politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: We finally know who Drudge is for
Source:
DrudgeReport, current headline
URL Source: http://drudgereport.com/
Published: Apr 10, 2016
Author: Matt Drudge
Post Date: 2016-04-10 17:20:06 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 12216
Comments: 55
Poster Comment: I can't recall Drudge ever taking sides quite like this in a primary or an election. The bias has been pretty evident for some time but Drudge may as well slap a Trump 2016 logo on his website. Of course, the Bloomberg article he points to makes no such editorial opinion. 
NO PRIMARY, NO CAUCUS: CRUZ GETS ALL DELEGATES
VOTERS NOT NEEDED
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-7) not displayed.
.
.
.
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
Nevertheless, it is a clear indication of not just bias, but a mission statement from the highest levels of the Colorado GOP. Of course they are now trying to distance themselves from it, but it is clear that at least some folks high in their organization were so thrilled with their successful cheating that they could not contain themselves. Folks that have access to their official social media accounts, with the passwords and all, no doubt had access to many other areas while the delegate selection was occurring. It was a rigged farce.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"Given his behavior, I think there was probably good reason to remove him. He seems past his best-by date. " So is this like the National Review editorial stating that folks like him should "just go and die"? "I'm wondering if we'll find out what he did to get thrown off the delegation and replaced" He was thrown out because he was known to support Trump. And the first video that he posted did not have a Party official stating that he had been removed for some alleged violation. They told him that he was not a registered Republican, even though he had been so for years.
Oh, come on. Not everyone is so incompetent as to tweet out, "Gee, we just stole a state delegation". In truth, all the Colorado GOP procedures were followed and will withstand public scrutiny. Let Trump try to sue.
In truth, all the Colorado GOP procedures were followed and will withstand public scrutiny. LOL, this is the same Party that had no shame in having Boenher pass Rule 40 by voice vote in the last National Convention with the "results" showing on his teleprompter before he had even called for the vote. It isn't necessarily incompetence. They might actually wish for the rubes to be aware that they have no real say in what the Party does.
Roger Stone must have made Drudge an offer he couldn't refuse. How do we know that any of what he is alleging is true at all? Let's see his identification, see his name on the local lists for delegates, find out if he ever was part of the official delegation he claims was part of, find out if he ever was slated to be a delegate to the state convention as he claims. You might want to look over the old guy's YouBoob channel.
That's a good portrait of Angry Old Trump Guy. Have you ever noticed that every time Cruz beats Trump like a rug, especially when he did it just by showing up and giving some speeches or not skipping the Iowa debate (which Trump did over Megyn Kelly spurting her blood at him or something), Trump or his minions all start screaming that Cruz was cheating. "It's just not fair that that Lyin' Ted is winning delegates to the convention at the district/county/CD/state conventions just like every other national GOP candidate has done for well over a century. He's cheatin'!" Every. Time. Because, apparently, Trump simply cannot lose. He can be cheated of victory but no one can ever beat him. Oh, no. Because he's a total winner. And his creepy cult followers just gobble up this nonsense and sour grapes like a bunch of Scientology freaks. Looking at Angry Old Guy's YouBoob channel, I see he was uploading a video that alleged the Ron Paul delegates were stolen from him at the 2012 convention. Now, whether that is true or not is immaterial (it probably was). However, if you're posting that kind of stuff on YouBoob and talking about it to people, you are never going to get on the delegate list for the convention, which is a very hot ticket in party activist circles in every state this year.
If you believe that the Ruling Class of the GOP has been "just following the rules", you are delusional. They have been cheating, and doing so quite openly, for years.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention! Drudge has always opposed corruption.
As one of many fronts.
Whats your point? They still said it dumb ass.
You are past expired intellectually. If you ever had any at all.
You're always reliable for truth.
Whoever gets the most votes should get the most delegates. Unless you don't believe in a representative Republic. Which you obviously don't with your hard on for Cruz. You're like a Soviet.
Oh bullshit you are lying and spinning again for establishment prick Cruz. You cruz munchkins aren't an honest bunch.
