211
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 18, 2016, 05:02:06 PM »
#RealDonaldTrump when asked about JeffDG's hard-on for him....
PILOT SPIN
News:
Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2 Likes
212
Spin Zone / Re: Way to Go Tim Cook!
« on: February 18, 2016, 11:31:54 AM »If you have nothing to hide, and a valid search warrant is served on you, you are required to comply. There is absolutely no 4th Amendment implications of this matter.No. You are 'ordered' to comply.
You can refuse, and experience the consequences as pursued by the FedGov, but you, and in fact any corporation (and by extension its' officers) have the ability to act in accordance with their conscience.
Freedom is hard.
'Gimp
213
Spin Zone / Re: A World without Black History Month
« on: February 17, 2016, 10:02:39 PM »
I long for a day when we won't have a black history month because we will just study history regardless of skin color, give credit where credit is due regardless of skin color, praise that which is praiseworthy regardless of skin color, and condemn that which is condemnable regardless of skin color.
MLK Jr and I have the same dream.
'Gimp
MLK Jr and I have the same dream.
'Gimp
214
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 16, 2016, 04:06:06 PM »Oh, it's even better than that. Apparently Code Pink is a big fan, as is Michael Moore.Rush had a great show today about why Trump may be doing/saying some of what he is doing/saying and it has to do with the open primary in SC - some interesting points raised and a couple excellent calls that would put to rest a lot of the 'controversy' in this thread in particular.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/trump-scores-crucial-code-pink-endorsement/
Let's see. Bush is responsible for 9/11. Bush LIED about WMD and lead us to war on a known lie.
Is he running for the Democratic nomination, or is he just willing to adopt the most far left talking points and destroy the rest of the field by threats of lawsuits and retribution and lies and distortions to secure the nomination via the most despicable scorched earth destruction of the Republican Party?
EDIT: Oh, that's right. I forgot.
IMMIGRATION!!!!!
So all tactics are acceptable.
Trump is definitely not playing by the normal rules and it really confuses/consternates a lot of folks - right, wrong or indifferent he has changed the narrative and if he dropped out tomorrow that would be the lasting impact of his involvement this cycle. I hope he does not drop out, do not expect him to drop out because the elitist ruling class need a collective punch in the gut and kick to the teeth regardless of which side of the aisle they reside on.
'Gimp
215
Spin Zone / Re: Scalia is gone
« on: February 15, 2016, 03:25:49 PM »Aside from the ridiculousness of the rape analogy when discussing the Senate's parliamentary rules, I understand your desire for Republicans to be "above the fray." However, the Court and the Constitution are now at stake. It is not unreasonable to withhold support, or even a vote, on an Obama nominee in this circumstance.^^ THIS ^^
Harry Reid changed the rules for the filibuster. When McConnell became the majority leader, he brought the rule back, essentially giving power to the minority that was denied the GOP when they were in the Senate minority.
It's almost like McConnell is more comfortable being in the minority than the majority.
The Republicans no longer know how to behave as the majority party/party in control. They have been so routinely browbeaten that they are like the proverbial elephant caged by a piece of twine on its leg - it could very easily break the twine, and the neck of its' handler, but it never tries.
F'ing pathetic. I predict McConnell and the GOP will cave as soon as someone mentions 'government shutdown blamed on the Republicans'.
'Gimp
216
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:42:06 PM »My preference is to have a conservative for the general election. A vote for Trump for the republican nomination is a vote to guarantee a Democrat in the WHYou can keep repeating this bullshit trope all you want Jeff but it simply ain't so. Trump's actual history with the Republican party 'trumps' your blind losertarian-jihad since the party itself sought to have him run almost 30 years ago now. This is the second time he has been a candidate within the party primary series.
Here is a clue - in order to 'leave' the Republican party as he did in 2000 when he joined the Independent/Reform party (Center-Right), you first have to be a fucking Republican in the first place.
