PDS

Michael:

Do you serve Crow Omelettes at this OL Diner?  That way I can pay my debts AND do so with appropriate egg on my face at the same time.

I am very happy for you and the Gang of Trump here at OL.   The word that comes to mind is prescient.  That's what you were (and are). 

And, not that it matters what I hope, but I really hope the best for President-Elect Trump.*   I very much look forward to many executive orders being repealed on Day 1.  Once he does that, I will be pushing on the bandwagon with all my might.  If he appoints a serious constitutionalist to the Supreme Court, I may just jump on that same bandwagon, assuming you guys let me in. 

*Not unforgotten is my $500 pledge if a balanced budget is signed by Trump into law.   I really hope to have to pay up on that pledge, and buy you dinner in Chicago as I pay up..

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

There's a kernel here that points to a theme of something I was discussing with Michael Prescott before he went south on me.

It boils down to certain more refined people (to use a polite term ) being perplexed about why people like me who support Trump do not feel ashamed when Trump mouths off or gets accused of saying something socially unacceptable. He asked me if I am not bothered when Trump mocked a disabled man or said McCain was not a war hero. (I am saying it like this to be true to the way he said it, but that  does not mean I agree with his contextless framing of these standard anti-Trump talking points.)

I tried, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to present what the world looks like to a person who objects to ugliness in reality as priority--and means it--as opposed to those who object to ugly words as priority--and that person means it, too. It's a matter of do-say as opposed to say-do priority. Anyway, I gave two answers and they were pretty good answers, so I want to put them here for future reference if I (or any interested party) ever need them. The first:

Then he said that didn't answer his question and what's more, I wouldn't answer his question. I responded:

Let me put this in the context of the theme I detect in your objection. I might be wrong, so if I am, please let me know.

You seem to want me to acknowledge that Trump made a dumb move in what he said about the Muslim lady not talking because many people will turn off to him as heartless (or insulting or whatever). And implicit in this is me acknowledging that he did something wrong, callous, (or another whatever).

Here is my position with all the extraneous stuff stripped out.

Hillary Clinton oversaw and helped engineer the killing and maiming of a gawdawful lot of young people (hell, all ages of people) through the structures she helped construct and operate--not to mention through sheer incompetence and corruption. Real blood. Real deaths. Trump didn't kill or maim anyone, but he's got a big mouth. And he built a lot of stuff.

Does his mouth offend me? Next to what Clinton has done? Hardly at all.

And I am not alone in this awareness and sentiment.

So I disagree that this Muslim lady PC language kerfuffle will hurt Trump. At least among the Trump supporters I see. Even among many independents.

That's what I see and how I see it and why I see it that way.

Also, please understand that I'm explaining this vision and saying it exists, not competing with you to win any argument.

Michael

Okay.

But here's the deal:   you seem to feel a need "win" every issue when it comes to Trump.    Something in you is unwilling to give an inch.   Your argument above was that if there is a terrorist attack in Rio, nobody will care how Trump talked to a grieving mother.   With respect:  no shit, Michael.  If there is a terrorist attack in Rio, people are not going to care as much about a lot of different things.  And this even assumes a US President can do something about terrorist activity in Brazil, let alone President Trump.  

I can assure you if the San Andres Fault cracks open tonight, people will also be less concerned with Trump's thin skin and/or his big mouth.   But that is not the point.    The point I was trying to make is that the man is supposed to be trying to win an election, and actions like this matter.    Not Hillary's actions.   Not Trump's actions a month ago.   No.  I am merely talking about Trump's particular actions with regard to a grieving mother.  

I'll give you an analogy.  I am a pretty decent poker player.   Literally.  Not metaphorically.  I play in expensive cash games, I've played in the World Series of Poker, etc.   I've studied the game of poker more than most. There is a certain type of poker player:  he is the guy that MUST win every hand.   He unwilling to throw away a marginal hand.   He "calls down" hands he has no business playing.  Small pocket pairs look like aces to him.  He goes "all in" way too often.    And he usually goes home broke.  

You have become that guy when it comes to Trump.    You see your best self in Trump.   Trump has awakened something in you that seems to have been dormant a long time.    This is well and good, assuming it is a wise thing to so heavily invest in a politician.  So you think you are building your chip-stack with this strategy.   Who knows.  Maybe you are.  I have serious doubts.  

In any event, I think I am going to join Steve W. and take a hiatus from OL until after the election.**

**If Trump happens to win, however, be assured I will come here bright and early to eat my crow-sandwich like a man.  

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Only back when their sons were killed and Clinton lied to them in their faces about why their sons died. Hell, she even said she was going to get the video-maker and bring him to justice as consolation. 

That may not count to some people in this episode, but I assure you, it counts to a hell of a lot of others.

