Donald Trump

[Brant Gaede]

With no political background--this applies to Carly too--no one knows what Trump will do. He seems closest to a Rockefeller Republican of 50 years ago, but that was a politician.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

With no political background--this applies to Carly too--no one knows what Trump will do.

Raises the question whether presidents do anything? Reagan took naps. Poindexter and MacFarlane ran covert ops.

If the peace and prosperity of the world rests on Bill Clinton's shoulders, how does the Commander-In-Chief have time to masturbate in the Oval Office during office hours? ...Clinton feels our pain, didn't inhale, whimpers for forgiveness. If there is any justification for this carnival of hot air, it must be discerned from an abstraction, because none of the data suggest any tangible benefit produced by these sterile public employments. [COGIGG, p.142]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe enough illegal immigrants will start shopping at Macy's that it will stop losing all that money.

 

I guess not.

 

Wow, @Macys shares are down more than 40% this year. I never knew my ties & shirts not being sold there would have such a big impact!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

November 16, 2015

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... no one knows what Trump will do.

Brant,

The only people who don't know what Trump is going to do are those who don't think he will do what he says.

He's pretty clear about what he wants to do, second amendment, health care, taxes, ISIS, immigration, VA services reform, China trade, and so on. God knows he repeats them enough.

See the news or see Positions on his campaign website.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another tweet from The Donald:

 

Interesting article from highly respected Wayne Allyn Root https://t.co/1esS0QV46V

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

November 16, 2015

 

I have never been that interested in Wayne Allyn Root, especially since the libertarian people I generally read trashed him so viciously during elections, but I just now looked around at some of his videos on his site (see Nice Guys Finish Last- Why Only Trump Can Beat Hillary, for instance), Wikipedia (Wayne Allyn Root), etc, and I generally like what I see.

 

Root's main point in his Blaze article is that, even if Trump actually is not able to physically deport all the illegal aliens, making enforced deportation a formal policy gives Trump fantastic leverage in negotiating with them. (No welfare, food stamps or other government entitlements, and no voting for life, since they are lawbreakers--and maybe making them formally agree to this if they continue to stay.)

 

Also, Trump will easily get his wall because all the Democrats and squishy Republicans in Congress will be too busy with illegal immigrant cases to put up a fight. And with the wall built, he can either get Mexico to pay for Mexican nationals in US prisons, or deport those prisoners back to Mexico. The wall will keep them from coming back. Either way, Mexico pays for them.

 

Trump said this article was interesting.

 

Maybe that's what Brant meant when he said nobody knows what Trump will do.

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

... no one knows what Trump will do.

Brant,

The only people who don't know what Trump is going to do are those who don't think he will do what he says.

He's pretty clear about what he wants to do, second amendment, health care, taxes, ISIS, immigration, VA services reform, China trade, and so on. God knows he repeats them enough.

See the news or see Positions on his campaign website.

Michael

5 positions. Seems well done though I didn't read any for none were about foreign policy.

--Brant

none were about foreign policy because it's scary and the voters don't want to hear of it

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I didn't read any for none were about foreign policy.

Brant,

China trade isn't foreign policy?

Anyway, as regards foreign policy, Trump has been quite vocal about what he wants to do. Over and over and over.

ISIS - Bomb the oil fields to cut off funding. After that, move in ground troops and the big guns to clear them out, then get out once they are killed off (but take the oil to pay for it and open reconstruction to bidding by Exxon and the others).

Policeman of the world - Whenever we help out another country, charge for it instead of give it away.

Foreign trade - Play nice with those who play nice with us, play mean with those who do things like currency manipulation.

I could go on, but that's the gist. In general, use common sense in war time, charge for foreign aid when charity is not the issue, and make great deals in foreign trade.

Also, he has said many times he is for Reagan's idea of peace through strength. So he wants a powerful military--one so powerful, it will not be used much.

Michael

[Marc]

David Limbaugh wrote today: In the two most recent debates, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have nudged themselves up, both being extremely articulate and full of fight and energy. Though neither has moved into the Trump/Carson level, many observers believe that the race will eventually be between these two, once the inevitable implosion of Trump and Carson has occurred.

end quote

And also today, I saw four conservative commentators including Robert Tracinski still predicting the implosion of Carson and Trump and the rise of Rubio and Cruz. Rubio is the more likely winner of that two way contest and he has the gambler's odds as of now, and Fiorina is his most likely VP. The odds makers are betting on Marco and Carly even without one primary vote yet cast. What do they know? Carson and Trump have 50 percent of the vote . . . but they are both getting frayed around the edges, and historically the outsider never wins unless they are a general.

