Donald Trump

[Roger Bissell]

The latest, just announced, is that Trump is refusing to appear on Thursday night's debate. Any bets as to whether he changes his mind, in response to pleas from supporters or Reince Priebus or whoever?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Woah...

 

I'm starting to see something else.

 

 

I still loves me some controversy.

 

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

This is apparently the statement that Trump was referring to:

FOX News: "We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is apparently the statement that Trump was referring to:

FOX News: "We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings."

Jonathan,

Here's a Mediaite link: Fox News Responds to Trump’s Latest ’Twitter Poll’ With First-Rate Trolling.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

[KorbenDallas]

Like this video:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/01/26/donald-trump-reporter-clash-quote-sot.cnn

Trump catches this reporter trying to commit a logical fallacy of accenting against him, calls him out on it, and correctly goes after the reporter's amorality. Then, Trump doesn't apologize (and it probably never occurred to him). That's self esteem. And moral.

[Brant Gaede]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Korben,

You see exactly what I see.

I can't channel Rand, but I would bet as you if I could. And I think we would win that bet.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . .

--Brant

appeal to whom?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is copy/pasted from Trump's most recent Facebook post:

TRUMP CAMPAIGN STATEMENT ON FOX NEWS DEBATE

(New York, NY) January 26th, 2016 - As someone who wrote one of the best-selling business books of all time, The Art of the Deal, who has built an incredible company, including some of the most valuable and iconic assets in the world, and as someone who has a personal net worth of many billions of dollars, Mr. Trump knows a bad deal when he sees one. FOX News is making tens of millions of dollars on debates, and setting ratings records (the highest in history), where as in previous years they were low-rated afterthoughts.

Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn’t play games. There have already been six debates, and according to all online debate polls including Drudge, Slate, Time Magazine, and many others, Mr. Trump has won all of them, in particular the last one. Whereas he has always been a job creator and not a debater, he nevertheless truly enjoys the debating process - and it has been very good for him, both in polls and popularity.

He will not be participating in the FOX News debate and will instead host an event in Iowa to raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians. Like running for office as an extremely successful person, this takes guts and it is the kind mentality our country needs in order to Make America Great Again.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . .

--Brant

appeal to whom?

Brant's right: money isn't everything, unless you're a nationalist populist protectionist pragmatist "deal-maker" - and then it *is* everything.

What would Rand have said about Trump? She'd probably point to Atlas Shrugged character Floyd Ferris, who used the power of government to steal Rearden's patents, and say: what didn't you get? (Ferris was going to use those patents "in the public interest" - for his own power and aggrandizement, of course - and no doubt jobs and wealth would be created by means of that theft. Gee, a real producer.)

I'm also reminded of the phrase she used to describe "industrialist" Orren Boyle: "pig slits of eyes." (To the GOP candidates: if the pig slits fit, wear them.)

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Trump telling Brett Baier earlier today he intends to govern based on the Constitution. He elaborated and was quite specific, both in his intent and in his admiration for the Constitution.

 

And, at the end, he tells Baier to his face he will probably not do the Fox debate on Thursday because of the press release.

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... you emitted a string of more videos at the intellectual level of the Hee Haw as if to say, "How did you miss the Sarah Palin poetry buffoonery? It's been around for ages." In this water, Sarah Palin has been defined and trounced.

I want to pick up on a parallel theme to the above about Sarah Palin.

There's a quote often attributed to Ghandi (he probably didn't say it, but it still reflects an observable pattern): "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Think about Donald Trump's campaign so far. First nobody paid attention. Then they laughed. Hoot 'n hollar yuk yuk time for weeks and weeks. Suddenly he's not so funny. Right now they are fighting. And we all know what's coming at the end--he wins.

What happened to Sarah is atypical according to this pattern, but it will still kick in at the end.

They couldn't ignore her in the beginning because she was projected into the widest possible national spotlight from one minute to the next. It was like an on-off switch. Then when the stunned opposition recovered a bit and started laughing, Sarah's own staff started sabotaging her. Total elitist betrayal. Then McCain lost and she resigned as governor due to a swarm of frivolous lawsuits. The perception was she lost the "fight" stage that was just starting for real.

Without power, she went about influencing local elections based on her core supporters alone. And approximately half of the people she supported won their elections--a huge percentage when compared against others. For example, on a quick Google search, I came up with this for 2010. Palin endorsed 64 candidates: 33 won, 20 lost, 10 lost in the primaries, and 1 was undecided.

Meanwhile, since she kept a public presence, the press kept up its string of laughing at her. Satire with political weight popped up with names like "The Sarah Palin Fartknocker Report." (yuk yuk...) Since she had no political power of her own, but political power was the game, she wasn't able to cut through to the "fight" stage again.

With Trump's election, I am absolutely sure he will make it so the ones still laughing at her will start swinging at her with everything they've got. If he does what I think he will do, I even predict she will get the presidency down the line.

