Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 13, 2016

Longtime Donald Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich on Thursday smacked down the Republican nominee, saying "little Trump is frankly pathetic." With Trump's campaign in a tailspin as more women accuse the billionaire of groping them, Gingrich lamented how Trump is reacting by lashing out at House Speaker Paul Ryan, who abandoned the nominee earlier this week. "Look, first of all, let me just say about Trump, who I admire and I've tried to help as much as I can. There's a big Trump and a little Trump," Gingrich said on Fox Business Thursday morning in a comment that evoked Trump's slam on Marco Rubio as "Little Marco." "The little Trump is frankly pathetic. I mean, he's mad over not getting a phone call?"

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Little" Trump is the reason he is in free fall right now.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-13 11:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Little Trump is what his supporters look up to.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2016-10-13 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The little Trump is frankly pathetic. I mean, he's mad over not getting a phone call?"

Posted by reinheitsgebot at 11:03 AM

Mad. And vengeful.

Pro-Trump posts getting rarer here lately. Open question: Is that because some are deserting their man at last, or is it because they're laying low, waiting for some moment when?

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2016-10-13 11:33 AM | Reply

I think the single most pathetic thing anybody ever posts on this site is when someone they despise, believe is a crook and a liar, says something they agree with....and they decide it's postworthy.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-13 11:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Eb, it is basically this: "OMG, even that Idiot knows a steaming pile when he smells it".

#5 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-10-13 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I can't stand the thought of Clinton in the WH. Having said that, it will be gleeful to watch all of Trump's surrogates scurrying for cover when he loses, especially if he loses badly.

Hannity
Coulter
Ingraham

Just to call out a small handful by name.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-13 12:19 PM | Reply

"The little Drumpf is frankly pathetic. I mean, he's mad over not getting a phone call?"

From the guy who pushed for Clinton's impeachment because Bubba made him ride in the back of AF-1.

##
it will be gleeful to watch all of Drumpf's surrogates scurrying for cover when he loses, especially if he loses badly.

They'll simply deny they ever heard of Cheeto Childmolester and their brain-damaged followers will believe them. They got away with it with Dubya, didn't they?

#7 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think the single most pathetic thing anybody ever posts on this site is when someone they despise, believe is a crook and a liar, says something they agree with....and they decide it's postworthy.
#4 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Sounds like buyer's remorse from Eb.

#8 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 12:44 PM | Reply

-Eb, it is basically this: "OMG, even that Idiot knows a steaming pile when he smells it".

I don't think even Newt's most ardent haters here think he is an idiot. They have awful opinions of him but "idiot" isn't what they would say to characterize him.

#8

what does that mean? what buyers remorse?

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-13 12:48 PM | Reply

"Little" Trump is the reason he is in free fall right now.

#1 | POSTED BY 726

Maybe, but the latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton's 41%.

I know polls, polls, polls.

Keep swinging.

#10 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2016-10-13 12:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

I wonder, because you know Trump isn't gaining support this week, are people now deciding they won't vote for Hillary based on the last debate? Are that many more Americans changing from likely Hillary voters to not voting period? That's the only thing that makes sense.

#11 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 01:01 PM | Reply


Little Trump vs Big Trump

It looks to me as if Speaker Gingrich is trying to settle a conflict in his own head by trying to separate the one Mr Trump into two Trumps, only one of which Speaker Gingrich supports.

If only it were so easy to rend a person, in fact, it cannot be done.

There is the one Mr Trump, not two. Just one. He may have a more dominant side, but there is just one Mr Trump.

Unfortunately for Speaker Gingrich, the dominant side of Mr Trump is what Speaker Gingrich derisively calls the "Little Trump."

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-10-13 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#10 ... Rasmussen Reports White House Watch ...

Looks like a reasonable methodology. Just be careful how much stock you put into it as the delta is less than the margin of error.

From now through the weekend I'm looking forward to seeing the polls that reflect the debate.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-10-13 01:17 PM | Reply

Hannity
Coulter
Ingraham

Are you kidding? They will blame the voters and gleefully chime on about how Trump was not far enough right.

#14 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-13 01:22 PM | Reply

Are that many more Americans changing from likely Hillary voters to not voting period? That's the only thing that makes sense.

Hillary is picking up support on a daily basis. Rassy has been all over the map on this election. Nobody else is showing 5-10 point switches in either direction on a daily basis.

Rassy shows a 6 point swing from yesterday. Nine from Monday. Tomorrow? Johnson up by 5?

Check out Real Clear Politics. They average all polls, including, unfortunately the fatally flawed LATimes one that keeps giving Trumpeters delusions of adequacy over their boy.

