by Smitty
Ol’ EE is taking some Twitter heat for the following act =>
I Have Disinvited Donald Trump to the RedState Gathering.
This blog is in staunch support of Erick on the point. The Presidential election is what amounts to the world’s most painful job interview. For a Chief Executive. Name another Chief Executive whom you’d expect to hear making even oblique menstrual remarks in any context. That CEO would be gonzo in a New York second, and the firm’s stock would be thrashed as every Social Justice Warrior in the Racism Industrial Complex arsenal arrived in a simultaneous time-on-top strike.
(And are the SJW knives coming out for The Donald? That should tell you something about the farce underway.)
One can defend Trump’s anti-Political Correctness stance. Political Correctness is just a variation on the theme of authoritarianism. And American irreverence is something this blog holds very, very dear. Irreverence is the spice of liberty.
But that’s not the same thing as boorishness. Hating aristocracy and the decadence it implies is not barbarism. Just because we’re not kissing Her Majesty’s ring doesn’t mean we’re embracing the sort of crudeness that doesn’t pass muster in church. That irreverence is like spice in the food: a little dab’ll do ya. And it’s hard to remove. So, less is more.
Trump seems the same sort of triumph of style over substance that Barack Obama himself has proven to be. Where are Trump’s substantive policy ideas? The Donald sure appears to be a provocateur, operating in GOP territory and saying outlandish things so that the Democrat base can say: “See? Look what those conservatives tolerate.”
No. Donald: it’s not too late to grow up. You’ve been an affluent, spoiled, vaguely teenage lout for many decades. We need a President, not Sideshow Donald.
Thanks to Erick Erickson for being the Adult in the Room.
Update: Darleen (and co-blogger Jeff on Twitter), are most decidedly NOT in agreement with me on this. I see their point, but stand by Erick on this. Babysitting Trump is not my idea of a good time. Red State is certainly not the GOP. To say that Red State’s actions are those of the GOP is to conflate them, in my opinion.
You’re defending Rosie O’Donnell, which is exactly where you lost pretty much everyone on this blog.
That’s pretty rich: one man calls a woman, effectively, a bimbo–another basically just said she was in a rage (or did you not get the memo? Turns out he said the *same thing* about Wallace–was he attacking him for PMS, too?) and the guy that said the latter is worse than the former!
IOW, you don’t have a leg to stad on, but you go on pretending you do because it’s easier to continue the lie than admit you were taken by EE’s drama queen act…again.
You need to update your talking points:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/call-off-the-grievance-mob-trump-said-chris-wallace-had-blood-pouring-out-of-his-eyes-too-video/
I’m sure, being an honorable man, that you’ll surely retract and apologize for your libelous comments but, nah, you won’t. It’s far easier to double down and insist either that 1. he still meant to attack Kelly for PMS or 2. that it’s OK to besmirch Trump because he’s Trump, so libeling him is A-OK! My guess is on th latter.
Are you sure you’re not a Democrat operative?
A bimbo is a woman of loose morals, usually of low IQ.
“Abortion Barbie” is a critique of looks and a political position.
You seem determined to misinterpret what was said to lend your failing argument validity.
You are a rightwing parody of an SJW.
No, a bimbo is:
1. a foolish, stupid, or inept person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bimbo?s=t
And you’re badly confused: Abortion Barbie *is* a bimbo, per the definition, and I have no issues with her being called one (or lots of other names), but that isn’t the point.
The point is, you think it’s OK for Erickson to do this–as he has many times in the past–but it’s not OK for Trump to do it…except Trump didn’t, in fact, do it.
So yeah, spare us all. You got caught out buying into Erickson’s fabrication and now you’re going to wave your arms so you don’t have concede the point.
(As I said below, I’m equal opportunity with the insults, but they *need to be true*–or at least have the ring of truth–and, when they turn out to be false, you need to retract and apologize…if you’re a man, something in increasingly short supply on the right, apparently.)
Well, I’ve got 53,000 comments in my history.
Feel free to scan them for ideologic purity if you like, since it’s not private.
I notice that Trump didn’t say Chris Wallace had “blood pouring out of wherever.” Of course, that’s the ONLY part of the original comment that was offensive, so the two aren’t equivalent statements.
Nice try at false equivalence and argument from authority fallacies, though.
Go away, ankle-biter. You lost.
Nice! Now you’ve reached ad hominem crush-depth! Bravo! But the point still stands: Erickson gulled you, hard, and you know it–declaring victory and running from a fight isn’t going to change that!
So, you are impure of thought. Who knew?
BTW Greta just called out Erik Erikson on his hypocrisy. Sorry chum.
Wow, go-go ad hom! Are you capable of having a semi-civil discussion without impugning someone’s motives or intellect?
And again! Ad hominem! Have you considered that it’s better to deal with someone who is *honest* about their position, rather than, say, a Mitch McConnell (or 80% of the candidates* for pres) who pretends to be working for his constituents, but is really in it for himself? The devil you know, and all that? Could it be that simple? Naw, we’re all insane dimwits that should bow down to the superior intellect of the ad hom-flinging Matt_SE who will unman your argument by calling you playground names!
