Donald Trump

[PDS]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That speech is extremely sophisticated. I doubt he wrote it but even if he didn't it matches up to him and he hired the guy(s) who did write it.

I'll try to find the text link.

--Brant

http://www.time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/?xid=tcoshare

 

I love the last 4 paragraphs of the speech.   

[Selene]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Trump's boy RWR  deliver $1.75  worth of government for every $1.00  collected in taxes.  Our less than robust economic condition can be traced back the RWR administration.  Instead of tax and spend, it was spend and tax.  We spent more than we received in taxes and thus did the deficit grow and grow.

Bob, what branch wrote the statutory text that went into the bill that went to RWR to sign into law?

Second question, who had control over that branch. Republicans or Democrats?

Dems had 234 Reps had 192.

A...

 

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, Selene said:

Bob, what branch wrote the statutory text that went into the bill that went to RWR to sign into law?

Second question, who had control over that branch. Republicans or Democrats?

Dems had 234 Reps had 192.

A...

 

Did RWR veto any democrat money bills? It was RWR who was pushing lower taxes on the grounds that lowering taxes would grow the economy sufficiently well that we could afford  all our war mongering. 

[Selene]

28 minutes ago, PDS said:

I love the last 4 paragraphs of the speech.   

From this point on? 

Quote

 

And under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

(APPLAUSE)

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the United States and has emptied our states — literally emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. And I’ve just gotten to see it. I’ve toured Pennsylvania. I’ve toured New York. I’ve toured so many of the states. They have been cleaned out. Their manufacturing is gone.

Never again, only the reverse — and I have to say this strongly — never again; only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. There will be consequences for the companies that leave the United States only to exploit it later. They fire the people. They take advantage of the United States. There will be consequences for those companies. Never again.

Under a Trump administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of a foreign country.

(APPLAUSE)

I will view as president the world through the clear lens of American interests. I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.

The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest. America will continue and continue forever to play the role of peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to play the role, we must make America strong again.

(APPLAUSE)

And always — always, always, we must make, and we have to look at it from every angle, and we have no choice, we must make America respected again. We must make America truly wealthy again. And we must — we have to and we will make America great again. And if we do that — and if we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever, ever known. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you very much.

My apologies for asking, however the formatting of the article makes it difficult to decide where the paragraph breaks are.

A...

[Selene]

8 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Did RWR veto any democrat money bills? It was RWR who was pushing lower taxes on the grounds that lowering taxes would grow the economy sufficiently well that we could afford  all our war mongering. 

Warmongering, or, rebuilding an eviscerated military and an existing "cold war" with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Neocons are not amused by Trump.

Krauthammer even says he sounds like Rand Paul.

But, hell, to me that's a plus.

 

I have seen several interventionists on TV today throw around the word "contradiction" with Trump's foreign policy speech, but they always give the same example: that Trump wants to be a reliable ally, but doesn't want to [fill in a euphemism that means invade other countries]. And they end by asking, how can you guarantee stability without presence?

They don't understand that Trump means defeat the bad guys when you have to fight. And make the US so strong, potential bad guys will be afraid to do bad stuff. That's not a contraction. In fact, it's pretty simple unless you are a Neocon...

Michael

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Neocons are not amused by Trump.

Krauthammer even says he sounds like Rand Paul.

But, hell, to me that's a plus.

 

I have seen several interventionists on TV today throw around the word "contradiction" with Trump's foreign policy speech, but they always give the same example: that Trump wants to be a reliable ally, but doesn't want to [fill in a euphemism that means invade other countries]. And they end by asking, how can you guarantee stability without presence?

They don't understand that Trump means defeat the bad guys when you have to fight. And make the US so strong, potential bad guys will be afraid to do bad stuff. That's not a contraction. In fact, it's pretty simple unless you are a Neocon...

Michael

 

Michael,

I've noticed a pattern with Trump... every time people say he can't win... he wins. Nassim Taleb would call Trump a Black Swan. He is an unpredicted event with no precedent... and I really like that.

 

It's time for America to go "OFF ROAD".

 

Greg

[Robert Campbell]

On April 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If fact, I will even admit if Trump, who I see as a solution, were not running, I probably would have occasional comments and stay in the same kind of complicitness I was before. 

