Robert Campbell
-
Posts
4,015 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Robert Campbell
-
-
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
Your post sounds like the way Cruz reasons when he comes to the conclusion that Trump wants an individual mandate for health insurance.
The only problem is, he doesn't. Debating skills don't help when people can see the contrary with their own two eyes.
Michael
Michael,
You can see with your own two eyes that Donald Trump isn't sucking up to Mitch McConnell?
How does one see this?
Mitch McConnell says, to other Senators regarding Donald Trump, "drop him like a hot rock."
Trump does not react with his customary rips against yet another loooooser, a hopeless establishmentarian who can't find his rear end in the dark with both hands, a guy who couldn't get elected dogcatcher, spiced with all kinds of unkind commentary on McConnell's physical being.
Instead, nothing.
Except when, as he did on several occasions prior to the "hot rock" remark, he cites McConnell ("a good man") against Ted Cruz.
No part of this elicits even the mildest curiosity?
You see that Donald Trump is against the establishment, therefore...
(1) You further see that Mitch McConnell isn't part of the establishment.
(2) You further see that actually he is, but he'll be unusually useful to Donald Trump even as Trump seeks to destroy McConnell's power base and just about everything McConnell says he stands for, so he's being spared.
(3) You further see that Trump doesn't care whether Senate Republicans up for reelection run advertisements against him after he's been nominated to run for President.
(4) You further see that it doesn't matter to Trump whether Chucky Schumer and Dick Durbin control the Senate unofficially or officially, come January 2017.
Well, maybe not therefore anything.
What you just see may be the sort of experience that has no implications.
Somewhere there's a boundary between just seeing, and just seeing what you want to see.
Robert
-
17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:
Trump did not say nothing to fear, why don't you listen to him for once (it doesn't sound to me like you do at all) instead of quoting clowns who always distort his meaning?
He said China and Russia are growing militarily and we must do the same and then some, and confront them.
But do go on distorting his meaning at every turn. It highlights the anti-Trump disinterest in truth, and sells him like nothing else could.
More, please!
Jon,
If all that is anti-Trump is uninterested in truth, then anyone who is anti-Trump is ipso facto impossible to convert (unless Donald Trump has custom-designed some falsehoods for that specific purpose).
And any statement by Donald Trump becomes immune to challenge, because a challenge is, well, anti-Trump.
Whatever.
The evident problem with Trump's statement quoted above is that keeping up the "cycle of hostility" might be Vladimir Putin's notion of what is best for Vladimir Putin.
If Putin so views it, what next?
Even though appeasement (Hillary's "reset") hasn't been working, Trump didn't rule it out.
What kind of confrontation is he willing to engage in? What costs does he think are worth paying?
Do you know what he thinks?
For that matter, does he?
Robert
-
1
-
-
On April 28, 2016 at 0:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
You are making a presupposition that is not correct when you use it to characterize what I am talking about. You are presupposing that the establishment is a single organization and that there are no factions within it.
When I say establishment, I am talking about a concept like royalty in older Europe. So your questions come off to me like someone asking, Who is the leader of royalty? See, you can't or won't say. (Thus implying royalty doesn't exist or I am talking about things I know nothing about.)
The establishment is a little different than royalty, but since our meanings are so distant on such a basic element in the concept, I have no real way to develop the idea or address your objections. Why? Because, fundamentally, what I am talking about has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Well, there is one point of common ground. Trump is winning and that means something to somebody. It looks like that got people's attention.
Anyway, when I use the passive voice and say an environment is "engineered" by the establishment, it's like saying ancient royalty did certain things to ensure they kept safe from the hoards with the torches and pitchforks and ensure they kept their privilege intact. There is no specific leader of "royalty," but there were common habits among the members of the royalty class to protect themselves. And there were other nasty habits like bitter infighting. Yet, even during the worst fights, the royalty held the same basic attitudes and policies about their commoner subjects.
Ditto for the current political elite establishment in America.
That is what Trump is threatening. You don't see it, but I see it. And so do millions and millions of others. Like I keep saying, these millions and millions want the problems fixed. Period. And the ruling elite class has refused to fix the problems for too long and lied too much about it. So the ruling elite class has to go and an actual producer is now the popular pick.
