Donald Trump

[merjet]

In today's Cleveland Plain Dealer there is an article by David Brooks (NY Times) titled "Endorsing Trump is a moral failure." The content is much the same as:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html

Despite "moral" (note the "scare quotes", MSK   ) in the title, "moral" appears only once in the body. Brooks puts Trump on a par with George Wallace.  What is the moral code behind this remark? Blank out. What is David Brooks' moral code? Blank out. 

[Peter]

Sorry Robert Campbell. I thought you had once said you were related to John W. Campbell but I could not find the post. I do think you are intellectually similar at times which is a very good thing.

Peter

[Peter]

Last night, Judge Jeanine on Fox said she thinks establishment Republicans would prefer that Hillary be elected over Trump because they will still be in charge of their piece of the political pie. They can coexist with Hillary but not The Donald.  The chief argument against that scenario is that a Progressive will nominate the next Supreme Court nominee. But a judicial expert on Fox said a The Senate can still confirm Progressive Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, if Hillary is elected.

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 1:22 p.m. EDT March 19, 2016 wrote: In nearly 19 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Chief Judge Merrick Garland has penned just 16 dissents. Far more often, he works to unite the three-judge panels that decide most cases, molding the opinions so that they emerge unanimous. "From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges," says Justin Driver, a University of Chicago law professor who served as a law clerk for Garland. "That he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable."

end quote

In a lame duck session, The Senate could confirm Judge Garland. It would be seen as hypocritical but smart. However, if Obama then tries to withdraw the nomination should Hillary be elected then that would be seen as a worse hypocrisy

 Peter

[Peter]

I briefly saw Trump’s new spokesman, though I didn’t catch his name, and he was spectacular. He ran through several of Trump’s positions like immigration and trade, and I said to myself, “This is the guy Trump has been needing. Good job!”

Anyone catch his name? He is Brilliant.

Peter  

[BaalChatzaf]

16 minutes ago, Peter said:

Last night, Judge Jeanine on Fox said she thinks establishment Republicans would prefer that Hillary be elected over Trump because they will still be in charge of their piece of the political pie. They can coexist with Hillary but not The Donald.  The chief argument against that scenario is that a Progressive will nominate the next Supreme Court nominee. But a judicial expert on Fox said a The Senate can still confirm Progressive Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, if Hillary is elected.

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 1:22 p.m. EDT March 19, 2016 wrote: In nearly 19 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Chief Judge Merrick Garland has penned just 16 dissents. Far more often, he works to unite the three-judge panels that decide most cases, molding the opinions so that they emerge unanimous. "From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges," says Justin Driver, a University of Chicago law professor who served as a law clerk for Garland. "That he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable."

end quote

In a lame duck session, The Senate could confirm Judge Garland. It would be seen as hypocritical but smart. However, if Obama then tries to withdraw the nomination should Hillary be elected then that would be seen as a worse hypocrisy

 Peter

Assuming that the Republican retain control over one house,  they can stonewall The Donald as easily as they have stonewalled The. Obama. 

[Selene]

16 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

  they can stonewall The Donald as easily as they have stonewalled The. Obama. 

Where have they stonewalled O'bama?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

 

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Sorry for repeating two posts, but I want to keep them together with the following for later reference.

We need to add two more gems of Beckian divine elevation of Ted Cruz.

I'll just let the headlines speak for themselves.

From Breitbart:

Salt Lake Tribune — ‘Cruz in Utah: Glenn Beck Says He’s Fulfillment of Mormon Prophecy’

From The Gateway Pundit:

Glenn Beck Brings Fasting Child on Stage at Cruz Rally, Yells: “This is the Priesthood Rising!” (VIDEO)

Both of these stories hit Drudge.

This ain't good... Not for America... Not even for Ted...

Michael

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: Assuming that the Republican retain control over one house, they can stonewall The Donald as easily as they have stonewalled The. Obama.  end quote

So your projection is that establishment Republicans will still be in charge of the House and Senate and won’t be a rubberstamp for the will of President Trump if he, for example, nominates a bad Supreme Court Justice? Or if he proposes a law the establishment does not like so they will vote “No” on the law? No one else has considered that. That implies Trump won’t get a mandate and he will still be at war with the Progressives and his own Republicans.   

