Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

New Hampshire couldn't give a f--k about Iowa.

[Peter]

I disagree. Everybody is influenced by what they see and here. Let us speculate that South Carolinian voters hear somebody won Iowa or New Hampshire. Yet they are a Carly supporter. But Carly has no chance of winning with all the momentum other candidates have. Do you waste your vote?

Friar Thump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a guy who sees parallels between Donald Trump and John Galt.

Atlas shrugged, America slouched -- The Galt/Trump revolution
By Stone Washington
Renew America
January 28, 2016

I think this guy is young because his essay is imbalanced.

It is definitely aimed at conservatives, not Objectivist-leaning folks and libertarians. Why? Because he spends a lot of time explaining Atlas Shrugged and a very small amount on the comparison with Trump. And that could lead critics to say he did it that way because there are not that many comparisons to discuss.

Baloney. There are.

Note: I just looked Stone Washington up and he is young (Facebook page). He's a college student at George Mason University in Virginia. He's also black, which means nothing philosophically, but does in terms of the media narrative that only white people support Rand and Trump.

Apropos of nothing fundamental, weird coincidence time. He's from Evanston, Illinois, where I now live, and is now in Fairfax county, Virginia, where I grew up.

Young. And smart. I like it. I can easily forgive him the imbalance and other things, like not addressing what people could perceive as Trump's moral failings according to Rand.

btw - I think there are good reasons that make almost all of Trump's shortcomings tolerable, even to ideological purists once they grok it. Starting with the massive great character Trump has when compared tit for tat against a standard like John Galt. It's almost like he's Francisco D'Anconia, pretending to be one thing in public while being one of the productive drivers in private. And the reason for the deception is to combat evil.

But that's me. This angle is not explored in the article and I don't want to harp on what it is not. Let's look at what it is.

Still, let me get a small detail off my chest. Frankly, the title of this article sucks. The text is far, far better than the title. When I saw the title in the news feed, I initially thought it was going to be another satire of Trump and Rand. I almost didn't open it. Maybe with time this negative connotation on first seeing it will dissipate. But in today's world, the "blame America for everything bad" crowd has dominated the mainstream news for a long time. So "America slouched" sounds like something one of them would say. Like I said, though, this is a detail. The article is well worth reading for people in our subcommunity.

Before I give a few quotes by Mr. Stone Washington, I found the opening of his article spot on and inspiring.

He quotes Galt and Trump.

"I started my life with a single absolute: that the world was mine to shape in the image of my highest values and never to be given up to a lesser standard, no matter how long or hard the struggle."
~ John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

"One of the problems when you become successful is that jealousy and envy inevitably follow. There are people – I categorize them as life's losers – who get their sense of accomplishment and achievement from trying to stop others. As far as I'm concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn't be fighting me, they'd be doing something constructive themselves."
~ Donald Trump, Art of the Deal

Those are statements by people who use their own minds.

Now for a few quotes I like (my bold):

"Who is John Galt?" He is the man with the answer to fixing the economic decay of the nation. With the creation of Project X, the government has officially lost sight of the value of life and death, seeking to maintain power over a dying country even to the expense of those the government is trusted to safeguard, We the People. Project X is both the masterpiece of the political, bureaucratic apparatchik's warped mission of maintaining order in the economically unstable nation, and the antithesis of John Galt's motor.

. . .

Rand created Galt to be her Prometheus – the visionary prophet who sacrificed all for the preservation of the civilized world – the free market, capitalistic society.

. . .

In modern day John Galt is a precursor to billionaire and Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Like Galt, Trump possesses the economic and entrepreneurial genius that has launched him to orchestrate a multi-billion dollar empire of successful businesses. Like Galt, Trump is a man of principle who stands firm upon promoting the qualities and capabilities of an individual, apart from government intervention.

. . .

Just as the mythos behind John Galt grew over time, so does the prestige of Donald Trump, up to today where it is apparent that his fame has become the center of America's attention following his bid for the 2016 Presidential race.

