Donald Trump

[Robert Campbell]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

One thing that I've missed about the Fields incident is this: What was she asking him about? Has she said? I don't recall if I read anything about her revealing the topic(s) that she was trying to get him to discuss. Anyone?

J

Jonathan,

Check the video that appeared on Breitbart when some elements there were trying to exonerate Lewandowski (by claiming that Terris had mixed Lewandowski up with a Secret Service agent who actually grabbed Fields).

The view of the main actors (Trump, Lewandowski, and Fields) keeps getting blocked, so it's hard to see what's going on.

But it has audio.  You can hear Fields trying to ask Trump a question.

Robert

Edited April 1, 2016 by Robert Campbell
Clarity

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

You still don't seem to realize the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart, nor what that says about Trump and his campaign.

Robert,

I, for one, don't understand the significance you refer to. Breitbart and Trump are doing just fine now that Ben Shapiro & Co. are gone. I would say Breitbart has become more objective, promoting less hysterical articles about Trump, both for and against.

I think any reporter who penetrates a secret service scrum when a candidate exits a speech can be brushed aside without anyone realizing where the reporter was from, much less making a major case about it. And, with worry about all the death threats Trump has received, who this or that reporter is on exiting becomes minor when on the move. Tiny. Miniscule.

Or maybe you mean something like this?

Got News : FRAUD : Michelle Fields Honduran Born Mother Is a Pro-Amnesty, Anti-Trump Activist

Granted, this is a pro-Trump blog, so it is not as credible as the ever-so-credible, never biased, never inaccurate mainstream press. That article, however, does raise some interesting facts if they are true: 

1. Michelle Fields’s mother, Xiomara, is a Honduran-born activist who hates Trump and runs a nonprofit for illegal immigrants that gets government funding.

2. If Trump gets his illegal immigration plan done, Xiomara Fields will not only lose her federal funding, she claims she will be deported.

3. Michelle Fields’s boyfriend, Jamie Weinstein, also hates Trump. His late father, Harris Weinstein, was a major Republican donor, too. According to the article, Jamie Weinstein was the one who first promoted Fields’s story.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on "the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart," does it?

 

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

What is the evidence that they lied? How do you know that, three days after the incident, Trump remembered Fields approaching him and Lewandowski remembered grabbing her? My understanding is that they both said that they didn't remember. You say otherwise. Based on what?

Jonathan,

Two days after the incident, Trump claimed he has no memory of Fields approaching him or being anywhere in the vicinity.

Three weeks after the incident, he claims to remember that she approached him in a manner that might be deemed threatening.

Unless his memory was miraculously restored in the interim, the possibilities are:

(1) He remembered then, and preferred to pretend he didn't.

(2) He truly didn't remember then, and is now pretending to remember something.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Unless his memory was miraculously restored in the interim, the possibilities are:

(1) He remembered then, and preferred to pretend he didn't.

(2) He truly didn't remember then, and is now pretending to remember something.

Robert,

Or, instead of Trump taking recourse to the supernatural, maybe after he thought about it, he remembered?

Does that work as an option?

Just wonderin' if you think Trump is human...

 

Michael

 

[Robert Campbell]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

What do you believe is the significance of her having been from Breitbart? Does that fact magically make her incapable of extreme exaggeration about the incident? Does her being from Breitbart somehow override my own eyes and extensive experience with visual analysis? I'm to take her word for what happened, or yours, over my reviewing the reality of the video evidence? Is that what you're saying?

Jonathan,

I can see you haven't been following the story.

First of all, the videos are evidence that stand on their own.  What we see is what we see, whether Fields was a reporter or not, whether she was Breitbart or some other organization, etc. etc.  Where you got the notion that somehow I was claiming the Breitbart connection invalidates the video evidence, I have no idea.

Now, what does Breitbart have to do with this?

Breitbart has been largely pro-Trump since he started this campaign.  It is highly unlikely that Trump did not know this.

Yet Trump and his crew treated a reporter from Breitbart the same way they would treat a reporter from ... Talking Points Memo ... Salon ... the Daily Kos ... National Review.

When the CEO of Breitbart asked Lewandowski to apologize, he refused.

What, then, is Trump's actual view of media outlets?  Media outlets of any kind, even those that rarely fail to promote him?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Or, instead of Trump taking recourse to the supernatural, maybe after he thought about it, he remembered?

Does that work as an option?

Just wonderin' if you think Trump is human...

 

Michael

 

Michael,

It really didn't stick in Donald Trump's mind that Michelle Fields was approaching him in a threatening manner?

