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.
Jeff, if she made herself a target, she got what she had coming. She brought it on herself. He had the same thing to say about Wallace who is just as much a preening fool as Kelly.
Matt, Matt, you really love digging yourself a hole. That is lame beyond belief. I would never have thought you’d sink that low.
Erickson is just as much an attention hound.
It is a question of methodology. Given who the audience is at this point, i don’t think it’s out of line to run “herd” polls since at this point we want to know how they are doing relative to the other GOP candidates.
I don’t think that means much. He has reason to avoid giving Fox anymore attention than he already has.
I certainly understand the sentiment.
But just like Obama did, Trump lies about his views and will say anything to get attention.
Dog and pony show is a cleaner term and has pretty much the same meaning. It was a cattle call and didn’t mean an awful lot.
Except he didn’t say that. You said that, not him.
And I’m sure MMFA presented them in context, as they always do when quoting conservatives. /sarc
I don’t have a dog in the Red State fight (if it’s not too empirically un-PC to say so).
It may have been just an excuse. But whether EE was right or wrong, look at the reaction from Trump. Wallace asks him about his personal finances, “Wallace is in a land of make believe”,
Kelley asks a question he doesn’t like, “She’s on the rag”. EE disinvites him to Red State, “He’s a loser”.
That and the thin skin are why I’m not a Sturmtrumper.
With Kelley, all he had to do was say, “I’m sorry. That was a little over the top.” and that’s it! Next news cycle.
Instead, he doubles down on it and people start searching for other examples where the Donald may have been less than charitable to other women.
He hurt himself.
Yeah…I’ve since changed my mind about ECM and decided he’s not a troll. Still, you’ve learned that I fly off the handle sometimes.
Ooooh, I didn’t know I had to use a conservative or a Republican to refute you. I beg your forgiveness./sarcasm off
Quit trying to protect your boyfriend. You don’t do it well anyway.
What a load. I’m not defending O’Donnell. Are you deliberately obtuse, playing word games, or are you just too stupid to comprehend the clearly made point that Trump is repeating the same disgusting spectacle he had with O’Donnell only now it’s actually serious because we’re talking about the office of the next leader of the free world? For the record, she disgusts me as much as he does, and you are a liar.
He “handled” them by making an ass out of himself, as usual.
Right. He’s a full-blown turd all unto himself.
Yep, he does have reason. He doesn’t want to be asked anything about his history or his knowledge of important issues that he can’t answer in broad, general terms with more sweeping BS slogans. he doesn’t care about anything except getting attention and being The Donald.
The quotes that Kelly pulled were from a spat w/ Rosie and one that was pulled *entirely out of context*. What do you not get about this?
https://youtu.be/u74oXanxqGQ?t=25s
And “BleeingGate” has been dealt w/ repeatedly on this thread, but just in case:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/call-off-the-grievance-mob-trump-said-chris-wallace-had-blood-pouring-out-of-his-eyes-too-video/
Kelly picked a fight, and now the White Knight brigade rides in to defend her from the Big Bad Hairpiece–oh the humanity!
The moral of the story: don’t lie–which is what she did–and there’s no war of words, no “BleedingGate”, no nothing.
And what do we have to show for the debate? Not a whole helluva lot, but way too many people seem utterly sanguine about this, even though the time could have been much better spent asking Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, or anybody else a much better question that might actually help people get more informed, instead of some asinine war of words.
But he really isn’t. Those are herd polls. You don’t understand what you’re really talking about because you don’t have the mathematical understanding of of the methodology being used. Until you do, it’s no different than the guy who works in mailroom claiming he’s going to launch the space shuttle.
That’s not what a “herd’ poll means. It’s an actual polling term that uses a precise methodology to pre-set a certain result the pollster desires to publish. It isn’t foolproof, however, and when they can’t get the desired result, they simply don’t publish the poll. “Herd” polls don’t test opinion or preference, they drive it.
Absolutely. But I also don’t want a president who loses his cool so easily, insults our allies and friends with improper etiquette and oafishness, and can’t remain calm in the face of any pushback. I want to see some class again.
He doesn’t have to prove it. Res ipsa loquitur
When did Trump make the same comment about Wallace? Was it simultaneous with when he said it about Kelly, or later?
Then why are you using it as an example?
That certainly is well-reasoned, fulsome, and erudite. /sarc
I agree with that, but I didn’t see that happen here. Trump, who has a graveyard full of dirt that could have been raised, was only asked about statements he has made publicly or incidents occurring publicly. If Trump had been and would be more circumspect with his bullying and his uncontrollable tongue, he wouldn’t have to answer for these things. He made his bed, but he’s much too thin-skinned and easily rattled to have his wittle blanky ruffled. In his quest for the spotlight, he has revealed very poor judgment, lack of impulse control, and a tacky, coarse, thin-skinned whininess that is not only unbecoming of anybody generally but is unacceptable in the leader of the dree world. Obammy is tacky enough, but now people want to continue it? No thanks.
