Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

(I hot-linked to the image which first appeared on some blog somewhere. Sorry, Dr Carson. No need to get up. We will wake you well before Topeka, sir. Thank you.)

Edited January 22, 2016 by william.scherk

[Roger Bissell]

Comments:

1. Hillary looked like a mean little snake, even back then.

2. Rich Santorum creeps me out every bit as much in that pic as he does today. What integrity!

3. Rand Paul looks like the smartest one in the bunch - like a Steve Jobs kind of guy.

4. Donald Trump looks like Biff, the bully in "Back to the Future."

5. Where's Ben Carson? Dammit, William, this whole thing is racist now. Thanks for adding Dr. Ben to the gallery!

REB

[Backlighting]

So now the "Vatican" equivalent of conservative thought, the National Review, is ferociously attacking Trump.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

I remember how they also attacked another innovator and outside the "mainstream" individual.

You know, the one whose name rhymes with "mine" and dared to write that big, "you can not be serious" book.

-J

Joe:

Yes, "...to the ovens go!"

Amazing. Some of the quotes in the magazine were subtly hinting at the "Hitler" theme. One used "triumph" at the beginning of the sentence and "his will" at the end of the sentence, So they got their coding all set up.

Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a 1935 German propaganda film directed, produced, edited, and co-written by Leni Riefenstahl. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters.[1] The film contains excerpts from speeches given by Nazi leaders at the Congress, including Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and Julius Streicher, interspersed with footage of massed Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel troops and public reaction. Hitler commissioned the film and served as an unofficial executive producer; his name appears in the opening titles. The film's overriding theme is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the leader who will bring glory to the nation. Because the film was made after the 1934 Night of the Long Knives (on June 30) many prominent Sturmabteilung (SA) members are absent—they were murdered in that Party purge, organized and orchestrated by Hitler to replace the SA with the Schutzstaffeln (SS) as his main paramilitary force.

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

A...

Yes, to the ovens go! Oh, Atlas Shrugged has done quite well, thank you, in spite of NR & all the other printed rags at that (and even recent) times.

And like the little Russian lady, Trump might not just survive the organized, propaganda onslaught, but benefit from it.

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The National Review is not faring well with a lot of people. And it's so odd seeing Glenn Beck over there. Since when did he become a big government conservative?

The most intelligent analysis of the establishment Republicans vs. Trump I have read so far is by Rush Limbaugh. I say this not because I particularly like Rush (although I do). It's because he correctly described something inside me that I see inside other Trump supporters.

For example, see this latest by Rush: Examining the Panic on the Right.

His argument essentially goes like this. The conservative intellectuals say one thing, but they do another. So people are following Trump, not because of conservatism, but because he does stuff well on a common sense level. He will clean up the mess made by the liberals in collusion with the establishment Republicans who fly a banner called conservatism.

Even Sarah Palin sees this. She sure as hell is not interested in their views on her conservative values. After all, asks Rush. What has the establishment Republicans done for Sarah Palin except try to destroy her, mock her, sabotage her efforts, even leak damaging stuff about her to the press right in the middle of McCain's campaign for president, etc.?

Now the poor little victims, the poor little conservative intellectuals are feeling angst with Trump because they see Republican party voters are no longer dancing according to the tunes they play that they call conservatism. In other words, these intellectuals are irrelevant and it's scaring the crap out of them.

Rush didn't say it openly, but basically the conservative intellectuals have sold out big time to cronyism--in deed, not in word--to get their cushy jobs and positions of power and the voters are turning their backs on them.

The thing these morons don't get is that Trump supporters are not interested in a card-carrying conservative movement with these morons calling the shots. Trump supporters just want to be left alone. That's why Trump supporters cut across so many different demographics and political leanings.

I have to comment on something I saw in that idiot National Review article: Against Trump. Let's look at the last paragraph.

Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.

Think about what that means. To them, what has the "work of generations" of American conservatism accomplished? All people need to do is look around. We have the immigration mess, Obamacare, unending wars in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism spreading throughout the world, the edge of a global financial catastrophe, a pathetic job market, and on and on and on.

