Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Here's where I got my figures:

Wyoming: 

Washington DC:

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

36 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

 SIlver is a wonk, not a power-player. I think you mistake his influence and reputation as something driven by animus, hyper-partisan bias, and a all-round malevolent influence on right-thinking people. 

William,

None of the above. 

Silver spent several months categorically saying, with strong emphasis, that Trump didn't stand a chance in most of the interviews he gave. Even after he started joking about being constantly wrong, he still kept saying that crap.

So I lost respect for him.

I don't believe he is motivated by hatred. I believe he, like a good doggie, is barking while sitting on the lap of the owner who feeds him--the establishment machine, which can be Republican or Democrat. The insiders. The same machine that keeps trying to destroy Trump (both sides).

Now all I need is for you to ask me what I mean because you don't see anyone trying to destroy Trump...

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

On 3/10/2016 at 1:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 3/10/2016 at 1:48 PM, Roger Bissell said:

Now, did it persuade them? Maybe, maybe not. But it did shut them up about that particular issue. That's close enough to "persuasion" for me.

 

You don't want to persuade anybody.

You want to shut up the people you denigrate: Sit down. Shut up. And don't vote.

You've said that, clearly, too.

So why on earth do you say elsewhere you want to persuade people? You have no interest in persuading.

 

Actually, it's not that I have no *interest* in persuading. It's that I have no *optimism* that I will be *able* to persuade. The reason for this is summed up by these wonderful remarks by a mystery Objectivist commentator:

Quote

To be concrete-bound is to attempt to deal with, to understand a specific situation, without the guidance of any wider concepts. It means simply staring at separate facts and trying to come get conclusions about them, with no reference to the principles which alone can make them intelligible.

If you want to see being concrete-bound in action, look at conservative politicians who tell you: “Never mind ideology for the moment. We have to get Republicans elected,” avoiding the fact that it matters which Republicans, that if we don't judge candidates by their relationship to our political ideology, we can't achieve the victory of that ideology.

Or, look at the people who saw Communist Russia and saw Nazi Germany, and decided that the opposite of communism is fascism, who didn't look for the single common principle underlying both these systems--the principle that man must exist for the state--and, therefore, didn't grasp that communism and fascism are fundamentally identical. These are the people who now watch fascism growing in America and, blinded by concretes, say: "There can't be fascism in America. We believe in the welfare state. Besides, there's no storm troopers. There's no concentration camps. There's no Hitler."

2

I wish the writer were able to see this discussion and to offer some well-chosen words. Though they might well get no further than I did with my efforts.

REB

[merjet]

WSS, did you compute those Average Vote %'s youself? If so, you need to learn some basic statistics. More objective would be the percent of delegates for each candidate for the 5 states + DC. They are:

 TRUMP     41.0%     CRUZ   38.2%        RUBIO        6.2%     KASICH      14.6%

Those numbers are very different from yours:

 TRUMP    29.22%     CRUZ    36.83%     RUBIO    16.65%    KASICH     17.34%

You should also have labeled the columns. I have no idea what your left column for each candidate is. I assumed the right column is number of delegates.

I just noticed that MSK has called himself a Trump groupie on this thread. Now I can't stop imagining the many screaming, teenage, female fans of the Beatles.   

[Brant Gaede]

It is Cruz, not Trump, who is proposing a drastic reduction in the size of the Federal Government. However, the fear might be that Trump will actually get it done. What "it" turns out to be is gross guesswork except for those who think "great" has great substance per se. Personally, all the other candidates, except maybe Bernie, seem to be war mongers.

--Brant

unless I missed something

[turkeyfoot]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

I just noticed that MSK has called himself a Trump groupie on this thread. Now I can't stop imagining the many screaming, teenage, female fans of the Beatles.   

Just now noticed.  Oh, right, reading the 4k plus posts.

Thats perfect. Now I cant stop picturing the sobbing, breathless, hysterical fans. At the time I was listening to the words, my friends were seriously playing 331/3 rpm records backwards trying to find meaning. We were really Stones fans at heart, called our band The Whymen after Bill. As the lead singer I recall the audience  wanting needing to be entertained.

