“He loves me,…he loves me not…he loves me…“
I know, I have exceeded my Donald Trump quota for the week, but I can’t let this pass.
From the Washington Post’s Rebecca Sinderbrand, who follows the campaign’s twists and turns in an on-line column, comes a useful report on The Donald’s statements about teleprompters and his use of them between April 27 and May 27:
—April 27: Uses a teleprompter while delivering a foreign policy speech.
—May 2: “I don’t have any teleprompters…I’m up here all by myself.”
—May 20: “I’ve started to use [teleprompters] a little bit. They’re not bad. You never get yourself in trouble when you use a teleprompter.”
—May 22: Attacks Clinton because she “reads off a teleprompter, you notice. She’s reading off a teleprompter, she always does.”
—May 24: “We should have a law that when you run for president, you shouldn’t be allowed to use a teleprompter.”
—May 26: Uses a teleprompter while delivering an energy policy speech in North Dakota.
—May 27: “Isn’t it great when you don’t use teleprompters? …we oughta have a law that if you’re running for president, you can’t use teleprompters.”
Questions:
1. How can someone be so unaware of how his own words and conduct make his appear?
2. How can anyone respect someone like this?
3. How can anyone trust someone who does this?
4. How can any foreign government or leader trust someone who is behaves like this in public?
5. How can anyone claim they believe anything someone like this says or claims to believe?
6. How can anyone assess such a total and apparently shameless lack of integrity or consistency as anything short of frightening?
7. How can any intelligent individual read this and say, “It doesn’t matter”?
8. What possible conclusion can be reached based on these statements other than, “This man is completely unstable, unserious, and unfit to lead”?
9. How can anyone respect someone who won’t accept the obvious answers to the questions above?
The 10th question is in the headline, and no, it doesn’t matter who or what is running against him.
_________________________
Sources: Washington Post
Ethics Alarms 
I have not heard the actual audio clips. What was the context of these quotes? Could Trump have been joking in the anti-telepromptor quotes?
His speeches have no context. He just says stuff.
He reads from a teleprompter for his prepared policy speeches. At his rallies, as far as I can tell, he stands and riffs without a teleprompter. I would be surprised if that didn’t change in the next 5 months before the election. Who knows, though? He’s such a narcissist, holding out his every fleeting thought for admiration and praise, that maybe he’ll just continue ad-libbing.
Is your statement an example of stating the obvious? Yeah, when he thinks it’s safe to improvise, he doesn’t use one. That’s true of every speaker, except that some NEVER think it’s safe to improvise.
I was answering Tom McDaniel’s question. He asked the context of the quotes. The context was that when he was not using a teleprompter, he boasted about it and denounced Clinton for using one; and when he was using a teleprompter, he talked about how wonderful they were.
1. extreme narcissism combined with an (I used to believe delusional but after seeing Hillary supporters’ mental gymnastics now fear is realistic) estimate of the ability of people to ignore reality when it runs counter to their preconceptions.
2.. no one can, that is why Trump supporters work so hard to convince themselves (and anyone who will still listen) that Trump said something else, or intended to say something else, or the press is lying about him saying it and even if he did say ti doesn’t matter anyway because he will be a great president and knows how to tell people that he knows how to make deals, and even if he is a failure as a president he will be better than Hillary or at lest he might be better than Hillary is sure to be.
3. no one can, that is why Trump supporters work so hard to convince themselves (and anyone who will still listen) that Trump said something else, or intended to say something else, or the press is lying about him saying it and the fact that he is untrustworthy is actually a reason to vote for him because it means he probably won’t do the worse things he said he would do.
4. they cannot but that is OK in the short run because they don’t really have much of a choice, and despite how outrageous Trump behaves in public it seems to be an improvement over how the incumbent behaves towards our allies in private. Given the record of the current administration in the foreign policy arena, I cannot in conscience ask that a foreign government or leader trust a US president and must put aside patriotism and say that no foreign government or leader should trust a US president until the US has over many election cycles demonstrated the ability to consistently elect presidents who won’t betray anyone who trusts them.
5. Simple lying will do, either deliberate lies told to fool others or lying to themsleves.
6. I find it amusing. I have to imagine the words coming from a drunk stranger at the other end of the bar right before they pass out to do so, but “such a total and apparently shameless lack of integrity or consistency” in and of itself doesn’t have to be scary, only the fact that it comes from someone has a decent chance of becoming president makes it so terrifying.
