Gingrich: Trump doesn't want to 'drain the swamp' anymore

[INVAR]

But I still have confidence that all of you are going to be pleasantly surprised.

Not likely.  But just as Obama's worshippers are still convinced His Heinous lowered the sea levels and made the world a safer place, so you too will forever be convinced your Prince is just as miraculous and marvelous a Dear Leader as theirs.

Nothing new under the sun from sycophantic groupies in love with a cult of personality.  Nothing matters but their undying adulation.

I already know that nothing will ever change your mind.

Trump has given us no reason to, and neither have any of you rabid militants for him either.

[r9etb]

My argument: If Trump didn't win, then Clinton wins.  Doesn't appear to be imaginary or weak.

No, you were trying to say that a failure to vote for Trump was equivalent to wanting Hillary Clinton to be president.

But hey, if you can't even understand your own strawmen, then no wonder you can't win.

[r9etb]

... listening to the blowhard Newt ...

There's your problem, right there....

[HonestJohn]

Trump supporters were ecstatic when he promised to 'drain the swamp'.

Needless to say, they will be ecstatic that he doesn't want to 'drain the swamp'.

Everything he does is ecstatic to his supporters.

Even the possibility of killing someone on 5th Avenue.  And Trump knows it. 

I just wonder how many years it will be before his supporters realize it.

(I'm pessimistic.  I think they die and only recognize it when judged.  And even then, many will probably choose hell rather than admit error and recant.)

[GrouchoTex]

That's something of a strawman, too.  People voted for Trump for a lot of reasons: voting against Hillary Clinton, for example; or simply out of frustration with the status quo and liberal smugness.  Trump was able to tap into all of this, and surprised a lot of us by winning -- and I suspect people voted for him even knowing that he was bullshitting with a lot of what he said.

There are those who will feel betrayed by the fact that Trump never meant a lot of what he promised.  Reasonable people knew that going in.

Not to rehash the campaign, but Trump used words "I am going to do x-y-z, instead "I am going to try and do x-y-z.

Also "Nobody knows x-y-z- like I do".

These types of statements were usually preceded, or followed by "Believe me".

So you get:

"Believe me, I'm going to do x-y-z-. Nobody knows x-y-z- like I do, that I can tell you".

So now, he's coming out and saying "it was all in fun, right?"

I don't know how many, but there were a lot, that believed him when he would say "believe me".

[mirvin]

No, you were trying to say that a failure to vote for Trump was equivalent to wanting Hillary Clinton to be president.
But hey, if you can't even understand your own strawmen, then no wonder you can't win.

My statement/argument is: If Trump doesn't win, Clinton wins.  I was just using sarcasm to point to this fact.

Would it be better if I used: sardonic on/ xxxx /sardonic off?  Then again I'm not trying to be cynical.... just pointing to the fact. 

Sorry if it offends.

[r9etb]

My statement/argument is: If Trump doesn't win, Clinton wins.  I was just using sarcasm to point to this fact.

Would it be better if I used: sardonic on/ xxxx /sardonic off?  Then again I'm not trying to be cynical.... just pointing to the fact. 

Sorry if it offends.

Sigh.  You're worth no more of my time or attention.

[HonestJohn]

My statement/argument is: If Trump doesn't win, Clinton wins.  I was just using sarcasm to point to this fact.

Would it be better if I used: sardonic on/ xxxx /sardonic off?  Then again I'm not trying to be cynical.... just pointing to the fact. 

Sorry if it offends.

The difference is that, with Clinton... the Democrats would have owned these actions.

Now, the GOP does.

Which is better?

[LMAO]

But I still have confidence that all of you are going to be pleasantly surprised.

@240B

I hope so

[GrouchoTex]

One thing that strikes me as odd, is that when Pelosi took over as speaker of the House during W's term, they were saying the exact same thing, they were going to "Drain the Swamp"

I cringed the first time I heard Trump and his surrogates use the term.