Another American Idol. New Yawk, New Yawk. Phenomenal.

Im trying to imagine what post depression looks like if Trump doesnt get elected.

 

[turkeyfoot]

26 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

It is Cruz, not Trump, who is proposing a drastic reduction in the size of the Federal Government. However, the fear might be that Trump will actually get it done. What "it" turns out to be is gross guesswork except for those who think "great" has great substance per se. Personally, all the other candidates, except maybe Bernie, seem to be war mongers.

--Brant

unless I missed something

Much wisdom in that. I recall R Paul getting shut down and out of the debates when he said much the same' re: reduction. The major objection to him though was his anti military, political interventionist stance. Trump provides the perfect foil. Cruz, the man behind the MAN, is the man. 

[anthony]

A myth, it only worked with seven singles and 45 rpm. The Stones, me too.

[Peter]

The New York Times Sunday Crossword Puzzles Volume 10, Puzzle 100 called Dinner Theatre, by Patrick Berry.

85 Down, three letters, Clue:  First name in Objectivism. Answer: Ayn.

The puzzle is quite good with some other interesting Across clues and long, humorous answers that you really need the Down answers to solve.

Examples:

Clue: play about tenderizing some meat with one’s toes? Answer: Barefoot in the pork.

I will give you some answers and let you come up with the other clues.

The merchant of venison.

The burgers opera.

Wurst side story.

Porgy and bisques.

Abies Irish roast.

Chitlins of a lesser god.

A ham for all seasons.

Peter  

[Brant Gaede]

This thread has more movement than my large colon after a week of eating salads.

[turkeyfoot]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

This thread has more movement than my large colon after a week of eating salads.

This just in, behind the bathroom transom. 

Trump favors a gold throne for his constitutional.

Everything must go, Melania is not happy with passe White House decor. She will spend his money. 

[Peter]

Ed Rollins, strategist for the Reagan? And the Bush’s ? His voice sounds a lot like Donald Trump. Some thoughts: I heard them say DC only had ONE polling spot, which could account for the very low vote.

Trump is not ruling out Rubio as a running mate but he is cutting him down on MediaBuzz on Fox, and claiming victory in the big hands department. He still likes Little Marco. He just said Cruz is a very inflexible person. I think he does not like Ted. Marco Rubio as Veep could be like another Dan Quayle, but not that clueless. Ted Cruz could be another Dick Cheney but not nearly as dicky. If he wants a good VP he will pick Cruz or maybe Rubio. To help him win the general election, who should he pick? Trump would give up his SS payments in a second, but he will not mess with Social Security.  The interview will continue later in the show. It’s 11:25 now.

Will the potential for ORGANIZED anti Trump violence at Trump rallies cause the numbers of attendees to go down? Maybe a bit. With all the cameras and Secret Service guys I doubt there will be any more encouragement from PresidentTrump for his rally-ers to be preemptive. But I would be very, very wary if I were an able bodied male at a Trump rally. I think the guy who rushed the stage could have been tripped up by an ex military type, like me,  but he was stealthy enough to evade the fixed scrutiny of the Secret Service.  He got close enough for a bomb blast or a hand gun to take out Trump. I am sure they are careful when a long distance sniper potential is possible.

Hillary’s malevolent hand is showing and her hands are very big. Infiltrate. Arrest. Charge the violent ones with crimes with huge sentences. Get rid of the Nazi MoveOn.org.  

Peter  

[Peter]

Brant wrote about a Rump rally: This thread has more movement than my large colon after a week of eating salads. end quote

That is a bit graphic but yeah it does. Did you know Trump rallies will now have commercial breaks? The lights go down on our next President and the big screen lights up as Trump takes a sip of sparkling water.

Same Elliot with the gravely voice appears on screen. Buy a BIG 2016 Dodge, Jeep, or Ram truck with zero percent financing. Buy into the family of most dependable, guaranteed to last for eight years, FULL sized trucks, that pick up votes and chicks on the road. Be a man. Accelerate. Get a Trump Truck!

Jennifer Garner with her silky voice now appears. What do female executives and farmer’s wives look for in a car? They want style and status. They want safety and reliability. And we at Trump Motors have same-brand loaner cars, so your lady won't take a potentially embarrassing step down while their baby is getting serviced.

