Bluegrassrivals

TheRealThing Wrote:All I did was point out your personal attacks on anybody you can't influence negatively against Trump on this site. If you think you're victimizing them or me, that moves you into a club with a membership of one. Just a suggestion here, it is possible even if remotely so, that you're overestimating the impact of your 'incoming,' where I am concerned. Say what you want.

The world does not revolve around you and Donald Trump. All I am saying is that if you are going to take shots at me in every post that you make, then expect me to respond in kind. I have never considered myself a member of a herd, so being a member of a club of one does not concern me the way that it seems to concern you.

God made cows and God made human beings but I don't think that He expects us to behave as cattle do simply because we share a common Maker.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:When has Rush Limbaugh ever predicted that a Republican candidate would lose this early in the general campaign? I don't recall it ever happening. Rush is a Republican booster and he has carefully taken positions on the fence to avoid offending his audience. Not that there is anything wrong with that - he is operating the most successful business of its kind in history.

IMO, Rush put on a better and more entertaining show as he tried to build his audience than he has since he shifted into maintenance mode.

Finally something we agree on! Rush is on cruise control, but he's still the most astute political observer out there, IMO.

When have party insiders openly called the presumptive nominee a disaster? Never. People are having to admit they are wrong and support Trump or they are helping Hillary. It's really that simple at this point.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:The world does not revolve around you and Donald Trump. All I am saying is that if you are going to take shots at me in every post that you make, then expect me to respond in kind. I have never considered myself a member of a herd, so being a member of a club of one does not concern me the way that it seems to concern you.

God made cows and God made human beings but I don't think that He expects us to behave as cattle do simply because we share a common Maker.

This is what Rush was trying to say that you skipped over, and it wasn't that he is predictable to a fault in supporting the eventual Republican nominee;
[SIZE="2"]
"I still don't think people understand why Trump won this. I don't think they understand at all the reason people support Trump. And the deeper people are entrenched in politics, and the more they are accustomed to the templates and the handbooks and the theories and the playbooks, the less they're gonna understand it. The more they try to plug Donald Trump and his campaign and his personality into the professional politician candidate playbook that they use, the farther and farther from the truth they are going to get.

I've tried to help. During the course of this entire campaign, I've gone to great lengths to try to explain to people what it is about Trump, why he has his supporters, why they support him, and what you have to do to separate them from Trump. Basically, you can't. That's the bottom line. There's nothing any professional politician can do. They've done everything that they knew how to beat a candidate. They threw everything they had at Trump. I mean, the negative ads that they ran against him, these #NeverTrump guys and their PACs in all these states?"[/SIZE]


The Republican Party painted themselves into the corner they now find themselves. The people have rejected the status quo offerings and excuses. Exasperated with the stonewalling and blaming, they have gone around the establishment, and in a sense they might have used one of Trump's more famous lines, and have said to them, "you're fired." In my view, it was just a matter of time until it happened. In any case, I would not have expected you Hoot of all people, to get so hostile with the reality of what has happened. Our dialogue notwithstanding, what happened, happened. I chose a more dispassionate analysis while rejecting the #NeverTrump doomsdayer dogma.

You're a smart man, but you're not smart enough to hang your own obsessions on me. Time and time again you have said you were done wasting time reasoning with me, only to go back on that and make yet another post. You speak as if you consider yourself quite the dominant force on here, as you imagine that you have really put me in my place. You might want to consider that your perceptions and arguments might not be as overpowering as you may suspect.

The fact is, you don't seem to able to tolerate or abide people's opinions that oppose your own. Now, if it was your intent to reclassify Trump supporters with the beasts of the field, that would be consistent with the presumptive arrogance in which you, in my view, have dealt with anybody who has disagreed with you since you suddenly (and by that I mean within a couple hours time) went from a likely Trump supporter to a #NeverTrump.

As I said, respond anyway you choose. If the recent past is any indication, I'm certain we've not yet plumbed the depths to which your contempt can take us. You had every right to say the things you did, and I had every right to question them.

