Ann Coulter’s crush the last time around was Chris Christie, and this cycle she’s been fawning over the Donald. But it looks like even she can’t defend him any more. I wonder how many other eyes will clear of scales? As Geraghty writes:
Donald Trump didn’t suddenly change in the past few days, weeks or months. He’s the same guy he always was, the same guy that most of us in the conservative movement and GOP have been staunchly opposing for the past year. He didn’t abruptly become reckless, obnoxious, ill-informed, erratic, hot-tempered, pathologically dishonest, narcissistic, crude and catastrophically unqualified for the presidency overnight. He’s always been that guy, and you denied it and ignored it and hand-waved it away and made excuses every step of the way because you were convinced that you were so much smarter than the rest of us. You were so certain that you had received some superior wavelength giving you special insight into the Donald; only you could tell that it was all an act. Only you could grasp that his constant courting of controversy was just to get attention from the media. Only you could instinctively sense that his style would play brilliantly in the general election and win over working-class Democrats. (SPOILER ALERT: It isn’t.) You insisted that you could “coach him.”
You came to those conclusions not because you’re smarter than the rest of us, but because you’re actually more foolish than the rest of us. You insisted Occam’s Razor couldn’t possibly be true– that Trump acts the way he does because this is who he is, this is the way he is all the time, and he will always be like this. You fooled yourself into believing that Trump was playing this nine-level chess that only you and a few others could perceive and understand. Only you could see the long game.
As he says, there is no long game. I really do think that he’s trying to figure out how to get out of this. Trump is like the dog who chases cars, but now he’s realizing he won’t know what to do if he catches one.
Jim is angry. So am I.
[Update a few minutes later]
Trump castigates Scott Walker for not raising taxes, and thinks that “health care and education” are among the top three government functions.
But yeah, let’s elect this “conservative.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
The culture that created Donald Trump was “liberal,” not conservative. (Scare quotes because it’s not really liberal, it’s leftist.)
[Update a while later]
A top Trump strategist quits and warns America about him.
I didn’t need the warning.
[Thursday-afternoon update]
Whenever Trump says something particularly stupid, it's cuz it's what he stupidly imagines a conservative believes. https://t.co/aK7P2z0wiW
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) March 31, 2016
[Bumped]
Defending him is one thing. Voting for Hillary because you’re angry that so many people are voting for him is another. And for folks who live in places like Colorado, or New Hampshire, or Minnesota (yes I’m looking at you Lileks), that’s exactly what you’ll be doing by refusing to vote for him.
I think it was Bill Bennett who likened this whole affair to a game of Russian roulette. If given a choice between a revolver with one round in it, or four, which would you choose?
I’m not going to vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
Years of effort spent attempting to dispel the accusations of inherent Republican misogyny, xenophobia, hypocrisy, ignorance and blind rage have been undone by Trump’s campaign.
To be more precise, they’ve been undone by the success of Trump’s campaign. A plurality of GOP primary voters has heard those accusations and answered: yes, that’s us.
I really do think that he’s trying to figure out how to get out of this.
Why? I’m sure he thinks he’d be a fantastic president, much better than any of the other losers in the race.
A plurality of GOP primary voters has heard those accusations and answered: yes, that’s us.
Many of whom have never voted before, and many of whom are Democrats.
Not many. Trump is winning closed primaries as well as open ones, and first-time voters are a tiny sliver of the electorate.
He’s not winning majorities. More Republicans don’t want him than do.
Only because it’s a three-way race. PPP published a head-to-head poll yesterday, and Trump beat Cruz among GOP voters 46% to 44%, with 10% undecided. He’d do even better head-to-head against Kasich. 58% of those polled say they are comfortable with Trump winning the nomination. That’s the 2016 Republican party.
The PPP, by definition, is a left-leaning poll. They might be right, but you always cherry pick your data and so I don’t trust it.
More Republicans don’t want him than do.
Seldom do you make such a logical flaw as this. You could say this more so about every other candidate, but that would still be a false statement.
Only in a two man race could this assertion be made. If either Cruz or Kasich dropped out, Trump would get some of those.
It’s not a logical flaw. It is a true statement. We won’t know who a majority want until it comes down to two, but more don’t want Trump than do. And they really, really don’t want him.
more don’t want Trump than do
More don’t want either of the other two than Trump (using the same logic.)
It’s meaningless. When Trump gets 30% in a dozen person race that’s huge. Much more impressive than 50% in a two man race.