When I look at my own attitude, I see a clear example that just because an environment has been engineered so that people are kept silent, that does not mean they agree with the engineers or their bosses. Silence does not obliterate one from existence.

And this is what is behind Trump's support.

Michael,

I had to think long and hard what to say in response.

And I'm going to do this in two parts.  (The section about hurting will come later.)

Now, after Donald Trump has cleaned up in 5 Eastern states and the triumphalism is in a mad crescendo, seems as good a time as any.

What you mean by "an environment has been engineered," I don't comprehend.

It's one of those mistakes-were-made constructions.  

Not an agent, not a human being in sight.  Who engineered this environment?  How did they do it?

The engineers are those faceless beings who engineered (whatever that amounted to, in more concrete terms).  

They have bosses, again unnamed, who boss them.

As for silent complicity, I was not aware that you were in a line of work in which it would be dangerous to utter political opinions of a certain kind.  Nor that anyone was keeping you quiet (are you telling me you had to discover Donald Trump, 2015-2016 edition, to find your voice on your own site?).

Why would you need Donald Trump to rouse you from your slumbers?

It doesn't matter all that much what the New York Times does, or what NBC does, or what Fox News does.  If you want to inform yourself, in this time and place, it isn't hard.  

I'm not questioning the instrumental rationality of remaining low-information (the one vote I will cast in November will be in a deep red county in a red state, which the Republican nominee, no matter who, is just about sure to carry; the one vote you will cast in November will be in a deep blue area of a blue state that the Democrat will have a lock on).

Just saying the obvious: that if it's important to you to find out what's going on, you will.  That was as true in 1999 or 2007 or 2011 as it is today.

Some people might want to stop you, but this doesn't mean that they can.

And if you weren't paying attention till Donald issued the call to arms, there's a good chance you won't recognize the existence of valid or reliable sources of political information, besides the candidate and those who in 2016 are among his more prominent supporters.

It's as though neither Donald Trump nor his present champions even had a politically relevant history, before July 2015.

Worse yet, anyone who was paying attention, politically, before The Donald launched his latest campaign becomes suspect.

For surely only operatives of the Establishment had any motive to do so.

Robert

[Peter]

Thanks for the link to Trump’s speech, Brant. His bigger approach is fiscally costly. We will bide our time as we rebuild our military to achieve peace through fear of our strength, and peace through our influence. Or in other words, peaceful global rule. That mirrors the period when Britannia ruled the waves, or the post WWII American Pax but without the specter of a Soviet Union to out fox and out spend, just a Russia without the communist ideology and only one big product: their oil. While the debt was growing at a smaller pace under Reagan and Bill Clinton, it was not significantly reduced. So, if the American government is already digging the debt hole deeper under every President since Reagan, how will Trump get the revenue without triggering economic collapse?    

Trump said: . . . My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people. end quote

That is like Nancy Pelosi saying, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what is in it". I am all for an enduring legacy, and breaking ties with past failures and battles that were won . . . but the bigger historical picture shows we did not achieve what we set out to do. I am not saying we did not oust the Taliban or Sadam, but now we are fighting their successors.

What  policies will we have? Who will these young experts be, with no failures in their pasts?

Peter

[Mark]

“Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president.”
— Senator Rand Paul

Mark
ARIwatch.com

 

 

[Peter]

Trump said: Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy. With President Obama and Secretary Clinton we’ve had the exact opposite — a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy, one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake. After losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worst shape in the Middle East than ever, ever before. I challenge anyone to explain the disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy of Obama/Clinton. It has been a complete and total disaster.

end quote

Well said. But Trump is not explaining his practicality or vision - just that he has one. If he lives up to that one paragraph I could vote for him. We would need to see an example of his disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy. He should name and seek to achieve his goals with a foreign policy break down to show the approach he will have towards Iran, for example. He needs to HAVE a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy, but he needs to say more than, Britain and Israel, you guys are really great. I understand he would need to be elected before he can be briefed. And he can’t really name a group of people who will work for him until he can hire them when he is President. But he needs somebody like Ted Cruz to produce the details.

