Donald Trump

[Peter]

Just to be fair, I wonder if Trump will allow the People of New York to be represented proportionately if he wins more than 50 percent of the vote tomorrow? Or will he a rotten lying politician? Tune in tomorrow.

Peter

[Selene]

3 minutes ago, Peter said:

Just to be fair, I wonder if Trump will allow the People of New York to be represented proportionately if he wins more than 50 percent of the vote tomorrow? Or will he a rotten lying politician? Tune in tomorrow.

Peter

Peter, your taxes supported every action of the O'bama administration over the last several years, so does that make you a

marxist?

[Selene]

I love leftists...so protective of approved expression!

Quote

Quote

Three Wellesley 11-year-olds figured they’d found the perfect plan to reprise their hit performance at last year’s Fiske Elementary School talent show, when they donned masks of their retiring principal’s face and danced wildly: This year, they’d be the dancing Donald Trumps.

Because whose head has been thrust before America this year with such frequency and vigor?

So at the morning show for students and staff on Wednesday, they strapped on three officially licensed Donald J. Trump masks from an Internet vendor called Fathead and started dancing.

But not everyone was amused.

The wordless, two-minute act drew at least one complaint to the principal. And a few hours before the evening performance, the boys were given an ultimatum: Ditch the masks, or sit out the show. The Bobblehead Boys, as they’d come to be known, were no more.

“The bobblehead is the act,” said Maryellen Maggiacomo, whose twin boys, Marc and David, are two-thirds of the trio. No Trump head, no show.

For the boys, it was confusing and upsetting, said Laurie Mattaliano, whose son Christian completed the trio. “They assume they did something wrong.”

And for the adults, the notion that someone would find offense in the benign gyrations of three fifth-graders is evidence that this overheated election cycle has made America grate on people’s nerves.

“No words were spoken. It’s just pop culture. The skit took no stance in support or defamation,” Mattaliano said. And both mothers said the nature of the complaint — whether it had come from someone offended on behalf of Trump or by him — was not made clear to them.

And so a dance act featuring the face of a presidential candidate who decries political correctness in all its forms was silenced so as not to offend anyone.

David Lussier, the Wellesley school superintendent, declined to say who had complained or why.

“I think it’s so important for us to be seen as nonpartisan in a highly charged election environment,” Lussier said. And though staff vetted the performances beforehand, he said a more thorough review would have weeded out the dancing Trumps and another skit that featured a Trump-Marco Rubio dance-off before they ever made it to the stage.

“We wanted to make sure that nothing we are doing would be perceived as biased in some way,” Lussier said. “You’re not seeing Democratic candidates certainly.”

But how the masks — official Trump paraphernalia, said Mattaliano, who spent about $70 for them online — and the dancing, devoid of words or context, might qualify as satire was unclear.

“They see Trump in the news,” Maggiacomo said. “There was no political agenda on our boys’ part.”

Christine Norcross, whose son Andrew was Rubio in the dance-off skit, said the performance was a big hit in the morning. But at 2 p.m., the phone rang.

“A parent took offense to it,” she remembers the principal telling her, because the skits were critical of the Republican Party.

Even leftists in the Republican Party in Mass.?

https://youtu.be/66rP5c3EEuo

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/15/wellesley-curtains-for-three-dancing-trumps/59gKxaYkGDHwKZYou90J4K/story.html

A...

Post Script:  I believe the Superintendent of the District is lying.  Moreover, the School Board should have overruled the ass and told the Administrator to shut up and pay attention to education.

This, of course, as Rush puts it, would have been a teachable moment to explain our First Amendment right to expression.

 

[Robert Campbell]

From a Donald Trump rally on Staten Island:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/17/trump_im_so_happy_china_is_upset_with_me.html

This explains to me some things that I didn't previously understand.

Trump is operating in what for any Republican would be a target-rich environment.  The City, from which Staten Island tried to secede in 1993, is one-party Democratic.  The present mayor loved the Sandinistas, hates charter schools, is all-in for Hillary Clinton, and appears to be the target of a brand-new Federal corruption investigation.  The governor imposed a ban on fracking throughout the state through executive fiat and badly wants more gun control.  Legislators of both parties are infamously corrupt.  Taxes are high, insurance rates are high, land-use controls are everywhere.  Public employee unions, who almost exclusively direct their payoffs to Democrats, effectively run the City and the State.

