Trump speaks on anti-Semitism, Israel, and Harris — 25 Comments
I agree with him.
He’s hilarious. The way he said that Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden’s vice president “only because she’s … ” (trailing off) recalls the opening scene of Blazing Saddles, where one of the townswomen calls out “The mayor is a ni—!” Then he threaded the needle by saying that Harris had to be nominated because the Democratic Party needed to be “politically correct.” His enemies won’t be able to attack him for that remark without specifying exactly why political correctness was a factor in her nomination.
We’re getting wall-to-wall bullshit out of US spokesmen regarding the so called hostage negotiations/ceasefire/surrender talks. Aim? Oust Netanyahu. That’s the aim.
The Democrats have been after Netanyahu for years, going back to Clinton. They have sent political operatives to try to bring him down.
@ Sennacherib > “I agree with him.”
So did the audience.
IMO, Trump says too much and is imprecise with his words. OTOH, he’s transparent, and can be very entertaining. Not really my cuppa, but I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him as opposed to Kackling Kamala.
Not that it will make a difference here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound. Still, it’s important to me to put my preference on the ballot.
I’m curious about something. I’m always hearing that Trump is a gaffe-a-minute gasbag. I’m also always hearing that he gives three plus hour rambles at his rallies.
Why do we so rarely see any “gotcha” reporting from a Trump rally? Shouldn’t the Times and WaPo have them permanently staked out and by keeping up a constant drumbeat of Trump gaffe articles?
@Niketas Choniates
It happens. For instance another family member (who was already TDS prone) ranted about how Trump claimed that he “thought” Washington never owned slaves. I checked the record itself and this was true, making it a gaffe and stupid. However, it was in passing when talking about the left’s forced renaming of schools of Washington, and while the MSM did have a host of articles on this and many of the others did, they probably don’t want to emphasize it compared to others (like the “Fine People” bullshit nontroversy) precisely because the context would point to Trump’s point about the left’s historical and cultural vandalism of American Heroes (Flawed as they may have been) like the First President of the US.
Molly G, J.J., and Turtler – Trump tries to be entertaining. And he certainly does go on too long. He’s informed, but not particularly well-informed. He certainly doesn’t command the facts. His instinct to entertain pushes him to be edgy in ways that too often go over the line.
There are several pitfalls to his approach. First and foremost, an entertainer is judged as an entertainer. For example, if Trump’s comedic style isn’t your cup of tea (and it isn’t mine), then most of the time that’s fine. You change the channel. By running an edgy entertainer as a political candidate, the GOP invites voters to “change the channel,” and many have over the past eight years and no doubt will again in November.
Second, by going on too long without a great command of the facts, Trump regularly commits gaffes and near-gaffes (i.e., word salads that are guaranteed to be less-than-charitably interpreted by his adversaries). That’s great in entertainment, where all publicity is good publicity. It’s not so good in politics. (Quick example – does the PA really funnel money to Hamas? Hamas was throwing PA officials off of buildings in Gaza City not too long ago.)
A final point, and this may be particular to Trump’s style, he comes off as incredibly condescending. You can see that in the video here where he’s imploring “Ziggy” to “talk to your friends, talk to your people, please.” Maybe that’s comedic genius, although that’s incredibly subjective. Put yourself in the shoes of one of “Ziggy’s” people for a moment, though. You are probably a lifelong Democrat. You are probably a political progressive. Now, you are being presented with evidence that your party is filled with bigots who hate your people. And the guy delivering the message thinks he’s some kind of comedian and plays the whole thing for a laugh?
At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women). Humor can certainly be a political weapon, but running an aspiring comedian is not the way to go.
How did so many people become so sensitive and so easily offended?
“At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women).”
The GOP did this with McCain and Romney vs Obama and lost quite soundly both times. Then in the 2016 GOP primaries there were any number of so-called serious and experienced candidates not named Trump. The actual GOP voters chose Trump to be the candidate and he went on to defeat HRC, herself a serious and experienced statesman-like candidate.
At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women).
==
No one has used the term ‘statesman’ non-ironically in about 50 years.
==
Please note that in 2020, the Democratic Party had among their declared candidates four men who had founded and run lucrative businesses, one other man who had worked as a corporation executive, and four men who had been public executives presiding over jurisdictions with seven digit populations (one of whom was one of the aforementioned business founders and one who was the aforementioned corporation executive). Among the public executives was one who had a history of appealing to red state electorates. Of these seven men, Democratic primary and caucus voters took a glance at Michael Bloomberg and ignored the rest.
==
Who they did not ignore was (1) Amy Klobuchar, a corporate lawyer turned prosecutor turned member of Congress whose most notable feature was a history of abusing subordinates; (2) Peter Buttigieg, a wet-behind-the-ears resumé-builder whose most notable credential was a tour as the mayor of the core municipality of a fourth-tier metropolis (during whose tenure the murder rate got worse); (3) Elizabeth Herring Mann, who goes by the name of the husband she divorced forty years ago, notable as a quondam law professor whose career was advanced by affirmative action fraud and whose shtick is the businesses are responsible for customers’ deficiencies in domestic finance; (4) Bernard Sanders, who did have a productive tour as mayor of a small city forty-odd years ago (after an embarrassing young adult life in which he snookered his draft board, read Trotskyist literature, managed to make rent now and again and fathered a ba*tard child), whose shtick is railing about ‘the rich’ not paying their ‘fair share’; and (5) Joseph Biden, a gassy clownish sociopath whose decades long squat on federal salaries was parlayed into a lucrative shakedown scheme run by his brother and younger son. (The Bidens are an example of intelligence and cunning being distinct properties).
==
Eight years earlier, Democratic primary voters ignored the one declared candidate who had actual executive experience and favored three of the seven declared. All three were lawyers. Two of them had had embarrassing (though lucrative) careers, one as an personal injury lawyer with no compunctions about using junk science, and one hired and granted a partnership on the basis of her husband’s influence who had a history with money-laundering schemes. The third only practiced in firms for less than four years. He was an affirmative-action hire at the University of Chicago Law School who taught boutique courses and was retained on multi-year contracts without having to apply for tenure; his scholarly publications were nil. He sat in legislatures for 12 years, but was a recognized maven in no area of policy. His other side hustle was running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground.
==
Four years earlier, the Democratic electorate favored four candidates. One was the aforementioned ambulance chaser, one was a physician who got the idea that it would be a great career move to behave like a raving clown, and one was a member of Congress (and Navy yarnpuller) who provided yet another example of Michael Kinsley’s observation that in political Washington one’s reputation tends to expand (“like a gas”) to fill whatever office you’re occupying.
==
Four years prior, the competitive candidates were a pair of satisfactory wonks, one of whom, alas, seems to have been corrupted by his association with Bill and Hill. Prior to entering electoral politics, they earned their living (respectively) as a newspaper reporter and a professional athlete. One, you’ll recall, was a legacy pol whose father said “we raised him for it”.
==
And, of course, before that you had blowjobs Billy.
==
In the last 30 years, Wesley Clark and Bill Bradley were the only competitive candidates in Democratic presidential donnybrooks who might have been mistaken for ‘statesmen’ on alternate Tuesdays, and neither of them was anywhere near being nominated.
“He [Trump] is incredibly condescending”
When has Trump ever been as condescending as Hillary “deplorables” Clinton or Barry “bitter clingers” Obama?
