Marner
mitchethekidSo Donald Trump was Donald Trump at last night’s Republican debate–and after, too. Bombastic, defensive and aggressive at the same time, hurling insults, convinced he is perpetually being picked on, unapologetic, proud to have cynically use bankruptcy for personal gain regardless of the consequences to others, and on and on. Everyone else is stupid–except the Mexican government.
He treats running for office as a reality television show. In an interview this morning on Fox News, in which he complained about the shabby treatment he received at the hands of the debate moderators, he was proud of his response to Megyn Kelly’s “very, very hard question” about his comments belittling women. “I came up with the Rosie O’Donnell statement which really got a tremendous applause. I mean, that was the biggest applause of the evening, actually.” That’s his criteria for political success: Whatever garners the biggest applause of the evening.
Meanwhile, at the RedState watch party in Atlanta:
The crowd was captivated by his every move – there were wild hoots and shouts as he threatened to run as an independent if he didn’t like the nominee, mocked Rosie O’Donnell’s weight, and outright pandemonium broke out when he declared: “The big problem this country has is being politically correct.”
At one point in the second hour, a woman sitting near this reporter shrieked like it was the Beatles at Shea Stadium while Trump talked. It was hard to find a face in the crowd that wasn’t smiling as they waited to see what he would do next.
“I’m fascinated by Trump,” Joann Balfour, an activist from Oklahoma City, told msnbc afterwards.
“He brings out in bold colors what other people won’t talk about,” Ben Jackson, a Georgia businessman, gushed.
And our former blogging colleague, Cluster, gushed, “Can you imagine a Trump/Fiorina ticket? Speaking of Trump, if he can dial down his ego, add more details to his ideas, and act presidential – he just might run away with this.”
Trump is so the mouthpiece for today’s conservatives, who thrill to whatever happens to be the latest freak show to hit town.
After the debate, Trump went on a Twitter rant about that mean, mean Megyn Kelly. Judging by his response to her question about him habitually calling women names, I think his biggest issue with Kelly was that she’s a woman who dared to call him out.
A sampling:
Meanwhile, in the undercard, Bobby Jindal said this: “Planned Parenthood had better hope that Hillary Clinton wins this election because I guarantee you that under President Jindal, January 2017, the Department of Justice and the IRS and everybody else that we can send from the federal government will be going into Planned Parenthood.”
Attaboy! Sic the government on any private organizations you personally don’t like. Gee, I seem to remember conservatives railing against supposed unfair treatment of Tea Party groups by the IRS. But that was all a charade. Wait until they get in office. They’ll use the IRS to go on the attack!
The hypocrisy is as breathtaking as it is routine.
Left is Right 
Yes, he absolutely is the epitome of today’s conservatives: Pompous, ridiculous, no ideas, and essentially a joke. He’s the natural result of spending years mouthing the unbearably moronic talking point that the country should be run “like a business” (whose business? The repeatedly bankrupt Trump’s? The unfathomable failure Fiorina’s?). Really, the only problem conservatives have with him is not related to what he says, but the fact that he says it with a bullhorn instead of the customary dog whistle.
All that said, this Trump/Fox News/Redstate dustup is fucking hilarious. Losers as far as the eye can see!
Reading through the “Debate Open Thread” debate on B4V. Good Lord, Amazona is a tool. We’ve had pretty much the same debate before. I mean, it’s great that she’s quoting Thomas Jefferson and all, but the case for implied powers was decided in George Washington’s term as president. No matter. To Amazona, anyone who doesn’t believe in her theory of the Constitution can’t possibly believe that the United States should be governed by one. Anyway, her rhetoric on that thread devolved long ago into nastiness and pettiness. No doubt the moderator will soon cut Rusty off.
Oh, I also like how she claims that tiredoflibbs has “brought in ideas” to the tread. Really? His sum total “ideas” he’s brought to the thread:
And:
Yowza! Sorry M., I think I hold the record for punching Ama’s buttons, such as they are. As bombastic as she is, I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed a fuselage of this proportion dieted at an individual. Well, this is absolutely the first time I’ve ever called “uncle!” in a debate over there. I just can’t keep up with her obfuscation, misdirection and nastiness. What’s the point? I’ve made my point and am open to debate, but this is something different and dark.
