Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, merjet said:

I won't even try.

Loser!

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to constitutional issues, I totally expect his conservative mentors (who he legitimately admires) to keep him on the straight and narrow.

Michael,

I'd like to believe this (about taking advice from Jeff Sessions—I don't know whether Donald Trump is really accepting advice from Sarah Palin, or, for that matter, whether in 2016 he should be accepting any).

I still need to see whose advice he's at all inclined to accept about, say, Supreme Court appointments.  Would he listen, for instance, to the guy he's repeatedly slammed as "Lyin' Ted"?  Would he listen to Randy Barnett?

I see a guy who wants people punished if they print negative things about him, and works harder to marginalize a certain media outlet (amazingly, it's the same media outlet) than Barack Obama has.  Will he accept constitutional advice about those kinds of things?

Robert

[Roger Bissell]

FOX News earlier today:

Donald Trump's vitriolic attacks against Megyn Kelly and his extreme, sick obsession with her is beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate who wants to occupy the highest office in the land. Megyn is an exemplary journalist and one of the leading anchors in America — we're extremely proud of her phenomenal work and continue to fully support her throughout every day of Trump's endless barrage of crude and sexist verbal assaults. As the mother of three young children, with a successful law career and the second highest rated show in cable news, it's especially deplorable for her to be repeatedly abused just for doing her job.

[Jon Letendre]

Hillary has contributed to disorder in Syria, Libya, and now Arizona.

[Peter]

William wrote: Mass arrests.  Herd like cattle. Lock them up and throw away the key.   Yeah. Sounds like a progressive American idea. end quote

Down here in freedom land, Progressives are the left wing George Soros, MoveOn, Fascist Hillary and Bernie supporters.  Peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution and are sanctioned within Objectivist Politics BUT violence is not. Retaliatory force is REQUIRED if you are an official who swears to uphold the Constitution. I said, “and throw away the key” because a lot of the same people show up in different states like gypsies, creating havoc and attempting to destroy the democratic process. There need to be consequences. Bulldozing their vehicles off a blocked highway, after warning them, is a legitimate action. What if you were going to that city, that rally, or you were in an ambulance going to a hospital, on the one road to the hospital? What if you had to take a leek, chuckle?  They are dangerously breaking the law. They are attempting to stifle free speech. Violent tactics MUST be removed from the political process. Lock them up for a week, then a month, then a year, destroy their vehicles blocking traffic, fine them, shoot them if they become more violent. How is that not just and right? Pacifism is immoral, as Rand noted. I was listening to Trump just now. He is sounding more electable.

Peter    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

39 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

I'd like to believe this (about taking advice from Jeff Sessions—I don't know whether Donald Trump is really accepting advice from Sarah Palin, or, for that matter, whether in 2016 he should be accepting any).

Robert,

That's easy: Trump Names Jeff Sessions Chairman of Foreign Policy Advisory Committee.

If anyone thinks this influence will be limited to military affairs, they don't know how people like Trump think.

About Sarah Palin, Trump has said several times she will be on his cabinet. Probably energy and to help dismantle the EPA at first. This comes up in the news once in awhile, but he has been saying things like that since the middle of last year or so. And she has said she would love to do that.

About Supreme Court matters, if you are concerned about campaign rhetoric and later relationship, look no further than Ben Carson. This is the man Trump said had mental problems, but now he will be in control of federal health and education affairs in America. (If not VP.) They buried the hatchet and agreed campaign rhetoric is unfortunate. That's the way Trump rolls. So if Trump believes "Lyin' Ted" will be the best man for the Supreme Court, which I think he might, he will not only nominate him, he will sell him.

I don't know anything about Randy Barnett, but this is a good example. If people close to Trump like Jeff Sessions (I'm using him because his approximation is public) says to Trump that Randy Barnett is the man to go to for constitutional issues, Barnett is going to be someone Trump consults with great seriousness. That's how he has always run his businesses, so I imagine that will be the way he will run government. Get top talent (from recommendations and reputation), tell them what he wants and the rules of how he wants it, get their feedback and make adjustments, settle on a plan, then let them loose to do it their way while overseeing the results.

