But his detractors lack common sense.
I’m a lot older than I’d like to be, but I can’t recall a time when the people running the country were so clueless and incompetent. I wonder how much of it was the destruction of the educational system by the Left?
America will have to learn foreign policy from scratch.
Sadly I believe that is exactly the case. We have to get rid of the old guard for this to happen. Hillary is part of that old guard.
To the extent the Arab Spring was Arab; it was worth backing. Alas, it was mostly an Islamic Spring.
Agree that most of Trump’s detractors lack common sense. Rand, I understand your desire to not vote Trump, but I haven’t seen you advocate for nonsense like trying to throw Utah against Trump, which would just make it easier for Hillary to win. If one doesn’t like Trump and Hillary, then how about throwing Ohio to a third party?
Other than what they can do when they don’t get their way, are heads of state that different from CEOs of major corporations? I expect Trump’s experience negotiating business deals is more relevant to what a President needs to do than anything Barrycade did before taking the oath of office.
Unfortunately, yes, they are different. CEOs get fired far faster than every 4 years. Shorter feedback loops makes them pay attention to us better. The trouble with building a self-image as a negotiator is that others in the world are not interested in negotiating on things that keep them in power. What Obama did before getting elected was a patty-cake version of warfare. Worse, his vision of who the enemy is was all focused interior to the US, and stayed that way.
The only advantage Trump has for us is that his Republican label will mean a WH press corps more willing to cover his mistakes. Of course, it will be unwilling to cover much of any success, either, and will undercut him at every chance they get.
Whenever I come across people espousing “common sense” my BS antenna goes up.
The advocates of “Common sense” are inevitably using their everyday instincts and experiences and applying them to situations outside their everyday instincts and experiences.
“Common sense” is for people who argue that the Earth is at the center of the universe with the Sun moving around it because – they can’t feel the Earth moving, “Common sense” is “the Earth is flat because if it were round the people on the bottom would fall off”.
I’m betting that David P. Goldman’s version of “common sense” is to try to overthrow regimes hostile to the US like the Muslim Brotherhood at the first opportunity, but when that’s been done how has it worked out?
In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran, the US engineered a coup against him in 1953.
Fidel Castro gained power in Cuba in 1959, the Castro’s have stayed in power ever since because of US attempts at engineering assassinations and coups.
Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, the US campaign to unseat him failed, that campaign has kept his successor in power despite the ridiculous levels of corruption and incompetence, and poverty in that country today, again the US campaign to over throw a government has only served to keep the population behind the deranged fools in power in a foreign country.
With Egypt and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood the US got it right! If the US had engineered a coup against the government of Mohamed Morsi soon after his election we would now be staring down the barrel of a counter coup against the US supported regime, instead what we’ve got is a Muslim Brotherhood that destroyed its own reputation with Egyptians and an Egypt that is largely pro-American.
By not undermining the Muslim Brotherhood the US has stayed onside with Egyptians and – no (or at least very few) Egyptian terrorists.
…”By not undermining the Muslim Brotherhood the US has stayed onside with Egyptians and – no (or at least very few) Egyptian terrorists..”
No. Since we actively supported Morsi after the coup began, we have a *very* bad reputation inside Egypt, as people willing to see Egyptians starve. Worse, we allowed the growth of an imperial Caliphate which has a strong stimulation for Terrorism in Egypt. It is growing. The press just ignores it for the most part.
“In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran, the US engineered a coup against him in 1953.”
And, it worked out pretty well until JC pulled the rug out from under the Shah in 1979, 26 years later. But, you omit that Mosaddegh had assumed dictatorial powers, was a cat’s paw for the communist Tudeh, and though we aided the coup, it was actually carried through by the merchant class after we had given it up for lost.
“Fidel Castro gained power in Cuba in 1959, the Castro’s have stayed in power ever since because of US attempts at engineering assassinations and coups.”
Nonsense. Fidel stayed in power through brutal repression. With or without our aid, he would have done that regardless.
“Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela in 1998, the US campaign to unseat him failed…”
Ridiculous. We made no bid to unseat him. He was elected in 1998, and commerce with Venezuela has never been interrupted.
Bart, you know your history… that’s not playing fair! And it’s about time we stopped playing fair with the entire party of liars.
I grew up around people that lie like Trump. That kind of lying comes from insecurity and is mostly harmless (I am not condoning it.) It’s an entirely different class of lie to call the families of someone you killed, liars.
By not undermining the Muslim Brotherhood the US has stayed onside with Egyptians
BS
Whenever I come across people espousing “common sense” my BS antenna goes up.
Ya, my BS antenna goes up every time a leftists says banning guns is common sense or adopting communism is common sense. Does your anti-science guilt by associated straw man apply to leftists as well?
With Egypt and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood the US got it right!
So when we meddle for the MB its good but when we meddle against Castro its wrong? What about when we meddled against Netanyahu? Putin after he destroyed Obama’s foreign policy credibility in Syria? Stuxnet and assassinations in Iran? Brexit?
