Donald Trump

[Peter]

Delancey wrote: Personally, I haven't chosen someone to support yet, but on the topic of Trump and change agents, I suspect that he does indeed have what is needed to express the pathos.  I think it is going to take someone like him, if not him in particular.  Mostly because there is no time for an Overton Window.  The pendulum seems to be set to swing very far and very fast. end quote

And PDS wrote: I just don't think Trump is the right change agent for the expression of that pathos. My biggest fear of Trump is that he actually make things far worse than they are. end quote

Wikipedia on Vietnam: It started in 1954 (the same year the Algerian War for Independence from France began) and ended in 1975. It went on longer in Vietnam until the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam and made the entire country communist governed. The Vietnamese had been fighting for a lot longer than before the US stepped in to help. end quote

I agree Trump is poised to be worse in a Nixon-ian sense while expressing pathos for how bad things have become. Trump supporters remind me of The Silent Majority phenomenon of Nixon’s era. I worry that Trump will hire a Secretary of State like Hillary and have advisers (perhaps not unlike Henry Kissinger) who will advise there be U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East.

Wikipedia: The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized by United States President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support." end quote

The Silent Majority did not exist until it had a name. Then, as people self-identified with the group it grew much larger and vocal. How could it not? Does anyone else worry Trump would be the next Nixon? We are at war with Islam. What is the chance Trump will continue the cycle of endless war? Nixon’s portion of the Vietnam War went on and on. We entered that war officially in 1965 and disastrously withdrew in 1975.

No one has come up with a catchy name for Cruz and Trump supporters though both may appeal to The Tea Party.

Peter

[PDS]

1 hour ago, dldelancey said:

What would the right change agent look like?  What characteristics would he or she have?  Which things do you think will be worse and how much worse?

Personally, I haven't chosen someone to support yet, but on the topic of Trump and change agents, I suspect that he does indeed have what is needed to express the pathos.  I think it is going to take someone like him, if not him in particular.  Mostly because there is no time for an Overton Window.  The pendulum seems to be set to swing very far and very fast. 

Great questions.  

The change agent for this cycle certainly wouldn't look like Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders. 

So that leaves us with the question of whether Trump is up to the task.  

First, I have strong doubts about him because of his lack of core convictions.  I can explain more, if you wish, but, as one example, take the 5 positions he took on abortion recently.  He clearly has lived 69 years and hasn't given this core issue much thought, or he is lying about his true beliefs.  Second, I have doubts about him because he is indeed a bullshit artist.  We have no idea of what we are going to get with Trump.   Nor, apparently, does he.   The example here would be the way he is jumping around on what to do with Obamacare, and, when his bluff his called, he defaults to being "against the establishment".   Third, his lack of conviction and his bullshit artistry is amplified by his fundamental lack of seriousness about the job he is seeking.   Anybody who would tweet "I alone" can stop suicide bombings in Pakistan is self-evidently not someone whose judgment can be trusted.   Some may believe he has magic powers.  I don't.  Fourth, the man is a true bully who does not handle setbacks or pressure well--at least not in the political arena.  Witness his inability to take a loss without going apeshit, or his nastiness about Cruz's wife.   Again, I really wouldn't care about this if he were building a hotel.   Finally, he has burned just about every bridge possible on his way to the nomination so far.   There is no good will built up for Trump among the people he will have to work with to accomplish these great (unknown) things that will "Make America Great Again".   As a practical matter, this would mean 4 years of stalemate, punctuated by erratic uses of presidential power.    This sounds a lot like more Obama to me.

[All of these problems would be disqualifying even if Trump didn't pander on the questions of David Duke, "the Mexicans", and "the Muslims", or was willing to do his homework].

As for who might be such a change agent, I imagine an Obama figure who actually governs like Obama campaigned, i.e., as somebody who would unite the country, who could strike "grand bargains" about the nation's crippling debt, who might help solve the racial divide that has haunted us since 1776, and who actually (in practice) might pull back from policing the entire world, except where truly needed to protect our interests.  

