Donald Trump

[Selene]

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Heh.

Michael

Michael:

Dennis Rodman is a good to excellent basketball player.

When is surrounded by certain team oriented players and he stays within his superior skills at defense, offensive and defensive rebounds and starting the fast breaks and trailing behind to clean up, he achieves excellence.

Also, Is there a reason that a person's e-mail now cannot "receive e-mails?"

A...

[Selene]

Could be time for party hats!

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20160221-20160226/type/day

The Donald just keeps increasing his lead as this primary moves to the national stage on Tuesday, March 1st, 2016.

Looks like it is going to be the real start of Making America Great Again!

Good job Mr. Trump. 

We expect nothing less from a great producer like yourself.

A...

 

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Selene said:

The Donald just keeps increasing his lead as this primary moves to the national stage on Tuesday, March 1st, 2016.

Which primary do you mean? The excitement is surely building for Tuesday's contests. The winner-take-all states most seem to be in the bag for Mr Trump:  Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.  It could be an utter sweep.  Even in the proportional states, particular rules in place like thresholds and allocation formulas also favor the first-place finisher, so Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas and Wyoming could also fall almost completely to Trump's plurality.

Now, if you mean that Trump's national polling numbers keep increasing -- using the daily Reuters's numbers at the link, it pays to look at a month-average:

-- anyway, Mr Trump can, with wins in all or most, amass almost all of the 25% of delegates allocated by next Tuesday. The real sure point in the campaign comes -- in my opinion -- when roughly half of delegates are won, March 15. If Trump is near a majority of the delegates at that time, his way forward become easier -- as March 15 is also the cut-off date for proportional contests. 

Then, there comes the convention, with its ultra hoopla, and then these numbers need to budge for the full crow ... also from Reuters:

[Selene]

23 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Now, if you mean that Trump's national polling numbers keep increasing -- using the daily Reuters's numbers at the link, it pays to look at a month-average:

 

Again, the point of that snapshot, combined with the understanding of folks, including myself, who have worked in this environment, is that Super Tuesday moves from a state by state analysis to a national analysis.

However, where candidates choose to contend in what % of the approximately 20+ states reveals what their desperation level and mid-term strategy has become.

That is the only reason I chose that Reuters snapshot because it is a rolling daily average and reflects any "hits" from the Rubio "performance" on Thursday. 

I expected it to backfire on the Senator. 

Apparently, it certainly has helped The Donald in the short term and if it peaks on Tuesday it could put The Donald in the full drivers seat to the nomination.

It is interesting that you actually go out of your way to misinterpret a person's statements.  The monthly average is meaningless at this point because the race has now become a national race.

A...

[Jonathan]

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- it looks like a few anti-Trump core stories are coalescing. Here is the panjandrum of language acquisition, on the subject of Donald Trump. Just as with Bidinotto, a grand theory -- but only half as convincing:

Donald Trump Is Winning Because White America Is Dying
Noam Chomsky says Trump's rise is partly due to deeply rooted -- and potentially fatal -- feelings of fear and anger...

...A Nobel Memorial Prize-winning study on the issue found that the rising death rate for this group is not due to the ailments that commonly kill so many Americans, like diabetes and heart disease, but rather by an epidemic of suicides, liver disease caused by alcohol abuse, and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids.

“No war, no catastrophe," Chomsky says, has caused the spiking mortality rate for this population. "Just the impact of policies over a generation that have left them, it seems, angry, without hope, frustrated, causing self-destructive behavior."

 

The above sounds exactly like the effects that the imposition of communism had on Russia's population, which also had been used to having much better lives. Hopelessness, severe alcoholism as a means of trying to escape the misery of brutal policies from which the policy makers had exempted themselves, and self-destruction.

And today the attitude among our "elite" is "What's wrong with these undereducated kooks? Why aren't they grateful for everything that the wonderful, benevolent, generous government is giving to them and doing for them? They're so irrationally angry and biting the hand that feeds them! They need to be led and taken care of, but they don't appreciate all of the help that we're giving them. It just proves how crazy and incapable they are, and how much more we have to do to restrain them and protect them from themselves!"

J

[Roger Bissell]

Real Clear Politics says:

General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton, Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Kasich (R)	Clinton (D)	Spread
RCP Average	2/10 - 2/17	--	--	47.7	40.3	Kasich +7.4
FOX NewsFOX News	2/15 - 2/17	1031 RV	3.0	47	44	Kasich +3
QuinnipiacQuinnipiac	2/10 - 2/15	1342 RV	2.7	47	39	Kasich +8
USA Today/SuffolkUSA Today	2/11 - 2/15	1000 LV	3.0	49	38	Kasich +11