I like Representative Democracy but for countries that practice it to be like Western countries, they have to have a populace that is similar as well. A country made up of people who want to wage jihad, isn’t going to flourish like other democracies. This is because they will elect religious dictators, as happened in Gaza. Democracy is used to gain power, which is then never given up. This is what happened when the MB took over. It is happening now in Turkey.
This is why borders should mean something. We shouldn’t be picking forms of government for other countries. We should simply be dealing with each govt. as it is. When that govt. is an enemy it generally means their people could use our help in overthrowing it. Governments that are our friends usually have people that are our friends as well.
Then there are the Saudis…
>I wonder how much of it was the destruction of the educational system by the Left?
Yep. And Common Core will finish the job.
Whether it is intended or not, this is certainly the outcome of postmodern and deconstructionist pedagogy that our friends to the left implemented as they took over the education system.
Perhaps the root problem with the US foreign policy experts is that they all had to go through the filter of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford schools on foreign policy – instead of place like the University of Alabama followed by years in the military, business, and the CIA – on the ground in foreign countries.
They also don’t seem capable of stepping back and look at multiple angles.
For example, the whole mess in Ukraine is the result of 70 years of the Soviet Union shuffling people around without regard to internal borders, which had become meaningless lines. When the Soviet Union split they stupidly didn’t take the time to figure out how 70 years of history had altered the facts on the ground. Had they done that, Ukraine would have split off without the parts that are filled with ethnic Russians and there wouldn’t have been any conflict.
We were probably too happy to see hunks break off the Soviet Union to suggest they examine the new borders then to lessen the chance of serious territorial disputes later. So now Russia is focused on retaking border regions, and perhaps expanding to Calais. Instead of Hillary’s “reset”, perhaps if we had sat down with Europe and Russia to discuss “outdated map errors”, that cat would have stayed in the bag.
And our policies regarding Syria are unfathomably ass backwards, too late, and too little. Even by Obama’s extremely low bar, the administration failed. When he was drawing and erasing red lines, the State Department dodged blame by saying our policy was to prevent the rebellion from devolving into a regional Sunni/Shia conflict. They even failed at that.
Of course it would help if US foreign policy wasn’t for sale to Clinton Foundation donors, but perhaps non-corrupt government is asking too much.
Ukraine would have split off without the parts that are filled with ethnic Russians and there wouldn’t have been any conflict.
Russia was/is handing out passports to anyone in the ‘near abroad’ that wants one. It wasn’t a stupid mistake. It was fully intentional.
The conflict exists because Russia/Putin wants that former superpower status back. The rest is just tactics. Now China is joining that game. Both countries are modernizing their militaries with just one opponent in mind (guess who?)
Let’s hope Trump can repatriate American dollars because we are soon going to need a much bigger military.
Syria, where Obama said we weren’t going to fight a proxy war with Russia and we are now fighting a proxy war with Russia. If our media was half as critical as they were with Bush…
I was just thinking about how Elon Musk lacked experience… which is just the thing needed to bust up some log jams.
As I’ve said at work, “Following ‘Best Practices’ often means you’re just doing the same thing everybody else is. How’re we supposed to stand out that way?”
Getting in some fresh blood, people not indoctrinated by years of Best Practices, can indeed break logjams.
“I was just thinking about how Elon Musk lacked experience… which is just the thing needed to bust up some log jams.”
That’s the exact same argument used in 2008 when people pointed out that Obama had no real serious experience:
They replied that he had the same experience as Abraham Lincoln.
The fallacies of that argument are legion….As an example:
Obama is no Lincoln; Trump is no Musk.
Certainly agree with the former. Not so sure about the latter. Trump succeeded in a very difficult business. He’s had a few ups and downs, but Musk is sailing in treacherous waters, and may have a few himself by the time he’s Trump’s age.
That’s the exact same argument…
It is not, which clearly indicates you missed my point. Lack of experience is not a ‘benefit.’ It’s thinking you already know what you need to know that’s the problem. With Obama that is certainly the case. He’s[in]famous with his disregard for anyone that isn’t himself. “He’s better at everything he has other people do for him.”
Trump is the opposite (while still being accused of it.) What does Trump do? He goes to the source and asks questions. Like when he bypasses his managers to speak with his workers on the construction site. Or when he called his Canadian hockey buddy to discover that brine is the way to freeze an ice rink. He finishes projects ahead of schedule and below costs.
Then he’s accused of not paying his bills. No consideration is given to the fact that the bills he didn’t pay were for services not rendered. Recently a venue he booked didn’t have air conditioning for a very large crowd. From the stage he almost, but not quite, suggested he might not pay that bill. That’s exactly the kind of president we need to deal with foreign countries. They want to play games? Fine, we don’t play those games one sided anymore where we always eat the loss. Guess how those countries will deal with us in the future? They won’t be humiliating our military anymore or expecting us to pay ransoms.
People that can’t see beyond Trump’s bluster are simply blind to the truth.
“No consideration is given to the fact that the bills he didn’t pay were for services not rendered.”
I know for a fact that isn’t entirely true. I have a friend who has done business with Trump. Ringing payment from his organization was like pulling teeth.
But, so what? He runs his business as economically as he can.
Yeah, it’s a pain to have to deal with someone like that from the other side. But, it’s not so bad to have him on your side.
