Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

Some people are "insiders" for they deal with ideas and consequences--like me. I'm having the crap scared out of me (World War III).

--Brant

leaving for the moon colony (goodbye good earth [~sob~]--the moon just got WiFi, McDonalds and a Ford dealership [more to come])

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton is shaping up to be a a battle of a candidate with 66% negatives against a candidate with 61%.

Neither should be able to win, but under our two-party system, one of them is effectively guaranteed to.  And here I thought Dubya vs. Al was a contest between two who both deserved to lose.

Once Hillary becomes the nominee, she will have to deliver a truly unforgivable insult to Barack Obama before he will drop the hammer on her.

Robert

[Peter]

Cue the theme to “The Young and The Restless” because Hugh Brant just emoted: I'm having the crap scared out of me (World War III). end quote

Stella! Get off the hot tin roof. Oh, cut it out. You mean World War Z, doncha? Shiver. What would be a tell - tale sign of a pending apocalypse? An armed Forces heightened alert and cancelling of leave for our military? Hostilities breaking out between Ukraine and the New Soviet Union, or Israel and Iran? Maybe if the President is never in the White House, like gulp, Obuma? Trump being elected? Remember he has never caused any of his buildings to collapse or his golf courses to get crab grass.    

Flash! And if there is a nuclear bomb or two going off, all you need is to have a plan to drop and roll, overt your eyes from the light, and then stay down until any possible blast wave washes over you, obeying the physical laws in place due to the curvature of the earth, and then have seven jugs of water saved up, cut off the outside air from your house (no central heating or cooling) and stay indoors for two weeks and then periodically for the next year as radiation clouds pass over head. It would be good to have an intact power plant in your area, like I do, that has a year’s supply of coal on hand. It’s a really big pile that they burn when the wind takes the smoke out to sea.  

Would we be in greater jeopardy from Obama or Trump, or Hillary or Trump, or Cruz or Hillary, or yadda, yadda. Don’t let me scare you.

As Spock said, “Be strong Brant. Trump has a desire to live long and prosper.”

Pete the survival guy. 

[Peter]

Robert wrote: Neither should be able to win, but under our two-party system, one of them is effectively guaranteed to. end quote

Exactly. One of them has to win! If any of you guys were running Trump’s campaign, with a hundred million dollars guaranteed to you personally, IF he wins, how would you get Trump elected? It would be tough because NY and California are nearly guaranteed to the democrats. In play are Florida and Ohio. First goal after winning the nomination? And if successful how would you proceed? Assume Trump will listen and abide by your advice if you prove yourself with your first strategy.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

46 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton is shaping up to be a a battle of a candidate with 66% negatives against a candidate with 61%.

Robert,

There's a presumption here that those negatives are going to stay the same.

They won't.

All this will change after the primaries are over.

I predict the negatives of both will go down sharply, but Trump's much faster than Clinton's because of her legal troubles. And maybe some hidden goodies Trump will spring on the public about her that he has held close to his chest for now (after all, he used to be a Clinton insider).

Don't forget the power of celebrity endorsements to move these numbers, too. There will be a ton load of celebrities on both sides endorsing all over the place.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump's NY victory speech:

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

I don't get any of this.

You do understand that Trump is running an election campaign for federal office, not an academic debate, correct? In the rest of your post, you mentioned it.

So, can you tell me how doing all this talking would have gained him one vote?

You keep bringing this stuff up as if it were some kind of gotcha or something, but it doesn't contribute to a campaign strategy. It's like blaming a football player for using the wrong tennis racket or golf iron. It's the wrong game.

And for some reason, you keep treating Trump's feud with Scott Walker like a jealous lover. The Wisconsin primary election is over.

Anyway, Trump won New York big-time and Cruz even lost by double digits behind Kasich. That shuts down Cruz's "landslide" narrative in the media. Maybe not with him, but the public credibility of that narrative is now blown to shreds. 

Trump wins his landslides with votes, not by manipulating delegate rules. When Cruz tries for votes, he comes in third. That's going to be the new media narrative for at least a week.

And, last I heard, one needs votes to beat Hillary, not delegate manipulations. You can be sure I am not the only one saying that.

