Search the Community

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). 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

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

The man nobody wants to talk about. None of the Trumpians hereabouts have shown much interest in Paul Manafort. Not even when he appears to contradict his boss: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/manafort-tells-rnc-trump-has-different-private-persona-n560186 He worked for Ronald Reagan once. He will insure Donald's triumph now. Leave it at that. The guy actually has a much more interesting résumé: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html The author is a Leftist, formerly with the New Republic. So there are occasional obligatory shots (for instance, at Ronald Reagen's 1980 campaign, insinuating racist appeals without evidence). They don't matter, because he's done his homework. 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. Why would a guy who expects to be the nominee, running against Hillary Clinton, employ the services of a man who has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs? The Clinton Slush Fund Foundation has accepted large sums from foreign dictators and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Robert

Trump's foreign policy speech was pretty bad, even by the standards of politicians' foreign policy speeches. Here is of the many reactions that will be discounted at this site: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/28/of-course-trump-supported-all-three-wars-he-condemned-in-foreign-policy-address-n2154633?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad= But there's one passage of particular interest in that speech: The source is here (I do not agree with the author about quite a few things, though we presumably share two premises, that Russia is an empire and Vladimir Putin wants to be an emperor): https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/ Trump has already displayed what at best can be described as ambivalence about Putin. But then we find Trump hiring Paul Manafort, whose clients have notably included Viktor Yanukovych. On two different occasions, Yanukovych ruled Ukraine as Putin's puppet. Manafort was associated with him for at least 6 years. In 2010, Yanukovych was reelected (after being out of power for several years), and Manafort took credit for his victory. It did not end at all well. In 2014, Yanukovych was run out of Kiev, leaving behind a gilded palace that the opposition made sure was amply documented for posterity: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10656023/In-pictures-Inside-the-palace-Yanukovych-didnt-want-Ukraine-to-see.html?frame=2834874 Vladimir Putin must have figured, quite some time ago, that a President Trump will be easier to roll than President Obama was. If all of the Estonians pack up and leave, will Trump order the construction of a special wall to keep them out of the United States? Robert Campbell

Michael, Why exult in the sliminess of Roger Stone? You know, Donald Trump has still not released his tax returns. His excuse, that he is audited every year and is being audited this year, has been exposed as bogus. Besides perhaps revealing that Trump is worth less money than he claims to be, or is in more debt than he admits being in, or gives less to charity than he says he does, would the returns inform us about continuing employment (not by his campaign) for Roger Stone? I learned a couple of interesting things about Paul Manafort, who seems to have taken over control of Trump's campaign. One, Manafort helped Jerry Ford get more delegates than Ronald Reagan in 1976, before he changed sides and recruited delegates for Reagan in 1980. (He also worked later on for Bush Sr., Bob Dole, Dubya, and John McCain, when not cleaning up on K Street.) Two, Manafort worked, on and off, between 2004 and at lest 2010, for Victor Yanukovych, the kleptocratic Putinian puppet in Ukraine. Claimed credit for engineering Yanukovych's comeback victory in 2010 (though, as we know, that didn't end well for Yanukovych). Apparently was taking money from McCain and Yanukovych at the same time in 2008. Robert

-- lots of hoopla this week involving these three challenges for the Trump campaign. Here are some excerpts from a detailed article that examines the campaign with a critical lens (from Trump does not have a campaign): Considering that Mr Trump has said that his campaign will get started after the convention ... much of the pundit class is in a frenzy this week feeding on signs of disarray -- and blowing up small news into Grand Hoopla. De-cluttering reveals a simple decision: Manafort has more experience, Lewandowski was too 'uncooperative' with Manafort, Lewandowski get a pink slip.