We’re not talking about electing him Troop Leader, for chrissakes. We’re talking about the person who is going to lead us in a very cutthroat world. I’d rather have someone who has the stones to push for our interests than someone who will just roll over and ask for a pat on the belly (like e.g., Obama to Iran).
Ken you’re flip flopping. First you say this:
“I was just thinking about how Elon Musk lacked experience… which is just the thing needed to bust up some log jams.”
Which CLEARLY states that lack of experience is a benefit. You are saying that lack of experience is useful for clearing logjams. You are using this to support Trump’s lack of experience.
Then you say:
“It is not, which clearly indicates you missed my point. Lack of experience is not a ‘benefit.’ ”
That was not your point. I got your original point (Musk-no experience-benefit therefore it’s a benefit for Trump as well). There’s no other sensible way to take that sentence.
You have flip-flopped from your point.
Which CLEARLY states that lack of experience is a benefit.
Words have limitations. Technically you’re right, but you’re choosing to ignore my point. People often ‘know’ what they can’t do and others support that ‘knowing’ by their agreement. Those without experience don’t ‘know’ they can’t do those things so they go ahead and land a rocket on a boat. If I or almost anyone else suggested doing that, anyone with experience would ‘know’ I was spouting ignorant nonsense. Like Rand telling me we don’t know how to do mining on mars when human have been doing mining since before the invention of writing including in sub zero environments where most humans would simply die..
“Technically you’re right, but you’re choosing to ignore my point.”
In other words, I’m correct in my interpretation of your words….but I’m ignoring your point?
C’mon now Ken…………..
I’m correct in my interpretation of your words
Actually no. Because words have a purpose as well. To communicate. Communication requires cooperation of both listener and receiver. When you play jail house lawyer with the content and ignore the meaning you are defeating the purpose of communications. There is a one word description for being technically right… it’s called wrong.
That should be sender and receiver… but then if you were cooperating with the intent of communication I wouldn’t even need to make this correction. An intelligent person would get it without me needing to clarify.
“When you play jail house lawyer with the content and ignore the meaning you are defeating the purpose of communications. ”
But Ken, YOU acknowledged I interpreted your words correctly. So how can I interpret them correctly and twist their meaning?
how can I interpret them correctly and twist their meaning?
You should give this some meditation.
Trump has a lot more experience than Obama did. The claim he has no experience is an irrational one but then again, this isn’t an election based on reason.
Hillary is using the politics of fear, which has lead to mass violence from the Democrats.
Trump is using the politics of rebirth and love of country.
Which persuasion strategy will work? Certainly looks like fear is winning out right now. Sad to see people on the right engaging in the irrational fear based politics too.
“Trump has a lot more experience than Obama did.”
Agreed. But that wasn’t Ken’s point.
Mao had a lot more experience than Obama did. We don’t want Mao as President.
We don’t even want him gracing the White House Christmas tree….
Thanks Gregg. Now I can play your absurd game of twisting words. You just compared Trump to Mao and at the same time affirmed Wodun’s point about the politics of fear.
Comparing Trump to Mao is insane! You left out Hitler and Genghis Khan. Maybe he’s Jack the Ripper? Don’t let a lack of evidence stand in your way.
“Now I can play your absurd game of twisting words. You just compared Trump to Mao and at the same time affirmed Wodun’s point about the politics of fear.”
Ken, give it up. You know I did neither one of those things.
What I did was to illuminate the fact that one word alone: “experience” isn’t enough to make or break an argument for why we should – or should not – vote for someone.
Which has been MY point all along:
Lincoln had little experience – he was great.
Obama had little experience – he’s a disaster on steroids.
Mao had lots of experience – he was a killer of millions.
Reagan (to take one example – there’s Eisenhower and even GHWB) had lots of experience and he was great. Though I admit GHWB was pretty good but not great.
Get it?
So your initial comment that since Musk’s limited (almost zero) experience in space stuff, was an asset to his success THEREFORE Trump’s lack of political experience is also an asset and we should vote for him draws a bad conclusion.
If you want to convince people that they should vote for Trump (and you clearly do), touting the fact that he has little experience isn’t the way to go about it.
Trump’s lack of political experience is also an asset…
Which is exactly what the voters have been telling you for over a year now (as well as the talking heads with their reference to outsiders.) Those millions of people could all be wrong or you could.
They’re wrong. More people don’t want Trump than do, by a significant margin.
If you want to convince people that they should vote for Trump.
Actually I don’t. You can be forgiven for thinking so. My actual position is that it would be in your best interest to pick Trump over Hillary. To me it doesn’t really matter because I look beyond the existence of nations. The bible says, after Armageddon (which has nothing to do with a human war) there will be a resurrection of people (not just good people) to a thousand year judgement period on earth (in an orderly fashion of some sort, not everyone would be alive for the entire thousand years.) During that thousand years people will again form nations (about the 20th of revelations?) There are a couple of possible interpretations of this. It could just be some forms of tribalism or it could actually be establishment of laws and jurisdictions. In either case it seems wrong to me because it would appear to be in opposition to god’s rulership.
