 |
| Although we've paraphrased, Trump said ALL of this stuff and more. |
The reason? He failed to endorse Donald Trump by name, and instead told the audience to consider who will be best for America and then vote their conscience. It's pretty hard to see that as an endorsement of Hillary "Cackles" Clinton, but many Trump supporters seem to have taken it that way - oddly suggesting that they think that there's some inherent schism between supporting the constitution and voting for the now-official GOP nominee.
Personally, Hope n' Change thinks Cruz gave the closest thing to a pro-Trump endorsement humanly possible while still retaining a shred of integrity after the myriad personal attacks the billionaire made on his family and character during the primary campaign. Any "pledge" was rendered moot by Mr. Trump himself - after all, how could he have eventually "supported" any other candidate credibly after having destroyed their reputations through name-calling and vile assertions during the primary season?
Moreover, by eloquently making the case for conservative values (something we'd frankly like to see Mr. Trump do), Cruz was certainly making it clear that our nation can't afford to have Hillary in the White House. And by telling hardcore conservatives that they must not stay home on election day, and must cast votes up and down the GOP ticket, he was reminding even those not in love with Trump that there is more at stake here than one candidate, and many more offices which must be held or won.
So we say "good for Ted Cruz" and "good for those who plan to vote for Trump" and "good for those who plan to vote against Hillary by voting for Trump."
The circular firing squad on the Right has got to stop shooting their allies and keep the larger targets in sight. And while "Never Hillary" isn't all that matters, it's currently what matters most... and Ted Cruz said as much.
BONUS: ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PISS A CHANCE
 |
| Definitely a "glass half-full" situation |
Frankly, this strikes us as a win-win-win scenario!
52 comments:
Huh! A literal pissing match, eh? ROFLMAO! :D
I didn't watch the convention coverage. I won't watch the Democrat convention. Well, except maybe to catch a glimpse of the incredibly HOT Lena DumbHam. I am pretty much on a news moratorium until the election, when I will cast the vote most likely to keep Ma Barker out of the White House and keep 3-5 more RBGs off of the Supreme Court. Thank goodness we have people like Stilton willing to sacrifice blood pressure and brain cells to keep us informed. Thanks for falling on that grenade.
Ronald Reagan gave a similar speech to Cruz's at the RNC in 1976, and never officially endorsed Gerald Ford.
As mentioned, politics is a blood sport. I can understand his integrity but how does that fit with the pledge he signed? We are in a great crisis now and it can get a lot worse if Clinton is sworn in. When you read about Trump, every article has negatives in it and that is by design. Balance? Not hardly. I believe Ted Cruz could have been great but not anymore. The Republican party is in shambles after we gave them majorities in both houses. We have 26 Senate seats in play in November and I believe we will lose at least 8 of them, maybe more. Then, if Trump is sworn in on Tuesday, impeachment proceeding begin on Wednesday regardless of who has the majority in the Senate. Personally, I have no faith in our political system anymore but it is the best on around. I know what we would get with Cackles so let's try an outsider.
I was a yuuuge Cruz supporter, but he squandered his golden opportunity to be a fence mender, a party unifier, and more importantly, to show that the future of our county is more important than (gasp) being insulted in a political contest. A convention, particularly after the candidate is chosen, is but a cheerleading party. To have a member of the squad shout: "Rah, rah, rah, sis boom bah, our quarterback is a dick!" would be wholly inappropriate, regardless of the relative dickness of said QB.
Simply put, Cruz should have suited up (and bucked up), or stayed home. The fact that we're discussing this instead of directing 100% of our energies (and cartooning talents) to keep Mrs. Bill out of the White House is proof enough.
It was a sad day.
Curtis Eggen,
Amen! Its not like Cruz didn't pull some shennigans of his own. I also wanted Ted to be our guy, but he isn't.
