And... is it worth saying?... he's up by 5 over Kasich in Ohio.
Who are these last remaining opponents? What are they doing if they are not even able to show solid strength against Trump in their home states?
Maybe they're staying in so they can team up against Trump in the debates. Can you imagine a one-on-one debate between Trump and Cruz/Rubio/Kasich?
“The reality is that, until the field starts to narrow, it’s going to be very, very hard to take him out,” said Katie Packer, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign and the leader of an anti-Trump super PAC. “I think people need to step up and start taking on Trump. Front-runners don’t just stumble. People trip them.”That's from a Washington Post piece by Dan Balz and Philip Rucker titled "Can Donald Trump be stopped?" I only skimmed the article, which I picked out from an array of possible articles on this theme. They all seem so lame. I cherry-picked Packer's quote for lameness. How much money has her super PAC thrown around trying to trip Donald Trump? How much money will she rake in now in this effort to "start [sic] taking on Trump"? Here's the pitch she sent to donors 3 days ago. Excerpt: "I'm proud of the fact that the Washington Post reported that Our Principles PAC (OPP) is the 'biggest anti-Trump spender' to date...."
Oh, I did read this NYT piece: "Donald Trump Taps Foreign Work Force for His Florida Club."
Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers [at Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach]. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired. In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries.... The visas are issued through one of a handful of legal and often-debated programs through which employers can temporarily hire foreign workers when American labor is not available....I can't help assuming that the NYT is looking hard to find instances of Trump's companies hiring people who are here illegally. They're finding that he followed the law. Noted.
Posts
96 comments:
Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority.
He can't be stopped, certainly not by these guys. If they could have done it, it would have happened several months ago.
They may as well stay in, as lively primaries are good for the party (provided it's not just a mud-fest that damages the front runner and leaves voters depressed) and focuses attention on the GOP's issues, but they may as well accept this is what their party is going to nominate. Maybe he'll surprise them and win the general election, maybe he won't--but either way they had better hold on to Congress.
"Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority."
You can win an election with a plurality. A majority looks better but a plurality is no less valid.
The mother of Nebraska's mother funded that anti-Trump SuperPac run by Katie Packer. Trump promptly threatened the elderly Mrs. Ricketts for the crime of exercising her First Amendment rights.
Bully doesn't begin to describe Trump's behavior.
Trump is also a coward and draft dodger. He is afraid of Megyn Kelly and his "own personal Vietnam" (his words, not mine) was screwing women in NYC.
Donald Trump has a very poor character. He's no Lincoln.
Dan Hossley
Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority.
Some states award all their delegates to the candidate who wins a plurality.
Other states apportion the delegates only among the candidates who pass a certain threshold -- for example, 20% of the votes.
Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority.
Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election with 43% of the vote. In parliamentary systems winning with a plurality is the norm.
In any case, attempts to take down Trump with revelations about him hiring foreign workers probably aren't going anywhere. Everybody does it, the important thing is to take steps so that it is more advantageous to hire citizens.
Oh woo, woo. The high end servants for high end Cruise lines and high end resorts and high end summer camps have always hired educated European single young folks who will work cheap for the opportunity of a temporary summer job or a year or two spent in the USA as an education and a fling.
All of the qualified locals to be servants in the Season are already hired all year long. And a Waffle House Waitress coming through town is not what they are looking for.
Should read "mother of Nebraska's Governor." Marlene Ricketts.
If Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich can't get at least 50% of the GOP voters in their states, then they should drop out.
If you look at the RealPolitics Delegate count, it's interesting:
Dems:
Hillary 51, Sanders 51
The Delegate count is tied. (I'm excluding SuperDelegates, who will likely just follow the winner).
Also, Sanders leads Hillary in the Popular Vote (yes, symbolic only) 152,000 to 92,000.
But, for whatever reason, Sanders has lost his mojo in the media, and Hillary has regained her status as inevitable.
GOP Delegates:
Trump 81
Rubio 17
Cruz 17
GOP Popular vote
Trump 420,000
Cruz 266,000
Rubio 257,000
So Trump, as we all know, is winning, although, conceivably Cruz or Rubio could catch him, if one of them dropped out.
I have no great insight on this, just reporting.
Learnin' to Love The Donald
National Reviews Charles Cooke is orgasmic over the New York Times story. The idea is, Trump is a hypocrite.
He has criticized Disney because they took their American Employees, had them train foreigners, then fired those American Employees.
This had Trump and his campaign up in arms. American companies need to hire Americans.
If you hate Trump, then this is clearly, without a doubt, evidence that Trump is an evil man. It's also evidence that Trump supporters are hard headed and no amount of proof can dislodge them from their love of Trump.
Because clearly Trump is a hypocrite.
If you look into the details, Disney had American Employees that it fired and replaced with foreigners.
Trump, on the other hand, claims that during peak vacation season in Florida, it's nearly impossible to find temp workers so he has to hire foreigners. These aren't good jobs like high tech jobs at Disney. These are room cleaning hotel jobs.
Trump says, they hire Americans first and all the Americans they don't hire aren't qualified in some way for the job.
