Donald Trump

[Robert Campbell]

A further thought about Donald Trump's high negatives with women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424519/The-comb-creep-hates-women-know-SELINA-SCOTT-reveals-Donald-Trump-failed-seduce-stalked-20-years.html

I do think Ms. Scott is going too far in likening Trump to a shark.  There is a difference between being a narcissist and being a psychopath.

Robert

[william.scherk]

On 4/14/2016 at 6:55 PM, MereMortal said:

Stefan Molyneux posted this a few days ago.

It takes an iron constitution to listen through the Molyneux corpus, at least for me. I did listen to the entire chat with guests you posted, and winnowed much of its pith down to under ten minutes. There are some remarkable claims and statement made in this snippet:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

Let Me Ask America a Question
How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.
By Donald J. Trump 
April 14, 2016
Wall Street Journal

Trump said:

On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.

A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.

Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?

I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people.

. . .

The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.

Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?

. . .

Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.

Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people who live in that district.

That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been mathematically eliminated by the voters.

While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.

. . .

My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.

. . .

How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?

Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about securing their country.

My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter participation.

We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.

. . .

The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.

I have a feeling we are going to start seeing a lot more articles by Trump in the press.

He comes off well.

btw - The full article is better than the highlights I gave above. Check it out.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 4/14/2016 at 7:02 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump is not running a campaign based on dirty backroom tricks, what I call "the rot." He is taking his case directly to voters and winning them over by gobs and gobs.

. . .

So is Colorado a screw-up on Trump's part? Sure. Is the Colorado system itself rot? A big honking-ass sure. When you have an election where voters can't vote, I don't know what else to call it but rot. This is exactly the kind of crap Trump is running against.

. . .

The one weakness this old boy system cannot withstand is massive votes (which is why Colorado eliminated votes). Trump figured that out and has been focusing on that--not votes that are tied to political figures where the rot is, but votes from people who have given up due to the rot. These people exist and can't be controlled by the rot except if they don't vote at all. And that's what the rot counts on. Trump figured out there are a hell of a lot of those people.

. . .

Now--and this part is critical to understanding Trump's perspective--Trump put this new team together fundamentally to treat the rot, not win the election at root. He already had that part down.

If you are an anti-Trump person, I don't know if that will make sense to you. But Trump is not in this to win the election through rot. He's now dealing with the rot, but underneath, he wants to clean out the rot. As to the actual election, he is taking his election strategy directly to voters and addressing their concerns.

. . .

But those are the rules, the anti-Trump people proclaim and Trump did not learn them. He was clueless. Clueless, I tell ya'. Clueless!  

Well, the rot actually is part of the rules. And Trump has learned them in time. And, as you see in the press, he knows how to apply some painful leverage to the rot. Even Reince Priebus is tweeting, "Give us all a break."

Trump stumbled in Colorado because the rot was deeper than he imagined, but he's together now. And make no mistake, those who are expert in rot rules are in for a rude awakening. Trump is competent as all hell when he gets a bead on something.

It's funny, but Trump's article in the Wall Street Journal said basically the same thing I did above.

I wonder if Trump is ripping off my ideas...

(Woah theah, pardner... Don't get all bent out of shape and stop that drooling... That's a quip... that's a quip...  )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

A further thought about Donald Trump's high negatives with women:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424519/The-comb-creep-hates-women-know-SELINA-SCOTT-reveals-Donald-Trump-failed-seduce-stalked-20-years.html

I do think Ms. Scott is going too far in likening Trump to a shark.  There is a difference between being a narcissist and being a psychopath.

Robert,

Let's see if I get this straight.

Selina Scott does a hit piece on Trump, he doesn't like it and they get into a long feud in public, both calling each other sleazy.

To Scott, that means Trump hit on her, she rejected him and he stalked her for over 20 years out of anger at the rejection.

Trump's a misogynist! He's a misogynist, I tell ya'! A misogynist!

Hmmmmmm...

 

EDIT: btw - I got looking around and most of the stuff about Ms. Scott and Trump seems to be written by... drum roll... Ms. Scott.  Oh, there are a few other things by virulent anti-Trump people, but that's about the bulk of it. They can hope, though. One day her tale of woe might catch on.  

Michael

[PDS]

12 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Could this indicate Rove thinks he sees the end of the Bush dynasty?  I don't know, pure speculation.

Jeb's son seems less of a man-child than his father, so the above might not be the case.