Michael

Michael,

It's amazing how Donald Trump moves his lips all the time and makes what sound like English words come out... in torrents... most of them in front of video cameras... 5 or 6 days a week... and to you it's not talking.

I guess only persons other than Donald Trump would ever descend to something so useless or so low-tech.

Perhaps there is a new species of totally nonverbal waveform—for which Trump ought to get off his duff and file a patent application—that emanates uniquely from him to bathe all illuminated spirits in its glow, obviating the need for them to consider the meaning of anything he says, or to consider any words he appears to be uttering.  Meanwhile, those unilluminated spirits will forever fail to pierce through the apparent meaning of his apparent words to the true substance beneath.

The question is not even what Donald Trump needs to say in order to win his home state primary (he won big on the Republican side; now read the totals and check Adam's thread: 950,000 more Democrats voted in the NY primaries than Republicans, at a time of somewhat diminished enthusiasm among Democrats).

The question is what he needs to say to have adequate credibility everywhere in the US (you know, because he is campaigning for Federal office).

The days are over when, say, FDR could tell white Southerners how horrible Reconstruction was, and black Northerners how much he sympathized with their struggle for equal rights, and not worry that either group would get wind of what he'd said to the other.  You know, "bitterly cling"?  You know, "47%"? You know, "a farmer like Chuck Grassley"?

Do you think the only people who ever pay attention to what Trump says in a particular place are the people who attend Trump rallies, see his advertising, hear him do one radio interview, all right there?  Sorry, but if that were the case, you would have stopped listening to anything he said after he finished campaigning in the Illinois primary, and wouldn't be planning to tune back in until he campaigns in Illinois for the general (contingent on his being the nominee, and his considering Illinois worth campaigning in).  

Unless you've been volunteering for him in another state... have you?

If the guy talks in Wisconsin as though he doesn't care one way or another about public employee unions, then he talks the same way in New York, and then, let's say, he does the same in a day or two in New Jersey, and he does the same across the river in Pennsylvania, you know, maybe folks in the states that haven't held their primaries will become concerned that he doesn't consider public employee unions a threat and won't support any measures to limit their power.  AFSCME is in every state.  The NEA and the AFT are in most.

Cause if that's the kind of candidate they want, they can always vote for a Democrat.

(Interestingly, I see from a WSJ article that he did promise, while campaigning in southwestern Virginia, to abolish the EPA and "bring back coal." Will he bring it back out in West Virginia, at least?)

And, you know, anyone in American politics who talks about landslides is bullshitting.  What our media and pundits call a "landslide" in a US election is winning with 60% (what Trump just did in New York).  It's not winning with 70 or 80 or 90.  Chances are, even if Trump is nominated and Evita "blows him out," she won't win by nearly the margin that LBJ managed against Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan managed against Fritz Mondale.  And if he "blows her out," likewise.

So talk of landslides is good old-fashioned media crap.  

Trump just performed above the polls, in his home state, where he was already expected to do very well.  Did Ted Cruz score a landslide in Utah, getting 69%?  Whoop tee doo!  I liked it when Cruz won Utah, but I didn't consider it a landslide and no one else should either.  Trump looked bad in Iowa, Cruz looked bad in New Hampshire... then up and down and up and down and... we have 50 states plus an assortment of territorial dependencies that get their say, in one fashion or another.

If Trump were actually winning regularly in what Americans call a landslide—not even that, not 60%—not even 55%—just breaking 50% regularly—he'd have sewed the nomination up by now.  He could have put in a victory lap in New York and taken the rest of the 2 weeks off.

Not what's been happening, is it?

One does need votes to beat Hillary.  Maybe averaging 50% overall from Republican primary participants would be a positive indicator.

Cause if you can't get more Republicans on board, it's going to be hard to win a general election against a Democrat.  Hard to carry your home state, even.  

Particularly when 66% of the public claims to hate you.

It could be that Trump's new special form of communication doesn't have enough wattage behind its signal.

Robert

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Robert Campbell
Corrected the Republican-Democrat differential in the NY primary

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

It's amazing how Donald Trump moves his lips all the time and makes what sound like English words come out... in torrents... most of them in front of video cameras... 5 or 6 days a week... and to you it's not talking.

Robert,

Ain't that something?