Donald Trump acts like he’s performing at a cheesy stand-up comedy club. He needs to talk about issues that people are worried about and stop babbling about what race she is or DEI, etc. Also, why does he continue to insult Brian Kemp, the outstanding governor of Georgia who is far more popular in his state than Trump is? Trump forgets everything except his grudges.
Bauxite:
If you’d listened to the whole thing – not just the small segment I cued up – you’d see he wasn’t being condescending at all. He was making a joke to an old friend (even, I might say, a Jewish-type joke, since Trump is very familiar with Jewish humor).
You don’t get Trump and you really really REALLY don’t like him. However, lots of people do get him and like him very much. His style turns some people off. It attracts many other people. I think that without that style he’d have fewer voters, not more voters. But it’s not as though either you or I knows for sure.
Bauxite is like a robo call you cannot shut off. So infected by TDS he resembles Ahab after the white whale.
BrooklynBoy:
Trump talks about issues plenty. He talks about them in that talk, which was thirty-seven minutes long.
As I said in my comment at 2:53 above, he uses humor as well. Not everyone likes his humor – and that’s an understatement. A lot of people like it, though. I think on the whole it serves him well, but that’s not something that would be easy to measure.
Bauxite is like a robo call you cannot shut off.
==
Game. Set. Match.
@Bauxite
Oh joy. After months of claiming they were no longer going to read my comments because I had gone “off the deep end” (in no small part because they tried and failed to gaslight me using bullshit methodologies) and pointedly and often egregiously ignoring comments I made (to the point of sometimes responding and naming everyone who replied to them BUT me), Bauxite deigns to reply.
I guess I’m supposed to be “honored”?
Forgive me if I’m not.
Molly G, J.J., and Turtler – Trump tries to be entertaining.
And he largely succeeds, which is one reason he sucks the air out of the room. Unfortunately after 2020 this can lead to some problems (especially when coupled with leftist mendacity and malice) that raise the temperature, especially coupled with his anger (justified or not) over 2020 and other things. Had dropping it been the most important goal of the election, I would argue he was the wrong choice and even now I won’t pretend he is my dream candidate.
But I would argue that lowering the temperature IS NOT the most important priority of this election; trying to roll back the misgovernment and leftist abuse is.
And he certainly does go on too long.
That’s something the both of us should be able to sympathize with. It also is generally better than the alternative. As bad as gaffes or alleged gaffes like “I don’t think (Washington owned slaves” or “fine people” are, they’d be far worse if people like me couldn’t play the unfiltered tape to put them in context. In any case it’s his speaking style and he’s been on TV for decades. Even if there were an ideal form of speaking to change into, he isn’t going to upend his entire speaking pattern now in life even if he will make adjustments.
He’s informed, but not particularly well-informed. He certainly doesn’t command the facts.
Agreed indeed. But then very few people do.
I also note that commanding the facts by itself is not always going to be sufficient, especially in the “wonders” of current year. Half of this blog can attest to that with you, where you’ve been called out for egregious and convenient bias and flat out factually inaccurate nonsense (including by Neo), often with generous sourcing, and still you persist, often reiterating many of the same issues addressed earlier, whether or not they are actually so.
This is why I in spite of the significant differences I have with om, I have come to sympathize with his CC and “Great Orange Whale” comments. Your abuse of those that do not agree with your claims and insinuation that your critics do not have self awareness outside of the “right wing bubble” (while routinely getting basic facts like evaluations of GOTV wrong) does not help.
His instinct to entertain pushes him to be edgy in ways that too often go over the line.
But that “edgy” can also help point out addressing several things like the flagrant renaming abuses that would otherwise go unmentioned. And when was the last time Romney or McCain made a big point of that? Or even W Bush? The reason people like me point out it is a package deal is that.
And Trump is not as “edgy” as literally pro-genocide Hamastitudes occupying campuses, a senile, corrupt democrat clan leader (and apprentice of a Klan leader) who has perversely taken to claiming Republicans will put Blacks “back in chains” (and I note this was in response to ROMNEY), a Jamaican-Indian-American Marxist cackler, or a stolen valor socialist demagogue who seems to have taken 1984 as an instruction manual. That much of the MSM will pretend otherwise is an indictment of the MSM, and that much of the public believes otherwise points to a wider messaging problem that can’t be boiled down to “Just get Rid of Trump” even if you want to argue that would be preferable.
There are several pitfalls to his approach.
Of course, but there are several pitfalls to every approach.
First and foremost, an entertainer is judged as an entertainer.
There are worse things for a politician to be than an entertainer, and I note that Reagan was such. I also note that the left pointedly did not take him seriously for much of his early political career (though by the time of his first Presidential run that was mostly over). Bill Whittle is one of the best major voices for long form conservative social media advocacy and history, and he pointedly identifies as an entertainer.
For example, if Trump’s comedic style isn’t your cup of tea (and it isn’t mine), then most of the time that’s fine. You change the channel. By running an edgy entertainer as a political candidate, the GOP invites voters to “change the channel,” and many have over the past eight years and no doubt will again in November.
You know, this comes across as a halfway cogent point until you remember your other fuckups and realize this is basically just an overly wordy attempt to justify and defend ignorance and prejudice as a virtue or a matter of taste, and to ride Doctor Strangelove style all the way down on a matter that amounts to “I don’t like Trump or his Style.”
The problem with this is twofold.
Firstly: You are very obviously not arguing against the Trump that exists. You are arguing against the demonized strawman of Trump that exists rent free in what passes for your skull, and this has become VERY obvious as your condemnations of him (and equally fantastical lauding of “GOPe” prior candidates like Romney and McCain far beyond what any actual accounting of them goes) has lost mooring with actual grounds for condemnation and goes on to a mixture of wishful thinking and double standards.
Not liking Trump’s style is one thing. For my part I don’t watch many of his speeches, in large part because my mind is already made up and has been since we saw Biden and Kamala’s abuses of the law, but I admit I am a hard case and Trump is divisive (though more divisive than the likes of McCain? FUCK no) and there are valid reasons to critique him.
However, that does not excuse ignorance of the facts or matters. And in particular your attempts to justify simultaneously “changing the channel” so hard you are ignorant of basic facts of Trump’s campaign or the election (and in at least two particularly memorable cases, BASIC STATISTICS) while going on here to preach authoritatively to us not merely about YOUR personal malfunctions or views of Trump’s personal malfunctions, but also about that of the wider voting public, electoral law, and a host of other fields you are not very knowledgeable or qualified to talk about.
Secondly: This election is not and should not be only about Trump. Indeed, my reasons for voting for him will not even be mostly about him. This is something I’ve noticed a great many radical pro-Trump fans and radical NeverTrumpers miss the bus on. Let’s not forget that our “President” – supposedly elected to the office with more votes than anyone else, including both Trump and Obama, but mostly concentrated in highly corrupt leftist dominated urban machine nightmares like Atlanta – is a corrupt, senile, oppressive, hypocritical racist who was not fit for the office when he entered politics, let alone now. He appointed the most leftist woman in Congress as a self-admitted Diversity Hire, and her hypocrisy, oppressive policing, and Marxist roots are obvious. He was then deposed on her behalf in a poll-driven internal coup by her camp and the Party Leadership who feared he would lose. She has since picked a truly vile, oppressive, self-identified socialist governor who abandoned his comrades in the National Guard to run for policies and then lied about his service and rank to help win election, from which he enabled BLM and AntifA rioters while harassing people on their own front lawns.