 

This might mean that, no matter how much of bragging bullshit artist Trump seems to be, he's probably still better than Hillary. 

[Peter]

I was very glad to see Trump’s Wall Street Journal article but it was too brief. He should put several of those out every week. How long could that take? They are running a political ad for free! I bet Sir Donald could dictate an article in 15 minutes.

Moneypenny! Get in here and take this article down as I talk. But who were you just talking to?

Miss Moneypenny: He's just a friend.

Sir Donald Trump: At this hour of the afternoon?

Miss Moneypenny: It's called life, Donald. You should try it some time.

Sir Donald Trump talks for several minutes: And, so my fellow Americans blah blah blah. Have you got all that? Now, call the Wall Street Journal and tell them I will give them exclusive rights to run three of these articles a week. Ooops. I dropped my pen. Could you pick that up Moneypenny?

Miss Moneypenny: You know, this sort of behaviour could qualify as sexual harassment.

Sir Donald Trump: Really? What's the penalty for that?

Miss Moneypenny: Someday, you'll have to make good on your innuendos.

Sir Donald Trump: Moneypenny, I am happily married! Oh, by the way, since you came in here, have you heard me stammer?

Miss Moneypenny: No, sir!

Sir Donald Trump: Splendid. Let me know if I do; I haven't got time for that sort of thing now.

Miss Moneypenny: Is there anything else I can give you Sir Donald?

Sir Donald Trump: Alas, Moneypenny, I don’t have time for any more of your lip.

[Peter]

If you asked Ted would he change Colorado’s system he would hem and haw a bit, then say, oh just leave it up to Colorado. But if it were off the record he would say, “Of course. It is unfair and archaic.”

But TrusTed won. He did his homework. Donald “Duck” Trump is a loser. He is cutting his losses with his Wall Street Journal article and trying to A. Convince Colorado to change. B. Trying to get other states to change before the delegates stab him in the back too. Et Tu, California? C. Quacking, and scolding Colorado. D. Trying to positively affect the General Election. E. Testing out his Presidential chops.

Peter       

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 4/14/2016 at 7:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man...

Finally this garbage is over (from Politico just now)...

Trump campaign manager will not be prosecuted, sources say

And let this gold-digger Fields try a defamation case like the article says she might.

She may not like the result. Not with her history...

BOOM!

Busted big-time.

I'll just let that stand for itself.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

Let Me Ask America a Question
How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.
By Donald J. Trump 
April 14, 2016
Wall Street Journal

I have a feeling we are going to start seeing a lot more articles by Trump in the press.

He comes off well.

btw - The full article is better than the highlights I gave above. Check it out.

Michael

I feel less charitable about Trumps writing abilities and base that on his ad lib speaking style. Trumps writer certainly knows how to take Trumps typical screed material and make something of it. Its his characteristic style to speak in short phrases, cobbling together errant thoughts, stream of consciousness. Someone, I forget who, diagrammed his speech fraught with simple words. I doubt he can really become the genius he thinks himself to be when he puts pencil to paper.

Theres an awful lot of evasion in thinking that the will of the people is undone by an Electoral College, some 240 yrs old. The underlying thought process seems to be a vote doesnt count since we dont write the rules. That resonates with those of us that believe a single vote matters little. An underlying sentiment Ive heard for years is there is nothing to be done about politicians. In that I presume Trump represents the best hope for change. Hope and change was the 2007 mantra. ;)

If he can write well, why not address persistent ingrained problems with the republic as deeply as he did his outrage over missing the delegate rules? Hes mostly silent on principled stands and stays with broad generalizations. He strikes me as another mixed (wind)bag but with attitude that sounds mostly like everyone else when it comes down to it.  

[Peter]

Good job, TMZ. That is wonderful investigative reporting acceptable in a court of law. (Unless you are a public canoodler trying to spark your girlfriend you should welcome public cameras.) I have been an advocate for cameras in school classrooms, hallways, and lunchrooms. I think I mentioned a local high school that installed cameras and in less than two weeks it captured images of not just rowdiness but of criminal offenses that resulted in jail time. With school bus and grade school, playground cameras a counselor can identify and stop acts of bullying. A bus driver is allowed to stop this bus, kick a criminal kid off, and not pick them up again, in my Maryland county. And they have the proof as to why that was done and a movie if an incident is needed as evidence by the police.

