Selene Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 This could be very instructive for everyone regarding Mr. Trump. It is from the NY Times when they still did actual news, or as Rush branded them "random acts of journalism." May 31st, 1986. Quote TRUMP OFFERS TO REBUILD SKATING RINK By JOYCE PURNICK Published: May 31, 1986 Donald J. Trump has offered to take over reconstruction of the trouble-plagued Wollman Memorial Skating Rink in Central Park, to have it open by this winter and to operate it at no profit to himself. The Koch administration has agreed to consider Mr. Trump's proposal. ''This offer could be very helpful, but we must be very careful,'' said Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern. He declined to elaborate, but other administration officials indicated that questions about potential profits, and the lack of competitive bidding should Mr. Trump proceed, would have to be resolved. The flamboyant developer made his offer in a ''Dear Ed'' letter to Mayor Koch dated May 28. ''For many years I have watched with amazement as New York City repeatedly failed on its promises to complete and open the Wollman Skating Rink,'' he wrote. 'Should Take No More Than 4 Months' ''During this six-year period,'' he said, ''I have constructed major hotels, apartment buildings and, in 26 months, Trump Tower, a highly sophisticated and complex mixed-use building containing shopping, offices and apartments. Building the Wollman Skating Rink, which essentially involves the pouring of a concrete slab, should take no more than four months time.'' Calling it ''unacceptable'' that the city now wants another two years to rebuild Wollman, Mr. Trump offered to pay for the construction of a new rink, lease it from the city at ''a fair market rental'' and then run it. In his ''Dear Donald'' letter, also dated May 28, Mr. Koch said he would ''be delighted'' to accept Mr. Trump's offer to rebuild the rink, but balked at his plan to operate it. He said the city wanted to continue to charge only a nominal admission fee and run the rink at a loss, if necessary. ''We would not want to burden you with those losses unless you felt that you wanted to bear them in addition to building the rink,'' the Mayor wrote. ''With bated breath, I await your response.'' The Trump Rink In an interview yesterday, Mr. Trump said the rink did not have to be operated at a loss, adding that if it realized any profits, he would turn them over to charity. The Mayor implied in his letter that he was concerned that Mr. Trump, who has a habit of naming his projects after himself, might rename the Wollman Rink the Trump Rink. ''Remember,'' Mr. Koch cautioned, ''the Bible says that those who give charity anonymously or, if not anonymously, then without requiring the use of their names, are twice blessed.'' Mr. Trump said he had never entertained the idea of putting his name on the rink. Reconstruction of Wollman, closed in 1980 for what was supposed to be a $9.1 million, two-and-a-half-year rehabilitation, has been trouble-ridden from the beginning. The project was delayed repeatedly by errors in design and planning, and last year it was halted because of leaks in its new refrigeration system. After a $200,000 study, a consulting concern hired by the city said it could not pinpoint the cause of the leaks. City officials then decided to start over, using an old technology. So far, the city has spent $12 million on Wollman, and its expects to spend $2 million more before repairs are finished. Maintaining that the rink's troubled history had been unnecessary, Mr. Trump said, ''I don't want my name attached to losers. So far the Wollman Rink has been one of the great losers. I'll make it a winner.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Darrell, are you familiar with Mark Levin's argument that we are living in a post Constitutional America? A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 52 minutes ago, Selene said: Darrell: 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. Selene, When I say Trump may be a joker, I mean a fundamentally unserious person. Sure, Reagan told jokes, but it was always clear when he was joking. Actually, I don't think Trump is a joker. That's why I take his threat seriously. He may just be using it as a negotiating tactic, but that doesn't matter. Presidents don't negotiate with news media by threatening our fundamental rights or their businesses. It's uncivilized. Trump has certainly accomplished a lot. So has Mark Zuckerberg, but that doesn't mean I'd want him to be president. Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Selene said: Darrell, are you familiar with Mark Levin's argument that we are living in a post Constitutional America? A... Absolutely, but the goal should be to return to Constitutional government, not stray further from it. If we are living in a post Constitutional time, then politics may soon be irrelevant. Our leaders will be chosen by force, rather than by vote. Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, drhougen said: Absolutely, but the goal should be to return to Constitutional government, not stray further from it. If we are living in a post Constitutional time, then politics may soon be irrelevant. Our leaders will be chosen by force, rather than by vote. Darrell Fair enough. You are pretty consistent in your positions. All I will ask you is to look at the man's life. I think, he has led a moral life. Additionally, I completely agree with your model of a job applicant. The job of the Chief Executive is, as you know, to execute the law and manage the agencies. Eliminate the superfluous and repetitive ones. I know he knows exactly how to do that and it ain't gonna be pretty. His additional responsibility is to protect this Constitutional Republic by protecting our sovereignty. Walls work. And we would both agree that there are other powers and duties that a Chief Executive should have. He has them.... Quote "Don could make a decision in 10 minutes that would take one of the city guys two years," laughed one of Trump's project managers. "Okay, the moral," reckoned The News: "The city must contract out more projects to private business. Dagny, Hank do not seem far away and Francisco certainly had his swagger... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 54 minutes ago, drhougen said: The problem is that freedom of speech is not negotiable. Darrell, Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech? He would never do that and, like I said, Sarah Palin would slap him silly. He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him. He's scaring them to get them to pipe down. He's being unpredictable. Since they are playing dirty with him, he's playing dirty right back. That's not 100% accurate, but it's in the ballpark. Trump is not preaching or taking a test of ideological purity. He's winning an election against some very powerful, nasty, immoral people who have been screwing this country over for a long, long time. And he's beating them at their own game. Don't expect it to be pretty. If you want pretty, you are going to get more of the same people who are screwing over the country. I, as a typical Trump supporter, see all this clearly. I have little doubt others like me see it, too. Just look at how many people are voting for Trump. And keep watching because they are going to keep voting. Don't forget, many of these people are died-in-the-wool freedom of speech folks. They cling to guns and Bibles, especially guns when their freedom of speech is threatened for real. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: ... I don't expect volte-face from opponents on the high wires, beyond Christie. William, Yeah, right. And Christie was an impossibility until he did it. Nobody saw that one in advance. Believe me, more is coming. Or don't believe me and enjoy the plot twists as they happen. Be careful not to get whiplash... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: The notion that he is just doing some big stage thuggery-threatery hoojie-boojie on free media is disquieting. William, How disquieting is the notion of licking the boots of the nasty political elite when you disagree with them or else they will send a vicious attack force against you in the press and wreck your reputation for good? That might not be disquieting for you, but it is for me. (btw - I've seen the inside of this in Brazil--actually I've been on the inside.) I believe people are way too complacent and think this is the way life is and should be. But it isn't. And it doesn't have to be that way. The press doesn't have to be a constant big stage thuggery-threatery hoojie-boojie to good people who may not want toe the party line. There actually can be freedom of speech in practice, not just in words. All you need to do is pop the big stage thuggery-threatery hoojie-boojie press tin-pot totalitarian wannabes in the mouth hard enough to make it hurt. And hurt real bad. Then string them up by their own addiction so they report on it over and over and can't stop themselves. When you do that, like Trump does all the time, they finally back off. Not totally. After all, they have to save face. But it's noticeable how far they back off. (Think about the Megyn Kelly and Trump thing for a good example. But there are many.) Then, surprise, surprise, surprise! Freedom of speech magically emerges in reality and becomes more than a talking point. But change scares people. Many prefer to defend the honor of dishonorable institutions. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 For those interested in goosing up their paranoia muscle, this just hit the top of the page on Drudge (that's on the top left above the main headline). Koch Bros plan to Stop Trump -Roger StonePosted by Alex Jones on Friday, February 26, 2016 My gut tells me this is accurate. Rubio has until the Florida primary and if he loses that, out he goes and in comes Romney with a $75 million war chest. It that is not accurate, it is certainly plausible enough to be. Although Roger Stone no longer works on the Trump campaign, he is Trump's bulldog. And he has moles everywhere... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Here's what The Donald thinks of Roger Stone. Tweeted earlier today: .#RogerStone was just banned by @CNN - their loss! Tough, loyal guy.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 27, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 On February 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... I am thinking Rubio grabs Kasich , Cuz gets the fuck out like he should and steps the fuck up . Rubio/Kasich should be just about enough to get Trump out of the race pretty soon. The war has started . Rubio/Kasich Rubio /Cruz , Romney/Rubio , or Romney/Kasich or whoever/whoever but Trump is basically dead man walking right now , he just don't know it yet - either does this board except for a few Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: For those interested in goosing up their paranoia muscle, this just hit the top of the page on Drudge (that's on the top left above the main headline). My gut tells me this is accurate. Rubio has until the Florida primary and if he loses that, out he goes and in comes Romney with a $75 million war chest. It that is not accurate, it is certainly plausible enough to be. Although Roger Stone no longer works on the Trump campaign, he is Trump's bulldog. And he has moles everywhere... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (dupe to prev) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 If Rubio wins Florida its him , if Kasich wins Ohio then thats the ticket I am willing to bet . If Rubio loses Florida then he backs the ticket ( thats loyalty ) , which is whoever it is lets say Romney /Kasich Either scenario , Trump has a few weeks left to run his mouth the freaking con artist ( just quoting soon to be POTUS Rubio ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 What we see DT doing "time and time again" while he is trying to get elected does NOT provide any rational assurance as to what he WILL do AFTER he is elected. Threaten, walk it back, threaten, walk it back, rinse-lather-repeat. But what about when the boy who cries wolf IS the wolf crying wolf, and the Pollyanna choir in the town says the "boy" was "just kidding"? We all know that politicians behave differently before elected than after