Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

How will Trump--the Republican nominee--do against Biden--the Democrat nominee? I think these guys are pointing their guns at the wrong target and Biden would be the savior of the country against Hillary--and Trump. (I'm not saying the country needs to be saved from Trump, just Hillary.)

--Brant

6475 OL posts in vain?

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

One thing nobody is saying right now (that I have seen) is that Fred Trump was one of Goldwater's biggest backers for his presidential run. This is the political background Trump cut his teeth on.

Roger Stone discusses this and many other things on Reddit:

In another video by Stone (I would have to find it), he said something really interesting about Vince Foster. Like in the video above, he thinks Foster committed suicide. But in the other video it was not because of depression.

Stone said Foster was having an affair with Hillary and she essentially blamed him for the health care debacle and dumped him. Apparently she humiliated Foster in front of a lot of people in a meeting shortly before his suicide. However, Stone says Hillary had his body removed from his office so the office would not turn into a crime scene for the FBI. With Foster's body in the park, the park police investigated, not the FBI. Who knows what hidden treasures the FBI would have found in Foster's office?

Speculation, of course. But man, does that sound plausible...

Michael

He had the gun in the building and everything! Wrong target. How sad. What did he only have one bullet? I swear, I don't get him.

Anyway, I guess she looked at him on the floor and thought; park, office, at this point what difference does it make?

[PDS]

On 5/27/2016 at 8:55 AM, Brant Gaede said:

You're deluded.

--Brant

it's unlimited

Perhaps I was rationalizing, in a limited way, about human nature to make myself feel better. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Anyway, I guess she looked at him on the floor and thought; park, office, at this point what difference does it make?

Jon,

On the chance you might be interested in looking deeper into Stone, here are some fascinating previews of Trump's probable future attacks on Hillary Clinton.

To me, if it turns out that relevant evidence is available to be shared with the public, the most devastating attack line will be that the Gaddafi takedown was bought and paid for by other Arab nations through donations to the Clinton Foundation.

That's not because Americans care about Libya--or Gaddafi for that matter. It's because it would be an example of the American government being bought through bribes by foreign powers to conquer another country. If Trump can prove this and spin it that way, I don't see how Hillary survives avoiding jail time, much less the election.

Also, if Huma Abedin really does have deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, that would (partially) explain a lot of Obama's attitudes in the Egyptian elections, his semi-tacit support of Morsi and subsequent open disapproval of Morsi's removal. Oddly enough, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a sexy theme for Trump supporters, although it is on the table. So I see an expose of Huma as a supporting tactic, not a main thrust.

And there's more in that video. 

All this is speculation so far and since the information comes from a dirty trickster, it has to be taken with a lot of salt. But Trump holds his cards close to his chest and is a master of timing in releasing them. So I find these speculations plausible.

btw - Because of this discussion, I just got Stone's book, The Clintons' War on Women. Just look at the table of contents--quite salacious. Perfect reading for when I get into gossip mode.  

The thing about Stone is that he documents the hell out of his allegations and probably has a ton more dirt he didn't publish. That's why (I believe) his political targets don't sue his ass to Kingdom Come and back all the time. I wonder what his relationship was to J. Edgar Hoover.  

Quote

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kathleen Willey
Introduction by Roger Stone

Part 1 The War on Women
Chapter 1 The Rhodes Scholar Rapist
Chapter 2 The Many Assaults on Juanita Broaddrick
Chapter 3 By Force If Necessary
Chapter 4 Tossing Flowers
Chapter 5 Attack in the Oval Office
Chapter 6 Pound of Flesh
Chapter 7 Orgy Island

Part 2 Drugs, Money, and Murder—Clinton-Style
Chapter 8 Blow, Bubba, Blow
Chapter 9 The Boys on the Tracks
Chapter 10 Clinton, Bush, Barry Seal, and the Mena Deal
Chapter 11 The Two-Party "System"

Part 3 Crippling Power
Chapter 12 Madam President
Chapter 13 Black Widow
Chapter 14 The Body
Chapter 15 Loose Ends
Chapter 16 White House for Sale

Part 4 The Crude and Corruptible Clintons
Chapter 17 Prison Blood
Chapter 18 Clinton Family Secrets
Chapter 19 Hillary's Fight for Women
Chapter 20 Like Mother, Like Son
Chapter 21 The Quotable Clintons