I sent a letter to Senator Cruz that was similar to Curtis Eggen's comment above. The whole concept of the "pledge" was somewhat juvenile, but the time to say so was when they signed it, not now. Once Cruz made a promise to the American people in writing, the only way to maintain his integrity was to find a way to keep his promise (in more than just political double-speak - no matter how well Gingrich tried to spin it for him).
I voted for Cruz in the Senate primary, general and runoff. I also voted for him in the Presidential primary. But as I told him, if there is a credible challenger available next time he runs, I will remember this display. He should have just stayed home with come cheese, like the other GOP whiners.
More than anything, Trump is the only one who is tossing out the PC bull. Last night he said the term "Islamic Terrorist" about 4 million times as well as other politically incorrect terms and such. PC is one of the things that is tearing this country apart. He also embraced the LGBTQURTY community. Methinks that was a brave step.
I think if Ted Cruz could overcome his hurt pride and Donald Trump could overcome make up with Ted Cruz and they could both work as a team, that would really be something. It would be good for them and good for our country.
Please delete the 'overcome' in the sentence after Trump and my post will make more sense. So sorry for the error.... :)
As serendipity would have it, a year ago we managed to schedule a vacation for the same week as the Republican Convention. To make things even better, it was at a location that had amazingly little electronic connectivity. So the Econ family was spared most of the insanity of the last week. It was wonderful.
We did manage to hear about Ted Cruz getting booed off the stage for his insolent remarks regarding protecting the Constitution and for failing to fall to his knees at the feet of the man who's comments regarding Cruz and his family in an earlier age would have instigated a duel at dawn. In not grovelling to Trump, Cruz expects to be the viable adult to arise from the ashes of the GOP in 2020.
That's assuming that there will be a GOP in 2020. As I've alluded to here before, I believe we are at the cusp of a massive political re-alignment in this country. In fact, it may have already happened.
For the last 80 years, the Democrats have lauded themselves as the party of FDR for the "everyman", or non-elite. But that all changed for good 25 years ago when the Clintons changed everything. Today, the Democratic Party wholly represents the interests of the very wealthy and the very poor while openly conducting a war on what is left of the middle class. Crony capitalism, low interest rates, high government debt, ObamaCare, and open borders are just some examples of this. If you're part of the rent-seeking top 20% or managed to keep your job and pay over the last 8 years, you've likely done very well under Obama. Everyone else has taken it on the chin, with diminished opportunity and little "hope and change" in sight. The GOP, which had mostly dropped it's Reaganite values by 2000 is little better. This is what was behind the rise of Trump and Sanders.
The current assumed Democratic constituency of grievance groups and tribalists is imploding. (And I suspect that next week's Democratic coronation may expose this in some subtle way if there lucky, and not-so-subtle way if they're not) Is there really any common ground between Bernie's socialists and Hillary's corporatists? Islamic apologists and women and homosexuals? Black Lives (don't) Matter activists and, well, anybody? I have to wonder what Jackson & Sharpton were promised by the Hillary & the DNC for their recent silence on current events. The Democratic party that portrays itself as the non-judgmental party is comprised of the most judgmental people on the planet. In fact, they're so judgmental that their kids have to escape to "safe spaces" when confronted by mere words or ideas that challenge any of it.
Recent events aren't helping. Notice that the "let's import vetted refugees" rhetoric disappeared after San Bernardino and Paris. BLdM-inspired police executions is testing the "tolerance" between the BLdM movement and civilized society. People are beginning to recognize this as "the new normal", where flags in the US will be flown at half-staff pretty much permanently.
I think we may be witnessing the rise of a new conservative movement; one that is more inclusive and less judgmental. One that realizes that the tribalized America of the Democrats is a suicide cult. One that realizes that America works because people understand that capitalism doesn't care what your personal values are, but commerce benefits everyone. One that understands that the Constitution is a mutual contract between the people and the state that keeps everyone free, and that laws exist not to benefit individuals, but everyone. I can hope.
