in his La-Z-Boy and castigates the federal government for not adhering to the right school of legal thought as outlined by Plato and Edmund Burke.
Anyone who thinks the states don't have rights has never read the Bill of rights or the Federalist Papers.
AprilApple said...
"Our way or no way" attitude - are you kidding us? That's the Trumpster manifesto
It sure isn't here or anywhere else I've been the last couple of months, unless you want to tell me somebody writing Go, Trump or Trump 2016 on a comment is "Our way or no way", which a lot of Cruzzers.
I've seen Trump people stick up for their guy, but I have yet to see the levels of vitriol or hysteria the Cruzzers claim is the Trump people's metier.
BTW. You know all those cute little epithets the Cruz people have for Trump supporters; y'know, Trumpsters, Trumpkins, Trumpettes, rubes, idiots, cult, even sTrumpettes?
I'm about the only one I've seen of those who support Trump (and, again, I wish Walker and Jindal, and even Rand were still in) who has tried giving the Cruz crowd a taste of their own medicine (which, surprise, they've expressed outrage at seeing).
ed-
Instead of obsessing about me, tell us why you still support Trump after he, for the most part, abandoned his tough immigration stance.
You seem to be the one obsessing, I'm only bemused at the unwillingness of some to discuss the One True Ted's lapses, but, to answer your question, as far as I know, Trump has not, for the most part or any other part, abandoned his tough immigration stance. He's softened his views on H1-Bs, he said. I want to see something specific on how much.
I have yet to get an answer from anyone on what they think of the many evolutions of the One True Ted on the same subject, particularly with regard to Gang of 8.
It's important to have a highly educated guy like ed poring over the volume of text in our very lengthy and complicated bill of rights while declaring every less mundane duty of the federal government to be a waste of time and resources.
Somebody has to, if only to illuminate the facts to those who stumble about in ignorance.
Ted on gang of 8 - he stood against it and stopped it. Not good enough? wow.
Still no answer from ed on whether or not he would support a candidate who is not Trump.
ed's about as much a "teacher" as Ted Bundy was a romantic lover.
You know I have my differences with Ed for many years but he doesn't seem to be the one who is obsessed and hysterical.
The Trump haters point to this or that issue and say "look at that....you have to change your mind." Especially the ones devoted to the One True Robot. If anyone is going to replay Barry Goldwater it is Teddy. Just sayn'
BTW- If I were a 100% Trump supporter. Full on. Nothing he said or did every made me re-think, it was just total admiration and blind faith with a permanent unquestioning commitment to the guy - I would LAUGH if someone called me a Trumpster.
I would proudly proclaim - 'Heck YEAH - YOU BET I'm a Trumpster and proud of it, b*tch.'
Little Marco isn't even worth talking about.
Especially the ones devoted to the One True Robot.
What?
Hilarious and clever crazy NY super-freak Trooper de-lux - that's where you are wrong. I'm not devoted to any of the candidates. They all have their strengths, & they all have their weaknesses. Some of us think Trump has some major weaknesses - brought about by his own mouth.
What I sense is a thin-skinned-ness when it comes to any criticism of Trump.
I really don't have a big desire the criticize the man. My take is more like an alarm bell.
Do you actually think the Media and Hillary won't use the treasure trove of Trump-turn-offs against him in the general? Some of us are concerned that many Americans find his bravado, ego and flip flops distasteful and un-presidential. It's beyond PC busting - it's school yard, and many find that to be a turn off. why he has high negatives.
If I make you mad, the general election is going to make your heads explode.
(and I will support him if he in the nominee as I've stated a million times before)
AprilApple said...
What I sense is a thin-skinned-ness when it comes to any criticism of Trump.
No, it's got nothing to do with skin, but his supporters will defend him.
What I see is the Cruzzers name-calling Trump supporters and accusing Trump of stuff that isn't true in many cases, as well as a propaganda campaign to make the Cruz crowd the sole arbiters of who and what is Conservative. I see the Cruz crowd accuse them of traits that are more applicable to themselves and, yes, I am talking projection.
Do you actually think the Media and Hillary won't use the treasure trove of Trump-turn-offs against him in the general?
And you don't think they'll tear Cruz apart?
What was it Rabel said, "I have to say that the more I see and hear Cruz the less I like him on a personal level, and I am beginning to understand the reasons beyond policy that so many in the Senate detest the man.
A little self-righteousness goes a long way. He could correct this if he would talk to us more and lecture us less. So far he hasn't done that. This will hurt him in the general election as more people are exposed to him for longer times."?*
They'll go after him and his many flip flops. They'll nail his self-righteousness to the barn door. People, before the Cruz crowd dominated comment boards and blogs, were already discussing his likability problem.
