Trump tramples intelligence of supporters

Donald Trump is so confident of the loyalty of his supporters that he recently boasted, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” 

He delivered his crass message at a weekend campaign rally in Sioux Center, Iowa. The Feb. 1 Iowa caucus is less than a week away, making the timing of hurling insulting comments at his base all the more odd.  Though the caucus is widely regarded as crucial to the 2016 presidential race, this list of previous winners exposes the fallacy of it as an accurate predictor of future White House occupants.

At stake are 30 Republican and 52 Democrat delegates.


22 Responses to Trump tramples intelligence of supporters

  1. LD 23 PC says:

    Trump couldn’t be more clear in saying he considers his supporters sheeple. Not a very complimentary description.

    • Cold Warrior says:

      Please see my comment below which provides evidence of how the Malignant Media took the comment out of context. What is disappointing is how some “Cocktail Conservatives” — who are not actually “in” our Party but just write about it — then take the out-of-context remarks delivered to them by the Malignant Media and then, either knowingly or unknowingly, spread the Big Lie. “Reporters” are supposed to report all the facts, objectively, and not take things out of context.
      Thank you.

      • azgary says:

        “cocktail conservatives” how appropriate a descriptor:

        a frigid January evening in 2009, a week before his Inauguration, Barack Obama had dinner at the home of George Will, the Washington Post columnist, who had assembled a number of right-leaning journalists to meet the President-elect.

        Obama sprang coatless from his limousine and headed up the steps of Will’s yellow clapboard house. He was greeted by Will, Michael Barone, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Lawrence Kudlow, Rich Lowry, and Peggy Noonan. They were Reaganites all, yet some had paid tribute to Obama during the campaign. Lowry, who is the editor of the National Review, called Obama “the only presidential candidate from either party about whom there is a palpable excitement.” Krauthammer, an intellectual and ornery voice on Fox News and in the pages of the Washington Post, had written that Obama would be “a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin,” who would “bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.” And Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and a former aide to Dan Quayle, wrote, “I look forward to Obama’s inauguration with a surprising degree of hope and good cheer.”

      • Doc says:

        From Rush Limbaugh via The BLAZE:

        …I believe the defense RESTS, gentlemen. I hereby refer to my post below. Do I want a guy who’s chummy with chucky? UUuuummmmm…nope. I Do Not. Deals, schlemeals..I think I’ll pass on deal making with pelosi & schumer, Thanks.

  2. Sally Forth says:

    In 1983 Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards was steeped in legal tangles but remained popular. He was so confident of victory that he said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.” He won, though he later ended up spending time in prison.

  3. Doc says:

    Mr. Trump, upon review…SCARES THE LIVIN’ (POOP) OUTTA’ ME!!! If he wins the nomination, the “deal making” (a.k.a. “mavericky-ness”) shall continue. I personally don’t want a “deal maker”. I want a President who Honors, Believes, Supports, & Defends the Constitution. I mean, while this may be a “popularity contest”, do I want THAT guy?

    …nope. I already sed what I want.

  4. azgary says:

    its a joke, perhaps watching the video would help the context, he was talking about polls showing his supporters being by far the most loyal to him as a candidate.

    sheesh, pull the lump of coal out of yer azzes.


    very much dishonesty by omission here sraz

    but this, that fastracking obamatrade vote and amendment really paid of for ol’Amnesty Ted:

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Attorney Heads Pro-Cruz, Anti-Trump Super PAC…

    This is one of those ah-ha moments when several political variables seem to reconcile simultaneously. For those who doubted the Earlier Tripwire, here’s the evidence.

    There is a Super-PAC called “Stand for Truth” registered out of Lexington Kentucky headed by a guy named Eric Lycan. [Here’s the link – search box “Stand for Truth”]

    Mr. Eric Lycan was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s lawyer during his re-election campaign against Matt Bevin. Lycan also has deep tentacles within the entire GOPe apparatus, including the Chamber of Commerce.You can confirm identity from the filing paperwork and the reported contact information which is the same as THIS LINK to the Dinsmore legal group.

    Link for FEC Filing [Again search box “Stand for Truth”]
    Link to Dinsmore Group Bio

    So obviously Eric Lycan is a deep insider within GOPe circles:

    He’s represented, and/or is representing, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
    He also represents clients to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Tom Donohue connection).
    He’s a member of the National Republican Lawyers Board of Governors.
    He was the Kentucky Chairman, Lawyers for Romney in 2012.
    There’s no questioning his GOPe bona fides. However, here’s where things get really interesting.

    Given his curriculum vitae and the direct connection to Mitch McConnell you might not expect to see this:

    It’s a pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC. The filing above also shows they spent $42,000 to create digital advertising for Ted Cruz, and…

    …..wait for it…

    ….. spent $192,594.00 for “RADIO ADVERTISING”.

    It makes a person wonder which radio broadcasters might have picked up some of that Pro-Ted Cruz advertising money?

    …and maybe that explains why THIS seemed to have struck such a nerve.

    marklevinshow Have you taken any advertising $$ from SRCP Media? — TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) January 26, 2016.

    But wait, it gets better….

    Eric Lycan’s “Stand for Truth” Super-PAC is not only Pro-Cruz, it is also Anti-Donald Trump. Producing and paying for airing of negative ads in Iowa against Candidate Donald Trump (examples found here):

    The filing above exhibits spending of $150,000 for negative digital ads in opposition to Donald Trump and $15,750.00 in production costs for the same.