Part 5 Old Dogs
Chapter 22 Public Servant, Private Server
Chapter 23 Conflict of Interest
Chapter 24 Uranium One
Chapter 25 Hired Hands
Chapter 26 The Sins of the Foundation
Chapter 27 The Cover-Up Queen

Epilogue
Endnotes
Bibliography
Index

Michael

[MereMortal]

A blast from the past.  Christopher Hitchen's interview with Charlie Rose about his book "No One Left To Lie to"

 

[Roger Bissell]

22 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

A modern army hasn't much use for draftees. It runs on brains. I suppose in Israel it's different. They have a lot of brains to pick from.

--Brant

aren't they socialists?

 

Our brainy modern army has lost over 5,000 service folks in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years, thanks to ambushes, IED's, and whatnot. Granted, that figure is a far cry from the 58,000+ lost during a decade or so 50 years ago, and that is certainly something to be thankful for - but from the high intensity of present-day 24/7 cable news coverage, you'd think that the respective casualty figures were just the opposite. 

REB

[Peter]

Roger wrote: Our brainy modern army has lost over 5,000 service folks in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years, thanks to ambushes, IED's, and whatnot.

end quote

 

James A. Donald wrote about that on OWL: Our new fight, Dated: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:20:59 -0800  . . . . We are very successful at dealing with guerrillas in Afghanistan, and doing very badly at dealing with guerrillas in Iraq. The central government in Afghanistan is completely useless at dealing with Taliban guerrillas.  What happens in practice is that the local militia deals with them, and US special forces link up with the local militia, and give them air support and modern weapons, and a satellite phone, and the phone number of someone in the pentagon, with the result that the guy in the mountain valley, who became local militia leader because he owned the most goats and brought some of those goats and onions along to feed the militia, now has his own foreign policy, own army, and modern weapons, independent of the supposed central government in Kabul. Westphalian style states defeated the Muslims before the gates of Vienna, but now they do not seem effectual against today's muslims. When a muslim army marches a long way into foreign land, for example Iraq into Kuwait, or the forces of Kara Mustafa to the gates of Vienna, the armies of western secular Westphalian states seem to smack them down very successfully, but remaking Mecca is going to be a different project.

end quote

 

Guerrilla Warfare is a tough nut, Roger. To beat it requires boots on the ground for verification. And as Trump has suggested, bombing the shit out of them is good too. I think he means leveling a location, and not just bombing for the news. I think combat will go the way of mechanization and we have moved in that direction with drones. I think small combat bots could deal with Islamic terrorists like ISIS. How long until that happens? Ten years maybe - with a Trump presidency, so say 2026.

 

That reminds me of something Jack Wheeler said about guerrilla warfare, but I couldn’t find it in my documents but I found the following.

Peter

 

Some cuts from: INTERVIEW WITH JACK WHEELER, by Karen Reedstrom, MAY 1996.

 

Dr. Wheeler has been called the "real Indiana Jones" by the Wall St. Journal, the "creator of the Reagan Doctrine" by the Washington Post, and an "ideological gangster" by the Soviet press. He has traveled to 180 countries and all seven continents, and leads 3 to 4 expeditions a year. He and his wife, Rebel Holiday, have two sons, Brandon (age 12) and Jackson (age 4). Their home is in Falls Church, Virginia, near Washington, D.C.

 

Q: Aristotle describes courage as: "facing what is painful." Ayn Rand doesn't include courage as a virtue. Would you and if so, why?

 

Wheeler: I wrote a big essay on comparing Randian and Aristotelian ethics. It's in Den Uyl and Rasmussen's book The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand.

 

Q: I read it, it's good.

 

Wheeler: Thanks. I was always puzzled as to why Rand put down Aristotle's ethics. It's pretty obvious she never read it very well, or cribbed from it and wouldn't admit it. Nonetheless, their ethical systems are in many ways remarkably the same. When I got into graduate school and started studying philosophy (I got my Ph.D. in philosophy with John Hospers at USC), I realized that Aristotle was my real home. Eudaemonia should not be translated as "happiness." Aristotelian eudaemonia should be translated as success. We can say, "he is a successful businessman;" it makes sense. We can say of a woman, "she's a successful mother," that would make sense too; you wouldn't think it strange. But if we said, "he is a successful human being, he is a success at being human," that would strike us as odd, yet that is what Aristotle wanted to say. Each of us should strive to be a success at being the individual human being we are.