But I wouldn’t expect anybody reading my defenses of Trump, which I would do for anybody wrongfully accused, of understanding this.
More people don’t want Trump than do
Which means zilch. The only metric that matters is the vote count between Trump and Clinton.
Also, that more people argument is based on a false premise. Out of 16 primary candidates Trump got less than 50% of that vote. Which is what any intelligent person should expect regardless of the candidates. So more people don’t want [fill in the blank with any name what-so-ever] than do is just as true a statement and just as meaningless.
Which means zilch. The only metric that matters is the vote count between Trump and Clinton.
No, the vote count that matters is the one in the electoral college. Johnson is almost at 15% now. If he’s included in the debates, he could take a state or three, which might throw the election into the House. Which is dominated by actual (as opposed to Trump) Republican state delegations.
Trump’s lack of political experience is also an asset…
Which is exactly what the voters have been telling you for over a year now (as well as the talking heads with their reference to outsiders.) Those millions of people could all be wrong or you could.”
Ok so now you’ve flipped again..you are NOW saying what you said originally – that Trump’s lack of experience is an asset.
I’m going to have to keep a scorecard……
Do you think the following is irrational fear based politics too?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
(The summary of the message is embedded in the url.)
Yes Bob. It is certainly the politics of fear. Are you unable to understand Wodun’s point.
You didn’t have anything to do with that commercial with the mushroom cloud behind the little girl picking daisies, did ya?
Bob, I couldn’t leave it at that. That article has to be the most outragiously idiotic I’ve ever read. Anybody reading it with a single functioning critical braincell would see it for what it is. If you don’t you might consider my post on it.
Wasn’t this the guy that edit the talking points about Benghazi for Hillary? The Democrats tried to scapegoat the CIA, like they aren’t under the control of the Obama administration. Well, this was the guy at the CIA that fabricated the talking points for Susan Rice, Hillary, and Obama.
Quite the claim he is non-partisan when Hillary got him a job at one of her donor shell companies.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Just to reiterate, Morrell was the dum dum working with Hillary on going to war in Libya, without congressional approval.
It was/is an epic disaster that unleashed ISIS on the ME, ushered in sex slavery on a scale unseen in hundreds of years, and kick started the genocide of non-Muslims into overdrive.
I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe.
How did that work out for the Americans she was responsible for protecting as Secretary of State? She repeatedly denied requests for additional security. Then after letting them sit unprotected in the lion’s den, turned off the phone when they called for help while under attack.
What a joke, a cosmic tragedy.
Irrational fear based politics:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/republican-national-security-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html
Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts — many veterans of George W. Bush’s administration — have signed a letter denouncing Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and pledging not to vote for him.
Here is the letter:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/08/trumpletter.pdf
More irrational fear based politics:
Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts — many veterans of George W. Bush’s administration — have signed a letter denouncing Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and pledging not to vote for him.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/08/trumpletter.pdf
50, eh? Good riddance.
Experience can be gained. In fact, it can’t help but be gained. Acquiring common sense is much more difficult, and by no means ever guaranteed.
Humility (i.e. that you don’t know everything and need to learn) can be gained too. But the Presidency is not the place to begin that phase of your maturation.
That ‘phase’ is every moment of everybody’s life. It must be learned as president as with every where else. This is the outstanding problem of Obama. Trump has clearly demonstrated it (the spin being he’s just a flip-flopping liar) when in fact it shows he’s publicly dealing with issues that others may also be dealing with but pretending they don’t.
“That ‘phase’ is every moment of everybody’s life. It must be learned as president as with every where else. ”
That “phase” – acquiring humility through the knowledge that you do not know everything – is not always existent in every moment of everybody’s life. I daresay Obama, Klinton, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid never experienced it.
Try reading for comprehension Gregg. I said, and you even quoted me, the phase isn’t a phase, it’s always. You then twist that by saying some don’t do it. How does what I said in any way suggest people shouldn’t continually be doing it?… or as the bible says, “continuously test yourselves…”
“Try reading for comprehension Gregg.”
No need to get snarky Ken. There is, though, a need to tighten up your comments….
“I said, and you even quoted me, the phase isn’t a phase, it’s always. You then twist that by saying some don’t do it. ”
That’s because “always” means “always”. And I simply disagreed with your statement that it’s ALWAYS happening. And I further clearified by saying “every moment in everyone’s life”.
And THEN I gave you several examples where I think it never happened.
Clue: if it never happened – it isn’t *always* happening with those people….is it?
I simply disagreed with your statement that it’s ALWAYS happening
I never said it was always happening. I said it should be always happening. I don’t believe I was unclear so a bit of snark seemed justified (it’s not really my style but after twenty years I’m thinking a bit of Rand has rubbed off on me.)
that you don’t know everything and need to learn
Not seeing where this applies to Trump.
Some people have the unrealistic demand that he lay out a strategy to defeat ISIS before he even has access to the minds of the guys doing the fighting. Others demand he produce endless reports on policy. Its stupid, which is why other candidates don’t, and haven’t, done that.
But he has produced a list of possible SCOTUS nominees and laid out an economic team. He isn’t saying everything he will do, impossible to realistically know at this point, but he is telling the country the people he will use.
“that you don’t know everything and need to learn
Not seeing where this applies to Trump.”
The debate went from lack of experience to needing the humility to accept you don’t know everything in order to get that experience,
I’ve seen nothing from Trump that tells me he has had that epiphany.
You see nothing? That pretty well explains it. He’s had about 70 years of experience and you discount the entirety of it.
“He’s had about 70 years of experience and you discount the entirety of it.”
I could be snarky here and suggest you actually read what I write But I won’t.
Firstly, age has nothing to do with it and you know it. So that’s a red herring.
Secondly, in your fervor to try and win this debate, you must have missed this exchange between Wodun and myself:
Wodun: “Trump has a lot more experience than Obama did.”
Me: Agreed. But that wasn’t Ken’s point.
So you are arguing a straw man.
Gregg, this thread started with Matt’s statement about experience. So age is relevant. You’re the one that brought up humility, but indicating it was a phase. It should not be a phase that someone passes through. It is something that people should contend with at every point in their life. Moses was described as one of the most humble persons to walk the earth but was denied entry into the promised land because of an incidental lack of humility toward the end of his life.
Trump, even with all his bluster, commonly demonstrates humility (often in self deprecation) where Hillary demonstrates the pathological traits of a sociopath.
Doesn’t putting out a list of potential SCOTUS nominees or economic advisors show that he has the humility to take the advice of others?
Personnel is policy.
I just heard a recording of Nurse Ratched, accepting the nomination, talking about “making the rich pay their fair share to re-start the economy.” All kinds of nonsensical (common and otherwise) stuff there.
“The Republican Establishment believed with fervor in the Arab Spring…I asked Hayden why the Republican mainstream had embraced the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the military government of President al-Sisi”
Are these statements correct? Were there really a ton of Republicans who thought something good would come out of the Arab Spring, or who were enthused by Muslim Brotherhood ascendency in Egypt?
I can remember Rush Limbaugh taking a different stance. Citing from memory, he cautioned that just because people clamor for freedom for themselves does not mean that they will gravitate to governments that defend freedoms for others.
Thomas Sowell had very similar words of caution.
I don’t recall anyone on the right thinking having the MB in charge was a good thing. Maybe this is one of those things the GOPe thought but never talked about.
IIRC, the debate at the time was how terrible the outcome was because it was going to lead to an Islamic theocracy from people on the right and how the MB was secular so everything would be cool from the left.
Sowell is a favorite of mine but that post was even better than usual because it points out of very common blind spot which I could never articulate as well (my comment about borders having meaning was about this subject.)
The latest dust up is “(President) Obama is the founder of ISIS.”
All of the “responsible news sources” are going around “fact checking” this and telling people “False. President Obama is not the founder of ISIS.” And the Right Blogosphere is going around setting their hair on fire with “We keep throwing Trump a lifeline and he keeps saying that.” Like the exchange with Hugh Hewitt as covered here: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/12/donald-trump-yesterday-v-donald-trump-today/
Hugh Hewitt keeps saying something to the effect “You don’t mean President Obama is really the founder of ISIS but that the Obama-Clinton handling of the Middle East created the power vacuum in which ISIS came into being” and Donald Trump keeps insisting, “No, he really is the founder of ISIS.”
After this back-and-forth continues, Mr. Trump finally admits “But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?”
That is what this has been going on all along, now, isn’t it? Mr. Trump doesn’t say, “Unlike President Obama, I will enforce existing immigration law, starting with the requirements for employers that protect the jobs of American citizens — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — Americans of all ethnicities and origins.” No, he says it like “I will build a Wall and Mexico will pay for it.”
The theory is, forget a theory, Mr. Trump just explained that he is expressing his positions in the most provocative way possible to draw attention to himself. He is “trolling” the Media, he is “trolling” the Republican Establishment, he is “trolling” is political opponent Hillary Clinton.
Now you can say, “this trolling has to stop because Mr. Trump is sinking in the polls and taking every other Republican candidate down with him.” But you can’t say that Mr. Trump is divorced from reality and is clueless as to what he is doing and is making unforced errors and “own goals.”
He knows exactly what he is doing. You may disagree with it, but he is sticking to a strategy and these provocative statements are of his conscious choosing.
I think we need to retire the phrases and words “fact checking” and “debunked.”
That Kessler dude at the Post gave four Pinocchio’s (yeah, count them four) to Sean Hannity regarding “Trump sent his plane to rescue 200 stranded Marines.”
I guess the story is that Mr. Hannity was “sourced” by Marines who told them that when they returned Stateside that they were stranded and that Mr. Trump sent them a plane to get them to where they needed to go. Kessler’s breathless “debunking” (oooh, I cringe at my own work) is that like so many other things, there are things with “Trump” emblazoned on them that are not from Mr. Trump. Apparently the Marines boarded a jet that said “Trump” on the side, but it wasn’t Mr. Trump’s personal jet, that by the way has/had only a limited number of seats and wouldn’t have accommodated that many Marines.
The plane the Marines flew was a Trump Shuttle. And this jet was not personally sent by Mr. Trump but rather was a “spare” in the Trump Shuttle fleet that Mr. Trump had released to a charter operator contracting with the U.S. military. And it was the anonymous charter operator, not Mr. Trump, who rescued the stranded Marines.