Don’t let that thought get out or it will be the next round of thought for talking heads and editorialists.  Come on Donald. Start talking about freedom and individual rights. Trump calls on his supporters to rough up protesters. He does obliquely threaten violence at a contested convention if he is not nominated.  Below, I think Robert Trancinski has thought of a brilliant comparison between Donald Trump and Mr. Hyde, even if it is a literary exaggeration.  

Peter

Robert Tracinski recently wrote: That's what strikes me as a really significant and ominous development in our political culture. In the original Robert Louis Stevenson version, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll is a thoughtful, enlightened, and idealistic scientist who becomes obsessed with the idea that all men have a mixture of good and evil in their souls. He attempts to devise a treatment that will purge the evil part of his soul, but instead he separates it out into an alternate personality. At first this alter ego--the vicious, predatory Mr. Hyde--is small, sickly, and weak, having long been suppressed by the better half of Dr. Jekyll's soul. But once he is let loose upon the world and has the opportunity to exercise his vicious impulses, he begins to grow larger, more vigorous, and more dominant.

This strikes me as a good metaphor, not just for Donald Trump, but also for what has gone wrong with our political culture. The candidates who built their campaigns around appealing to the better angels of our nature, the ones who were chasing after the Dr. Jekyll vote, didn't make it this year. And Mr. Trump is racking up victories on the strength of the Mr. Hyde vote.

This is a sign that we are becoming accustomed to exercising the negative aspects of our national character. We are allowing politicians to appeal to our anger and fear and resentment, and in place of a universal ideal like freedom, we're buying into tribalism and the appeal of a strongman who promises to rough up our opponents. end quote

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

No one's ever made a bad coverage decision at Fox News before? No one there's ever asked a dumb question on the air?

Wow.

A lot of Trump followers are acting as though they've acquired borderline personalities regarding one media outlet.  Once the emblem of all that was good and wise, Fox News for them is now the epitome of malice and boneheadedness.

Whatever your assessment of it, Fox News hasn't changed nearly enough since June 2015 to warrant such turnarounds.

Robert

PS. Trump's 2016 campaign is definitely a Black Swan.  No arguing with that.  Whether it's the Black Swan his followers were wishing for, no one is going to know for a good while yet.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a perfect example from Bloomberg of sanction of the victim and how Trump refuses to do that.

Trump Says Protesters Deserve Some `Blame' for Rally Violence

People who put on peaceful events are supposed to take all manners of goading, disruption, being pushed and shoved and hit, and all the selective reporting from the media, without reaction because they are supposed to be morally above that. And it is not supposed to matter if a billionaire like Soros comes out and says he is going to fund professional troublemakers. The victims are supposed to give their sanction.

But it's not hard to show how silly that sanction is at political rallies. Take the black guy who punched out the protester in a KKK outfit at a Trump rally. Now transpose this same situation to an Obama rally. What would the people there have done to a person showing up in a KKK outfit? Or shouting the N-word as a chant? Would there be violence? And would the media tut-tut-tut over it?

We all know the answer. Hell no. People would be talking about how stupid the protester was and how he deserved it.

 

And to be honest, I, myself would be satisfied. I agree that black people should not have to sanction being victim like that and I would applaud their refusal to sanction it, even if it meant punching a dude out.

Insults are preludes to violence. That's just the way they work regardless of what anyone says we should do. Ramping insults up to the extreme generates an automatic violent response in people and neuroscience is now proving it (see Why We Snap by Fields for example). Not everybody will ignore or tamp down the violent urge suddenly surging in them, nor will they sanction the evil before them with spiteful goading and really nasty insults. So they will snap. The really toxic thing is that's exactly what the insulters want them to do.

If snapping is evil, so is goading people to snap and Trump is saying it clearly. No more sanction of obnoxious hateful insults as disruptions at peaceful gatherings. Now the paradigm is do it if you want, but do it at your own peril. You no longer get a moral sanction.

What's more, the media is really perplexed because sanction of the victim is not working anymore for racism in general.

Trump shrugged.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Whether it's the Black Swan his followers were wishing for, no one is going to know for a good while yet.

Robert,

I don't deny there is uncertainty with what Trump will do. Being unpredictable is even part of his schtick. But based on the huge amount of good he has done in the past (see here for instance), the prospects look great.

We already know what the other politicians will do--the endless war machine with creeping global crony corporatism and disappearing borders while screwing the American producer class--and that is no longer acceptable to a growing mass of voters.

There is no other viable alternative. Maybe Ted Cruz, but he's becoming a religious messiah.

What do you suggest people do? Roll over and take it again?

