Donald Trump

[Selene]

Amen.

I was laughing out loud at the ridiculous questions the Bloomberg folks asked him.

The Kennedy assassination!

I loved the way he handled the Bible question.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't worry too much about Clovis.

...

I think he uses people like this, not because he signs on to their form of business and politics, but to get bigger garbage out of his way so he can get his projects done.

...

That thought had occurred to me too. You’re probably right.

About Trancinski, he’s in sync with a long article in the latest issue of The New Yorker. Trump is “expanding the discourse of hate” and those who support him are “drifting deeper into unreality.” The author approvingly quotes someone else about Trump’s supporters being “paranoid,” etc.

Rand spoke of the disconnect between the intellectuals and the people. The disconnect has never been more obvious than over Trump’s campaign.

That NY article is a hoot. I needed ten minutes to read it for I slowed down for the cartoons. I took each paragraph and cut an X into it with my eyes, thus seeing if not reading all worth seeing, if it was worth seeing, and went through the whole article of nothing with that technique.

--Brant

[Selene]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Woah...

Is that a crow on Paradigm?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peggy Noonan today in the Wall Street Journal:

America Is So in Play

Noonan, who is part of the Republican elite mindset side of the Reagan era (as opposed to Reagan's real base), is starting to slowly see that working people (another term for productive people) hate the entitled conceited elite person who thinks they are stupid and the freeloader (non-elite or otherwise) who games the system.

Noonan stands in awe that Trump got so much latino support after throwing Jorge Ramos out of his press conference. And she keeps wondering what the real difference is that Trump has tapped into.

She also has an inflated view of the elites that is simply not true:

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new.

Horseshit.

The elites have always thought the unwashed masses were stupid. The difference is the elites no longer distinguish between productive people and nonproductive people. They think that economic standing, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or any number of random characteristics they can manipulate are the essence of a political mentality.

They know they cannot manipulate a producer qua producer. There's no way to fake producing to a producer. Not for long, anyway.

That's why they appeal to all this other stuff. However, as Noonan notes, there actually is something new in the elites. It's just not what she thinks. The elites haven't lost faith in the American people. They have been spewing the same horseshit for so long they are now believing their own horseshit.

That's what's new.

And that's why none of the elites and intellectualoids talk about Trump as a producer. They just don't see it.

I'm beginning to think that there is essentially no difference between Republican elites and Objectivist elites--and other elites for that matter--because they are all blind to the same fundamental truth:

Atlas is shrugging them off.

Trump's popularity is not a cause, it is an effect.

Atlas is shrugging off the non-producing parasites.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

People like Jorge Ramos pretend to speak for a group of people and the members of which do not like that, so when he gets escorted out by Trump's orders they cheer. I heard Jorge trying to make a statement in the guise of asking a question. He's a two-bit Al Sharpton. (I can't wait for Al to be taken down. If Trump ever gets that chance and takes it--it's unlikely he'll get that chance; Al's too smart--he might get a truckload of black votes.)

It's too bad Ronald Reagan didn't put Pat Robinson in his place and make Jack Kemp his veep instead of GHW Bush--same principle of honoring oneself and one's space. That's what Trump is doing all over the place. That Ramos jerk said to Trump he had a right to interrupt and ask his question. Trump had him taken out--physically. Trump was on the right side of the rights' equation. (It's not that Reagan was a wimp or a pushover--he just made a bad mistake we're still paying for.)

--Brant

my speculation

[Selene]

Peggy Noonan today in the Wall Street Journal:

America Is So in Play

Noonan, who is part of the Republican elite mindset side of the Reagan era (as opposed to Reagan's real base), is starting to slowly see that working people (another term for productive people) hate the entitled conceited elite who thinks they are stupid and the freeloader (non-elite or otherwise) who games the system.

Noonan stands in awe that Trump got so much latino support after throwing Jorge Ramos out of his press conference. And she keeps wondering what the real difference is that Trump has tapped into.