And it's amazing how Donald Trump puts up brick and mortar luxury buildings all over the world and sells them on the open market without coercion... in country after country with all the legalities that entails... oodles of them... and to you it's not producing.

I guess we're just two amazed people.

And the good part is we amaze each other.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

There's a presumption here that those negatives are going to stay the same.

They won't.

All this will change after the primaries are over.

I predict the negatives of both will go down sharply, but Trump's much faster than Clinton's because of her legal troubles. And maybe some hidden goodies Trump will spring on the public about her that he has held close to his chest for now (after all, he used to be a Clinton insider).

Don't forget the power of celebrity endorsements to move these numbers, too. There will be a ton load of celebrities on both sides endorsing all over the place.

Michael

I know change is possible from my own personal experience.

I used to be a serial killer.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

22 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

The Puffington does quote from a former official of the Service Employees International Union, which straddles the public and private sectors (both public and private hospitals, for example) and has provided the Obami with many a foot soldier.

Quote

 

These days, Republican presidential candidates generally take a hard line against unions, advocating policies that would further diminish organized labor’s role in the U.S. economy. But Trump’s angle isn’t so clear. He’s voiced support for anti-union right-to-work laws while on the campaign trail, but he’s also bragged about having good relationships with unions as a businessman. 

“He can draw on a well. And I just don’t know which well is he going to play in the general,” [Andy] Stern said [former head honcho at SEIU]. “Is he the anti-minimum wage, anti-union, pro-right-to-work [candidate]? Or does he become the I-love-unions [candidate]?”

 

All I can figure is that Donald Trump is completely ignorant of the dangers posed by unions of government employees, or he doesn't care about them.

I think its simply because he hasn't made it a campaign issue.  Labor will be talked about in the general, if not sooner.

In the article ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-unions-exclusive-idUSMTZSAPEC3BVV3QJO ) Trump said,

Quote

"I like right to work. My position on right to work is 100 percent," Trump said in a radio interview in South Carolina last month.

 

[PDS]

On 4/19/2016 at 9:03 AM, PDS said:

That interview is one of the single best explanations for Trump I have seen. 

I think the perfect bookend to Gingrich's statements in favor of Trump is the following article against Trump, with the money quote being  "[t]here’s a reason most Republicans and a vast majority of voters loathe Donald Trump: his vulgarity, his blistering ignorance, his constant dishonesty, his venality, and his utter lack of the knowledge, judgment, or temperament to be president of the United States. But of all his ugly characteristics, his endless stream of self-pity has become the most irritating feature of the most irritating candidate in modern political history."

That pretty much says it all. 

[KorbenDallas]

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Korben,

Umm, corn is grown by actual dirt farmers.  You can speak of an ethanol industry, but the people who grow it would be the first to laugh about a "corn industry."

From Business Insider, the meta header reads, "Facts about the Corn Industry."  ( http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-the-corn-industry-2012-7?op=1 )
From Popular Science, "Bats Are Worth $1 Billion To Corn Industry."  ( www.popsci.com/bats-are-worth-1-billion-to-corn-industry )
From the Center of Food Safety, "Corn Industry Injects More Fear into GMO Labeling Debate with False Claims of Higher Food Prices." ( http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/press-releases/4246/corn-industry-injects-more-fear-into-gmo-labeling-debate-with-false-claims-of-higher-food-prices# )
From the Nebraska Corn Board, "Nebraska Corn Industry Faced Challenge, Capitalized on Opportunity in 2015" ( http://www.nebraskacorn.org/news-releases/nebraska-corn-industry-faced-challenge-capitalized-on-opportunity-in-2015/ )

Pretty sure it's OK to call the corn industry the corn industry.  Here is what I was saying:

On 4/19/2016 at 0:12 AM, KorbenDallas said:

About the ethanol issue, I can see Trump's point that some of the corn industry's demand is due to the mandates, and abolishing them would put people out of work.  I can also see his point that the ethanol mandates can assist in US energy independence.  Of course subsidies aren't good for the average American, but until there is a better answer to our energy independence, perhaps supporting the mandates for now is the right thing to do.

I was doing a logical grouping, ethanol as a subgroup to the corn industry.
 