My sense is that a completely "apolitical" leader will be needed after 4 years of Hillary in 2020--maybe a retired general or somebody like that.  Some of the "grand bargains" on entitlements, debt, and budgeting will then need to be struck to keep us from bankruptcy, but the pain will be much greater than it had to be. 

Unfortunately, by then, the Supreme Court will have 2-3 more Hillary-appointed Justices and what's left of our constitutional republic will likely never be recovered.

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

49 minutes ago, PDS said:

First, I have strong doubts about him because he has no core convictions.

This is so wrong...

Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for office and his entire life is a monument to the core convictions of those who support him.

There.

Two propositions. Both said in earnest.

Let readers decide which side they agree with or if somewhere in the middle.

Michael

[PDS]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is so wrong...

Trump is one of the most principled men ever to run for office and his entire life is a monument to the core convictions of those who support him.

There.

Two propositions. Both said in earnest.

Let readers decide which side they agree with or if somewhere in the middle.

Michael

Michael:  I just happened to be editing my remarks above, and saw your post. 

I may be able agree with you--just to advance the discussion--that those who support Trump have core convictions.    That doesn't say all that much about Trump, I'm afraid.*  

But more to the point, how do you know what Trump's entire life has been a monument to?  When he dumped his first wife for Marla Maples, was that a monument to anything but his libido?   When he targeted the use of the power of eminent domain to build hotels, which core convictions of his supporters was he in accord with?   The proposition that his "entire life is a monument to the core convictions of those who support him" seems like a pretty big stretch to me. 

*I know you have claimed Trump is the effect of his supporters, not the cause.   It would seem to me that this supports my conclusion, not yours.   

[william.scherk]

59 minutes ago, PDS said:

We have no idea of what we are going to get with Drumpf.   [...] There is no good will built up for Drumpf among the people he will have to work with to accomplish these great things that will "Make Donald Drumpf Again" [...]

Unfortunately, by then, the Supreme Court will have 2-3 more Hillary-appointed Justices and what's left of our constitutional republic will likely never be recovered.

Drumpf has taken many hits on shifty positions and a manga-style briefing book.  Here the Agent of Elite-crats breaks out a few thorny contradictions in the jumble known as TrumpCare. Particularly telling is that the jumble of manga-style policy is a 'starting point.' Or so says one of his wonks.

In this bag is a healthy pig, the healthiest pig ever. I alone can give you a perfect pig. Just me.

May we see the pig?

No, but listen to what happens when I squeeze the bag.

Sounds like a squealing pig bladder horn. You can get that at the Dollar Store.  Show us the pig. 

I have built Magnificent Things and Great Universities. I went to Wharton. I have Big Hands.

Yeah, well, back to the pig in the bag. We have reports of disarray at your pig farm and a lack of documentation of piggery practices. There is no quality control at your hog barns. All sorts of meat is being peddled under the brand.  We need to see the pig, sir.

Quote

Donald Drumpf’s Health Care Ideas Bewilder Republican Experts

Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive and frequent critic of the health law, called Mr. Drumpf’s health care proposals “a jumbled hodgepodge of old Republican ideas, randomly selected, that don’t fit together.”

Mr. Clovis, the national co-chairman of the Drumpf campaign, acknowledged that the ideas Mr. Drumpf has offered to replace the health law were just “a starting point,” a framework. He said that Mr. Drumpf would have a detailed, comprehensive plan to replace the law if Congress repealed it, and he added that any replacement “must be bipartisan.”

Asked if Mr. Drumpf’s plan would insure all those who have gained coverage under the health law, Mr. Clovis said: “That might be correct, but we really don’t know that. A lot of it depends on what initiatives we can get through Congress.”

Mr. Drumpf’s health policy can be pieced together from speeches, television interviews, Twitter posts and a seven-point plan, titled “Health Care Reform to Make Donald Drumpf Again.” He says Congress should encourage the sale of health insurance across state lines and allow individuals to take tax deductions for insurance premium payments. His Medicaid proposal would send lump sums of federal money to each state to provide health care to low-income people, although unlike other Republicans, he has vowed not to cut overall Medicaid spending.

