Donald Trump

[Jon Letendre]

Just as with Robert Campbell, I doubt they realize how well they sell Trump.

More, please.

MORE!!

[Robert Campbell]

Back to the East Coast for a minute.

There's been nonstop Trump triumphalism since he won these 5 primaries (carrying every county, according to one report that I read).

So it's worth recalling a couple of things:

(1) Mitt Romney cleaned up in these same Republican primaries 4 years ago.

(2) While Republican primaries have been drawing higher turnouts than 4 or 8 years ago, the Democrats have been holding their own contested primaries.

Here are the totals (off the RCP front page, April 27—similar to what WSS displayed upthread.

State	Total Republican	Total Democrat
Pennsylvania	1,537,696	1,638,644
Maryland	418,750	814,522
Connecticut	208,817	322,485
Rhode Island	60,381	119,213
Delaware	67,807	92,609

Hillary got more votes than Trump in all five states; in Maryland, Hillary got more than all three Republicans put together.

Bernie (who's laying off campaign workers) got more votes than Trump in Maryland, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.  Bernie won only Rhode Island—there he drew more votes than all three Republicans put together.

The Republican nominee would certainly benefit from carrying Pennsylvania this fall.  How likely is that to happen?  (Adam has told us he thinks Donald Trump can carry New York, but it will be close.)

Will he have a snowball's chance in hell, in the other 4?

The delegates count toward the nomination, regardless.

Indiana is a state that the Republican has to carry in the fall.   It will be interesting to see what the primary turnout looks like there.

Robert

 

 

[Robert Campbell]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Just as with Robert Campbell, I doubt they realize how well they sell Trump.

Jon,

You never previously confessed your abiding love of Mitch McConnell.

Robert

[Jon Letendre]

More!

[Robert Campbell]

Trump's foreign policy speech was pretty bad, even by the standards of politicians' foreign policy speeches.

Here is of the many reactions that will be discounted at this site:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/28/of-course-trump-supported-all-three-wars-he-condemned-in-foreign-policy-address-n2154633?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=

But there's one passage of particular interest in that speech:

Quote

 

On Russia, in particular, the celebrity candidate has insisted that the world has nothing to fear.

“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible,” Trump contended. “Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon.”

 

The source is here (I do not agree with the author about quite a few things, though we presumably share two premises, that Russia is an empire and Vladimir Putin wants to be an emperor):

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/

Trump has already displayed what at best can be described as ambivalence about Putin.

But then we find Trump hiring Paul Manafort, whose clients have notably included Viktor Yanukovych.  On two different occasions, Yanukovych ruled Ukraine as Putin's puppet.  Manafort was associated with him for at least 6 years.

In 2010, Yanukovych was reelected (after being out of power for several years), and Manafort took credit for his victory.

It did not end at all well.  In 2014, Yanukovych was run out of Kiev, leaving behind a gilded palace that the opposition made sure was amply documented for posterity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10656023/In-pictures-Inside-the-palace-Yanukovych-didnt-want-Ukraine-to-see.html?frame=2834874

Vladimir Putin must have figured, quite some time ago, that a President Trump will be easier to roll than President Obama was.

If all of the Estonians pack up and leave, will Trump order the construction of a special wall to keep them out of the United States?

Robert Campbell

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump had to hop a fence.

He said it felt like he was crossing the border.

 

Michael

Here is the video published by Fox:

 

[Jon Letendre]

Trump did not say nothing to fear, why don't you listen to him for once (it doesn't sound to me like you do at all) instead of quoting clowns who always distort his meaning?

He said China and Russia are growing militarily and we must do the same and then some, and confront them.

But do go on distorting his meaning at every turn. It highlights the anti-Trump disinterest in truth, and sells him like nothing else could.

 

More, please!

[Robert Campbell]

On April 28, 2016 at 0:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Michael,

I think what you are saying is that you actually can't identify the establishment, or any considerable manifestation of it—and mustn't be asked to.

Your analogy to royalty makes no sense.  For with regard to royalty I can and will say.

Royalty had lots of visible exemplars (kings and queens and princes and such), who were known to all and emphatically wanted to be known by all as royalty.  Royalty actually did have leaders.  Royalty also had an elaborate set of rituals, prerogatives, and prohibitions, which could be identified with some effort (and which the generally recognized exemplars of royalty often proclaimed, in any case).

Meanwhile, I can point to a Republican Party Establishment, which has leaders like Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and hangers-on, such a majority of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.  I can even identify some of their rituals, prerogatives, and prohibitions (most of which are not exactly secret to begin with).

But no, if I even attempt such identifications, of a Republican Party establishment or a Democratic party establishment or a mass-media establishment, or any other variety, large or small, local, national, or global, I merely prove that I myself am part of the establishment, willfully oblivious as to its true extent and nature—and seeking to make you just as oblivious.