#15 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 01:23 PM | Reply

726,

They'll blame anti-Trump outlets like NRO and will blame Republicans who refused to endorse him and were openly critical of him.

They will play the victim-card heavily. It will be pathetic to watch, but since they themselves are pathetic....

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-13 01:26 PM | Reply

When Nutty Newty calls you pathetic, well, you must be really pathetic.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-13 01:38 PM | Reply


@#15 ... Rassy has been all over the map on this election. Nobody else is showing 5-10 point switches in either direction on a daily basis. ...

I don't know.

The day-to-day variations, by and whole, seem reasonable for a daily tracking poll in a volatile environment such as the one we are in.

www.rasmussenreports.com

" ... The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton's 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday. ..."

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-10-13 01:38 PM | Reply

It sounds to me that ol' Nutty Newt has finally accepted the inevitable and is tucking tail.

#19 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-10-13 01:41 PM | Reply

Todays "conservative" need to look no farther than Newt to assign blame.

He is the architect of the republican's abandonment of governance in preference to just winning elections. He was instrumental in constructing the monster we see today

#20 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2016-10-13 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The day-to-day variations, by and whole, seem reasonable for a daily tracking poll in a volatile environment such as the one we are in.

Then why is Rassy the only one showing it? Others have been fairly stable day to day and week to week. gain, check out Real Clear Politics and see a bunch of polls. Given their abysmal record in past Presidential elections, I'd be wary of betting the house on them.

#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 01:46 PM | Reply

#15 - I would imagine any other candidate besides Hillary would have had their polling numbers skyrocket after this past week. Hillary is barely posting an out of the margin of error lead. But then the last election was decided by less than 2% so there is that. I hate Clinton's policies but I hate Trump as a person. Gary Johnson is a joke and Stein...who is that again? Fudge me. Can we go without a president for a term? Just kinda see how it works? Pathetic.

#22 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#22

That must be posted from Bizarro World.

Her polling lead went to double digits, and she now leads in most swing states.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-13 01:57 PM | Reply

Rasmussen was off by 4.5% in favor of republicans in 2000. They changed their methodology and were actually pretty accurate in 2004. In 2008 they were a little off on the republican side. In 2010 a rasmussen poll showed Daniel Inouye of Hawaii leading by 13% just 3 weeks before the election. He won by 53%. In 2012 rasmussen once again was off by an average of 4.8% in favor of republicans.

#24 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-10-13 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 - Hey Corky. I'm looking at general election polls. NBC/WSJ poll went from +14 to +10. The Atlantic had a 5 point jump. And those are the only double digit lead polls she has this week. Not exactly skyrocketing polls for announcing your opponent is a serial predator.

#25 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 02:05 PM | Reply

Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective....

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-13 02:09 PM | Reply

I'll have to find the quote but someone stated both parties nominated the only possible person who could lose to the other party's candidate.

#27 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 02:10 PM | Reply

Pro-Drumpf posts getting rarer here lately

They're too busy evolving into "impartial and see both sides" appeasement monkeys voting 3rd party

#28 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 02:17 PM | Reply


@#12 ... check out Real Clear Politics ...

I do. Frequently. Indeed, I've received grief here on this august blog at times when I've cited that site in the past. (did you notice that they changed Utah from Likely Trump to Leans Trump today?)

The day to day variations that appear to leave you so breathless are not out of the norm for a daily tracking poll in these volatile environs.

Most of the other polls on Real Clear are not daily tracking polls, so they have different characteristics in their results. That is why it is so important to read the methodology of the polls, each one is different, e.g., that LATimes poll has a whole page devoted to explaining the results. Worth a read if you have the time, imo.

fwiw, the key attribute that the pollsters are having difficult tracking down and quantifying this election is: who will be a likely voter?


... why is Rassy the only one showing it? ...

Why was the European weather forecast model the only one that correctly showed Hurricane Sandy taking that left turn into New Jersey, while all the other weather models had Sandy going out to sea?

Sometimes the outlier is the correct one. Or not.

#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-10-13 02:19 PM | Reply

Can we go without a president for a term? Just kinda see how it works? Pathetic.

Obama has to hang around Dc till his kids graduate. WE could beg him to stay in Office. After all, somebody needs to run the country and the GOP can't even run their own Party.

#30 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-13 02:19 PM | Reply

Same guy who said Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee? Same Nate Silver who got bested by the "Dig" who called more races correctly and even called some 30 races he wouldn't? lol. What a joke.

