This is the breed of dog the lyle household has. Had two of them until Jan., '15; now just one. I fully suspect the remaining one would react the same way were I to allow her voice on my teevee.
The Trump phenomenon is especially interesting because it is the joint creation of Leftist fantasies and populist reaction. The image of Trump represents what the Left think he is; what they would prefer to fight. Trump is the distillation of all that gives their anger meaning. Sanders' supporters, having chosen their candidate, also want to select their opponent. In that way the tableau is complete and the psycho-drama can proceed. This is the Boss-level fight. Whether the image represents reality or not is oddly beside the point.
Good thing there's no psychodrama going on at JOM... :)
Too bad you're not the Palestinian prez or some tinpot dictator in some third world shithole, DrJ. Barry would be throwing money at you with not a trifle of a care how much you skimmed of the top...
As an admitted Trump agnostic and one who has pretty much disappeared (as have others) on this board when emotions are running high (see this past weekend), this link is very good:
IMO the only chance Trump will not be the nominee is to not win Ohio [assuming Florida is a gimme for him]. Even if he loses it he'll still probably be the nominee but if he wins it, lights out.
The only obstacle after that is the laughably inept Hillary and the MFM.
She is a hopelessly wooden Cigar Store Lesbian who, if she dragged her gelatinous arse onto a tennis court would lose every game 40 - love on unforced errors alone.
And the MFM are apparently without even one insight on how to stop driving people to Trump.
The only other speed bump might be the GOPe and they're just a sick combo of the two critiques above.
The most dramatic implication of TM's video is that time has not been kind to Hillary. The voice, the shape,.... Though her public speaking doesn't seem to have gotten any worse, given the low level it started at. Well, maybe it's no worse than most people from age 45 to 67.
Those who aspire to be our leaders should be trying to bring us together, and not turning us against one another—and speak out against violence, and reject efforts to spread fear or turn us against one another.
That Spectator link was excellent and spawned this dandy comment that made me smile;
You got to pick up every stitch
You got to pick up every stitch
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Hillary makes idiocy her pitch,
Oh no, must be the season of the witch
Must be the season of the witch, yeah.
Sustained sheer brazen mendacity over dozens of years obviously takes a toll on one's body, jimmyk. Well, that and a lot of booze. Mostly the booze. And the head injuries from the booze. And the clear absence of a soul or a conscience. And the humiliation from her "husband." But mostly the booze...
Taranto, like our host, TM™, reads the NYT so we don't have to and reprints this from the weekend:
Donald J. Trump arrived at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in April 2011, reveling in the moment as he mingled with the political luminaries who gathered at the Washington Hilton. . . .
A short while later, the humiliation started.
The annual dinner features a lighthearted speech from the president; that year, President Obama chose Mr. Trump, then flirting with his own presidential bid, as a punch line.
He lampooned Mr. Trump’s gaudy taste in décor. He ridiculed his fixation on false rumors that the president had been born in Kenya. He belittled his reality show, “The Celebrity Apprentice.”
Mr. Trump at first offered a drawn smile, then a game wave of the hand. But as the president’s mocking of him continued and people at other tables craned their necks to gauge his reaction, Mr. Trump hunched forward with a frozen grimace.
After the dinner ended, Mr. Trump quickly left, appearing bruised. . . .
That evening of public abasement, rather than sending Mr. Trump away, accelerated his ferocious efforts to gain stature within the political world. And it captured the degree to which Mr. Trump’s campaign is driven by a deep yearning sometimes obscured by his bluster and bragging: a desire to be taken seriously.
Anyone remember this? I don't but then I would rather swallow razor blades than pay attention to that dinner especially with that fraud speaking but James wraps it up with this obiter dictum:
We now have a major candidate for president who diminishes the office he seeks by engaging in juvenile taunts directed against his opponents. That is partly because we have a president who is known to do the same.
Because everyone hasn't had enough of Corey Lewandowski and Michelle Fields I offer up this link which makes a few claims I hadn't heard before, such as 50 seconds of the audio recording Terris made public was edited out.
And Ben Shapiro comes out looking a little worse for wear too.
Worth reading if you care about this utterly stupid fracas.