Michael

[Peter]

Neil Young of Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young wrote:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio
 

I remember to this day an editorial by John W. Campbell the editor of Scifi’s Analog Magazine around 1970. It was about the violence and the four deaths at Kent State. He very perceptively destroyed the argument that the violent protesters were only throwing rocks and debris and stomping anyone who opposed them. He stated that rocks had been a weapon human’s have used successful for a million years. He argued that it was moral to use retaliatory force.

 

And Trump’s views on immigration are similar to mine. I think I cut and pasted the following from John W. Campbell’s relative, our very own Robert Campbell, to Word directly from some other site on 5/9/2011. Wow.

Peter

 

Tell them dear, that if eyes were made for seeing, then beauty is its own excuse for being.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

See if that were the case and you were at war with Islam, rather than just terrorism, you'd be at war with more than 1.6 billion people and you'd lose that war even quicker than you're losing this one I can assure you of that.. LM,
 
What percentage of those 1.6 billion people are good Muslims, from your point of view? Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has blessed honor killings, or clitoridectomy, or just forbidding women to drive cars. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who thinks God has commanded all women to wear burqas or abayas in public. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the Godly path consists of according dictatorial powers to the top Islamic cleric in the vicinity, or bestowing them on a non-cleric whose strongman status has been blessed by selected Islamic clerics in the vicinity. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the institution of slavery is now or ever was consistent with Islamic belief. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that dhimmi status for Christians, Jews, and maybe Zoroastrians, and the choice of slaughter or forced conversion for pagan Arabs and Hindus, is consistent with the tenets of Islam. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that the duty of waging war on non-Muslims is incumbent on all able-bodied Muslim males. Suppose you get so bold as to exclude from that 1.6 billion everyone who believes that there is a Hell, and that every non-Muslim will sooner or later end up roasting in it. Suppose you exclude from that 1.6 billion anyone who ever believes, ever for a moment, that being a Muslim automatically makes one superior to all non-Muslims, and entitled to a role, however modest, in ruling over them.
 
Now how many will you have left? If your top priority is getting Muslims to adopt more enlightened attitudes, how many of those 1.6 billion do you suppose you can count on? How many can you reasonably express solidarity with? If, on the other hand, your top priority is Islamic empire spanning much of the globe in the near future, and individual rights maybe a long while later, how many of those 1.6 billion can you reasonably express solidarity with? You have made it clear that you oppose American empire.
 
You can probably be counted on to oppose some other kinds, such as Russian or Chinese empire. What's your view of Islamic empire? My recollection is that you have never admitted that Islam was largely spread by conquest. Would you really mind whether, say, the current Iranian regime conquered far and wide in the name of your religion. And maybe got around to matters of life, liberty, and property in 1332 years, give or take a few?
Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

"Good Muslims" is completely irrelevant for the good beget bad--that is, a kid gets older and "goes back" to his "roots" and starts blowing things up.

A nuanced approach might be a Muslim sect breakdown. I'm not referring to the two major and antagonistic sects, but there are one or two other significant ones which I understand to be pacific.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Back at the Salvador Dali version of reality, some new views from Glenn Beck.

First he says if the American people don't elect Ted Cruz, we will all have blood on our hands (see here).

Now he is saying that Donald Trump's Twitter feud with Megyn Kelly makes Trump a wife-beater, abuser, stalker, and Putin lover.  That America now has "battered spouse syndrome." And he knows Trump must have suffered abuse as a child and now there is a 14 year old boy in pain in the body of a 70 year old man. (See here.)

You just can't make this stuff up without sounding like a bad soap opera.

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

As always, Roger, that is an excellent analyses of the abortion vs. individual rights issue. Rand was wrong, not by using the science available at that time but she was wrong by not using her skills of observation and her common sense available at that time.

1

 

4 hours ago, Selene said:

Excellent REB. 

Very clearly argued.

 

 

Thanks, guys! To me, abortion is exactly the same swinging your fist. As long as there is no living human being (or their property) - or at least, no living human being who has not initiated force against you - involved, have at it!