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton, Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Clinton (D)	Trump (R)	Spread
RCP Average	2/2 - 2/17	--	--	45.3	42.5	Clinton +2.8
FOX NewsFOX News	2/15 - 2/17	1031 RV	3.0	47	42	Clinton +5
USA Today/SuffolkUSA Today	2/11 - 2/15	1000 LV	3.0	43	45	Trump +2
QuinnipiacQuinnipiac	2/10 - 2/15	1342 RV	2.7	44	43	Clinton +1
PPP (D)PPP (D)	2/2 - 2/3	1236 RV	2.8	47	40	Clinton +7

This is very interesting data and raises some interesting questions:

If Hillary beats Trump (in the polls), and Kasich beats Hillary (in the polls), then why is Trump beating Kasich in the primaries? Well, probably because Kasich has a lot more crossover Democrat support than Trump does. Which means that the primary process isn't going to select the candidate best able to beat Hillary in November.

For a party's ideological purity (?), this doesn't matter. In 1964, the GOP nominated Goldwater, whom the majority of the party wanted, but the majority of the country didn't want. The party kept its ideological moorings and eventually (16 years later) won the White House.

But for winning elections, it really does matter. In 2016, the majority of the country apparently wants Kasich (over Hillary), yet the majority of the GOP does *not* want Kasich (over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio). So, if the GOP picks one of the parenthetical trio, it will both lose the election and give up its (tattered) ideological moorings at the same time.

This raises a real dilemma for the GOP and especially for the RNC, if these poll results hold firm between now and the GOP convention. Should they intervene and impose a consensus/victory candidate - or allow "the will of the people" to dictate the choice of nominee? (The DNC faces a similar situation if Hillary is hauled off to prison or even indicted.)

REB

[Selene]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

On 2/24/2016 at 10:16 PM, Selene said:

Gerald Ford?

Utah Senator Orren "Quisling" Hatch?

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/

I would rather get Saudi Arabia's endorsement.

As more of these Corporatist's gravitate to his campaign the more problems he generates in the general election.

This will kill the current Republican Party if they pull off this Corporatist Coup,  

Watch out for Kasich Marc because when Marco runs into more trouble, Johnny boy will be a very marketable candidate for the

Corporatists.  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin come into play quickly with Kasitch.

A Kasitch - Rubio ticket makes more sense and it gives the kid a chance to learn and work the room for at least four (4) years.

A...

 

They dragged out this ole RINO hag to endorse Kasich today.

It reflects an indication of some of the donor/establishment group are not satisfied with the little boy Presidential candidate that you are backing.

He has his new robotic talking points which he used in a press conference today.  He also used them at a really well attended rally at a Christian school in Congressman Austin Scott's 8th Congressional District.  This will include Valdesta SE corner of the District, Tifton and Warner Robins NW corner of District with Robins Air Force Base.  

The boy Presidential candidate is going to have to do well here.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/GA/8

Beware the Ide's Of March lover of the boy President to be?

Oops, forgot about the ole RINO Hag...Christie Todd Whitman!!!!

GW's EPA Administrator who "verified" that the air quality after 911 was fine!

This hack defied basic logic.  I played softball with electricians, steel workers and crane operators who built the damn buildings and they were furious about that incompetant statement, or, outright falsehood.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/whitman_endorses_ohio_gov_john_kasich.html

Quote

In December, Whitman penned a provocative piece in Politico comparing Trump to fascist dictators.

"It is no longer a stretch to compare Donald Trump, and some of the other current Republican candidates for president, to some of the worst dictators in history," according to Whitman's essay.

"Trump especially is employing the kind of hateful rhetoric and exploiting the insecurities of this nation, in much the same way that allowed Hitler and Mussolini to rise to power in the lead-up to World War II. The parallels are chilling."

In an interview Friday afternoon, Whitman called Christie's endorsement "disappointing but not a surprise."

Whitman said she hoped her endorsement would help Kasich as Super Tuesday approaches. She said she wanted voters in this 12 states to know "there is a still a lot happening and there is room to change."

And what does a withered 'ole RINO Hag look like?  Behold...

 

A...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Should they intervene and impose a consensus/victory candidate - or allow "the will of the people" to dictate the choice of nominee?

Roger,

You mean should we have a coronation instead of an election?

I always thought people in the USA were supposed to choose who they wanted by majority vote (adapted against abuse by the checks and balances of many elections in the primary process and the general election's electoral college) instead of getting someone appointed and rammed down their throats by a minority elite.

That's a hell of a phrase of yours about "imposing a consensus." Who is supposed to do the imposing?

We can't have the will of the people brutally dictate who the candidate will be, now can we? We need a responsive and reasonable intervention by the honorable elites to impose the right choice on duped stupid voters so the American people will get what is good for them whether they want it or not. That way it's win-win. The elites win because they are inherently superior and the people win, even if they don't know it yet and don't want it. I mean if the elites at the top don't look out for the poor bastards in the masses and make them choose the right thing, those fools will jump off a cliff.

Am I back in Brazil?

