Recommended Posts

A crapload of pundits all say a variation of the same thing as they stare gobsmacked at Trump's surge: Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.

I want to add to this--another tendency I have observed.

There is a fundamental difference between Trump and the vast majority of his critics. Trump is a man of action more than words. (Believe it or not. :smile: )

He builds things, produces them. In fact, his words have so often been bluster, people tend to dismiss them as hyperbole. They love him because they love what he does more than what he says and they love the fact that he strives for excellence, is unapologetically proud of it and delivers.

But political manipulators ONLY work with words. That's what they use to manipulate people. That's what they use to replace action. And between truth and falsehood, they go with what works to manipulate the public, not what is right or wrong.

They don't have a clue about the appeal of action, of production, of actually doing something real. They think if they spin something the right way, they turn the herd around.

So it's getting pretty funny on how they are denying that Trump will get the nomination. They are no longer content to say it like in the quote above. They are now embellishing it. Stringing it out. Defending the idea.

All with words, of course. See a good example here at The Atlantic:

3 Truths About Trump

by James Fallows

July 13, 2015

The Atlantic

From the article:

The first two of these points about Donald Trump are obvious but nonetheless worth repeating, during the froth of current Trump-driven excitement.

1) Donald Trump will not be the 45th president of the United States. Nor the 46th, nor any other number you might name. The chance of his winning nomination and election is exactly zero.

Why? Forget the majorities of his own party’s voters who say in some surveys that they would “never” vote for him. Instead consider this aspect of his background:

And off he goes. :smile:

And you know what this guy is going to do when Trump's ratings keep growing?

More words.

He'll try to make his words more stronger, more deeper, more insightful, more tangential, more snarkier, hell, he might even appeal to covert hypnosis and NLP. :smile:

But forget about action...

The poor critter doesn't even know what that means or why people like it.

Like I said, the left is beginning to realize it is terrified right now--and gobsmacked to boot.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more positive note, the press flurry just doesn't stop.

When the press gets too negative and starts to organize a bash-fest, Trump deploys his gazillions of followers on Twitter and keeps the pressure on. Then the press follows his tweets.

This came in from Politico:

Donald Trump on Mexican drug lord’s escape: ‘I told you so’
“Unbelievable corruption and USA is paying the price.”
by Jennifer Shutt
July 12, 2015
Politico

From the article (which is about Trump's tweets):

The mogul/reality TV host turned candidate for president, wrote: “Mexico’s biggest drug lord escapes from jail. Unbelievable corruption and USA is paying the price. I told you so!"

. . .

The escape of Guzman through a prison shower area has caused a massive manhunt in Mexico and provided Trump with another chance to criticize Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

“Can you envision Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton negotiating with ‘El Chapo’, the Mexican drug lord who escaped from prison? ….”

“…Trump, however, would kick his ass!” he tweeted.


:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to enjoy the show, wherever it go.

How generations of mainstream media have controlled and shaped the news, cutting off the hands of difference and truth.

--Brant

Listen to the yell of Media's ghost,

Burning in hell for Media's hand-mained host.

Hear how the demons chuckle and yell,

Cutting Media's hands off, down in Hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Michael & Selene

Israel does not officially prohibit any group from entering (that I'm aware of) but they do give preference to jews under the law of return.

As for the USA, they don't specifically mention race but national origin which is similar to race (moreso in the past than now).

Check out this for more details (quotas based on existing population):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

There were also laws discriminating against Chinese, not sure if any of those were federal or if they were just California's law. For a period Oregon prohibited blacks from moving there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Michael & Selene

Israel does not officially prohibit any group from entering (that I'm aware of) but they do give preference to jews under the law of return.

As for the USA, they don't specifically mention race but national origin which is similar to race (more so in the past than now).

Check out this for more details (quotas based on existing population):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

There were also laws discriminating against Chinese, not sure if any of those were federal or if they were just California's law. For a period Oregon prohibited blacks from moving there.

So essentially, you do not know what you are addressing, you "create" definitions like national origin is similar to race...how so?

You then assert that States within the structure of Federalism that exists in the Constitutional Republic's framework document wherein States have certain powers that are co-jurisdictional with the United States as a nation state and have different jurisdictions that solely are reserved to the states or the people, banned blacks.

Again, I will ask you where you were educated?

This is not personal against you friend, it is a critique of how poorly you argue.

Critical example is your assertion that Blacks were "...prohibited from moving there..." which, at least on this forum, cries for a reference, link or citation.