Adam, Had I read only the headline on the Times piece (not the content), I'd be left wondering what Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort for. Is he wasting his money? Is Manafort's job simply to repeat his boss's talking points, except when assuring the RNC that Trump only plays an egomaniac on TV? Is he under strict orders not to get any Cruz or Kasich delegates to switch to Trump? Robert

Adam, I've seen lots of cheering on this thread about what I call the DDDDT stuff (such as the National Enquirer piece insinuating that others were whispering that rumors were flying that "Randy Ted" Cruz had had affairs with five women). Also seen a ton to the effect that "caucuses are for cheaters" (thank you for that uplifting sentiment, Ann Coulter) and about Donald Trump's being destined, or at least entitled, to win every contest that he enters. For example, since Trump has won more primaries than Cruz, the caucuses and state conventions are obviously a vile conspiracy against voters—and all of those state delegations should be awarded to Trump in a walkover. All of that rhetoric is so hypocritical, it's painful. There might be a legitimate complaint in the present case—in fact, I vaguely recall some pushing and shoving between Romney's people and Paul's over delegates in Maine 4 years ago, the kind of matter that the proprietor of this site believes would concern only those in the grip of the Establishment—but it's kind of hard to pick it out of the daily chorus of special pleading by and for Trump. Do you think that any integrity sales have been taking place on the Trump side? Or is it only Trump's opponents for whom integrity is ever sold or sacrificed? Robert PS. Paul Manafort is a former employee of Viktor Yanukovych. (You know he didn't take any of his compensation in Ukrainian currency.) It's hard to believe that Manafort isn't expected to pull off, in other states, precisely what Governor LePage is complaining about in Maine.

I've talked about Paul Manafort. Even posted a few videos.

I will quickly restate one of my operating assumptions, as detailed elsewhere: Polling results at this time -- especially "If the election was held today" national-sample soundings -- are not going to tell us who will win how many electoral votes where. At best they can offer comparisons to preceding elections at this point in the cycle: 150 days out. In-state polling can offer a comparison -- but at this point almost all the 'swing-state' polling is shitty, either non-existent or months-old. With my Trump-Supporter red hat on, I can say I expect Mr Trump is a smart enough executive to be aware of his challenges, and to manage the multiple levels of a national campaign. With the red hat on, I would pass some suggestions 'up the lines' to the candidates inner circle or kitchen cabinet. For example, I would cite the most interesting analytical opinion -- opinion that could help simplify and focus the response to the challenges. Here's a teaser from The Hill website: "5 things Trump needs to do to turn his campaign around\." It has useful targets which can serve as benchmarks: Pick a good VP Expand your base Focus on winnable states Cut out the conspiracy theories Focus on jobs and the economy Some excerpts: Trump crushed his opponents in the GOP presidential primary, where he was competing with other Republicans for a slice of the vote. Winning a general election is tougher. Polls over the last few weeks have shown Trump hovering around 40 percent in general election match-ups against Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, with high disapproval numbers among Hispanics, African-Americans and women. He's unlikely to win just by appealing to white men and so needs to expand his appeal. [...] Trump surprised political observers — and worried Republican strategists — by spending time after his primary win in California and New York, two states he bragged he would bring into the GOP fold. Such an outcome seems unlikely, according to polls. Trump is being advised to quit fighting for California and New York and head to states such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin, where the race will actually be decided. “I think he will end up focusing on the targeted states,” said veteran Republican strategist Charlie Black, who is a longtime friend of Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort. [...] When Trump flirted with conspiracy theories about President Obama being a secret Muslim in alliance with terrorist organizations, it horrified many in the GOP and gave ammunition to Democrats. The timing of Trump’s comments were especially hard to understand, coming a little more than 24 hours after 49 people were killed in an Orlando nightclub by a man pledging allegiance to terrorist groups. At a time when Americans generally rally around one another, Trump went on the attack with lowest-common-denominator arguments. Days later, Republicans were still being asked about the statements.

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.