Michael

[Selene]

Paging Mr. Plato...Call For Mr. Plato...

                                                                               

 

He does look a lot like the boy President though...

A...

[Roger Bissell]

31 minutes ago, Selene said:

some of the donor/establishment group are not satisfied with the little boy Presidential candidate that you are backing.

Perhaps you're thinking of Marc? I'm not a Rubio supporter. I just have enjoyed the way he (and Cruz) thumped Trump earlier this week.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I always thought people in the USA were supposed to choose who they wanted by majority vote (adapted against abuse by the checks and balances of many elections in the primary process and the general election's electoral college) instead of getting someone appointed and rammed down their throats by a minority elite.

That's a hell of a phrase of yours about "imposing a consensus." Who is supposed to do the imposing?

We can't have the will of the people brutally dictate who the candidate will be, now can we? We need a responsive and reasonable intervention by the honorable elites to impose the right choice on duped stupid voters so the American people will get what is good for them whether they want it or not. That way it's win-win. The elites win because they are inherently superior and the people win, even if they don't know it yet and don't want it. I mean if the elites at the top don't look out for the poor bastards in the masses and make them choose the right thing, those fools will jump off a cliff.

This confuses the November election process with the party nominating process. The latter evolved *outside* the specific provisions of the Constitution and amendments, and the rules are made by the leaders of each party. 

Perhaps some people didn't notice how, in 2012, Ron Paul was excluded from the brokering process at the convention because he won only 7 states instead of 8, that threshold conveniently being reset just before the convention in order to deliberately exclude him. Similar machinations have kept some people on or off the debate stage, as we saw during the past couple of months. 

I'm not approving of this reality, just pointing it out, and reminding us that this is what is likely to happen this summer - perhaps in both parties, actually. The parties are in charge of the nominating process, and they can change the rules any time they want. There is no provision by the federal government that the candidate selected in the most state primaries or with the largest popular vote total be the one selected. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a thing as "super delegates," would there!

As for the "masses," that is one reason the Checks and Balances of the federal Constitution were designed - to keep the "will" (in some cases the *rage*) of the people from tearing the government apart - to insulate the electing and functioning of government officials from direct democracy, which is basically mob rule. Which is also what a non-ideological, populist movement like Trumpism is.

(Which is one reason why it was a big mistake to amend the Constitution to require direct election of U.S. Senators. The Senate was supposed to be elected by a different constituency than the House - by local/state government leaders rather than the population at large. The amendment destroyed that balancing mechanism.)

I'm just an observe and a commenter - pointing out what is likely to happen and what decisions will need to be made before long, if those likelihoods actually develop.

I would add that if the GOP leadership does broker someone other than Trump for its nominee, Trump may very well make good on his threat and run a third-party campaign. Or fourth-party, if Bloomberg jumps in first. And that, as my granddaddy used to say, would be a real mell of a hess. 

[Roger Bissell]

41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Am I back in Brazil?

Hope springs eternal. 

REB

[Selene]

16 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Perhaps you're thinking of Marc? I'm not a Rubio supporter. I just have enjoyed the way he (and Cruz) thumped Trump earlier this week.

REB

Lol, no REB, I know the difference between you two. 

I was just riffing off MSK's take down of your argument...

A...

[william.scherk]

3 hours ago, Selene said:

Again, the point of that snapshot [...] is that Super Tuesday moves from a state by state analysis to a national analysis.

However, where candidates choose to contend in what % of the approximately 20+ states reveals what their desperation level and mid-term strategy has become.

I see a bit more clearly now. Thanks for taking the time to expand a bit.  It looks like I can take three messages away.

1 - As March 1st approaches, analysis of national polls becomes more meaningful than analysis or forecasting in individual state races. 

2 - Where the GOP also-rans intend to focus their efforts right now preceding March 1, and where they focus then preceding the second round on March 6 -- this tells us the angst/desperation/strategy of the also-rans.

3 -- National numbers are very important, and analysis of those numbers should dominate clear-eyed observation of the greater race (or, The great race is for delegates. National polls such as Reuters soak in or are reflected in the media. This can influence the individual heats in the states -- because they are concentrated. Keep our eyes on the greater game or the Grand Game, the delegate totals and the national numbers for the GOP race. They tell us a lot,) 

 

Now, those three are perhaps not exactly what you meant, but that is what a jar of lemonade and the Principle of Charity delivered. If egregious misunderstandings persist, please come back in and correct. 

Provisionally, then,  we agree, with a couple of parallel  viewpoints providing a healthy difference in scope. On March 1, kaboom, suddenly 757 delegates will have been awarded. On March 8. the numbers lurch up again, to 1083. 

I repost those two maps from Josh's site, to show you what I mean about parallel.  And I could share the last fifteen emails from the Trump campaign asking me to direct my attempts state by state. But I won't, yet. That will come when the crow-eating is a massive week-long banquet, around March 30-ish, when it can finally sink in to all but the hospice candidates that the nomination is no longer up for grabs, if it ever was. Nosh nosh nosh. But I digress ...

If I got 60 percent right on those three points, where we are perhaps parallel in focus. I think it is perfectly wise to keep an eye on the individual polities comprising the collective decision-making, from the most granular (eg, precinct-county-regional within-state game) to the medium (state games) to the big broad stage of racking up the numbers before the convention. 

So, we can each eye aspects of the same thing, share the results, and then argue like old women at the market. Or, I am doomed, you are a Trump partisan before all, and tumbleweeds roll in the desert between our two buttes of opinion.

Quote

That is the only reason I chose that Reuters snapshot because it is a rolling daily average and reflects any "hits" from the Rubio "performance" on Thursday. 

The monthly average is meaningless at this point because the race has now become a national race.

Perhaps yes, yet if the big Reuters forty-two does not obtain in any particular state, it doesn't matter. The magic number is 33. Gong. We agree there, I hope.  But if the monthly average is stagnant today and tomorrow, dipping next week, and dripping again the next, we can revisit the claims and arguments made here.

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

The above sounds exactly like the effects that the imposition of communism had on Russia's population, which also had been used to having much better lives. Hopelessness, severe alcoholism as a means of trying to escape the misery of brutal policies from which the policy makers had exempted themselves, and self-destruction.

And today the attitude among our "elite" is "What's wrong with these undereducated kooks? Why aren't they grateful for everything that the wonderful, benevolent, generous government is giving to them and doing for them? They're so irrationally angry and biting the hand that feeds them! They need to be led and taken care of, but they don't appreciate all of the help that we're giving them. It just proves how crazy and incapable they are, and how much more we have to do to restrain them and protect them from themselves!"

I guess one of the reasons this doesn't ring any bells for me is because I think of myself as elite, and don't feel a bit of shame or discomfort in so doing. I speak English (and French), I am white, I am tall and attractive, I am quite intelligent, I have a Canadian passport. I am of the middle class.

Each of those items is a boon, in world rankings. Another benefit that makes me elite in the world is also by national luck and geography. My neighbour is a stable industrial democracy with no beefs with us.  That makes me an inhabitant of the civilized world ne plus ultra. 

My elitism is simply a function of my native intelligence, and the fertile field in which I was raised. I don't feel talked down to in my life, by anyone. I was never a plodder or a heads-down sufferer. 

What is wrong with a country that can't educate its people and set the stage for achievement? It is not a zero-sum game. Every cent put toward an elite education for your children gives them access to ever-more-fabulous levels of consumption and achievement, in real terms.  

My elitism is thus based somewhat on being thankful for my birth here, and to parents who encouraged me to read at a very early age, and to the teachers that recognized my intelligence and allowed me to excel by increasing the difficulty of my lessons.  The rest of my elitism is sort of based on a Randian hierarchy. She did not disdain elites, intelligence, acumen in ;'management' or any of the superior classes of the industrialized world. 

The downside of elitism is that you forget that intelligence is always alive in everyone to some degree. You may take the greatest pleasure in the company of other elites, but that does not mean you are not human, and disdain the lovely folk in your life who were not as bright or informed as you think you were.

To drag this back to shore, and to avoid the rocks, to the topic.  It is your political system that has seized up, malfunctioned. You HATE congress, You People. The numbers are shocking. The  two-party (only) system is arthritic, overgrown and institutionalized, a vast overgrown coral reef, anything but nimble and responsive to a changing electorate. The national will is divided by a wall of enmity. The Red America and the Blue America exist, and in contrast with the rest of the industrialized world, America is divided socially, still fighting over gay merges and angry with The Other side. 

I can feel your angst, Jonathan, and yet you have prospered in your life against odds relatively even. You are elite. 

All I can say is that the Westminster system allows more thorough cleansing and changes of direction than does your calcified system.  The parties are in control of the political process from precinct to 1600 Pennsylvania. 

Here in Canada, it is relatively easy to start a national party and begin collecting members. Membership usually costs money.    If Mr Trump would compete in a Westminster system, he would definitely get a seat in the House, and lead a party of his own making.  And he would get a trial run of 'performance in office,' as one of three or four national leaders. The growth and influence would be directly tied to its actual popularity, and once the try-out was complete in Opposition, Trump could then go for the brass ring and the executive office.

All my gut tells me is that Trump will not, should he be on the November ballot, beat a Clinton.  The enormous machinery of money, party, hoopla, media, propaganda shifts into ninth gear -- much of it repulsed by Trumpism, or fearful of it, as fearful of a changing of the guard. That machine will grind at Trump just as our friend Marc suggests, in political war, the major battle.  

If some of that was wishful thinking, then I look at the polls, and consider how nimble Mr Trump might be once he has cleansed the field. I cannot see that future, but my gut says that awful woman will beat him.

