Tag: 2016

Trumper Tantrums

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

He just couldn’t do it.

It betrays the dignity of a person’s manhood to be as insecure as one Donald Trump.

Earlier today he took to Twitter. (Something I would advise his staff to back away from immediately.) The tone, tactic, and general topics of what he tweets tends towards the inane.

He wants to be the leader of the free world but talks in tweets at a 3rd grade level.

Fresh off using Sarah Palin’s endorsement, gaining the SNL parodied cold open from it, and referring to Glenn Beck as a crying fool, he decided to return his sights to Megyn Kelly who will be one of the moderators this coming Thursday at the final debate before Iowa votes (and he will in all likelihood lose his very first test–after bragging about how he only wins:)

image

Fox News responded calling him out as more or less a media con man attempting to boost his own ratings–so they thanked him. (Genius!)

But a thought crossed my mind in the process…

Not only does the man barely embody behavior that would emulate the dignity of being a President, but how can he stake a claim to being ready to take on the fierce enemies around the world when he whines to Roger Ailes about Megyn Kelly being too mean?

Seriously it’s almost like he’s acting like he can’t possibly BE the commander in chief and he’s just daring the voters to stop him…

image

One more week and Iowans will prove someone right… But who… That remains the question.

The Pact With Palin

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

By the time it actually became news today it was already old.

Sarah Palin was going to endorse Trump.

Listeners to talk radio in New York were calling the Joe Piscopo Show during morning drive convinced it was going to happen.

On my way to the airport in NYC I heard news reports of a private plane leaving Anchorage and heading to Des Moines.

By midday a snarky Cruz staffer had posted a picture on Twitter that supposedly insulted Palin. The picture was Governor Palin standing next to Ted Cruz and the caption read “she knows how to pick winners.”

For some reason Bristol Palin took umbrage to it and went directly to her blog at Patheos and barked out a post about how mean Cruz was and she hoped her mom endorsed Trump just to spite him.

Very dignified Bristol, very dignified.

Then sometime between my take off in NYC and my connection in Phoenix Sarah Palin made it official, she’s throwing in with the Donald.

What he’s promised her, what it holds for her future, nobody knows, but Donald Trump believes he’s taken the final card out of the deck.

To in essence take a mentor of Cruz and to make her betray him, in Donald’s world, this is something he admires.

Color me unimpressed. Unimpressed with the Donald anyway.

Though these formerly conservative women do have me perplexed.

Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, and now Sarah Palin, I used to hold all of them in high regard.

I used to admire them for their unswerving devotion to truth, principle, and good.

I used to ponder how they found the courage to stand in the face of such reprehensible onslaught from the left for the duration of their careers.

But I guess truth doesn’t rank as high for them as it once did, principle is relegated to a sideshow, and truth?

How can they truthfully say that they are willing to fight the good fight and be used like pawns by one of the least principled men to ever rise?

Donald Trump might well become President, he might honestly believe the things he claims he does now. But for women who have spent their public lives and careers noting the inconsistencies of liberals, it seems that they are having a hard time recognizing one right in front of them.

So Ann, Sarah and Phyllis answer me these questions:

  1. Are you no longer pro-life?
  2. How can you support a candidate whose record on it is so spotty?
  3. Are you aware that the Donald was against a single payer health care system before he was for it?
  4. Do you honestly think Mr. Trump understands the Constitution?
  5. Do you just enjoy the rush it gives you for a man of that power to use you for his purposes?
  6. Do you honestly believe he will administrate the nation in the exact same fashion he has campaigned in?
  7. What about his formerly massive financial support to the Clintons?
  8. Is there anything related to his ability to flip-flop that bothers you-you ladies of unswerving devotion?

I’m not asking any of these questions as snark. Im genuine. Genuinely baffled at the lack of scruples you are showing in lending your voices to a man who has trouble explaining his way out of a paper bag.

And if you follow through with your support for him Ms. Coulter you owe a lot of genuine conservatives a LOT of apologies.

My only other thought on this is that I honestly believe none of you matter on this issue.

There is little evidence that Donald Trump has brought in ANY new voters into the Republican primary race.

And that means he is likely going to be disappointed on Caucus night in Iowa.

But not nearly as disappointed as I am in what you three have allowed to happen to your otherwise notable service to the conservative movement.

Leftist Thinking: Mass Shooting Victims Wouldn’t Want Lawful Guns

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

The arguments in the on-going debate over guns and having them in the hands of private citizens is easy to win on the merits. What is more difficult is dealing with the tactics of how the discussion is carried out, and what happens when you begin to dismantle the arguments with pure rational thought.

20160115: Guns & 2016

America's Newsroom 20160115: Martha MacCallum, Emily Tisch Sussman, and Kevin McCullough discussing Marco Rubio and Governor Chris Christie on the issue of #Guns in #2016

Posted by Kevin McCullough on Friday, January 15, 2016

In the clip you see Emily Tisch Sussman playing the same cards so many have before her.

The problem is that almost zero of them hold any truth. There aren’t 30,000 gun murders a year, its closer to 11,000 (which in a nation of 370,000,000 people is statistically invisible at .00002%. She effectively moves the goal posts in the conversation so that after each observation she gives is dismantled, there is a different one to focus on.

