Every Republican Presidential Candidate is Hitler

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Objectifying your daughter is okay if she's a model? Maybe it's different for your culture of origin, but my husband wouldn't be telling people that our daughter has a nice body for any reason whatsoever. At any rate, here are direct quotes:

Justifying it with praising her modeling career or whatever... it's weird. It's not normal. I can't imagine any man I know saying such things about his daughter for any reason whatsoever. It says a lot about him and his (lack of) respect for even the women in his family.

Trump is a very clumsy communicator and that's putting it mildly.  He's a bull in a china shop when it comes to this.  That's his biggest problem.  That doesn't mean that he sees Ivanka as an object or that he's a creep (the creep label is owned by Cruz right now).  The guy has been molding Ivanka to lead the Trump Organization with her brothers since she was born.  The problem with America is you can't tell somebody "you have a nice body" anymore because the feminists take umbrage at the same exact time that they clothe those bodies in revealing clothing to be noticed.  So yes, it's not normal in today's society in the same time that having gay sex is now considered normal. 

The lack of respect for the women in his family?  There wouldn't be anybody else that has more qualification to speak to that than Ivanka herself:

"Well, clearly [he respects women]," she says. "Otherwise, I wouldn't be where I am. If he didn't feel that women were as competent as men, I would be relegated to some role subordinate to my brothers. … He 100 percent believes in equality of gender, so, yes, absolutely—socially, politically, and economically, [he has] confidence in women to do any job that a man can do, and my whole life has been proof of that."

Plus this gem:

 

But, of course, Ivanka's thoughts does not matter... because the LEFTIST PLAYBOOK is in full force.  By the way, THAT'S what I wanted you to think about - that these kinds of smears are tried and true character assassination methods in the left's playbook which the right is now playing... it goes to show that when it comes to a threat to the "establishment" the left and the right are in the same side of the playground.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Speaking about one's own child, regardless of her career or looks, as being a great date, is boorish, at best.  It's low class.  The decline in American manners, etiquette and civility is disheartening. That the front-runner for my party is cheer-leading this descent, gleefully, is beyond sad. 

Many conservatives are angry that liberals have forced traditional values and perspectives outside the range of discussion, by declaring them un-PC.  I am one of them.  Mr. Trump is not the antidote.  He may be the poster child that motivates the liberal Facists.

I can agree with this.

But this does not make Hillary better than him.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

There are two sides to every story.  The Secret Service has a different version of the incident.  The former Breitbart reporter, Michele Fields, was warned twice by the Secret Service to not touch Trump.  Allegedly, Lewandowski intercepted Fields before she could touch Trump.  The mainstream media is hyping this up because they hate Trump. 

I still haven't figured out how to multi-quote...

This is actually a response to both NT and Jojo.

On that Fields vs. Cory thing.

This is why candidates hire no less than 100 people to filter everything from the campaign.  So they don't make these kinds of stupid mistakes.  No, the mistake was not Cory catching up to Trump by side-swiping Michelle.  That was a clearly a non-issue (I'm attaching the video for you).  The issue is Cory's response to Michelle's vanity-piece.  This would have been done and over with if instead of Cory accusing Michelle of being delusional, if he would have just said, "I was trying to catch up to Trump and didn't realize she was there."... or not even made any reply at all.  Michelle's overblown account of the story juxtaposed to the video would have been enough of a reply.  The media can fight about it amongst themselves (Brietbart is pro-Trump).  A good campaign handler would have put a lid on this as this is a Trump vulnerability (the opposition is running with this type of narrative for their attack pieces).  Instead, Cory fed the fire so that the opposition found a reason to prop up Michelle all the way to filing charges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmQtOvU4Bc 

Now, whether this move (starting from the Cory response all the way to the charges being filed) is a "campaign handled" response strategy... I don't think so.  I don't see that this has value.  The "display of Trump loyalty" narrative is not necessary - that was never questioned by anybody.

Now, whether using this incident on the campaign trail is a Trump-media-manipulation move... that is possible, but it doesn't make sense.  He has the Cruz National Enquirer story out there with Roger Stone making noise about it.  He wouldn't have wanted to drown that with his own campaign problems... unless he's trying to protect Katrina Pierson.

 

[LeSellers]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I still haven't figured out how to multi-quote...

Click the "+" sign to the left of the "Quote" "button" for each message you want to respond to. Then click the "Quote x posts" link in the lower right corner.

You can move the quoted messages around in the reply pane by dragging the "+" boxes to the upper left of each quoted message, including nesting them and eliminating all space between them.

Lehi

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Click the "+" sign to the left of the "Quote" "button" for each message you want to respond to. Then click the "Quote x posts" link in the lower right corner.

You can move the quoted messages around in the reply pane by dragging the "+" boxes to the upper left of each quoted message, including nesting them and eliminating all space between them.

Lehi

Except that.... there's no + to the left of the quote button.  There's not even a quote button.  There's only a Quote link.  I'm, of course, using the stupidest browser ever marketed... IE.

[beefche]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

  I'm, of course, using the stupidest browser ever marketed... IE.

There's your problem. Download Chrome....

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Except that.... there's no + to the left of the quote button.  There's not even a quote button.  There's only a Quote link.  I'm, of course, using the stupidest browser ever marketed... IE.

14 minutes ago, beefche said:

There's your problem. Download Chrome....

I use both Chrome and Firefox. Much better, more flexible and useful.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Except that.... there's no + to the left of the quote button.  There's not even a quote button.  There's only a Quote link. 

I have been successful at adding two or more quoted messages just by clicking the quote link, button, or whatever it is for each message I want to include, but you have to be careful that the cursor is where you want the next message to appear.

Still, this is not in IE, so, well, …

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

On 3/31/2016 at 8:24 AM, anatess2 said:

But, of course, Ivanka's thoughts does not matter... because the LEFTIST PLAYBOOK is in full force.

Then again, I doubt Chelsea Clinton considers her father a sexual predator, either.  But the statements of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, ad nauseum, indicate otherwise.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

On April 1, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Then again, I doubt Chelsea Clinton considers her father a sexual predator, either.  But the statements of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, ad nauseum, indicate otherwise.

What statement did Chelsea give to state that his father is not a sexual predator but is simply misunderstood or whatever?   I've not heard of one.  In fact, I highly doubt Chelsea doesn't think her dad is a sexual predator. 

But this statement is pretty telling... it is proof positive that you choose to believe Clinton propaganda machine over Ivanka even attributing an unproven narrative about Chelsea over a spoken claim by Ivanka and the proof of her entire life and the gender makeup of the Trump organization as Ivanka pointed out in the interview.

Edited April 3, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What statement did Chelsea give to state that his father is not a sexual predator but is simply misunderstood or whatever?   I've not heard of one.  In fact, I highly doubt Chelsea doesn't think her dad is a sexual predator.

I think you've misread Just_A_Guy. He didn't say that Chelsea had said anything about it, but that he doubts she thinks of her father as a sexual predator. I share that gut reaction: most girls don't see their fathers as evil men, no matter the evidence, as in this case, to to contrary.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

this statement is pretty telling... it is proof positive that you choose to believe Clinton propaganda machine

Here again, I think you've misread his words. Just_A_Guy is (I believe), like me, among the last to believe anything from the Clinton propaganda machine.

Lehi

Edited April 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

If Chelsea agrees that her dad's a sexual predator and that her mom covered for him, then it's peculiar that she would be actively campaigning to get the pair of them back in the White House.  Postulating that Chelsea supports her dad even though she knows he's a bad guy--but that Ivanka supports her dad because she thinks he's a good guy--is, frankly, a step too far into Bizarro-land for my taste.

And for the purposes of this discussion it's probably worth noting that in the past, on these forums, our differing views of what constitutes the objectification of women have led us to disagree about the appropriateness of taking teenaged boys to a restaurant like Hooters.  That in itself doesn't necessarily make you wrong (or me right), but I think it's at least worth bearing in mind that our differences in opinion as to Trump's purported misogyny are not always going to be traceable to my simply being a mindless Hillary drone.  

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your lashing out at Trump's detractors gives the impression that--protestations of impartiality aside--you're much more committed to him, than pretty much anyone else here (including the board's self-described progressives) is committed to Hillary.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I think you've misread Just_A_Guy. He didn't say that Chelsea had said anything about it, but that he doubts she thinks of her father as a sexual predator. I share that gut reaction: most girls don't see their fathers as evil men, no matter the evidence, as in this case, to to contrary.

