Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Peter said:

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 . . .”

Peter,

LOL...

The quip about the crows was not meant as a jibe against your conflicted views on Trump. 

I was just imagining that at the start of the thread, there would appear people (not you) pontificating about how Trump was a sure-fire loss to Clinton.

And I really do think you should be the one to open at thread at the time since you came up with the idea.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is old news, but it's new since it was lost in the mayhem of the last few weeks.

For those who think Trump's position among conservatives was helped because Hannity was in the tank for him, the following is a very interesting video of his radio show posted on YouTube April 13.

It turns out that Cruz got more time and appearances with Hannity on both radio and TV than anyone else.

This is so interesting, it just got posted on Real Clear Politics Video (May 6): Sean Hannity Responds to Criticism of Equal Time Provided For Candidates. I think it's interesting because it runs counter to the general narrative out in the mainstream.

Here is breakdown posted over there on RCP:

Quote

Here is the breakdown of candidate times on the radio show since they announced through March of this year (limited to the last top 4 candidates): 

Texas Senator Ted Cruz: 188:39
Florida Senator Marco Rubio: 141:00
Businessman and Entrepreneur Donald Trump: 112:28
Governor of Ohio John Kasich: 87:52

Time on 'Hannity' TV Show since each candidate announced:

Texas Senator Ted Cruz: 34 appearances
Businessman and Entrepreneur Donald Trump: 32 appearances
Governor John Kasich of Ohio: 20 appearances
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul: 20 appearances
Florida Senator Marco Rubio: 19 appearances
Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie: 17 appearances
Businesswoman Carly Fiorina: 15 appearances 
Former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush: 14 appearances 
Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee: 14 appearances 
Dr. Ben Carson: 13 appearances
Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker: 6 appearances
Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry: 4 appearances 
Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal: 3 appearances 
Former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum: 3 appearances 
Senator Lindsey Graham: 1 appearance 
Former Governor of New York George Pataki: 0 appearances

In other words, when other candidates have complained about Trump hogging the media, they were not talking about Hannity. They couldn't have been. And when sundry media personalities complained about low to nonexistent response to invitations, the candidates only accepted invitations from hosts and shows they deemed relevant to their limited bubble view of potential voters.

Michael

[Peter]

Firstly, I think a new thread should have a new name in the short term so that it does not look like the old thread in my inbox. I would not want Trump as the first word. Nor would I want a funny title or a title that does not describe the potential input. I certainly do not need to be the initiator after the convention, but several threads might spontaneously combust after his acceptance speech, which is why Michael should officially start the thread just before the convention. A contest for best name? I like that - with the owner of this ranch getting to pick.

Peter 

[PDS]

4 hours 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.

J

I agree that Trump's a bright fighter and that he quickly and accurately sums up his opponents.   The rest will play itself out in the highly unlikely event that Trump gets elected.

Btw, may we assume that you voted Obama/Biden in 2012, given your assessment of Ryan above?   Or did he snooker you back then? 

[PDS]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Spot on.

Michael

Dayamm!   With guys like you and Jonathan both voting Obama/Biden in 2012, no wonder they got reelected!  

[PDS]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

Too many words, Michael:  you have been using the "gotcha" move as an escape hatch when you paint yourself into a corner.  

Since I don't possess mind reading skills like some others on this thread, I am not going to speculate on your motives for this, but the move is pretty transparent.

This might be a situation where we simply have to let the readers decide.     

[Jonathan]

49 minutes ago, PDS said:

Btw, may we assume that you voted Obama/Biden in 2012, given your assessment of Ryan above?   Or did he snooker you back then? 

I knew that Ryan was already mid-abandonment of his ideology when he became Romney's running mate. In fact, prior to his having been selected for the VP slot, when he publicly distanced himself from Ayn Rand, I posted here and elsewhere that I thought that he was doing so because he was likely being vetted and groomed for the position, and I predicted that it would be offered to him, and that he'd continue to distance himself from his previously stated ideology, including to the point of viciously attacking and smearing those who haven't abandoned it.