Not true at all. The GOP is a collection of 50+ state parties. It is always possible in every state for the winner to collect less than a majority because every state/territory has at least three delegates who are state party honchos, like the state chairman. So if you have a state where Trump wins 20 delegates and Cruz wins 19, Cruz can still walk away with 22 delegates because he got the support of the 3 state party honchos, maybe because Cruz actually visited the state, gave speeches, built up some grassroots organization, helped them raise funds for state GOP candidates, etc. Trump doesn't seem to understand this at all. He thinks campaigning is flying around and giving speeches where he bloviates about his polls and building walls that he'll force some other country to pay for. Why should they pay for it? Well, because. And to pay for that wall, he wants to steal the money of legal residents of America, many of them citizens, who send money back home to Mexico to support aging parents or grandparents who still live there. Anyway, it isn't the GOP's fault if Trump refuses to learn the rules and play by them. It's Trump's fault. He's just too damned cheap and lazy to build up his campaign organization out in the states. It's not even that it would cost that much since Trump has plenty of people willing to volunteer, run campaign offices, man phone banks, etc. As I've said before, Trump is entirely to blame for this situation. Not his supporters, not the GOP. Trump is to blame. And the GOP is not just a platform for some blowhard billionaire to seek office with. If you want the GOP nomination, you play by GOP rules. And you don't threaten riots like some bunch of thuggish SJWs if you don't get your way after you refuse to do your homework and build a credible national campaign organization.
But this is just it: Cruz can't win. Sure, he may succeed in blocking Trump from the nomination, but all that means is that the Democrat wins in a landslide. Will YOU vote for Cruz or the rest of the Republicans if they steal the nomination from Trump? Of course you won't! I spent the weekend in Virginia, and spoke with a few people. They have misgivings about Trump. They wish he would get his mouth and Tweets under control. They worry that Trump is blowing it. But they find Cruz to be dark and dishonest - "Nixonian" was the term one used - and all four of them said they would not vote for him. None of these people were completely sold on Trump. Two had come to accept the idea of Trump, All were old Jeb! or Rubio guys who still hoped that Kasich or somebody would somehow emerge. All know he won't. They've made peace with Trump, but they flat out will not vote for Cruz. So what "victory" will Cruz have? If he blocks Trump, he will have handed the country over to Hillary. All of them prefer Trump over Hillary. All of them prefer Hillary over Cruz. That's what's going to happen if Cruz manages to steal the nomination: Hillary will win. Cruz supporters say the same thing about Trump, but none of these guys - Jebsters and Kasich - agree. They WILL vote for Trump...with concerns, with a lot of doubt, with worries about his readiness for the job...but they flat out despise Cruz and won't vote for him at all, no matter what. That, writ large, is the future of the country. The party can coalesce nervously around Donald Trump. It cannot around Cruz.
Or they're just humoring you, a Trump fanatic.
In other words: Vote Hillary! THAT'LL show those damned Trumpkins!
Well, she's a much closer match to Ted than Donald.
Nope. Not these folks. They are very nervous about Trump, never thought he'd go anywhere, think Trump is a mistake...not ready for prime time...but think that Cruz is a dark Nixonian asshole for whom they will never, ever vote. Given the choice between a brash New York guy with a lot of money and too much mouth, and an asshole from Texas who has made his contempt for the party known over and over again by his behavior in government, these people still break for Jeb! or Rubio, now Kasich, in their hearts. But their heads let them accept Trump like one of those afternoon Southern thunderstorms that comes through. Cruz is somebody they really have hated for a long time. They've seen him in government, seen what a nasty piece of work he is, and would rather Hillary have power than him. They'll vote for Trump - unenthusiastically, with a ton of reservations...like I voted for Romney - but they'll never, ever vote for Cruz. They know him. And they hate him.
There is one key difference: her own party does not hate her. They don't love her either, most of them, but they don't despise her. Republican pols really despise Cruz, because he has treated them despicably. And they know that if they hand him full power in the party, he will treat them more despicably. A Cruz nomination means President Hillary, and a Democrat Supreme Court, and rapid, unstoppable constitutional change afterwards as complete and as permanent as FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.