Gee Mr. Kessler, I guess I can sleep better now that you awarded Mr. Hannity at Faux News a full four Pinocchio’s for his sources confusing Mr. Trump’s private jet, at that time a 727-100 jetliner with “Trump” painted on the side, with a Trump shuttle jet that was leased out to a charter operator, a 727-200 jetliner which also had “Trump” painted on it but in a different color. I am glad that matter got straightened out right away!
If Trump had said, “Obama and Hillary contributed to the rise of ISIS by their policies” the media would have a difficult time refuting him. I still like his formulation better as it is a more direct accusation which is pure Trump.
But there was an even BETTER formulation which would have had the same punch but would have avoided the entire folderol about “founder”. All Trump had to do was take 10 seconds to think about it and then say:
“Obama and Klinton are practically the founders of ISIS; certainly their words and actions enabled and encouraged the rise of ISIS which has resulted in the deaths of 10’s of thousands of innocent people – mostly Muslims.”
That’s all. It’s simple.
Why doesn’t he do that?
I’ll buy that. Why didn’t he? I’m not going to speculate. I think there’s more to come on this subject in the debates.
but would have avoided the entire folderol about “founder”
A) This is manufactured. B) The strategy is to be outraged over anything Trump says.
Nothing Trump does or doesn’t say will prevent Democrats and their media from spinning outrage to fit Hillary’s campaign narrative.
It was a good attack from Trump because its true. Because its true and looks bad for Obama and Hillary, the Democrat media has to suddenly take the position that holding a President and Secretary of State accountable for the fallout of their war in Libya is beyond the pale and unacceptable discourse.
The same people that had little Iraq body count tickers in the corner of every broadcast think it is an unforgivable breach of conduct to mention what took place in Libya.
Why doesn’t he do that?
He did, http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/
Should we be surprised that people didn’t bother to listen to anything Trump said once they found something they could deliberately twist into something that everyone knows wasn’t intended?
“He knows exactly what he is doing. You may disagree with it, but he is sticking to a strategy and these provocative statements are of his conscious choosing.”
….you surmise, I doubt you understand what Trump is thinking. Just like I don’t.
What I do know is that he could deliver the same punch without exposing himself so egregiously.
Some say Donald Trump should deliver his speeches from a prepared text using a teleprompter.
Donald Trump can use a teleprompter. He can deliver a very, very good speech using a teleprompter. He can deliver a great speech using a teleprompter. That speech would make you very, very happy.
Only Donald Trump does not want to deliver his speeches using a teleprompter. His supporters love how he gives speeches with off-the-cuff remarks. Did I tell you the people attending his speeches love how he makes off-the-cuff remarks? Donald Trump wants his supporter to love his speeches. That makes his supporters, very, very happy.
Those aren’t off-the-cuff remarks. I have the same public speaking style myself. I learned it in 4H. What he’s doing is writing a speech, then distilling it down to bullet points, and memorizing the first line, last line, and the bullets. Then when he gets up to speak, he can fill in between the bullet points with his own conversational style. You practice the speech two or three times this way with the words right in front of you, and then by the time you do it in front of an audience you don’t need any notes.
Next time you see him speak, you’ll see where he’s repeating a bullet point verbatim and where he’s filling in between. The most outrageous comments are bullets.
Good insight. I hadn’t noticed, but will look for it from now on.
Gregg, all joking aside, at the end of his interview with Hugh Hewitt, Donald Trump told us what he is thinking. He is thinking he can deliver his remarks in a non-provocative style as Mr. Hewitt and others are suggesting. But he purposefully does not want to do that.
” He is thinking he can deliver his remarks in a non-provocative style as Mr. Hewitt and others are suggesting. But he purposefully does not want to do that.”
Ok but it’s not binary like that. Trump can issue provocative remarks but do it in such a way that doesn’t leave huge truck-size openings for the MSM to beat him up with. I gave an example in this thread.
For whatever reason, Trump chooses to do it his way. That’s his privilege. If it costs us the White House and/or one or both of the Houses, don’t expect people to be mollified by the fact that he did it his way.
The way any candidate should do it is the best way to win. Personally I don’t see his technique as the best way. If Hillary wins, I won’t be mollified by “Oh well Trump did it his way.” If his thinking is (and I don’t know if this is his thinking) “Well I’ll win it on my terms in my way or I don’t want it.” I’ll be exceedingly angry because his self-satisfaction will cause untold harm to millions of people.
without exposing himself so egregiously.
The fact that he said something so benign and true and the media reacted the way they did shows your statement to be false.
This is a good case of when did you stop beating your wife.
““He knows exactly what he is doing. You may disagree with it, but he is sticking to a strategy and these provocative statements are of his conscious choosing.” ”
Paul,
Let’s put aside for the moment that you have no idea what he’s thinking, and stipulate that what you say is true.
Do you think, then, that this is how Trump figures he can win? That Trump figures this is THE BEST technique to win the White House that he can use? That Trump has carefully thought through all the pros and cons of how he could arrive at victory and this is the way he figures is best? That 51% of the voters will see this as justification for giving him the vote?
Sure the MSM is going to attack him no matter what – that’s a given.
Because it sure seems to me that a very slight tuning of his rhetoric would have the benefits of what he’s doing now without all the negatives associated with what he’s doing now.
Donald Trump is fundamentally a salesman. Salesmen do seemingly stupid and obnoxious things that we all hate, but for some odd reason they manage to close the sale.
The guy who sold me my first new car in 1978 lit up a cigar when I was out for a test drive, the very car I had in mind purchasing. Gee, I was going to buy that particular car and this guy is smelling up the fabric with this freakin’ cigar. With this lame excuse that “the sales manager just gave (him) this cigar.”
I ended up buying the car anyway so I guess that makes me low-information or something. I read later that the “lighting up a cigar-in-a-car” is a car sales negotiating trick as old as the hills. Have no idea how it is supposed to work — maybe it is to put the customer just on edge enough to hurry through the sale without any hard bargaining? This was also 38 years ago when there was more of a social expectation to tolerate people smoking.
Ken writes:
“This is a very clear and revealing example of rigid thinking. What you suggest, Gregg, is just one of many possible approaches. Not everybody thinks like an engineer and that’s a good thing.”
Well Ken if so you’ve just accused Trump of Rigid Thinking….if I understand Pauls’ response correctly:
Paul:
” He is thinking he can deliver his remarks in a non-provocative style as Mr. Hewitt and others are suggesting. But he purposefully does not want to do that.”
That Trump has carefully thought through all the pros and cons of how he could arrive at victory and this is the way he figures is best?
This is a very clear and revealing example of rigid thinking. What you suggest, Gregg, is just one of many possible approaches. Not everybody thinks like an engineer and that’s a good thing.
I once attended a management seminar off site when I worked for the FAA. The whole point was to demonstrate, even in an engineering dept., there are about 16 different ways people analyse issues and all of them are valid. Some being superior in some cases with others being superior in others (and little means of deciding which is which beforehand… the only useful metric can only be measured after the fact.)
Not all of those methods is evenly distributed in the population (or even in subset, as I just said.) The more rare the method, the more likely it will be discounted by those that don’t use it or understand it.
Trump has amazing intuition and leaves behind a trail of baffled analysts. Exactly what should be expected from one of those rare types. No method is perfect. So let’s not demand perfection.
“This is a very clear and revealing example of rigid thinking. What you suggest, Gregg, is just one of many possible approaches. Not everybody thinks like an engineer and that’s a good thing.”
Ken please..stop it. You’re beginning to look rabid.
I asked a question of a person.
The sentence previous to your quote – which you left out – was:
“Do you think, then, that this is how Trump figures he can win?”
DO YOU THINK…..
I’m asking Paul if he thinks that.
I didn’t say what I thought. So it cannot be an example of rigid thinking on my part.
Besides which how rigid can it be to wonder if Trump has perused all the possible methods and selected this one? That’s not rigid thinking on my part or anyone’s part.
I didn’t say what I thought.
Of course you did and you gave an example of it. This is exactly what the left does when they give a biased interpretation of something and ignore any other possibilities (all the time claiming objectivity of course.)
Do you think, then, that this is how Trump figures he can win?
If it is now out of bounds to note how Hillary and Obama’s policies have led to the rise of ISIS and the refugee invasion of Europe and all of the other unprecedented horrific fallout from their policies, then there is no way to win.
Its essentially saying Trump isn’t allowed to talk about Hillary’s record because that would be unfair.
Of course it would be unfair. If Hillary’s past were more widely known there is no possibility that she’d be elected and not electing Hillary is by definition unfair!
The nontroversy over that statement is one of the most retarded things of this election.
Hillary can say Trump is a recruiter for ISIS and no outrage. For the last 15 years, Democrats have said much much worse about Bush and other Republicans and crickets.
Trump accurately points out that Obama and Hillary played a large role in the rise of ISIS? OMG everyone goes ape.
Retarded.
“Hillary can say Trump is a recruiter for ISIS and no outrage. For the last 15 years, Democrats have said much much worse about Bush and other Republicans and crickets.”
This is the sort of thing Trump should say in public and often.
Isis is going to be a central issue in the debates (thanks to the media taking Trump’s bait) which is where Trump will pound the fact that Hillary was heavily involved in army the proto-ISIS… and getting Benghazi into it as a bonus.
Arming… sheesh.
Wodun,
If Trump had a brain he would simply repeat headlines – and more importantly quotes from Democrats – saying Bush created ISIS.
They’re all over the place.
He doesn’t do that.
No, the vote count that matters is the one in the electoral college.
That was the vote count between Clinton and Trump that I was referring to, but your refinement is a good point.
If [Johnson]’s included in the debates, he could take a state or three, which might throw the election into the House.
A similar argument was made about the convention. How’d that go? Even those that don’t like Trump are hesitant to flat out deny the voters.
Which is dominated by actual (as opposed to Trump) Republican state delegations.
