Donald Trump

[Backlighting]

Wow, Mark Levin really teared into Trump for some of his positions on today's (Dec. 14) radio show:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio-rewind/

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wow, Mark Levin really teared into Trump for some of his positions on today's (Dec. 14) radio show:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio-rewind/

-J

Joe,

I wouldn't worry about it.

After the debate tomorrow, it will all pass over.

Here's what I suspect. Trump and Cruz have a private deal to have Cruz run has Trump's VP.

Suddenly Trump hears Cruz dissing him in private, talking about his judgment. So, as a warning shot, Trump came out with a diss about Cruz's temperament.

The Cruz message was only to his donors--and not all of them. Just this one group. Pandering to their biases, if you will. Take a look at this article to see what I mean:

Cruz campaign credits psychological data and analytics for its rising success

Cruz is running his own COBS staff (COBS = Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a group that helped Obama win two elections against high odds). This means he will say one thing to one voter and another to another voter, depending on the profile his people come up with from big data.

The Trump to Cruz subtext (as I see it) is: Don't fuck with me. Here's a small taste of how far I am willing to go. And, believe me, it's much further. I'm crazier than you are.

So I think this will go away after a small dust-up. Trump is just reminding Cruz who is boss and that nobody is immune to being fired.

After the conservative pundits see all is peace and luv between Trump and Cruz, they will go back to trash-talking the Democrats and their normal targets.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

After the conservative pundits see all is peace and luv between Trump and Cruz, they will go back to trash-talking the Democrats and their normal targets.

Not Medved or Reagan. They hate Trump, hate Cruz, do anything to knife both of them "to save the party."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

I should have qualified that.

Non-establishment conservative pundits.

Better?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's my morning dose of Trump (rally in Las Vegas):

 

What an evening in Las Vegas, Nevada! THANK YOU for your continued support. #Trump2016 https://t.co/uUwRk7RuGK pic.twitter.com/J0qJaIg35u

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 15, 2015

 

Isn't that beautiful?

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I got into a bit of a discussion again with Robert Bidinotto about Trump.

I don't know why I allow myself to get sucked into these discussions, but, ah hell... look at OL. I can't complain, I suppose. I've been doing it for years.

Anyway, here are a couple of highlights (they start here). I'm not presenting them as any kind of rebuttal against Bidibob's arguments. That would be unfair and I don't play that way unless someone plays that way with me. He doesn't. So if anything below sounds like he has said something unreasonable or stupid, please don't believe it. Robert is highly intelligent and has his own reasons for his beliefs. Also, please keep in mind that I am not presenting the context of the discussion.

However, I think what I said gives a good glimpse into the mind of a typical Trump supporter, including an allusion to Ayn Rand. So maybe this will be valuable for anti-Trump people who love OL but are perplexed about how I can support him.

... there is nothing I can elaborate on rationally when you compare George Soros and Donald Trump as the same kind of businessman. George Soros is everything a Trump supporter hates. I have tried to talk about the difference between a producer and a politician to you, but, as with your complaint about me, you ignore it.

I refuse to see Trump simply as a politician. He is a producer.

Yet you want me to defend Trump as if he has been a politician all his life. I can't do that.

Of course I admit his inconsistencies in what he has said over the years. But his previous context was producing and getting politicians out of his way.

There has been one consistency, one immutable consistency in Trump's life all his life--when he manages large groups of employees in a productive enterprise.

Here. Let me try an event from Atlas Shrugged to see if you will even look at this. It's when Dagny (if I remember it was Dagny) was looking at the inner workings of a locomotive and musing over the the kind of mind needed to build that. The ruthless philosophical commitment to reason and reality, where one error in judgment in one small detail, where one irrational value in the wrong place, could result in a major disaster.

Trump has that and his projects show it. He just talks in a manner that runs the "words" people crazy.

George Soros, who lives for pull and power and makes money on crony manipulations of the market, does not have that.

Yet you think Trump and Soros are the same animal.

I don't. If you find that kind of evaluation worth mocking, or that it ignores your arguments or whatever, I can't express it clearer.

Other Trump supporters see it.

But go ahead. Keep calling them blind true believers following a personality cult who jaw droppingly abandon their reason, that it's puppy love as you gloat over their coming heartbreak, and wondering why they don't listen to you. Why your words don't matter to them.

(btw - I don't think Robert ever believed that Trump and Soros are equivalent. And he immediately said that his Soros example was "problematic." But we were in the heat of an argument, so I don't feel particularly clever. God knows I've made enough careless analogies when I've gotten wound up.)