More don’t want either of the other two than Trump (using the same logic.)
Nowhere near as much as they don’t want Trump. They want a Republican to be the Republican nominee.
When Trump gets 30% in a dozen person race that’s huge. Much more impressive than 50% in a two man race.
No, it’s not.
Nowhere near as much as they don’t want Trump.
It’s simple math. He has more. They have less. So arguing more dislike Trump is even more true of the others.
Is it more visceral with Trump? Absolutely, but that’s not what is being argued.
A plurality of GOP primary voters has heard those accusations and answered: yes, that’s us.
To be more precise, they’ve answered “we’ve been hearing that for so long now that it no longer has any meaning. But if it brings you pleasure go ahead and keep bleating it, the Onion always needs new material.”
By the way Jim, I can understand your trepidation. Having enjoyed the ability to throw out empty accusations and reliably receive groveling in return for so long now, facing a future where the response is nothing but laughter must seem terrifying.
Trump is free to be a misogynist, ignorant xenophobe and Islamophobe; it’s a free country. The sad and alarming thing is that so many Americans want those qualities in their president. But then many millions of Americans wanted George Wallace to be their president, for similar reasons; it isn’t a new phenomenon.
Trump is free to be cartooned as a misogynist, ignorant xenophobe and Islamophobe; it’s a free country. The sad and alarming thing is that so many Americans don’t look at cartoons the way they used to.
Yep. Terrifying. If your not currently covered for mental health assistance, check the exchange. You’re probably getting ripped off.
Just a reminder that Wallace was the Democrat governor of Alabama for 16 years. You need to cherry-pick your data better.
#sorrynotsorry
Just as Trump has been a Democrat all his life, and there is no evidence that has changed.
Reagan? (D – originally)
Reagan repented his “foolishness of youth,” Ken. Unlike Trump, who never repents of anything, or admits making a mistake, but only lies about it.
In his autobiography, Reagan talked about waking up in bed with a young starlet, unable to recall her name, and asking himself what the hell he was doing with his life. If the Donald told the same story, it would simply be to boast about how “hot” she was.
If you can’t see the difference, you might be a Trumpnik.
Reagan repented…
But the point remains. Party affiliation can change. Liberal vs conservative is a different thing.
Trump isn’t a conservative. Let’s assume he lies (that’s something new for a politician, eh?) Does that mean he has no redeeming qualities?
[jeopardy music]
He sincerely believe America has fallen from a once great country. Obama fans will say America is greater than ever thanks to govt. You choose who to believe.
Kasich and Cruz are more of the same. Trump offers the possibility of escaping that trap. You don’t have to believe him.
How do you know what Trump sincerely believes?
Wallace sought and failed multiple times to win the Democratic nomination, a positive sign of the trajectory of the Democratic party in those days. Trump’s ability to out-poll all his rivals for the GOP nomination is a sad comment on the trajectory of the Republican party today.
How do you know what Trump sincerely believes?
The same way you know his motivation is malice.
“How do you know what Trump sincerely believes?”
How do you *know* what any of the candidates believes? At least with Trump, there’s an autobiography written decades before he entered politics.
His campaign has been completely unsurprising to me. He lays out his general negotiating strategy in The Art of The Deal. The campaign is just one big negotiation, first with Republican primary voters, and soon with the whole electorate.
He’s just like Obama, I don’t get why you don’t like him.
You’re right, they’re losers because none of them promise to give you things for free. Sheesh, what do you have? A woman who got where she did by riding her husband’s coattails, saying she should be president just because she’s a woman, and another with a limited grasp of economics.
On what basis do you say ” I’m sure he thinks he’d be a fantastic president, much better than any of the other losers in the race.” Do you think he’s got such an inflated ego that he thinks Trumpland is reality?
Which leads to the next question: WOULD Trump be a fantastic president? That’s the job of the voters, to decide if he will or will not be. We already know that we can’t believe a word he says (or that his word will change on a dime, just look at his pulling his promise to back the Republican candidate whoever it is). His track record is not promising — he likes to take YUGE risks with other people’s money. His policy statements are weak on detail, and are therefore less than believable. Are we supposed to take him on faith — in other words, do we bet the store on an unknown? The Hill we know.
Another GOP choice, please.
On a brighter note: my Mexican wife changed her voter registration to Republican just so she could vote against him.