I think anyone who is at all familiar with this will side with Trump. When it comes to low quality, low tech jobs, it's cheaper to hire Americans. Because they make the same wage as foreigners. The difference is, foreigners need lawyers and time spent by other employees to go through immigration to get the visas to bring them in. Costly and expensive, bit worth it to bring in temp hires and make sure you're covered for the busy season.
Go ahead anti-trumpers. Mock the Trump folks for being too stupid to see his hypocrisy.
In early December, I switched my support from Trump to Cruz, because Cruz published a satisfactorily hard-line position on immigration.
Now I recognize that Cruz will not win the nomination, but I am sticking with him.
I like Rubio on most issues beyond immigration. If Rubio would come out in favor of Senator Sessions' immigration positions, I would switch my support to Rubio immediately.
I will not vote for Rubio until he adopts a hard-line position on immigration. If Cruz drops out, I will vote for Trump.
The amazing Mormons are unexpectedly clannish, revealed once again in Romney. Last cycle Trump raised millions of dollars for Romney's run and Romney quit trying for some unknown reason.
This cycle Romney joins the DNC manufacturing bull shit against loyal Trump. That is not considered Christian in the Reformed Calvinist Christianity world view. But then, Mormons never were Christians.
Re: Dan Hossley:
Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority.
Uh, no, it does not:
1992: Clinton, 43%
1996: Clinton, 49%
2000: Bush II, 48%
2004, 2008, and 2012 were majority victories, but before that we had a run of plurality victories. You just need a majority in the electoral college, not an actual majority.
As for Texas, we will see Tuesday night. Cruz has to find out whether most Texans really know Cruz too well to trust him.
The Floridians don't seem to trust Rubio as far as they can throw him.
Rubio or Cruz could advocate the elimination or reform of the program to give work visas for foreigners to work in seasonable jobs.
As far as I know, neither Rubio or Cruz ever has criticized that program.
Probably the only candidate who as President ever might eliminate or reform that visa program is Trump.
"Trump ties Cruz in Texas and leads Rubio by 16 in Florida."
And doesn't this tell us that Rubio is, in some sense, the weakest candidate amongst Trump's remaining competition? If all those congressmen and senators and governors had gone all-in on Cruz after Iowa, they might have been able to blunt Trump's momentum. But they bet on the wrong horse (because they hate Cruz even more than they fear Trump).
How about you the companies raise the wages for seasonal employees? If they still can't find enough workers to turn a profit then close down.
@eric
I have to say, I agree with you on this. National Review has been absolutely pathetic on Trump. In fact, it's failure to choose a concrete candidate (such as Cruz), greatly helped Trump in his march towards the nomination.
I have read NR for decades, but they really should pipe down on this election. They have already shot their wad against Trump -- and, guess what?, it didn't work, made him stronger, and made those smart guys look feeble and clueless.
Learnin' to Love the Donald
Katy Packer, Leader of the anti-Trump PAC, makes around 15% of every dollar spent by her PAC on anti-Trump ads.
Mike Murphy made $14 million as Leader of the Jeb Bush PAC.
And to see their selfless efforts so put down (down, down) by the stupid voters in the GOP primaries. We'll never forget you, Leaders of the PACs.
"Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality."
Mr. Lincoln did.
Robother
And the money paid to the consulting class is why Carson is still in the race.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
@eric
I have to say, I agree with you on this. National Review has been absolutely pathetic on Trump.
I'm at the point now where, if I see something from NRO about Trump, I roll my eyes and move along.
Not a good thing if you're a half and trying to get clicks.
Trump leads but this is only a plurarity.
Trump ties Cruz in Texas and leads Rubio by 16 in Florida. According to the newest polls. And... he's up by 5 over Kasich in Ohio.
This is why I say Rubio and Kasich should get toogetehr and Rubio should endorse Kasich in Ohiop in return for Kasich endorsing Rubio in Florida. Missouri and Illinois are winner take all separately for Congressional districts and statewide, with Missouri giving all delegates, including the CD delegates, to the statewide winner if anyone gets over 50% statewide. It would be better for Kasich to endorse Rubio everywhere else except Ohio and Rubio endorse Kasich in Ohio as a favorite son and run ads that way.
Michigan, which votes March 8, is proportional with a 15% threshold (but winner take all if anyone gets over 50%), and what should be done depends upon the polling.
Texas, March 1, has a 20% threshold, both in Congressional districts and statewide, so all votes other than for Trump Cruz and Rubio are wated except to keep someone under 50%, but the fact that only 3 delegates are assigned to each Congressional district means many be split 2-1 rather than 1-1-1. It was too complicated for Larry Sabato's website.
Many states voting March 1 have some form of winner take all at 50%
All states have 3 delegates by position, who are bound to vote for the statewide winner on the first ballot, except in states hat took no vote of any kind, and Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota will not, and 3 delegates per congressional district, with the at large statewide dependent on how many elections the Republican Party won in the recent past.
Virginia has no threshold whatsoever, which may mean a de facto 7.7% threshold for the 13 statewide delegates, and I don't know how they split the 3 in each Congressional district. Either they will split 2-1 or 1-1-1 - Trump will not get all 3. He'll probably get 3 no place except where the CDs or the state are winner take all and that doesn't happen till March 15. South Carolina was able to make CDs winner take all because it did not come in the March 1 to March 14 window.