Peter, you may be interested to know that medical knowledge about fetal brain development was already publicly available several years before Rand passed away. Google Dominick Purpura and read up on his studies of the origin of brain waves and/or read Steven Rose's 1976 book The Conscious Brain. In particular, I like this quote from a 1986 essay by James Prescott posted here: http://www.violence.de/prescott/humanist/abortion.html:

Quote

 

Dr. Dominick Purpura, dean of Albert Einstein Medical School, has been studying human brain development since 1974 with his research on mental retardation. Dr. Purpura emphasizes that there are a minimum number of neurons and synaptic connections that are necessary before the qualities of "humanness" and "personhood" can be developed and that this capacity begins to occur in the middle of the last trimester. Thus, about twenty-eight to thirty weeks in utero is the minimal time for the beginning of this capacity—"It can't begin earlier," according to Dr. Purpura.

Dr. Purpura also emphasizes that critical changes are seen in the fetal brain wave pattern at thirty-one weeks when the brain waves become more organized and, thus, meuninglul; the first signs of sleep and wakefulness are not observed until a few weeks later. It is emphasized that all cells have electrical potentials and that the mere presence of such signals, per se, does not mean that the capacity for complex perceptions or "personhood" exists. How these neuronal signals become organized and reflect underlying neuronal and structural organization is fundamental to understanding the basic neurobiological pnnciple that structure precedes function.

Thus, it can be concluded that neither pain perception nor personhood exists at conception and that the beginning capacity for personhood may only begin at twenty-eight to thirty weeks in utero.

 

3

I like to throw in additional Objectivish/Aristotelian tweaks about what constitutes the beginning of the operation of the human rational faculty (the defining attribute of human beings), and then to point to the EEG studies by Purpura and others as the time-stamp for the beginning of one's life as a conscious rational being. Almost no one except Objectivists and Aristotelians "get" this argument, though, and a lot of them don't like it even then. And the Radical Pro-Life and Radical Pro-Choice people really don't like it! And Purpura's more medically oriented "brain viability" argument doesn't fare much better. (Though Reason magazine like it well enough to endorse it!) Which is why I like the "equal protection under the law" (14th Amendment) argument as a fall-back position.

Interestingly, it looks like the Libertarian Party's standard-bearer is again going to have an abortion position very similar to mine. Gary Johnson supports (or did, when he ran for President in 2012) a ban on late-term abortions: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/New_Mexico/Gary_Johnson/Views/Abortion/

Quote

 

Governor Johnson states that he supports the right of a woman to choose up to viability of the fetus. He opposes late-term or partial birth abortion and signed legislation as governor outlawing...These beliefs were stated in the South Carolina debate and in a CSPAN interview during the presidential campaign.

In May of 2011, Governor Johnson participated in the South Carolina Presidential Debate. When asked about abortion, Governor Johnson stated that he is pro-life after viability of the fetus. 

 

2

Finally, a politician who is willing to take a Radical Middle-of-the-Road position! 

REB

[Robert Campbell]

I'm related to John W. Campbell?

If you're willing to go back to the 600s, all Campbells are supposedly descended from one Diarmid O'Duibhne.

Of course, that's legend.  

But maybe we still are, if you just go back to Gillaspic Cambel in 1216 (first Campbell in the written record).

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Back at the Salvador Dali version of reality, some new views from Glenn Beck[...]

Michael

Glenn Beck has flipped out.

Not the only flamboyant public figure to have done that.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Folks, Ayn had no agrarian experience, nor any "family" experience that I am aware of.

Anyone who has been around a family with pregnant ladies knows what Aristotle meant by "the quickening."

Quote

Aristotelians followed Aristotle and without much further study of embryos interpreted development, including human development, as gradual and epigenetic. Traditional Catholicism agreed. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both held that hominization, or the coming into being of the human, occurs only gradually. Quickening was thought to occur around 40 days, and to be the point at which the merely animal mix of material fluids was ensouled. Until 1859, when Pope Pius IX decreed that life begins at “conception,” the Church was epigenetic along with the Aristotelians [see Maienschein 2003].

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epigenesis/#1

Ted Keer, who used to post here was well informed on this as well as other issues.  His knowledge of the origins of language was very informative to me.

His position on the Marriage issue was also quite creative.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Glenn Beck has flipped out.

Robert,

I recently went on a religious book reading kick. I started with the Bible (King James version), then The Book of Enoch, then The Koran (Dawood translation), The Book of Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita (Miller translation) and right now I'm in the middle of The Pearl of Great Price.

In all of these books so far, good is defined as obeying God and evil in not obeying God. This is true even in The Bhagavad Gita, albeit Krishna is a bit more nuanced than Jehovah or Allah.