[LMAO]

One thing that strikes me as add, is that when Pelosi took over as speaker of the House during W's term, they were saying the exact same thing, they were going to "Drain the Swamp"

I cringed the first time I heard Trump and his surrogates use the term.

I forgot about that but you are correct. You post brought back the vision of her holding that whip.

[mirvin]

The difference is that, with Clinton... the Democrats would have owned these actions.

Now, the GOP does.

Which is better?

Let me clear up any misunderstandings.  I fully acknowledge that Trump has been a liberal his entire life, and I have very little hope that he has changed his ways. 

That being said, I KNOW Clinton is a liberal and will never change her ways.

It’s a sad time when all I have is ‘hope’, but at least it’s something.  Doing nothing isn’t an option.

As for the GOP question: Do you think the GOP is really that different than the Democrats?  Why vote for anyone in the GOP when there’s virtually no difference?

Hope?

[skeeter]

Rush on this subject

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,238702.0.html

Rush's defense of Trump has become mechanical and reflexive. He completely lacks credibility anymore.

I wonder what it is his pal has promised him...

[INVAR]

Rush's defense of Trump has become mechanical and reflexive. He completely lacks credibility anymore.

Exactly.

His ass-kissing and massaging of Trump's NYC Liberalism has completely gutted his brain and rendered Limbaugh totally irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

I regard him the way I do all apostates:

Poison.

[240B]

"Argument by strawman is also pathetic."

Freepers ban me because I'm a troll because I question Trump.
TBR patrons say I use straw man arguments because the choice was between Trump or Clinton.

Definition of a Straw Man: merriam-webster:  a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

My argument: If Trump didn't win, then Clinton wins.  Doesn't appear to be imaginary or weak.

I guess I can't win.

Maybe I can push "fallacy of false dilemma" next time.  :-)

I have been arguing what you just said on this site for a year. But it is useless. The NeverTrump crowd here, like Liberals, live in a make believe land. They think that we could 'write-in' Ted Cruz or someone?


They do not have a grounding in real reality that you and I have.


They kept saying, "There are more than just two choices!" Yeah sure. In make-believe land.


Bottom line is, forget them. You will never get through to them with stark logic. They reject logic outright and prefer to cling to a wish.

[DCPatriot]

Rush's defense of Trump has become mechanical and reflexive. He completely lacks credibility anymore.

I wonder what it is his pal has promised him...

That's simply not true.

We all know that Rush was pulling for Trump, but he NOT ONCE, ever reported or stated anything in the way of an endorsement, prior to the Convention.

He said TODAY that he 'knew' more than a year ago, that "Trump could possibly win this.....", but as a caller reminded us all today...

Even though we know where Rush's ideology falls, he NEVER lets that sway his conclusions when he states his POV on a matter or event.

IOW, he does what the everyday journalist did, Lord knows, how many eons ago...He REPORTED, without giving away his political leanings.   That's a foreign concept today.

[Cripplecreek]

Maybe we misunderstood.

He meant "Reign" the swamp.

[HonestJohn]

Let me clear up any misunderstandings.  I fully acknowledge that Trump has been a liberal his entire life, and I have very little hope that he has changed his ways. 

That being said, I KNOW Clinton is a liberal and will never change her ways.

It’s a sad time when all I have is ‘hope’, but at least it’s something.  Doing nothing isn’t an option.

As for the GOP question: Do you think the GOP is really that different than the Democrats?  Why vote for anyone in the GOP when there’s virtually no difference?

Hope?

The thing is, this will kill that hope by actively rubbing GOP voters in the steaming pile that is Trump.  This will likely *PROVE*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their fears were correct.

Is that the better choice?

[DCPatriot]

I have been arguing what you just said on this site for a year. But it is useless. The NeverTrump crowd here, like Liberals, live in a make believe land. They think that we could 'write-in' Ted Cruz or someone?


They do not have a grounding in real reality that you and I have.


