Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one's for Marc, who believes in the right kiss to the right ring:

Sheldon Adelson on supporting Trump: 'Why not?'

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But what I wrote does seem like a big honking gotcha.

I wasn't attempting to "gotcha," just to alert you to the discrepancy, by which I was puzzled.

I've been paying little attention to Kasich and haven't much of an impression, but I noticed your earlier statement and have kept it in mind as something to watch for.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

[merjet]

The cover story in the latest Time magazine is The Republican Party Is No Longer the Party of Reagan by Peter Wehner. "Donald Trump, a man who is the antithesis of so much that Ronald Reagan stood for ..." 

Other sites say the last name is pronounced like Wen-ner or Way-ner. In my view the quality of this article warrants a different one. You can probably guess what that is.   

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Other sites say the last name is pronounced like Wen-ner or Way-ner. In my view the quality of this article warrants a different one.

I often listen to articles by using the Chrome browser's native text-to-speech reader, Chrome-speak. It reads the last name as WINNER.

[merjet]

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I often listen to articles by using the Chrome browser's native text-to-speech reader, Chrome-speak. It reads the last name as WINNER.

 That's not what I was thinking. 

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

 That's not what I was thinking. 

Whiner? 

This was worth watching:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a fun clash with millennials.

 Snarky spoiled elitist girl (and crew) versus multicultural and multiracial millennial Trump supporters.

All in good fun.

I like this girl Samantha Bee, even though she was the snarky spoiled elitist girl.

The very fact that she produced this the way she did covertly showed millennial Trump supporters that they are not alone, nor are they all about white privilege and other pop villainy.

That it's OK if you are a minority millennial and support Trump, although you will get razzed by snarky spoiled elitist kids.

Michael

[Selene]

Perfect example of how unconnected and effete the Power Elite is from actual folks who can actually reason and actually come to logical conclusions that will not be deflected by the trickle down "whoring of the media."

[Jules Troy]

I think kasickio is going to stay in the race for no other purpose than to try and scoop the nomination at the convention if Trump does not get the magic number before hand.  

[Peter]

One of those videos I watched this morning had an expert that said Rubio’s delegates have become the equivalent of super delegates - free to do as they please on the first convention ballot. I thought that as long as you only “suspended” your campaign, the delegates were required to vote for Rubio but apparently not. So if Kasich stays in the race he keeps his delegates, and Cruz keeps his delegates as long as he is in the race. Rubio can come out and support another candidate but his delegates can vote as they please on the first ballot. There will be six weeks from the last primary in June and the convention on July 19, 2016. A whole lot of politicking could go on and that would be a waste of resources. Sure, I would like to see some drama at the convention but only if Ted Cruz has a chance. Peter

[turkeyfoot]

Looking ahead to Cleveland. 

Entrenched Republicans bring effort when they feel their principles are at stake. And give it all away when democrats fight for theirs. 

http://www.infowars.com/how-the-gop-elite-plan-to-rob-donald-trump/

"Despite his historic run in the primaries, Trump will never, repeat never, get the nomination if this bunch can stop him. Forget about them conceding Trump the victory once he gets to the magic 1237 (Fifty percent of the available delegates). They’ve cooked up a strategy to be employed at all costs to steal delegates from Trump so that he’ll fall below the 1237 on the first ballot, and then, before the second ballot to present one of their group (Mitt Romney, call your office) as the Savior of the Grand Old Party. While each state’s individual law governs, most delegates are not bound to the candidate that brought them once the first ballot is over. Stall Trump on the first ballot and the Bush-Romney-Rubio-Kasich-Ryan-McConnell combine can go really to work"

"The GOP Kingmakers may argue that Rule 38 – which prohibits states from requiring their delegations from voting as a unit, by a majority vote of all members of their state delegation—could,be interpreted to mean that delegates are not bound at all, even on the first ballot! (However tortured this reasoning is, all you have to remember is that the courts aren’t the ones to interpret these rules, they are going to have the meaning that a majority (there’s that pesky 1237 number) of delegates who survive any challenges to being seated, give to these rules. That brings us now to the mechanics of the steal, which is to say, contests to seating particular individual delegates."

 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-cruz-kasich-convention-220846
 "Tom Rath, a Kasich adviser from New Hampshire and veteran of the Republican convention process, said Trump and Cruz’s advisers may be overlooking the role of politics at the convention. If a contested convention arrives, and Kasich is dramatically outpolling Trump and Cruz against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, convention delegates may make judgments based on political calculus.