And, yes, I know they'll go after Trump, but Trump has shown he fights back.
(and I will support him if he in the nominee as I've stated a million times before)
Thank you for that.
* Rabel, forgive me for quoting you without getting permission.
"Do you actually think the Media and Hillary won't use the treasure trove of Trump-turn-offs against him in the general?"
Of course they will. But the Donald is the only one who will fight against them in an effective way that will reach the low information electorate that determined the last two elections. Insults work. Juvenile insults work. High minded pronouncements and nuanced demurrals don't mean jack shit except to pointed headed elitists that would rather prove a debating point than say something vulgar and funny that the guy on the barstool next to you might say.
Hillary can say what she wants. Trump will hit her back hard in a humerus vulgar way. People will go "I can't believe he went there...I can't believe he said that....he talked about Bill getting blow jobs in the oval office...that is just horrible.....but you know what...he did do that."
If I wanted to win a debate I would pick Ted Cruz. If I wanted to win a policy wonk contest I would pick Kasich. If I wanted to win a glory hole suck off I would pick Little Marco.
If I wanted to win a big vulgar garish crazy election race with no holds barred....I would have to go with the Big Guy.
ED - would you support someone who isn't Trump or would you rather throw it to Hillary?
a "yes" or "no" will suffice.
I think I want to do a post about who is the member of Congress that was disliked the most by his peers. Thadeus Stevens? Henry Clay? Adam Clayton Powell? I think it might be John Randolph.
Interesting topic.
I do not think she really has one of those. Talk about Robot. she's a machine all the way .
Kasich, Rubio and Cruz do not provide the media with a mountain a mile high of nasty Trump University type garbage.
Anyone who thinks the states don't have rights has never read the Bill of rights or the Federalist Papers.
The 17th amendment eroded much of The States' powers. "We the People" already were represented by the House. The Senate was the voice of The States. Now, "We the People" have double representation and The States have no voice in the federal legislative process.
The Civil War further eroded States' Rights, in that it never settled the question of where the line exists between federal and state powers. It resulted in might makes right; no ideological or constitutional argument was settled. It is now assumed that the federal government can call the shots and The States must kowtow to every demand.
Anyone who thinks The States retain the same powers as that which they possessed when the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers were inked has never read any history since that time. (I only phrase it that way to show how condescendingly dismissive it sounds.)
A machine in a loose fitting elastic waist pant suit from Barneys... flying around in a private jet, for the little people.
I could vote for Cruz or even Kasich. Or Ben Carson or Carly or even Walker, Perry or Jindal But Little Marco or Mittens. Not in this life. Sorry.
I do think that anyone other than Trump would be throwing it to Hillary. Can't you see that?
Cruz can't even sweep the South which should have been his for the taking. Rubio is a sweaty joke. Mittens is a two time loser with more negatives than Trump Universities bank account.
Trump is the alternative that can grow the party and win the election by putting into play states that Cruz or Rubio or Romney couldn't even touch. It is that simple.
Don't let your irrational hatred of blowhard big mouth New Yorkers blind you to that fact. We aren't so bad.
AprilApple said...
ED - would you support someone who isn't Trump or would you rather throw it to Hillary?
a "yes" or "no" will suffice
Oh, come on, dear; that's a cheap shot and you know it.
I have said any number of times, yes, I would vote R, even for the One True Ted, if it keeps the Hildabeast out of the White House.
I've also said, including yesterday, I have plenty of reservations about Donald Trump. Unlike some, I do not buy this nonsense about him being a stalking horse for the Ozark Mafia.
windbag said...
Anyone who thinks the states don't have rights has never read the Bill of rights or the Federalist Papers.
The 17th amendment eroded much of The States' powers. "We the People" already were represented by the House. The Senate was the voice of The States. Now, "We the People" have double representation and The States have no voice in the federal legislative process.
The Civil War further eroded States' Rights, in that it never settled the question of where the line exists between federal and state powers. It resulted in might makes right; no ideological or constitutional argument was settled. It is now assumed that the federal government can call the shots and The States must kowtow to every demand.
Anyone who thinks The States retain the same powers as that which they possessed when the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers were inked has never read any history since that time. (I only phrase it that way to show how condescendingly dismissive it sounds.)
The assertion before the house was the states had no rights.
Eroded they may be - although a vigilant and aroused populace could restore them, but they do exist and have existed as long as there has been a Constitution.
Hey Trooper - thanks for the answer. I respect.
@ ed - OK. "I have said any number of times, yes, I would vote R, even for the One True Ted, if it keeps the Hildabeast out of the White House."
