Donald Trump

[Peter]

Roger, Mark Anthony, Bissell orated: We all notice it. It's his living room. He can dance about naked with a lampshade on his head and accuse us of gotcha or of suspect motives if we protest . . . end quote  

If we protest . . . Ah, enter stage, far right, Michael, Julius, Kelly responded: Roger, Did I just see that you predicted Trump would win the nomination way back when? That's what I think I saw. end quote

Once again, enter, center stage, Mark Anthony: Friends, Romans, and countrymen. I come to raise Trump up onto a pedestal, not to bury him. When the poor have cried, Trump has wept. Oh, his ambition is made of sterner stuff than celebrity. Trump never wanted to make himself king, for there were many who witnessed him denying the crown three times. I am uplifted by the bravery of a few honorable men.  Good men.  Men who have supported Trump since the beginning of his political era. For good or bad, you gentlemen now own his legacy. How far will it be into his Presidency before he becomes a lame duck? Day 60? Day 1000? Oh Great Caesar’s ghost, I take it back because we know that is not possible . . . forgive my sarcasm.

Peter

Some comments from Derek below seem to echo some of the EARLY, post primary victory sentiment here. Oh, ye spinners of webs it is time to dream . . .

Derek Hunter: May 05, 2016 That’s All, Folks: In short, barring a miracle, we’re screwed. I can’t be a part of it. What I believe in always has superseded party loyalty. It just so happened the Venn diagram of my principles overlapped enough with Republican candidates, especially on big picture issues, to allow me to maintain my beliefs. That’s not the case in 2016.

My choice was made both easy and difficult by the voters in Indiana. It won’t be Hillary, I am vehemently opposed to her and what she stands for, but it won’t be Trump either. So who will it be? Should the Libertarian Party field what it has been unable to in the past – a viable, strong candidate – I will go with that. Failing that, and if history is any indication they will fail that, I have to choose between everyone who ever existed and any fictional character because I will be writing in one them. end quote 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Yes, I abandon this thread as no longer a field for Reason.

Man, you guys are sore losers.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Michael is not going to task himself to fairly examine and try to understand any argument or claim about Drumpf from the POV of You.

. . .

This is the Pro-Trump thread designed to be a triumphant record of his march to the White House. That is the plot, the narrative, the story.

Let me translate this for those who said they have been swayed by my reasoning to, first, take a new look at Trump, then to support him. Also for readers in general, especially those leaning this way.

Statement 1 from William above - There seems to be no way in hell to get Michael to scapegoat Trump like we do.

Statement 2 from William above - It feels awful to lose. We are not wrong, we never are. It's the world that is all screwed up and shame on Michael for winning.

 

Ask yourself, folks, if the ant-Trumpers ever showed signs of trying to look objectively enough at Trump to questions their own premises--like they constantly demanded Trump supporters to do.

You won't find it. Every time they looked like they were going to try, it ended up boiling down to them affirming Trump supporters were mentally inferior in some manner. (Stupid, unprincipled, unenlightened, racist, emotionalist, ignorant, etc...)

It's the rigid blaming others for being rigid without seeing their own rigidity and acting as if this were a moral principle.

All this talk from them about reason is nothing more than a hifalutin name slapped on conceptual content about losing and not liking it one bit.  

(I'm wondering if I pardoned the crows too soon...)

   

Michael

[tmj]

Robert 
You bring up the idea that DT's supporters' hope is in casting him in a  messianic role. It strikes me as a very important , if not pivotal, element in the success of his candidacy so far. But, at least for me, his appeal in that role is not as a redeemer as much as a table overturner. The proverbial political gatekeepers and money changers may still man their kiosks , but some pretty sanctifiying light has been glaringly shed in this election cycle.  My hope for Jeffersonian bloodletting to nurture the tree of liberty is that that juice will be sucked out of the structure, practices and institutions of the current two party extra-governmental political machine, a much less  bloody or violent revolution. 
Policies and programs  would have to be judged by their merits if or when they are not  the competing slogans between  two opponents. I understand ( or think I do ), the merits of a bicameral legislature, but I can't figure out  the benefits for the citizenry (the actual instances of liberty and its having) in the realm of political parties.
So for me so far, I'm glad of his candidacy and happy to see his coming  because hopefully it means people were looking for it, that gives me hope, a different kind than the last bringer of hope brought.
And if their coming and going crack the foundations of the parties from whence they came, all the better. How else do we expect to get less of the same?
Tad

[Peter]

Tad wrote in response to Robert: But, at least for me, his appeal in that role is not as a redeemer as much as a table overturner. The proverbial political gatekeepers and money changers may still man their kiosks, but some pretty sanctifying light has been glaringly shed in this election cycle. end quote

Well said. But, is that the most we can hope for - a rebel without a cause? We need another hero. Trump will be extending a hand to the GOP now for the “grand bargain” that will help finance his election. That is in his interest. And since his election is in the GOP’s interest I think they will try, but not insist upon, his obedience to their principles. Not that Trump would agree to a cash for clunkers deal. He has a plan. He has ideals, yet as Robert has mentioned all his deals center on him.