It just becomes nonsensical and meaningless. It’s literally like talking to a mad woman, and that’s not good. Here is my last post for the night, that was promptly deleted:
You know what Ama? You win. You just appear to be a horrible person that is completely incapable of holding her own in an adult conversation. I’ve tried to engage. I’ve tried to be civil. But you seem to have some deep seated issues that lead to to insult, disrupt, and derail, and you’re obviously massively insecure about your own positions. It’s like I used to say to Cluster, you’re a troll on your own blog–a very dubious position to be in. If anybody following this thread can’t recognize your sickness and still thinks of you as some kind of authority, I feel just as bad for them. This is just getting a bit too weird for my taste, and I’ll bow out for the moment.
I’ve described my political philosophy, it’s basically the one we’re living under. Imperfect, but with discussion and hard work, hopefully one this country can build on. That seems unacceptable for you. Originalist or nothing. Box the tricorn hats. Well, enjoy your 18th century fantasies.
You do remind me of the slightly slow kid in school who feels she can make up for her deficits by trying to work extra hard (your interminable rambling screeds) but is always missing the nut and remains a bit behind, mixed in with a HEALTHY dose of school bully. I’m sorry. If you knew what you were talking about and were socially adjusted in a healthy way you would be able to politely and succinctly state your points of view, even against opinions that are at odds with your own. Get some help Ama, you seem to be in some pain.
Ah! Now we see the message:
“After your very long, very vicious, personal attack on Amazona you will not be allowed to post here again. This kind of attack and character assassination is the reason Leftist posters were removed from the blog. You can’t be housebroken and you always end up the same way when your arguments are proved wrong. Amazona was willing to give you a chance if you would be serious about discussing politics but she was wrong and it will not happen again.”
Get that? MY very long, very vicious, personal attacks on Amazona. Incredible. I tried to remain civil in the face of her CONSTANT and incessant insults, yet when I begin to respond in kind, I’m the one who’s flagged. She gets a free pass to be the largest insane obnoxious cunt on the block, but don’t dare be rude to her! And of course, pointing out the elephant on the room, her obvious neurosis is forbidden. She’s obviously insane. And they respect her! Modern conservatism.
Actually, from what he’s said to Mitch in private, even Cluster thinks she’s a nasty lunatic. But yeah… It just makes my skin crawl to imagine having to send time with her in person.
I think she’s demonstrably a nasty lunatic now, if she wasn’t before. I’ve said this a while ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the residents of that website makes headlines, and I’m not talking about them curing cancer.
That’s why I gave up trying to have any dialog with her at all. She’s a viperous Medusa with no point of entry. I challange you, however on being the winner of the most banned contest. I started to post over there in 2003!
I defer to your seniority!
Wow, looking at the thread over there I came upon something I had missed: She calls Social Security a “hand out” of “OPM” that is a source of “shame” for our country! Now THAT should be a popular message for the voters!
What a horrible excuse for a human being.
At least they haven’t banned you completely from posting. I suspect that is coming soon.
Ha! I guess I was spot on in my prediction that the moderator would soon cut you off.
That thread reminded me of one I was engaged in with her a few years ago. I brought up some of the same points: that strict constructionism was by no means the only accepted way of interpreting the Constitution, and that Alexander Hamilton–a founder whom Amazona rarely if ever quotes–successfully advocated for a broader interpretation of the Constitution almost from the time the ink was dry. No matter. In any event, you made your points articulately, so maybe a reader or two will give it some thought.
I especially liked her quip that the term “loose constructionism” is “gibberish.” She must be learned enough to know that that is not true. Right? Right?!
But I cannot imagine having to live with her, and I truly feel pity for anyone that has had to endure her in real life for any length of time. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone in any context, Internet or face-to-face, who is as ugly as she is.