If that's the result of the "work of generations," who the hell needs it? This is not just me saying it. This is what Trump supporters think.

However, if you look at the prestige and positions of each of the individual "American conservatism" writers and their cronies of this particular strain, yes, it's easy to see why they are concerned about losing what the "work of generations" put in place. In other words, them. It put them in place as a crony club while both screwing over the rest of the country and letting others screw it.

Now these idiots are making the issue "us against them."

OK.

I'm fine with that. So are oodles of other people. Republican people.

Enjoy your crony club, suckas. At least while you still have it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Now the National Review morons can play martyr in their bubble.

National Review disinvited from GOP debate after anti-Trump issue
by Dylan Byers
CNNMoney
January 22, 2016

From the article:

The Republican National Committee has disinvited National Review from participating in the Feb. 25 GOP debate because of its outspoken opposition to Donald Trump.

The decision was announced just hours after the conservative magazine published a special anti-Trump issue that included a scathing editorial about the Republican frontrunner and critical contributions from 22 conservative pundits and thought leaders.

"Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited," Jack Fowler, the publisher of National Review, wrote in a statement. "The reason: Our 'Against Trump' editorial and symposium."

"We expected this was coming," Fowler continued. "Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald."

. . .

The RNC's decision to disinvite National Review comes just days after the committee elected to terminate its partnership with the original debate sponsor, NBC News, because of its frustration with CNBC's handling of the third Republican debate in October.

The committee announced earlier this week that it would instead partner with CNN, as well as the originally planned media partners: National Review, Salem Radio and Telemundo.

With National Review out, the debate will now be sponsored by CNN in partnership with Salem Radio and Telemundo. It will take place in Houston on Feb. 25, and is the last scheduled debate before Super Tuesday, when Republicans in Texas and 13 other states will go to the polls and caucuses.

These are the same hypocrites and morons who insisted on a pledge of allegiance to the winner of the Republican primary. That worked so long as the winner was someone they wanted. Now that it looks like it will be someone they don't want, that pledge is going right out the window.

These crappy people have no word.

And that has been the problem all along.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Further on that article, here's a typical reaction--in the mainstream at that (from RCP Video: Charlie Hurt: Where Was National Review's Outrage Over Candidates Who Supported Amnesty, Bank Bailouts?).

 

Not even Megyn Kelly is buying this idiocy. And she and Trump are not exactly pals.

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

This is the quote that I heard last night:

And forget trying to determine whether he’s a conservative. Given that, at the suggestion of Bill Clinton, he has like a tapeworm invaded the schismatically weakened body of the Republican party, it’s a pointless question, because, like Allah in Islamic theology, he is whatever he pleases to be at the moment, the only principle being the triumph of his will.

http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt01222015&utm_term=Jolt

Mark Helprin...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Here's the way I see some of these clowns. Not all of them, but let's say most.

There's a game the government has been playing for the longest time called the war on drugs. The government constantly allocates funds to fight this war. Now what happens if this or that drug war gets won decisively? That's easy.

The law enforcement officials and bureaucrats devoted to that drug war become useless. They lose their jobs.

So they have no reason to win the thing. They just have to look like they are fighting it to win.

In like manner, I see a professional class of bitchers against the liberals and progressives. If what they preach gets done for real, suddenly they will have to use their brains to come up with something else to talk about if they want to stay relevant. Obama was an eight year dream come true for them.

That, to me, explains (in good part) their constant sell-outs and strategic silences, all the while preaching staunch conservatism.

It's a gravy train.

And that's what they're really afraid of with Trump. He's a doer and they have no idea what he is going to do. If he does too much right, he's going to blow their gig. In their world, conservatism is a utopia, not anything that someone actually does.

That goes for us, too. In our neck of the woods, libertarianism and Objectivism serve the same role for lots of folks.

Michael

[Selene]

Correct Michael.

It is also difficult, at some levels, for folks with good hearts and minds to believe that folks who have achieved leadership positions have no ethical or moral compass.

Great examples of this type are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

They do not want their alleged public goals to be achieved because then they have to leave the public and private blackmail trough of money.

Sickening where ever it occurs.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just heard Pat Buchanan give an excellent argument to Neil Cavuto about why Trump's protectionism should be looked at with more nuance than the hardliners are doing.

 

 

It boils down to this:

 

1. The USA is deindustrialized and getting more so every day.

 

2. The US trade deficit with other countries is growing while the contrary holds for them.

 

3. This one is the most important as far as I'm concerned. The USA is now in a Davos-like world where its autonomy and preservation depends on other countries through globalization. We can globalize, but only if we produce enough on our own to guarantee our own self-sufficient safety.

 

Based on that context, the idea that something is really, really wrong right now, I think a few protectionist measures makes perfect sense.

 

Is protectionism a free market principle? Hell no. But we are not operating in a free market. If we want to survive intact, we need to protect the base, meaning the USA as a country, then offer free market with the rest of the world from there.

 

So let's go into the three observations with a comment.

 

1. Is mysteriously becoming deindustrialized an example of free market? Hell no. This is not happening because other countries are offering better industrialization at cheaper prices. It's because the USA has an irrational tax and regulatory burden on manufacturing while other countries are getting government subsidies.

 

2. Is always being on the shit end of the stick in trade with other countries an example of free market? Hell no. I won't even go into the legal part. I agree with Trump. Our country is being run by morons. So let's "free-market" those goddam morons right out of their positions of management. In the free market, you fire the incompetent. 

 

3. Is making our sovereignty dependent on the goodwill of others an example of the free market? Well, here, I agree the market is not the fundament. Suicide is.

 

If there is no USA or if it gets so dependent it loses its autonomy, there will be no free market for Americans to worry about.

 

The way it is now, we are running our market practices on the principle of self-sacrifice.

 

Not profit and capitalism. Self-sacrifice.

 

Many people in O-Land are bashing Trump's proposals and labeling them as "protectionism," but seem to be just fine with the self-sacrifice our current situation is based on.

 

I don't like to channel Rand, but I have a feeling if she were alive, her views on this situation would shock the crap out of a lot of them.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Donald and Sarah checking out The Drudge Report (from People here):



The caption reads:

Catching up on the latest breaking news from where else but the Drudge Report – the best source out there!

Michael

[Selene]

Larry King interviewing The Donald at the 1988 Republican Convention:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is not an intellectual lady, so don't expect intellectual arguments. But listen to the purity of the emotion she is transmitting. That's not faked. (Believe it or not, I got this off TheBlaze. I guess they are trying to be fair and balanced after Beck's nonstop smears against Trump.)

 

I know the elites are going to look at this and think this anger is the primary thing driving Trump supporters, but this is a byproduct. The real driver is to fix things that are going to pot and get rid of the morons who are making the mess.

 

But when the anger comes, it comes. As this lady feels, there are many who feel likewise. She's just a typical person--a productive person (listen how she describes her life)--who sees hope in Trump and disgust with the Republican intellectual elites who are now showing their asses to the entire country.

 

And she's letting them know she's had enough with them.

 

 

What a rant!

 

Go Kambree!

 

 

Michael

[Marc]

Comments:

1. Hillary looked like a mean little snake, even back then.

2. Rich Santorum creeps me out every bit as much in that pic as he does today. What integrity!

3. Rand Paul looks like the smartest one in the bunch - like a Steve Jobs kind of guy.

4. Donald Trump looks like Biff, the bully in "Back to the Future."

5. Where's Ben Carson? Dammit, William, this whole thing is racist now. Thanks for adding Dr. Ben to the gallery!

REB

And Marco Rubio looks very Presidential !!!!!!!

[Marc]

Just wondering aloud , but when Trump loses and historians look back I am curious as to how much blame will be put on Sarah Palin . I love her , I think she is amazing . Looking back , folks will say yeah but McCain would have lost anyway , but I am just curious how history will look at her - having joined to elections and both times she lost . Wonder if anyone would give her a third chance

[Marc]

Even his name is poetic

[william.scherk]

Candidate Trump Retweets ‘White Genocide’ Account, Drawing Outrage

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump retweeted an account called “

@WhiteGenocideTM

” on Friday, prompting a backlash on social media over the real estate billionaire’s sharing of an apparent neo-Nazi’s depiction of rival candidate Jeb Bush.

 

Trump, who is campaigning for the first contests on Feb. 1 in Iowa and Feb. 9 in New Hampshire, is known for attacking other candidates competing for the party’s nomination to run for the White House in November’s general election.

 

Trump retweeted Donald Trumpovitz, who uses the handle “@WhiteGenocideTM,” gives the location of the account as “Jewmerica” and features an image that references George Lincoln Rockwell, a prominent figure in the neo-Nazi movement in the United States.

 

 

"@WhiteGenocideTM: @realDonaldTrump Poor Jeb. I could've sworn I saw him outside Trump Tower the other day! pic.twitter.com/e5uLRubqla"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 22, 2016

[william.scherk]

Always trying to be helpful.  All my questions about one aspect of the Ground Game have been answered. My main question was:  "Who will be the first to implement a quick, robust, reliable online Find-Your-Precinct app?"  

 

It should be no surprise to the folks who have also been digging in the weeds in Iowa ...

@iowademocrats -- I check the Bernie and Hillary and state sites for promised Precinct Finder to work. Meanwhile ... https://t.co/IiJVPrTlyw

— William Scott Scherk (@wsscherk)

January 23, 2016

Edited January 23, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Donald Trump Gets Endorsed by National Black Republican Association

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

Michael

[william.scherk]

In case anyone doubts me ...

Which should be no surprise, given the video below from the Bernie campaign in Iowa. Get ready for the Special Guests and the Musical Chairs section. Democratic caucus-goers look like they have much more fun than the GOP, as their special rules in Iowa force them to flock, rather than ballot. There is nothing secret about the crazy way these folks pick their winners. Think of the difference between a three-day Sicilian and a three-minute secular wedding.

"You are not viable." This is what O'Malley people will be hearing. "You are not viable." There is a certain austere Scots beauty to that phrase, in context.

Which built-in social engagement and game-show aspect means the Democrats will turn out waaaay more caucus-goers than the Republicans on Feb 1, which means nothing at all. Imagine a Frank Luntz show crossed with Let's Make A Deal -- and with Survivor Iowa, everyone prowling around the same big room on their hind legs. There will be three or more Luntzes rallying the costumed cohorts or tribes and alliances, who then are forced to flock or die.

It will be a scream.

The GOP changed their caucus rules so that the secret ballot dominates the proceedings. It has all the ceremony of a British cremation compared to the hoopla down the street with the Dems.

As I said, none of the Democratic whoopee and turnout matters in the least, however bizarre and expensive and thrilling it is to the crazed Bernie supporters.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr Trump could take up to 50% of the Iowa delegates. This I get from studying the odds at 538, the aggregates at RCP, and the inside gen from the Iowa GOP. It also helps my limb-climbing to have investigated the Trump ground game. It is going to surprise a few folks. The 'caucus finder' folly is but one example of how wonks and pols and engaged volunteers are working tightly together under Trump's Iowa lieutenant and his plan. The attention to detail reminds me of what Trudeau managed to do in his district: GOTV. It is a real slogging meticulous effort, all dials at max.

Get out the vote. Get the machine in gear. Get everyone prepped, coached, crammed. Knock on those doors, bang out those calls and emails and follow-ups and lists and pressure. Organize, organize, organize. Capture all energy from the wind of change.

In case you wondered what a Bernie-Gasm might be like ... watch to the end of the Musical Chairs portion of the Mock Caucus:

-- every single suggestion I have made to the Iowa Trump campaign has been implemented. All my calls have been returned. And I got a signed thank you note from Trump thanking me for my effort and urging me to do more. I am actually thinking of helping the black ops section with the reverse ninja on Hillary -- making sure a percentage of Trump supporters switch to the Democrats and caucus for Bernie. That will fuck her up a teeny bit.

I will let you know that although the polls are lurching Mr Trump's way in Iowa, Ted Cruz is even more insane with ambition than he was last week. He is going to summon forth the inner Godzilla in his people. If you have seen some of them in action in Iowa, they are fearsome. Ted is a Christian First.

I am digging in the weeds of the far Northwest Counties, the hard-iron Bible Buckle of the Bible Harness that binds Iowa Republicans. It will be a titanic local battle between Trumpism and Cruzismo there. Mr Trump has thrown everything at Cruz that can be thrown. If Cruz fails in that corner of Iowa, I think he might be wounded, no matter how much he thinks he has the religious vote elsewhere. If Trump takes the northwest counties ... it could be a sign of the skull for my sentimental favourite.

I have suggested to my Trump friends that Sarah be dispatched to the Bible Buckle in the final week. I know she would do it, she doesn't mind living in a bus. If I later read that Sarah will be rallying Trumpism up in that corner in the final stretch, I will know that I have tapped the Hive Mind; If Trump intends to stomp Cruz flat in his own crazy evangelical base, the boots will be out in Iowa.

Edited January 23, 2016 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's something to brighten up the day of the anti-Trumpers.

 

It's a retweet The Donald made of someone else's art and tweet.

 

"@LukeBrinker: One year from today. pic.twitter.com/TcN6Z3XwyU"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 23, 2016

 

I'm getting choked up just looking at it...

 

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

You got choked up and I peed in my pants. Very funny.

It just occurred to me that Trump may run, and (how astonishing) he just might win.

Which does not fill me with joy. All things considered, I prefer Uncle Bernie (Left Wing and all) to Trump the Deal Maker. For Trump life is one deal made after another. Everyone should have an Uncle Bernie. Even when Uncle Bernie is silly and wrong, he is a dear man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

I'm having some fun elsewhere (on Facebook). The discussion is about Trump's protectionism. Here are some things I wrote.

Why the repeat? What the hell. I love me.

First this:

I don't think protectionism is the end goal for Trump. I think it is a step along the way to dismantling all the busybody regulations and getting to a free market. It's an emergency measure, not an ideology. I might be wrong (I hope I'm not), but that's the way I see it based on how Trump does business all over the world.

For example, I agree that a company should use cheaper labor if it can, but I don't agree that there is free-market virtue in using the closest thing to slave labor that exists from another country just so we can get lower prices in this one. Just because we outsource evil, that doesn't mean the evil is gone. That is a contradiction with the free market--we use the government force of another country on innocents far away to gain market advantages. That, I submit, is not laissez-faire capitalism. We are outsourcing slavery and calling it something else and it is killing the internal job market. What worker can compete with the wages of slaves?

That is one of the things that is part of the emergency right now. And it is one of the reasons the protectionism doesn't bother me so much. But I do have my eye on it. I don't like protectionism as an ideology and will oppose it once the dust settles.

I have yet to see any compelling Objectivist/Objectivish answers to the above.

Currently, the unstated but implied answer seems to be, "I'm aghast at the horrific evil of tariffs and other acts of 'protectionism' that the US government engages in, and which Trump is suggesting possibly threatening to implement more of as a bargaining chip against other nations having initiated and imposed such protectionism against the US, but I'm not at all aghast, and really not even concerned in the slightest, about being a slave owner by proxy. Im just blissfully blanking out of my mind how I'm ending up with such cheap products. My fellow countrymen not being able to compete with slave labor is none of my business."

Let's hear some Objectivist solutions. If retaliatory tariffs are not the answer, what is? Should we ban US citizens from outsourcing slave labor? Should we convict US business people for complicity with slavery when trading with nations who don't respect the rights of their citizens?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I post this with a heavy heart, but truth is truth.

 

Failing @GlennBeck lost all credibility. Not only was he fired @ FOX, he would have voted for Clinton over McCain. https://t.co/dfCOkb7Ex8

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 23, 2016

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have yet to see any compelling Objectivist/Objectivish answers to the above.

Jonathan,

The concept of selfishness in O-Land is often not practiced as Ayn Rand defined and used it.

Instead, it is often used as an inner mental license to be a looter and parasite and pretend one isn't. I rarely see this kind of reasoning error process when the O-Land rationalizer is losing out on goodies. Only when he or she gets them.

This is one of the things that started getting me to check some premises big-time.

Michael