“How Can You Even Consider Voting For A Guy Like This?” ”
Because he has an (R) after his name, that’s all that matters.
Coco the Clown (R), Genghis Khan (R), Kin Jong Il (R), Albert de Salvo (R), Benedict Arnold(R) doesn’t matter.
zoebrain said, “Because he has an (R) after his name, that’s all that matters. Coco the Clown (R), Genghis Khan (R), Kin Jong Il (R), Albert de Salvo (R), Benedict Arnold(R) doesn’t matter.”
Nice smear of Republicans.
Seems to me that you’re ignorant to ALL the relevant facts. There is a huge swath of Republicans that have stated outright that they will NEVER vote for Trump, I’m one of them, Jack is one of them, there are many, MANY others; how does that FACT fit into your your ignorant smear.
To be fair, the Republicans—Bob Dole, McConnell, Rubio, etc. who are insisting that their Party members should vote for Trump DO endorse Zoe’s rationale.
I must be one of those “freethinkers”. 😉
I actually agree with Zoltar, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it as many times as necessary: Trump and Bernie tapped into a population that has historically been more than happy to sit by the sidelines. They did it because the moderates we’re talking about: politically unengaged, largely policy ignorant people, felt the squeeze at home and it started to effect their abilities to take care of their families. Trump voters are moderate using a left-right scale, even if they’re extreme using a authoritarian-libertarian scale, and they share very….very little with traditional Republicans. So little in fact, that a significant chunk of the Republican party isn’t supporting their nominee… Which I don’t think has ever happened before in history.
But there are people in the Republican party, still ready to vote for him. Is it pure party loyalty? Per…haps… But I think that still discounts the completely legitimate view that Hillary Clinton is a toxic, manipulative liar who has never held a firm policy position in her life. I think a tin can might have better polling numbers than Hillary Clinton. Some people might actually think Trump is better than her.
“politically engaged” = politically UNengaged. Needs me moar coffee.
I made the edit, but actually either is accurate in that context.
1. Ego. Who knows?
2. I remind myself he is still a human being, and worthy of some respect.
3. This election is not about who I trust the most, it’s about who I distrust the least.
4. I don’t have an answer.
5. It isn’t about who I is more believable, it’s about who is least not believable.
6. It isn’t about who inspires confidence, it’s who I’m less scared by.
7. In usual circumstances, it would matter. But this is not a usual election. Trump’s opponent has broken the law by mishandling classified information. She has lied about it, routinely. She is, in all likelihood, a crook. Her party is becoming increasingly totalitarian.
8. He is less unfit than the likely alternative. See response to 7 above.
9. The same can be asked of anyone who believes Hillary Clinton is remotely qualified to be President.
10. Because the alternative would ratify the last eight years of abuses by the Democratic Party, including the IRS scandal.
Your answer is a study in denial and illogical, desperate rejections of reality. As you have the intellectual capacity to do better, I suggest you get on with it. Here are the questions, your answers, and what’s wrong about them
1. How can someone be so unaware of how his own words and conduct make his appear?
You say: Ego. Who knows?
That’s just attempting to minimize a serious problem by a big shrug. Self-awareness is a crucial feature of rational, trustworthy individuals, and of course, leaders. Trump is making himself look like a buffoon, and is apparently incapable of realizing it.
2. How can anyone respect someone like this?
You say: I remind myself he is still a human being, and worthy of some respect.
The same respect as serial killers, spouse-beaters, and ficks—fine. Duck the issue. The obvious intended context is “respect as a public figure, a potential leader, and a allegedly respectable American.
3. How can anyone trust someone who does this?
You say: This election is not about who I trust the most, it’s about who I distrust the least.
Gibberish. They are the same thing. There is no basis to trust Trump in any way, shape or form: that’s the point of the post. He cannot even be trusted to stick to an opinion for 24 hours, on a matter on minimal importance, because he doesn’t even realize when he’s showing a complete lack of integrity. Hillary Clinton would not do THIS. Ergo, she is by definition and without question more untrustworthy than Trump. There are many awful things Trump says and does, in fact, that Hillary Clinton, awful and corrupt as she is, would eat her foot before doing. There is, on the other hand, nothing Hillary has done that you or anyone can honestly say Trump would not do.
4. How can any foreign government or leader trust someone who is behaves like this in public?
You say: I don’t have an answer.
Good for you. You have integrity. The answer is “They can’t.” And that is a very big problem. As bad as Clinton is, I guarantee you that she is trusted on some, basic level that diplomats and foreign leaders trust each other, by some, if not most and all, such leaders. They certainly trust her no less than they trust Barack Obama—a low bar, but still a bar.
5. How can anyone claim they believe anything someone like this says or claims to believe?
You say: It isn’t about who I is more believable, it’s about who is least not believable.
See #3 above. Again, Hillary lies all the time, but even she doesn’t try ridiculous lies like Trump. He has lied about his taxes, about his supposed charity, about “opposing the Iraq war” from the beginning, about every one of his policy positions (they are negotiation positions, he admits), about seeing Muslims in New Jersey rejoicing, etc., etc., etc. When confronted with proof the he lied, his responses are either denial, or “whatever.” His belief is that lies don’t matter, that lying is just a tool. It is impossible, literally impossible, to be less believable than some who thinks like that.
Your answer is a punt.
6. How can anyone assess such a total and apparently shameless lack of integrity or consistency as anything short of frightening?
You say: “It isn’t about who inspires confidence, it’s who I’m less scared by.”
Same theme as above–a duck and weave, but also an admission. You are motivated by emotion rather than reason. Well, stop it.
7. How can any intelligent individual read this and say, “It doesn’t matter”?
You say: In usual circumstances, it would matter. But this is not a usual election. Trump’s opponent has broken the law by mishandling classified information. She has lied about it, routinely. She is, in all likelihood, a crook. Her party is becoming increasingly totalitarian.
The parties are irrelevant: Trump is more innately totalitarian in attitude and instinct than anyone who has ever run for President. Unlike Clinton, every one of his “promises”–the wall, stopping the trade agreement, banning Muslims, etc—are beyond the power of the President…if he really intends to do these things, he must take over total power. There are many, many ways to do horrible things without breaking laws. Saying what Clinton has done does not rebut the obvious conclusions regarding what Trump is capable of doing. She’s a lawyer, he’s a dolt. She’s rational, he isn’t. Game, set, match.
Who we elect President always matters. Not electing a wacko backed by America’s worst and most ignorant matters most of all.
8. What possible conclusion can be reached based on these statements other than, “This man is completely unstable, unserious, and unfit to lead”?
You say: He is less unfit than the likely alternative. See response to 7 above.
This is the denial part. Nothing, nothing supports that conclusion. It is simply sticking fingers in your ears and humming, and refusing to acknowledge ugly facts. By definition, a woman who has been First lady, is a lawyer, has served in the Senate, has international experience, has run the State Department—is better qualified and has more relevant experience for leading a country than someone with Trump’s background. It doesn’t matter that Hillary was undistinguished in these roles—she still knows the territory, he doesn’t–she wins. Even conceding that measuring character places them both in the unfit category (though Trump is beyond argument worse–is Hillary as uncivil as Trump? No. Is she as fond of ad hominem attacks? No. There is no area of character in which Hillary is demonstrably worse than Trump), in experience there is no contest.
So your answer is in defiance of reality.
9. How can anyone respect someone who won’t accept the obvious answers to the questions above?
You Say: The same can be asked of anyone who believes Hillary Clinton is remotely qualified to be President.
No, it really can’t. She is certainly qualified to be President by historical standards. She is more qualified than, say, Barack Obama. She is more qualified than Sarah Palin, and she was certainly remotely qualified, as a sitting governor She has held elective office. She has foreign policy experience. Trump has NO qualifications or experience whatsoever. Saying that a business mogul has government leadership qualifications is an untested theory.
Your answer, sorry, is “I’m rubber you’re glue, what you say bounces off an sticks to you!” That is, juvenile nonsense. Grow up.
The 10th question is in the headline, and no, it doesn’t matter who or what is running against him.
You say: 10. Because the alternative would ratify the last eight years of abuses by the Democratic Party, including the IRS scandal.
Irrational. You want to give a completely unstable, unqualified, lazy and none-too-bright narcissist power to do far worse than Obama has done to prove a point? Disgraceful.
I keep telling you. Trump is a magician who has mastered the art of mimicry. I wrote my one and only Trump piece in January. I refuse to link it here AGAIN. No one here has seriously rebutted my thesis. If you want to defeat Trump, think different. Think magic. It can be done. If you have to, employ a dark shaman.
Me, I’m watching this farce unfold from the sidelines and I’m laughing my ass off.
How, exactly, are you on the sidelines? Doesn’t it bother you, accepting for the hell of it that such a thing is possible, that an entire generation is on the way up and the nation and world isn’t on the sidelines?