A lot of stories are popping up about his potential “Sultan of Swat” VP choice (gotta be a legislator) or what role will Ted have (AG?) or Ben Carson (Nubian Minister of Medicine?) And how about Sarah Palin (for Queen of Seduction?) I probably should not say jokes like those because I like all those people, but this is America!

Peter   

[Roger Bissell]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

You bring up the idea that DT's supporters' hope is in casting him in a  messianic role. It strikes me as a very important , if not pivotal, element in the success of his candidacy so far. But, at least for me, his appeal in that role is not as a redeemer as much as a table overturner.

 

The two-in-one of Attila/Witch Doctor is not a rare thing in history. Without delving into the pathologies of the 20th century, I'll just point out Mohammed. He functioned/functions as both messiah and table overturner. (Not to mention as role-model rapist of 6-year-old girls.)

Don't be too surprised if you see increasing violence aimed toward those who dare to criticize him - especially not in a culture/political system that is, as we speak, bringing thuggish RICO cases against those who challenge the ruling orthodoxy in regard to things like "climate change science." But also violence against those who support him.

I anticipate a period, hopefully brief, of round-robin disruption of people's civil liberties by those who believe the end justifies the means and that anyone disagreeing with them does not deserve to be treated in a civil, rights-respecting manner. In particular, I advise staying away from large public gatherings for the next 9 months or so - and limiting time spent in venues where people are, generally speaking, acting as though they've taken leave of their senses.

REB

[tmj]

Roger

Him , who? 

Watch out for violence toward Muslims and from them, or violence from and toward Trump supporters? Or both? And both because of Trump and from people who support his candidacy?

[Roger Bissell]

Trump's leftist protester-opponents (MoveOn.org and related socialist thugs) and reactive Trump supporters. (Not referring specifically to Muslims at all. I just dredged up Mohammed as an example, rather than using more oft-cited 20th century examples.)

REB

[Robert Campbell]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

You bring up the idea that DT's supporters' hope is in casting him in a  messianic role. It strikes me as a very important , if not pivotal, element in the success of his candidacy so far. But, at least for me, his appeal in that role is not as a redeemer as much as a table overturner. The proverbial political gatekeepers and money changers may still man their kiosks , but some pretty sanctifiying light has been glaringly shed in this election cycle.  My hope for Jeffersonian bloodletting to nurture the tree of liberty is that that juice will be sucked out of the structure, practices and institutions of the current two party extra-governmental political machine, a much less  bloody or violent revolution. 

[...]

And if their coming and going crack the foundations of the parties from whence they came, all the better. How else do we expect to get less of the same?

Tad,

Clearly, many of Donald Trump's supporters do see him in a Messianic subrole: driving the money changers out of the Temple.

Some (not the proprietor of this site!) go further. For them being the disrupter is all that matters.  Milo Yiannapoulos told an interviewer that he fully expected President Trump to issue a couple of big executive orders, then be in total, lock-down conflict with Congress (both houses, both sides of the aisle) for the rest of his term or terms—and he considered this an excellent outcome.

The problem is that Trump only pretends to be an overturner of tables.

Once he is in power—well before he actually is—you are going to see him surrounded by many of the same gatekeepers and money changers you thought he was going to rid us of.

If Trump were really trying to change the system, he would have found every way possible to work with Scott Walker, not stomped him and then re-stomped him (losing the Wisconsin primary in the process, though not the nomination).  Any chance of those two working together is gone now.

If Trump were really trying to change the system, he would have gone after Mitch McConnell every day after McConnell told Republican Senators to drop Trump "like a hot rock" and run ads against him, if he turned out to be the nominee while they were seeking re-election.  Instead, he sucked up to McConnell, and used him against Ted Cruz, in return for which McConnell has (rather tepidly) endorsed Trump, and Trump has announced he will invite McConnell to Mar-a-Lago.

