Donald Trump

[Roger Bissell]

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?

Yup.

And "useful idiot" is kind of a relative term. The leading candidates all have *plenty* of them. They are the loyalist transmitters of energy and enthusiasm for their favorite guy. Pots calling kettles black, often...

My favorite guy (in the GOP roster) is out of the running. <sigh> So, unlike some, I will be an idle idiot, asking skeptical questions from time to time, trying to get people to look at the candidates' actual statements and actions from time to time - no doubt, though, to little avail.

(E.g., I have tried to get relatives unsure about Trump because of his "empty bragging" and "lack of real substance" to look at his web page to see what his actual, official positions are, and then make up their minds. Apparently it's too much trouble for them.)

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Turkeyfoot,

There are some parallels between Weimar Germany and the current election, but not all that many.

Also, Trump has not made his money through war. On the contrary, he was against the Iraq invasion when everybody and their brother were for it.

Hitler had already been in jail for armed insurrection when he ran. And surrounded by bone-crunchers for real. I haven't heard any stories about Trump having people killed or mangled over anything, much less politics.

So a Hitler comparison kinda hits an emotional nerve, but as David's (PDS's) response showed, it doesn't pack much of a rhetorical punch anymore.

As an accurate analogy, it's too distant in characteristics. As an emotional analogy, Hitler has been overused. (You might get some traction if you develop this analogy along a comedic vein, but even then, it would require some serious comedic chops to get it right.)

If you want to express disdain for Trump, I suggest a different analogy.

I could come up with some devastating ones, and I have in private, but I won't let them out of the gate. You will have to come up with your own.

I'm a Trump groupie.

Michael

[Jonathan]

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.

Brooks on his excitement about Obama's pants:

"...we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president."

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

David,

Broaden your time frame.

Trump got up to bat several times. Then walked right off the field.

So even though the press covered his announcement, look at the content of what they were saying. The erudite wisdom being handed down from on high to Plebeians like myself was that Trump was not really in it to run. Nor would he stay in it long.

Go back and check the articles.

That is ignoring. They didn't ignore the celebrity Trump. They ignored him as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Then, when it looked like Trump was not going away this round like he did in previous ones, there was an outpouring of mirth along with the outrage that started with his illegal immigrant statement. Everybody fully expected the media and establishment backroom machinations to take out Trump, so they laughed and yukked along with their gotcha rage (most of which I believe is phony).

Now nobody's laughing.

I think pattern holds just fine.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

"What........... supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now."

Its not at all clear who wins if Trump wins.

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

Neither am I. I dont spend much time ruminating over either. One is dead and the other is a side show that resonates with a populace over little other than his confrontational stance. But since I listened to some history yesterday, it seemed appropriate to the discussion in the sense that those attitudes aren't new to the human condition. Lo all those years ago. It mostly revealed something personal about myself. When I first voted, for Reagan, it was the mans charm, not his assessment of states affairs. In the Kenndy/Nixon run up, I was chanting ditties based on personalities. Now that I can vote, based on my objective assessment, I find choices so poor that the choice available to me is my choice to not choose any candidate. )

[turkeyfoot]

Turkeyfoot,

If you want to express disdain for Trump, I suggest a different analogy.

I could come up with some devastating ones, and I have in private, but I won't let them out of the gate. You will have to come up with your own.

I'm a Trump groupie.

Michael

I said what the comparison was.

"What........... supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now."

It doesnt extend to everything we know about the two. Its a commentary and view of the electorate when, in my opinion, there isnt the substantive information that the candidate provides enough of to judge well. Yes, I know hes made declaratory statements, but wheres the beef? Its a general malaise or discontent with everything else that attracts lemmings to Trump. Hes lite in the loafers, imo, despite any rhetorical affect.

Hitler is overdone and gone. The attitudinal enthusiasm of falling over ones self expressed as interest in the personality - hes my candidate/waving flags ideal - is as American as apple pie and still prevalent and an obvious factor notwithstanding the grave dangers of stepping over the edge in this next election.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With Trump leaving the Fox debate (which I still give at 50/50), I have to change my banter.

I used to say: Drip... drip... drip...

Now I have to say: Thump... thump... thump...

Besides, thump rhymes with Trump.

Michael

[PDS]

"What........... supporters are for is they are against everything that exists now."

Its not at all clear who wins if Trump wins.