This makes it easy for me to see where Glenn Beck is coming from. He's likened himself to a prophet back in Jerusalem before the Jews got hauled off to Babylon. Someone like Isaiah. Beck's followers are the people who are going to save America and he tells them that over and over. Why does America need saving? Because it is God's experiment to see if man can rule himself. In his view, if it turns out that Americans ultimately turn from God, He will destroy America.

As Beck is a Mormon, he believes this already happened in America (Central America) with the Jaredites and Nephites and mostly Lamanites, who turned into the American Indians and were persecuted because of their sins, but ultimately allowed to survive because they didn't fully turn against God.

Beck desperately doesn't want any of this to happen to America as we know it.

And Ted Cruz to him is the man who will make sure it doesn't happen. btw - Cruz knows all this about Beck and is riding that wave to glory.  

I think Beck sees Trump as the antichrist, or at least spawned from Satan.

And he dies a new death every time he sees someone he likes become fooled by The Great Pretender. He takes this as a personal failing for which he will be held to account before God in the afterlife. And, by extension, he bitterly weeps over the eternal damnation of the soul of the person he likes.

Seriously.

 

Now that I know all this about him, I still appreciate his connecting dots with leftists, Islamists, Soros and so on, but I no longer take his pro-America stuff seriously. When he says Founding Fathers, he means them in a religious eschatological context, and he means it.

The good part about Beck politically speaking, even with all his hatred of the Trump-Devil stuff, is his commitment to nonviolence. But sometimes I'm not so sure. He quipped the other day if he had a knife and was near Trump, the stabbing wouldn't stop. It's not clear if he was talking about Trump or horsing around with Pat (his sidekick), but talk like that coming from someone who is seriously committed to an abstract story over perceived reality, and is mobilizing a large group of people around that story, that kind of talk can become action in the blink of an eye.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I liked parts of this video and didn't other parts. In case you weren't aware, the guy's name is Charlie Houpert. I think he hides it because, from what I was able to tell, he comes from the PUA world. (PUA = pick-up artist.)

I wasn't aware he was from the pick-up artist world, this does explain a lot.  (I have looked into what they were doing in the past, and have a bit more on my estimations later in this post.)
 

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have a much longer discussion on this that I am not sure I will get around to writing in this thread, but since you are worried about volition, let me give you a nuance you might not be considering. The standard Randian view is either you control your mind or you don't. It's either-or. Not only that, you choose to.

Rand was worried about volition, and rightly so, she spoke about attacks on Reason, often in the form of Kant and Freud.  The discipline of psychology has changed since then, and I have no problem in saying that the largest threat to Reason today is modern psychology--there is good work being done there, however, but it's small in comparison.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The reality of the brain is that it's both. There is a hell of a lot that the brain does automatically. Volition can override the automated stuff, but there are degrees depending on how thick a neural pathway has developed. And where there are conflicts between volition and an automated subconscious habit, the overrides are temporary. Think of all the broken New Year's resolutions to see how hard it is to control a bad habit with volition alone. On the other hand, I broke a crack cocaine addiction--forever I hope--so it can be done and that was one thick-ass neural pathway. (That, by the way, was the hardest thing I ever did in life.)

I use the Branden's view of the subconscious and psycho-epistemology (up to NB's Psychology of Self-Esteem, chronologically), where a concerted, volitional effort can override and reprogram things coming up from the subconscious.  I think it's astounding what you overcame, MSK.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There are many times when the subconscious (automated part) of the mind rules volition, though. At the extreme, people snap and go temporarily insane. Their volition gets totally hijacked, yet they are rational enough to carry out sophisticated actions requiring planning. This is far more complicated than simple volition versus non-choice. (People do good things when snapping, too, like when someone rescues another in eminent danger without knowing what he was doing at the time.)

Nathaniel Branden mentions something similar in The Psychology of Self-Esteem, where in situations that require quick action a person is relying on a complexity of automatizations coming up lightning fast from their subconscious, psyho-epistemologically, to influence action.  What is likely in the subconscious (the average person) are influences from their past not stored by a process of volition, and volitional conclusions, evaluations, etc. of their own.  (Not implying you weren't aware of this, included this for context.)  But is the rescue example one where the subconscious rules volition?  I say it is not, as the person chooses to act or not to act as a matter of their own risk (or other factors), and the choice is done consciously or with subverbal(s)--both are conscious and in focus, while being influenced by their subconscious.  Now once the ball gets rolling, Barbara Branden's comments on inspiration and/or insight can apply here, but this is still a volitional process, as the person chose to act, to which the person gave a standing order to their subconscious to drive action.