JiB,
Far be it from me to argue math, geometry or even taking my shoes off for sums over ten with anyone, but the Euclid theorem in the comments sounded like exactly the same thing to me [which shouldn't and doesn't diminish a 10th grader independently thinking like Euclid one bit].
IMO the only chance Trump will not be the nominee is to not win Ohio [assuming Florida is a gimme for him].
He won't win Ohio, Kasich will. I think Illinois is the question - if he wins Florida (agreed, a given) and Illinois, I think it's pretty much over. I know he was last leading in Illinois polls, but I think that's the state that may close for Cruz.
The other thing, about the GOPe wanting to "steal" away the nomination. If Trump is close when they get to Cleveland in July, say within 100 delegates, he should be able to put it over the top on the first ballot. If he can't do that, then yes, everyone else will scramble to find a consensus candidate and vote for the person on the second ballot. That would not be stealing it, that would just be the process. DT has said that whoever has the most delegates going in to the convention should win, because that is "democracy". That's not how the convention (or, come to think of it, the electoral college) works.
In math, 'said' and 'proved' are very different things. Which is not to say that Euclid didn't prove it, I have no idea. She also may have proved it a different way, which also can be valuable.
I am sorry that Breitbart people seem to be "slimming" each other, but I could care less about Fields and her reported abuses. Enough!! Also, I simply hate Kaisch--imagine that he is going "all out" now for illegal immigration because "God made us all--illegal immigrants, etc." He is pitiful, and I really dislike him and his swarmy smile and pious actions.
hrt-It's the suggestion being floated out there in the last couple of days that the rules committee has the right to "uncommit" all the delegates before the first ballot is taken, thus depriving Trump of the nomination even if he comes in with a majority. That would be stealing it, IMO
Kasich likes to talk about meeting St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, a scene which to my limited knowledge isn't even in the Bible. But I believe the inference is certainly that there's a winnowing process in which St. Peter doesn't invite everybody who shows up in.
American Eskimo, Enlightened. Known as Spitz in Europe. Our boy, Biscuit, is about the smartest dog I've ever been around but very cool about it. :)
BTW, the Spitz is an alpha breed. Samoyeds and Huskies, et al, descended from the Spitz. Post WW II, the AKC would not recognize the breed (I wonder why...) so US breeders changed the name.
That is not how a lot of Trump voters will see it, because many of them are not familiar with convention rules. I understand about second ballots and such, but I think a lot of those enthusiastic supporters don't.
The RNC is playing with fire.
Also, Kasich needs to quit acting like this is a democratic process. If Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, the decision will be made by GOP delegates who are mostly political people from the state GOP's, not some group of average citizens.
The arm twisting, threats, promises and bribes will be enormous.
Basing that on what happened at my house Saturday morning, after hearing what Cruz, Rubio and Kasich had to say about Trump causing violence at his rallies.
"I wish I hadn't early voted, because now I'd vote for Trump."
If Mr. Reasonable feels that way, I am certain a whole lot of Ohioans who were undecided are having thoughts along the same frequencies.
It's the suggestion being floated out there in the last couple of days that the rules committee has the right to "uncommit" all the delegates before the first ballot is taken, thus depriving Trump of the nomination even if he comes in with a majority.
Derwil, that would be outright theft alright. If the GOP deprived him of a fair and square win, it would be a death knell for the party.
Kyle - I have had 2 Samoyeds and just a couple weeks ago had to put down my buddy - which has literally broken my husband and my hearts. They look so similar.
If Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, the decision will be made by GOP delegates who are mostly political people from the state GOP's, not some group of average citizens.
I agree - the decision will be made in the bottle-water filled back rooms. If Trump was a long-time Republican with chits to call in, he'd have a chance on the second ballot. If it does go past the first ballot, man oh man, Katie bar the door, it's gonna be nutso stuff.
Just to clarify, Trump may understand that there is a required delegate count to get it on the first ballot, but he doesn't seem to like that hurdle, saying (from the link), ""If Marco, if the governor, if Ted had more votes than me in the form of delegates, I think whoever gets to that top position as opposed to solving that artificial number that was set by somebody which is a very random number, I think that whoever gets the most delegates should win".