Is this Big Brother from the novel "1984" or are we humans now the meek Eloi, from The Time Machine? Hardly. We have always had human observers, playground monitors, and eye witness testimony. But now we have fewer liars who get away with lying. Oh, they still try. They'll always try but now they get their just desserts. Mud pie. 

Peter          

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

I feel less charitable about Trumps writing abilities...

Geoff,

Donny Deutsch might agree with you, but there are a lot of very smart people who think that op-ed was excellent--and the reason was quality. See both below:

What I like about letting readers decide things for themselves about elections is that each one gets to vote--unless you live in Colorado. But there they've got weed, so that's something...

 

Michael

[Peter]

Wow. A 7.4 just struck Japan. Tsunami warnings are out. Allies! Get to higher ground!

I agree Michael. We'uns is probably very informed.

Geoff? I think I may have asked you but is it Geoff, or Geoffrey? And do you pronounce it Jeff, or the English “gee off free”? Once more for the record. And what’s with the nickname, Turkeyfoot? Not the best part of its anatomy. How about you rename yourself “Drumstick?” Or translate your witness protection name into Latin?

Turcia radicibus wrote about Trump: Someone, I forget who, diagrammed his speech fraught with simple words. I doubt he can really become the genius he thinks himself to be when he puts pencil to paper. end quote

Trump claims to be channeling “the common man.” Hark! Do I hear an Aaron Copeland fanfare? Dah, dah. Dah dee dah. Dah dah . . . . dah daaaah. I think he is verbally weak and repetitive. Maybe Barack will leave him his teleprompter. In last night’s Hillary v. Bernie debate I saw Old Hickory Clinton using a cheat sheet, lap top as a teleprompter against that even older Andy Rooney fart.

Turcia radicibus wrote: There’s an awful lot of evasion in thinking that the will of the people is undone by an Electoral College, some 240 yrs old. end quote

It would take a convention to change its antiquated nature. I don’t like it, but it would be a shame if 48 Montana’s didn’t equal one mega New York - California. The count does change with population growths, and lessening’s without any fanfare. On election night the supposedly, unofficial electoral count is how everyone identifies the winner. Nobody cares when the electoral college gets together to confirm the foregone conclusion. It is official when announced by the major networks and they know it. That is better than those somewhat helpful exit polls, and calling a close contest before it is time.   

Peter       

From the land of Wikipedia: Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called "electors," who almost always have pledged to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates (though unpledged electors are possible) and who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state. Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled,^[1] while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, in total, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner take all" basis.^[2] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.^[3] Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.^[4][5] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.

The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or of vice president is elected to that office. The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote. If no candidate receives a majority for vice president, then the Senate will select the vice president, with each senator having one vote. On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.

[Robert Campbell]

15 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Could this indicate Rove thinks he sees the end of the Bush dynasty? 

Korben,

That's possible.  Rove was a Bushie from the beginning, and how many electoral successes has he scored with candidates not named Bush?

Anyone who remembers how much Rove was actually able to do for Mitt Romney won't much care where he decides to direct his efforts now.

Robert

[Peter]

Well, the earthquake has been downgraded from 7.4 to 7.1 to 7.0 in Japan. But it still collapsed buildings.

Robert wrote: Anyone who remembers how much Rove was actually able to do for Mitt Romney won't much care where he decides to direct his efforts now. end quote

It was a sad end to a career, (other than as a political commentator on Fox) when he refused to believe his own eyes when Mitt was losing. I had to switch channels. Karl was like a child throwing a penny into the Trevi Fountain and repeating, “Oh, please, please, great Zeus, make it come true.”

I see the news is picking up about how snide Old Hickory and Bernie were last night. Hillary is so shrill at times I can’t listen to her . . .  and Bernie mumbles. I hope that was the last debate. And oh, please, please great Zeus, let Bernie get 50.1 percent in New York, and let Kasich and Cruz combine to get 50.02 percent against Don Corleone Trump.  

Can we attribute senility to the democrat claim that global warming is more of a threat than global terrorism? What fools. It IS a wild claim based on faith and superstition. Man - made global warming isn’t occurring at anything approaching a catastrophe. It isn’t even an inconvenience. A friend’s summer home on a local beach is still the same distance from the water after 50 years of observation. Of course the man made heat island affect is real and so is man - made smog. But I would love to see orange trees out my window, and grapes growing to near the tops of the Poconos. Bring it on. Humans will thrive as they always do when we have a "warming."