Peter  

[Roger Bissell]

6 minutes ago, Mark said:

“Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president.”
— Senator Rand Paul

Mark
ARIwatch.com

 

 

 

Rand Paul has been doing the rounds on the liberal talk shows lately. The libertarian-leaning Republican even appeared on “All In With Chris Hayes” Monday night as well as with Larry Wilmore on the “Nightly Show.” Wilmore dedicated the top of the show to Donald Trump’s hate-filled supporters and but the second act of the show he sat down with Rand Paul to ask WTF about Trump. 

As an optical surgeon, Paul knows all about people who can’t see clearly. “Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?” he began his response about Donald Trump. He called it “annoying, irritating, might even make you cry. But if the dirt doesn’t go away, it’ll keep scratching away at your cornea until eventually it blinds you with all its filth… and then it makes fun of you on CNN.”

Larry just wanted to clarify the metaphor, “So the eye is the conservative voter and Donald Trump is the speck of dirt?” he asked.

“No, Larry. Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president,” Paul clarified.

[PDS]

11 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Rand Paul has been doing the rounds on the liberal talk shows lately. The libertarian-leaning Republican even appeared on “All In With Chris Hayes” Monday night as well as with Larry Wilmore on the “Nightly Show.” Wilmore dedicated the top of the show to Donald Trump’s hate-filled supporters and but the second act of the show he sat down with Rand Paul to ask WTF about Trump. 

As an optical surgeon, Paul knows all about people who can’t see clearly. “Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?” he began his response about Donald Trump. He called it “annoying, irritating, might even make you cry. But if the dirt doesn’t go away, it’ll keep scratching away at your cornea until eventually it blinds you with all its filth… and then it makes fun of you on CNN.”

Larry just wanted to clarify the metaphor, “So the eye is the conservative voter and Donald Trump is the speck of dirt?” he asked.

“No, Larry. Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president,” Paul clarified.

That's pretty funny...

Whatever happened to Rand Paul, i wonder?   I loved his first speech when he announced and jabbed Hillary pretty good.   But he faded so quickly after that...

[Peter]

Roger quoted Rand Paul as saying, “No, Larry. Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president,” Paul clarified.

I don’t get that at all Mr. Paul. He beat you in the Presidential Apprentice Game but get over it. If you are that emotional you should not be blowing off steam. That is the sort of supposed, Trumpian rhetoric that should best be left said to only your wife. Yuck. Clinton? Sanders? Or the somewhat better, clichéd Kasich? Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. And we have to fight for our right to party on Tuesday, November 8th. Don't say shit that will keep any Republican from being elected.    

Trump said: I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination. However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. And always — always, always, we must make, and we have to look at it from every angle, and we have no choice, we must make America respected again.

end quote

Not bad. Now if he would just emphasize that he is for free markets and not Fascism things would be less unsettling for me. I think he is going to do away with the “elite’s influence” and crony capitalism. But seeing is believing.

Trump said: We must make America truly wealthy again. And we must — we have to and we will make America great again. And if we do that — and if we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever, ever known. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you.

end quote

That is a good vision. I hope his commercials are like that. We will have months of political commercials, so why not have good ones that uplift?  I am waiting for Donald to take away the Wow Factor from the Cruz, Fiorina alliance.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

What you mean by "an environment has been engineered," I don't comprehend.

It's one of those mistakes-were-made constructions.  

Not an agent, not a human being in sight.  Who engineered this environment?  How did they do it?

The engineers are those faceless beings who engineered (whatever that amounted to, in more concrete terms).  

They have bosses, again unnamed, who boss them.

Robert,

You are making a presupposition that is not correct when you use it to characterize what I am talking about. You are presupposing that the establishment is a single organization and that there are no factions within it.

When I say establishment, I am talking about a concept like royalty in older Europe. So your questions come off to me like someone asking, Who is the leader of royalty? See, you can't or won't say. (Thus implying royalty doesn't exist or I am talking about things I know nothing about.)

The establishment is a little different than royalty, but since our meanings are so distant on such a basic element in the concept, I have no real way to develop the idea or address your objections. Why? Because, fundamentally, what I am talking about has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Well, there is one point of common ground. Trump is winning and that means something to somebody. It looks like that got people's attention.

