Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

shiny!, I think jk's signature is posted to remind us of a great iTuliper, Sapiens.

i thought that sapiens' avatar - that graphic - was brilliant, and i appreciated seeing it from time to time. then sapiens left us. after some time i missed the message conveyed by that graphic, so i decided to display it as my signature.

i thought sapiens often had interesting things to say, but iirc he also was a devotee of conspiracy theories, with which i did not agree.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Thank you, santafe and jk, for telling me where the sig comes from. I never had the pleasure of knowing Sapiens; he was before my time.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

just tried to find the origin of "socialism for the rich,...". found at wikipedia: Believed to have been first popularised by Michael Harrington's 1962 book The Other America^[5][6] in which Harrington cited Charles Abrams,^[7] a noted authority on housing.

i had no success looking for the graphic genius who put that slogan around a drawing of the monopoly game's uncle pennybags wearing a che guevera style beret with a dollar sign.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump Planned General Election Strategy From The Start



By Howard Kurtz
Published March 02, 2016 FoxNews.com


Facebook812 Twitter0 livefyre4130 Email Print










NOW PLAYINGKurtz: Why Trump doesn't bow to the right


Never autoplay videos

Donald Trump, whose big Super Tuesday night brings him one step closer to the November ballot, has been running a general election campaign from the beginning.
Trump and his inner circle never advertised this, of course, and are amused by how the media have largely missed the strategy.
While Hillary Clinton, who also had a big day yesterday, had her aides leak details to the New York Times and Washington Post of how she’s planning a general-election assault on Trump, the Republican front-runner has had his eye on the fall since day one.
People familiar with his approach say some strategic elements evolved as the campaign unfolded. There was no 100-page memo plotting it out in advance. But this mindset explains why Trump has done certain things that are wildly unorthodox in a Republican primary race, much to the anger and consternation of leading conservative politicos and pundits.
One linchpin of this strategy came in Trump’s announcement speech, when he stirred controversy by saying that illegal Mexican immigrants included criminals and rapists. That, and his vow to build a wall across the border, gave him credibility with the conservative base. Whenever Trump would take a more moderate stance that might alienate that base, he could just pivot back to his tough immigration stance.
Trump declared early on that there should be no cuts to Social Security and Medicare. That, as his campaign knows full well, is not the standard Republican line. Conservatives believe deeply in shrinking the size of government and that entitlement programs must be reined in because they eat up a major chunk of the budget.
But Democrats have been accusing Republicans of wanting to gut the programs for a generation. Trump’s position—that people paid into the program and deserve to reap the benefits—plays well in a general election, especially since he hopes to peel off some working-class Democrats and independents.
In his press conference last night, Trump again sung the praises of Planned Parenthood, saying he would only defund the group’s abortion services—despite what the “so-called conservatives” think. This may be anathema to conservative Republicans who despise the group and are ardently pro-life. But his stance could appeal to suburban women who might otherwise view a Republican nominee as hostile.
Trump, at his rallies, routinely tries out different narratives and drops the ones that don’t work. But he has settled on a mix of conservative and moderate positions that partially explains why Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio keep attacking him as an inauthentic conservative.
Trump has never run as a doctrinaire right-winger. He has, after all, spoken repeatedly about raising taxes on hedge-fund executives, which is usually a Democratic talking point.
Trump certainly sounded like a general-election candidate last night, taking a more subdued tone and talking about sitting in the Oval Office and making deals with Democrats and Republicans. The press conference setting yielded a more subdued tone—he even said nice things about the press!—and got him 40 minutes of precious cable airtime.
The general-election strategy was also evident in Trump’s travel schedule. While some pundits questions why he wasn’t spending more time in Iowa or New Hampshire, he would jet off for rallies in Alabama and Mississippi or Massachusetts and Vermont. This was in part because he would need those states later in the primaries, but also to lay the groundwork for November.
Most Republican candidates move right during the primaries and then slide to the center a bit during the fall campaign, while Democrats do the opposite. If the Super Tuesday results indeed mean that Trump is close to becoming the party’s standard-bearer, he may not have to pivot as much as most nominees.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...rom-start.html

[flintlock]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump is popular because he is the only alternative to the establishment, period. The guy is a jerk, everyone knows that. But he has touched on subjects that people all thought but were afraid to voice openly in this PC world. His personality is the only reason he isn't sweeping every State. I think he is a dangerous guy but I also believe a lot of people will take dangerous over more of the same. The Republicans have nothing but themselves to blame for this.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump is popular because he is the only alternative to the establishment, period. The guy is a jerk, everyone knows that. But he has touched on subjects that people all thought but were afraid to voice openly in this PC world. His personality is the only reason he isn't sweeping every State. I think he is a dangerous guy but I also believe a lot of people will take dangerous over more of the same. The Republicans have nothing but themselves to blame for this.