Peter     

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At the NY GOP gala ($1k a plate), Trump talked mostly about real estate and killed it. See the video here: Trump Delivers Laid Back, Apolitical Speech To NY Republicans As Protesters Rage Outside.

It was actually a fun speech. He told the story of the ice rink (among several) even better than he did in The Art of the Deal. And, as Trump said, "Who the hell wants to talk about politics all the time?"

Cruz, on the other hand, didn't go over so well. A couple of tweets:

Reaction at #nygop dinner to Cruz is embarrassing for both Cruz and the guests. Folks walking around, chatting w/ each other as he speaks.

— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) April 15, 2016

And this:

The scene as Cruz speaks at NYC GOP Gala pic.twitter.com/Pwx8I0Ci25

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) April 15, 2016

Kasich doesn't count.

 

Chuggin' right along...

Michael

 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

BOOM!

Busted big-time.

And now the thug, monster, misogynist, bully, baby-eater, and all round human scummy scum scum speaks.

Man...

That didn't sound like a thug...

He even left to door open to having a sit-down with Fields.

Where did the Gestapo Commando go?

 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And this:

 

 

The scene as Cruz speaks at NYC GOP Gala pic.twitter.com/Pwx8I0Ci25

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) April 15, 2016

 

Kasich doesn't count.

 

Chuggin' right along...

Michael

Cruz is so accustomed to this happening on the Senate floor, he doesn't realize what's going on.

He should have recognized reality, cut the speech short, and got out of there before someone recorded it.

Oops.

 

[Peter]

Dallas’s Tom Landry, the greatest coach ever, wrote: Cruz is so accustomed to this happening on the Senate floor, he doesn't realize what's going on. He should have recognized reality, cut the speech short . . . end quote

Oops. I see Cruz has lost votes in the national polls, mostly to Kasich. So a contested convention is projected at roughly the same level as it was after Wisconsin which was won by Cruz - but now Kasich is gaining.

Nano, Nano. This is Mork from Ork. Here is an interesting conjecture. If I can make the candidates promise to do as they say during the campaign, what would you make each of them promise? They will know in advance that the truth-alizer has been turned on so from this point forward they can only speak the truth and fight mightily, if elected, to keep their promises. Mindy, what would you make them promise?

Mindy: I would make Trump promise to never denigrate a woman for her looks or human nature again unless it is a satiric sketch on Saturday Night Live.

Good. Good.  How about the rest of you? Narrow it down to one candidate if you wish. What would you like them to promise and with one hundred percent certainty you will know they are speaking the truth and they WILL FIGHT to achieve their promises? Ready? I am turning the machine on.

Will it be predictable if we hear nothing from those brigands for 24 hours as they contemplate their every word?

Mork.    

[KorbenDallas]

The problem with that is Cruz can't speak the truth, so he's disqualified from the Mork game.  He creates invalid, sleazy contexts at every turn.  Much of Cruz's talking points are derivatives of Trump's.

Kasich doesn't have a chance.  His only hope is a contested convention.

Trump has time to turn the women vote around, will he make strides here is another matter.  Trump does have a lot of women in management positions in his businesses, I do not think there is any discrimination there.  (Yet, one could argue it's to avoid EEOC filings.)  I think his Rosie O'donnell slight, his Kelly menstruation attack, and the Heidi Cruz comparison photo was distasteful and inappropriate.  Combine those with Trump's masculine attitude, and it will be tough for him to turn around the women vote.  But there is time.  I do not think he discriminates women in his personal life, I think the appearance is coming from his general disposition of the traditional masculine/feminine role in intimate relationships.  I do not think he subordinates women in his personal life.  Professionally I think he feels women are just as capable and he needs to bring this out more in the future.  I think his attacks on women were a mistake, a miscalculation to remain in the news cycle.  My opinion on this can shift, however, providing more context.

I think Trump will mostly hold to his published tax plan.  It's impossible for someone to completely hold their contexts without having the information they will obtain once in office.  I think he will lower taxes to the middle class, getting the middle class to begin spending again (discretionary spending has been down for years, CPI going up), which will stimulate revenue to businesses, so businesses can then hire again, eventually getting the discouraged workers back in the fold.  Investors will invest again once they can see this is going to happen.  Broad strokes here.  But I think Trump will generally follow through with his word on taxes.

Nanu Nanu

 

[Selene]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Dallas’s Tom Landry, the greatest coach ever, wrote: Cruz is so accustomed to this happening on the Senate floor, he doesn't realize what's going on. He should have recognized reality, cut the speech short . . . end quote

 

Really?