At the time of the election, there was still much about him that was agreeable, and I held my nose over what wasn't, and voted against Obama/Biden.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

This might be a situation where we simply have to let the readers decide.

David,

I don't mind, just like I don't mind letting voters decide who they want to elect. So far, they seem to like Trump...

And so far, my arguments have prompted several people to rethink, change their minds and start to support Trump. I don't know if yours against him have done likewise for the contrary...

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Dayamm!   With guys like you and Jonathan both voting Obama/Biden in 2012, no wonder they got reelected!  

David,

I'm confused.

I didn't vote for Obama/Biden and Jonathan says he didn't either.

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

... and voted against Obama/Biden.

Is your post a typo or am I missing some arcane form of rhetoric?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Too many words...

David,

Really?

Cavalier dismissal?

That is a great example of refusing to see someone.

But wait! There's more!

Now you can call my comment in this post "victimization card" as you turn your brain off and dismiss the whole matter with the wave of a hand.

I have to admit, that is a lot easier than dealing with the actual ideas.

In fact, that is what Trump supporters started doing because they got tired of it being done to them.

Michael

[Peter]

Names for a new thread? Trump will erect a bigger tent with a broiler cooking brauts and bacon? A caller on Rush today who is a former Cruz supporter was saying Trump is not a Rino or a Demo, he is the people’s candidate. And by that he meant Republicans but also stray democrats. He is not ideological but he has solutions.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Names for a new thread?

How about this?

Donald Trump is magnificent and will win the election.

  

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Magnificent? Confirmation bias(es)?

Win the election? Maybe.

--Brant

 

 

[Robert Campbell]

Korben,

There are some things I say a lot on this site (all of them much too often for your taste).

Here are several things I am going to say just once.

Your support of a candidate who just won a major party's nomination does not entitle you to lie on his behalf, to throw tantrums on his behalf, to vent your blind hatred on his behalf, or to play juvenile games with other participants in this discussion on his behalf.

And if you have been doing this stuff because you are incapable of posting intelligent responses, it's best to stay out of discussions in which these are occasionally expected.

If you don't know and don't care what Donald Trump said in his foreign policy speech, admit it.  Or stay off the topic.

Instead, you reacted as though I was beneath contempt for asking how Trump intends to make good on his promise that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.

Your reaction to my post about Paul Manafort was more of the same: a pure expression of contempt.

If you don't know who Viktor Yanukovych is, or who Mobutu Sese Seko and Ferdinand Marcos were, and you don't care to find out—then find yourself another topic.

Either you couldn't hold your brilliant repartee until you'd finished reading my entire post about Paul Manafort (it had one more paragraph, to which "just focus on the expedient for a minute" was an obvious lead-in).

Quote

 

Well if you change the context I guess you can make any assertion you want.

Here is the original context and reply:

 

On May 2, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Paul Manafort didn't just work for Bob Dole (or for Jerry Ford against Ronald Reagan, before he worked for Reagan).  He worked for Mobutu Sese Seko, Ferdinand Marcos, at least one dictator out of the dynasty that's ruled Equatorial Guinea, and Mohammad Siad Barré (the last dictator of Somalia).

He worked for Viktor Yanukovych.  Visited him many times, at the gilded palace mentioned upthread.  

Whenever I've brought up Yanukovych, he's been the client nobody wants to talk about.

Forget about Donald Trump's alleged integrity here.  Just focus on the expedient for a minute.

 

On May 2, 2016 at 3:25 PM, KorbenDallas said:

McCarthyism?  Yah.

Time to start another blacklist.

 

Or you deliberately ignored the final paragraph.

In either case, your charge of McCarthyism makes absolutely no sense.

I neither said nor implied that Paul Manafort is an agent of global Communism (which, we might say, has seen better days).   Even when he performed some major image polishing on Jonas Savimbi, he wasn't doing it for Savimbi's old Chinese sponsors.

Everything I said about Mr. Manafort's former clients is documented fact.

