Googling just that email address, there are several great testimonials and an endorsement from Deepak Chopra, since it’s on his website.
Hahahahaha. 
Did you see Trump on ABC This Week? To say “the bromance is over” with Cruz is the understatement of the campaign. And clearly, what he is most incensed about is Cruz’s claim that Donald had been slipping in the polls. He is right that by the time he said it in the debate, it was factually incorrect for Cruz to say; but wow, is he thinskinned on that subject! You’d think his poll numbers were directly correlated with the length of his member. :rolleyes:
He’s highly allergic to any factual, quantitative evidence (i.e., poll numbers) which indicate that he is anything less than The Best.
In Trump’s address to Liberty University yesterday (NPR article), he was his usual self:
Good stuff. I’m curious how he intends to enforce the new law that store personnel will be required to say “Merry Christmas”. And, getting MS to build its “computers” in the US, will that happen before or after he gets Bill Gates to help fix the internet so people won’t get radicalized on it?
Luckily, we can trust Trump to surround himself with people who are knowledgeable in these matters, and Trump can just focus his talents on vision and judgement.
Long as Hewlett-Packard is still building our software and frozen waffles, there is nothing to worry about.
It’s official. Sarah Palin is endorsing Donald Trump for President.
Somehow, both of them lost credibility through this endorsement.
It has quickly become CW that Trump pwned Cruz in the “New York values” confrontation in the debate. But Jonathan Karl made an interesting point on ABC This Week:
Not with conservatives. This is a big blow to Cruz.
The same way you enforce the 55 mph speed limit. You have cops hide behind the racks and if a clerk doesn’t say “Merry Christmas” the cop jumps out and arrests them. Yes, there will be scofflaws, just like everyone doesn’t drive 55. But I bet the $7/hour minimum wage clerks won’t want to take chances when they could be facing fines of a month’s salary.
Trump will simply impose a tariff of 500% on Surface Pros imported into the US. I don’t know why he is specifically targeting the Surface Pro, but I’m sure he has a good reason.
Yup. The crazy wing is coalescing around Trump and the corporatist wing doesn’t have a viable candidate, even if they could unite.
Trump’s big roadblock was the Republican party’s rule 40(b): Getting majorities (not pluralities) in eight states. With the rest of the field cleared out, that’s no longer a problem.
I think there’s a strong counterargument to that, however, which is the fact that at this point, we have an absolutely massive amount of information about what Obama believes, what he is trying to do, how he thinks about America, etc. He has written several entire books, and he has been the most-scrutinized man in America for 7 years.
For you to say “hey, look, here’s a quote from a pastor at a church that Obama attended, now we know what Obama actually thinks!” isn’t meaningless-due-to-faulty-logic, it’s meaningless-due-to-being-just-an-insignificant-grain-of-sand.
All other things being equal, if person A voluntarily chooses to associate with public figure B, and public figure B makes statement X, that’s evidence that person A endorses or believes statement X… but it’s very very weak evidence. So if that were literally the only thing we knew about person A, well, that would be one thing. But in this case we know an absolutely ridiculous amount about Obama. Every topic that Rev. Wright talked about, Obama himself has surely talked or written about dozens of times. So to claim that we actually learn something new, or prove something we’ve always suspected, because of what Rev. Wright said is just silly… and the fact that Obama repudiated Rev. Wright just makes it sillier.
That said, I also don’t think that the fact that Trump (or his campaign) tweeted a racist and false tweet proves anything about Trump, in and of itself… and it’s not even all that strong evidence for what Trump believes. What is much stronger evidence is the way he (or his campaign) handled it… that is, not saying “sorry, we were misled, we apologize”, but pretending it never happened, etc. So, I’d call it weak evidence that Trump is racist, stronger evidence that he is trying to appeal to racists, and stronger-yet evidence that he’s an arrogant and dishonest dickhead.
Sarah Palin had credibility to lose?
And Sarah will be the running mate, says one Doper dollar! Why not? It would double the publicity.
MaxTheVool, I think the great irony about American politics is that as deluded and obtuse as right-wingers can be about many things, they are the most perspicacious when it comes to the true political orientation of not only Obama, but the Clintons, in their heart of hearts.
I absolutely believe that deep down, Obama is quite radical, and Hillary and Bill only somewhat less so. My mother knew Hillary in the 1980s because they both served on a progressive foundation board together. My mom, who is supporting Bernie Sanders now and voted for Nader in 1996 when most people didn’t know he was running, thought Hillary was awesome back then. But she has become disenchanted with her and believes her to have changed her views on a number of issues. I don’t believe that for a second: I think Hillary has made canny political moves to appeal to a broad enough electorate.
Same goes for Obama. He was raised by an ultra left-wing mother and very left wing grandparents, none of whom were religious except to go to Unitarian church like my mother does, which is more of just a meeting place for left-wingers than a church in the conventional sense. I don’t believe for a second that he believes in God, and I absolutely believe he would institute socialism if he had the power to do so. But unlike conservatives who believe this and find it chilling and maddening, I think it’s a pretty cool aspect of all three pols. I like left-wingers who pretend to be centrist enough to get elected. That’s my favorite! And it’s too bad there aren’t more in our party who realize and appreciate the value of such people.
If Trump wins, and manages to institute saying “Merry Christmas,” I’m filing a lawsuit, claiming that they’ve violated my 1st amendment rights by forcing Christianity on me.
Anyone else want in on that with me?
Trump said just the other day, in response to a question about people’s civil liberties versus authority and order, that he was strongly in the second camp. So you might want to be careful that you don’t rile up the brownshirts. Just keep your head down and meekly say “Merry Christmas” along with everyone else. If Trump is boss, it’s going to be like that Terry Gilliam movie Brazil where you’d probably best not stick out.
As the mad prophet of our time said:
The whole of the ACLU would. (Yes, it still exists.)
So why doesn’t he act like it?
Because if he had acted like it before he became president, he would not have gotten to become president. And if he suddenly flipped while in office, people would have rightly pointed to his having been dishonest to get into office, and he certainly wouldn’t have been able to get any traction and would risk his “paragraph” that he talks about in the history books saying something about the “stealth black radicall” who stole his way into the presidency. He also knows that would hurt the Democratic party for decades to come.
You can see it in places where people aren’t looking closely, though. Have you ever looked at the list of artists, musicians, and poets the Obamas brought to the White House over the past few years? Seriously intense list there.
What kind of blows my mind is that he didn’t try to tone it down a little earlier. That church he belonged to was way out there, and as much as people make fun of Republicans for freaking out over his hanging out with Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground bomber and longtime fugitive, in Chicago, that is actually pretty radical.