I think the Wizard of Westwood is a competitive choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden

[william.scherk]

Pivot!

 

[PDS]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

The problem with that is Cruz can't speak the truth, so he's disqualified from the Mork game.  He creates invalid, sleazy contexts at every turn.  Much of Cruz's talking points are derivatives of Trump's.

Kasich doesn't have a chance.  His only hope is a contested convention.

Trump has time to turn the women vote around, will he make strides here is another matter.  Trump does have a lot of women in management positions in his businesses, I do not think there is any discrimination there.  (Yet, one could argue it's to avoid EEOC filings.)  I think his Rosie O'donnell slight, his Kelly menstruation attack, and the Heidi Cruz comparison photo was distasteful and inappropriate.  Combine those with Trump's masculine attitude, and it will be tough for him to turn around the women vote.  But there is time.  I do not think he discriminates women in his personal life, I think the appearance is coming from his general disposition of the traditional masculine/feminine role in intimate relationships.  I do not think he subordinates women in his personal life.  Professionally I think he feels women are just as capable and he needs to bring this out more in the future.  I think his attacks on women were a mistake, a miscalculation to remain in the news cycle.  My opinion on this can shift, however, providing more context.

I think Trump will mostly hold to his published tax plan.  It's impossible for someone to completely hold their contexts without having the information they will obtain once in office.  I think he will lower taxes to the middle class, getting the middle class to begin spending again (discretionary spending has been down for years, CPI going up), which will stimulate revenue to businesses, so businesses can then hire again, eventually getting the discouraged workers back in the fold.  Investors will invest again once they can see this is going to happen.  Broad strokes here.  But I think Trump will generally follow through with his word on taxes.

Nanu Nanu

 

Cruz definitely gives me a bad vibe.  

I don't think it's that he's lying.   I think it's that he talks way too much like a politician--everything is scripted.  And when everything is scripted, how can anybody know what he actually thinks?   My gut tells me he probably holds perfectly orthodox conservative Republican views.  But, there is an almost zero chance that Cruz can beat Hillary. 

I agree with you that Trump's woman "problem" is likely more tactical fumbling than some inherent discriminatory element.   It strikes me as almost a dog-whistle that everybody heard, rather than the subset of people he was trying to whistle to.   The man is 69 years old.   He is bound to say some stupid things about women now and then.   But just like momentum begets momentum, so too does the converse.    It would be nice if a man who inherited a bunch of money, has been rich all his life, has had almost every conceivable good break, and really has nothing to complain about were more generous in his dealings with others.  If Trump gave off that vibe more often, he would get more benefit of the doubt when stubbing his toes.

Trump's tax plan is one of the few things I actually like about him.   So I hope you're right about that.    Too bad his protectionist garbage would basically cancel out any economic gains from the tax plan. 

I fear that Trump may have blown in it in the last month or two:  i.e., he may have blown his chance to actually govern, in the unlikely event he somehow were to get elected.    It should be easy for me, a life-long Republican who has actually worked to elect Republican presidents (sorry Leonard...) to want to support Trump.   He doesn't make it easy--and almost makes it impossible.

[PDS]

4 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Korben,

That's possible.  Rove was a Bushie from the beginning, and how many electoral successes has he scored with candidates not named Bush?

Anyone who remembers how much Rove was actually able to do for Mitt Romney won't much care where he decides to direct his efforts now.

Robert

Rove reminds me of a professional baseball player that has a super-bad-ass walkup song before each bat while hitting about .169.    His bluster and rep doesn't match his achievements at all.   Watching his predictions go down the dumper the night Romney got stomped in 2012 was PAINFUL. 

[turkeyfoot]

Michael,

If Mr Trump wants to question the process of how presidents are elected then he should  stay the course and pursue it. Instead this is politicking du jour  and soon to be forgotten by the end of the NY primary except for his tirade against Cruz who remains blameless.

Its smoke and mirrors centered on inward gazing at his navel. Its not a principled stand its a personal vendetta at being temporarily bested that brings his ire to the surface. Instead of fooling around with the 12th amendment he would be wiser to wrap his head around the 10th and pursue that with vengeance. I, Louisana Cajun cook guarantee he would have better success, if only he better understood the principals involved and like Justin Wilson entertained the idea that his calling is not in the political arena but at the top, in a skyscraper.