Donald Trump

[KorbenDallas]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

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

Did someone say NYC?

Couldn't resist 

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Just read the transcript, this is Rush at his best:

Quote

...What is this demonization of anybody who's not white and Christian?  The New York Times recently sent a reporter to Trump's campaign office in Tampa expecting to find a bunch of Mussolini devotees and Klan members working in there.  They really did.  They were shocked and they were stunned.  They found very few white people.  It was all Hispanics, African-Americans, and other minorities, and they were happy and they were supporting Trump, and the New York Times was bamboozled and flabbergasted. 

Anyway, it's classic. It's right out of the playbook, how to demonize whichever Republican front-runner happens to be the guy.  It's what they did to Romney.  It's what they did to George W. Bush.  It's the same thing.  "Threat to American democracy."  No, Trump poses a threat to the existing political class and its exclusionary existence.  That's what the great fear is. 

Here's the real reason for this.  If you turn to the next page.  "There are some Americans, Democrats in particular, who are happy to watch the Republican Party self-destruct with Mr. Trump at the helm. We cannot share in their equanimity. For one thing, though Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, would be heavily favored, a Trump defeat is far from sure. For another, the country needs two healthy parties and, ideally, a contest of ideas and ideology." That's what this is really about in the deep, dark crevices of their minds.  They are scared to death that Donald Trump can beat Hillary. That's what this is about.

 

[Jules Troy]

I actually think he is going to win.

[merjet]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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.

You didn't fool me.

[turkeyfoot]

Trumps appeal for me is based on liking the class clown, the guy who can shake it up, gain purchase and make it count. Its hard to describe the affect, visceral dislike on the one hand and love for the effect he has on others on the other.

Whether you like him or dont, it matters not, what does is hes a contender. Politics has become a caricature of what it once was. The new low is established, whether you like it or not matters little. Everyone has a strong need to align themselves with a winner. This, for me, more than anything else accurately describes his rise. Its similar to the guy saying watch this, pull my finger. While youre entertained there is no humor in the fact that one day this guy might be president.

How did we get here? Its like watching a train wreck in reverse, a horrific sporting playback of knees crunching, career ending actions. Life goes on. From the sidelines I shrug, I have other things to do with my time. One vote.

What a spectacle! Two geriatric nominees. Each with their own version of what truth is. We do all the heavy lifting parsing meaning in the most trivial nuance. What did they say, what do they want us to understand, while I wonder do they understand what they say. Not the low energy thing or the what difference does it at this point make but the substantive issues that give meaning to our lives. Every president has contributed to this path leading away from capitalism towards bigger government. My non academic view leads me to believe the pace or the direction will not change much. That many base their choices on a guy who they think will is both tragic and comic relief.  

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141090636816/donald-trump-con-man

The man who calls Trump the Master Persuader speaks out.

"It’s all the same thing. Trump says and does whatever he needs to do in order to get the results he wants. And apparently he does it well. Given the facts, you can either see Trump as highly skilled or morally flawed. Maybe both. I suppose it depends which side you are on.

Last autumn, when Trump was looking like a serious contender, I told you he would change more than politics. I said Trump would change how you see the human condition. I couldn’t say more about that until it played out. You needed some more evidence before I could make that case. Now you have it.

The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal. Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90% irrational and acts accordingly. 

Rand Paul, on the other hand, treated voters as if they were intelligent creatures who make decisions based on the facts. His campaign didn’t last long with that message. Rand Paul knows about a lot of stuff. He’s a smart guy. But apparently psychology is not on the list of things he knows. And psychology is the only necessary skill for running for president.

Trump knows psychology. He knows facts don’t matter. He knows people are irrational. So while his opponents are losing sleep trying to memorize the names of foreign leaders – in case someone asks – Trump knows that is a waste of time. No one ever voted for a president based on his or her ability to name heads of state. People vote based on emotion. Period."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

You didn't fool me.