Is he party-ideology pure? Nope, nobody says so, not even him. But then, neither is anybody else still or previously in the running. Cruz comes closest but I won't vote for him, I find him generally untrustworthy, like everyone else he has flopped on issues of improtance to me, and there is something else that I can still can't put my finger on that just sets off the red flags for me, your mileage may vary.
Frankly, the scorched-earth hard-on you have Trump is actually making me like him more since it makes me do the tiniest bit of research before I put finger to keyboard - you might try it sometime. Still not supporting him with my time or money, but I could vote FOR him if he ends up the candidate - can't say that about Cruz, Bush or Kasich - even with recent missteps Rubio has almost worked his way back into contention although I don't trust him thanks to the Gang of Eight crap.
It's South Park Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche, and if I can't vote FOR, I am not voting - we may need to more fully experience the pain of failure before people wake up in large enough numbers to make a real difference.
'Gimp
217
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 12, 2016, 08:22:52 AM »Jeff, did you ever get an answer to this question?This has been asked and answered already - Ronald Reagan, inarguably the most impactful conservative leader in American history, would not pass this 'test' since he did not 'passionately advocate conservative positions when not running for office'. He was campaigning for Governor of CA when he gave the Time for Choosing speech - and had been a Democrat previously.
Trump has used plain language to explain his previous monetary support for candidates on BOTH side of the spectrum and it makes total sense to anyone who has run a business, let alone a large concern where government interference and oversight is arguably more intrusive and open to abuse than many (real estate development/banking). Anyone not accepting that is simply not listening with an open mind IMO.
Does anyobody recall Trump nearly getting into the mix before now? Started in 1988 friends, there was a draft Trump movement within the Republican party. He almost ran as a Reform Party/Independent in 2000, and as a Republican in 2012. None of these are Democrat, even Reform Party was Center/Right.
It is a total bullshit strawman because it limits the timeframe/frame of reference in such a way as to 'theoretically' only favor one answer and as pointed out, not even Reagan would pass given the restrictions on timeframe.
'Gimp
218
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 07, 2016, 10:30:28 AM »Jeff you can THINK that all you want, but to state it as FACT is just wrong and totally unsupported by the actual evidence.
So, if Hillary were to switch and run in the Republican primary, conservatives would be prohibited from criticizing the fact that she's actually a democrat because "inward directed fire"?
Trump is a democrat in all but name. As such, he is a far more dangerous enemy than Hillary, as some folks think you can't call attention to that fact because it's "inward directed fire". He is running purely on a Cult of Personality, one that would make the Kims of DPRK jealous.
I don't understand your obsessive hard-on for Trump, makes no sense but is a real turn-off and the aggro you have for Trump and anyone who says anything positive about him or disagrees with you about it is equally off-putting.
Suggesting that Trump and Hillary are in any way interchangeable is just jumping the shark and demonstrates you shouldn't be taken seriously on this subject.
We get it, you don't like Trump.
Who DO you like?
What do you stand FOR?
As a self-identified Libertarian why should anybody on the Republican side give one flying fuck what you think about their candidates in the first place?
'Gimp
219
Spin Zone / Re: Modern Day racism looks like your friendly neighborhood banker
« on: February 04, 2016, 03:01:34 PM »
It must really suck to live a life so consumed by fear and hatred that one could see an article like this where an actual injustice is actually discovered and actual amends are made and see that as tragic proof of inescapable, institutional racism.
Somebody broke the law, it appears to have been extraordinarily widespread although clearly not well known outside financial circles (which begs the question if there may have been more to it from an actuarial standpoint, but I digress), but once discovered, the system functioned, without bias, as it is supposed to.
Whether made by an administrative court judge or a jury, the system worked as it is supposed to, a crime was committed, discovered, tried and justice was served. This is exactly the kind of justice and benefit from the systems in place that we are constantly told does not exist for people of color.
This should be seen as a story that affirms 'and justice for all', not one that focuses on the acts of a few (albeit with widespread impact) and ascribes unknowable motives.
I feel pity for folks who live with such a negative and external focus.