Trump refers to familiar woes:

Quote

 

You have to look at my answer. My response to China. Because it is what someone has to say. Because we can't continue to get ripped off like we're being ripped off. You've got to look at it. 

And it is not war. I'm not talking about war. But they have waged economic war against us. 

What China has done --we have rebuilt China, so I hope you're all happy with that-- In the meantime you can't get funding for your schools on Staten Island, or for your roads, which have potholes, I hate to say. 

So Just so you understand, we have rebuilt China. They have bridges going up, they have railroads like you've never seen. We have the old Long Island railroad... like we're a third world country, folks. 

They have trains that go 250 MPH, we have old stuff. So here's the story, what China has done to us --they are only one country, I hate to use them, but they are the biggest abuser-- they abuse us beyond belief.

 

 

 

 

Whoever transcribed it left out his colorful imitation of how slowly the LIRR trains go, and his reference to how a train recently ran into the next train ahead of it.

He could have mentioned plenty of other things, such as the dire condition of La Guardia Airport.

The important thing is, he wants to blame it all on the Chinese.  No one in America is to blame, except Presidents and Senators who make improper concessions to the Chinese, and unnamed special interests that pay off Presidents and Senators to make improper concessions to the Chinese.

State mismanagement?  Local mismanagement?  Bad laws in New York?  Terrible taxes?  Stifling regulations?

Unless they hamper police work, it's as though none of them exist.

A President Trump could get as tough on Mainland China as he wishes.  Even if he is right about the economic consequences of starting a trade war with China, none of that will put people back in empty buildings on Staten Island, or fix one damn thing that needs fixing in New York.  It's not as though either the City or the State is starved of revenue.  It's all about how those in power choose to spend it, and who they're paying off with it.

I no longer think that Trump is being tactically indifferent to these issues, in order to stick it to rivals.  That might have explained his attacks on Scott Walker in Wisconsin, which sounded as though they were coming from a Left-wing Democrat.  But Andrew Cuomo isn't a Republican; neither is Bill de Blasio; neither is running against Trump for the nomination.  He needn't worry about a single New York Democrat ever endorsing Lyin' Ted.  He has nothing to lose, in a Republican primary, from constantly ripping Cuomo or de Blasio or 500 others he all knows by name.  

Yet he isn't doing it.

I think Trump is actually OK with high taxes, land-use regulations that make housing insanely expensive, massively overbuilt state and local government, and public employee unions that have their tentacles in everything, work to insure the election of politicians who will give them more of what they want, and guarantee that whatever they control (commuter railroads, schools, streets) will be screwed up.

Maybe it isn't even that he's noticed these things and then decided they're OK.  It could be that as a politically connected New York real estate developer and the son of a politically connected New York real estate developer, he just takes it for granted that this is how things have always worked, and how they'll continue to work.  You cut a few deals, you pay some people off, you get your project built, and all the other stuff keeps being crappy.

Why, then, stir up all kinds of unpleasantness by striking at the power of state and municipal employee unions?  Why would anyone think of challenging teachers' unions?  It must have occurred to Trump that if anyone ever tried to get an Act 10 passed in New York State, things would get far nastier in Albany than anything Walker and Republican legislators ever encountered in Madison.

There's a lot of the present rotten system that Donald Trump isn't just uninterested in opposing.  I really think that, given the choice, he would act to preserve it.

The entire clip is worth a careful listen, by the way.  The transcriber cut a reference to Lyin' Ted, thinking it was off-topic.

It wasn't, really.  Trump gives his usual pitch about how he's self-funded, and that means he won't be doing the bidding of any special interests.  Whereas Lyin' Ted, just to pick one Senator at random, is owned by the oil industry.

You know, when Trump came out for increased ethanol mandates in Iowa, he charged Ted Cruz with opposing them because he was in the pocket of the oil industry.

Gee, I guess anyone who objects to Andrew Cuomo's edict against fracking must also be in the pocket of the oil industry...

This man will be a massive disappointment to anyone who cannot reasonably expect to be on his payroll come January 2017.

[KorbenDallas]

On 4/18/2016 at 8:29 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Korben,

Donald Trump said in Iowa that he was in favor of increasing ethanol mandates.  He said it where the people could all hear it.  Who wanted to hear that, and how it relates to reality, are other matters.