Anyway, when I use the passive voice and say an environment is "engineered" by the establishment, it's like saying ancient royalty did certain things to ensure they kept safe from the hoards with the torches and pitchforks and ensure they kept their privilege intact. There is no specific leader of "royalty," but there were common habits among the members of the royalty class to protect themselves. And there were other nasty habits like bitter infighting. Yet, even during the worst fights, the royalty held the same basic attitudes and policies about their commoner subjects. 

Ditto for the current political elite establishment in America.

That is what Trump is threatening. You don't see it, but I see it. And so do millions and millions of others. Like I keep saying, these millions and millions want the problems fixed. Period. And the ruling elite class has refused to fix the problems for too long and lied too much about it. So the ruling elite class has to go and an actual producer is now the popular pick. 

That's why your arguments (and those of others who think like you do) bounce off them like pebbles off a tilted trampoline. There's nothing to stick.

The good news for the elite establishment is that they will be thrown out of power, but in general, they will not be persecuted like in olden times. American commoners are too good-hearted to do that. And, anyway, American commoners don't really give a crap about ruling class folks. They have productive lives to lead. They just want the problems fixed.

Michael

[PDS]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Roger quoted Rand Paul as saying, “No, Larry. Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president,” Paul clarified.

I don’t get that at all Mr. Paul. He beat you in the Presidential Apprentice Game but get over it. If you are that emotional you should not be blowing off steam. That is the sort of supposed, Trumpian rhetoric that should best be left said to only your wife. Yuck. Clinton? Sanders? Or the somewhat better, clichéd Kasich? Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party. And we have to fight for our right to party on Tuesday, November 8th. Don't say shit that will keep any Republican from being elected.    

Trump said: I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination. However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. And always — always, always, we must make, and we have to look at it from every angle, and we have no choice, we must make America respected again.

end quote

Not bad. Now if he would just emphasize that he is for free markets and not Fascism things would be less unsettling for me. I think he is going to do away with the “elite’s influence” and crony capitalism. But seeing is believing.

Trump said: We must make America truly wealthy again. And we must — we have to and we will make America great again. And if we do that — and if we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever, ever known. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you.

end quote

That is a good vision. I hope his commercials are like that. We will have months of political commercials, so why not have good ones that uplift?  I am waiting for Donald to take away the Wow Factor from the Cruz, Fiorina alliance.

Peter 

Peter:  not to quibble, but the "Wow Factor" from the Cruz Fiorina alliance seems to like it might be more of a "Bow Wow" factor. 

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, PDS said:

Peter:  not to quibble, but the "Wow Factor" from the Cruz Fiorina alliance seems to like it might be more of a "Bow Wow" factor. 

No it is not. It is an inspired choice. Cruz is a political outsider, despised by the Republican establishment, uniting with a micro managing, business outsider. Both are fairly young. Trump does terribly among younger voters She is a woman to counteract the gender bias. Trump has a sixty three to 70 percent disapproval rating with voting women. She is articulate and can speak for an hour, with few or any gaffs. This shifts the dynamic. Wow.

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

38 minutes ago, PDS said:

Peter:  not to quibble, but the "Wow Factor" from the Cruz Fiorina alliance seems to like it might be more of a "Bow Wow" factor. 

David,

You beat me to it. I was going to say something else, but yours was funnier.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

There is some online hilarity over the Zany pronunciation of Tanzania, and a snappy comeback from Gingrich.

Washington elites mock Trump for mispronouncing Tanzania. They don't get it. He said the most important word correctly: America. He gets it.

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) April 27, 2016

The speech is worth a couple of listens. Here I have sped it up to top out at 18 minutes:

[PDS]

51 minutes ago, Peter said:

No it is not. It is an inspired choice. Cruz is a political outsider, despised by the Republican establishment, uniting with a micro managing, business outsider. Both are fairly young. Trump does terribly among younger voters She is a woman to counteract the gender bias. Trump has a sixty three to 70 percent disapproval rating with voting women. She is articulate and can speak for an hour, with few or any gaffs. This shifts the dynamic. Wow.