Convention Violence: As much as the Democrats and media try to change this, the reality is that over the last half-century most of the real violence at political conventions has been conducted by leftists at Democrat conventions. So that the worst they can find to report on at the GOP Convention is a pissing match between BLdM, KKK, and Westboro nuts is hardly a surprise. It's just further proof that when it comes right down to it, conservatism is the more self-disciplined ideology.
Love that Trump one; been sharing it all over Facebook since last night.
Pat Buchanan has some "cred" as a conservative....
"With Trump's triumph, the day of reckoning has arrived.
The new GOP is not going to be party of open borders, free trade globalism or reflexive interventionism.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth are justified.
For these self-righteous folks are all getting eviction notices. They are being dispossessed of their home."
Buchanan.org
Well, I watched Cruz's whole speech on U-Tube and heard NO booing. I heard loud cheers at the end of his speech, while he was still on the stage. I also heard what was apparently the NY delegation chanting "endorse Trump" NO boos. If he (Cruz) would have done an outright endorsement, after what Trump said about him and his family, I would have lost all respect for him. This myth of Cruz being booed off the stage is more media manipulation. Does anyone think Trump would have stood behind Cruz, after all the nasty things Trump said, if the roles were reversed? And why is standing up for the constitution, conservative values and voting your conscience considered a non endorsement, huuuum? Very telling.
I saw it the same way as you. People need to listen more, think, and quit overreacting. Thank you Mr. Jarlsberg.
Cruz said in his speech that we need to get out and vote in Nov. He said we should support a candidate who supports the Constitution. Apparently no one in the Trump camp believes Trump supports the Constitution or they wouldn't have gone apoplectic at Cruz's speech.
On Nov 8, I am going to get seriously drunk, hold my nose, and vote for the carrotheaded imposter (CI) if only in the hope he will actually nominate constitutional justices. If I do that, maybe when I sober up on Nov 9, I won't have any memory of Nov 8.
Now, I also was a Cruz fan and voted for him in the Primary, but folks, he didn't make the cut. He didn't have to kneel down and kiss the Trump papal ring, but there would have been absolutely no shame in saying something like, "I know Donald and I have had some ugly moments, and I think his attacks on my family were below the belt, but I will support him if it means defeating our common enemy, Hillary Clinton."
Yep, ol' Ted is trying to set himself up for a 2020 run, which is fine, but it gives me the willies to think that he may slightly covet a Shrillary win to avoid another run at Trump. Naaahhh, couldn't be, right?
By the way, what the hell is the "Q" in "LBGTQ?" Queer? That's what we called them back in BPC (Before Political Correctness). Is it OK to say that now? I'm so confused.
Let us not forget that it was Cruz's PAC that started all this by going after Trump's wife. Cruz got a punch in the face from which he never recovered.
All his BS aside he didn't intend to honor his pledge and for that he showed all of us how shallow he is. Just another pol who says this, does that.
He has to face an election in '18. Let us see how the new American party 'helps' him out at that time.
The Party of Lincoln is dead, rotting from the head down. Bury it and all those elites. It's a new day and a new way.
@M. Mitchell Marmel- It couldn't have happened to a better collection of knuckleheads!
@TrickyRicky- Journalistic integrity (remember when that used to be redundant?) requires me to admit that I haven't watched the convention in its entirety, but dropped in on the important parts. I haven't seen Trump's 76 minute speech from last night yet, as I'd like to make a point of avoiding solid food for 24 hours first.
@Geoff King- Absolutely correct.
@James Daily- I found the "pledge" kind of a dopey PR stunt anyway, originally created only to trip up Trump (who in fact wouldn't initially agree to it, and later on repeatedly made it clear he wouldn't find it binding). Cruz didn't cover himself with glory during the primaries nor at the convention, but all in all I'm giving him a pass on this particular speech. I think it was a powerful reminder to those tepid toward Trump that this game is too big to sit out.
@Curtis Eggen- I certainly see your point, but on the other hand wasn't Trump's whole ascendancy based on the idea of speaking your mind instead of sticking to the script? Seems to me this pretty much describes what Cruz did. Would you have more respect for Cruz now if he'd suddenly started spouting hyperbole for Trump that you knew he didn't believe? In any event, it truly might have been best for Cruz to stay home just to avoid this distracting narrative.