No, it doesn’t bother me one iota, Jack. I lost all faith in presidential politics, and politics in general, when Obama failed to live up to his promises/my expectations. I consider him a traitor of the first magnitude. I would rather have seen him stand up to Wall Street and other Bush atrocities and pay for it with his life than what actually went down during his presidency. At least he would have died an honorable man.
You pissed me off when you denigrated the Occupy movement, of which I was a part.
You piss me off when you denigrate Bernie Sanders.
I applaud you for tackling the Trump train, but your efforts are ineffective.
If you recall, I supported Trump until he advocated torture. I loved the way he threw monkey wrenches into the system. I love reading his hourly tweets. And I know the man for what he is. A shaman of the highest order. Is he a dark shaman? I don’t know.
Truth is, you, and the populace in general, deserve whatever you get. Why? Because for too many years you’ve voted in lying liars. (I don’t include myself since I only voted twice for president, McGovern and Obama.) To this very day I call for armed revolution and don’t give a fuck who knows it. Maybe Homeland Security will make me a return visit at one in the morning. But, this time, I ain’t inviting them in. Ain’t got no guns. No drugs. I’m perfectly legal. They’re gonna have to break the door down.
Just writing all this pisses me the hell off.
You and others wanta stop the Trump train? Then do it. Whatever it takes. Do it. Play dirty if you have to. (Yeah, I know, ETHICS stands in the way.)
Me, I just don’t care. The very stupid populace brought this shitstorm upon themselves. And, just maybe, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Ya know, I had a near death experience in 2011. Let me quote what I was told…
“The news had begun, so I knew it was some
time after 4 p.m.. As I listened to NPR’s All Things Considered I realized
that, as I lay dying, the world was exploding. I caught the distressed
undertone in the reporters’ voices, a catch in the throat, as it were, as
they reported on the flash points in the Middle East, the flooding along
the Mississippi, the demonstrations, the misuse of power, the senseless
killing. The dream I’d had the night before — I was repeatedly putting
out fires in the kitchen — was an indicator of world events as well as the
state of my own psyche.
There was a voice. It said I was being given a gift. I could leave now and
avoid all the insanely bad shit queued up in Earth’s timeline. I liked the
idea. Just go and be done with it. Like rolling off a log… that peaceful,
easy feeling…”
(I decided that, no, I didn’t want to die just then because my wife would come home and discover me dead on the couch and that would freak her out and there was still stuff I wanted to do, so I argued and cajoled until I was blue in the face.)
“At some point there was an imperceptible shift, accompanied by a final
message which went something like this — Oy! Alright then. I’m tired of
your whining. You don’t wanna go, so stay here already. Meshugana!
My body slowly inflated. My pants leg ballooned to human form.
I was back.”
—————————————————–
So now the shitstorm. Can it be stopped? I don’t know. But I know one thing. It will take something big, something unexpected, to stop it. And, honestly, I just don’t see it in the cards.
Gotta add this (to which I agree)…
“Sadly, we’ve past the point of redemption for mankind. It’s all about saving yourself and the small number of innocents you’re able to touch.”
View at Medium.com
I’d say that we’re never past that point, except I don’t really know what “redemption” or “saving” means in this context. I do know that with the proper application of connection, presentation, and nurture mindsets, the number of people in your sphere of influence and the ways in which you can influence you increases bogglingly in scope.
I’m extending you a tentative offer to join my plan, but I’m not sure if you’re passionate enough about making sure parasitism and idiocy get the defeat they deserve. It takes more than anger to tear them apart; it takes finesse. Armed resistance will do more or less nothing except make you feel better. My plan may have less instant gratification and power-tripping, but it uses the only principles which will win.
Maybe that’s my problem, EC. I just want to feel better. I want to strike out at something because I’m feeling so damn ineffectual. I truly believed the time had come for change with the Occupy movement. I worked long and hard. And for what? For the media to put us down, characterizing us as clowns and buffoons and clueless hippies (all this done, I believe, with the backing of the major banking institutions) and the ever brainwashed populace bought into that and we withered and died. And Jack certainly did his part in belittling Occupy. He believes what he believes. I believe what I believe.
And so, EC, what is this plan you speak of? Not that I expect to participate. I’m fast running out of physical steam. About all that’s left of me is the ability to crank out my dreams and nightmares on Medium and to occasionally take part here. I value Jack’s friendship but I’m getting old and will soon die and maybe that’s the reason I lashed out yesterday.