Wouldnt it be a bitch if Trump missed the 1237 delegates needed for a nomination by 66. )

[Peter]

Got this from Donald. It won't convert to regular text. I saw the twinkle in his eye when he said he only had 10 percent of the faults his critics insist he has and that was very funny. Even his family was surprised and laughed. A great video was done about his butler. Can someone link it here? His lifestyle reminds me of Downton Abbie.    Peter So Many Great Wins Last Night!

Dear Peter, We had so many great wins last night! I am very proud to receive your support because without you this wouldn’t have been possible. These past few weeks have been a truly amazing experience. We met so many incredible people. I am just a messenger and it is clear that our voices are being heard! We will no longer stand for the incompetence and corrupt political system that has failed hard working American's for far too long. I am self-funding my campaign and I am going to do what is right for the people - not the special interests, donors and lobbyists - that control our all talk, no action politicians. I look forward to meeting more of you over the next few months and discussing the issues most important to voters like you including illegal immigration, tax reform, protecting your second amendment rights and national security, among others. Thank you for your continued support. Together we will Make America Great Again! Best Wishes, Donald J. Trump

[Peter]

I did it my way. Frank Sinatra Jr. just died at age 72 of a heart attack.

What is a crucial distinction to make with Trump? He does it his way. He is not espousing abstract theory to identify, explain or evaluate the trends of events and history. His is not really a conservative or a liberal. He finds one problem, tries to discover its cause, projects its consequence, then redefines the problem and offers the solution, as with Muslim immigration: suspend their immigration for now. Violence at his rallies? If a group or an individual, blocks the way, shouts him down, then THEY are initiating violence and he and his supporters can morally retaliate with the minimal force needed to stop the violence. Pragmatically and morally with cameras recording everything, should a Trump supporter do exactly as Trump asks or escalate violence? Not if Trump, in the heat of the moment, asks too much. Let your conscience be your guide. And get the local government involved.

Peter

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Politics:  “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” 4: The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy’s function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.

“Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 178: The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

“The Chickens’ Homecoming,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 46: It is political philosophy that sets the goals and determines the course of a country’s practical politics. But political philosophy means: abstract theory to identify, explain and evaluate the trend of events, to discover their causes, project their consequences, define the problems and offer the solutions.

“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1962, 1: Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32: The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

[Brant Gaede]

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

I did it my way. Frank Sinatra Jr. just died at age 72 of a heart attack.

What is a crucial distinction to make with Trump? He does it his way. He is not espousing abstract theory to identify, explain or evaluate the trends of events and history. His is not really a conservative or a liberal. He finds one problem, tries to discover its cause, projects its consequence, then redefines the problem and offers the solution, as with Muslim immigration: suspend their immigration for now. Violence at his rallies? If a group or an individual, blocks the way, shouts him down, then THEY are initiating violence and he and his supporters can morally retaliate with the minimal force needed to stop the violence. Pragmatically and morally with cameras recording everything, should a Trump supporter do exactly as Trump asks or escalate violence? Not if Trump, in the heat of the moment, asks too much. Let your conscience be your guide. And get the local government involved.

Peter

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Politics:  “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” 4: The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy’s function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.

“Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 178: The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

“The Chickens’ Homecoming,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 46: It is political philosophy that sets the goals and determines the course of a country’s practical politics. But political philosophy means: abstract theory to identify, explain and evaluate the trend of events, to discover their causes, project their consequences, define the problems and offer the solutions.

“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1962, 1: Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32: The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

So Trump has read Rand? I was worried about Trump doing it "his way." Now I'm worried about him being an ideologue? Nope. I'm worried about him being Trump the Democrat below the words.

--Brant

[Peter]

And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

That describes Trump to a tee. Brant wrote: Nope. I'm worried about him being Trump the Democrat below the words. end quote

I don’t think he is an ideological Democrat or Republic, nor a liberal or conservative. He has worked successfully in a crony capitalist system with ups and downs and a bit of scrambling. Did he like paying bribes or kissing ass? When it suited him he tolerated it. Will he accept bribes as President. NO. Why in the hell should he, morally or practically? He is a bit too emotional but he will do it his way . . . the better way in his estimation . . . AND I agree with Michael that he will surround himself with ideological conservatives and experts in a given subject, as he is already doing. Well, New Jersey Governor Chrispie Crème is an exception.

Fade out to Dire Straits singing: He got the action, he got the motion. Yeah, the boy can play. Dedication, devotion. Turning all the night time into the day.