Is that elitist of me, or what? I called it right both times for Obama, with analysis of the failures of the GOP. I got half of what I wanted from this election (no more Bush, thanks) and might just possibly get the other half (no more Clinton, thanks). I get something I don't think I want in the White House otherwise, a socially-conservative throwback in Crubiooze, or someone with the makings of a tyrant. . 

2 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

If Hillary beats Trump (in the polls), and Kasich beats Hillary (in the polls), then why is Trump beating Kasich in the primaries? Well, probably because Kasich has a lot more crossover Democrat support than Trump does. Which means that the primary process isn't going to select the candidate best able to beat Hillary in November.

For a party's ideological purity (?), this doesn't matter. In 1964, the GOP nominated Goldwater, whom the majority of the party wanted, but the majority of the country didn't want. The party kept its ideological moorings and eventually (16 years later) won the White House.

The party is a monster without discipline, with nine heads and six synods, vastly overstaffed and bulging with insane delusions and single-issue cranks and boring bureaucratic actuaries.  Up here, heads roll, the top echelon of the party is commanded by a single party leader, a single treasurer, a set of employees and so on.  Your GOP (and the Democrats to greater measure) is not a conventional political party. It is a lobby, a sinecure, a moneybag, a collection of coalitions, hardly in the control of an elite -- though deeply influenced and mostly funded by that elite, of which details are always revealing. 

Quote

But for winning elections, it really does matter. In 2016, the majority of the country apparently wants Kasich (over Hillary), yet the majority of the GOP does *not* want Kasich (over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio). So, if the GOP picks one of the parenthetical trio, it will both lose the election and give up its (tattered) ideological moorings at the same time.

This raises a real dilemma for the GOP and especially for the RNC, if these poll results hold firm between now and the GOP convention. Should they intervene and impose a consensus/victory candidate - or allow "the will of the people" to dictate the choice of nominee? (The DNC faces a similar situation if Hillary is hauled off to prison or even indicted.)

Roger, I could have failed to strip the wish-prejudice or applied the Principle closely enough. We could be both way wrong about the Trump Effect. He could emerge in the national campaign as strategically centrist in the Grand Old Tradition.  He could mount the dirtiest and most dire campaign in modern memory. He could push up and past Clinton in the polls, on the hustings, and on the Big Day. 

My gut says no.  My brain says, but it is possible.  The partisans say it is inevitable. 

I hope to be Charitable with the wrong, but I do not have a good track record on that. 

There, I have wandered far from the topic, lit several small fires, and upset the sugar tariff. If this was real life, I would be getting a lot of stern looks, I imagine.

Roger, I am going to send you a three thousand word screed/analysis backstage. It looks like you are wonking out.  I miss Cletus, who cuts through the murk.  

Edited February 27, 2016 by william.scherk
Added soundfile, spelling and grammar.

[Selene]

William, spot on except for the importation of the word "angst," although I get it.

I stopped reading after the three points and will go back to that post later.

A.

[Darrell Hougen]

Donald Trump is an enemy of free speech. That, in an of itself, regardless of anything else, disqualifies him from being president. Freedom of speech is, in some sense, our most fundamental right. If we can't freely express political opinions, right or wrong, then this country is finished. And don't think the courts will stand up to him. Some might, initially, but courts are easy to intimidate.

Even if Trump can't get the laws changed, I would expect him to sue whomever he dislikes. If the Republicans pass his new libel laws, look for a wave election to put the Democrats back in power. Even if the Republicans oppose him, I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave election in reaction to Trump's policies. The party of an unpopular president always gets slaughtered, even if it's not their fault.

Trump could set the cause of liberty back decades. All that effort spent supporting libertarians or the Tea Party or constitutional conservatives will have been wasted because they'll all be swept from office and we'll have to start over again (if we even can).

Watch the video

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The thing about polling now for an election later is that it is based on the assumption that the conditions now will be the same later.

With Trump vs. Hillary, there are two major changes, possibly a third that are likely between then and now:

1. Definitely--Trump will have many major endorsements by then of people whose followers say right now they would not vote for Trump, including the current candidates (remember that pledge the never thought they would have to honor )? So the splintering that is based on hope for candidates who are currently running, but who will not be by then, will evaporate.

2. Definitely--Everyone for some reason thinks Trump is going to run against Hillary in the same manner he did against 16 others in the primaries. This man is a major tactician. And, once again, he used to sponsor Hillary so he knows dirt on her others only dream about. Does anyone doubt he will use it? And don't think I'm talking about a Karl Rove like move of leaking it to the press through Politico. Trump will stand up on national TV in front of her and say it right in her face. (Man, am I looking forward to that.  )

3. Likely--Hillary will have some really bad legal troubles, not as a threat, but as a fact she will have to face in the middle of the campaign.