The screen darkens and the spotlight is back on Donald Trump with a cut out car behind him: Guys, if you really want to service your lady, buy her a Lincoln Town Car which come complete with the sound alike voice of Matthew McConaughey speaking for this beautiful Lincoln. Imagine Matthew saying this every time she sits down. “Sometimes you actually have to go back to go forward. I didn’t buy this to be cool - I didn’t buy this to make a statement. I bought it because I love you. Drive safely, Babe.”

Know why Melania and I are such true partners and will make great residents at the White House? We know America. My parents were immigrants. Melania is an immigrant. We both love this great country. She will make a great first lady. And I will protect and serve America. I will always have your back. See you at Trump Motors!

Peter

[Peter]

Per a reporter for a Cincinnati, Ohio paper on Fox. Proposition:  No Republican has ever made it to the White House if they did not win Ohio. During the polling this Tuesday, look at northern and southwest Ohio for the possibility of a Trump victory. Depending on the poll, Trump is even with Kasich or 5 points down.

From Bustle on the web: In fact, there are only eight contests that are truly winner-take-all, and they’re all on the Republican side. Florida, Ohio, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, Arizona, Nebraska and Delaware. In those states, whichever Republican wins the most votes gets all of the state’s delegates, even if nobody cracks 50 percent. The biggest states to watch in this category are Florida and Ohio, which are worth 99 and 66 delegates respectively. end quote.

Back to mostly me. THIS TUESDAY, March 15^th has Ohio, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands Caucus, and Missouri. And looking ahead to when Trump might be statistically confirmed as the only candidate, I think, is around June 17^th in California (which is 546 delegates). The Left Coast has a mixed primary, which according to Election Central is: a semi-open or semi-closed environment, unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in either primary or can switch registration the day of voting. What the heck? Say it ain’t so Ted. Is the party over? The decision rests with the voters.

Peter

[merjet]

Trump sleazes Kasich

Last night I saw a Trump-for-President tv ad that sleazes John Kasich, and tries to blame Kasich for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Also, in a debate Trump himself tried the same blame game and to put Kasich on Lehman's board of directors (link). Hogwash. Yes, Kasich worked for Lehman a few years (link). He was a managing director in Columbus, Ohio. Lehman's HQ was in New York City. Kasich's pay in 2008 is proof enough how big a role he had. He was a managing director. That's a mid-level manager in an investment firm. In November, 2015 Goldman Sachs promoted 425 people to managing director (link).

I read A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers a few years ago (link). Use Amazon's Look Inside feature and search for Kasich. Zero hits, and his name isn't even in the index. 

Is it only "marketing with a little exaggeration"? No, it is Hillary Clinton sleazeball level stuff.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just sat through the highlights of the morning talk shows. (You can see them on Real Clear Politics Video--Google it if you are interested.) These people have been living in a bubble so long, they don't see what is right in front of them. You cannot blank out the majority of Americans when you talk about American society and have any kind intelligent meaning to your ideas. But that is exactly what they have been doing for years.

Now it ain't working. It was amusing to see the dazed look on all their faces as they realized this.

But I kept getting irritated because, when they started talking about what's really going on (the Chicago cancellation of Trump's rally, the increasing violence, and so on, they kept looking at the growing size of Trump's supporters as if this were an anomaly. Some persuasion thingie that Trump can turn on and off like a water tap. They kept implying that Trump could turn it off if he would only decide to do it. 

Granted, Trump does use persuasion techniques, but he didn't create the conditions in the heads of the people who now support him. The geniuses sitting in front of the cameras I just saw helped create that.

There's no way on earth persuasion techniques alone can work on people who are hostile to the idea being sold. You will not persuade people that the earth is flat no matter how many techniques you use.

But you will get large numbers of people to follow you if you speak as a great solution to an actual longstanding grievance in their minds.

Let me give an example of what I am talking about. Many of the pundits were appalled that Trump said for Bernie to be careful about sending thugs to his rallies because some of his supporters might show up at Bernie's rallies. The default mode of the pundits was a tut-tut-tutting that Trump obviously should have just took it from Bernie's thugs. That would have been "presidential."

