January 26, 2016

Donald Trump hits "a new high," nationally — 41%.

That's more than twice as much as his nearest competitor Ted Cruz, who gets 19%, in CNN's new poll. What's most impressive is how stable the numbers are. In CNN's last poll, in late December, Trump had 39% and Cruz 18%. A more negative stability is seen in Rubio's numbers. He had 10% then but only 8% now.

Trump leads "among both men and women, younger and older voters, white evangelicals, conservatives and both self-identified Republicans and independents who lean toward the party." He even leads among college graduates — with 26% (20% for Cruz) — and  tea partiers — with 37% (34% for Cruz). And Trump's supporters are, by far, least likely to change their minds: "70% of Trump's supporters say they are locked in compared with 40% who back other candidates."

Isn't it obvious that Trump will get the nomination? Nothing works on him. You especially can't hope that maybe he'll say something horrible. He's shown time and again that he can say things media people think are fatal gaffes and nothing happens. Nothing bad for him, that is. Many people love the supposedly horrible things.
Trump's case for the presidency rests at least in part on his standing as a political outsider. The poll finds that a broad swath of GOP voters (55%) say they feel completely unrepresented by the government in Washington, and among those voters, Trump holds a 47% to 19% lead over Cruz.
ADDED: The very next thing I looked at —  the front page of the NYT — had: "As Trump and Cruz Soar, G.O.P. Leaders’ Vexation Grows." I laughed out loud. "Vexation" is a funny word. I'm vexed — vexed! — I tell you! Seems like something a movie villain would say. I picture George Will. Look at him here, squirming — squirmishing — as he claims the "New York values" attack is hurting Trump:



The NYT article, if you click in from the front page, is: "As Donald Trump and Ted Cruz Soar, G.O.P. Leaders’ Exasperation Grows." I have no idea why "vexation" seemed like the right word for the front page and delighters in vexation like me got bait-and-switched into mere "exasperation." First paragraph:
Republican leaders are growing alarmed by the ferocious ways the party’s mainstream candidates for president are attacking one another, and they fear that time is running out for any of them to emerge as a credible alternative to Donald J. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Leaders of the Republican establishment, made up of elected officials, lobbyists and donors, are also sending a message to the mainstream candidates, such as former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, that they should withdraw from the race if they do not show strength soon.
Soon?! It was apparent last October that Bush should withdraw and back Rubio. I wrote on October 29th:
And now, it's really too late for Jeb Bush.

On October 22, I said "It's time for Jeb Bush to withdraw and endorse Marco Rubio"... and now, after last night, it's too late even for that.... And so ends the sad tale of Jeb Bush, the man with cooler things to do than to help the man with the best hope of returning the Presidency to his party.
It's 3 months after I wrote that, and the Republican establishment is "growing alarmed" that it might be getting too late for a mainstreamer to emerge?! They're still waiting to see if Jeb might show some strength? His weakness has been one of Donald Trump's main jokes since last summer. What fool would hold out hope for something different to happen "soon"? But why not pretend there's hope? Why be realistic when there's nothing to be done?

AND: Just about the next thing I look at is David Brooks proving my point. Last lines of his new column "Stay Sane America, Please!":
In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands. They’ve elected the person who would be a stable presence and companion for the next four years. I believe they’re going to do that again. And if they’re not, please allow me a few more months of denial. 
Sleep well.

205 comments:

1 – 200 of 205   Newer›   Newest»
John Borell said...

Sigh.

David Begley said...

Not at all obvious that Trump will get the nomination as the majority of Republicans aren't for him.

Trump will not win the general if nominated. It will be a landslide; 40-48 states.

There is so much dirt on Trump that Althouse could do a post a month on Trump and still have stuff leftover. Just this week he called Michele Malkin a dummy. Dummy!

The Dems will make 30 short videos and use Big Data to micro-target the right audience. Asian woman? Young mother? You will see the video featuring Trump calling Malkin a dummy.

Voters need to wise up. And the MSM needs to vet Trump. That job ain't exclusively to left to bloggers like Althouse.

tds said...

Washington insiders have long been perceived as merciless predators. Only until a real shark decided to step into the pond and turned them into clueless prey. (satisfied-but-slightly-maniacal-laughter)hahahahahahahahhah(/)

AllenS said...

People who support Trump don't care about his "dirt". Trump is not a politician. Trump appears to be speaking from the heart. He is not politically correct, and people love it.

Mark said...

Come reap the harvest that talk radio has sown, Republicans.

When you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Or in this case, Trump.

samanthasmom said...

If Trump and Cruz join forces it's all over for the rest of the pack. Malkin can handle being called a "dummy". She's been called a lot worse and survived. She's not going to support either Clinton or Sanders. Once the dust settles on the issue of Cruz's eligibility and the argument he's not becomes old news, Trump will offer him the VP slot. Cruz will take it because he has a lot of years left to run for POTUS again. Trump only needs half of Cruz's supporters to get more than 50% of the Republican delegates. Vetting Trump won't change things. His supporters just don't care. If he runs against Clinton, she won't have more mud to sling than he has. If he runs against Sanders, it won't even be a contest. Forty percent of the American people have said they unequivocally won't vote for a socialist, and they're not all Republicans. That's a huge hurdle to overcome with your opponent attaching socialist to your name everywhere.

Annie said...

I wouldn't call a bomb throwing crony capitalist who praises establishment McConnell for all the pork he can bring in while bashing Cruz for calling that establishment out, as an 'outsider'. 'Plays to people's fantasies', indeed.

Ann Althouse said...

"There is so much dirt on Trump that Althouse could do a post a month on Trump and still have stuff leftover. Just this week he called Michele Malkin a dummy. Dummy! The Dems will make 30 short videos and use Big Data to micro-target the right audience. Asian woman? Young mother? You will see the video featuring Trump calling Malkin a dummy."

You have a weird definition of dirt... and a weird idea of how much America cares about Michelle Malkin. I care enough, unlike you, to spell her name right, but really, you're very strange to think that of all the people Trump has labeled smart or dumb or nice or nasty, voters are going to get steamed that he dissed Malkin.

Ann Althouse said...

What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything. People are good or bad depending on whether they've been good or bad to him. Journalists are great or terrible writers depending on whether they've given him good press. He's scarily childlike when he says he likes or dislikes people who like or dislike him. I don't know how he really thinks, but that's what he says, perhaps to appeal to voters who understand the simple you-like-me-I-like-you way of life. To me, it seems dumb, but I'm not trying to be popular and I'm not seeking power.

Ann Althouse said...

And let me be clear: By saying Trump sometimes talks like a dumb guy, I don't mean to suggest that I think he IS dumb. He is very smart. He probably thinks the average voter is average, which is to say, kind of dumb. He's speaking to everyone.

Bay Area Guy said...

Althouse 1, David Begley 0

I think NR (and others) have made a huge mistake by opposing Trump, yet failing to consolidate around 1 concrete candidate. Anyone can see that Trump has a loyal chunk of supporters, while the remaining 60-70% GOP primary vote is splintered among 9 candidates.

Yes, I think Rubio would have the best shot in the General against Hillary or God forbid, Bernie. But Rubio hasn't gained much traction, won't win Iowa or New Hampshire, so that doesn't look like it'll happen.

Myself, I have no problem voting for Trump in the General. I reckon GOP voters, including National Review conservatives, are gonna have to learn to love Trump. Start now, I would say.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

For how long have we heard Republicans lament "We need a moderate candidate who can appeal to Democrat voters." ? Now that they've got one, they freak out, because he's not part of their wishy-washy little elitist club. AND, Trump's support is about 20% amongst Democrats, he splits independents, and garners 30-plus percent of blacks and hispanics.

Trump is clearly a centrist-pragmatist. We could do much worse, and most recently *have* done worse. He's not my preferred primary choice at this point, in part because at age 69 he takes the "tired old white Democrats" factor out of play, but he has quite clearly tapped into a legitimate and large vein of American fury quite justifiably directed at the elitist political class of both parties.

Trump's attraction is that he is not a simpering moderate. And since the VP's role in a campaign is to be the "attack dog", my preferred candidate, Cruz, would be ideal, and will have another shot at 1600.

machine said...

actually, he thinks the folks at his rally are dumb. That's why he can say anything without fear of crossing a line.

now if he would only pick the quitta from wasilla to close the loop...

Mike Sylwester said...

The website Hillary Is 44 has a very good suggestion for Trump.

Trump should use Megyn Kelly is an excuse to refuse to participate in the next Republican debate.

Instead, Trump should debate Sanders on another television channel at the same time as the Republican debate.

Such a competing debate between Trump and Sanders would attract an enormous number of viewers — dwarfing the Republican debate.

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2016/01/25/boycott-fox-news-debate-realdonaldtrump-debate-berniesanders-on-thursday-instead/

exhelodrvr1 said...

"He's shown time and again that he can say things media people think are fatal gaffes and nothing happens."

The media threw away what little credibility they had when they sold the country and world a bill of goods on Obama.

tim maguire said...

In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands.

Really? In what year was this column written?

Bob Ellison said...

"Vex" really is a fun word. Here's a purported map of its usage over time. Fascinating feature from Google!

I'll probably spend the next hour looking up maps for words like "risible" and "gaiety".

Bob Ellison said...

*Uh, for "map" in my post above, please read "graph". Total brain fart this morning.

rehajm said...

In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands. They’ve elected the person who would be a stable presence and companion for the next four years

Hopefully this offensive statement is David Brooks' fatal gaffe.

Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

And there the "lawprof" goes again, implying the Rubio is an eligible natural born Citizen (and not saying anything about Cruz' ineligibility (is she really a "Con lawprof").

You can prove that neither is eligible by logic, without defining nbC

1) natural born Citizens have always been citizens at the time they were born.

2) A2S1C5 has never been amended

3) Ted Cruz would not have been a citizen if born in the same situation prior to 1934. He would have been an ALIEN at the time he was born.

4) Marco Rubio would have been considered a legal resident alien at the time he was born if born in 1802 under the same conditions. He would have been naturalized by the naturalization of his parents at age 4 (SEE NA 1802 S. 4; See also, Afroyim v. Rusk, that Wong Kim Ark was "conferred citizenship by the 14th Amendment", i.e NATURALIZED)

5) Rubio and Cruz are only considered "citizens at birth" now because of Congressional naturalization statutes ("any means whatsoever"--- NATURALIZATION as defined by INS 1952 (23)-- "the conferring of nationality after birth by any means whatsoever.")

