• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Krauthammer pegs Trump campaign correctly

Krauthammer is *always* a must read! :thumbs:

He is.
The curious thing is when someone (like Haymarket) posts his columns only when he trashes a guy like Trump because the poster hates Trump too, it's an awful lot like the posters (like Simplexity) who created threads to talk about only the Colin Powell emails that trashed Trump and don't mention his others that ripped Hillary asunder.
Oh well ... twas ever thus.
 
I don't and never said he would. I suspect Krauthammer is like many principled National Review/William Buckley/William Kristol style Republicans who are truly sick about this whole mess and will not vote for either in November.

Then that would mean Buckley wouldn't follow his own "Buckley Rule".
Not likely.
And Bill Kristol is no Bill Buckley.
 
Then that would mean Buckley wouldn't follow his own "Buckley Rule".
Not likely.
And Bill Kristol is no Bill Buckley.

Good point. I suspect the Buckley Rule about supporting the most rightward candidate would not apply to Trump in many ways since some on the right question if his positions are truly held - while others like being against free trade and trade agreements would not fall into the right wing category anyways.
 
The only thing failing is America. Sen. Clinton or Mr. Trump will be the nail in the coffin. The only question is, which one will get even richer selling us out.

My only question at this point is, are we seeing Mr. Trump rising or Sen. Clinton falling?

I suspect its a bit of both at the same time. And I further suspect this will go back and forth both ways before November. This could well be an election that will simply be determined by who is up or down one or two points on election day which could well be different than the week before or the week after.
 
He is.
The curious thing is when someone (like Haymarket) posts his columns only when he trashes a guy like Trump because the poster hates Trump too, it's an awful lot like the posters (like Simplexity) who created threads to talk about only the Colin Powell emails that trashed Trump and don't mention his others that ripped Hillary asunder.
Oh well ... twas ever thus.

Not true as I am no fan of Clinton either and have posted things critical of her as well. In fact, I have called for her to stand down and give the DNC their nomination back. And I still believe that today. She should step down now.
 
I don't and never said he would. I suspect Krauthammer is like many principled National Review/William Buckley/William Kristol style Republicans who are truly sick about this whole mess and will not vote for either in November.

A lot of conservatives are in line with Krauthammer's thoughts. And these people are growing in numbers.

We will continue to participate in local elections, but vote with our feet on the presidential election.
 
Krauthammer is *always* a must read! :thumbs:

Good morning, Chomsky. :2wave:

:thumbs: :thumbs: He is always a "listen to" when he appears on TV, too. I like his style - the man makes acerbic sense! :shock:
 
Good point. I suspect the Buckley Rule about supporting the most rightward candidate would not apply to Trump in many ways since some on the right question if his positions are truly held - while others like being against free trade and trade agreements would not fall into the right wing category anyways.

We're talking about the range of positions of the 4 candidates compared against each other.
A person may question if he genuinely holds those positions, but if you follow the Buckley Rule Trump would have to be the choice.
Another way to look at it is of the 4, which is the least likely to intentionally damage the Conservative movement if elected.
 
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column in the Washington Post in which he nails the Trump campaign to the wall and correctly identifies what are the factors in the turn around which has led to a closing in the polls and now looks like there even might be an election win for Trump in November.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.6a58d9f609bd




I do not think any of this is new to people who have followed Trump closely and have been paying attention. But for me, this is scary as all hell bursting forth at the seams on Halloween night in a Stephen King novel that the American people - at least some of the American people - are willing to give this proven liar restart after restart and allow him to reinvent himself time and time again.

Krauthammer is a must read.

Given what most of the MSM and elite Republicans are saying, that's not that bad of a piece. And inadvertently is an acknowledgement that Trump has chilled his jets, become more presidential, and if you have been watching you notice his speeches are about policy.

Hillary's platform, is simply Anti-Trump, because she has no policy to run on except for more years of a miserable economy, higher taxes, more regulations, and more immigrants competing for scarce jobs.
 
I suspect its a bit of both at the same time. And I further suspect this will go back and forth both ways before November. This could well be an election that will simply be determined by who is up or down one or two points on election day which could well be different than the week before or the week after.

It could be close enough to be determined by dead voters, foreign nationals, and repeat voters. Will the Democrat Party unveil the Melowese Richardson Trophy for Repeat Voting before or after the election?
 
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column in the Washington Post in which he nails the Trump campaign to the wall and correctly identifies what are the factors in the turn around which has led to a closing in the polls and now looks like there even might be an election win for Trump in November.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.6a58d9f609bd




I do not think any of this is new to people who have followed Trump closely and have been paying attention. But for me, this is scary as all hell bursting forth at the seams on Halloween night in a Stephen King novel that the American people - at least some of the American people - are willing to give this proven liar restart after restart and allow him to reinvent himself time and time again.

Krauthammer is a must read.

This election will be studied by marketing and future campaigns for generations to come. Much as a person who murders once will get life in prison while a person who murders millions will get asylum in a foreign country, Donald highlighted an interesting new concept which isn't crazy at all when you think about it: It's more effective to hammer an opponent on one or two narratives than it is to hammer them on countless ones. Clinton's faults (real or imagined) are easy to package: Benghazi, emails, health. Donald's faults are so numerous that they can't be summarized in a single page, let alone two or three buzzwords. the result is "sensory overload," and once that happens, people stop paying attention altogether. So Donald found a completely unique solution for his horrors: make so many of them that the horrors become static.
 