Bah. Not half. Brand. I don't know how brand became half above.
Sorry about that.
Actually, I suspect Carson is the only candidate coming out ahead by staying in: his campaign is best viewed as a vehicle for selling his book.
Kasich, on the other hand, has trouble even figuring out why he's running, so he's probably staying in as a financial favor to his consultants.
The only positive I can think of in a Trump nomination is that it'll make the GOP maybe actually change a little for 2020.
It'd be nice to have a serious party in opposition to the Democrats, again.
(I mean, I'm a libertarian, but I know the LP is a bad joke, and that's why I register Independent.)
NRO as half a brand, wonderful Freudian slip. Not half bad.
say Trump is at 40% the rest at 60%. As they drop out, Trump picks up 30%, that easily puts him over 50% once Rubio and Kasich are toast. Then we will get P.T. Barnum versus Elmer Gantry to go with Trotsky versus Stalin. Don't run out of popcorn.
Dan Hossley: "Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority"
Clinton over Bush, 43% to 37% among others.
Finkelman: "This is why I say Rubio and Kasich should get toogetehr and Rubio should endorse Kasich in Ohiop in return for Kasich endorsing Rubio in Florida. Missouri and Illinois are winner take all separately for Congressional districts and statewide, with Missouri giving all delegates, including the CD delegates, to the statewide winner if anyone gets over 50% statewide. It would be better for Kasich to endorse Rubio everywhere else except Ohio and Rubio endorse Kasich in Ohio as a favorite son and run ads that way."
What planet are you on?
Can I re-iterate one simple salient point?
In the Primary, it is totally acceptable to oppose Trump. There are 4 other candidates (really only 2 are viable), so let the battle continue and have at it. It is also totally acceptable to stand on the sidelines (this, de facto, helps Trump, because he's winning, and it removes 1 more obstacle in his path).
In the General, though, it is only acceptable to oppose Trump, if you are comfortable with President Hillary and a Left-wing majority on the Supreme Court.
That is all.
Today the Cable News guys are running 20 second clips of Cruz and Rubio's latest hits lines on the weak and clownish Trump, about 8 times an hour. They have no shame. If Cruz and Rubio could charge them royalties they would get ten million apiece for receiving this ten million in free political attack ads.
I just hope Trump gets out of Texas alive on this trip, literally.
The Meme of Trump being a pretend candidate that plans to disappear and GIVE the election to Hillary is stupider now than it was when the first Psychic commenter promised he knew it 6 months ago.
But I can see where it comes from when I remember that is exactly what the imminent Mr Romney did for failed President Obama in 2012.
I have a spreadsheet that I use to try to forecast where things are going. It's not perfect, I'm not a pro, but I think that it gets pretty close. The current state of the race is that Carson and Kasich are going nowhere, and in most states will get zero delegates because of cutoffs: Only four states have truly proportional systems, and of those with cutoffs, only two have a low enough threshold (5% in MA and KY) that Carson or Kasich will get any delegates. And the problem is, as long as Trump keeps winning, a plurality, he gets a long way toward where he needs to go just on the WTA states. Kasich's fantasy of winning Ohio is just that: Fantasy. But even if it weren't, even if Kasich wins, so the frak what? It avails him nothing. The math just isn't there.
Here's the bottom line: Everyone except one guy gets out right now, or Trump's the nominee. Those four guys need to get together—or be put together—in a room, and they've got to cut whatever deal it takes to get all of them but one out of the race. I don't care what it takes. Bribes; threats; sexual favors; it doesn't matter. Just get it done, men, or you've bought all of us a ticket to President Trump.
National Review's anti-Trump stance is not entirely self-serving. True, the insiders never like a true populist, but it's also true that Trump violates many conservative values, even pillars. Here's where NR has gone wrong. This election is a zeitgeist election (sorry for using that pretentious word). It's a spirit of change. It's pitchforks and lanterns time. Ideology doesn't matter.
Eventually, of course, the rubes will have ransacked the castle and order begins to reassert itself. But that time is not now. What is now is: 1) charge the castle, 2) pitchfork a few bloated cowards shivering in the corners, 3) steal the crown jewel which is the nomination, and 4) WIN THE GENERAL.
After that, there will be plenty of time to dust off "The Road to Serfdom," "Free to Choose," and a few old Buckley columns.
In the General, though, it is only acceptable to oppose Trump, if you are comfortable with President Hillary and a Left-wing majority on the Supreme Court.
I'm seeing a lot of this right now. Long time pols who realize they've been wrong all along about Trump. This is their last gasp. They've drawn their red line and insisted they will never vote for Trump. Some have gone so far as to insist theyll vote for Hillary over Trump.
Insanity.
Dan Hossley: "Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority"
Unfortunately for Dan, you don't win "teh internets" with a terribly ill-conceived comment. It's takes, at worst, a mildly ill-conceived comment.
Examples abound.
traditionalguy: "I just hope Trump gets out of Texas alive on this trip, literally."
Why are so fretful when The Donald is not?