That Marco and Carly ticket sounds good demographically especially if Marco gives his woman VP some good decision making opportunities, beyond speaking at places the President does not want to attend. It could work and I would not be surprised if Rubio picks her. That would guarantee the Latino, half the female vote, the state of Florida and the republican states. I think Kasich would support the ticket in Ohio. Rubio is very personable, liked by the establishment and will get a lot of dough to advertise. I could vote for him. He would shake things up in DC and still get things done, whereas Cruz would rub people the wrong way.

Hillary will get the NY and other blue state, liberal, progressive, socialist vote but with Carly on the ticket her lock on the women’s vote is less secure. I don’t see a run away contest for either party but I think the odds are in the Republicans favor.

Trump looked and sounded tired at some rally he went to. He seems determined to trash Carson just so that he could win the first primary vote in Iowa.

Peter

The oddsmakers don't need to see a vote before they set the odds .

They actually do more than simply read Rasmussen or a few headlines .

As I have stated here over and over , zero chance .

And on post #1680 , someone has agreed with me .

Finally !

To repeat my mantra , zero chance .

[Marc]

David Limbaugh wrote today: In the two most recent debates, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have nudged themselves up, both being extremely articulate and full of fight and energy. Though neither has moved into the Trump/Carson level, many observers believe that the race will eventually be between these two, once the inevitable implosion of Trump and Carson has occurred.

end quote

And also today, I saw four conservative commentators including Robert Tracinski still predicting the implosion of Carson and Trump and the rise of Rubio and Cruz. Rubio is the more likely winner of that two way contest and he has the gambler's odds as of now, and Fiorina is his most likely VP. The odds makers are betting on Marco and Carly even without one primary vote yet cast. What do they know? Carson and Trump have 50 percent of the vote . . . but they are both getting frayed around the edges, and historically the outsider never wins unless they are a general.

That Marco and Carly ticket sounds good demographically especially if Marco gives his woman VP some good decision making opportunities, beyond speaking at places the President does not want to attend. It could work and I would not be surprised if Rubio picks her. That would guarantee the Latino, half the female vote, the state of Florida and the republican states. I think Kasich would support the ticket in Ohio. Rubio is very personable, liked by the establishment and will get a lot of dough to advertise. I could vote for him. He would shake things up in DC and still get things done, whereas Cruz would rub people the wrong way.

Hillary will get the NY and other blue state, liberal, progressive, socialist vote but with Carly on the ticket her lock on the women’s vote is less secure. I don’t see a run away contest for either party but I think the odds are in the Republicans favor.

Trump looked and sounded tired at some rally he went to. He seems determined to trash Carson just so that he could win the first primary vote in Iowa.

Peter

The oddsmakers don't need to see a vote before they set the odds .

They actually do more than simply read Rasmussen or a few headlines .

As I have stated here over and over , zero chance .

And on post #1680 , someone has agreed with me .

Finally !

To repeat my mantra , zero chance .

And my feeling for VP ( as of now ) , will be somewhat of a surprise . Probably someone who DT gets some input on - considering that he is obviously going to throw his support behind your eventual President , President Rubio .

[Wolf DeVoon]

your eventual President , President Rubio

Hillary by a landslide, unless they nominate Trump. The only thing that can stop the Free Shit Army is a well-placed four-letter word on national television -- like 'damn it, no, no more hand outs!'

[BaalChatzaf]

your eventual President , President Rubio

Hillary by a landslide, unless they nominate Trump. The only thing that can stop the Free Shit Army is a well-placed four-letter word on national television -- like 'damn it, no, no more hand outs!'

That should also include corporate subsidies. Some of our mega corps are the real Welfare Queens.

[Selene]

I have never been that interested in Wayne Allyn Root, especially since the libertarian people I generally read trashed him so viciously during elections, but I just now looked around at some of his videos on his site (see Nice Guys Finish Last- Why Only Trump Can Beat Hillary, for instance), Wikipedia (Wayne Allyn Root), etc, and I generally like what I see.