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

Neither am I. I dont spend much time ruminating over either. One is dead and the other is a side show that resonates with a populace over little other than his confrontational stance. But since I listened to some history yesterday, it seemed appropriate to the discussion in the sense that those attitudes aren't new to the human condition. Lo all those years ago. It mostly revealed something personal about myself. When I first voted, for Reagan, it was the mans charm, not his assessment of states affairs. In the Kenndy/Nixon run up, I was chanting ditties based on personalities. Now that I can vote, based on my objective assessment, I find choices so poor that the choice available to me is my choice to not choose any candidate. )

I agree with your third sentence.

[PDS]

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

David,

Broaden your time frame.

Trump got up to bat several times. Then walked right off the field.

So even though the press covered his announcement, look at the content of what they were saying. The erudite wisdom being handed down from on high to Plebeians like myself was that Trump was not really in it to run. Nor would he stay in it long.

Go back and check the articles.

That is ignoring. They didn't ignore the celebrity Trump. They ignored him as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Then, when it looked like Trump was not going away this round like he did in previous ones, there was an outpouring of mirth along with the outrage that started with his illegal immigrant statement. Everybody fully expected the media and establishment backroom machinations to take out Trump, so they laughed and yukked along with their gotcha rage (most of which I believe is phony).

Now nobody's laughing.

I think pattern holds just fine.

Michael

MSK: have you thought about attending law school? Your ability to change directions is pretty impressive...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK: have you thought about attending law school? Your ability to change directions is pretty impressive...

David,

I've always gotten along well with the lawyers I have hired.

They've said I frame well.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

A recent Trump tweet:

"Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016"

[william.scherk]

One more for MSK's boneheaded 'explanation' files? From the Washington Post, A newly released poll shows the populist power of Donald Trump

It appears from the PEPS data, then, that the Trump coalition unites resentment of minority groups with support for economically progressive policies.

That is also the takeaway from a collection of 19 surveys that have been conducted by YouGov every week or every other week between June 13 and Jan. 19. Each of those surveys asked its respondents to rate how important the issues of immigration and Social Security were to them.

The graph below shows that Trump’s support throughout the past several months has been particularly strong among Republicans who think that both immigration and Social Security are “very important.” GOP voters who prioritize both issues are now about 40 points more likely to support Trump than Republicans who did not prioritize either.

Bonus tasteless video of Trump kissing himself:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

These tweets speak for themselves.

 

This:

 

On Greta, 87% of the people said they would not watch the debate if I'm not in it. Wow- what an honor!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 28, 2016

 

And this:

 

FOX debate advertising rates falling like a rock! Tune into my special event for the Veterans at 9pm EST!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 28, 2016

 

Thump... thump... thump...

 

 

Michael

[Marc]

I will admit that he is toying with the media and fox and whoever .

Still though , delegates , delegates , delegates .

[Roger Bissell]

With Trump leaving the Fox debate (which I still give at 50/50), I have to change my banter.

I used to say: Drip... drip... drip...

Now I have to say: Thump... thump... thump...

Besides, thump rhymes with Trump.

Michael

Michael, maybe you should rethink that. Thump...thump....thump...sounds kinda like a tire going flat. (Unless that's what you meant.)

REB

[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?

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...)

You don't seem to understand Rand, Trump or Goldwater. On a minor point, qua "architectural aesthetics," did you ever see, by drawings and photographs, the house Goldwater lived in in Scottsdale, Arizona? On another point, Goldwater had little career as any kind of businessman nor did he aspire to. As for Trump's virtue as a businessman, you'll never find his like in Galt's Gulch. Unfortunately, the kinds of distortions that obtain through time are simply going to get worse as these historical figures recede from memory and testimony and morph into grotesqueries much worse than anything we can even willfully come up with today. If it was all that important--it's not, really--I'd write a memoir. It just grates.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

I kind of enjoyed the spectacle of Trump shutting down some reporter today at the press conference. It makes it all the more puzzling why he would turn into The Quitter when faced with the prospect of  Megyn or the very scary moderators with her.  Surely his most bizarre move yet. Not that it will make any difference among committed Iowa voters.  