That Mr. Drumpf’s ideas confound Democrats is no surprise. More interesting are the acerbic comments of serious students of health policy often aligned with Republicans.

Mr. Drumpf’s health care platform “resembles the efforts of a foreign student trying to learn health policy as a second language,” said Thomas P. Miller, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute and a harsh critic of President Obama’s health law.

 

We can at least squeeze the bag.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 minutes ago, PDS said:

I agree with you about the core convictions of those who support Trump.    That doesn't say all that much about Trump, I'm afraid.

David,

You don't have to be afraid.  

It says everything about Trump.

If this quality were transferable to someone who only talks but doesn't have the massive baggage of productive achievements Trump has, it would be a landslide for Rubio (not even Cruz).

I repeat, Trump reflects his supporters, not the contrary. And he is not conning them as you most likely think. From your statements, I doubt you can see what they see. Or what Trump sees, for that matter.

You will though.

And you will be so happy (and certainly not afraid) with the result in the end, you will be saying to yourself, what the hell was I thinking back then?

 

This happened with a lot of early Reagan bashers. Read what they said about him back then. In fact, Reagan is a perfect example. He reflected his constituency--not the other way around--in the same manner Trump does. Different styles, same essence.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You don't have to be afraid.   If this quality were transferable to someone who only talks but doesn't have the massive baggage of productive achievements Trump has, it would be a landslide for Rubio (not even Cruz).

I repeat, Trump reflects his supporters, not the contrary. And he is not conning them as you most

And you will be so happy (and certainly not afraid) with the result in the end, you will be saying to yourself, what the hell was I thinking back then?

 

This happened with a lot of early Reagan bashers. Read what they said about him back then. In fact, Reagan is a perfect example. He reflected his constituency--not the other way around--in the same manner Trump does. Different styles, same essence.

Michael

~I tremble for the Republic~

--Cicero

[Robert Campbell]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Finally, he has burned just about every bridge possible on his way to the nomination so far.   There is no good will built up for Trump among the people he will have to work with to accomplish these great (unknown) things that will "Make America Great Again".   As a practical matter, this would mean 4 years of stalemate, punctuated by erratic uses of presidential power.    This sounds a lot like more Obama to me.

David,

From your excellent paragraph summarizing why Trump is not the guy, I want to emphasize your last point.

Milo Yiannapoulos is promoting Trump for President, in full anticipation that after a couple of big executive actions, pretty much every Democrat and every Republican in Congress will dig in against Trump.  Milo will be fine with that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/01/milo_yiannopoulos_trump_represents_the_best_hope_we_have_to_smash_political_correctness.html

I'm kind of hoping we can do better.

Robert

Edited April 8, 2016 by Robert Campbell

[PDS]

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You don't have to be afraid.  

It says everything about Trump.

If this quality were transferable to someone who only talks but doesn't have the massive baggage of productive achievements Trump has, it would be a landslide for Rubio (not even Cruz).

I repeat, Trump reflects his supporters, not the contrary. And he is not conning them as you most likely think. From your statements, I doubt you can see what they see. Or what Trump sees, for that matter.

You will though.

And you will be so happy (and certainly not afraid) with the result in the end, you will be saying to yourself, what the hell was I thinking back then?

 

This happened with a lot of early Reagan bashers. Read what they said about him back then. In fact, Reagan is a perfect example. He reflected his constituency--not the other way around--in the same manner Trump does. Different styles, same essence.

Michael

"You don't have to be afraid."

Thank you.  I appreciate that. I may be afraid for the future of the country, but I'm really not afraid of the arguments that you claim support a Trump presidency.  

"Trump reflects his supporters, not the contrary."

Maybe true.  Maybe not.  I don't have your secret decoder ring about Trump.  If true, however, this proves my point about his lack of core convictions.