Then there is this one:

... we disagree, but this is the first time I have seen you openly acknowledge Trump's achievements without dismissal or qualification.

It feels like I have been seen for the first time in our discussions.

If you want to know the next part, why Trump supporters believe he will govern well (in a small-government pro-freedom direction), even though there are lots of inconsistencies that would be poison to a normal politician, you have to step into the mind of a good productive person disinterested in politics--a typical Trump supporter.

I want to say blue-collar worker, but there is a boneheaded narrative out there that this is the major kind of Trump supporter. (Blue-collar means Plebeian or uneducated in that context--not to the blue collar workers themselves, but to the intelligentsia that looks down on them.)

There is no overwhelming standard demographic or psychographic for Trump supporters. If you remove the disinterest in politics, but interest in producing part (generally with a family), Trump appeals to a large variety of people of widely differing backgrounds and lifestyles.

These kinds of people have been saying, year in and year out, that they want to live in a certain manner, basically live and let live. Go about their lives in peace. When they have bothered to vote or get involved, they have sent people to office and those people did the contrary of what they said they would do. These voters have been constantly irritated about this as the intellectuals kept explaining to them why they did not see the real reality, the big picture, or whatever. This has gone on time after time after time.

So long as it has only meant more taxes or recycling or insurance restrictions or crap like that, these people let it go. They had their lives to worry about.

But now they can't get jobs, yet the intellectuals keep talking blah blah blah (playing numbers games and so on), and they see immigrants show up and start shooting people, committing all kinds of crimes, yet the intellectuals keep talking blah blah blah (playing word games about technicalities, or Mexico, or Islam and so on), and they see innocent people demonized in race riots, but the intellectuals keep talking blah blah blah (playing word games and even threatening to call them racists)--believe me, I could go on and on--and they see the problems keep getting worse. So they eventually give up and stop listening to everyone--especially the intelligentsia--and start using their own minds about politics.

They start worrying about what to do to fix the problems. They wake up, so to speak.

When someone like Trump comes along in that context, someone who fixes problems and builds magnificent projects as a profession, and calls the elites and intelligentsia morons, the resonance is like a brush fire. And when he toys with the intelligentsia like a cat does a mouse, and they all go apeshit, it's like Christmas all of a sudden.

In this groundswell of Trump supporters, there is a phrase from the early days of Obama in Washington that I believe captures their feeling perfectly:

"Can you hear us now?"

Trump is not the one who caused the mess the world is in.

Yet people (including those like you) treat Trump as if he were worse than those who caused it.

(I believe this is more due to archetype than fact, but I don't want to harp on it so I don't sound like I'm denigrating the intelligence of anti-Trump people.)

Then you look down on my support of Trump as blindness, etc., and you claim you are somehow privy to using reason whereas I am not. So what do you want me to think? What do you want me to believe? Your words or my eyes? (By "me" in this context, I mean Trump supporters in general when you are talking generically.)

And the beat goes on.



The thing is, I don't believe Robert and I would have ever had this conversation if Trump were not killing it in the polls and looking like he is going to get the nomination for real. I (and those who think like I do) would have continued to be unseen and unheard. And I don't just mean by Robert. This is a cultural thing.

There is a real danger in ignoring huge swaths of people simply because you start to tell yourself that they couldn't possibly exist. That nobody could be that stupid. That you represent reason and they don't, so there's no need to listen to them or try to figure out what they mean. That dismissal is the same thing as winning an argument.

If you do that, you suddenly find yourself faced with reality and wondering what the hell happened. You can shut people up, but that doesn't mean you have convinced them of anything. This happens on the other end, too. Remember how enormous "Hope and Change" crowds seemed to come out of nowhere?

To Robert's credit, he started getting curious for real rather than just expressing his habitual disdain for Trump supporters. (And believe me, there has been plenty of disdain. Just look at one of my comments above. He thinks I am "jaw dropping" and that's an exact quote .) But better late than never...

I like these episodes and I like seeing people connect, even if they have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. I need to keep reminding myself to keep my own eyes open so I don't make this mistake regarding those I disagree with. I need to see them and hear them and know they exist--and most of all, know they are not stupid or bad guys.

It's one of the reasons I run OL as I do and let each person speak for himself or herself.

Think about it. The bad guys--the bad guys for real--are cutting people's heads off, drowning them in cages and shooting them up at Christmas parties and so on. The people I talk to (or you talk to) and disagree with in our subcommunity are not the bad guys. Not anything like bad guys.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Soros made his money in leveraged currency speculation, betting (correctly) against the Bank of England. Trump made his money slowly in real estate, interacting with local politicians, investors, builders, and staff. He's a people guy.