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

There's plenty of demand for corn under nearly any circumstance.  People eat it, it goes into all kinds of processed food that they also eat, and under normal conditions, the rest is fed to cows and hogs that people eventually end up eating.  Farming in Iowa has become extremely efficient, so hardly any jobs would be at stake.  And the reason unemployment is low in Iowa is that you either know what you're doing there or you move somewhere else.  (I'm an Iowa export, so I should know.)

Yes I was aware people eat corn, that it goes into processed foods, pet foods, feed, meat, etc.  The ethanol mandates have shifted demand for corn ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/ethanol-mandate-a-boon-to-iowa-alone-faces-rising-resistance.html ), so abolishing the mandates would lead to some job loss.  I don't know what the existing UE has to do with a future UE rate after hypothetically abolishing the ethanol mandates in Iowa.

 

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

There is no evidence that mandating the inclusion of ethanol (mostly derived from corn) in all of the gasoline sold at the pump does the slightest thing to either promote energy independence or to protect the environment.  You might want to consider, just for step 1, what goes into producing the fertilizer that gets applied to all the extra acres...  Subsidizing corn growing (well, super-subsidizing it, on top of the subsidies previously provided) encourages cultivation on marginal land (and even Iowa has some marginal land).  The enviros all gave up on corn-based ethanol years ago.

Well it's Trump's argument I was speaking of.  Substituting me for him in this paragraph is odd.  See the link above about corn based ethanol.

 

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Meanwhile, most of our food gets more expensive.  Maybe Donald Trump doesn't care, but why should we be perpetuating policies that screw American consumers, while leading, in bad years for the worldwide crop, to tortilla riots in Honduras?

Inflation is the primary factor in our increasing food costs.
 

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Oh, and any auto mechanic will tell you that 10% ethanol corrodes your engine over time.  An increased ethanol mandate would be for 15%, which I don't believe any car engine in the US is presently rated to handle.

It's the engine seals and gaskets that become damaged.  Engine wear can increase due to engine ping and having to push more fuel into the cylinders.
 

On 4/19/2016 at 5:55 PM, Robert Campbell said:

If Trump actually wants to push for energy independence, he could start with intoning "Cuomo" the way he currently intones "China."  Rip politicians who suppress fracking at least once every speech.  He could actually pay attention to Sarah Palin, for a change, by picking up her chant of "Drill, baby, drill."  Talk about how his big plan to shut down most of the Environmental Protection Agency (so it can't constantly expand its powers regardless of what Federal laws actually say).  Maybe point out that suppressing nuclear power plants (two good examples, practically in his back yard, are Shoreham, which got built but was forbidden to ever start running, and Indian Point, which New York's political power structure is now ringing down the curtain on) is not a way to achieve energy independence or to protect the environment.

Corn ethanol ain't about any of that.

I think he sees the system exists (effects of the mandates) and is making a decision.  Trump isn't considering ethanol a significant factor in energy independence, I used the word "assist" originally.

Trump is for clean coal and independence from overseas oil and gas.  I think we'll see a push for that when the time is right.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Cause if that's the kind of candidate they want, they can always vote for a Democrat.

Robert,

And here we have the central problem with you not getting Trump's appeal. You are still in the Democrat Republican paradigm. The establishment ruling class of both are the same thing in the minds of Trump supporters.

Let me take you into the head of a Trump supporter from a different angle (and without banter this time). I'm trying to make an effort to get you to see this, not agree with it. Once you see it, the rest is up to you. But, from your posts, I don't get any indication that you see it.

Before that, though, let me make an important point. You can replace the phrase "typical Trump supporter" with "Silent Majority" and you get the same kind of person.

Now to the inside of their heads.

1. Politicians, pundits, media people, crony capitalists, intellectuals, and others in the "ruling class" lie blatantly as part of their professional toolbox. Not all, but most. The most of the most. Trump supporters accept that. All they want to do is live and let live and so long as their lives are not too affected, they think let the social climbers and power seekers lie. Whatever...

2. Politicians, pundits, media people, crony capitalists, intellectuals, and others in the "ruling class" are intimately involved in the holy mess the world and America is currently in, and jobs are disappearing, the country's demographics are changing not organically, but by imposition, terrorists are striking on American soil, the US can't seem to end its Endless War machine, the borders are eroded and the US is gradually losing its sovereignty, violent race riots and public bigotry demonstrations have become common, and so on. These ruling class folks are either directly responsible, or they make intellectual and cultural smokescreens for those who are.