Merlin,

What a curious statement.

I seem to be trying to fool you when I'm not even aware of my attempt.

Michael

[merjet]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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.

I will be less subtle.

There is nothing in Limbaugh's article I would call "profound." 

The term "general election" is not in the article. The term "election" is used five times. The first two are about the Republican primary election. The next two times concern the general election in November, but the context is the Republicans and Merrick Garland. The 5th time is about a Russian response to a Trump campaign ad.
                        
Neither "afraid" nor "terrified" appear. "Fear" appears once -- about establishment Republicans losing their influence. If I were to inject "afraid" into the article, it would be that Republicans are afraid that if Hillary wins in Novemember, Obama might nominate a more liberal, younger judge in place of Garland. 

Raw, naked truth?  Huh?

 

[Mikee]

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

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

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 ...

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. 

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 ... )

OL for the blind!  I like it! (sometimes I'm too tired to keep my eyes open).  Here are those rules:  GOP 2012 Rules

[Jon Letendre]

The Republican traitors in Washington are continuing today with more schoolmarm impersonations over Trump's innocent and obvious comment that if the American people feel an election is being taken, they may riot.

 

They should be demanding arrests for rioting already committed and they should be scolding Hillary, Bernie, Soros, Move-On (to tyranny,) BLM, and all the rest who are behind ACTUAL riots and who are still today explicitly encouraging and PROMISING more riots. 

 

But that would be an attack on Democrats and there is no point to that when you are one of these bags of shit, because to them, at least Democrats will maintain the trough and offer some sloppy seconds, while Trump will not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Raw, naked truth?  Huh?

Merlin,

Jon says it better than me.

31 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

But that would be an attack on Democrats and there is no point to that when you are one of these bags of shit, because to them, at least Democrats will maintain the trough and offer some sloppy seconds, while Trump will not.

Yes, the establishment Republicans are terrified Trump would beat Hillary.

Michael

[Selene]

[Guyau]

Michael, quite apart from whatever the estimations of Mr. Limbaugh, here is a plot of Clinton v. Trump matchup, using only live-telephone polling up to 6 March. I imagine that sort of polling to be the most accurate, but I’m not sure. I hope this link will show the plot I mean. As of March 6^th Clinton was preferred over Trump (nationally) by 11 points. Clinton v. Trump

Looking at the plot over these past several months, I don’t have much confidence on which way the general election between these two would go. I doubt anyone else, including Republican strategists, have any grounds for confidence that Trump would lose to Clinton or that Trump would win the White House. It would seem sensible only for strategists to consider implications of either outcome were those the candidates of those two parties in the general election. My estimation, which may be just as good as Mr. Limbaugh’s, would be that if Trump were elected, he would be little help to Republicans seeking reelection to the Congress. Perhaps Republicans would retain the Senate majority, though losing some seats. But the Republicans in Congress would be dealing with a third-party, as it were, in the White House. On the other hand, were Clinton to win the White House, then though the Senate would more likely turn over, roughly the situation would remain as now with a Democratic President.

If on the slender chance that Sen. Cruz should enter the convention with more delegates than Mr. Trump and end up with the nomination, well, here is the live-phone polling of Clinton v. Cruz, about a 2-point lead for Clinton as of 6 March. Clinton v. Cruz

Should Cruz win the White House, I imagine that would be accompanied by a considerable Republican sweep in the Congress and somewhat brighter chances for Republican economic fare—free trade, deficit reduction, health care reform, banking regulation reform, and the like.

I don’t mean to insinuate that anyone should be primarily concerned with who could best win from very roughly their party or school of thought. That would be for the voters with only a very broad or vague interest in the principles and policies, to say nothing of a naïve view of the existential weight of their vote. I think rather that voting is more sensibly personal symbolism.

 

[merjet]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Yes, the establishment Republicans are terrified Trump would beat Hillary.