The cronies rigged the game so no one else can get in.

It takes a Trump.

 

Michael

[anthony]

There's an interesting one, did DT find his followers, or did his 'followers' find a DT? My impression of the extremely mixed bag who support Trump is of a previously unenfranchised, unknown and uncared about 'group' who in fact fitted no known groups. I believe they are the "XXX Like Me" individuals from all walks of life who have grown up watching the busybodies from the Left and the Right, equally, running things and moralizing others - and have finally said: enough! There are the many individualists without the power of a clear tribal identity - deemed essential in collectivist times - with some ' fellow travellers' of an objectionable identity nobody else rightfully wants to belong to them. Trump soon will have to work out who are his supporters and why, and cut his cloth accordingly - and so unite them and draw others from both parties. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me preface the video below by saying I am not a fan of Chris Matthews for all the standard reasons. However, I agree with him on warmongering (the scam I call "endless war" where the greatest military mankind has ever seen fights an unending stream of primitive countries and can't defeat them).

When Matthews goes there, even though he spins it left and doesn't use the same words I do, I generally find his facts and opinions in order.

And boy did he nail the lady (Eliana Johnson) from the National Review just now.

He said the one thing that unites the National Review posse against Trump is that they are all hawks and Trump was against the Iraq war. Johnson tried to do standard talking points denial, but all she could do was sputter when Matthews asked her to name one person over there who was against the Iraq war.

Just one.

She couldn't.

This is one of those fundamentals that the cronies ignore except at voting time that I keep talking about. And now the National Review smokescreen is starting to evaporate.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/18/2016 at 10:25 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Here is someone else who has come to this conclusion.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Ted Cruz can be glutinously religious, but, really, he thinks he's Mashiach/the Mahdi/the Messiah?

Why hasn't he followed Glenn Beck in identifying the Donald as the Antichrist hiding under bad hair?

Marco Rubio was just as glutinous for a while, before he exchanged that failed marking strategy for others that failed

And John Kasich isn't shy about telling people that God is commanding us to expand Medicare.

If it were simply a matter of voting for who is least religious, Donald Trump would be near-perfect (though Hillary and Bernie don't seem terribly far back).

Robert

[merjet]

David Stockman wrote, "Big Pharma and the health insurance cartel are already in Trump’s gun sights," (link). 

While I agree with much of what else Stockman says, I disagree that Trump's aim at the health insurance cartel is anything significant. Stockman doesn't elaborate, but if he means only allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines, that is insignificant as I explained here.

Significant would be taking aim at employers providing/paying for insurance for their employees. Employers can already cross state lines for health insurance in one sense. An employer headquartered in state X can have group health insurance to cover its employees, some of whom live and work in other states.

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

One can fully expect Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.  I think he can.  Many in both parties' Establishments are obviously afraid he can.

One can fully expect a Donald Trump win to give fits to Bob Dole and Trent Lott and Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham and the remaining members of the Bush Dynasty.  Even to any Republican campaign consultant who didn't sign up with the Trump campaign.

But what else can we fully expect?

I see an awfully wide cone of uncertainty around Trump.  Everywhere from give him credit, he won some and he lost some, to a Berlusconian level of accomplishment (at least without the bunga bunga), to a Jesse the Body/Ahhnold level of accomplishment.  Then at the other edge he could go full Erdogan on us (he gives every appearance of despising the press with greater vigor than the current inhabitant of the White House already does).

[Peter]

Robert Campbell wrote about Trump: But what else can we fully expect? I see an awfully wide cone of uncertainty around Trump.  Everywhere from give him credit, he won some and he lost some . . . end quote

And Tony from South Africa wrote: There's an interesting one, did DT find his followers, or did his 'followers' find a DT? My impression of the extremely mixed bag who support Trump is of a previously unenfranchised, unknown and uncared about 'group' who in fact fitted no known groups. I believe they are the "XXX Like Me" individuals from all walks of life who have grown up watching the busybodies from the Left and the Right, equally, running things and moralizing others - and have finally said: enough! end quote

Yebo! Spot on. Did you say you were immigrating to America Tony? Today or tomorrow is OK. Our calendar and door is open to you. Trump’s support is made up of a mixed bag of personalities. The uniting word is “Enough!” If he wins the nomination it will be interesting to dissect how his previous detractors like me, will then support him. A large percentage of The Tea Party, Libertarians who want to win, evangelicals who want to win, Objectivists who want to win, Conservatives who want to win, and guys and gals who are normally Democrats but are now folks who want THEIR kind of guy to win, are all supporting Trump. Their numbers will grow after he is nominated.

Trump’s unknown decision making process seems transparent and opaque at the same time. Fixed yet moving. I think he is making a conscious effort to avoid gaffs like former Presidential hopeful, Herman Cain’s, 999 tax plan. But he is also strangely open and speaks off the cuff. Some of his remarks come as a huge surprise even to his own family who are standing behind him at some rallies.    

Peter

Poephol – poop-all: Idiot, moron, doofus. It’s the Afrikaans version of arsehole (asshole), e.g., Did you see that poephol cut me off in traffic?

Vuvuzela – voo-voo-zeh-lah: Loud trumpets blown at sports events, made famous (infamous) at the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

42 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Ted Cruz can be glutinously religious, but, really, he thinks he's Mashiach/the Mahdi/the Messiah?

Why hasn't he followed Glenn Beck in identifying the Donald as the Antichrist hiding under bad hair?

Robert,

It's not a matter of words.

It's a matter of perception.

Perception and logic often don't mix.

If Cruz is seen by the public (other than his supporters) as a candidate with messianic urges, or at least seen to carry a "God's anointed one" self-image, which is what is starting to happen, it won't help if he points out his other views.

And having Glenn Beck and a preacher father next to him doesn't help.

If you perceive a coiled snake nearby suddenly jump, you are going to run even though it ends up being a garden hose pulled by the gardener. You'll figure it out after you run.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Presidential power has been expanding contra the Constitution for a long time. Democrats did not excercise all their powers against Bush's power-creeping and abuses. The last two terms were and continue to be the most dangerous in recent history, because everyone everywhere, including media, refuse to oppose Obama in any real way.

Old time liberal, Obama-voting law professor Jonathan Turley argued a year ago that,

"the president poses a clear and present danger to the constitutional framework of the government. He argues that Mr. Obama has “become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid,” and warns that the president’s overreach has led to a “tipping point” that could permanently alter the system that has for so long made Americans a free people."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/26/editorial-jonathan-turley-laurence-tribe-cite-obam/

 

It is so important that other branches of government assert their just powers to check executive power-creep. A Trump election will reignite that sorely-missed tradition. America needs that. It will make us all safer.

 

VOTE TRUMP

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Something to think about for National Review warriors:

~Conservative Pundit: @DemsRRealRacistNATIONAL REVIEWWe've been hiring such great young talent lately, I expect our median subscriber age to tick down to 65 any day now:

Posted by

Ann Coulter

on 

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Michael

[merjet]

Want a little fun?  Try finding a hotel room, such as at hotels.com, in/near Cleveland, OH for July 17-21. The Republican Convention is July 18-21. I found the following suburban ones:

Super 8 Motel, Strongsville  $263/night + tax
Super 8 Motel, North Ridgeville  $416/night + tax
Motel 6, North Ridgeville  $120/night + tax

[william.scherk]

On 3/19/2016 at 10:56 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[T]his growing mass of Trump supporters is not made up of bigots (as those making the charge eventually conclude).

What is the definition of bigot you have in mind, Michael?  Or what is the definition of bigotry that comes closest to your usage?

On 3/19/2016 at 10:56 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How many times and how many people have to appear on air saying they have known Trump for years and he is no bigot? 

I can answer this ... given I understand better just what you mean by bigot and bigotry.   

[Selene]

Bill:

Please define bigotry, as you understand it, first. 

Thanks.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

What is the definition of bigot you have in mind, Michael?

William,

I haven't a hard and fast definition to play gotcha with (not because I can't come up with one--I just haven't thought it through yet), but in general, a bigot assigns his target with inherent moral inferiority based on non-moral characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, birthplace, etc.

Note, morality can exist in some characteristics like culture, but the culture is not defined by being moral or immoral. Morality is based primarily on individual choice. Thus each characteristic a bigot uses (like those above) can be attributed to good and evil people alike. There are good whites and evil whites, good blacks and evil blacks, good men and evil men, good females and evil females, and so on.

To a bigot, all members having such a characteristic are some form of evil--the better ones are a more benign form of evil, but still evil, and the others are more evil.

As gravy, often a bigot assigns his target with inherent stupidity, vulgarity, and other bad inherent qualities, but they are not fundamental to bigotry. The fundament is moral.

Michael