Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kasich is out.

Now it's just The Donald.

The rest of the primary elections--the other nine states--they are a mere formality.

Michael

[Peter]

Guru Brant wrote: Trump planted a lot of seeds that will now come up weeds. It was never necessary for him to attack his party opponents also seeking the nomination. He's going to have a harder time getting a decent veep on his ticket than Goldwater did in 1964. end quote

I agree about the weeds. Is there any possible reason for him to name a VP now with Cruz and Kasich dropping out? I don’t see him doing any anointing. Now it is time for drama, lights, camera, action, “Here’s Johnny!” imitate Archie Bunker, and simulate karma. And build a war chest so he doesn't need to go to his piggy bank. 

And Maharishi Boydstun wrote: Haven't been more ashamed of a big block of my countrymen since three-quarters of them favored our invasion of Iraq. How grotesque. Hillary, my last hope for the republic against this dangerous puffery and empty personality cult. end quote

Go’est thou Libertarian? The projected electoral college vote as of May 4^th 2016 shows more combinations of wins and losses for Hillary Clinton to still win the Presidency. Bernie does not seem to be going through the motions and will further pull her to the left though her leftism will be mealy mouthed from now on. Hillary just flip - flopped on coal production like a bad Machiavellian which should be detrimental for her credibility. How much more free stuff can she promise? I think she will lose to people who want a better economy and jobs.  

Now Trump can take a deep breathe, relax for a while then start concentrating on the Democrat candidate. But if he just loses Florida, or Ohio?

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Kasich is out.

Now it's just The Donald.

The rest of the primary elections--the other nine states--are a formality.

Michael

What's gonna happen is the elitists will declare all delegates deuces wild prior to the first ballot and Trump won't get his necessary 1237.

Then they'll wheel in zombie Reagan whose body is going to be dug up for the occasion. It will be quite a sight as they wheel the carcass around the convention floor while a continuous loop of his speeches are broadcast to the admiring world. ("Mr. Trump. Go back to New York.")

--Brant

the future's so bright I gotta wear shades

[Peter]

Michael wrote and quoted: Here is a video of Ann Coulter on Bill Maher's show dated June 19, 2015. All you need to watch is the first 15 seconds. Here's a transcript: end quote

MAHER: Ann, which Republican candidate has the best chance of winning the election?

COULTER: Of the declared ones right now? Donald Trump.

AUDIENCE AND GUESTS: Sudden loud guffawing, whooping, shrieking, yukking it up, tears streaming down their eyes.

end quote

That was an astounding prediction, nearly a year ago. The tears of mirth and denial on that communist’s face is the biggest misreading I have ever seen. Maher should be ashamed of his stupidity. What a fool.

Has anybody else done or seen an analysis of the electoral votes projected for each candidate? Trump needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat. But is he more of a Houdini, The Amazing Randy, or a  Bullwinkle?

Brant wrote: What's gonna happen is the elitists will declare all delegates deuces wild prior to the first ballot and Trump won't get his necessary 1237. End quote

No. he will get them. IT IS NOW GENERAL ELECTION TIME.

I know there are a lot of principled people like Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Boydstun who say they will never vote for yeast infected Trump but a lot of politicking and history has yet to be recorded. Has anybody else done or seen an analysis of the electoral votes projected for each candidate?  

Peter  

[Peter]

When Trump said Cruz’s father was with Lee Harvey Oswald, was he serious? If he was - does that prove he is unfit to be President, as Charles Krauthammer suggested? It was disturbing.

Personally, I thought he was spoofing, but in a hurtful “National Enquirer” sort of way which is where the story originated. Does that disqualify him for the Presidency? It makes him more distasteful and uncouth. Does being friends with mean newspaper editors disqualify him? No. William Randolph Hearst and his influence comes to mind. Everybody insists Trump is not like that in private. It’s all part of the show. Now comes the Hillary Show and if Trump wins, The World Stage Show begins. Please. Stop the spoofing Donald. 

Peter

[Robert Campbell]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a video of Ann Coulter on Bill Maher's show dated June 19, 2015.

