sass

It's probably not worth focusing on Trump's policies that much. Does anybody seriously believe that he won't end up breaking all of his promises

How he gets to his pronouncements (which may be a fairer description than policy positions) is worth looking at very closely. What evidence does he offer for his claims, for his reasoning , for his actions?
Internet tripe mostly.
He's nuts.
This guy would be enormously dangerous with any significant power.

And he's about 75% likely to be the republican nominee right now.

rickyp wrote: He's nuts. This guy would be enormously dangerous with any significant power.
And he's about 75% likely to be the republican nominee right now.

Well, I agree, in most respects. It seems as if nothing Trump says hurts him. Even the Pope's criticism backfired. Of course, the Pope was not only out of line, but hypocritical. My position has always been that Trump's main goal is to destroy any hope the Republicans have for winning the Presidency; hence, his outrageous, pointless remarks and lack of any real policy. Why? I think he is still a liberal at heart.

Does Trump believe what he says? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe as time goes on, he has begun to believe his own bellicose actions. Yet, it always looks like he is in this campaign to have fun at everybody else's expense. Trump clearly enjoys humiliating his fellow candidates and hogging the media spotlight. And the Media fall in line to help him do it, at the expense of the other candidates. After all, bad taste and rudeness sell big on TV. Who cares about policy, anyway? If TV was serious about debates, there would be kill switches for each candidate's microphone.

On the other hand, is Trump really as loopy and extremist as he comes off? Not sure. He was born rich, of course, but he has built up an impressive empire of sorts. Sure, he's had failures, but that is the nature of business and nobody can claim to be always right and always successful. Still, becoming the figurehead/leader of the US is not just about making (business) deals. And Trump's political cache overseas is already soooooo bad that it is doubtful leaders of other countries would bother to see him, if they did not have to. They might still do it, since he "would" be the President of the US (a respect for the Office that is something President Hope-And-Change cares little about, having refused to attend the funeral of a US Supreme Court Justice).

But I can see how the Media would love a Trump candidacy: Either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Bernie. It would be a 24x7 knock-down, drag-out, insult-laden Reality Show that would make even "Keeping up with The Kardashians" look like the "The Brady Bunch" by comparison. For sheer audacity, depravity and lack of scruples, it might even top the Praetorian Guard's "e-bay" auctioning the position of Roman Emperor in AD 193. Unfortunately, Trump is running against a group of pandering, mediocre, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, and forgettable hopefuls. But any one of them would probably be preferable to Trump; by a small degree, anyway.

What Trump clearly has is an instinctive understanding of mass media and how to manipulate it for his own advantage. He also, by the looks of things, doesn't really care about whether he wins or loses the race, which gives him a freedom to act that is absent from his rivals. It makes for a surprisingly potent package. I don't believe for one second that he's sincere in what he's promising though. He isn't a conviction politician, and I don't really think he's a demagogue either. He's just a chancer who entered the race on a whim because he sensed weakness in the other candidates and somehow found a pitch that seems to be working for him so he's decided to roll with it. I very much doubt that he'd govern the same way.

Sassenach wrote:What Trump clearly has is an instinctive understanding of mass media and how to manipulate it for his own advantage. He also, by the looks of things, doesn't really care about whether he wins or loses the race, which gives him a freedom to act that is absent from his rivals. It makes for a surprisingly potent package. I don't believe for one second that he's sincere in what he's promising though. He isn't a conviction politician, and I don't really think he's a demagogue either. He's just a chancer who entered the race on a whim because he sensed weakness in the other candidates and somehow found a pitch that seems to be working for him so he's decided to roll with it. I very much doubt that he'd govern the same way.

Well, if he is only in it for a lark, as you suggest, it is a very time-consuming and expensive lark, even for somebody like him. Maybe he did start out that way, just to get some publicity and have a chance to wank a few noses here and there. Maybe he's started to drink his own koolaid. Maybe he has an ulterior motive that is worth the time, energy, and unflattering publicity he is garnering. If you have a reputation as a tough, serious, and successful businessman, would you risk damaging your reputation by going into a presidential campaign just so you can poke everybody in the eye and blame them for bleeding on your finger?

I agree that he probably would not govern in the same bullying style he exhibits. Let's hope we don't have to find out.

He doesn't have a reputation as a serious businessman. His reputation has always been as a wealthy clown with a huge ego.

Sassenach wrote:He doesn't have a reputation as a serious businessman. His reputation has always been as a wealthy clown with a huge ego.

Well, he has always been a publicity-whore, that is true. Still, I don't think you get to his position through insults and reality tv shows. He may be a bully as wheeler-dealer, but I have the feeling that is not always a deficiency in business. I'm sure that, behind the scenes, he is all business.

george

I'm sure that, behind the scenes, he is all business

.

Back in 1989 he did this ....

Trump spent more than $85,000 on four full-page ads in newspapers -- including The New York Times and the Daily News -- on May 1, 1989. The ads were published just weeks after 28-year-old Trisha Melli was beaten and raped while jogging in Central Park -- an attack that riveted the city's attention.

Police -- and Trump -- zeroed in on the five teens.

“BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” Trump's ads declared in bold letters.
Trump appealed to then-Mayor Ed Koch for a city without “the constant chant of ‘police brutality.’” He wanted death for anyone who looked, acted or sounded like the Central Park Five.
“They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” he wrote. “I want to hate these murderers and I always will … I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to be afraid.”
Even then, Trump was known as an instigator who had the power to influence residents of a city reeling from rampant poverty, crime and drug use. The Guardian this week published a report on his campaign at the time to bring back the death penalty in New York so the Central Park Five could be executed.
The teens were convicted, based on flimsy evidence and confessions they said were coerced. The convictions were vacated years later when the real rapist admitted attacking the jogger and his DNA was matched to the crime. The city paid millions to the teens to settle their lawsuits.
Trump, however, has continued to call large swaths of innocent people killers, rapists and criminals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... 136f16fd4e

In power, this man would be very dangerous.