See, for example

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supports-donald-trump_us_572a8944e4b096e9f0904b4d

Or (reacting specifically to Bobby Jindal's decision to endorse Trump):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/05/trumps_establishment_yes_men_130483.html

And Jindal, I might add, is a decent guy who has done some worthwhile things, not a hack or an apparatchik.

Quote

 

It’s been fascinating to watch the GOP establishment—yes, that GOP establishment, the one both Trump’s fans and the media insisted he was fighting all along—breezily sidle up to the presumptive nominee like overconfident pigeons awaiting a stray cracker crumb or pretzel chunk. In his Indiana victory speech, even Trump seemed a bit incredulous at the sudden quisling eruption. 

“People that have said the worst things about me,” he related, “they’re calling now, and they’re calling us all, and they’re saying, ‘We’d love to get on the train, the Trump train. … We’d love to get on the team.’” 

And so we have Reince Priebus, whose entire job depends on the continued existence of the clown car pileup that is the GOP, calling for “unity” behind Donald Trump. We have John Boehner, Trump’s golf and “texting buddy,” subtly cheering him on. We have Newt Gingrich, who appears to be angling for a job in the Trump administration, maybe as vice president. We have fence-straddlers like New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who claims she’ll “support” but not “endorse” Trump, a hilarious position I’m sure will be all the rage in the coming months. 

But hey, why not? Washington, D.C., is the ultimate company town, filled with people whose careers and livelihoods depend upon taking your money and preserving the status quo. This includes the current Republican apparatus, which does not care about principles and certainly does not care about you.

 

Trump will shake up the Republican party, but only in the manner that Obama shook up the Democrats.  

He will put his people in charge of certain high-profile things, and try to push out anyone who contests his authority.  Everything else will be farmed out to the usual suspects.  After six months of Trump, four years, or 8 years, the party will be in much worse shape than it already was when he took over.  Those who could have done a better job will, as a rule, no longer be around.

If Trump makes it clear that he doesn't care whether certain people fall in line behind him, that he even reserves the right to repudiate their endorsements... then Bill Shuster (a quintessential hack Congresscritter, coming right out of a primary in which he squeaked past a Tea Party challenger) endorses him, and Trump says nothing...  you already know everything you need to know.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a lot of blah blah blah in the following article from the NYT, but it's not what it seems.

Paul Ryan Says He Is ‘Not Ready’ to Endorse Donald Trump

Here's the way I see it.

Paul Ryan knew the establishment was putting its game in place backstage to take the nomination from Trump and Cruz. They actually were going to try this crap. So magnanimous Ryan could say he would support Trump as part of the smokescreen.

But it all depended on Cruz keeping Trump from getting the minimum number of delegates. Not only did Cruz not get them, he walked out.

That blew the establishment backstabbing to holy hell and back.

 

Now Ryan's true position is coming out. After all, he might as well try to play for leverage. Except for one problem.

He no longer has any.

Michael

 

[Newberry]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There's a lot of blah blah blah in the following article from the NYT, but it's not what it seems.

Paul Ryan Says He Is ‘Not Ready’ to Endorse Donald Trump

Here's the way I see it.

Paul Ryan knew the establishment was putting its game in place backstage to take the nomination from Trump and Cruz. They actually were going to try this crap. So magnanimous Ryan could say he would support Trump as part of the smokescreen.

But it all depended on Cruz keeping Trump from getting the minimum number of delegates. Not only did Cruz not get them, he walked out.

That blew the establishment backstabbing to holy hell and back.

 

Now Ryan's true position is coming out. After all, he might as well try to play for leverage. Except for one problem.

He no longer has any.

Michael

 

Spot on. 

[PDS]

9 hours ago, Newberry said:

Spot on. 

Spot off.

I'm pretty sure the presiding Speaker of the House of one of the three co-equal branches of government has "leverage."

Unless passing laws through Congress has become just another game of "gotcha" among Establishment Types.

Ironically, the only way Ryan doesn't have leverage is if Trump gets his ass kicked so bad in  the upcoming election that he brings down the House with him.   Then he won't have leverage.   And neither will Trump.  But Hillary will.  Yippie.

[Brant Gaede]

Trump has rendered all the standard GOP players--call them the real big guys--irrelevant. He stomped them. To which one might say, well, what good were they in 2008 and 2012? There is also the question of whether what's left will do the job of at least keeping the GOP in control of both houses of Congress. (And there are the governorships and state legislatures.)