There are still hundreds and thousands of protestors or people related to January 6th awaiting trial, held under appalling conditions (and whom let us not forget you argued we should ignore or abandon due to them being bad optics). The left weaponized the New York “Justice System” to launch a politicized manhunt in which they created what is a defacto personally targeted law which was passed through a hideously biased and politically corrupt judge who thought himself above the Constitution and the President’s legal powers of discretion. Trump’s personal residence was raided by law enforcement teams with instructions to use deadly force, and engaged in what can generously be called egregiously corrupt and misleading framing of evidence by things such as putting documents in marked folders and photographing them.
Trump and other outside the beltway candidates (including RFK, crank that he is) have been deprived of adequate protection in favor of others like Jill Biden. In Trump’s case this led to him getting shot and the actual death of a father defending his family and more substantial injuries to others because of what can generously be called highly suspicious malfeasance and dereliction of duty by the USSS.
The masterminds behind 9/11 were very nearly given a plea deal (you know, unlike many January 6thers guilty of at most far lesser felonies or even misdemeanors, and often not guilty at all) until JUSTIFIED public outrage at perfidious, mass murdering terrorists getting off easy resulted in a walk back.
If all of these things are not enough to make you vote for Trump or frankly just about any viable alternative Presidential Candidate, then we should stop right here because you are very obviously unhinged and not taking the situation seriously enough.
And the KICKER is that I actually would appreciate a more cerebral and intellectual or scholarly leader. Heck, I’d appreciate one who was not a rebranded New York Limo Liberal with deeper conservative convictions. I also agree Trump is a greatly flawed President and Person. But he is also the Conservative Presidential Candidate that has done more to try and roll back leftist overreach and undermine the political stranglehold of their urban machines on groups like the Black Vote.
And if you wish to argue that he has not been very successful about that and talk about the failed lawsuits or the like, you are free to do so but only with the allowance that to do so does not merely indict Trump. It indicts the rest of the GOP and American society. If it sounds like damning Trump with Faint Praise, it is also damning us, your St. Romney, and many others for letting it get this far.
Moreover, there is a PURPOSE behind entertainers-as-leaders. Not every effective leader is a cerebral, aloof statesman. Indeed, a great many are NOT, and a great many of said cerebral, aloof “statesmen” are not effective. If Trump is a tool in more senses than one, he is and should be one tool among many in our belt. And you have never been able to provide any kind of coherent argument against how he is not the best particular tool for this job.
NOT when running against some Platonic Ideal of the Conservative Statesman. Not when running against your inaccurate and statistically bankrupt assessment of the likes of Romney’s 2012 campaign (where you painstakingly tried to argue that his GOTV campaign was better than Trump’s in spite of falling short in just about every single metric that the candidates had control over – hence your grappling on to vote share). Against the options we have.
I personally would have preferred Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis or someone else. But they did not take off for various reasons, many of which have to do with Trump but many others – most even – have not.
Second, by going on too long without a great command of the facts, Trump regularly commits gaffes and near-gaffes (i.e., word salads that are guaranteed to be less-than-charitably interpreted by his adversaries). That’s great in entertainment, where all publicity is good publicity. It’s not so good in politics.
Oh the IRONNNY and lack of self-awareness behind this……..
But in spite of this (and how you are going to impale yourself and your credibility in the very next sentence), this brings up a valid point. It would also be much, MUCH more persuasive…. IF we did not have living evidence (as pointed out by others including Neo) of the left doing this malicious interpretation not just to Trump but also others. Hence why you were left feebly trying to guesstimate (literally “Source: Myself- Bauxite”) about how Romney’s Binders Full of Women comment and the leftist narrative he was a racist had less effect or were even insignificant compared to those against Trump.
Which is also why those favorable to Trump like myself go back to the central issue of “He Fights.” He has also done far better at manipulating the MSM and mass media than any conservative or Republican Presidential Candidate since Reagan.
And if your first instinct is “He’s not that good at it”, well… what does that say about the so called Republican Party and establishment? It’s much easier to be good when much of the opposition bench consists of people like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain (who was utterly dependent on his cult of personality in Arizona locally and the left’s media for public press, and who egregiously betrayed his vice president). Even those comparable to him like DeSantis (who I cannot praise enough) had a tough race and largely lost
(Quick example – does the PA really funnel money to Hamas? Hamas was throwing PA officials off of buildings in Gaza City not too long ago.)
You know that thing you just complained about the Great Orange Whale regarding? Not having command of facts, rambling on too long, and making gaffes? Yeah. Look in the mirror.
“Does the PA really funnel money to Hamas?” YEAH, YEAH THEY FUCKIN DO.
The salary payments to terrorists from all Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas as well as those who carried out terror attacks after the Oslo agreements came into effect, are made according to Palestinian Authority legislation that refers to the terrorists specifically as “fighters.” It makes clear that the Oslo accords are not considered by the Palestinian leadership and by most of the Palestinian people as a deviation from or an end to the battle against Zionism.
That’s just the most obvious such case. But remember: Money is Fungible, and not all “Funneling Money” involves directing dropping off bank credits or wads of cash to Hamas’s leaders. There’s also dropping them off to the family members of imprisoned Hamas goons, such as in the Pay to Slay program.
There’s also providing substantial infrastructure and resource support such as allocating portions of the UNRWA and propagandizing against Israel, which in the spirit of the times we could readily call “In Kind Contributions/Funneling.”
The fact that Hamas murdered Fatah and Fatah Allies who happened to be in the PA during its civil war and takeover does nothing to change the fact that both sides have settled into an uneasy, unhappy peace where they both compete and cooperate through the organs of the Palestinian Authority.
So on this score Trump is actually quite correct and it is all the more jarring you decided to try and use THIS particular example. In contrast to things like his off the cuff claim that he “didn’t think” Washington owned slaves (thus showing he wasn’t thinking much, or at least not on that fact).
A final point, and this may be particular to Trump’s style, he comes off as incredibly condescending.
Something you should be able to sympathize with, Bauxite.
You can see that in the video here where he’s imploring “Ziggy” to “talk to your friends, talk to your people, please.” Maybe that’s comedic genius, although that’s incredibly subjective. Put yourself in the shoes of one of “Ziggy’s” people for a moment, though. You are probably a lifelong Democrat. You are probably a political progressive. Now, you are being presented with evidence that your party is filled with bigots who hate your people. And the guy delivering the message thinks he’s some kind of comedian and plays the whole thing for a laugh?
You know, I could on in depth to fisk this particularly idiotic hot take and wishful thinking masking as some kind of character analysis, but my comment is already long, rambling, and perhaps gaffe filled enough as it is. And more importantly, I feel Neo blew up this particular crock of horseshit from you more than well enough.
(She seems to be doing that more and more with you when it comes to TDS hot takes, Bauxite).
At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women). Humor can certainly be a political weapon, but running an aspiring comedian is not the way to go.
“I am very smurt. I am very intellectual. I reasonable centrist. I favor statesmen, not bad comedian. Trump dumb. I not like Trump, and that justifies me not know a flying fuck about history and how mass politics actually work.”
Firstly: Trump is a statesman. You may not LIKE him as a statesman or have a particularly fond view of his METHOD as one, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is one. And by the standards of the Republican Party of the last half century a rather successful one. The popular touch, humor, diplomacy, the “art of the deal”, and spinning or message control are important skills for a statesman, even if not every successful one has them and even if they are not always used to their best effect.