Agreed. Trump is authoritarian for sure but I don't sense that he's evil. Normally I would look at someone like him and assume "narcissist" but being hypomanic, he might just be supremely self-confident on a level that we're not used to seeing. I don't get the sense that he's a psychopath a la Hitler. That alone puts him over Lady MacBeth. A lot of his followers are filled with rage, unfortunately. Rage and ignorance. When the pot boils over Trump will be blamed, but it was thirty years of political abuse that brought our country to this point.

Dog fighters take sweet dogs and beat the sweetness out of them until they're vicious, then the dogs get put down for being vicious.

[flintlock]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh I don't necessarily think he is evil either. At least no more so than most politicians. He is just more unpredictable because he didn't come up in the political world so doesn't feel the need to follow their weasel rules, like how to stick the knife in while smiling and shaking your hand. There are things I like about Trump, but also a lot I don't. But I could say that about most of the candidates. A Trump with a more restrained personality would probably sweep the elections. But then that wouldn't be Trump. He is impetuous and politically naive at times. That is the biggest risk. You can't file bankruptcy in war and start over.

[flintlock]

Re: Trump to win?

I think people underestimate Trump. He does nothing half-hearted.

I also think he has reached a point in his life similar to what other billionaires have experienced. Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie for example. For some reason, he wants to make a lasting impact beyond the business world, but in his own way. And lets face it, all politicians are narcissists - Trump doesn't have a monopoly on that. And that, to me, is the reason he wants to run for president - to make an impact, yet continue to fuel his ego at the same time. His persona is not one to quietly start a foundation or just donate money. He wants the spotlight so everyone sees him in action.

Think about all the other politicians. Why do they want to be president, and what are they willing to do to become president? The latter worries me more. The system is indeed broken.

He really is angry, and when he says he has begrudgingly bought politicians, and that represents a broken system, I can't argue he's not being sincere.

He's the only politician that can speak and act freely. No matter what the other politicians say, in the backrooms of the political world, their ability to do what is "right" for the country has already been jeopardized.

I think Eisenhower was the last unencumbered president. Not that there weren't others before him. But what bothers me is that it has been that long since the US has had an independent person in the White House.

Hillary supported the Iraq War and is the banking world's representative, a true Clinton Part II. Bernie is too extreme, though I often agree with his diagnoses. The Bible thumpers? They give the poor and middle class religion and then unleash their elite overlords on them.

Maybe if Biden stepped in, and did the one term Presidency promise, he could effect needed change - as that would make him almost bulletproof to vested interests.

But really, I've seen too many elections where both parties were well funded, and at the end of the day, the political arguments I had engaged in pro or con any particular candidate were ultimately exercises in futility. I'm almost embarrassed to have thought there would have been that much of a difference between the candidates.

Finally, I think it would be refreshing to see a businessman in charge and not a professional politician. The modern day professional politician is merely an extension of vested interests and "democracy" is merely a show for the masses.

Wouldn't it be useful if before every televised debate, the moderators introduced each candidate and ran down a list of their major donors? Or had the corporate logos of their major donors splattered all over their podiums? Isn't that information necessary for the voter to make an informed opinion?

Great post.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...I think Eisenhower was the last unencumbered president. Not that there weren't others before him. But what bothers me is that it has been that long since the US has had an independent person in the White House.

Oh, sure he was.

Say, have you ever heard of a fellow named John Jay McCloy? Sid Richardson, Clint Murchison or Robert R. Young ring a bell? How about B. B. Byers and George E. Allen? Surely you've heard of W. Alton Jones. Why he's a most interesting footnote to Eisenhower's unencumbered history. Sad story, really. While flying to Palm Springs to visit with his dear friend President Eisenhower his plane crashed and rich Alton met his untimely end.