Root's main point in his Blaze article is that, even if Trump actually is not able to physically deport all the illegal aliens, making enforced deportation a formal policy gives Trump fantastic leverage in negotiating with them. (No welfare, food stamps or other government entitlements, and no voting for life, since they are lawbreakers--and maybe making them formally agree to this if they continue to stay.)

Also, Trump will easily get his wall because all the Democrats and squishy Republicans in Congress will be too busy with illegal immigrant cases to put up a fight. And with the wall built, he can either get Mexico to pay for Mexican nationals in US prisons, or deport those prisoners back to Mexico. The wall will keep them from coming back. Either way, Mexico pays for them.

Trump said this article was interesting.

Maybe that's what Brant meant when he said nobody knows what Trump will do.

Michael

He was all over the Obama Columbia myth story in 2012 and I thought in 2008 also.

Did I miss the Libertarian attacks on him? Wasn't he the VP nominee in the convention where the woman was his opposition?

I remember C-Span covering the entire convention in 2012 (?)

Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/obama%E2%80%99s-college-classmate-the-obama-scandal-is-at-columbia/

[Brant Gaede]

In today's context foreign policy means war--here, there and almost everywhere. All kinds of war including general nuclear even.

You start with that and work backwards to a rational starting point for policy.

Otherwise you'll ad hoc hack your way into one unwanted and unexpected war after another.

And the wanted war will wipe the floor with you(r country) as what happened with the Iraq invasion of 2003.

--Brant

the wanted war was not the needed war

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Trump in his latest rally in Knoxville, Tennessee, just in case some news outlets want to downplay the size of Trump's crowd:

 

Thank you Tennessee! #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/RNZ3hvbVvM

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

November 17, 2015

 

This is typical wherever he holds a rally these days.

 

So how's that looking for "zero chance"?

 

 

(When I go to sleep at night, I keep dreaming about crows and friends and stuff... )

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

(and in a weird twist today, the Liberal left-ish government of Canada finds itself disappointed that the Obama administration has put the kibosh on KeystoneXL completion.)

William,

Obama knows there will be no retaliation from a fellow leftie.

Canada has massive oil and gas reserves, large enough to wean America off its other iffy suppliers, and we already pump oil and gas across the border in vast amounts. We send 99% of the exports to you already. We are in bed with the Mexicans on the issue of North American energy 'security,' further integrating energy markets and winding down continental imports from Saudia Arabia and Venezuela.

Despite the whoopee about Keystone's environmental risks in America, the foremost reason I believe Obama cannot approve the pipeline extension is that the bulk flow of tar-sands syncrude would be delivered to deepwater ports, bypassing American refineries and value-added. The Canadians would be very happy with a deepwater port in America, since it removes risk for our own.

As it goes, much more pressure will be put upon Canadian pipelines to deepwater. Even though the Liberals are left-ish, they will not be tampering with black gold and its distribution in any economically-damaging way.

Canada and the USA don't 'retaliate' against each other in a meaningful manner. We are too much allies and cousins to have dangerous misunderstandings leading to even minor aggression. We are, for better or worse, enmeshed economically and socially by multiple treaties and accords, traditions and mutual interests. Canada will say it is 'unfortunate' that Obama blocks tar-sand liquor from Texas deepwater markets. Canada will 'retaliate' by pushing another pipeline across the Rockies to Prince Rupert or Vancouver, and beef up capacity on our other lines.

In other, unrelated-to-Trump news, it seems likely that coast-to-coast-to-coast legalization of marijuana in Canada will lead to 'retaliation' from the United States. Canada already has an advanced industry devoted to medical marijuana cultivation and distribution, and could have advantages of scale enough to dominate emerging North American markets for the weed -- in terms of planning, finance, product development. Free Trade!

More seriously, does Donald Trump have any soft drug policies of note out yet? I wonder what his federal government would do with the status of weed -- not to mention that larger War on Drugs, criminal law reform, and state experiments in legalization.

Would Trump retaliate against the Great Stoned North once it turns fully leafy green?

The link above is to an eye-opening documentary on Canadian pot, by the Fifth Estate's Mark Kelley, "Marijuana in Canada : Pot Fiction." It will show you a bizarre stand-off between local authorities and the federal government that has led to wide-open adult sales and consumption in Vancouver (especially) and other major cities -- a parallel system of non-enforcement of federal drug laws. At least here in BC, the marijuana industry is quite ready for legalization. Reform is expected to remove the need for the fig-leaf of 'medicine.' Boom times. Who will be more favorable, Clinton or Trump?

