Robert Campbell

Michael, So is it that Trump's actions do not (cannot) offer evidence as to the principles he follows? Or that what constitutes evidence (regarding Donald Trump) for those who do not line up behind him cannot constitute evidence for any of those who do? And vice versa? Where have we landed? Robert

OK. Some of these are really broad, but we all understand what they mean. I now look at Donald Trump's behavior since he launched his campaign—and I see actions that do not appear to flow from adherence to one or more of the above. Making up statistics, then repeating them over and over after they are questioned, doesn't look to be consistent with honest dealings. Efforts not merely to defeat opponents, but to make servants out of them or end their careers, don't seem to stem from competitiveness. Hard-assed discipline isn't what yields half-assed plans (Trump's income tax plan is pretty clear, whatever one's view of its merits, but his health-care plan is still a dumpster fire). Hard-assed discipline might also preclude sulking, or looking for a new Dolchstosslegende, upon losing a contest. Fairness is not put into practice by obtaining and remunerating the services of Roger Stone. Or by likening all prospective immigrants from certain countries to poisonous snakes. Are these all mere "gotchas"? The question then becomes whether any action taken by Donald Trump, at any time, is allowed into evidence regarding the principles that actually motivate him. Robert

Michael, Inform us, then, about Donald Trump's core convictions. Robert

Exactly.

Michael, Why not break the suspense, and tell us what Donald Trump's core convictions are? Robert

David, From your excellent paragraph summarizing why Trump is not the guy, I want to emphasize your last point. Milo Yiannapoulos is promoting Trump for President, in full anticipation that after a couple of big executive actions, pretty much every Democrat and every Republican in Congress will dig in against Trump. Milo will be fine with that. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/01/milo_yiannopoulos_trump_represents_the_best_hope_we_have_to_smash_political_correctness.html I'm kind of hoping we can do better. Robert

In other words, supporters of Trump are entitled to dismiss everyone else. (Because all non-Trump supporters are either of the intelligentsia, or are its useful idiots.) If they keep dismissing, long and hard enough, their numbers will increase without limit and Trump will rule forever and ever (OK, until the 22nd Amendment kicks in). You don't see any defects in this strategy? robert

Michael, Do you really think Nathaniel Branden was infected with a Christian ethos? Robert

Michael, Donald Trump seems to think it is. What was the re-stomping about? Robert

Michael, Go back and take another look at some of your stumping for Trump. Robert

Michael, You've been taking boasting as proof of productivity. I don't really care about Trump's vaunting, when he does it on behalf of his products or services. I'm not really part of his customer base, but that's irrelevant. The products and services perform, or they don't. Enough of them have, for enough people, or Trump would be out of business. Let the prospective consumers reward him in each case, or let them withhold reward, factoring the vaunting in with the rest. Trump is vaunting on the campaign trail. It's not as though he has a track record in political office, and has to choose whether to vaunt it. He has no achievements in political office, because he's never held any. In the process, he trashes people, like Scott Walker, who do have genuine accomplishments while in political office. He actually seems resentful of anyone like that. Hence the compulsion to re-stomp. Robert

Michael, Rachel Maddow is probably smarter than the rest of the MSNBC crew put together. She also knows what her mission is this election season: make sure the crown is placed on Hillary's head (after she's extracted a maximum of Clintonian concessions to the hard Left). Robert

Of course it does. And what everyone can see, Donald Trump doesn't need to boast about. But he does it anyway. Especially on the campaign trail. As I noted before, he wouldn't be the first person that politics brought out the worst in. Robert

Michael, The only feature of interest Ann Coulter's latest hot blast is seeing where she thinks she has to exert herself on Donald Trump's behalf. She gives the most space to Trump's struggles with the abortion issue, and the second most to his struggles over health care. Yup and yup. As I've noted, I'm fine with Trump being pro-choice, which has most likely always been his position. For all I know, Coulter is, too. I can think of other Republican politicians who weren't really anti-abortion (a penny for the private thoughts of George H. W. Bush?). But Trump can't even put on the simulacrum. And now even Todd Akin thinks he's a dumbass. On the healthcare thing, Trump's been all over the map. (And if he genuinely imagines the National Health Service is uniquely great for Scots, he should take an hour off his next golf trip to visit Kilmarnock Infirmary.) Coulter knows this just as well as the rest of us. The rest is business as usual from the Mistress of the Mean-Spirited. ( I figure Ann Coulter has a rigorous routine of daily practice, for if the mean-spiritedness ever begins to slip, there go her fame and her income.) As the Paragon of Special Pleading, she has to run down caucus wins. (If Donald Trump were winning caucuses, she'd be informing us that primaries are vastly overrated.) Never passing up a cheap shot, she tells her audience that Texas and Oklahoma are indistinguishable. Ah, the perfect way to piss everyone off in both states. All anyone really needs to know about Ann Coulter is that in 2012, she was all in for Mitt Romney. Though, I have to say, she and Mittens weren't temperamentally suited to each other. Robert

Michael, I've been marveling at this analysis for a good while. Really... Really... Really, endless loud boasting is proof that the boaster is productive, secure, and, should he ever get his hands on the power, will never send anyone to die in a useless war. Where do we start... Where do we start... If Donald Trump were as productive as he wants people to think he is, he wouldn't need to boast about it. (Still waiting on those income tax returns, Mr. Trump.) If Donald Trump were as secure as we are supposed to believe he is, he wouldn't be needing to boast, constantly, about every last thing. But if boasting is evidence of virtue... Then Trump should receive a medal for every lie he tells at the expense of his opponents. Then Trump is due a commendation for every "perfect statistic" he pulls out of his rear end. Then Trump should be hailed as a hero every time he, say, retweets an unflattering picture of an opponent's spouse. For every time the fish he caught doubles in length, the fisherman doubles in stature. Sick, man. Donald Trump is a poster boy for narcissism. And if you really think narcissists have high, secure self-esteem, may I refer you to a book or two by some clinician dude, a Branden, N.? Try making the case that Branden, N., was infected with a Christian ethos. Robert PS. Since it is close to impossible to tell what Donald Trump will do, if he becomes President, you might want to hold off on the assurances about dying and useless wars.