Manafort's work for Yanukovych nearly got his lobbying firm partner, Rick Davis, fired from the John McCain campaign.  (Davis deserved to be fired, but McCain wimped out.)

I'm not calling for a blacklist with Paul Manafort's name on it. What kind of blacklist would that be?  Hey, shady politicians and foreign dictators, you mustn't hire a guy who helps shady politicians and foreign dictators look good!  It would only increase his revenues.

I was merely pointing out that a man of Donald Trump's supposed integrity, and supposed independence from special interests with ties to the Republican party establishment, would have no use for a veteran Republican K Streeter with a long list of skanky clients.

I was merely pointing out thet, if we now put aside any notions about Donald Trump being a man of integrity, it is foolish of him to hire a staffer with ties to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and an exiled Ukrainian kleptocrat (now being sheltered by Vladimir Putin).

Why hire a guy whose mere presence will neutralize your attacks on the Clinton Foundation?

Why hire a guy whose place in your organization draws all kinds of interest from Russian state-controlled media, anxiously expecting that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will understand each other perfectly?

Nah, you can't be bothered.

Clinton Foundation? What's that?

Joseph McCarthy? You mean, McCarthyism is named after a person?

Robert Campbell

 

[Brant Gaede]

Wowser!

Mud wrestling in the shower.

--Brant

I'm clean, I'm clean!

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Manafort's work for Yanukovych nearly got his lobbying firm partner, Rick Davis, fired from the John McCain campaign.  (Davis deserved to be fired, but McCain wimped out.)

I'm not calling for a blacklist with Paul Manafort's name on it. What kind of blacklist would that be?  Hey, shady politicians and foreign dictators, you mustn't hire a guy who helps shady politicians and foreign dictators look good!  It would only increase his revenues.

I was merely pointing out that a man of Donald Trump's supposed integrity, and supposed independence from special interests with ties to the Republican party establishment, would have no use for a veteran Republican K Streeter with a long list of skanky clients.

I was merely pointing out thet, if we now put aside any notions about Donald Trump being a man of integrity, it is foolish of him to hire a staffer with ties to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and an exiled Ukrainian kleptocrat (now being sheltered by Vladimir Putin).

Why hire a guy whose mere presence will neutralize your attacks on the Clinton Foundation?

Why hire a guy whose place in your organization draws all kinds of interest from Russian state-controlled media, anxiously expecting that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will understand each other perfectly?

Good points. WTF is going on?

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

There are some things I say a lot on this site (all of them much too often for your taste)

You don't know my tastes.

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Here are several things I am going to say just once.

Are you shaking your finger at me?  Go ahead, scold.

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Your support of a candidate who just won a major party's nomination does not entitle you to lie on his behalf,

I am a liar because you say I am?

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

to throw tantrums on his behalf,

On his behalf (Trump's behalf)?  No, there hasn't been a tantrum.  I have acted here on self-defense in the past, which, is on my behalf.

If the "tantrum" you're speaking of is my response to you after your provocation to Jon, when I hadn't seen him participate in this thread for a few days, I think it was pretty trashy of you to do that.  So, you had some sarcasm thrown your way.  No tantrum.

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

to vent your blind hatred

I think it's pretty obvious this isn't the case.

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

or to play juvenile games with other participants in this discussion on his behalf.

"Other participants" implies a group.  I look at individuals.  But juvenile games compared to what, your adult games?

And here, we have a provocation:

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

And if you have been doing this stuff because you are incapable of posting intelligent responses, it's best to stay out of discussions in which these are occasionally expected.

If you don't know and don't care what Donald Trump said in his foreign policy speech, admit it.  Or stay off the topic.

Instead, you reacted as though I was beneath contempt for asking how Trump intends to make good on his promise that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons.

Your reaction to my post about Paul Manafort was more of the same: a pure expression of contempt.

If you don't know who Viktor Yanukovych is, or who Mobutu Sese Seko and Ferdinand Marcos were, and you don't care to find out—then find yourself another topic.

What is interesting about this is to even respond could be seen as an expression of contempt.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

your charge of McCarthyism makes absolutely no sense.