Here are a couple of Alex Jones videos. The first is unbelievable. Alex Jones is schmoozing with Van Jones. SCHMOOZING! Dayaamm! They provisionally set a Van Jones interview on Infowars and Van Jones said: "Nobody is able to keep up with you or me because nobody can keep up with the Joneses." They even did a friggin' fist bump. Dayaamm! And below is a discussion between Alex Jones and Roger Stone. The reason I have been focusing on Alex during the Trump campaign is because I detected something that seemed different this time around and I couldn't put my finger on it. The coin dropped watching this interview. Do you remember that Roger Stone used to be Trump's campaign manager in the beginning, then was fired? I believe that was theater, at least partially. Paul Manafort, the current campaign manager was (and probably still is) Stone's business partner. How's that for a coincidence? At the time of Stone's departure, Trump said Stone wanted to use the campaign to publicize himself too much. That was Trump's reason for firing him and that always sounded like a lame reason to me. I think what really happened was that Trump sent Roger Stone to Alex Jones to cultivate him because of Alex's massive audience. Think about it. Just as soon as he left Trump's campaign, he started appearing on Infowar, not a little, but a lot. I think Trump learned a lesson from history. Barry Goldwater suffered in his election because of the John Birch Society. No matter what he did, it was lose-lose. When the John Birch Society endorsed him, that was used as a weapon against him. When Goldwater denounced the JBS, that alienated a crapload of other voters, ones from his base. There was no way for Goldwater to win that public relations disaster. I think Trump learned from looking at that and came up with a strategy. Since Roger Stone is somewhat damaged goods in the mainstream, Stone lost nothing by becoming a regular on Infowars. On the contrary, I believe he sold a crapload more of his books than he otherwise would have. (I even bought some. ) And Trump got a HUGE voting block without being tainted by the more kooky stuff Alex sometimes gets into. I saw Roger Stone reign Alex back in when Alex started skirting on the edge of promoting violence at the GOP convention. Stone said no way, José, nothing doing. It's turn the other cheek time. Take it and stand there. And that attitude worked well in execution. They even got the ACLU, which normally tilts full left, to help them in the courts with unblocking the city's ban on airspace and demonstration permits. Alex Jones is a powerhouse of research. He digs up stuff that the powerful would like to stay hidden. And he digs up tons of it. But he's like a bull in a China shop about interpreting it. Or maybe a big muddy dog going apeshit in a clean fancy house. Roger Stone tempers him. Oddly enough, I think this works the other way, too, but I don't have any examples right now. It's just a feeling: Roger Stone is coming off as less dirty and Alex Jones less kooky. In a weird way, this Stone and Jones partnership is taming them both and allowing the better angels of their natures to emerge. I wonder how long this will last... I hope for a long time... Michael

Just one more point on Trump supposedly being a foreign trade dufus. Here are a few of the men on Trump's team so far (a couple informally): Paul Manafort Larry Kudlow (Heritage Foundation) Stephen Moore (Heritage Foundation Steven Mnuchin, (Dune Capital Management) Carl Icahn Jeff Sessions Newt Gingrich Chris Christie Rudy Giuliani There's a much larger list, but that's good for starters. Does anyone seriously think these folks don't know what foreign currency manipulation is or does? And does anyone think they would work for a man (or beside him in front of the entire world) who was an ignoramus about it? Dayaamm! Michael

Of course my first reaction was “This is gratitude?” But then I don’t know much about Lewandowski. I gather his more or less replacement is Paul Manafort, a total sleazebag. According to one account – it may not be true – one reason that Trump dropped Lewandowski is that he had encouraged Trump to criticize that Mexican judge, which in fact was a great thing to do.

This is interesting (from NYT)... Donald Trump Parts Ways With Corey Lewandowski, His Campaign Manager I want to learn more before I comment, but I suspect the Roger Stone element (which includes Paul Manafort) will now increase presence and influence in Trump's campaign. Corey did one hell of a job getting Trump going, though. And if Trump is true to form (like he often does with those of high talent he fires for purely business reasons), Corey will have a place somewhere in his future administration or will get some strong benefit coming from Trump re a project of his. Michael

Paul Manafort is hilarious in this clip

Michael, Do you have anything to say about Viktor Yanukovych? You know, the politician who was Paul Manafort's client for 6 years, give or take... I suppose it could be that people who see Yanukovych fail to see you, and people who see you will fail to see him. Robert

I've talked about Paul Manafort. Even posted a few videos.

I've talked about Paul Manafort. Even posted a few videos.