Michael, Yeah, if Barry Dennett was watching the returns last night, he saw that his candidate was ahead in District 7 (3 delegates) and a couple more districts weren't decided till this morning (one of them eventually went for Trump, so then 6 delegates). If Dennett really thought, say, a week ago, that his boss was going to get all of 3 delegates, and he told him so, why did Donald Trump go off and sulk after the returns started coming in? (Still no public statements out of him today.) Here's a piece in Breitbart that isn't of the walking-in-circles variety. It comes from a writer who likes Trump a lot better than I do, likes Cruz a lot less than I do, and thinks the Club for Growth is joined at the hip with K Street (in South Carolina, when the Club for Growth endorses a candidate for the legislature, the Good Ole Boy Party goes completely berserk—but never mind). http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/06/donald-trump-needs-wake-call-massive-wisconsin-loss/ It has nonetheless occurred to him that Steve Deace and Charlie Sykes are not employees of Karl Rove. Robert

Don't forget the "perfect statistics."

Michael, I don't see Trump and Cruz coexisting on one ticket. Even if Trump wanted that (he's made it clear at least 100 different ways that he doesn't), Cruz won't want it. Not after all the Lyin' Ted stuff, a certain National Enquirer piece for which Trump denies responsibility, assorted other crap. Trump should just go back to all the things he actually knows how to do. I think he meant it when he said he didn't need to run for President. Tell people, if he wants, how he could have been President of the United States but it wasn't worth the aggravation. Emphasize the parts that are confining, boring, annoying, or exhausting. There are plenty of each. It's been suggested, half-seriously, that he might announce a health scare (tests for cancer, could be bad, lots of follow-ups needed, then, eventually, Whew!). I don't think that's necessary, but if it's a way to save face I wouldn't recommend against it. He's the one who wants to utterly humiliate every opponent. Obnoxious though he has been, I don't think he deserves utter humiliation—which is what he may get if he pushes through to the convention and fails there. Robert

Peter, This is not a trivial matter. If it's Trump vs. Clinton, both parties will have settled for gerontocracy. People do stay healthier longer than than they did in the days of William Henry Harrison or Franklin D. Roosevelt, but there is still extra risk in having a President who is over 70. If there have been any Trump health scares, they've been kept out of the news. Hillary's already had some. Robert

Trump got District 3 and District 7. 36 delegates for Cruz, 6 for Trump.

Michael and WSS, Politico has its angles. Duh. Nonetheless, there is a big difference between a Republican contender letting his field operation go in South Carolina, and letting it go in Ohio or Florida. If you want to see Democrats running for President in South Carolina, catch 'em before the primary. That's the last you'll see of them, because the Democratic nominee has no expectation of carrying the state in November. If you want to see Republicans running for President in SC, same story. The nominee won't be worried about losing the state. Florida and Ohio, on the other hand. will see lots of campaigning for the general election. It's always been unclear whether Donald Trump really meant to spend what he needed to win the election. Robert

Michael, No kidding. It's already been a major stink. It's already been quite a brawl. If Donald Trump's best plan is to redouble the re-stomping, he'll be on a long, ugly path to losing the nomination. He will only succeed in encouraging more to vote for Cruz or for Kasich (while fewer of them will consider him an acceptable alternative). Then what? Get Roger Stone to incite a few riots for him? Robert

Dolchstosslegende #2: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275304-trump-cruz-worse-than-a-puppet If Donald the Entitled doesn't get his act together, pronto, he'll be best advised to drop out of the race. Robert PS. Trump's people must be sorry that the Wisconsin legislature abolished the office of one of the key figures in those "John Doe" investigations. Otherwise, they could demand that a "John Doe" be launched against Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, and 50 PACs.

Michael, Self-handicapping ain't going to cut it here. Neither will a second Dolchstosslegende. Trump wants to believe that Iowa was his, till Lyin' Ted stole it from him. Now, what's it going to be? Lyin' Ted ganged up with Charlie Sykes, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell and Bob Dole to steal Wisconsin from him? Any adversity he faced was largely self-generated. Most Wisconsin Republicans didn't like or trust him to begin with. I expect they saw him as nasty, full of BS, endlessly self-aggrandizing, unrelentingly vindictive, uninterested in most of the issues that mattered to them, who the hell knows what he actually stands for, who the hell knows what he'll actually do? And you don't have to take my word for any of this. Let's see the complete exit poll analyses. Then when he went in to re-stomp Scott Walker, it was time to put a fork in him. By the way, if you think the placement of advertisements by national organizations necessarily determines the outcome of a political contest, have you forgotten how much money American Crossroads pissed away in 2012? You seem incapable of realizing that, for every convert Donald Trump has made, he's alienated, pissed off, or scared the pants off two or three times as many people. Robert

Roger, I don't know what margin Trump needs to win by in New York, if he is to meet expectations. Presumably a very large one. Robert