They kept saying, "There are more than just two choices!" Yeah sure. In make-believe land.


Bottom line is, forget them. You will never get through to them with stark logic. They reject logic outright and prefer to cling to a wish.

Ignore them...the more strident and militant ones.   Nobody gives a damn!

And continue to call out the bullsh*t when you see it passed as something valid.

Rinse.  Repeat.

[240B]

Ignore them...the more strident and militant ones.   Nobody gives a damn!

And continue to call out the bullsh*t when you see it passed as something valid.

Rinse.  Repeat.

I haven't been called a 'TrumpTurd' or a 'Trumpanzee' in more than a week. Maybe they are slipping a little bit.

[Sanguine]

I haven't been called a 'TrumpTurd' or a 'Trumpanzee' in more than a week. Maybe they are slipping a little bit.

Actually, looking through search, the last time that word was used, you were the one who used it:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,238231.msg1169775.html#msg1169775.

[240B]

Actually, looking through search, the last time that word was used, you were the one who used it:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,238231.msg1169775.html#msg1169775.

That is true. Because I loved it. It symbolized my fight. Yeah. you're right. I took the term and pasted it on me. And now I own it.

[INVAR]

Bottom line is, forget them. You will never get through to them with stark logic. They reject logic outright and prefer to cling to a wish.

It used to be just hard-core liberal Leftists that referred to Conservative and Christian principles in that manner.

Now we find that Trump militants are no different in their disdain of those things they once paid lip service to.

[the_doc]

That's simply not true.

We all know that Rush was pulling for Trump, but he NOT ONCE, ever reported or stated anything in the way of an endorsement, prior to the Convention.

He said TODAY that he 'knew' more than a year ago, that "Trump could possibly win this.....", but as a caller reminded us all today...

Even though we know where Rush's ideology falls, he NEVER lets that sway his conclusions when he states his POV on a matter or event.

IOW, he does what the everyday journalist did, Lord knows, how many eons ago...He REPORTED, without giving away his political leanings.   That's a foreign concept today.

I agree with everything in your post except for your first sentence. 

Rush schmoozed over Trump's extremely hard-line positions by saying Trump's stated intentions are just part of his nature as a negotiator.  Rush said, in effect, "That's okay.  It's all in his book The Art of the Deal."

But it ain't okay.  If you read The Art of the Deal thoughtfully, you will discover that Trump is not just a tough negotiator.  He talks about driving hard bargains--which does include making some tactical compromises, of course;  however, once the deals are sealed, Trump ordinarily reneges on them if he believes he can get away with it--having planned all along to CHEAT his contractors and vendors.

I have not listened to Rush since that broadcast.  He was defending a New York liberal for lying all the time.  (Besides, campaigning for office should be mostly about not making deals.  It should primarily be about rock-ribbed integrity.)

(A while back, I warned some of my Trump-oriented colleagues that Trump would not drain the swamp.  I predicted that he would/will surely skim some of the scum off the top, but Trump is a big part of the swamp.  My colleagues have been saddened to see my warnings start coming true.  They have even expressed astonishment at my prescience.  I responded that they got suckered by an expert seducer.  I pointed out that they were just delighting in an over-the-top a-hole [as one Trumper had cheerfully admitted to me during the primaries].  I left unsaid that their own prior enthusiasm for Trump condemns them.  The fact that most of us NeverTrumpers hoped he would beat HRC is beside the point.  I danged sure never voted for him.)

[Machiavelli]

I already know that the die-hard NeverTrumpers are going to jump me for saying this, but I don't care. This does not indicate a betrayal to me. On the contrary, it indicates a man who is serious, and wants to get down to the actual business of doing the job.


Having read the article twice, all I get from this is that Trump is saying that he wants to tone down the rhetoric. He never said that he is no longer interested in reforming D.C. All he said is that the bumper sticker slogans that were used during the campaign have no use in actually getting the job done.