And, as far as DT's contention that it is a "artificial" or "very random" number that was "set by somebody", the required delegates for nomination is 1237, which is half the total plus one, a simple majority.
hrtshpdbox, you can hardly fault Trump for making a self-serving argument. Would you expect him to say "It doesn't matter who has the most delegates"? I'm sure he understands the concept of a majority.
I'm sure he understands the concept of a majority.
He doesn't like it, though. When he says, incorrectly, that it's very random and artificial, isn't he signalling that he doesn't have much regard for the convention rules? I suppose we can't fault him for that either, but it does help to set up a potential powder keg (granted, the anti-Trump forces will be doing their part too). I really hope it doesn't come to that, though, I hope he's either way over or way under 1237. The GOP doesn't need that kind of free publicity.
Enlightened, we lost two dogs in 10 months in '15. Still can't really talk about them without my voice cracking. I DREAD the thought of losing Biscuit who is now 11. Kipling knew whereof I speak with his poem, We Give Our Hearts To Dogs To Tear. Sigh.
Lyle, I've had one dog in my life, she's sitting next to me on the couch right now. I look at her sometimes and try to fathom that she won't be with me forever, and I fail - I can't wrap my head around it at all.
I feel the same about having a dog and eventual heartbreak. I don't know how y'all do it - I can barely manage the responsibility of kids. I know I'm missing a lot, though.
My dog was just the goofiest, silliest, loving, sassiest, disobedient, big ball of white fluff - he wormed his way in deep into our family life and not having him around is so breathtakingly sad - I was not prepared. I know it will get better with time and is still so raw just 2 weeks out, but man oh man - I think I cannot do this again. Like a sledgehammer to the solar plexus.
Dogs give back 1000% to what we give them. I'm sure we're not on our last one. It's painful to lose them but it's not like whoever posited the dictum of the definition of second marriages: hope over experience.
You need more time, Enlightened. Trust me although I'm certainly not the only JOMer who has lost a dog over the years. I could write a book about Diva who we lost a year ago. But not yet. Maybe never. Already have a huge lump in my throat and watery eyes...
" When he says, incorrectly, that it's very random and artificial, isn't he signalling that he doesn't have much regard for the convention rules? "
Seems like he understands very well that in fact there are no fixed rules. So again, I can hardly blame him for advocating for himself. Of course describing 1237 as random and arbitrary is plainly silly, but so what? He wants the nomination, big surprise.
From the last thread: like how the Brit's are all furious that Obama is sticking his nose into their politics and telling them how to vote, yet they never have the slightest qualms about telling us how to vote,
I don't mind them feeling that way because I'm pretty sure they consider Zippy just as much of a pinhead as we do. As far as their advice, I pretty much ignore it but not because they're idiots. If they told Goodell to stop playing football games there I might pay attention.
Enlightened, one of Teddy's girlfriends, Sia, is half Samoyed. My first Airedale, Trane, had good Samoyed friend, Sasha. They always look happy. Very sorry for your loss.
My late wife and I (along with the family) had Schipperkes and Great Danes. In fact over 45 years we had five Schipperkes all named Gittle, and two Great Danes named Queen and Black.
I loved them all even if some of them were beyond being called neurotic. Most were rescued, or unwanted by their owners.
Currently my fiance and I have two 13 year old Bernese Mountain dogs crossed with a Chocolate Lab. The absolute most laid back dogs we have had and three house cats. Plus one neighborhood dog that likes us more then the kids that got her from the rescue center.
We had a dog when I was a kid, age 5 to 15, and I had dreams about that dog for at least 10 years after he died. I haven't had a dog as an adult, as the missus is opposed to keeping one in a city apartment. But I'm sure we'll have one at some point, when we're empty nesters or retired. Lyle is right about dogs giving 1000% of what they get.
The link goes nowhere for me.
Did TM forget how to link?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 04:28 PM
OK, now it's working.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 04:29 PM
OMG, that's hilarious.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 04:29 PM
Hillary makes a fool of herself? Must be a day of the week that ends in a "y."
Posted by: Theo | March 14, 2016 at 04:30 PM
There is no way Trump can beat her.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2016 at 04:34 PM
TK --
I hope that you are wrong and I think that you are right.