"And he is not conning them as you most likely think."

Two problems here:  (1) you are playing the Victim Card again, and (2) if you want know what I "mostly likely think", you need only ask me, rather than speculate.

"[Reagan] reflected his constituency--not the other way around..."

Wrong.  I was part of that constituency.  I voted for him twice. I worked on his campaign.  Twice.  That's not how it worked at all, Michael.  

 

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Why not break the suspense, and tell us what Donald Trump's core convictions are?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, PDS said:

Maybe true.  Maybe not.  I don't have your secret decoder ring about Trump.  If true, however, this proves my point about his lack of core convictions.

David,

The fact that you call it a "decoder ring" is proof you don't see me (and I mean me--you are seeing someone you want to be me). In fact, when you claim this proves your point about Trump having no core convictions, you are claiming I have no core convictions.

But I do, as do millions of Trump supporters. And, of course, so does Trump. He lives his values, he doesn't just talk about them. (Once again, you will not see him talking pretty about freedom and waging Endless War for profit with the blood of everybody else's kids. Instead, you will see him waging peace and prosperity by building skyscrapers and so on.)

I don't know what you are trying to prove, but it ain't anchored to any reality I live.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, PDS said:

Two problems here:  (1) you are playing the Victim Card again...

But... but... but...

David,

The world is so cruel to me.

I soooooooooooo need an elitist or member of the intelligentsia to rescue me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Delancey wrote: Personally, I haven't chosen someone to support yet, but on the topic of Trump and change agents, I suspect that he does indeed have what is needed to express the pathos.  I think it is going to take someone like him, if not him in particular.  Mostly because there is no time for an Overton Window.  The pendulum seems to be set to swing very far and very fast. end quote

And PDS wrote: I just don't think Trump is the right change agent for the expression of that pathos. My biggest fear of Trump is that he actually make things far worse than they are. end quote

Wikipedia on Vietnam: It started in 1954 (the same year the Algerian War for Independence from France began) and ended in 1975. It went on longer in Vietnam until the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam and made the entire country communist governed. The Vietnamese had been fighting for a lot longer than before the US stepped in to help. end quote

I agree Trump is poised to be worse in a Nixon-ian sense while expressing pathos for how bad things have become. Trump supporters remind me of The Silent Majority phenomenon of Nixon’s era. I worry that Trump will hire a Secretary of State like Hillary and have advisers (perhaps not unlike Henry Kissinger) who will advise there be U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East.

Wikipedia: The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized by United States President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support." end quote

The Silent Majority did not exist until it had a name. Then, as people self-identified with the group it grew much larger and vocal. How could it not? Does anyone else worry Trump would be the next Nixon? We are at war with Islam. What is the chance Trump will continue the cycle of endless war? Nixon’s portion of the Vietnam War went on and on. We entered that war officially in 1965 and disastrously withdrew in 1975.

No one has come up with a catchy name for Cruz and Trump supporters though both may appeal to The Tea Party.

Peter

What can be called the Vietnam War started in 1945 when France tried to re-occupy French IndoChina. It ended in 1975 when the NVA invaded the South aided greatly by the drastic cutback of financial aid to the South Vietnamese government. The US "withdrawal" was from the American embassy. The military withdrawal was in 1973. What the Vietnamese call "The American War" ran from the late 1950's or 1965 to 1973. The direct minimal human cost of the US intervention was maybe 2,000,000. Because of what then happened in Cambodia, its 2-3 million genocide victims could be added to that. We did not know the North Vietnamese weren't going to be genocidalists like the Chinese Communists who had the blood of tens of millions on their hands. We did not know that the Cambodian Communists weren't either--they were. Ah, communism. The European ideological export to the world, ideologically infesting it still, soft-pedaled by its adherents many of whom think their leftism isn't communism or communism isn't socialism and they are our Mother Superiors, mostly tended to by the useful idiots of mainstream media.

