Donald Trump

[KorbenDallas]

23 minutes ago, PDS said:

You've been a roll lately.  

Na, what I object to is the half-baked idea that "we" can only have certainty in uncertainty, and that's the only thing that can be said with certainty by individuals who claim to have it--and that "we" don't.  It's a veiled insult to other people's judgement, how did Rand put it..  "grave politeness."

[SteveWolfer]

49 minutes ago, Mikee said:

In 2008 your reasoning for not voting against Obama was [paraphrasing] "we haven't hit the bottom yet, people won't wake up 'til we hit bottom".  Same old holier than thou (the entire population of the world) crap.  When you have a goal it takes baby steps, anything else is fantasy.  To you the whole of humanity is an ass you want to see smacked over the head with a 2x4.

I have no idea what you are saying.  In 2008 I voted Libertarian, and it was a mistake (which I've admitted) but only because of the supreme court.  Apart from the supreme court appointments which can destroy constitutionality itself we have to do something to break this downward spiral of the lessor of two evils (that get more and more evil). 

As for the "holier than thou" bullshit and your smart ass assertions about what you think I want... hey, stuff them where the sun don't shine.

[SteveWolfer]

8 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

what I object to is the half-baked idea that "we" can only have certainty in uncertainty, and that's the only thing that can be said with certainty by individuals who claim to have it--and that "we" don't.  It's a veiled insult to other people's judgement, how did Rand put it..  "grave politeness."

I was not making a sweeping epistemological statement.  I was saying that we still don't know much about Trump's political principles.  There was no insult intended.  I guess if you aren't 100 percent pro Trump you don't get to say anything without being attacked. 

[Mikee]

58 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I have no idea what you are saying.  In 2008 I voted Libertarian, and it was a mistake (which I've admitted) but only because of the supreme court.  Apart from the supreme court appointments which can destroy constitutionality itself we have to do something to break this downward spiral of the lessor of two evils (that get more and more evil). 

As for the "holier than thou" bullshit and your smart ass assertions about what you think I want... hey, stuff them where the sun don't shine.

Same old, same old...   How convenient it is, forgetting.  The conversations should still be there.  Unless RoR is even deader than it appears.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This doofus doesn't realize that telling people the Russians got these emails to use in a dastardly manner to help elect Trump not only sounds dumb, it also prompts people to think the Russians got all the emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, all thirty-some thousand that were deleted. And that makes her look stupid, not cunning.

It starts.

I mean, look who's trying to become relevant again (Dick Morris), but still. This idea is going to circulate all over the place so he might as well run with it. And since Wikileaks has promised more volumes of releases of emails, guess what may be coming down the pike?

Drip... drip... drip...

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

I guess if you aren't 100 percent pro Trump you don't get to say anything without being attacked.

Na, people have posted a lot and the thought of attacking never occurred to me.

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

I was not making a sweeping epistemological statement.  I was saying that we still don't know much about Trump's political principles.  There was no insult intended.

Understood.  I look at Trump's business principles and think many of those carry over, and provides me with relative certainty that the range of Trump's future behavior and performance can be predicted.  I don't think he can deliver on all of his campaign promises (which President has), but I think he'll turn the country around in more of a direction it needs to be.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrea Mitchell was a little more artful in trying to frame the Russian hacking spin, but even she doesn't see the future blowback coming about Hillary's email server and Russian hackers.

Her spin, right in Reince Priebus's face, is as follows: The Russians hacked the Democrats. Why didn't the Russians hack the Republicans, hmmmmm? Might they not be trying to help elect Trump? And how much do you know about that, hmmmmm?

 

And Reince rightfully laughed in her face.

Note, there is a lot of noise in the first video (a band was rehearsing), but near the end, Mitchell got really aggressive. In the second video, she toned waaaaaaaaay down, but she still squeaked in her main spin toward the end as a throwaway.

 

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

2016 Republican Party Platform. There are enough pledges in it to make Cruz blush and Trump cringe.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

The few areas of agreement are the wall (immigration), repeal of ACA, the 2nd amendment, Chinese currency "manipulation". 