Donald Trump said in Wisconsin that Scott Walker was at fault for going after the public employee unions and getting laws passed that reduced their power, causing all kinds of unpleasantness when the unions did not let go of power easily.  He said those things where the people could all hear them.  Who wanted to hear them, and how they relate to reality, are other matters.

Will ramping up ethanol mandates (instead of abolishing them) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

Will discouraging anyone from challenging public employee unions, or from undercutting their power, improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

While we're at it, will slapping 45% tariffs on Chinese goods (either by getting Congress to pass a law and signing it, or saying to hell with Congress and simply ordering it) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American?

I'm seeing a lot of equivocations on the words I used, so it might be best if I supplied a definition--but I'm not pinning myself down that definition.  I was using populism (a populist) as a person or politician that speaks to the people about what they want to hear in order to gain political advantage.  (My OED wasn't much help here, and looking at Wikipedia the word appears to be a moving target: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism .)

About the ethanol issue, I can see Trump's point that some of the corn industry's demand is due to the mandates, and abolishing them would put people out of work.  I can also see his point that the ethanol mandates can assist in US energy independence.  Of course subsidies aren't good for the average American, but until there is a better answer to our energy independence, perhaps supporting the mandates for now is the right thing to do.

From what I understand, Trump isn't pro-union: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-working-class-unions_us_56ead51fe4b03a640a69c58d , and http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-unions-exclusive-idUSMTZSAPEC3BVV3QJO .

Trump has said the 45% tariff is a threat.

On 4/18/2016 at 8:29 PM, Robert Campbell said:

He's been campaigning on the imperative that Social Security and Medicare MUST BE PRESERVED and he will make sure there are never any cuts to them.  Unlike Hillary or Bernie, however, he also insists he will cut taxes, while at it, will eliminate the entire Federal debt in 8 years.

The question is not whether Trump has built anything.  It's how much he falsely claims to have built, on top of what he actually built.

The question is not whether Trump has done anything worthwhile.  It's whether he has claimed additional worthwhile things that were not his doing.  It's whether in the process he's also done any destructive things.

(A very small example.   In one of his Wisconsin press conferences, Trump complained that Scott Walker had stolen the phrase "common-sense conservatism" from him.  He asserted he had invented it.  I'm not sure anyone should be too proud of an invention so dull and vapid.  But it was already a politician's cliché back in 1970, which is surely not its date of origin—just as far back as I can remember it.)

Trump has explained many times how he plans to keep SS and Medicare funded.

With the false claims, I think you're referring to the Selina Scott article you posted a few days ago?  I read that and found it intriguing.  I'm going to reserve judgement on those claims until more information comes out about it, or if it does.  Personally I think Trump didn't like her and was saying those things to fuck with her.  Also, what might she have done to warrant this?  Often a person will say things to get someone to act negatively, then try to abstract away the initial provocation to place blame.  I'm also very skeptical about some of the stalking allegations in the article.

The common-sense conservatism comment of Trump's is something I found funny.  Though I hadn't heard it before, I figured he surely wasn't the first one to use it.

On 4/18/2016 at 8:29 PM, Robert Campbell said:

Finally, who Donald Trump is surely includes every bit of vaunting, every riff about how everyone loves him, every "perfect statistic" he recites, every lie he tells for political gain, every occasion on which he reminds the audience of his superior status (I will never approach X, X will have to come and beg me), every deflection of blame when he screws up, every putdown of a woman on account of her looks.  These don't all form some detachable layer that, come May or come July or come November or come January, he will suddenly cast off, allowing us all an unobstructed view of his unclouded magnificence.

Some of this is Trump staying in presentation because many voters are new to Trump and have yet to hear his message and how he speaks.  To me, it gets old but I've heard it before.  I made a previous post about Trump's attacks on women and I'm not okay with it.  And about the general,  I am concerned that once he gets to the presidential debates with Hillary he'll get creamed intellectually.  It's one thing to write a book, an article, etc. in the comfort of his own home, staying within his own contexts, but the barrage of contexts in the debates are different.  With the Bush/Kerry debates, Bush got creamed early but met with his team of advisers and later did fine.  Maybe Trump is taking Newt's advice from a couple of months ago and trying to acquire the "knowledge of a career politician"--or at least enough for the debates.  But there is no way Trump went from millions to billions without having intelligence.  And that goes for his campaign.  Something this big didn't happen by accident.  Or by being handed to him.