The Texans love Donald. Love him tremendously. I must say and I'll admit, that many texans, attractive ones all, often send best wishes and undergarments to Donald. And not just cheap stuff either. But the some of the most wonderful, luxurious and satin-y, (is Satin-y a word? No? Well, it will be in a Trump Administration) undergarments ever created. Which is saying something, considering how long undergarments have been around. By the way, have you noticed how many wonderful shops, all of which sell the highest quality undergarments, are in close proximity to all Trump Resorts. Which themselves are the most luxurious and magnificent destinations on the planet and.........oh....and vote for me.....
That damn Trump is winning the election with popular votes. He might rule the Presidency with popular voter's desires. This whole Criminal Government Game will crash into a Constitutional Representative Republic again. Andy Jackson Redux.
But why does that cause wide public tearing of clothes with wailing and gnashing of teeth?
It should be coming from the Chinese Communist Party, The Mexican Ruler elite, The Islamic State in the Levant's Caliph, but Why is it coming out of the US Congress and Federal Regulatory Empires????
M Jordan: "National Review's anti-Trump stance is not entirely self-serving. True, the insiders never like a true populist, but it's also true that Trump violates many conservative values, even pillars. Here's where NR has gone wrong. This election is a zeitgeist election (sorry for using that pretentious word). It's a spirit of change. It's pitchforks and lanterns time. Ideology doesn't matter.
Eventually, of course, the rubes will have ransacked the castle and order begins to reassert itself. But that time is not now. What is now is: 1) charge the castle, 2) pitchfork a few bloated cowards shivering in the corners, 3) steal the crown jewel which is the nomination, and 4) WIN THE GENERAL.
After that, there will be plenty of time to dust off "The Road to Serfdom," "Free to Choose," and a few old Buckley columns"
I have nothing to add to this comment so I thought I would simply repost it for all to peruse again. It captures this entire scenario perfectly.
These stories are going nowhere right now,but after Trump wins the nomination, they will be every where. Hillary! wins. I'm surprised more of you can't see it.
Trump in Texas better just drive himself in a Trump uparmored Humvee. We don't need any more stories about why an autopsy was legally skipped and his body was buried somewhere on the unmapped part of the King Ranch.
AA: I can't help assuming that the NYT is looking hard to find instances of Trump's companies hiring people who are here illegally. They're finding that he followed the law. Noted.
Doesn't matter if it's legal, it should be scrutinized, as other perfectly legal visa programs should be, because there's a lot of b.s. there that needs to be reformed or terminated.
This is exactly the sort of thing responsible journalists should be digging up, instead of wasting their time penning "Trump is Hitler" inanities. He and other candidates should be required to justify using or facilitating programs that reduce opportunities for American workers. And by "justify", I don't mean "just take their word for it that they can't find American workers to do the job".
This probably won't dig much into this, though, because it won't just be Trump they'd have to go after.
Trump will be the nominee. The party elites have no power to force three out to make this a two person race.And the candidates will not agree among themselves who has the best chance. The only way to see if Trump does not emerge on top of the leaderboard is for a two man race. It will not happen until it is too late. Much of the anger at the Republican establishment is related to its weakness. The inability of the establishment to limit the entrants and quickly winnow the field is simply further evidence of its weakness.
Romney and McCain were not conservative enough but Trump's OK? At present it is not about conservatism but about strength. Donald is the strong horse.
@M Jordan
I buy that. I'm certainly not saying Trump is Conservative, although he has some Conservative views on a few important items (illegal immigration). Pat Buchanan calls him a "populist" and a "nationalist" -- which, however broad, seems about right.
But National Review made a yuuuge mistake in merely opposing Trump in the primary, without, affirmatively supporting Cruz (the most conservative candidate). This fed into the continued splintering of the field, allowing Trump to continue his march.
And, now it seems like they are doubling-down on the mistake, by opposing Trump in the General (which, of course, means supporting Hillary, which, of course, is antithetical to everything NR stands for.)
In my life, on occasion, I have seen really, really smart people f&^$ up on a particular big issue. It happens. For National Review, this is one of those times.
The Ghost of William F. Buckley is learnin' to love The Donald.
Dan Hossley said...
"Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority."
Yeah, but unfortunately for is, you win winner-take-all states with pluralities. Unless I'm missing something, Trump goes into the convention with north of 600 delegates just from what he's gotten so far and the WTA states. Unless something drastic happens, that's the dynamic.
@M Jordon
The people at National Review and other conservatives don't understand the situation.
They think everyone should be playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules and are shocked, shocked I say to find this vulgarian Trump messing about in what, after all, are Gentlemen's affairs.
If he would kindly hie back to his "business interests" (shudder) then the people knowledgeable about matters of governance could resume their tasks without his interference.
That foreign work force thing is not a Trump thing at all. It's the way international hotel and resort chains do business. I became aware of this a few years ago when my brother-in-law chef and was hired by one of them. The resorts he worked at were a veritable united nations of chefs, maids, waitstaff, etc. This was true both stateside and abroad.
M Jordan said...
"It's pitchforks and lanterns time. Ideology doesn't matter."
This is among the stupider things that I've read lately, not because it's untrue—ideas matter only to people with minds with which to contain them—but because Trumpkins doubtless think that it's a good thing.