@Colby Muenster- Cruz supported Donald through much of the primary process, thinking he was playing a clever game in which he'd eventually get Trump's voters. By failing to attack Trump early on, for perfectly valid reasons, Cruz helped give us Trump - so believe me, I'm not putting him on any pedestal.
@txGreg- I don't really see Ted Cruz having much of a future on the national stage after this.
@Fred Ciampi- I agree that Trump's lack of political correctness is one of his most appealing qualities. And yes, I'm glad he was open about making the party (whatever the hell party it is now) more welcoming to gays and the rest of the alphabet sexualities. Let's solve the problems of terror, division, and a rotten economy and worry later about who's kissing who in the dark. Better still, let's never worry about that.
@Anonymous- I agree, and would have loved to see Ted Cruz nominated for the Supreme Court. Now? Ain't gonna happen. Damn it.
@John the Econ- Yep, yep, yep. This doesn't feel like a transient moment we're having here so much as a fundamental transition to a new relationship between the governors and the governed. Dare I use the phrase "new paradigm?" I dare!
And I always have to laugh at the idea that violent protest will come from the Right. Every time Right-wing protesters gather, a lot of flags are waved, and the crowd cleans up all the litter before they go home.
@Faith D- What I like about the cartoon is that it doesn't need additional editorializing. Either people are comfortable with how Trump treats others or they aren't.
@GenEarly- Buchanan indeed has "cred" in my book. I'm hoping he's right.
@Judi King- I think what you considered cheering near the end of the speech was actually hostility from the crowd. It was hard to tell on TV, except for the fact that the crowd started drowning out Cruz - but it sure didn't sound like cheering to me.
@Pat M- After watching Cruz's speech, I was moved by the importance of his message and made more resolute in my intent to vote for Trump even if I need to self-lobotomize first. People who won't see it that way (or at least concede it as a possibility) are, I think, perhaps developing an addiction to the adrenaline high of unfettered anger.
@NVRick- Exactly. When Cruz says "vote your conscience - vote for someone who will defend freedom and the constitution," it's weird when Trump supporters go nuts and say "HEY! THAT'S NOT TRUMP!"
@Colby Muenster- I agree that the statement you've suggested would have been the best way to go.
And the "Q" stands for "Quadripedalsexual," for those attracted to lovers that walk on four legs. Not, according to various Ayatollahs, that there's anything wrong with that.
@Ed G Mann- Well said.
Is there actual video of the "piss" fight? I have heard of that, but never seen one. If no video, I am truly disappointed. Those would be 2 of the groups I would most like to see dripping with the piss of someone else.
Actually, any anger or booing was not against the Constitution or voting one’s conscience – It was against Ted Cruz using the convention to forward himself at the expense of the movement, something he never tires of doing. He is slick about it. If you read the Pro Cruz Never Trump blogs and comments, you understand that ‘vote your conscience’ is simply another way to say Never Trump. I have friends in that camp and have seen this hundreds of times. Cruz was directing his followers to either vote 3rd party or write him in. Not only that, but he deviated from the speech he submitted for approval, another underhanded action. As for the narrative that Cruz has the right to break his word because Trump is such a bully and was so awful to his beloved wife and father, remember that Melania was attacked first by a pro Cruz superpac. Their ad used a sexy picture of Melania posing for GQ 16 years ago to shame her and then urged the voters of Utah to vote for Ted Cruz, the man of principle. Cruz could have and should have stopped that ad from running if he is truly the Christian gentleman he claims to be (as other candidates have done), but he let it go for 4 more days until the primary, knowing it would help him. If you believe that there is no connection between super pacs and candidates I have a bridge to sell you. Trump did far less in response to that shaming than he could have - he issued a warning that he would ‘spill the beans on Heidi’ if Melania was attacked again and he posted a bad hair day picture of Heidi. Cruz deliberately hired the dirtiest guy in politics to run his campaign, knowing he operates unethically and destructively (one of his targets actually committed suicide). Cruz hired a liar and he IS a liar. As for his father, he has never denied the picture is of his father with Lee Harvey Oswald. His father is a shady character and should be looked into. So should the payment from Cruz’s forces to Fiorina’s campaign right after the cheating story broke. One of the women named as mistresses or flings worked on Fiorina’s campaign. Fiorina immediately started running interference for Cruz, jumping in and deflecting attention when he was asked if he had always been faithful to his wife. Of course, her answer was that Trump was to blame for the story. Cruz never directly answered. It turned out that Trump was not behind it - the Rubio camp and others had been working on that story for a few months.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/ted-cruz-campaign-manager-jeff-roe.html?_r=0
Despite Cruz speaking “passionately of the need to defend freedom and the constitution,” he apparently could not find it within himself to show support for the party’s nominee—a nominee who, even on his worst day, would be FAR BETTER than Hillary at defending the very constitution and freedom that Cruz is supposedly so passionate about.