All you need to watch is the first 15 seconds. Here's a transcript:

MAHER: Ann, which Republican candidate has the best chance of winning the election?

COULTER: Of the declared ones right now? Donald Trump.

AUDIENCE AND GUESTS: Sudden loud guffawing, whooping, shrieking, yukking it up, tears streaming down their eyes.

I have supported Trump openly since July.

I lived this back then and all the rest since.

Others may not remember what it felt like, but seeing the video brought back the memories. In my own way, I lived this.

As to whether Ann Coulter is "one of the greatest minds in the history of our species," I'm sure she is not. But she saw what I saw back when everyone else was not only blind to it, they were snorting and sniggering about it.

I don't hear any of those folks laughing anymore.

Michael

Michael,

Yes, I'm sure you do like the idea of silencing this audience.

(Being a Bill Maher audience, their derision would have extended to several other Republicans, but never mind.)

Ms. Coulter, moving right on to candidates not yet declared, states her preference for a Romney-Walker ticket.

Mitt Romney!  Her guy in 2012.

Scott Walker!  A man who, from your point of view, has been stomped by Donald Trump and could therefore never have done anything worthwhile.

She was still a long distance from redemption when she made these remarks.

Robert

 

[Robert Campbell]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

And that is exactly what I mean by not being seen.

Do you see us now?

Or do you prefer to keep imagining you see the world as it is and we don't?

Michael

Will Brant now join the list of those to be silenced?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said:

Yes, I'm sure you do like the idea of silencing this audience.

Robert,

Where did I say or do anything about silencing the OL audience?

That's never been my policy or attitude.

From what I see, some folks around here are even supporting Hillary Clinton. Openly at that.

I'm fine with it. They opine. I opine. That's what the forum is for.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Will Brant now join the list of those to be silenced?

Robert,

Nah... He's not the crazy lady.

 

(I don't know if you know who I'm talking about, but that was a very colorful chapter of OL history.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

She was still a long distance from redemption when she made these remarks.

Robert,

Redemption? That's an interesting word. Redemption by whom?

Who is the savior?

 

Anyway, does this one help?

Last night in Indiana, an American finally beat an immigrant for a job.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 4, 2016

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, Peter said:

When Trump said Cruz’s father was with Lee Harvey Oswald, was he serious?

Peter,

Not really. It was a response to Fox and Friends showing trump a video of Rafael Cruz (father) exhorting "every member of the body of Christ to vote according to the word of God," meaning his son, and specifically vote against Trump because he "could be the destruction of America."

For those who know how to tease out subtext in fundamentalist Christian messages, this was essentially calling Trump an envoy of Satan and those who vote for him followers of Satan. (There is a lot of rivalry between denominations and this crap goes on sometimes. Also, in private speeches and sermons by Cruz followers, it has become pretty common to characterize Trump in Satanic terms and Ted Cruz as the one anointed by God.) For Cruz Senior, voting for Trump was definitely not voting "according to the word of God"--shame on those fallen Christians!

Trump said he should not have been allowed to say that and lots of anti-Trump folks took this to mean some kind of government censorship. But Trump is supported by a huge block of evangelicals and he meant Cruz Senior should not have been allowed by the Christian community to essentially characterize such a large number of other Christians as followers of Satan.

This is what Trump meant in the video below when he was talking about the anger against Cruz Senior from the evangelicals who support him and said, "There's a whole thing..."

As a counterpunch, he mentioned Cruz Senior with Lee Harvey Oswald. It was nothing more than a counterpunch. Hit Trump and he hits back harder. And when counterpunching, he will go there, wherever there is that nobody thinks anybody will ever go. That's been his pattern since the beginning.

Here's the video if you want to see it. From Trump's tenor, it's easy to see he was standing up for his evangelical constituency.

You won't read about that part in the media outrage. All you hear is about the Lee Harvey Oswald comment and, in return, Ted Cruz calling Trump a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," etc.

Ironically, the media is so dumb about how Trump punks them, this episode might have even helped Trump get a few more votes. I believe it did, but I have no proof of that other than seeing how this stuff usually works.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Nah... He's not the crazy lady.