Fast forward 6 months. Assume it's Trump vs. Hillary. Are you saying these establishment Republications will vote for Hillary? Maybe even start a Republicans-for-Hillary thing?

[Jon Letendre]

Trump is going to take Hillary apart piece by piece in the coming months.

 

He is largely immune to attacks because he mostly won't defend himself because he won't have to.

 

The Clinton team will never find space and time to implement their plan to win. He will cause them chaos, one emergency after another. Implementation of the winning plan will always be for NEXT WEEK, first they will have to deal with the emergency. Patriots and her enemies, including the women Bill has raped who we've never heard of yet, FBI agents, etc., will forward him proofs, and the next emergency for them will erupt. He has fought many large battles against very powerful people. He is the master. Just watch.

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Trump knows psychology.

 

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Michael

Thought you both might find the below video interesting.  The Youtuber has other persuasion videos that I don't agree with, where he says phrasings similar to "we can't help it when people say" or "our minds automatically", etc.--which is an effort to negate volition, based off of phony research that passes for psychology today.

But this video is good.

 

[Jon Letendre]

8 minutes ago, merjet said:

Fast forward 6 months. Assume it's Trump vs. Hillary. Are you saying these establishment Republications will vote for Hillary? Maybe even start a Republicans-for-Hillary thing?

I think he is likely picking them off right now, just like he did the 16 nominees.

He won't have to promise them much, he doesn't need them behind him, just off of him.

Then he will renege after the election, make them beg, extract things from them, give them nothing, kick them to the curb, save the country.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

Fast forward 6 months. Assume it's Trump vs. Hillary. Are you saying these establishment Republications will vote for Hillary? Maybe even start a Republicans-for-Hillary thing?

Merlin,

Nah...

Their sleaze is always in the backrooms.

Don't think political position. Think of all the things a political position influences.

With these people, no matter who is in office (Dem or Rep), they all go to the same clubs and are on the same boards. So whatever needs to be influenced in these matters always seems to get influenced in a direction that favors them.

The value hierarchy goes like this:

1. Preferable: XXX is in office. He calls the shots on all extra-political matters, but makes sure his opponent YYY is taken care of.

2. Second best for XXX: His opponent YYY is in office, but at least YYY takes care of his extra-political matters.

3. Horrible: Someone not in the club (like Trump) gets in office. All the extra-political matters come up for review on merit.

Guess how much merit is involved in extra-political matters among establishment cronies?

  

In the present scene, supposing Kasich were viable, Kasich would be XXX and Hillary would be YYY. I don't believe the establishment folks are seriously considering Kasich, though. I think they are using Kasich to see if they can slip in Bush at the end, or maybe Ryan or someone else who plays ball with them without reservation. 

Using this rationale, they would support Ted Cruz to elect Hillary because they (through surrogates) would bash the shit out of his religiosity and start hammering the theme of theocracy to gin up fear, thus guarantee he loses. It's second best, but the trough is still loaded and they still get their turn. (Lindsay Graham has already figured this one out.)

With Trump, he might actually win and, to them, there goes their XXX/YYY scheme down the drain.

So, yes. Terrified.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

38 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think he is likely picking them off right now, just like he did the 16 nominees.

He won't have to promise them much, he doesn't need them behind him, just off of him.

Then he will renege after the election, make them beg, extract things from them, give them nothing, kick them to the curb, save the country.

Their options and outlook utterly suck. That's why their panties are more bunched up now than we have ever seen before.

They have another stage of grief or two to go through, then they will understand that they will most likely face a Trump in 2017 who hates them, and it just isn't a good bet. Getting off of him, and not helping Hillary, if that's all they have to do to play and maybe get treated better than the ones who hold out too long, better bet. One by one, they will finish the stages, extract heads from asses, and go quiet.