Whereas all you seem to need to know is that if Donald Trump is winning, the establishment is losing.

And if anyone doesn't like any of this winning, he or she is assuredly part of the establishment that is losing.

This does give us a definition: "establishment" = "non-Trump."

Such a definition gives Donald Trump tremendous leverage over you.

It isn't hard to see what it does for him.  What does it do for you?

Ann Coulter was once a sycophant of Mitt Romney, which made her "establishment," and now, with no discernible changes in her basic attitudes or rhetoric, her income or social position, she is a sycophant of Donald Trump, and therefore perfectly "nonestablishment."

Mitch McConnell, let's say, is "establishment" until and unless Donald Trump finds a use for him, whereupon he is "nonestablishment."  McConnell is the same guy all along, holding the same position of power, with the same (often bad) character traits and so on.

Can you acknowledge, at least, how such a view of the establishment (it's everywhere, it's all the same but different members of it fight for position, the same person can go from establishment to nonestablishment at any time without warning, and you can't tell what they are but we know them when we see them) is not merely confusing to the uninitiated, but makes the continued winning of converts somewhat difficult?  (We just see what you just don't see.  Now, we will make you see it.  Unless, somehow, we can't, which will be your fault. )

Your entire line of argument implies that anyone who disagrees with you concerning the virtues of Donald Trump, or of his unique saving mission, is part of the "elite establishment."

So now, whether I was or wasn't before, I am a member of the establishment.

And I am among those who must be overthrown.

I'm inclined to ask the imperceptible leaders of the elite establishment to send one of their perceptible limousines for me, just once.

And, before I become the silenced one, to ask for a perceptible guarantee of non-persecution.

Robert

 

[Robert Campbell]

17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Trump did not say nothing to fear, why don't you listen to him for once (it doesn't sound to me like you do at all) instead of quoting clowns who always distort his meaning?

He said China and Russia are growing militarily and we must do the same and then some, and confront them.

But do go on distorting his meaning at every turn. It highlights the anti-Trump disinterest in truth, and sells him like nothing else could.

 

More, please!

Jon,

If all that is anti-Trump is uninterested in truth, then anyone who is anti-Trump is ipso facto impossible to convert (unless Donald Trump has custom-designed some falsehoods for that specific purpose).

And any statement by Donald Trump becomes immune to challenge, because a challenge is, well, anti-Trump.

Whatever.

The evident problem with Trump's statement quoted above is that keeping up the "cycle of hostility" might be Vladimir Putin's notion of what is best for Vladimir Putin.

If Putin so views it, what next?

Even though appeasement (Hillary's "reset") hasn't been working, Trump didn't rule it out.

What kind of confrontation is he willing to engage in?  What costs does he think are worth paying?

Do you know what he thinks?

For that matter, does he?

Robert

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Trump's foreign policy speech was pretty bad, even by the standards of politicians' foreign policy speeches.

Here is of the many reactions that will be discounted at this site:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/28/of-course-trump-supported-all-three-wars-he-condemned-in-foreign-policy-address-n2154633?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=

But there's one passage of particular interest in that speech:

The source is here (I do not agree with the author about quite a few things, though we presumably share two premises, that Russia is an empire and Vladimir Putin wants to be an emperor):

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/

Trump has already displayed what at best can be described as ambivalence about Putin.

But then we find Trump hiring Paul Manafort, whose clients have notably included Viktor Yanukovych.  On two different occasions, Yanukovych ruled Ukraine as Putin's puppet.  Manafort was associated with him for at least 6 years.

In 2010, Yanukovych was reelected (after being out of power for several years), and Manafort took credit for his victory.

It did not end at all well.  In 2014, Yanukovych was run out of Kiev, leaving behind a gilded palace that the opposition made sure was amply documented for posterity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10656023/In-pictures-Inside-the-palace-Yanukovych-didnt-want-Ukraine-to-see.html?frame=2834874

Vladimir Putin must have figured, quite some time ago, that a President Trump will be easier to roll than President Obama was.

If all of the Estonians pack up and leave, will Trump order the construction of a special wall to keep them out of the United States?

Robert Campbell

I read the townhall article and some links within it.

It is very weak. Where I see that Trump had a lot of negative things to say about Mubarek and his corruption, the author sees full support for his ouster and the subsequent rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The author cites Trump answering Howard Stern's "Should we go into Iraq?" with; "I don't know, I guess so" as though it's an endorsement of everything that followed going in.

Anything to avoid discussing the principles he laid out in the speech, it appears.

[Robert Campbell]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Your post sounds like the way Cruz reasons when he comes to the conclusion that Trump wants an individual mandate for health insurance.

The only problem is, he doesn't. Debating skills don't help when people can see the contrary with their own two eyes.