The majority of Americans are not very good at just taking it after a certain point and the genius pundits don't get that. They see Trump as a bully. Trump supporters see him as the man standing up to the bullies and the pundits as the cowards who kowtow to the bullies and let them run rampant. 

The genius pundits are perplexed about why people don't like kowtowing.

I swear, I'm not sure I can stand watching Peggy Noonan anymore when she talks and, right before, condescendingly looks down her nose. Of course, she does that right before she tries to sell the moral superiority of caving in to thugs and just ignoring their thug nature. I would like to see more Karl Rove looking like a deer in the headlights, blinking his eyes trying to clear his mind and still get something intelligent out of his mouth.

I could go through all of them and make similar comments. The one maddening thing about them, though, is not one of them acted as if the large body of Trump supporters had any kind of legitimate reason to be supporting him. They talked at it as if they were talking about a flying saucer, saying the supporters "felt as if" they were not heard and so on. But they didn't say Trump supporters want to fix the problem themselves. They kept treating it as if Trump supporters were making their grievances known, but they--the pundits and the establishment masters they serve--were the ones who had to fix the problem. This was presented with the subtext that Trump supporters believe this.

It still hasn't occurred to them that they are the ones being rejected. This is not a word game anymore. A huge majority is coming and it is saying--to them, "We mean it. Get out."

The most satisfying schadenfreude moment I had this morning was looking at Bill Kristol. He wasn't smirking anymore. He was snarling.

He's one of the few who is starting to get it. He's still in denial and doesn't have a clue about what the majority wants. He certainly doesn't know how intelligent it actually is. All he sees is an angry mob of brainless peasants with torches and pitchforks storming the ramparts, not an ad hoc group of individual hardworking producers who are intent on cleaning out the morons from their ruling perches and fixing the mess he's help make with a competent CEO. But somewhere in the fog of that bubble-addicted brain of his, at least he knows this time it's different. The dirty tricks he has hidden up his sleeve ain't working. 

And the look on his face is priceless.

Let him look in the mirror and smirk that that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The establishment machine, especially the left side, is so used to shaming the sheeple into submission, the elites don't know what to make of someone who punches them back.

I find it most satisfying that they don't know how to respond to the following video:

 

What they don't get is that this is a reframe of the mainstream narrative they helped create. In their narrative, disruptors are pre-forgiven for grossly threatening peaceful people and violent behavior (like the Baltimore riot) because they were carried away by "passion for their cause" or some other euphemism for being a violent asshole. The sheeple have been told they are "better than that," so they shouldn't respond. That's the elitist frame for controlling the masses: pure sanction of the victim.

Trump is reframing that in a manner that resonates all over America and in all demographics. He is saying that if someone punches him, he will knock the crap out of that person. And that goes for his supporters when someone punches them. Not only does he like to see them punch back, he thinks that is the moral good.

Trump is a Christian, but I think he missed that part about turning the other cheek.

Michael

[Jonathan]

10 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Actually, it's not that I have no *interest* in persuading. It's that I have no *optimism* that I will be *able* to persuade. The reason for this is summed up by these wonderful remarks by a mystery Objectivist commentator:

I wish the writer were able to see this discussion and to offer some well-chosen words. Though they might well get no further than I did with my efforts.

REB

If Rand were alive, she'd love Trump.

She always put aesthetics above the rest of philosophy (in fact, her aesthetics are the tail that wags the dog: contrary to her statements, her philosophy does not begin with metaphysics and proceed from there, but rather it begins with her personal aesthetics).

And Trump has the proud, fearless, guiltless attitude that she adored. Her fictional heroes and "ideal men" bent and broke the rules when they had had enough meddling from others, despite the fact that their doing so didn't comply with Objectivists ethics. I think she'd be cheering Trump for his personal style and strength, and just occasionally lightly slapping his wrists, or completely looking the other way, when it came to the issue of his violations of Objectivist morality -- very much like how Trump "scolds" his supporters for calling others "pussies" or whatever; with a wink and a nod.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Something about the video that stood out to me was how Trump got startled (his body alerting him to danger), and immediately after he went on the attack to confront the danger.  Somewhere, Putin is smiling.  I watched this part of the video a few times, and this isn't something faked.  Trump's reaction was to go after the person going after him--and that's what our country needs--someone tough, someone strong.