 

(I don't know if you know who I'm talking about, but that was a very colorful chapter of OL history.)

Michael

Wasn't there more than one? But I only remember Seymourblogger. She got mad with me when I apparently slandered her idol Foucault  as a _______ ___ ______ when he was _____ __ ____ and I couldn't document it.

--Brant

[Peter]

Michael X wrote: Ironically, the media is so dumb about how Trump punks them, this episode might have even helped Trump get a few more votes. I believe it did, but I have no proof of that other than seeing how this stuff usually works. end quote

He did not punk the Times! I had no idea Trump had laid out so much of his potential agenda. Maybe I will start reading the things people post instead of skimming or skipping them. I hope the naysayers here will read or skim the following. I hope no one already quoted this one because it's very good. Edited for brevity.

Peter

President Trump?’ Here’s How He Says It Would Look, The New York Times By PATRICK HEALY:

Donald J. Trump is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but he is also keenly aware that many in his own party — and many Americans, frankly — are scared and anxious about the idea of him in the Oval Office. Even he is not sure how a deeply divided nation would adjust to the first 100 days of a Trump presidency.

What he does know, however, is what he wants to do in those early months. In a series of recent interviews, he sketched out plans that include showdowns with business leaders over jobs and key roles for military generals, executives and possibly even family members in advising him about running the country.

Shortly after the Nov. 8 election, President-elect Trump and his vice president — most likely a governor or member of Congress — would begin interviewing candidates for the open Supreme Court seat and quickly settle on a nominee in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.

He would launch a charm offensive to start “building a government based on relationships,” perhaps inviting the Republican leaders Paul D. Ryan and Mitch McConnell to escape the chilly Washington fall and schmooze at Mar-a-Lago over golf and two-pound lobsters.

On Inauguration Day, he would go to a “beautiful” gala ball or two, but focus mostly on rescinding Obama executive orders on immigration and calling up corporate executives to threaten punitive measures if they shift jobs out of the United States.

And by the end of his first 100 days as the nation’s 45th leader, the wall with Mexico would be designed, the immigration ban on Muslims would be in place, the audit of the Federal Reserve would be underway and plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act would be in motion.

“I know people aren’t sure right now what a President Trump will be like,” he said. “But things will be fine. I’m not running for president to make things unstable for the country.”

The New York Times interviewed Mr. Trump three times over the past two months, most recently on Saturday, as well as several campaign advisers and Trump confidants . . . . Despite his radical vision of how to remake America, and all his outrageous talk on juvenile subjects like his anatomy — to say nothing of the polls showing him behind Hillary Clinton — Jan. 20 may find the most underestimated politician in America assuming the presidency. While professing some surprise at his success, Mr. Trump increasingly sounds like a man who thinks he knows where he will be eight months from now, and the unrivaled power he will hold. He talked of turning the Oval Office into a high-powered board room, empowering military leaders over foreign affairs specialists in national security debates, and continuing to speak harshly about adversaries. He may post on Twitter less, but everyone will still know what he thinks.

“As president, I’ll be working from the first day with my vice president and staff to make clear that America will be changing in major ways for the better,” Mr. Trump said in a telephone interview on Saturday. “We can’t afford to waste time. I want a vice president who will help me have a major impact quickly on Capitol Hill, and the message will be clear to the nation and to people abroad that the American government will be using its power differently.”

But he also acknowledged that he might face significant and incessant protests — even thousands of demonstrators massing on the National Mall as he takes the oath of office nearby at the Capitol. Mr. Trump said he would try to unite Republicans and disaffected Democrats and independents over the next six months before the November election, and then work in office to show Americans that his chief interest was fighting for their needs. He argued that the fact that he would not have to rely on wealthy donors to finance his campaign would ultimately prove appealing to many voters as they realize he is not “bought and paid for.” “I know everyone won’t like everything I do, but I’m not running to be everyone’s favorite president,” Mr. Trump said. “Things are seriously wrong in this country. People are hurting, business is hurting. I’m running to move quickly to make big changes.”