--Brant

[PDS]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

The fact that you call it a "decoder ring" is proof you don't see me (and I mean me--you are seeing someone you want to be me). In fact, when you claim this proves your point about Trump having no core convictions, you are claiming I have no core convictions.

But I do, as do millions of Trump supporters. And, of course, so does Trump. He lives his values, he doesn't just talk about them. (Once again, you will not see him talking pretty about freedom and waging Endless War for profit with the blood of everybody else's kids. Instead, you will see him waging peace and prosperity by building skyscrapers and so on.)

I don't know what you are trying to prove, but it ain't anchored to any reality I live.

Michael

Honestly, Michael, you really need to turn in the Victim Card. 

You just got through saying--10 minutes and 2 posts ago- "from your statements, I doubt you can see what [Trump supporters] see." 

Now you are claiming again that I "don't see" you.  This isn't about you Michael.    I see you just fine.  I just don't find your arguments to be compelling.     

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

In this bag is a healthy pig, the healthiest pig ever. I alone can give you a perfect pig. Just me.

May we see the pig?

No, but listen to what happens when I squeeze the bag.

Sounds like a squealing pig bladder horn. You can get that at the Dollar Store.  Show us the pig. 

I have built Magnificent Things and Great Universities. I went to Wharton. I have Big Hands.

Yeah, well, back to the pig in the bag. We have reports of disarray at your pig farm and a lack of documentation of piggery practices. There is no quality control at your hog barns. All sorts of meat is being peddled under the brand.  We need to see the pig, sir.

Exactly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, PDS said:

This isn't about you Michael.    I see you just fine.  I just don't find your arguments to be compelling.

David,

My arguments are not arguments. I am making statements about who I am.

I am not trying to persuade, but instead inform.

If you don't find these statements you call arguments "compelling" (whatever that means in this context), you see someone other than who I say I am.

In other words, you don't see me. The very fact that you find my self-assessment worthy of argument is proof of this.

I don't mind, either. Like I said, I'm used to it.

No victim here. Just acknowledgment of facts.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Inform us, then, about Donald Trump's core convictions.

Robert

[dldelancey]

22 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

David,

From your excellent paragraph summarizing why Trump is not the guy, I want to emphasize your last point.

Milo Yiannapoulos is promoting Trump for President, in full anticipation that after a couple of big executive actions, pretty much every Democrat and every Republican in Congress will dig in against Trump.  And he'll be fine with that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/01/milo_yiannopoulos_trump_represents_the_best_hope_we_have_to_smash_political_correctness.html

I'm kind of hoping we can do better.

Robert

 "The Overton Window is so narrow, and so far to the left, that something big has to happen, a big tumultuous event, and that event is the Trump presidency."

HA!  That's what I said!  But I said it with better hair.

[Brant Gaede]

15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

My arguments are not arguments. I am making statements about who I am.

I am not trying to persuade, but instead inform.

If you don't find these statements you call arguments "compelling" (whatever that means in this context), you see someone other than who I say I am.

In other words, you don't see me. The very fact that you find my self-assessment worthy of argument is proof of this.

I don't mind, either. Like I said, I'm used to it.

No victim here. Just acknowledgment of facts.

Michael

Since you don't argue you won't be persuaded by being wrastled to the ground with logic and crying out, "Uncle!"~sob~"You're right!"

--Brant

gee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Why not break the suspense, and tell us what Donald Trump's core convictions are?

Robert,

Hard work, fairness, honest dealings, competitiveness, excellence in execution, competence, hard-ass discipline, and so on.

Also, strong country, live and let live, command to rise (similar to Rand's) and achieve one's best, productive achievement, calculated risk taking for productive goals, refusal to be ripped off, intolerance of morons on the job, and so on.

There's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

I doubt you will agree with any of this. But that's what Trump supporters see, not from his words, but from the life he has lived and the way he had conducted the vast majority of his affairs over his entire life.

No use trying to gotcha this because mere words can't undermine what I see.

Michael

[PDS]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

My arguments are not arguments. I am making statements about who I am.

I am not trying to persuade, but instead inform.

