On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:20:08 PM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:24:25 -0400, Micky
wrote:

In addition to all his other failings, another example showing Rump is
a dingdong.

He said roughly "Anyone who thinks the plane [today] wasn't brought
down by terrorist is 100% wrong. 100%."

As I said, more closely he said "blown out of the sky" and if it turns
out to be mechanically caused, he'll say, That's what I said, knocked
out of the sky. He'll say that's the same as blown and it will sound
like quibbling to diagree (even though blown calls up an image of a
bomb BLOWing up and knocked, if anything sounds like a noise a
(reciprocating) engine makes, iow, engine failure, and that's exactly
why he said "blown"). People who want to be more believable liars
can find a lesson in this.


Yeah, that's the Trump method. And guys like O'Reilly and Hannity let
him get away with it. Trump was on with Hannity the other night. The
big topic was Hannity can't understand why any Republicans, like Paul Ryan
for example, would have any problem supporting Trump. So, Hannity goes
down the list of things that people have a problem with, like Trump both
saying he wants a big tax cut and then also saying the wealthy could and
will pay more. So, Trump just says that when he said "more", it was in
reference to the tax rate possibly winding up higher than his 25%.
Hannity says, OK, next. As if Trump just repeating that version
there for him means that the other versions of what he said no longer
exist. Trump was on the Today Show and asked only one question about
taxes. "Do you believe the wealthy should pay more in taxes?" "Yes,
I do" was Trump's answer. Now, how anyone could believe that was in
relation to his 25% proposed point and not relative to the taxes they
are paying now, is beyond me. What you need to do, to be fair, is to
get the video and audios of Trump flipping, and play them for him so
people can see what he's really said. Instead Hannity just goes down
the laundry list, Trump gives his version of what he says he meant,
Hannity somehow accepts this one version as the definitive one, ignores
all the contradicting ones. Then he's perplexed as to why everyone
doesn't just hail Trump as the great, honest, consistent one.




Not probably, but 100%.

Like there were no plane crashes before there were terrorists crashing
planes.

What a dingdong, fool, jackass, etc. [and dingaling]

I've been telling my friends in RL that that Rump says he'll name one
of these people means nothing. He just wants votes. He made promises
before getting the contract for the old post office on Pennsylvania
Avenue and he broke those.


Well, I do give Trump credit for putting out the list. He could try
to do what he wants anyway. But with it in black and white, with the
GOP controlling the Senate, it would be extremely difficult for him to
go off and nominate some lib or moderate instead. And impossible for
him to get it approved. And to try to pull it would create enormous
backlash and problems for Trump getting anything he wants through
Congress.




Except the writer below is wrong on one point, "uncharacteristically".
He's thinking of the strong statements like 100%, but ignoring the
vagueness often in the same and other statements, "blown out of the
sky."

So:
"6. Trumps uncharacteristically nuanced announcement should alarm
conservatives who fear his tendency toward expediency over principle.

The Donald stated explicitly in March that he would only nominate
justices from the list that he was going to release. But his press
release yesterday described the judges merely as €œpeople he would
consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia.€�

€œI plan to use this list as a guide,€� he now says.

Big picture, only someone who is naïve would trust Trump to follow
through on all or even most of his campaign promises. Anyone who
understands how government works recognizes that much of what he
espouses is either infeasible and probably not what he really
believes.


On a lot of what he's promised, especially the big things like
deporting 11 mil illegals, I agree.



This scares the bejesus out of smart movement conservatives, who
believe Trump has not demonstrated that he has a moral compass and
that he lacks core principles to guide him on the issues. He
flippantly flip-flops and refuses to apologize. He used to support
abortion, for instance. Whats to say he wont do so again in the
future? Or that it wont be a litmus test?

€œI am thrilled by this list,€� John Yoo, who drafted the infamous
torture memos for the Bush Justice Department and now teaches law,
writes in National Review. €œBut that being said, I cannot trust Trump
to keep his word. He has already flip-flopped on so many issues,
before, during, and after the primary campaign. How do we know he
would not start wheeling and dealing on judicial appointments if he
were to win the Oval Office?€�


I agree, that's possible, but if he wants to get them approved, it's
unlikely. Plus, Trump isn't some ideologue that's suddenly going to
try to force libs onto the SC. I don't think he cares all that much
one way or the other. So, choosing from that list, getting them easily
approved would work and there is no reason to go off the reservation.
Actually, the SC thing holds out some hope that the GOP can control
him on major policy issues.



This is why conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a Harvard Law grad
who served in the Reagan Justice Department, says Trump now must name
THE person hed tap to replace Scalia:"

Hewitt still doesn't get it. Naming one person would make no
difference. He wouldn't feel bound by anything he said. He'd say,
Things have changed. Maybe he'd say, That guy had a toothache and
he may not be healthy enough to serve, so I'm changing. What will
conservative or others do, sue him?

Sure, he could change on one versus a list too. But Hewitt is way out
there. Most conservatives are OK with his list and it has helped them
to be able to support Trump.