This graphic is from the piece, depicting the explosion of 'illegal' pot shops in and around Vancouver. See the cash-cow and Canada-first pot vending machine at five minutes in.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Canada has massive oil and gas reserves, large enough to wean America off its other iffy suppliers, and we already pump oil and gas across the border in vast amounts.  We send 99% of the exports to you already.  We are in bed with the Mexicans on the issue of North American energy 'security,' further integrating energy markets and winding down continental imports from Saudia Arabia and Venezuela.

 

Despite the whoopee about Keystone's environmental risks in America, the foremost reason I believe Obama cannot approve the pipeline extension is that the bulk flow of tar-sands syncrude would be delivered to deepwater ports, bypassing American refineries and value-added.  The Canadians would be very happy with a deepwater port in America, since it removes risk for our own.

 

A couple quibbles, since you're on my turf as an oil patch habitué. US exports natural gas and condensate to Canada. Canada exports "dilbit" (diluted bitumen) which has to be processed before it can be refined or exported. Export demand is predominantly diesel for Europe and Brazil, plus gasoline and diesel for Mexico, Israel, and smaller shipments to 30 other countries. Gulf Coast refiners are not out of the loop. With reduced US demand for all refined products, they have a lot of spare capacity. Obama's opposition to XL had nothing to do with oil economics, everything to do with pandering to his party's leftie-green constituency. XL would have been thousands of times safer than rail shipments.

 

In 2011, I wrote a little squib about Canadian tar sands:

Three reasons to shut down tar sands

Regular readers of this column know that I very much admire U.S. energy analyst Gregor Macdonald, whose work is reaching a wider audience thanks to Chris Martenson and Zero Hedge.

Gregor is easy to love. "Normalcy bias, rampant in the West," he warns, "leads most to conclude we’ll be rescued. Some magical combination of new technology, new policies, or miracle energy resources will soon arrive."

With festering mistrust of OPEC, rapid decline of conventional oil fields, and war drama unfolding in the Middle East, we're banking on Canadian tar sands to save us. China wants it.Gulf Coast refiners want it. Europe needs diesel from it.

There are three reasons to demand an end to Canadian tar mining. One: it's a junk resource, requiring high inputs of water, natural gas, hydrogen and brute force to extract and boil a heavy corrosive goo. Two: the process is despoiling Alberta and fouling the atmosphere. Three: every dollar of capital diverted to Canada is a dollar stolen from conventional E&P in the Gulf of Mexico, the Rockies, Alaska, Grand Banks, and California. Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) is killing U.S. industry.

ExxonMobil and Sinopec have each bought a piece of Syncrude, one of dozens of companies that are digging and steaming soil laden with 143 billion barrels of molasses-like crude called bitumen. US$120 billion has been poured into oil sands since 1997. Canadian Prime Minister Harper, who began his career at Imperial Oil, is encouraging the boom.

"The Chinese have been the single largest investor in oil sands over the last couple of years,” TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a Nov.17 interview at Bloomberg’s New York headquarters.

Oil sands mining is inevitable in a world hungry for fossil-based energy, says Christian O’Neill, Bloomberg Industries analyst in Princeton, New Jersey. “Oil is too scarce and too expensive; there’s too much in Alberta for people to ignore,” O'Neill says. Piracy in shipping lanes near the Persian Gulf and unrest in Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and elsewhere have destabilized supply from OPEC. Dwindling reserves plague Russia, Mexico, UK, and Norway."

Alberta's Fort McMurray, with 81,000 residents, has grown so fast that 34,000 workers live in dormitories nearby. Refineries glow and mushroom-shaped steam clouds tower overhead. U.S. and Chinese companies aiming to cash in, along with Total, Nippon Oil, BP, and Statoil, face soaring costs. The price to lease an acre of land was C$3,110.85 in June, up 42 percent from a year earlier.

In Fort McMurray, 65 square miles of waste ponds hold water contaminated with arsenic and mercury. The stench from sulfur residue stacked 80 feet high reach a helicopter at 1,000 feet.

-----------------

That's the way it was four years ago. Bitumen at $30 a barrel is wa-a-a-ay unprofitable, worse than shale.

[Brant Gaede]

Canada has to compete with an oil price pushing 40 and its break even, I've read, is 60.

