Posted on 03/12/2016 9:24:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Just about the time I was getting ready to write this column, news broke from Chicago that a Trump rally was canceled because of threats.
Not surprising, I thought. Sad, but not surprising.
Welcome to the 2016 election.
I'm not a Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination. If you've been reading my columns, I've been quite critical of his unwillingness or inability to speak in specifics on important policy issues. I sympathize with conservatives who oppose him from a policy angle.
But what happened in Chicago is different.
It was portrayed as a protest specifically against Donald Trump, but these self-entitled progressive monsters would've eventually gone after whoever the Republican candidate with the most delegates was because it's what they do - they try to suppress, then oppress, anyone who dares to says anything their feeble minds deem unacceptable.
Granted, Trump hasn't helped the political atmosphere - there isn't anyone in the race, Democrat or Republican, he hasn't called some pejorative term. But it used to be the words that didn't hurt you, it was the "sticks and stones" you had to look out for. Now progressive Democrats use sticks and stones (and fists) to combat words they don't like.
But then, the Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party of yesterday. Media progressives love to claim Ronald Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination in 2016, the implication being the party has moved so far to the right he simply wouldn't be acceptable to these "extremists." It's a lie, but lying is what progressives do.
Reagan would be far more acceptable to Republicans today than John F. Kennedy would be to Democrats....
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I have to ask, why is Trump the only candidate on the planet that is required to speak in specifics? Cruz doesn’t, Rubio, doesn’t, Hillary certainly doesn’t, Bernie doesn’t
But I here the same false claim that Trump is required to speak in specifics
I commend this guy for being able to separate his dislike of Trump from his emotions. Good article.
If Ted Cruz and the others would have said something like this instead of jumping on board with the leftwing attack angle, they would be earning support right now instead of scorn.
Trump has provided more specifics than Cruz or Rubio. He has published positions.
A pundit gets it! Yippee!
Good article. Too bad Ted Cruz didn’t write it.
I know he does, everything he proposes is right there under our noses. But the media always says he is never “specific”
But I don’t understand why they say he needs to talk that way
Ever listen to Rubio or Cruz, they don’t talk in specifics, they talk in political speak, which is not specific at all
Neither democrats, republicans, or the media would have ever considered calling Trump a racist before. They had no problems asking for his money or having photos taken with him.
Now that he’s threatening their hold on politics, they’re trying to label him a racist? I guess they were liars for all those years.
Well, somebody gets it.
You are on the money to ask that question.
Excellent.
Don’t expect an answer anytime to soon.
Maybe it’s because politicians don’t speak Business. It’s a foreign language that requires interpreters, akin to Basque, AKA, code.
Being part Basque and at one time a very unenthusiastic student of the language, I have to comment.
Basque is not code, though it was used by code talkers. No, Basque is the closest thing we have to the language of the inhabitants of the third planet of Alpha Centauri.
“It’s got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it’s got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It’s a model made before catalytic converters so it’ll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?”
He certainly does speak business. But no one else speaks in “specifics” what we hear from Cruz, Rubio, Hillary or Bernie is not “specifics” but political speak, which is nonsense. It is the ability to speak a lot words without saying anything. Obama is a master at this as well
Yes it is. This is from Wikipedia on the 1876 Presidential election.
The Democratic strategy for victory in the south was highly reliant on paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts and the White League. Using the strategy of the Mississippi Plan, these groups actively suppressed black and white Republican voter turnouts by disrupting meetings and rallies and even using violence and intimidation.
No change.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
I don’t think Trump caused the riots. There are disruptors all over.
That being said, Trump’s incendiary comments don’t help.
“Reagan would be far more acceptable to Republicans today than John F. Kennedy would be to Democrats....”
Reagan spoke in Outcomes that mattered & drove hard. Example: “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall!”.
JFK spoke in Policy terms: “It shall be the policy of this nation... (Cuban Crisis) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Ui8175D8E
Obama took a leaf out of Reagan’s speech, initially during 2007-2008 - spoke in Outcomes, and drove it hard too - (”Argue with Neighbors, Get in their face”) - #16 in this thread.
Trump mostly speaks in Outcomes too (very intense).
Other candidates speak mostly in Policy (Cruz too) - comparatively soft.
Outcome-speak is a Trump advantage with (his) voters; Outcome means “specifics”.
All the above to be viewed in context and in today’s social and political climate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.