Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I sometimes feel the tug to respond to Biddibob over on his Facebook page when he writes about Trump. But the current vitriol and hatred that he spews out, along with that of several of his readers, gives me great pause. 

I think it might be a good idea to add a link to the hate-filled irrationalism of Bidinotto.

Readers here now know your paraphrases of his argument (if he has an argument) and his hate-filled verbiage -- but not the raw data, so to speak.  It is like he gave a 'speech' there at Facebook, and you gave a 'pundit analysis' about his 'speech' here at OL Forum. You are the public pundit here, he is the public pundit  there, you speak of him, but don't open a door to his reaction. It seems a bit unbalanced to my tired old cynical eyes.. Why not at least hyperlink the two 'speeches' -- or even let Robert know his 'speech' is being dissected here?

-- thanks for the excursion into Trump the Communication genius, and your few words on polls. I want to read those last two posts over a few times and see how much of your message my inner croc considers brain food. I would definitely buy your book of essays if it included those two, complete with a few references to other minds and what they think. The triune brain frame is a neat heuristic for assessing political 'language' or communication/messaging processes in human beings. There is so much data roaring by and at us every day, it does good to sit and think and sift and sort. 

I will now see a positive poll result for Trump as a football cheer -- through your eyes.  And I won't try to kill off your lizard impulses by only appealing to the neo-cortex and its executive.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Why not at least hyperlink the two 'speeches' -- or even let Robert know his 'speech' is being dissected here?

William,

I thought I made it clear that I have no wish to argue with Biddibob nor get into a preaching thing from one site to another. I'm not competing with him to see who wins an argument, nor am I trying to call him names.

For instance, you won't see me write about him, "Un-friggin-believable! And this is a person who is supposed to be smart!" or "This is a person who purports to understand Ayn Rand!" and stuff like that about him because I don't believe it. And I don't want to be dragged into that again where he says things like that about me. To be fair, in my last interaction with him, he asked for some information to see if he understood me correctly. I explained my perspective the best I could and he thanked me without further comment. Then he went on vacation and did not post on Facebook for a long time.

So I don't care about bickering and I sense a situation ripe for it. I'm more interested in what causes a self-inflicted blindness and emotional excess that automatically course-corrects from reasonable consideration like a cybernetic machine.

In other words, I'm just airing my thinking, trying to figure out what makes people turn on their friends over ideology. I don't think Robert turned on me (yet), but I am pretty sure he would eventually if I kept up my discussions with him over Trump. The model of behavior of Justice Scalia being a good friend of Justice Ginsberg over a professional lifetime is not very present in O-Land when the name Trump appears.  

If you are curious about Biddibob's virtual elocutions on Trump, here's an idea. Go to Facebook. Type the following in the search field: Robert Bidinotto. Choose his page, then read his recent writing.

Michael

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I sometimes feel the tug to respond to Biddibob over on his Facebook page when he writes about Trump. But the current vitriol and hatred that he spews out, along with that of several of his readers, gives me great pause. 

Right now his complaint is against Rush Limbaugh. He is writing paragraph after paragraph of sheer hatred of Rush because Rush will not use his influence to stop and trash Donald Trump. He said that Rush has basically given up on the entire realm of ideas, that Rush is a shell of his former self, he's a sellout, yada yada yada.

Rush is doing what he has always done at this point of an election cycle: Commenting on what he sees without taking a side or endorsing/promoting anyone yet. Substance-wise, I get the impression that Cruz is Rush's first choice, but he also recognizes how great Trump is at delivery. Cruz is like Ayn Rand as philosopher, where Trump is like Ayn Rand as artist.

J

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

I thought I made it clear that I have no wish to argue with Biddibob nor get into a preaching thing from one site to another. I'm not competing with him to see who wins an argument, nor am I trying to call him names.