'Gimp
Somebody broke the law, it appears to have been extraordinarily widespread although clearly not well known outside financial circles (which begs the question if there may have been more to it from an actuarial standpoint, but I digress), but once discovered, the system functioned, without bias, as it is supposed to.
Whether made by an administrative court judge or a jury, the system worked as it is supposed to, a crime was committed, discovered, tried and justice was served. This is exactly the kind of justice and benefit from the systems in place that we are constantly told does not exist for people of color.
This should be seen as a story that affirms 'and justice for all', not one that focuses on the acts of a few (albeit with widespread impact) and ascribes unknowable motives.
I feel pity for folks who live with such a negative and external focus.
'Gimp
220
Spin Zone / Re: Hawkeye Caucuses
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:46:13 AM »You mean dirty games like the birther or loan lies that Trump used to hammer Cruz before the Iowa caucuses?No, that is standard campaigning, it is annoying crap but normal - if it is good for the goose (re Obama and the Birth Certificate) then it is good for the gander and I do think it is a question Cruz would need to address and I am not the only one.
The loan thing was crap but it is not even remotely like sending out official looking documents with Voting Violation in big red letters across the top, or stealing votes from Dr. Carson by misrepresenting a CNN story that misrepresented the situation and then choosing not to correct that as soon as the truth was known.
Apples and oranges, at least to me.
'Gimp
221
Spin Zone / Re: Hawkeye Caucuses
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:31:33 AM »Iowa has confirmed my feelings about Cruz.^^ This.
I like someone who is committed to winning don't get me wrong, but it has to be done on and with principles.
I know I sound like a Trump supporter, and I may end up being one, but consider his performance in Iowa with essentially no ground game and an unconventional approach, and contrast that with the shenanigans from Cruz to eke out a win in a still very crowded field (before Huckster and Paul dropped out anyway).
Iowa confirmed it for me as well, thanks for the right word - Cruz is not someone I can support.
'Gimp
222
Spin Zone / Re: We're Screwed..............
« on: February 01, 2016, 01:48:29 PM »no matter who ends up in the White House. The only difference I see, potentially, is the amount of time to get to the end. If we put another "D" in the White House we'll get there much quicker. If we put an "R" in the White house we still get there, but maybe a little slower although actions of late do not bare that out.$20T is nothing, the unfunded liabilities are an order of magnitude worse and effectively un-repayable.
Someone convince me this is not true and that there actually is a way to pay down $20T in debt and not have it increase from this point on.
With the current choices and the systems in place to limit those choices we are screwed, the only question is how long.
If either or both parties can be reclaimed by the people AND someone can actually act as adult supervision it could get better but I am not expecting it.
'Gimp
223
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:15:05 AM »Pure bovine scatology.
I've never asked for a demonstration of Dear Leader Trump as a "true conservative". I'm simply asking that the person seeking the nomination of the more conservative mainstream party demonstrate a single example of a conservative position when not running for office. That's an incredibly low bar, yet Dear Leader Trump and his Trumpkins seem wholly incapable of crossing it.
Again, not asking for that. Just one, only one, example of Dear Leader Trump advocating for a conservative position.
Here's the thing. The point of asking for a single position by Trump that is conservative is to point out that he is of the Left. He is a Democrat in the Republican Primary. The goal is to go into the general with two Democrats (maybe 3 if Bloomberg runs as an "Independent")
You set up a strawman argument. As has been pointed out to you, by your own logic Reagan would be ineligible for your support since he was a Democrat before he was a Republican - he advocated Democrat ideals until he changed his position and campaigned as a Republican. If Ronaldus Magnus can't make it no way that Trump or Cruz or anyone else can.
Newsflash - we have been picking between Democrat and Democrat "Light" since Bush '41 - how well has that been working out for us?
The reason Trump is attractive to many, as has also been pointed out to you endlessly, is the perception that he takes no shit and can not be 'bought'.
If you review Trump's body of work he is clearly a pro-business candidate, most likely a Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal North East Republican. His previous party affiliation means no more than did Reagan's or anybody else's.
Did he change his position on abortion? Yes. Did Cruz change on imigration and ethanol subsidies Syria, etc.? Yes. Did Rubio change on immigration and 2A etc.? Yes.