6) Rubio and Cruz are NATURALIZED, not natural born, and not eligible.

7) Even simpler logic. If the purpose of the nbC requirement is "prevention of foreign influence", then it is impossible that one born of alien, non citizen parents, or in a foreign country is eligible.


Logic kills the lie.

jr565 said...

He never answers a question. He always deflects and brings up tangential issues. Today on the morning shoes he was asked about Ted Cruz's suggestion that he was weak on abortion. He said he was pro life. then rather than address when he became pro life he diverted to "Ted Cruz may not even be eligible." Stephanopolous then followed up with a question about when he became pro life. And again, Ted Cruz isn't eligible. All these people are saying so.

David Begley said...

I get it that Trump's people are passionate to the point of being rabid. But his candidacy is WAY MORE than calling people dummies. He is no conservative. He has no respect for the Constiution. He would rule like a King. He has flipped 180 on many issues. I have seen reports of ties to the Mafia. The guy is mentally unstable.

And if he is so smart then why did he call Michelle Malkin a dummy? He's the idiot.

Watch Kelly take him down on Thursday. At some point he will go off on her again. Absurd.

If voters don't care, fine. But we ought to avoid a disaster if we can. The WWE candidate in MN didn't work out so well and the USA can't take a chance on a WWE POTUS.

Terry said...

The Trump supporters remind me very much of the Ventura supporters in Minnesota in 1998. They, too, believed that game was rigged and that neither of two mainstream candidates (Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman) represented them.
Ventura was a loud mouthed, angry person, and all of the angry, disaffected Minnesota voters projected their dissatisfaction onto him. They thought he was like them, and angry for the same reasons they were angry. The truth was Ventura was angry because he was a very self centered person. He didn't identify with anyone else. He was the type of guy who paid no attention to eminent domain issues until it cost him something, and then he seethed and fought back, and as soon as the issue was settled he never gave a thought to eminent domain again.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By saying Trump sometimes talks like a dumb guy, I don't mean to suggest that I think he IS dumb. He is very smart.

Yeah, whenever I see any commentary about Trump that states that he is dumb I know that I can disregard that person's analysis. You don't get to be a billionaire Manhattan real estate developer by being dumb. Love him or hate him, Trump is anything but dumb.

And the ranting about Trump's dirt and losing 40 states to 10 sounds a bit like panic.

David Begley said...

Mick:

Read Clement's article on the definition of a natural born citizen at the Harvard Law Review and then get back to us. Not a close question. Cruz is eligible.

David Begley said...

Ron:

No panic. Just look at the polls. Trump loses badly to Hillary and Hillary is a horrible candidate and probably should be indicted.

AllenS said...

David Begley said...
I get it that Trump's people are passionate to the point of being rabid. But his candidacy is WAY MORE than calling people dummies. He is no conservative. He has no respect for the Constiution. He would rule like a King. He has flipped 180 on many issues.

We never know what we'll get when we elect a President. Two examples: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" -and- "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Does Obama appear to you that he respects the Constitution? I would like to see Trump elected as President for the simple reason that he isn't a politician. Screw the Dems and Reps. Also, I'm not rabid.

David Begley said...

AllenS

You make my point. Trump is more like Obama than the other GOP candidates. We can't have another Obama.

Anyone who reads Althouse is a smart person. I just urge you to think this through more carefully. I have many friends who are Trump supporters and for the same reason you cite. Frankly, I've been tempted by him too.

traditionalguy said...

Vexes are almost as powerful as spells and jinxes. The NYT is becoming more irrelevant everyday.

Trump's secret ingredient is that fair minded people know that he means them well. And he demands competence, or he will fire the Executive Branch's pigs at the trough who mean us ill and laugh.

Phil 3:14 said...

Character matters.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything. People are good or bad depending on whether they've been good or bad to him."

-- That's one of the many things I don't like about Trump. But, like a lot of the things I don't like about him, I can't argue with it being effective. Obama openly stated he planned to reward his friends and punish his enemies, and it didn't even hurt him. So, knowing that the public will elect someone who openly states a partisan goal like that, every other politician is going to give it a try to.

AReasonableMan said...

An argument can be made that Trump is the most electable of the Republican nominees and the primary voters are simply giving their party its best shot at winning. Because the demographics of general election voters favor the Dems, simply throwing up another uninspired candidate, like Rubio, is unlikely to work, it could, but it is unlikely. The Donald carries considerable downside risk, but a reasonable fraction of all the possible outcomes result in Trump winning. I would guess that fraction is considerably higher than it is for Bush/Rubio. The voters are not simply throwing the election in a fit of pique, as would be the case if they selected Cruz. They want to win.

tim in vermont said...

I have a liberal friend in SC who votes in the R primary regularly to cause trouble, and so gets mailings from the Rs. She said that Jeb is all in to destroy Rubio.

wildswan said...

To my mind "vexed" is the word you use for an error by servants or children. Something happens that is more than annoying but you don't get angry because really you can't expect better from that type of person. Our leaders finding us vexing goes with that amazing statistic that 55%, a majority of Republicans, do not feel represented in Washington at all. It's more than a feeling - it seems that a majority of our rulers don't find the people representative of anything worth fighting for. Balanced budgets, rule of law, free speech, keep your promises ... so vexing.

Ron Winkleheimer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CStanley said...

What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything. People are good or bad depending on whether they've been good or bad to him. Journalists are great or terrible writers depending on whether they've given him good press. He's scarily childlike when he says he likes or dislikes people who like or dislike him. I don't know how he really thinks, but that's what he says, perhaps to appeal to voters who understand the simple you-like-me-I-like-you way of life. To me, it seems dumb, but I'm not trying to be popular and I'm not seeking power.

Yes, this.

It's the strong horse mentality, and I suspect Trump has lived his life this way and it has worked for him. It's apparently an effective leadership style- but people who are drawn to this type of leader really should examine their response. To what end do you wish to follow this man? Even if it is for the sake of winning the election (an assumption which is not a lock at this point anyway), how much have you considered what comes next? When things haven't gone Trump's way, how does he react? If Congress doesn't aqueiesce to his immigration plans, what will he do, and is it the kind of action, the kind of use of executive authority, that you want to grant to future presidents? If Obama's executive orders are objectionable, how can it not be problematic for future presidents?

And that's to say nothing about how he would deal with foreign leaders. What exactly do you expect to happen if Mexico does not agree to fund the construction of a wall?

Looking back on Trump's past, it seems that when he doesn't get what he wants throug pure bluster, he either uses the courts to get his way (an option that will not be available to him) or in some cases he denies the reality that he has lost and saves face by moving on...Los I suspect he will bluster his way through all of these policy fights and whenever he doesn't win he will drop the issue and find a new issue to demagogue, to keep his support up.

I'm trying not to despair in case he wins, but these are my predictions and I'm quite concerned about these outcomes. I hope that Trump supporters will give it more thought, because even if you believe that Trump has your interests at heart it doesn't mean he will be able to further those interests.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

No panic. Just look at the polls. Trump loses badly to Hillary and Hillary is a horrible candidate and probably should be indicted.

OK

Real Clear Politics - Clinton +2.7

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Huffington Post - Clinton 48.1 Trump 43.9

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Rasmussen - dead heat

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_still_a_dead_heat

So Huffington post states that Hillary leads by 4.2, the other two are ties. Also, the presumption is that Hillary will be the nominee. That is not still a given. Bernie Freakin Sanders is still a very big factor. Finally, there is a little thing called the electoral college. National polls are fine, but the important part is how the candidates do in individual states.

I'm not saying that I'm certain that Trump will win, I'm just saying that the people saying that Trump would lose in a landslide are the same people who have been insisting that Trump was always a gaffe away from collapsing in the primaries.

Personally, I have remarked to my wife that we must have slipped into an alternate dimension in the last few months because we now life in a world where Donald Trump could be the GOP nominee for POTUS,

We live in interesting times.

David Begley said...

Ron

Earlier polls showed Trump losing badly to Hillary. When the Dems roll out the oppo research - with a major assist from the MSM - Trump's numbers will revert to the mean and it will be a loss for the GOP.

AllenS said...

Mr. Begley, Dems will roll out the oppo research - and they will receive a major assist from the MSM no matter who the Reps put up.

Mick said...

David Begley said...
"Mick:

Read Clement's article on the definition of a natural born citizen at the Harvard Law Review and then get back to us. Not a close question. Cruz is eligible".


You mean Clement and Katyal (Obama's Solicitor Gen.), who is attempting to clean Obama's Usurpation?

They rely on a now defunct STATUTE (statutes cannot amend the const.), that said that the children of US Citizen parents "SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS" natural born Citizens. It does not say that those children ARE nbC. It was a statutory provision for the benefit of early American diplomats that their children born abroad shall be considered as (for constitutional purposes) natural born citizens so that they could be POTUS, and it ended with the NA 1795. Do you think the definition changed in 1795? Can naturalization statutes amend the constitution?.

Even if the NA 1790 provision was active today, (it's not, so why does it matter?) just how does "Citizen parents" become "citizen parent"? Katyal tries to explain that away by claiming that it was a benefit for US citizen mothers. The problem with that line of BS is that there was no such thing as a married US citizen mother with separate citizenship from the father--- women at that time took the citizenship of their husband. Do you think they wrote a naturalization act for the benefit of bastards?

And the thing about John Jay would not want his children to be considered not eligible is nonsense (how could he possibly know that), since his children, if born abroad between 1790 and 1795 abroad, WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE (he had one child between those years-- a daughter, born in NY). Also his 2 children born abroad were daughters (one in Spain, one in France) born prior to the Act, and who though then that women could be POTUS?

So yeah I read it and it is total BS, and designed as a crutch for the mentally weak and or dishonest to lean on.

If NA 1790 matters then why were US citizen mothers not able to pass their citizenship until 1934? Again Logic kills the lie. Not a close question? please. I guess you cant't respond to logic, and can only cite an OPINION. The HLR is not law, it is an OPINION, and a wrong one -- purposefully.

How is it possible that Cruz would be considered an alien in 1933, yet a natural born Citizen today? Answer the question

How is it possible that Rubio would not be a US citizen until age 4, if born in 1802, yet is a nbC today-- Answer the question.

You can't answer either question, because to do so exposes the lie, and you are too invested in the lie, and so is Congress. They all committed treason allowing the Usurper into the office, and now the Usurper's Soliticitor Gen. is providing them, and the compliant media, cover.

So answer those questions, or we know that you are a liar too.

Alexander said...