Posted by: Theo | March 14, 2016 at 04:39 PM
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/peoples_resource/image/37711-Scared%20dog.jpg
This is the breed of dog the lyle household has. Had two of them until Jan., '15; now just one. I fully suspect the remaining one would react the same way were I to allow her voice on my teevee.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 04:41 PM
Theo, TK was being facetious. Or maybe you're being facetious, too.
I'm confuzzled.
Posted by: derwill | March 14, 2016 at 04:42 PM
I'm Batman
Posted by: boris | March 14, 2016 at 04:44 PM
No, I was being serious. But as I said, I hope that I am wrong about that.
We may know tomorrow if those are the choices.
By the way, can anyone send me a link to this Federalist Society candidate test they have posted about? Thanks.
Posted by: Theo | March 14, 2016 at 04:45 PM
We should know that when candidates do and say stupid things it doesn't make much of an impression on voters.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 04:47 PM
The test is not from Fed Soc, theo. My kid that sent it to me is a Fed Soc member.
Here you go:
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
Posted by: anonamom | March 14, 2016 at 04:51 PM
Audio of Romney writing off half the country made an indelible impression. That kind of stupid, given where it took place, is very rare imo.
Posted by: DebinNC | March 14, 2016 at 04:59 PM
Hrt @ 4:47
It sure didn't in 2008 when Obama talked about the Austrian language and about not knowing how auto insurance worked in the 57 states.
Posted by: James D. | March 14, 2016 at 05:02 PM
Or "corpseman" or "Maldives" or...
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:05 PM
FWIW, I got the same scores and ranking on the Candidate test as Iggy did. Must be something in the air out here.
Posted by: DrJ | March 14, 2016 at 05:05 PM
Your daily Wretchard:
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/03/12/recon-by-fire/
Good thing there's no psychodrama going on at JOM... :)
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:10 PM
Sounds like you cheated, Drj. :)
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:11 PM
lyle, I took the test before Iggy posted his results. I claim no time-travel abilities.
Posted by: DrJ | March 14, 2016 at 05:13 PM
No time-travel abilities, you say? Just where's all that grant money going after all, bub? Huh? :)
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:17 PM
DrJ; like Kipling's shipwrecked mariner, a man of infinite resource and sagacity. :)
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 05:17 PM
Lyle, if DrJ did have time travel capability, he wouldn't tell us. The first rule of time travel is, you don't talk about time travel.
(Unless you're the gang on Legends of Tomorrow, in which case you blab about it to anyone who will listen)
Posted by: James D. | March 14, 2016 at 05:22 PM
lyle, I know where every penny went. It is amazing how far it doesn't go! It sure is not in my bank account.
Posted by: DrJ | March 14, 2016 at 05:23 PM
Too bad you're not the Palestinian prez or some tinpot dictator in some third world shithole, DrJ. Barry would be throwing money at you with not a trifle of a care how much you skimmed of the top...
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:30 PM
I want to make sure those who saw the last thread see this Correction--Soros contributed over $200k to Kasich's PAC
Posted by: clarice | March 14, 2016 at 05:31 PM
Latest: Cumberland authorities weigh charging Trump following rally violence.
They apparently will never run out of ways to keep this guy in the news and to rally support behind him.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 05:31 PM
As an admitted Trump agnostic and one who has pretty much disappeared (as have others) on this board when emotions are running high (see this past weekend), this link is very good:
http://spectator.org/articles/65769/betrayal-breeds-strange-bedfellows
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:37 PM
IMO the only chance Trump will not be the nominee is to not win Ohio [assuming Florida is a gimme for him]. Even if he loses it he'll still probably be the nominee but if he wins it, lights out.
The only obstacle after that is the laughably inept Hillary and the MFM.
She is a hopelessly wooden Cigar Store Lesbian who, if she dragged her gelatinous arse onto a tennis court would lose every game 40 - love on unforced errors alone.
And the MFM are apparently without even one insight on how to stop driving people to Trump.