Several friends and allies of Mr. Trump said that “negotiating” was the word he used the most to encapsulate his first 100 days in office. He wants to put strong-willed people — business executives and generals are mentioned most often — in charge of cabinet agencies and throughout his senior staff, and direct them to negotiate deals and plans with congressional leaders and state officials, as well as insurance companies and others in the private sector. They say he will accomplish the things he has promised or else keep trying, well aware that his supporters will have his head if he does not.

“He’s not going to depart from the agenda he’s laid out, not a bit,” said Roger Stone, a longtime adviser and confidant. Mr. Stone declined to describe details of his private conversations with Mr. Trump, except to say: “Having gone out a thousand times to say ‘I’m going to build a wall,’ he has to build a wall. He has said he would scrap trade deals; his voters will demand he scrap trade deals. He knows that.”

Modern America has never seen anything like a Trump administration. Business leaders and even entertainment figures new to politics have been elected governors, of course, and insurgents like Newt Gingrich rose to power.

But this is different. A Manhattan real estate developer and bombastic reality television star, Mr. Trump would be a president like no other. Yet most historians suggest the country would adjust: He would quickly find himself consumed with the urgent and normalizing tasks of building a cabinet, assembling senior staff and reassuring Wall Street and the public that he was capable of governing America.

“Trump is predicting he’ll be able to do all these things, but his workload will be pretty enormous and his power would be so limited by precedent, by the bureaucracy, by the Constitution,” said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. “Even in trade and immigration, where Trump says he will make revolutionary changes, Congress has a say on those things. A lot of people have a say. The president is not king.”

But Mr. Trump pledged in the interviews to deliver on his campaign promises, even if they prove disruptive or explosive.

On his first day in office, he said, he would meet with Homeland Security officials, generals, and others — he did not mention diplomats — to take steps to seal the southern border and assign more security agents along it. He would also call the heads of companies like Pfizer, the Carrier Corporation, Ford and Nabisco and warn them that their products face 35 percent tariffs because they are moving jobs out of the country. Democrats and some Republicans have warned that financial markets would react poorly and that Mr. Trump’s protectionist stances might plunge the country into recession, but he insisted that trade is “killing the country” and “the markets would be fine.”

“Bilateral talks with Mexico would start pretty quickly on the wall, and I would have chief executives into the Oval Office soon, too,” he said. “The Oval Office would be an amazing place to negotiate. It would command immediate respect from the other side, immediate understanding about the nation’s priorities.” As for which foreign leader he would call first as president, he said “they would not necessarily be a priority.” “We have to take a tougher stand with foreign countries,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re like the policemen of the world right now. So I wouldn’t be calling them up right away and getting more entangled.”

For good or ill, he would command the nation’s attention unlike any modern president, and not simply because of his penchant for redecorating in gold and renaming planes, buildings after himself. (For the record, he said he had no ambitious renovation plans.)

“His first 100 days would be riveting,” said Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush. “The question would be whether he is capable of downshifting from the hot rhetoric of his campaign to the serious business of building a presidency based on sound judgment and necessary coalition building.”

Mr. Fleischer said it was possible that Mr. Trump would make the adjustment, given his frequent comments about negotiating with Democrats and Republicans to reach compromises.

“That side of him intrigues me,” Mr. Fleischer said. “He keeps alluding to how well he gets along with people. It’s almost like Trump is playing a shrewd game. Tough campaigner today. Great deal maker later.” He added, “Of course, if he wins he’ll have some level of strength and momentum akin to a mandate. That would help.” . . .

[Selene]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

He talked of turning the Oval Office into a high-powered board room, empowering military leaders over foreign affairs specialists in national security debates, and continuing to speak harshly about adversaries.

Peter, that was an excellent article.  Thank you.

CHIEF Executive.  Kinda makes sense, right?

A...

[Robert Campbell]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Back when Barack Obama was elected, I remember thinking to myself, if that many people are resonating with him, he is touching them on some level. And since I am not a believer in condemning large swaths of people without trying to understand what they see and do from their eyes, I set my judgement aside and tried to look at Obama from their eyes. What I saw wasn't nearly as bad as the storyline in my head said it was. So I said at the time (here on OL) that I didn't think Obama was a bad man, that he was trying to be good in the form he understood it.