Trump supporters are easy to pick even if you’re not discussing Trump, their arguments are always shallow and like Trump, if they’ve no good reply to an argument they go to the ad hominem or just make sh!t up.
Oh yeah, you have monkey breath 😉
I think a Trump v. Sanders race is the best possible outcome of the primaries. Screw the permanent bipartisan fusion party.
I think Trump has been in the public eye for three decades, and is far less of an unknown than Obama was eight years ago. Other than Clinton, he’s the only candidate that someone who isn’t a political junkie would have recognized a year ago.
I think it will take a miracle for Cruz to catch Trump. The other guy, whassisname, has no chance.
I follow Milo on YouTube and saw the video before you mentioned it (indirectly).
Coulter is not abandoning Trump. She is expressing exasperation with his tweet comparing his wife to Cruz’s.
I’m all for looking at primary sources: https://youtu.be/ftfcMziE_7s
Oh, and the tweet in question (I think this is the right one):
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712850174838771712
I spent all that time rationalizing and coming to terms with what appeared to be a fait accompli, and now I might have to start paying attention again. What a bother.
Just give me a ballot with some name, any name, besides Hillary or Bernie, and I’ll check the box.
Everybody knows that Trump is a flawed candidate. That includes his supporters. I would not defend his flaws, but people are asserting a false caricature of Trump. For example, he says “punishment for people having illegal abortions.” That’s definitely not the political answer. If instead he said “if a law has no punishment it should not be a law… simplify, why have law with no purpose?”
Trump only cares about Trump? Nobody can assert that about any human. He has supporters, not because they’re stupid, but because they see something beyond his flaws.
The media has been putting people in boxes for decades (leftist boxes.) You just can’t say certain things or you will be destroyed. Trump is saying those things and calling the media out. I’d rather he were Breitbart, but nobody else is positioned like Trump.
Trumps interest coincides with America’s interest unabashedly. No apologies. That’s what people are responding to. He’s the exact opposite of the slick politician. Is he just saying what he thinks people want to hear? Only if he’s an idiot savant. He saying what he believes even if not completely thought through. He’s a manager, not a wonk. When other politicians tell you in detail how they would do a thing, they’re playing you. It’s not their job to go into that kind of detail. It’s their job to manage, which means choosing policies and people to move things forward. Pick any billionaire if you believe that.
As president Trump will evolve. Government is more than one person.
For example, he says “punishment for people having illegal abortions.” That’s definitely not the political answer.
Obviously, it is a political answer, since a politician said it.
It’s also fundamentally dishonest, since Trump has defended the legality of abortion, even in extreme cases such as partial birth.
Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would be a matter for the states, not a Federal crime, so President Trump would have no power to punish people for it. Or enact penalties for it. Or whatever it is you think the Great Trump would do.
That statement is as vacuous as “make America great again,” or any other Trump statement.
Of course, it’s possible Trump doesn’t understand that, since his speeches have shown he lacks even the most elementary knowledge of the Constitution and the workings of the US government.
Elon Musk said something to the effect that he never would have started SpaceX if he knew how hard it would actually be. His first decade was on the job training.
Trump has a lot to learn, but that’s no reason to be smug. Not knowing can be an advantage as it was for Musk.
The only question is plus vs minus. Trump has pluses that exist in no other candidate. He’s not a sound bite artist. To understand Trump you have to let him ramble and even be inconsistent.
When you do, you find he’s often right where others fear to tread. Congress needs to do their ob and somebody like Trump would encourage that. It’s supposed to be sausage making.
We’ve been played by professional politicians (both left and right) for decades. Something has to burst that bubble.
I hate defending Trump, but he has been terribly mischaracterized by people making unsubstantiated assertions as if they were facts. Surprising since he gives so many actual reasons to dislike him.
So, Trump’s first decade as president will be on-the-job training, and then he’ll know what he’s doing?
Reagan was governor of California for eight years before we trusted him with the White House. Get back to us when your guy has spent a couple of terms as governor of New York. Or New Jersey; I’m certain the current holder of that office will stand aside for him. Consider it an apprenticeship.
Trump has been chastised for correcting himself in minutes.
He shouldn’t be so honest, but that’s his process. It’s a flaw. A big one. But more so during campaign. As president, the situation changes. In that case that process becomes an advantage. When he says something outrageous causing an uproar it allows the sausage making to go forward. No more gridlock, but still guided by principles to reach a position. What principle? America first and that you can believe. It not just a slogan. It’s his core belief.