 

I think the best reason for Trump fearing the debate was not Megyn bloodclot Kelly. I think he figured he could just ride out the clock until he stomps Ted Cruz February 1.  Why stand for scrutiny?  Why subject yourself to seering criticism?  So ride out the clock in Iowa. Smart move, Mr Trump. Those who think you are an asshole and a quitter will still think that. Those who think you will bring a New Dawn to America, well, their support is baked into the pie, I'd say.   

 

Still. He has been on Fox a bozillion times.  Shying away from a Fox debate he has agreed to, whatever the pretext, makes him look fearful and untrustworthy to waverers. That's my guess, anyhow.

Edited January 28, 2016 by william.scherk

[Roger Bissell]

I kind of enjoyed the spectacle of Trump shutting down some reporter today at the press conference. It makes it all the more puzzling why he would turn into The Quitter when faced with the prospect of Megyn or the very scary moderators with her. Surely his most bizarre move yet. Not that it will make any difference among committed Iowa voters.

I think the best reason for Trump fearing the debate was not Megyn bloodclot Kelly. I think he figured he could just ride out the clock until he stomps Ted Cruz February 1. Why stand for scrutiny? Why subject yourself to seering criticism? So ride out the clock in Iowa. Smart move, Mr Trump. Those who think you are an asshole and a quitter will still think that. Those who think you will bring a New Dawn to America, well, their support is baked into the pie, I'd say.

Still. He has been on Fox a bozillion times. Shying away from a Fox debate he has agreed to, whatever the pretext, makes him look fearful and untrustworthy to waverers. That's my guess, anyhow.

Boy, that Trump sure is a fast-talkin' city-slicker, ain't he!

But I agree with you that Trump's reason for bailing on tomorrow night's debate was something other than MegynoKellygical. Less like ride the calendar out (!), more like ride the clock out.

REB

[Peter]

Thump, thump, thump could be Trump having an anxiety attack or a medical emergency or he has decided that he really does not want to go through what it takes to be President. Call 911! Donald is having a heart attack! Thank goodness we have Cruz who was better to begin with.

Peter

.

[Roger Bissell]

The newest Trump anti-endorsement? Anne Frank's stepsister says Donald Trump is "acting like another Hitler." (I think she means he is acting like Adolph. )

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/28/anne-franks-stepsister-donald-trump-is-acting-like-another-hitler/21304182/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1682052247_htmlws-main-bb

REB

[KorbenDallas]

You don't seem to understand Rand, Trump or Goldwater. On a minor point, qua "architectural aesthetics," did you ever see, by drawings and photographs, the house Goldwater lived in in Scottsdale, Arizona? On another point, Goldwater had little career as any kind of businessman nor did he aspire to. As for Trump's virtue as a businessman, you'll never find his like in Galt's Gulch. Unfortunately, the kinds of distortions that obtain through time are simply going to get worse as these historical figures recede from memory and testimony and morph into grotesqueries much worse than anything we can even willfully come up with today. If it was all that important--it's not, really--I'd write a memoir. It just grates.

--Brant

Why would I want to understand Goldwater? He's your arbitrary

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Less like ride the calendar out (!), more like ride the clock out.

Roger,

That might be true. Trump's goal is to win, not play games according to arbitrary rules of what this person or that thinks he should do.

It's like a football team up in points running out the clock in the fourth quarter.

I never see anyone insinuating this is cowardice or something to laugh about in football. Instead, they treat it as being savvy.

And don't forget, Trump once tried to get a new football league going (one of his few failures). He loves the game, football, that is. And he knows it inside and out. Notice that football is a competition where there can only be one winner in the final championship.

The election for president has that in common, so, where it works, why not play the election process like football games?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm posting the following WaPo article only because I like the headline.

I skimmed the article and it's boilerplate coverage, but that headline has a little something to it:

Republican debate: Seven candidates against the man who isn’t there

Michael

[william.scherk]

"@BradCross4: @Drudge_Report_ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/Ur1qgG291Z"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

January 28, 2016

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a tweet from Sarah:
 
Media: Here, Let Me Define For You a Genuine "Game Changer"

Media: Here, Let Me Define For You a Genuine "Game Changer" Regarding Donald Trump honoring our U.S. Veterans... https://t.co/kieBMOC1I3

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA)

January 28, 2016

 

And here's the text from her Facebook link:
 

Media: Here, Let Me Define For You a Genuine "Game Changer"
 
Regarding Donald Trump honoring our U.S. Veterans instead of playing tonight's much ballyhooed media debate game: of course Trump owns the issue. And he'll own tonight.
 