Secondly: Because if you wanna ramble about aspiring comedians, I have a Newsflash for you Bauxite: there are occupations and personalities with a FAR WORSE track record for US Presidencies and US Candidates than Trump or “Aspiring Comedian.” And indeed I’ll also point out that back in the day Ronald Reagan was largely hammered as a Hollywood Actor with comedic roles and an overinflated view of his own grandeur. And Zelenskyy – for whatever his flaws, globalist leanings, and other suspicious behavior – was an actual comedian before he ran and he seems to be performing the role well under an actual hot war.
Thirdly: You seem to live in a fictional mental landscape of what the past is that is even more divorced from it than the average fictional mental landscape. And sometimes being an effective politician or leader is not being above the fray, giving polished speeches, or taking the high road. It is getting into the ring and rambling to draw in crowds and try to cultivate out groups.
One thing people seem to forget about the likes of Abraham Lincoln (and which is partially lost by those going back and reading the transcripts and records of the day) is that in 1860 his campaign (and that of his rivals) was NOT viewed as statesmanlike, aloof, or in command of the facts. He was viewed as a morally suspect backwoods lawyer and pol from Kentucky, and he acted like it. He not only gave at length speeches (which was pretty common) but also debated. He lobbed what were for the time VICIOUS attacks on his opponents politically.
He also made gaffes.
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
That’s an excerpt from 1855. And I’ll note a few things that usually are ignored because we usually encounter that letter (or since it is often not even identified as a letter, an undated text).
Firstly: Russia was an important US partner at the time and even one of the closer things to an ALLY it had when its main foreign rivals at the time were Britain, France, and Spain. So this is in essence badmouthing a major US partner and undermining relations, something akin to the “Shithole Countries” comment but even more pointed and offensive. And to the extent people might claim “But Russia actually was a despotism without pretense of loving liberty!”
Yeah, and those things Trump called Shithole Countries were by any realistic approximation Countries that are Shitholes. That didn’t prevent a political scandal or the assessment it was a gaffe.
Secondly: The Know Nothings – repulsive as they were to Lincoln and most of us- were an important voting pool for the Republican Party in its struggle for the North, and here he was outright accusing them of being able to kill the Republic and Constitution.
And while you might argue that the impact of this was muted by the fact that this was not in the age of TV and a permanent all day news cycle, you’d be right but the fact remains an open letter was about as good as making a TV Ad on it in the time as a pamphlet or mass speech.
And before you start to get an idea of “Command of the Facts”, don’t even get me started on Lincoln’s hot takes on the Mexican-American War, which are genuinely awful (such as the “Spot Resolution”, which we now know was based on a false premise and had it actually been identified would’ve humiliated him, but which I argue was nowhere near as important as it was made to).
But Lincoln managed to unhinge the power of the increasingly slaveocratic South over the Executive Branch in a contested election, in part because of his popular touch and willingness to stake out positions (and even make mistakes).
Am I arguing Trump is Lincoln? Heck no. But many of his actions and even flaws are Lincolnian in their own way, and I do not see you addressing these issues in favor of living in the fantasy world of Bad Orange Whale and Good, Effective Romney. And you still have no good alternatives, as shown by your desperate and wrongheaded assertions that anyone else would be better than Trump and clinging to any passing spoiler candidate like Haley.
It got tedious months ago. Now it’s just sad.
@BrooklynBoy
Donald Trump acts like he’s performing at a cheesy stand-up comedy club.
Clearly we have different assessments of what a cheesy stand up comedy club are. But even if true that is something you and Bauxite can relate to over that.
He needs to talk about issues that people are worried about and stop babbling about what race she is or DEI, etc.
I realize this is probably a novel concept to someone that doesn’t get out much, but DIE is an issue people are worried about. And indeed the recent outrage has attracted some truly massive grassroots movements (like “Sweet Baby Detected”) and has seen at least surface level rolling back of it.
And pointing to Kamala’s hypocrisy and opportunistic posturing about her identity helps put her under a microscope.
I agree he also needs to talk about other issues people are worried about, BUT HE VERY OBVIOUSLY IS, AS NEO POINTED OUT.
And indeed, your assertion that people do not care about DIE indicates you are out of the loop about what many people care about. And that this is indeed a useful wedge issue to help get the “Normies” and Centrists or Left-of-Centers by pointing to the toxic nature of identity politics, progressive racism, and so on.
Also, why does he continue to insult Brian Kemp, the outstanding governor of Georgia who is far more popular in his state than Trump is?
If you need to ask, you probably shouldn’t be typing and instead do more research.
But on the off chance you’ll actually bother doing this, it is because Brian Kemp, “the outstanding governor of Georgia”, has proven to not only be NOT so outstanding, but also a backstabbing two faced scoundrel.
The latter two are particularly important because it shows that Kemp was more than capable of helping to deal with much of the flak by shooting down the claims Trump was advocating crime, but dragged his feet doing so and protected his subordinate leaking the call selectively. That’s bad, and I have yet to hear any good non-malicious explanation for someone to act like that.
And that is AFTER Trump personally stumped for Kemp enthusiastically.
But apparently we’re supposed to forget and forgive that. As well as other failures like the election security issue and failure to rein in the Atlanta Machine.
But we’re all supposed to forget and forgive because Kemp is just that outstanding because…. what? He has the achievements of a middling conservative governor? Because he was right when he went up against Trump and the Left regarding re-opening?
Relationships are always at least a two way street, but it seems like this gets missed. And frankly the Cult of St. Brian is one of the things I find most baffling and ignorant about many Never Trumpers. Kemp is not the Devil Incarnate (indeed he sadly might be better than most US Governors), but he is also not blameless, nor did he always act with integrity. And he had to be dragged kicking and screaming regarding matters like illegals and voter security.
And that’s before we talk about what can be best described as staggering dishonesty and lying by omission and through a proxy/subordinate to damage Trump in regards to the phone calls.
Trump forgets everything except his grudges.
This is hilarious coming from our resident Never Trump firebrands. Frankly at this point it describes you at least as much as it does Trump, and probably more.
Have you ever considered that maybe you would be taken more seriously if you did more research and tried to consider why so many of us like Trump? If you spent at least as much word count talking about leftist abuses and corruption than hunting the Great Orange Whale?
Or at least why you keep shooting your feet off in such an egregious and intellectually bare way that Neo feels inclined to point out you obviously didn’t watch the video, or obviously didn’t care about the bulk of what it said?
@Richard F Cook
Bauxite is like a robo call you cannot shut off. So infected by TDS he resembles Ahab after the white whale.
You’re not the only one that noticed it. I have my big issues with om but I believe they hit the nail on the head when they labeled Bauxite as “Concerned Conservative” and talked about his hunting of the “Great Orange Whale.”
Turtler at 6:50 pm
I was going to respond to Bauxite. Then I read your post. You said everything I was going to say and more.
Excellent work! Thank you!!
Actions and consequences kemp allowed the steal and everything that flowed from that he im not going to repeat the litany enabled fani willis and her reign of terror
Now in the stolen state of arizona they gone after guliani as an abject lesson as they did with eastman and navarro something they never did to say mcauliffe or butterworth
One is the ally of the jews the other are the allies of haman pick a side
@David Davies
Thank you kindly. But I encourage you, please do respond as well to him. Honestly if anything is going to get through to Bauxite (and I increasingly doubt it) maybe some more sharp and wider criticism might.