Let's not forget the nonstop series of media stunts Trump stages.

Frankly, I see smooth sailing for him.

Michael

[Selene]

7 minutes ago, drhougen said:

Donald Trump is an enemy of free speech. That, in an of itself, regardless of anything else, disqualifies him from being president. Freedom of speech is, in some sense, our most fundamental right. If we can't freely express political opinions, right or wrong, then this country is finished. And don't think the courts will stand up to him. Some might, initially, but courts are easy to intimidate.

Even if Trump can't get the laws changed, I would expect him to sue whomever he dislikes. If the Republicans pass his new libel laws, look for a wave election to put the Democrats back in power. Even if the Republicans oppose him, I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave election in reaction to Trump's policies. The party of an unpopular president always gets slaughtered, even if it's not their fault.

Trump could set the cause of liberty back decades. All that effort spent supporting libertarians or the Tea Party or constitutional conservatives will have been wasted because they'll all be swept from office and we'll have to start over again (if we even can).

Watch the video

Darrell

Not sure what's wrong with the formatting.

Darrell:

We have been "updated" by the Great Borg...

It is an interesting issue, especially when you get to the current government searching for every administrative avenue to shut down free speech on the publicly licensed airwaves via the Federal Communications Commission.

This is typical Trump.

Do you believe that:

1) he is serious?

2) he has a solid path through the Congress and Senate to achieve that goal?

A...

[Darrell Hougen]

18 minutes ago, Selene said:

Darrell:

We have been "updated" by the Great Borg...

It is an interesting issue, especially when you get to the current government searching for every administrative avenue to shut down free speech on the publicly licensed airwaves via the Federal Communications Commission.

This is typical Trump.

Do you believe that:

1) he is serious?

2) he has a solid path through the Congress and Senate to achieve that goal?

A...

Adam,

I don't know if Trump is serious, but I have nothing to go on but his word.  He wasn't even really drawing applause for his approach, but perhaps it was a trial balloon for a talking point.  At any rate, running for president is a serious business, so if he wasn't serious, then he is joker that shouldn't be president.

Whether Trump has a path to get new libel laws passed is sort of irrelevant.  The Republic might survive Trump, but he has staked out a position in opposition to free speech.

The current administration has made rumblings about threatening free speech as well.  I never voted for Obama and never would, but that doesn't mean I support a Republican version of Obama.  The Republicans have much better candidates and should choose someone who will at least protect this one basic right.

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, drhougen said:

Donald Trump is an enemy of free speech.

Darrell,

Ha!

No, Trump isn't an enemy of free speech. If he tried to curtail the First Amendment for real, Sarah Palin would slap him so hard his head would spin. And he would take it.   Believe it or not, he has huge affection and respect for her.

This statement is a form of negotiation he uses called the bombastic offer. (See The Art of the Deal.) He makes an outlandish statement, then after the outrage and fuss explode, he backs up to where he wanted to be in the first place, talking funny to disguise the retreat, and the other side thinks it won something. In most of these outrage cases, if he tried to get what he wanted up front without doing this, the other side would never let him have it. This way they do and congratulate themselves for standing up to Trump.  

Gotcha people hate this technique because their schtick is premised on a shaming tactic of carving out the statements of their targets in stone, then slamming one statement against a later one as they yell in outrage and righteous indignation. With Trump, they know they're being played and they still can't help themselves, bless their hearts--they're like gambling addicts at a slot machine.

Trump wants NYT and WSJ to back off the anti-Trump propaganda a bit. Not too much. Just the blatant lies. He is planting a doubt in their minds (i.e. Can you imagine if this guy actually became president and did that? He would shut us down, at the very least think of all those legal bills...) so they will start criticising him with correct journalistic standards to be on the safe side.

Once they do that, I seriously doubt you will see him bring it up anymore. I can see this one from a mile away.

You might as well get used to this technique. Trump has been doing nothing but that since last June and, from here on out, you're going to see it a lot more. 

The trick to not feeling that fear in the pit of your stomach is to look at what he says when he gets outlandish and what he does, then compare them on a timeline. The technique will jump off the page at you over and over.

Michael

[Selene]

2 minutes ago, drhougen said:

Adam,

Whether Trump has a path to get new libel laws passed is sort of irrelevant.  The Republic might survive Trump, but he has staked out a position in opposition to free speech.

The current administration has made rumblings about threatening free speech as well.  I never voted for Obama and never would, but that doesn't mean I support a Republican version of Trump.  The Republicans have much better candidates and should choose someone who will at least protect this one basic right.

Darrell

Darrell:

Quote

,, I have nothing to go on but his word. ... but perhaps it was a trial balloon for a talking point.  At any rate, running for president is a serious business, so if he wasn't serious, then he is joker that shouldn't be president.

Again, there seems to be an explosion in the use of false dichotomies loose in the language.

He is either a joker, or, serious...