Beltway always gets their candidate, goes out of their way to shit on the edges of the party, and then screams about need for unity in MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION ever, and anyone BETTER THAN DEMOCRAT.

Then moan like balls because some libertarian in Appalachia didn't go and vote for Romney or McCain, and that's why Obama won North Carolina.

But suddenly, it's no longer COMPROMISE and MOST IMPORTANT and ANYONE BETTER THAN HILARY... and instead of staying homeand shutting, they're happy to go on national TV and push for the very Democrat dynasty they've been supposedly 'fighting very hard' against for over two decades...

It doesn't affect my vote though - I already despised the republican leadership. They're still slow on the uptake, but 'Trump isn't one of us', coming from one of them, is the best possible endorsement they could give. Special thanks to National Review as well.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Earlier polls showed Trump losing badly to Hillary. When the Dems roll out the oppo research - with a major assist from the MSM - Trump's numbers will revert to the mean and it will be a loss for the GOP.

And Trump will be rolling out oppo research on Hillary.

Because Trump polled poorly previously does not mean he will poll poorly in the future. In fact, the fact that his polling has improved can be seen as a trend that very well may continue.

Once again, not a Trump guy. Still undecided.

Tank said...

Begley, Trump has lived his whole life out in the open in public. Tell us what you got?

Mick said...

Trump will win by a landslide. All the polls that say HRC would win are complete nonsense. The people are waking up to these political creatures who never had a real job in their life, and to the compliant media who prop them up.

He is the only one to vote for. The only one who loves America. HRC is a criminal who wants to usher in the NWO. Sanders is a Communist. Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. Bush is NWO.

Not that Trump is great or anything (or maybe he will be). That is what it has come to when a criminal like HRC can even be considered.

David Begley said...

Tank

Not enough room on this blog. Do your own due diligence. Start with Google and Wikipedia.

Graham Powell said...

Something vexes thee?

Tags: vexation, Alan Rickman

Steven said...

Isn't it obvious that Trump will get the nomination?

It is now. As Nate Silver pointed out, the Establishment GOP could have rallied in a "Stop Trump" effort, but instead they launched a "Stop Cruz" effort. Which tells you who they really fear.

The Eastern Establishment, denied Jeb, has picked its backup candidate, and surprise, surprise, it's another non-conservative scion of a wealthy East Coast father. Wow, who could have predicted that?

Michael K said...

"the person who would be a stable presence and companion for the next four years."

And Obama won that election. I knew he was a fake candidate in February 2008. the record was there is anyone cared.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city’s most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

“He said, ‘Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'”

“Oh, you are? Who might that be?”

“Barack Obama.”

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.


That's how got started. Hillary provided the opening and the leftist guilt and wish fulfillment hopes of the white elites did the rest.

Obama created Trump.

I respect Dave Begley for his observations at Powerline but Trump is a new phenomenon and Obama created the opening.

I do worry about a "Mussolini complex" in him but the Washington political class has created this hatred everyone has for them.

We have had a House majority since 2011 and we still have a "Continuing Resolution" and a threat of a government shutdown if Obama vetoes it. Why ?

Terry said...

If Trump were to get elected, and he did declare war on the federal bureaucracies, they would declare war on him. He wouldn't be able to fire the White House gardener without it going to the supreme court.

chickelit said...

AllenS said...Mr. Begley, Dems will roll out the oppo research - and they will receive a major assist from the MSM no matter who the Reps put up.

It's almost like people don't remember 2012. Who will be the next Candy Crawley?

David Begley said...

Michael K

You describe Trump's core strength: People now really, really hate the government.

But it is a long campaign. Stuff happens. Not a single primary vote has been cast. I'm a casual Cornhusker football fan and they lost many games this year on last minute flukes. Same thing in politics.

bgates said...

What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything.

More precisely, what concerns you is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything but he isn't black.

the party’s mainstream candidates for president are attacking one another, and they fear that time is running out for any of them to emerge as a credible alternative to Donald J. Trump or Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

I'd like to be surprised at the use of "mainstream" to mean "in opposition to the two most popular".

AllenS said...

It's not only the year 2012, chick, it's always been that way since I can remember.

Ann Althouse said...

"Today on the morning shoes he was asked about Ted Cruz's suggestion that he was weak on abortion. He said he was pro life. then rather than address when he became pro life he diverted to "Ted Cruz may not even be eligible." "

Let me put on my morning shoes and say you made me think about fetal Ted Cruz. That's an image that had never passed through my brain before. Now, get it out. It's creepy! An oh, so, Canadian.

bgates said...

In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands.

I'm going to assume David Brooks thinks Barack Obama irons his own pant creases.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Well that's odd. Neither Ann nor any commenters seems to have mentioned Dr Ben Carson, apparently the ultimate example of Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man".

Here he is, a week before the first election/caucus, almost no press at all except to say how his campaign is falling apart, has been suspended etc. Yet he is still either #4 or tied with Rubio for #3 depending on how you read the poll Ann linked to. I have probably missed some but pretty much every poll I have seen for the past 3-4 months has shown him either #3 or 4. For a couple months, a very strong #2.

Ahead of Christie

Ahead of Bush

Ahead of Kasich

Ahead of Paul

Ahead of... well, all of the other folks on the main stage or the kid's table. (Except Trump, Cruz and sometimes Rubio)

And yet all we hear is crickets.

Doesn't matter what you think of him personally. Doesn't matter what you think of his politics. Doesn't matter what you think of his electability.

Doesn't he deserve better than this? Would this be happening if he were white? I hate to play the race card but look how much coverage he gets and what kind. Then look at the 10(?) other candidates running behind him and how much they get.

Why?

John Henry

Michael Fitzgerald said...

"Isn't it obvious that Trump will get the nomination?". No. But if this process is making democrat party pukes like David Corn lose sleep and feel uncomfortable, then good! That goes double for republicans.

Charles Remes said...

Begley wrote:
Not enough room on this blog. Do your own due diligence. Start with Google and Wikipedia.

Wait, you mean to tell me that the key to Trump's downfall can be found on Google and Wikipedia? Why hasn't the RNC figured this out yet? OMG, Trump's demise is imminent!

Your statement is ridiculous on its face. If this "oppo research" was really so devastating, the Republicans would be using it RIGHT NOW. Hillary and the DNC would be using it RIGHT NOW. The MSM would be using it RIGHT NOW.

(I have been lurking here for a decade and rarely comment, so it takes some really stupid statements to get me to de-cloak.)

AllenS said...

You want Dems oppo research - and a major assist from the MSM? Try nominating Cruz. You'll see this issue of him being ineligible talked about day and night until election day.

Bob Ellison said...

Trump's deeds and words are both disasters.

He failed in Atlantic City. Only his daddy could make it OK by buying $5k poker chips with an illegal loan.

His words are mostly about how highly he rates himself and judges himself on the basis of how others judge him (polls). Trump is actually advertising just how little he cares about principles and how much he cares about popularity.

Trump has succeeded in selling himself, with his idiotic reality shows and his idiotic POTUS campaign. He's good at that. This is what we want in a President?

What, are we in high school?

Michael K said...

"Not a single primary vote has been cast."

Absolutely and I do wonder of there is a pony in there somewhere.

As to Carson, I think the fact that he is where he is with NO media support is partly racial. We still have a large part of the white population who are ready to support a black candidate who seems able and of good will. Obama fooled them in 2008 but Carson has support because of, not in spite of his race. I don't mean that to demean him. I like him a lot and, because of my background, realize what his career means in terms of ability.

If Trump does eventually blow himself up, Carson, not Cruz, might be the guy to pick up the pieces. He looks and seems honest. That means a lot these days.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Bart Hall

Trump's attraction is that he is not a simpering moderate. And since the VP's role in a campaign is to be the "attack dog", my preferred candidate, Cruz, would be ideal, and will have another shot at 1600.

You seem to think that being VP is a qualification, rather than a disqualification for the presidency.

Could you explain why?

Historically, go back 200 years if you like, how have VPs done in either running for prez or, in the cases where they have gotten it (Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Truman, TR etc)how wonderfully they were perceived to have done their jobs.

Note that I left Coolidge off the list. He seems to have been the exception.

I've been hearing since the 1960 election how the VP is the logical choice to be prez. Based on history and experience, I just don't see it myself.

Can you or someone else enlighten me?

John Henry

AllenS said...

Mr. Ellison, all candidates try to sell themselves. Every candidate that's ever run has not been totally honest. Do we still elect them? Yes, yes we do.

Ian F. Shield said...

"In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands."

Not in the last election. Brooks is insane.

David Begley said...

Charles:

No idea why GOP candidates have not gone negative on Trump. There is a single ad about him and emienent domain. Trump responded but not effectively on the Kelo merits. There needs to be follow up. Watch Thursday.

The Dems are waiting until Trump gets the nomination. That's how the game is played.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...


Blogger Michael K said...


If Trump does eventually blow himself up, Carson, not Cruz, might be the guy to pick up the pieces. He looks and seems honest. That means a lot these days.

(Emph added)

Amen, Amen and Amen.

John Henry

Bob Ellison said...

Don't forget the Trump Shuttle, either.

Fantastic business decision! Everyone knows airlines are a terrific business!

"Almost from its inception, the company encountered financial problems...Trump Shuttle never turned a profit."

tim in vermont said...

I am sitting this one out.

David Begley said...

Eminent domain.

Bob Ellison said...

Yes, AllenS, all candidates must sell themselves. Probably all of them are what we in the normal world would consider rather narcissistic.

But that seems to be Trump's only quality, aside from having been born to a fantastically wealthy father.

Why not just elect Prince Charles? Oh, I guess he's not eligible.

Shouting Thomas said...

But it is a long campaign. Stuff happens.

Yes, it does. Let me predict what will happen.

Muslim sexual attacks on women will become routine throughout Western Europe. Vigilante reprisals will become common.

This news will be impossible to repress.

Obama and the Dems will continue to push mass Muslim immigration into the U.S.

Trump will win the presidency.

Michael K said...

The WSJ has an interesting article about the election today.

A few items:

Democrats are hoping to engineer an extended government shutdown before this fall’s election. Extensive polling by both sides suggests that a government shutdown would hand Democrats decisive leverage to retain the presidency and retake control of the Senate. Eight years of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, with Supreme Court vacancies on the horizon, would turn what’s left of the constitutional order into kindling.

The filibuster rules must be altered and their abuse raised to such a high public profile that it becomes politically untenable. Otherwise it will remain impossible to enact policies necessary to save this country.