Wow, I think I remember you arguing that point with her a while ago. Simple times back then, but just as frustrating I’m sure. Maybe she’s endured some unfathomable hardships in the meantime. Sad, seems like she’s had her share of hardship already by then.
it is ridiculous on so many levels. it was friday night and i was with my kid and i just did not have the energy to talk but she started going after cluster and calling him a shopping cart conservative. Honestly, someone should point out to her one simple fact. She does not want liberals to state their position. SHe wants to mock a position no matter what the position is. her standards are too high for anyone to be acceptable. Until she realizes that she is just mocking people’s view and not everyone will have the same view she is going to be a be a loser in life. I do not agree with half the stuff you guys write but whatever. It is generally in the same mold. Who cares- she needs people to be her and she sounds like the taliban
You got that right Jake. The only thing I would add is that her standards aren’t necessarily high, they’re just her own. She’s just not open to any new information, which seems to be a common conservative trait.
But I’m glad I accomplished some goals in the discussion: I clearly stated my political philosophy and defended it, putting a lie to her bizarre insistence that none of us liberals are ever able to do so. I also exposed the paucity of her position. When pressed for practical specifics like Social Security she admits she favors a ridiculous state administered system that would be infinitely more expensive and cumbersome than what we currently enjoy, if it could even be made to work at all. And the kicker is she favors this FOR NO GOOD REASON other that those weird personal standards she barks about. As I said to them, good luck selling that to folks: “Step right up! We want to strip away your SS and replace it with a more expensive, untested model subject to the whims of 50 different entities because I think Jefferson would want it that way!” Yeah, that makes sense.
Actually, I backed her into a corner there, and this is why she’s so adverse to discussing issues: rather than her stupid state model, I’m sure she’d prefer just scrapping SS altogether. When pressed on how her absurd originalist vision would actually play out she would have to admit to wanting to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and perhaps ripping up the interstate highway system. Not a very popular platform, hence her allergy to “issues”.
So, in short, I “won” the debate. I was just tired of her juvenile attempts to goad me so I bowed out of that part.
it is not even about winning and losing. It seems like they all loss at life at some point in time. She filibusters the crap out of people. Who cannot state an idea really quickly and thoroughly without writing 1000 words per post. I actually fired someone recently because they talked way too much(i am not kidding). I spent so much time listening to the guy and i lost track of what his point was. I knew he was entirely full of crap and had to let him go. In business you get to the point and you make it. You back shit up. Her philosophy is why infrastructure in this country is going to shit and our gun laws are ridiculous. People want to talk too much instead of getting stuff done. Part of trump is refreshing and funny that he just states whatever is on his mind and pisses people off. Absolutely destroys any republicans chances of actually winning
That’s funny. Good points. Yeah, it’s pretty obvious her excessive verbiage is a mask for her weak ideas. If she wasn’t so full of shit she could state her positions succinctly, clearly and politely.
Cluster said: “Rusty leveled the old and baseless accusation that since conservatives don’t support progressive prescriptions on health care and entitlements, then obviously we don’t care about less fortunate people and are in it strictly for ourselves. It really does get old reading this argument year after year after year.”
Fair enough. I’d love to hear your prescriptions.
One reason I tend to think this of conservatives is my own interactions with them. I have a relative who lost her husband and was left with two young children. This was before ObamaCare. Fortunately, her children received health care coverage from Social Security, at least up to a certain age. Yet some of her own conservative relatives railed against such so-called handouts. When I asked them how she should provide health care for her children, the answer was, “however she can.” Implied by that answer was that if she can’t, then too bad for her. It’s her problem and she should take responsibility for the fact that she had the bad fortune to pick a husband who one day died in his sleep.
I agree with Rusty: This is the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. We can afford to provide the sorts of safety nets that help people like my relative above. Or to help our aged. Social Security was enacted on a whim, or simply because so-called progressives wanted to stick it to conservatives. There was an actual need, an actual problem, that needed addressing. You can look at the history of Social Security and see how it came to be, and why. (In fact, I believe such a history is on the Social Security website.)
And yet the conservatives I personally know tend to view such assistance as hand outs or taking one person’s money and giving it to another. I have seen these types of programs referred to as “theft” on your website. Now, conservatives often do draw a line with Social Security and Medicare on one side and all other assistance programs on the other. Why? Because virtually all conservatives know that they will need Social Security and Medicare when they get old. Your friend Mark Noonan has stated that he expects that he will have to work until he is 80 years of age. Poor planning on his part? Perhaps. But it is not uncommon. We also have the examples such as Mitt Romney stating that 47% of Americans are takers. Moochers as many of your conservative friends would call. This does not make me think that conservatives in general care about the less fortunate, but instead view them as, well, moochers.
