Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

Mitt Romney is reported as dominating and plastering the airways in Utah and Arizona saying about Donald Trump, “His imagination must not be married to real power.” That’s tough criticism, Guv’nor. Mitt is supporting Cruz and is spending a lot of ad dollars. I withdraw my 2nd most likeable candidate support of Kasich and put Trump at number two.

One additional hazard of an open, contested convention is that Cruz, with the second most opening delegates is not necessarily the ONLY, obvious choice after Trump. And that is what I am sure Michael, Robert, and I among others, are very wary of. Hmmph! I will be royally pissed if the delegates don’t pick Cruz on the second or third vote. I just can’t imagine Kasich as the third choice, getting the nod. I think he is a moderate, middle (of the middle of the middle so as not to offend, folks please like me, until I screw our nation for an additional four years,) type of candidate. He seemed a lot more sponge worthy (worthy of a car wash) when he was a commentator on Fox. I am sure he would insist that being a Governor of a really big State straightened him out about the conflict between reality and conservatism.

I have no clue as to what the delegates will do. My bluster awaits tomorrow’s vote.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Here is the livestream for DT speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference (starts in ~50m at the time of this posting):

 

Thank you very much John.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They trashed Barry Goldwater using very sophisticated imagery. Daisy playing with a flower is destroyed by an atom bomb and it is Barry’s fault. The ice cream commercial with a girl licking an ice cream cone? Strontium 90 is in the ice cream, and the stakes are too high to gamble. Dump Goldwater. They succeeded and we got Lyndon Baines  Johnson and  then Richard  Nixon,

They tried to destroy Reagan using  the same techniques BUT the same tactics did not work. We prospered under Ronnie and Nancy.  And now they will use the same tactics on Trump. Don’t fall for it.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following tells me more about what is about to happen than all the squawking from the National Review neocon apologist crowd.

Major Republican Donors Fatigued by Presidential Race
by Carrie Levine
March 21, 2016
Center for Public Integrity
Time

From the article:

Levine said:

Donald Trump-fueled tumult in the Republican presidential race is prompting some major donors to abandon the field for now and instead funnel resources into downballot races.

Some key political groups dedicated to promoting Republican congressional candidates say they’re seeing interest from donors who would otherwise be focused on the presidential race.

. . .

So far, donors have funneled more than $520 million collectively into campaigns and outside groups supporting Republican presidential candidates who have now dropped out — and the primaries are far from over.

In other words, if I read this right, there is still going to be some aggressive movement against Trump from the Cruz and Kasich folks, but the establishment Republican donors look like they are stepping away from their establishment Republican spokespeople.

There's a reason the rich are rich and the not-so-rich are not-so-rich.

The rich know when to walk away.

Their not-so-rich spokespeople like Richard Lowry (editor of the National Review) don't. They say: "We Will Be Like The Last Japanese Soldier In The Jungle Resisting" Donald Trump.

The rich probably want to make a deal with Trump now. It won't be the deal they thought they had, but it will still be a deal. As to their spokespeople... well... been nice knowin' ya' Bill Kristol...

Time to retire to a sinecure... The suggardaddies will take care of you, but retired.

After all, the rich folks gotta live...

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a delight to hear Virginia Postrel be interviewed (6 minutes only) and use this new perspective about Trump. She's a Trump critic so that makes it all the more delightful.

(Article here.)

The moment she said Trump is seen as a builder to his supporters, I could hear direct quotes of words in the posts I made to her query (for the WaPo article) get mixed in.

That's how it starts. I believe her Trumpian glamour theme is going to spread as it gets more exposure and, consequently, some seeds I planted in that theme will bear fruit for the general election.

I'm hoping anyway. I mention it here, but I'm not interested in credit. I really want the idea itself to spread.

The only thing I don't like about Virginia's interview is that she really uses the fried voice tone. It makes me want to cough for her. :)

That tone is charming in higher voices (if you like the Kardashian fry). In deeper voices, it doesn't sound as pleasant.

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The moment she said Trump is seen as a builder to his supporters, I could hear direct quotes of words in the posts I made to her query (for the WaPo article) get mixed in.

That's how it starts. I believe her Trumpian glamour theme is going to spread as it gets more exposure and, consequently, some seeds I planted in that theme will bear fruit for the general election.

I'm hoping anyway. I mention it here, but I'm not interested in credit. I really want the idea itself to spread.

Michael

 

Nice. 