Now what's interesting is that they found $61,000 in cash and travelers' checks in Alton's briefcase. Now that's not so remarkable for a man of Jones' considerable wealth. After all, he was CEO of what would become CITGO. But an explanation of why the head of one of the leading oil companies of America was flying to see the ex-President of the United States with the equivalent of half a million dollars cash in his briefcase was never offered, never mind asked.

Fletcher Knebel in the Des Moines Register carefully listed the numerous gifts presented to the Eisenhower farm, including a John Deere tractor with a radio in it, a completely equipped electric kitchen, landscaping improvements and ponies and Black Angus steers-worth, all together, more than half a million dollars. Compare this outpouring to the $1,200 deep freeze-and the resulting uproar over it - given to President Truman by a Milwaukee friend of General Harry Vaughn. But no newspaper dug into the highly compromising fact that the upkeep of the Eisenhower farm was paid for by three oilmen - W. Alton Jones, chairman of the executive committee of Cities Service; B. B. (Billy) Byars of Tyler, Texas, and George E. Allen, director of some 20 corporations and a heavy investor in oil with Major Louey Kung, nephew of Chiang Kai-shek. They signed a strictly private lease agreement, under which they were supposed to pay the farm costs and collect the profits. Internal Revenue, after checking into the deal, could find no evidence that the oilmen had attempted to operate the farm as a profitable venture. Internal Revenue concluded that the money the oilmen poured into the farm could not be deducted as a business expense but had to be reported as an outright gift. Thus, by official ruling of the Internal Revenue Service, three oilmen gave Ike more than $500,000 at the same time he was making decisions favorable to the oil industry. The money went for such capital improvements as: construction of a show barn, $30,000; three smaller barns, about $22,000; remodeling of a schoolhouse as a home for John Eisenhower, $10,000; remodeling of the main house, $110,000; landscaping of 10 acres around the Eisenhower home, $6,000; plus substantial outlays for the staff including a $10,000-ayear farm manager.

How the money was paid is revealed in a letter dated January 28, 1958, and written from Gettysburg by General Arthur S. Nevins, Ike's farm manager. Addressed to George E. Allen in Washington and B. B. Byars in Tyler, Texas, it began, "Dear George and Billy" and discussed the operation of the farm in some detail. It said, in part:

"New subject - The funds for the farm operation are getting low. So would each of you also let me have your check in the usual amount of $2,500. A similar amount will be transferred to the partnership account from W. Alton Jones's funds."

In the left-hand corner of the letter is the notation that a carbon copy was being sent to W. Alton Jones.

During his eight years in the White House, Dwight Eisenhower did more for the nation's private oil and gas interests than any other President. He encouraged and signed legislation overruling a Supreme Court decision giving offshore oil to the Federal Government. He gave office space inside the White House to a committee of oil and gas men who wrote a report recommending legislation that would have removed natural-gas pipelines from control by the Federal Power Commission. In his appointments to the FPC, every commissioner Ike named except one, William Connole, was a pro-industry man. When Connole objected to gas price increases, Eisenhower eased him out of the commission at the expiration of his term.

On January 19, 1961, one day before he left the White House, Eisenhower signed a procedural instruction on the importation of residual oil that required all importers to move over and sacrifice 15 percent of their quotas to newcomers who wanted a share of the action. One of the major beneficiaries of this last-minute executive order happened to be Cities Service, which had had no residual quota till that time but which under Ike's new order was allotted about 3,000 barrels a day. The chief executive of Cities Service was W. Alton Jones, one of the three faithful contributors to the upkeep of the Eisenhower farm.

Three months later, Jones was flying to Palm Springs to visit the retired President of the United States when his plane crashed and Jones was killed. In his briefcase was found $61,000 in cash and travelers' checks. No explanation was ever offered - in fact none was ever asked for by the complacent American press - as to why the head of one of the leading oil companies of America was flying to see the ex-President of the United States with $61,000 in his briefcase.

The case against Congress: a compelling indictment of corruption on Capitol Hill

You know who the last unencumbered president was and you know what happened to him, too.

He didn't have so many friends in the oil business as his predecessor, that's for sure. And he wasn't exactly popular with them either, especially after January 15th, 1963. That's when this last and final unencumbered president presented his proposals for tax reform.

It included eliminating the oil depletion allowance and would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen. That's about $2.3 billion in today's dollars, so you can imagine why they might had felt a bit let down.