Here again, I think you've misread his words. Just_A_Guy is (I believe), like me, among the last to believe anything from the Clinton propaganda machine.

Lehi

I can agree with this.

Although, a woman that used to go to our ward had her sister and her start a blog about their sexual predator father (who is still alive together with their mom) and encouraged everyone who has been a victim of their father to come out and join in the court case against their dad.

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

a woman that used to go to our ward had her sister and her start a blog about their sexual predator father (who is still alive together with their mom) and encouraged everyone who has been a victim of their father to come out and join in the court case against their dad.

Yes. And that is the difference between a Chelsea and the women you describe: Chelsea is not denouncing her father, and they are. It seems that there are two extremes, with none in the middle: either you despise him or you remain blinded to his evil.

Lehi

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Chelsea agrees that her dad's a sexual predator and that her mom covered for him, then it's peculiar that she would be actively campaigning to get the pair of them back in the White House.  Postulating that Chelsea supports her dad even though she knows he's a bad guy--but that Ivanka supports her dad because she thinks he's a good guy--is, frankly, a step too far into Bizarro-land for my taste.

And for the purposes of this discussion it's probably worth noting that in the past, on these forums, our differing views of what constitutes the objectification of women have led us to disagree about the appropriateness of taking teenaged boys to a restaurant like Hooters.  That in itself doesn't necessarily make you wrong (or me right), but I think it's at least worth bearing in mind that our differences in opinion as to Trump's purported misogyny are not always going to be traceable to my simply being a mindless Hillary drone.  

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your lashing out at Trump's detractors gives the impression that--protestations of impartiality aside--you're much more committed to him, than pretty much anyone else here (including the board's self-described progressives) is committed to Hillary.

 

I'm committed to fighting the Never Trump movement.  100%.  I will not stand silent while Hillary takes the White House.  Regardless of my citizenship.  And comments like yours that do not even bother to take the evidence that Ivanka has presented on the interview (I would even posit that you didn't bother watching the interview) painting her in the same category as Chelsea who got her lucrative almost-million-dollar job on the News Channel simply because her name is Clinton will always receive a challenge from me.

Edited April 3, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Yes. And that is the difference between a Chelsea and the women you describe: Chelsea is not denouncing her father, and they are. It seems that there are two extremes, with none in the middle: either you despise him or you remain blinded to his evil.

Lehi

Chelsea, like her mom, is not going to denounce the guy who is feeding their ambitions.  It is not that they are ignoring the evidence.  It is simply that they have more to gain from protecting the Clinton name than not.  Chelsea is a politician's daughter.  Politician's daughters - from my lifelong experience in a political family - are trained from birth to protect the name.  I am doing the same thing right now - my cousin is running against his half-sister who is born out of his dad's affair with another woman, for the same elected office.  With both of them on opposing parties, the family dirt is getting splashed on the news day in and day out.  The entire family have our hands full doing damage control.  Not because we are ignoring the moral ramifications of the fact that my Catholic uncle had a child out of wedlock... we are doing so because we believe that regardless of this past mistake of a family member from 40 years ago who held a Congressional seat, the family name (with several people running for elected office carrying it) still stands for upstanding public governance.  The Clinton name does not stand for such.

Ivanka, on the other hand, is not a politician's daughter.  She doesn't have the same sensibilities about having to protect her father.  She and Melania chose not to be a part of the campaign.

Edited April 3, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

P.S.  If Cruz was the front-runner of the Republican Party, the Trump issue is going to be moot and there wouldn't be any need to be defending the guy.

But, as it stands Trump is the front-runner and he (and Kasich) has a better chance of beating Hillary than Cruz does.

Remember, the President is not elected by popular vote.  The President is elected by electoral vote.  Without Ohio and Florida, the Republicans only has 47% of the electoral votes gauging from the consistently Red States as opposed to the consistently Blue States.