[Selene]

Not quite a perfect match, however, this movie was excellent, both for the backstage war between Kate and Adolphe over Communism and Capitalism and the concept of a great entrepreneur and producer and the corruption of Washington power...with, of course, a "Caparcorn" ending...

FULL SYNOPSIS

Frank Capra's only MGM film, State of the Union was adapted by Anthony Veiller and Myles Connolly from the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by Howard Lindsay and Russell Crouse. Spencer Tracy plays an aircraft tycoon who is coerced into seeking the Republican Presidential nomination by predatory newspaper mogul Angela Lansbury. Campaign manager Van Johnson suggests that, for appearance's sake, Tracy be reunited with his estranged wife Katharine Hepburn (replacing Claudette Colbert, who'd ankled the project after a pre-production donnybrook with director Capra). Realizing that Tracy and Lansbury are having an affair, Hepburn nonetheless agrees to grow through the devoted-wife charade because she believes that Tracy just might make a good President. Her faith is shattered when Tracy, corrupted by the Washington power brokers, publicly compromises his values in order to get votes. Only in the film's last moments does Tracy prove himself worthy of Hepburn's love and his own self-respect by admitting his dishonesty during a nationwide radio-TV broadcast. Much of the biting wit in the original Broadway production of State of the Union is sacrificed in favor of the director's patented "Capracorn," but the film is no less entertaining because of this. As usual, the supporting cast is impeccable, from featured players Adolphe Menjou (whose off-camera political arguments with Hepburn threatened to shut down production at times) and Margaret Hamilton, to bit actors like Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer and Tor (Margaret Hamilton) Johnson. Because the television rights to State of the Union belonged to Capra's Liberty Films, the picture was released to TV by MCA rather than MGM's syndication division. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

http://www.movies.com/state-union/details/m2643#cast

[Selene]

The Donald is so good at this...lol

After opening with:

Trump began by first attacking CNN for not using its own poll that shows him in the lead coming onto the debates.

Isn’t it amazing that @CNN paid a fortune for an Iowa Poll, which shows me in first place over Cruz by 13%, 33% to 20% – then doesn’t use it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

He follows up with a massive shelling of the media!!

Minutes later he hit the topic again saying:

Why isn’t anyone using the @CNN Iowa Poll with me having a big lead. They only want to use the one negative poll (2nd place).Dishonest press — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

But it was Fox host Megyn Kelly that was in for the most abuse with a series of Tweets slamming her for attacking the media mogul’s debate appearances.

.@megynkelly, the most overrated anchor at @FoxNews, worked hard to explain away the new Monmouth poll 41 to 14 or 27 pt lead. She said 15!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

.@megynkelly is very bad at math. She was totally unable to figure out the difference between me and Cruz in the new Monmouth Poll 41to14.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

I wonder if @megynkelly and her flunkies have written their scripts yet about my debate performance tonight. No matter how well I do – bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

I won every debate so far according to all debate polls including @DRUDGE_REPORT, @TIME @Slate and more. Too bad dopey @megynkelly lies!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

Trump also went after a few more media types….

Between Iraq war monger @krauthammer, dummy @KarlRove, deadpan @GeorgezWill, highly overrated @megynkelly, among others, @FoxNews not fair!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2015

It was all an attack that YoungCons Michael Cantrell called “a bit much.”

“At least wait until they’ve actually critiqued your performance before you call out folks for poor journalism,” Cantrell said.

Regardless, all eyes are on the debates for tonight as Texas Senator Ted Cruz has surged ahead in the polls. Many expect Cruz to become the prime target for the other candidates to attack in order to beat him back down.

A spokesman for Fox News acknowledged that Megyn Kelly made an error saying that Trump was only up 15 points in the Monmouth poll as the script from which she was reading was incorrect. However, Fox notes that the screen graphic had the proper numbers showing Trump was up 27 points over the second place Cruz. The spokesman also said that host Kelly will note the error and correct the record on tonight’s show.

does any image about blondes come to mind?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

The establishment Republicans need Rush Limbaugh to do simple math.

From his Facebook feed (see here--I tried to embed it, but the code didn't take here on OL):

The number one guy, Donald J. Trump, cannot beat Hillary, and therefore he shouldn't get the nomination, 'cause the guys at 5% and 6% and 3% apparently can beat Hillary. You do the math and explain it to me.

Michael

[Selene]

The Champ on The Donald, who has supported The Donald for months and [ssh don't tell anyone, however the Champ is a Muslim, ssh]

"Keep it fair!"