    And this is NO SMALL SUPER-PAC, they are spending $2,251,345.00 They are putting out a lot of money. More money than would come from small donors etc.

    But again, big picture, why would a Mitch McConnell aligned type of DC insider, with strong connections to the U.S. CoC, be spending millions to support Ted Cruz and spend millions against Donald Trump?

    These FACTS, not suppositions, FACTS, blow the “outsider Cruz” narrative a bit, no? These FACTS also seem to run exactly opposite of this Ted Cruz presentation of his relationship with Mitch McConnell, no?

    Exactly the opposite seems to be going on. A DC PAC pro-Cruz and anti-Trump, has the very distinct odor of yet another Cruz-like quid-pro-quo (TPA maybe).

    • Sgt. Preston, says:

      Sally Forth’s reminder of Gov. Edwin Edward’s comment is apropos. It was a “joke” too, but he meant it, exactly as Trump does.

      I lived in Metairie, Louisiana in Jefferson Parish at the time and remember Edward’s comment well. He was a popular and funny guy, and knew the best humor is based in truth. When he ran his last election for governor against KKK Klansman David Duke, there were bumper stickers on cars all over the state that read, “Vote for the crook, it’s important.” Edwards WON!

  5. Kent says:

    Donald Trump knows his hard core base better than I do, but he obviously doesn’t’ hold them in the highest of regard. I’m sending this link to my brother-in-law in Ames, Iowa. He’s a committed Trump supporter who works in law enforcement. I’ll be interested in his response.

  6. Saguaro Sam says:

    A new book set to hit the shelves on Feb 16 by Roger Stone regarding the Bush family.

    In it, the author reveals information from several sources regarding Jeb and cocaine, and even implicates GW.

    And it is not about youthful indiscretions. It talks about Jeb using in the FL Gov. mansion and also at GHWB’s residence at the US Naval Observatory in DC when the patriarch was Vice Prez.

    Surely Jebby’s Mommy will ride to the rescue.

    • Conservative Since Birth says:

      I’m looking forward to that book. Roger Stone has been “on the inside” since Ronald Reagan first came onto the political scene in the 1960s.

  7. Cold Warrior says:

    Funny how virtually all of those opposed to Trump left out the preface to his comments, which clearly shows that he was not saying “I could” but, rather, that “they say I could . . . .”

    You can see the full context of his statement here:

    Mr. Trump said, “… My people are so smart. And you know what else they say about my people? – The polls. They say, ‘I have the most loyal people’. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, Okay? It’s like incredible!”

    “They say I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” is a wee bit different than “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody,” no? Or, perhaps, completely different?

    Thank you.

    • Braveheart says:

      If this is all being over hyped and his words pulled out of context, why is Donald Trump holding his fingers to replicate a gun being fired? Where is his clarification of his own words? They might be out there, but I missed them.

      • Cold Warrior says:

        What difference does it make if he used hand gestures?
        The five second video clip the Malignant Media (and then “Cocktail Conservative” writers) circulated, and which this web site has now also circulated, takes his words out of context. Period.
        That’s not “reporting” objective facts in context.
        Its effect is political propaganda.
        “They say I could . . .” is completely different than “I could . . . .”
        In my opinion.
        Trump does not have to clarify anything. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to ask him to clarify. His remarks were clear if one watched the entire remarks. He was saying that someone else was saying that, regarding the level of support from his supporters, that he could . . . .” He wasn’t saying it, he was repeating what he had heard “they” were saying.
        Thank you.

  8. Conservative Since Birth says:

    My two cents is this column by a liberal Republican, Jonah Goldberg, who works for National Review Online. Seems the GOP is always “cracked up” over one thing or another.

    How Trump triggered the conservative crackup | New York Post

  9. Saguaro Sam says:

    And now HIllary Clinton is saying that BH Obama would be a great choice for the US Supreme Court..

    And just two weeks ago, it was published in several outlets that Obama was making phone calls to world leaders in an attempt to be named the next Secretary General of the United Nations—a post that will be vacated later this year.

    Maybe Obama could do both jobs, in between vacations.
    In the mind of a narcissist, all things are possible.

  10. azgary says:

    Arpiao Endorses the next President of the United States of America Donald J. Trump.

  11. Saguaro Sam says:

    By now, you know that Trump has decided to not be present at the debate to be hosted by FOX.

    And now this has been disclosed, regarding the previous debate hosted by FOXsters Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace:
    They planned “zingers” to get under Trump’s skin and had an active plan to have him physically removed from the stage. Bret Baier even had his speech planned.

    Here’s the story:

    And this:
    Un-American Bernie Sanders has been summoned to meet with Obama in the Oval Office next Monday. As per usual, the meeting is closed to the press. Also disclosed is that Obama will then immediately meet Biden for lunch.

    Dangerous times. Uncharted waters.
    Man the lifeboats.

    • Doc says:

      My prediction…obasturd’s gonna’ use th’ aforementioned “Chicago Politics” method on th’ burnster. He’ll stay in th’ game (per obastrud’s orders) for posterity, ‘cuz shillary’s GONNA’ BE INDICTED, then jack-@$$-joe’s gonna’ “jump-in” & ‘save th’ white-crib’ for th’ dim-0-craps.

      • Conservative Since Birth says:

        I’m for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that will rid us of Hillary Clinton. I just hope this doesn’t put a Democrat in the White House this year.