Trump Will Win the Nomination

Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't know if it was posted here or I read it elsewhere, but I read a lengthy article about Trump and the female issue. Specifically it's relevant to issues with Megyn Kelly, Elizabeth Warren, and I think to a lesser degree Michelle Fields. The theory is that Trump never dealt with insecurities from his younger years and as such has major issues with rejection from women. He gets into verbal spars with men, but it doesn't really get under his skin - insofar as he just stands there nonchalantly while other men stammer and try and argue with him and he looks calm and collected (see: all GOP debates). The flip side of this is whenever a woman attacks him he takes it personally and goes to lengths to defend his own position (and perceived "shortcomings" in the eyes of women) instead of maintaining his calm and collected aggressive style. About the only thing that Trump took personal affront to from men in the debates was the whole tiny hands issue implying literal shortcomings in other areas. He lost his cool on that and looked foolish. It gets at the same issue: potential rejection from women.

Warren is bringing out a different Trump than we've seen and it will be interesting to see how Trump handles running against Clinton when they both start throwing haymakers.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I find this speculation to be interesting and there may be something to it. Bet old Sigmund Freud would have a good time with Trump's apparent sublimations. But I bet he could do a number on Hillary too.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Do we know for a fact Warren is not Native American? I don't care nor have I followed the story
Click to expand...

She isn't on the registers. She probably has about as much as or less than I do. The problem is her claiming to be Native American in order to presumably gain an advantage.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't know if it was posted here or I read it elsewhere, but I read a lengthy article about Trump and the female issue. Specifically it's relevant to issues with Megyn Kelly, Elizabeth Warren, and I think to a lesser degree Michelle Fields. The theory is that Trump never dealt with insecurities from his younger years and as such has major issues with rejection from women. He gets into verbal spars with men, but it doesn't really get under his skin - insofar as he just stands there nonchalantly while other men stammer and try and argue with him and he looks calm and collected (see: all GOP debates). The flip side of this is whenever a woman attacks him he takes it personally and goes to lengths to defend his own position (and perceived "shortcomings" in the eyes of women) instead of maintaining his calm and collected aggressive style. About the only thing that Trump took personal affront to from men in the debates was the whole tiny hands issue implying literal shortcomings in other areas. He lost his cool on that and looked foolish. It gets at the same issue: potential rejection from women.

Warren is bringing out a different Trump than we've seen and it will be interesting to see how Trump handles running against Clinton when they both start throwing haymakers.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Trump probably gets mad because he realizes a woman's proper place on her knees drinking the words of his cock and not spouting words of her own, much less words of criticism geared toward him.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Sure, but it wouldn't be hard to find all sorts of unsavory, remote ancestral connections in any person's history. Even if you believe that she believed it, she seemed to have no problem leveraging the fiction to gain an advantage in academia. For all we know, her real family may have been Germans who left for Argentina in 1944 and the other half was in the import-export business in Charleston, South Carolina in the 1700s...but for some reason she decided to play up the fairy tale instead. That's why identity politics is so silly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if the Elizabeth Warren tiny bit part Cherokee story is not true, she looks more dishonest than Butch Davis, and that's quite an accomplishment.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Do we know for a fact Warren is not Native American? I don't care nor have I followed the story
Click to expand...

More to the point, who cares if it is true? If someone has turrible ideas, who cares what their ancestry is?

If it is true, WGAS?

If it is a lie, #whywouldyoulie?
 
tintinisahottie said:
Jesus. Trump only insults women now? Y'all are losing it. The man's an equal opportunity insulter
Click to expand...

"He gets into verbal spars with men, but it doesn't really get under his skin - insofar as he just stands there nonchalantly while other men stammer and try and argue with him and he looks calm and collected (see: all GOP debates). The flip side of this is whenever a woman attacks him he takes it personally and goes to lengths to defend his own position (and perceived "shortcomings" in the eyes of women) instead of maintaining his calm and collected aggressive style."
 
DeaconSig said:
Are her lies better or worse than Trump's lies to get special treatment? Or Cheney's lies to get out of Vietnam?

Politicians lie. They are imperfect people. If people agree with a politician's message, they will put up with lies. If they don't agree with the message, they will use the lies to discredit the politician's message. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

I think all lies are bad. My particular issue with this lie is she had a below avg career before she started claiming native status. This soon got her into prestigious universities and contributed to her getting tenure. In fact Harvard who was getting crap for not being diverse used her as the poster child to combat that claim.

