2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why was she escorted out?

She stood up for a "silent protest".

Her male friend joined her and was escorted out also.

ETA: It was 4 people in all that got escorted out.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Re: The Muslim woman who was tossed out of the Trump rally.

As someone with a degrees in Psychology and Sociology, I have real, genuine concerns about the way fear is being peddled in this campaign. The scapegoating of specific groups is dangerous. The group psychology of mobs is leading us to places that have no no business in politics or any leader of this country. Just look at the things that people said to her and the way she was treated as she was kicked out. We see people every day wearing traditional Muslim garb. This escalation has to be reigned in.

She wanted to get kicked out.

[PilotMan]

She's guilty of being Muslim. If being Muslim at a Trump rally is baiting Trump supporters, and if being Muslim gets you kicked out, then I'd like to redirect you to my post above.

[JPhillips]

“If you look at North Korea, this guy, he’s like a maniac. OK? And you’ve got to give him credit: how many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?

“Even though it is a culture, and it’s a cultural thing, he goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one."

Some more Trump musings.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

She's guilty of being Muslim. If being Muslim at a Trump rally is baiting Trump supporters, and if being Muslim gets you kicked out, then I'd like to redirect you to my post above.

No, she's not "guilty of being a muslim". They didn't kick her and her friends out until they started protesting.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

No, she's not "guilty of being a muslim". They didn't kick her and her friends out until they started protesting.

That's where I get confused by this "she was Muslim" rhetoric. If that's true, wouldn't they have not let her in to begin with?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

No, she's not "guilty of being a muslim". They didn't kick her and her friends out until they started protesting.

The new way of handling people who say things we agree with is to simply "get them out of here." Call Putin. He's a master at this. Maybe we can start sending political opponents to Siberia too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

She's guilty of being Muslim. If being Muslim at a Trump rally is baiting Trump supporters, and if being Muslim gets you kicked out, then I'd like to redirect you to my post above.

Hilary kicked out people for just being black. What is this world coming to!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2418128

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The new way of handling people who say things we agree with is to simply "get them out of here." Call Putin. He's a master at this. Maybe we can start sending political opponents to Siberia too.

I don't even like Trump but this is just ridiculous. It was an event for a group of people. If you disrupt an event you are likely to be led out of that event. Whether that's a private political rally, a movie, a concert, or a sporting event.

She's a professional victim. She wanted to be kicked out. It's good for her business. The worst thing they could have done to her was ignore her.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hilary kicked out people for just being black. What is this world coming to!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2418128

I would agree with you if Hillary had been the one saying that Blacks are the problem in this country. Trump is setting the table. He's not going to be the that gets blamed for future violence against scapegoated groups, but his rhetoric is very inflammatory and could have the same effect on right wing extremists as ISIS has on Islamic extremist sympathizers. It goes back to my original thought. Group psychology has the potential to do some very serious societal and cultural damage.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't even like Trump but this is just ridiculous. It was an event for a group of people. If you disrupt an event you are likely to be led out of that event. Whether that's a private political rally, a movie, a concert, or a sporting event.

She's a professional victim. She wanted to be kicked out. It's good for her business. The worst thing they could have done to her was ignore her.

I'm still trying to figure how merely standing is disruptive? Where do you get that she's a professional victim and that it's good for her business?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

She's a professional victim. She wanted to be kicked out. It's good for her business. The worst thing they could have done to her was ignore her.

I view her more as a professional flight attendant who wanted to express her beliefs, even if that meant being kicked out of an unwelcome environment.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm still trying to figure how merely standing is disruptive? Where do you get that she's a professional victim and that it's good for her business?

Well, if Im sitting behind her and I want to see what I paid for, she is being disruptive.
Just like in a movie theater.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm still trying to figure how merely standing is disruptive? Where do you get that she's a professional victim and that it's good for her business?

She's an professional activist who does this stuff for a living. She wasn't at the event to listen to him speak, she was at the event to draw attention to herself.

If you showed up at a Clinton event with a Trump t-shirt and Lewinsky button you'd be kicked out too. I know you have to push an agenda here (which was the whole point of the stunt) but lets stop pretending this was some poor Muslim Trump supporter showing up to an event and being kicked out for naively standing up.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't even like Trump but this is just ridiculous. It was an event for a group of people. If you disrupt an event you are likely to be led out of that event. Whether that's a private political rally, a movie, a concert, or a sporting event.