Donald Trump makes factually untrue statements on a regular basis.  Why not in this case?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said:

It really didn't stick in Donald Trump's mind that Michelle Fields was approaching him in a threatening manner?

Robert,

See my post above about the secret service scrum and more important considerations than getting a reporter out of the way.

Why would a reporter jump a moving secret service scrum, anyway? Is she stupid?

What was she really after?

Only The Shadow knows...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thing that's going viral that might be an April Fool's prank.

Or it might not be and might be part of a growing movement.

Some people in the comments are not amused.

 

My gut tells me it is sincere, but I might be wrong.

We should find out tomorrow.

Michael

[Selene]

I heard that this was the place to report "battery."

So here goes...

https://youtu.be/jDlQ4H0Kdg8

Trump denies that he was dressed as a black woman!

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Breitbart has been largely pro-Trump since he started this campaign.

Robert,

That is waaaaaaaaaay incomplete.

It's far more accurate to say Breitbart has been both strongly pro-Trump or strongly anti-Trump since he started this campaign. Breitbart did not have a middle, but it definitely had its share of Trump lovers and Trump haters.

Now it seems like it is getting a middle.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

If you think that's something, you are in for a long, long slog...

 

The good news is that there will be lots of good news after Trump takes office. 

 

Michael

Michael,

When Donald Trump gives one of manifold vocal performances that you praise, do you actually listen to the words he is saying?

I did.  That's what made it so fatiguing.

I was planning to provide a little commentary on what he said about Scott Walker, for those who haven't followed what's been happening in Wisconsin.

But I guess if Donald Trump says he has no use for Scott Walker, the case is now closed.

You, too, will have no use for Scott Walker.  And no one else should, either.

Such is the Gospel.  The good news being brought to us by Donald Trump and his messengers.  Is their kingdom of this world?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

See my post above about the secret service scrum and more important considerations than getting a reporter out of the way.

Why would a reporter jump a moving secret service scrum, anyway? Is she stupid?

What was she really after?

Only The Shadow knows...

 

Michael

Michael,

Jumping a moving Secret Service scrum?

Is that what the Washington Post reporter did, too?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

36 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

I, for one, don't understand the significance you refer to. Breitbart and Trump are doing just fine now that Ben Shapiro & Co. are gone. I would say Breitbart has become more objective, promoting less hysterical articles about Trump, both for and against.

I think any reporter who penetrates a secret service scrum when a candidate exits a speech can be brushed aside without anyone realizing where the reporter was from, much less making a major case about it. And, with worry about all the death threats Trump has received, who this or that reporter is on exiting becomes minor when on the move. Tiny. Miniscule.

Or maybe you mean something like this?

Got News : FRAUD : Michelle Fields Honduran Born Mother Is a Pro-Amnesty, Anti-Trump Activist

Granted, this is a pro-Trump blog, so it is not as credible as the ever-so-credible, never biased, never inaccurate mainstream press. That article, however, does raise some interesting facts if they are true: 

1. Michelle Fields’s mother, Xiomara, is a Honduran-born activist who hates Trump and runs a nonprofit for illegal immigrants that gets government funding.

2. If Trump gets his illegal immigration plan done, Xiomara Fields will not only lose her federal funding, she claims she will be deported.

3. Michelle Fields’s boyfriend, Jamie Weinstein, also hates Trump. His late father, Harris Weinstein, was a major Republican donor, too. According to the article, Jamie Weinstein was the one who first promoted Fields’s story.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on "the significance of the reporter being from Breitbart," does it?

 

Michael

Michael,

Hmm.

Is Corey Lewandowski really employed by the Secret Service?  Maybe he recognized Michelle Fields as an enemy agent?

I guess reporters were only ever really from Breitbart if they were also really pro-Trump.

Of course, if they were genuinely pro-Trump, they could then expect the same gracious treatment that Trump's people mete out to the rest of the press.

The fact remains, Trump could have ordered Lewandowski to apologize to Fields on March 10 or 11, and the whole matter would now be less than a footnote to history.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

But I guess if Donald Trump says he has no use for Scott Walker, the case is now closed.

You, too, will have no use for Scott Walker.  And no one else should, either.

Robert,

When Scott Walker left the race, he had no use for Trump, either. In fact, he made a big friggin' deal about it. He wanted others to get out of the race back then specifically to stop Trump, who he blasted in most disparaging terms. He only said that over and over to the four winds. God knows what he's been doing in the backrooms ever since.

But I haven't seen you mention it once as you castigate everyone around here for their lack of objectivity regarding Scott Walker.

You seem to think Trump should be lovey-dovey with Scott Walker and ditto for Trump supporters.