Red States are not going to turn Blue for Clinton with Cruz on the ticket.  But Blue States are not going to turn Red for Cruz either.  He is not going to swing Independents and Democrats to the Republican side.  Therefore, it is back to the age-old swing states swinging Red for Hillary to lose.  As it stands right now, Cruz was nowhere in Ohio and Florida.  Kasich holds strong in Ohio.  Trump gave Kasich a run for his money in Ohio and trounced both hometown boys - Jeb and Rubio - in addition to Cruz and Kasich in Florida.  So, yes, if Kasich engages his ground crew for Cruz in the general, Cruz could win Ohio to win the general.  But if Trump wins the nomination, the Trump factor has the possibility of making New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and California Red.  With Trump strong in Florida, he can win Florida.  He can win Ohio if Kasich doesn't join the NeverTrump team.  The Repubs can beat Hillary with Trump... UNLESS, the NeverTrump movement succeeds in turning Red States into Blue (like Utah) and losing Ohio.

Remember, establishment politicians/political analysts/staffers/media/etc. still get to keep their careers regardless of who wins the White House - Dem or Repub.  They fear the outsiders as their club can get shaken up.  So the opposition to the outsiders is only going to get fiercer from the establishment as the general election gets closer.  They'd rather see Hillary win than have an outsider shake their careers up.  Because, really, think about it... have they lost anything with 8 years of Obama?  None.  They can ignore their voters all 8 years long and still get to keep their jobs and porks.  So the demagoguery of Trump in all levels and all sides is only going to get fiercer.  The only way to stop it is for the people to have the sophistry to wade through it all and see through the LEFT's PLAYBOOK that both the Left and Right are using.  Because, c'mon... do you think that because the Right succeeded in painting Trump is racist, sexist, bigot that the Left is finally going to take it out of their playbook and quit calling Republicans racists, sexists, bigots if they succeed in electing Hillary over Trump?  In your dreams.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I'm committed to fighting the Never Trump movement.  100%.  I will not stand silent while Hillary takes the White House.  Regardless of my citizenship.  And comments like yours that do not even bother to take the evidence that Ivanka has presented on the interview (I would even posit that you didn't bother watching the interview) painting her in the same category as Chelsea who got her lucrative almost-million-dollar job on the News Channel simply because her name is Clinton will always receive a challenge from me.

But, you'll stand up for the guy who gave Hillary money; with your defense--your defense!!!--being that he was merely buying influence in a crony-capitalist system?

Ivanka's statements do not negate the reports of third parties, let alone Donald's own statements.  At best, they make Trump a complicated personality who, among other things, does refer to women as "pieces of [expletive]", has cheated on his wife, has contemplated a sexual relationship with his own daughter, has bragged about his sexual conquests, has forced his pageant contestants to describe which of their competitors they found "hot" (this comes from Carrie Prejean, hardly a liberal darling), and has tried to intimidate various women by sending them defaced pictures of themselves.  This is utterly unrelated to questions of what sort of paid opportunities Trump offers to women who impress him; and it's certainly not the phony-baloney "sexism" of second-wave feminism.  This is creep-factor stuff.  

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

P.S.  If Cruz was the front-runner of the Republican Party, the Trump issue is going to be moot and there wouldn't be any need to be defending the guy.

But, as it stands Trump is the front-runner and he (and Kasich) has a better chance of beating Hillary than Cruz does.

Remember, the President is not elected by popular vote.  The President is elected by electoral vote.  Without Ohio and Florida, the Republicans only has 47% of the electoral votes gauging from the consistently Red States as opposed to the consistently Blue States.

Red States are not going to turn Blue for Clinton with Cruz on the ticket.  But Blue States are not going to turn Red for Cruz either.  He is not going to swing Independents and Democrats to the Republican side.  Therefore, it is back to the age-old swing states swinging Red for Hillary to lose.  As it stands right now, Cruz was nowhere in Ohio and Florida.  Kasich holds strong in Ohio.  Trump gave Kasich a run for his money in Ohio and trounced both hometown boys - Jeb and Rubio - in addition to Cruz and Kasich in Florida.  So, yes, if Kasich engages his ground crew for Cruz in the general, Cruz could win Ohio to win the general.  But if Trump wins the nomination, the Trump factor has the possibility of making New York, New Jersey, Nevada, and California Red.  With Trump strong in Florida, he can win Florida.  He can win Ohio if Kasich doesn't join the NeverTrump team.  The Repubs can beat Hillary with Trump... UNLESS, the NeverTrump movement succeeds in turning Red States into Blue (like Utah) and losing Ohio.

. . . . 