I thought Cruz’s refusal to endorse Trump was petty, bitter, and a clear rebuke. If their positions were reversed, Trump would most certainly have been expected to honor his pledge to endorse Cruz (and he would have received massive criticism for not doing so). In my opinion, Cruz’s speech did not retain his integrity, it destroyed it.
And if Cruz was absolutely unable to move past the (mutual) attacks and insults of the campaign, why choose to speak at the convention? Why choose to even attend the convention of a person for whom he obviously has no respect?
I DON'T UNDER STAND WHY THE MEDIA AND EVERYONE INCLUDING TED SEEMED TO FROGET THAT IT WAS TED CRUZE WHO STARTED THE WHOLE WIFE FUDE WHEN HIS PEOPLE PUT THE RISKEY PHOTO SHOOT OF TRUMPS WIFE UP WITH THE SMART REMARK-IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT FOR A FIRST LADY? TRUMP ONLY RETALIATED TO THAT AS HE ALWAYS DOES WHEN HE IS ATTACKED-TED SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PICTURE BUT I SAY IT'S HIS JOB TO KNOW & I THINK HE DID KNOW- BUT I GUESS NO ONW WANTED TO BRING THAT UP -TO BAD -BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES WITH THE NEWS THESE DAYS -THEY ONLY SAY THINGS ABOUT WHO EVER THEY FAVOR FOR THE DAY-GOOD OR BAD -I DON'T BELEIVE THEM ANY MORE -GRANDMA **
Mr.Muenster, despite Stilt's clever joke, the "Q" does not stand for queer but questioning which I guess means they can't figure out who to be attracted to. I thought it stood for queer too but thought that redundant. As far as Cruz goes, I have always been a supporter of his and I still am but I do believe he shot himself in the foot on this one. I think he was trying to emulate Reagan's speech at Ford's convention to set up 2020, without success. I don't think it's the end of his political career though and way way too much time has been spent on it. After watching the Trump kids and Trump's speech, I have moved from NeverHillary to ProTrump. My 71 year old ex, who has never voted in his life, is going to register and campaign for him. IMO there is a huge swath of people like him who don't show up on consultants' and pollsters' screens who are fed up and they are rising up. The elites have given us Trump, they know it and they are panicked.
Okay, here's a funny one, but you're probably too late to see it because by now someone at CNN has been alerted to take it down: On CNN's front page, you might see Obama's face with the headline "Obama: Trump's doom-and-gloom doesn't match reality". Right next to it, you will see a headline that goes something like "Several dead in shooting at Munich shopping mall. Police tweet: 'Stay in your homes!'"
The ministry of truth says everything is okay! Get off the streets and hide in place!
Can't make this stuff up.