This is exactly the sort of thing responsible journalists should be digging up, instead of wasting their time penning "Trump is Hitler" inanities. He and other candidates should be required to justify using or facilitating programs that reduce opportunities for American workers. And by "justify", I don't mean "just take their word for it that they can't find American workers to do the job".
The problem is, you don't get the facts. You get agenda journalism. I have my suspicions about this story.
For example. Charles C Cooke keeps pointing out 300 Americans applied for a job and only 5% for the job. Whereas 500 foreign workers got the job.
Did those foreign workers all get temp positions during the peak busy season? I suspect they did.
Did all 500 workers work at the same time, or was it more like 50 workers a hear, hired and fired for temp season, over ten years?
We're the Americans applying for those temp jobs? Is it an apples to apples comparison? Or did the American workers apply for permanent jobs?
I suspect, because I'm skeptical, that we aren't getting all the information.
Would it be possible for Rubio and Cruz to agree to remove themselves from certain states to stop Trump's march to the nomination? For example, Rubio can agree to remove himself from the Texas ballot (and encourage TX voters to back Cruz) and Cruz can agree to remove himself from the Florida ballot (and encourage FL voters to back Rubio). It sounds like a complicated strategy, and probably not workable in practice, but the GOP is running out of ideas for stopping Trump.
I hope Romney is correct about Trump's taxes, but the truth is he's just throwing that out there to make Republican officials squeamish about supporting Trump.
This is among the stupider things that I've read lately, not because it's untrue—ideas matter only to people with minds with which to contain them—but because Trumpkins doubtless think that it's a good thing.
Why yes, we lesser sorts should get back to letting our betters impoverish us. Thank you for the correction, I shall try to do better in the future mi'lord.
eric: Trump, on the other hand, claims that during peak vacation season in Florida, it's nearly impossible to find temp workers so he has to hire foreigners. These aren't good jobs like high tech jobs at Disney. These are room cleaning hotel jobs.
Trump says, they hire Americans first and all the Americans they don't hire aren't qualified in some way for the job.
I think anyone who is at all familiar with this will side with Trump.
Not necessarily, eric. I'm a Trump supporter, and I have no problem with looking into this. His resort hiring foreign guest workers may be legit, but there are certainly abuses of guest-worker visa programs, as there are abuses of all worker visa programs. The more scrutiny here, the better.
Bay Area Guy said...
"I'm certainly not saying Trump is Conservative.... Pat Buchanan calls him a 'populist' and a 'nationalist'—which, however broad, seems about right."
Yes. And, keep in mind, he's also a nationalist in a federal country with a strong tradition of subsidiarity—it's the Democrats who have been the nationalists since the Progressive era.
"But National Review made a yuuuge mistake in merely opposing Trump in the primary, without, affirmatively supporting Cruz (the most conservative candidate). This fed into the continued splintering of the field, allowing Trump to continue his march."
Well, yes and no. No insofar as I understand why they went that route: They didn't want their position on Trump to be mistaken for a stalking-horse for any given candidate, they wanted to unite people who support many candidates behind their point that whoever got the nomination, it couldn't be Trump. But yes in another sense, and this is the point that I made to Charlie Cooke yesterday evening in response to his Manhattan Project piece: You can't beat someone with no one. It's all well and good to say that there's got to be a serious, concerted effort to take down Trump, but the only way Trump gets beaten is that the field narrows to two candidates. If NR wants to do something useful, it's got to help get rid of Kasich and Carson, and it's got to help broker whatever deal it's going to take to get either Cruz or Rubio out of the race, because if that doesn't happen, Trump is the nominee. One of them has to go, neither is willing to pull the ripcord, so someone's going to have to force the issue.
When will Republicans figure out that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a nationalist and a populist, sure, and he says he hates Obama and the Democrats. Apparently that's enough to win over GOP voters.
Trump says a few things that sound conservative-ish because that is what suits him at the moment, but make no mistake ... if it suits him to do so, Trump will veer hard left and grow government at an alarming pace. It will happen.
Trump is not a man of ideas or principles, he's a man of action. Just like Mussolini.
Trump is not a man of ideas or principles, he's a man of action. Just like Mussolini.
You know who else was a doer and not a thinker!
Ricky Bobby!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzkrKfk4kYE
...the NYT is looking hard to find instances of Trump's companies hiring people who are here illegally. They're finding that he followed the law.
As do the folks who take care not to have reportable income above the "Earned Income Credit" threshold, corn/ethanol producers, and other folks at *all* income and wealth levels who participate in Government programs.
I don't fault any of those folks for what they do. I do fault voters for tolerating Legislators who create the programs.
Forget "loopholes." No such thing. Laws were passed, Government programs created. "Unintended consequences," maybe. "Loopholes," no.
If halting Government graft, corruption, and waste is a concern, there is but one way to stop it. Shut down the program.
If a Government program is designed to define a favored group, please be not surprised when that is the result.
Regarding the foreign workers:
Last time I was in the Dells (admittedly, now some years ago), most of the help there hailed from eastern Europe, given their accents. Why should Trump's concerns have a different workforce?
Long ago, Republicans in the Legislature, fans of local control (Not), decreed that all schools in WI would start after Labor Day so that Water Parks could employ people from in the state. I thought of that every time I went up to the Dells and heard all the accents.