The only other speed bump might be the GOPe and they're just a sick combo of the two critiques above.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 05:41 PM
The most dramatic implication of TM's video is that time has not been kind to Hillary. The voice, the shape,.... Though her public speaking doesn't seem to have gotten any worse, given the low level it started at. Well, maybe it's no worse than most people from age 45 to 67.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 14, 2016 at 05:44 PM
Who said it?
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:45 PM
anonamom --
Thanks. Apparently I am a Marco Rubio supporter.
Tomorrow is going to be hell.
Posted by: Theo | March 14, 2016 at 05:46 PM
That Spectator link was excellent and spawned this dandy comment that made me smile;
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 05:48 PM
Mrs. Buckeye says I have aged much better than Hillary.
But I haven't seen the credit card bill for this month yet.
Posted by: Buckeye | March 14, 2016 at 05:49 PM
Sustained sheer brazen mendacity over dozens of years obviously takes a toll on one's body, jimmyk. Well, that and a lot of booze. Mostly the booze. And the head injuries from the booze. And the clear absence of a soul or a conscience. And the humiliation from her "husband." But mostly the booze...
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 05:50 PM
Unlike Pinocchio, the lying seems to have expanded her entire head, not just her nose.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 14, 2016 at 05:53 PM
But mostly the booze...
lyle for the win!
Posted by: Buckeye | March 14, 2016 at 05:54 PM
That made LOL, jimmyk!
Taranto, like our host, TM™, reads the NYT so we don't have to and reprints this from the weekend:
Anyone remember this? I don't but then I would rather swallow razor blades than pay attention to that dinner especially with that fraud speaking but James wraps it up with this obiter dictum:
Yep.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 06:01 PM
Its about a math theorem figured out by a young lady in Israel but check out the penultimate paragraph:)
http://www.israelandstuff.com/mit-mathematician-confirms-israeli-10th-grader-postulated-new-geometric-theorem
BTW, as an engineer, I wonder if this means Smoley's has to be revised:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 14, 2016 at 06:09 PM
Took a run to the grocery store today. Saw lots of Trump yard signs, not a single Kasich sign.
Phone has been ringing all day with Kasich volunteers wanting to know if we are planning to vote for JohnnyCakes tomorrow.
Draw your own conclusios.
Posted by: Buckeye | March 14, 2016 at 06:11 PM
JiB
Her theorem is elegant in it's simplicity, but I don't think your Smoley's is at risk.
Remember the last time you referred to it?
Posted by: Buckeye | March 14, 2016 at 06:20 PM
-- but check out the penultimate paragraph --
I see in the commnets that a math dude points out Euclid said pretty much the same thing.
Fraud suit against Trump Foundation in 3...2...1...
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 06:21 PM
iggy
But not when he was 10 years old.:) And it is a different approach to the Euclidian proof. By at least a few degrees.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 14, 2016 at 06:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bsHUPqhAGrk
Posted by: Theo | March 14, 2016 at 06:27 PM
10th grade
Posted by: boris | March 14, 2016 at 06:36 PM
Because everyone hasn't had enough of Corey Lewandowski and Michelle Fields I offer up this link which makes a few claims I hadn't heard before, such as 50 seconds of the audio recording Terris made public was edited out.
And Ben Shapiro comes out looking a little worse for wear too.
Worth reading if you care about this utterly stupid fracas.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 06:48 PM
JiB,
Far be it from me to argue math, geometry or even taking my shoes off for sums over ten with anyone, but the Euclid theorem in the comments sounded like exactly the same thing to me [which shouldn't and doesn't diminish a 10th grader independently thinking like Euclid one bit].
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 06:52 PM
IMO the only chance Trump will not be the nominee is to not win Ohio [assuming Florida is a gimme for him].
He won't win Ohio, Kasich will. I think Illinois is the question - if he wins Florida (agreed, a given) and Illinois, I think it's pretty much over. I know he was last leading in Illinois polls, but I think that's the state that may close for Cruz.
The other thing, about the GOPe wanting to "steal" away the nomination. If Trump is close when they get to Cleveland in July, say within 100 delegates, he should be able to put it over the top on the first ballot. If he can't do that, then yes, everyone else will scramble to find a consensus candidate and vote for the person on the second ballot. That would not be stealing it, that would just be the process. DT has said that whoever has the most delegates going in to the convention should win, because that is "democracy". That's not how the convention (or, come to think of it, the electoral college) works.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 06:54 PM
"Euclid said pretty much the same thing."
In math, 'said' and 'proved' are very different things. Which is not to say that Euclid didn't prove it, I have no idea. She also may have proved it a different way, which also can be valuable.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | March 14, 2016 at 06:55 PM
Kyle - Is your dog a Samoyed?
Posted by: Enlightened | March 14, 2016 at 07:02 PM
I am sorry that Breitbart people seem to be "slimming" each other, but I could care less about Fields and her reported abuses. Enough!! Also, I simply hate Kaisch--imagine that he is going "all out" now for illegal immigration because "God made us all--illegal immigrants, etc." He is pitiful, and I really dislike him and his swarmy smile and pious actions.
Posted by: new lurker | March 14, 2016 at 07:06 PM
hrt-It's the suggestion being floated out there in the last couple of days that the rules committee has the right to "uncommit" all the delegates before the first ballot is taken, thus depriving Trump of the nomination even if he comes in with a majority. That would be stealing it, IMO
Posted by: derwill | March 14, 2016 at 07:10 PM
Kasich likes to talk about meeting St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, a scene which to my limited knowledge isn't even in the Bible. But I believe the inference is certainly that there's a winnowing process in which St. Peter doesn't invite everybody who shows up in.
Posted by: DebinNC | March 14, 2016 at 07:15 PM
American Eskimo, Enlightened. Known as Spitz in Europe. Our boy, Biscuit, is about the smartest dog I've ever been around but very cool about it. :)
BTW, the Spitz is an alpha breed. Samoyeds and Huskies, et al, descended from the Spitz. Post WW II, the AKC would not recognize the breed (I wonder why...) so US breeders changed the name.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 07:16 PM
Good article on Trump and who is to blame for any violence by Marc Thiessen.
I think he overstates Trump's role but he nails the pinkos and manages to give a realistic appraisal of Trump supporters.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | March 14, 2016 at 07:20 PM
Michelle Fields is our JOM Kim Kardashian.
You can try to not know about her, but it's impossible.
(WOW--the JOM spell corrector knows how to spell Kardashian!
See what I mean!)
Posted by: anonamom | March 14, 2016 at 07:23 PM
hrtshpdbox,
That is not how a lot of Trump voters will see it, because many of them are not familiar with convention rules. I understand about second ballots and such, but I think a lot of those enthusiastic supporters don't.
The RNC is playing with fire.
Also, Kasich needs to quit acting like this is a democratic process. If Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, the decision will be made by GOP delegates who are mostly political people from the state GOP's, not some group of average citizens.
The arm twisting, threats, promises and bribes will be enormous.
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 07:26 PM
https://www.ijreview.com/2016/03/559137-ted-cruz-just-got-an-unfortunate-message-from-an-nra-instructor/
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2016 at 07:32 PM
The RNC is playing with fire.
And the know it.
The roof needed to be blown at some point.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2016 at 07:33 PM
...they...
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2016 at 07:33 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/jeb-bush-florida-primary/
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 14, 2016 at 07:36 PM
Well, of course. Zero compares Jawn Effing Kerry to the "original" JFK. Story at PJM if you have the stomach.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Oh, and insert your own punchline...
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 07:44 PM
I think Trump is going to take Ohio.
Basing that on what happened at my house Saturday morning, after hearing what Cruz, Rubio and Kasich had to say about Trump causing violence at his rallies.
"I wish I hadn't early voted, because now I'd vote for Trump."
If Mr. Reasonable feels that way, I am certain a whole lot of Ohioans who were undecided are having thoughts along the same frequencies.
Posted by: anonamom | March 14, 2016 at 07:46 PM
It's the suggestion being floated out there in the last couple of days that the rules committee has the right to "uncommit" all the delegates before the first ballot is taken, thus depriving Trump of the nomination even if he comes in with a majority.
Derwil, that would be outright theft alright. If the GOP deprived him of a fair and square win, it would be a death knell for the party.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 07:49 PM
Kyle - I have had 2 Samoyeds and just a couple weeks ago had to put down my buddy - which has literally broken my husband and my hearts. They look so similar.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 14, 2016 at 07:49 PM
"That's not how the convention (or, come to think of it, the electoral college) works."