elected. This happens with sickening regularity, and one has to be naive indeed to not be aware of it - and to take it into account in interpreting politicians' statements. Well, how can any of you Trumpazoids be so blithefully sure that Trump will not simply abandon the "walk it back" part of his so-called "bombastic offer" routine, once he doesn't have to "walk it back" any more? The man before election: I'm gonna sue you. Just kidding. I'm gonna punch you in the nose. Just kidding. I could shoot you and not lose any support. Just kidding. After election - hey, what happened to the "just kidding"? My fondest hope is that you Trumpazoids will pull of the masks and say, "Just kidding." My second fondest hope is that if/when the moment I fear, and y'all pooh-pooh, actually happens, that dear Sarah does *not* try to confront DT and slap him for single-handedly Executive Ordering the First Amendment into the dustbin. Because if she does, she will get her pretty head blown off, and you will find that his "huge affection and respect" for her was just another calculated way of using people to get the power he craves. And then where will you be? Brazil, I guess. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 You have never seen a Presidential campaign like this one. Just like we had never seen a Presidential campaign like Barack O'bama's in 2008. Welcome to the techno campaign. Just like baseball data, it is the same. What did Greg say on another thread? "Politics is like sports." Everyone should watch The Last Hurrah with Spencer Tracey playing one of the infamous and effective Mayors of Boston. Frank Skeffington, the character played by Tracey tells his nephew, a sports writer, that the greatest spectator sport in the world is politics. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 46 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Well, how can any of you Trumpazoids be so blithefully sure that Trump will not simply abandon the "walk it back" part of his so-called "bombastic offer" routine, once he doesn't have to "walk it back" any more? Roger, Maybe looking at Trump's half a century of doing just that? It's his habit. I have found this hard to communicate in O-Land in a manner where it gets accepted as a working principle, maybe because it didn't come from Ayn Rand or Peikoff or something, but the ancient principle is true. It goes like this: When there is a difference between what a person says and what he habitually does, what he habitually does is the better indication of what he will do in the future. In other discussions I have had with people in our subcommunity (for example, Biddibob, but there are others), they put far more importance on the person's words and almost always ignore what he habitually does. It generally goes thus: I say the "deed over word" principle. The person does the equivalent of a virtual grunt. He says something like, "That might be true, but..." and then proceeds as if I had not stated the principle and he had not agreed is was true. After that point, what he says becomes a litany of gotchas and bashes on Trump's words and regurgitations of some negative media spin or other. Everything habitual Trump does gets ignored. The principle is never mentioned again, neither in the words I use, nor alluded to in concept by other words. Total blankout. Maybe blankout is harsh. To be benevolent, let's call it an inadvertent use of the "BUT eraser." This concept comes from a book called Magic Words by Tim David. Whenever you want to give the appearance of impartiality without being impartial, you first say the part you don't agree with or find inconvenient as if it were a true proposition. Then you say, "but...," and continue with the part you really want to talk about. The BUT eraser cognitively wipes out everything you said before you said the word "but." After that, you don't even have to remember what you said before--you only need to drone on about the latter part. Nobody I know in O-Land ever studied this technique formally. One wonders how they became such skilled experts. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 54 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: But what about when the boy who cries wolf IS the wolf crying wolf, and the Pollyanna choir in the town says the "boy" was "just kidding"? Roger, This is important. Trump never bluffs. If the person becomes an asshole about it and stops negotiating, Trump follows through. There is never a "just kidding" component with him. In the case of freedom of speech, it would be a hoot to see how he followed through on his threat since Sarah Palin, Chris Christie and a whole host of such people would be honking loudly in his ears. Nonstop. And quite pissed. I think Trump would find some form of negotiated punishment of the libelous propagandists, like getting a banker friend to pull out on a loan at the last minute and things like that. I don't see him overturning the First Amendment. I don't even see him wanting to. He would have to relive his life in a different manner for that to happen. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Korben, You can mock it as aliens, but there it sits right on the top of Drudge. Here's a screenshot: In honor of the aliens, here is the full interview between Roger Stone and Alex Jones. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said: ... dear Sarah does *not* try to confront DT and slap him for single-handedly Executive Ordering the First Amendment into the dustbin. Because if she does, she will get her pretty head blown off... Oh yeah, I forgot. The conventional wisdom. Sarah Palin is a conformist and coward. She's a career bureaucrat and would never go rogue. She's a suck up to power-brokers, too. She might even be the sister of Wesley Mouch. (Whoever believes that deserves what they get later...) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 Michael, I am kinda glad that many of these Orthodox Oists don't vote. They should be encouraged to never compromise and vote for those types of "people" who are not pure... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, Maybe looking at Trump's half a century of doing just that? It's his habit. I have found this hard to communicate in O-Land in a manner where it gets accepted as a working principle, maybe because it didn't come from Ayn Rand or Peikoff or something, but the ancient principle is true. It goes like this: When there is a difference between what a person says and what he habitually does, what he habitually does is the better indication of what he will do in the future. In other discussions I have had with people in our subcommunity (for example, Biddibob, but there are others), they put far more importance on the person's words and almost always ignore what he habitually does. It generally goes thus: I say the "deed over word" principle. The person does the equivalent of a virtual grunt. He says something like, "That might be true, but..." and then proceeds as if I had not stated the principle and he had not agreed is was true. After that point, what he says becomes a litany of gotchas and bashes on Trump's words and regurgitations of some negative media spin or other. Everything habitual Trump does gets ignored. The principle is never mentioned again, neither in the words I use, nor alluded to in concept by other words. Total blankout. Maybe blankout is harsh. To be benevolent, let's call it an inadvertent use of the "BUT eraser." This concept comes from a book called Magic Words by Tim David. Whenever you want to give the appearance of impartiality without being impartial, you first say the part you don't agree with or find inconvenient as if it were a true proposition. Then you say, "but...," and continue with the part you really want to talk about. The BUT eraser cognitively wipes out everything you said before you said the word "but." After that, you don't even have to remember what you said before--you only need to drone on about the latter part. Nobody I know in O-Land ever studied this technique formally. One wonders how they became such skilled experts. Michael Michael, I am partial to experience, and no way am I going to be "impartial" to that or to act as though my experience isn't what, time and again, it seems to be and, then, is. Too many times, I or one of my loved ones have dealt with someone who was charming during, shall we call it, the "courtship" phase. Joking references to unacceptable things might be made, concerns might be raised by words and behaviors, but we were encouraged to sweep them aside, that he/she "didn't really mean it." Then, after the "courtship" was over, and the commitment entered into - whether business or personal relationship - all hell broke loose. Then, too late, we realized: if only I'd heeded the warning signs before it was too late. Before serious damage was done. These warning bells are not overactive imagination. They are the subconscious warning us of danger. We are smarter than we often realize, or than some people often wish us to realize. We ignore these signs at our peril. We allow people to talk us out of our awareness of them at our peril. People, myself included, react to Trump as though we are looking at a predator, waiting for the sheep to be lulled to sleep. This is not a rationalization of our finding his personal communication style distasteful or inappropriate. This is not envy of his being a great producer or achiever. One can be all those things and still have a deep character flaw and present a clear and present danger to other people. This is what we perceive, between the lines, in Trump's supposedly facetious, calculated remarks that are supposedly made "just for effect." Your BUT eraser is not going to make this go away. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Oh yeah, I forgot. The conventional wisdom. Sarah Palin is a conformist and coward. She's a career bureaucrat and would never go rogue. She's a suck up to power-brokers, too. She might even be the sister of Wesley Mouch. (Whoever believes that deserves what they get later...) Michael I didn't say Sarah Palin is a conformist and coward and career bureaucrat. Where are you getting this horse shit? I'm saying that your notion that she will be able to march right up to Donald Trump after HE has gone rogue is a fantasy. His Secret Service bodyguards would cut her down long before she drew her hand back to smack him. I don't doubt that she would TRY to do so. But he's not going to be all hands-in-the-pockets, aw-shucks-Sarah, you're not upset because I trashed the First Amendment, are you? Yes, indeed, whoever believes irrational fantasies like this deserves what they get later. But I'm not the one standing at the altar, acting like Donald Trump is the friend of the little guy. I'm not a little guy, and I don't need that kind of friend. And don't hang your crazed scenarios about Wesley Mouch and power-groupies on me, Michael. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, This is important. Trump never bluffs. If the person becomes an asshole about it and stops negotiating, Trump follows through. There is never a "just kidding" component with him. I think Trump would find some form of negotiated punishment of the libelous propagandists, like getting a banker friend to pull out on a loan at the last minute and things like that. I don't see him overturning the First Amendment. I don't even see him wanting to. He would have to relive his life in a different manner for that to happen. Never a "just kidding" component with DT? (I don't mean delirium tremens - or maybe I do.) Then what did you mean in this comment 8 hours ago?? Quote 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... You are *assuming* that "where he backs up to" is "where he wanted to be in the first place." What if it's where he *has to* back up to, for the time being, and then when, as President, the "bombastic offer" isn't effective enough any more, he goes ahead and makes good on the peek-a-boo (was it, or wasn't it?) threat from before. You're apparently comfortable with this kind of deceit and thuggery. I'm not. And what the HELL is a "negotiated punishment"??? Are you SERIOUS??? It is not the President's job to administer punishment, period. Not in America, my friend. Is this something from the Brazilian constitution??? Good lord. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now