Every President jokes Darrell. 

You see no middle ground with a man who has produced great works.

I am sure you heard about the Wollman Rink in NYC debacle.  Trump simply went to Mayor Koch and made a deal wherein, he repaired and rebuilt the Wollman Ice Rink under budget and before the time allotted under the contract and families were once again skating midst one of the most spectacular views in the world.

They were also skating on some of the most valuable real estate in the world.

So, I guess he is not serious Darrell?

http://www.wollmanskatingrink.com/

You are an honest man Darrell, so I am just going to ask you to humor me and take a look at the link above.

A...

[Selene]

This is one view...

http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/wollman-rink.html

Below in this link is a nice glimpse of the "donor class" and part of "The Establishment" [which as we all know, has always existed.]

John Stossel
Anchor
Fox Business News < interesting, I wonder who he is married to?

http://www.centralparknyc.org/about/about-cpc/management-board/board-of-trustees.html

 

[william.scherk]

I too disagree with a riff on Roger -- to the effect that The Monster party can impose a nominee. The system is rigged beforehand to benefit a (winner) Trump, to turn a plurality into a majority. There will be teeny-weeny bits of rigging done by the political apparatus to cleanse and consolidate delegations, and to seat the so-called super and/or hack or soft-pledged and uncommitted delegates. But those are puny by comparison to 1236

What will impose a non-Trump is a determination by a collective -- a collective of ambitious and committed people seeking the ballot -- that the field will thin before March 8 at the very ultimate latest.

The national polling numbers roll in, and they either closely approximate or are within error range of actual state by state totals, let's say.  Just go through the map and calendar above and give the grand lead in plurality to Trump at 33. Watch the bingo balls come up Trump.

The numbers add up, is what I mean. They fall like beans or candies into the glass jars.  Step by step by step the vast majority of delegates are chosen in meticulous contest. Though there are so-called soft and status-Elite local, region, state and national delegates not chosen on the hustings, their numbers are small in relation to a majority, and nowhere near a plurality. Gong.

 

However the real life arithmetic rolls out on Tuesday nite, and a week later, I believe only Candidacide can 'stop' Trump.  It looks like a scorpion-dance between the Rubcroozios.  If they don't ...

-- of course, the quaint thing of arithmetic is what is causing the gnashing.  The 'imposers' may be swollen with cash and hope,  but even they cannot beat the magic number without  a couple more political falls from the high-wire into the centre ring, no net, how sad.

You are all doomed, is the way I see it.  Those unconvinced by Trump now will be scorned as fools then, causing those unconvinced to thenceforth by transmutation  love Trump and all things Trump.  The gloating will be stellar and lengthy. The displays  will appear as odd and unsettling as a turkey dance, but we must be ready. 

-- I too was disturbed to read about the new Trumpism meme in re 'opening up' the libel laws so he can sue some incorrect media. The first thought was Putin. If Trump has some notion of legislative revenge on Bad Media, rendering them subject to British-style ruin, well, I wonder if he is serious. And if he is serious, that explains the hairs on the back of my neck standing up.

The two-pronged grounds for a public figure libel success are not that difficult to demonstrate. I note that Trump has got nowhere in his few suits against news orgs. What does he need with a new dispensation in law when he is President? Is that law tailored for his enthusiasms or for pressing public need? 

I would like to hear Trump Support tell me what to say on the phones to folks who doubt or are concerned or unconvinced about Trumpism (besides that they are Haters). I got nothing so far for the libel 'open up' yet.. 

Up the hairs went on me.   What sayeth Trump Support?  Darrell is worked up. Anybody else give a shit either way?

-- I suppose we should fork up the Trump words on the issue and see what they say.  But er Sarah Palin, principessa of Real America, will later step in to first amendmentize Trump, but not now?

 

Must America wait till later to find out; "We are not gonna let him do that."  Yeah, well, ears are open for the disagreement to be conveyed to Trump and for an update. It ain't a good thing to suggest, but he won't do it anyway. Or something.  I'll take just about anything on this issue but a promise.

Edited February 27, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump will have many major endorsements

He's got Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Breitbart, and the unpopular Large Angry Face governor. They just keep rolling in. The Kim Jong Un pal tatoo-face, and Palin and Putin and Jerry Falwell and various elites in their fields. I can see this kind of endorsement continuing, but I don't expect volte-face from opponents on the high wires, beyond Christie. I can't see Cruz doing a 180 and doing meaningful campaigning for Trump. But in all things, I could be wrong,  and yours a real clairvoyance. Let's call it 50/50 till we have data.

54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump wants NYT and WSJ to back off the anti-Trump propaganda a bit. Not too much. Just the blatant lies. He is planting a doubt in their minds (i.e. Can you imagine if this guy actually became president and did that? He would shut us down, at the very least think of all those legal bills...) so they will start criticising him with correct journalistic standards to be on the safe side.