That's why your arguments (and those of others who think like you do) bounce off them like pebbles off a tilted trampoline. There's nothing to stick.
The good news for the elite establishment is that they will be thrown out of power, but in general, they will not be persecuted like in olden times. American commoners are too good-hearted to do that. And, anyway, American commoners don't really give a crap about ruling class folks. They have productive lives to lead. They just want the problems fixed.
Michael
Michael,
I think what you are saying is that you actually can't identify the establishment, or any considerable manifestation of it—and mustn't be asked to.
Your analogy to royalty makes no sense. For with regard to royalty I can and will say.
Royalty had lots of visible exemplars (kings and queens and princes and such), who were known to all and emphatically wanted to be known by all as royalty. Royalty actually did have leaders. Royalty also had an elaborate set of rituals, prerogatives, and prohibitions, which could be identified with some effort (and which the generally recognized exemplars of royalty often proclaimed, in any case).
Meanwhile, I can point to a Republican Party Establishment, which has leaders like Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and hangers-on, such a majority of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. I can even identify some of their rituals, prerogatives, and prohibitions (most of which are not exactly secret to begin with).
But no, if I even attempt such identifications, of a Republican Party establishment or a Democratic party establishment or a mass-media establishment, or any other variety, large or small, local, national, or global, I merely prove that I myself am part of the establishment, willfully oblivious as to its true extent and nature—and seeking to make you just as oblivious.
Whereas all you seem to need to know is that if Donald Trump is winning, the establishment is losing.
And if anyone doesn't like any of this winning, he or she is assuredly part of the establishment that is losing.
This does give us a definition: "establishment" = "non-Trump."
Such a definition gives Donald Trump tremendous leverage over you.
It isn't hard to see what it does for him. What does it do for you?
Ann Coulter was once a sycophant of Mitt Romney, which made her "establishment," and now, with no discernible changes in her basic attitudes or rhetoric, her income or social position, she is a sycophant of Donald Trump, and therefore perfectly "nonestablishment."
Mitch McConnell, let's say, is "establishment" until and unless Donald Trump finds a use for him, whereupon he is "nonestablishment." McConnell is the same guy all along, holding the same position of power, with the same (often bad) character traits and so on.
Can you acknowledge, at least, how such a view of the establishment (it's everywhere, it's all the same but different members of it fight for position, the same person can go from establishment to nonestablishment at any time without warning, and you can't tell what they are but we know them when we see them) is not merely confusing to the uninitiated, but makes the continued winning of converts somewhat difficult? (We just see what you just don't see. Now, we will make you see it. Unless, somehow, we can't, which will be your fault. )
Your entire line of argument implies that anyone who disagrees with you concerning the virtues of Donald Trump, or of his unique saving mission, is part of the "elite establishment."
So now, whether I was or wasn't before, I am a member of the establishment.
And I am among those who must be overthrown.
I'm inclined to ask the imperceptible leaders of the elite establishment to send one of their perceptible limousines for me, just once.
And, before I become the silenced one, to ask for a perceptible guarantee of non-persecution.
Robert
-
Trump's foreign policy speech was pretty bad, even by the standards of politicians' foreign policy speeches.
Here is of the many reactions that will be discounted at this site:
But there's one passage of particular interest in that speech:
QuoteOn Russia, in particular, the celebrity candidate has insisted that the world has nothing to fear.
“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible,” Trump contended. “Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon.”
The source is here (I do not agree with the author about quite a few things, though we presumably share two premises, that Russia is an empire and Vladimir Putin wants to be an emperor):
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/
Trump has already displayed what at best can be described as ambivalence about Putin.
But then we find Trump hiring Paul Manafort, whose clients have notably included Viktor Yanukovych. On two different occasions, Yanukovych ruled Ukraine as Putin's puppet. Manafort was associated with him for at least 6 years.
In 2010, Yanukovych was reelected (after being out of power for several years), and Manafort took credit for his victory.
It did not end at all well. In 2014, Yanukovych was run out of Kiev, leaving behind a gilded palace that the opposition made sure was amply documented for posterity:
Vladimir Putin must have figured, quite some time ago, that a President Trump will be easier to roll than President Obama was.
If all of the Estonians pack up and leave, will Trump order the construction of a special wall to keep them out of the United States?
Robert Campbell
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:
Just as with Robert Campbell, I doubt they realize how well they sell Trump.
Jon,
You never previously confessed your abiding love of Mitch McConnell.
Robert
-
Back to the East Coast for a minute.
There's been nonstop Trump triumphalism since he won these 5 primaries (carrying every county, according to one report that I read).
So it's worth recalling a couple of things:
(1) Mitt Romney cleaned up in these same Republican primaries 4 years ago.
(2) While Republican primaries have been drawing higher turnouts than 4 or 8 years ago, the Democrats have been holding their own contested primaries.
Here are the totals (off the RCP front page, April 27—similar to what WSS displayed upthread.
State
Total Republican
Total Democrat
Pennsylvania
1,537,696
1,638,644
Maryland
418,750
814,522
Connecticut
208,817
322,485
Rhode Island
60,381
119,213
Delaware
67,807
92,609
Hillary got more votes than Trump in all five states; in Maryland, Hillary got more than all three Republicans put together.
Bernie (who's laying off campaign workers) got more votes than Trump in Maryland, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Bernie won only Rhode Island—there he drew more votes than all three Republicans put together.The Republican nominee would certainly benefit from carrying Pennsylvania this fall. How likely is that to happen? (Adam has told us he thinks Donald Trump can carry New York, but it will be close.)
Will he have a snowball's chance in hell, in the other 4?
The delegates count toward the nomination, regardless.
Indiana is a state that the Republican has to carry in the fall. It will be interesting to see what the primary turnout looks like there.
Robert
-
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:
For the Republicans, it's the Tea Party.
Brant,
Do you think Donald Trump has any interest in the Tea Party, other than how hard he can stomp it?
Robert
-
A couple of incidents should remind everyone that Donald Trump is not really opposed to the Republican Party Establishment.
He's opposed to what he calls the Establishment. But all that means to him is, "whoever's not with Donald Trump."
The John Boehner remark, about Cruz being "Lucifer in the flesh" is the smaller of the two. Boehner also boasted of playing golf with the Donald, and exchanging texts with him, and said he'd vote for him (and not, of course, for Lucifer).
But Boehner is out of office, after being pushed out as Speaker of the House. His potential utility either to a Trump campaign or to a Trump administration is nonzero, but not very high.
Still, there's the little matter of a Trump donation (August 19, 2012) of $100,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, run by Norm Coleman and Vin Weber (ex-Senator and ex-Congressman from Minnesota, hate the Tea Party, love doing what Democrats want done when they want it done), joined at the hip to John Boehner, and actively opposed to Tea Party candidates. That was when Boehner was at the height of his power.
A much bigger deal is Trump's now-evident policy of sucking up to Mitch McConnell.
McConnell is far worse than Boehner was, and with any justice should have been pushed out first. I suppose some went easier on him because he only became Majority Leader in 2015, while Boehner had been Speaker since 2011. But it really came down to the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker (add your favorites to the list) exerting more clout in the Senate than Hal Rogers and Bill Shuster and Charlie Dent and Peter King (again, add your favorites) exert in the House.
The only way McConnell could have prevented Senate Democrats from obstructing appropriation bills, forcing the now-customary dilemma of Cromnibus or "government shutdown," would have been by holding their feet to the fire, calling the Senate into session over and over, holding votes over and over, till they got sick of it. (Of course, this would have made life temporarily, moderately inconvenient for Republican Senators.) A little bit of counternuking (after Harry Reid had already partly nuked the filibuster) wouldn't have hurt, either, and would have served the Democrats right. You know, like abolishing the filibuster on appropriation bills.
Let's not even get into Obama's Iran deal, which McConnell could have insisted was a treaty. In fact, as leader of the Senate it was his job to insist it was a treaty.
Nope, Bill Clinton's most effective countermeasure against Republican Congresses remains intact, to be wielded by every future Democrat in the White House. More widely, McConnell has been so ineffectual that Harry Reid is basically still in charge of the Senate. The only thing McConnell's shown any zest for is stomping anyone who might upset business as usual (Cruz called him out as a liar over his false assurances regarding an attempt to renew the charter on the Export-Import Bank, which McConnell had said he would block).