Now I also don't like that this "lie" took spots or help away from the very people she claims to fight for and pontificates to for votes. I hate hypocrites. All hypocrites.

If she always thought she was native because of her family's stories it is dubious at best as the box only started getting checked later in her life.

On top of that when researchers could trace no lineage to this heritage she was presented the opportunity to prove it through blood work etc. She refused. Again I don't blame her for refusing as you have to draw the line somewhere but its hard to respect these people.

I just don't know how this gets so little attention.
 
jhmd2000 said:
More to the point, who cares if it is true? If someone has turrible ideas, who cares what their ancestry is?

If it is true, WGAS?

If it is a lie, #whywouldyoulie?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"He gets into verbal spars with men, but it doesn't really get under his skin - insofar as he just stands there nonchalantly while other men stammer and try and argue with him and he looks calm and collected (see: all GOP debates). The flip side of this is whenever a woman attacks him he takes it personally and goes to lengths to defend his own position (and perceived "shortcomings" in the eyes of women) instead of maintaining his calm and collected aggressive style."
Click to expand...

Can you show an example? I think we are extra sensitive when we see a man joust and go at a woman. I have not seen the nuance you are pointing out. He has been a dick to everyone. I do not want to stand with Trump on his behaviour or his attacks. they are cringe worthy but you can't tell me Warren did not berate him first. Yet nobody bats an eyelash.
 
Deacs89 said:
I think all lies are bad. My particular issue with this lie is she had a below avg career before she started claiming native status. This soon got her into prestigious universities and contributed to her getting tenure. In fact Harvard who was getting crap for not being diverse used her as the poster child to combat that claim.

Now I also don't like that this "lie" took spots or help away from the very people she claims to fight for and pontificates to for votes. I hate hypocrites. All hypocrites.

If she always thought she was native because of her family's stories it is dubious at best as the box only started getting checked later in her life.

On top of that when researchers could trace no lineage to this heritage she was presented the opportunity to prove it through blood work etc. She refused. Again I don't blame her for refusing as you have to draw the line somewhere but its hard to respect these people.

I just don't know how this gets so little attention.
Click to expand...

Which part of her career was below average?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Career
 
Deacs89 said:
Can you show an example? I think we are extra sensitive when we see a man joust and go at a woman. I have not seen the nuance you are pointing out. He has been a dick to everyone. I do not want to stand with Trump on his behaviour or his attacks. they are cringe worthy but you can't tell me Warren did not berate him first. Yet nobody bats an eyelash.
Click to expand...



This is a brutal video and sick to watch but reminds me of the Act like a man get treated like a man.
 
PhDeac said:
Which part of her career was below average?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Career
Click to expand...

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

I would say avg career is a bit of hyperbole but yes relatively speaking the minority status did get her into more prestigious schools and tenure at Harvard which is quite the accomplishment that would not have happened or high probability of not happening had she not misrepresented herself.

But read his link I posted. It pretty much explains it way better than I can.
 
I read the link. I think it's bold to look back and claim she shouldn't have been hired by Harvard given all that she's accomplished.
 
Deacs89 said:
I think all lies are bad. My particular issue with this lie is she had a below avg career before she started claiming native status. This soon got her into prestigious universities and contributed to her getting tenure. In fact Harvard who was getting crap for not being diverse used her as the poster child to combat that claim.

Now I also don't like that this "lie" took spots or help away from the very people she claims to fight for and pontificates to for votes. I hate hypocrites. All hypocrites.

If she always thought she was native because of her family's stories it is dubious at best as the box only started getting checked later in her life.

On top of that when researchers could trace no lineage to this heritage she was presented the opportunity to prove it through blood work etc. She refused. Again I don't blame her for refusing as you have to draw the line somewhere but its hard to respect these people.

I just don't know how this gets so little attention.
Click to expand...

It gets so little attention because what you post as facts, are not facts at all. You sir, are lying about this! I just don't know how that gets so little attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

"Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.

Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.

But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired."
 
Shooshmoo said:
It gets so little attention because what you post as facts, are not facts at all. You sir, are lying about this! I just don't know how that gets so little attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

"Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.

Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.

But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired."
Click to expand...

lol whatever. I like your blog for your fact checking. Once again I am proven to be stupid.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Evidence of that -- not from a pretend wiki source that is actually a conservative law blog?
Click to expand...

lol Hard to get liberal news sources to cover this. Any news sources you will take as evidence? MSNBC ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top