Michael

Michael,

You can see with your own two eyes that Donald Trump isn't sucking up to Mitch McConnell?

How does one see this?

Mitch McConnell says, to other Senators regarding Donald Trump, "drop him like a hot rock."  

Trump does not react with his customary rips against yet another loooooser, a hopeless establishmentarian who can't find his rear end in the dark with both hands, a guy who couldn't get elected dogcatcher, spiced with all kinds of unkind commentary on McConnell's physical being.

Instead, nothing.  

Except when, as he did on several occasions prior to the "hot rock" remark, he cites McConnell ("a good man") against Ted Cruz.

No part of this elicits even the mildest curiosity?

You see that Donald Trump is against the establishment, therefore...

(1) You further see that Mitch McConnell isn't part of the establishment.

(2) You further see that actually he is, but he'll be unusually useful to Donald Trump even as Trump seeks to destroy McConnell's power base and just about everything McConnell says he stands for, so he's being spared.

(3) You further see that Trump doesn't care whether Senate Republicans up for reelection run advertisements against him after he's been nominated to run for President.

(4) You further see that it doesn't matter to Trump whether Chucky Schumer and Dick Durbin control the Senate unofficially or officially, come January 2017.

Well, maybe not therefore anything.  

What you just see may be the sort of experience that has no implications.

Somewhere there's a boundary between just seeing, and just seeing what you want to see.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

22 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I read the townhall article and some links within it.

It is very weak. Where I see that Trump had a lot of negative things to say about Mubarek and his corruption, the author sees full support for his ouster and the subsequent rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The author cites Trump answering Howard Stern's "Should we go into Iraq?" with; "I don't know, I guess so" as though it's an endorsement of everything that followed going in.

Anything to avoid discussing the principles he laid out in the speech, it appears.

Jon,

The principles that Donald Trump laid out in his speech presumably do not resist being netted out.

Could you tell us, briefly, what they are?

Robert

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jon,

The principles that Donald Trump laid out in his speech presumably do not resist being netted out.

Could you tell us, briefly, what they are?

Robert

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech

Let me know if you can't find any.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Meanwhile, I can point to a Republican Party Establishment, which has leaders like Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and hangers-on, such a majority of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.  I can even identify some of their rituals, prerogatives, and prohibitions (most of which are not exactly secret to begin with).

Robert,

You kinda left out the Bushes, the donor class, and so on. Just turn on the TV news almost any day and you will see one. And the Democrat establishment, for that matter. They are all pretty visible. And there are rituals to get among them and be accepted to share power with them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

45 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

You can see with your own two eyes that Donald Trump isn't sucking up to Mitch McConnell?

Robert,

Of course he isn't. He's going to have to work with McConnell, so it's better to get an early start on sizing each other up.

But you have decided he is sucking up so nothing I could possibly say will make a difference to you.

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

I think what you are saying is that you actually can't identify the establishment, or any considerable manifestation of it—and mustn't be asked to.

Your analogy to royalty makes no sense.

Robert,

Do you remember when I said it didn't matter to me or my reasoning re Trump what you said? 

It's because of things like this.

My analogy of establishment and royalty to show how they are equally broad concepts does make sense to almost anyone. But apparently not to you. (I think it does because you are intelligent enough to understand this, but I think you are being contentious qua contentious to advance your stated hatred of Trump.)

Since I see no effort on your part to find even minimum common ground with what I am talking about on something so easy to understand, why on earth would I take anything you say about Trump seriously? I already know the essential content of your posts before you post them. They never change.

I know what you think about Trump and I disagree with it. And vice-versa with you to me. What's more, you disapprove of me for supporting Trump. You've said so in so many terms. The details change, but that's what all this blah blah blah always boils down to.

(btw - I do not disapprove of you for your hatred because I think I understand where it comes from, although I can't and won't share it.) 

At first I took your comments about Trump seriously and actually checked my premises and positions with them. But not after the 50th repetition in different words.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

You see that Donald Trump is against the establishment, therefore...

(1) You further see that Mitch McConnell isn't part of the establishment.

(blah blah blah)

Robert,

Where do you get this crap?

I don't see that at all.

And I am almost 100% sure that I don't see what your extrapolation from that will be. I'm basing this on the recent way you are constantly running off the rails about what I supposedly think.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This video sends a big honking message.

A guy named Christopher Conway decided to walk through the middle of a bunch of Trump protesters in Burlingame, Ca., before a Trump appearance (April 29, 2016). He wore his Trump hat and chanted Trump's name.

The results were pretty predictable.

Other results are predictable, too, including more votes for Trump due to Conway's trek.

"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil..."