He’s an old guy. He remembers when being a business guy was enough. He supported politicians that let him down. So now he’s making a serious run.
He shouldn’t be so honest
“Honest” is pretty much the last word that comes to mind when I think of Donald Trump. He’s a con artist.
He is honest. It’s one of the things that draws people to him.
He contradicts himself which causes confusion. Dishonesty involves intent that isn’t there.
Remember when Jimmy Carter boasted about how much he had learned on the job, and Ronald Reagan joked that the Presidency was no place for on-the-job training?
Trump supporters don’t even get the joke.
Johnny Carson had a great line about that after Reagan lobbied congress successfully for something or other. Johnny said Carter said, “You mean you can do that?”
He is honest.
Translation: you’re willing to believe or overlook the most egregious lies, as long as they come from the Donald.
You probably believe Trump University is a real school, too, right?
The proof that he’s honest is that he doesn’t censor what he says. He says stupid things because he doesn’t first calculate its impact. He doesn’t read prepared speeches (usually.)
Beware of perfection. That indicates you’re being played.
The proof that he’s honest is that he doesn’t censor what he says.
That doesn’t mean he’s honest, it just means he’s stupid.
The two are not exclusive.
The big mistake would be to say his supporters are stupid.
“Trump has a lot to learn, but that’s no reason to be smug. Not knowing can be an advantage as it was for Musk.”
Problem is, Ken, that he doesn’t have a decade to learn a job FAR more complicated than Musk/Space-X.
He has a few weeks.
He’s already shown his ability to learn quickly. He gets flack for it. He shouldn’t be so open. He’s not Mr. teleprompter.
Ken, well to me what he’s learned is what he needs to backtrack on because he stepped on a land mine.
Serious men who know what they stand for don’t need a teleprompter. They can just tell you.
And it will be the same set of statements every time – or at least mean the same things.
Even if he can learn, he can’t learn fast enough: whoever becomes president is, in my opinion, going to be severely tested starting on Jan 21.
Our govt. is not about one man and each moment is not the critical one. I don’t like McCain, but would trust him on most foreign policy decisions. Trump, not so much, but I’ve considered his views as possibly superior to my own in some cases.
Trump’s tax plan sounds like an improvement. Would it be viable? I don’t know.
What I do know is that something has got to give. Finger in the dike isn’t going to work anymore. Even if Trump is everything his detractors say he is… he’s still the better option.
Now if just some bits are true, he’s heads above the rest.
FYI, Ken, Trump has already reversed himself on the “punishment for abortions” thing.
So, Trump supporters who were touting that now look foolish. (Okay, more foolish.)
He didn’t mean it, Ken. He was just trying to sucker in guys like you. That’s what politicians do. The only difference, in Trump’s case, is that you make it so easy for him.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear? Matthews asked Trump the hypothetical, “What if abortion were illegal, should there be punishment.”
So what is a law w/o an associated punishment? It’s a complete waste. Trump fell into the trap with an honest answer. He should have lied or refused to answer (unlike a politician, he doesn’t know how to evade.) That’s something he’s got to learn.
He came back with a more politically correct answer, but too late. They’re all going to club him repeatedly with this. Because he was honest.
He has supporters, not because they’re stupid, but because they see something beyond his flaws.
People see ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. Seeing things that aren’t there doesn’t prove that you’re astute, Ken.
You just can’t say certain things or you will be destroyed.
Nonsense. No one is trying to destroy the Donald. They’re just laughing at him. The fact that Democrats are laughing at Trump does not prove he’s a good candidate. Democrats also laughed at Emmet Kelly and Bozo the Clown. The difference is, no one mistook those other clowns for serious Presidential canidates.
The best argument you can offer is that he says “certain things” which no sane person would say?
Seeing things that aren’t there doesn’t prove that you’re astute, Ken.
Yes, like assertions that are unsubstantiated. It’s not me. It’s millions of people that our founders believed in.
I’ve been paying attention. When you only look at sound bites repeated by talking heads you will not understand Trump. He can only be understood in context which many smugly avoid.
He thinks externally. He shouldn’t, but he does. His first thoughts are part of a process which is not to say he reaches the right conclusion. But he has reached many important right conclusions to the point now where Cruz and Kasich have been taking his ideas as their own.
I don’t endorse any candidate. If it was just their words, I’d pick Carly Fiorina. Trump has either the courage or ignorance to address third rail issues. That you can’t disagree with.