He has attended conventions, so I think he knows how it works.
Donald Trump at the 1988 Republican Convention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acpmInqcuH4
Posted by: cheerleader | March 14, 2016 at 08:03 PM
If Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, the decision will be made by GOP delegates who are mostly political people from the state GOP's, not some group of average citizens.
I agree - the decision will be made in the bottle-water filled back rooms. If Trump was a long-time Republican with chits to call in, he'd have a chance on the second ballot. If it does go past the first ballot, man oh man, Katie bar the door, it's gonna be nutso stuff.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:05 PM
"I think Trump is going to take Ohio"
Hope Bernie does too.
Posted by: Skoot | March 14, 2016 at 08:07 PM
He has attended conventions, so I think he knows how it works.
Maybe he's just pretending that he doesn't.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272639-trump-whoever-gets-the-most-delegates-should-win
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:07 PM
hrtshpedbox,
Well, according to the video cheerleader posted above, he's been a Republican since 1988.
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 08:08 PM
Just to clarify, Trump may understand that there is a required delegate count to get it on the first ballot, but he doesn't seem to like that hurdle, saying (from the link), ""If Marco, if the governor, if Ted had more votes than me in the form of delegates, I think whoever gets to that top position as opposed to solving that artificial number that was set by somebody which is a very random number, I think that whoever gets the most delegates should win".
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:11 PM
And, as far as DT's contention that it is a "artificial" or "very random" number that was "set by somebody", the required delegates for nomination is 1237, which is half the total plus one, a simple majority.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:14 PM
Well, according to the video cheerleader posted above, he's been a Republican since 1988.
And he's been using that line about how it's the taxi drivers and the workers who like him, not the rich people. :)
Posted by: jimmyk | March 14, 2016 at 08:15 PM
jimmyk,
Judging from his support, that comment was right.
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 08:17 PM
hrtshpdbox, you can hardly fault Trump for making a self-serving argument. Would you expect him to say "It doesn't matter who has the most delegates"? I'm sure he understands the concept of a majority.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 14, 2016 at 08:18 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432778/donald-trump-republican-loyalty-pledge-candidates-break
Because the National Review has no honor.
I hope they go bankrupt.
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 08:21 PM
I'm sure he understands the concept of a majority.
He doesn't like it, though. When he says, incorrectly, that it's very random and artificial, isn't he signalling that he doesn't have much regard for the convention rules? I suppose we can't fault him for that either, but it does help to set up a potential powder keg (granted, the anti-Trump forces will be doing their part too). I really hope it doesn't come to that, though, I hope he's either way over or way under 1237. The GOP doesn't need that kind of free publicity.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:26 PM
Enlightened, we lost two dogs in 10 months in '15. Still can't really talk about them without my voice cracking. I DREAD the thought of losing Biscuit who is now 11. Kipling knew whereof I speak with his poem, We Give Our Hearts To Dogs To Tear. Sigh.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 08:27 PM
Lyle, I've had one dog in my life, she's sitting next to me on the couch right now. I look at her sometimes and try to fathom that she won't be with me forever, and I fail - I can't wrap my head around it at all.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | March 14, 2016 at 08:32 PM
That is exactly why I have never had a dog. Not up to the likely heartbreak.
Posted by: anonamom | March 14, 2016 at 08:42 PM
Don't read that Kipling poem, hrt.
Understood, anonomom.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 08:46 PM
I'm enjoying this Untruth about Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJZGlC5lXM
I keep forgetting his key "problem"--he's not in need of anyone's money, thus he's not being controlled.
Posted by: anonamom | March 14, 2016 at 08:50 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/embattled-theranos-ceo-to-host-clinton-fundraiser-220740
Of course! It all fits!
