Tammy asks of the National Review’s effort to derail the Trump candidacy: Where were they when John Boehner passed the largest tax increase in history? There has never been a real symposium against the liberal dynamic. This is a misreading of what the base is thinking. NR would be better suited trying to figure out what to be *for,* because Americans vote *for,* not *against* things, and to figure out how to articulate the conservative ideal.
Maxine Waters Tries Walking Back Violent Rhetoric Against Trump
Tammy | February 7, 2021 
Public Podcast: Weekend Update 1-10-21
Tammy | January 10, 2021 
Giuliani Says Fight Not Over After SCOTUS Rejects Texas Challenge
Tammy | December 11, 2020 
Microwave Energy Likely Behind Illnesses of Americans In Cuba & China
Tammy | December 6, 2020 You must be logged in to post a comment.
For exclusive media, daily podcasts, live TAM Chat & more
Join the Tammy ArmyDonations are always welcome from subscribers and non-subscribers.
National Review is showing itself to be part of the establishment, trying to play the role of king-maker. They underestimate the American people, as the Republican establishment always does, and assume conservatives are for Trump because they’re uninformed and being driven solely by emotion. They’re wrong.
I’ll strongly support whoever the nominee is, but I’m sick of the establishment–media or party–telling me or anyone else what I/we SHOULD be doing here because we just don’t unerstand. Bullsh.
I have an idea of how to settle this nomination process once and for all.
Let’s have a Jeopardy Quiz~!
Topic: America and the 6 Categories:
18th Century, 19th Century, Supreme Court, Geography, Constitution, Executive Branch
Trump, Cruz and your choice of a third. The winner gets the nomination and the runner-up gets the VP slot.
Do you think Trump could give the correct question to any of the answers?
posted 1/26 939am Texas[Daily Double]Time
Being “the smartest guy in the room” doesn’t necessarily equate to strength, good judgment and common sense. Just sayin’.
And my reply is that if you are running for the President of the United States and you can’t answer basic High School Civic questions, ignorant of the history and simple facts about your country and its government, then you are not qualified for the position and have failed the interview. In my opinion.
posted 1/26 1122am Texas[No Trump]Time
Originally, Rick Perry was top of my list. Then, Cruz, Carly, Trump were the order. Now, Cruz, Trump, other. I don’t view my support for one as denying all support for another. Went through my preferences for context because; A month or two ago, I was on twitter when I came across a tweet from a popular NRO writer that I follow. His tweet had a slam at ‘Trumpkins’ as just wanting free stuff. Being as I am, and that it was twitter, I replied that as a Trumpkin that’s not it. To my surprise, he replied to my tweet, and in gentle words, said, yes it is, you just don’t see it. He also liked a tweet that said you can disregard the views of anyone who tweets the word, GOPe. I still read his columns as he is good. But with more than a grain of salt now.
Great interview!
James Taranto in the WSJ (behind the paywall) has maintained an informative and truly “fair and balanced” stream of information on Trump. Today’s column explores Trump’s “social-acceptability bias”, meaning that many voters are much more responsive in their hearts to Trump than they are comfortable admitting out loud. That’s one reason his poll numbers are high even though everybody says “I don’t know anybody who supports him”. We all feel the pull of the herd; at this point it’s impossible to say whether the anti-Trump would-be trend-setters have the power to actually discourage private voting for Trump. But Taranto notes that Iowa caucuses aren’t private, so the social-acceptability bias factor may be stronger than the personal ballots of New Hampshire. Iowa supporters will be forced to “come out of the closet” for Trump to prevail. I wonder how it will play out.