He thinks externally.
There’s very little evidence that he thinks at all, despite the fact that (as he says himself) he has a very good brain.
little evidence that he thinks at all
Right. He’s just luckier than the rest of us. Not a brain in his head.
Your confusing style with substance. The proof is that people do get him. Not people you respect. They’re decent, but common. For them, he is a communicator.
Ken,
I think he has a brain but it’s for selling; for recognizing and seizing the moment; and for adhering to Barnum’s alleged line:
There’s a sucker born every minute.
Now I’m not calling you a sucker.
I’m saying that he knows how to manipulate people.
he knows how to manipulate people
Yeah, that’s a disqualification. We wouldn’t want him manipulating our foreign competitors!
Our foreign competitors aren’t stupid enough to be manipulated by him.
Yeah, that’s a disqualification. We wouldn’t want him manipulating our foreign competitors!
I’ve known his sort.
The people he has the easiest access to, those that trust him the most, are those he’s most inclined to manipulate.
Our foreign competitors aren’t stupid enough to be manipulated by him.
You just made Trump’s point. This is central to his platform on the campaign trail.
I can’t imagine how you can think that I just made Trump’s point.
Our foreign competitors aren’t stupid…
This has been a central point of Trumps rallies which suggests you haven’t been listening (or just to sound bites which give a distorted picture, especially with Trump.)
The other half of his argument is that we let political hacks negotiate for us and they give away the farm.
This has been a central point of Trumps rallies
Yes, and the fact that they’re not stupid means that Trump is not going to be able to manipulate them. I don’t know why you find this so hard.
You would do well to study a little history, Ken. The Founding Fathers did *not* believe that millions of uninformed people should vote. The United States was to be a Republic, not a democracy. Voting requirements were intended to limit the plebiscite to those who had the education and time to study the issues.
I remember a debate between William F. Buckley and Michael Kinsley, where Kinsley said that stupid people tend to be Republicans. Buckley responded that he considered that an advantage, because if the GOP had all the stupid people and some non-stupid people, it would win every election.
Buckley intended that as a *joke*, Ken. You guys have made it the basis of your campaign. The fact that millions of stupid support your candidate does not prove he is fit to be President.
Voting requirements were intended to limit the plebiscite to those who had the education and time to study the issues.
We agree, but that train has left the station. It’s not my campaign. I just see too many mischaracterizations.
Trump supporters are not the stupid ones. The disruptors are the incoherent rabble.
Trump has flaws. Shhhh,.. don’t tell anybody. But he’s also hits a nerve because he’s right about some very serious issues (if not there solutions.) Others are unwilling to even confront those issues.
Trump supporter are not stupid. They are not being conned. They are decent people that are disgusted with politics as usual. Trump puts them back in the game.
Ken, do you know how Trump got rich?
Having a rich father was a matter of luck, not something he achieved with that magnificent brain of his. The fact that corrupt politicians have helped him along for decades and bailed out his bad business decisions says more about politicians’ morals than Trump’s brains.
“His first thoughts are part of a process”? You mean like his quasi-incestuous thoughts about his own daughter? As John Stossel would say, give me a break. Decent people don’t have thought processes like that.
I’ve personally seen millionaires go broke. His achievement is real regardless of ‘luck.’ As for corruption, see Rodney Dangerfield in the movie, ‘Back to school.’
You’re arguing he has flaws. Yeah, he does.
He’s not my ideal candidate. But he has something that we need… the ability to shake things up.
If you haven’t noticed, regardless of who (left or right) occupies the WH we seem to continue to slide closer to the abyss while congress does all they can to avoid their jobs.
Trump puts them back in the game as well.
Especially in real estate development. High rollers come and go with the seasons in that business. Hanging on and succeeding for decades like he has is no mean feat. It is, in my view, churlish and petty to deny him credit for that.
I don’t object to his bankruptcies. I object to his leaving contractors (as opposed to risk-accepting investors) holding the bag.
Well, there are two sides to every story, and contractors are not generally known to be Boy Scouts, either.
Well, yes, but given what a shifty con artist Trump appears to me to be, I’m more inclined to believe them than him.
I kinda think it’s more likely they are well suited to one another. As Rodney explains re construction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
Yes, I know, it’s just a movie. But, I don’t think Trump managed to stay on top all these years without having a certain amount of grit. If he hadn’t, we probably wouldn’t be hearing about him.
serious Presidential candidate
He’s hundreds of delegates ahead and may reach 1237. At what point would you consider him serious? Never is your answer, I know. How about if he does a great job during his first term?