Trump stomped his way to the nomination. Unfortunately, he stomped too much. That is, he stomped everybody and stomping everybody wasn't necessary, unless, that is, he intended to stomp the GOP itself--after all, he is a crypto-Democrat. What we do have on the table is he gets the nomination and great ego appeasement. (Cruz, et al. don't need ego appeasement.) This means he's not going to do a huffy walkout and run as a third party candidate. Now we're going to find out if he's going to deflate or keep stomping away. I want him to keep stomping for that would mean stomping Hillary, the PIAPS (pig in a pants suit). That might salvage the GOP this year.

Unless Trump now brings more to the table, all he's got is stomping. If his ego is a balloon it's got a hole in it and stomping is his way of keeping it inflated. (At least he's got the necessary energy.)

Of the two narcissists, Obama and Trump, Obama is the most robust. That's because the Democratic Party real big guys, including the mainstream media, are there and have always been there for him. That's why he's President, along with white liberal guilt if not vote fraud. Once Trump gets to be President--I doubt he'll make it (that's up to Hillary screw ups and she's on the verge of a huge one)--the Oval Office, Air Force One and the band playing "Hail to the Chief" and the necessary to them of mainstream media suck up to power, might do for replacing the stomping. (Will he stomp Iran or Russia or China?)

The only thing I'm sure of is Ted Cruz would have lost to Hillary Clinton, for the campaign would have been conventional. Cruz ran a conniving campaign for the nomination especially noticeable at the end. He was incapable of sublimating it. (All politicians connive.) There is also the problem that his personality is all wrong for presidential campaigning. He doesn't know how to engage the voter who has to figure him out intellectually and most voters could give a damn about using their brains that way. Thus they'll likely get their just desserts.

--Brant

I wonder what the final post count on this thread will be--can Michael keep it up until November--or do we all go fishing?

[PDS]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Trump has rendered all the standard GOP players--call them the real big guys--irrelevant. He stomped them. To which one might say, well, what good were they in 2008 and 2012? There is also the question of whether what's left will do the job of at least keeping the GOP in control of both houses of Congress. (And there are the governorships and state legislatures.)

Trump stomped his way to the nomination. Unfortunately, he stomped too much. That is, he stomped everybody and stomping everybody wasn't necessary,unless, that is, he intended to stomp the GOP itself--after all, he is a crypto-Democrat. What we do have on the table is he gets the nomination and great ego appeasement. (Cruz, et al. didn't need ego appeasement.) This means he's not going to do a huffy walkout and run as a third party candidate. Now we're going to find out if he's going to deflate or keep stomping away. I want him to keep stomping for that would mean stomping Hillary, the PIAPS (pig in a pants suit). That might salvage the GOP this year. Unless Trump now brings more to the table, all he's got is stomping. If his ego is a balloon it's got a hole in it and stomping is his way of keeping it inflated.

Of the two narcissists, Obama and Trump, Obama is the most robust. That's because the Democrat real big guys, including the mainstream media, are there and have always been there for him. That's why he's President, along with white liberal guilt if not vote fraud. Once Trump gets to be President--I doubt he'll make it (that's up to Hillary screw ups and she's on the verge of a huge one)--the Oval Office, Air Force One and the band playing "Hail to the Chief" and the necessary to them of mainstream media suck up to power, might do for replacing the stomp stomping.

The only thing I'm sure of is Ted Cruz would have lost to Hillary Clinton, for the campaign would have been conventional. Cruz ran a conniving campaign for the nomination especially noticeable at the end. He was incapable of sublimating it. (All politicians connive.) There is also the problem that his personality is all wrong for presidential campaigning. He doesn't know how to engage the voter who has to figure him out intellectually and most voters could give a damn about using their brains that way.

--Brant

I wonder what the final post count on this thread will be--can Michael keep it up until November--or do we all go fishing?

I agree with your last full paragraph.  

Cruz would have had almost no chance of beating Hillary.   Trump has a puncher's chance of doing so.

The binary choice on the table is Trump or Hillary.   To support Trump, a lot of people (I'm talking mainly to myself here...) need to get over their distaste for Trump's temperament and style--not so much his substance--because (1) nobody really knows what his substance is, i.e., witness his 3 flip flops since earlier this week, and (2) we are electing a statist no matter who ends up winning in any event.   One wants to expand government without apology and the other seems very comfortable such a result. 

Then again, GW Bush turned out to be a pretty strong statist too, as would have Romney.    So what is really lost should Trump land an unexpected left hook late in the fight?  Mainly a sense of stability related to temperament and style.