 

[Selene]

Robert:

Take a look at the thread I just started.

The paucity of a Republican Party in the four (4) NY City boroughs and the fifth (5th) being Staten Island.  There is one S.I. district that has a section of Brooklyn in it.

This was the only Republican CD left in NY City.

He just plead guilty of tax stuff and resigned. 

Visually good map.

A...

[KorbenDallas]

This is a good video, I think it sums up and reflects the sentiment of many Trump supporters:

 

[william.scherk]

Edited April 19, 2016 by william.scherk
Swapped out Youtube video for more modest-sized player.

[KorbenDallas]

Aaannd one more video.  This is a Newt addressing more than Trump's low favorability ratings, he launches into an analysis of Trump the man, and his campaign:

 

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Aaannd one more video.  This is a Newt addressing more than Trump's low favorability ratings, he launches into an analysis of Trump the man, and his campaign:

 

 Gingrich is a very, very  smart man.  He is the intellectual match for any thinker the Democrats can put forth.  He is even smarter than Noam Chomsky.

[Brant Gaede]

However smart he is he's not as smart as he thinks he is. He's a couple of levels smarter than a Harvard PhD in history. Smarts in this context isn't raw intelligence, but how one structures one's brain and what one puts into it by middle age. If you just lard up your brain with facts you've got little or nothing. This applies much less to science and mathematics as opposed to "liberal arts" where brains can do great things before one is 30. That's because there's no room for bullshit unless it's great bullshit. (I suspect in mathematics there's no room for bullshit at all.)

--Brant

[PDS]

7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Aaannd one more video.  This is a Newt addressing more than Trump's low favorability ratings, he launches into an analysis of Trump the man, and his campaign:

 

That interview is one of the single best explanations for Trump I have seen. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

The important thing is, he wants to blame it all on the Chinese.  No one in America is to blame, except Presidents and Senators who make improper concessions to the Chinese, and unnamed special interests that pay off Presidents and Senators to make improper concessions to the Chinese.

State mismanagement?  Local mismanagement?  Bad laws in New York?  Terrible taxes?  Stifling regulations?

Unless they hamper police work, it's as though none of them exist.

Robert,

In every Trump rally and in almost every Trump interview I have seen, Trump always says he is not blaming the Chinese, the Mexicans and so on. He said he blames the incompetent morons who run our government. They don't know how to make deals and the leaders of China, Mexico, etc., are too smart for us--way smarter than our leaders.

Given the total permeation of this message in everything he does and says, I don't know how you missed it and say he blames it all on the Chinese.

As to taxes, regulations, government mismanagement (even at the state and local level), etc., for you to say what you just did, I have the impression you are not familiar with Trump. It's like me trying to claim you never refer to developmental psychology. I would only be able to make a mistake that size if I knew nothing about you.

Michael

[Peter]

Donald Trump Confirmed to Speak at Stephen Decatur High School in Worcester County. Posted: Apr 18, 2016 9:39 PM EDT Monday: BERLIN, Md.- GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is scheduled to appear at Stephen Decatur High School on Wednesday, April 20. According to Carrie Sterrs, spokesperson for Worcester County Public Schools, Trump will be using SDHS facilities on Wednesday at 7 p.m. for a speaking engagement. The event is open to the public and free. Tickets are limited to two per mobile number. To get your tickets go to DonaldJTrump.com and click on schedules, then scroll down to where it says the event at Stephen Decatur High School. end quote

Burr Lynn. Old timers say BUR-lun. It’s right next to Taylorville named after Harley or was it great, great Uncle John Taylor? The High School is next to the property my Great Aunt Myrtle McCabe owned for 80 years. I wouldn’t mind watching a live feed but my wife and I don’t want to go to the trouble. The weather will be OK that day with a high of only 63. That auditorium can get hot if it is stuffed with folks starting at 5pm which gives it 2 hours to heat up. Maybe they have air conditioning now. I haven’t been in it for about 15 years.

Peter

[Peter]

“The Outlaw Named Ned Kelly” wrote: He said he blames the incompetent morons who run our government. end quote

That is a good point though the press usually reports he will be tough on the Chinese, Muslims, the Mexicans, Fair trade, IS Free Trade, etc. Trump is polling 54 to 60 percent in New York. Is it pivot time?   