There are no ideological pure Conservatives in this fight, none. And if we don't win it means nothing.
Would Cruz be more Conservative than Trump on matters of substance? Maybe, can't say for sure since both have changed positions - would either be way more Conservative than the alternative - yes.
'Gimp
224
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:55:24 AM »
Jeff I have been holding off for a while but you still have not acknowledged that this is a strawman argument.
As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.
As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.
None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.
I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.
I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side.
Imagine if we spent even half the energy currently being invested in bashing Trump or Cruz on educating the middle and left-of-center voters on who is actually responsible for their suffering and powerfully and positively espousing conservative ideals (no matter how recently acquired).
I think people still totally fail to understand the Trump approach and continue to try and use conventional campaign thinking an conventional campaign tactics on a clearly asymmetric campaign - like sending an Aircraft Carrier after 6 Somali pirates in a dinghy with a 40hp Evinrude.
And as a reminder, I am not a Trump supporter, not supporting his campaign with dollars or time - I am only voting 'FOR' this time, voting against is a waste and keeps the elites in power. If they can't produce a candidate and campaign I want to vote for I am not voting. I could vote for Trump if he is the candidate, but that is a ways off yet.
'Gimp
As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.
As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.
None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.
I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.
I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side.
Imagine if we spent even half the energy currently being invested in bashing Trump or Cruz on educating the middle and left-of-center voters on who is actually responsible for their suffering and powerfully and positively espousing conservative ideals (no matter how recently acquired).
I think people still totally fail to understand the Trump approach and continue to try and use conventional campaign thinking an conventional campaign tactics on a clearly asymmetric campaign - like sending an Aircraft Carrier after 6 Somali pirates in a dinghy with a 40hp Evinrude.
And as a reminder, I am not a Trump supporter, not supporting his campaign with dollars or time - I am only voting 'FOR' this time, voting against is a waste and keeps the elites in power. If they can't produce a candidate and campaign I want to vote for I am not voting. I could vote for Trump if he is the candidate, but that is a ways off yet.
'Gimp
225
Spin Zone / Re: No Trump. No. Go Away, Trump. Stand Down.
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:41:28 AM »He is unelectable.Big difference is Mitt was too soft to fight back, I for one would pay to watch a social media fight between the DNC and Trump Org, it would be like a UFC title match and the result would be very different than what we have been subjected to over the last 30 years. The power of celebrity that Trump wields is unlike anything the Republicans have fielded since Reagan in terms of being able to go outside the kingmakers and gate keepers and straight to the people.
"Barack Obama reportedly won the 2012 election due to his campaign’s mastery of Big Data. Hillary Clinton and the DNC have access to that data. It cost a fortune to build and they will use it effectively.
The Democrats will make a series of short videos and post them to Facebook, Google, Twitter, You Tube and Instagram. The videos will be microtargeted to the right demographic. Big Data makes it easy to target voters. My view is that the mother lode is on immigration and that the MSM will attack Trump’s (or his subcontractors) use of illegal alien labor in the hotel, golf course, restaurant and construction industries. Social media will amplify this MSM attack. The MSM ignore social media and the use of Big Data because Facebook and Google are eating their lunch on ad dollars. That’s why you don’t read much about how the campaigns use it to win elections.
Trump’s coarse and at times outlandish language and behavior can only drive his unfavorable numbers even higher. Jean Kaufman, for example, has written about Trump and eminent domain here. Kelo is practically a litmus test for conservatives and Trump is on the other side.
Think about what the Dems did to that fine man who is Mitt Romney. When the Dems got finished with Mitt, many thought he was a heartless murderer. A false accusation, to be sure, but it worked. In my opinion, the anti-Trump social media videos will result in a landslide loss for the GOP.
The GOP must win this election. Trump is not electable. Vote for a candidate in the primaries who can win in November. You have a number of good candidates to select."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/live-from-council-bluffs-its-donald-trump-2.php
Just say no to DNC tropes.
'Gimp