In your part of the world, when someone spits a big fat hawkball on a candidate, does he turn the other cheek in order to win an election? That's not exactly Trump's style.

Michael

[Jonathan]

41 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jonathan,

Two days after the incident, Trump claimed he has no memory of Fields approaching him or being anywhere in the vicinity.

Three weeks after the incident, he claims to remember that she approached him in a manner that might be deemed threatening.

Unless his memory was miraculously restored in the interim, the possibilities are:

(1) He remembered then, and preferred to pretend he didn't.

(2) He truly didn't remember then, and is now pretending to remember something.

Robert

(3) Seeing the videos of the incident refreshed Trump's memory.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

41 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Is Corey Lewandowski really employed by the Secret Service?  Maybe he recognized Michelle Fields as an enemy agent?

Robert,

Come on.

(Note from MSK: Comment removed for being too tasteless. That's right, it's me censuring me. Arrrghhh... It was horrible.  )

(I hope those are not fighting words.  )

What on earth are you talking about?

Corey Lewandowski is Trump's campaign manager and friend. I thought you knew that.

And a person does not have to be an enemy agent to jump into in a place they don't belong during a dangerous situation (the Secret Service moving a candidate from one place to another around a crowd). 

But it happens. 

People like Lewandowski are not passive men. They don't wait for an assassination to happen then say it wasn't their fault. If they see a threat or something out of whack during a move where danger might be present, they do something about it.

Trump is lucky to have him.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

35 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

When Donald Trump gives one of manifold vocal performances that you praise, do you actually listen to the words he is saying?

Robert,

Yup.

 

If I praise it, why wouldn't I listen to it? It would be stupid or dishonest to do otherwise.

In fact, if you go through my posts, you will constantly see where I mention when I haven't listened to something or only partially listened to it. (Ditto for reading it.)

Do you think I'm stupid or dishonest?

I'm not, but I'm not offended if you think I am. Most anti-Trump people think Trump supporters are stupid or dishonest, so I've grown used to it. Maybe we can throw brainwashed in there, too.

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Jonathan,

I can see you haven't been following the story.

First of all, the videos are evidence that stand on their own.  What we see is what we see, whether Fields was a reporter or not, whether she was Breitbart or some other organization, etc. etc.  Where you got the notion that somehow I was claiming the Breitbart connection invalidates the video evidence, I have no idea.

Do the videos show what Fields claimed to have happened? No, they do not.

 

Quote

Now, what does Breitbart have to do with this?

Breitbart has been largely pro-Trump since he started this campaign.  It is highly unlikely that Trump did not know this.

Yet Trump and his crew treated a reporter from Breitbart the same way they would treat a reporter from ... Talking Points Memo ... Salon ... the Daily Kos ... National Review.

When the CEO of Breitbart asked Lewandowski to apologize, he refused.

Generally I would agree that an apology for such an action might be in order, and a good idea, but not necessarily after an incident had been exaggerated as much as in this case. With the media's bloodlust, especially for Republican blood, and extra-especially for Trump's, an apology would be taken as an admission that the highly exaggerated claims actually happened. Even prior to the incident, the media had been spinning the myth that Trump and his supporters were violent and encouraging violence. Disruptions and acts of violence committed by people opposed to Trump were blamed by the media on Trump. When Time's idiot photographer verbally abused and physically assaulted a secret service agent, and after much patience and restraint the agent took the jackass down, the media headlines announced that there was more violence at a Trump rally, and that the idiot photographer was the victim. In such a twisted and hostile context, apologies are a very bad idea. Trump and Lewandowski's approach has wrecked the media myth and replaced it with reality where an apology would have fed the myth.

J

 

Quote

What, then, is Trump's actual view of media outlets?  Media outlets of any kind, even those that rarely fail to promote him?

 

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

When Scott Walker left the race, he had no use for Trump, either. In fact, he made a big friggin' deal about it. He wanted others to get out of the race back then specifically to stop Trump, who he blasted in most disparaging terms. He only said that over and over to the four winds.

But I haven't seen you mention it once as you castigate everyone around here for their lack of objectivity regarding Scott Walker.

You seem to think Trump should be lovey-dovey with Scott Walker and ditto for Trump supporters.

In your part of the world, when someone spits a big fat hawkball on a candidate, does he turn the other cheek in order to win an election? That's not exactly Trump's style.

Michael

Michael,

In any political contest, the question arises soon enough: Are lies permissible, so long as they are being told for political gain?

And if lies told for political gain are permissible, even commendable, is every contender entitled to resort to them—or does that privilege extend just to the contender that you favor?