 

Q: Would you include courage as a virtue?

 

Wheeler: Of course. It's a key practical virtue.

 

Q: As a philosopher can you tell us how does one derive what a virtue is, and what should the list should include? Rand has her list; Aristotle has his; they're different in some respects.

 

Wheeler: Well, I'm not sure they're different. When you take a look at their derivations of a value they both agree that it doesn't make sense to talk about a rock having values. Aristotle really isn't a Platonist. There isn't something "good" floating around in the world that things partake in. Is it good for that rock to be there? Is it good for this mountain to be there, or is it good for the cloud to be in the sky? What does that mean? He would say, just like Rand, that it doesn't make any sense. It's gibberish. But is it good for the bee to pollinate the flower? Sure, because "good" means good for, good for something in particular, i.e., the eudaemonia of an individual living thing. Rand says much the same.

 

Q: David Kelley recently wrote a monograph including benevolence as an Objectivist virtue; would you agree with this?

 

Wheeler: Well, I have not followed that so I'm not sure exactly what he means. It sounds appropriate. I don't think it is in people's interest to be jerks. To be grumpy and crabby and angry and upset at people and not friendly. I don't think that person is a success at being human. I don't think that person is very happy with himself A benevolence towards people in general bespeaks of what Aristotle would call a Great Soul. Aristotle says that man is by nature, by his human identity, a social animal. He said no one would choose to live if he had all the good things in the world, riches, food, whatever, yet it was at the price of not having any friends at all, of being a complete and total hermit. There are those people, but they are very strange, aberrant. We are social animals. We get a genuine selfish pleasure from the companionship of other people. When you're genuinely friendly and benevolent it's returned to you, that's just the way it works.

 

Q: And the natives don't eat you.

 

Wheeler: Right!

 

Q: You said that Rand was not a good Objectivist, how do you think that was true?

 

Wheeler: The continuous venting of Randian rage. Her moral pretentiousness and the way she treated her followers. The pretentiousness of "you're not Objectivists, you're just students of Objectivism". I And that, of course, is reflected in the insufferable pretentiousness of many of her official followers from Peikoff on down. Who can stand those people? I've never had anything to do with them, and I probably never will. You have to read the philosophy, take it into your heart, apply it to your own life, then go your own way.

 

Q: Is there anything you disagree with in the philosophy itself?

 

Wheeler: Aside from the silly nonsense like the anti-Beethoven trip? One example might be the tabula rasa stuff, that we have no instincts.

 

Q: You think we do?

 

Wheeler: Yes, there's all kinds of genetic programs we have running in us. They've been around for a long time. We have a lot of ice age genes.

 

Q: Like what?

 

Wheeler: The double standard, for example. Every society on earth that has ever existed has had a double standard. And why is that? It's because when a woman gives birth she knows for sure that that's her child and her DNA is in that baby. A man never, ever, has that kind of 100% knowledge. There is always doubt. So men have always tried to reduce the amount of that doubt by restricting the woman's sexual activity, to make sure that her offspring has his DNA because it is a very bad genetic investment to go out there and risk your life being eaten by a lion to get the food to feed the kid when the kid is somebody else's DNA. So there's always been a double standard. Now once we become aware of that, we can override it, but there's all kinds of ice age genes, all kinds of GROMS, genetic read-only memories, operating in us. To say: "Oh, it doesn't exist; the brain is somehow exempt from evolution," just seems to me completely non-empirical. Rand is making an assertion based on her feelings, not evidence, which is not very Objectivist.

[MereMortal]

I saw this and watched.  It's good.  

[Peter]

I liked the Trump portion of the video, Meercat. The narrator estimated the free media that Trump has received would have cost 2 billion dollars. That does sound like a reasonable statement, when you consider the fact that you cannot watch the news without a story about Trump.  

I will take the large Trump Pizza with half just sauce and cheese, and the other half pepperoni, beef, banana peppers, and sweet peppers.

I have been receiving emails asking for money from the GOP and one was from Donald Trump. Cha-ching. I am still not sure I want to give the GOP money . . . yet . . . but Donald maybe,  soon.

In other news Trumpical Storm Bonnie is set to hit South Carolina. Batten down the hatches Robert Campbell.