TheRealThing Wrote:This is what Rush was trying to say that you skipped over, and it wasn't that he is predictable to a fault in supporting the eventual Republican nominee;
[SIZE="2"]
"I still don't think people understand why Trump won this. I don't think they understand at all the reason people support Trump. And the deeper people are entrenched in politics, and the more they are accustomed to the templates and the handbooks and the theories and the playbooks, the less they're gonna understand it. The more they try to plug Donald Trump and his campaign and his personality into the professional politician candidate playbook that they use, the farther and farther from the truth they are going to get.

I've tried to help. During the course of this entire campaign, I've gone to great lengths to try to explain to people what it is about Trump, why he has his supporters, why they support him, and what you have to do to separate them from Trump. Basically, you can't. That's the bottom line. There's nothing any professional politician can do. They've done everything that they knew how to beat a candidate. They threw everything they had at Trump. I mean, the negative ads that they ran against him, these #NeverTrump guys and their PACs in all these states?"[/SIZE]


The Republican Party painted themselves into the corner they now find themselves. The people have rejected the status quo offerings and excuses. Exasperated with the stonewalling and blaming, they have gone around the establishment, and in a sense they might have used one of Trump's more famous lines, and have said to them, "you're fired." In my view, it was just a matter of time until it happened. In any case, I would not have expected you Hoot of all people, to get so hostile with the reality of what has happened. Our dialogue notwithstanding, what happened, happened. I chose a more dispassionate analysis while rejecting the #NeverTrump doomsdayer dogma.

You're a smart man, but you're not smart enough to hang your own obsessions on me. Time and time again you have said you were done wasting time reasoning with me, only to go back on that and make yet another post. You speak as if you consider yourself quite the dominant force on here, as you imagine that you have really put me in my place. You might want to consider that your perceptions and arguments might not be as overpowering as you may suspect.

The fact is, you don't seem to able to tolerate or abide people's opinions that oppose your own. Now, if it was your intent to reclassify Trump supporters with the beasts of the field, that would be consistent with the presumptive arrogance in which you, in my view, have dealt with anybody who has disagreed with you since you suddenly (and by that I mean within a couple hours time) went from a likely Trump supporter to a #NeverTrump.

As I said, respond anyway you choose. If the recent past is any indication, I'm certain we've not yet plumbed the depths to which your contempt can take us. You had every right to say the things you did, and I had every right to question them.

You have a right to belittle, ridicule, and insult anybody that you want, TRT. Exercising that right recklessly does not make you right. You are mistaken to believe that I hold people in contempt who plan to vote for Trump. I hold people in contempt who lie and insult me on a regular basis. Not many BGR members hold that distinction.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:You have a right to belittle, ridicule, and insult anybody that you want, TRT. Exercising that right recklessly does not make you right. You are mistaken to believe that I hold people in contempt who plan to vote for Trump. I hold people in contempt who lie and insult me on a regular basis. Not many BGR members hold that distinction.

Do you not understand that what you have said is a matter of record here on this forum? You came up with more demonstrably disputable blather just now while calling me a liar, again. But, by all means why hold back now, right?

TheRealThing Wrote:Do you not understand that what you have said is a matter of record here on this forum? You came up with more demonstrably disputable blather just now while calling me a liar, again. But, by all means why hold back now, right?

"demonstrably disputable blather" :biglmao:

I believe that you attempted to explain away your first lie by saying that you "conflated" two of my statements and put them together. Since that time, you have consistently misrepresented my posts and dishonestly attributed some sinister intent that was never there.

Whether you use nickel words or dollar phrases to explain away your behavior toward me, the bottom line is that you have repeatedly let your emotions get the better of you.

I don't need to be convinced that my beliefs are the same as those of the majority of people around me. Some people need somebody constantly telling them how smart or good looking they are. I am not one of those people. So blather on, TRT.

I wish you two would thicken your skin and move on.

^
We are one Hillary supporting RealVille away from a complete nuclear war nicker:

SKINNYPIG Wrote:I wish you two would thicken your skin and move on.

Sorry Pig. Whether you start it or not, it's really hard to look good walking away from a food fight. I apologize to all.

No need for an apology. Most like a good argument but there does come a time for even the best to end.

FWIW...one of two people will be the next POTUS, Trump or Clinton. EVERYBODY knows that. IMO if a Sanders supporter stays home on election day and doesn't vote, that's sour grapes. If a Cruz supporter votes third party or sits it out while fully understanding his/her vote isn't worth squat, I also think that is sour grapes.

A vote for what many believe is for the lesser of two evils, should be cast for which they believe is "the lesser of two evils". To me, it feels as if it is my civic deed to do so, no matter how tight I have to hold my nose. Why should I give the one I think is the greater evil a better chance?

I have been all in for Cruz since the day he announced, now I will be all in for Trump. There's no way I will cast any vote that helps Clinton, I simply cannot do that, the mere thought of it turns my stomach, honestly.

^^ Honestly, I think Cruz was the better of the two choices. But instead of contrasting Trump's inexperience to Cruz's experience we got a twitter war. Cruz was far more Presidential while delivering his concession speech than I have heard out of him frankly since Iowa. If he'd have pursued that tack instead of following in Rubio's footsteps to whatever degree, it might have gone much different for him. That being said and Cruz's tactical errs notwithstanding it is as you have said, over.

Of the people Trump has put forward so far, I have been impressed with them all. If he puts good people around him as he has promised, and if he even half way lives up to his newfound conservatism, things will be much better. Republicans such as Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan who are presently screaming the loudest for supposed fears that Trump is not a conservative purist, aren't kidding many other than themselves. Not only were John McCain and Mitt Romney not conservatives, neither are Graham or Paul Ryan by most profilers. What the establishment should do now is embrace Trump and be gracious with him regarding his acceptance into the fold. Respect is a two way street and if the good Speaker wants to have any input into the administrative ebb and flow, he should at least accept the people's will in this matter.

Likewise, this whole deal where Republicans are holding forth the standard of conservatism as a prerequisite for consideration to hold office is as sudden as Cruz's withdrawal from the race only three days ago. (Feels like much longer to me) And I doubt sincerely that it is real though, with the epic end run voters just put on the Republican establishment, I predict they will at least fake it more sincerely, LOL.

From the author who coined the phrase "short-fingered vulgarian" in describing Trump 25 years ago, which began a 25 year personal feud that Trump apparently suspended when he decided to declare his candidacy for president. Richard Nixon compiled an enemies list. If Trump becomes president, he may need to appoint an Enemies Czar to manage his list.

Quote:Steel Traps and Short Fingers

BY GRAYDON CARTER

The myriad vulgarities of Donald Trump—examples of which are retailed daily on Web sites and front pages these days—are not news to those of us who have been living downwind of him for any period of time. I first encountered Trump more than 30 years ago. Back then he was a flashy go-getter from an outer borough eager to make his name in Manhattan real estate. Which he succeeded in doing in the only way he knew how: by putting his name in oversize type on anything he was associated with—buildings, yes, but also vodka, golf courses, starchy ties, and even a sham of a real-estate school. Most people who own private planes include their initials as part of the tail number. Not Trump. On his campaign jet, a Boeing 757, his name runs from the cockpit to the wings—in gold letters, 10 feet high.

Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits.

^Junior High type stuff written by a whiner.

IMO, this is a very dumb move by Trump. Presidential candidates should go after other presidential candidates, not bystanders. Surrogates and VP candidates should handle attacks from their opponents' surrogates. This is the kind of attack that Chris Christie should be making on Elizabeth Warren, not Trump.

This line of attack is especially dangerous because it just hands Clinton more ammunition for her "war on women" charges against Trump. Clinton will have her female surrogates harshly criticizing Trump every single day, as long as Trump continues to respond to them. If Trump keeps falling into this obvious trap, then Trump's unfavorable rating with women voters will surge higher, if that is even possible.

I look for Hollywood women, especially comedians, to poke fun at Trump's appearance, voice, intelligence, speech patterns (sentence fragments), inability to read lines on a teleprompter ("Tan-ZANE-ia"), and anything else that might cause Trump to lash out with a personal insult in return.

A presidential candidate must exercise some self discipline and stay focused on his opponent, while ignoring insults from the peanut gallery. If Trump cannot do so, then he will lose in a landslide. The Clintons are masters of effectively using their minions to do the dirty work.

Trump's focus should be almost entirely on Hillary Clinton's miserable record as Secretary of State, her role in the Clinton bimbo eruption team (only as counter-attack to war on women charges), the Clinton Foundation's activities while she was Secretary of State, her (and Bill's) outrageous speaking fees (what did her customers get in returm?), and the likelihood that she is an unindicted criminal who placed her own agenda ahead of national security.

Trump should also publicly charge the Obama White House of interfering with the investigation of the Clinton email server security breaches every day. Accusing Obama of favoritism in his handling of the email scandal ties Hillary to Obama and it also places pressure on Obama to respond to the charges. When the Obama Justice Department and FBI respond to criticism, it reinforces Clinton's ties to Obama. Trump needs to drive Obama's job approval ratings downward into the 40s if he is going to have any chance of winning. The best way to do that is to put Obama and Hillary both on the defensive and attack the two of them as two members of the same team.

Chris Christie, would be the ideal guy to publicly attack the professionalism of Loretta Lynch. If the DOJ is not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton, then Trump needs somebody to do it in the court of public opinion. Lynch's demeanor has impressed me, and she presents herself to the public much better than Eric Holder did. But, like Holder, Lynch is involving her department in issues like the North Carolina law on restrooms where federal meddling is inappropriate. Christie and, maybe Rudy Giuliani, should apply a full court press against the Attorney General and force her to publicly defend her actions. The GOP should also demand some Congressional hearings into the politicization of the Department of Justice - the sooner, the better.

If Trump does not learn to exercise some self control and begin using surrogates like Chris Christie more effectively to deal with criticism from everybody except Hillary herself, then he is headed for a humiliating defeat in November.

Quote:Trump remounts Warren attack, calls her 'goofy' in effort to nix her 2016 influence

Donald Trump this weekend put his well-honed attack-counter attack game into full general-election mode -- mocking progressive stalwart and Senate Democrat Elizabeth Warren, in a likely preview of the next six months.
On Saturday, Trump turned to his go-to Twitter account to attack Warren, of Massachusetts, whom some Democrats wanted to run for president and now as Hillary Clinton’s running mate, if the front-running Clinton wins the party’s presidential nomination.

“Goofy Elizabeth Warren is weak and ineffective,” Trump, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, tweeted Saturday.

Warren nearly lost her Senate bid in 2012, amid criticism that she claimed to have Native American roots to further her academic career and become an Ivy League professor.

jetpilot Wrote:^Junior High type stuff written by a whiner.

I agree. The insult was a junior high level insult. The point is that Trump was unable to dismiss it for what it was. Trump clearly has normal looking hands, but to send photos of his hands to the writer for 25 years to prove it is not a good sign in a potential president, is it? Trump is about to lose almost every media ally that he has, aside from Fox News. If he cannot ignore junior high insults during the general campaign, he won't have time to deal with anything else. Trump should close his Twitter account for his own good.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I agree. The insult was a junior high level insult. The point is that Trump was unable to dismiss it for what it was. Trump clearly has normal looking hands, but to send photos of his hands to the writer for 25 years to prove it is not a good sign in a potential president, is it? Trump is about to lose almost every media ally that he has, aside from Fox News. If he cannot ignore junior high insults during the general campaign, he won't have time to deal with anything else. Trump should close his Twitter account for his own good.

When did we start expecting Republican candidates to have media allies?
Trump's style has been ridiculed by many ad nauseam yet he routed 16 or 17 well-qualified, more experienced Republicans. I think he will do just fine going up against Hillary one-on-one.

jetpilot Wrote:When did we start expecting Republican candidates to have media allies?
Trump's style has been ridiculed by many ad nauseam yet he routed 16 or 17 well-qualified, more experienced Republicans. I think he will do just fine going up against Hillary one-on-one.

Republicans always have media allies during the primary season. The media loved Dole and McCain until the general campaign arrived. No Republican candidate has ever received the positive coverage that Trump did during the primaries. Mark Levin's description of Fox News as Trump's super PAC was on the money.

Fox News sacrificed viewers to its competition to promote Trump's candidacy. When the general campaign heats up, Fox News (and Murdock's other media companies), with its declining ratings, will be Trump's only major media ally.

Trump cannot win against Hillary Clinton with the same kind of campaign that worked for him against the Republican candidates because his personal insults and lies will get an entirely different treatment by the media than they did when his targets were Republicans.

If you are a fiscal conservative, no comment is needed.

Quote:Trump: U.S. will never default 'because you print the money'

(CNN)Donald Trump declared Monday the U.S. never has to default on debt "because you print the money," while trying to clarify his strategy for managing the national debt.

Trump insisted that he never said the U.S. should default or attempt to renegotiate with creditors, as had been reported.

"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee explained he would center his approach on debt buybacks if and when interest rates go up.

"I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount, in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount -- if we are liquid enough as a country, we should do that," Trump said. "In other words, we can buy back debt at a discount."

He also repeated his claim that he is "the king of debt."

"I understand debt better than probably anybody. I know how to deal with debt very well. I love debt -- but you know, debt is tricky and it's dangerous, and you have to be careful and you have to know what you're doing," Trump said.

Anytime I see "CNN" before an article, I stop right there.

Even the Fox News Channel will eventually be forced to cover the goofy things that Donald Trump says and report on his lurch to the left. There is no escaping bad news.

Boy I'm glad I haven't been on here in awhile....This is like the Civil War....Brothers turning against brothers...

Bob Seger Wrote:Boy I'm glad I haven't been on here in awhile....This is like the Civil War....Brothers turning against brothers...

Please come back Bob, your presence is needed here!

Hoot Gibson Wrote:If you are a fiscal conservative, no comment is needed.

If you are a fiscal conservative, you hate what establishment Republicans have done/allowed to be done to the national debt.:ChairHit:

jetpilot Wrote:If you are a fiscal conservative, you hate what establishment Republicans have done/allowed to be done to the national debt.:ChairHit:

If you are a fiscal conservative you can hate what the establishment Republicans have done/allowed to be done to the national debt and still understand the stupidity of Trump's proposals for dealing with the national debt.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:If you are a fiscal conservative you can hate what the establishment Republicans have done/allowed to be done to the national debt and still understand the stupidity of Trump's proposals for dealing with the national debt.

If you are a fiscal conservative you can understand that Trump at least has proposals for dealing with the national debt while everyone else keeps blindly adding to it.

Spending more, borrowing, and printing more money to pay for government is not dealing with the national debt - It is the status quo. If printing more money is his plan, then he should at least use a euphemism to describe it. Quantitative easing - or QE if he wants to sound as if he knows what he is talking about.

^^ Art Laffer says Trump's financial plan is very good but what's he know, LOL.

Saw today where Governor Mike Huckabee has endorsed Trump saying, "I have no doubt that Trump will make an excellent President."

TheRealThing Wrote:^^ Art Laffer says Trump's financial plan is very good but what's he know, LOL.

Saw today where Governor Mike Huckabee has endorsed Trump saying, "I have no doubt that Trump will make an excellent President."

Art Laffer is an optimist. He does not believe that Trump will impose stiff tariffs on China and Mexico. Laffer also does not believe that Trump will deport illegal aliens (which Laffer thinks would be a mistake). He does believe that Trump will sharply lower tax rates as he promised before Cruz suspended his campaign.