Peter  

Okay, my friend, whatever you say.  

You haven't exactly described the second coming of Abe Lincoln above.   Most competent professionals can speak for an hour without gaffs, or gaffes.    I think we may rightly hope for sterner stuff than that to pull Cruz's chestnuts from the fire.   But yes, there is no doubt that CF is a woman.   She plays the role of a woman very competently. 

My disdain for Trump is out in the open, so I am not carrying his water here. 

The CF choice is a CF.   I won't mind it if I'm wrong about this, but, the whole move has the whiff of flop-sweat desperation about it.  Or, if perspiration analogies are not your thing, the entire move (especially when combined with the Cruz-Kasich "alliance") has a kiddie-table feel to it.    Cruz, Kasich and Fiorina are all eating at the kiddie table with food slopping on the floor while, Trump is eating at the Adult Table--with small bites, mind you...

If I recall, you served in the Navy, as I did in the Marines.   We both know what the term CF stands for...This is it.

[Peter]

8 minutes ago, PDS said:

Okay, my friend, whatever you say.   You haven't exactly described the second coming of Abe Lincoln above.

My disdain for Trump is out in the open, so I am not carrying his water here. 

The CF choice is a CF.   I won't mind it if I'm wrong about this, but, the whole move has the whiff of flop-sweat desperation about it.  Or, if perspiration analogies are not your thing, the entire move (especially when combined with the Cruz-Kasich "alliance") has a kiddie-table feel to it.    Cruz, Kasich and Fiorina are all eating at the kiddie table with food slopping on the floor while, Trump is eating at the Adult Table--with small bites, mind you...

If I recall, you served in the Navy, as I did in the Marines.   We both know what the term CF stands for...This is it.

I was born into the Navy but served in the Army. Before I left the service I tried to rid myself of saying things like CF which always sounded perverted to me anyway. Of course the Great Unification of this CF *Cruz Fiorina* is questionable, and the timing suggests desperation, but it is still a brilliant move. Indiana and California are next, and Carly is from California so the move is  . . . ? If not brilliant, then it is strategic. I think it makes a contested convention much more likely.

I like her and Cruz. It's a good team. Did you hear her singing? Very nice. Tuesday in Indiana will show us the future.

Peter  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This makes me feel real good (from Newsmax today):

Trump Rebukes Charles Koch: 'I Got My Own Money'

Charles Koch had his say about Trump, saying he preferred Hillary Clinton, now it's Trump's turn to have his say about Charles Koch.

Michael

[moralist]

 

Greg

[Robert Campbell]

On April 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to seeing you, I see you. I don't talk about it much because the contest is underway and the stakes are too high, but I see you're hurting whether you admit it or not. (You and others.) It makes me feel bad to see you guys hurting that much. And I'm not taunting. I really do detect hurt and bewilderment. I try to lighten it up with banter, try to explain my perspective, but I still see the hurt.

I don't know what to do about it or even if anything I could do would be welcome. But I refuse to give up this contest, not when I see a real solution to the social and political cancer that is killing the USA--and killing my wish to continue living here--on the horizon.

Michael,

Telling people who are not receiving your message that they must be hurting is what a certain kind of Christian missionary does. 

This might happen when, politely indicating your lack of interest in the offering, you’ve handed back the pamphlet with the crude cartoons of a disordered life with Ego on the throne and of a harmonious life with Jesus in charge.  

The reaction is not empathic; it isn't a response to anything that the missionary has actually noticed about you.  It’s purest top-down reasoning.  What other motive, besides an unacknowledged spiritual deficiency, could there ever be not to accept the message?

I'm making the comparison with missionaries, because his followers really do seem to be envisioning Donald Trump as a Messiah.  Where they see a savior, I see a guy who knows how to sell things on TV, who has charisma (albeit the sort that leaves me completely cold), who can give his pitch all day long and knows how to keep the words flowing with scarcely a hesitation pause.  He doesn't have much of a program, and his followers find that a good thing, not a bad one.  He has no discernible principles, and they love him for that too.

Of course, he's not shouting and employing his gestural repertoire on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Instead, he seems to be encouraging his audience to get revenge.  It's frequently not clear on whom, but that doesn't appear to matter.