No. That is precisely your backup plan if your man-crush isn't the nominee. You can't deny it. You've posted this numerous times. You merely accuse others of planning to do that which you have already explicitly promised you would do. And you wonder why you have no credibility. And, yes, considering what I see here of you, I do think there is potential for people humoring you as a Trump fanatic, just saying things you want to hear to shut you up.
There's one more I can think of. Hillary hasn't supported a Con Con to replace our Constitution. Unlike Cruz, she would be satisfied with destroying it piecemeal.
Looking at Drudge this morning, his bias is even more evident. Apparently, he's Trump's new campaign spokesman. I've never seen such dishonest headlines and retitling from Drudge before. It's like reading Pravda.
Here is what you don't understand geezer. You're an asshole. I don't care what you think. In fact if the nomination is stolen from Trump. You will be one of the first people I ban. It will be a different site then and establishment pricks such as yourself will not be welcome.
I've never seen such concentrated irony
I think you've banned plenty of people over the years. So I can't be all that special after all.
You're a legend in your own mind. And only your own mind.
Actually the ban list is quite small.
One news outlet for Trump. 947 news outlets against. That's not fair! "I can't recall Drudge ever taking sides quite like this in a primary or an election." Taking sides??? He headlined the truth. The Colorado GOP bypassed the voters and selected not-Trump. You're just upset that the light was shined on your backroom shenanigans.
Actually the ban list is quite small. I predict the list will be much longer if you don't get your way and Trump is not nominated In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Read the mission statement: he says that he doesn't ban people for expressing POLITICAL viewpoints, and that's what I do. So I don't get banned or even threatened with it. Do the guys who get banned do that? Or do they engage in flame wars and dishonesty? The site header says: "This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand." That's truth in advertising right there. I'm still here, aren't I? I think you don't get banned here for having an opinion. I think to get banned you have to actually BE obnoxious - and that's a different thing. Example: If Bernie Sanders posted here, I think Stone would yell at him a lot for being a doofus, but Sanders would never get banned.
Only because the member list is so small. Many members have died or moved on. Some others registered and never posted, others posted once or twice and disappeared. And of course you have some that are zombie accounts for banned posters. Also people on other forums who fear they are about to get banned are likely to have accounts here as a fallback. I had an LP account because I feared getting banned at TOS and I got an account here because I thought it was possible Goldi would ban me from LP. Others, like ConservingFreedom, got an account here only after getting axed at TOS. We can see that your forum has only ever had 883 assigned members. The last three are: #880 Naglfarni: 0 posts But since LF pinglists actually occupy some of those member slots (much like Cruz supporters occupying Trump delegate slots, LOL), then there have not been 882 actual members here. At present, there are ~32 pinglists and I know from experience that you shitcanned a ton of them. For instance, referring back to my Sent Mail here, I see I mentioned the 51 pinglists that WhiteSands alone had started. I'm sure you recall my obsession with those pinglists and the infamous Pinglist #0 forum bug. : ) At any rate, it is not difficult to determine via archive.org that on 2/16/2013, there were 110 pinglists here. So: 882 members - 110 pinglists = 772 actual members which is the maximum that could ever have registered and posted here (barring database tricks only Neil could do). For various reasons, some member numbers have never been assigned at all so the total is almost certainly a bit less than 772, probably close to 750. I would say you've had a few posters more die off than you've ever banned. A surprising number of the members have never posted at all, just as there were a surprising number of pinglists both at LP and here at LF which no one had ever used to ping people with. (White Sands was the big offender really as you recall from your cleanup of the pinglists.) I think you've banned 5%-10% of all the members that have ever registered here. But that's just my informed guesstimate, gathered from observing certain things that only someone very familiar with Pinguinite would notice. And you do know that I am quite familiar with the Pinguinite forum code and database structure.
Good Lord, do I have to explain to you why popular speech needs no protection? We have the First Amendment to protect controversial and, yes, obnoxious speech. The classic example is the right of Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, IL. (BTW, that march never did happen but they did have the right to march there after a court case).
I bozoed TooConservative yesterday. If one supports one, like cruz, who refuses to prove he is not even legally in the USA, I will not read his dribble, nor waste the time discussing his hatred for the Republic. `eth yalad `eth muwth.