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_wo1cp7i5

[Marc]

Newest Monmouth Poll - The Donald elevates to 41% nationally - which of course means nothing...however Cruz edging into first place in Iowa means a significant poll - why - because we want it to mean something...

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/af4c5edf-9cef-47bb-8440-a702be832156.

Ha!

The establishment Republicans need Rush Limbaugh to do simple math.

From his Facebook feed (see here--I tried to embed it, but the code didn't take here on OL):

The number one guy, Donald J. Trump, cannot beat Hillary, and therefore he shouldn't get the nomination, 'cause the guys at 5% and 6% and 3% apparently can beat Hillary. You do the math and explain it to me.

Michael

Whoever becomes the nominee has just done that , become the nominee .

How each contender is doing today will be different to when its either this one or that one against Hillary .

Its a different game then .

Trump against the Clinton machine would be a total sweep - every state .

For Hillary ,

By the way , if Hillary wins POTUS what is the official term for Bill ?

Is it first Man , first Gentlemen , former President Clinton ?????

Seriously

[Marc]

The Champ on The Donald, who has supported The Donald for months and [ssh don't tell anyone, however the Champ is a Muslim, ssh]

"Keep it fair!"

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_wo1cp7i5

The real Champ , Ali - was not that impressed I recall reading

[Marc]

So Sheldon is meeting DT , hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Deal , deal , deal ...........

We will not know it until it happens ( Black Swan ) , but methinks its something like this .

Sheldon : DT , who do you wanna see win the nomination ? You like Rubio/Cruz ?

DT : Shelly boy , my man ..... in due course , in due course . I am liking this , maybe I will cut the deal before Super Tuesday .

Sheldon : Have fun tonight on CNN

DT : Always do , always do

[Marc]

Contrast the illegal aliens entering America and committing acts of terrorism and the legally entering aliens to America who commit acts of terrorism. The legal number of terrorists outnumber the illegals. Has there even been ONE illegal alien committing an act of terror in America? What is the sense of that? Leave the Establishment behind. It is incompetent. Vote Cruz or Trump.

Trump’s criticism of Cruz has taken an interesting turn, as Cruz outpolls him in Iowa. He thinks Cruz can’t work with the Senate since he calls people liars and is an extremist. So Trump’s argument is that in the top spot, Cruz would be a failed President. That view almost defines the psychological term, *projection* because Trump is describing himself too. He calls people names and is divisive and IS an extremist. But I disagree with Trump. Both Cruz and Trump would be able to work with the Congress. Republican voters are willing to shift from one Republican candidate to another as they rise and fall in the polls – if that candidate is a Conservative.

The latest polls show Cruz and Trump losing to Hillary but Rubio beats her. Is Rubio a RINO? I don’t think so, and if the goal is to win an election, then greater support from the RINO’s is not a bad thing for any Conservative Republican. In the case of Trump, RINO support would lessen the extremist kook persona – IN THE MEDIA, but only to a degree. At least the left wing media could not say the leaders of the Republican Party do not trust or support Trump. It would be good if all former elected Republicans and the Karl Roves back whoever the candidate is. I could vote for Rubio.

Peter

I think as Nominee Rubio cleans up and basically wins the race somewhere around Super Tuesday , we will start seeing those Reagan Democrats start to think , hmmmmmmmmm.......

The Latinos ,

The Reagan Democrats

The youth

and the Oval office

President Rubio , repeat after me .

[Wolf DeVoon]

FLASH - WASHINGTON POST LIVE BLOG OF DEBATES - NEW POLL

[Wolf DeVoon]

unbeatable team

[Marc]

unbeatable team

I like that picture !

[Wolf DeVoon]

Miami Jeb office watches debate. A few stragglers came in later.

From left, in shirt and tie, Elmer Fudd; next table (eating soup) Mr. and Mrs. Normal; Betty Jo Flem; (rising to go pee) Mrs. Applebee.

Unidentified person of interest in first row of folding chairs is a Chechen with fake Greek passport who overstayed his F-1 visa.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw the debate and have not heard any pundits yet.

CNN got it's money shot with the clash between Trump and Bush. Poor Bush didn't look so good in that one. He pushed Trump too hard on attacking him (probably with the collusion of the CNN moderators from the way they acted) and got a virtual two-barrel shotgun blast in the face, both barrels blazing. So did the moderators.

My favorite moment was when Trump completely pulled the rug out from under Dana Bash. She asked him--in full blown gotcha mode--that, since he said a few days ago that Cruz didn't have the temperament to be president and was a maniac in the Senate, if he still held that view. Trump, in full, relaxed Master of Ceremonies mode, smiled his million dollar smile, said he got to know Ted a bit more over the last few days and he was just fine. Then he patted Ted on the back affectionately as Ted's face showed he fully reciprocated the affection.