She's a professional victim. She wanted to be kicked out. It's good for her business. The worst thing they could have done to her was ignore her.

Logically, this makes perfect sense. But politically, it's a great talking point to rally the base. Gotta get those voters fired up.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

She's an professional activist who does this stuff for a living.

Sources?

[cuervo72]

The worst thing for the event organizers. They have every right to bounce her if she's disrupting the event, which even a silent protest can do.

The attendees should ignore her though, IMO. Let them be escorted out, don't stand up or boo or any of that. It's not a wrestling match. A pronounced reaction is exactly what a protester is looking for.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Sources?

Islamic Protester Booted from Trump Rally Is Anti-Israel Activist

shudder at breitbart but here goes.

[wustin]

Where is the headline that says, "Muslim Woman Exploits Holocaust at Trump Rally."

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My wife despises HRC and has always voted R for President no matter what (even Mitt.) She has stated categorically that she will vote for Hilary if Trump is the nominee. Several of her friends here in NC are in a similar place. I don't think they are unusual in that. Then there are the usual R voters who would simply stay home rather than voting for Trump or Clinton. I think he has no chance to win the general. But I think he is one or two more San Bernardino type incidents inside the U.S. from securing the nomination. Apart from something like that, I think the party brass will figure out a way to stop him.

An alternative solution!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politi...ign/index.html

[JPhillips]

A White Nationalist SuperPAC is now blanketing Iowa with Robocalls on behalf of Donald Trump. And for bonus awful, the leader of the organization is also the spokesman for the group which Charleston Massacre shooter Dylann Roof cited as inspiration for his killings in his manifesto. As the audio puts it, "We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

Islamic Protester Booted from Trump Rally Is Anti-Israel Activist

shudder at breitbart but here goes.

How does the MSM miss this and some blog news can find it pretty easily?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How does the MSM miss this and some blog news can find it pretty easily?

I'm baffled by your post, here, Dutch. Is this a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question? If so, I get it.

But I worked in the national news media for seven years, and the answer to me is abundantly obvious:

#1, Breitbart is not "blog news." Despite their clear and obvious bias, Breitbart is doing some of the most thorough and capable investigative news reporting out there. It's a legit news source (again, the bias is evident. But then, so is NBC's, so ... what's the distinction again?)

#2. The MSM is so horribly in the tank on P.C. issues (shall I refer to NBC again? How they handled Trayvon Martin reporting?), that it likely never even occurred to them to investigate her past.

The reason the MSM didn't find this is because they didn't look. Kudos to Breitbart for actually investigating a story.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by revrew

I'm baffled by your post, here, Dutch. Is this a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question? If so, I get it.

But I worked in the national news media for seven years, and the answer to me is abundantly obvious:

#1, Breitbart is not "blog news." Despite their clear and obvious bias, Breitbart is doing some of the most thorough and capable investigative news reporting out there. It's a legit news source (again, the bias is evident. But then, so is NBC's, so ... what's the distinction again?)

#2. The MSM is so horribly in the tank on P.C. issues (shall I refer to NBC again? How they handled Trayvon Martin reporting?), that it likely never even occurred to them to investigate her past.

The reason the MSM didn't find this is because they didn't look. Kudos to Breitbart for actually investigating a story.

It was one of the more impressive investigations of a couple of Facebook pages that I've seen

[ISiddiqui]

Also... who the fuck cares? It's not as if her status as an anti-Israel activist had any effect on her standing there in a hijab and getting tossed out.

Maybe the MSM didn't cover it because they have little interest in this ad hominem reporting?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How does the MSM miss this and some blog news can find it pretty easily?

Why would they do anything that could compromise the narrative of the left? It's the same thing for any biased news source, left or right. Only focus on the information that pushes your agenda.

[JPhillips]

I love that NBC and Brietbart are now equivalent.

[wustin]

The point is that they're both biased.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wustin

The point is that they're both biased.

To paraphrase JPhillips: I love that NBC and Brietbart are now equivalently biased.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by wustin

Why would they do anything that could compromise the narrative of the left? It's the same thing for any biased news source, left or right. Only focus on the information that pushes your agenda.