Here’s a sneak preview of the plan:
1. Identify something a person is struggling with or some goal that they have and ask them if they would like help with that aspect of their life.
2. Identify the mindsets (already cataloged) that their goal will require in order for the person to make it work, and sustain it with their own power.
3. Review with the person the basics of how those mindsets work.
4. Do some research with the person on the knowledge the goal will require.
5. Acquire the basic knowledge, and demonstrate to the person how the mindsets work by working with them to apply the mindsets to the knowledge.
6. Have the person continue the research and using the mindsets independently.
6. Check in regularly with the person in order to have them explain what they’ve been learning (which helps them internalize it), to make sure they’re making good use of the mindset, and to learn more about how the mindset can be used
7. Person becomes able to grant their own wish, and able and inclined to contribute towards changing the political landscape through their testimonial, informal favors, or even joining the movement.
8. Repeat exponentially, attracting people and resources to the movement with success stories. We can start making public statements about policy at this time.
9. As people become more capable and confident about changing their own lives, they will stop asking politicians to save them, and solve their own problems rather than being willing to scapegoat each other.
What do you think? Any specific points of failure, or just general “too uncertain to make me want to put effort into it?” The typical reaction is the latter, because most people have their hands full with whatever they’re already doing.
Short version: Yes, the plan is to life-coach the entire world. What, you expect the world to get better without people learning how not to suck? They cause most of the problems they complain about. The reason this plan will work is that I can continuously figure out why the present isn’t working, what will work instead, path to get for any given person, and how to teach other people to do the same thing. Really, a lot of the legwork has already been done for me, so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
No, the plan doesn’t have two step 6s; that was my mistake. The numbers didn’t copy over so I added them in manually.
Life coach the entire world? I don’t have the time or inclination, but it does sound like a worthwhile project. I strongly suggest you look into publishing on Medium because Life Coaching is an extremely popular topic there. Check this out… https://medium.com/search?q=Life%20Coach
What the hell qualifies you as a “life coach for the entire world” or for any person in the world?
What qualifies you to judge whether or not I’m qualified?
…Okay, it’s an important question. It doesn’t matter who asks it.
What qualifies me is that I have the arrogance to think I can help people with all of the problems they somehow still have despite centuries of accumulated wisdom, and the humility to listen to them and try to understand their desires and point of view so I can figure out how I can help.
What qualifications do I need that I lack?
Comment of the Day, for a lot of reasons. No need for a rebuttal from me, either: res ipsa loquitur.
Looked up translation of res ipsa loquitur but my brain doesn’t compute. Please explain, Jack. I can count to 20 in Spanish but that’s about it.
It means that the comment speaks for itself with no rebuttal necessary. In all respects, positive and negative, it is what it is. Positive: sincere, passionate, honest, striking, genuine, disturbing. Negative: emotional, defeatist,self-rebutting and undermining—Bernie Sanders and all lazy ideologues, not to mention communist sympathizers, who can’t add and who mislead glossy-eyed naifs deserve to be denigrated, and indeed must be as an ethical imperative—and irrational.
A rich stew of many flavors that does not need analysis, just a taste.
WoW! That WAS tasty indeed!
fattymoon said, “I keep telling you. Trump is a magician who has mastered the art of mimicry. I wrote my one and only Trump piece in January. I refuse to link it here AGAIN. No one here has seriously rebutted my thesis.”
I’d like to read it, please provide a link.
View at Medium.com
Thanks
My pleasure, sir. Your taste is impeccable.
fattymoon said, “Your taste is impeccable.”
I can appreciate the statement but I’ve just got to ask; how have you defined my “taste” as you understand it? I just don’t understand what drove you to say that my “taste is impeccable”, no one has ever said that about me.
It’s an old (reworded) joke I used a lot while on Electric Minds. A variant here… https://medium.com/@FarkleUp/that-bit-about-highlighting-my-own-good-taste-is-partly-self-other-mockery-but-also-quite-true-in-f93c0aad5d3f#.ll9nywde7
Basically, I’m congratulating myself, not you. Although, in this case, Zoltar, you do indeed rock. (OK, I did it again hahaha! Sorry. I’m having hernia surgery tomorrow and I’m already feeling the pain meds.)
I agree with fattymoon, Trump can be defeated. And not necessarily by voting for Clinton from the ‘lesser evil’ perspective. They can both be defeated. See “By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates — by Rob Urie, May 27, 2016”.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/by-the-numbers-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-are-fringe-candidates/
Well sure, anything can happen, as Trump’s rise horribly demonstrates. But this is wilful self-deception. Both Hillary and Trump can be defeated by some imaginary champion nobody currently is aware of, six months before the election? Dreams. And thus irresponsible.
Dreams are never irresponsible, Jack. I’m not looking for an imaginary champion, BUT, it is possible to conjure up one.
Trump is an ass. I blame the Republican party for letting him get this far. So now our choices are an ass — who has no sense of the gravemen, weight, historic importance of the Presidency, and no respect for it either apparently, and who will destablize the world even more than it is now — and a liar, cheat, felon, and fake feminist who rode her husband’s coattails to power, even going so far as to defend and deny his sexual harassment and abuse of other women to build her own power base. The ass or liar/cheat/felon?
The depths to fallen we’ve come is frightening. Do we want the devil we know or the devil we don’t? Either choice is insupportable, but we all have to make it. And this is the best the US has to offer as its chief executive? Very depressing.
“Either choice is insupportable, but we all have to make it.”
“Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other and greater ones invariably slink in after it.”
― Baltasar Gracián, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
“Just keep asking yourself: What would Jesus not do?”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
“We are our choices.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Yes, I know you will find more than an equal number of fine quotes in favor of making a decision. But that’s not my position in the matter under discussion.
All such devices are appeals to authority, and out of context to boot.
How to Vote Your Conscience in a Rigged System:
A Vote for a Lesser Evil is a Still a Vote for Evil
View at Medium.com
Yes, and this is why hermits go off to live in caves, why pacifists are unethical, and why Hannah Arendt was right. Refusing to make hard choices and do the best you can so you can claim “Hey, don’t blame me!” is just moral grandstanding, vanity and cowardice, and pretty despicable, on the whole. I know you are better than that.
No sir, you don’t know me, Jack. Not all of me. And I don’t know you. Maybe 50 percent of you, but that’s half left hidden in the shadows. And I DO KNOW that you haven’t even bothered to read the article I linked to. Closed mind, maybe?
Follow me, fattymoon
see – now doesn’t that make you feel like you want to turn around and go back?
Nah, I’ll just keep on running. And gunning. And agitating. It’s what I do.
Trump cares not about contradicting himself or being hypocritical and his ignorant followers don’t give a damn either.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Trump is literally a caricature of what the Liberals thinkConservative ideology and values are all about. Liberals have been “joking” about it in their political cartoons for years! Trump is the culmination of all those Liberal political cartoons; the equivalent of a graphic novel, driven by Liberal magical thinking, coming to life.
My predictions from January 29, 2016.
On the Democratic Party side…
Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic Party nomination and likely choose a very moderate Liberal as her running mate. They will run the entire campaign resting on the shoulders of Obama’s “accomplishments” and Hillary being the first woman President. The campaign won’t propose much ideological change from the Obama ideological path (only a few token differences). The campaign will spend the majority of their time painting the entire GOP as extreme and ignorant using Trumps hair as a paint brush.
On the Republican Party side…
PREDICTION B
1. Trump will get the GOP nomination. (Likely to be actual fact soon)
2. Trump will choose an absolutely irrelevant VP running mate, Palin comes to mind. (Hasn’t happened yet, but it will and it probably won’t be Palin – “maybe” Christie)
3. Trump will go on a nationwide campaign spree launching his rhetorical propaganda accusations and insults at the Democratic Party ticket. (This is already happening and will continue)
4. The GOP ticket will spike in the polls after the GOP Convention and then start a rapid decline. (Historical trends support the spike, but I predict the rapid decline)
5. The Democratic Party ticket will use Trumps pre/post-convention unethical rhetoric and attacks against the GOP ticket in the general election campaign. Trumps words today will be used against the GOP ticket tomorrow in general election TV ads. (Clinton is already doping this)
6. The Democratic Party ticket will win the 2016 election in a landslide of historic proportions because independents will vote overwhelming against Trump and moderate Republicans either won’t vote at all out of shear disgust for Trump or will vote against Trump to keep his screwed up value system out of the oval office. (I stand by this prediction as the most plausible with Clinton running against Trump)
Any way we look at our choices this presidential election season, we lose.
(Clinton is already doping this)
ROFL!!! Freudian slip – maybe. 😉
Should have been…
(Clinton is already doing this)