This country just might not be so interested--or even willing to feign interest--in limited government anymore. 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Spot off.

I'm pretty sure the presiding Speaker of the House of one of the three co-equal branches of government has "leverage."

 

Trump's a bright fighter, and I'm sure he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents. He has to have noticed how easily Ryan was compromised, tainted and turned, and how simple it is to kick his ass politically. Ryan doesn't have a clue what toughness or leverage are. His power has come from the opposite: ass-kissing, capitulating, and abandoning his principles. Trump will wipe the floor with him.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Trump's a bright fighter, and I'm sure he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents. He has to have noticed how easily Ryan was compromised, tainted and turned, and how simple it is to kick his ass politically. Ryan doesn't have a clue what toughness or leverage are. His power has come from the opposite: ass-kissing, capitulating, and abandoning his principles. Trump will wipe the floor with him.

Spot on.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'd have a lot more fun here if more people would try to beat me up.

--Brant

I guess I'm too intimidating--nutz

[Brant Gaede]

I think Trump might win for he's much more interesting on TV than Clinton--that is, TV sucks up to him. It seems to be like some law of nature. And it would be interesting to see MSM turn on Hillary if it finds out Trump is invulnerable, simply for the savage joy of demonstrating its power to power. Unlike Trump, Hillary couldn't survive that. MSM would then be able to control President Donald--directly and indirectly--it would think, for sure. If so, watch it snowball.

--Brant

interesting times

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Unless passing laws through Congress has become just another game of "gotcha" among Establishment Types.

David,

That stuck in your craw, did it?

   

Gotcha is not an end in itself. It is a dominance tool people use to gain compliance.

When used for correcting an identification, it is used correctly simply because errors of identification have to be corrected before evaluations and actions can be called rational (thus one can obtain optimal/consistent outcomes). Gotcha in this case is used for reason to dominate. (Left brain stuff.)

But the gotcha crew I bash doesn't use gotcha for that. They use it to humiliate people to get them to sit down and shut up. (Rigth brain stuff.) And if they cannot get the target to feel shame from the gotcha, they use it to discredit him or her before an audience. In this case, instead of the target feeling shame, they try to get the audience to subconsciously feel in danger of being themselves being shamed if they agree with the target, thus the audience is prompted to to dismiss the target (or when it heats up, demonize and scapegoat the target).

Gotcha is merely a process. It is neither good nor evil. Not inherently. Gotcha is like nuclear energy, which you can use to power a city or blow it up.

But the gotcha compliance game is totally impotent--it just doesn't work--when the target people begin to believe the gotcha accuser is not interested in identifying anything correctly and is only using a persuasion or propaganda method to intimidate them. Once they believe that, they turn on the gotcha accuser.

You, as a lawyer, will never have this problem in a courthouse. The authority there is a judge and/or jury, the rules are written down, they automatically include restrictive presumptions about the different players, and perjury is against the law so much that it comes with jail sentences.

Out in the public, the rules are different. The accusers and the accused can lie without much danger. They can abuse their messages, including gotcha compliance games. But the people receiving the messages have to believe a minimum attempt at serving their interests are included. If they think they are being manipulated just to get compliance for some sleazy agenda, they tune out. And they get pissed at the manipulator.

This is what has happened to the establishment with the growing number Trump supporters.

Believe me, it's not that hard to wreck the reputation of someone. The establishment has used its well-funded power and influence to wreck the reputations of many innocents for a long, long time. But now, its own reputation is on the line and it is discovering that once the seed of discredit starts growing in the public, it's hard to get it to stop.

Part of the motor driving the Trump surge is a growing belief in the establishment's lack of credibility. As this discredit grows, the number of Trump supporters grow. The belief that the establishment is rotten, corrupted and filled with nothing but liars and manipulators is one of the common ground issues that unite people of widely different demographics, cultures and belief systems. That makes it easy for more and more people to get on board without sacrificing or compromising their own core beliefs.

Gotcha is not an effective tool to combat that. But gotcha is what many of the establishment folks keep trying, probably because that's the only compliance tool they ever learned with any competence. They are bewildered why it doesn't work anymore. They are learning that gotcha as covert persuasion only works when people pay attention to the hook--which is usually a leading question. But how in hell are you going to persuade anyone of anything by gotcha when they won't even listen to the question? Nor any arguments?

That is the strength and weakness of gotcha. When I have talked against it, I have not meant that unreason and lack of logic should triumph. I have been talking about the folks who use gotcha for covert compliance, generally through shaming the target--especially when these folks have some really sleazy intended outcomes driving them.