I would say "business plan" over "agenda". I think if MSNBC thought they could pull off a more successful fox news they would. Our lack of a main stream media has created multiple outlets preaching to their target choir.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I would say "business plan" over "agenda". I think if MSNBC thought they could pull off a more successful fox news they would. Our lack of a main stream media has created multiple outlets preaching to their target choir.

Well they did think they could pull off a more successful Fox News... but on the left . They were very, very wrong in hindsight. Of course they shot themselves in the foot with that strategy when they canned Olbermann.

[JPhillips]

But even in the heyday of their leftist programming, they still gave Scarborough the morning. Where is the former Dem rep shilling for the left at Breitbart?

[vex]

Rand Paul demoted to the JV debate, declines to debate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by vex

Rand Paul demoted to the JV debate, declines to debate.

I guess I missed that, couldn't hear him over the sound of my laughter at his campaign claiming he was "a serious contender".

[albionmoonlight]

Paul was never gonna win. But kind of amazing that as the only libertarian, he could not consolidate enough support to stay in the varsity debate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love that NBC and Brietbart are now equivalent.

MSNBC gave a show to Al Sharpton

[wustin]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Paul was never gonna win. But kind of amazing that as the only libertarian, he could not consolidate enough support to stay in the varsity debate.

Ted Cruz swiped up all the libertarians a few months ago lol

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Paul was never gonna win. But kind of amazing that as the only libertarian, he could not consolidate enough support to stay in the varsity debate.

He and his father have shown just how small the libertarian first crowd is in the GOP. The business people think the gold bug and Fed stuff is too nutty, the Christian right hates the social stances, and the neo-cons hate the foreign policy ideas.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He and his father have shown just how small the libertarian first crowd is in the GOP. The business people think the gold bug and Fed stuff is too nutty, the Christian right hates the social stances, and the neo-cons hate the foreign policy ideas.

Agree with this though sadly I think it mostly comes down to controlling people's lives. They don't understand how someone could possibly allow gays to marry or people to smoke pot without long jail terms or who how somebody could oppose the death penalty... The warmongering and business stuff are pretty standard parts of both parties platforms.

Originally Posted by wustin

Ted Cruz swiped up all the libertarians a few months ago lol

I don't think there is one actual Libertarian that would ever vote for Ted Cruz. There just aren't that many interested in the Republican party and even less with Rand Paul in 2016 than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in previous years. I would say Hilary is more in line on issues for me and maybe even Bernie Sanders. Though I would vote for Clinton but Bernie is a little too into the wealth redistribution.

[Arles]

There's no money in being the socially libertarian, fiscally conservative candidate. The religious right hates you, the war hawks hate you and the left brands you as hating poor people. Paul never fully fit this, but it would be nice to see a "reasonable republicans" interest group that supports this. Of course, most would probably be like me and realize it doesn't really matter who the president is - so why pump all your money/effort into someone?

When you take a step back and aren't scared by the boogeyman on the right (Abortion will be appealed, Poor people and the elderly summarily executed and racists will kill our country!!) or the boogeyman on the left (All guns will be outlawed, drugs will run wild in our country and our kids will be forced to watch public sodomy in school!!!) - the whole election cycle is more entertainment than life or death. Hard to raise a ton of money when the fear is removed.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Arles

There's no money in being the socially libertarian, fiscally conservative candidate. The religious right hates you, the war hawks hate you and the left brands you as hating poor people. Paul never fully fit this, but it would be nice to see a "reasonable republicans" interest group that supports this. Of course, most would probably be like me and realize it doesn't really matter who the president is - so why pump all your money/effort into someone?

When you take a step back and aren't scared by the boogeyman on the right (Abortion will be appealed, Poor people and the elderly summarily executed and racists will kill our country!!) or the boogeyman on the left (All guns will be outlawed, drugs will run wild in our country and our kids will be forced to watch public sodomy in school!!!) - the whole election cycle is more entertainment than life or death. Hard to raise a ton of money when the fear is removed.

If only I agreed that it doesn't matter who the president is, I could relax and agree with everything else you wrote. The bogeymen on both sides ensure that fiscal conservancy is viewed as somewhat evil. I haven't heard the term "Rockefeller Republican" in a long time.