I remember being roasted for saying that, including by Barbara at the time.

So I went into silence. However, just by being silent, that did not change my mind. And this point--ironically about having good thoughts on Obama even as I was highly critical of him--has stayed with me, which is one of the reasons I understood Trump's appeal so early in this election cycle. What's more, I didn't think the people who supported Obama did so because they were less than human or trying to do evil or shameless whatevers. I realized they were trying to be good in the form they understood it--that Obama reflected this wish to be good. There were elements within him that were good-worthy so to speak--at least to the people who thought the same as he and saw them.

Then I went back to my standpoint and I saw there was some common ground with many things I think are good.

As you grieve and condemn others as shameful, I invite you to consider this perspective if you like. If you don't, that's cool, too.

Ask yourself the same question I did back then. How can it be that so many people see good where I see shame? 

Part of the answer I came to is that people who had been silent were suddenly manifesting their sense of goodness because finally an opportunity appeared that reflected it. That goodness never went away. It was just silent. With Obama's appeal, I had mistaken their silence for agreement with the way I saw the world--according to the storyline in my head so to speak.. 

I assure you this all applies to Trump supporters and this is part of the hook that will increase his support massively up to the election. You don't have to agree with him to see this, but at least if you see it in the manner I do, you can understand it without condemning this beautiful world and country of ours as evil.

Michael,

Your post to M. Guyau is quite the eye-opener.

I am sure that you will not care for the least portion of what I am about to offer.

But there's a slender chance others will read it, so I'll give it a try.

I'll start by saying that I am hardly immune to all forms of charisma, but the kinds we often encounter in politicians generally leave me cold.  I realize that in different forms Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all have charisma.  But I experience it, pretty much from beginning to end, as bullshitting.

Be that as it may, I did not think in 2007-2008 (and certainly do not think now, having learned quite a bit more about the man, his training, and his ambitions) that Barack Obama's political career was particularly motivated by a desire to do or achieve what is good.  Not even by a seriously mistaken notion of the good.

I see Barack Obama as a massively narcissistic man who craves adulation from others (even though he thinks very little of nearly any, probably even less of those who bow before him and praise him, precisely because they have done what he wanted them to).  Hence, from his college years, if not earlier, he has sought political power as a way of commanding other people and compelling their adulation.

Your view and mine may actually agree on hard Left ideology not being what Barack Obama is about.  But this is not because Barack Obama identifies with any ideal. (Outside of his immediate family, I doubt he is much invested in pursuing anything you or I would recognize as good.)  He really is devoted to political power, which he has pursued in a highly disciplined fashion—and, to me, that is a clear indication that he is just not a good person.  But the political ideology is superficial.  He was trained up in it as a boy, with significant reinforcements in college and in his community organizing years.  Always for him it is purely a means to an end.  Ultimately he is not about weakening America, or atoning for past sins against the different victim classes, or spreading the wealth around; he is now and forever only about Barack Obama.

With his charisma, his gift at oratory, and his skill at being a blank screen onto which others project their hopes and dreams, he was able to rocket upward in American politics, until he became President of the United States (something he'd been after, I suspect continuously, since age 20, if not earlier).  He spoke of transformation, of the audacity of hope, was encouraged by his sycophants to view himself as a messianic figure, and probably came to see himself as such.  (It's not an accident that the people who ran his 2007-2008 campaign referred to him, behind his back, as "Black Jesus.")

Well, we've seen where all of that led.  He got reelected in 2012, even though he was too familiar by then to be glamorous and had disillusioned many who had fallen for the "hopey-changey" aspect.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting how thin-skinned Barack Obama is, and how he treats anyone who, in his mind, has shown him up.

You may hate Paul Ryan for different reasons (you know, like pushing through crappy spending packages after John Boehner failed), but Obama has hated Ryan ever since a certain meeting about health-care policy, at which Ryan challenged his budget analysis and showed him up.  And he will keep hating Ryan, even after both of them are long out of politics.

Sorry, but Barack Obama was never pursuing the good.  Many wanted to see that in him, but the wishful thinking or longing after a Messiah, though not not nearly like Obama's personal motivation, was far from the best thing for all of those who let themselves get caught up in it.  Some also thought he would be the instrument or the vehicle for punishing their enemies, and he made occasional overt appeals of that sort. Not the world's healthiest motive, either.

Now when Ted Cruz—at the moment when you and I both now know  he was on the ropes in Indiana—declared that Donald Trump is such a narcissist that even Barack Obama would complain he has an ego problem, he wasn't merely wondering how he could be losing to such a man.

Donald Trump is another Obama.

There are important differences in background and style.  Had Obama not begun climbing the political ladder, it's hard to know what he would have done (and he probably would not would not have become famous doing it).  Trump has already had a business career, not nearly as glorious as he wants himself and others to believe, but substantial.  He has had a successful showbiz career as well.  Politics has obviously tempted him for a long time, but was only a sideline till he catched on to a bunch of things last June (the beginning of NTE 1).

Trump is just as consumed as Obama by the pursuit of adulation, but until recently he didn't see political power as an important means to it (that has probably changed  now, as he feels it's within his reach).  He is just as thin-skinned as Obama, but Obama has been better at hiding it.  Trump hangs his vindictiveness right out there for all to see. He boasts about the utility of being around unsuccessful people, whom he can dazzle with his embellished tales of success.  He flaunts his sense of entitlement and will go to warp speed in his efforts to dismiss or argue away anything that looks like it might be a failure on his part.

Obama doesn't identify with an ideology, but there is one that he refers to, from time to time, because it has been instrumentally useful to him (and there would be massive re-learning in front of him, were he to try to use a different one).  

Trump, I am fairly sure, has no ideology at all, even of the secondary or disposable variety.  But he has discovered, quite recently, that emphasizing certain themes (which he may or may not believe in personally) and calling upon certain frustrations and resentments (which he surely does not share with most of the people who form his clientele; personally he has absolutely nothing in common with out-of-work coal miners in Buchanan County, Virginia) will gain him a mass following.  Already a big enough following to garner a major party's nomination; whether it can gain him a big enough following to win the Presidency remains to be seen (some aspects of his appeal to the converted, particularly as they pertain to the desire for revenge, are utterly repellent to the unconverted).

Trump is no more about goodness than Obama has been.  To a far greater extent than Obama (who pretended to have detailed plans for everything, even though Porkulus ended up being slapped together by ex-Congressman David Obey and his minions, Obamacare was slapped together by staffers to ex-Senator Max Baucus, etc.), Trump doesn't even tell anyone he has a program.  That's how he can serve as a blank screen for his followers (who, naturally, cannot all see the same things on the screen; inevitably many, if not all, will be sorely disappointed if he takes office).  What I've especially noticed about Trump supporters, however, is either aggressive rejection of even having a program (Trump will do it, whatever it turns out to be, and it will inevitably be wonderful; who do you ask?), or insistence that he will do precisely what their heart desires.  (Do I really have to name posters and examples off this thread?)  

If his supporters were not eagerly anticipating his accession to power, and others who may not like him at all were not seeking preferment from him, no one on God's green earth would be praising Trump's foreign policy address, a steaming pile of platitudes that could either be viewed as expressing no principle at all, or bit and fragments of 5 or 6 principles which unfortunately happen to contradict one another (No war in the Middle East!  Eliminate the Islamic State!  Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon!).  Everybody sees something different in it, and hardly any of what they see was there to begin with. 

So neither Obama nor Trump is particularly interested in pursuing the good.  Both want adulation, and will take worship if they can get it.  Obama's ideology is disposable, and anything that looks like ideology from Trump is the sales pitch that's been working for him up to now.

Since a cult of personality is essential to their appeal, Obama has left his political party in notably worse shape than it was in when he assumed control of it, and Trump will have at least as big a negative impact on his party.

Both have fed on many people's desire for a Messiah.

Sorry, folks, how can I break this to you?  There is no Messiah on the horizon.  If you aim at what an actual human being can accomplish, in collaboration with other actual human beings, you might get it.  Salvation and redemption are never going to be there when you want them.

I don't think you're going to get all the revenge you're after, either.  (Trump's appeal to longings for revenge is far more overt than Obama's ever was.)  Trump stomps here, and he re-stomps there, and his followers are temporarily fulfilled.  But the stomping has personal meaning only to Trump (who among the Trumpians genuinely hates Scott Walker?).  Maybe Trump and his voters will next succeed in destroying George Will's career ("Nobody reads him anyway" is the most recent line from your guy), and in time obtain the ruination of a few others.  But ending the reigns of hack Senators and Congresscritters, power-mad bureaucrats, public employee union heads.... that's really hard work, those people will fight you every step, and some of them (you know, Mitch McConnell) might turn out to be useful to a President Trump.  Remember what happened with Obama's vows to change the culture of Washington, exclude all lobbyists from his administration, reject all special interests once and for all?

So you can discredit a Trump critic here or there, and I'm sure you'll do your best, but, hey, already a lot fewer people read me or Roger Bissell than read George Will.

No one here really needs a Messiah.  And no one here is about to get one.

There's the lesson to be learned from the Obami.

Robert

 

[PDS]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

I've never been a fan of Coulter's endorsement of Romney. And Walker in that comment was typical of her Romney sentiments--with no criticism of Walker meant. He's a conservative hero who fits many situations because he took on government labor unions in a nasty fight and won (among a few other achievements).

However, I want to mention two things (one a correction).

1. First, a comment. Did you notice how Maher mocked her when she said Bernie Sanders would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? The reason Coulter gave is that he sees the middle class and their problems and wants to fix them as opposed to merely looking at them for an angle, which is what Clinton does. Coulter didn't use that language, but that was her meaning. 

2. Now the correction. My issue is not "Us vs. Them." The only people who are going to have any bad things happen (except for ISIS and folks like that) are elitists who are abusing their power. The bad thing for them is that their gravy train just ran off the rails. They are going to be removed from power and their crony deals. And that's about it. That's the "them," I suppose.

But note, my "Us," that is, the folks I resonate with, what I call typical Trump supporters, the Silent Majority, don't give a crap about having an elite class. In fact, they're fine with it. There are always going to be elites, so there's no problem when new elites come in to replace the old.

It's the old ones who stopped seeing us that's the issue. They thought running game on the Silent Majority was all the attention they ever needed to give the Silent Majority, but they could still keep milking the Silent Majority and get away with it.

So I guess there is a "them" in the sense that there is a bunch of establishment elitists decided to live in a bubble and there is the "us" out here who makes that bubble possible with money, work, votes, kids to die for their goddam Endless War scams, etc., but this is not like a class war or anything like that.

It's more like a restructuring of a company when the stockholders vote out most of the management and get new people to run the company. It's throwing the bums out and getting the company back on track.

This is how I see it. Coulter, likewise, sees it like this, even as, in another part of her soul, she is an establishment groupie bordering on superficial.

Michael

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that Coulter's first choices for President not so very long ago sorta kick the legs out from under your anti-Establishment narrative?

There is no harm in admitting this.   Nobody loses their union card  for admitting they are wrong once in a while.  

[Robert Campbell]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

But Mr. Trump pledged in the interviews to deliver on his campaign promises, even if they prove disruptive or explosive.

Ahh, and if anyone should complain that he hasn't delivered, President Trump and his surrogates will just tell them how badly they misinterpreted him.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

4 minutes ago, PDS said:

There is no harm in admitting this.   Nobody loses their union for admitting they are wrong once in a while.  

It's hard to admit being wrong when Donald J. Trump is your role model.

Robert

[Roger Bissell]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

I don't think you're going to get all the revenge you're after, either.  (Trump's appeal to longings for revenge is far more overt than Obama's ever was.)  Trump stomps here, and he re-stomps there, and his followers are temporarily fulfilled.  But the stomping has personal meaning only to Trump (who among the Trumpians genuinely hates Scott Walker?).  Maybe Trump and his voters will next succeed in destroying George Will's career ("Nobody reads him anyway" is the most recent line from your guy), and in time obtain the ruination of a few others.  But ending the reigns of hack Senators and Congresscritters, power-mad bureaucrats, public employee union heads.... that's really hard work, those people will fight you every step, and some of them (you know, Mitch McConnell) might turn out to be useful to a President Trump.  Remember what happened with Obama's vows to change the culture of Washington, exclude all lobbyists from his administration, reject all special interests once and for all?