A MOST CRITIAL issue has now become the out-right political bias, partisan activeness, & pettiness of so-called news people; journalists my ass. It's not just in what they say; it also shows up in how the broadcasts are produced, often stepping on what is being said at the time especially if it's powerful, and trying to chip away at what has just been said in the last few minutes. One wonders why do they all need double earphones? .. it's surely to receive the play calls. This is not just totally disgusting; it's a very dangerous trend. Now to see next week how these same folks handle it when THEIR TEAM has the microphone and camera. Due to location and limited broadcast reception; to see the RNC at all I had to watch on PBS, & their "team" coverage was shocking. MSNBC, CNN, ABC: the same.
All hail, (Grouch) Marx and (John) Lennon. Brouhaha...Whohaha?...Youhaha...hahaha. Thanks, Silt.
Never mind the lying, open border, trade deals, reckless travel, bass-ackwards guest list at the White House, rules of engagement, general illegality & constitutional issues, and especially his smart-mouth when pushed (I'm quite surprised someone didn't break it a long time ago, and so on ad infinitum
Is there still time to impeach this nut-cake POTUS for being totally out of touch with reality? Just on general principle you see, to formally end with the official legacy he richly serves.
Oh I know, with this media & stupid, bought-off electorate, plus it would upset a LOT of folks in high positions who are very comfortable the ways things are... that would assure a win for the next criminal in line. Except she's not crazy, she's just totally lacking in character. I don't know if he can do much or any of what he claims, but Trump sees it correctly. And it's just terrible because we're not doing enough light-hearted happiness and stroking about the way things are.
It appears that the host and many contributors to this discussion do not support Trump because they believe he is not conservative. It would be helpful in advancing your case if you could please explain how his positions on specific issues are not conservative. Thank you.
I'll take this one: " It would be helpful in advancing your case if you could please explain how his positions on specific issues are not conservative."
For the simple reason that as recently as 2 years ago, Trump formally considered himself a Democrat, and publicly espoused liberal positions and talking points. He has previously supported Democrats, and specifically the Clintons both politically and financially. His positions on any particular issue are at least as fungible as that of the Clintons when it was convenient.
I judge people by how they act. Not by what they say when it serves their purposes. He's more showman than anything else. Other than the overt corruption, he's not all that different from Clinton.
For the most part I found little, if anything, I didn't like in Trump's speech last night. Someone above mentioned the American Party to replace the dying GOP. I like that name. Tr"USA"mp!!
The knee pad media's talking points about Trump's speech are all the same. It was dark. He is vengeful. Free and independent media? Don't make me laugh. The stolen DNC emails just exposed revealed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz instructing Chuck Todd on what not to say.
@Stilton - your take on Cruz's speech and content really hit the mark. Just about all the other coverage I have read thus far puts it down to petulence, bad temper, childishness etc etc without really interpreting what the man was saying and the situation in which it was said.
On a lighter note regarding the LGBT thing, I came across a poster on the web the other day showing a Marlboro Man-type cowboy under a heading of 'LGBT' and he's saying "You mean Liquor, Guns, Bacon & Tits?" Hilarious and good artwork.
If Trump is truly the best this country has to offer, it is time for me to think of moving to Belize or Costa Rica.
I will vote my conscience in november, and it certainly will not be for Trump or Clinton.
@Sortahwitte- I'm not aware of actual video, and am thoroughly disappointed. I was hoping to loop it and make it the new background of my computer desktop.
@Linda McWilliams- You make a lot of good points, though I'm not in agreement with all of them (some, definitely). Could Ted REALLY have told his Superpac to back off? Yes, we all assume it's a wink-wink nudge-nudge arrangement that they're not in touch with one another...but it's also a violation of law for him to contact them and try to influence their messaging.
For Trump to say he was going to "spill the beans on Heidi," he implied scandal at the least if not flat out lawbreaking. And it wasn't his superpac doing the slime job - it was The Donald himself.
Has Cruz run a clean campaign and been faithful to his wife? I have no idea - and am sickened that it's a legitimate question these days. I'll freely admit that Cruz is damaged goods in my eyes at this point. But I still don't feel like his convention speech was the hatched job it's being portrayed as.