She also has an inflated view of the elites that is simply not true:

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new.

Horseshit.

The elites have always thought the unwashed masses were stupid. The difference is the elites no longer distinguish between productive people and nonproductive people. They think that economic standing, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or any number of random characteristics they can manipulate are the essence of a political mentality.

They know they cannot manipulate a producer qua producer. There's no way to fake producing to a producer. Not for long, anyway.

That's why they appeal to all this other stuff. However, as Noonan notes, there actually is something new in the elites. It's just not what she thinks. The elites haven't lost faith in the American people. They have been spewing the same horseshit for so long they are now believing their own horseshit.

That's what's new.

And that's why none of the elites and intellectualoids talk about Trump as a producer. They just don't see it.

I'm beginning to think that there is essentially no difference between Republican elites and Objectivist elites--and other elites for that matter--because they are all blind to the same fundamental truth:

Atlas is shrugging them off.

Trump's popularity is not a cause, it is an effect.

Atlas is shrugging off the non-producing parasites.

Michael

Great point about the effete "elites."

One of the reasons early on that Ayn's concepts found such fertile ground in my mind had to do with my training to learn the "negative case" if you were arguing the affirmative and vice versa.

Teddy Roosevelt, I found out recently, had the same type of training.

A good example of this was the left-wing, marxist C. Wright Mills, who wrote The Power Elite.

Mills' analysis is primarily marxist, however it revealed patterns that made sense to me.

My intense awareness of media and communications caused me to add media to the power elite as a separate and equal piece to the three (3) "identified" by Mills:

The idea of the power elite rests upon and enables us to make sense of (1) the decisive institutional trends that characterize the structure of our epoch, in particular, the military ascendancy in a, privately incorporated economy, and more broadly, the several coincidences of objective interests between economic, military, and political institutions; (2) the social similarities and the psychological affinities of the men who occupy the command posts of these structures, in particular the increased interchangeability of the top positions in each of them and the increased traffic between these orders in the careers of men of power; (3) the ramifications, to the point of virtual totality, of the kind of decisions that are made at the top, and the rise to power of a set of men who, by training and bent, are professional organizers of considerable force and who are unrestrained by democratic party training.

Negatively, the formation of the power elite rests upon (1) the relegation of the professional party politician to the middle levels of power, (2) the semi-organized stalemate of the interests of sovereign localities into which the legislative function has fallen, (3) the virtually complete absence of a civil service that constitutes a politically neutral, but politically relevant, depository of brainpower and executive skill, and (4) the increased official secrecy behind which great decisions are made without benefit of public or even Congressional debate.

As a result, the political directorate, the corporate rich, and the ascendant military have come together as the power elite, and the expanded and centralized hierarchies which they head have encroached upon the old balances and have now relegated them to the middle levels of power. Now the balancing society is a conception that pertains accurately to the middle levels, and on that level the balance has become more often an affair of entrenched provincial and nationally irresponsible forces and demands than a center of power and national decision.

That highlighted section is now the fifth part of this elite and it is the Administrative State.

A...

[Peter]

RIP GOP Erick Erickson | Aug 28, 2015: . . . This then is why the Republican Party as we know it is coming to an end, with only one way to avoid the splits that doomed the Whigs. When -- not if -- Trump fades away, the party leaders will conclude they beat him and the crazy base. They will, like the Bourbons of France, learn nothing and forget nothing. Instead of realizing that their broken promises and failures of leadership led to the rise of men like Trump, they will conclude that his decline means they need keep no promises. The only way to save the GOP is for it to elect an outsider as its presidential nominee who can lead the party in a fight against the president and the moral evils of the age.
end quote

How can Eric be so sure Trump will fade? It really would be a shame if Bush wins, but if a Tea Party type candidate doesn’t win it could mean the end of the Tea Party as a force. Right now Hillary is still beating Donald in the Presidential election polls.