Peter

[Guyau]

.

Click:

Trump's Thumps for US Colonial and Humanitarian Interventions

The consoling thing is that Presidents come and go, whereas Defense, State, and Intelligence do not. There's a fairly strong pattern of those agencies educating and sobering up new Presidents. Pretty sure Defense can sober him up on his thumpitythumps on firearms control on US bases. Etc. 

[Peter]

From the Vox video: "I say we should take it [Iraq's oil] and pay ourselves back," he said in one 2013 speech . . . . To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.  end quote

No! It is not colonialism, like Britain in India. I long advocated that we be paid for freeing people of the world from tyranny. Not that I advocate the type of reparations for WWI, paid by Germany, that led to WWII but our policies should be benevolent, not altruistic.

Yesterday, I watched a public TV show about the West Point class of 1967 and it was devastating. One of the Vietnam infantry survivors became an instructor at West Point and one thing he taught the budding new officers was that we not make the mistakes of Kennedy’s and Johnson’s advisors who were supposed to be the best and the brightest. He was allowed to teach this (for 17 years?) to guys who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. He must have taught Trump something too. (joke) I think Trump wants to start no new wars but to be paid if we help someone out. That’s all. At this point we can only parse his latest positions. (another joke. I think people do evolve, and Trump’s positions will change when he is briefed by the DoD)     

Peter

PRODOS: What does one say? Can -- I feel that the answer, it -- I’ve heard the commentators saying we’ll improve our intelligence efforts; we’ll track these people down, but all of that . . .
 
PEIKOFF: It’s nonsense. All of that is total nonsense. The criminal is totally known, and has been known for many decades. So, if you want a philosophic perspective, you have to take a long-range view of this. This is not a problem that started this week, or last month, or five years ago. This particular problem started in the late ‘40s and the early ‘50s under Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.
 
 PRODOS: Right.
 
PEIKOFF: It was focused at that time on the oil that was properly owned by western companies. And these Mideast companies – countries, one after the other, seized the oil, nationalized it, on the claim that although they hadn’t discovered it, it belonged to their collective and it was necessary for their poor. It was under the altruist-collectivist slogan.
 
PRODOS: That was the pretext that they used, was it?
 
PEIKOFF: Yes, that was the pretext that they used. The Americans, of course, were terrified to oppose any of this, and to say such a selfish thing as, “This is our property” – or the British. “This is our property. We discovered it. We create the technology, and you go to hell.” So they capitulated totally. They appeased. They turned the other way. There was a case, you know, where three countries, Britain, France, and Israel, had the courage to fly over -- I believe it was Egypt; I can’t remember now -- one of these countries to command, to retake the oil, and America issued a shameful statement that this was an outrage, and forced these planes to turn back. That was the foundation, at that time, that American property can be seized – American or Western property can be seized by these Mideast countries, totally with impunity -- with, to be expected to be met with a hundred percent appeasement.
 
Step two in this drama: you jump to the old President Bush, the worst President, in my view, in American history . . .
 
PRODOS: Really?
 
PEIKOFF: . . . the father of the current one, who said to the Mideast countries, in essence, “It’s not enough for you to take our property; it is okay for you to take over the liberty of the West. And the example, there, was the Ayatollah Khomeini who put the death decree on Rushdie, because he disagreed ideologically with his viewpoint. end quote

[Peter]

Uh, oh. A suspicious package at the White House at 2 pm.

I think on their bases our military should be sanctioned to carry fire arms. The only place I ‘might’ restrict that is in the clubs where drinking is permitted. Only Jack Reacher gets to pack. there  

Robert A. Heinlein said: I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. end quote

Rules? There are no stinkin’ rules. What are the rules in a political campaign? Will Trump or Clinton abide by any rules? I think their only rule is that “whatever they do, it gets them elected.” The angle from propaganda has been used since the founding of our nation and so has the exposure of those lies. Yet, Trump always makes the point that he only responds in kind. And that he does not initiate verbal violence or slander. I can live with that. I don’t want a guy who is too shy to respond but I hope he stifles the “off the top of his head stuff.”

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a cool video montage of what to expect in a Trump presidency.

The guy who did this--Joseph Vincent--normally makes (and I quote from his YouTube channel description): "Sports mini-documentary videos, detailing popular sports stories with movie trailer style editing."