For instance, you won't see me write about him, "Un-friggin-believable! And this is a person who is supposed to be smart!" or "This is a person who purports to understand Ayn Rand!" and stuff like that about him because I don't believe it. And I don't want to be dragged into that again where he says things like that about me. To be fair, in my last interaction with him, he asked for some information to see if he understood me correctly. I explained my perspective the best I could and he thanked me without further comment. Then he went on vacation and did not post on Facebook for a long time.

So I don't care about bickering and I sense a situation ripe for it. I'm more interested in what causes a self-inflicted blindness and emotional excess that automatically course-corrects from reasonable consideration like a cybernetic machine.

In other words, I'm just airing my thinking, trying to figure out what makes people turn on their friends over ideology. I don't think Robert turned on me (yet), but I am pretty sure he would eventually if I kept up my discussions with him over Trump. The model of behavior of Justice Scalia being a good friend of Justice Ginsberg over a professional lifetime is not very present in O-Land when the name Trump appears.  

If you are curious about Biddibob's virtual elocutions on Trump, here's an idea. Go to Facebook. Type the following in the search field: Robert Bidinotto. Choose his page, then read his recent writing.

Michael

The situation strikes me odd, Michael, as it did the three earlier times you criticized Bidibob (Robert Bidinotto) for various irrational statements and stances. The oddity was in the 'I talk about what hate-faced Susy said' one-sidedness. Usually you quote and link to whatever stupid Susy said. You don't just tell your side of the story -- you give context.  It's like when a writer excoriates Mr X in an article in a journal. The writer gives a reference to the offending material. You almost always do this, unless you are discussing collectives like Trump Haters or Gotcha People. With Robert Bidinotto, you don't.

Do you see a sore thumb sticking out,  Michael?  Or a 'dog that did not bark' kind of thing?  You remarked upon 'vitriol and hatred' and a contempt that you feel from other people's words, but we don't get their words in context.
 
In the three preceding instances I did go read the Facebook exchanges which engendered your reaction. I needed to read it to be informed. I wanted to know if you and/or he were fair, blinded by bias, even-handed, accurate, wildly emotional, and so on.  I did not comment at the time here. It struck me odd that you did not link, but I did not share my perception at the time, that there was a 'missing link' in your argument against Bidinotto and his hateful ilk. In this instance I will just give the missing link: Limbaugh goes cynical. Readers who care  can compare your paraphrases with his own words.

Originally, I wanted to know if Bidinotto had a 'visceral hate' going on, and if he was trapped in a dreadful 'fixed mindset' ... and I could see the context for your perception. I knew that you had discarded the Principle of Charity on the stump, and that it was the reflexive distaste for Trump based on distortions and misperceptions that occupied you in the earlier reactions.  I think you were on the whole unfair to lodge such accusations against Bidinotto, but on the other hand, I do not often agree with his polemic. I figured his over-the-top exaggerated language cancelled out your similar fraught rhetoric on the Trump front. 

This time I am not so sure. I can't quite grasp your classification scheme for those on a spectrum of anti-Trumpism. Some people doubt Trump; Trump does not appeal to all. Some loathe him with irrational excess, bigoted and intransigent. Some people have their hearts taken by another candidate. Some fear Trumpism. Some are simply cold and calculating operatives in the endless circus that is a Presidential contest.

I have lots of slots in my spectrum of not-enthusiastic-about-Trump. I recognize that there are some (not restricted to the leftmost) who are nutty and almost delusional in their fretting and fussing about the phenomenon. I can even name a couple handfuls blind (starting with George Will and ending with Glenn Beck).  

In my perfect Pollyanna world, Robert would step out of Facebook (or you would step back in) and give a day or two thought and focus to an "I do not support Donald Trump" article, and you would respond in kind.   It is perhaps just a feature/bug of the way online opinion is walled here and there from interpenetration.

So, Michael, I will next time probably just give the link reference, without fretting and fussing myself. 

Meanwhile, and off the boring topic of Stupid Susy and her Fixed Mindset, a certain dread is settling into Canadian opinion hawkers. A national news site asks the question, "What would a Trump Presidency Mean for Canada?"  