I like Newt’s analysis in that video. Gingrich would be excellent for anybody’s campaign staff. Perhaps Disney will make a cartoon, “The Gingrich Who Stole the Election.” Newt thinks it COULD BE won after the populous state of Coliform – eye - aye.  

I think Trump is American values and American spirit. USA, USA is chanted at his rallies and it seems to be the right thing to do. Is Donald the personification of the ugly American to the world? A showbiz P.T. Barnum? To a degree. But is he the face I might want on Chinese news? Sure. He would be OK . . . . if he is reasonably cautious and doesn’t start moronic wars of words with other countries. A part of me wants to hear him say, “That Vlad the Impaler Putin is a menace. Stop flying over our ships you dip shits or I will shoot you down!” But the more cautious part of my brain, says look both ways before crossing that street.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For Roger Stone fans:

The Return of Roger Stone
by Dylan Byers
April 19, 2016
CNN Politics

From the article:

Byers said:

Though Stone never explicitly called for violence against any turncoat delegates, Cruz, among others, read it as a threat. The Texas senator called on Trump to fire both Stone and Manafort -- another indication of just how closely those two men are aligned.

"I don't know if the next thing we're going to see is voters or delegates waking up with horses heads in their beds," Cruz said on Dana Loesch's show on The Blaze. "This doesn't belong in the electoral process. ... [Trump] needs to fire the people responsible. ... He needs to denounce Manafort and Roger Stone, and his campaign team that is encouraging violence, and he needs to stop doing it himself."

Speaking to CNN, Stone scoffed: "I called on Trump supporters to go to their delegates, find them at their hotel, and ask them to sign a ballot to respect the will of the voters. I'm not for violence."

As for Cruz's preoccupation with him, Stone says, "It's obviously some kind of obsession. He must lay awake thinking about what I am doing."

The Cruz campaign declined to comment.

The big question on the mind of Cruz and the Republican establishment is just what kind of trouble Stone will get into at the GOP convention.

Stone says he's free to do whatever he wants, since he's not bound by any formal role in the Trump campaign organization.

"I'm my own person," Stone said, "I don't have to get clearance for things I want to say."

"I'm going as an FOT," he added. "Friend of Trump."

Roger Stone may be banned from CNN TV, but it looks like he's a welcome celebrity to the rest of CNN.

If Ted Cruz can stack the deck in a Colorado State Senate committee to decide not to have a primary election, then stack the deck of the non-election results, then claim it's a free country, Roger Stone can certainly attend the Republican Convention like he has done for decades.

After all, it's a free country. Or isn't it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Looks like one Cruz ground game offensive didn't pan out.

No Cruz delegates are going to magically emerge from the Eagle Forum to proudly inject themselves everywhere delegates can be found.

Phyllis Schlafly is a Donald Trump supporter and she is leading her organization to help elect him.

I'm not on board with all of Schlafly's ideas, but her organization is her organization. The idea of wrenching it from the hands of a 91 year old woman to feather Cruz's delegate bed (or anyone's delegate bed for that matter) is repugnant to me.

Of course, no one can "prove" Cruz had anything to do with the takeover attempt. Oh no... That could never happen. It's just a coincidence that those who attempted it supported Cruz. What a magical season. This kind of coincidence keeps magically happening this election...

Michael

[PDS]

22 minutes ago, Peter said:

“The Outlaw Named Ned Kelly” wrote: He said he blames the incompetent morons who run our government. end quote

That is a good point though the press usually reports he will be tough on the Chinese, Muslims, the Mexicans, Fair trade, IS Free Trade, etc. Trump is polling 54 to 60 percent in New York. Is it pivot time?   

I like Newt’s analysis in that video. Gingrich would be excellent for anybody’s campaign staff. Perhaps Disney will make a cartoon, “The Gingrich Who Stole the Election.” Newt thinks it COULD BE won after the populous state of Coliform – eye - aye.  

I think Trump is American values and American spirit. USA, USA is chanted at his rallies and it seems to be the right thing to do. Is Donald the personification of the ugly American to the world? A showbiz P.T. Barnum? To a degree. But is he the face I might want on Chinese news? Sure. He would be OK . . . . if he is reasonably cautious and doesn’t start moronic wars of words with other countries. A part of me wants to hear him say, “That Vlad the Impaler Putin is a menace. Stop flying over our ships you dip shits or I will shoot you down!” But the more cautious part of my brain, says look both ways before crossing that street.