Michael

[Peter]

Because this thread is so long it might be better to start another thread, about the general campaign. And then one about President Trump in office. Imagine reading all the posts to date, to understand what is being said. If anyone other than Michael does it there might be a tendency to continue going back to this tome sized thread and ignoring the new thread.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

4 minutes ago, Peter said:

Because this thread is so long it might be better to start another thread, about the general campaign. And then one about President Trump in office. Imagine reading all the posts to date, to understand what is being said. If anyone other than Michael does it there might be a tendency to continue going back to this tome sized thread and ignoring the new thread.

Peter

Naw.

--Brant

stay the course

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

Because this thread is so long it might be better to start another thread, about the general campaign. And then one about President Trump in office. Imagine reading all the posts to date, to understand what is being said. If anyone other than Michael does it there might be a tendency to continue going back to this tome sized thread and ignoring the new thread.

Peter,

Excellent idea.

Let's do this when Trump is formally the candidate.

Right now, some diehards in the establishment are still trying dirty tricks, including a third party. And there are some volatile issues that could cause a lot of disruption, like if extreme violence by protesters escalates to killing people. Things like that.

When Trump is formally announced and accepts the nomination in the convention, why don't you start a thread for Trump and the general election? You came up with the idea, so why not be the thread opener? 

I might even have to bring back the crows...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Part of the motor driving the Trump surge is a growing belief in the establishment's lack of credibility. As this discredit grows, the number of Trump supporters grow. The belief that the establishment is rotten, corrupted and filled with nothing but liars and manipulators is one of the common ground issues that unite people of widely different demographics, cultures and belief systems. That makes it easy for more and more people to get on board without sacrificing or compromising their own core beliefs.

Gotcha is not an effective tool to combat that. But gotcha is what many of the establishment folks keep trying, probably because that's the only compliance tool they ever learned with any competence. They are bewildered why it doesn't work anymore. They are learning that gotcha as covert persuasion only works when people pay attention to the hook--which is usually a leading question. But how in hell are you going to persuade anyone of anything by gotcha when they won't even listen to the question? Nor any arguments?

Newt Gingrich nailed my point about the growing discredit of the establishment elites without using the word gotcha.

This is one of Newt's better analyses in an interview. Near the top if not the top.

He was almost as eloquent as I was.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anybody wants to see an excellent discussion of the deal-making now going on, Joe and crew from Morning Joe did an excellent analysis.

Because of the headline, I thought I would not like it. But I did.

They dug deeper than the divide and sized up things according to their best thinking.

I still think Ryan's intent is not so pure as they discussed, though. He was caught off guard because some establishment backstage shenanigans got blown to shit by Trump's win in Indiana and Cruz leaving the campaign. That's real easy to see.

 

Michael

[Peter]

·       Michael wrote: You came up with the idea, so why not be the thread opener? I might even have to bring back the crows... end quote

 

·       As Ronald Reagan didn’t say, “There you go again. Scattering corn . . .”

 

·       Gripe. I hope some of our Atlanteans will stop seeing every issue through a pro-Trumpian prism. Ryan’s position at this time, to not endorse Trump is an example. I was surprised by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan saying he would not support Trump but one possible reason floated by an insider was that Ryan implores America to enact entitlement reform and Trump won’t touch the issue . . . at this time anyway . . . but wait until he is elected! Trump will be educated on the issue and convinced reform is necessary and very soon. Could the issue be that compelling? I truly think people who read, support and quote Rand are better than her critics like Obama. Being a fan of Rand is important. So, Ryan, Cruz, and Rand Paul will always have my respectful ear, and get the benefit of the doubt. I do see the comparison of Hank Rearden and Donald Trump becoming President. What would Hank be like?  

 

·       Will Trump follow through on his pledge to have the preponderance of our overseas military personnel come home? Sayonara, tata, have a great life, Germany, England, Japan, and South Korea. I wonder how thorough an unelected candidate’s briefings are on foreign affairs? I hope those briefing are about to happen. He is already getting unfavorable press overseas and grumpiness from some world leaders.

 

·       And after the winning election? Political thrillers show the new President being overwhelmed by his first briefings and then later in his first term we will hear the line, “Why wasn’t I told?!?” and “You’re Fired!” Another clichéd line is line is, “But Mr. President, the document crossed your desk and you initialed it!”     

Peter – I’m not sure if those dots and paragraphs will disappear when I cut and paste. How did that happen?