I wasn't kidding when I asked that you talk me out of voting for the Chump. And I'm turning to this forum to get a balanced take on all of these candidates. I will say that if Berndog fails to beat Hillary I may end up sitting this election out and not vote at all. We'll see.

By the way, can any of you explain how the Democrats utilize their super delegates as part of their primary? I'm hearing (I sound like Trump) that the criminal has over 400 super delegates to Bernie's 11 super delegates. How is this fair, how and why did this become a part of their process and what, if anything can be done about it? I don't get it at all.

rickyp wrote:george

I'm sure that, behind the scenes, he is all business

.

Back in 1989 he did this ...In power, this man would be very dangerous.

Well, yes. But that's not my point. That's the public image. We all agree he is a crackpot. But that wasn't my point. My point is that in his own business world, he is about business. That's all. He may bully his adversaries, I don't doubt. He may bribe politicians, I don't know. But he's a publicity hound and enjoys putting people off balance. He believes it gives him an edge, or so I think. You will notice that he constantly interrupts the other candidates when they speak, but then finger-wags them if they try to interrupt him. As Sassenach noted, he probably would not run a presidency in the same way, but then again, I expect most people who get elected president have a "public image" and a private "presidential" image they use when on the job and the cameras are off.

That reminds me of that funny SNL skit back in the Reagan days when they showed the "bumpkin Reagan" with his wagging head and vacuous dialog when meeting the public, but when left with his staff, he suddenly became a strong-willed, analytical force of nature.

I don't think Trump is exactly like that. And he'd make a bad president.

dag

By the way, can any of you explain how the Democrats utilize their super delegates as part of their primary?

You mean as part of the convention. They have no role in the primaries.

Superdelegates are elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee who will vote at the Democratic National Convention for their preferred candidate. Also known as "unpledged delegates," they may change their preference at any time and comprise about one sixth of the delegates to the convention. The table and list immediately below reflect current support.

There are 732 of them. Hillary has 432 publicly commited. Bernie 16.

dag

that the criminal has over 400 super delegates to Bernie's 11 super delegates.

And you call her a "criminal" because?
I didn't think you spent time on conspiracy web sites..

I meant "convention." It seems this group could play a big part in tipping the scales down the road. That doesn't seem fair to me.

And Rickyp, you've got to be kidding me, an indicted criminal has no right even run for political office.

What? She hasn't been indicted yet? Give it a little more time.

I'd be surprised if the super delegates all vote for Hillary in the event that Bernie has more normal delegates. That would be widely seen as illegitimate and could backfire spectacularly in the general election.

Sassenach wrote:I'd be surprised if the super delegates all vote for Hillary in the event that Bernie has more normal delegates. That would be widely seen as illegitimate and could backfire spectacularly in the general election.

There are about 4000 delegates, and 732 "superdelegates". In theory they could swing the vote and Convention but they are not bound as the primary delegates are and I agree it would be massively divisive to do so.

dag

What? She hasn't been indicted yet? Give it a little more time

Republicans have been promising the demise of Hillary through legal means for years...
Its all wishful thinking. Benghazi's 13 hearings should have proved that if not all the investigations in the 90;s...

The press gets all hot and bothered because someone with a profile offers an uninformed prophecy.... and the gin mill gets pumped up...
Here's a response to that phenomenon...

Over the weekend there was a stir because a New York Times reporter, Peter Baker, told CNN's Sunday morning show that Democrats are "quietly absolutely petrified" of a mid-summer indictment. This 'hot take' was immediately picked by Mike Allen's Politico Playbook. The stage was then set for yet another DC bubble derp freakout. Are Democrats "petrified"? I think that's an overstatement. But are some nervous? I have no doubt they are. But I know people are stocking up on ammo for when ISIS mounts an operation against their house. For most people fear is generated by press coverage, often ignorant or tendentious press coverage. And with the breathless coverage of developments that more or less obviously have no legal impact whatsoever, I don't doubt that many are nervous.

Here's the reality. Who knows what we will learn in the future? And this has nothing to do with the political impact of the "emails controversy." But as a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched

.
talking points memo

rickyp wrote:dag

What? She hasn't been indicted yet? Give it a little more time

Republicans have been promising the demise of Hillary through legal means for years...
Its all wishful thinking. Benghazi's 13 hearings should have proved that if not all the investigations in the 90;s...

The press gets all hot and bothered because someone with a profile offers an uninformed prophecy.... and the gin mill gets pumped up...
Here's a response to that phenomenon...

Over the weekend there was a stir because a New York Times reporter, Peter Baker, told CNN's Sunday morning show that Democrats are "quietly absolutely petrified" of a mid-summer indictment. This 'hot take' was immediately picked by Mike Allen's Politico Playbook. The stage was then set for yet another DC bubble derp freakout. Are Democrats "petrified"? I think that's an overstatement. But are some nervous? I have no doubt they are. But I know people are stocking up on ammo for when ISIS mounts an operation against their house. For most people fear is generated by press coverage, often ignorant or tendentious press coverage. And with the breathless coverage of developments that more or less obviously have no legal impact whatsoever, I don't doubt that many are nervous.

Here's the reality. Who knows what we will learn in the future? And this has nothing to do with the political impact of the "emails controversy." But as a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched

.
talking points memo

Hopefully, nobody wastes the thirty seconds I spent reading that post.