In fact, McConnell's derelictions made Boehner's life much harder for him, before Boehner was pushed out, and will do the same for any Republican Speaker while McConnell is still pretending to run the Senate.
Anywhere you read or hear a defense of McConnell's conduct as Senate Majority Leader, you know it's coming from an apologist for the Republican Establishment.
National Review runs a lot of apologetics for McConnell. Commentary runs apologetics for McConnell. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said it was against the Export-Import bank, but it was for McConnell. In the end, Boehner and his Establishment crew banded together with McConnell and his, votes from Democrats did the rest, and Ex-Im was renewed. Oh, the faint moan went up from the WSJ, it's too bad Ex-Im is back, but that has to be the fault of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus. The WSJ will probably still be defending McConnell when he's left office.
So Donald Trump wants McConnell out of there in the worst possible way, right?
So Donald Trump has realized you could get a better Majority Leader than Mitch McConnell by random selection from the other Republican Senators?
No he doesn't.
No, he hasn't.
The excerpt from Trump's speech in Rhode Island that I posted here, completely ignored by the Trump supporters, showed him mounting the exact kind of attack on Ted Cruz that Mitch McConnell would.
You might have had to infer it there. You don't have to infer it from other things he's saying.
In Indiana, Trump's now amplified a little: "the top man, Mitch McConnell, who is actually a good man, he calls him a liar. You don't do things that way."
This is not just seizing on anything, absolutely anything, that Trump can use to re-stomp an opponent.
In fact, Trump has taken McConnell's side against Cruz on several previous occasions during the campaign. And their ties go back farther.
We can see this in at least two ways.
First, Trump has given money to an organization McConnell started, with the specific aim of blocking Tea Party challenges either to McConnell himself, or to any other Establishment Republican Senator.
Some here might remember when McConnell was overheard on a conference call, saying of any Tea Party or other group that was trying to replace sitting Republican Senators, "we have to punch them in the nose." Donald Trump helped him deliver that punch. $60,000 worth of reinforcement behind that punch. (In case nothing is really awful without a Bush connection, Karl Rove was also involved.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/is_trump_a_mcconnellrove_establishment_tool.html
Note: I don't buy theories that the present Trump campaign was purposely dialed up by the Republican Establishment.
But here's an amazing turn of events.
Against anyone who has crossed him, Trump pursues revenge. Repeatedly, relentlessly, à l'outrance, even when it detracts from his current goal.
So what was McConnell doing, at the end of February?
Telling Republican Senators they had his blessing to run ads against Donald Trump, to help their chances of being reelected.
And it hasn't been thunderbolt after anvil drop after death ray from Donald Trump?
He isn't running against Mitch McConnell every day?
The guy who said to drop him like a hot rock?
Nope, backing him up.
There isn't even the customary demand that McConnell come crawling to Trump Tower for a small chance at forgiveness.
If anything, Donald Trump is sucking up to Mitch McConnell.
Sorry, folks. Donald Trump is not fighting against the Republican Establishment. He's fighting for it.
PS. Two House committee chairmen have now endorsed Trump. The one from Jeff Miller may not be deserved, but it's worth touting. The endorsement from Bill Shuster? Again, one is not supposed to keep track of such things, because history began when the New Trump Era was proclaimed, in what is now NTE 1 but we used to call 2015. Still, for those who ask the wrong questions, Bill Shuster is the son of the inimitable Bud Shuster, whose Congressional seat he practically inherited. The Shuster Dynasty has basically worked like this: We're here in Congress to make sure Altoona, Pennsylvania gets the finest Federal highway projects that the
suckers'taxpayers' money can buy. You want a nice transportation project for your district, you'll have to make it worth our while. Even better, Shuster, who has been dating a transportation lobbyist, just fended off a Tea Party challenger... So who will be next onto the "anti-Establishment" Trump Train? Hal Rogers (the Appropriations Committee chairman neither Boehner nor Ryan would get rid of)?http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/278008-transportation-chairman-endorses-donald-trump
-
On April 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
As to seeing you, I see you. I don't talk about it much because the contest is underway and the stakes are too high, but I see you're hurting whether you admit it or not. (You and others.) It makes me feel bad to see you guys hurting that much. And I'm not taunting. I really do detect hurt and bewilderment. I try to lighten it up with banter, try to explain my perspective, but I still see the hurt.
I don't know what to do about it or even if anything I could do would be welcome. But I refuse to give up this contest, not when I see a real solution to the social and political cancer that is killing the USA--and killing my wish to continue living here--on the horizon.
Michael,
Telling people who are not receiving your message that they must be hurting is what a certain kind of Christian missionary does.
This might happen when, politely indicating your lack of interest in the offering, you’ve handed back the pamphlet with the crude cartoons of a disordered life with Ego on the throne and of a harmonious life with Jesus in charge.
The reaction is not empathic; it isn't a response to anything that the missionary has actually noticed about you. It’s purest top-down reasoning. What other motive, besides an unacknowledged spiritual deficiency, could there ever be not to accept the message?
I'm making the comparison with missionaries, because his followers really do seem to be envisioning Donald Trump as a Messiah. Where they see a savior, I see a guy who knows how to sell things on TV, who has charisma (albeit the sort that leaves me completely cold), who can give his pitch all day long and knows how to keep the words flowing with scarcely a hesitation pause. He doesn't have much of a program, and his followers find that a good thing, not a bad one. He has no discernible principles, and they love him for that too.
Of course, he's not shouting and employing his gestural repertoire on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, he seems to be encouraging his audience to get revenge. It's frequently not clear on whom, but that doesn't appear to matter.
If we take the man’s words literally (something his followers strongly discourage), we might infer that, more than any other extant human being, Xi Jinping is the author of Americans’ present woes.
Whether you are out of work, or you aren’t but your part of the country is seeing factories close, or you're worried about terrorist attacks, or just tired of expensive, crrappy services from governmental monopolies, or you have Bush fatigue, or you have Obama fatigue, or you wish Mitch McConnell would follow John Boehner into retirement, or the LIRR is going putt-putt-putt-putt-putt again on your ride to work, what’s diminishing every aspect of America is CHIIiina.
Of course, the maximum ruler of CHIIiina lives 12,000 miles away, well protected by a major military establishment. Those trade concessions on which Trump insists, he will not be able to compel the Chinese power structure to yield up. (And, unless Trump goes so far as to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organization, the WTO isn't going to be siding with Trump on much of anything he's demanding.)
But there are people closer by, easier to reach, much easier to humiliate, discredit, defeat than Xi Jinping (or Shinzo Abe or Enrique Peña Nieto or even Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi). For Trump, these are the vast crew that has enabled CHIIiina and other predatory foreign powers—or submitted to them, usually upon payment by (unnamed) special interests. A lot of them are Republicans, and some of them have actually run against Donald Trump (or endorsed someone who has run against him).
Their actual character, their actual performance?
Irrelevant.
Donald Trump sees them as standing in his way.
So he has formed an instant desire for revenge, and he has no intention of ever letting go of it. He'll never stop belittling them, calling them looooosers, demanding they beg his forgiveness. (I doubt that, if nominated, he will be able to restrain himself from daily rips at his former Republican rivals and their supporters, even though his attention will be supposed to be fully riveted on the Democrat.)
His followers take his example to heart. Whatever it is that they want revenge for (they have different grievances, and none, we may be fairly sure, actually share Trump’s own), they can take it out on any of the targets that Trump has provided for them.
It doesn't matter who Ted Cruz is, who Scott Walker is, who John Kasich is, who anyone named Bush is, who Mitt Romney is, who Mitch McConnell is, who anyone is, what any of them have done, what any of them haven't done, all he has to do is point the finger at them, and.... REVENGE!!!!
This is what makes the Trump campaign so effective at driving people apart. For if you are not with Trump, you are accorded a brief grace period to view the proofs of sanctity. And if they do not suffice for you, you become part of the Establishment (in other words, all that is non-Trump). And, in your turn, you become a fit target for … REVENGE!!!!
Such social dynamics end one of two ways.
Trumpism sweeps away all remaining opposition, because otherwise … REVENGE!!!! OK, a lot of the former opposition is not converted. It’s now merely keeping quiet. (But who cares? They all deserved to be silenced, anyway.)
Or it runs up against resistance. Resistance actually fortified, dug in by all those calls for REVENGE!!!
This is how the Trump campaign makes enemies out of friends.
Am I disconcerted by your decision to jump on the Trump Train?
Not nearly as much as I was, quite a few years ago, by Dr. Brickell Mertz Brickell’s decision to cross the into Castle Irvine, before they hauled it the drawbridge.
But I do get the feeling that, after one crosses over into Trump Ground, it will be as when one crosses over into St. Leonard’s. The call will soon come down to denounce one’s former companions in iniquity.
And that hurts.
On the other hand, affiliation with the Ayn Rand Institute turned out to be its own punishment. Consider how the prospect of locking up the nomination isn’t making Donald Trump and his cheerleaders more thoughtful, but pushing them to new heights of hypocrisy and incoherency, I’m inclined to think the same about passing over into Trump ground.
Robert
-
On April 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
There you go not seeing me again.
I really do think like that.
As for you totally ignoring Neil Bush with Ted Cruz (or other Cruz Bush ties), I don't know what to think.
I don't like it, so I am going to vote against it. And it looks like millions of people think like I do.
Michael
Michael,
Did the presence of a Barbour family member on McDaniel's team make him an Establishment plant?
You've refused to say.
Here's what you're effectively saying your thinking consists of:
Whatever Cruz says is worthless, because Cruz is saying it.
Whatever Trump says can be ignored, because Trump's true essence escapes any formulation in words. Not even in his own.
The words of both are discounted, nearly to zero in some cases.
But the effects of the discounting are differential:
Cruz is always far worse than anyone could have suspected.
Trump is always far better than anyone could have suspected.
I don't doubt that many others think the same way.
But this is a big country. Your faction can number in the millions, and be outnumbered by another with lots more millions.
Obama led Romney by more than 10% just once after March 1, 2012. That's where Hillary is against Donald, right now.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-trump-cant-win/article/2588132
Robert
-
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
I want to mock the following video, but it just makes me feel sick with pity.
Michael,
You took Glenn Beck way too seriously to begin with.
Robert
-
On April 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
If fact, I will even admit if Trump, who I see as a solution, were not running, I probably would have occasional comments and stay in the same kind of complicitness I was before.
When I look at my own attitude, I see a clear example that just because an environment has been engineered so that people are kept silent, that does not mean they agree with the engineers or their bosses. Silence does not obliterate one from existence.
And this is what is behind Trump's support.
Michael,
I had to think long and hard what to say in response.
And I'm going to do this in two parts. (The section about hurting will come later.)
Now, after Donald Trump has cleaned up in 5 Eastern states and the triumphalism is in a mad crescendo, seems as good a time as any.
What you mean by "an environment has been engineered," I don't comprehend.
It's one of those mistakes-were-made constructions.
Not an agent, not a human being in sight. Who engineered this environment? How did they do it?
The engineers are those faceless beings who engineered (whatever that amounted to, in more concrete terms).
They have bosses, again unnamed, who boss them.
As for silent complicity, I was not aware that you were in a line of work in which it would be dangerous to utter political opinions of a certain kind. Nor that anyone was keeping you quiet (are you telling me you had to discover Donald Trump, 2015-2016 edition, to find your voice on your own site?).
Why would you need Donald Trump to rouse you from your slumbers?
It doesn't matter all that much what the New York Times does, or what NBC does, or what Fox News does. If you want to inform yourself, in this time and place, it isn't hard.
I'm not questioning the instrumental rationality of remaining low-information (the one vote I will cast in November will be in a deep red county in a red state, which the Republican nominee, no matter who, is just about sure to carry; the one vote you will cast in November will be in a deep blue area of a blue state that the Democrat will have a lock on).
Just saying the obvious: that if it's important to you to find out what's going on, you will. That was as true in 1999 or 2007 or 2011 as it is today.
Some people might want to stop you, but this doesn't mean that they can.
And if you weren't paying attention till Donald issued the call to arms, there's a good chance you won't recognize the existence of valid or reliable sources of political information, besides the candidate and those who in 2016 are among his more prominent supporters.
It's as though neither Donald Trump nor his present champions even had a politically relevant history, before July 2015.
Worse yet, anyone who was paying attention, politically, before The Donald launched his latest campaign becomes suspect.
For surely only operatives of the Establishment had any motive to do so.
Robert
-
WSS,
The ad would have been more effective if they'd kept Hillary out of it. An uncharitable viewer might think the same lesson applies to her.
Trump vs. Clinton: one of the unelectable must win.
Robert
-
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
(whispering)
Donald Trump is winning.
Michael
Now there's no question about your failing to see all of them.
-
Bob,
Michael hasn't yet learned the difference between winning the nomination and winning the general election.
Barry Goldwater isn't around any more to tell him how they're different. Neither is Jerry Ford.
But Bob Dole is (I won't count Bush Sr. because his nomination for a 2nd term wasn't seriously contested). So are John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Oh, but they are (or were) all loooosers.
Can't be relevant to the Trumpian trajectory, then.
Robert
-
I know Merlin, and probably some others, addressed this issue much earlier on the thread, and gave up.
But here is Donald Trump on one (OK, two) of his favorite themes:
QuoteCRUZ doesn’t want to stop CHIIiinaa from devaluing its currency and monetary manipulation, the single greatest tool that various countries are using to hurt the United States and our companies, OK? And if YOU want to let people go ahead and devalue and if you want to let people get away with that, and Cruz is the leader of the pack, he is bad for this country and he’s bad for jobs and business. All right, bad!
Michael has denied that devaluing a currency is the same as currency manipulation. He should tell his candidate that.
If devaluing a currency is ipso facto proof of hostile intent agains the United States, not to mention the highest-yield weapon against the US economy, why is Trump confining these rants to CHIIiinaa (occasionally, suffering flashbacks to the 1980s, he throws in Japan, with those container ships full of cars lying in wait off California).
The Canadian dollar is down against the US dollar, over the past few years. Why not launch a trade war against Canada? (Sorry, WSS, sacrifices have to be made.)
The British pound is down against the US dollar. Why not a trade war against Britain?
The European Central Bank is trying to push the euro down against the dollar (actually it's announced that his is its intent). Only partial success so far, but if they meet their target, I guess it's trade war time, against the whole euro zone.
The Oz dollar is down, too, come to think of it.
Robert
-
There's a phrase I think we're going to be hearing, over the next year.
How long we'll hear it depends on how far Donald Trump gets.
A cold day in hell.
It'll be a cold day in hell before Ted Cruz works with or for Donald Trump, on anything.
When your opponent, the people's champion against the Establishment, once again joins forces with Mitch McConnell against you:
QuoteAll he is, is a guy that will go down and stand and filibuster for a day or two, and the other Senators all look, ‘When’s he getting off the floor, Jim? Guy’s a pain in the ass. When’s he gettin’ off the floor?”
Sure, there will be plenty Senator Ted Cruz can do for President Donald Trump.... on
A cold day in hell.
We might hear the same from John Kasich, in a little while.
We'll hear it from a lot of other folks.
How many voters, come early November, will be saying
A cold day in hell?
Robert
-
19 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:
My prediction: Fuhgeddaboudit.
Just like yours, it's testable.
Give Trump two weeks and we'll see what he does. Whether he even knows what a position of true strength might be.
OK, here's a clip. It's from yesterday morning, so Trump still has 13 days to find his Cloak of Presidentiality and put it on.
But I'd say the smart money has to be on Fuhgeddaboudit.
Michael, you'll want to skip this, because it's more about mere words, all of which Donald Trump seems to rely on, but none of which truly matter.
Robert
QuoteDonald Trump in Warwick. Rhode Island, April 25
CRUZ doesn’t want to stop CHIIiinaa from devaluing its currency and monetary manipulation, the single greatest tool that various countries are using to hurt the United States and our companies, OK? And if YOU want to let people go ahead and devalue and if you want to let people get away with that, and Cruz is the leader of the pack, he is bad for this country and he’s bad for jobs and business. All right, bad!
Now, it’s sort of funny… I watched Cruz this morning and he’s all mixed up, because he’s losing so badly. And when he’s under pressure, he’s like a basket case.
So he’s STUTTERING, and he’s STAMMERING!, and I watched him, and he’s saying, “Uhh, I want jobs [in wimp voice]… and I want the economy... and I want this and I want that” — all stuff that I’ve been saying for years! And he just started saying it!, he doesn't know anything! about the economy, he doesn’t know anything about jobs, he was a failed Senator, he couldn’t see anything passed, look at his legislation, he got nothing passed, and now he wants to be…
All he is, is a guy that will go down and stand and filibuster for a day or two, and the other Senators all look, ‘When’s he getting off the floor, Jim? Guy’s a pain in the ass. When’s he gettin’ off the floor?”
You know, the Senator that he most respects, in the world, is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, great Senator. And look at his early speeches, everything was Jeff Sessions said, and Jeff Sessions. ONLY ONE PROBLEM, JEFF SESSIONS—SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS—CAME OUT JUST RECENTLY, AND HE ENDORSED DONALD TRUMP! OK?
-
20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
Oh... I don't know... Let me count the ways...
1. Shut down the crony deals of the Bush family and the Bush family's friends,
2. Pull America out of Endless War for profit,
3. Tell the truth to the American public as a general policy,
4. Lower taxes,
5. Reduce the size of government,
6. Fix the immigration system for real,
7. Close down Common Core.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Oh... I forgot... that doesn't sound like a Bush, now does it?
Or is it this?: "But... but... but... this time it's going to be different!"
Michael
Michael,
I recommend cutting down on the Alex Jones.
Robert
-
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
I agree. You get to be part of a majority when things like this happen (from Breitbart):
Now where did all those new people come from, I wonder?
Did you ever see them?
And that's just so far in primaries. Imagine the election...
Michael
Michael,
What were you saying about time travel, just a few posts ago?
Now you want to pit Trump 2016 (amid high primary and caucus turnout) vs. Romney 2012 (amid low primary and caucus turnout).
Oops, Trump did run against Romney in 2012 (I know, only Establishment types pay any attention to how things went in 2012). How quickly did he drop out?
And, yeah, Trump has something to do with higher turnout. But then you want to annex all the people who have turned out this year to oppose Trump to all of those who turned out to support him.
I think you really are failing to see most of the electorate.
For if everyone you can see is exactly like yourself, you would have to see yourself as part of a majority.
Robert
-
18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Robert,
See?
There you go again confusing a counterpunch with a habit.
Trump will play dirty with those who play dirty, but he vastly prefers to win by sheer competence. Don't forget, one of his favorite Bible verses is "An eye for an eye."
Michael
Michael,
If it was a counterpunch, why didn't you boast about it when the story ran?
Robert
-
On April 24, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
No, you say (and constantly imply) Ted Cruz is the true constitutional conservative.
Michael,
You can do better than this.
I could put in 20-point that Cruz truly respects the constitution.
I'm not completely sure Donald Trump has heard of that document, though he's recently learned to repeat the phrase "2nd amendment."
The socially conservative part of Cruz, I expect you know I can do without. Glutinous religiosity, photo ops with Kim Davis, "bathroom bill" soapboxing...
You could probably do without Trump's sporadic efforts at social conservatism, but we all know they're phony. (High principle again, wink wink?)
Robert
-
1 hour ago, PDS said:
If he plays that opportunity like he plays so many other things (as a whiner, etc.) he will blow this opportunity. But if he plays from a position of true strength, pats them on their heads, talks about an affirmative vision for the country, and sticks to the substantive merits of his ideas, he could put the nomination in his hip pocket pretty soon.
David,
My prediction: Fuhgeddaboudit.
Just like yours, it's testable.
Give Trump two weeks and we'll see what he does. Whether he even knows what a position of true strength might be.
Robert
-
32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
When you say Trump wins straight up, that is an example of what I mean when I say he is a highly principled man. Even if he were losing, he would not cheat with delegates and things like that.
Michael,
Is the "box out" story from Michigan false?
If it was true, has Donald Trump fired his people who cut the deal with Kasich's people, and disavowed their actions?
For surely, if the story is true, he must have by now.
Robert
Donald Trump
in Stumping in the Backyard
Posted
Jon,
The principles that Donald Trump laid out in his speech presumably do not resist being netted out.
Could you tell us, briefly, what they are?
Robert