I know everyone has noticed the stimulus response every time Trump criticizes someone. The people criticized briefly become famous and receive too much attention, for too little reason. So, of course everyone in the media will be seeking publicity by bashing him. Trump might be better served if he starts mentioning or praising people more often, like he has with Ted Cruz. It would shift the view of the publicity seekers to IF I say good things about Trump I will get my name in the news. Would that work? Perhaps, if Donald says something controversial but good about someone.

[Peter]

Not much is new in polling until I saw this. Whoa! Does the Trump campaign need a defibulator? I doubt it, but I wonder if he does have the temperament to be President. Imagine Trump on the phone blasting Putin.

Peter

From Hot Air: Rather than do head-to-head matchups between Republicans and Democrats, we decided to test Trump’s performance at this point in head-to-head matchups against his Republican opponents, assuming the primary had come down to two choices. Among both Republicans and independents, Trump lost to Bush 47/53, Carson 42/58, Rubio 45/55, and Fiorina 46/54 [see update]. When restricted to only Republicans, Trump beat Bush 53/47, Rubio 52/48, and Fiorina 52/48, but still lost to Carson 48/52. Trump beat both Walker and Cruz in both scenarios.

However, when it comes to Trump’s temperament, the jury is largely still out among Republicans. A narrow plurality among Republican voters of 42/38 believe Trump has the temperament to be President, but 20% of them haven’t yet decided. Among independents, it’s a very poor 21/63 against Trump, with only 15% undecided.

Respondents were also asked whether the Bush family legacy in the White House would make it more or less likely to cast a vote for Jeb. Among combined Republicans and independents, only 10.64% said that made it more likely, while more than three times as many (35.66%) said less likely. A near-majority of 49.11% said it would make no difference at all, which may be good news for Jeb if “more” and “less” were more in balance. This imbalance was much more pronounced among independents (5.51% to 46.73%) than Republicans (15.99% to 24.09%), which suggests that Bush might want to pursue more of a base-energizing strategy.

In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton leads the pack — but not by much:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gotta love Trump:

 

 

But blasting Anthony Weiner was just too easy.

 

But here's an image for you. Weiner inadvertently leaking top secrets Huma tells him through his...

 

Er...

 

Never mind...

 

One you think that you can't unthink it...

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I forgot the exact words, but Trump said Huma is with Anthony out of love.

She has to be because there could be no other reason.

She can't see straight.

Michael

[Peter]

Dear sweet Huma:
So, Weiner’s wiener is meaner,
Requiring him to showcase it via video,
But his wife’s honey pot is keener,
She deserves a more discrete daddio.
Do I hear groans? Well sorry, it’s late and little rhymes with video.

[Selene]

Dear sweet Huma:

So, Weiner’s wiener is meaner,

Requiring him to showcase it via video,

But his wife’s honey pot is keener,

She deserves a more discrete daddio.

Do I hear groans? Well sorry, it’s late and little rhymes with video.

Yep a mere 556

http://www.rhymer.com/RhymingDictionary/video.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll find the videos tomorrow, but Sarah Palin interviewed Donald Trump and Jeb Bush tonight on her new cable show. I saw it on YouTube videos that I am sure will be taken down before too long.

It's obvious to me that Sarah is locked in with Trump. It was a mutual admiration interview. She seemed just as starry-eyed to be interviewing Trump as he seemed to be sharing the screen with her. And it's hard to get The Donald starry-eyed about anything.

As to her interview with Jeb Bush, I was surprised that I liked him. Not as a presidential candidate, but as a person. I'm glad I saw this interview. He works with autism and things like that, not because he has to but because it comes from the heart. Sarah and Jeb were quite warm to each other. No hostility whatsoever. However, they did not discuss his campaign--just his commitment to human life in all its forms.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just found the One America News Network YouTube channel. Sarah also interviewed Ted Cruz, but I haven't seen that yet. I will shortly:

 

This is a Trump thread, but what the hell. The interviews of the other two along with Sarah herself provide a good context for Sarah's interview with The Donald. Here are the three videos:

 

 

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something I want to leave on record. It's about Trump so here is as good place a as any.