As of right now, his YouTube channel has about 24.5 million views. This Trump video appears to be his first political montage and it is starting to go viral.

Michael

[Guyau]

 

.

Another montage, another perspective.

(Click 'Not Now')

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Guyau said:

 

Another montage, another perspective.

(Click 'not now')

Stephen,

Mother Jones? The Commie-leaning progressive Mother Jones site is the source you want to use and present without qualifying it?

Have you thought about ThinkProgress, MoveOn.org and other collectivist sites? Pravda, maybe? You can find great anti-Trump material there, too. (I even hear the ISIS folks might be working on some colorful anti-Trump things.)

I'm just razzing you.  But this source you cite is no friend to freedom. They've changed the words, but what it openly wants used to be called dictatorship of the proletariat. Now it's more like rule of the technocrats. Technocratic administration. Whatever.

Regardless of what you call it, the essence is still forced coercion of the population for social engineering purposes usually wedded to a collectivist utopian ideal. And if population compliance fails, there follow blood--lots of blood--and reeducation camps. But that's for a later stage. Not the one we are in right now. 

If that's your thing, OK. I don't see you there, though.   

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's something to calm fears.

Here's how Trump does it with minorities who are facing complicated social issues:

Caitlyn Jenner Takes Trump Up on His Offer, Uses Bathroom at Trump Tower
by Adam Howard 
NBC News
April 28, 2016

From the article:

Quote

Reality TV star and transgender icon Caitlyn Jenner has made a bold political statement — simply by using the bathroom at Trump Tower in New York City.

During an appearance on "The Today Show" last Thursday, Trump was pressed to share his position on HB2, the controversial North Carolina bill that, among other things, prohibits trans people for using the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. In a move that riled some conservatives, Trump came out against law, saying it was unnecessary. Then he said that if Jenner visited one of his properties, she could use whatever bathroom she wanted. A week later, Jenner took him up on the offer.

"Donald Trump said I could take a pee anywhere at a Trump facility, so I am gonna go take a pee in the ladies room," Jenner said before entering the real estate mogul's headquarters in a video recording that was eventually posted on Facebook.

After exiting the women's bathroom, Jenner thanked the GOP front-runner...

Where are the jackboots all of a sudden?

 

Michael

[Peter]

Back in 2006, I saw “personality” Kinkie Freidman on, "Scarborough Country." Kinkie Freidman was campaigning for governor of Texas and had a strategy for solving the immigration problem. His strategy for border security was called Five Mexican Generals. He said five Mexican generals would divide the border into five pieces and they would be paid to protect the border. Each would have $1,000,000.00 put into a bank account in America. But if an immigrant crossed the border illegally, they would lose $5,000 from their account. At the end of the year they can collect the remaining amount from the original million dollars. He said that this was not putting the security of America in the hands of foreigners. We would continue to have border security on our side.

Peter

[MereMortal]

Michael,

Did you miss this or were you  going to get to it?  Trump's presser today.  starts at about 20 minutes in.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 minutes ago, MereMortal said:

Did you miss this or were you  going to get to it?  Trump's presser today.  starts at about 20 minutes in.

MM,

LOL...

I didn't miss it. I've just been powerful busy all of a sudden.

Trump let the press have it with both barrels. Man, did that feel good. And that vet telling them to get their heads out of their butt was perfect.

But wait! There's more!

Guess what?

The press is talking all about it today. And probably will all week.

Trump is the perfect press punker. He's been punking off the press about this campaign since last June. The press, bless their poor little savage hearts, fall for the same gimmicks over and over as if they did not learn anything from the last time.

Trump has figured out how to use them as a perfect low-cost publicity machine and they provide him with stellar results every time.

Part of Trump's magic includes the essential elements of Douglas Rushkoff's media virus (the one he wrote about back in 1996--Media Virus! Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture). Trump's media approach always comes in the form of a virus, that is it has a shell, the real message (nested inside), and the delivery mechanism.

The shell is to spread and replicate like a real virus does. The message--which is incomplete by itself like a virus is--integrates with the public like a virus does with an organism's cells. And the delivery mechanism is his non-stop media appearances just like a syringe injecting the virus into the bloodstream of a living being.

The perfect media virus shell is when the media talks about itself. The media can't resist being the news until it gets too obvious. Then it has to back off. But up to that point, the media is just like the Greek myth of Narcissus--the guy who stared into a pool of water and was so much in love with his own reflection, he did nothing else until he turned into a plant.