 

There is a one thing that impressed me that, on first blush, appears to be counterintuitive. I have little doubt many of these protesters were paid goons, so I am very pleased a few of them decided to protect Conway until he could get to the police. It took guts to do the right thing in that environment.

There are good decent people to be found all over America, even among the demonstrators in a demonstration orchestrated by paid anti-Trump goons.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Where I see that Trump had a lot of negative things to say about Mubarek and his corruption, the author sees full support for his ouster and the subsequent rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The author cites Trump answering Howard Stern's "Should we go into Iraq?" with; "I don't know, I guess so" as though it's an endorsement of everything that followed going in.

Jon,

Also, this kind of spin, forced interpretation and outright wrong statements is what I see Cruz do a lot (for example, when he says Trump supports Obamacare and the individual mandate, Trump has no intention of building the wall, instead he supports citizenship for illegal aliens, etc.).

It makes me sad when I see Cruz do that, too, because I don't want to lose my respect for him. And I keep feeling embarrassed for him... Seriously. It's like the shame you feel when you see a bad comedian tell the same lame joke over and over and doesn't have a clue that people think it's a stinker.

Michael

[william.scherk]

 

[Brant Gaede]

I've noticed reading elsewhere that it may be too early to assume Trumps wins the nomination. I also came across an interesting article with a graph showing how Trump has been getting exponentially more press coverage than all the other candidates combined. If this helps explain how well he's doing now, it might also suggest there really isn't all that much support for him out there for the general election campaign.

--Brant

we're observers--the contentiousness here on OL and elsewhere implies we can be more than that or there is an impulse to live right now in the all too slowly arriving future

[william.scherk]

 

[Peter]

Harrumph, William. Der Trump’s don’t wear flip flops. They wear Stormtrooper boots.

Can a thread on any candidate be spin free even when it is full of Objectivists? Or, how honest can a candidate be and still get elected? Do they all make *deals?* To some degree I think they do. And Objectivists can go all gaga over someone they idealize. If you stand up to speak in public you are playing a part so I don’t know how you can tell what the hell Trump will do. The writers here are standing up to speak sort of in public. Can anyone truly know what Cruz will do? Imagine the pressure if you have embraced the mindset to win . . .  or go home. I wonder if Trump can even conceive of saying, “I fought the good fight, but now it is time to go back to Trump Towers.”    

I think someone mentioned the genetic origins of Cruz (Canadian Cuban?) and Trump but here it is again. I wonder if the author of the following will change their cringe-worthy name? Poleax Ghost, Casper, Splash goes the Ghost?

Peter

Trump or Drumpf – What’s In A Name? By Palash Ghosh:

Amidst the national uproar that Donald Trump is creating over where US President Barack Obama was born (Trump said he believes Obama was really born in Kenya, which would make him ineligible to occupy the White House), there are some interesting elements from Trump’s own ancestry. For one thing, “Trump” is not his real name. The Donald’s grandfather was a German immigrant named Frederick Drumpf who emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 and became a naturalized citizen in 1892.

At some point, he started calling himself “Frederick Trump,” but it is unclear if he ever changed his name officially. Some have speculated that he didn’t want to be known as “Drumpf” because of prevailing prejudice against Germans (which would heighten, of course, during World War I). Frederick (or more appropriately, Friedrich) returned to his native Kallstadt in Germany’s Rheinland to marry Elisabeth Christ in 1902. Drumpf returned to the U.S, and settled in Queens, N.Y. He would die in 1918 during the Spanish Flu epidemic. Of course, his grandson would attain incredible wealth and global fame under the name “Trump.”

“Trump” is an actual name, it is of English origin and according to linguistic sources it is a “metonymic occupational name for a trumpeter, from Middle English trumpe [‘trumpet’].” Quite appropriate for someone who likes blowing his own horn.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I also came across an interesting article with a graph showing how Trump has been getting exponentially more press coverage than all the other candidates combined.

Brant,

There's an easy reason Trump gets more press coverage and press people talk about it openly. I have seen this discussed several times on prime-time TV news shows on different channels.

Trump shows up to the press. The other candidates do not most of the time. The other candidates tend to cherry-pick invitations and demand restrictions on topics. Trump has no fear of uncomfortable topics and he shows up everywhere he can where is invited. His restrictions tend to be based on time constraints, not on focus groups. In a few cases when he gets really pissed at a reporter, he will not longer be available (like with Megyn Kelly--but even that restriction is going away now), and sometimes he will cool on a reporter (like Joe Scarborough and Mika), but after a while, he comes back.

In short, one of the reasons the press covers Trump more is that he is always there for them to cover.

btw - His support is more massive than it appears. Just look at the number of voters as compared to other elections to get an idea. See here from a few days ago: Donald Trump could amass most primary votes in GOP history.

Actually, he will. He's already passed Romney and there are still 10 states to go.

Michael

[william.scherk]