My point is the laughing at Palin right now does not bother me because I know a vicious brawl is right around the corner where nobody will think anything is funny anymore.

Then, finally, she will win.

Michael

[Marc]

Is Barry Diller on this site ???????

Years ago ( and I have no idea how to search this ) , I recall reading a thread about some anonymous poster here who was a billionaire .

So , obviously he took my comment from this very thread !!!!!!!!!!!

Barry Diiler is our anonymous posting ( or stealing ) billionaire .

And he agrees with me !

And then there were 4

[PDS]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Korben,

You see exactly what I see.

I can't channel Rand, but I would bet as you if I could. And I think we would win that bet.

Michael

No, I think you would lose this bet. Big time.

Rand's bullshit detector was incredible, except when turned on herself.

I think she would see right through Trump for the Bullshit Artist that he is.

[Peter]

Welcome to Team Trump. Thank you for getting involved with my effort to become your next President. I hope to see you on the campaign trail soon!

This business with Fox is moronic. They are supposed to be the conservative news station and look how they treat me. As I said I will not be attending their biased debate tomorrow night. Instead I am going to a support our veterans rally. But I do have a proposal for Fox. I will attend the earlier debate, the one without that Megyn Kelly. And I invite any of the other top candidates to join me. Imagine the uproar. Just watch to see which debate gets the good ratings.

See you tomorrow night. It will be a hoot.
Donald D. Trump.

I actually did just contact their campaign and suggested he attend the six pm debate.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a quote often attributed to Ghandi (he probably didn't say it, but it still reflects an observable pattern): "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Think about Donald Trump's campaign so far. First nobody paid attention. Then they laughed. Hoot 'n hollar yuk yuk time for weeks and weeks. Suddenly he's not so funny. Right now they are fighting. And we all know what's coming at the end--he wins.

There's another event pattern I forgot about, but the lefties over at Salon picked right up on.

The five stages of grief.

Here's an article where they totally trash David Brooks and peg his articles to the five stages of grief. It's a hoot.

David Brooks is freaking out: Why the voice of the conservative establishment is finally panicking

The NYT columnist has been going through the five stages of grief in full public view. What's next?

by Gary Legum

Salon

Jan. 27, 2016

I'll let you read it, but with this thought in mind.

David Brooks is what Lenin called a "useful idiot." He thinks he will be rewarded by the leftie folks for the leftie altruistic compromises he preaches to the right-wing masses while posturing as a moral authority.

Right now they are skinning him alive and preparing the barbecue spit.

That's how they treat useful idiots after they become useless.

Apropos, I wonder if a five stages of grief analysis can be applied to the establishment Republicans in general about Trump. Or even to the lefties. I bet it can...

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

Gregor Strasser, #2 man to Hitler (1932) as people were going to the polls. These are choices being made over whether to choose Hindenburg (social democrats) or the upstart Hitler (Nazis) who are neither right or left, its not clear but they're chiefly a party about enthusiasm. "What Hitler (Trump) supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now." Paraphrased, "That is really what Hitler (Trump) presents. In other words, If you dont like it hes the man against it. Hes very not specific about what hes going to do about it." ("Im going to hire smart people") Reporter; "If you believe in heaven you dont care if theres a gold standard there, you dont worry about details, you just wonder if youre going to get there or not and whos going to take you."

Its not at all clear who wins if Trump wins.

[Jules Troy]

You can't stump The Trump!

[Jonathan]

What would Rand have said about Trump?

I think that Rand's view of Trump would have depended on whether or not he praised her and her work. If he had said that she was really great, and that her work was really great stuff, and that her philosophy was really, really great, she would have adored him and gushed about him. She would have written heroic/scolding pieces defending him (like the Marilyn Monroe piece, or the rocket launch one).

I think she'd also identify with his rebellious attitude, and his setting his own terms and playing by his own rules. She would love his "sense of life." Heroic bad boy. No fear or guilt.

She'd probably point to Atlas Shrugged character Floyd Ferris, who used the power of government to steal Rearden's patents, and say: what didn't you get? (Ferris was going to use those patents "in the public interest" - for his own power and aggrandizement, of course - and no doubt jobs and wealth would be created by means of that theft. Gee, a real producer.)

No, that's what you'd say, not what Rand would. She'd have a crush on Trump, just like Roark had one on Wynand. In fact, that's who she'd say Trump is: A grown up and reformed Wynand.

I'm also reminded of the phrase she used to describe "industrialist" Orren Boyle: "pig slits of eyes." (To the GOP candidates: if the pig slits fit, wear them.)

Seriously? You're resorting to physiognomy because you saw it in Rand's fiction? What's next, phrenology? Eugenics?

J

[KorbenDallas]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . .

--Brant

appeal to whom?

It wasn't my point to judge someone's efficacy (moral virtue of productiveness) by looking at their net worth. My point was that Rand highly valued businessmen who earn their money by virtue, and Goldwater isn't close to being the same kind of businessman using this standard. Nor was I saying that Rand would give full moral approval to Trump, she'd have a lot to value, including (some, to whatever degree) his architectural aesthetics that Goldwater didn't possess. (Reminder that Rand wept when she saw the skyscrapers of NYC...)