Does it matter whether the claims Trump made last year in the debates, when he ripped Walker's performance as governor, were factually true?

I'm not talking about Walker's stands on immigration or foreign trade, which I will just say were not well considered.  On those, a challenge from Trump or any of the other contenders was certainly warranted.

I'm talking about stuff that is in a governor's purview.   Taking on the public employee unions, so state, county, and municipal employees weren't forced to join them, and governments weren't acting as collectors for the people who ran the unions, and the unions weren't putting their money right back into Democrats, who were then elected so they could give the union everything they wanted.  Getting taxes lowered.  Facing a recall election (there were three recall elections, but just one for the governor) in a state closely divided between conservative Republicans and hard Left Democrats   Those Democrats had ruled without challenge for years and weren't going to give up total control without a fight.  Have you ever heard of the "John Doe" investigation (pursuant to grand jury indictments that people weren't allowed to say they were under) that was waged against Walker's people and against any other group that appeared to be helping him?

Relying on his now-fabled article from Time magazine, Trump claimed Wisconsin had been doing terribly, and it was all Walker's fault.  Last thing he should ever have been doing was lowering taxes.  Everybody hated each other, and that was all Walker's fault.  

Trump ran against Scott Walker the way a not very truthful Democrat would.  The way a bunch of not very truthful Democrats had run against Walker, in his own state.

So Trump is proud, as we hear on the plane, of driving Walker's numbers from 24% down to 0%, by effectively taking the side of the public employee unions against Scott Walker.

Walker was not a very good Presidential candidate.  He has only himself to blame for that.

But for running against him like a hack Wisconsin Democrat, Walker is surely entitled to be pissed at Trump.  As is anyone else who knows Walker and his record.

When challenged by Charlie Sykes, Trump gave his excuse about believing what he read in Time.  On the plane, he doubled down, as though his exchange with Sykes had never taken place.  (Well, he said he'd won it, so there must have been a lot of motivated forgetting.)  He'll keep right at it.

The method that Trump employed to stomp Scott Walker should be of concern.  

Do you think the public employee unions should have prevailed against Walker and the Legislature?  Do you think Walker should have been recalled for getting Act 10 passed (that's the one that curbed their powers)?

If so, you should congratulate Trump for stomping Walker.  

Otherwise, you ought to be getting queasy.

Trump appears to believe, not only that Walker must never have opposed him, but that Walker owed it to him, after being duly stomped, to tender an act of fealty.  Not that Trump would ever reach out to Walker.  Infra dig, and all that. It was Walker's duty to kiss up to Trump.

And if Walker didn't kiss up to him (instead, the worm displayed unforgivable disloyalty, by endorsing Ted Cruz), then re-stomping was vitally necessary.  You know, by recycling the same stuff Trump said he too credulously accepted from Time magazine.  But now, presto changeo, Trump's got "perfect statistics."

Trump is not obliged to turn the other cheek when a rival criticizes him.  Neither, by the way, is Walker...

What you have been defending, however, is not a refusal to turn the other cheek.

What you have been defending is gaining political advantage by lying about an opponent's character and record—even when the particular lies that your favored candidate has selected for this purpose undermine his own political party and certain portions of its program that he purports to endorse.

Then, if the former opponent fails to beg your favored candidate for the opportunity to become your favored candidate's servant, your favored candidate must repeat the lies.

Even if you have become inured to the actual words Donald Trump is using, how can you not hear the endless egomania of his press conference on the plane?  Or the boundless vindictiveness?

What most hurts Trump is the vindictiveness.

If he loses the Wisconsin primary, it will be because he's been too busy stomping Scott Walker to pay attention to the two people whose names are on the ballot.

If he fails to gain the nomination, it will be because he got too busy stomping and then re-stomping any other Republican who competed with him or tried to oppose him. 

If Trump gets the nomination, I think he is going to be so preoccupied with still another round of stomping that he won't be able to keep his eye on Hillary Clinton.

If he nonetheless gets elected, he will actually need the support of people like Scott Walker.  Well, unless he throws in with the National Educational Association and AFSCME instead.

What Trump is doing to Scott Walker is not about program.  It is not about principle.  It is not about opposing an Establishment.  It is not about taking apart some war machine.  It is not about putting up buildings.  It is not about producing one solitary thing. It is about destruction, and it is being done for the sake of power.  it begins and ends with Donald J. Trump: all must bow before him, anyone who fails to get with that agenda must be destroyed, and nothing else counts.