. . .

Like Galt, Trump remains fearless and headstrong in his quest for the Presidency. Trump sticks to his values and political stance even when faced with harsh attacks and constant criticism from Democrats, so-called Conservatives, the media, and even the GOP cowardly Establishment. As with Galt rising in fame, the naysayers and back-stabbers only elevate Trump's popularity in the polls. Both men are bullet-proof in that no matter how many times they make "controversial" statements or are attacked, they remain unscathed and paradoxically only gain more supporters as the slave chains of people's minds are broken by independent, Objectivist thinking. Galt revealing himself on national TV is equivalent to how Trump has captured the hearts of millions of Americans downtrodden by the slavemaster State under the Democrat Socialist Party in Washington, D.C.

. . .

Prometheus has arisen! Atlas has taken his rightful place on stage. Men like Trump and John Galt have held the nation upon their shoulders for too long not to rebel against the crony government. We must wake up and see the vision for greatness Trump seeks to restore back into the heart of this nation, a vision mirrored by John Galt's vision for prosperity under the success of industrial ideas.

Let me get a couple of things out of the way before the gotcha folks latch on to them.

When Washington says Galt is "the visionary prophet who sacrificed all for the preservation of the civilized world – the free market, capitalistic society," he's not saying Galt is living according to a morality of self-sacrifice to the collective. To me, it's implicit that Galt values that kind of society for a highly selfish motive--he knows he cannot exist in any other. Also, reread the opening Galt quote. The real meaning is right there.

On the archetype level, let's call Galt's sacrifice more than Prometheus. It's also a David and Goliath thing. He's sacrificing, that he is, like all people who go into a fight. But he's out to destroy the collectivist Goliath in doing so and establish a background of freedom and human progress. That kind of sacrifice. Not just immolate himself so Goliath can get bigger, more powerful and more oppressive.

When Washington says Galt is a precursor to Trump and that Trump is a man of principle who promotes the qualities of the individual over government intervention, I can almost see some OL readers holding their noses and thinking about eminent domain, corn, and so on.

But think about this. Look at Trump's achievements, not just the word wars. And look for real, don't just dismiss. There are buildings all over the friggin' place. And books and entertainment. And retail and licensing. They all have this "individual life as primary standard" quality in their core. They exude a call to personal excellence, a command to rise as people said of Rand.

And, lastly, there is youthful exuberance in the article in the place of cognitive precision for word choice in a few places. (For example, implying Galt's vision was primarily industrialist in the last quote instead of elevating reason. Things like that.) I say that's perfectly OK. I look to what a person means more than their word choices, especially when they are starting out. Both meaning and word choice are important, of course, but meaning "Trumps" gotcha to me every time.

I hope Mr. Stone Washington keeps writing. If he does, I expect great things from him.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now you know it's serious.

Game on!

Rent Is Too Damn High Party founder endorses Trump

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Now you know it's serious.

Game on!

Rent Is Too Damn High Party founder endorses Trump

Michael

That's hilarious! I had this guy in my thoughts the other day, but in a disassociative way.

[PDS]

MSK: I know you know this, but want to state it anyway: it is clearly possible to admire Trump's achievements in business and still believe is he simply another bullshit artist politician. That's my view of Trump.

With that said--i.e., that Trump is just like the rest of 'em--I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him. So, my primary objection is a tactical, made with not all that much to back it up--other than a naval gaze...**

**Full disclosure: A source of my bias is that I am what you have been calling an "establishment" conservative on this thread. I was the lead election lawyer for George Bush in my jurisdiction in 2004 and am also theoretically a lead (election) lawyer for Jeb Bush in my jurisdiction should he (1) ever get nominated, and (2) get in legal trouble...--neither of which looks very likely...

[Roger Bissell]

MSK: I know you know this, but want to state it anyway: it is clearly possible to admire Trump's achievements in business and still believe is he simply another bullshit artist politician. That's my view of Trump.