Thanks. Reaffirmed some faith in humanity.
Just to correct the record on one thing I've seen repeated here a few times:
Cruz didn't stop the Gang of Eight bill even though he tried. It passed the Senate and was stopped by - gulp - John Boehner when he couldn't get a majority of House Republicans to support it.
That you ask the question is the kind of propaganda the Cruz campaign puts out.
If anything, it's people like the Cruz people who would sit out the election if their guy didn't get the nod (they bragged they did last time).
would you support someone who isn't Trump or would you rather throw it to Hillary
I vote Republican...or not Democrat....in California so my vote in a national election means doo squat, jack shit, nada, zippo, nothing. In the Primary I plan to vote for Trump, which again in California means nothing in the national election since ALL the electoral votes always go to the Democrat. The senatorial candidates in California always go to the Democrats. I vote anyway in the vain hope that the coastal areas of the State will have dropped off into the ocean and some sanity might be restored, but....whatever.
So...I suppose....I might vote for the Republican candidate in the national election, but what a waste of time.
Ed, sugar - I'm not part of the Cruz campaign. I don't get his e-mails, I'm not on his mailing list, I don't follow his...whatever... and I don't send him money.
Many a Trumpeter demand full loyalty and allegiance to the Big Orange, and it gets a little annoying. I wonder if that loyalty goes in the other direction, that's all.
Rabel - did Cruz vote for the gang of 8 bill?
DBQ - Colorado didn't even vote for the R candidate in the caucus this year. How lame is that? The R party in CO is clueless, spineless and haplessly stuck in the past, unable to outwit a gerbil.
**Clarification - the CO R party declined to hold a caucus this year.
( Caucuses are a thing of the past and should be retied. We need a primary.)
In my town, where the vote split is 70/30, in favor of democrats, my vote feels and is a big fat turd splash down the outhouse hole. We in turn enjoy 100% blue fascism. They are jolly good with the bike paths, if you like that kind of thing. Everything else is anti-biz. No one can afford to move a small biz here. Just google, and now they lefties are bitching about that. Zero self-awareness from the rich white lib elites.
Penzy's spices had to move away. Same with 303 Vodka. Blu-Fascist basstids.
It passed 68-32 with 14 R's voting in favor. Not Cruz.
That said, I think the 303 vodka people are all passed on on some really amazing weed in the back room.
Broomfield (silly autocratcorrect)
AprilApple said...
Ed, sugar - I'm not part of the Cruz campaign. I don't get his e-mails, I'm not on his mailing list, I don't follow his...whatever... and I don't send him money.
Bully for you. You do sound like iy, however.
Many a Trumpeter demand full loyalty and allegiance to the Big Orange, and it gets a little annoying. I wonder if that loyalty goes in the other direction, that's all.
Again, all I'm reading is projection and a lot of Cruz propaganda.
When did I (or Troop or anybody else that supports The Donald) demand "full loyalty and allegiance"? When did Troop or anybody else (I did my pledge earlier) that supports The Donald say they would not support the nominee (with the possible exception of Rubio whom only you still seems to trust)?
It's getting annoying alright, but it's all coming from the anti-Trump side
Rabel - 14 R's that did not include Cruz. And he gets NO credit.
Those 14 R's are the problem.
Ed - you just sound silly. but that's your problem.
+ ed = You never demanded loyalty, per-say, you just never question Trump over anything. Nothing about him alarms you. It's cheerleading all way. It's like Trump could shoot someone, and you'd remain loyal -- and you cannot understand why everyone else isn't on board?
Look - I am tired of this topic and i need to get some stuff done.
We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
April you have to understand. Trump supporters don't have question or worry about anything that Trump has to say because people like you and bags send out the alarm 24/7 about everything that Trump has to say. You never highlight the things that Cruz or Rubio or Mittens worry you. Only Trump. You keep berating and lecturing and belittling Trump fans much the same way that the establishment and the conservative pundit types do every day. You wonder why people tune you out.
AprilApple said...
you just sound silly. but that's your problem.
I ask an easily verifiable question about not only myself but any opther Trump supporter here and it's silly, but yours all make perfect sense? This is the problem with the Cruzzers.
Which is what scares me about them. The conversation isn't. It only goes one way.
+ ed = You never demanded loyalty, per-say, you just never question Trump over anything. Nothing about him alarms you. It's cheerleading all way. It's like Trump could shoot someone, and you'd remain loyal -- and you cannot understand why everyone else isn't on board?