Always good to help a gatekeeper get your point amplified.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Funny thing is, I didn't hear anything serious about Cruz's Messianic inclinations before the South Carolina primary.  What I did find interesting is that in the exit polls nearly half cited getting along with a lot of Congressmen and Senators as something they were looking for; those folks did not vote for Cruz.  That, not Ted auditioning for Messiah, was the major attack line from Trump and his surrogates before the SC primary.

Robert,

Speaking of South Carolina and Ted's religion, does the following help allay anxiety? (The link includes a video.)

It's from Feb. 16, before Tump killed it in SC:

Ted Cruz Surrogate Tells MSNBC ‘Separation of Church and State is a Myth’

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 19, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But I got to thinking about this visceral Trump hatred (or disgust or any other automatic deep negative emotion). Suppose my image of glamour, the good life, the way I long the world to be, what I aspire to, is debonaire, refined, old-world elegance, erudite, soft-spoken, learned in all things cultured and so on.

What would I think of Trump?

I would hate him as an imposter, that's what.

Then when he comes out and beats me in business, gets accolades that should be mine, and calls me a moron to boot, there is no turning back. That vulgar man should have gone through the initiation rites, goddamit, not crashed the party. That man is running for president and making allusions to bodily functions, for God's sake! Menstruation! His dick!

SHUDDER!!!!!!!!!!

:) 

And that, I believe, is a lot of it.

There is nothing Trump could ever do to become accepted by people committed to a highbrow view of glamour in the halls of power. Virginia, included. Trump, the pretender to them, trying to reach high power, is like someone trying to make a silk purse with a sow's ear. It doesn't fit and they want him gone regardless of what he did, does or will do.

I've had similar thoughts. I think the dynamic you're talking about goes back a long time, to the beginnings of societies with a surplus and the partial freeing of some people from needing to tend to the exigencies of sustaining life.

A recent example - recent on the time scale of the human past - is the consternation of the British and European upper classes when merchants and industrialists - "vulgar" persons - began crashing the entrance gates of old-wealth, inherited status.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Cruz is Southern Baptist. Long-time American thing. I've lived among them when I was growing up in Oklahoma and now again here in Lynchburg. Often good folk, with good respect for freedom, even if often not respectful enough for minds of others by their pushiness in wanting to "save" you.

From an atheist citizen, for whom atheism is a high political concern, questioning this candidate in person: "Cruz doesn't really have a good reason for why atheists should vote for him, but he says he'd defend our rights in accordance with the Constitution."*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ellen, I'm among those whose only asset was their labor,* yet no way would I want the vulgarity (and bluster and ignorance) of a Trump in the White House. He is revolting. Pretty sure millions of other labor-asset-only Americans agree. Clearly, the responses of disgust or swoon are heavily influenced by personality of the responder. Mostly the revulsion for him as our President is not from citizens with inherited-wealth status.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS - Y'all were talking about thin skin, below, and we got an ad for SkinCeuticals at the top: "Anti-Aging Treatment to Refill Cellular Lipids and Nourish Skin"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PPS - " . . . represents the emergence of an open fascism in this country---or, more exactly, the crude elements from which an explicit fascism is to come. / Observe the symptoms: . . . a primitive, undefined nationalism (not a rational patriotism, but nationalism in the form of a collective pseudo-self-esteem)---militant anti-intellectuality . . . ---and force, the explicit and implicit reliance on the 'activism' of physical force as the solution to all social problems. . . . / Lacking any intellectual or ideological program, [he] is not the representative of a positive movement, but of a negative: he is not for anything, he is merely against the rule of the 'liberals'. This is the root of his popular appeal: he is attracting people who are desperately, legitimately frustrated, . . . people who sense that something is terribly wrong in this country and that something should be done about it, but who have no idea of what to do. Neither has [he]---which is the root of the danger he represents: a leader without ideology cannot save a country collapsing from lack of ideology." --Ayn Rand 1968, writing about Presidential candidate George C. Wallace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Speaking of South Carolina and Ted's religion, does the following help allay anxiety? (The link includes a video.)

It's from Feb. 16, before Tump killed it in SC:

Ted Cruz Surrogate Tells MSNBC ‘Separation of Church and State is a Myth’

:)

Michael

The pastor in question is one of those who purports to deny that the First Amendment requires separation of church and state.  The real question is, what measures that would violate the First Amendment is he actually inclined to favor?  Then, among those, what measures does he think Cruz will favor?

In many cases, the purported denial is actually BS, defined against a bogus interpretation of what separation means (you know, the interpretation under which K-12 education is a government function, therefore religious schools must be discouraged or suppressed).

Not that an MSNBC operative is going to challenge the pastor on any of this.  Why try, when taking him at his word does the most to advance her network's agenda?