3. So long as this situation was an inconvenience, the typical Trump supporter didn't mind so much. Now that it is a pain point and it's hurting for real, the typical Trump supporter wants it fixed.

4. In two midterm elections, typical Trump supporters (i.e., the Silent Majority) gave the Republican politicians, pundits, media people, crony capitalists, intellectuals, and others in the "ruling class" the House, then the Senate. Why? To fix this shit.

5. The ruling class repaid the favor by running games in the backrooms so that Congress kept going along with Obama's agenda, not fixing this shit, and even making the problems worse. And the ruling class ran two milquetoast presidential candidates (chosen through backroom manipulations) who lost. 

6. As gravy, the ruling class kept up a public and private attitude that people like typical Trump supporters do not need to be taken seriously, that they were stupid, the inferior hoi polloi, the cattle, the unwashed masses. They were good for votes and paying taxes and nothing else.

7. The ruling class went too far this time and became totally discredited in the eyes of a typical Trump supporter. Not just a little discredited, which is something that can be fixed. Totally, irredeemably discredited. Trump supporters want them gone.

8. Trump appeared and addressed these frustrations (and others) in words Trump supporters can understand, starting with calling the ruling class a bunch of morons. (yay!  ) And Trump has a resume of doing what he says he will do. And he wants to fix their problems. It doesn't matter much what else he says or how confused it might sound to others. They believe him. They've seen what he can do.

9. Now, when typical Trump supporters hear questions and arguments from the ruling class, all they imagine is that the ruling class is trying to fool them again, or the intellectuals and pundits (even the honest ones) are trying to take their focus off the problems they want solved. In all cases, the purpose is to keep power in the ruling class and continue screwing the others (like the Silent Majority).

Actually, that may not be true in all cases, but that is how typical Trump supporters see it for all cases in the current context. And, notice, the pool of Trump supporters is growing.

That's about the best I can do.

Donald Trump will be our next president and you and other anti-Trump people should think about something. All these Trump supporters are going to have a public voice, especially about their beefs, whereas they did not before. If you need a decoder ring, now is a good time to get started on getting one.

(Oops... sorry... I said there would be no banter this post...  )

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

23 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Korben,

Can you put that explanation right here, in your own words?

It shouldn't take more than a paragraph.

Then we can evaluate it.

Robert

Trump wants to keep SS and Medicare funded by reducing waste and abuse in the system, and by using a macroeconomic approach by increasing the number of contributors through tax reform, healthcare reform, and trade reform (details on his website).

(That was one sentence.)

I am kind of busy in real life at the moment, I'd like to contribute more but I'm thinking I have to go back to semi-lurk mode and stick to short and spirited Trumpeter posts every now and again...

Go Trump!

[KorbenDallas]

[turkeyfoot]

Maestro, puleeeze.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-19/donald-trump-talks-with-his-hands-a-visual-dictionary

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can anyone see Peter here?

Thank you Maryland- what a great way to conclude the day! Will be back soon. #Trump2016 https://t.co/dNeTdMENdV pic.twitter.com/JbJYYpEsmo

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2016

I can't, so I'm asking...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

6 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Inflation is the primary factor in our increasing food costs.

Korben,

If you want to use such a pretentious term as the "corn industry," feel free.  The farmers will still be laughing at the media and their trade associations.

I was able to follow most of what you said, but stopped short at this one statement.  Do you really mean to imply that the price of corn is not a function of supply and demand?

Or that demand for corn to produce ethanol does not increase the total amount demanded, when added to all the demand for corn for food?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump wants to keep SS and Medicare funded by reducing waste and abuse in the system, and by using a macroeconomic approach by increasing the number of contributors through tax reform, healthcare reform, and trade reform (details on his website).

Korben,

OK, nice and succinct.

The entire Positions section of the Trump for President website (including the items on tax reform, healthcare reform, and trade reform) doesn't say one word about how Social Security and Medicare will be funded if Trump gets his way.

In 2015, Social Security cost $888 billion (24% of Federal expenditures), and Medicare cost $546 bil (15%). 