I won't immediately give a link, because I haven't read the article yet beyond its first paragraph, and I wanted to pose it to myself and anyone else who might want to tackle it.   The paragraph I read implied big question marks over free trade ... an economic wall between Canada and the USA. I don't see it, but I know not much detail. Trump certainly talks about Canada more than any other GOP candidate, but that is only to maintain the Birther hoopla against Cruz.

Edited February 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Removed hate-speech, spelking, edited for tone

[KorbenDallas]

[KorbenDallas]

Trump's official reply:

Quote

In response to the Pope:

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story - he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

Donald J. Trump

 

My take?  Someone needs to remind the pope the reformation happened.

 

[Jonathan]

I don't think that Biddibob is actually listening to Rush regularly. He's not getting the whole context. It's as if he's reading a few plucked quotes and reports from other sources, and not understanding what Rush has actually said on the issue.

The point, at this point in the cycle, is not to tear down any candidates whom Rush sees as being his party's potential nominee. The idea is to not give any ammo to the authoritarian commie tyrants to be used after the convention.

Rush is trying to avoid playing a part in the Circular Firing Squad. But it's understandable that certain Objectivish-types wouldn't understand that, since they are often devout members of the CFS.

J

[william.scherk]

3 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

[El Senior Trump:] No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.

No small beer, this declaration -- as Mr Trump's declarations about Carson's suspect sect of Adventism not quite American enough for Iowa, and the 'not many evangelicals out of Cuba' shite still swirl in the effluent pool of Trumpisms. I wish Trump had been sharper and nastier in reaction to the pope. Most Catholics are I am sure looking the other way or quite happily secretly on Trump's side here. They will take the side of an American over a lefty Vatican head honcho from the bizarre socialist hellhole of Argentina.

Points to Mr Trump. One point to the pope for providing a target.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Do you see a sore thumb sticking out,  Michael?

William,

It's probably because I'm a hypocrite.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

25 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I don't think that Biddibob is actually listening to Rush regularly. He's not getting the whole context. It's as if he's reading a few plucked quotes and reports from other sources, and not understanding what Rush has actually said on the issue.

Jonathan,

Except he's been blasting Rush for months for not taking Trump out. Nothing major. Just an acidic comment here and there and usually bundled with others like Mark Levin and other conservative talk show hosts. I would have to dig to find where, but for those interested, just go through his posts and comments. It's all there.

Recently Levin has been blasting Trump (about Cruz, about Bush 9/11, etc.), so I imagine Biddibob now likes Levin more than he used to.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

48 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Rush is trying to avoid playing a part in the Circular Firing Squad. But it's understandable that certain Objectivish-types wouldn't understand that, since they are often devout members of the CFS.

Jonathan,

I also see this a lot.

And more...

The total blankout of that is part of where I see the hatred. Just to be colorful, let me go metaphorical for a sec.

It goes like this for, say, falcon haters.

HATER says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly. You say, of course they fly and agree they aren't blue. HATER condescends a bit. Time passes. HATER then says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly and he doesn't understand why people just don't get it. You pop up and say, of course they fly. Look at that one there. It's flying. HATER says you are not rational because you don't talk about blue. You sigh... Time passes. HATER then says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly. And the world is going to hell where falcons will be called blue and people will say they fly. Woe be the world... 

And so it goes. After a while, you begin to wonder if it's worth saying falcons fly. That person either won't or can't see what's right in front of him. And I don't believe in can't most of the time.

A continued pattern like that, in people who are as intelligent as those in O-Land, is not a mere identification error. That is on purpose.

That's why it's hatred.

Michael

[Jonathan]

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Except he's been blasting Rush for months for not taking Trump out. Nothing major. Just an acidic comment here and there and usually bundled with others like Mark Levin and other conservative talk show hosts. I would have to dig to find where, but for those interested, just go through his posts and comments. It's all there.

Recently Levin has been blasting Trump (about Cruz, about Bush 9/11, etc.), so I imagine Biddibob now likes Levin more than he used to.  

Michael

The thing is that I only listen to Rush here and there a couple of times a week, and I've heard him explain his position on limiting himself to analyzing and commenting, and not promoting, condemning or destroying. He's said it over and over multiple times. And it's the same approach that he has taken in past elections. A person has to not be listening in order to not get it. So, giving Bidibob the benefit of the doubt, I suspect that he's not listening regularly. I hope that's the case, rather than that he's willfully refusing to hear.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Jonathan said:

I hope that's the case, rather than that he's willfully refusing to hear.

Jonathan,

I share you hope, but my experience reading him, discussing Trump with him, and reading his comments to others who try to explain these things to him, tells me it's a long shot.

That makes me sad, but there it is...

On another angle, I wonder if I should serve up a barbecued falcon with all those crows?

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I also see this a lot.

And more...

The total blankout of that is part of where I see the hatred. Just to be colorful, let me go metaphorical for a sec.

It goes like this for, say, falcon haters.

HATER says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly. You say, of course they fly and agree they aren't blue. HATER condescends a bit. Time passes. HATER then says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly and he doesn't understand why people just don't get it. You pop up and say, of course they fly. Look at that one there. It's flying. HATER says you are not rational because you don't talk about blue. You sigh... Time passes. HATER then says he can't stand falcons because falcons aren't blue and they don't fly. And the world is going to hell where falcons will be called blue and people will say they fly. Woe be the world... 

And so it goes. After a while, you begin to wonder if it's worth saying falcons fly. That person either won't or can't see what's right in front of him. And I don't believe in can't most of the time.

A continued pattern like that, in people who are as intelligent as those in O-Land, is not a mere identification error. That is on purpose.

That's why it's hatred.

Michael

Heh. That nails it. It is precisely the mindset that I ran into when arguing the topic of music with Pigero, and the topic of Kant's aesthetics with Newberry. Tell a falsehood, be corrected about it, make no admission of error, wait a while, tell the falsehood again.

It was no big deal with those two idiots (in fact, it's actually really fun to poke and prod them and laugh at their silly hatreds). The tough thing is when a friend turns into a hater. I don't know what the best thing to do is in that case. Let them blow off their steam and cool off? The problem is that a lot of time they're not happy unless they can drag you into it by insulting you and signaling that they're willing and eager to destroy your friendship over the issue. So, what to do? Walk away or give them their war? Treat them as they treat you? Attack their candidate for his vices, and misrepresent them as being what your soon-to-be-exfriend admires about the candidate? Forgive and forget?

J

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

It's probably because I'm a hypocrite.

Michael

No, no and no. You are no more a hypocrite than Bidibob. I give you both the benefit of the doubt when getting heated for and against Trump, mainly because you both offer valiant arguments ... your disagreement represents an opportunity for knowledge. It's a pinch point for reason. It bears examination.

If you two disagree, I do not believe it is because of psychological defect on either part. The disagreement has roots and branches and is a useful plot of study -- for me. I leave the Bidinotto/Kelly disagreement mostly hanging until the next time, and close my remarks on topic with Bidibob's last words following his intro to an Allahpundit piece; he is responding to Jerry Biggers and expanding on the notion that Limbaugh is letting go of his insistence on conservatism (as key to GOP presidential victory over the Democratic party). He proposes some factors contributing to the perceived failings of Limbaugh to properly assess Trump. I  add emphasis where I sense exaggeration and polemic, or at least arguable points:

 

Quote

I think that several factors are actually involved here.