Peter

[KorbenDallas]

On 3/15/2016 at 9:39 PM, Mark said:

I want Trump to win mainly because his stand on immigration is a huge step in the right direction.

I want him to win despite the valid criticisms against him.  His supporters need to take care not to “evaluate in reverse” and think they must defend his errors, such as trying to use eminent domain for no good reason, just because they prefer him over the other presidential candidates.

For example, consider the following stupidity from a Trump supporter we could do without:

On 3/15/2016 at 9:39 PM, Mark said:

  On 3/14/2016 at 1:13 AM, KorbenDallas said:

If some stubborn old lady [Vera Coking] won't let go of her dilapidated [?] house, while she can be relocated to a nicer [to whom?] place, and something nicer built there [a casino parking facility], then she has no case except irrationality.  The cases I've seen hit the news of Trump's have been ignorant people that don't know a good deal when they see one.

In this case Trump was a jerk.  That’s too bad, he’s still far and away the best man among today’s presidential contenders.

By the way, Binswanger opposes Trump – another reason to like Trump.  See Binswanger’s post:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9016
and my response:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9026

 

Your initial premise cannot apply to what I actually said, if you would have quoted me correctly.  Here is your premise:

On 3/15/2016 at 9:39 PM, Mark said:

His supporters need to take care not to “evaluate in reverse” and think they must defend his errors, such as trying to use eminent domain for no good reason, just because they prefer him over the other presidential candidates.

Here is what I actually said:

On 3/14/2016 at 1:13 AM, KorbenDallas said:

That's a bit of a stretch, though.  Most of those were dilapidated, condemned, or part of city planning.  Trump did more good than harm here.  I'm sure if one looks hard enough they would find some questionable cases, but saying eminent domain automatically equals tyranny isn't a principle I subscribe to.  If some stubborn old lady won't let go of her dilapidated house, while she can be relocated to a nicer place, and something nicer built there, then she has no case except irrationality.  The cases I've seen hit the news of Trump's have been ignorant people that don't know a good deal when they see one.

The bolded area, the sentence you did not quote, negates your premise.  The sentence after the bold and beginning with "If some stubborn old lady...," was broad enough to include people who lost their houses in coal mining country due to a "natural resource".  (There is a reason I did this, but it's unnecessary for this post.)  Also, I know who Vera Coking is.  I wasn't speaking of her specifically.  I was partially including her in that statement.  But you misquoted me on that.

Next:

On 3/15/2016 at 9:39 PM, Mark said:

By the way, Binswanger opposes Trump – another reason to like Trump.  See Binswanger’s post:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9016
and my response:
FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9026

Your argument to Binswanger contains a logical fallacy.

-------------

So Back the fuck up, Mark.  Consider my delay in response #1 due to work commitments, and #2 a cooling off period.

Edit:  And "by the way", I'm still not very "cool" about it.  My suggestion is you don't respond.

 

[Peter]

Mark wrote: By the way, Binswanger opposes Trump – another reason to like Trump. end quote

KorbenDallas responded in part: Your argument to Binswanger contains a logical fallacy. end quote

It’s 64 and sunny. One more point before I join the great outdoors. If Trump were a professional politician I would agree with Robert Tracinski, Harry Binswanger, other Objectives, AND Ayn Rand that Trump is not ideologically pure enough. However, why he WILL be acceptable to me is the fact that his life has been spent in another field and not in day to day branch of philosophy called politics. If he had been a politician, I would expect him to be as sound as Ted Cruz. He might have gone the path of Mayor of Atlantic City, Governor of New Jersey, and now be in the running for President. Then I would expect him to have his philosophical credentials in his back pocket. That is a main reason why he can commit gaffs, run his mouth and run wild outside of the hands of his handlers (he doesn’t have any . . . yet) and not be called a bloviat’er by Bill O‘Reilly or me. I am not suggesting anyone cut him some slack. Just understand he is not a politician or a retired general and the fact that he could get elected is astounding.

Peter

[Selene]

On 12/7/2015 at 11:40 AM, Selene said:

Marc:

So we can agree that The Donald is a long shot correct?

He will probably come up a little short in Iowa and finish second.

That will be an important place in this race to see how well The Donald works this into his messaging.

I think he wins in New Hampshire and it will be a "surprise."

Additionally, my perception is that he wins South Carolina big which will tell me a lot. Heavy military vote in the Republican primary prime voter in South Caroling and Lindsay Grahamesty's home turf and election day organization.

Then I will know.

A...

This thread is a gold mine of information. 