Any "journalist" or media outlet perched upon a pedestal all spun up for ratings' sake, pretending to be King Maker in a Presidential election, obviously can't understand how passé and laughable an elitist attitude is to Americans. Trump just spoke for the majority of us who are through with a prejudice press and a political hierarchy expecting us to hit our knees at their command. Enough is enough; Trump's victory on this issue proves we have a choice. The courageous GOP frontrunner is speaking for us with his "screw it, biased media... the people deserve better" red line. Finally. Trump will now lead others with this empowerment to go around media filters and egos and everything else that's stood between people with a heart to serve and the voters. This is a genuine game changer, and media assumptions of all stripes can never be the same. Candidates speaking directly with us is what we've craved, as opposed to the mocking heads' narratives crafted behind cameras, teleprompters, and an airbrushed "flawlessness" that's more transparent than they've realized. It's been a sad herd mentality and a lot of laziness on the part of many mediums that result in a targeted person's trashed record and reputation. That's changing; that's why they're coming unglued. Trump's entire candidacy exposes government and media establishments' politics of destruction, and his efforts allow us to connect more dots, which has rocked their insular world. Light shining on all this is good! We're on our way to a great awakening that will make America great again, by the grace of God!
 
Of course choosing a patriotic military event over yet one more orchestrated debate is a winning, rogue move on Trump's part. He gets to continue answering voters' questions directly; he's holding accountable a bulwark of democracy - our free press - all while assisting and celebrating America's finest who paid the price defending that freedom.
 
Silly politicians calling Trump "chicken" for choosing a U.S. Veterans fundraiser don't want you to know that all the complainers tonight - the ENTIRE field under the RNC - skipped out on NBC hosting next month's debate in Houston, citing unfair treatment by CNBC moderators. The Republican machine refused participation until host changes were made, and then it was applause all around for making that call. Hypocrisy, much, boys? Like Ronald Reagan deftly (and unapologetically) skipping his last Iowa debate, Rush Limbaugh explains why it's stupid to hand bullets to a firing squad ready to do its thing:
 
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/27/trump_refuses_to_play_by_the_rules
 
Feel free at last, electorate! We can go elsewhere to seek truthful information that includes a candidate's voting record, their responsibility in spending other people's money and balancing budgets, their record of negotiating to win, their private sector acumen and personal accomplishments, who they're beholden to, if they've incentivized more illegal aliens to flood our borders with gifts and freebies - making America much less secure... oh, and so much more! Like, if politics is their profession in perpetuity, which is the antithesis of our Founders' vision. Really, it's our responsibility as freedom-keepers to do our own homework on candidates asking us to hire them. Be confident you are so much better than what you're fed via much of the media, especially during election season. With today's research technology, trustworthy citizen journalists can help provide accurate information. So can those of us who studied journalism and earned our college degrees in the field, or - no doubt more importantly - those from the school of hard knocks with OTJ career creds who learned the sacredness of "Who, What, Where, When, and Why" press rules and ethos.
 
Today's professional "journalists" have underestimated the wisdom of the people. They've wrongly assumed this as a sheep-like population, gullible and easily kept in line by a media scepter, never finding an independent candidate strong enough to break the chains of status quo. But that candidate stepped forth and the movement is underway. With an undeniable, unmatched record of success, Trump proves his work ethic and skills far surpass politicians' constant yakking about their self-recognized "leadership" that gets us nowhere. Much more powerful are a person's accomplishments than are these tired poll-tested memorized memes that conventional candidates pay consultants to draft for them. America will be made great again when the permanent political and media class is sent that message. It starts in Iowa.
 
- Sarah Palin
 
(P.S. Is it just me, or if a debate host has made himself or herself the principal in a story they're expected to objectively cover for the edification of the public, and they even acknowledge they're the reason the frontrunner chooses not to participate, then isn't it common sense (and courtesy to the voting public) to simply, humbly allow someone else to moderate the debate? With all due respect, what a strange game at play. It's at the expense of straight-shooting candidates gunning in competition for the nation's top administrative position, and more importantly, at the expense of Americans who deserve to hear them instead of the cries from a pity-partying press with noses out of joint because someone finally took a stand for common sense and an even playing field.

 
Man, it just keeps getting better and better.
 

 
Michael