Rand, I have to say, your dismissal of the ‘little people’ is something I associate with the left and ‘elites’ rather than our founders. Have you really thought through what you’re suggesting which is the elimination forever of we the people? Once you’ve lost faith in the people (which is more understandable the more time the left has to corrupt them) the more you’ve left the founding conservative principles of this country.
Don’t misunderstand. I know as well as you do that ‘dem’s da rules.’
But the scenario you’re suggesting (after going on and on about how Trump has less than 50% behind him) is the ‘elites’ give it to someone with even less popular support.
Revolutions have been started for much less.
Even those that don’t like Trump are hesitant to flat out deny the voters.
I have no problem whatsoever in “denying” a minority of the voters who usually don’t even vote, because they were taken in by an ignorant con man.
I’m pretty sure that the actual (as opposed to fake, like Trump) Republicans in the House will have a similar attitude.
Under this crazy scenario, who do you think the House of Representatives would select?
I don’t know, but it’s not unimaginable that they’d pick Johnson, who has at least won gubernatorial elections as an actual Republican.
I love how you keep describing more voter than ever before in history as “a minority of the voters .”
I describe it that way because it’s true. “…more voters than ever before in history” is an utterly meaningless metric for the general election.
When Trump wins in a landslide, will that also be meaningless?
Of course not, but that’s not going to happen.
Most people don’t vote. Too many do, because they’re ignorant and maleducated thanks to the Left. If that’s an “elitist” attitude, make the most of it. There’s a reason that Franklin said “a Republic, madame, if you can keep it.” It’s because the Founders knew that a pure democracy would be a disaster, but that’s where we’ve gotten. And I’m not going to change my opinion about Trump or his ignorant supporters just because it makes you unhappy. Because unlike him (and Hillary), I have principles, other than what’s good for myself.
If Johnson is included in the debates, will he peel away support from the Republicans or the Democrats?
Do you see any path where neither Trump nor Hillary win? Is there any possibility of Johnson polling 34%? Or Jill Stein?
If Johnson is included in the debates, will he peel away support from the Republicans or the Democrats?
Yes.
Johnson doesn’t have to poll 34%. He just has to win a few states, like Utah, to throw it into the House. The one outcome of that we know won’t happen will be a president Hillary Clinton.
So, do you think the House would overturn the primary? That would kill the Republican party. Instead of maybe losing one election, Republicans would never win again.
No, it would restore the Republican Party from the Trump disaster. Most of the people who would be angered aren’t real Republicans. It would also help restore the Constitution from the populists, and provide a valuable history lesson about the nature and purpose of the presidency.
Not real Republicans? No True Scotsman.
Trump won the nomination fair and square. There were 16 others and the primary voters chose him. Send it to the House – home of the most establishment of the GOPe – and you get Jeb Bush.
There is a huge difference between the voters making a mistake and having the establishment forcing a different mistake down the voters’ throats. One mistake is recoverable, the other is not.
Send it to the House – home of the most establishment of the GOPe – and you get Jeb Bush.
He wouldn’t be eligible. It has to be one of the top three electoral vote getters. In this scenario, that would be Clinton, Trump or Johnson. Johnson would be the only one with any actual experience running and winning as a Republican.
Most of the people who would be angered aren’t real Republicans.
Without these ‘unreal’ republicans (that must be a quiz somewhere on the internet that I missed) republicans will never win a major position ever again. Doing everything right starting today it will still take generations for people to understand the dangers our founders tried to protect us from with no guarantee of success. At a certain point violent revolution is the only way to turn things around and I wouldn’t want to have to live through that (which again comes with no guarantees.)
We survived Obama, but at a great cost. We might even survive Hillary, but at an even greater cost. Trump is not in that category (except to the delusional.) Like Bush, he will get somethings wrong and somethings right. Do you imagine Hillary would choose Spence or Bolton? Do you think ‘true’ republicans will let Trump pick a really bad supreme court choice?
Playing what if games to avoid Trump could very easily end up with much worse.
If I understood you correctly, you must realize the extreme unlikelihood of what you propose. Trump is absolutely certain to win more states than Johnson. Johnson is absolutely certain to finish no better than third. There is no way that Johnson is going to win more states than either Trump or Clinton. For the House to have to decide, he’d have to win enough states that neither Trump nor Clinton hold a clear majority in the electoral college, and then they’d have to give the Presidency to the third-place finisher.
I just can’t see any way that could happen. No matter which way any one person votes, only one of two people is going to be President in January. It’s either going to be Trump or Clinton. The dead vote Democrat, so the only way Trump wins is if he can beat the margin of cheating.
“If [Johnson]’s included in the debates, he could take a state or three, which might throw the election into the House.
A similar argument was made about the convention. How’d that go? Even those that don’t like Trump are hesitant to flat out deny the voters.”
Except, Ken, this set of events would be wholly within the bounds of the already ratified Constitution. It’s not, say, changing the rules if the possible outcome is not to your liking. A totally different deal.
The rule exists to cover an ambiguity. This doesn’t make it a good option.
Support for Trump and Clinton put together far outnumbers support for Johnson. Saying “the rules say it’s ok!” is not going to cut it. The country is close to civil war as it is. Do you really think disenfranchising 80%+ of voters is wise?