This might be the reason for the Continuing Resolution but why have the GOP rolled over for it ?

The stealth filibuster should be a big issue. Why isn't it ?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the power to force a negotiated and bipartisan adjustment to the filibuster by using the leverage of the “nuclear option”—the ability of a simple majority of senators to change procedural rules. Less than three years ago, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the nuclear option to break the filibuster on judicial confirmations.

The election may turn on this issue.

buwaya puti said...

Brooks has often been pathetic, but these days he is reaching new heights.
Someone needs to have a long quiet talk with that boy.

Sebastian said...

@Brooks: "In every recent presidential election American voters have selected the candidate with the most secure pair of hands. They’ve elected the person who would be a stable presence and companion for the next four years. I believe they’re going to do that again" O = "most secure," "stable." More secure and stable than Mitt! The sum and substance of Brooks's wit and wisdom.

@AA: "What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything" As opposed to O, Hillary!, and Sanders? As opposed to Bill and his feminists-on-kneepads? Yeah, I get that you'd like some substance, and that you want to know loyalty for what; so do I. Still, a "loyalty-based approach" seems pretty important to any American politician.

Fabi said...

Trump haters
Trum h8ers
Tr h8ers
Tr8ers

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Fantastic business decision! Everyone knows airlines are a terrific business!


Yet some people are able to make a profit on them. A guy named Branson comes to mind.

Nobody is going to decide not to vote for Trump because some of his business ventures failed. Lots of people in the middle classes know entrepreneurs who, for whatever reason, had ventures go bust. Of course those are small businesses, not on the scale of Trump's, but sometimes businesses fail. Nobody has ever started a small business with the certainty that it could not lose money unless they were cronies of somebody in government.

AllenS said...

Michael K, the people who run the Repub Senate and Congress would rather see someone like Hillary as POTUS than Trump. The robbery of the Treasury will continue under Hillary. They are deathly afraid of Trump.

chickelit said...

Shouting Thomas said...Let me predict what will happen.

Muslim sexual attacks on women will become routine throughout Western Europe. Vigilante reprisals will become common.


Except for the vigilante part, it's already here. Just follow Yahoo.de. Attacks and confrontations in Germany occur with increasing frequency. They're not making the news here, yet.

Michael K said...

"the people who run the Repub Senate and Congress would rather see someone like Hillary as POTUS"

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. I honestly don't know.

I just wish Tom Coburn would explain it to me. He is the only trustworthy guy who has been there a while.

Anglelyne said...

You especially can't hope that maybe he'll say something horrible. He's shown time and again that he can say things media people think are fatal gaffes and nothing happens. Nothing bad for him, that is. Many people love the supposedly horrible things.

There's nothing unusual about a pol saying outrageous things and facing no consequences for it. Dems do it all the time. What's unusual is that someone running as a Republican is saying outrageous things and getting away with it.

This suggests either that the media has gone easy on Trump all along because he's not a Real Conservative(tm) (he isn't, but they haven't), or that Republicans have been the party of spineless appeasers, always on defense, clueless about dealing with attacks.

Big Mike said...

What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything. People are good or bad depending on whether they've been good or bad to him. Journalists are great or terrible writers depending on whether they've given him good press. He's scarily childlike when he says he likes or dislikes people who like or dislike him.

@Althouse, you noticed that too? Thank you. And I would like to draw a parallel to a certain former Secretary of State named Clinton who is, if anything, even worse in that regard.

And I might add that based on what I've read about Trump, one's status of "good or bad to him" can change in a heartbeat for any reason at all, which is not good. The best executives (and hopefully we can all remember that the President of the United States is our Chief Executive) can use people for what they can do, not for how loyal they appear to be. The latter promotes a coterie of yes-men and yes-women hanging around the Oval Office.

@David Begley, much of Trump's support is coming from blue collar, white-skinned Democrats, the kind who used to reflexively vote Democrat because the Democrats used to stand for "the little guy." Many of them are smart enough to realize that Obama's stimulus did nothing for "the little guy" but a lot for Wall Street. Obama celebrating a high stock market while people are out of work is not a plus for his party, and they feel disenfranchised by their own party. They wouldn't normally vote Republican, but Trump has positioned himself as the outsider, above party labels. So if Trump is the nominee, I expect your prediction of a 40 to 48 state sweep to come true, but not the way you laid it out.

Big Mike said...

@chicklit, the vigilante attacks are already happening. It just hasn't made the news.

Michael K said...

A pretty interesting graphic from the WSJ showing who the Trump supporters are.

Very interesting.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Carson? Oh brother, people are still stumping for Clueless Carson? I'd be surprised if he can still find a patient desperate enough to allow Carson to operate on them after how uninformed he has looked during this entire process. The only two reasons that Carson hasn't been ridiculed from the race is 1) he's black 2) media treats his astounding ignorance about government and politics with kid gloves, because he is black. That goes double for his republican party supporters. Democrats aren't the only ones who want to feel virtuous for backing the minority.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Republicans have been the party of spineless appeasers, always on defense, clueless about dealing with attacks.

I'm going with that option.

Steven said...

@AllenS

If they were "deathly afraid" of Trump, they'd have rallied around Cruz, the candidate in the best position to stop him from getting nominated. But while they keep throwing cheap talk against Trump, they've actually brought out the big guns -- the money -- against Cruz. Only a sucker pays attention to the big talk rather than the big money.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mick:
If the purpose of the nbC requirement is "prevention of foreign influence", then it is impossible that one born of alien, non citizen parents, or in a foreign country is eligible.

Mick, you missed a recent big discussion about your pet issue in an earlier article.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-riveting-dismal-dark-world-of-gop.html

Since you have raised the issue again here, I want to share another thought.

A frequently made argument is that Ted Cruz's mother did not live in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian citizenship before she gave birth to him. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's something like she had to live there for five years in order to qualify and she gave birth four years after she moved to Canada.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that she indeed was NOT qualified yet when she gave birth, but that she subsequently did become a citizen a couple years later, along with her husband. It's quite plausible that both parents decided to become Canadian citizens together.

I think that such a situation would cause a lot of voters who care about this issue to come down on the side of the fence that Ted Cruz is NOT a natural-born citizen.

As Mick reminds us, the sense of the Constitutional requirement is that a US President should not have grown up under foreign influences. If both his parents became Canadian citizens, even after he was born, then a good argument can be made that the Constitutional requirement had in mind people like Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is trying to laugh this issue off, but it will fester. A lot of people will come to suspect that he is hiding that his mother became a Canadian citizen. He needs to ask the Canadian Government to state definitively that his mother never became a Canadian citizen so that he can resolve at least that factual question in the issue as soon as possible.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

This graphic from the WSJ is pretty useful for understanding the Trump phenomenon.

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-trump-happened/

My only objection is that I no longer subscribe to the believe that having a college degree makes you more educated than someone who doesn't. Maleducated is not the same thing as educated.

Tank said...

David Begley said...

Tank

Not enough room on this blog. Do your own due diligence. Start with Google and Wikipedia.


OK, you have nothing. You thought Malkin was a big deal. Really.

Give us one example. I'm not even saying there might not be things. Tell us one.

AllenS said...

Steven, you are correct and I could/should have said "Trump and Cruz".

buwaya puti said...

Re Malkin -
She's my homegirl.
I bet you the day Trump gets the nomination she will be pro Trump.

MadisonMan said...

What concerns me is that Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything.

Rather like the Clintons.

(Welcome back Mick!!)

Anyway -- I've said many times: Trump is entertaining to watch. He was in a Reality show for a reason. That watchability translates very well to a primary campaign. Watching Cruz or Bush is a tedious exercise. (Watching -- or listening to -- Clinton is even worse). The mainstream media's vexing alarm of Trump blinds them to his good points.

Writ Small said...

I saw a film in grade school about the Revolutionary War where British soldiers were portrayed walking in formation ready for an open field battle while American soldiers picked them off hiding in the trees.

The other candidates are fighting the old, polite "British" style war, while Trump is using any weapon available. He attacks Cruz from the "anti-establishment" side (Canadian birth) and from the "establishment" side (Cruz isn't liked by McConnell, McCain and Bob Dole - Cruz won't support ethanol subsidies).

I listened to Mark Levin the other day working mightily to defend Cruz and push back on Trump, but his previous attacks on Trump's critics undermined his newly discovered anti-Trump stance.

If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire by healthy margins, this race may get uninteresting in a hurry.

Anglelyne said...

chickelit: Shouting Thomas said..."Let me predict what will happen.

Muslim sexual attacks on women will become routine throughout Western Europe. Vigilante reprisals will become common."

Except for the vigilante part, it's already here. Just follow Yahoo.de. Attacks and confrontations in Germany occur with increasing frequency. They're not making the news here, yet.


It's been a growing problem for a while now, pre-dating the recent invasion, er, refugee crisis.

This very sad video from a sixteen-year-old German girl has recently been making the rounds. European women have been losing the freedom of the streets that was their birthright (thank you men of the West), and in many places are being coerced more and more into conforming to Middle Eastern norms for women in public spaces. (Linked copy has English subtitles). There's plenty more info like that out there, even in English.

Meanwhile, crazy euro-feminists have decided to double-down on the insanity and throw in their lot with the real victims, the rapists. (E.g. here. Complain about attacks on European women? Incitement to racial hatred, bucko.)

Sammy Finkelman said...

The word "vex" has only 3 letters, while "exasperation" has 12, and even "exasperate" has 10. Headline writers sometimes have to keep things short.

The New York Times, though, does not go in for shortening names or nicknames, though. It's always "Obama" never "BAM" or "O" Hillary is always "CLINTON"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Terry said...
If Trump were to get elected, and he did declare war on the federal bureaucracies, they would declare war on him. He wouldn't be able to fire the White House gardener without it going to the supreme court.


But what's more likely, Terry: that Trump and the Bureaucracy fight it out, or that the Bureaucracy kisses up to Trump, becomes his friend, and Trump becomes their best protector?
The Professor's observation that Trump's judgement/treatment of others seems wholly dependent on their treatment of him is quite correct. Bureaucratic institutions don't survive unless they can successfully co-opt leaders with varying ideological leanings, and it seems to me that in that sense Trump is eminently co-optable. Someone like Mitt Romney might have worked to streamline/improve Gov. functioning, but didn't really pose much of a threat in the way someone like Ted Cruz might. Someone like Donald Trump, on the other hand, might turn out to be the best friend (in the sense of protecting and expanding Big Goverment and its foot soldiers) the Bureaucracy could hope for.

robother said...