@Em- Well, allow me to just stick my neck out and say it: Cruz isn't the only one who may be worried that Trump might actually be worse for our country than Hillary. He tends not to give clear policy direction on how he intends to solve problems, but rather gives specifics about cracking down on first amendment rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. I HOPE to high Heaven he'd be better than Hillary, whom I consider to be a human cancer, but so far Trump as said little to assuage my fears.
Which is why, perhaps, Cruz attempted to give other concerned voters a broader picture - to make this election bigger than just one man - and remind everyone the importance of getting out to the polls to support the ticket.
@Grandma- Again, it would have been a violation of law for Ted Cruz (or anyone acting under his orders) to contact that superpac and try to get them to change the admittedly stupid and offensive ad. (Side note: after 8 years of Michelle Obama, I didn't really consider a semi-nude picture of Mrs. Trump to be a discouragement to my potential vote). Regarding your statement that you don't believe much in the news anymore, I don't blame you and I'm in the same boat. We should all be skeptical of everything we hear these days (although I'll make an exception for my own ramblings here: I may sometimes be wrong, but I'll never knowingly spin or mislead.)
@Shelly- I should probably take this opportunity to tell my LGBT friends (yes, I have a bunch) that I wasn't trying to smear them with the "Q" joke - that was actually intended as a slam on the goat-diddlers that Barry keeps telling us were the founders of civilization.
Per your own experience, I believe that abuse by the elites (in and out of government) have created the zeitgeist that gave us both Trump and Sanders - and those elites SHOULD be scared. They deserve to be taken down hard, and although I've been dragging my feet I'd like to see Trump do it.
@John the Econ- Your bon mot is funny and sad at the same time. It's getting to the point where I'm afraid to make an overtly funny post here because the odds are so high that something godawful will happen in the interim and make me look like an insensitive jerk. When in actuality, I'm an over-sensitive jerk.
@Rod- I think the double earphones are to drown out sound from the howling mobs on the convention floor. That being said, the (ahem) "journalists" are damn well getting spin from their producers through their earpieces, and I don't much believe anything from anybody these days (although I don't believe Fox's Dana Perrino could fib or spin even if she wanted to). But journalism as we thought we knew it is dead and buried. There is no longer a dividing line between news, entertainment, and politics. It's all a single gelatinous mass.
@ringgo1- Shake the corn starch off your mukluks and sit by the crackling cellophane. In case it's not obvious, I LOVE the Firesign Theater. And for years I did radio comedy of my own, frequently impersonating the voices from those wonderful pieces of vinyl.
@Rod- It's far too late to impeach Obama, darn it. And when there WAS time, nobody had the balls. Oh look! My scotch glass is empty!
@Anonymous- I see that John the Econ is weighing in on this, but damned if I'll let him have all the fun. Until recently, Trump was an avowed democrat. He loved him some late-term abortion. He praised Hillary and said she'd make a great president (a quote Mrs. Clinton is currently using in her ads). He gave assloads of money to liberal causes. But even assuming that he's had some miracle conversion and no longer believes everything he believe only a year or two ago, what the hell has he said that sounds conservative? Every time he opens his mouth to propose (barely) an idea to solve our problems, it involves decimating the constitution, which is sort of a no-no amongst real conservatives. And none of his "solutions" involve smaller government (again, a core tenet of conservatism) but instead seizing new powers and making government bigger - perhaps with yuuuuuge gold letters on the side.
Many of Trump's virtues or shortcomings are debatable, but this isn't: Trump is not now, and never has been, a conservative.
@John the Econ- I feel like we're in a tag team wrestling match (grin).
@Bobo- I haven't heard the speech yet (but will), though I've heard good things about it. But that being said, I can only use that speech as another data point to combine with everything else I've heard come out of Trump's mouth (did you read his NY Times national defense interview? Yikes...)