I don't know that Rand Paul was ever much of anything. He talked a good game sometimes, but when you promise that you will single-handedly stop a reckless spending bill and your "filibuster" lasts all of 15 minutes, it's fairly obvious you don't have a single friend in Congress and won't make a good president. The same might be said of Ted Cruz, who is so reviled in the Senate that he apparently turned John McCain into a Trump supporter.

It's not life or death for us - it's more Scandinavia 40 years ago versus Scandinavia today and today's Greece 40 years from now. I'll be OK regardless. I think my son will be OK. But what we're spending today means my son's children, if he goes that route, might have a difficult future.

And I don't even think the spending helps. If it did, it would be an investment in the future that might pay off. We do a lot more for people in need than we did 50 years ago, but the gulf seems even wider. Doubling down on this failed policy isn't a wise decision, but what's the alternative? Rampant spending is addictive and if we go the wealth confiscation route, that's a temporary fix and a lot more pain when that high wears off.

[JPhillips]

I really don't understand the obsession about Rubio's boots.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't either. I've heard some stuff about it, but thought it was way too silly to even read articles about it. But it's been gaining in reporting. What's the deal now? (yes, I'm asking for a tl;dr version).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And I don't even think the spending helps. If it did, it would be an investment in the future that might pay off. We do a lot more for people in need than we did 50 years ago, but the gulf seems even wider.

So spending doesn't help, but we do a lot more for people in need than we did 50 years ago?

The gulf is not about the bottom end, it's about the top end. The gulf has grown because we have steadily and relentlessly cut taxes on the super-rich: 400 Bad Request

It's that simple.

If we believe the gulf is a source of problems (and you seem to indicate it does), then there's a very obvious solution staring you in the face.

Rampant spending is addictive and if we go the wealth confiscation route, that's a temporary fix and a lot more pain when that high wears off.

Tax rates for the highest earners under Eisenhower were 90%. Government investment in the U.S. under Eisenhower was a big contributor to America outperforming the world, economically, for at least the next 50-60 years.

I sympathize with the notion that we don't want to give today's politicians lots of money to waste, but let's not act as if historical fact doesn't exist.

[Marc Vaughan]

Tax rates for the highest earners under Eisenhower were 90%. Government investment in the U.S. under Eisenhower was a big contributor to America outperforming the world, economically, for at least the next 50-60 years.

To elaborate on this - capitalism depends largely on consumers having money to spend, they purchase goods and the money generated from their spending is then reinvested by corporations into further products.

If you continually penalize consumers through poor wages and such then they have less money to spend which naturally will lead to a constriction of profit and such.

On the other hand if the lower paid are given a reasonable income then they have a surplus which leads to a better standard of living for themselves, but their spending of this is placed back into society constructively (in practice if you look into it the poorer paid naturally do this - however the wealthy in society are far less likely to, instead tending to invest in intangible items or save their surplus).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really don't understand the obsession about Rubio's boots.

I didn't have the slightest idea this even was/had been a thing.

The pic I saw with a couple of articles on it didn't even seem all that out there, boot heel wise, so that made it even more bizarre to me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I didn't have the slightest idea this even was/had been a thing.

The pic I saw with a couple of articles on it didn't even seem all that out there, boot heel wise, so that made it even more bizarre to me.

Bush's SuperPAC just released a 90 sec ad focused on a guy dancing in high heeled boots.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bush's SuperPAC just released a 90 sec ad focused on a guy dancing in high heeled boots.

I guess it's their money to waste however they see fit but it sure seems silly to throw money down the drain on a guy who will need to shore things up soon just to avoid the JV.

[nol]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tax rates for the highest earners under Eisenhower were 90%. Government investment in the U.S. under Eisenhower was a big contributor to America outperforming the world, economically, for at least the next 50-60 years.

That and the fact that pretty much every other non-Third World nation was recovering from being literally decimated by war. But yes, same principle that it had absolutely nothing to do with some Leave It To Beaver fantasy about the past.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I guess it's their money to waste however they see fit but it sure seems silly to throw money down the drain on a guy who will need to shore things up soon just to avoid the JV.

It won't help Jeb! much, but they still must have focus group data that says the general line of attack can be effective. I worry about the voter that would have considered Rubio until they saw his boots.