...

What would Rand have said about Trump? She'd probably point to Atlas Shrugged character Floyd Ferris, who used the power of government to steal Rearden's patents, and say: what didn't you get? (Ferris was going to use those patents "in the public interest" - for his own power and aggrandizement, of course - and no doubt jobs and wealth would be created by means of that theft. Gee, a real producer.)

I'm also reminded of the phrase she used to describe "industrialist" Orren Boyle: "pig slits of eyes." (To the GOP candidates: if the pig slits fit, wear them.)

REB

Patent stealing doesn't have the same hierarchical root as imminent domain. If imminent domain is used correctly, as Trump has adequately shown over the years after responding to attacks, I don't have a problem with it.

[PDS]

There's a quote often attributed to Ghandi (he probably didn't say it, but it still reflects an observable pattern): "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Think about Donald Trump's campaign so far. First nobody paid attention. Then they laughed. Hoot 'n hollar yuk yuk time for weeks and weeks. Suddenly he's not so funny. Right now they are fighting. And we all know what's coming at the end--he wins.

There's another event pattern I forgot about, but the lefties over at Salon picked right up on.

The five stages of grief.

Here's an article where they totally trash David Brooks and peg his articles to the five stages of grief. It's a hoot.

David Brooks is freaking out: Why the voice of the conservative establishment is finally panicking

The NYT columnist has been going through the five stages of grief in full public view. What's next?

by Gary Legum

Salon

Jan. 27, 2016

I'll let you read it, but with this thought in mind.

David Brooks is what Lenin called a "useful idiot." He thinks he will be rewarded by the leftie folks for the leftie altruistic compromises he preaches to the right-wing masses while posturing as a moral authority.

Right now they are skinning him alive and preparing the barbecue spit.

That's how they treat useful idiots after they become useless.

Apropos, I wonder if a five stages of grief analysis can be applied to the establishment Republicans in general about Trump. Or even to the lefties. I bet it can...

Michael

When was there a time when nobody paid attention to Trump's candidacy?

A quick google search shows that, on the day he announced, it was covered by every national news organization, including the New York Times. I would call this the opposite of being "ignored." And, given the wall to wall coverage of Trump ever since, I think we would need to amend the Ghandi reference rather dramitically to try to shoehorn it into reality.

In fact, this thread has made it clear that Trump fancies himself as something of a master of the just the opposite of being ignored. He has trolled the national and local press for publicity since day 1. Isn't that why he announced no more Muslims, i.e., so everybody would go ape-shit and he would reap the free publicity that came in its wake? Hasn't he done this again, again, and again?

[PDS]

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever.

I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too.

--Brant

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . .

--Brant

appeal to whom?

It wasn't my point to judge someone's efficacy (moral virtue of productiveness) by looking at their net worth. My point was that Rand highly valued businessmen who earn their money by virtue, and Goldwater isn't close to being the same kind of businessman using this standard. Nor was I saying that Rand would give full moral approval to Trump, she'd have a lot to value, including (some, to whatever degree) his architectural aesthetics that Goldwater didn't possess. (Reminder that Rand wept when she saw the skyscrapers of NYC...)

...

What would Rand have said about Trump? She'd probably point to Atlas Shrugged character Floyd Ferris, who used the power of government to steal Rearden's patents, and say: what didn't you get? (Ferris was going to use those patents "in the public interest" - for his own power and aggrandizement, of course - and no doubt jobs and wealth would be created by means of that theft. Gee, a real producer.)

I'm also reminded of the phrase she used to describe "industrialist" Orren Boyle: "pig slits of eyes." (To the GOP candidates: if the pig slits fit, wear them.)

REB

Patent stealing doesn't have the same hierarchical root as imminent domain. If imminent domain is used correctly, as Trump has adequately shown over the years after responding to attacks, I don't have a problem with it.

Eminent domain is explicitly endorsed in the Constiution, so there is no doubt it is legal.

But, as John Cougar might say, "hey, calling it your job ole' Hoss sure don't make it right."

[PDS]

Gregor Strasser, #2 man to Hitler (1932) as people were going to the polls. These are choices being made over whether to choose Hindenburg (social democrats) or the upstart Hitler (Nazis) who are neither right or left, its not clear but they're chiefly a party about enthusiasm. "What Hitler (Trump) supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now." Paraphrased, "That is really what Hitler (Trump) presents. In other words, If you dont like it hes the man against it. Hes very not specific about what hes going to do about it." ("Im going to hire smart people") Reporter; "If you believe in heaven you dont care if theres a gold standard there, you dont worry about details, you just wonder if youre going to get there or not and whos going to take you."

Its not at all clear who wins if Trump wins.

I'm not a big fan of Trump or Hitler analogies...