It could happen. Really.
No one is trying to destroy the Donald.
Wow. Just wow
Ken,
Well I think everyone would be satisfied if Trump’s presidential ambitions were destroyed. Not him.
What he does in the private sector concerns no one unless he breaks the law.
What he does in the private sector concerns no one unless he breaks the law.
People in business can get away with a lot of dishonesty, immorality and bullying without breaking the law.
everyone would be satisfied if Trump’s presidential ambitions were destroyed
This from a guy that understands set theory.
I believe you’re going to elect Hillary.
Yes, I understand the distinction. Thanks for the clarification.
So can people in politics. Just ask the Clintons.
“health care and education”
What he said (and I could not agree more) is national security is number one. HC and Ed were just among all things govt. should have an interest in as he clarified during that same Q&A.
Ed should be a state issue, he said, which is a conservative position. HC insurance should be competitive beyond state lines, also conservative.
He isn’t giving packaged political answers. He’s winging it. Probably not the best idea, yet he’s right about the most important issue… priority one.
That’s one of *many* things he’s said about health care. You’re cherrypicking one particular quote to support your case and ignoring everything else he’s said. A common tactic for Trump supporters and quite easy, since Trump says so many contradictory things.
For example, you could say Trump “supports legal immigration” and fail to mention his support for laws that make it difficult or impossible to immigrate legally.
It could seem like cherry picking, but sincerely, I think I’m focusing on one of Trumps flaws. He keeps talking when he should shut up. First, he correctly identifies national security as number one. Now he’s thinking what else? HC and Ed is a topic he’s discussed in the past, so out it comes.
Instead he should have paused saying “I’d have to give it some thought.” It’s a flaw but not only his. It’s the medias as well.
Trump can’t be defined by his first response. He does contradict himself. This isn’t the evil everyone is making it out to be. Evil is telling us the focus group phrases.
So you don’t trust Trump? Good. But then you fill in the blank with unjustified motivations (always with malice) instead of accepting his consistent statements (which indicate he’s reached a conclusion to his process.)
Are tariffs going to work? I doubt it. When they don’t is he going to try something else? Guaranteed. His goal will not change, just his tactics.
Actually, I think Trump is just using (intentionally or unintentionally, who knows) all of our confirmation bias. Humans tend to give more (typically a LOT more) weight to evidence that supports their world view, and less to evidence that goes against it.
So a politician walks into a room and says Pink people suck, and a love Pink people. If you love Pink people, you remember that he said he loves them, and you think the “Pink people suck” comment was a joke or error. If you hate Pink people, you remember that he said they suck, and you think the “he loves them” comment was a joke or a bow to decency.
Both people now feel a reason to vote for him, even though they have opposite desires! Obama did the same thing.
Good politicians should contradict themselves constantly.
The media gets it’s bias in louder. Trump says, “some pink people are bad.” The media says, “Trump declares ‘ALL PINK PEOPLE BAD.'” So the ignorant cry “RACIST!”
She’s still defending Trump in her “Ann Coulter Letter” today.
She may think that “Daddy” is mentally ill, but apparently she doesn’t see that as a disqualifying factor.
I’m really starting to think that Ann has “Daddy” issues.
Milo definitely does.
Rand, did you investigate the latest claim you posted?
Trump campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, issued this response to Cegielski:
This person was never employed by the Trump campaign. Evidently she worked for a Super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. She knows nothing about Mr. Trump or the campaign and her disingenuous and factually inaccurate statements in no way resemble any shred of truth. This is yet another desperate person looking for their fifteen minutes. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is running for President because he is the only one who will Make America Great Again.
A few minutes Googling confirmed most of what the spokesman said. PLUS I actually recall when this happened way back when, and my recollection of the stories as they came out aligns with the spokesman’s version and not Cegielski’s version.
I’m sorry, what “claim” that I posted is what you think is false?
You called her a “top Trump strategist” when you linked to a post about her on BoingBoing.
BoingBoing? Really?
If Trump becomes president, do you think Jay Leno will want his old job back?
Kasich says radical Jihadies have highjacked Islam.
BS. The radicals are supported by the majority of muslims. The koran supports the ‘radicals.’ Trump is just saying the obvious.