1. The one Limbaugh mentioned: After years of trying to influence the nation by communicating conservative ideas and principles, he's turned cynical and given up. He thinks intellectual persuasion is impotent now, especially in the face of demagoguery like Trump's. So he has thrown in the towel and is willing to give Trump the Demagogue a pass if he can stop the Democrats, especially Hillary, Of course, this new tack clashes with 27 years of his relentless attacks on "RINOs," precisely because they do NOT support "conservative" principles.[A] If there was ever a RINO, it's Donald Trump. The inconsistency here is so glaring that millions of Limbaugh's fans are noticing, stunned.

2. Rush HATES the GOP Establishment even more than he hates the Democrats. He sees Trump as leading an assault on that Establishment, and he is gleefully hoping that his candidacy will cause them heart attacks. The myopia here is that if elected,  B Donald "Let's Make a Deal" Trump is NOT going to crush the GOP Establishment afterward; he will cut deals with it and become an indistinguishable part of it.

3. Immigration and "American culture." Like many conservatives, Rush is terrified about the nation's changing demographics, which he believes is intimately tied to the erosion of American cultural values. Trump's main issue and pledge is to put a stop to it. For Rush -- and Coulter, Steyn, Ingraham, and many others -- that issue "trumps" any other principle or position. 

In other words, they have all set the bar of political acceptability so low -- and tied themselves so obsessively to that single issue -- that [C] Trump's last name could be Mussolini and they would STILL make excuses for him. 

Rush Limbaugh knows full well that Trump is no "conservative"; he admits it. He also knows full well that Trump is an unprincipled pragmatist riding on themes of nationalism and populism; he says that, too. But like Trump's other (cough, ahem) "conservative" supporters, none of that matters enough to make a difference anymore. Trump's opposition to free markets doesn't matter enough. His indifference to constitutionally limited government doesn't matter enough. His crony-corporatist championing of eminent domain to violate private property rights of his neighbors doesn't matter enough. His defense of single-payer socialized medicine doesn't matter. Even his left-wing 9/11 "truther" insanity doesn't matter. 

Principles and ideas and philosophy don't matter anymore. They're impotent, you see.

[D] All that matters is that Trump manages to hurdle three exceedingly low bars: that his demagoguery appeals to enough ignorant or statist voters to beat the Dem candidate; that in the process he gives the GOP Establishment ulcers; and that he slows the demographic changes threatening "American" values and culture.

In 2007, I wrote an award-winning essay about the collapse of the American right, titled "Up from Conservatism." It has sadly, inevitably, proved prescient -- a fact from which I take zero pleasure. You can read it here:

http://atlassociety.org/.../5842-conservatism-gop-civil-war

 

I would argue with Bidibob on B, definitely (taking a pass on the demagoguery, strongman-ism, insane trutherism and low-bar 'ignorant and statist' points).

I think Trump will make an expedient deal for himself, if possible, but a small part of living tissue in my otherwise dead heart tells  me that Trump has the national interest at heart and in focus. He won't destroy anything that is useful in the party -- he will not curse and poison the well for congressional leadership once he is the nominee. He will begin to assemble his Team.  He will in some ways go quiet, quieter than he is now on the hustings. He will take more 'policy retreats' and opportunities to show a depth and breadth of enterprise in planning and policy. The presidency is like a captaincy. You command a ship, a large ship with its own procedures and levers. Trump will use the GOP as a stepping-stone, but since he will want to help elect a Republican majority in both chambers to expedite the Trump Plan, he will not break things he needs to support him. 

That said, if I am wrong and Bidibob is right, we shall see evidence before July and definitely afterwards, if Mr Trump's name is fixed on the November ballot.

(the most disquieting comment was from an Objectivish person we know from the old days, JZimmerman, who declared that if Trump is on the ballot, he will poke the screen for Hillary Clinton.  Could it be that some other Objectivish voters will do the same? The reasoning behind that stance is something I'd like to see, but off-topic perhaps in the context of Bidibob, who will likely hold his nose and vote for Trumpism in the end, given the baggage and obvious menace of Clinton White House once again.)

On the Canada beside a Trump presidency, the thing that I wonder about is the border. That border which I cross many times in a year is going to be closed to some Canadians, about one-to-four percent of the population, except for some elected and diplomatic officials and enumerated others. This would be boring at best, and prevent a kind of cross-border professional mobility that is commonplace under the regime of free trade negotiated  with Mexico and the USA. I mean, doctors and certain other professionals would be barred at least temporarily. Judging from the number of brown and presumably Muslim people I see when crossing the border, the level of control will harm trade and more generally harm economic flow.  

I can see a 'bomb the oil and take their oil' policy applied to Canada. No I can't. But when Trump finds out how much Canada beats America over decades of free trade, how many billions sometimes appear on the red side of the ledger, who knows what he might want to do?

So, frontier friction and border-trade friction and generally a suspect attitude toward the Canadian partner.  I expect Mr Trudeau will apply emollients, but unless Trump drops his mask of conservatism once he gains the GOP nomination -- and morphs into a Red Tory, the emollients will not smooth out all grit in the inter-state machinery.  There are radical differences on the subject of immigration, and stark differences on Muslim exclusion, between the Trudeau line and the Trump line.

Would a Trump regime actually bar Canadian Muslims outside of diplo/politico/sport/showbiz blocs excused from control? I don't know. It makes me queasy to think about it, because I don't like it when things are chilly between Ottawa and Washington. As Trudeau the elder put it, 'when you are a mouse in bed with an elephant, you must be aware of its every twitch.' I paraphrase heavily, heavily. But you get the picture.

What happens when one of the thousands of cross-border brown-faced truck drivers gets delayed or turned back at the truck crossing down the road from me, multiplied by a thousand times?  Are you or are you not a Muslim? Prove it, please. This is going to offend many Canadians -- the notion of proving religious identity or non-Muslim-ness to a border agent at the airport or port or frontier. I do not want to see it happen.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Removed inadvertent bolding code (looks like bbcode persists)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

The tough thing is when a friend turns into a hater. I don't know what the best thing to do is in that case. Let them blow off their steam and cool off? The problem is that a lot of time they're not happy unless they can drag you into it by insulting you and signaling that they're willing and eager to destroy your friendship over the issue. So, what to do? Walk away or give them their war? Treat them as they treat you? Attack their candidate for his vices, and misrepresent them as being what your soon-to-be-exfriend admires about the candidate? Forgive and forget?

Jonathan,

This is exactly what I was trying to discuss.

Frankly, I don't care what Biddibob or any of the others in O-Land think of Trump. I know what I think. I write it. People agree and disagree, which is their exercise of their own independent minds. And I thrive in that environment.

I do care about this personal litmus test based on ideology and political candidates, though.

Apropos, I'm reading The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. It is throwing some light on this, but not as much as I had hoped. For example, his Autonomous Man (his idea of a hero), despite having a lot of self-esteem, has practically no future once he learns a skill except to keep doing the same thing over and over in a Buddha-like focus on experiencing the now. That might be a good recipe for serenity, but it's not the stuff major innovation is made out of.

And frankly, I dream bigger. Even as I have enormous respect for Hoffer and his writing.

Hoffer says True Believers are, at the start, people who are frustrated with their lives. They believe their lives have been wasted and are hopelessly spoiled. They feel angry and empty. So, to regain faith and hope, they join a movement and lose themselves in it with self-sacrifice. (Instead of faith, hope and charity, he talks about faith, hope and self-sacrifice.  )

It's a fascinating perspective and quite insightful, but I don't see it applying universally to people who embed a core story so deep within themselves, they get blinded by it. Some people love their lives and simply love the core story more... From a certain angle, Rand in her later days comes to mind...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Pope!

You need to be on Donald Trump's payroll.

I'm serious.

What other presidential candidate (both sides) has a top world leader talking about them? You have placed Trump on the political world stage and he hasn't even been nominated. First Putin, now you. Don't you see? You have branded him as distinct from the others and higher in a way they can't compete.

Please keep talking about him. Please do this...

 

On a lower level, meaning within the American culture level, I don't expect your meddling to resonate with Americans, left, right, atheist or even Catholic. What's worse, you will have to face the lovely ladies:

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Everybody's doing the obvious, but what the hell. Let me do the obvious, too:

 

 

Stop acting like a dork!

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

He's been holding out on us. He's been a politician all along! ;-)

 

REB

[Selene]

JFK would have called a press conference and artfully correct the Vicar of Christ.

 

 

[Selene]

26 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

He's been holding out on us. He's been a politician all along! ;-)

 

REB

Actually REB he is quite ignorant of the Bankruptcy Act.

There are at least three (3) Chapters, 7, 11 and 13.

That is major ignorance. 

The Donald has always been clear that four (4) of his businesses were put into Bankruptcy.

I am not sure about the details of each one.  My understanding is that in at least one he was not the majority stockholder.

Additionally, no one really gives a fuck either.

A...

 

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

You probably should read more than the spin in that article before crowing.

This knowledge has been out there in the mainstream for a long, long time. Trump's casino businesses, four times, went into Chapter 11 bankruptcies and he had to give up equity and positions during the restructuring. I can give you a string of articles a mile long on those and Trump has never denied that. Not even during the debates.

He, himself, never went into Chapter 13 bankruptcy. (Personal bankruptcy.) 

Funny, the article seems to say exactly that. 

Even with the liar liar spin.

It would be like me saying I know something nobody knows. Ayn Rand participated in orgies. Then folks saying, whaaaat? And I say, she had an affair while still married. Betcha nobody knew that, huh? Nathaniel Branden. That was the guy's name. She sure did. She slept with him and her husband. See, orgy. Ayn Rand did orgies. Liar, liar!

 

Here's an idea. Have you seen the February 15, 2016 issue of National Review? It is called "Against Trump." The whole friggin' issue was about Trump. Read and delight those pretty little anti-Trump eyes of yours. But do your own Googling on that one. 

Do ya' think the National Review establishment Republican crony corporatists have a problem with getting their asses kicked hard in this election?

Sure looks like it to me. They want to be writing about Jeb! (That's Jeb Bush when he was using an exclamation point for his last name.  ) And they can't without saying he's losing.

The real problem would be if they started writing good things about Trump. Now that would make me worry.

The birds sitting in the Death Crow cage would like it, though.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Selene said:

Actually REB he is quite ignorant of the Bankruptcy Act.

Adam,

I would check that premise...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gotta love Ann Coulter.

This tweet is brutal.

Quick Quiz: Btwn Trump & the Pope, which one runs a huge multinational that protects subordinates when they rape little boys?

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter)

February 18, 2016

Michael

 

[Selene]

35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Adam,

I would check that premise...

Michael

Adam,

I would check that premise...

Michael

http://www.ms-bankruptcy.com/bankruptcy-info/differences

Quote

Differences between Chapters 7, 11, 12, & 13

What is the difference between filing bankruptcy under Chapter 7, under Chapter 13, and under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code?

Chapter 7:

This is a liquidation bankruptcy, sometimes called “straight bankruptcy”. The principle advantage is that the debtor comes out without any future obligations on his discharged debts. However, bankruptcy does not wipe out most mortgages or liens. If a debtor wants to keep an item (Ex: house or car) which is security for a loan, he/she must continue these payments. If the debtor wants to discharge that car loan, then he/she must surrender the car to the creditor that holds the lien.

12 is for Farmers:

Quote

Chapter 12:

Chapter 12 is the chapter used by farmers or commercial fishermen to reorganize their debts and continue operating their farms or fishing operations. The advantage of Chapter 12 is the reorganization plan will allow payments to be made seasonally, when the farmer or fisherman earns his money.  The limitation of only being able to restructure loans in a five year period in chapter 13 cases is not a limitation in chapter 11 or chapter 12 cases.

My ignorant statement should be limited to that, thanks.

A...