Korben,

I detected that the moment I saw it. I'm glad you mentioned it because this is important.

Trump's reaction to bullies is visceral. He will punch back--as hard as he can--and think about it later.

Donald Trump is pure "made in America" because the Silent Majority is made up of people like that.

America was built by people like that.

Intellectually, Ayn Rand was like that.

Michael

[Selene]

I have pointed that out to many folks.

In fact, I commented earlier on this thread about a "security issue" at the Trump rally, one of the first.  And I noticed his automatic reaction to the "disturbance" in the aisle off his right shoulder and he moved towards the disturbance and appeared to me to be balanced and prepared to repel or respond.

I remember Peter taking the "PC" route and saying that was not wise.  Frankly, I do not agree.  Sometimes you need to "cut down the angles of attack by moving into and closer to the attack."  

Non life threatening example is a goalie moving out towards a breakaway to "cut down the angle."

In The Hunt For Red October, Connery goes head on into the torpedo if I remember correctly.

In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Generals talked about "grabbing the belt" which meant getting in close and inside our "technical battle space" that we controlled with air and artillery.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump fixing the mess others made:

WOW! Thank you Illinois! LETS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! VOTE TRUMP ON TUESDAY, MARCH 15th!

Posted by

Donald J. Trump

on 

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Not even the Chicago Tribune could spin it according to the establishment Demopublican narrative that Trump is nothing but violence.

Donald Trump returns to Illinois after canceling rally Friday night in Chicago

Michael

 

 

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Trump sleazes Kasich

Last night I saw a Trump-for-President tv ad that sleazes John Kasich, and tries to blame Kasich for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Also, in a debate Trump himself tried the same blame game and to put Kasich on Lehman's board of directors (link). Hogwash. Yes, Kasich worked for Lehman a few years (link). He was a managing director in Columbus, Ohio. Lehman's HQ was in New York City. Kasich's pay in 2008 is proof enough how big a role he had. He was a managing director. That's a mid-level manager in an investment firm. In November, 2015 Goldman Sachs promoted 425 people to managing director (link).

I read A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers a few years ago (link). Use Amazon's Look Inside feature and search for Kasich. Zero hits, and his name isn't even in the index. 

Is it only "marketing with a little exaggeration"? No, it is Hillary Clinton sleazeball level stuff.

Kasich has been out there saying Trump's words cause violence, so it's all on Trump.

Kasich can go fuck himself. He deserves zero consideration. 

[merjet]

Jon: "Kasich has been out there saying Trump's words cause violence, so it's all on Trump."  

Fair enough, Jon. However, when Trump attached Kasich re Lehman Brothers in the debate, that was long before Kasich saying Trump's words cause violence. Also, there is Trump's blatant lie that Kasich was on Lehman's board of directors.

P.S. When I click on 'Quote' below Jon's post, why does Selene's post pop into my reply area?  Very annoying.

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

If Rand were alive, she'd love Trump.

She always put aesthetics above the rest of philosophy (in fact, her aesthetics are the tail that wags the dog: contrary to her statements, her philosophy does not begin with metaphysics and proceed from there, but rather it begins with her personal aesthetics).

And Trump has the proud, fearless, guiltless attitude that she adored. Her fictional heroes and "ideal men" bent and broke the rules when they had had enough meddling from others, despite the fact that their doing so didn't comply with Objectivists ethics. I think she'd be cheering Trump for his personal style and strength, and just occasionally lightly slapping his wrists, or completely looking the other way, when it came to the issue of his violations of Objectivist morality -- very much like how Trump "scolds" his supporters for calling others "pussies" or whatever; with a wink and a nod.

J

So you assert.

I'm mixed on how I speculate Rand would react to Trump, but I'm more inclined than not to suspect that she'd be negative because of his blustering style and lack of philosophical heft.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Trump: Orren Boyle--on steroids. Not too good a fit, but close enough. And she's hate Cruz more than Reagan.

--Brant