It’s time to pull head out of the sand. Not all muslims are radical, especially those in America, but worldwide most are and too many in America as well.
IMO, Kasich is symptomatic of the milquetoasts Republicans have become. Trump is a reaction to that.
we seem to continue to slide closer to the abyss
This sort of statement baffles me. We are, by far, the richest and strongest country on earth. Our economy is doing better than that of virtually any other developed nation. Crime, unwanted pregnancy and other social ills are lower than they were ten or twenty years ago. Our inventors and corporations produce a steady stream of technological miracles that our grandparents could scarcely imagine.
And yet Trump says we aren’t a rich nation anymore, and promises to make American great “again.” Ken looks at this flourishing country and sees it sliding to the abyss.
What gives?
You’re a mother-ship tuned in idiot?
Things are awesome, when are interest rates going up?
Well, of course you wouldn’t, BJ–or if you did, your reaction would be “Well, what’s wrong with that?” The abyss would be greater statism, increased serfdom, and with it the usual scarcity, breadlines, etc–as Leonard Read phrased it, the Command Society versus the Free Society. Those of us in the pro-freedom camp recognize the grim future that’s ahead if we don’t start throwing better roadblocks up on the Road to Serfdom.
“The American people once had their liberties; they had them all; but apparently they could not rest o’nights until they had turned them over to a prehensile crew of professional politicians.”–Albert Jay Nock.
Those of us in the pro-freedom camp recognize the grim future that’s ahead if we don’t start throwing better roadblocks up on the Road to Serfdom.
That’s been the prediction from the “pro-freedom camp” since the New Deal. But the bread lines haven’t arrived — in fact there’s less scarcity than ever. But Chicken Littles keep insisting that the sky is falling.
But, it’s been a constant tug of war. There is ample evidence from around the world of what happens when the statists win the day.
They said that about the New Deal and Social Security. They said it about Medicare. Clinton’s 1993 tax hike was supposed to kill the economy; instead the economy boomed.
The government is much bigger than it was 80 years ago. The country is much more prosperous than it was 80 years ago. The two things are not incompatible.
Yep, and thanks to government statism, our health care system was so distorted we needed to “fix it”.
If you don’t see the correlation between the Great Society and expensive health care then there is no hope for you.
More prosperous?
Yes, thanks to technology that is true. But our dollar is worth far less thanks to Fed printing. You might have noticed that inflation has stripped away people’s disposable income.
Why all this rah rah anyway Jim. You’re the one who keeps saying we need a “fair wage.” Are you done with that?
Breadlines? No, those haven’t appeared. However, having roughly 40% or more of our population dependent upon government support (whatever the exact number is depending on how you slice the figures) is the modern equivalent. Just because these people don’t have to stand in line on a daily basis for a meal doesn’t mean that everything is hunky dory.
the bread lines haven’t arrived
Would you like me to send you pictures? You are so wrong. Our growth is despite the govt. You would claim our historically low growth is good and bow down to messiah Barrack.
The thing is the govt. has learned to be selective in its harm to avoid backlash. They use civil forfeiture on carefully selected targets. They go after small groups with the IRS and EPA. They even back off in some cases when the lights get too bright.
But all the while they tighten the grip. Why should the internet come under the 1934 telecommunications act (which killed small rural vendors.) To tighten the governments grip. Why is Michelle telling schools what to feed children and punishing them when they don’t comply?
Govt. is death by a thousand cuts and we are not reducing regulations.
“But the bread lines haven’t arrived ”
What do you think an EBT card is?
FDR was awesome, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
The GOP is our country’s parachute and the Democrats are straped in laughing maniacally as they repeatedly shoot a shotgun into the canopy.
Things don’t totally go down the drain because people fight back against Democrat policies, you’re welcome .
but the bread lines haven’t arrived — in fact there’s less scarcity than ever. But Chicken Littles keep insisting that the sky is falling.
You are such a liar:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/food-stamps/
This sort of statement baffles me. We are, by far, the richest and strongest country on earth. Our economy is doing better than that of virtually any other developed nation. Crime, unwanted pregnancy and other social ills are lower than they were ten or twenty years ago. Our inventors and corporations produce a steady stream of technological miracles that our grandparents could scarcely imagine.
Were you saying this during the Bush admin? I don’t think so.
And if what you said above is true, why do you constantly push a “fair wage” and insist on health care benefits?
Liar.