#31 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 02:21 PM | Reply


@#26 ... Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective.... ...

I do check out 538 (I've watched him since he was with the NYTimes). I find the results there to be a bit more volatile, subject to very short-term trends. But he is looking for page hits, so he keeps the site changing a lot. I don't fault him for that, I just view his results and conclusions in that context.

That's why I tend toward Real Clear, because those results tend to be a bit smoothed out over a longer term.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-10-13 02:24 PM | Reply

#30 - Unfortunately a third Obama term would just be more of nothing happening from political stalemate. I'd almost rather see one party completely in charge of both houses and the executive branch for 4 years. Just to see what happens. And it may come a month from now.

#33 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 02:25 PM | Reply

#30 - Unfortunately a third Obama term would just be more of nothing happening from political stalemate. I'd almost rather see one party completely in charge of both houses and the executive branch for 4 years. Just to see what happens. And it may come a month from now.

#33 | Posted by gavaster

The last time Republicans had it all they doubled the budget, doubled the debt instead of paying it off like they could have done (Clinton left a plan to have it completely paid off by a few years ago), and left America's economy in the ditch with systemic deficits for many years to come.

Do believe what they say they'll do, look at what they actually did.

On social issues, did they overturn abortion with a Republican controlled WH, Congress, and SC? No, they didn't.

#34 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 03:02 PM | Reply

Don't believe what they say they'll do ...

#35 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 03:03 PM | Reply

Attributing the dot com boom to Clinton and the housing bust to Bush is folly. Neither one controlled the atmosphere that created the economics of the time they were in office or signed major legislation that stimulated or broke said economy. Bush owns the Afghan and Iraq wars, but you could hardly find anyone who wasn't on the war path after 9/11, conspiracy theories aside. We were 6-8 years post due for the housing market bust which coincided with the ARM bust which wrecked the economy during Bush's second term. Electing Kerry wouldn't have stopped the housing crisis, but the Dems would be taking the heat for wrecking the economy. Both political parties are corrupt as hell and neither one does what they say they intend to. Acting sanctimonious when the Dems current Presidential candidate can't tell the truth even when it makes a better story is, laughable. Politics is all money and power. And both parties are at fault. I'm glad the Dems give you a cookie every once in a while to appease your appetite for change.

#36 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 03:24 PM | Reply

"The little Trump is frankly pathetic. I mean, he's mad over not getting a phone call?"

Little Trump is something Dems can use in ads: Who wants Little Trump's finger on the nuclear button?

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-10-13 04:18 PM | Reply

Attributing the dot com boom to Clinton and the housing bust to Bush is folly. Neither one controlled the atmosphere that created the economics of the time they were in office or signed major legislation that stimulated or broke said economy.

Bush urged banks to lower their lending standards as part of his 'ownership society' push.

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent -- and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them -- an old prep school buddy -- pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 07:22 PM | Reply

Here's Bill Clinton's contribution, years before Bush took office, back in the late 90's.

Ameriquest, a subprime lender who's slogan was "proud sponsor of the American Dream," became the first subprime lender to have its loans financed by Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association). The lender that pioneered "no-document" loans eventually settled for $325 million with several attorneys general over charges of predatory lending, in 2006. Ameriquest closed in 2008.

Sub-prime lending was already happening before Bush showed up. Like I said, the bust was coming. The lending practices in place from the late 1990's until the crash only help build the bubble and delay the cyclical housing crash. Did it make it worse? Sure. Did it cause the crash? No. And even your post states Bush saw the bust coming and tried to mitigate the circumstances "spending years pushing Congress to tighten regulation". But you don't blame Clinton for loosening the regulations and allowing sub-prime lending just like you don't credit Bush with trying to help. Like I said in another post, most people, such as yourself, have their ideology in place and try to structure the facts to fit their narrative.

#39 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 08:00 PM | Reply

GAVASTAR

Anyone with a computer can discover the history of Republicans calling for deregulation of financial services.

Even after the Lincoln Savings & Loan cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars (and nearly sent John McCain to prison), there were a plethora of Republicans like Phil Gramm calling for deregulation and the overturning of Glass-Steagall. Bill Clinton signed it, and regrets it to this day.

It has NOT been Democrats calling for deregulation of everything under the sun.

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 08:23 PM | Reply

Most of the RW's hate 538 because it shows the reality that goes against their political wishes. ...and for the fact they pretty much nailed the last 2 elections when it comes to accuracy and the electoral map.

#41 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-10-13 09:07 PM | Reply

Most of the RW's hate 538 because it shows the reality that goes against their political wishes. ...and for the fact they pretty much nailed the last 2 elections when it comes to accuracy and the electoral map.