She claimed that the South Carolina shooting was evidence of the need for more executive action from President Obama–which would be unnecessary completely had only one person in the Bible study been armed.

She claimed that law-abiding gun owners are more likely to have those guns wind up in the hands of people that do bad things with them. Really? With 300,000,000 legally owned fire-arms in the nation, how is there anywhere near that many nefarious acts being carried out?

She claimed that–even when faced with the evidence that the Garland, Tx (Pam Gellar, Draw Mohammed) attempted shooting was thwarted by “good people with guns”–that “good people with guns” is mythical.

She claimed that the Fort Hood shooting demonstrated why “guns didn’t stop” a mass shooting. But she ignored or forgot that Armed Services personnel aren’t allowed to carry their sidearms on Ft. Hood premises.

Lastly and unbelievably she made the argument that the victims of mass shootings themselves would in some way NOT WISH to have someone to be armed and to shoot back in the midst of one of these killing sprees.

Sadly she notes that one victim from the Virginia Tech shooting incident has stated that he would not have had the clarity to know who the shooter was or how to take him down.

My contention is that if we are going to take a survey of the victims of mass shootings and their feelings on private gun ownership–let’s begin with interviewing everyone who has died at the hands of these merciless killers–with no lawful means of defending themselves.

Of all the arguments the left proffers on taking away guns (under the guise of stopping gun violence) there is not a single one of them that has merit.

Which is why we must not let those making the arguments and moving the goalposts get away with such rigorous intellectual dishonesty.

Hillary’s Women’s Issues Fair Game?

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

Donald Trump’s Instagram video ad kept the issue alive a bit longer. But when Bill and Hillary begin to avoid the questions that press and others begin asking, it’s naturally going to produce MORE interest.

They may not like it, but it’s going to happen.

Now…

The question is raised, “Is it fair?”

(FULL DISCLOSURE: I was the male voice in a discussion about the treatment of women, as it relates to a female candidate, booked by a female producer, as it is being hosted by a woman, and whose counter point foil is also a woman. In essence it’s dicey waters to wade in to. Wanting to respond with common sense, sensitivity, but as always TRUTH… So how’d I do?)

#ICYMI: Are Clinton’s issues fair game?

Posted by Kevin McCullough on Saturday, January 9, 2016

Hillary: Benghazi Victims’ Families are LYING!

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

A common occurrence on the campaign trail is to stop by local press outlets (especially in Iowa and New Hampshire) to visit the editorial boards. You hope to answer their questions, persuade their editorial writers, and ultimately their readers that you are a worthy candidate. You’re really hoping to win their endorsement.

So Hillary Clinton stopped by a local New Hampshire newspaper for one of these stops:

Guerringue also asked about the controversy surrounding an email to her daughter in which she blamed the attack on “an al-Qaeda-like group,” while a statement put out by her State Department made it appear that the attack was a spontaneous uprising stemming from a video on the Internet. She chalked up the mixed messages to the “fog of war” and likened the situation to a “40-alarm fire.”

Another editorial writer needed more:

Sun Columnist Tom McLaughlin said she told an Egyptian diplomat the Benghazi attack was planned and not a protest but that she told family members of the deceased that the attack was the result of a demonstration. He said she then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn’t tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film.

“Somebody is lying,” said McLaughlin.”Who is it?

Clinton replied, “Not me, that’s all I can tell you.”

So she’s now flat out calling the families of the heroes of Benghazi, LIARS?

I have remarked repeatedly at how stuck in an era long gone Hillary’s campaign feels. She is clunky, slow on her feet, not terribly convincing on the stump from a lot of perspectives. She is pseudo engaging under the best of circumstances.

But her horrible policy ideas aside. Her biggest deficit remains that she feels untrustworthy, and as a result untrusted, by the vast majority of Americans.

These problems only amplify themselves when she decides to callously and uncaringly casts aspersions on the families of the men who gave their lives protecting her–and trying to save her supposedly “life long friend” and subordinate.

Hillary continues to be as out of touch as they come.

She is the worst candidate that the Democrats have put forward in 50 years.

Sadly for them she’s also the only option they have.

And under no circumstances should she ever be allowed to become President of the United States.

VIDEO: Bush & Carson What’s Next?

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

Each of them were believed to be the front runner at different points in this campaign. Are they now entering into “Hail Mary” territory?

My foil–Marjorie Clifton (@MarjorieClifton) and moi (@KMCRadio) discussed.

And we did it in 95 million households

**Reminder**: The opinions here are not of personal choice and may or may not reflect my own personal wishes as it pertains to candidates.

I am financially compensated for my analysis and as a professional it is important that I not allow my position in said analysis be tainted by bias for or against any of the candidates.

Video: Could Trump Win?

Posted on by The Binge Thinker

I was asked to offer up opinions and strategy on what 2016 is shaping up like. Specifically I was asked about the chances of primarily two candidates in the GOP field: Trump and Cruz.

While it is fun to get paid to provide analysis and commentary, I do not want listeners/readers misinterpreting my role.

I am sought out to render opinion about how actions impact the race, and whether or not they can beat the Dems a year from now.

So please don’t see any of my wording as endorsement! Analysis is never the same as who one is pulling for or against… And as I’ve repeatedly said in the primary race I will not be endorsing a candidate.