@miguel Cervantes
I’d say it is worth repeating the litany.
Bauxite @7:59 Aug 17th:
“…if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left…”
They would run ‘statesmen’? (or ‘stateswomen’)? Like Romney? Like McCain? Like Palin?
Listen, unrefined Aluminum Ore. It doesn’t matter who the GOP runs. The Donks will label them as ‘Hitler’. So why don’t we accept their rules and run someone who makes them shriek at the sky and lose sleep?
Yeah, Trump has the manners of a …. New Yorker. He isn’t a well behaved boy from the South. And I don’t care. He is the tool we need at the moment, and some rust and nicks don’t matter to me at all.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I agree with him.
He’s hilarious. The way he said that Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden’s vice president “only because she’s … ” (trailing off) recalls the opening scene of Blazing Saddles, where one of the townswomen calls out “The mayor is a ni—!” Then he threaded the needle by saying that Harris had to be nominated because the Democratic Party needed to be “politically correct.” His enemies won’t be able to attack him for that remark without specifying exactly why political correctness was a factor in her nomination.
We’re getting wall-to-wall bullshit out of US spokesmen regarding the so called hostage negotiations/ceasefire/surrender talks. Aim? Oust Netanyahu. That’s the aim.
The Democrats have been after Netanyahu for years, going back to Clinton. They have sent political operatives to try to bring him down.
@ Sennacherib > “I agree with him.”
So did the audience.
IMO, Trump says too much and is imprecise with his words. OTOH, he’s transparent, and can be very entertaining. Not really my cuppa, but I would crawl over broken glass to vote for him as opposed to Kackling Kamala.
Not that it will make a difference here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound. Still, it’s important to me to put my preference on the ballot.
I’m curious about something. I’m always hearing that Trump is a gaffe-a-minute gasbag. I’m also always hearing that he gives three plus hour rambles at his rallies.
Why do we so rarely see any “gotcha” reporting from a Trump rally? Shouldn’t the Times and WaPo have them permanently staked out and by keeping up a constant drumbeat of Trump gaffe articles?
@Niketas Choniates
It happens. For instance another family member (who was already TDS prone) ranted about how Trump claimed that he “thought” Washington never owned slaves. I checked the record itself and this was true, making it a gaffe and stupid. However, it was in passing when talking about the left’s forced renaming of schools of Washington, and while the MSM did have a host of articles on this and many of the others did, they probably don’t want to emphasize it compared to others (like the “Fine People” bullshit nontroversy) precisely because the context would point to Trump’s point about the left’s historical and cultural vandalism of American Heroes (Flawed as they may have been) like the First President of the US.
OT
North American Pravda strikes again.
https://nypost.com/2024/08/16/media/ny-times-reporter-leaked-jewish-whatsapp-group-to-anti-israel-activists-report/
Molly G, J.J., and Turtler – Trump tries to be entertaining. And he certainly does go on too long. He’s informed, but not particularly well-informed. He certainly doesn’t command the facts. His instinct to entertain pushes him to be edgy in ways that too often go over the line.
There are several pitfalls to his approach. First and foremost, an entertainer is judged as an entertainer. For example, if Trump’s comedic style isn’t your cup of tea (and it isn’t mine), then most of the time that’s fine. You change the channel. By running an edgy entertainer as a political candidate, the GOP invites voters to “change the channel,” and many have over the past eight years and no doubt will again in November.
Second, by going on too long without a great command of the facts, Trump regularly commits gaffes and near-gaffes (i.e., word salads that are guaranteed to be less-than-charitably interpreted by his adversaries). That’s great in entertainment, where all publicity is good publicity. It’s not so good in politics. (Quick example – does the PA really funnel money to Hamas? Hamas was throwing PA officials off of buildings in Gaza City not too long ago.)
A final point, and this may be particular to Trump’s style, he comes off as incredibly condescending. You can see that in the video here where he’s imploring “Ziggy” to “talk to your friends, talk to your people, please.” Maybe that’s comedic genius, although that’s incredibly subjective. Put yourself in the shoes of one of “Ziggy’s” people for a moment, though. You are probably a lifelong Democrat. You are probably a political progressive. Now, you are being presented with evidence that your party is filled with bigots who hate your people. And the guy delivering the message thinks he’s some kind of comedian and plays the whole thing for a laugh?
At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women). Humor can certainly be a political weapon, but running an aspiring comedian is not the way to go.
How did so many people become so sensitive and so easily offended?
“At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women).”
The GOP did this with McCain and Romney vs Obama and lost quite soundly both times. Then in the 2016 GOP primaries there were any number of so-called serious and experienced candidates not named Trump. The actual GOP voters chose Trump to be the candidate and he went on to defeat HRC, herself a serious and experienced statesman-like candidate.
At some point, if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left, we need to start running statesmen (and women).
==
No one has used the term ‘statesman’ non-ironically in about 50 years.
==
Please note that in 2020, the Democratic Party had among their declared candidates four men who had founded and run lucrative businesses, one other man who had worked as a corporation executive, and four men who had been public executives presiding over jurisdictions with seven digit populations (one of whom was one of the aforementioned business founders and one who was the aforementioned corporation executive). Among the public executives was one who had a history of appealing to red state electorates. Of these seven men, Democratic primary and caucus voters took a glance at Michael Bloomberg and ignored the rest.
==
Who they did not ignore was (1) Amy Klobuchar, a corporate lawyer turned prosecutor turned member of Congress whose most notable feature was a history of abusing subordinates; (2) Peter Buttigieg, a wet-behind-the-ears resumé-builder whose most notable credential was a tour as the mayor of the core municipality of a fourth-tier metropolis (during whose tenure the murder rate got worse); (3) Elizabeth Herring Mann, who goes by the name of the husband she divorced forty years ago, notable as a quondam law professor whose career was advanced by affirmative action fraud and whose shtick is the businesses are responsible for customers’ deficiencies in domestic finance; (4) Bernard Sanders, who did have a productive tour as mayor of a small city forty-odd years ago (after an embarrassing young adult life in which he snookered his draft board, read Trotskyist literature, managed to make rent now and again and fathered a ba*tard child), whose shtick is railing about ‘the rich’ not paying their ‘fair share’; and (5) Joseph Biden, a gassy clownish sociopath whose decades long squat on federal salaries was parlayed into a lucrative shakedown scheme run by his brother and younger son. (The Bidens are an example of intelligence and cunning being distinct properties).
==
Eight years earlier, Democratic primary voters ignored the one declared candidate who had actual executive experience and favored three of the seven declared. All three were lawyers. Two of them had had embarrassing (though lucrative) careers, one as an personal injury lawyer with no compunctions about using junk science, and one hired and granted a partnership on the basis of her husband’s influence who had a history with money-laundering schemes. The third only practiced in firms for less than four years. He was an affirmative-action hire at the University of Chicago Law School who taught boutique courses and was retained on multi-year contracts without having to apply for tenure; his scholarly publications were nil. He sat in legislatures for 12 years, but was a recognized maven in no area of policy. His other side hustle was running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground.
==
Four years earlier, the Democratic electorate favored four candidates. One was the aforementioned ambulance chaser, one was a physician who got the idea that it would be a great career move to behave like a raving clown, and one was a member of Congress (and Navy yarnpuller) who provided yet another example of Michael Kinsley’s observation that in political Washington one’s reputation tends to expand (“like a gas”) to fill whatever office you’re occupying.
==
Four years prior, the competitive candidates were a pair of satisfactory wonks, one of whom, alas, seems to have been corrupted by his association with Bill and Hill. Prior to entering electoral politics, they earned their living (respectively) as a newspaper reporter and a professional athlete. One, you’ll recall, was a legacy pol whose father said “we raised him for it”.
==
And, of course, before that you had blowjobs Billy.
==
In the last 30 years, Wesley Clark and Bill Bradley were the only competitive candidates in Democratic presidential donnybrooks who might have been mistaken for ‘statesmen’ on alternate Tuesdays, and neither of them was anywhere near being nominated.
“He [Trump] is incredibly condescending”
When has Trump ever been as condescending as Hillary “deplorables” Clinton or Barry “bitter clingers” Obama?
Donald Trump acts like he’s performing at a cheesy stand-up comedy club. He needs to talk about issues that people are worried about and stop babbling about what race she is or DEI, etc. Also, why does he continue to insult Brian Kemp, the outstanding governor of Georgia who is far more popular in his state than Trump is? Trump forgets everything except his grudges.
Bauxite:
If you’d listened to the whole thing – not just the small segment I cued up – you’d see he wasn’t being condescending at all. He was making a joke to an old friend (even, I might say, a Jewish-type joke, since Trump is very familiar with Jewish humor).
You don’t get Trump and you really really REALLY don’t like him. However, lots of people do get him and like him very much. His style turns some people off. It attracts many other people. I think that without that style he’d have fewer voters, not more voters. But it’s not as though either you or I knows for sure.
Bauxite is like a robo call you cannot shut off. So infected by TDS he resembles Ahab after the white whale.
BrooklynBoy:
Trump talks about issues plenty. He talks about them in that talk, which was thirty-seven minutes long.
As I said in my comment at 2:53 above, he uses humor as well. Not everyone likes his humor – and that’s an understatement. A lot of people like it, though. I think on the whole it serves him well, but that’s not something that would be easy to measure.
Bauxite is like a robo call you cannot shut off.
==
Game. Set. Match.
@Bauxite
Oh joy. After months of claiming they were no longer going to read my comments because I had gone “off the deep end” (in no small part because they tried and failed to gaslight me using bullshit methodologies) and pointedly and often egregiously ignoring comments I made (to the point of sometimes responding and naming everyone who replied to them BUT me), Bauxite deigns to reply.
I guess I’m supposed to be “honored”?
Forgive me if I’m not.
And he largely succeeds, which is one reason he sucks the air out of the room. Unfortunately after 2020 this can lead to some problems (especially when coupled with leftist mendacity and malice) that raise the temperature, especially coupled with his anger (justified or not) over 2020 and other things. Had dropping it been the most important goal of the election, I would argue he was the wrong choice and even now I won’t pretend he is my dream candidate.
But I would argue that lowering the temperature IS NOT the most important priority of this election; trying to roll back the misgovernment and leftist abuse is.
That’s something the both of us should be able to sympathize with. It also is generally better than the alternative. As bad as gaffes or alleged gaffes like “I don’t think (Washington owned slaves” or “fine people” are, they’d be far worse if people like me couldn’t play the unfiltered tape to put them in context. In any case it’s his speaking style and he’s been on TV for decades. Even if there were an ideal form of speaking to change into, he isn’t going to upend his entire speaking pattern now in life even if he will make adjustments.
Agreed indeed. But then very few people do.
I also note that commanding the facts by itself is not always going to be sufficient, especially in the “wonders” of current year. Half of this blog can attest to that with you, where you’ve been called out for egregious and convenient bias and flat out factually inaccurate nonsense (including by Neo), often with generous sourcing, and still you persist, often reiterating many of the same issues addressed earlier, whether or not they are actually so.
This is why I in spite of the significant differences I have with om, I have come to sympathize with his CC and “Great Orange Whale” comments. Your abuse of those that do not agree with your claims and insinuation that your critics do not have self awareness outside of the “right wing bubble” (while routinely getting basic facts like evaluations of GOTV wrong) does not help.
But that “edgy” can also help point out addressing several things like the flagrant renaming abuses that would otherwise go unmentioned. And when was the last time Romney or McCain made a big point of that? Or even W Bush? The reason people like me point out it is a package deal is that.
And Trump is not as “edgy” as literally pro-genocide Hamastitudes occupying campuses, a senile, corrupt democrat clan leader (and apprentice of a Klan leader) who has perversely taken to claiming Republicans will put Blacks “back in chains” (and I note this was in response to ROMNEY), a Jamaican-Indian-American Marxist cackler, or a stolen valor socialist demagogue who seems to have taken 1984 as an instruction manual. That much of the MSM will pretend otherwise is an indictment of the MSM, and that much of the public believes otherwise points to a wider messaging problem that can’t be boiled down to “Just get Rid of Trump” even if you want to argue that would be preferable.
Of course, but there are several pitfalls to every approach.
There are worse things for a politician to be than an entertainer, and I note that Reagan was such. I also note that the left pointedly did not take him seriously for much of his early political career (though by the time of his first Presidential run that was mostly over). Bill Whittle is one of the best major voices for long form conservative social media advocacy and history, and he pointedly identifies as an entertainer.
You know, this comes across as a halfway cogent point until you remember your other fuckups and realize this is basically just an overly wordy attempt to justify and defend ignorance and prejudice as a virtue or a matter of taste, and to ride Doctor Strangelove style all the way down on a matter that amounts to “I don’t like Trump or his Style.”
The problem with this is twofold.
Firstly: You are very obviously not arguing against the Trump that exists. You are arguing against the demonized strawman of Trump that exists rent free in what passes for your skull, and this has become VERY obvious as your condemnations of him (and equally fantastical lauding of “GOPe” prior candidates like Romney and McCain far beyond what any actual accounting of them goes) has lost mooring with actual grounds for condemnation and goes on to a mixture of wishful thinking and double standards.
Not liking Trump’s style is one thing. For my part I don’t watch many of his speeches, in large part because my mind is already made up and has been since we saw Biden and Kamala’s abuses of the law, but I admit I am a hard case and Trump is divisive (though more divisive than the likes of McCain? FUCK no) and there are valid reasons to critique him.
However, that does not excuse ignorance of the facts or matters. And in particular your attempts to justify simultaneously “changing the channel” so hard you are ignorant of basic facts of Trump’s campaign or the election (and in at least two particularly memorable cases, BASIC STATISTICS) while going on here to preach authoritatively to us not merely about YOUR personal malfunctions or views of Trump’s personal malfunctions, but also about that of the wider voting public, electoral law, and a host of other fields you are not very knowledgeable or qualified to talk about.
Secondly: This election is not and should not be only about Trump. Indeed, my reasons for voting for him will not even be mostly about him. This is something I’ve noticed a great many radical pro-Trump fans and radical NeverTrumpers miss the bus on. Let’s not forget that our “President” – supposedly elected to the office with more votes than anyone else, including both Trump and Obama, but mostly concentrated in highly corrupt leftist dominated urban machine nightmares like Atlanta – is a corrupt, senile, oppressive, hypocritical racist who was not fit for the office when he entered politics, let alone now. He appointed the most leftist woman in Congress as a self-admitted Diversity Hire, and her hypocrisy, oppressive policing, and Marxist roots are obvious. He was then deposed on her behalf in a poll-driven internal coup by her camp and the Party Leadership who feared he would lose. She has since picked a truly vile, oppressive, self-identified socialist governor who abandoned his comrades in the National Guard to run for policies and then lied about his service and rank to help win election, from which he enabled BLM and AntifA rioters while harassing people on their own front lawns.
There are still hundreds and thousands of protestors or people related to January 6th awaiting trial, held under appalling conditions (and whom let us not forget you argued we should ignore or abandon due to them being bad optics). The left weaponized the New York “Justice System” to launch a politicized manhunt in which they created what is a defacto personally targeted law which was passed through a hideously biased and politically corrupt judge who thought himself above the Constitution and the President’s legal powers of discretion. Trump’s personal residence was raided by law enforcement teams with instructions to use deadly force, and engaged in what can generously be called egregiously corrupt and misleading framing of evidence by things such as putting documents in marked folders and photographing them.
Trump and other outside the beltway candidates (including RFK, crank that he is) have been deprived of adequate protection in favor of others like Jill Biden. In Trump’s case this led to him getting shot and the actual death of a father defending his family and more substantial injuries to others because of what can generously be called highly suspicious malfeasance and dereliction of duty by the USSS.
The masterminds behind 9/11 were very nearly given a plea deal (you know, unlike many January 6thers guilty of at most far lesser felonies or even misdemeanors, and often not guilty at all) until JUSTIFIED public outrage at perfidious, mass murdering terrorists getting off easy resulted in a walk back.
If all of these things are not enough to make you vote for Trump or frankly just about any viable alternative Presidential Candidate, then we should stop right here because you are very obviously unhinged and not taking the situation seriously enough.
And the KICKER is that I actually would appreciate a more cerebral and intellectual or scholarly leader. Heck, I’d appreciate one who was not a rebranded New York Limo Liberal with deeper conservative convictions. I also agree Trump is a greatly flawed President and Person. But he is also the Conservative Presidential Candidate that has done more to try and roll back leftist overreach and undermine the political stranglehold of their urban machines on groups like the Black Vote.
And if you wish to argue that he has not been very successful about that and talk about the failed lawsuits or the like, you are free to do so but only with the allowance that to do so does not merely indict Trump. It indicts the rest of the GOP and American society. If it sounds like damning Trump with Faint Praise, it is also damning us, your St. Romney, and many others for letting it get this far.
Moreover, there is a PURPOSE behind entertainers-as-leaders. Not every effective leader is a cerebral, aloof statesman. Indeed, a great many are NOT, and a great many of said cerebral, aloof “statesmen” are not effective. If Trump is a tool in more senses than one, he is and should be one tool among many in our belt. And you have never been able to provide any kind of coherent argument against how he is not the best particular tool for this job.
NOT when running against some Platonic Ideal of the Conservative Statesman. Not when running against your inaccurate and statistically bankrupt assessment of the likes of Romney’s 2012 campaign (where you painstakingly tried to argue that his GOTV campaign was better than Trump’s in spite of falling short in just about every single metric that the candidates had control over – hence your grappling on to vote share). Against the options we have.
I personally would have preferred Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis or someone else. But they did not take off for various reasons, many of which have to do with Trump but many others – most even – have not.
Oh the IRONNNY and lack of self-awareness behind this……..
But in spite of this (and how you are going to impale yourself and your credibility in the very next sentence), this brings up a valid point. It would also be much, MUCH more persuasive…. IF we did not have living evidence (as pointed out by others including Neo) of the left doing this malicious interpretation not just to Trump but also others. Hence why you were left feebly trying to guesstimate (literally “Source: Myself- Bauxite”) about how Romney’s Binders Full of Women comment and the leftist narrative he was a racist had less effect or were even insignificant compared to those against Trump.
Which is also why those favorable to Trump like myself go back to the central issue of “He Fights.” He has also done far better at manipulating the MSM and mass media than any conservative or Republican Presidential Candidate since Reagan.
And if your first instinct is “He’s not that good at it”, well… what does that say about the so called Republican Party and establishment? It’s much easier to be good when much of the opposition bench consists of people like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain (who was utterly dependent on his cult of personality in Arizona locally and the left’s media for public press, and who egregiously betrayed his vice president). Even those comparable to him like DeSantis (who I cannot praise enough) had a tough race and largely lost
You know that thing you just complained about the Great Orange Whale regarding? Not having command of facts, rambling on too long, and making gaffes? Yeah. Look in the mirror.
“Does the PA really funnel money to Hamas?” YEAH, YEAH THEY FUCKIN DO.
https://jcpa.org/paying-salaries-terrorists-contradicts-palestinian-vows-peaceful-intentions/
That’s just the most obvious such case. But remember: Money is Fungible, and not all “Funneling Money” involves directing dropping off bank credits or wads of cash to Hamas’s leaders. There’s also dropping them off to the family members of imprisoned Hamas goons, such as in the Pay to Slay program.
There’s also providing substantial infrastructure and resource support such as allocating portions of the UNRWA and propagandizing against Israel, which in the spirit of the times we could readily call “In Kind Contributions/Funneling.”
https://www.mena-researchcenter.org/how-is-hamas-financed/
The fact that Hamas murdered Fatah and Fatah Allies who happened to be in the PA during its civil war and takeover does nothing to change the fact that both sides have settled into an uneasy, unhappy peace where they both compete and cooperate through the organs of the Palestinian Authority.
So on this score Trump is actually quite correct and it is all the more jarring you decided to try and use THIS particular example. In contrast to things like his off the cuff claim that he “didn’t think” Washington owned slaves (thus showing he wasn’t thinking much, or at least not on that fact).
Something you should be able to sympathize with, Bauxite.
You know, I could on in depth to fisk this particularly idiotic hot take and wishful thinking masking as some kind of character analysis, but my comment is already long, rambling, and perhaps gaffe filled enough as it is. And more importantly, I feel Neo blew up this particular crock of horseshit from you more than well enough.
(She seems to be doing that more and more with you when it comes to TDS hot takes, Bauxite).
I’ll simply re-link to her comment.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/08/16/trump-speaks-on-anti-semitism-israel-and-harris/#comment-2756939
“I am very smurt. I am very intellectual. I reasonable centrist. I favor statesmen, not bad comedian. Trump dumb. I not like Trump, and that justifies me not know a flying fuck about history and how mass politics actually work.”
Firstly: Trump is a statesman. You may not LIKE him as a statesman or have a particularly fond view of his METHOD as one, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is one. And by the standards of the Republican Party of the last half century a rather successful one. The popular touch, humor, diplomacy, the “art of the deal”, and spinning or message control are important skills for a statesman, even if not every successful one has them and even if they are not always used to their best effect.
Secondly: Because if you wanna ramble about aspiring comedians, I have a Newsflash for you Bauxite: there are occupations and personalities with a FAR WORSE track record for US Presidencies and US Candidates than Trump or “Aspiring Comedian.” And indeed I’ll also point out that back in the day Ronald Reagan was largely hammered as a Hollywood Actor with comedic roles and an overinflated view of his own grandeur. And Zelenskyy – for whatever his flaws, globalist leanings, and other suspicious behavior – was an actual comedian before he ran and he seems to be performing the role well under an actual hot war.
Thirdly: You seem to live in a fictional mental landscape of what the past is that is even more divorced from it than the average fictional mental landscape. And sometimes being an effective politician or leader is not being above the fray, giving polished speeches, or taking the high road. It is getting into the ring and rambling to draw in crowds and try to cultivate out groups.
One thing people seem to forget about the likes of Abraham Lincoln (and which is partially lost by those going back and reading the transcripts and records of the day) is that in 1860 his campaign (and that of his rivals) was NOT viewed as statesmanlike, aloof, or in command of the facts. He was viewed as a morally suspect backwoods lawyer and pol from Kentucky, and he acted like it. He not only gave at length speeches (which was pretty common) but also debated. He lobbed what were for the time VICIOUS attacks on his opponents politically.
He also made gaffes.
That’s an excerpt from 1855. And I’ll note a few things that usually are ignored because we usually encounter that letter (or since it is often not even identified as a letter, an undated text).
Firstly: Russia was an important US partner at the time and even one of the closer things to an ALLY it had when its main foreign rivals at the time were Britain, France, and Spain. So this is in essence badmouthing a major US partner and undermining relations, something akin to the “Shithole Countries” comment but even more pointed and offensive. And to the extent people might claim “But Russia actually was a despotism without pretense of loving liberty!”
Yeah, and those things Trump called Shithole Countries were by any realistic approximation Countries that are Shitholes. That didn’t prevent a political scandal or the assessment it was a gaffe.
Secondly: The Know Nothings – repulsive as they were to Lincoln and most of us- were an important voting pool for the Republican Party in its struggle for the North, and here he was outright accusing them of being able to kill the Republic and Constitution.
And while you might argue that the impact of this was muted by the fact that this was not in the age of TV and a permanent all day news cycle, you’d be right but the fact remains an open letter was about as good as making a TV Ad on it in the time as a pamphlet or mass speech.
And before you start to get an idea of “Command of the Facts”, don’t even get me started on Lincoln’s hot takes on the Mexican-American War, which are genuinely awful (such as the “Spot Resolution”, which we now know was based on a false premise and had it actually been identified would’ve humiliated him, but which I argue was nowhere near as important as it was made to).
But Lincoln managed to unhinge the power of the increasingly slaveocratic South over the Executive Branch in a contested election, in part because of his popular touch and willingness to stake out positions (and even make mistakes).
Am I arguing Trump is Lincoln? Heck no. But many of his actions and even flaws are Lincolnian in their own way, and I do not see you addressing these issues in favor of living in the fantasy world of Bad Orange Whale and Good, Effective Romney. And you still have no good alternatives, as shown by your desperate and wrongheaded assertions that anyone else would be better than Trump and clinging to any passing spoiler candidate like Haley.
It got tedious months ago. Now it’s just sad.
@BrooklynBoy
Clearly we have different assessments of what a cheesy stand up comedy club are. But even if true that is something you and Bauxite can relate to over that.
I realize this is probably a novel concept to someone that doesn’t get out much, but DIE is an issue people are worried about. And indeed the recent outrage has attracted some truly massive grassroots movements (like “Sweet Baby Detected”) and has seen at least surface level rolling back of it.
And pointing to Kamala’s hypocrisy and opportunistic posturing about her identity helps put her under a microscope.
I agree he also needs to talk about other issues people are worried about, BUT HE VERY OBVIOUSLY IS, AS NEO POINTED OUT.
And indeed, your assertion that people do not care about DIE indicates you are out of the loop about what many people care about. And that this is indeed a useful wedge issue to help get the “Normies” and Centrists or Left-of-Centers by pointing to the toxic nature of identity politics, progressive racism, and so on.
If you need to ask, you probably shouldn’t be typing and instead do more research.
But on the off chance you’ll actually bother doing this, it is because Brian Kemp, “the outstanding governor of Georgia”, has proven to not only be NOT so outstanding, but also a backstabbing two faced scoundrel.
https://newdustininmansociety.org/georgia-gov-brian-kemp/
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/wapo-issues-correction-on-phone-call-between-trump-georgia-elections-investigator/
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/01/no-were-not-going-to-cover-trumps-call-to-georgia-secretary-of-state/
The latter two are particularly important because it shows that Kemp was more than capable of helping to deal with much of the flak by shooting down the claims Trump was advocating crime, but dragged his feet doing so and protected his subordinate leaking the call selectively. That’s bad, and I have yet to hear any good non-malicious explanation for someone to act like that.
And that is AFTER Trump personally stumped for Kemp enthusiastically.
But apparently we’re supposed to forget and forgive that. As well as other failures like the election security issue and failure to rein in the Atlanta Machine.
But we’re all supposed to forget and forgive because Kemp is just that outstanding because…. what? He has the achievements of a middling conservative governor? Because he was right when he went up against Trump and the Left regarding re-opening?
Relationships are always at least a two way street, but it seems like this gets missed. And frankly the Cult of St. Brian is one of the things I find most baffling and ignorant about many Never Trumpers. Kemp is not the Devil Incarnate (indeed he sadly might be better than most US Governors), but he is also not blameless, nor did he always act with integrity. And he had to be dragged kicking and screaming regarding matters like illegals and voter security.
And that’s before we talk about what can be best described as staggering dishonesty and lying by omission and through a proxy/subordinate to damage Trump in regards to the phone calls.
This is hilarious coming from our resident Never Trump firebrands. Frankly at this point it describes you at least as much as it does Trump, and probably more.
Have you ever considered that maybe you would be taken more seriously if you did more research and tried to consider why so many of us like Trump? If you spent at least as much word count talking about leftist abuses and corruption than hunting the Great Orange Whale?
Or at least why you keep shooting your feet off in such an egregious and intellectually bare way that Neo feels inclined to point out you obviously didn’t watch the video, or obviously didn’t care about the bulk of what it said?
@Richard F Cook
You’re not the only one that noticed it. I have my big issues with om but I believe they hit the nail on the head when they labeled Bauxite as “Concerned Conservative” and talked about his hunting of the “Great Orange Whale.”
Turtler at 6:50 pm
I was going to respond to Bauxite. Then I read your post. You said everything I was going to say and more.
Excellent work! Thank you!!
Actions and consequences kemp allowed the steal and everything that flowed from that he im not going to repeat the litany enabled fani willis and her reign of terror
Now in the stolen state of arizona they gone after guliani as an abject lesson as they did with eastman and navarro something they never did to say mcauliffe or butterworth
One is the ally of the jews the other are the allies of haman pick a side
@David Davies
Thank you kindly. But I encourage you, please do respond as well to him. Honestly if anything is going to get through to Bauxite (and I increasingly doubt it) maybe some more sharp and wider criticism might.
@miguel Cervantes
I’d say it is worth repeating the litany.
Bauxite @7:59 Aug 17th:
“…if the GOP wants to actually prevail against the left…”
They would run ‘statesmen’? (or ‘stateswomen’)? Like Romney? Like McCain? Like Palin?
Listen, unrefined Aluminum Ore. It doesn’t matter who the GOP runs. The Donks will label them as ‘Hitler’. So why don’t we accept their rules and run someone who makes them shriek at the sky and lose sleep?
Yeah, Trump has the manners of a …. New Yorker. He isn’t a well behaved boy from the South. And I don’t care. He is the tool we need at the moment, and some rust and nicks don’t matter to me at all.