You make an assumption (and you know what happens when you assume) you have no right or evidence to make (how many times, including earlier in this conversation, have I made clear I have lots of reservations about Trump? I just wish you'd say the same about Cruz). And you never answer any of my rebuttals.
I don't blame you for wanting to stop.
Insults work. Juvenile insults work.
For presidential candidates? Sure, in certain doses.
But how does Trump now get around the accurate accusation that he was too concerned with defending his penis size to simply let the lowest of baiting slide?
I know I'm no stranger to ad hominem or insult. But my advisors tell me that presidents are supposed to be a bit more sanguine about this.
CNN's newest headline: Donald Trump defends size of his penis. No fucking joke.
How does he find a way to look more presidential than, say, Anthony Weiner now?
At some point his inability to let a thing slide *is* a liability. It's about judgment. I didn't see how far it would go until that moment. He really said that?
I'm not offended. I'm shocked.
I guess I must be more confident about my penis size. Or something.
It's interesting that Trump used the words "guarantee" when vouching for his size/length/girth/whatever credentials.
Seeing as he's a businessman, I'm curious about how this guarantee is maintained.
I'll probably ask my cousin, an executive guy, how this works. Will it be a money-back guarantee? What are the terms and conditions?
Do both parties agree to undergo arbitration talks in the event that the guarantee is breached?
This just may happen to come up, you know. I mean, he's an awfully litigious guy. And he's got a very big name and brand to stand behind when he guarantees things.
Heres the thing Ritmo. It was a joke. Most regular people get that. I understand that it offends wheelchair guy's sensibility. But most regular people are smart enough to make sure there is water in the pool before they jump.
There was an American President who told low and vulgar jokes all the time. The best and the brightest considered him a fool and not worthy of the office of the President. They called him every name in the book.
His name was Abe Lincoln.
Abe loved a good dick joke. Sitting around the cracker barrel with his cronies in New Salem in the general store that he eventually sent into Bankruptcy. They would laugh about dick size, make fun of the darkies and talk about Ann Rutledge tits. It was a simpler time.
I think jokes are fine. Hillary got "schlonged". Ok, he was probably jokey and lowbrow and talking about his opponent.
He's been plenty vulgar. Or so they said. I didn't care.
I care about whether he's got thick enough skin or not to focus. And not just around the tip.
Lol.
Once he took out his Johnson and wanted to measure it against the rest of his cabinet. The only one who took him up on it was Vice President Andrew Johnson. In fact that was the reason that dick's started being referred to as Johnson's. Andrew's member was yugggeeeee.
In fact the size of his penis was a primary unstated reason for his impeachment. The Radical Republicans whispered that he had black blood and that was why he wanted to keep the black man down. He had to overcompensate.
Oh, the unabridged versions they neglect to tell you in history class.
What the pointed headed intellectual and nasty feminist cunts like Megyn Kelly don't get is that Trump talks the way that many, many regular guys talk. In the factory. At the auto shop. When the busybodies are not around. And not just us old white guys. Black guys. Spanish gang bangers. Just about any guy worth his salt. So it doesn't bother them the way it bothers George Will or Anderson Cooper.
I think I should start a new series. Wait I think I did have one about Presidential Penises on the old blog. I will have to look it up.
It's only fair. A companion series to "Whose that girl?"
Trump is definitely admired as a pimp among guys like Snoop. And he seems to have plenty of love for Dennis Rodman, a guy who doesn't sacrifice flashiness for anything.
Trump would probably play some country and western at an inaugural ball. But you know he'd be down with George Clinton and Parliament Funkadelic too.
I did have one called "Whose that Dick?"
But that was just photo's of Nixon.
Trump will get a surprising amount of the black vote. Watch and see. He is used to dealing with courrpt black leadership that controls their votes. He dealt with Sharpton and Daughtry and all the rest in NY all the time. They had these phony union protesters who would picket a job site to demand minority hiring and what not. A few dollars in the right hands and they went away. He can do the same thing in the election. Not him personally of course. Roger Stone or some other flunky. Plus he will have a legion of black celebrities touting him out in the community. Amarosa. Nene Leakes. Kenya Moore. Latoya. Terrel Owens. Snoop. Lil John. Mike Tyson. Evander Holyfield. George Foreman. Tons of them. Watch and see.
"I ain't afraid of no Trump!"
Chip haha. Yes, Trump could make Mexico an offer they couldn't refuse.
"Nice country you got there, Mexico. Be a shame if someone was to invade it and take it over. Maybe a Wall would prevent that."
Yep. Anyone who's seen Trump on reality TV knows he's very simpatico with Hispanics and Blacks. Black leaders know they can deal with him.
You and your Johnson.
Post a Comment