It took me 30 seconds to search and come up with this:

Beginning with the Exclusion Law of 1844 enacted by the provisional government of the region, Oregon passed a series of measures designed to ban African American settlement in the territory. Historian Elizabeth McLagan describes those laws in the article below.

Oregon passed exclusion laws against African Americans twice during the 1840s, considered another law in the 1850s, and in 1857 approved an exclusion clause as part of its constitution. Exclusion laws were also passed in Indiana and Illinois and considered in Ohio, but Oregon was the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution.

The first exclusion law was passed in 1844 by the Provisional Government of Oregon, the temporary governing political structure set up by the first American settlers to reach the region over the Oregon Trail. This first law included a ban on slavery and a requirement that slaveowners free their slaves. African Americans who remained in Oregon after their freedom was granted, however, would be whip-lashed and expelled. If they were caught again in the Territory within six months, the punishment would be repeated. This law was amended to substitute hard labor for whiplashing, and was repealed in 1845, before it could take effect.

In 1849 another exclusion law was passed. This one allowed black residents already in Oregon to remain, but banned further African American in-migration. Ship owners were responsible for their black crew members and could be fined $500 if the crew member jumped ship and remained in Oregon. In this second version, African Americans would be arrested and then ordered to leave. This law was in effect until 1854, when, in a general housekeeping act, it was repealed. Later attempts to reintroduce it suggest that this repeal was accidental.

In 1857, when a constitution was written in anticipation of statehood, a third exclusion clause was inserted, prohibiting new in-migration of African Americans, as well as making illegal their ownership of real estate and entering into contracts. They were also denied the right to sue in court. This clause, Article 1 Section 35, was subject to popular vote, as was the adoption of a ban on slavery and the entire constitution. The exclusion clause received more popular votes than the approval of the constitution or the ban on slavery. Although enabling legislation was never passed and the clause was voided by the14th and 15th Amendments passed after the Civil War, the ban remained a part of Oregon’s constitution until it was finally repealed in 1927

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More deer in the headlights:

 

 

Poor things. They are whining that journalists aren't allowed to dictate to the American people who their future leader will be and are now saying Trump is like George Wallace.

 

Talk about clueless...

 

:smile:

 

Meanwhile, back at the farm, Jeb Bush is floating the idea (with all due deniability, of course) of chickening out of debates with Trump.

 

Should Jeb Bush Skip Debates That Include Donald Trump?

 

That speaks for itself so eloquently, I don't think it needs any comment.

 

Well, one. There are several reasons given why Bush should avoid a debate with Trump (that Trump is quick-witted and confident and so on). The funniest is that Trump has nothing to lose, insinuating that Bush does. That Trump will still be Trump if he loses a debate or the election.

 

So Bush has something to lose? He will stop being a Bush if he loses a debate or the election?

 

Really?

 

What planet are we on?

 

:smile:

 

I smell fear.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:smile:

I smell fear.

Michael

Yep...and you can see it in their eyes...

Michael, why is the sound quality so poor on that video?

Great job on the Trump stuff.

Boy have you saved me a lot of time.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

Drudge just now:

07.13.2015-12.28.png

Here's the story:

'I'm going to make you eat your words': Mexico's billion-dollar drugs lord THREATENS Donald Trump on Twitter account 'run by his son' and taunts the world after his dramatic escape from prison

By Alasdair Baverstock in Mexico City and Ollie Gillman for Mailonline
13 July 2015

Mexico's billion dollar drugs lord known as 'El Chapo' has gloated on Twitter about his escape from a maximum security jail by taunting authorities and threatening US-presidential hopeful Donald Trump.


. . .

... following his escape he has took to Twitter and used it to hit back at Trump, who has said that the Guzman embodies 'everything that is wrong with Mexico' and added he would 'kick his ass'.

On the account, administered by Guzman's son Ivan, the escapee reportedly wrote: 'If you keep p****** me off I'm going to make you eat your words you f****** blonde milk-s*****'.


. . .

He also started calling death threats on those who have supposedly betrayed him, including El Chabelo, the current incarcerated boss of Sinaloa's rival cartel the Zetas.

Guzman wrote: 'First to die is El Chabelo, for wanting to see me die in prison.'

He then hinted that the authorities had been complicit in the jailbreak by posting: 'The dog (slang for the Mexican government) dances for money, and I've bought it.'

El Chapo brags that he bought the Mexican government and don't think Trump is going to keep quiet about it.