The Democratic Party Platform reads like the Communist Manifesto.

Trumps first 100 days. http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36602672

Reuters reports Trump is considering Okie fracker Herbert Hamm as Energy Secretary whose been as advisor to Trumps campaign.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, jts said:

A psychologist and a chemist and a mathematician were riding in a train in France. Thru the window they saw a black sheep in a farmer's field.

The psychologist said:  All sheep in France are black.

The chemist said:  Some sheep in France are black.

The mathematician said:  There exists in France at least one field in which there is at least one sheep at least one side of which is black.

 

I don't know whether to say QED  or amen.

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Reuters reports Trump is considering Okie fracker Herbert Hamm as Energy Secretary whose been as advisor to Trumps campaign.

That's not good news. Continental is the deepest in debt and one of the most vulnerable Bakken fakirs.

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think he'll turn the country around in more of a direction it needs to be.

I'll guess war ... er, enhanced foreign negotiation in Korea and Iran and probably China.

[Newberry]

Michael,

Congratulations are in order. Virtually all of your political comments are spot on. You are reading the nuances perfectly as well as how Trump masters the field. I am surprised you get his inner mindset so well. Though on the other side it seems the majority of people get him too, but they are not saying it as well as you.

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, Mikee said:

How convenient it is, forgetting.

Well, if it is important for you, go look it up.  Is there something I've done to you that warrants your attitude?

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dick Morris

Dick Morris is pro Trump.  They've know each other for a long time.  I think he worked for Trump's father, or Morris' father worked for Trump's father... I don't remember.  But the important thing to know about Dick Morris is that he is anti-Hillary with a white hot passion.  He hates her.  It's personal.  (He used to work for the Clintons).

Also Morris starts getting optimistic about the side he favors during the heat of the campaign.  He is very sharp on campaign tactics, a little loose with facts, and his background, before he became conservative (to the degree that the has a political ideology) used to be a bit progressive.  His formal studies were mostly history, and his history and his economics are closer to what liberals taught when he was a college boy.

[KorbenDallas]

6 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I was saying that we still don't know much about Trump's political principles.

Steve, I think you'll enjoy this video.    Seems the lively debate here on OL found itself on O'Reilly as well..

 

[SteveWolfer]

6 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think you'll enjoy this video

I did enjoy that. 

O'Reilly is an old friend of Trumps (they socialize and they are both pragmatic, anti-theory, populists - to a degree).  I suspect that O'Reilly sometimes sees himself as the voice behind the throne guiding Trump.  I think that O'Reilly likes a strong-man.  I tend to agree with Krauthammer in that I'm trying to figure out what Trump would do in this or that situation.

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I look at Trump's business principles and think many of those carry over, and provides me with relative certainty that the range of Trump's future behavior and performance can be predicted.

That's a reasonable approach.  I see both positives and negative there.  He is extremely litigious, is okay with eminent domain, and has paid off a lot of politicians... those are among the negatives.  The positives are the quality of the projects he has completed, the sheer magnitude of his success, and that he has been building things - real things.

He is very much about the deal.  He says he will take that into office with him.  That is good, but it could be bad if he is willing to make deals that increase the size of government or the amount of regulations or install high tariffs, or give away a supreme court nominee to the democrats for some deal or another.

Too many unknowns is the bad news.  The good news is that being just a single private citizen voting I don't have to make up my mind till the day before. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's another thing about Trump. Look at the people he surrounds himself with, starting with Jeff Sessions.

These do not look like dictator types or closet progressives.

Most of them look an awful lot like constitutional conservatives to me. Some less enthusiastic about big government and some more enthusiastic, but not one of them sounds to me like Hillary Clinton, neither in ideology nor in level of corruption.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

33 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Dick Morris is pro Trump.  They've know each other for a long time.

Steve,

That may be, but Dick Morris is not in with Trump. He is very much on the outside. And it doesn't look like he's getting anywhere nearer, despite his new book telling Trump how to win: Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary.

I recall in the last election Rachel Maddow doing a number on tracing his money trail, which let to a small link on the back page of his website--with a minimum ad price of gazillions. It was basically a money laundering scheme for Super PACS. (Apropos, I am no fan of Maddow, but sometimes she does a fact-filled report I can't ignore.)

When Dick showed his hind-end to the Fox people on calling the last election for Romney against all common sense, he got removed from Fox. He has since tried to get back in, but can't. However, I am sure he still has some of those old monied friends and he's trying to leverage them. (I skimmed over his book and it seems predicated on setting the stage to let them in with Trump, too.  The way he did that was to make his strategy sound like a Romney approach where pollsters are totally necessary, i.e., segment the crap out of everything, but essentially told Trump to do what he's already doing for each segment.  )

Dick Morris is wicked smart and sometimes has some very good ideas, but he is also as corrupt as Hillary Clinton. At least he has a price for his soul and is not afraid to let the world see it... 

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There's another thing about Trump. Look at the people he surrounds himself with, starting with Jeff Sessions.

These do not look like dictator types or closet progressives.

Most of them look an awful lot like constitutional conservatives to me. Some less enthusiastic about big government and some more enthusiastic, but not one of them sounds to me like Hillary Clinton, neither in ideology nor in level of corruption

 

No one is more progressive than Hillary - but she focuses so much time on gaining personal power and corrupt practices that her Saul Alinsky principles have to take second seat.  I agree that no one in this discussion is a corrupt as Hillary but that's a low bar.

If you make a comparison of Hillary people and Trump people there is no comparison, but that still doesn't really answer the question.

He had to surround himself with conservatives of different types because he chose to run in the Republican primaries and he is way too smart to not know what that requires.

Let's see if he moves to the middle during the general election and if so in what way and who is around him then.  I really don't like Paul Manafort - that's not a good person in most senses of the word.

[SteveWolfer]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That may be, but Dick Morris is not in with Trump.

I believe that early on some Trump money went to Morris.  If you look at one his early daily videos it was gushing for Trump and at the same time there was a small ad for Trump, an paid for by the campaign and on the same web page.  That ad would serve to explain money going to a Morris bank account while Morris could still pretend that he was giving neutral analysis.

Morris stayed fairly friendly to Trump for a while, then he went... not neutral, because he hates Hillary, but no longer gushing for Trump.  Now he is back.

I've had the same feeling about his recent columns and videos and his book.  He has always been about the money and I think he is working to get on the inside of the Trump campaign (money-wise), but hasn't gotten there.

Trump has a good friend at the National Inquirer (the owner, I think) who is willing to pimp for him now and then.  And, surprise, they are now running a Morris column on occasion and it is embarrassingly pro-Trump and takes some of the more far out positions.

15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dick Morris is wicked smart and sometimes has some very good ideas, but he is also as corrupt as Hillary Clinton. At least he has a price for his soul and is not afraid to let the world see it... 

I don't think anyone is as corrupt as Hillary.  She is in an another league altogether.   I think that Morris is just sleazy.  But he really knows campaign tactics - that's what I pay attention to him for... nothing else.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

He had to surround himself with conservatives of different types because he chose to run in the Republican primaries and he is way too smart to not know what that requires.

Let's see if he moves to the middle during the general election and if so in what way and who is around him then.

Steve,

Essentially your argument keeps boiling down to this: Trump is not what he does (unless it's something worth criticizing) and will betray everyone in the end.

If he has spent a lifetime building grandiose projects, that means he will bloat the government with corruption and waste once in office as he becomes a dictator. If he surrounds himself by constitutional conservatives, that means he is being cunning to fool the Republicans. If he is a master of making good deals, that means he sells out his principles. If he has a wonderful family, that means he is an irrational narcissist who doesn't know how to deal with people. If he says what he really thinks about anything, that means he has no principles and no one should believe him on anything anyway. And on and on...

So long as you think he is a Trojan Horse, no fact, no achievement, pattern, staff choice, policy, etc., will change the fact that he is to be presumed guilty of crimes he has yet to commit.

I actually like the stubbornness...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I really don't like Paul Manafort - that's not a good person in most senses of the word.

Steve,

Trump is calling out, facing off with, and beating the most corrupt infrastructure of political people who have infiltrated the US government up to now. After all the scandals of the past US history, that's saying a lot. These people do not intend to give up their power. They can get quite nasty about it. And they are all masters of dirty tricks.

Trump was able to go on sheer balls and brawling up to a point because these nasty people did not take him seriously until it was too late, but now he needs warriors who know how to fight them and the sheer size of them. Make no mistake. They did not go away just because they lost the primary. A good deal of them on the Republican side are even gravitating toward Clinton. So Manafort is a perfect pick.

Here's the difference between Manafort and, say, Jeff Roe, Ted Cruz's dirty tricks dude. Manafort screws the most corrupt people in power to help Trump advance.

Roe screwed the good guys (like Ben Carson) in the name of Ted Cruz, so much so that the only people Cruz has left are his witch doctors (certain evangelicals, Glenn Beck and The National Review pseudo-intellectuals). What's more, Roe didn't screw them because there was nothing worth screwing. Not one of them had any sliver of political power he could snarf for Cruz. All they've got are opinions.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve,

Trump is calling out, facing off with, and beating the most corrupt infrastructure of political people who have infiltrated the US government up to now. After all the scandals of the past US history, that's saying a lot. These people do not intend to give up their power. They can get quite nasty about it. And they are all masters of dirty tricks.ael

That has mortal and perhaps fatal implications.  Is your idea  really That Dark?

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Essentially your argument keeps boiling down to this: Trump is not what he does (unless it's something worth criticizing) and will betray everyone in the end.

The boiling of argument seems to get different things for you than it does me.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If he has spent a lifetime building grandiose projects, that means he will bloat the government with corruption and waste once in office as he becomes a dictator.

I don't remember making that argument.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If he surrounds himself by constitutional conservatives, that means he is being cunning to fool the Republicans.

Not quite.  I remember saying he should be judged by the conservative people he surrounds himself with.  Remember?  And I was just pointing out that who surrounds himself with during the GOP primary isn't  necessarily indicative.  He has surrounded himself with progressives in the past.  But if you say that, supporters say he had to because it is New York and because he had to in order to do business.  So the people doesn't really prove anything, does it?

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If he is a master of making good deals, that means he sells out his principles.

What I said is that he makes deals.  That is how he rolls.  What I want to know is will he trade away a Supreme Court nomination for something else.  I ask it because we don't seem to have anyway to nail down that he strong constitutional leanings.  We just know that much about what his principles are.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If he has a wonderful family, that means he is an irrational narcissist who doesn't know how to deal with people.

I never said anything like that.  His family tells me that he is a highly functional narcissist and not a lower functioning narcissist.  His family is very good, as is his huge business successes and a number of other things in saying that he has some strong functional capabilities.  Do you see how you just strung together things I didn't say to make a conclusion that wasn't mine?

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If he says what he really thinks about anything, that means he has no principles and no one should believe him on anything anyway.

I never said that.  I have said that one of his best features is that he may be one of the few people anywhere that can break political correctness and I think that is critical to our nation's political health.  I don't know what his political principles are, and he has made it hard for many people to believe him when he changes his stance on things.  But, again, you took things I didn't say, and made then into conclusions I didn't draw.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So long as you think he is a Trojan Horse, no fact, no achievement, pattern, staff choice, policy, etc., will change the fact that he is to be presumed guilty of crimes he has yet to commit.

Every politician today is a Trojan horse to some degree.  We need to find out what is most likely inside, and then judge how bad that it.  If you have decided that it is impossible that he is a Trojan Horse at all, you will never want to look inside - you don't think there is an inside.  The crimes that might get committed are those that happen in office.  He couldn't be guilty of them till then.  We want to make our best guess as to what, if any, those are.  But I don't get the impression that you are anything but totally convinced that he is what he says to his supporters.