I neither said nor implied that Paul Manafort is an agent of global Communism (which, we might say, has seen better days).   Even when he performed some major image polishing on Jonas Savimbi, he wasn't doing it for Savimbi's old Chinese sponsors.

Everything I said about Mr. Manafort's former clients is documented fact.

Manafort's work for Yanukovych nearly got his lobbying firm partner, Rick Davis, fired from the John McCain campaign.  (Davis deserved to be fired, but McCain wimped out.)

I'm not calling for a blacklist with Paul Manafort's name on it. What kind of blacklist would that be?  Hey, shady politicians and foreign dictators, you mustn't hire a guy who helps shady politicians and foreign dictators look good!  It would only increase his revenues.

I was merely pointing out that a man of Donald Trump's supposed integrity, and supposed independence from special interests with ties to the Republican party establishment, would have no use for a veteran Republican K Streeter with a long list of skanky clients.

I was merely pointing out thet, if we now put aside any notions about Donald Trump being a man of integrity, it is foolish of him to hire a staffer with ties to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and an exiled Ukrainian kleptocrat (now being sheltered by Vladimir Putin).

The underlined part is close in context to why I sarcastically said McCarthyism (and a blacklist).  McCarthyism has expanded its usage beyond being only communist accusations, but of course it's not McCarthyism, it is sarcasm with the use of an analogy--and with analogies, there is always something about them that makes a direct comparison untrue.  What you're doing here is pointing that out, that's all.

 

[Brant Gaede]

test

to see if I could completely delete my post. No joy.

[turkeyfoot]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Names for a new thread? 

Peter

Excel Erections, erections excel, erectors excel, excellent erectors, bs electors. My vote is in the bag.

[Brant Gaede]

30 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Excel Erections, erections excel, erectors excel, excellent erectors, bs electors. My vote is in the bag.

Stomping Hillary.

--Brant

that's the way to do it--the election is free!

[Roger Bissell]

6 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Korben,

There are some things I say a lot on this site (all of them much too often for your taste).

Here are several things I am going to say just once.

Your support of a candidate who just won a major party's nomination does not entitle you to lie on his behalf, to throw tantrums on his behalf, to vent your blind hatred on his behalf, or to play juvenile games with other participants in this discussion on his behalf.

And if you have been doing this stuff because you are incapable of posting intelligent responses, it's best to stay out of discussions in which these are occasionally expected.

 

Wow, Robert, it sounds like you are trying to suppress Korben's freedom of speech. You must be an elitist!

REB

[Brant Gaede]

It sounds like a military dress-down. I'm assuming Korbin snapped to attention reading it. This is Article 15 stuff.

--Brant

[Marc]

Hello to friends here ! 

 

Just wanted to check in , what an incredible thread - historic . How MSK was so right , and certain crow eating folks like myself could not see it ! Firstly , big kudos to our fearless leader for being one of a very few select group who called this from way back . For me , I was probably one of a very few who was so adamant  about Trump having " zero chance " .

I am really curious about how many states Clinton will even win ( even though I recall predicting that if Trump even got the Nomination , he would be  defeated very easily yet from my view it will be a blowout win for Trump ) but I am confident that it will be a Trump landslide . 

Curious about 2 points here , I am dying to see how Trumps fundraising machine will be built - that should be a treat to watch . 

Secondly, from a constitutional point of view ( obviously I do not think this will happen ) , is Hillary Clinton allowed to pick Bill Clinton as VP ? Would that be classified as a conflict ? Would it be allowed ? 

All Crowed out and no where to go 

[Newberry]

On 5/6/2016 at 6:16 AM, 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."

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.

 

Undeniably you make good points about the bigger picture. My take on MSK's post was that he was talking about Ryan vying for the Presidency in Ryan's particularly underhanded and falsely modest way.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Newberry said:

My take on MSK's post was that he was talking about Ryan vying for the Presidency in Ryan's particularly underhanded and falsely modest way.

Michael,

Your take was 100% correct, albeit there could have been another go at Romney/Ryan.

Michael