So I am happy to hear of your suggestions for how to improve this nation’s care of its elderly, sick and mentally ill, and those living in poverty. Feel free to answer here or on your blog.
Cluster also said: “Conservatives want more efficiencies and less waste and corruption and if we were following the Constitution and delivering these services at the State level, then we would have lower costs and better service. Why is that so hard to understand?”
Just saying it doesn’t make it so, Cluster. You need to come with better prescriptions than that.
For one thing, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare are all Constitutional. Do you reject that? If so, what is the appropriate mechanism with which to determine whether a law is in fact Constitutional if it isn’t the Supreme Court?
Everyone wants more efficiencies and less waste and corruption. No one that I know would say they want more of those things. But your comment brings to mind Arnold Schwartzenegger, who ran for governor of California on precisely that platform: that he would eliminate was and corruption. Years later, he admitted that he basically couldn’t find it. So just saying it doesn’t really mean anything and doesn’t advance your position at all.
You also have not demonstrated in any meaningful way that converting programs such as Social Security to state-delivered services would result in lower costs and better service. How? Rusty brought up the point that studies show that Medicare is in fact very efficient. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? That’s what you need to do to. It doesn’t do your position any good to simply state things with nothing to back them up.
Cluster:
Rusty leveled the old and baseless accusation that since conservatives don’t support progressive prescriptions on health care and entitlements, then obviously we don’t care about less fortunate people and are in it strictly for ourselves.
I don’t remember specifically saying that, although through word and deed I think it’s often true. For example, I did express disgust that Ama said that Social Security is “shameful” and basically called the participants (that would be everybody) parasites. Imagine that. She’s not ashamed of this country starting an unnecessary preemptive war that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but she is ashamed that this country has a system that allows everybody to pitch in and help it’s oldest citizens live with a bit more dignity and comfort for their last years on the planet. So Cluster, where do you think I might get the notion that conservatives don’t care about the less fortunate?
The other day I asked Rusty why he was still such a firm believer in domestic progressive policies considering how badly they have failed over the last 50 years. Poverty rates are higher, wages are stagnant, record number of people, particularly women, out of the workforce, etc., etc. I never did hear back on that.
I missed that one too but take exception to Cluster’s conclusion that our economic woes are due to progressive policies. For one thing, liberalism has not exactly been ruling the roost for the past few decades and this country has been veering sharply right for some time. I think this lurch to the right has a lot to do with our troubles. Our problems stem from many things: the deterioration of our manufacturing jobs, the loss of the middle class, income disparity, stagnant wages, the rise of corporate money tainting our political process to name a few–none of these things have anything to do with progressive policies.
So there you have it Cluster, you heard back from me. Why don’t you come over here and comment sometime?
“although through word and deed I think it’s often true”
Oh yes, it very much is. Even if they want to say that’s not their intent (which is a questionable stance for them to take), it’s the inevitable result.
Just look at the “solution” conservatives fetishize: Block grants to the states. “It will make the system more responsive to particular needs,” they say. “It will save money.” And, lastly, “It will strengthen the system.”
Unfortunately, as with everything conservatives say, it’s not true.
In fact, block grants would fail rather quickly, as the above link shows. They would “fall further behind state needs each year.” They would take away coverage from millions of people. They are, in short, a terrible solution (rather like Bush’s great idea of “saving” Social Security by handing it over to Wall Street–thankfully, that one never happened).
That is, they’re a terrible solution if you actually want to support poor people. If you just want to shred the safety net, block grants would be fairly effective. So when conservatives push for block grants, the question is whether they’re intentionally lying–claiming that block grants would help people when really, they’re just an excuse to take away assistance from people who need it–or just deluded fools.
And that’s the dynamic you have to ask yourself again and again. When conservatives continue to push for supply-side economics, which has been a consistent miserable failure, is it because they’re intentionally lying (i.e. they know full well that tax cuts do not spur revenue increases, but they want those tax cuts anyway and think that lie is the best way to sell them to the American public), or is it because they’re deluded fools (i.e. they actually do believe, contrary to mountains of evidence, that tax cuts spur revenue increases)?
Lying or ignorant; that is the omnipresent conundrum conservatives present.