Because, c'mon... do you think that because the Right succeeded in painting Trump is racist, sexist, bigot that the Left is finally going to take it out of their playbook and quit calling Republicans racists, sexists, bigots if they succeed in electing Hillary over Trump?  In your dreams.

Regarding the swing states/independents:  Trump is not poised to get the independents.  Look at the RCP matchups.  Look at Larry Sabato's current projections of Trump vs Hillary--a Trump victory in the general isn't going to happen, period.  He doesn't have the independents now, and he won't have them in November.  Heck, Romney did get the independents--but he lost the general, because the conservatives wouldn't turn out for him.  And he lost the conservatives for the same reason he gained the independents--he came across as a centrist.  

Think about that for a minute, Anatess.  In your heart of hearts, that's also why you think Trump could get the independent vote--because you know he's not really that conservative.  You know he won't come out strongly and consistently against abortion or in favor of religious liberty vis a vis "gay rights".  You know he won't rock the boat economically by imposing the sort of deep budget cuts the federal government so desperately needs.  You know he won't put his own credibility on the line by advancing Scalia-esque nominees to the federal bench.  You know (or think you know) that he's such a deal-maker and so intertwined with our current corporate cronyist culture, that the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street will be able to keep him under control.  That, I think, is the fundamental question--whether an unapologetic, unabashed Christian conservative can still win a national election or not.  If the answer to that question is "no", then in the end it won't really matter what--or who--else gets elected. 

I get that the Dems will savage any nominee the Republicans offer; whether it be Trump or Cruz or Kasich.  Our guy--even if it's Trump--is going to be painted as a hard-core conservative, whether he is one or not.  So, why not go ahead and nominate a hard-core conservative who has the experience, consistency, intellectual chops, and communications ability required to make his campaign one that will champion conservatism, rather than just himself?  A Cruz campaign would still be paying dividends in 2024 and beyond, a la Ronald Reagan (whether '76 or '80, take your pick); whereas a Trump campaign would be but a distant memory by that time.

You can kvetch and moan about how #NeverTrump is destroying party unity.  But it's not Cruz or Kasich who are suggesting that an election in which 2/3 of the voters chose someone else might somehow be *stolen* from them at convention, and it's not Cruz or Kasich whose supporters are openly talking about a third-party run in the general.  Trump's supporters are, Obama-like, setting the rest of the party up to take the fall for their own fractious behavior.

 

[Aish HaTorah]

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

This is a pretty hard-core conservative article, but underneath the polemics I think it makes a couple of interesting points (I've edited a bit to soften, because I don't want the substantive points to get buried by the invective):

Thoughts?

I certainly hope not, for my people's sake.  The vast majority of recent presidents/candidates haven't been what I'd call overly pro-Israel, even when they say they are.  The media has a very powerful and successful ability to make Westerners see things in the Middle East as something entirely different from actuality.  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  It terrifies me and makes me resolute at the same time.  The Shoah isn't currently the historical disaster it once was in people's minds.  I weep even thinking about it.

[Aish HaTorah]

16 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

I certainly hope not, for my people's sake.  The vast majority of recent presidents/candidates haven't been what I'd call overly pro-Israel, even when they say they are.  The media has a very powerful and successful ability to make Westerners see things in the Middle East as something entirely different from actuality.  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  It terrifies me and makes me resolute at the same time.  The Shoah isn't currently the historical disaster it once was in people's minds.  I weep even thinking about it.

Not that so very many of the brave Americans (and others) that fought for freedom and the Jews are passing away, the memories largely pass with them.

*My son saw that I was upset typing this, so he started singing the Israeli National Anthem to me.    He's a good kid.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Aish HaTorah said:

I The Shoah isn't currently the historical disaster it once was in people's minds.  I weep even thinking about it.

 I do too, and I'm just as worried as you are. 

[Aish HaTorah]

15 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 I do too, and I'm just as worried as you are.

Thank you for that.  I know that we cannot dwell in the past, but neither should we forget it.

[Guest MormonGator]

44 minutes ago, Aish HaTorah said:

Thank you for that.  I know that we cannot dwell in the past, but neither should we forget it.

Well, I will continue to dwell on the past until I don't see it repeating itself! How Jewish people are treated in Europe is incredibly disturbing to me, not to mention the open persecution in the other parts of the world.