Once they do that, I seriously doubt you will see him bring it up anymore. I can see this one from a mile away.

Back off on the blatant lies? A blatant, malicious falsehood peddled as news gets no constitutional colour or shade in American libel law. The Sullivan decision set the prong. It is an enormously bad suggestion for Mr Trump to make, it has ramifications.  The notion that he is just doing some big stage thuggery-threatery hoojie-boojie on free media is disquieting. 

You think that once out of his mouth Trump will be now hedging, and then keeping a zipped lip on such plans? I gotta dig up the quotes, so we are examining the same thing.

It is a page from the tyrant manual to threaten media and to sue them to harry them and cow them. This is Turkey under Erdogan and Russia under Putin before all media came to heel. My estimation of Mr Trump sank, as did my gut. .  Where are we, strong-man  America? 

Even a lazy socialized Red Tory like myself knows libel law can be abused and that free media need robust constitutional walls to buttress its protection from abuse. . Has the Republic been brought so low by the Bad Media that they need loosening of their constitutional protections in this era?. The very notion that this is touted as a priority by Mr Trump suggests maybe artless new material for the cameras, a new bit of schtick.  If he backs off and takes his lumps on this, fair enough. A dodge. A feint. Not his real intention. Hmmm.

If it was not his real intention, why say it? What kind of issue is this for him? It is peculiar.

I think this is a little constitutionalist crack that may fissure further, distancing Objectivish folks from Trump Support.  It will be interesting to see if the issue burns or simmers or dries out and blows away. I am certainly going to remember it, and the radio silence on ramifications of the Muslim entry ban.

1225 Hatery Lane.
Upper Eliteville, Provincehole
Socialist Hellhole

Edited February 28, 2016 by william.scherk
Yikes. The guy can't stop typing.

[Darrell Hougen]

35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Darrell,

Ha!

No, Trump isn't an enemy of free speech. If he tried to curtail the First Amendment for real, Sarah Palin would slap him so hard his head would spin. And he would take it.   Believe it or not, he has huge affection and respect for her.

This statement is a form of negotiation he uses called the bombastic offer. (See The Art of the Deal.) He makes an outlandish statement, then after the outrage and fuss explode, he backs up to where he wanted to be in the first place, talking funny to disguise the retreat, and the other side thinks it won something. In most of these outrage cases, if he tried to get what he wanted up front without doing this, the other side would never let him have it. This way they do and congratulate themselves for standing up to Trump.  

Gotcha people hate this technique because their schtick is premised on a shaming tactic of carving out the statements of their targets in stone, then slamming one statement against a later one as they yell in outrage and righteous indignation. With Trump, they know they're being played and they still can't help themselves, bless their hearts--they're like gambling addicts at a slot machine.

Trump wants NYT and WSJ to back off the anti-Trump propaganda a bit. Not too much. Just the blatant lies. He is planting a doubt in their minds (i.e. Can you imagine if this guy actually became president and did that? He would shut us down, at the very least think of all those legal bills...) so they will start criticising him with correct journalistic standards to be on the safe side.

Once they do that, I seriously doubt you will see him bring it up anymore. I can see this one from a mile away.

You might as well get used to this technique. Trump has been doing nothing but that since last June and, from here on out, you're going to see it a lot more. 

The trick to not feeling that fear in the pit of your stomach is to look at what he says when he gets outlandish and what he does, then compare them on a timeline. The technique will jump off the page at you over and over.

Michael

Michael,

The problem is that freedom of speech is not negotiable.  Freedom of speech means the right to attack people that you disagree with politically.  Has the WSJ been telling lies?  Or do they simply disagree with Trump?  There is a very high standard of proof required to prove libel against a political candidate or other public person for a reason, so that public people can't do exactly what Trump is doing, engaging in intimidation tactics.

Would Trump actually change the libel laws?  Doesn't matter.  A threat to change the libel laws is a form of intimidation.  Would Trump actually sue?  Doesn't matter.  A threat to sue is an intimidation tactic.

I understand that threats and intimidation are important tactics in raw, naked, power politics.  That's the way it has been done since the beginning of time and that is the kind of tactics tin horn dictators around the world still engage in.  The purpose of civilized society is to put an end to that.  We expect our politicians to act more like a person applying for a job.  We expect them to act in earnest and attempt to gain our trust by explaining what they intend to do, not engage in threats and intimidation.

Threats and intimidation may be part of the business world.  I wouldn't be surprised if one company threatened to sue another just to gain some business advantage.  It's a bit of law-of-the-jungle type mentality.  However, it is fundamentally illegitimate.  Businesses should no more have to worry about being sued for frivolous reasons than anyone else.  That they do, doesn't make it right.  Threats and intimidation are illegitimate in business and especially in politics.  It is not just a negotiating tactic.  It is uncivilized behavior and it's potentially damaging to our form of government.

Darrell