But check this out.

Now The Donald gets to be a threatened victim, too?

Dayaamm!

Talk about Talking Points.

I don't fear for Trump, but he has to be extra-careful now. I'm sure he will be.

And if Trump becomes president, I would not want to be this thug with the entire US government and military after him on a personal vendetta.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: Since I was born in the United States, btw, I too am a native American. "Native American" is partly racist exclude the white man or all who came to North America after those "innocent" brown-skinned tribes. end quote

Stop using the offensive term white man, unless referring to THE TRUE white people. That term is reserved for albinos, who are a whiter shade of pale. You who have proudly served in the U.S. military shall hence forth be called red, white, and blue people, while overzealous sunbathers shall be called red men, and that UK crooner who sings that he is holding back the years shall be called Simply Red though the quick red fox is still sufficient.

RobinReborn wrote: There was one wave of Native Americans that crossed the bering straight when sea levels were lower. There were also polynesians who settled the Americas before Columbus. end quote

Thats just a rumor. Brown, as with gray should only be referenced with its closest shade attached. Yellow only exists in flowers and on the bellies of cowards. Blue laws are on the way out. If you wish to eradicate the term red men please change the treaties first.

As an aside, one of my favorite authors Tony Hillerman who writes about the Navaho Nation in his police and crime novels appears to be retired but his daughter Anne Hillerman has now written two novels using her fathers characters Chee, Leaphorn, and others. I recommend them.

Adam wrote: What race was excluded and from what years? end quote

And Great job on the Trump stuff. end quotes

This is Trump talking: We can't talk about them. They are excluded. See my book Repatriation For Dummies. We should build a wall along the east coast to keep them out and you know who I mean and a wall along the west coast to keep those others out. Canadians should pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop

hear-no-evil-smiley-emoticon.gif

please

big-tears.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like El Chapo has a California driver's license:

 


 

I never really used Twitter before, but I just logged on to my mostly inactive account and followed The Donald.

 

He is using his Twitter account like a news organization.

 

Here's how it works.

 

1. The news organizations try to bury good stories about him and only print bad ones.

2. He constantly tweets outrageous things to his millions of followers. And he is a master of hashtags.

3. The news organizations are forced to deal with these things by coming up with other stories, and many times, the very organizations that bash him are forced to validate what he is saying.

 

Very, very clever use of social media.

 

I doubt Trump is going to stop this. I don't know how the media can be a gatekeeper to it.

 

Drip... drip... drip...

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More deer in the headlights:

 

YouTube title: "Chris Christie: ‘Nobody in the Real World’ Cares About Donald Trump"

 

 

To Christie, the "real world" is only made up of the people who go to Christie rallies, not everybody else in the country.

 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More good news:
 
Don't look now, but a new poll shows Republicans don't hate Donald Trump anymore
By Philip Bump
July 13, 2015
The Washington Post
 
From the article:
 

Part of Trump's leap in the polls is certainly his having stumbled onto a popular issue -- one that drives the Republican establishment batty.
 
Once upon a time, Trump was too unpopular to make it very far in the race. He's still unpopular, and this is only one poll, so we'll have to say if others confirm it. But it seems fair to say that ruling him out based on his unpopularity might no longer apply. He's not popular in the GOP, but he's no longer a pariah.

 
This is polling of hardcore Republican voters.

 

Apropos, in another recent poll by The Huffington Post, Trump is pretty far ahead of everybody. Here is his tweet crowing about it (deservedly in my view :smile: ):

 


 

:smile:

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RobinReborn wrote: I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. End quote

Hear Hear! But let’s not get off topic. Do what I do. Make stuff up. From Wikicopia: Trump’s service to his country. He has actually used the government in his own favor so Capitalists and Progressives should adore him. He has given to the Salvation Army. He is a Juggalo and belongs to the Insane Clown Posse where he has run down many a drug dealer (needs citation.) Gives discounts to people in uniform who visit his hotels and casinos of up to $2.50 per visit. He is xenophobic and has been mentioned in a negative way by Mexicans whether they be poor or if they are a billionaire who runs a drug cartel – So, USA, USA! The Donald has frequently told his limousine driver to swerve to miss stray dogs and cats so he has no need to support PETA or the local car wash. end phony quote

Michael showed El Chapo's California driver's license. So, is he a citizen? Where's Trump's drivers license? Where was he born? He sounds like he has an accent. That's not the Bronx, that's a French accent if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RobinReborn wrote: I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. End quote