With that said--i.e., that Trump is just like the rest of 'em--I have asked myself why it is that Trump rubs me the wrong way, and the answer is that I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him. So, my primary objection is a tactical, made with not all that much to back it up--other than a naval gaze...**

**Full disclosure: A source of my bias is that I am what you have been calling an "establishment" conservative on this thread. I was the lead election lawyer for George Bush in my jurisdiction in 2004 and am also theoretically a lead (election) lawyer for Jeb Bush in my jurisdiction should he (1) ever get nominated, and (2) get in legal trouble...--neither of which looks very likely...

Speaking of legal trouble - your fear, that Trump will lose big against Hillary and take some or all of the Congress down with him, will definitely come true if Hillary somehow escapes being indicted/convicted for the email-server scandal. At least, that's what the professional betters continue to indicate - a really big victory for HC.

If she gets tossed out (by the voters, the DNC, etc.) or withdraws, then I think we're looking at Bernie Sanders or maybe Joe Biden at the top of the Dem ticket. I'd put money on Trump, but I wouldn't be 100% sure he'd win - not because Sanders or Biden is so formidable, but because the electoral corruption likely to take place may swamp Trump in the swing states like Ohio and Florida.

But maybe we'll have a "crisis" between now and then, and BHO will declare "national emergency" and "temporary" suspension of elections, until we can be sure the "crisis" hasn't gone to waste. Maybe one of Peter's dreaded EMPs will trigger it - or more "police brutality" riots and backlash - or whatever. The possibilities in our screwed-up country are multiplying faster than fruit flies at the farmers' market.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I believe he will not only win the nomination, but that he will lose BIG against Hillary, taking down the Senate and maybe the House with him.

David,

Your view is shared by people on the establishment side, but there is one unnamed assumption behind it.

You assume Trump will do the same things in running against Hillary that he is doing with the primary candidates. You think his dynamism will be static and pegged to what is happening right now.

That has been the single biggest reason the pundits and establishment folks have made wrong predictions, one after another, since June, and keep sucking on lemons.

I'll give you this. I think it's a details vs. meta thing.

So I can give you Trump will do the same thing against Hillary that he did against the primary candidates, but only on a meta level. That is: size up Hillary and her supporters in terms of beliefs and strengths and weaknesses, then strike right at the vulnerability, recalibrate his strikes based on feedback, split test strikes, exude strength, keep to simple language, and so on.

Oh, and one other thing. He will be prolific. One strike right after another, nonstop. Say what you will, there is one thing all have to agree on. It is undeniable. Trump humps.

But in the details, it's different for each person. Saying Jeb is low energy doesn't work with Hillary. Nor does saying she doesn't get along with anybody and has an electability issue because of birth, like he does with Ted. So don't expect this kind of "linguistic kill shot." He will find things very particular to her that her own supporters can find repugnant, dicey or hilarious and come out with a zinger. Not just one. He will run one until it doesn't give good feedback, then run another. One after another. Nonstop.

That's on the personal level. On the larger society level, Trump knows what his supporters think and he knows how to frame it. He bonds with them. (In marketing, they call it the WIIFM factor--what's in it for me? Like jobs. Freedom of non-PC speech. Safety against terrorism. And so on. He knows how to frame this well as if he were one of them, just richer. Granted, it's also because he is just like them, only richer. That helps. )

And he does it in a manner that his opponents accuse him of things he did not say and does not stand for. For example, he will refer to some people in a situation and his opponents accuse him of referring to all people--Mexicans, Muslims, etc. This happens a lot. Don't think many of the supporters of his opponents miss the inconsistencies of their leaders when they bash Trump. They see the wrong stuff, try to point it out (to be helpful), and it pisses them off when their own leaders tell them they are wrong. They cannot deny their eyes. This is one reason many of them migrate to Trump--and believe me, this migration is growing leaps and bounds.

So he will do the same meta-stuff with Hillary.