So you can discredit a Trump critic here or there, and I'm sure you'll do your best, but, hey, already a lot fewer people read me or Roger Bissell than read George Will.

No one here really needs a Messiah.  And no one here is about to get one.

There's the lesson to be learned from the Obami.

4

Very well said, Robert - and your post overall was quite good, too.

The lesson to be learned from the Trumpenproletariat is that sometimes Stomping is (barely) euphemized more innocently as Stumping. Or perhaps that Stumping, in the hands of some people, slides precipitously into Stomping. Sometimes even very deranged Stomping, such as Tromp, on the verge of his total victory in Indiana, incomprehensibly accusing Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination.

Of course (and I hear this a lot, even on FOX News which has clearly gone over to the Dark Side), this is not supposed to dissuade people from supporting him - any more than his delusional remark about not losing support if he shot someone - but why? The only reason I can think of is: the end justifies the means. Which is what Pragmatists and Statists and Statist-Pragmatists embrace with no qualms whatever -  and have for decades.

Why I'm seeing so much of this kind of rationalization here on a website ostensibly dedicated to Rand and her philosophy, though, is not at all clear - unless it's an indication of the metastasizing of the severe intellectual and moral corruption that is unmistakeably present in the Tromp Godhead itself.

REB

[Selene]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

That was an astounding prediction, nearly a year ago. The tears of mirth and denial on that communist’s face is the biggest misreading I have ever seen. Maher should be ashamed of his stupidity. What a fool.

Peter, it was only eight (8) months ago. 

"What a fool?"

Yeah, he wasn't as smart as all the OL folks who picked Trump...oops...hmm there were only two!

This is like a bad remake of 12 Angry Men!

I play the old coot who gave Fonda/Michael the supportive vote when he needed it.

Also provided great recipes for Crow.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

14 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Very well said, Robert - and your post overall was quite good, too.

The lesson to be learned from the Trumpenproletariat is that sometimes Stomping is (barely) euphemized more innocently as Stumping. Or perhaps that Stumping, in the hands of the some people, slides precipitously into Stomping. Sometimes even very deranged Stomping, such as Tromp, on the verge of his total victory in Indiana, incomprehensibly accusing Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination.

Of course (and I hear this a lot, even on FOX News which has clearly gone over to the Dark Side), this is not supposed to dissuade people from supporting him - any more than his delusional remark about not losing support if he shot someone - but why? The only reason I can think of is: the end justifies the means. Which is what Pragmatists and Statists and Statist-Pragmatists embrace with no qualms whatever -  and have for decades.

Why I'm seeing so much of this kind of rationalization here on a website ostensibly dedicated to Rand and her philosophy, though, is not at all clear - unless it's an indication of the metastasizing of the severe intellectual and moral corruption that is unmistakeably present in the Tromp Godhead itself.

REB

Stomping, Stamping, Shanking, Spanking, Stumping, Standing, Sanding--sounds like the inside of a noisy industrial plant.

--Brant

at a loss for words

[9thdoctor]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

 

Hillary just flip - flopped on coal production like a bad Machiavellian which should be detrimental for her credibility.

She had some?  Credibility?  News to me.

[Brant Gaede]

How's Trump going to fill the coming two months of boredom? Will his weavers provide him with a new set of clothes for the coming campaign?

--Brant

Wow!--looka them!

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Both have fed on many people's desire for a Messiah.

Sorry, folks, how can I break this to you?  There is no Messiah on the horizon.

 

 

Amen.  It's all in the Gospel according to Brian. 

Or, as Biggus Dickus would say, the Gospel according to Bwian

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It starts (from Breitbart):

Exclusive: President Fox Apologizes, Invites Trump to Mexico

Michael