As for the ‘journalism’ conference you’re going to attend, yes, I can believe that name. If Planned Parenthood can call itself Planned Parenthood, anybody can call any organization whatever hypocritical, cosmic joke of a name they like. I look forward to reading your take on this shindig.
I didn’t know that at first, but I suspected when he backed Perry long after he was viable. I also know he was the token conservative at CNN. So…
I don’t know what your problem is, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether or not Trump is the next President or the next coming of Jesus. What I do care about is corruption. Corruption of the media, corruption of kingmakers and corruption of politicians.
What I don’t like are sleazy journalists and media entities attempting to take down a candidate (any candidate) because they don’t like who the voters are swinging towards. What I can’t countenance are corrupt politicians who can be bought by rich businessmen, corporations, and special interests and then get on stage and fucking laugh in our faces about it. What I despise are establishment kingmakers who think they have the right to decide who gets to be President over the will of American people.
But by all means, continue being petty and childish.
Oh my. Are you implying that I’m a troll because my history is private. I really can’t for you answer.
No. I think you are here to cause trouble and insult people. That’s what I think. Was that precise enough for you?
I would’ve accepted almost any answer, so yes.
You can’t what for my answer? I’m dyin’ here!
And pointing out that they were a$$es as well. It’s a wash, but Trump didn’t seem to lose much by doing so. I’m sure that annoys you, but there it is.
As if any of the rest will give anything approaching substance. All of them have things they wish to avoid, but the big factor here, is you don’t much like Trump, and I really don’t care.
Are you implying that I’m a troll as well?
You need to get out more. What I described has also been called a herd poll.
This bears repeating at the top of the comments:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/call-off-the-grievance-mob-trump-said-chris-wallace-had-blood-pouring-out-of-his-eyes-too-video/
Blame-shaming and aping the SJW’s? Very sad! (Hat tip, ECM)
And what gave you that idea? Because it’s clear you don’t read.
I think the issue you brought up is more complicated. But you have a fair point.
I agree, I think people do know on some level that politicians are bought and paid for (well except for Matt up there). However, having someone in a live debate on national television show how the sausage is made is whole different animal. I hope he drops a dime on every last one of them. Including the kingmakers and the journalists who help perpetuate this corruption.
Trump never said she was on the rag. He made that “blood” comment about both Kelly and Wallace. Unless you think Wallace menstruates, that was deliberately spun to mean that about Kelly.
Actually, no he didn’t. The facts won. And you don’t have them on your side.
So where does that leave me? I’m not a Trump supporter, and yet I don’t believe he said that. I also don’t believe anything thing Erickson says.
First, look up the word “imply”.
See if any weaselly thing he said after that negates the first.
Listen, I don’t give a rat’s ass about Trump. But he wasn’t talking about her period. The only reason people are desperate to believe this is 1) they don’t want to admit to being wrong and 2) they really hate Trump.
I simply don’t like seeing the media, donors and other politicians sandbagging people and deciding for Americans who we should get to vote for.
At this point, I’m almost hoping Jeb Bush gets the nomination just so all you get stuck with what you created. Because you didn’t have the balls to go after the assholes controlling this shitshow. Because they have you so consumed with TRUMP, that when they bait and switch Bush into the nomination you’re gonna be sitting there wondering what the hell went wrong. And Erickson will be standing front and center shilling for that dirtbag telling his supporters to vote for him because its better than the alternative.
Tell me I’m wrong.
You’re wrong. The only reason?? I’m not desperate and I don’t hate Trump. So I guess those of us who take it that Trump says what he means in his own intemperate way.
BTW, I don’t hate Huckabee, or Rand or Graham or Christie either, but I don’t want to see any of them as our nominee.
PS, I don’t want Bush to be the nominee either. I forgot he was running.
I love how only “conservatives” can detect hypocrisy. We must now come up with a test for who is a REAL conservative. I say that we base this on how many comments one has in their disqus account. And whether or not that account is private.
You seriously think that this whole Trump BS is not a media distraction or an attempt to sandbag his candidacy? Like the Perry “racist rock” incident that the media shat all over itself about. They also went after every single gaff that Perry made just to tank him.
You seriously think they won’t try to anoint Jeb Bush as the republican candidate? Do you really think conservatives are going to do anything to stop it?
Use the word “seriously” one more time and win a prize!
As a conservative, I am trying to see that all of the less than adequate candidates are winnowed away. Bush and Trump are merely two of them.
You’re criticizing me for using the word “seriously” twice as a diction device? That’s what you want me to walk away with here?
Ok. You got it. Well done!