If you don't find these statements you call arguments "compelling" (whatever that means in this context), you see someone other than who I say I am.

In other words, you don't see me. The very fact that you find my self-assessment worthy of argument is proof of this.

I don't mind, either. Like I said, I'm used to it.

No victim here. Just acknowledgment of facts.

Michael

So:  since you don't agree with me about Trump, does this mean you don't see me?   

I say I am someone who thinks Trump is a Braggart and a bullshit artist.   If you disagree with this assessment, does that mean you don't see me?

If so, then our respective failures to see would seem to cancel each other out, and we can get on to the substance of the issues at hand. 

[Brant Gaede]

10 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Michael,

Inform us, then, about Donald Trump's core convictions.

Robert

1) America isn't great.

2) I'm great.

3) I'm what's needed to "Make America Great Again."

4) Whatever that was. (Fill in the blank ________________________________.)

[PDS]

16 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Since you don't argue you won't be persuaded by being wrastled to the ground with logic crying, "Uncle!"~sob~"You're right!"

--Brant

gee

 

Michael said his "arguments are not arguments."   He then said they are "statements of who I am."

On this point, Michael gives himself way too little credit.   I am 100% serious about this.

Who Michael is is far more important and more worthy than a politician such as Trump.    Especially a politician such as Trump--for the reasons I have stated above.

If anybody wonders why I am giving Michael such a hard time on this thread, one reason is because of this:  Michael is casting his pearls to swine. 

Perhaps naively, I think he can be persuaded of the errors of his ways...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, dldelancey said:

Mostly because there is no time for an Overton Window. 

Deanna,

I was going to comment on this earlier, but I keep getting sucked into the following pattern:

A: Trump sucks.

Me: No he doesn't. Trump rocks.

A: Tell me exactly why Trump doesn't suck. 

Me: Blah blah blah blah blah blah (giving reasons)... 

A: Those are not reasons.

Me: Yes they are.

A: Trump sucks.

The fact is Trump is the biggest single massive mover of the Overton window in America I have ever seen. Back when talking about immigration along the Mexican border got you a wholesale condemnation of "racist," Trump moved the window so everyone not only started talking about it, they started talking about crime. And "undocumented workers" went right out that window, too. Now everyone says "illegal aliens" again.

Islamic terrorists and pegging most modern terrorism to Islamic cultures similar.

Trade agreements similar.

China trade similar.

NATO similar.

And on and on and on.

Here's the pattern. Trump makes an outrageous statement about one of these things, the media goes apeshit, then after a couple of months (or less), everybody is talking about it as a normal topic, as if it were not absent from the culture before.

Trump doesn't move the Overton window just one notch at a time (progressively). He jumps it three notches or more in one whack.

I, for one, love it.

 

Michael

 

[Brant Gaede]

6 minutes ago, PDS said:

So:  since you don't agree with me about Trump, does this mean you don't see me?   

I say I am someone who thinks Trump is a Braggart and a bullshit artist.   If you disagree with this assessment, does that mean you don't see me?

If so, then our respective failures to see would seem to cancel each other out, and we can get on to the substance of the issues at hand. 

I don't see Trump as a "bullshit artist."

I think his "core" positions aren't ideological.

I think he's extremely weak or questionable psychologically.

I don't think Rand would have thought much of him, especially compared to her fictional heroes.

1 minute ago, PDS said:

 

Michael said his "arguments are not arguments."   He then said they are "statements of who I am."

On this point, Michael gives himself way too little credit.   I am 100% serious about this.

Who Michael is is far more important and more worthy than a politician such as Trump.    Especially a politician such as Trump--for the reasons I have stated above.

If anybody wonders why I am giving Michael such a hard time on this thread, it's precisely because of this:  Michael is casting his pearls to swine. 

Perhaps naively, I think he can be persuaded of the errors of his ways...

Ah. A whole new dimension for the naive.

It's mostly Trump is an action man and Michael is an action man. There's the real congruence.

--Brant