For example, a few posts up thread, on December 8th, Michael noted the following:

"Trump is making the mainstream nuts. They are totally off their game right now."

December 7th, the Huffington Post reversed their ban on covering Trump that they had installed back in July.

Today, Rush's first hour was another brilliant analysis of how great a threat Trump is to the entire industry built around the corruption in Washington and the entire industry that is built around electing the corrupt politicians to work the Juggernaut for the "establishment," which includes the media.

A... 

[Jonathan]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Glenn Beck, on air, just called John Kasich a son of a bitch. In those words. He said the republic is at stake and Kasich is only thinking about himself. He was in Chicken Little mode (The republic is at stake! The republic is at stake!)  . Don't believe me? See here.

I could say a lot about this, but I'll just let his statement stand with only one comment. The republic isn't at stake. The USA will far outlive all of us. What's really at stake for Beck is Ted Cruz's chances of winning.

Michael

The Chicken Little mindset is entertaining. I tuned into Beck briefly today, and he, in his most practiced and polished doomsday tone, said that Trump said that he was going to end the First Amendment! He explained that Trump wants to make it easier to sue anyone who criticizes him, and Beck concluded that that would mean the end of the First Amendment, and therefore Trump's position is to get rid of the First Amendment.

Here's what Trump actually said:
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." [bolding mine]

So, Trump's position is not to make it easier to sue anyone who criticizes him, but only to make it easier to sue people who write things about others which are negative and horrible and false. Notice the "and"s in the statement. Notice that they are not "or"s. In order for a writer to qualify as deserving legal punishment, his or her offending statement must be negative plus horrible plus false. Negative alone wouldn't cut it. False alone wouldn't cut it.

 

Beck, as well as most of the press and punditry, including a person who used to get his facts straight, George Will, have been wailing that Trump is threatening to lead violent riots if he loses during a brokered convention.

They report Trump as having said:
"Now, if you disenfranchise those people and you say, ‘Well, I’m sorry, but you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short,’ I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that."

They all just happen to clip off the very next sentence that Trump stated as a part of that paragraph:
"I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."

Heh. What's the problem? Why is that last sentence being trimmed off? Are the reporters and pundits suddenly under a  word-count or character-count limit or something? Oops, when quoting someone, we're only allowed 50 words or 270 characters, and Trump's statement runs over those limits, so we had to leave out the part about him not leading any riots!

Silly Chicken Littles.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and every highway;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

That describes Trump to a tee. Brant wrote: Nope. I'm worried about him being Trump the Democrat below the words. end quote

I don’t think he is an ideological Democrat or Republic, nor a liberal or conservative. He has worked successfully in a crony capitalist system with ups and downs and a bit of scrambling. Did he like paying bribes or kissing ass? When it suited him he tolerated it. Will he accept bribes as President. NO. Why in the hell should he, morally or practically? He is a bit too emotional but he will do it his way . . . the better way in his estimation . . . AND I agree with Michael that he will surround himself with ideological conservatives and experts in a given subject, as he is already doing. Well, New Jersey Governor Chrispie Crème is an exception.

Fade out to Dire Straits singing: He got the action, he got the motion. Yeah, the boy can play. Dedication, devotion. Turning all the night time into the day.

Peter

Is this 1940? Are we still clinging to font readability theories from the last century when the primary media being tested were hemophiliac inks bleeding all over rough-hewn newsprint? C'mon, Grampa Futhark, express your rebellious individuality in some way other than being loyal to an ancient and mistaken font theory.

J

There's a new serif in town

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote. “There's a new serif in town.”

Peter     

[Peter]

Republican Primaries March 22 – April 19. American Samoa, Arizona, Utah, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and start spreading the news, New York,. Newwww Yorrrrk!

[william.scherk]

Formatted podcast style as part of my will and testament, OL for the Blind

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Is this 1940? Are we still clinging to font readability theories from the last century when the primary media being tested were hemophiliac inks bleeding all over rough-hewn newsprint?

It could be that Peter still uses a work in Word (or Wordstar or Notepad) -- and a  copy-paste from such software -- path to comment.  At one point I harried Adam and Peter for what my inner Ms Manners considered crimes of attribution, missing URLs -- in Peter's case he seemed to have an aversion to posting href links even plain, for what was obviously something copied from a website. Mike Erickson harried me in turn, or rather pointed out that I was being Ms Manners, and so I gave up that line of work.

In Peter's case, he simply follows age-old paths through the internet, never stopping to copy the freaking link as part of his plod. Adam is actually terrific and consistent in his attributions. Peter is the hold-out.