After this last unencumbered president was unexpectedly succeeded by his Texan Vice-President - a dear and longtime friend of many oil barons, some also Ike's friends - well, this new and quite encumbered president decided to drop plans to remove the oil depletion allowance from his predecessor's tax reform bill.

And when he declined to run for a second term, his successor followed his example and became even more encumbered. When that all too over-encumbered president was forced to resign, a new president encumbered only by his promises of reform was elected. And he ended the giveaway.

Another interesting footnote. This last president seemed to govern for a while as if he was free of the encumbrances of his predecessors. Certainly, he seemed to believe he was. Alas, on a trip to California, he was visited by two admirers named Osvaldo Ortiz and Raymond Lee Harvey.

And after that he seemed the most encumbered of any president in modern history. And the oil depletion allowance. Yeah, it's back and better than ever.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

The old Hianloland Farm is a great place for a long autumn walk--after mosquito season has ended. Mostly flat, some rolling hills, quiet, swampy, foggy, forested, full of deer (and deer ticks, another reason after summer is better).

Still, it's an eerie spot. Gives you pause to wonder just what secrets are buried there...what stories were told? And if it weren't for the quick thinking of the farm's caretaker to make a phone call to the family, and a relationship he built with a couple agricultural station researchers built over the course of a study on EEE, odds are it'd be just another subdivision today. But that's an aside.

Anyways, the place hasn't changed so much in 50 years. Still untouched. Except the gun room burned down shortly just a couple years after his death...and the quail hunting ain't what it used to be. Anyways, there they are now...



You could probably learn more about power in America through a 100 year history of quail hunting than anyone would be comfortable admitting.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

...You can't file bankruptcy in war and start over.

Regardless of the actual outcome of the wars the USA always declares victory and then tries to go home.

The lasting legacy of every post-Carter Republican administration is starting a dust up somewhere in the world (Yes, I know Clinton/NATO bombed Yugoslavia). If in office, perhaps Trump will sense Americans are weary of this an do the opposite?

[gnk]

Re: Trump to win?

I stand corrected.

But JFK had many enemies from day one given how he became President. It's all a rotten mess.

I'm willing to roll the dice on either Sanders or Trump. A house cleaning is in order, and it will be unavoidably messy, but the US will survive. Despite the corruption in the US, compared to most countries, the US is still a functional country - you can't compare the level of corruption in the US to Russia or China. I don't see either candidate doing the type of damage to the US that has already been done and will continue to be done in both Russia and China. But to continue down the path of corporate sponsored candidates, to me is insanity.

The corruption that exists in the US, particularly through the FIRE and Defense Industries, has compromised the US's role in the world at a very dangerous time in world history. The Middle East wars and the AFC are primes examples of this. Luckily, the other powers, outside the EU, are much more corrupt and inept, for the time being.

Aside from the US's global role, US corruption, which is surprisingly legal and transparent for the most part, has crushed American living standards. From Big Insurance to Pharma to Higher Education... I can't believe that the average American puts up with this. From what I have seen in the EU - Average Europeans live much better lives than the average American does. Healthcare, Education, Vacation time, etc... These countries constantly rank the highest in living standards. What gives? Are Americans that complacent?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to win?

Noonan talks Trump

In the more snarky and cynical corners of the liberal leftist blogosphere, Peggy Noonan is a beloved villain.
She is portrayed as an aloof out-of-touch aristocrat, a boozy yacht-club matron who distains peasants who don't know their place and won't take their medicine.

Dame Noonan seems to have gotten this one right, largely, and has coined a phrase that might be as sticky and useful as "the 1% and the 99%".
She says "the protected class and the unprotected class". Good for Ms. Noonan.

I found it over at zerocred, but this link points to the site they aggregate, it includes Ms. Noonan's entire op-ed plus salient comments.
http://dollarcollapse.com/politics-2...e-unprotected/


Here's is Noonan's definition

..There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time...

And Noonan offers this wonderful advice:

...Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize...

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

And Noonan offers this wonderful advice:

".Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize..."

Now where did I read that before....

... considering how low we've sunk as a nation, how far removed we are from the basic precepts of equality and opportunity everyone of us profess to hold dear as Americans, well in my mind the economics of this are secondary to the the ethics of it.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Trump to win?

Now where did I read that before....

When Woodsman and Peggy Noonan are on the same page, well, we might have a movement, maybe the THE ALICE'S RESTAURANT ANTI-MASSACREE MOVEMENT!, or something similar...