Kapowie!

I could almost feel the bottom falling out of Dana's stomach. That wasn't supposed to happen.

Boy did it make the press look like jerks.

The thing that most pleased me was the tone of the debate at the end. I might be wrong, but it seemed to me like, at a certain moment, all the tension left the other candidates and everyone, even the backroom establishment kingmakers, gave up the ghost and resigned themselves to the likelihood of Trump being nominated. Then, when Trump said--in a sincere voice from the heart that was more off the cuff than usual for him--that he would not leave the party, I could sense them calling out the metaphorical gravediggers. Peace and luuuv suddenly reigned and all was right in the world.

Let's see if my impression plays out over time.

btw - I just voted in the Drudge poll. Trump is killing it, like always.

For the record, for those who watched, did anyone feel like the audience was stacked to dilute the impression of Trump's support? Their reactions didn't seem in correct proportion.

Michael

[Selene]

Trump against the Clinton machine would be a total sweep - every state .

For Hillary ,

By the way , if Hillary wins POTUS what is the official term for Bill ?

Is it first Man , first Gentlemen , former President Clinton ?????

Seriously

This would be the vaunted Clinton machine that lost the 2008 race to an unknown black kid from Hawaii, right?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know, the idea of Hillary trying to get along with Obama's COBS dream-team is kinda funny.

(COBS = Consortium of Behavioral Scientists. These dudes helped Obama microtarget voters in both elections based on the behavioral sciences and big data. I personally think they were the main reason he won, especially in the second election.)

Does anyone else think she would screw it up? After the mess she made with the private server...

Her head ain't into running this stuff the way it runs. She wants to run it the old-fashioned cigar smoke-filled backroom way.

Yup...

As I think about this and type, I'm sure...

She would screw it up big time...

Michael

[Marc]

Trump against the Clinton machine would be a total sweep - every state .

For Hillary ,

By the way , if Hillary wins POTUS what is the official term for Bill ?

Is it first Man , first Gentlemen , former President Clinton ?????

Seriously

This would be the vaunted Clinton machine that lost the 2008 race to an unknown black kid from Hawaii, right?

A...

Oh come on mannnnnnnn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every point I make , the response is the same .

Just because Clinton lost to Obama for the nomination in 2008 ( and God would have lost to Obama in 2008 ) , and by the way David Axelrod told Obama that sometimes in politics " the time picks you " , in answer to Obama stating he would run in 2012 , not 2008 ( after Senator Obama gave that mind blowing speech ) .

Since then , has anything in the world changed ??????????

She was S of S , and its 8 years later too .

It aint as simple as you think man

[Marc]

Trump against the Clinton machine would be a total sweep - every state .

For Hillary ,

By the way , if Hillary wins POTUS what is the official term for Bill ?

Is it first Man , first Gentlemen , former President Clinton ?????

Seriously

This would be the vaunted Clinton machine that lost the 2008 race to an unknown black kid from Hawaii, right?

A...

And thats exactly my point too , I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that you were NOT calling for said kid to win the nomination back then .

Your line would have been " yeah , just like every other black male who ran for the nomination "

Just because something happened or did not happen before means shit . Especially in politics .

Remember the name of this site please Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some surprising Trump luuuuuuuuuvvv from the fundy O-Land side.

(Note: From what I have seen from scanning Dr. Hurd's stuff over time is that he echos some of the fundy tenets and rhetoric word-for-word without getting entangled in the excommunication stuff or snark--and I can live well with that).

Beating ISIS: Only Trump and Cruz Have a Clue
Dr. Michael J. Hurd
December 16, 2015
drhurd.com

From the article:

Donald Trump summed the moral issue up best when he asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?”

That really nails it.

. . .

Trump made another good point.

America spent trillions on defeating militant Islam after 9/11, and we have nothing to show for it. Nothing.

Although I don’t agree with him that government should fund anything other than the military and courts, Trump’s absolutely right that we would have been better off spending that money on roads and airports.

Worse yet, consider the efforts of the soldiers who lost their limbs, their lives or their peace of mind.

For what?

An even more destabilized Middle East, more threatening and dangerous than ever before.

You know things are changing when a person who uses a lot of ARI-like rhetoric is holding Donald Trump up as a moral candidate. One who "nails" the moral issue of an important argument.

Let me roll that word around on my tongue a little with that name.

Donald Trump...

Moral...

Hmmmm...

I like it.

Michael