But, so what? -- since a select-and-search turns up Peter's capacious borrowings in a relative instant.  Which was Mike's point  So Peter is excused on the grounds of inadaptability. As with the stalwart and stubborn Phil Coates, there are Modern Conventions that he Will Not Adopt. 

I got a thrill today in thinking Peter had moved into the modern era, with multiple hotlinks in  his post!  But that is just an effect of the processing of his borrowings. He mostly mentions a writer or source, so ... we can concentrate on his argument, where one appears. It takes a bit of HTML tinkering with Peter's splodges of Times New Roman large to render it into the default sans-serif 12pt, but I made the effort today ...

7 hours ago, Peter said:

 If a group or an individual, blocks the way, shouts him down, then THEY are initiating violence and [Trump] and his supporters can morally retaliate with the minimal force needed to stop the violence.[..,]

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32: The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

Peter, I am so proud of you and your multiple links to sources, even if such links were an inadvertent effect of your habits.  To the notion that trespassers at Trump rallies can be identified and removed without violence -- it just takes some will and discipline among security and Trump supporters. Removing trespassers is potentially uneventful.   If the streets outside a rally are infested with devils, police lines can separate the angels from them, preserving quaint notions of the right of assembly. 

7 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Looking ahead to Cleveland. 

Entrenched Republicans bring effort when they feel their principles are at stake. And give it all away when democrats fight for theirs. [...]

"The GOP Kingmakers may argue that Rule 38 – which prohibits states from requiring their delegations from voting as a unit, by a majority vote of all members of their state delegation—could,be interpreted to mean that delegates are not bound at all, even on the first ballot! [...] That brings us now to the mechanics of the steal, which is to say, contests to seating particular individual delegates." [...]

Wouldnt it be a bitch if Trump missed the 1237 delegates needed for a nomination by 66. )

Oof. Yeah. But. 

I figger the Trump campaign has smart people at its heart.   The wonks and politically-informed GOP operatives on Trump's side have wonked out on all the rules, state by state, clause by clause.   What is missing from the (Roger Stone) exclusive at Infowars are links to the two skeddy rules Stone proposes will be invoked by the Monsters.   

Rule 38 and Rule 16(d).  It takes reading the actual rules in context to assess Stone's alarmism. Wouldn't it be nice if I gave links?  But I am being Peter Taylor now, holding it back, although I will give hints:

Hint: all wonkish OL Front-porchers should have already been reading about the rules at both Greenpapers and Josh Putnam's website.   The detail at the pages I don't link to show that Stone is exaggerating and spinning to a degree.  So, there's the internet. Hop to it, everybody who wants to figure it out themselves.

To the notion that there will be a criminal-ish conspiracy to deny the anti-Monster party their candidate, I have long stressed that details matter. The wonk-killer-ops at Trump Central are just as full of "plots" as are the Sea Island Crime Cartel, I surmise.

Again, I urge folks of distinction and outsized reasoning capacity to go slog through the details of all the plausible events to come in Cleveland.

To the overall conclusion I allow myself, it is that Mr Trump needs only about 52% of the remaining delegates to be allocated to achieve 1237 before Cleveland. So from here on in I am watching a slope on a graph, so to speak (and thanks again to Merlin for sharpening my view).  If the slope stays the same as it has so far, somewhere around June 4-ish I will have my final TrumpGasm of the primaries. I will know in my loins that Mr Trump has crossed the point of no return. 

I don't know what kind of orgasmic political moments will come during the Cleveland festivities. I do know that the enormous circus of Hoopla will be at its most intense to date. Talk about wall to wall excitement. I am going to probably have to wear adult party pants as I am sure to pee myself at least a couple of times.

(to my backstage minions and fans, yes, I will be live broadcasting on Youtube for at least one podcast during the festivities. Probably during the immediate run-up to First Ballot.  My mental rule of comparison will be the hideously boring Joe Clark election to the Tory leadership up here back in Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... )

Edited March 17, 2016 by william.scherk
Added "outsized"; Spelking; Added puckish notes, added paragraphs with reference to peeing one's pants in a convulsion of high hilarity; punctuation

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rush Limbaugh just said something so profound, I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me before. See here (at the end): Global Panic and Paranoia Over Trump.

Rush just said the establishment Republicans are not afraid Trump will lose to Hillary in the general election.

The establishment Republicans are terrified Trump will beat Hillary.

Dayaamm!

I can't add to that. Raw naked truth is truth.

Michael