As a parallel tie-in to this, Rio de Janeiro is ramping up security over a "credible threat" of a radical Islamic terrorist setting off a nuke (dirty bomb) during the Olympics. What if they set the dirty bomb off in a neighboring city instead right as the Olympics are underway? 

Or any other main terrorist attack, for that matter? (And I swear, I hope my fears are unfounded.)

If that happens, do you think people or the press are going to worry about Trump's image in asking if the grieving mother was allowed to speak during the DNC?

btw - If I pardoned my crows, what makes you think I would be interested in either of your two precious body parts? 

   

Maybe if you threw in both... (OK, OK, that's pushing the quip beyond where it can extend...)

 

Michael

Okay.   You win.   Trump was 100% right once again.  I hope he slaps her next time he sees her.  

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Right.

And when Patricia Smith, the mother of the Benghazi victim, Sean Smith, talked at the RNC and the media blasted her (and blasted her viciously) for playing on heartstrings, I don't recall any outrage from anyone in our subcommunity on how gauche the media was. Not one tut-tut-tut. But there was a big yawn about Hillary Clinton lying to this lady about her son's death.

What happened?

Shall we put videos of the two ladies side-by-side and see who cries the most about their dead sons?

If one gets outraged at callousness by one side, it is a double standard to give a pass to the other side.

What's more, Trump didn't kill either of the sons.

Michael

Did Hillary say anything about the women who spoke at the RNC convention?  Did she even engage those persons? 

I will bet one of my two most precious body parts she did not   

This isn't a question of fairness or press bias.  That is a seperste issue.  All sentient beings are aware the press is biased and unfair.

My point is that if Trump's goal is to win the election, this was a dumb move.   Really dumb.   

Mark my words.  This is going to hurt him.  

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I probably misunderstood.

I thought you were saying people who disagreed with you are immature since you referenced my mental age as about 8 years old.

All I did was own up.

Michael

You're 62?  Wow.  I never would have guessed.   I thought you were in your 40's...*

*Late 40's...

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I probably misunderstood.

I thought you were saying people who disagreed with you are immature since you referenced my mental age as about 8 years old.

All I did was own up.

Michael

Trump is 70.  Under my analogy, he should have stopped acting like a teenager 56 years ago (plus or minus). 

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's what they said all during the primaries...

 

Michael

No.  The folks you are describing are neither silent, nor a majority. 

And no, this isn't "Trump's America", any more than it's Obama's America. 

Silent Majority, my ass. 

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

That's the real problem, ain't it?

Welcome to Trump's America, the Silent Majority. And enjoy the ride.

Michael

Your comment really doesn't make any sense.  Maybe I'm missing something. 

Right on cue, the mother now speaks. 

Anybody who thinks this is good for Trump is drinking some strong Kool-Aid. 

37 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

How did he attack her? What was Trump's point?

--Brant

His comments will be viewed by many who are undecided as an attack, especially mothers.  My wife is an example.  She is looking for a reason to vote for Trump but his thin skin and big mouth always get him in trouble with her.  

What was Trump's point?  To impress people like Michael.   Did you see how impressed Michael was?  Trump's the alpha male 8th grader who just LOVES that attention.  The problem is that he should have grown out of that about 56 years ago.  

I'm back to thinking Hillary is going to landslide him big time.  Fuggin' Hillary.  Probably the worst retail politician in anybody's lifetime.  

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump's response?

KABOOM!

Maureen Dowd: On the poignant appearance of Muslim lawyer Khizr Khan and his wife, whose son, Humayun, an Army captain, posthumously received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. As his wife, Ghazala, stood silently by his side, Khan held up a copy of the Constitution and asked Trump if he had ever read it and said, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

Donald Trump: “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”

Let me repeat that: KABOOM!

 

That's from the New York Times article of yesterday (July 29) by Maureen Dowd: Trump’s Thunderbolts.

Michael

I wouldn't be too proud of that one, Michael.  Attacking the mother of someone who died in war will lose him votes. 

The people that love Trump trolling may like this the same they used to admire the cool guy in junior high having the guts to do another spit ball, but undecided voters will not.  

Oh, and this will not help him with women either. 

2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." --Khizr Khan

Khan explained the statement in an MSNBC interview:

Here is a reaction from the Morning Joe team:

I didn't cry or get chills.  The son didn't die for this cause, it's his father doing that:
http://www.nbc29.com/story/32492589/charlottesville-man-honoring-son-at-democratic-national-convention
 

My question is:  How does he know that?  In the beginning of the MSNBC video, the Khans admit they were surprised his son decided to join ROTC in college.  They are inventing things here.  But the Clinton's don't care, they are loving the emotionalism of it all.

This really what Rand was talking about:  emotionalism vs. reason, duty vs. volition, self-sacrifice vs. independence.  I'm really surprised to see it presented so vulgarly on stage.

