Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Great line by a former bush strategist.

Trump doesn't want to be president. He wants to be Batman.

The Trump kids who I believe will be the brain trust of a Trump presidency are clearly highly intelligent people who have strong moral fiber. I think the kids running the nation would be the best outcome compared to the alternative. Donald Trump is a figure head. He didnt write the speech--hes the show man

So the kids who are all likely set-up in high paying careers are going to put them on hold to what, take low six-figure (if even) staff jobs.

Yeah, that's happening.

They dont have to change what they are doing and they are all worth hundreds of millions already?

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts. I'll add the opinion of someone who has spoken to him.

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Since you seem to put weight in those with direct access/interaction, do you have any reason to dismiss this person?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Yes, and as you say, we can play this game all day.

Diary Of A Madman

The status quo does not sound so bad as an alternative to the election of a madman. And this, intentionally or not, formed the message of Cruz’s snub. If the Trump campaign had realized how the event would play out — booing and chaos on the floor, delegates screaming that Cruz was a traitor, and the image of disunity prevailing — they would never have given Cruz a speaking slot. Cruz may well be motivated by strategy as much as principle — he alone among the major contenders refused to endorse Trump, giving him sole ownership of what may be a large slice of the party electorate in 2020. Competitors like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker look like midgets next to Cruz now. And, to the extent nonstrategic considerations drove his decision, he may have understandably held a grudge against Trump’s petty insults against him, his father, and wife.

But Cruz’s speech will instead symbolize something else: the refusal of an educated, professional politician to risk handing executive power to the most dangerous figure ever to have a chance to obtain it in the history of the United States.

- Johnathan Chait

Republicans in Chaos Must Decide Whether to Elect a Madman

“You feel that you’re this country’s rightful owners. There’s only one problem with that. This country isn’t yours. You don’t own it. It never was.” - John Stewart

Think about that a moment

1984 is here. And you thought things were moving forward. Big Trump in the room. He sounds like Big Brother's Keeper. Be afraid.
Be very afraid. This is how the small steps of fascism step into the room. One voice saying he is the voice of all. Funny, I only see white people.

- Ethelbert Miller

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Bill is likeable, its not just me.

I don't think it is just you.

That's the point.

Philandering (be in Bill or Trump) - that's cool.

But she didn't leave him - what'd a hypocritical shrew.

You're tapping into a very real and very common standard in terms of gender roles in this culture.

I've asked you to address the issue and all you've said it, "it isn't just me".

And I agree with you.

GWB

Of course you do. Give me some specifics about his intellect. Facts, please.

Sure. I said it was a belief and I'll tell you what it's based on, independent of the facts about this relative academic achievements.

I've never seen George Bush express a nuanced thought. And I'm not exaggerating. He speaks in single thoughts ... almost exclusively in single sentences strung together. I've never witnessed him explain a complicated idea. I've never witnessed him introduce a new idea or cast any ideas in a new light.

Try to picture thinkers you admire speaking in public, engaging in expressing their ideas. Does this describe Bush at all?

Even his supporters recognize this and call him a "plain spoken." But I think it's perfectly fair to question whether a plain speaker is a plainer thinker.

I made a point to question his relative intelligence. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I've never seen evidence he is a deep thinker - that ideas are a passion for him, and it is plainly recognizable in those who it is a passion.

I also don't think there is evidence of an active intellect before, during (he took record vacations) or post-presidency. IN his post-presidential life, he has not gravitated towards a signature cause as many presidents do.

I just don't see any evidence of an active, curious mind.

GWB is an avid reader and has taken up art in his post presidency. He also has had the respect for the office and stayed out of the way and not commented on issues that BO deals with unlike what WJC did to him.

Paul Ryan has a mind. John Kasich has a mind. Gingrich is a thinker. I don't like many of their thoughts, but I don't dismiss anyone on he right as being stupid. George Bush simply doesn't present as a serious thinker. BUsh Doctrine is attributed to him. There is some thought there, agree or disagree

He is socially intelligent? Clearly and that's a legitimate form of intelligence. Connecting people is hard. He could clearly do it better than Gore, who could and did run circles around him intellectually. OPINION

And on that note...

Satire? No Way! That is pure hatred for the man shrouded in artistic expression.

SNL savaged Al Gore. Many thought the famous SNL debate skits played worse for him than they did for Bush. "Lock box" was as much a buzzphrase as "strategery."

You're reaching here.

Also, that is weak. AL Gore and his lock box on one show compared to hundreds of shows and references to GWB. Not the same. You are reaching hard.

As for your GWB diatribe, those are all your opinions, not facts. I'll add the opinion of someone who has spoken to him.

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Since you seem to put weight in those with direct access/interaction, do you have any reason to dismiss this person?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-remorseful-ghostwriter

Yes, and as you say, we can play this game all day.

Indeed we can. But you brought this sort of logic into the discourse, i did not.

As you indirectly acknowledge, you will arbitrarily offer what first hand account appeals to you, and arbitrarily reject those who do not (which I why I didn't put weight into it in the first place), making the entire exercise futile.

So you shouldn't have done it the first time if you were going to be hypocritical about it, is the point.

Knickoftime wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:He's more than just a show man. Show man doesn't win the Republican nomination with record numbers. He wins using common sense in mostly everything he does. Common sense something Americans have been calling for from our politicians for a long time and Hillary Clinton desperately lacks.

Sure, if you ignore all the lies.

guns, what common sense policies has he proposed? I literally can't find anything concrete

And I feel like he won the republican nomination cause the rest of the group was a clown show, that's not achievement to hang your hat on.

martin wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:He's more than just a show man. Show man doesn't win the Republican nomination with record numbers. He wins using common sense in mostly everything he does. Common sense something Americans have been calling for from our politicians for a long time and Hillary Clinton desperately lacks.

Sure, if you ignore all the lies.

guns, what common sense policies has he proposed? I literally can't find anything concrete

And I feel like he won the republican nomination cause the rest of the group was a clown show, that's not achievement to hang your hat on.

Briggs are the Trump kids better than the Clinton kid? I mean is cool if Hillary is elected but really Chelsea is running things?

misterearl wrote:Just For Men

"Who cares? Who cares? The fact is Melania gave a good speech, she is stunningly attractive, she’s stunningly articulate, most of the people criticizing her can’t speak five languages. She’s a bright person, she introduced herself in a way that’s attractive, she’s obviously very passionate about America, and she introduced her husband."

- Newt Gingrich

Gingrich deserves credit for following up his verbal ogling of Melania with a nod to her articulateness. But then he undoes all that good work by referring for a second time to her attractiveness, as though all that Americans want in their first lady is someone they can think about while masturbating.

What Gingrich left unsaid is that Hillary will be held to a higher standard than Melania because she’s not “stunningly attractive.” But in the Republican Party’s race to the bottom, subtext eventually becomes text, so right-wing radio host Michael Savage said out loud on his show what Gingrich only implied: “Hillary is not attractive. Hillary is unattractive. This is a country that lives on movie stars. Melania’s a movie star; Hillary looks like a maid.”

If Republicans want women who don’t look like Melania Trump to vote for Trump in November, their messaging could use some work.

- LV Anderson

And as Briggs as demonstrated, the older children are very attractive, well spoken and seemingly intelligent. They cut a good image, no doubt.

And based on this, some are ready and eager to hand them the keys to the country.

- No expectation of their qualifications, other than being attractive, well spoken and seemingly intelligent.

- No consideration that none has shown any inkling toward public service.

- The assumption their political leanings actually align with the right (and there is plenty of evidence they do not).

Again, we get what we deserve.

And btw, the same argument appeals equally to Chelsea Clinton, who is accomplished in her field, is well-spoken, intelligent, well-liked and effective spokesperson for her family. But nobody is or should put her on the ticket in the secret, calming influence section of the ballot.