*Not including Cruz, Fiorina, Trump, or Carson.
Argument form authority? Do you even know that is? I posted a link to the video clip of the actual event! Who is the “authority” I’m referencing? My lying ears and eyes??
And when someone says “too”, that’s a pretty good indication that he meant “in addition to” (you know, grammar) what he said earlier about Kelly, which supports the contention that it meant what it sounded like to sane people in the first place: that they were coming at him with furious rage, which can involve ‘blood pouring from the eyes, from wherever’ (ears, nose, mouth, etc.)
Now we can quibble that they were doing that, but it’s agonizingly apparent, in context, that’s *exactly* what he meant.
But you keep on keeping on! You despise Trump (also 100% fine and legitimate, really) but for someone accusing others of derangement you might want to take a long look in the mirror.
(Oops, yeah, that last bit was ad hom, but since you’re way up on me on that score, I figure I can be granted this one lapse.)
EE playing shocked Victorian maiden having called Justice Souter a goat fornicating pedophile is disingenuous at best
Also, EE’s site Red State spent a couple of years non-stop attacking Sarah Palin and her family and the comment boards (which they heavily moderate) were appalling in their sexist bigoted attacks against Sarah, her daughters, Sarah’s supporters, Sarah-friendly websites, and even Red State commenters who did not hate her enough — all in support of the GOPe and Romney because they feared she would run in 2012
gotta say, I’d rather have the one who bought them than the ones who were so dishonest they let themselves be bought while telling their constituents they worked for them — one just played the game the politicians put in place the politicians either play the game (and they all do on some level) or are complicit in their silence about their colleagues
oh Rubio would have taken the money — Trump just supported his opponent
Exactly true. And if you read Erickson’s twitter today, you get this gem:
“Really not a lot of difference between PP supporters who believe the tapes were edited and Trump supporters who believe he didn’t say that.”
–Erick Erickson
Stay classy, Erickson!
(Any of Erickson’s water carriers wanna take a crack at defending this?)
nope they know the public already “knows” on some level they are all bought and paid for what the GOPe is afraid of is telling the truth about immigration legal and illegal because everyone of them supports either both or if not illegal (although none of them will do anything so yeah you’re against it) they all support legal — specifically the mass importation of tech workers to displace American workers for cheap wages (Cruz and Rubio are both proponents of increasing those visas by millions). Those workers are brought in by silicon valley and now all big companies (see Disney and the utility in CA) and they fire American workers and say they can’t find American workers with the skills — so yeah that’s what they are all really afraid of since every one of them needs super-pac money from the CoC and other big money donors
yep EE is a big-time RINO always has been — Red State goes after any actual conservative candidate — heck EE is supporting Jebbie and calls him a conservative
I refuse to ever go to Red State because the Palin attacks were Daily Kos worthy — you want to talk sexist
That’s like putting the country in the hands of a corrupt mafia don. If I wanted that, I’d vote for Hillary.
Have you considered that voting for an open sociopath is idiotic?
you are missing the obvious — there are many of us that are sick to death of the status quo in DC and the GOP that is destroying this country — and the actions of the GOP since they won the Senate and kept the House in 2014 have shown nothing but contempt for their base and most of the 2014 voters — they keep screwing us over and expect our votes I don’t think they are going to get enough lesser of two evils voters if they put up a CoC approved capitulating RINO like they so desperately are trying to do
Both of those accusations are neatly encompassed in the term #cuckservative.
You are a hypocrite.
well their is his vote on TPA and his stance of HB1 visas that holds Cruz back
heck they are doing a better job of facilitating Obama’s agenda then Reid did
Greta is not a conservative. I’m 90% sure she’s not even a Republican.
Nice try at name-dropping though. Who’s next, Colin Powell?
yes and Obama is lawless but they would never impeach him let alone call him out because they are cowards — further they have actually willingly given up their own Constitutional authority on several occasions handing it to Obama
he was for amnesty before he was against it or is he for it again — and then there is his support of common core
How am I a hypocrite? And how am I a “cuckservative”? Because I agree that Abortion Barbie is a monster (and a bimbo) and that I don’t think Trump said what Erickson said he said? Is that your argument?
I don’t think he flunked out, but so what if he did — my problem is he is for common core and amnesty and jumped right away to PC attack Trump
You USE #cuckservative.
Err, what? I was quoting you…
Well, I assume you do:
1) you seem like the type
2) you showed up when the other trolls did
3) your history is private and has the low comment count that is usually associated with “those people.”
they already have the base sitting home Romney won the independents he still had millions fewer votes than McCain had — that was the base — and even more will sit home in 2016 after the betrayal of 2014 and the perception that the GOPe thinks they should choose our candidate not the primary voters — Trump’s their target now, but let anyone else creep up on Jebbie and they’ll target them
Uh, no…I’m not one of “those people”, whoever “they” are.
And if my post count is low, Jesus, I fear for the Republic because I thought i commented a lot!
