Context, Roger, context. The Elephant is the symbol of the Grand Old Party. The GOP are going to choose a candidate for the November presidential ballot by protracted process. Their big convention is in July. Today is January 6th. The protracted process is a step-wise, state-by-state, incremental battle for numbers.
Elephant? Hippopotamus? WTF???
The Elephant Party needs a candidate. Public opinion polls, in the aggregate, show one candidate with a plurality at the present time, averaged over the nation. If the GOP had a fearless leader like we have here, then the GOP would simply call the contest over, as our fearless leader has. It's done. It's over. Trump has won.
So, at some point in temporal reality, ether before or at the convention, The Final Elephant will have received enough delegates for the chance to kill the Donkey. The Magic Number is 1237.
The Hippopotamus is Michael's awkward metaphor for The Donald. He took my simple trope of a Musical Chairs for GOP Hopefuls ... and rambled off down the river for some congenial symbol, not attempting to fit it to any scenario but Trump Wins. He is in love; what can you do?
You shot off into the scrubland in search of a relevant illustration of a rapacious, immoral canine-ish species, Roger. You are not in love with Trump.
I too shot off into the scrubland myself, so I am not criticizing, just reporting.
Please google donald trump eminent domain (no quotes), read the first half dozen hits, and ponder whether any animal better metaphorizes Donald Trump's attitude toward private property rights better than a JACKAL.
I would hope everyone has made a good-faith effort to research Trump's attempts to use eminent domain, notably with Vera Coking in Atlantic City.
Michael has raised the point that eminent domain is supported by all the other GOP candidates -- at least in some ways. If we think of eminent domain in the context of aqueducts, dams, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, railways, highways, roads, miltary bases, ports, and so on, it seems obvious that in our mixed economies, big projects in the public interest are rammed through the property of thousands. In a perfect world -- as we have in Canada -- the 'public interest' is subject to dispute and appeal.
Was there a grand 'public interest' in condemning Coking's property? Was there a grand 'public interest' in ramming an Interstate or a border-crossing pipeline or other infrastructure across many privately held properties? That is a question for debate, comparing and contrasting the two kinds of 'interest.' To some principled people, Trump's actions were solely for his own commercial interests and desires, and using city muscle to render the wanted property into his hands was seen as a little sleazy and overbearing.
On the other hand, what about the vast use of eminent domain for such as, say, the now-cancelled Keystone completion project? Aren't they comparable? Here is Donald:
For me, the concept is 'expropriation.' In my context, the need for expropriation (as seen by government) comes for massive projects like the Site C Dam, as well as for tiny things like widening roads.
Some 'fixed mindset' people insist that the Atlantic City attempt+failure to 'grab' Coking's property shows an unpleasant side to Trump's attitude toward 'the little people.'
These issues have not been resolved in this thread.
-- I did an internal OL search for you, Roger. My link will take you to the 37 posts in this thread that discussed or mentioned eminent domain.
Please google donald trump eminent domain (no quotes), read the first half dozen hits...
I believe it has been discussed pretty deeply on this very thread.
At some point the contrast between public and private interest in expropriation can be examined. It hasn't been done in any of the 37 mentions.
Awhile back, someone on "Morning Joe" bet Mika a pickup truck that Trump wouldn't win. [...] Now he seems awfully sheepish as the time to pay up nears...
Mika Brzezinski is so brainy and sexy.
So Joe Scarborough bet Mika a pick-up truck that Trump wouldn't ... win ... the GOP nomination.
Is it just me, or does 'the time to pay up' mean time to give Mika the keys to the truck? I don't understand how "Now" is anywhere near the time to do so.
Insert reference to The Magic Number. Look at calendar. Shake head in puzzlement.
This gives me an opportunity to update Roger on another unresolved issue.
Just in case y'all wanna know:
Drip... drip... drip...
Roger, to some minds here and there, the contest for the Republican nomination is already won. It is all over. The polls are speaking. Trump just polled 42% nationally, which will translate into winning all the primaries, or enough of the delegates to clinch the nomination. He has the Magic 1237 in the bag, morons.
In those minds, It Is Over. Pay Up. Eat Crow. Bow Down. Enter the Trump Era. Believe.
I am still on the fence, or the wall, as it were. I am not going to get thrilled to the bone until around March 15, when the big delegate totals start rolling in.
Here is a thought for the stumped and the stumpers and the Trumpers. What trumps wishful thinking? Ayn Rand knows, I think. She has left clues for me.
Let us say I am a wishful thinker, an emotionalist, irrational. My sentimental favourite is the former Canadian. If I wish and wish and wish for him to come out on top in Iowa, will my wish come true?
I look at the crowing about the 42% and I think, well, does that mean that Trump will get 42% of the delegate count in Iowa, 42% in New Hampshire, 42% in North Carolina and 42% in Nevada?
I look at the crowing now and I think I will demand some crow-eating by Michael if Trump does not win Iowa. But then I think he is not claiming or predicting that Trump will win Iowa. He doesn't care who wins Iowa. He is confident that in the end, Trump will win the nomination during the protracted process of selection. That is his only claim, and the only claim I should hold him to.
Here is a final thought for Roger. What will it take for you to acknowledge that Trump is probably going to win the Republican nomination, and when might that be in the protracted process? For me it is when he gets close to the Magic Number.
I would ask the corollary question of Michael, but I don't think he swings that way.
Here I mash up Clinton's Clam and Trump's Mouth:
Source: Donald Trump
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now