But he will not use the same details he used to attract conservative voters. He will figure out the hot buttons of Hillary supporters, where the vulnerabilities are, and work his magic with those details. It will be the same underlying process, but it will look completely different because of the high-valence emotions the details produce.

Also, on a dirt level, don't forget that he used to have Hillary in the palm of his hand from donating to her and living in New York. He was an insider (probably at a respectful distance, but still an insider). He knows dirt about her he has not yet released. Do you want proof? Did you notice her instant change in calling him a misogynist after he put out a public warning? Instant shutdown of attack and not a peep about why.

What do you think prompted Hillary to chicken out like that? A noble spirit trying to rise above the fray?

Here's another rhetorical question. Do you think Trump is self-effacing and gentlemanly enough to prohibit himself from using Hillary's dirt (like, say, McCain did in refusing--and prohibiting his staff--to go after Obama's left-wing relationships)? Can you see Trump as self-sacrificing nobility to preserve Hillary's honor?

Or do you think he will drag her out into the hog's pen and make her squeal after getting all muddied up?

So I think your fear is unfounded if losing to Hillary is the real fear.

If it is more a partisan issue since you have worked closely with the Bush side of the establishment, I see the dislike.

I don't want to be disrespectful or personal, so please don't take it that way. I think a Rush Limbaugh observation may be a part of it. He says that there are elites in politics just like in any human activities. And elites not only have rules for entry, they tend to be quite content with their membership. They're not looking for new folks to join the club. So they viscerally reject and hold contempt for a newcomer barging in without invitation and making up new rules as he goes along. (Or "she" as in the case of Sarah Palin.)

I think he has a point.

Michael

[PDS]

Regarding the Rush point: nah--too complicated. Politics is about winning. That is all.

I think the term "establishment" has become a shibboleth, i.e., it really means almost nothing, and I was using the term a little bit tongue-in-cheek. On the outside, I look, dress and appear every bit the dreaded "establishment conservative", except that I'm not, as even the slightest gander at my 1700 posts on the website should reveal. There is no conspiracy among establishment types--they just don't like losing, and they are on an 0-2 streak of late...

If I am correct that the sine qua non of politics is winning, I think the main gripe against Trump from "the establishment" is that he is likely to lose really, really BIG, and that, by the time the course can be reversed, the Supreme Court will be gone and the country will irretrievably down the toilet. I believe eight more years of the current trend means we have no "republic" left.

All for one man's apparent vanity.

[Jules Troy]

Trump will smash them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Regarding the Rush point: nah--too complicated.

David,

I would agree with you except for corroboration with my life experiences.

I've been on the inside in government (in Brazil).

I eventually came to my own conclusion--the hard way--that the rich and powerful are not bubbling over with joy when newcomers come around trying to join them without their invitation and/or grooming. I also learned that when a newcomer doesn't give up, they eventually let him in, even get quite friendly with him.

Then they use him as the fall guy for some of their monkeyshines.

(Man, do I have stories. Especially since I managed to dodge the bullets with my name on them.)

As for a party crasher like Trump, they hate that kind of person. He makes them very insecure. Like you just said, they tend to call such a person vain. But I have also heard childish, uncouth, barbaric, oafish, troglodyte and so on. I'm not speaking about Trump, although people do say such things about him. (It's always a hoot when I see George Will, for example, talk about Trump. He always looks like he just accidentally swallowed a cockroach, but has to keep face. ) I'm speaking about what I have seen on the inside and how they talk about people like Trump.

Believe it or not, they have political party-crashers in Brazil.

So I didn't need Rush to tell me that about the elites. I learned it on my own. And I have the scars to prove it.

He merely said something I already knew.

Time will tell, but my opinion (my learned opinion ) is that Hillary will not know what hit her if she runs against Trump. Even with all her political savvy and relationships. She will become the election equivalent of McGovern against Nixon, with her being McGovern.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following short entry is interesting because of what it illustrates about how the core story works in the mind in a political setting.

I can’t believe Donald Trump might actually win this thing
by Ryu Spaeth
New Republic
Jan. 31, 2006

The aspect I want to comment on is when one is on the power side of a governing system where the core story of those in power does not reflect the majority. Obama's worldview is not that of most Americans, therefore the core story and spinoff stories that bolster that worldview are not shared by the majority as reflecting reality.

But such a person risks suffering from acclimation. Over time, since his side has been in control for a few years, he gets comfortable, mentally lazy, and starts to ignore other core stories out there. (Ironically, talking a great game about "diversity" as he ignores the gigantic different thing right there in his face.) He treats the majority's core story as if it were a historical curiosity or, in the case of snarky progressives like this dude, simply a marker to identify pathetic stupid people (generally older, white, ignorant, uncultured, Christian, afraid, yada yada yada).

We’ve had months to absorb the possibility. But as we get closer to the Iowa caucuses, the prospect of Trump winning the Republican nomination gets more surreal, not less; it is the moment when a cosmic absurdity and reality begin to slide, like an eclipse, into the same place.

Notice the word "surreal." Even with approaching reality in his face, this guy can't accept the reality of it. Not in his soul. But he can't deny it, either. He sees clearly, but he is too far into believing that his core story is what reality is to trust his own eyes. As you can can see by his complaint, the crack in his core story is starting to appear in his mind.

What does he do?

Easy. He slams his mental door shut on looking at that crack and gets right back into the middle of his core story. Rand would call this a blank-out.

There have been no shortage of theories to explain the Trump phenomenon. He’s tapped into widespread economic anxiety among white voters. Or perhaps more accurately, their racial anxiety. He’s a “truth teller,” a scourge of the political correctness that afflicts our politics, the perfect candidate for these anti-establishment times. He’s the American manifestation of the right wing’s rise across Western democracy.

But he’s still Donald Trump, the crude boor he always was. A Trump victory would suggest a deeper illness, a country that doesn’t realize it has lost its self-respect. At the very least, there are a lot of people walking around who, like Trump himself, believe he is the classiest guy to lead the classiest nation on Earth. And that’s just sad.

In other words, after fishing through a few arbitrary boilerplate progressive pundit "this is the real reason" explanations for the rise of Trump, he comes to the conclusion that Americans are just plain stupid, unlike him and his tribe. They are inferior and he is superior and it has to be metaphysical. His core story tells him so. And to show it, he is sad.

You can almost hear the bang of the mental door slamming shut.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: In other words, after fishing through a few arbitrary boilerplate progressive pundit "this is the real reason" explanations for the rise of Trump, he comes to the conclusion that Americans are just plain stupid, unlike him and his tribe. end quote

Well said. Liberalism really is a tribal mentality. And at some point conservative and libertarian Trump dis-likers will need to start supporting the frontrunner. Prepare thyself for the day, doubters, just in case. I can imagine myself getting caught up in the SLANT that we all get even if it is a candidate we are not initially fond of. McCain come to mind as the best example of that syndrome.

I watched Richard Dreyfussy discussing his role as Bernie Madeoff and Richard mentioned how he thinks the rich should pay more taxes. It was like it just dawned on Richard as he spoke, (the big and rich movie star that he is,) that he would have to pay more taxes so then he amended his thought to say 90 percent taxation of the rich would only be temporary.

Herman Cain on Fox discussed why people aren’t falling for the GOTCHA press this time around which helps explain why Donald Trump gets away with saying just about anything. He gitchas before they gotcha. The public is not listening to the pundits about how to think. It’s the power of perception this time around that makes the difference. The voters are more aware and are eager for truth and change.

On another Fox show they discussed the viewing numbers during the debate that favored Fox and the other candidates over CNN and Trump. The numbers don’t lie but if you take in other electronic means of communications Trump was garnering 75 percent of that traffic at that same time, like on Twitter. And Trump is leading Cruz by five percent on the latest RealClear poll and on a Des Moines Register poll. Clinton and Sanders are still in a dead heat in Iowa as of 1pm on Sunday.
Peter

[Selene]

But the division goes far beyond a profound disagreement on issues. While partisan tensions are nothing new, they have deepened and intensified during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the parties have splintered along the lines of age, race and culture. The result is a separation of America into mutually estranged and suspicious tribes.

Worth the read...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-iowa-alternate-universes-20160131-story.html

[Marc]

Now the politics start , and it all comes down to Iowa .

Scenerios :

Trump does not win - Then yeah , NH falls that fast .

Trump does win and Marco gets a very surprised second to Trump then everyone starts to fall in line with our next President . Then Marco simply runs the table come March

Cruz wins a close race and Marco gets third . NH starts slipping a way and Marco gets steam and they all rally to him and runs the table

Cruz wins big . Trump pulls out

Marco wins , everyone pulls out basically .

Trump wins , wins NH , wins SC and Nevada , well the war gets real serious and March becomes the month that it is literally the entire party rallies with Rubio in Custards last stand . Not sure about the analogy there cause up here they don't teach anything about Custard , they just love teaching about the war of 1812

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Or Trump runs the table so decisively, a few crows have a nervous breakdown.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a Muslim who's not too worried if Trump wins.

 

Beware. It will probably piss you off, but not because of anything about Trump.

 

 

I looked this guy up and his original language is Turkish, so I presume he is from Turkey. I think he is situated in New York, but I'm not sure and I don't want to spend a lot of time looking. (Here's his personal site.)

 

I am about 2/3 the way through the Koran, so I know where he is coming from. That is in religious terms. But, according to some of the way he words things, I wonder if he is speaking to some kind of secret political orientation of pockets of Muslim immigrants.

 

Turkey, to my knowledge, is not a big part of the infiltrate America to transform it movement staged by other Muslim nationalities, but, after listening to this guy, maybe I'm wrong...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If any Iowans read this thread, please consider the following and caucus wisely:

25% of Feds Would Consider Leaving Their Jobs if Trump Becomes President

by Eric Katz

January 29, 2016

That prospect makes me wish I lived in Iowa right now.

A lot of comments I read where this is shown use different words, but they go something like this:

"Shit. Now I have to vote for Trump."

Michael

[PDS]

Or Trump runs the table so decisively, a few crows have a nervous breakdown.

Michael

I thought crows only crowed, and then only over 2 facts at a time.

It is ironic indeed that Trump's campaign can be seen as a political version of the famed "crow epistomology".

[Peter]

Andrea Tantaros a pundit lady on Fox news invented a new word. Instead of Democrats it sounded like she said Demo-rats

Michael wrote about Ayn Rand’s career on the "Trumpless debate thread" and I cobble together: People want suspense, mystery, sex, thrills, stories of love and betrayal, fear and triumph, in other words, an emotional roller coaster . . . She gave them one hell of a ride, two big times. The philosophy was embedded . . . Frankly, if she had not written her two major novels, I believe all her nonfiction (and her other fiction) would have made her a footnote in American culture . . . . end quote

What an ingenious way to explain Trump-ean tactics. Trump's mundane politicking becomes meaningful to people on a personal level. It’s like he is channeling the fervor of a political convention with ALL its chanting, and wheeling and dealing.

But is that spirit peaking too early? What does he do if he makes it to a brokered convention? Will he capture the hysterical fervor of a Nazi rally? Albert Speer engineered those rallies to showcase the glory and power of Hitler and the Party. Brrrr. I am not conflating (composting) Trump’s ideology with the Nazis except as an example of its 100 percent theatricality.

Enough of the (not meant to be mean,) veiled comparisons. I remember the Goldwater girls all looking like cowgirls and packing cap guns. I was old enough to be enthralled by them, even though at the time I was more of a Navy kid and supporter of whichever Democrat would do the most for the military. But I also loved reading conservative commentators.

Anti-establishment? Is that Trump? But is he for the same things as ME. And Cruz? He is a Senator, so you can’t technically say he is an outsider but ideologically he, Rand Paul and a few other DC guys are FOR something and it is not politics as usual. I want to say at some point Trump should be invited to a Tea Party.
Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to say at some point Trump should be invited to a Tea Party.

Peter,

And Sarah Palin is not enough Tea Party for you?

Dayaamm!

How much sugar do you put in your tea?

Michael

[Selene]

Goodnight OL , God Bless our leader MSK .

He blesses us all with his love and honesty .

Merry Xmas folks ,

God Bless this community , and all the brilliance on this site .

Lastly ,

ZERO chance so calm down folks .

Merry Xmas President Rubio too and Happy Chanukah Mr. Adelson

Marc:

I don't think Adelson got your memo Marc...

Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, and his wife, Miriam, have each donated $2,700 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz's campaign, according to reports filed late Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

However, Adelson has not endorsed a candidate yet for the 2016 campaign, reports The Wall Street Journal, and he is also expressing interest in Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Adelson, who is the chairman of Las Vegas Sands Corp., spent more than $100 million in 2012 supporting Republican campaigns and leading GOP candidates to seek his money for their 2016 races.

But Adelson and his wife have already donated the maximum $2,700 amount to another

candidate — South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Back in 2012, he and his family donated $15 million into a super PAC supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's bid for the GOP nomination.

When Gingrich lost, Adelson told The Wall Street Journal that he doesn't "cry when I lose. There's always a new hand coming up."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Sheldon-Adelson-Wife-Donated-Cruz-Campaign/2016/02/01/id/712172/?ns_mail_uid=6735229&ns_mail_job=1653087_02012016&s=al&dkt_nbr=bpxqlvbz

[Marc]

If anyone doubts that President Rubio will be sitting in the chair come January 2017 , well then I would advise that you check out the early numbers . Not polls , but actual numbers .

President Rubio , stated it early , stated it often .

It was fun folks but now I am very confident that folks here will start taking this seriously .

Meanwhile , DT gets to quit shortly and go back to the island and probably have his net worth double .

God bless President Rubio , and God Bless the United States , and the world .

Fly away crows , fly away

[Marc]

Goodnight OL , God Bless our leader MSK .

He blesses us all with his love and honesty .

Merry Xmas folks ,

God Bless this community , and all the brilliance on this site .

Lastly ,

ZERO chance so calm down folks .

Merry Xmas President Rubio too and Happy Chanukah Mr. Adelson

Marc:

I don't think Adelson got your memo Marc...

Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, and his wife, Miriam, have each donated $2,700 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz's campaign, according to reports filed late Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

However, Adelson has not endorsed a candidate yet for the 2016 campaign, reports The Wall Street Journal, and he is also expressing interest in Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Adelson, who is the chairman of Las Vegas Sands Corp., spent more than $100 million in 2012 supporting Republican campaigns and leading GOP candidates to seek his money for their 2016 races.

But Adelson and his wife have already donated the maximum $2,700 amount to another

candidate — South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. Back in 2012, he and his family donated $15 million into a super PAC supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's bid for the GOP nomination.

When Gingrich lost, Adelson told The Wall Street Journal that he doesn't "cry when I lose. There's always a new hand coming up."

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Sheldon-Adelson-Wife-Donated-Cruz-Campaign/2016/02/01/id/712172/?ns_mail_uid=6735229&ns_mail_job=1653087_02012016&s=al&dkt_nbr=bpxqlvbz

Not really sure that I understand . SA gave $2700 to Cruz and that means what exactly my fine friend ?

Really though , you should be spouting something about Trump not winning Iowa and a very strong 3rd by Rubio .

Its beginning to look a lot like Christmas

[Selene]

Not really sure that I understand . SA gave $2700 to Cruz and that means what exactly my fine friend ?

Really though , you should be spouting something about Trump not winning Iowa and a very strong 3rd by Rubio .

Its beginning to look a lot like Christmas

Definitely lloks like Cruz wins Iowa - if that turns out that way - it will teach The Donald to have an election day operation.