US fracked oil can do with a slightly lower price than Canada's, I think. That won't stop a ton of small and medium oil and exploration companies from going bottoms up because of massive debt, but that will merely amortize the capital costs. The production could then continue with a lower cost basis than present. If higher prices then obtain, those wells that were turned off could be turned back on. An oil expert named Dan Dicker thinks oil is going back up to as much as 170 or the world is going into economic hell.

If I know what I'm talking about I'm pushing I don't know what I'm talking about.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dan Dicker thinks oil is going back up to as much as 170

Saudis need $85 bbl to break even with their massive welfare spending and desalinization. That would make Bakken profitable again. It all depends on US and Far East demand. Outlook grim, stagnation at best. Maybe stagflation as a central bank policy. The deal with oil production everywhere is that service companies are liquidating their workforce. Those jobs are probably lost permanently, so a new production boom will take a long time to ramp up again, at higher production cost.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Trump has a good chance of winning nomination and next November's general election

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rides-a-blue-collar-wave-1447803248

http://rightwingnews.com/economy/trump-surges-to-42-in-the-polls-its-all-about-immigration-jobs-and-national-security/

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/ann_coulter_may_be_right_donal.html

http://nypost.com/2015/11/17/americans-think-trump-clinton-can-best-handle-terrorism-poll/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260434-trump-sees-bump-in-support-in-post-paris-poll

Trump 29%

Cruz 12%

Rubio 10%

New Hampshire Republicans, Nov. 11, Gravis (before Paris massacre)

Trump 25%

Carson 21%

Cruz 15%

Rubio 13%

South Carolina Republicans, Nov.10, PPP

Trump 31%

Carson 16%

Rubio 15%

New Jersey Republicans, Nov.10, Quinnipiac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here come more views from Trump that people started out calling crazy, but will soon become wisdom in the mainstream:

 

 

Here he comes, folks.

 

Candidates for crow-eating, start getting your cutlery ready for use.

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

Wrap up the Presidency and mail it to Trump Towers...

Donald Trump named Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when asked to pick a possible running rate on Tuesday, if he should become the nominee.

“Well, I like like him,” Trump said on The Laura Ingraham Show. “He’s backed everything I’ve said…Ted Cruz is now agreeing with me 100 percent.”

[Selene]

In a WBUR poll of Republican voters in New Hampshire conducted just after the attacks, Trump’s support had risen 4 points from a similar poll released at the start of this month, and he was ahead of his closet rival, retired surgeon Ben Carson, by a 2-1 margin.

A poll conducted by Florida Atlantic University also found Trump way ahead of his Republican competitors in the Sunshine State. He scored 36 percent support, exactly twice the level of backing secured by second-placed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

And Trump’s strength isn’t just showing up in state-level “horse race” polls.

A Reuters poll on Tuesday asked voters which of the candidates was best-suited to deal with the threat of terrorism. Among Republican voters, 36 percent opted for Trump. The next most popular response was “none,” at 17 percent. Rubio was again in second place in the survey among actual candidates, but he lagged Trump by 20 percentage points.

So many crows and so many recipes to chose from...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/260708-trump-rises-in-wake-of-paris-attacks

A...

[Peter]

Not so fast Trump fans. Carson tumbled fast because of his past rhetoric in his books and I do not think Trump is immune to the loose lip or self flattering book syndrome either. So far there have been several ups and downs and a lot of non moving poll numbers. As Iowa draws nearer Trump will be raked over the coals. Come on February and March!

I had a call yesterday, and the caller ID said something like Service, something, something but it was a recorded message from Ben Carson that sounded like something from the first week of his campaign and I hung up.

I am impressed that Trump could philosophically and literally pick Cruz for VP. But I could also vote for Rubio even though he may be the rino's pick after Jeb Bush. A President Marco's immigration policy is too forgiving to illegal Latino's but it would still need to pass and get by a Republican congress but as a VP Rubio would soften the Great Wall of Trump.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump makes some great points here:

 

 

The mood of the country is that people are hungry to hear this rhetoric from someone they believe will do something about it. Like Trump or dislike him, people know he gets things done.

 

Who was it, now, who said never waste a good crisis, hmmmmm Team Obama?

 

This is the kind of stuff that will ensure Trump's victory--both Republican nomination and election as president.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And there's this new radio ad:

New Trump Ad: "I Will Quickly And Decisively Bomb The Hell Out Of ISIS"

Drip... drip... drip...

Michael