If we take the man’s words literally (something his followers strongly discourage), we might infer that, more than any other extant human being, Xi Jinping is the author of Americans’ present woes.

Whether you are out of work, or you aren’t but your part of the country is seeing factories close, or you're worried about terrorist attacks, or just tired of expensive, crrappy services from governmental monopolies, or you have Bush fatigue, or you have Obama fatigue, or you wish Mitch McConnell would follow John Boehner into retirement, or the LIRR is going putt-putt-putt-putt-putt again on your ride to work, what’s diminishing every aspect of America is CHIIiina.  

Of course, the maximum ruler of CHIIiina lives 12,000 miles away, well protected by a major military establishment.  Those trade concessions on which Trump insists, he will not be able to compel the Chinese power structure to yield up. (And, unless Trump goes so far as to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organization, the WTO isn't going to be siding with Trump on much of anything he's demanding.)

But there are people closer by, easier to reach, much easier to humiliate, discredit, defeat than Xi Jinping (or Shinzo Abe or Enrique Peña Nieto or even Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi).  For Trump, these are the vast crew that has enabled CHIIiina and other predatory foreign powers—or submitted to them, usually upon payment by (unnamed) special interests.   A lot of them are Republicans, and some of them have actually run against Donald Trump (or endorsed someone who has run against him).  

Their actual character, their actual performance? 

Irrelevant.  

Donald Trump sees them as standing in his way. 

So he has formed an instant desire for revenge, and he has no intention of ever letting go of it.  He'll never stop belittling them, calling them looooosers, demanding they beg his forgiveness.  (I doubt that, if nominated, he will be able to restrain himself from daily rips at his former Republican rivals and their supporters, even though his attention will be supposed to be fully riveted on the Democrat.)  

His followers take his example to heart.  Whatever it is that they want revenge for (they have different grievances, and none, we may be fairly sure, actually share Trump’s own), they can take it out on any of the targets that Trump has provided for them.  

It doesn't matter who Ted Cruz is, who Scott Walker is, who John Kasich is, who anyone named Bush is, who Mitt Romney is, who Mitch McConnell is, who anyone is, what any of them have done, what any of them haven't done, all he has to do is point the finger at them, and.... REVENGE!!!!

This is what makes the Trump campaign so effective at driving people apart.  For if you are not with Trump, you are accorded a brief grace period to view the proofs of sanctity.  And if they do not suffice for you, you become part of the Establishment (in other words, all that is non-Trump).  And, in your turn, you become a fit target for … REVENGE!!!!

Such social dynamics end one of two ways.  

Trumpism sweeps away all remaining opposition, because otherwise … REVENGE!!!!  OK, a lot of the former opposition is not converted.  It’s now merely keeping quiet.  (But who cares? They all deserved to be silenced, anyway.)

Or it runs up against resistance.  Resistance actually fortified, dug in by all those calls for REVENGE!!!

This is how the Trump campaign makes enemies out of friends.

Am I disconcerted by your decision to jump on the Trump Train?

Not nearly as much as I was, quite a few years ago, by Dr. Brickell Mertz Brickell’s decision to cross the into Castle Irvine, before they hauled it the drawbridge.

But I do get the feeling that, after one crosses over into Trump Ground, it will be as when one crosses over into St. Leonard’s.  The call will soon come down to denounce one’s former companions in iniquity.

And that hurts.

On the other hand, affiliation with the Ayn Rand Institute turned out to be its own punishment.  Consider how the prospect of locking up the nomination isn’t making Donald Trump and his cheerleaders more thoughtful, but pushing them to new heights of hypocrisy and incoherency, I’m inclined to think the same about passing over into Trump ground.

Robert

 

[Brant Gaede]

4 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

I think he saw the writing on the wall regarding his re-election to the Senate being in jeopardy. The rich, liberal mayor of Louisville - a Democrat - is running against him in the fall, and the DNC has supposedly targeted him as one of those (if not the one) they'd most like to replace.

I'm thinking of helping out his campaign. He is almost a neighbor, living little more than an hour away from me. Wish he lived in Tennessee.

REB

Rand Paul never recovered from his hair.

--Brant