I don't see any contradictions in the Branden's findings of the subconscious, psycho-epistemology, conscious thought, mental activity, volition, evasion, focus, out-of focus, etc., and I think it would be great if science can provide further evidence to what the Branden's put forth.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The main part of the Houpert's video I didn't like is ignoring reality. When Houpert says Trump frames with fear, he leaves out that Trump talks about something actually to be afraid of (ISIS chopping off heads, etc.). Yes, there is a technique. But it is used in addition to reality, to enhance the effect of something real, not to replace reality.

When fear is used as a technique only, like with climate science, the thing to fear is all over the map and even doubtful. So that frame only convinces the already-convinced. It comes off as melodrama to others.

The video is pretty good, what stood out to me first was how he said (I'm paraphrasing), "What it looks like to most people that Trump is bullying others, and it is."--when he said the italicized I immediately thought, "It is?  Prove it," which he didn't.  Where I found value was the back and forth, how the Youtuber identified so much of what Trump was doing, much of which I also notice, but I use different terminology (identity attack, self-worth attack, a subordination, more).  I arrived at these from a different experience, and when you mentioned Houpert is from the PUA world it instantly made sense to me because they often speak of "alpha" and "beta", to appear more attractive to women.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is similar to seeing people criticize Trump supporters as going on emotion only (which you mentioned).

I took this out of context because I'm not sure how to read it?  I've read it both ways, that I think Trump supporters go on emotion only, or that I think the notion of Trump supporters going on emotion only is false or inaccurate.  I think you meant the latter, which is how I should have read it.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...]

..., I have restrictions about some of Houpert's explanations of Trump's persuasion because it is only based on PUA-like split testing (which is basically NLP-style modeling. NLP = neuro-linguistic programming). Houpert implies the techniques would work even if there were no reality to peg them to, that they are not based on reality substance at the root. He treats a persuasion technique as a string pulled by a contextless puppetmaster.

Back when I looked into what they were doing, they say their methods don't really work outside of the bar or club, which then really confines their effectiveness to those environments and to certain people.  

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And Houpert does not base his explanations on the available science of the brain.

I missed this part because I didn't know the Youtuber was from the PUA world.  In his other videos he begins using language of some psychologists' articles I've read, and also some psychologists in Ted talks.

On 3/18/2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm going to look at more videos by Houpert and I'll probably write some more about him. Even with my reservations, I like him. The best thing he has going is constant analysis of others as case studies. (To that extent, he is looking at reality. But he is confining his observations to social behavior, not automatic brain behavior like fMRI scans. And, like I mentioned, at least in Trump's case, he doesn't look at the reality referent of the persuasion technique. He only sees the technique through the lens of how it worked on girls in bars.  )

Go Trump!

(had to)

[KorbenDallas]

THANK YOU ARIZONA! 20,000 amazing supporters! Get out and #VoteTrump on Tuesday. I love you!#MakeAmericaGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/pU5vB1pBO5

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

March 19, 2016

[KorbenDallas]

Ouch, the latest anti-Trump ad from Evita:

Hate isn't an American value. Division isn't something to be glorified. We can’t let Trump be our next president.https://t.co/wSgKlxOP3s

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)

March 17, 2016

[Selene]

21 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

"Ouch, the latest anti-Trump ad from Evita:"

Relax.

This will not affect the disaffected in America one iota.

A...

 

[KorbenDallas]

Likely his numbers will rise..

It's going to get real ugly between them

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That Clinton video sounds like pro-Trump advertising at times.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Twitter Facial Analysis Reveals Demographics of Presidential Campaign Followers

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601074/twitter-facial-analysis-reveals-demographics-of-presidential-campaign-followers/

Quote

When Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, a crucial part of his campaign turned on his radical use of Facebook and Twitter to secure a substantial following. Today, social media is a powerful weapon in the armory of all candidates on the 2016 election trail.

And that raises an interesting question—how do the social media statistics of the leading candidates stack up against each other. Today we get an answer of sorts thanks to the work of Yu Wang and pals at the University of Rochester, New York, who have analyzed the Twitter follower demographics of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

 

After reading this, I wanted to find the rate that Trump and Hillary gain Twitter followers.  Hillary gains about 9,600 followers per day and Trump 22,900--but what about the past 30 days?  Hillary maintains her average while Trump has increased his average to 25,000-30,000 per day.

So Twitter shows Trump has ~1.2M more followers than Hillary, and the data I pulled shows that Trump, per day, gains about three times the number of followers Hillary can gain.

This is significant, especially factoring in the proven correlation that a strong online media presence translates into votes (Barry in '08).

 

Twitter stat links:

Hillary: http://twittercounter.com/HillaryClinton?utm_expid=102679131-71.lNIIk7Z3Qla8lBIXov2YVw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0ahUKEwis9pny9s3LAhUEqB4KHZgSA_wQFggdMAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftwittercounter.com%252FHillaryClinton%26usg%3DAFQjCNG-iz4r7SAYJC1mHU2akcY1RDvt4w%26sig2%3DfezK-k1Ihprv-J7SVkPEUw

DT: http://twittercounter.com/realDonaldTrump?utm_expid=102679131-71.lNIIk7Z3Qla8lBIXov2YVw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiR1quA-s3LAhXHrB4KHYIAAUIQFggjMAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftwittercounter.com%252FrealDonaldTrump%26usg%3DAFQjCNENEdgsIForJmhhEnJZx961c4P9gw%26sig2%3D8sdcWd4SvAenNxgemkL4wQ

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I almost couldn't watch this.

What the hell is happening at Fox?

Amateur-ville all of a sudden?

These anchors are trying too hard. They're trying to make news where none exists.

They were discussing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's actions in getting the public road leading to Fountain Hills, AZ unblocked. Protesters had blocked it because of the Trump rally. OK, up to here, fine.

EDIT FROM MSK IN 2021: The beginning of the following paragraph originally started with "Then one of the Fox dorks (Will Thomas, who may not..."). Normally I would let that stand since I wrote it that way, but I just spent a couple of hours trying to find this post using Vittert's name. When I made the post, I could not find the name of the newscaster, so I looked at a lot of photos on the Fox site and elsewhere and there used to be a guy named Will Thomas who, at least in the photo, looked like Vittert. I have corrected this post to use the correct name.)

Then one of the Fox dorks (Leland Vittert, who may not otherwise be a dork, but he certainly is one here) seriously asked former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales if Sheriff Joe Arpaio's endorsement of Donald Trump constituted a conflict of interest in getting the road unblocked. (It starts about 1:45.)

Poor Gonzales looked like he couldn't believe he was just asked that. You can see him make an effort to control himself. Maybe keep from laughing as he patiently explained that Arpaio's preference for president had nothing to do with his law enforcement duties.

Then Vittert basically asked former Assistant FBI Director Steven Pomerantz why dozens of tactical forces haven't shown up in riot gear to clear the cars blocking the traffic and he couldn't believe he was just asked that. You can, also, see him make an effort to control himself, but he did let out some snark about quarterbacking from 1,000 miles away. (I could almost hear him thinking Tactical forces?!! Riot gear?!! There are three goddam cars blocking traffic in broad daylight you dork!)

I stand in awe...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, I guess there is some violence at Trump rallies by Trump supporters.

For instance, at the Tucson rally today, a black Trump supporter wasn't amused with a white leftie protester in a KKK hood and stomped the shit out of him. He was arrested and went willingly.

Maybe the Trump supporter is a racist?

I hope Soros pays the KKK-dressed protester a bonus. That's a hard job...

 

Read a bit about this here and here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It starts:

Trump to huddle with influential Republicans in D.C. ahead of AIPAC speech

This is from WaPo.

Jeff Sessions set up the meeting.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One last Trump comment for the evening.

Now that we're getting near crow-eating time, I've been thinking about black birds.

Marc has been telling me all last year (and this one) that a Black Swan event was going to derail Trump's election. He was 100% sure of it.

And I countered with my own black birds, the crows. As in eating crow.

Well, screw the crows.

Donald Trump himself turned out to be the Black Swan.

Michael