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 08:56 PM
I feel the same about having a dog and eventual heartbreak. I don't know how y'all do it - I can barely manage the responsibility of kids. I know I'm missing a lot, though.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2016 at 09:00 PM
Your devotion to your dogs is admirable
JIB
Glad you are home and doing better
Skoot
I hope Bernie wins as well
Posted by: maryrose | March 14, 2016 at 09:00 PM
anonomom
I agree no animals
It is hard to handle the loss
Posted by: maryrose | March 14, 2016 at 09:03 PM
Porch
Enjoyed your posts about little porch
Posted by: maryrose | March 14, 2016 at 09:04 PM
My goodness! What pessimists concerning having a dog. They give the most pleasure and love. You all are missing a lot in life.
Posted by: new lurker | March 14, 2016 at 09:06 PM
Thank you, maryrose.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2016 at 09:09 PM
I know you're right, new lurker. I'm actually one of those unfortunate people who has never had a dog. I wouldn't even know where to start!
Posted by: Porchlight | March 14, 2016 at 09:11 PM
Sees like just yesterday I got my dog, but he is now 6 1/2.
How long do Labradoodles live?
Posted by: Buckeye | March 14, 2016 at 09:17 PM
Buckeye,
Your dog is a year younger than mine.
She's starting to slow down a bit. I dread the day she leaves me, but that is the pain we accept for all of their love.
I remember every dog I have had, going back to Duffy the Irish setter when I was 4. Hunting dogs, Border collies, mutts, loved them all.
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | March 14, 2016 at 09:22 PM
My dog was just the goofiest, silliest, loving, sassiest, disobedient, big ball of white fluff - he wormed his way in deep into our family life and not having him around is so breathtakingly sad - I was not prepared. I know it will get better with time and is still so raw just 2 weeks out, but man oh man - I think I cannot do this again. Like a sledgehammer to the solar plexus.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 14, 2016 at 09:24 PM
Dogs give back 1000% to what we give them. I'm sure we're not on our last one. It's painful to lose them but it's not like whoever posited the dictum of the definition of second marriages: hope over experience.
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 09:24 PM
You need more time, Enlightened. Trust me although I'm certainly not the only JOMer who has lost a dog over the years. I could write a book about Diva who we lost a year ago. But not yet. Maybe never. Already have a huge lump in my throat and watery eyes...
Posted by: lyle | March 14, 2016 at 09:30 PM
" When he says, incorrectly, that it's very random and artificial, isn't he signalling that he doesn't have much regard for the convention rules? "
Seems like he understands very well that in fact there are no fixed rules. So again, I can hardly blame him for advocating for himself. Of course describing 1237 as random and arbitrary is plainly silly, but so what? He wants the nomination, big surprise.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | March 14, 2016 at 09:33 PM
From the last thread: like how the Brit's are all furious that Obama is sticking his nose into their politics and telling them how to vote, yet they never have the slightest qualms about telling us how to vote,
I don't mind them feeling that way because I'm pretty sure they consider Zippy just as much of a pinhead as we do. As far as their advice, I pretty much ignore it but not because they're idiots. If they told Goodell to stop playing football games there I might pay attention.
Enlightened, one of Teddy's girlfriends, Sia, is half Samoyed. My first Airedale, Trane, had good Samoyed friend, Sasha. They always look happy. Very sorry for your loss.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 14, 2016 at 09:36 PM
Sorry to hear that, enlightened.
Posted by: narciso | March 14, 2016 at 09:37 PM
My late wife and I (along with the family) had Schipperkes and Great Danes. In fact over 45 years we had five Schipperkes all named Gittle, and two Great Danes named Queen and Black.
I loved them all even if some of them were beyond being called neurotic. Most were rescued, or unwanted by their owners.
Currently my fiance and I have two 13 year old Bernese Mountain dogs crossed with a Chocolate Lab. The absolute most laid back dogs we have had and three house cats. Plus one neighborhood dog that likes us more then the kids that got her from the rescue center.
Love all animals because they can't vote.
Posted by: Agent J | March 14, 2016 at 09:39 PM
We had a dog when I was a kid, age 5 to 15, and I had dreams about that dog for at least 10 years after he died. I haven't had a dog as an adult, as the missus is opposed to keeping one in a city apartment. But I'm sure we'll have one at some point, when we're empty nesters or retired. Lyle is right about dogs giving 1000% of what they get.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | March 14, 2016 at 09:42 PM