By the way, as long as we're asking the question, what exactly has Hillary sacrificed?  

7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Political pandering is not a lack of understanding of free market economics.

I admire Trump, but he ain't perfect.

That's about as rough and raw as I can put it.

Read the ideological purists sometime. They're not bashing Trump for things like this. They claim he's too stupid to read or understand the constitution, that he's never achieved anything on the free market except bankrupt companies, that all he has ever done is con people, that he is a psychopath and a racist, and on and on and on...

That's irrational.

Michael

Agreed.  

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually, Trump knows how to do free market economics brilliantly as much as it can be done within coercive environments, and he's pretty selective about how far he's willing to put up with destructive coercive environments. For example, he refused to do a real estate deal with Russia despite all kinds of perks thrown at him.

But Trump really does want money and achievements along with his ideology. He doesn't want to talk about it. He means it. In other words, instead of rolling over, dying and complaining about the world like ideological purists do, Trump makes free market economics work and triumph even where it is not supposed to.

And ideological purists (many who don't really want to live on earth) hate him for it, even more than they hate pure statists. His very life is like a slap in the face to them.

Michael

How does this commentary survive Trump's call for a rise in the minimum wage?  Some "ideology".  

I have 28 employees I pay twice a month.  What business is it of Trump's to tell me what I'm required to pay them?   Or am I being too "purist" in my wish not to be told by Trump what to pay my employees?

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The whole f**king lot.   When one has a problem one deals with it forcefully.  And screw the collateral damage.

We won WW II  (the Good War)  by not being scrupulous about collateral damage.  The U,S. killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatant women and children.  And do you know what?   We won!!!!!

Let the third generation down the line have the pain and scruples  over collateral damage.  Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.  In the mean time we take care of business here and now.  

From the safety of your keyboard I am sure this sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan. 

After all, as our friend Greg might say, the women and children get what they deserve, right?

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve and Dave,

It's not the man.

It's the archetype.

Trump himself recognizes this when he says he's just the messenger.

One day months ago on TV, someone asked a Trump supporter what would make him stop supporting Trump. He said if Trump started acting like the establishment.

That's just another way of saying it. 

It's the archetype...

Michael

Is picking Mike Pence sort of an establishment pick?  And isn't that the first and only thing Trump has done as a potential president?

No need to answer.

32 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Tripoli.  That is a good place to dump  Muslim refuse. 

Women and children too, or just men of a certain age?   Let's be specific. 

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Box cars are the quickest way of getting these  people on barges which can then go to No.  Africa. 

What is the problem?  

No problem at all, Baal, as long as you are the one picking who goes on the boxcars, and not the one being loaded on them. 

By the way, did somebody build a bridge across the Mediterranean while I was otherwise distracted, or are the "boxcars" going to be simply dumped on the shores of Tripoli?

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Religion of Peace has struck again.  This time an old priest had has throat cut.

Question:  Who will start loading up the box cars first?  The French or the Germans?  

I see WSS's previous dismantling of your box car meme did no good, eh?

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Steve,

To be honest, I don't have to wait and see. I already know.

How do I know?

Trump is like me in most fundamentals. When I look at him, I see myself reflected--the best part of myself.

(I wonder how this last statement lands with true Trump-haters?  )

Michael

This does explain a lot. 

In making this reference, you are giving Trump way too much credit and yourself way too little. 

I wouldn't invest so much psychologically in a politician if I were you, MSK...

This thread is certainly interesting. 

The pro-Trump crowd views Trump more like Howard Roark--with some warts that can be lived with.  

The anti-Trump crowd views him more like Peter Keating--maybe with a snarl.  

But nobody claims that Clinton is like Howard Roark. 

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

Steve, when did you stop beating your wife? 

You've been a roll lately.  

17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Either Hillary or Trump will be president.

If the election was between 80% taxation rate or 20% taxation, what exactly would be the point of ignoring the fact that one or the other would come to be? Pretend that "no taxation" is expressed by staying home and watching 80% win? The pleasure of paying 80% taxes with the shallow pride that "other people voted for that, not me. I am pure, I have never voted for taxes"?

I think this is an excellent argument, if there were only a single issue in play in the election.   Alas, that is not what we have.    We have foreign policy to be concerned about, for instance. 

This morning President Obama complained of Trump's lack of understanding of foreign policy.   I will say this:  it would be very difficult to for a president to screw up foreign policy any worse than Obama has--whatever his level of knowledge.   

A cold-eyed recognition of this fact blunts many concerns that I would otherwise have about Trump's lack of foreign policy knowledge, his instincts, or his jarring thin-skinnedness (assuming this is a word...). 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Dayaamm!

Are you trying to read my mind?

Michael

Tee hee.   Well played.