What does he plan to do with Social Security (and Medicare) taxes?  His tax reform plan is about personal and corporate income taxes, and the death tax.  And his income tax plan is designed the percentage of the population that doesn't pay income taxes... 

How does he plan to deal with the future unfunded liabilities of both programs?

It's interesting how Big Pharma is the one sector he's emphatically not interested in protecting...  But, OK, if he gets legal imports of prescription drugs still under patent from other countries (whose regulatory approval processes for drugs and medical devices aren't as lengthy or expensive as the FDA's), that would save the Medicare program something (no estimate provided on his site, however).

It's what WSS said about Trump's plan to replace Obamacare: Show us the pig, sir!

Except that his plan to replace Obamacare is much more detailed.

No one in his or her right mind would entrust matters of such importance to a guy who is basically saying: all is An Undertaking to Be Named Later, but you need merely trust to my unbounded beneficence and sagacity.

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

If he's elected, Robert, it won't be one guy, not even in the Executive branch.

[Robert Campbell]

6 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think he sees the system exists (effects of the mandates) and is making a decision.  Trump isn't considering ethanol a significant factor in energy independence, I used the word "assist" originally.

Trump is for clean coal and independence from overseas oil and gas.  I think we'll see a push for that when the time is right.

Korben,

Well, Trump is making a decision about corn-based ethanol, in any event.

Why not make the push you are talking about right now?  What is Trump waiting for?

Did he declare in favor of corn-based ethanol simply because Ted Cruz was against it?

Robert

PS. In light of the efficiency of American agriculture in 2016, or the percentage of the population that works in it, I don't see how you can be serious about diverting corn into ethanol production, damaging car engines for no discernible environmental benefit, in order to save the small number of jobs that would be affected.  Let's hope Trump holds no stake in any Iowa ethanol plants.

[Robert Campbell]

8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think its simply because he hasn't made it a campaign issue.  Labor will be talked about in the general, if not sooner.

Korben,

Labor will be talked about, all right.

The more important question is whether it will be talked about by Donald Trump.

What, again, is he waiting for?

Robert

[Roger Bissell]

29 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think he sees the system exists (effects of the mandates) and is making a decision.  Trump isn't considering ethanol a significant factor in energy independence, I used the word "assist" originally.

Trump is for clean coal and independence from overseas oil and gas.  I think we'll see a push for that when the time is right.

 

Korben,

Well, Trump is making a decision about corn-based ethanol, in any event.

Why not make the push you are talking about right now?  What is Trump waiting for?

Did he declare in favor of corn-based ethanol simply because Ted Cruz was against it?

Robert

PS. In light of the efficiency of American agriculture in 2016, or the percentage of the population that works in it, I don't see how you can be serious about diverting corn into ethanol production, damaging car engines for no discernible environmental benefit, in order to save the small number of jobs that would be affected.  Let's hope Trump holds no stake in any Iowa ethanol plants.

 

This whole ethanol bit is a perfect example of the insanity gripping our country and the government's meddling in the economy. It's like forcing people to subsidize candle-making and horse-cart driving, in order to "save jobs" - not realizing all the productive, resource-maximizing jobs that could have been created, if the taxpayers had been allowed to spend their money on things they wanted instead.

If it were possible to forcibly imprint in everyone's minds the wisdom and knowledge in Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson , by slipping some chemical into the water supply, I would cheerfully do it. The absence of that information from people's minds, and the presence of envy and altruism in far too many people's minds, is destroying us. It's only a matter of time, unless something far greater than the Trascists put a stop to the now-creeping-soon-galloping socialism-fascism taking over our land.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

54 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

No one in his or her right mind would entrust matters of such importance to a guy who is basically saying: all is An Undertaking to Be Named Later, but you need merely trust to my unbounded beneficence and sagacity.

 

And yet, the voters did not once, but twice. Remember Hope and Change and vague promises to "fundamentally transform our system"?

Is it sane and non-naive to believe that the Trascists with their ignorance-based and anger-motivated policy proposals and their pompous, vacuous promises to "make America great again" would be any less damaging to our economy and national defense than the Obamanations have been?

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Saint Trump. Saint Cruz.

[run for President]

Where did it all go wrong?

Trump.

Cruz.

--Brant

we want saints, we want saints, we want saints (or you're not good enough for the office [re Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt])