GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[piscator]

The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian. The man on the phone vigorously defending Donald Trump says he’s a media spokesman named John Miller, but then he says, “I’m sort of new here,” and “I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and even “I’m going to do this a little, part-time, and then, yeah, go on with my life.”

A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

Miller turned out to be a remarkably forthcoming source — a spokesman with rare insight into the private thoughts and feelings of his client. “Have you met him?” Miller asked the reporter. “He’s a good guy, and he’s not going to hurt anybody. . . . He treated his wife well and . . . he will treat Marla well.”

ome reporters found the calls from Miller or Barron disturbing or even creepy; others thought they were just examples of Trump being playful. Today, as the presumptive Republican nominee for president faces questions about his attitudes toward women, what stands out to some who received those calls is Trump’s characterization of women who he portrayed as drawn to him sexually.

“Actresses,” Miller said in the call to Carswell, “just call to see if they can go out with him and things.” Madonna “wanted to go out with him.” And Trump’s alter ego boasted that in addition to living with Maples, Trump had “three other girlfriends.”

Miller was consistent about referring to Trump as “he,” but at one point, when asked how important Bruni was in Trump’s busy love life, the spokesman said, “I think it’s somebody that — you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once, quickly, and beautiful . . . ” and then he quickly pivoted back into talking about Trump — then a 44-year-old father of three — in the third person.

In 1990, Trump testified in a court case that “I believe on occasion I used that name.” He did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

[L'Emmerdeur]

He says it wasn't him. That's "arguably truthful," and I have it on good authority that that's all that matters.

[Tyrannical]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... ctatorship

Obviously Ralph Nader likes Bernie.......

But in an interview with U.S. News, Nader expressed more positive thoughts about Trump's candidacy than Clinton's.

The liberal activist says Trump has brought some important issues to the fore.

"He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important," Nader says. "But he's lowered the level of political debate to unheard-of depths of salacious, slanderous and vacuousness, garnished with massive self-boosterism and repetition."

"And that's not good, because that brought a lot of money into the media and that's the kind of debates they're going to want to goad."

When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.

[piscator]

So does Trump...

[Forty Two]

man, have you even sen her smile? those smile are so artificial you'd think she's got a mask on.

That could be said of most politicians...

That's true of most everything they're saying about Trump.

The great thing about Trump is who hates him. O.k., we know he's on the right track when the Leftist Progressive are all aghast at him. That's a given. The fact that Leftists were like "Holy crap, not Trump! We'd rather have Cruz!" should tell you something....

The conservatives and establishment guys hating him is another good one -- Oh, Romney and Graham don't like Trump? Boehner? That band of jerk offs are saying "never Trump" because THEY claim some benevolent concern for the interests of the middle class, working class, and other factions of the great mass of Americans? Fuck off! I think they have yet to learn that the more guys like that come out against Trump, the more people know that supporting Trump is the way to go. If you're threatening the interests of those fucks, then at least you've got that going for you.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two, what I'm trying to tell you is that you don't know a damn thing about secure coms channels, or document classification, or being SecState.

Nothing has been "clearly determined", and Hillary didn't and shouldn't answer to partisan hacks temporarily bestowed with the ability to spend other people's taxes on their political ends.

I do know what the law and executive order says. And, one thing it does say is that information doesn't have to be labeled classified in order to be classified, and the Secretary of State is tasked with protecting classified information, whether or not someone else labeled it. So, her claim that it was not "labeled" classified is horseshit, and she had to know it was horseshit.

The FBI may be partisan, I suppose, but the FBI is part of the Department of Justice which reports to the President of the US, which is not a Republican. The Executive Branch for the last 7 years has been controlled by Democrats. If there was any partisanship to be expected, it would not be in favor of Republicans. The fact that she has not yet been indicted is more likely to be a function of Democrat partisanship as an indictment would be a function of Republican partisanship, because the agency is controlled by the Democrat party.

Hillary admits she was not using "secure com channels," doesn't she? Or, does she claim her personal server, used for convenience, because she had multiple phones or something, was actually a secure com channel? Would her emails have been sifted by the custodian of records in response to Freedom of Information Act Requests?

[pErvinalia]

man, have you even sen her smile? those smile are so artificial you'd think she's got a mask on.

That could be said of most politicians...

That's true of most everything they're saying about Trump.

The great thing about Trump is who hates him. O.k., we know he's on the right track when the Leftist Progressive are all aghast at him. That's a given. The fact that Leftists were like "Holy crap, not Trump! We'd rather have Cruz!" should tell you something....

The conservatives and establishment guys hating him is another good one -- Oh, Romney and Graham don't like Trump? Boehner? That band of jerk offs are saying "never Trump" because THEY claim some benevolent concern for the interests of the middle class, working class, and other factions of the great mass of Americans? Fuck off! I think they have yet to learn that the more guys like that come out against Trump, the more people know that supporting Trump is the way to go. If you're threatening the interests of those fucks, then at least you've got that going for you.

Bit like Hilter really. He must have been doing something right.

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

That's not going to save you from your busted logic.

[Forty Two]

That's not going to save you from your busted logic.

You apparently don't understand the logic.

There are large numbers of disgruntled voters, among the working class, among the middle class, and other groups. They don't trust the establishment politicians. They don't believe them. They don't want them anymore. For decades, Congress has had approval ratings down to 20% or less. We have, as a country, become used to politicians lying to us.

You hear it in the news coverage -- the media covers lying as if it's expected and understood parts of campaigns. A candidate "plays to his base" one day (which means making more extreme statements and positions to appeal to the more extreme factions), but then later the candidate is expected to "pivot to the middle" to appeal to the "moderates" and the "independents." Those are just intricate ways of saying the politicians are lying. They say one thing to one audience, and then another thing to another audience, trying to secure both sets of voters. And, the media is no longer concerned with what position the candidate actually holds. The unstated assumption is that all candidates "adopt positions," they don't really believe things.

We have the lobbying and consultant class that everyone knows is there. People who base their careers on what amounts to graft and corruption. They lobby and reach understandings, and with plausible deniability, payoffs are made. Finance companies drop millions into the coffers of candidates, and they aren't doing so for charity or because they are patriotic and really support Hillary or Romney or Obama or Bush. They are buying influence, and everybody know it.

So, what happened with Trump is that he came in there and said - look, this, this and this is messed up. I'm going to fix it. And, he said, I know first hand what is messed up in our system, because as a person controlling a big enterprise, I had to give money to politicians. I had to pay to both Republicans and Democrats because if you don't pay, then you won't get their consideration in government. If you do pay, and pay big, the Congresspeople will pick up the phone for you, and they will listen to you -- the big-moneyed interests get little tweaks to bills and laws that cover them, and save them money.

So, when you have a plain-talking guy like Trump saying that, and then you get a Lindsey Graham coming out and saying "hey hey we can't stand for this Trump character... he's not good for the country..." people don't believe them. They already see Graham as part of the problem. They don't trust the Establishment Republicans. So, if these guys are squawking - the neocon hawks and big-bailout guys - then it makes sense to people that Trump is hitting a nerve. Any suggestion from these establishment blatherers about patriotism requiring that we go "never Trump" because Trump is so bad, and WE, we the establishment Republicans have the best interest of the country at heart, and we'll take care of all you hard-working Americans who are out there grinding it out - that rings rather hollow. Oh, you're helping us.....what? lose our industry to China and Mexico? Raise our taxes? Increase our retirement age? Lose our pensions and 401ks in the financial crisis and then bail out the financial institutions that caused it?

That's what the establishment blokes don't seem to get yet. The people are, quite possibly, done with them now. We need people who are really going to change the way things are working. Talking around the edges and saying things about getting money out of politics by creating another bureaucracy to control elections -- that isn't going to work. Telling people you're going "repeal Obamacare and eliminate the IRS" (again...and again... and again...) is recognized for what it is, pandering.

People bash trump about being non-specific in his policies, but that's bollocks too. Take the repeal of Obamacare. Trump has been far more specific than any other Republican candidate about what he would replace it with. And, on all the other issues, he has been at least as specific as any other candidate.

What people here from mainstream candidates are the same old same old slogans. The reason Trump is popular is because he is a recognized name, and an exciting, charismatic figure. On top of that, people credit him with having some first hand knowledge of the business world, and the ability to "get things done." People don't know how to fix the China trade deficit -- and the smartest thing they can do is not pretend to know or understand it. What they see in Trump, however, is someone who says there is a problem with China trade, and is promising to get in there and negotiate a new deal. So, when Trump says he wants to do X, but that he's flexible and will do a deal that makes sense. That strikes people as honest and practical. What doesn't strike people as honest is when a Ted Cruz declares that he will hold true to his policy positions come hell or high water, and he will "never change" ever (and he tried to say that). People KNOW from experience that no politician will hold true to all their policies and statements. They can't. Much of what they say they will do requires negotiation with Congress and other interested persons - to say that one will inflexibly hold to stated positions is just pandering and talking points.

[Hermit]

Godwin said nothing even remotely like that. Also, the statement makes no sense whatsoever.

[pErvinalia]

That's not going to save you from your busted logic.

You apparently don't understand the logic.

Your logic was 'the establishment doesn't like him, therefore he must be ok'. No one should need to tell you how retarded that "logic" is.

[Forty Two]

That's not going to save you from your busted logic.

You apparently don't understand the logic.

Your logic was 'the establishment doesn't like him, therefore he must be ok'. No one should need to tell you how retarded that "logic" is.

No, my logic was not that. My logic was "the establishment (whom we don't trust and don't agree with) doesn't like him, therefore we see that he's pissing off the right people and it adds to our conviction that Trump is on to something." It would be disconcerting if Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were all like "Trump, he's our man." If that happened, folks would need to wonder what back-room deal was being cut.

[pErvinalia]

You just don't get it, do you? The same "logic" applies to Hitler.

[Forty Two]

You just don't get it, do you? The same "logic" applies to Hitler.

Only if you ignore the facts. But, go ahead and write out the logical argument involving Hitler instead of Trump. Is your argument that it was that all the wrong and untrustworthy people were opposing Hitler all along, and Hitler was advancing a popular message that was garnering him overwhelming support at the ballot box?