See, here's what I'm just not getting.  I don't want to advertise this possibility, but, you know, there are some folks in South Carolina who really would like to see a partial or complete establishment of religion (as long as it's theirs, of course).  At a minimum, mandatory public prayers that invoke Jesus every time.  And these folks don't line up around the block to vote in the Democratic primary.

Again, don't want to advertise it, but there might have been enough that if Trump et al. convinced them that Cruz wanted everything the pastor was implying, Cruz would have won.

What Trump seems to have done instead was to convince enough voters that Cruz's unpopularity with Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham would make him ineffective as President.  In other words, good ole SC deference to authority. (And as though Trump supporters would really want him to get cozy with McConnell or Graham).

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's how it starts. I believe her Trumpian glamour theme is going to spread as it gets more exposure and, consequently, some seeds I planted in that theme will bear fruit for the general election.

I'm hoping anyway. I mention it here, but I'm not interested in credit. I really want the idea itself to spread.

Michael,

Before getting carried away with the theme of Trumpian glamour, you should take a careful look at Virginia Postrel's analysis of other glamorous politicians (such as JFK and Barack Obama).

Glamour requires mystery.  If you feel you truly know who the person is, and that you know what he or she will do (most often, because by now a lot of it's been done), glamour goes away.

Hence, in Postrelian terms, Obama won in 2008 on glamour.  He got reelected in 2012 with good old-fashioned appeals to fear and hate.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Glamour requires mystery.  If you feel you truly know who the person is, and that you know what he or she will do (most often, because by now a lot of it's been done), glamour goes away.

Robert,

And isn't unpredictability one of Trump's characteristics?

It seems to me he's got that aspect locked up.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

If elected, Trump will acquire a track record.  Kinda hard for a President not to.

Besides, how have we done with glamorous Presidents in the past?  

We might look back on JFK and conclude he wasn't quite as bad as Rand thought he was.  

But the lame duck with 10 months left?  How's that glamour treatin' ya?

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

How's that glamour treatin' ya?

Robert,

Since when has glamour ever been a standard of competence?

It's a standard of resonance.

In getting elected, Trump is doing very basic marketing: AIDA.

Attention: He calls attention by saying outrageous things that, also, happen to be what a lot of people actually think. (He's smart enough to know that when you shut people up, you don't convince them and the thoughts that bounce around in their heads make such people crave to have them spoken.)

Interest: He bonds with his audience through several means. Glamour is one of them. Bashing common enemies is another. (There are even more.)

Delivery (also Desire): He delivers his message of improving America and part of that message is about competence and excellence. He also has a ton of large-scale projects done on time and under budget to back his message up.

Action: He tells people to vote. They are voting.

The glamour doesn't fit the competence and excellence part. It fits the bonding part.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Another thought on glamour.

The glamour of Kennedy and Obama, which is the kind of glamour the upper class resonates with, is far different than the glamour of Trump. His glamour is for working class people.

I haven't thought this all the way through, but I believe there is a fundamental difference embedded in this distinction. I don't expect Trump to be like Kennedy or Obama re whatever shortcomings their glamour may have caused them.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact-checking Ann Coulter.

She says the USA sends $billions/yr aid to Mexico. False. In 2013 economic aid was $349 million, military aid $71 million (link).

She says $20 billion in remittances goes immediately into Carlos Slim's pocket. False. The $20 billion is about right. But these remittances go to the senders' relatives and friends, typically very poor. A lot might eventually make its way to Carlos Slim's pocket, but he provides something in return. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Fact-checking Ann Coulter.

She says the USA sends $billions/yr aid to Mexico. False. In 2013 economic aid was $349 million, military aid $71 million (link).

Your first sentence is false.

She did not say "/yr" as you claim.

She just said "billions," and your figures are large enough to make her statement true many, many times over by now.

We have paid for the wall already, probably many times over, in gifts to a state owned by a drug cartel, and your response is to nibble at details as though they even touch the point at hand. You look silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin,

Well, if it says so in Wikipedia, that must be the whole story, right? :) 

Ann said she covered foreign aid to Mexico in Adios America!. I have the book so I'll look it up later. Ann tends to be properly sourced up the gigi. More than one person has come out badly trying to contest her information. She is probably adding this program and that and that and that all together and, in practice, calling this package foreign aid because it works like foreign aid, but is not called foreign aid in Wikipedia. :) 

I'll get back to you on that.

On the next point, I don't think you understood what she meant. But it's not your fault. She said Carlos Slim owns about 40% of the companies on the Mexican stock exchange so the remittances would go into his pocket. She compressed too much information into too few words.

The idea is that 40% of the money from these remittances (the $20 billion) would go to companies Carlos Slim owns when the Mexicans receiving the remittances spend this money. Meaning the money does not come out of the Mexican market churn. It is money from America directly injected into the Mexican market without a corresponding Mexican good or service reason for it to exist. It works like a money gift to the Mexican market because the money is in reality a gift to the Mexican people who spend it. And 40% of the companies receiving that gift (from the Mexican people spending on those companies) are owned by Carlos Slim.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some aid is not called "aid" in the official figures.

Here are some wonderful stories about the Export-Import Bank...

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/08/mismanagement-of-export-import-bank-invites-fraud

Similar lapses were noted in the bank’s $420 million financing of a copper-cobalt-zinc mine in Mexico, which defaulted within months of receiving the loan.[18] According to the OIG, project vulnerabilities “were not sufficiently addressed in Ex-Im Bank’s due diligence efforts, nor sufficiently evaluated in the internal documents submitted to the Board of Directors for consideration.”[19]

In a number of criminal cases,[20] the bank has engaged in multiple transactions with an individual or company before discovering that taxpayers were being defrauded. For example:

  • From 2008 through 2010, Jose L. Quijano, through Gangaland USA, LLC, acted as an exporter in 96 loan transactions insured by Ex-Im Bank and received approximately $3.6 million in proceeds. Quijano admitted that he and others falsified financial statements, waybills, purchase orders, and bills of lading to falsely represent that purchases and the exporting of U.S. goods were for buyers in South America. All of the loans involving Gangaland were fraudulent and no U.S. goods of any kind were shipped to South American buyers.
  • From 2003 through 2009, Guillermo O. Mondino assisted foreign buyers to create fraudulent loan applications, financial statements, purchase orders, invoices, and bills of lading to falsely represent the purchase and export of U.S. goods to buyers in South and Central America. After receiving more than $24 million in Ex-Im Bank insured loan proceeds, Mondino diverted about $6.4 million of the loan proceeds.
  • Between April 2004 and November 2007, Ismael Garcia acted as a purported exporter in at least 31 fraudulent transactions involving $23 million in loans insured by Ex-Im Bank. Garcia retained some $1.1 million of the proceeds, and sent the balance to co-conspirators and foreign buyers in Mexico. Ex-Im Bank paid out nearly $18 million in losses on the defaulted loans.
  • From April 2004 through November 2007, Jose Velasco and others prepared and submitted false commercial invoices, bills of sale, and bills of lading for goods purportedly purchased and shipped using the proceeds of 13 Ex-Im loan guarantees. The bank subsequently paid $17.9 million in claims on the defaulted loans.
  • Between 2004 and 2009, Luis E. Moy acted as the exporter in 11 fraudulent Ex-Im Bank insured or guaranteed loans totaling $11.2 million. Moy and others conspired to make false statements about the purchase of U.S. manufactured equipment, supplied false invoices, and falsified other records to fraudulently represent to the lending bank and Ex-Im Bank the purchase and export of U.S. goods to various buyers in Mexico.
  • Leopoldo Parra and others defrauded Ex-Im Bank by engaging in 18 fraudulent and fictitious loans. Parra and his co-conspirators submitted false documents stating that U.S. goods had been purchased by and shipped to various buyers in Mexico. Parra retained for his own personal use and benefit approximately $809,007.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The glamour of Kennedy and Obama, which is the kind of glamour the upper class resonates with, is far different than the glamour of Trump. His glamour is for working class people.

I haven't thought this all the way through, but I believe there is a fundamental difference embedded in this distinction. I don't expect Trump to be like Kennedy or Obama re whatever shortcomings their glamour may have caused them.

Michael,

A reasonable distinction.

However, Trump gives every indication of being similar to Obama in one key respect.  Both are incredibly thin-skinned narcissists.  When he first came on the scene nationally, Obama was more adept at hiding his narcissism than Trump has ever been.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Michael,

A reasonable distinction.

However, Trump gives every indication of being similar to Obama in one key respect.  Both are incredibly thin-skinned narcissists.  When he first came on the scene nationally, Obama was more adept at hiding his narcissism than Trump has ever been.

Robert

Yeah, but it's also a hell of a lot easier to hide your narcissism and thin-skinnedness when you've got the fawning press on your side who aren't going to challenge you in any way (and when your Republican opponents pull their punches). Put Obama in a situation where he has to face the type of snarky grilling and smearing that Trump deals with, and I think that Trump would look much cooler and calmer than Obama in comparison.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now