merjet Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 57 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: 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. Okay, maybe I misinterpreted. She didn't specify any time period. She used the present tense. At the rate of $420 million/yr, it would take 5 years to reach $2 billion -- the bare minimum to say "billions" -- and 50 years to reach $20 billion and 119 years to reach $50 billion. So do you believe the "present" spans 5, 50, or 119 years? Who looks sillier now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 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 And there are different types and standards of glamour. Trump crosses lines and sets his own standards. He'll borrow or steal from Hippie Glamour and beat them at their own game. Or from Hollywood/Rock/Entertainment Glamour. He'll out-glamour those in Old-Money Glamour circles who are looking down their noses at him, shut them out, disinvite them, and then look down his nose at them. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Today on Fox, former U.S. ambassador and Director of Intelligence James Woolsey said we will need to go after the terrorists in the Middle East. If we just sit back, watch and monitor them from our homeland, we will be allowing a larger percent of their attacks to get through to America. We need to use airstrikes, and we can do hundreds of those a day. And troops will need to be on the ground until we kill them. We will need to reenter the Middle East periodically. I think our next President can be more isolationist and less supportive of NATO as Trump has said he will be, but the new Prez will need to realize we are at war. Perhaps a declaration of war is required and any country that resists our crossing their borders to do what they cannot do . . . well, they can protest. One story I just read says Trump should win in Arizona even though he jabbed ex-pow John McCain below the belt because Arizonans have been ravaged by illegal immigration and loss of jobs. You may still see some backlash in the general election from the 1001 groups and individuals he has lampooned. Cruz should easily win in Utah. I did not see anything about the Idaho caucus. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, merjet said: Okay, maybe I misinterpreted. She didn't specify any time period. She used the present tense. At the rate of $420 million/yr, it would take 5 years to reach $2 billion -- the bare minimum to say "billions" -- and 50 years to reach $20 billion and 119 years to reach $50 billion . So do you believe the present tense spans 5, 50, or 119 years? Who looks sillier now? Wrong. In a honest count, not a Wiki towing the official bs figures, we have already paid many times over the cost of the wall in gifts and various giveaways to the Mexican state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Wrong. In a honest count, not a Wiki towing the official bs figures, we have already paid many times over the cost of the wall in gifts and various giveaways to the Mexican state. "Reparations reasoning"? You're not in good company... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Jon wrote: . . . we have already paid many times over the cost of the wall in gifts and various giveaways to the Mexican state. end quote I think the Mexicans will respond by saying the tab starts the day the next President takes office. Unfortunately any type of aid does not come with an iou OR a written “you owe me big time.” It isn’t a contract like NAFTA. It is wishful thinking if you believe Mexico officially feels beholden to us. A lot of Mexicans definitely like us, want to be like us, and want to live here. With Canada we still have porous borders but we think better of them partially because of language, culture, and past history. We are lucky to have them on our northern border and they are lucky to have us on their southern border instead of Mexico. If a wall is built we can stop worrying about lawless, somewhat totalitarian, Mexico, or even thinking about them. And I don’t want a bunch of Castro’s rejects coming here either. Eight months until the November election, and ten months until Trump or Cruz is in office. Wow. What a great thought. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Canadians on the other hand have not been feeling much reciprocated as of late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: In a honest count, not a Wiki towing the official bs figures, we have already paid many times over the cost of the wall in gifts and various giveaways to the Mexican state. I wasn't challenging that. I only challenged her "billions of dollars" in aid and what she said about remittances. Thanks for posting about the Export-Import Bank deals involving Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Jonathan, I agree, Obama has obviously gotten help from the media that Trump hasn't (and won't). However, Obama's façade of coolness works, up to a point, at concealing the vast ego deficiency. Trump doesn't have coolness in his repertoire. Robert PS. Besides, you and I are not arguing with an audience that would get offended by the mere placement of "Barack Obama" and "narcissism" in the same sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: How Trump gets Mexico to pay for the Mexican wall. It's really, really simple. Michael, Not quite so simple, though taxing remittances back to Mexico would actually produce the money, whereas a frontal demand to the Mexican government (which is what Trump's declarations were originally taken to mean, by all sides) would not. In fact, Trump went through a brief phase of admitting that his initial demand wasn't politically feasible. I noticed that before she ran down the flow of money into Mexico, and how much of that Carlos Slim then rakes off, Ann Coulter slipped in an appeal to Trump as Emperor. No need for Congress to appropriate money to build a wall along the Mexican border, 'cause The Donald will be commander in chief and he'll just order it done. By the way, I'm old enough to remember the 2012 election. So I can't listen to or watch Ann Coulter going all in for Trump in 2016 without remembering how she went all in for Mittens in 2012. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: Trump doesn't have coolness in his repertoire. Robert, That's the mistake lots and lots and lots of people make when they judge him. Trump wins a lot he might not otherwise win with that mistake. Even in this election, look at the string of people who went after him and did not get an offended response, whether candidate or pundit or media personality. The road going back is littered with them. You have to have cool to make billions. Ask any millionaire who can never quite get to his first billion. (Ask the epitome of coolness in your meaning, Mitt Romney, who never got close to a billion. ) Let me give you an example of Trump's coolness under pressure. A couple of weeks ago, Trump said a comment, "Islam hates us." The media went apeshit. Katrina Pierson, his spokesperson, went out the next day and clarified he actually meant radical Islamism. Later in the day, Trump then corrected her without mentioning her name. He said some people were interpreting his comment to mean Islamist radicals hate us or something, but he stands by the way he originally said it. He said this very calmly, without any rancor or anger and he knew the firestorm he was causing. And Katrina kept going out to do interviews, although she didn't talk about that anymore. Trump literally kept himself a sitting duck in the middle of a shitstorm so people could keep yelling bigot at him because he knew his target prospect and he knew the media. Many journalists who have since called him a bigot have interviewed him and he is just fine with them. Trump plays the media like a virtuoso. That's coolness. Have you read The Art of the Deal? He tells people openly what he's doing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said: ... whereas a frontal demand to the Mexican government (which is what Trump's declarations were originally taken to mean, by all sides) would not. Robert, "Originally taken to mean by all sides" means whom? Certainly not me. And certainly not your standard Trump supporter. I guarantee you that. And even if some did fall for it, they later laughed at themselves because they know what Trump does and why he does it. Besides, those who know the Latin culture know no Mexican politician would openly write a check like that and still survive in politics down there. The machismo element would not allow it. It even leads some former presidents to say they ain't gonna pay for no "fucking wall." Trump is a businessman who gets things done one way or another. That's the image people who admire him have of him. He meets his goals but may vary his process. That's called shrewdness and Trump admirers know he is shrewd. The media constantly tries to nail him on process gotchas. And he beats them every time. Trump led the loud people in the media (not "all sides" of everyone, just the media) to conclude the meaning you said. But those loud people were punked by him, pure and simple. You would think they would not keep falling for the "leading to wrong conclusion with generalization" game Trump plays. But they do, time and time again. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football. The most blatant example, the one where I first noticed this technique, was about Megyn Kelly having "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." And he capped it after the shitstorm with "nose." Start looking at his rhetoric and the response it gets. You will see this pattern over and over. Trump is a counterpuncher, so maybe we can call this the "counter-gotcha." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 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. Non sequitur. Slim owning 40% of the companies on the Mexican stock exchange doesn't imply Slim owns 40% of the wealth or income of Mexico. Per my ballpark calculations Slim's wealth equals at most about 1/6th of the capitalization of the Mexican stock exchange. Of course, the Mexican stock exchange doesn't encompass all wealth or income in Mexico. May you take comfort in Coulter's non sequitur being much, much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 btw - For those who seek an indication of Trump's success at AIPAC: Trump Yarmulkes Are Biggest Seller at AIPAC Conference Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Jonathan said: 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 Remember the look of absolute viciousness on his face when he was called a liar in the State of the Union speech. He was lying and it was about the PPACA. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Now this is a keeper!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Oddly enough, progressives know a hell of a lot more about the true intentions of Donald Trump than that group of idiots surrounding National Review, and even many Trump critics on the Republican/conservative side. The progressives are becoming scared to death of him. Even Elizabeth Warren does not take him lightly like some on the conservative side do. Look at the following from Think Progress. The headline tells it all. Trump Says He Will Delegate Supreme Court Appointments To The Heritage Foundation And the non-progressive Trump critics? Crickets chirping. Literal blank-out because they don't want to believe it. But I, qua Trump supporter, not only know this is true, I have been talking about look who Trump is surrounding himself with since last July. I predict Trump's presidency is going to go down as one of the greatest presidencies in American history. But then, I would, wouldn't I? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Meaningless projections at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Robert, You would think they would not keep falling for the "leading to wrong conclusion with generalization" game Trump plays. But they do, time and time again. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football. The most blatant example, the one where I first noticed this technique, was about Megyn Kelly having "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." And he capped it after the shitstorm with "nose." Start looking at his rhetoric and the response it gets. You will see this pattern over and over. Trump is a counterpuncher, so maybe we can call this the "counter-gotcha." Michael Michael, What is the masterful strategy that has led Trump, at least twice since the rant you cited, to light another burner under his feud with Megyn Kelly, declare that no one should watch her show, etc.? How does it exemplify either counterpunching or coolness? How does denying and obfuscating whenever someone asks him about a failed business venture exemplify either of these qualities? Frankly, I would find The Art of the Deal informative only if I could read it in parallel with an account of the same transactions by a knowledgeable author without significant ties to either party to any of the negotiations. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 19 minutes ago, Selene said: Meaningless projections at this point in time. Adam, I don't think you have ever heard me discuss "if the election were held today" polls. The reason is I think they're silly. They're a media gimmick to gin up news where no news exists. Persuasion-wise, this is to feed on the anxiety of suspense qua anxiety without any relevant peg to reality. Ultimately, it's to make people feel bad so they will continue watching the news, which ironically, in the case of these polls, is no longer serving up news from reality. A poll like that is like a TV personality narrating a football game and it's in the first quarter. Then he says, "Well, if that play happened in the 4th quarter and all other factors remained the same, here's how the game would end." I would not expect that particular sports commentator to have a long career. But in politics, that's all you get these days. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Adam, I don't think you have ever heard me discuss "if the election were held today" polls. The reason is I think they're silly. They're a media gimmick to gin up news where no news exists. Persuasion-wise, this is to feed on the anxiety of suspense qua anxiety without any relevant peg to reality. Ultimately, it's to make people feel bad so they will continue watching the news, which ironically, in the case of these polls, is no longer serving up news from reality. A poll like that is like a TV personality narrating a football game and it's in the first quarter. Then he says, "Well, if that play happened in the 4th quarter and all other factors remained the same, here's how the game would end." I would not expect that particular sports commentator to have a long career. But in politics, that's all you get these days. Michael Agreed. It is pure bait for the "bread and circuses crowd." In fact, it has become so prolific that to find decent polling data, you need to see the more obscure polls, or, the internal polls of campaigns. Again, the Last Hurrah was a great movie about politics. Tracey calls it the greatest spectator sport in America. I am always amused when folks say "we don't discuss politics at dinner." My remark has always been that I guess I will be making a speech then. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 12 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: What is the masterful strategy that has led Trump, at least twice since the rant you cited, to light another burner under his feud with Megyn Kelly, declare that no one should watch her show, etc.? Robert, That's easy. His feud has nothing to do with Megyn and everything to do with Roger Ailes. Megyn is Ailes's top rising star. She's the product Ailes most values. This is a power thing. The winner (between Ailes and Trump) gets to tell the other what to do or else, which is how Ailes likes to play. Trump is showing him there is another "or else." And Fox is taking a hit because of it. Actually, Trump's feud with Megyn is starting to be a little about her because I've seen her recent shows and she's cracking. The only way she can win in this game is to remain neutral, but she's starting to take a lot of the back and forth personally and letting it show in matters where she claims to be objective. And that is starting to give her the charisma of "she's like everybody else when it comes to spin." If that image takes with the general public, her star power goes way down and gets restricted to a niche of admirers, but no longer the public at large. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said: Frankly, I would find The Art of the Deal informative only if I could read it in parallel with an account of the same transactions by a knowledgeable author without significant ties to either party to any of the negotiations. Robert, Are you really saying you have no ability to judge a book with your own mind without having someone else along to tell you a different side? Dayaamm! That's the first time I've ever heard you say something like that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now