Michael, You're actually supposing that I don't know who any of these people are, and can't identify them as part of an establishment. (By the way, I'm still seeing you not referring to any of them by name, unless it's Bush.) Your whole point seemed to be that you, along with all other Trump supporters, possess this special ability to discern who is a member of the Establishment, and I, in my duped, or befuddled, state, do not. If your special powers of discernment pick out Chuck Todd as part of an establishment, or Anderson Cooper, or Bill O'Reilly, or Nicholas Kristof, or anybody who works for Politico, or Tom Steyer, or anyone who gave chunks of money to Jeb! this past cycle... well, my grossly inferior, if not completely absent, powers of discernment managed to pick them out, too. So how about the cases where your special powers succeed, and my inferior powers fail? As my powers are so inferior, these must be abundant. If one Bush on Ted Cruz's team makes him part of the establishment, did one Barbour on Chris McDaniel's team make him part of the establishment? If Ann Coulter was part of the establishment when she was a sycophant of Mitt Romney, did she stop being part it of the day she became a sycophant of Donald Trump? If Paul Manafort was pure establishment when he worked for, say, Bob Dole, did he become pure anti-esabllishment the first day he received a paycheck from Trump? As one who knows the establishment far better than I ever could, you should have an easy time bringing clarity to these matters. That is, unless along with my inability to see the establishment, I have a further inability to see anyone else's ability to see the establishment. Robert

Michael, One trivial thing: Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh is still Dr. Diana Hsieh. (You didn't know her when she was Ms. Brickell.) I was twisting her name around the way Roger (who did know her when she was Ms. Brickell) sometimes does. I can't help comparing you to a Christian missionary, or some other sort who believes in a Messiah and spreads the Good News on His account, because you and I don't seem to be operating by the same standards of evidence. In our exchanges over the past few weeks, your response to any point that is critical of Donald Trump in any respect has been to treat it as though it contained no evidence—or as though any evidence or argument that might be in it deserve no consideration. It's all "gotchas," or something only a member of the Establishment would even think mattered, or it's ruled out because it pre-dates Donald Trump's announcement of June 16, 2015 (any political history that pre-dates The Annunciation has been cleansed from the record, unless it pertains to the perfidies of the Bush clan, or of neocons). Or it just can't be right, because of the evidence available to your own two eyes. Even when the truth or falsity of what is being claimed is something I can't just see, and I reckon you can't either. Or it's proof that the person who would say such things can't see you, and can't see anyone else who supports the Trump campaign. Now what would a devout Christian, of any sort, particularly the kind not gifted in dialectic and suspicious of those who are, be likely to say in response to criticisms of Jesus? Contrast all of these reactions with my responses to criticisms of Ted Cruz, or of anyone else outside the Trump camp. Have any of them been like your reactions to criticisms of Donald Trump? (Even when I think Trump and crew are taking an Establishment line against someone, as in his curiously favorable remarks about Mitch McConnell, I go to some trouble to explain why I think so.) As for the moral standing of the man, Donald Trump appears to have attained perfection in your eyes, or to be so close a scrape from it that the difference hardly matters. He can't simply be a man of unusual courage, or great outspokenness, or unusual organizational skill, or extreme chutzpah, or off-the-charts ability to sell nearly anything, he has to be the entire antidote, packaged up into one human being, to everything ailing or rotten in our political system. In particular. he must, lest he fail to qualify for his saving mission, be entirely free of the vices customarily associated with politicians. And since Donald Trump has a long record of public statements on nearly every subject, many of which contradict the statements he is making now, he even gets his own era, beginning when he was called to his present mission, at the age of 68 (nothing he did of a political nature counts, if he did it before that date). If he is elected President, will there be a movement to replace 2015 in the old reckoning with NTE (New Trump Era) 1? Not being inclined to attribute moral perfection to anyone running to be President of the United States, including anyone I might consider voting for, I find your continued assertions about him bizarre—not to mention contrary to readily available evidence, in the form of some of the man's past deeds, many of his past and present sayings, and quite a few of his associations. A guy who hires Roger Stone and Paul Manafort is not free of any vice customarily associated with politicians. You don't keep one around you for years, or feel an urgent need for the services of the other, if your attention is entirely taken up with building magnificent things and offering them on the free market, leaving no headroom for the low machinations of the political class. I really have to wonder whether the jibes at Ted Cruz in particular—Rafael! the wannabe Savior!—aren't projection at work. For I can prefer Cruz without illusions, either about his moral perfection or his role as an agent of salvation. Can you prefer Trump in the same way? I don't know how many other Trump supporters you actually know. They vary, like everyone else, but from my own experience I can say that they are not all as you describe. Many of them don't want discussions of issues, as the Trump supporters here at OL generally don't. They tend to be incurious about Trump's actual views, actual plans, actual stands on, well, nearly anything. He will take care of it. He will clean it up. Whatever it is. We don't need to know now how he intends to do any of it, so why do you ask? Others are instantly actively hostile toward anyone who questions their guy, whether the hostility is expressed in peremptory putdowns, or in inane triumphalism. Your assertion that only those critical of Trump (could?) behave in these ways I see as part of a worshipful attitude. I surely don't think you should be barred from discussions with anyone, or that you are given over to thinking with your emotions, or whatever. I am saying that adopting special epistemological and moral standards, meant to apply uniquely to one and only one human being, is not merely unfair, but tends to get in the way of objective appraisal—in this case, of candidates for President. (The analogy to Dr. Hsieh is not about the institutional specifics of ARI, but about the worshipful attitude and special pleading that all there must adopt regarding Ayn Rand, plus occasionally one of her lieutenants.) As for anger, Donald Trump is, among other things, an actor. So the anger in his speeches and public performances could be simulated, and my assumption has to be that it usually is. The anger expressed by his followers, often directed at questionably identified targets, gives no impression of being simulated. And eating your own... how else could anyone describe what Donald Trump does, in pretty much every speech he's given since June 16 of last year? Stomping and re-stomping every Republican who opposes him, or endorses anyone who opposes him, with no sign of letting up. Would he take the high road for a couple of weeks after big wins in five states? Hell no, there are still Republicans to stomp. Anyone who defends such behavior is practicing the exact thing you claim to deplore. I've been rough on Obama and on Hillary Clinton, and so have other contributors here. Maybe because Obami don't hang out much at OL, and I haven't seen a Hillary supporter posting since I returned, you've gotten the impression that Trump is a unique target of mine? Trump's election will not herald the death of freedom in America. It's much harder than normal to say what it does herald, because cone of uncertainty around his actions is so much wider than usual. (You talk of peaceful trade, but Trump's shtick is all about how bad most trade is for us.) Hillary Clinton lies to us constantly. Yet she has a track record in the White House and in office that enables reasonably good predictions of what she will actually do. Donald Trump has been all over the place rhetorically, even in NTE1 and NTE 2, pretends to be all kinds of things to all kinds of people, has no track record in political office, and may not even believe key elements of his campaign speeches. He might be for everything you wish he's for, he might not be for any of it at all; he might be 100 places in between. But, no, he is not another Hitler or Stalin. A better model, I've suggested before, is Berlusconi, abroad, or Jesse and Ahhnold, at home. Most likely, in my estimate, he will be a very loud, fairly awful President, constantly bloviating about the changes he's making, and not really changing much of anything. He will have been elected after we suffered under a bad President and a truly terrible one, and when there was some small chance of getting someone better. Are you really sure that Donald Trump will be the President you want him to be? If you really are, perhaps the inestimable benefits of a Trump Presidency just outweigh any losses of friends or allies to aggressively proselytizing. Robert

KC and the Sunshine Band... It looks to like all kinds of games are getting played on all sides in the delegate scramble. Here's one the Trump partisans didn't post here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/michigan-republican-delegates-ted-cruz-donald-trump-john-kasich/ Looks to me like Paul Manafort is earning a little of his pay at least. Robert

Robert wrote: Is Manafort's job simply to repeat his boss's talking points, except when assuring the RNC that Trump only plays an egomaniac on TV? Is he under strict orders not to get any Cruz or Kasich delegates to switch to Trump? end quote KC = Kasich, Cruz. It’s a really big shew – Ed Sullivan. KC and the sunshine band may have a plan but will it really amount to keeping Trump from winning on the first round of the convention? Of course, any collusion on KC’s part could play into Der Trumpster’s hands. Will this be viewed as another INSIDER ploy? Reporters were mobbing Kasich as he tried to eat breakfast. Check. Now it's Trump's turn. Peter R. Dean Taylor – Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there Indiana wants me, Lord, I can't go back there I wish I had you to talk to If a man ever needed dying, he did No one had a right to say, what he said about you And it's so cold and lonely here without you Out there, the law is coming, I've been so tired of running

Michael, Ahh, DDDDT is purposely reeling back on the mistress stories. Don't want to damage Lyin' Ted too much... I doubt DDDDT is that finely calibrated an operation. Do you think it is? Donald Trump keeps talking as though he is not a politician, all of his opponents are, therefore he would never beg to be the humble servant of any of them, but all will come crawling to him, and some of those who crawl might, after further drubbing, be accepted. He makes no secret of any of this. And when Paul Manafort says, "Hey, RNC! My guy isn't really unbelievably vain and tremendously vindictive. He just plays an egomaniac on TV," his boss promptly contradicts him in front of crowds in Pennsylvania. I know that plenty of Republicans will vote for Trump, no matter how they dislike him, if he is the nominee. Those are partisan alignments nowadays (not much different from Democrats getting out their clothespins and voting for Hillary). That's why i don't see a Goldwater or Mondale-level loss as a possibility. What you are not seeing is how relentless and outré Trump is in his attacks on other Republicans, how he gives every impression, every time he does it, of meaning it personally, and how unusual tactics will have unusual effects. In Republican delegates dropping him as soon as they are no longer bound, Republican officials not working with or for him, and in Republican voters staying home, voting down-ticket and leaving the President-VP lines blank, or voting third-party. I won't say all Trump supporters are doing it, because I doubt you speak for most of them. But with all your talk about how anyone who disagrees with you on these subjects can't see you, you do seem to be putting a lot of effort into not seeing them. Robert

Michael, Yes, of course, the Bush clan only pretended to support Jeb. That Jeb! candidacy was a tactical feint. Ted was their guy all along. You have to realize this is all complete BS. Precisely as credible as making Trump out to be a Clinton plant. And I'm sure you do realize it. Trump et al. have now sought to discredit Cruz: — As a Canadian ineligible to run for President (Trump's just pulled that one back out of his bag) — As an unhinged fanatic (Rafael! Rafael!) who believes he is the Messiah — As a player with a bunch of mistresses (hence, unacceptable to his religious supporters) — As a Bushie in sheep's clothing — As a phony who only pretended to oppose the Gang of 8 — As the guy Trump could have been if only he'd thought to hire Paul Manafort last July And they'll come up with a few more, before the nomination is decided one way or another. You must be disappointed in the reception of the National Enquirer story (and its already forgotten addenda). How much time elapsed between the initial charge against Herman Cain (the first sexual harassment allegation) and his decision to drop out (because he really did have a mistress)? Yeah, I know, 2011-2012, all framed by the Establishment, therefore history a Trump supporter needn't burden himself with.... Still, clock's ticking on the Enquirer stuff; it hasn't quite hit the expiration date, but it's tasting pretty stale. Yet many Trump supporters admit they'd bite the bullet and vote for Cruz, if Trump fails to secure the nomination. And even those who don't want him on the ticket want to him to stay in the Senate, where he can serve Trump faithfully. If the Canadian thing was for real, Cruz couldn't be the nominee. Under any circumstances. Not for VP, neither. If the mistress thing was for real, Cruz's evangelical constituents in Texas would desert him, and he wouldn't get reelected to the Senate. If the Messiah thing was for real, nobody would want Cruz in any elective office. Let the guy become Mayor of Copperas Cove, Texas, and, the next thing you know, he'd turn the place into Jonestown. Most of the people who are spreading this stuff don't act like it's for real. How could they? Robert