Trump has already begun to walk away from his own tax plan, which was intended to garner support from conservatives. (He recently said that it would not pass Congress anyway and that the plan is.) After Trump panders to Bernie supporters in a bidding war with Hillary for a few months, Laffer may not be quite as optimistic. Trump is counting on the support of Sanders' supporters and he is not going to hook many of them with promises to cut tax rates for the wealthy and for corporations.

Quote:“I’ll tell you what the real concept is,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in an ABC interview that aired Sunday. “Lower taxes for business, lower taxes for the middle class, lower taxes for everybody and then we’re going to start negotiating.” On tax rates for the wealthy, Mr. Trump said, “In my plan they’re going down, but by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” due to pressure from Democratic lawmakers.

LINK

So before Trump begins negotiating with opponents of his tax plan and before he begins pandering to Bernie Sanders' supporters, he is already conceding that some Americans will be paying higher taxes if he becomes president.

As for Huckabee, IMO, he is snake. I am not surprised that the Huckster endorsed Trump. I am just surprised it took so long. Endorsing Trump will probably earn the Huckster a new show on the Trump News Network.

I do think Huckabee did a good job with his previous TV show. I wish he would stick with his showbiz career and stay out of politics. Ditto for Trump, although I have never watched an episode of The Apprentice.

Trump is now "open" to an increase in the national minimum wage. He says that his tax plan is just a bargaining position. Now, Trump says that the temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. was just a "suggestion."

That is a lot of back peddling since the suspension of Cruz's campaign made Trump the presumptive GOP nominee. I wonder what the second week of Trump's general campaign will bring.

Quote:US Election 2016: Donald Trump softens stance on Muslim ban

US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the audience in Eugene, Oregon

Mr Trump now calls the Muslim ban "a suggestion"

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appears to have softened his stance on temporarily barring Muslims from travelling to the US.

Responding to remarks by new London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Mr Trump told Fox News the ban was "just a suggestion".

Mr Khan has expressed concern that he would not be able to travel to the US under a Trump administration because of his Muslim faith.

Mr Trump had offered to make an "exception" for Mr Khan.

Mr Khan refused Mr Trump's offer, saying the New York businessman's views were "ignorant" and would make the UK and the US "less safe".

Mr Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the US after attacks in Paris killed 130 people last year.

Media captionSadiq Khan: I won't be Donald Trump's Muslim 'exception'
The suggested ban has been widely criticised in the US and abroad but Mr Trump until now has stood by the proposal, saying it was needed to ensure US security.

"It's a temporary ban. It hasn't been called for yet," Mr Trump said on Wednesday. "This is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on."

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Art Laffer is an optimist. He does not believe that Trump will impose stiff tariffs on China and Mexico. Laffer also does not believe that Trump will deport illegal aliens (which Laffer thinks would be a mistake). He does believe that Trump will sharply lower tax rates as he promised before Cruz suspended his campaign.

Trump has already begun to walk away from his own tax plan, which was intended to garner support from conservatives. (He recently said that it would not pass Congress anyway and that the plan is.) After Trump panders to Bernie supporters in a bidding war with Hillary for a few months, Laffer may not be quite as optimistic. Trump is counting on the support of Sanders' supporters and he is not going to hook many of them with promises to cut tax rates for the wealthy and for corporations.



So before Trump begins negotiating with opponents of his tax plan and before he begins pandering to Bernie Sanders' supporters, he is already conceding that some Americans will be paying higher taxes if he becomes president.

As for Huckabee, IMO, he is snake. I am not surprised that the Huckster endorsed Trump. I am just surprised it took so long. Endorsing Trump will probably earn the Huckster a new show on the Trump News Network.

I do think Huckabee did a good job with his previous TV show. I wish he would stick with his showbiz career and stay out of politics. Ditto for Trump, although I have never watched an episode of The Apprentice.

Right, Laffer and Huckabee are both unfit to quote, I don't know what I was thinking there.

And Steve Moore?; He spoke highly of Trump's plan today as well, and is another high ranking economist from the Reagan Administration. What's the rub with him?