I thought Bush was a terrible president, but at no time under his administration did I claim that our country was slipping into the abyss. Our country is resilient. We bounced back from Bush, and if necessary we’ll bounce back from Trump.
Here’s another fun fact for your “roaring economy”, Jim.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
And it isn’t the “baby boomers retiring” canard you always try to push. Since Obama took over, 2.7% more people are out of the work force. We’re at Jimmy Carter levels.
Who said the economy was roaring? It isn’t, but at least it’s moving in the right direction.
How can you possibly deduce that it’s getting better? I’ve just shown you how many more people are out of the workforce thanks to Obama. Did you not notice that? Do you not realize the SNAP program is a breadline?
My case for Trump is simply that I think he would likely be good in the two areas I care about most: the economy and foreign policy. As far as the culture wars go, I think conservatives lost on social policy, and its no use fighting a lost cause. Today’s youth don’t even care.
Trump would be good for business, and wouldn’t be rolled by Iran and others like Obama has been. I can live with that.
Cruz is fine by me, too. But, the win has to go to the guy who gets the most votes.
My case for Trump is simply that I think he would likely be good in the two areas I care about most: the economy and foreign policy.
I have zero reason to believe that. I have no idea why you do.
You make the common mistake of assuming that what is “good for business” is good for the economy.
Protectionism and handouts may be good for corrupt businesses, but they are never good for the economy. Every $1 million handed over to “business” means more than $1 million taken from someone else. (There is always friction.) The problem with crony capitalism is, eventually you run out of other people’s money.
If you’re concerned about the economy, the solution does not lie in electing the right god-emperor to manage the economy. The only thing the government can do to help the economy is nothing. Literally. The less the government tries to do, the less damage it can do. Believing that a crass, foul-mouthed, bigoted, woman-hating, anti-religious “deal maker” will fix things — “make America great again” — is putting your faith in a false god.
The only thing the government can do to help the economy is nothing. Literally.
Absolutely agree. Trump isn’t suggesting crony capitalism at all. He’s talking about repatriation.
Trump isn’t suggesting crony capitalism at all.
In other words, you have no idea who Donald Trump is or how he’s made his money for the last 30 years.
That explains most of your comments.
Come on Ed… as a businessman in NY Trump played the game. The presidency is a different game. The Clintons use govt. to line their pockets. That doesn’t mean Trump is of the same mold (it could be and I’d be very disappointed, but so far I see no indication.)
Trump’s pattern has been to branch out in business (not always a good idea.) He’s greased the wheels, but not in itself but for those business activities. This is altogether different from the Clinton Foundation (or cattle future that never experience a loss.)
Nearly 85,000 Democrats in PA change party affiliation to GOP.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160329_At_least_180K_join_GOP_as_Pa__primary_nears.html
And, in the same article, we learn that at least 86,000 PA voters have switched their registration to Democrat this year.
So? Pennsylvania already has more Democrat voters than legal voters. 116% turnout baby, all Democrat!
…the fact that they’re not stupid means that Trump is not going to be able to manipulate them
You must be tired Rand because this slides right past the point.
It’s not about manipulation. It’s about America not rolling over and playing dead. We don’t have to manipulate anyone to get better trade deals. We just need to keep our interest in mind when making any deals.
It has nothing to do with Trump being the manipulator either. He’s not the one that will be doing the deals. As a manager he has a practical understanding of the knowledge problem (which wonks don’t.) He is going to do exactly the right thing by finding competent people that have American issues first rather than the cocktail crowd political appointments.
I’m not tired, at all, Ken. I’m simply not an idiot.
You are no idiot, but you’re still human.
It’s not about manipulation.
I wish you could at least attempt to keep your story straight. This whole conversation started out as in being about manipulation.
As a manager he has a practical understanding of the knowledge problem (which wonks don’t.) He is going to do exactly the right thing by finding competent people that have American issues first rather than the cocktail crowd political appointments.
There is zero available evidence to support this. It is your fantasy.
You haven’t been listening to Trump. He has been entirely consistent on this issue.
It is not about manipulating those smart foreign leaders. It’s entirely about replacing our incompetent people with people that will give ANY consideration of American interests above being just crowd pleasers.
That you don’t get that means you have not been paying attention. Your bias is showing. For you he’s just a con man not worth listening to. A 2 dimensional card board cutout.
There are a lot of real reasons for not liking Trump… but you’d rather attack the cartoon. He has substance that you refuse to see. He has flaws. So do the others, but they hide them better.