The media is practically singing in chorus that Trump cannot deport 11 million people (if not more).

I think this is more indicative of how the media thinks than how people actually think.

People want someone sane, competent and with a track record for fixing large-scale bad situations--like Donald Trump--who will grab hold of the problem and work it out. In other words, people in general don't think this is an impossible situation, even though they might not know how to fix it themselves.

The media wants on-off buttons they can criticize. Controversy drives ratings and the best controversy always occurs with the good-evil button, the motherload of on-off buttons, especially when raw evil is exposed where before there was perception of good.

(This is one secret of Rand's appeal.)

So here's what the public sees: a bigass complicated problem, but one a competent person can fix.

Here's what the media sees: Swarms of military or SWAT teams armed to the teeth breaking down doors of terrified women and children and throwing them in boxcars--all 11 million.

Now here's what I see. I'm speculating, but after studying crowd behavior, persuasion and things like that, I imagine Trump's plan will involve something like the following.

Phase One: Build the wall, the gates and the monitoring systems where no wall is needed. At the same time, overhaul the federal immigration bureaucracy and make it work correctly. This includes laws.

Phase Two: Starting at the same time, go into city ghettos with a heavy hand and bust up gangs of illegal immigrants that are ruling the neighborhoods. (And maybe a few other gangs, too.) Deport the illegal immigrant bad guys and make/enforce prison sentences if they come back illegally.

Phase Three: Create a bureaucratic system where illegal immigrants can take a bus (or other transportation) out of the country and re-enter it legally.

Phase Four: Expedite this system with a staff trained in working with families and incentives like help with transportation costs and so on.

After that, watch the problem start fixing itself.

In my view, there will be very little need for heavy-handed law enforcement. Once an example is made with the bad guys, and then other well-publicized positive examples are made with the good-guy productive illegal immigrants, the good guys will realize there is a system in place that really does work for allowing them to become legal, and it is within their grasp. They will not only line up to do it, an entire industry within the latino community will spring up to facilitate them.

This is common sense for anyone who thinks it through. I bet something very similar is how Trump will do it, too.

But don't expect the media to think through anything. They need ratings. Building things and fixing problems don't get ratings. Scandal, controversy and fantasy does.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Precisely right.

The "we are helpless victims who cannot fix anything" that has blanketed this nation in the media is, was and always will be false.

As a nation, once we decide, it is going to get done.

Trump is wise enough to see clearly how structurally this will work.

Ike did it and our current special teams in the real productive world will handle it quite well.

A...

[Peter]

This guy makes some good points. Trump, even though he is a celebrity, has not been thoroughly vetted as happens with all front runners. All his liberal positions will be brought forward when he makes the case he is a conservative.

Peter

Some snips from If Trump's Campaign Collapses, It'll Be For One Of These 6 Reasons by John Hawkins | Aug 29, 2015.
I don’t know whom I will end up supporting next year, but I do like Donald Trump. I like his books. I like his personality. I appreciate all of the things he's done right in this campaign. If you applied the old "Who would you like to have a beer with?” test that has probably determined far more elections than most Americans want to admit, Trump would beat everyone in the field combined twice over. In a time when the Republican Party has become timid, weak and utterly corrupt, Trump is bold, strong and he has enough money that he can't be bought off. Also, unlike most other Republican politicians, he doesn't turn into a pool of whimpering jello every time someone claims to be offended. His immigration plan? It may be the single best thing a Republican politician has come out with in the last decade. Also, in a time when most of the Republican Party isn't willing to fight anyone except for its own supporters and won't fight for anything except what its wealthy donors want, Trump has shown a willingness to take on the Left and win.

Yet and still, I never expected Trump to make it into first place. Then, after he made it into first place, I never expected him to hang on for so long. He has already taken enough hits and made enough gaffes to kill 5 other campaigns, but Trump has done so much right that the things he's done wrong haven't done much damage. If anything, Trump seems to be getting STRONGER.

This has been reflected in the types of discussions you hear about Trump on the radio. In every radio appearance I’ve done in the last couple of months, we’ve inevitably spent at least half of our time talking about Trump. . . .

1) How Conservative Will He Turn Out To Be? Trump has no problem admitting that he used to have much more liberal opinions, but he says he’s “evolved” to become much more conservative, much the same way Reagan did. Of course, Reagan “evolved” as a very conservative politician who had a chance to show what he really believed as the governor of California. Because Trump hasn’t held office and tends to talk in very broad strokes, we really don’t know how conservative he will turn out to be on many issues. Over the next few months, Trump will be forced to spend a lot of time fleshing out his positions and if it turns out he’s well to the Left of the base on some of them, it could peel off enough support to cost him the nomination.

2) He Could Top Out: This is one you hear a lot from political insiders. Supposedly, if it turns into a two man race, with Trump vs. an “anti-Trump” candidate, his support may top out and he’ll be unable to win. However, that may be wishful thinking. After all, in the latest Quinnipiac poll, Trump is polling at 28% while the other “outsider” candidates (Carson, Cruz, Fiorina) draw in another 24%. Trump would have a better shot than anyone of reeling in those voters if those candidates left the race. Combine that with the fact that the RNC heavily frontloaded the primaries and that Republican voters LOVE to jump on the bandwagon of the campaign that they think will win and there’s not much reason to believe that Trump could start extremely strong, but wouldn’t be able to gather enough support to emerge victorious. If Trump dominates in the beginning, it’s highly likely that he’ll be dominating in the end as well.

3) Mistakes Pile Up: Donald Trump has shown a remarkable ability (for a Republican at least) to survive gaffes that would wipe out a lesser candidate. There were his comments about McCain, the fight with Fox over the debate, retweeting some nasty shots at Megyn Kelly and probably a half dozen other minor incidents for him that would have done serious damage to another candidate. Although it’s possible Trump could make a major gaffe that will sink him, an accumulation of mistakes could be just as lethal. It’s sort of like a car. You expect a mechanical problem now and then, but if you have to take it in for repairs every few weeks, you’ll eventually conclude it’s a lemon and go get a new one.

4) If he Has Bad Polling Numbers Against The Democrats In 2016: Head-to-Head polling numbers in August of 2015 don’t mean much. After all, there haven’t been any ads yet, the voters are just learning the candidates and the debates are just getting started. However, later in the campaign season, in say January of 2016, how the different GOP candidates match up with the Democrats will take on more significance. While a minor difference in numbers shouldn’t sway anyone, if it turns out Trump is getting buried while other candidates are doing well, it will move votes. At the end of the day, it’s not just about beating the Republican Establishment; it’s about putting someone in the White House who can change things.

5) He May Be Reluctant To Spend Money: According to Ed Rollins, who ran Ross Perot’s run at the White House, one of the things that kept the campaign from really taking off was Perot’s refusal to spend the money he needed to get over the top. It might seem surprising that a billionaire like Perot wouldn’t be willing to spend what it took to win, but billionaires get that rich by accumulating money, not by spending it on things that will never produce a financial return on their investment. . . . Becoming the next President of the United States is probably going to cost somewhere between 2.5 and 5 billion dollars. Can even Trump liquidate enough of his empire to shell out that much? More importantly, would he be willing to do it? The jury’s out right now, but as we get closer to the first primaries, we’re going to see if Trump is really willing to vaporize a large chunk of his own fortune to become the next President of the United States.