(Unless you’re referring solely to TOM, which is probably true. I used to be a regular, but i felt, for a couple of years there, Stacy was going off in a direction I wasn’t interested in, so I’m not here every minute of every day like I was years ago.)
Also I’m not a troll because I *civilly* disagree with you–I’m not the one impugning motives, intellect, or sanity, as a general rule.
In fact, because I’m feeling magnanimous, I’ll take my posts off private for a half-hour, which should pretty much lay to rest any charges of “cuckservative” (only vaguely aware of what that is) or a lib troll, just give me a moment to find the ‘switch’ in Disqus.
all businessmen contribute to politicians of both parties they are pretty much extorted — remember when the Clinto Justice dept went after Microsoft — turns out Gates either did not know or thought he was too powerful to pay protection — suddenly he starts bringing money to DC and opens a lobbyist shop on K-street and Microsoft is golden — or in say the case of Buffet you make sure the keystone pipeline is blocked with your donations because you own the rails where the oil is then transported, or Mark Zuckerberg pushes amnesty why? Because he cares about Honduran landscapers? No he wants open immigration for high-skilled workers so he can depress American wages but he hides it with his populist love the peasants rhetoric
well yes Murdoch is a big Hillary supporter as is Megyn Kelly
Okay, I take it back. I can’t find any easy evidence that you’ve ever used the #cuckservative thing (I hate those anti-intellectuals).
Still, you seem to be quick to lump Trump-haters in with the establishment, when that’s not true at all. I would guess a lot of the base are wary of both.
If you want to see that term used, go over among the dark ilk. They use it liberally with Erickson. Frankly, in his case, he deserves the contempt.
A vote for most of them is doing exactly that. Rubio, Bush, Graham, et. al. is a vote for that. Cruz would probably be the only exception, but what he’s said about immigration compromises him.
I think you mistake my point, re: Trump. Yes, I like what he has to say, but, yes, I’m also extremely wary of him (though I am certainly more wary of the establishment, based on, well, reality, especially since the frittering away of their ‘mandate’ a la Nov.2014).
I also, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, like Cruz, Fiorina, and Carson, a great deal, all for a variety of different reasons, and would be perfectly sanguine if any of them were the current frontrunner and, as of today, the nominee.
But my view is pretty simple, re: 2016: we are at a crossroads, and running w/ the status quo since, i dunno, Bush 1, has landed us in a very bad place. So while Trump might not be the ideal, I feel he does bring a number of factors to the table that can, if nothing else at all, help with the Really Big Issues(TM), namely the national debt, national defense, trade, etc. I realize a lot of people don’t like this, or have different priorities, but I would think that we’d at least be capable of agreeing to disagree without impugning one another’s motives.
And yes, of course, there are *plenty* of legitimate things to harangue him for: his past support for abortion, his love of socialized med, etc. but that’s just it: instead of hitting him on those things, we take an ambiguous quote (and I’m being generous–I found nothing ambiguous about it and am still shocked people think it means “PMS”, doubly-so in light of the Wallace comment) and turn that into a ****storm when there are substantive things he *should* be called to account on.
Instead we play ‘gotcha’ just as well as the left, only we’re doing it to *our* guys! Why is Erickson wasting his time with this when he could be berating Hillary or Sanders or O’Malley–that’s a target-rich environment if there ever was one!
(And to be brutally honest, Erickson *is* a hypocrite. He gets all wound up at an alleged, sexist, comment by Trump, using his wife and daughter as justification, but he’s known far and wide for employing them himself when and wherever he feels necessary, which I don’t even begrudge (as I’ve said repeatedly on this thread), but it does, in fact, have to be based on some sort of truth and, this is key: if it turns out you were wrong or there’s some question about it, you need to offer some sort of mea culpa instead of doubling-down, which is what he’s been doing all day yesterday and today. He’s going to brazen this out, even when there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt, and he *needs to* acknowledge it, instead of likening those of us who took issue w/ his interpretation as being PP video deniers, which is vile and absurd.)
You’ve missed the point Matt. You are far too invested in this to see what others are getting at. When even Greta is calling him on his hypocrisy, Erickson has a severe problem.
That Trump’s reaction was associated with the withdrawal is not in question. That Erickson is trying to play the “White knight” game, however, makes Erickson a loser as he has been hypocritical in the way he played it. Erickson was simply after an excuse for doing what he wanted to do.
While I doubt Trump will go all the way, we would be no worse off if he did win than if any of the other were to win. I don’t even see Cruz or Walker accomplishing anything.
I doubt what Walker did in Wisconsin could ever be repeated on a national level. A number of factors had to come together there to do it. given what the National GOP is, nothing will happen.
In Wisconsin it is very doubtful that the finger to the wind test would have told him to take the path he did. It would have taken him down the path of least resistance which would have kept him out of those fights.
And that is why he resonates. He’s saying exactly what people already understands. Trump is not the kind of man who would say that he must get in front of them as I am their leader. McConnell, Boehner, Hillary, Sanders, et.al. are that type.