@Shelly- I won't deduct any points from Trump for sounding dark or vengeful. Those strike me as being entirely appropriate reactions to what we've been through and what Hillary has planned.
@Popular Front- I saw that meme and liked it. And it also reminded me of LSMFT, which is not a group of sexual orientations but the old anagram that appeared on packages of Lucky Strike cigarettes: "Lucky Strikes Mean Fine Tobacco."
@Geoff King- I still plan to vote for Trump, but I hear ya, brother.
LSMFT means what????? I started smoking Lucky Strikes 57 years ago when I heard that LSMFT meant Let's Screw, My Finger's Tired. Wow, what a disappointment. BTW, I quite smoking 41 years ago this month.
Mr. Jarlsberg,
From your July 1st post....
"Donald Trump could not possibly - even in complete and utter failure - be as bad for our nation as Hillary Clinton and a continuation of the current insidious, invidious, incestuous anti-American status quo which has rendered our government a dysfunctional mess."
Do you still believe this? I sure do.
I watched the end of Cruz's speech for the 2nd or 3rd time and still saw no booing off the stage. People seem to be buying the media narrative. The so called Republicans at that convention who did chant "endorse Trump" have showed themselves to be mindless animals by excoriating a truly principled man and lauding a truly unprincipled one. Can anyone as thin skinned as Trump be an effective president? He is so flawed in so many ways. And who can say he would end up with a Republican congress, if elected? I don't think so....so then we'll be back to the status quo. As for Trump's current wife, I've seen the picture in question. Let's just say she's not what I want as my first lady. All of us who have decided to vote a third party know that Clinton will probably win just as what happened when the current dic was elected, but there comes a time when a stand must be taken. Whichever candidate wins, I see no great changes being made.
@Fred Ciampi- I stand corrected on the LSMFT interpretation - you've obviously got the definitive version. And congrats on giving up those coffin nails!
@Em- Yes, I do still believe it. Which isn't so much an endorsement of Trump as my belief that Hillary could, within 4 years, assure that our country can never recover.
@Judi King- Cruz definitely wasn't "booed off the stage," but rather there was quite a bit of angry vocalization going on as he wrapped up his speech.
And yes, I think Trump is hugely flawed, and I don't see him working well with Republicans (more specifically, those who are constitutionalists). BUT I'm going to disagree about "no great changes being made" whichever candidate wins. If Hillary is able to stack the Supreme Court, the Constitution is dead as a doornail, and this country will cease to exist as a nation of laws and rights.
I don't feel I'll be violating my principles by voting to try to prevent that.
@Readers- The ever-vigilant Mrs. Jarlsberg has informed me that there are a number of typos and flat out mistakes in some of my responses today. In lieu of correcting them, which is a pain in the rear end on Blogger, I'll simply point out that I was cold sober and my flying fingers got away from me.
So, Stilt, you have flying fingers? I have fat fingers..... Another good excuse.
"Your attention please! Due to a mixup in Urology there will be no apple juice served this morning. Thank you".
For everyone's consideration:
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/poll-gary-johnson-26-utah-three-points-overtaking-trump/
Remember, all he needs nationally is 15% to be included in the Presidential Debates.
This is the best chance in history to break the two party monopoly and actually give the voters a third option.
@Geoff King- Vote your conscience then scurry off to another country. Nice. How very principled. Leave the rest of us to clean up the mess. Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Say Hi to Whoopi and Rosie when you get there.
@ Fred Ciampi- In grade school we thought LSMFT mean Loose Strap Means Floppy Tits. I must say I like your acronym a lot better.
@TrickyRicky: considering the fact that current polls show that Johnson is pulling at least as many votes from Clinton as he is from Trump, anyone who votes otherwise, in my opinion, is only adding to the problem and wants the establishment status quo to continue indefinitely.
If the lesser of two evils is your choice, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
BTW, I take great offense to your Whoopie and Rosie reference to me.
Tag Team: As long as there's no mud or Speedos involved, I'm okay with that.
Post a Comment