Of course! You need to explain EVERYTHING to me, in great detail. And because I'm thick (you said so) please remember to TYPE SLOWLY when you do - otherwise I might not understand. So there are not many of us? I'm not reaching tens of thousands of minds with my scintillating prose? Well, that's just terrible. I guess that makes us we few...we happy few...we band of brothers...
Are there more than 20 active members here? I've never bothered to script up a little program to count them for me. I'd say 30, tops. Maybe a few dozen more that post maybe once a month or so.
now that the tweet has gone viral, the Colorado GOP is claiming "we wuz hacked." Says here the tweet was deleted "immediately": Whats your point? That it's not true, as was implied, that the CO GOP sat on its hands until the tweet went viral.; A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Comments (49 - 55) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSays here the tweet was deleted "immediately"
#9. To: TooConservative (#6)
yelling at clouds
#10. To: TooConservative (#6)
#11. To: Orthodoxa (#8)
Of course they are now trying to distance themselves from it, but it is clear that at least some folks high in their organization were so thrilled with their successful cheating that they could not contain themselves.
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
Oh, come on. Not everyone is so incompetent as to tweet out, "Gee, we just stole a state delegation".
#13. To: TooConservative (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#14. To: Orthodoxa (#10)
And the first video that he posted did not have a Party official stating that he had been removed for some alleged violation. They told him that he was not a registered Republican, even though he had been so for years.
#15. To: ConservingFreedom, Orthodoxa (#9)
(Edited)
#16. To: TooConservative (#15)
#17. To: Orthodoxa, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#16)
They have been cheating, and doing so quite openly, for years.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#18. To: TooConservative (#0)
#19. To: TooConservative (#11)
Let Trump try to sue.
#20. To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
Says here the tweet was deleted "immediately"
#21. To: TooConservative (#6)
He seems past his best-by date.
#22. To: Orthodoxa (#10)
#23. To: TooConservative (#15)
Have you ever noticed that every time Cruz beats Trump like a rug,
#24. To: TooConservative (#7)
I think they may have been hacked.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Whoever gets the most votes should get the most delegates. Unless you don't believe in a representative Republic. Which you obviously don't with your hard on for Cruz. You're like a Soviet.
#26. To: Orthodoxa (#3)
Win with crooked legalistic tricks when you cannot convince people to vote for you.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
Cruz supporters say the same thing about Trump, but none of these guys - Jebsters and Kasich - agree. They WILL vote for Trump...with concerns, with a lot of doubt, with worries about his readiness for the job...but they flat out despise Cruz and won't vote for him at all, no matter what.
#28. To: TooConservative (#25)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
In other words: Vote Hillary! THAT'LL show those damned Trumpkins!
#30. To: TooConservative (#27)
Or they're just humoring you, a Trump fanatic.
#31. To: Roscoe (#29)
Well, she's a much closer match to Ted than Donald.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
In other words: Vote Hillary! THAT'LL show those damned Trumpkins!
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
There is one key difference:
#34. To: All (#0)
#35. To: TooConservative (#25)
Trump doesn't seem to understand this at all.
#36. To: TooConservative (#34)
I've never seen such dishonest headlines
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
You will be one of the first people I ban.
#38. To: TooConservative (#37)
So I can't be all that special after all.
#39. To: TooConservative (#37)
#40. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
"We finally know who Drudge is for"
#41. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#39)
(Edited)
In fact if the nomination is stolen from Trump. You will be one of the first people I ban.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#42. To: TooConservative (#37)
I think you've banned plenty of people over the years.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Actually the ban list is quite small.
#881 Gnarl: 1 post (3/30/16 to Vicomte)
#882 Inajeep: 0 posts
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
I think you don't get banned here for having an opinion. I think to get banned you have to actually BE obnoxious - and that's a different thing.
#45. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#41)
#46. To: TooConservative (#44)
Good Lord, do I have to explain to you why popular speech needs no protection?
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
So there are not many of us? I'm not reaching tens of thousands of minds with my scintillating prose? Well, that's just terrible.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#20)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]