Hear Hear! But let’s not get off topic. Do what I do. Make stuff up. From Wikicopia: Trump’s service to his country. He has actually used the government in his own favor so Capitalists and Progressives should adore him. He has given to the Salvation Army. He is a Juggalo and belongs to the Insane Clown Posse where he has run down many a drug dealer (needs citation.) Gives discounts to people in uniform who visit his hotels and casinos of up to $2.50 per visit. He is xenophobic and has been mentioned in a negative way by Mexicans whether they be poor or if they are a billionaire who runs a drug cartel – So, USA, USA! The Donald has frequently told his limousine driver to swerve to miss stray dogs and cats so he has no need to support PETA or the local car wash. end phony quote

Michael showed El Chapo's California driver's license. So, is he a citizen? Where's Trump's drivers license? Where was he born? He sounds like he has an accent. That's not the Bronx, that's a French accent if you ask me.

Peter:

Now this is funny and clever.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Really? Why didn't you call me out on it then?

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously, if I met anybody who said things that had merit 90% of the time I'd be incredibly grateful and it would be worth my time to determine the 10% of the time when they're wrong. Where are these smarter and more honest people?

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.

I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention.

What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out.

Really? Why didn't you call me out on it then?

I'm not sure if I can take you seriously, if I met anybody who said things that had merit 90% of the time I'd be incredibly grateful and it would be worth my time to determine the 10% of the time when they're wrong. Where are these smarter and more honest people?

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

Now you're talking! Welcome to OL!

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

You have a broad view of truth? You remind me of my sister who scolded me with "Everyone's got their own truth!". Your intellectual house is on fire and you desperately need to be mentored. Sorry, anyone I could recommend is either dead or busy. Ayn Rand appears to be too hard for you. Try Hoffer or Thoreau, work your way up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

You have a broad view of truth? You remind me of my sister who scolded me with "Everyone's got their own truth!". Your intellectual house is on fire and you desperately need to be mentored. Sorry, anyone I could recommend is either dead or busy. Ayn Rand appears to be too hard for you. Try Hoffer or Thoreau, work your way up.

Hey, you guys. These aren't productive conversations. Why don't you reset--wipe the slate clean and start over--before they become, "Your mama . . . ." "Your mama . . . ." "Your mama . . . ." ?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following the current thread, but if it's about Trump (weirder things have happened) here's a story that will be of interest: http://www.nationalreview.com/node/265171/print

Thanks.

Trump's position does not surprise me at all. Additionally, he is not a "conservative," any more than he is an Objectivist, or, a liberal.

What I find hilarious is for Republican Party to be held up by the author as some kind of champion and defender of private property.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think libertarians fundamentally do not understand Trump.

The word out now is he is a big government Democrat posing as a conservative Republican. And they mention the eminent domain thing and so on.

What they always leave out is context. Trump, as a hard-hitting businessman, took the corrupt situation he found and, rather than go to war with it, he made it work. He did that with bankruptcies, too.

He did not do that to pretend this is the way life could and should be. His goal was not to philosophize or create utopia, but to build successful projects. That was his universe. This is a mindset that is generally foreign in the Objectivist and libertarian world, even though Rand understood it. Here in O-Land, we want to play God and pretend we know what is best for all humanity. The idea of saying to hell with being God, and focusing instead on what is within our own reach--and be spectacular at that--is not applauded or condemned. It's just not there.

But it was for Trump. He was hell-bent on making his projects successful and he was spectacular at it.

The ideological purists who take him to task for eminent domain and so on have a much different context. They are not putting up major construction projects. So for them, the real world is easy. Don't do jack shit. Just talk about it and point and point and point to what is wrong. And opine negatively about those who do things.

If Trump gets the nomination and gets elected, I have little doubt he will take the political leader perspective as his new context. He is a very smart man--a high-end achiever. In that sense, I say he will listen to people, believe it or not. He will think about rights much more seriously than he does as a producer in a corrupt environment.

As a politician, I seriously doubt he will grow government in order to increase entitlements or wage wars. He will stimulate the economy like hell so that producers of all stripes will be able to get work and/or realize their projects. He will stand up to people who want to kill us. And he will stand up to people who want to keep us in constant wars.

All with hype and flair, maybe. But real-word productive substance instead of the government's mission creep of gradually enslaving individuals will be there.

I see this clearly from looking at the way he is. And I like the prospect.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...