Hillary's gonna need a bigger string of pearls. Pearl-clutching will be her (as it is the MSM's) main argument against Trump. Irony upon irony for the baby boomer generation that hoped to never get old.

Paul said...

The rabid Trumpophobes always bring up, what are to the vast majority of voters, tangential issues like ethanol subsidies or eminent domain, or his business failings in this or that (never the successes though) but never mention immigration and America's falling status in the world. These are the big issues that have galvanized Trump's supporters. The ins and outs of policy wonkery that so enthuse and infuse the thinking of the bow tie and tassel set simply don't matter to the average person who is watching this country become unrecognizable in terms of culture and security.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The definition of a natural born citizen can change over time (the 14th amendment being only a minimum threshhold) but "natural born" itself means only someone who did not need to be naturalized. At its most restictive, it could mean someone who was a citizen at birth.

Had Ted Cruz been born in Canada of an American-born mother marrid to a non-U.S. citizen between 1907 and 1934, he would not have been a natural born citizen, but he wasn't born then, but at the end of 1970.

Between 1907 and 1922, female U.S. citizens married to non-U.S. citizens even lost their U.S. citizenship, and to get it back they had to be naturalized, but, if they were still married, could only be naturalized, if their husband was capable of beinbg naturalized.

Between 1922 and 1934 they did not pass on their citizenship on to their children.

In 1994, Congress made automatic U.S. citizenship retroactive for children born of American mothers abroad between 1907 and 1934, which at that time, was more of interest too their grandchildren. There are some requirements for number of years the mother was living in the United States for citizenship of children to be recognized and I think those years can be after birth.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
I bet you the day Trump gets the nomination she will be pro Trump.


While I agree, I am not sure that this flip-flop would reflect entirely positively on Malkin. You are essentially saying that she is a party hack, in a cheerleader uniform.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Ted Cruz was brought to the United States before the age of 4.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Carson is still polling between 5% and 10%.

David Begley said...

Tank

Trump cheats extensively at golf all the time. Golf reveals character.

Four bankrupticies. Four! In BK the unsecured creditors usually get stiffed. Do you want to get stiffed? Gold mine in those BK cases.

Wall Street analyst predicted the BK of one of his casinos. Trump sues him for his OPINION. Guy gets fired. Turns guy was right and BK was relatively quick. Guy sues Trump. Trump settles.

Adjoining landowners in Scotland are pigs. Blue collar people.

Trump says he treats women with respect. Why does he say that? To pre-empt the field on his real treatment of women. Something's there.

Reported Mob ties.

Enough?

Trump is a WWE character. Donald "The Businessmsn" Trump. Business guy but he loves you, Not like mean Mr. Potter.

Unstable and unsavory. Unhinged.

Michael K said...

"Democrats aren't the only ones who want to feel virtuous for backing the minority."

Oh, I agree but Carson is honest and very smart, both qualities in demand this year. In a normal year his weakness on policy would be a major impediment but this is not a normal year. Obama lowered the bar so much on policy in 2008 that there is no bar anymore.

Michael K said...

"Trump cheats extensively at golf all the time. Golf reveals character."

This appears to be a talking point from somewhere. So did Bill Clinton. Nobody cares.

David Begley said...

Paul

How many illegal aliens work or have worked directly for Trump or one of his subs on his building projects? Statistics tell us that it is a huge number. Why hasn't the NYT run that story? Open and obvious.

Tank said...

David Begley said...
Tank

Trump cheats extensively at golf all the time. Golf reveals character.

Four bankrupticies. Four! In BK the unsecured creditors usually get stiffed. Do you want to get stiffed? Gold mine in those BK cases.

Wall Street analyst predicted the BK of one of his casinos. Trump sues him for his OPINION. Guy gets fired. Turns guy was right and BK was relatively quick. Guy sues Trump. Trump settles.

Adjoining landowners in Scotland are pigs. Blue collar people.

Trump says he treats women with respect. Why does he say that? To pre-empt the field on his real treatment of women. Something's there.

Reported Mob ties.

Enough?

Trump is a WWE character. Donald "The Businessmsn" Trump. Business guy but he loves you, Not like mean Mr. Potter.

Unstable and unsavory. Unhinged.


Pathetic list. You do know that virtually everyone in AC went bankrupt. Try doing business in NJ in the overtaxed, overregulated environment we have here, then add in all the new opportunities for gambling. He's an entrepreneur. They try, they succeed, they fail sometimes. Again, pathetic list. Stop digging.

David Begley said...

Michael K

But Bill Clinton never bragged about what a good golfer he was. And Bill Clinon is no model POTUS. Recall impeachment?

I'm talking big picture on Trump. Put all the pieces together and Trump is not a good fit.

Throw enough pasta against the wall and something will stick.

Maybe it is dummy Malkin or the four BK's, but I don't like his chances against Hillary. Funny thing. I think he did the country a GREAT service on immigration. I agree with him on that.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Trump cheats extensively at golf all the time.

Rich People Problems.

FWIW, all the time seems redundant in that sentence.

I suspect we'll next read that Trump's Tennis Whites aren't always freshly laundered and starched. The horror!

TCom said...

It's so easy for jokers who have never started businesses to criticize successful businessmen who, like all men why TRY, will occasionally fail.

Oh, and his bankruptcies were Chapter 11, not Chapter 7. If you don't know what that means, never talk about bankruptcy again.

Trump couldn't turn a profit in Atlantic City? Oh noes!

Not even Rothschild could have turned a profit in that city at that time.

Paul said...

"
How many illegal aliens work or have worked directly for Trump or one of his subs on his building projects? Statistics tell us that it is a huge number. Why hasn't the NYT run that story? Open and obvious."

Well duh! Illegals have displaced a huge number of American workers in the construction industry and nobody is building anything without them. Building a wall and deporting illegals would remedy that. I have no doubt Trump can and will secure the borders. How effective he will be deporting and encouraging self deportation remains to be seen, but Cruz and Rubio are at the very least suspect when it comes to immigration which is issue numero uno.

Fabi said...

David Begley clearly understands unhinged. Earlier on this thread he predicted a Democrat landslide of up to 48-states should Trump be the nominee.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Reported Mob ties.

So I googled this and found out that Donald Trump may have done business with companies controlled by the Mafia while constructing buildings in New York in the 80s and 90s.

I'm going to steal a line from Glen Reynolds.

This is my shocked face.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Also, if I am buying property that I need for a development, and one of the parcels belongs to people in organized crime that could cause me problems constructing the project, or even threaten me physically, so I am forced to pay them more than the land is worth, aren't I the victim?

Theranter said...

Writ Small said I listened to Mark Levin the other day working mightily to defend Cruz and push back on Trump, but his previous attacks on Trump's critics undermined his newly discovered anti-Trump stance.

Word is that Levin's fiancé's son started working for the Cruz campaign a month ago. Might have something to do with it, might not.

Fabi said...

Trump cheats at golf. Oh, boy.

Dwight Fucking Eisenhower lobbied to have the loblolly pine in the seventeenth fairway at Augusta cut down because it was messing with his tee shot! A Five Fucking Star general and former President of the United States tried to alter Augusta National to suit his game! And you think (alleged) cheating at golf somehow impacts Trump?

Oy.

Birkel said...

I am no fan of Donald Trump. Anybody who reads these comments can attest to that fact.

But I find absolutely no merit to the bankruptcy criticism. Creditors understand the risks they take when they get promised higher rates of return. Trump is not offering "payday loans" to disadvantaged market participants. He is offering bonds that have a significant likelihood of default to well-educated, well-represented investors. All of these market participants understand that at least some of the projects Trump promoted would fail, although predicting exactly which those would be of the dozens attempted is an impossibility.

Ron Winkleheimer has stolen the "shocked face" joke and used it appropriately. Little large scale construction in NYC in the 1970s and 1980s could be undertaken without some mob influence. That was a failure of law enforcement, not of Trump.

Cheats at golf? Who gives a tinker's dam?

These attacks -- if they should even be given that much credence -- are weak tea.

AllenS said...

Has there ever been a more dishonest candidate for POTUS than Hillary Clinton? How much has that lack of honesty hurt her? Now we learn that Trump cheats at golf? Golf? Does anyone die when Trump cheats at Golf?

poker1one said...

The Trump Shuttle was only in business, if I recall correctly, for less than a year. It was sold to pay off loans as part of the Trump loan portfolio that included the Atlantic City properties. While it was flying it was the best airline evah! At the boarding gate there was a magazine cart next to a coffee cart. Both were free for passengers. All the employees were very professional. I hated to see it go. A good start in learning about this time in Trump history is his own book written after the bankruptcies, The Art of the Comeback.

Did somebody really suggest Wikipedia as a source of information?

In Farmington, N.H. last night, Trump spoke for five minutes on eminent domain, neutralizing that tidbit of oppo research ammunition. He also touched on his major points, to which the crowd, packed into the high school gym, cheered their approval: Mexico Wall, Muslim Trojan Horse, Veterans Benefits, Defense, Take the Oil, The Question of What Are We Doing In Syria, Trade Deals, , Ford Building a Plant in Mexico, Negotiate Drug Prices for Medicare, Pfizer Moving to Ireland, Abolish Obamacare and replace it with something that works, China and the half-a-trillion dollar trade deficit, Getting Americans Back to Work, Love of Country, and a new one, he's going to be Greedy for America. I'm sure I'm forgetting some but that's the basics.

I've been to so many of these Trump events (nine) I'm beginning to recognize the Secret Service agents.

There is always a crowd of TSA and Secret Service Uniform agents also, none of them impressive. I also find it insulting to the N.H. State Police and the local cops that these uniformed federal agents must be imported to handle security.

When I see this display of federal power I think, "Will we have to pay for their pensions?" Are any politicians thinking how much this show costs?

Paul said...

Nobody knows the future but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict Trump will handily win both the Republican nomination and the general. I think the people who think he can't are simply too isolated in their bubbles of like minded people and cozy sources of propaganda to be able to accurately feel the pulse of the electorate as a whole. I think there's a lot of denial and wishcasting at play too.

I'm not one who is sure Trump will be a good president, or that he won't be either. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I see him as the only chance to stop the hemorrhaging. If it's not too late.

Those who proclaim with absolute steadfast certainty that he will be a disaster are simply blowhards themselves, which is rich considering it's their favorite derogatory term for Trump.

Birkel said...

The criticism that is, I believe, accurate is that Trump will not undertake the difficult work of removing the Leviathan bureaucracy from every aspect of all of our lives.