Peter

Peter:

You might want to start getting used to the idea of Trump getting nominated, whether you (or I) like it or not.   The threat of chaos at the convention is going to end up as just enough Trump Thuggery to get him over the top, me thinks.   The squishy delegates will cave when all is said and done.

The big question is not whether he will be nominated, but who to support: Trump or Hillary.    Old Man Peikoff* says that a theocracy is afoot if you vote Republican, so I guess that makes the question an easy one to answer.    One could argue, however, that supporting Trump over Hillary is still the rational move in order to minimize the size and extent of the Hillary landslide**:  i.e.,  in the hopes of hanging onto a Republican Senate, whose sole redeeming value would be to keep lunatics off the Supreme Court.

But, at least when Hillary is President for the next 8 years and the Senate is 50/50, a lot of angry Americans living in the most prosperous country in the most prosperous epoch in history will have had "their voice heard" and... (aw, never mind--sorry--I can't finish this sentence...)

**I don't think he has repudiated this fatwa, at least that I am aware of.

**This is the landslide I foretold many moons ago, when I predicted a Trump/Cruz ticket getting its hind quarters spanked by a Hillary/it-doesn't-matter ticket.    

[Peter]

PDS thinks a Trump/Cruz ticket would lose badly to Hillary and Whomever. Not necessarily. Let them work their campaign magic before assuming an inevitability. Trump could sell the Republican ticket to a democrat or ice to an Eskimo, and Cruz ensures the Right. Cruz would keep Trump on the day to day track politically if he is interacting with Congress, which is the way I see it going. Ted is the voice of reason. Would he tone down his religiosity as Trump’s VP? Of course. Except at Christmas and Easter.

Is Kasich also a good VP choice? Unfortunately, yes. To a lot of people, as a moderating voice, he makes better sense than Cruz. Kasich is acceptable to the Republican upper class. Kasich polls pretty good generally, and I bet against Hillary a Trump/Kasich polling is BETTER THAN ANY OTHER TICKET. And the same is true when the levers are pulled in November. I almost hate to say it but if we want to win Kasich is the best VP choice. So, if John is considering the VP slot, does it make more sense for him to stay in, or to exit and support Trump?       

From my email box. Romney is urging Kasich to get out so Donald won’t win. Cruz is offering a neat bumper sticker to contributors. It is a big ‘C’ with a portion of an abstract American flag in the center. And hello, hello. Is Gingrich becoming the spokesman for Donald Trump’s Republican Party?

I edited the following from Newt to get the pictures out and for brevity. Sigh. They miss me.

Peter

Is this right, Peter? Did you forget to renew your 2016 Sustaining Membership with our Party? I’m not giving up. Because I truly believe our Party either unites or dies. So if you renew your 2016 Sustaining Membership by 4/20/2016, you’ll get something very special... Get your name permanently displayed next to mine in the Chairman’s Lobby at GOP Headquarters. I want to see “Peter Taylor” just before I walk into a meeting with Reince. For once, I want to hear the mainstream media focusing on how divided the Democrats are. I want to show the MSM that our Party won’t give in to their dirty tricks intended to pit us against each other. I want to show them that we’re resilient, that we fight back, that the party of freedom, security, and prosperity will never die. And we’ll show them by recruiting every single conservative who believes in the unbound limits of American exceptionalism to rally together as sustaining members. As a 2016 Sustaining Member, you’ll provide critical resources for our future nominee in a way that NO other Republican organization legally can.

Thanks, Newt Gingrich

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a sliver of hope for you anti-Trump fatalists.  

It comes from Glenn Beck. I could supply a link if you like but... (all right, here).

The gist is the following:

1. Donald Trump is intentionally sabotaging his campaign. He does not really want to be president, but by some accident of fate, his campaign took off--he never expected to get this far--and he needs a face-saving out so he can go back to billionaire paradise.

2. That's why he's making a stink about the election process and delegate rules. His posture will make it so he will be able to storm out of the convention in righteous anger and no longer have to worry about the burden of becoming president.

3. Since he is a plant for Hillary Clinton and he really wanted to support her all along, now he can openly support her by claiming he got screwed by the Republicans.

Make sense?

Does that give you hope?

 

Michael

 

 

 

[Roger Bissell]

14 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

There's a lot of the present rotten system that Donald Trump isn't just uninterested in opposing.  I really think that, given the choice, he would act to preserve it.

I agree. There's so much of this that is parallel to, or reminiscent of, Obama's selective enforcement of federal law, it's hard to see Drumpf as ruling as anything other than yet another statist thug (politician) indulging his own personal preferences as to what goes and what stays, what gets enforced and what gets ignored. Constitutional oath of office? WTF is that? Mere words you utter before being given the keys to the People's Palace.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

But Drumpf isn't going to rule. Hillary will march up to the throne and take the crown and scepter, and Drumpf will go back to making billions and figuring out which corners to cut on people's Constitutional rights when they get in his way, Howard Roark type that he is

REB

[Peter]

Michael wonders about Beck and asked does Glenn make sense? No. Trump is venting his own frustration and echoing, but not leading, the anti-establishment Republican base. How many voters make up the establishment anyway? A thousand? Maybe less. What sway do they have in this election? Is their backing worth a million votes? It’s worth millions of dollars of course to a candidate. Beck is wrong as usual. It is tough to think clearly when you are leery of - or simply despise Trump. Wish’s aren’t Is’s. Grow up Beck. Stay off the loco weed.

Peter

[Peter]

Put your hard hats on, you rationally political bean counters. Consider the electoral vote.

If Trump beats Cruz in the primaries, he is still assured Texas on election night, but as the map moves west, where will the eyes of the nation be focusing on? Ohio. So, now Kasich begins to make sense. John is moderate, and good with women voters, but many women will still vote for a woman candidate. But Kasich could lessen the exodus of woman voters from Trump’s side. In a campaign Kasich would sound sensible and also gather the establishmentarian Republican vote. He could do the legislating Trump desires in a VP. I think Trump likes Kasich better than the other leading contenders for Veep.

Against Hillary, Trump is definitely NOT assured Florida because of his negatives with women and Hispanics. Is it sensible to pick Rubio as his running mate for his pull on the Florida voters, women, and Hispanics? I think his impact would be less than Kasich’s.

Could Cruz significantly bring in Conservatives, evangelicals, and libertarian / O‘ists types? I think Fox Business’s Kennedy might go for a Trump / Cruz ticket but would still vote Libertarian. (Her show is very funny and informative.) ARI, Peikoff, Binswanger, and Schartz? David Kelley and the Atlas Society? I think they could influence tens of thousands of voters and could bring in a chunk of money to Cruz . . . or Trump  . . . if some rich O’ists lend a hand.

Peter    

[PDS]

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

Put your hard hats on, you rationally political bean counters. Consider the electoral vote.

If Trump beats Cruz in the primaries, he is still assured Texas on election night, but as the map moves west, where will the eyes of the nation be focusing on? Ohio. So, now Kasich begins to make sense. John is moderate, and good with women voters, but many women will still vote for a woman candidate. But Kasich could lessen the exodus of woman voters from Trump’s side. In a campaign Kasich would sound sensible and also gather the establishmentarian Republican vote. He could do the legislating Trump desires in a VP. I think Trump likes Kasich better than the other leading contenders for Veep.

Against Hillary, Trump is definitely NOT assured Florida because of his negatives with women and Hispanics. Is it sensible to pick Rubio as his running mate for his pull on the Florida voters, women, and Hispanics? I think his impact would be less than Kasich’s.

Could Cruz significantly bring in Conservatives, evangelicals, and libertarian / O‘ists types? I think Fox Business’s Kennedy might go for a Trump / Cruz ticket but would still vote Libertarian. (Her show is very funny and informative.) ARI, Peikoff, Binswanger, and Schartz? David Kelley and the Atlas Society? I think they could influence tens of thousands of voters and could bring in a chunk of money to Cruz . . . or Trump  . . . if some rich O’ists lend a hand.

Peter    

That last part about Peikoff and Binswanger influencing "tens of thousands of voters" is actually pretty funny.    You're a funny guy, Peter,

If I were Hillary Clinton I would be quaking in my boots at the prospect of Harry Binswanger unleashing these young grad students to the polls.   

There will be a veritable tidal wave of repressed and bespectacled ARI fellows overrunning voting booths, with no small number of court extended deadlines to make sure the young Orthodox Objectivists are not denied their vote!

All 11 of them.