Where I come from Nationalists are also known as Americans. And Mussolini is called an Italian Fascist, Catholic wanna be Caesar (but I repeat myself) and a pathetic Hitler suck up.
The issue is Loyalty. Trump is the only one we have seen since Reagan that is strong enough to remain loyal to his supporters no matter what twists and turns of Battle develop or how much the Bribe Money is being waived under his nose.
You can't touch that. He is the only one in captivity.
The GOP and Murdoch's FOX guys all wanted a loyalty oath from Trump, but now that he is the nominee the SOBs are being ZERO loyal to him and laughing.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
"'Trump is not a man of ideas or principles, he's a man of action. Just like Mussolini.' You know who else was a doer and not a thinker! Ricky Bobby!"
Couldn't have put it better myself.
traditionalguy said...
"Where I come from Nationalists are also known as Americans."
The Constitution that I swore an oath to is a federalist Constitution, not a nationalist Constitution. Where I am, Nationalists are known as traitors.
"Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority."
Except Bill Clinton won two with a plurality only.
Not necessarily, eric. I'm a Trump supporter, and I have no problem with looking into this. His resort hiring foreign guest workers may be legit, but there are certainly abuses of guest-worker visa programs, as there are abuses of all worker visa programs. The more scrutiny here, the better.
I am for more scrutiny as well. I've been working immigration going on 20 years now and there is a ton of issues with foreign workers.
But most of those issues I see deal with higher tech jobs. We had news report after news report approximately 7 years ago, bold headlines, Microsoft laying off employees. And all the while, what did I do? I processed new Microsoft hires coming from India. Was maddening.
When will Republicans figure out that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's a nationalist and a populist, sure, and he says he hates Obama and the Democrats. Apparently that's enough to win over GOP voters.
Other than the fact that you think that Republicans think he is conservative you would seem to have described the situation pretty well.
Nationalism seems to be making a come back.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Ah yes, the condescension towards those people.
In fairness to Trump and his supporters, the field is pretty weak.
Two first term senators, which is unheard of in a GOP primary. But the GOP has gone down the Obama path with that. I'm the astonishing that the GOP voters would pass over a handful of decent GOP governors for these lightweights. Granted, the governors are a bit dull, but when did the GOP get caught up in celebrity, smooth-talking bullshitters? Apparently most GOP primary voters are no better than the Dem primary voters in 2008.
Jeb was a nonstarter. He hadn't been governor in a decade and, even if his brother hadn't been such a weak president, his candidacy reeked of royalism. It's funny that the national GOP are aghast at Trump but were not slightly offended/alarmed by Jeb going for the Bush family hat trick on the presidency.
Anyway, Trump is a useful outlet for people who like high energy candidates,, detest the Bushes, and want a halt and reversal of illegal immigration.
Re: BDNYC:
Trump is not a man of ideas or principles, he's a man of action. Just like Mussolini.
Mussolini was rather theory-addled himself. He was for many years a leading Socialist activist, rather like a successful version of Bernie Sanders. He was the editor of the newspaper of the Socialist Party, Avanti! for a number of years, until the schism between his Fascist variant of socialism and the ideology of the Socialist party. He's a poor example of a "man of action" if you mean to contrast him with a "man of ideas or principles" -- he was both.
Simon is thinking really hard today. But he has a point that American refers to our dominant Scots Irish culture. We do not name that as our heritage, but we just call ourselves Americans.
The Federalists lost to us 192 years, and they are going to lose again. Try as you might, you are not going strike a secret a deal to elect a John Quincy Adams again. Trump has Massachusetts in the bag. So using the former Governor of Massachusetts as a stalking horse for Rubio is stupid.
Re Mccullough:
Granted, the governors are a bit dull, but when did the GOP get caught up in celebrity, smooth-talking bullshitters?
2012. Hey, we heard you like verbally adept young ethnic candidates with no meaningful qualifications! Here, HAVE TWO!
In fairness, Rubio was Speaker of the House in Florida for a couple years, so he wasn't just a nobody plucked from the back benches, like Obama. And he's been in the Senate 6 whole years, not just 4 (Obama & Cruz). But still. That's not a lot of preparation for the Presidency.
I can't help assuming that the NYT is looking hard to find instances of Trump's companies hiring people who are here illegally. They're finding that he followed the law. Noted.
@Althouse, couldn't help buy notice that you did not compare and contrast with the leading candidate (thanks to superdelegates) from the other party.
Jeb was a nonstarter. He hadn't been governor in a decade and, even if his brother hadn't been such a weak president, his candidacy reeked of royalism. It's funny that the national GOP are aghast at Trump but were not slightly offended/alarmed by Jeb going for the Bush family hat trick on the presidency.
This I can agree with. The whole point of the Jeb! candidacy was to place the government back in the hands of the people who had purchased it.
"In fairness, Rubio was Speaker of the House in Florida for a couple years, so he wasn't just a nobody plucked from the back benches, like Obama. And he's been in the Senate 6 whole years, not just 4 (Obama & Cruz). But still. That's not a lot of preparation for the Presidency."