Mia Love's effort to restrict omnibus spending packages and prohibit logrolling is much more substantial than anything I have heard Trump say yet. I do not believe Trump will seek the office of President and then reduce Presidential powers. But that is what the country needs, desperately.

grimson said...

The poll finds that a broad swath of GOP voters (55%) say they feel completely unrepresented by the government in Washington, and among those voters, Trump holds a 47% to 19% lead over Cruz.

I fail to understand why Republicans who feel they are unrepresented in Washington support sending a Democrat (Trump) instead of a conservative Republican (Cruz). Are they single-issue voters, and immigration is their issue?

If Trump does win the nomination, I agree with Big Mike that he will win in a landslide, since in addition to Republicans, he will pick up the votes of all disaffected Democrats.

Paul said...

Great post Pokertone. This is the Trump, and the appeal, that the hysterics cannot grasp.

buwaya puti said...

Malkin would look very good in a cheerleader uniform of course.
However, switching on Trump is not in itself a character problem. In democratic politics its all about preference, not absolutes. Too much absolute loyalty (or hate) and the system fails. If its sinful to prefer A>B>C and end up supporting B if A is unavailable then we might as well adopt the Lebanese system of enclaves.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Maybe Trump is the anti-Christ, but assaulting his character is not going to dissuade anyone who is already inclined to do so from voting for him.

Trump has been in the public eye since the 80s. Everyone already knows he has been married three times and has had 4 bankruptcies. They don't care if he cheats at golf and of course someone who developed property in New York in the 80s would have to do business with the Mafia (ever seen the movie "Back to School?)

None of that matters to his supporters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

John Henry said...

Mike Sylwester,

I think the issue of Cruz' mother's hypothetical Canadian citizenship is a non-issue. Cruz himself appears to have been a Canadian citizen up until a couple years ago when he renounced it.

He claims he did not realize he was a Canadian citizen until then. I call bullshit on that claim. I do not believe that he didn't know.

Congress can't fix this now but I could fix it for the future. All it would have to do would be to change the naturalization statutes so that a baby born to a US Citizen mother living outside the US is a US national but not a US citizen at birth. They could acquire US citizenship by the mother registering with a US consul, automatically at 1 year old, by living in the US for a certain period or something else.

The key is that they would not be US citizens at birth and thus there would be no question that they were not natural born citizens.

For those who say that "National" and "Citizen" are synonamous, look in the USC for persons born in Swain Island and American Samoa. They are "Nationals but not citizens of the United States." As a practical matter there seems to be little difference between the two but there is a statutory distinction.

John Henry

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Oh, and I agree 100% with Birkel about the bankruptcy canard.

Michael K said...

Paul, I agree.

I'm not one who is sure Trump will be a good president, or that he won't be either. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I see him as the only chance to stop the hemorrhaging. If it's not too late.

Me neither. This is the revolution that I have been worried about for a couple of years. Really since Romney lost and Obama was unleashed from what tiny concerns he had about Democrats and elections. Trump might be the least violent option.

Ritmo accused me here of wanting a revolution and even went to my personal blog to prove it. I didn't but feared it. This, if it happens (Nobody has voted yet !), will be less disruptive. Has anyone noticed that China is collapsing ? For crises !

Michael K said...

"For crissakes !" Autocorrect is a grammar Nazi but an incompetent one.

Michael K said...

As a friend of mine used to say, "The ants are fighting each other and the anteater is coming."

Why are so many worked up about Trump when China is collapsing !

China’s raging battles with currency speculators are unlikely to end as happily for the country. That’s because turmoil in the currency markets reflects a much more perilous imbalance than an overvalued yuan: China is now lopsidedly dependent on ever larger inputs of local bank credit to keep sputtering growth from declining further.

The country is already littered with “zombie” factories, empty apartment blocks that form ghostly suburbs, mothballed power stations and other infrastructure that nobody needs. But yet more wasteful projects are in the pipeline, even as the government talks about cutting industrial overcapacity.

“That’s the misalignment—everything else is noise,” says Rodney Jones, the Beijing-based principal of Wigram Capital Advisors, who was a partner at Soros Fund Management during the 1990s.

If debt keeps piling up at the current rate, China faces an eventual financial crisis, perhaps leading to years of subpar growth, mirroring the fate of Japan after its bubble burst in the early 1990s.


And the ants are battling over cheating at golf.

mccullough said...

I think Trump's reciprocal loyalty approach is a good one to life. Not betraying people and helping them when they are down is the only basis for trust. Few people are loyal. Many demand loyalty of others but don't reciprocate. It seems like Trump is a reciprocal loyalist.

Mel Gibson was helpful to Robert Downey Jr and Jodie Foster when they were younger. And they both stood by him through his problems while others shit on him. That kind of loyalty is rare and speaks very well of them. Hollywood and DC are filled mostly with back-stabbing, self centered people. If Trump is loyal, then that is a reason he should be President.

John Henry said...


Four bankrupticies. Four! In BK the unsecured creditors usually get stiffed. Do you want to get stiffed? Gold mine in those BK cases.

David,

Lots of different types of bankruptcy. Trump's 4 were all Chapter 11. In Chapter 11 nobody gets stiffed. Other than taking longer to get their money, plus interest.

So tell me who got stiffed in Trump's bankruptcies? Unsecured, secured. Who got stiffed?

Got any names of people or companies? I've looked several times and found nobody.

If the Chapter 11's had been unsuccessful, they would have converted to chapter 7(?) and unsecured creditors would have been stiffed. Were any of Trump's Chapter 11s unsuccessful?

Trump cheats at golf? Source? I think the fact that he even plays golf is more disqualifying than that he cheats at it.

John Henry



Birkel said...

Did anybody notice that 41% and 39% are statistically the same number? But for some reason the MSM reports breathlessly about the increase in Trump support.

Truly, you can't fix stupid.

Bob Ellison said...

Trump is a lousy investment, Birkel. He's a lousy loser. Want him to be President?

Ron Winkleheimer said, "Also, if I am buying property that I need for a development, and one of the parcels belongs to people in organized crime that could cause me problems constructing the project, or even threaten me physically, so I am forced to pay them more than the land is worth, aren't I the victim?"

Are you trying for sarcasm here? "Need", "forced"-- these words have meanings.

How difficult is it to be a good person? Too difficult for an idiot and lousy investor like Donald Trump.

Birkel said...

Bob Ellison,
Please point to any pro-Trump comment I have ever made. Even a single one will do.

Bob Ellison said...

John Henry said, "Lots of different types of bankruptcy. Trump's 4 were all Chapter 11. In Chapter 11 nobody gets stiffed."

You should study finance a bit more.

Chapter 11 is basically an admission of abject failure to manage debt. Everyone gets screwed. The government oversees the screwing.

John Henry said...

BTW: For those looking for negative comments on Trump, he also played soccer in high school.

That pansy ass wienie game should disqualify anyone.

He also was also on the JV and Varsity football, baseball, basketball, bowling and track(?)teams.

John Henry

Birkel said...

Bob Ellison,
When sophisticated investors make investments with high proposed rates of return and a probability of failure, that is called business. With a properly diversified portfolio, some of them will fail and some will succeed, on average.

Why this is unusual is beyond me.

Birkel said...

John Henry,

I would take my chances in bowling against Donald Trump. HA!

John Henry said...

Bob, I used to teach business finance in an MBA program.

I think it is you that needs to read up on what Chapter 11 is and does. It does not relieve a company of paying back what it owes. It does give them breathing room to pay it back over more time.

It is not like other bankruptcy chapters that do allow one to stiff creditors.

Tell me who got stiffed in Trump's bankruptcies? (Other than getting payments stretched out)


John Henry

Fabi said...

Bob Ellison needs a bankruptcy mulligan.

Bob Ellison said...

Birkel, look at the rate of return on Trump's investments. Look at the rate of cronyism involved. He's proud of it! View his comments on how his failures are not his fault, but the fault of the people who bought his awful properties. He's proud to have screwed people over!

This is the man you want running the USA government?

Mike Sylwester said...

John Henry:
Congress can't fix this now but I could fix it for the future. All it would have to do would be to change the naturalization statutes so that a baby born to a US Citizen mother living outside the US is a US national but not a US citizen at birth.

The Constitution should be amended to remove the entire natural-born requirement.

In the meantime, the requirement exists, and the enforcement mechanisms are the electorate and the Electoral College. The courts will not give anybody standing to enforce the requirement in the courts.

Some members of the electorate and of the Electoral College eventually might decide to enforce the Constitutional requirement by refusing to vote for a candidate who, according to their own definitions, fails to satisfy this Constitutional natural-born requirement.

The main argument that Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen is based on the premise that his mother was a US citizen when she gave birth to him in Canada. In my opinion, the evidence that she certainly was a US citizen is questionable. At some point, Ted's father became a Canadian citizen, and it's plausible that Ted's mother joined her husband in becoming a Canadian citizen. If both parents became citizens before Ted was born, then the argument against considering him to be a natural-born citizen becomes much stronger.

Even if both parents became Canadian citizens after Ted was born, the argument against considering him to be a natural-born citizen is serious. That would mean that he grew up through his entire conscious childhood and then young adulthood under the influence of two parents who both were Canadian citizens. The sense of the Constitution's natural-born requirement is that a US President should not have grown up under foreign influence.

It doesn't matter what the legal scholars and the judges think about this argument, because the court's are not the enforcement mechanism for the Constitutional requirement. Rather, the enforcement mechanisms are the electorate and the Electoral College.

So far, we all are just guessing that Ted Cruz's mother never became a Canadian citizen along with her husband. The best evidence would be an official statement from the Canadian Government.

David Begley said...

Bankruptcy is a complicated subject. There is a consumer BK for the guy with big medical bills and no insurance and the strategic BK where the officers get great compensation and the public equity and unsecured creditors get stiffed.

But not getting paid the time value of money is a BIG thing for a small business. That is the concept of interest and banks live on that.

If Mitt could be vilified for "killing" the wife of a guy who worked at one of his LBO's, I can assure the Dems will have a field day with Trump.

As I think about it more, the real dirt will be with hiring illegal aliens. NYT probably working that now over the Clinton email story. Priorities.

My point is that there is so much on Trump that he will lose if nominated. We can't afford Hillary as POTUS.

Bob Ellison said...

John Henry, can you name a few cases in which Chapter 11 filings have not resulted in losses to creditors? Maybe it makes money! Why don't we all just go Chapter 11 right now? It's a money machine!

David Begley said...

Four Chapter 11's is significant.

One would think that after two he would have figured things out. Smart guy. Wharton. Turns out to be a serial filer. And "serial filer" is a term of art.

Fabi said...

Bob Ellison is about to be arrested for goal post abuse. Leave those things alone!

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that you were wrong about bankruptcy than moving the goal posts and then stuffing some straw men? It might help your credibility when you attack Trump's credibility?

grackle said...

And the MSM needs to vet Trump.

Trump has been vetted all his adult life. What dirt that’s there has been raked over by a myriad of the representatives of the MSM for many years. Try again.

Come reap the harvest that talk radio has sown, Republicans. When you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Or in this case, Trump.

another

… actually, he thinks the folks at his rally are dumb. That's why he can say anything without fear of crossing a line.

Us Trump supporters are thrilled to be insulted. Why? Because every insult digs a grave. Readers, Trump’s opponents in the race never do it because they know it would be counterproductive. Individuals like the commentor do it and it may not have the same degree of negative result that a prominent figure would generate but it still helps Trump a little bit and if you magnify this type of attack by a million it becomes significant. Keep up the ad hominem, we love it.

He is no conservative.

This is a very common attack. It gets my vote as the most ineffective meme of the campaign season. But they keep throwing it out like it means something. Which I guess it does – to those who parrot it.

He's scarily childlike when he says he likes or dislikes people who like or dislike him.

So … someone insults or criticizes Trump … and Trump is supposed to turn the other cheek? Back away like Romney did with Candy Crowley during the Romney/Obama debate? And by this timidity he courts and wins over the voters? I believe a lot of voters are tired of that losing strategy.

Trump fights back. Trump plunges into the mix instead of trying to be a “nice” Republican candidate. Trump knows that the Democrats will never pull their punches, no insult is too low for them, no lie too bald-faced, no dirty trick too obvious ever for them.

Trump's attraction is that he is not a simpering moderate.

Trump is a reform-minded, right of center moderate with a libertarian stance toward war and other foreign adventures. And, yes, he NEVER simpers. Finally, there is a GOP candidate that knows how to campaign.

Just look at the polls. Trump loses badly to Hillary and Hillary is a horrible candidate and probably should be indicted.

Aside from shutting up Hillary and Slick Willie’s war-on-women crap with a few words Trump has mostly ignored Hillary. After the nomination is the time for a more complete treatment – at which time Trump will take those two down like he has every other opponent.

grackle said...

About those polls – below is a link to the RCP poll, “General Election: Trump vs Clinton:” It shows 44 for Hillary, 41.3 for Trump. The margin of error is 2.7 which means that the two are currently tied. And Trump hasn’t yet done much campaigning against Hillary. Trump will win the GOP nomination. After that is accomplished he can turn his full attention toward Hillary.

As Nate Silver pointed out, the Establishment GOP could have rallied in a "Stop Trump" effort, but instead they launched a "Stop Cruz" effort. Which tells you who they really fear.

That is just Nate Silver trying to hold onto his reputation as a forecaster. He was wrong about Trump and is trying now to explain it away.

I'm a casual Cornhusker football fan and they lost many games this year on last minute flukes. Same thing in politics.

I agree. “Flukes” can happen. But I do not base my support or non-support on the chance that a fluke will derail my candidate. Flukes are non-discriminatory and happen to candidates of both parties.

No idea why GOP candidates have not gone negative on Trump.

Maybe because everyone who has “gone negative” have gone down in the polls? Could that be a possibility? Think it through … and get back to us.


Almost from its inception, the company encountered financial problems...Trump Shuttle never turned a profit.

This is rich. Trump is a billionaire but, but … he’s a bad businessman. Oh boy.

There's nothing unusual about a pol saying outrageous things and facing no consequences for it. Dems do it all the time. What's unusual is that someone running as a Republican is saying outrageous things and getting away with it.

Bingo! Give this lovely lady a Corningware cookware set.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

"How difficult is it to be a good person? Too difficult for an idiot and lousy investor like Donald Trump."

So definitely didn't watch the clip from "Back to School."

Mafiaso: Nice bidness you got here buddy. Be a shame if something bad happened. Like you couldn't get the building finished in time cause the concrete you needed was delayed.

Trump: Yes, but why would that be a problem?

Mafiaso: You never know. Tell ya what though, I got friends in the concrete business, I could get them to look after you.

Trump: Why would they do that?

Mafiaso: Well we have a building we been wanting to sell. If you was to take it off our hands for a decent profit we could make sure that you don't have no union troubles, and the permits will be taken care of, and the concrete will show up on time and not be substandard. Otherwise, I don't know what could happen. You don't want to have to lay off all these people do you? And it could cost you and your investors a lot of money. And sometimes people get hurt in accidents in construction. Wouldn't want that would you?

Bob Ellison: Wow! Did you see that?! Donald Trump is a bad person!!!

Tank said...

Keep digging.

EMD said...

"... in a cheerleader uniform."

I'll let that slide.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

When I see a lot of articles arguing the same thing but slightly differently i sometimes suspect a setup. Intentional or not it sure seems like a setup's in the works now for Trump and Megyn Kelly...if he's smart, and media-wise he sure seems to be, Trump'll make a big stink now about maybe skipping the debate if Kelly's a moderator. He'll make sure tons of articles get written talking about how he might be chicken, how he can't help but be rude, etc...and then he'll attend the debate and be super-gracious/nice/funny with Kelly, disarming the whole thing. With luck his pre-debate antics might even goad the moderators into overplaying their hand (acting rudely to HIM) and allow Trump to take the high road and make the story "Trump acts professionally, is funny and gently self-depreciating, and this is a sign of a serious candidate who is leading the polling now and has a good chance to win!"

If he was smart, I think that's how he'd play it. Seems to be set up well.

bbkingfish said...

Plus or minus 8 percent.

They might as well say..."Pick a number."

Alexander said...

41% is totally the Trump ceiling. The other ceilings of 10...15...20...30...35... ignore that.

Keep screaming, cucks.

AllenS said...

I read something either this morning, or yesterday saying that if Trump was smart, he'd skip the Megyn Kelly debate, and ask Sanders if he would like to debate him.

I thought the idea was brilliant.

Michael K said...

"This is the man you want running the USA government?"

So, nobody is going to get stiffed by the US government ?

HAHAHAHAHA

Even my gold is laughing.

Mick said...

Sammy Finkelman said...
"The definition of a natural born citizen can change over time (the 14th amendment being only a minimum threshhold) but "natural born" itself means only someone who did not need to be naturalized. At its most restictive, it could mean someone who was a citizen at birth".



BUZZER.... Wrong, thanks for playing though.

The Organic Constitution cannot be amended over time by congressional statute, A2S1C5 means exactly what it meant in 1789. Besides, the words "natural born Citizen" do not appear in the 14th Amendment.

So your answer is based on clearly wrong assumptions, and therefore anything after that is nonsense.

Here is the definition, as stated multiple times by the SCOTUS (Wong Kim Ark @ 680, and Minor v. Happersett @ 167)

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874); and also Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 680 (1898).

Wong Kim Ark agreed with the "common law" (law of nations) definition of Minor v. Happersett 23 years later.


Birkel said...

I am seriously concerned for Bob Ellison.

Somehow he has invented a universe in which I support Donald Trump.

No such universe exists outside of Bob Ellison's fevered brain.

That said, high risk businesses that attract institutional investors -- and which often fail -- are not an indictment of Trump.

Mick said...

So... Nobody can answer the question? (nice try Sammy F.), but no the meaning of the term nbC does not "change over time"-- clearly wrong.

Whereas A2S1C5 has never been amended,

How can it be that Ted Cruz, if born to a US Citizen mother and a foreign father abroad in 1933, would have been an alien at the time he was born, yet is a natural born Citizen today?

How can it be that Marco Rubio, if born to resident alien parents in America in 1802 (See NA 1802 S. 4), would have been considered an alien until the naturalization of his parents, but is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS today.

Come now, there must be some cracker jack lawyers here right? Or maybe "law profs" that can explain this???

Logic kills the lie.

As for Trump. A high percentage of citizens HATE politicians, and HATE the media. That is why he will win in a landslide.

Birkel said...

Mick,

We're just not that into you, buddy.

Bruce Hayden said...

No panic. Just look at the polls. Trump loses badly to Hillary and Hillary is a horrible candidate and probably should be indicted.

The problem there is that the polling likely does not, yet, fully take into account the rapidly increasing likelihood that the FBI will recommend prosecution of Hillary for mishandling of emails containing classified information (and even apparently of classified emails), and maybe even public corruption. Political junkies, like many here, know that she is in big trouble. But, much of the rest of the country, a clear majority, hasn't yet really started to focus on the runnup to the election.

Theoretically, it may be possible to honestly indict Hillary for better than a thousand email related felonies. Of course, they won't. But, we have quickly gone from her somewhat credibly making the claim that she hadn't received or sent any classified emails to the FBI starting their investigation, to numerous leaks that a criminal referral is imminent. Right now, I think the better question than whether the FBI will recommend felony prosecution (because I think that likely now) is whether or not AG Lynch will decline the recommendation, and whether Hillary will get a Presidential pardon.

Hillary may think that she can just tough this out, and once she returns to the White House, be scott free. But, esp. with Trump, I don't think that works. If the two of them get the nominations from their respective parties, I fully expect that every time a reporter talks to Trump (which will inevitably be multiple times a day), he will slip in that she is a criminal, for what she did with her email, and how she sold American foreign policy for money for her husband (as speaking fees) and for their family foundation (that now has her name on it, along with that of her husband and daughter). By the time that we get near the general election, the things that most of the electorate will know about her are that she is dishonest, will sell political favors, that she is low energy, and likely fairly sick. And, maybe not be that smart (did she really fail the DC bar? - when I was admitted in CO, my MBE scores were high enough that I wouldn't have needed to take the DC bar to be admitted there, which means to me that she either didn't study, or was pretty dumb). This is part of what few are factoring in, in such a race, that Trump loves the press, and Hillary hates it. And, ultimately, the level of access that Trump is likely to provide them is going to sour many of them from Hillary, who will most likely provide them with few opportunities to address her, and when she does, her answers will be well scripted, poll tested, and lawyer approved. Which also likely means that Trump (or, actually, most of the Republican nominees) will likely be well within her OODA decision loop.

Mick said...

Birkel said...
"Mick,

We're just not that into you, buddy".


Can't answer it? I didn't think YOU could.

Mom2Es said...

This is my shocked face.

I thought that was Sarah Hoyt's catchphrase.

At any rate, I'm just wondering where they found young voters with landlines to poll.

Darrell said...

A natural-born citizen is a person born in-country of two citizen parents. It is the type of citizenship that doesn't require statute or Act of Congress as no reasonable prudent person would question it. See English Common Law, the basis for US law.

Michael K said...

There is also a well known phenomenon of voters lying to pollsters when they fear being labeled something unpleasant. The vote will show where we are. Lots of panicking before the first vote.

Mick said...

Darrell said...
"A natural-born citizen is a person born in-country of two citizen parents. It is the type of citizenship that doesn't require statute or Act of Congress as no reasonable prudent person would question it". See English Common Law, the basis for US law.


WOW. someone here w/ a brain?

Sammy Finkelman said...

David Brooks' column:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/stay-sane-america-please.html?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt01262015&utm_term=Jolt

"In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium"

Why is Hillary Clinton misisng from that list?

That would have worked better had he said:

"I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders not Hillary Clinton will be standing on that podium"

grackle said...

The problem there is that the polling likely does not, yet, fully take into account the rapidly increasing likelihood that the FBI will recommend prosecution of Hillary for mishandling of emails containing classified information (and even apparently of classified emails), and maybe even public corruption.

I agree with this and most of what followed in the comment. But I want to break it down in a slightly different way.

She’s guilty as hell and we all know it, but .. but …

I’m not sure the FBI is going to recommend anything, exactly. The FBI is taking a long time. Maybe because they are just doing a very thorough investigation because of Hillary’s scope and depth of corruption or maybe not. Maybe the FBI will try to delay until after the election.

But does the FBI have to announce anything? Couldn’t the FBI just hand over what evidence they may have gathered to the DoJ without comment? Is there some rule or law that makes a recommendation from the FBI mandatory? Bureaucrats, I know them well and the FBI is a bureaucracy. Bureaucrats tend to play it safe when faced with a political controversy in which the outcome is unsure. They may be asking themselves whether either recommendation, for prosecution or not, would be worth the risk.

If I were Trump in the general election against Hillary:

If the FBI is not finished with the investigation and thereby not given the DoJ the evidence with which to make a decision on whether to prosecute(or not) I would hammer on that slowness as an issue.

If the FBI has turned over the evidence to the DoJ and the DoJ decides NOT to prosecute, that refusal becomes the issue to pursue.

Of course, if Hillary is indicted Trump wins too. Trump wins no matter which hypothetical eventually turns out to be true.

Alex said...

Ann - when the average voter is swayed by politician promises to fix everything with government, why shouldn't Trump have contempt for them?

Birkel said...

Mick and Darrell:

I think it's cute that you are calling all bastards less than natural born citizens.

Mama's maybe. Daddy's maybe. Mick and Darrell are not natural born citizens.

Answer me!! Give me the DNA reports!!

Amanda said...

Of course Trump bases his choice of who is smart or acceptable by the criteria of who is "good or bad" towards him, because if no one noticed, he is the epitome of a narcissistic personality. Just who we need to run the most powerful nation on earth.

CStanley said...

Birkel upstream said something about Trump's bankruptcies not rising to the level of payday loan schemes....

Maybe not (I think the over leveraging is more of an issue because it illustrates how he approaches issues- bluff your way to the table, then do whatever it takes to protect yourself and get out when you have no other options....it's my opinion that he has no other modus operandi and this approach will leave his supporters very disappointed when they realize that he will protect his own interests, not theirs.)

But more to the point- rather than payday loans, one thing he was involved in which leaves me with a similar ethical concerns was "Trump University" where he suckered people who were hard up into a scheme that was supposed to make them real estate tycoons. Pretty nasty stuff, and I think this was fairly recent so it's not like he even needed the money.

I just see little to no evidence that he is worthy of the trust people are placing in him.

Michael K said...

"the epitome of a narcissistic personality. Just who we need to run the most powerful nation on earth."

We have one now and that is working out well.

Amanda said...

Michael K,
There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Obama and Trump. The better comparison would be Trump and Mussolini.

Birkel said...

CStanley,

Please don't confuse me with somebody who supports Trump. And I place no trust in any politician.

Not that you suggested I did. Just want that much clear.

Birkel said...

Amanda thinks Obama is worse than Mussolini, I take it. Seems reasonable.

Saint Croix said...

Althouse nails it at 6:13 a.m.

Trump has a loyalty-based approach to everything. People are good or bad depending on whether they've been good or bad to him. Journalists are great or terrible writers depending on whether they've given him good press. He's scarily childlike when he says he likes or dislikes people who like or dislike him.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

Fabi said...

Trump runs his empire under Goverment regulations, within business and banking strictures, and at the whim of his myriad customer base -- yet is compared to a fascist by some on this blog.

Michael K said...

"There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Obama and Trump. The better comparison would be Trump and Mussolini."

Well, I would agree that Obama could not make the trains run on time.

Saint Croix said...

Trump is clearly a centrist-pragmatist.

I agree with this. Trump is, politically, middle-of-the-road. I think he's probably closest to Hillary or Bloomberg, although as a Republican he has to appease pro-lifers.

It's his personality that is extremist, outlandish, and upsets so many people. He has a command personality, an authoritative style. I thought his comments on McCain and prisoners-of-war was vile, for instance. But that is typical for his personality type. For instance, Japan had a lot of disregard for American prisoners-of-war. They thought them losers who should never have surrendered. They thought that was weak. And so we had the Bataan death march.

Trump has a killer instinct for weakness. He loves power and hates the weak. Basically he's the opposite of a Christian ethos. I don't think he understands Christianity very well.

John Henry said...

Amanda,

You sound like you are pig ignorant about Mussolini and the political party and doctrine he developed that he called Fascism.

Which bios of Mussolini have you read? What books about Fascism?

Fascism is essentially the same as US progressivism.

Don't believe me? Go read up on both. A good place to start is Mussolini's own tretise on what Fascism is and is not. Search for "The Doctrine of Fascism" (1936, I think) by Benito Mussolini. Buy it through Ann's portal or download it for free from several places.

Or you could read John Flynn's "As we go marching" (1942) which goes into a lot of detail on what Fascism, National Socialism and fascism are as well as the history that brought them about. I am currently about halfway through and finding it excellent.

There are a number of good bios of Mussolini, some pro, some con, some down the middle. You might try reading one or two.

If anyone is similar to Mussolini, it is President Obama. Not just him but progressives in general going back to the Wilson era. Many US progressives, FDR for example, were fans of Mussolini in the 20s and early 30s. "He got things done!"-FDR

We could argue that President Obama is not like Mussolini because he doesn't get much done. That is true but it is not for lack of wanting or trying.

Once you get yourself a bit of knowledge, we can talk. Until then you should keep quiet. You won't of course and I would never do anything to try to stop you. You should, though.

John Henry

Amanda said...


"Trump has a killer instinct for weakness. He loves power and hates the weak. Basically he's the opposite of a Christian ethos. I don't think he understands Christianity very well."

Ha! Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. just endorsed Trump.

Amanda said...

Oh shut up John Henry, you just sound like a jerk, Trumpish in fact.

Amanda said...

And John Henry, I have no desire to talk to you anyway. I don't like wasting my time with ideologues.

Saint Croix said...

He never answers a question. He always deflects and brings up tangential issues. Today on the morning shoes he was asked about Ted Cruz's suggestion that he was weak on abortion. He said he was pro life. then rather than address when he became pro life he diverted to "Ted Cruz may not even be eligible." Stephanopolous then followed up with a question about when he became pro life. And again, Ted Cruz isn't eligible. All these people are saying so.

Abortion might be his achilles heel. Trump is brash, and often says what he thinks. But on abortion, he's just lying. That's why he wants to change the subject so fast. He's pretending to be a pro-lifer. He's ducking the question and trying to counter-punch.

Amanda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amanda said...


And finally John Henry, I know it's a common misperception among brain washed rightists that Fascism was a left leaning ideology, but you are sadly and stupidly mistaken. Fascism is a far right ideology. National "Socialism" was a misnomer and it was chosen precisely to cloud what it truly was. It was not anywhere near true socialism.

Birkel said...

"John Henry, I have no desire to talk to you anyway," she said right before making three more comments.

I enjoy watching Leftists deny that fascism, communism and socialism are collectivist ideologies that each spawned from Karl Marx. It's cute because it shows how precious and ignorant they are.

Maybe Amanda won't want to talk to me three or four times in succession too.

CStanley said...

Birkel- I got that you arent a Trump supporter. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

I do hope the Trump University stuff gets more airplay. (I assume it will come out in someone's oppo.)

Birkel said...

I got where you were going, CStanley, but I want to prevent misunderstandings.

The bankruptcies are not an issue to me. Other things are.

Risk offsets yield. Some deals fail, inevitably. Some deals performers well. As a portfolio, one can judge Trump's success or failure as a developer.

Drago said...

"Trump has a killer instinct for weakness. He loves power and hates the weak. Basically he's the opposite of a Christian ethos. I don't think he understands Christianity very well."

Amanda: "Ha! Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. just endorsed Trump."

Aaaaaannnnnndddd.......?

Logic. You should look into it.

Bruce Hayden said...

And finally John Henry, I know it's a common misperception among brain washed rightists that Fascism was a left leaning ideology, but you are sadly and stupidly mistaken. Fascism is a far right ideology. National "Socialism" was a misnomer and it was chosen precisely to cloud what it truly was. It was not anywhere near true socialism.

You seem to be of the belief that if you lie long enough, it will sometime come true. Let me suggest another contemporaneous source - The Road to Serfdom by Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek.

Birkel said...

"...true socialism..."

Always a tell.

Darrell said...

Illegitimi non curat lex.

The law takes no account of bastards.

cubanbob said...

Amanda said...
Of course Trump bases his choice of who is smart or acceptable by the criteria of who is "good or bad" towards him, because if no one noticed, he is the epitome of a narcissistic personality. Just who we need to run the most powerful nation on earth.

1/26/16, 5:38 PM

Funny from someone who is an Obama voter and will vote for the grifter and criminal Hillary Clinton. And yes Amada, Nazi's were leftist in economic policies and so were fascists. Some people just can't handle the truth, you being one of them.

cubanbob said...

Darrell said...
Illegitimi non curat lex.

The law takes no account of bastards.

1/27/16, 1:22 AM

Obama's daddy was already married when he married his mom....

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 205   Newer› Newest»