Trump knows this and keeps the media people talking about themselves constantly--often with outrageous statements the media consumes like a crack addict (on the premise that outrageous generates eyeballs). Trump's real message (the nested one), of course, is the set of issues where he bonds with his growing public. And regarding his delivery mechanism, I have never seen someone work as hard as he does at this. He is constantly phoning in to shows, setting up interviews with journalists, making guest appearances and speeches all over the place, etc. He's even doing nonstop campaign rallies after he has sewn up the nomination.

So here we will have Trump being blasted by the media all week for coming down on the press, the viewers getting the message that almost 6 million dollars actually went to the vets (after all, the media has to talk about the issue, too), and every outlet will be talking about it. Shell, message and delivery mechanism. All running on time with the pedal on the floor and burning rubber.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even Rush Limbaugh is noticing, although I don't think the media virus idea has occurred to him yet.

The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years

Michael

[Mark]

I’ve been enjoying MSK’s posts analyzing Trump’s popularity and his methods.   Though my mind just doesn’t work that way I can appreciate what he is doing even though I can’t do it myself.

I skimmed the Limbaugh transcript and noticed the name “Jim Kallstrom,” described as an executive director of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.  Now where had I heard that ... ah yes, the lying head of the FBI’s TWA 800 crash investigation back in 1996.  Now he’s the CEO of that charity for Marines to which Trump just donated a million dollars.  Trump’s staff need to investigate things more: www.ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#TWA800

 

[KorbenDallas]

On 5/28/2016 at 2:34 PM, Peter said:

Wheeler: I wrote a big essay on comparing Randian and Aristotelian ethics. It's in Den Uyl and Rasmussen's book The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand.

Peter, I added this book to my reading list.  Thanks

[KorbenDallas]

More bad news for Beck:

SiriusXM Announces Suspension of Glenn Beck over Brad Thor Interview Comments
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/05/31/siriusxm-announces-suspension-glenn-beck-brad-thor-interview-comments/

Basically, Thor and Beck were implying assassination and got suspended over it.

Quote

SiriusXM encourages a diversity of discourse and opinion on our talk programs. However, comments recently made by a guest on the independently produced Glenn Beck Program, in our judgement, may be reasonably construed by some to have been advocating harm against an individual currently running for office, which we cannot and will not condone. For that reason, we have suspended The Glenn Beck Program from our Patriot channel for the coming week and are evaluating its place in our lineup going forward. SiriusXM is committed to a spirited, robust, yet responsible political conversation and believes this action reflects those values.

 

Quote

The suspension is in response to the interview Beck did with fiction author Brad Thor last Wednesday, in which Thor likened the GOP’s presumptive nominee Donald Trump to a South American-style dictator who would cause an “extinction-level event” for the country if elected. Thor then declared that in such a case, Congress would not be able to remove Trump from office by “legal means” through impeachment, so Thor asked “what patriot will step up and do that” if Trump oversteps his Constitutional restraints. Beck agreed with Thor’s assessment.

It's my opinion that what is happening to Beck is what can happen to a mind if a person abandons Reason.  In Beck's case, for mysticism.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Newtzilla appearing on Hannity, predicting Trump will transform the electoral map:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Mark said:

I’ve been enjoying MSK’s posts analyzing Trump’s popularity and his methods.   Though my mind just doesn’t work that way I can appreciate what he is doing even though I can’t do it myself.

I skimmed the Limbaugh transcript and noticed the name “Jim Kallstrom,” described as an executive director of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.  Now where had I heard that ... ah yes, the lying head of the FBI’s TWA 800 crash investigation back in 1996.  Now he’s the CEO of that charity for Marines to which Trump just donated a million dollars.  Trump’s staff need to investigate things more: www.ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#TWA800

Mark,

Look at your post and see if that isn't in the form of Rushkoff's media virus. 

Not great, outrageous or colorful, which makes me believe this is not intentional, but definitely the basic form is there. The shell: referencing the media and/or media person (me) and even making a comparison to yourself (other media person), then the embedded contrarian message that the shell is supposed to carry. The delivery mechanism is the post itself.

Calling us media people is a stretch, I know, but if one considers our modest media outlets as media, technically, we are media people...

Michael