Obama broke the long spell of needing extensive or executive experience--we long had governors, or very experienced former VPs (Bush, Nixon, LBJ), or a top general. Even Kennedy whose experience was light had put in over a decade in Congress. But Obama showed that you could overcome that with flash, and even used his lack of experience as a plus ("I have no experience in running the government into the ground..." which is hilarious considering he now does).
Trump is demonstrating that the old rules don't apply--you don't need paid media or campaign staffs (though this of course applies only to those who are already famous enough for the media to give free air time to--if Trump owes anyone for this strategy working it is the hated media on both left and right) and having no filter on what you say is a feature, not a bug. Whatever happens this year, I sense that campaigns for the 2020 cycle will be worlds different from what we've been used to.
"The whole point of the Jeb! candidacy was to place the government back in the hands of the people who had purchased it. "
I think it was more "safe and inoffensive". It won't excite anyone, but no one is afraid of Jeb either.
eric: The problem is, you don't get the facts. You get agenda journalism. I have my suspicions about this story.
Of course it's going to be biased; nor am I arguing that Trump has been demonstrated to be in the wrong here. But I would like to see the broader issue "brought out of the shadows", as it were, and become more than a passing snort of indignation at Disney. (What Disney pulled has been going on all over the country, for decades. Shoulda been a campaign issue a long time ago. As I notice you mention in your later comment.)
Trump's a big boy, he can handle the scrutiny. It's not as if people trying to work the "Teh Hypocracy!" angle (like Cucky McCuck Cooke, lol) are going to be able to get very far presenting themselves as champions of the American worker on that score. Right and left, everybody's vulnerable here. Make 'em all sweat.
The fact that Rubio didn't do better in Nevada by pulling in most of the Jeb voters tells me the race is over. But because of all the NE snowbirds living in Florida it's not all that surprising that Trump is doing well there. Not that it matters at this point, but a Cruz lost in Texas would more devastating to him than a Trump win in Florida for Rubio.
Re: Brando:
Trump is demonstrating that the old rules don't apply--you don't need paid media or campaign staffs (though this of course applies only to those who are already famous enough for the media to give free air time to--if Trump owes anyone for this strategy working it is the hated media on both left and right) and having no filter on what you say is a feature, not a bug. Whatever happens this year, I sense that campaigns for the 2020 cycle will be worlds different from what we've been used to.
Agreed, but I think this is a decidedly sub-optimal equilibrium here. We've already seen the problem with Obama, and I think it will be even more stark with Trump -- the ability to persuade people to vote for you implies, to a first approximation, nothing about your ability to manage the government effectively.
That's not been a bad thing with Obama -- let's "dispel with" this notion that Obama has been ruthlessly effective in promoting his dystopian progressive agenda. He's terrible at overcoming political opposition. There is no influence multiplier whatsoever -- he's had the legally defined powers any President has, and that's it. He's pushed the envelope on some aspects of those legally defined powers, sure, but he's done it by mere assertion followed by an appeal to the referee (viz. the courts). None of that has come as a result of any political influence or powers of persuasion on his part.
With Trump, one of my main worries is that he may be good at negotiating deals, but negotiating a deal isn't the be-all end-all of business. After the signing ceremonies and celebrations and all that, you have the messy everyday work of running the business -- regular operational reports, internal controls, training up personnel, etc. etc. I really have no feel whatsoever for how effective he's been there in his various businesses. His long career as a manager suggests he can't be totally incompetent as a manager, but it's also easy to imagine how a skilled negotiator could persuade many, many transactional counterparties to enter into deal after deal, with a lot of the projects or enterprises or whatever falling apart afterwards due to poor management.
On the plus side for Trump, though, there's no reason to believe his main surviving rivals -- Cruz and Rubio -- would be any better, since they've never run anything at all.
It's over. It could be worse. I will vote for him in the fall if it's vs Hillary. That is certain.
"That's not been a bad thing with Obama -- let's "dispel with" this notion that Obama has been ruthlessly effective in promoting his dystopian progressive agenda. He's terrible at overcoming political opposition. There is no influence multiplier whatsoever -- he's had the legally defined powers any President has, and that's it. He's pushed the envelope on some aspects of those legally defined powers, sure, but he's done it by mere assertion followed by an appeal to the referee (viz. the courts). None of that has come as a result of any political influence or powers of persuasion on his part."
Right--I didn't mean that Obama has been effective as president, but he did show that the electorate doesn't really value experience.
Trump does take it a step further--no political experience at all and no demonstration of an understanding of how government works--but this is the trajectory we're on. If he gets elected all will depend on which "top people" he has advising him.
Trump's a big boy, he can handle the scrutiny. It's not as if people trying to work the "Teh Hypocracy!" angle (like Cucky McCuck Cooke, lol) are going to be able to get very far presenting themselves as champions of the American worker on that score. Right and left, everybody's vulnerable here. Make 'em all sweat.
We are in agreement.
But, they can only go after the hypocrisy angle.
Because they a want migrant workers. Legal or illegal. Democrat or Republican. They all want the same thing.
So, they can't criticize him for it other than to say he is a hypocrite. Which means they'll be very careful in framing the story.
300 applications in 6 years makes the point that there aren't enough American workers skilled or willing enough to take the jobs at Trump's Palm Beach resort. One a week? Even the NYT can't make that into much.