#42 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-10-13 09:08 PM | Reply

Open wide!! Now swallow!!! Glass-Stegall is a red herring. The provisions revoked did not play a significant role in the housing crash other than to muddy the affiliations between investment and commercial banking, which was already being allowed by the Federal Reserve Board, chaired by Clinton's twice appointed Alan Greenspan. And Bill Clinton signed it?! You're not helping your argument, which seems to be its only the Republicans fault. The predatory lending practices, sub-prime lending, etc, was happening with or without Glass Stegall revocation. It started under Clinton as part of his push for higher home ownership and Bush subsequently continued the push.

#43 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 09:17 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton signed it, and regrets it to this day.
#40 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2016-10-13 08:23 PM

Lol

Haha

Bill Clinton, for his part, remains unconvinced and unrepentant about the repeal of Glass-Steagall through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB) he signed into law.
www.usatoday.com

Rofl

#44 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-13 09:47 PM | Reply

Ronald Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan

We didn't have a real estate crash under Clinton. Bush called for banks to loosen their lending standards.

We didn't see 'mortgage' companies springing up like dandelions under Clinton. That was Bush.

I realize you live in an alternate right wing reality, but those are the fact, disputed by you or not.

#45 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 11:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Talk of alternate realities from the poster of this:

Bill Clinton signed it, and regrets it to this day.
#40 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2016-10-13 08:23 PM

Lol, laughs all around! Good times to be had.

#46 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-13 11:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#45 - you know they serve four year terms right? And every President gets to appoint them? And Clinton picked him....twice. Yes. Market crashes don't happen overnight. That you're choosing to gloss over Clinton and the Democrats role in the housing crisis is, well, typical actually. You can't see past your party affiliation.

I actually don't live in right wing land. I live in reality. Both parties played a role in worsening the bust, but neither party actually caused it. Just expanded its bubble a bit. But you're too partisan to admit your party could ever be responsible for anything bad. Baaaa. Baaaaa. Run along now little sheep. I'm bored.

#47 | Posted by gavaster at 2016-10-13 11:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I actually don't live in right wing land. I live in reality. Both parties played a role in worsening the bust, but neither party actually caused it. Just expanded its bubble a bit. But you're too partisan to admit your party could ever be responsible for anything bad. Baaaa. Baaaaa. Run along now little sheep. I'm bored.

#47 | Posted by gavaster

Blah blah blah

You're a typical right wing nutcase.

BTW, I've voted for presidents from both parties. Reagan cured me of ever making that mistake again. I could see how GOP tax policies were going to lead us down the garden path, and they did. Our national debt was on its way to being paid off during the next administration when Jimmy Carter left office. Reagan gave us our first trillion dollar debt instead.

Clinton paid down the debt his last two years and left a plan to have it to $0 several years ago. Republicans, who've been taken over by the right wing, blew that all to hell.

But you're too partisan to admit your party could ever be responsible for anything bad. Baaaa. Baaaaa. Run along now little sheep. I'm bored.

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-14 12:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#46 Reagan gave us our first trillion dollar debt, yet when he ran against Carter he accused him that would happen.

A stack of 1000 dollar bills 67 miles high.

"Oh who goes there again "

Oh well we kicked the ---- out of Grenada.

#49 | Posted by bruceaz at 2016-10-14 01:06 AM | Reply

#47 I meant

#50 | Posted by bruceaz at 2016-10-14 01:07 AM | Reply

Or #48 goodnight folks

#51 | Posted by bruceaz at 2016-10-14 01:09 AM | Reply

That you're choosing to gloss over Clinton and the Democrats role in the housing crisis is, well, typical actually. You can't see past your party affiliation.

Do we get to vote on this? I see your point, but I don't see the point.
Let's put it this way: What future cash-in has Obama laid the groundwork for?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-14 02:28 AM | Reply

Oh well we kicked the ---- out of Grenada.

Lotta dead Navy Seals to take over a golf course. Reagan coulda just paid green fees like anybody else.

#53 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-14 09:55 PM | Reply

It sounds to me that ol' Nutty Newt has finally accepted the inevitable and is tucking tail.

He's just offended Cheeto Crotchgrabber wouldn't touch Callista.

#54 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-14 09:56 PM | Reply

#53 | Posted by northguy3
Has Obama played there too?

#55 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-10-14 10:05 PM | Reply

Cheeto Crotchgrabber wouldn't touch Callista.

Was that Bill's name on Hillary's email server?

#56 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-10-14 10:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort