fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

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.

Not sure Chelsea is hot enough to have a real impact.

hotter than hillary

fishmike wrote:

Nice shot of Paul Ryan and GOP interns (that's the one on the left)

thats horrible!! Don't see any jews in there either (or at least not hassidic ones)

BRIGGS wrote:

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?

The kids are all intelligent and polished ,made great speeches and Jr may someday be in Pub politics, BUT Pence backed by Pub establishment and advisers will be behind the scenes running the government if Trump is elected. His speech last night was populist and it went against mainstream Pub thought especially on free trade and globalization. On that, we could likely see renegotiations of trade agreements just like the British will be doing but America is not pulling out of selling and providing goods and services abroad even if money is being repatriated and employed at home as one should hope. Expect a push for lower corporate taxes, closing of corporate loopholes and inversions. Trump is simply the result of lingering stagnation caused by the Great Recession and overreach by the left that have netted little so far despite any good intent. Carson cited Solinsky as a bad influence on Hillary which is bunk as organized protest has a right to properly gather and voice, it is when the screams of the minority dominate and awaken the Silent Majority to their neglect by policy makers in both parties who gear policies to the lower and upper classes despite their talk of representing the majority, the middle class is now reacting and that reaction is being ignited by current events. As some may have noticed, there is a nationalist movement in many countries and Trump is playing to it on a superficial but emotional level. What I took from his speech was Trump would't be good for illegal immigrants and refugees, petty criminals and knock out punks, privacy and environmental advocates, conservatives and liberals. Weep. He'll be good if you're in public works, law enforcement, energy production. Beyond that, others will primarliy formulate and determine what we do in many national and foreign issues.
One day he's offering VP's the total ball of responsibility and the next day he's some authoritarian. The truth is he'd be a figurehead and some basics will be his priorities that will be implemented by others.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloanyk wrote:What I took from his speech was Trump would't be good for illegal immigrants and refugees, petty criminals and knock out punks, privacy and environmental advocates, conservatives and liberals. Weep. He'll be good if you're in public works, law enforcement, energy production. Beyond that, others will primarliy formulate and determine what we do in many national and foreign issues.
One day he's offering VP's the total ball of responsibility and the next day he's some authoritarian. The truth is he'd be a figurehead and some basics will be his priorities that will be implemented by others.

I think this basic breakdown assumes a presidential administration has some sort of sweeping powers to affect significant change in these areas, as if Trump talking about prioritizing illegal immigration somehow naturally leads to significant policy change in these areas.

An administration still has Congress and the Supreme Court to deal with.

You mostly correctly identified the broad ideas Trump is trying to appeal to.

The MOST important question is in fact the competency of his administration to actually effect change and implement policy.

Trump is quite clearly not offering any insight into that question other than the pitch the force of his will alone will overcome the legislative branch and the public, which even in the best case scenario for him, will likely be evenly divided for and against him.

Trump is clearly trying to appeal to people who want an Authoritarian and who either believe or desire the president's role to be that.

And it is not. It is by definition an administrative role.

The more important question isn't what he says he wants to do, but how is he going to do it.

That the latter question doesn't seem to matter to be people is why we get what we deserve.

Best summary yet

Trump famously elides any specific objection to his grandiose promises by offering his own alleged business genius as the cure-all, and he did so again tonight. This fantasy megalomania, Trump as the magical savior, is the most ridiculous feature of Trump’s candidacy. What makes his acceptance speech new and different is that he offers more than just himself as the solution. He offers his supporters a restoration of the social order Obama inverted. Trump’s election will not only make Trump the president, it will represent white America attaining the necessary level of collective consciousness, rising as one.

- Johnathan Chait

“First of all, the Secret Service is unbelievable,” the Republican nominee said. “I'm the best thing that's ever happened to the secret service. Because I go around, mark and all these guys, I go around saying how great they are. They are great. These are great, great people.”

So men and women who volunteer to be human shields not just to office holders, but candidates for office, who do not ask what your idealogical slant is when they put their own lives in potential harms way, the greatest thing to ever happen to them is the seal of approval of Donald Trump?

That people have the inability to see this for what it is is baffling.

And apathy would be worse.

misterearl wrote:Nope

meloanyk wrote:

misterearl wrote:Fear Of A Black President

Best summary yet

Trump famously elides any specific objection to his grandiose promises by offering his own alleged business genius as the cure-all, and he did so again tonight. This fantasy megalomania, Trump as the magical savior, is the most ridiculous feature of Trump’s candidacy. What makes his acceptance speech new and different is that he offers more than just himself as the solution. He offers his supporters a restoration of the social order Obama inverted. Trump’s election will not only make Trump the president, it will represent white America attaining the necessary level of collective consciousness, rising as one.

- Johnathan Chait

Shouldn't that summary be titled Fear of A Trump Presidency?

The Trump presidency and its core message, is rooted in hatred of what Barack Obama stands for in his supporters minds.

The loss of power and control.

I get the country is deeply divided idealogically and that that everyone is biased to some degree because of it, but if you can't recognize that if that same exact speech was given in Philly next week, by say, Corey Booker, and delivered in the same tone, that Fox News and talk radio would be in full meltdown mode right now, you either aren't fighting fair, or at the proper weight.

Trump spoke of the "illegal immigrants with criminal records" who are "tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens."

"More than 600,000 Americans died of heart disease in 2015, many of them unnecessarily. More than 130,000 Americans died in accidents. More than 40,000 died by suicide. There were a record number of drug overdoses in 2014, and gun deaths in America are far beyond those in any developed country.

Trump has no actual fix to immigration, no theories on how to reduce crime. Here, his statement bordered on self-parody. "I have a message for all of you: The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end," he said. "Beginning on January 20, 2017, safety will be restored."

- Vox

Fact: things (including the economy and employment rates) are doing much better than when the "non-citizen" (thank you for wasting our time with the "birther" nonsense Mr. Trump) President Obama came into office.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

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.

What are you even talking about?

I thought it was perfectly clear.

You gave weight to Keith Hennessey's personal assessment of George Bush over mine, so wouldn't you logically then give Tony Schwartz's personal assessment of Donald Trump weight over your own?

And if not, why?

To what publication is he referring?

“This was a magazine that, in many respects, should be well respected,” Trump said. “I mean if that was The New York Times, they would have gotten Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting.”