Bulgarians and Romanians seem to find these jobs from Palm Beach, to Aspen to the Outer Banks. They are good at them. Happy to have the work. Happy to learn Great attitudes.
@Simon: "Just get it done, men, or you've bought all of us a ticket to President Trump" They have less than a week.
Of course, the fact that the obvious anti-Trump move hasn't happened yet also gives the lie to the notion that there's some strong "GOPe" out there that needs to be vanquished. Few things are less established than the GOP establishment.
Dan Hossley said...
"Unfortunately for Trump, you don't win an election with a plurality. It takes a majority."
Bill Clinton was too busy banging underage girls to comment.
On Fox News Cruz stated: “Let me flesh it out a little more,” he added. “As a Texan, as a Houstonian, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to see the Harris County District attorney bringing criminal charges against someone who went undercover to expose what appears to be vast criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood. I think he performed an incredible public service. And I’ll tell ya this: I’ve pledged, if I’m elected president, on the very first day in office, I intend to instruct the U.S. Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization.”
What about as a Canadien? I hear echos of Joe McCarthy when I listen to Cruz speak. Do supporters of Planned Parenthood need to duck and cover?
Bulgarians and Romanians seem to find these jobs from Palm Beach, to Aspen to the Outer Banks. They are good at them. Happy to have the work. Happy to learn Great attitudes.
My wife and I went on a river cruise in France in December and the majority of the wait staff was from Eastern Europe. The bartender was from Bulgaria and said the pay was very good. He had worked for the company for years and was doing it to get the money to outfit his family's farm as a winery. And also support his wife and children of course.
eric said...
"In the General, though, it is only acceptable to oppose Trump, if you are comfortable with President Hillary and a Left-wing majority on the Supreme Court.
I'm seeing a lot of this right now. Long time pols who realize they've been wrong all along about Trump. This is their last gasp. They've drawn their red line and insisted they will never vote for Trump. Some have gone so far as to insist theyll vote for Hillary over Trump.
Insanity."
The GOPe is being outed. They serve the same masters and the DNC. Their goal was always to lose gracefully and stick their heads in the trough.
The GOPe is being outed. They serve the same masters and the DNC. Their goal was always to lose gracefully and stick their heads in the trough.
That's from "eric."
Now just think about this for a moment. Ponder the notion, that the Republican Party has had a secret agreement with Democrats to lose the presidential election. One wonders if there was also an agreement to lose key Senate races as well. Or maybe all of the '16 Senate races!?!
Just imagine all of the people, and all of the moving parts in that grand conspiracy. It would have been substantially easier, with fewer people involved, to conspire to allow the terrorists to crash the four airplanes on September 11, 2001.
Wait -- was it "Achilles" that claimed to be "outing" the "GOPe"? I'm afraid I got the quotes and attributions mixed up. My apologies to the innocent.
chuck: "Ponder the notion, that the Republican Party has had a secret agreement with Democrats to lose the presidential election."
It shouldn't take much time to burn down that field of strawmen.
More to the substance set forth in Professor Althouse's post...
Since Trump claims he has "thousands" of employees, that's an issue worth discussing. It's been commonly suggested that The Trump Organization in New York has dozens, not even hundreds of employees, engaged in the licensing of the Trump name. Trump's real estate development operations do not employ "thousands," although thousands of people are employed as contractors and sub-contractors. No doubt, Trump works hard to keep the number of "employees" to a minimum. Better to have them work on contract. Then there are the golf clubs; if we give Trump credit for all of them as "Trump employees" the number goes up (little doubt that each club is separately incorporated, but I want to give Trump credit where he is due) but it still doesn't qualify as a major corporate enterprise. It's like owning a half-dozen restaurants.
I want to see Trump's tax returns.
Again, in fairness to Trump, I don't see why pressure should be put on Trump alone to reveal his tax returns. Cruz and Rubio and Kasich should be releasing ALL of their returns, going back to when they were about 16 years old. In order to demand that Trump do the same.
Romney's tax returns were something of a triumph; the real news from the Romney returns (apart from disclosures of some lavish residential properties) was that Romney was exceedingly generous with charities and his church. And what we know from others' biographies of Trump and related financial disclosures is that Trump is a remarkable cheapskate when it comes to charitable giving.
And please don't forget Hillary Clinton's tax returns.
Rubio can't win once the sex tape comes out.
You can't really call it a gay sex tape, because:
1. He is not fucking someone in the ass;
2. He is not being fucked in the ass.
But:
Low-quality video nonetheless, he IS sucking cock.
It IS Marco Rubio, sucking a beige dick.
The 'beige' is because: Low-quality video. Color is washed out. Maybe it's an albino dick, maybe it's a black dick.
You have to go to a Torrents site to see it, currently. Some have already been removed.
Because: the Man.
I must say: Marco sucks cock a little timidly: there is more than the top inch, Marco.
But Marco Rubio sucks cock. It is on the Internet.
So it must be true.
I am Laslo.
Gosh Ann! Don't scare me that way! There are three Texas polls on the GOP race. One shows Trump and Cruz tied and the other two show Cruz with a double-digit lead.
Post a Comment