[Peter]

Stephen wrote: I think rather that voting is more sensibly personal symbolism. end quote

Bill Buckley had a rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable. Rush Limbaugh has dumbly said to just vote for the most conservative. Can anyone, other than a strict ideologue, or a bigot (no women, no Asians, no something) go inside their own mind and say, “This is why I am voting for my candidate?” Making a decision is certainly tougher in the Primaries. The Buckley Rule MUST also have a way to predict who COULD win. And that prediction is very difficult. Will anyone tell us how they predict who could win? Or would anyone care to say WHY they are really, really going to vote for someone? Actually it is probably harder to stop people from telling you how and why to vote for Trump, or Cruz. Or Clinton or Sanders. As to my personal symbolism, I could not stand to listen to that screeching Hillary Clingon voice for four years.

I edited for brevity the following from WikiHow on how to win an election: Learn about the big issues. Know Your Audience. Find your base. Not everyone is going to like or vote for you, but nor is every voter going to be a tough sell. Find the core groups and demographics that are excited to vote for you, and reach out to them early. Identify swing voters. Poll regularly. Tell a story. Use your winning personality. Stay on message. Both the media and your opposition will be trying to get you to talk about scandals in your past, issues where you stance doesn't resonate with voters, or whatever story dominates the current news cycle. Don't get distracted! In debates and campaign events, always try to bring the topic back to your core message and areas of strength. Come up with a slogan. Rally volunteers. Press the flesh. Distribute swag for name recognition. Fundraise. Get out the vote. All the fundraising, campaign events and compelling arguments won't matter if you can't get people to show up on election day. Do everything you can to get your supporters to the polls, from a simple reminder email to providing transportation. end quote 

My favorite slogan is, "It's morning in America." I go to RealClearPolitics for composite polling for my predictions but with skepticism.

Peter 

[turkeyfoot]

28 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

 

Thought you both might find the below video interesting.  The Youtuber has other persuasion videos that I don't agree with, where he says phrasings similar to "we can't help it when people say" or "our minds automatically", etc.--which is an effort to negate volition, based off of phony research that passes for psychology today.

But this video is good.

 

Trump doesnt do what he does with a conscious calculation, in my opinion. He learned by osmosis, his manner of dealing with people amongst others of similar bent in the "streets" of New York. What I mean is he has a street sense, an intuition about weakness and how he can best it. Its been honed into his subconscious. Thats how he responds so quickly, he doesnt think as much as react.. I dont marvel at this trait, I dont admire it, I see it as being repulsive. The idea that he has confronted the establishment and come away winning is giving way to another ill founded idea, that says hell make a good president. The guy could sell a bridge in New Yawk. And he can bully candidates. But his candidacy leads to a nomination for the once most powerful country in the world. His role is more properly suited to softing the opposition to enable the real candidate to go in for the "kill shot".

[merjet]

Hmm. Fast forward again, this time 8 months. Assume Trump has won. He has 1000's of personnel appointments to make -- a Cabinet, agency heads, deputy-dep't-heads, etc. Where does he recruit?  No "establishment Republicans"?  

Democrats? A bunch of casino, hotel, tv, and banking people?  

[Peter]

Can you imagine the applicant list for those government jobs? I think Trump would have a list of people he will take the advise of. Cronyism? Sure.

Peter 

[Jon Letendre]

Peter, Merlin,

You both remind of the Prohibition enthusiasts who demanded the admission that "things will STILL not be perfect!"

It's true, things were still not perfect after ending Prohibition, there is still driving deaths, health costs, contribution to disturbances and poor behavior, etc.

I for one, admit it.

Trump will not bring perfection.

Not all the money will get out of politics.

Not all the regulations wil be abolished.

Not all the crony shitheads will have to leave.

But he can ditch any one them, or any group of them, in a New York minute. They will all show him the proper deference, or be walked out. They won't own our President, because he didn't accumulate a mass of interconnected Washington locked-in commitments like Hillary, over decades of climbing up that cesspool of a community.

That's a big difference, (even if we really will have to live with the things that are never going away anyway.)

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Selene said:

Is this from Rasmussen Reports, Adam?

#DonaldTrump, #TedCruz & #JohnKasich all shows gains in our latest #GOPPrimary poll... https://t.co/oCQbuQJAO0 pic.twitter.com/PzsNgwgfBX

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll)

March 18, 2016

Edited March 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Included tweet from Rasmussen Reports, which links to story behind quoted graphic.

[Peter]

I edited some of the following article for brevity.  Rove has his detractors but he has been at it a long time and is worth a read for his facts. Where do delegates come from? Why from State Conventions.  If the national convention is contested 57% of the delegates will become free agents after the first ballot, and 81% after the second ballot. How would Trump woo delegates? Bribes and jobs? Emotions? . . .  A really good speech and cheering?  Trump. Trump. Trump a thump.

Jon Letendre wrote: They will all show him the proper deference, or be walked out. End quote

What if over half the delegates start chanting, “Dump Trump, dump Trump, put’m inna dump truck?” Chuckle. Naw. Cleveland ain’t Chicago. We ain’t the democrats. Cleveland Ohio,  July 18^th. Be there or be square, or just tune in.

Peter

From The Wall Street Journal. How Trump Can Raise His Game by Karl Rove, ENLARGE

 

Karl Rove

The Wall Street Journal

CANCEL

Karl Rove

 

March 16, 2016 7:03 p.m. ET: The Donald is in a commanding position. But watch out: This is when some candidates slack off and make mistakes. Here are ten bits of unsolicited advice for the GOP front-runner:

1. Change your tone. Nothing justifies the disruptions at your rallies by protesters from MoveOn and Black Lives Matter. But before you again urge your fans to “knock the crap out of them,” ask yourself if any president you admire would say that.

2. Work to unify the GOP. Realize that while you’ve received 7.5 million votes, 37% of those cast so far, your competitors have won 12.8 million. You haven’t carried 50% in any state, a mark that every previous nominee has hit much earlier. The party is deeply split, and you cannot simply claim it is time to unite.

3. Pay attention to party regulars. This fight has two theaters: Delegates’ support is apportioned through primaries, but most of the delegates themselves are selected in party conventions. If the national convention is contested, 57% of delegates will become free agents after the first ballot, and 81% after the second. To win a convention battle, you’ll need their support.

4. Figure out how to parry the attacks. Your bankruptcies, fraud lawsuit, failed ventures and misogynistic statements are fair game—and you need better responses. Effectively answering these attacks now will make you stronger when Democrats come after you.

5. Stop being a one-man band. Surround yourself with experts who reassure voters that you can build the strong team needed to govern. Voters are drawn to you as an outsider, so find other business leaders to play active roles in your campaign.

6. Take a breather, and make good use of it. The pace is slowing: There have been more than 30 contests in the past six weeks; there will be 13 in the next six weeks. Use the break to study the issues. Your knowledge of policy is a millimeter deep. Stop depending on cable TV shows for information. Instead, have actual experts brief you.

7. Go after swing voters.

8. Keep the focus on Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Criticize what they have done by explaining what you would do—specifically and concretely. Catchphrases won’t cut it.

9. Write a new stump speech. Your canned lines have gone stale. Introduce new material, maybe examples of what needs to be changed that play to your strengths as a businessman. Self-deprecating humor is good. You did it Tuesday to fine effect, joking about how negative ads aimed at you popped up on the TV screen last weekend while you were entertaining clients at your golf club.

10. Please stop talking about polls. You sound like a pundit, not a president. And oh-by-the-way, most all the polls show you trailing Hillary. You’ve gotten much further than anyone, maybe even you, anticipated. But you’re not the nominee yet. . . . . Mr. Trump claims that he must be nominated since he will go to Cleveland with the most delegates. Yet Lincoln entered the 1860 Republican convention trailing William Seward . . . . If you don’t raise your game, you could suffer the fate of William Seward. end quote