Robert

[Ellen Stuttle]

31 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Generally I would agree that an apology for such an action might be in order, and a good idea, but not necessarily after an incident had been exaggerated as much as in this case. With the media's bloodlust, especially for Republican blood, and extra-especially for Trump's, an apology would be taken as an admission that the highly exaggerated claims actually happened. Even prior to the incident, the media had been spinning the myth that Trump and his supporters were violent and encouraging violence. Disruptions and acts of violence committed by people opposed to Trump were blamed by the media on Trump. When Time's idiot photographer verbally abused and physically assaulted a secret service agent, and after much patience and restraint the agent took the jackass down, the media headlines announced that there was more violence at a Trump rally, and that the idiot photographer was the victim. In such a twisted and hostile context, apologies are a very bad idea. Trump and Lewandowski's approach has wrecked the media myth and replaced it with reality where an apology would have fed the myth.

J

That's how I see it, too. Fields behaved stupidly, Lewandowski didn't accost her, as she claimed he did.  He has nothing to apologize for, really, and, in the circumstances, with the prior media hype having been what it was, a polite, pro-forma apology likely would have been played up as an admission of guilt.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Yup.

 

If I praise it, why wouldn't I listen to it? It would be stupid or dishonest to do otherwise.

In fact, if you go through my posts, you will constantly see where I mention when I haven't listened to something or only partially listened to it. (Ditto for reading it.)

Do you think I'm stupid or dishonest?

I'm not, but I'm not offended if you think I am. Most anti-Trump people think Trump supporters are stupid or dishonest, so I've grown used to it. Maybe we can throw brainwashed in there, too.

 

Michael

Michael,

It's not about stupidity, or dishonesty, or being brainwashed.

It's about listening to stuff like Trump's comments on Scott Walker, without noticing how amazingly bad his arguments his can be, without noticing the constant insertion of irrelevant self-glorification—and without walking away scratching your head.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Generally I would agree that an apology for such an action might be in order, and a good idea, but not necessarily after an incident had been exaggerated as much as in this case. With the media's bloodlust, especially for Republican blood, and extra-especially for Trump's, an apology would be taken as an admission that the highly exaggerated claims actually happened.

Jonathan,

We've gotten to the core of it, finally.

Apparently this bloodlust, especially against Republicans, extra-especially against Trump, might prevail even at Breitbart.

One risk posed by your line of reasoning is that people can stretch it into a justification for digging in, stonewalling, lying, destroying evidence—and doing those when something really serious has happened.  Something far, far worse than what Lewandowski did, if all of Fields' charges are true.

Another is that if the entire media are already especially out to get Trump, why should Trump's supporters not take advantage of their bloodlust, as long as it is turned against Republicans not named Trump?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Taking on the public employee unions, so state, county, and municipal employees weren't forced to join them, and governments weren't acting as collectors for the people who ran the unions, and the unions weren't putting their money right back into Democrats, who were then elected so they could give the union everything they wanted.  Getting taxes lowered.  Facing a recall election (there were three recall elections, but just one for the governor) in a state closely divided between conservative Republicans and hard Left Democrats   Those Democrats had ruled without challenge for years and weren't going to give up total control without a fight.  Have you ever heard of the "John Doe" investigation (pursuant to grand jury indictments that people weren't allowed to say they were under) that was waged against Walker's people and against any other group that appeared to be helping him?

Robert,

I don't recall Trump denying any of that.

Did he?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Have we reached 4000 posts yet?

What's Trump going to do--when he becomes President?

Did I miss it?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

In any political contest, the question arises soon enough: Are lies permissible, so long as they are being told for political gain?

Robert,

I want to give you an answer, but I don't know how to even start with a question like that.

Who is supposed to grant the permission for politicians to lie? And what happens if that permission is withdrawn? Do politicians stop lying?

It's like asking, is it permissible for pigs to shit, so long as they do it out of their anus?  

(Sorry for the visual...)

Who is supposed to grant and withdraw that kind of permission? 

It means nothing.

I don't mean in the la-la land of what should be if only people would stop acting like people and become a syllogism. I mean out here on earth.

Where, oh where, except in some utopian dream do politicians not lie?

You seem to be wound up with Trump's statements when they are inconsistent, but pretty OK when others do it.

So I get it you harbor hatred of one man over the others, but I don't share it.

For the record, Trump tells far more truth than any other politician in modern history. Yeah, he lies, that's what politicians (and humans) do, but his lies are mostly screw-ups from too much blabbering or hyperbole.

I just can't see him telling the entire world an American Ambassador and others were killed by fanatics over a YouTube video. Or telling voters in a credible manner at the voting place his competitor is no longer running.

Michael