You heard it here first folks… A strong crenquis buy recommendation on IBM stock.
6 Likes
For the standard $1?
13 Likes
Maybe it is a bet?
Perhaps someone claimed that most people, given the chance to kill Hitler before he came to power, would take it, and Trump bet he could prove them wrong
7 Likes
I’m really hoping that Trump has massive Middle Eastern clients using his buildings and services and that they’ll start disinvesting and finding clauses in their contracts that will let them walk away.
1 Like
Trump doesn’t make the same mistakes as everyone else - he makes bigger, more beautiful and classy - let me tell you really classy - mistakes.
3 Likes
National Registry for Tracking Guns: “Hell no! That would be an un-American, a complete violation of our Constitutional rights! That’s just the kind of thing that caused the holocaust!”
National Registry for Tracking People of Unpopular Religious Minority: “Oh absolutely. That’s just a no brainer.”
31 Likes
I never thought I’d say this but… Jeb Bush is right! I agree with the man!
1 Like
4 Likes
They’re not getting equal time, that’s for sure.
At what point is Shia LeBoeuf going to remove the Trump mask?
This is performance art, right?
10 Likes
Here’s a good read: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Without making you look at the whole book, the professor developed a test over his career to identify authoritarian followers, people who tend to latch onto authorities and do what they say and to be aggressive in defense of authorities. In own questionnaire there is a scenario proposed: The government has told you that a particular Muslim sect is terrorist, and tells you that the citizens of the country need to help the government. Then it asks questions: Would you report suspected members of the sect, would you tell your friends it is important to participate, would you join a posse to round up members, etc.
There is a very strong correlation between the personality type he identified and saying yes to all of that stuff. He tried a bunch of different scenarios. All the same, but with different groups being targeted. It could be Muslims, it could be environmentalists, it could be racists, it could be a gun club. The punchline is that he posed the following scenario: The government has told you that there is a group of people who are authoritarian followers - people who are so aggressive in their defense of authority that they are a threat.
It is the same people who will round them up. They would round up themselves.
If you took the people who want to track Muslims in a database, and asked them whether it would be a good idea to track racists in a database, they’d mostly say yes. You could basically ask them, “Is it a good idea to track in a database?” and they would probably say yes. It has nothing to do with whether that’s a good idea and everything to do with the fact that someone in authority said it was a good idea.
15 Likes
Here’s the ‘response’ from ‘legitimate’ candidate Rubio.
2 Likes
Trump’s banging the “crazy drum” like a screen door in a hurricane.
5 Likes
Okay. I hate Trump and everything about him and I resent the hell out of the fact that he’s being presented as the most viable Republican candidate in a field of total idiots and incompetents. Yep, the Dems are gonna win in 2016, so don’t worry about it.
That having been said, if you listen to the interview in question, Trump is on his own track per what he’s talking about. He’s talking about illegal immigrants. Yes, he’s pointedly evading/prevaricating on actually answering the interviewer’s question about Muslims, and that’s what politicians do and yes it’s reprehensible that he doesn’t come out and say “nope we’re NOT gonna register Muslims.” BUT: when he’s asked if we should have a database to track muslims, he says “we need a LOT of systems”. Not a yes, not a no, but a “we need a lot of systems” to get done what Trump is in favor of, secure borders, less illegal immigration and certainly less illegal Muslim immigration, if that’s even a thing. He is talking about illegal immigrants (and yes, probably illegal Muslim immigrants too), which is the drum he’s been banging during his whole campaign: illegal immigration, secure borders, “a wall”, etc. Speaking of which, immediately after this, when he’s talking about secure borders and “a wall”, and then he’s asked “is that something your White House would like to implement” he says “oh I would certainly implement that”. Again, he’s saying he would implement secure borders: he’s not answering the question about a Muslim database. The proof of this is when the interviewer then asks “what do you think the effect of that would be? how would that work?” he AGAIN answers his own agenda question: he says “it would keep illegals from coming in to this country.” Then when asked “how would you register muslims” he says “it would just be good management”. Again, he’s talking about illegal muslim immigrants. When asked “would you go to mosques to sign people up?” he gives neither a yes or no but says “different places.” Waffling.
And in the follow-up interview/questioning, by this point Trump has realized he’s been had by the interviewer, earlier on. So he keeps saying “you tell me. you tell me.” He’s pissed, and not wanting to say anything else that’s clearly gonna be used to hook him into another no-win answer.
As bad as the entire interview is (the reporter clearly is fishing for Trump to say something stupid, which isn’t difficult, but the interviewrs is pointedly coming back to the “registering muslims” subject, steering the conversation that way) Trump never volunteers or opens with the topic of registering Muslims: it is being pushed on him by the interviewer. And now, with snippets of the interview being used this morning, it sounds even worse than it was. This seems like a hatchet job. If you’re okay with hatchet jobs on people you hate, fine, go with it. I hate Trump too. But in fairness, the entire interview I saw last night on TRMS is NOT what being portrayed on the news this morning, and was a bogus interview to begin with.
5 Likes
It is an essential part of protecting the Constitution!
2 Likes
You make a cogent argument. A hell of a lot more cogent than the interviewee.
But he was being asked about specific policy. A hatchet job? Well, trump could have said, “No”, or " That is insulting", or basically anything that wouldn’t be open to interpretation.
Let me put it this way. If that is his policy style, I wouldn’t vote for him if he was an infinite caramel apple promising free money for ever. Because his policy explanations make no sense (kinda like my analogy :D)
I do not believe it is a hatchet job when the person you are interviewing is a know nothing blow hard.
11 Likes
Sometimes it’s a hatchet job, sometimes it’s baiting, but the result is the same. Trump could just come out and say, “Look, that interview was ridiculous, I never said I wanted to register all American Muslims, that would be like Nazi Germany. They put together words afterwords to try to make it sound like I said that. I wouldn’t do that.” He could even be more Trump-like and say, “Those losers would hear me say the Sky is blue and tell you I said it was Red.”
So far, I haven’t seen a denial.
This is a bit like the question of someone saying racist things while one drugs: are the drugs making them say those things or are they just bringing out ideas that were already buried there but not spoken? When someone asks you “would you register Muslims” or “how would you register Muslims,” and your answer isn’t “What the fuck, who said anything about registering Muslims?” is it the hatchet-job interview, or is it you?
15 Likes
7 Likes
Numbered tattoos.
2 Likes
Whole binders full of them.
6 Likes