This election will be studied by marketing and future campaigns for generations to come. Much as a person who murders once will get life in prison while a person who murders millions will get asylum in a foreign country, Donald highlighted an interesting new concept which isn't crazy at all when you think about it: It's more effective to hammer an opponent on one or two narratives than it is to hammer them on countless ones. Clinton's faults (real or imagined) are easy to package: Benghazi, emails, health. Donald's faults are so numerous that they can't be summarized in a single page, let alone two or three buzzwords. the result is "sensory overload," and once that happens, people stop paying attention altogether. So Donald found a completely unique solution for his horrors: make so many of them that the horrors become static.

I have to wonder is this election the result of hyper-partisanship or is Clinton really so damned bad that she can't even beat Trump?
 
I have to wonder is this election the result of hyper-partisanship or is Clinton really so damned bad that she can't even beat Trump?

Let me just say in my own little display of schadenfreude that I stated all the way back in January (or roughly thereabouts) that I never accepted the narrative that Clinton was logically more suited to win the election over Sanders. Aside from political ideologies that conservatives inherently disagree with, the guy had no skeletons in his closet. And what is it that is dragging down Clinton? It ain't Trump, it's her skeletons. The normal baseline was for a Democrat to be beating Donald four to one, and that's exactly where we'd be right now if Sanders was the Democratic candidate.

That Clinton was the only one who could win was an utterly media-manufactured narrative and I said that nearly a year ago.

And now for my real gripe: I am disappointed by so much this election season, but I think what disappoints me the most is the complete inability of even relatively intelligent people to not recognize manufactured narratives when they're hit in the face with it.
 
Let me just say in my own little display of schadenfreude that I stated all the way back in January (or roughly thereabouts) that I never accepted the narrative that Clinton was logically more suited to win the election over Sanders. Aside from political ideologies that conservatives inherently disagree with, the guy had no skeletons in his closet. And what is it that is dragging down Clinton? It ain't Trump, it's her skeletons. The normal baseline was for a Democrat to be beating Donald four to one, and that's exactly where we'd be right now if Sanders was the Democratic candidate.

That Clinton was the only one who could win was an utterly media-manufactured narrative and I said that nearly a year ago.

And now for my real gripe: I am disappointed by so much this election season, but I think what disappoints me the most is the complete inability of even relatively intelligent people to not recognize manufactured narratives when they're hit in the face with it.

That Bernie got drummed out makes sense. He wasn't even a Democrat. What does not make sense is that no better candidate could be put in the ring for the Democratic nomination other than Skeleton Queen and a 70-plus year old Independent. Something stinks....and, they may end up paying dearly for putting it in the air.

BTW, I still see Clinton winning. But, she will not walk away with an easy victory.
 
That Bernie got drummed out makes sense. He wasn't even a Democrat. What does not make sense is that no better candidate could be put in the ring for the Democratic nomination other than Skeleton Queen and a 70-plus year old Independent. Something stinks....and, they may end up paying dearly for putting it in the air.

BTW, I still see Clinton winning. But, she will not walk away with an easy victory.

How about for the country. A 70-year old Skeleton Queen, an aging hippie longing to bring Venezuela to America, and an aging liberal Democrat huckster. Is that the best we can do?
 
Good morning, Chomsky. :2wave:

He is always a "listen to" when he appears on TV, too. I like his style - the man makes acerbic sense! :shock:
Yes, Polgara! That's the term I've been searching for: "Acerbic Sense"

Sounds so much better, than: "Pragmatic Cynicism" ;)

And much more nice, than: "Abjectly Stoic"! :mrgreen:
 
He's a smart guy, no doubt. He's a very accomplished psychiatrist.
Yeah, he's got a very compelling life's story, is accomplished & well educated, and I very much respect him.

He was a radical liberal early in life in Montreal at McGill, and (apparently) wrote a book describing his journey from Liberal to Conservative. I think it would be a fascinating read, but I can't find it - nor even it's title! :(
 
an aging hippie longing to bring Venezuela to America

You mean like how Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden have brought Venezuela to their countries? Oh, wait...
 
I'm not aware of this, but it would be interesting if true,

Oh yes, many of them were Leftists, even Marxists, in college. They were Democrats pre-Carter Administration and then became Republicans post-Carter Administration. They were generally the liberals who wanted to see more support for Israel and a more aggressive foreign policy. It has been a while since I researched the topic, but I believe some of these notable ex-left neocons included Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jean Kirkpatrick.
 
Oh yes, many of them were Leftists, even Marxists, in college. They were Democrats pre-Carter Administration and then became Republicans post-Carter Administration. They were generally the liberals who wanted to see more support for Israel and a more aggressive foreign policy. It has been a while since I researched the topic, but I believe some of these notable ex-left neocons included Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jean Kirkpatrick.
So, how about that?

I've got to run down a copy of Krauthammer's "Liberal to Conservative" book, if it indeed exists!
 
Back
Top Bottom