6) Opposition Research Could Be A Problem: Because Donald Trump has never run for office, he has not been fully vetted. In his case, that’s an area of particular concern because he’s a celebrity, playboy billionaire on his third marriage who has no qualms about saying outrageous things. As we speak, every book he’s written and every public appearance he’s ever made is being scrutinized. People who hate Trump’s guts are being interviewed, rumors are being chased down and whatever is found will be put into ads by Super PACS that will spend millions to saturate the airwaves. What will they come up with? Well, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, that is one of the, “unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

Whatever happens with Trump, I’m grateful to him for his immigration plan, for hammering Jeb Bush into the ground and for shaking things up in a Republican Party that has grown stagnant and unresponsive to the people that have put the GOP in office. Whether he wins or loses in the end, as long as Trump’s involved, it will probably be one Hell of a show!
end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

Here's the link: If Trump's Campaign Collapses, It'll Be For One Of These 6 Reasons

That's actually not bad seeing how TownHall is owned and run by the Christian right crony capitalism wing of the Republican party.

(There is a Christian right non-crony capitalism wing, too, but that's definitely not TownHall, HotAir, RedState, or any other sites/publications owned and run by Salem Media Group.)

I expected worse about Trump from those quarters (as they usually dish out).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump's popularity is not a cause, it is an effect.

Atlas is shrugging off the non-producing parasites.

Here is Trump basically saying the same thing to a true grassroots Tea Party group:

Trump: I'm winning because Americans are 'tired of being the patsies'

By Mark Hensch

August 29, 2015

The Hill

From the article:

“People in this country are smart,” he told listeners at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ 2015 conference in Nashville on Saturday.

“We're tired of being the patsies for everyone,” Trump said.

“There is a big, big, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds silent majority out there. [The 2016 race] is going to be an election based on competence.”

Trump argued he is surging in national polls because he represents the Tea Party supporters ignored by Democrats and betrayed by Republicans.

“I love the Tea Party,” Trump said. “You people have not been treated fairly. These are people who work hard and love their country, and then get beat up by the media. It’s disgusting.”

“At least I have a microphone and can fight back,” the outspoken billionaire added.

Trump indicated he envisions a much wider base for his campaign than traditional Republican voters next election cycle.

“You don’t know how big you are,” he told listeners. “The Tea Party has tremendous power. It’s Democrats, it is evangelicals, it is everybody.”

. . .

Trump’s address at the NFRA’s 2015 conference Saturday was attended by many notable figures from the original Tea Party movement.

. . .

The group is — despite its name — a grassroots network unaffiliated with the Republican Party that counts on Tea Party voters for its membership.

"People who work hard." Now there's a phrase for you. The way Trump says it, he means producer. When normal politicians say it, they mean flattery to get votes.

Why do people who actually work hard know the difference? Because Trump himself works hard and produces magnificent projects. Normal politicians don't.

After so many betrayals and demonization by lots of folks who now proclaim, "Trump ain't really a conservative," let these manipulative souls now try to convince the ones they so blatantly betrayed and/or demonized year after year.

It's enough to make Frank Luntz's legs wobble.

I'm posting this article because it hit Drudge.

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

Michael

[Peter]

Well said as always, Michael. T'is a good spot for the high information voter.

Sarah Palin called people who support Donald Trump Trumpeters. Sarah would be an excellent staff member and could profit from being with Trump (but I would run the idea by your wife first, Donald. and no Groucho jokes guys.) If Ted Cruz drops out he would make a great “consultant” for Trump. I think he could do that legally, be paid for his expenses, still remain a Senator in good standing, and profit politically from the association. Some really good speeches I have heard are from Newt. Who else would be good staff for the election committee?

Even without being paid I think a lot of prominent people will become Trumpeters.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah would be an excellent staff member and could profit from being with Trump (but I would run the idea by your wife first, Donald. and no Groucho jokes guys.)

Peter,

Earlier this year, Sarah said good things about The Donald and he said good things about her. He was then asked point blank if he would consult her if he won the presidency. He said it would be an honor. The interviewer probed deeper and asked if he would invite her to be in his cabinet. He said it would be an honor.

Nobody played this up, but it was unambiguously clear. You can read a disgruntled Trump hater refer to it once in a while.

That's why I keep saying look who Trump is surrounding himself with. Palin, Levin, Tea Party (the original folks) and so on.

I have no doubt these people (and others like them) will be his top advisors on American political ideology during his administration. I am pretty sure he will take their advice seriously in every single policy decision he makes. His own secret sauce will be to make stuff work--by hiring top specialized talent--and make it all become the greatest.

This is a marriage made in Heaven to me.

The damnedest thing is top Objectivists could be a part of this if they wanted. They could influence the changes in law that are coming. But they are too busy explaining to the O-Land tribe why Trump is a Randian villain and blowhard at that. Ditto for libertarian know-it-alls like Jeffrey Tucker who go further and preach that Trump is really a fascist dictator.

No one talks about his productivity on the market.

Frankly, I live in this neck of the woods and that's embarrassing...

Michael

[Peter]

Not much is new. From Real Clear Politics, average from 7/16 to 8/26 Direction of Country. Right Direction 28.8. Wrong Track 63.0 Spread -34.2. It looks like the Republicans could win with anyone, but remember that song?

It was fascination I know. And it might have ended, right then, at the start. Just a passing glance, just a brief romance, and I might have gone, on my way empty hearted.

I suppose they all will stay in the race until after Iowa and New Hampshire, but I think the lowest rated four should drop out. Nobody is fascinated with them.

Real Clear Politics Averages for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination for 8/9 to 8/25. Trump 23.5, Carson 10.3, Bush 9.8, Rubio 7.3, Cruz 7.3, Walker 7.3, Fiorina 6.0. Trump’s average lead, 13.2 but in the latest Quinnipiac 8/20 to 8/25 Trump leads by 16 points.

Kasich 4.5, Huckabee 4.0, Paul 3.8, Christie 3.5. They should stay in the race if they still have the heart for it.

These four are wasting their and our time: Perry 1.3, Santorum 1.0, Jindal 0.5, Graham 0.3. And what’s that guy’s name? Gilmore zip. Nada. Maybe his Mama.

The best, most electable, may be Rubio and Cruz. Trump keeps insisting he will win the Hispanic vote. Look for the obvious reason. TRUMP WILL HAVE EITHER RUBIO OR CRUZ AS HIS RUNNING MATE!

Michael wrote: That's why I keep saying look who Trump is surrounding himself with. Palin, Levin, Tea Party (the original folks) and so on.
end quote

Sherlock Holmes quote: “You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?" It’s elementary my dear Watson, he came from New York, born to a Scottish mother and a German father. So, most electable but STILL debatable philosophically, is of course, Donald Trump.
Peter

[Selene]

Real Clear Politics Averages for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination for 8/9 to 8/25. Trump 23.5, Carson 10.3, Bush 9.8, Rubio 7.3, Cruz 7.3, Walker 7.3, Fiorina 6.0. Trump’s average lead, 13.2 but in the latest Quinnipiac 8/20 to 8/25 Trump leads by 16 points.

Kasich 4.5, Huckabee 4.0, Paul 3.8, Christie 3.5. They should stay in the race if they still have the heart for it.

These four are wasting their and our time: Perry 1.3, Santorum 1.0, Jindal 0.5, Graham 0.3. And what’s that guy’s name? Gilmore zip. Nada. Maybe his Mama.

Peter:

Rick Santorum was running at 1-2% at this same time in 2012.

He wound up winning Iowa and finishing 2nd behind Mitt "I Tanked in the Last Debate" Romney.

Too early to drop out for anyone.

A...

[Peter]

From an article about a budding superpower, India grows at night because that is when the government sleeps.

A history lesson is fair evidence. OK. Maybe it is too early for the lower 48 to drop out. I saw in the Sunday paper that Rubio was a Catholic, then a Mormon, then back to being Catholic Adam. What do you want to make of that?

This thread has over 50 pages of Trump. I wonder if it affects the number of letters getting to OL? Phooey. A bunch of trumpeter swans denying the purity of Rand Paul!