Dream a little dream of DREAMers
When in doubt, you can always run out the clock with some verbiage, and then promise to “look at it.” In the following clip I also could not help noticing the ever-increasing arrogant dismissiveness of Trump’s manner these days.
Note also that the subject matter about which he was actually queried is supposed to be in Trump’s wheelhouse: immigration. Has he not bothered to learn much about it?
And yes, I know, I know; his answer is a strategic and powerful appeal to the black vote, right? He really could answer the question perfectly if he so desired.
I apologize for the continuing Trump focus. But I’d love for that Trump video to go viral. I can DREAM too, can’t I?
[ADDENDUM: And the hits keep coming: Trump on his health care plan:
Here’s what I said. We’re going to have great plans. They’re going to be much less expensive and they’re going to be much better because the Obama plan is unaffordable and it’s a disaster. And by the way in ’17 it’s going to die unless the Republicans continue to fund money like ”” it’s not affordable by the country, not affordable by the people. But what I say is this, we’re going to have great plans. But there will be a group of people that is not doing well, that has no money. We cannot let them die in the streets…And we’ll work out either through Medicare which we’ll save or something. We will work out a plan where instead of having people dying in the streets. And I say to the Republicans all the time. And by the way I get standing ovations from Republicans, from Republican groups. I got one yesterday. I said we can’t let people die in the streets. We got to work out a deal with the hospital or with somebody in that community where if somebody is sick and really sick. And they don’t have housing and they don’t have …
SCARBOROUGH: So all Americans will get health care of some sort ””
TRUMP: We’re going to take care of them. We’re going to take care of them. We have to take care of them. Now, that’s not single payer. That’s not anything. That’s just human decency. And I’ll tell you what. Every single time I say that, I say to people in the audience ”” I say, “so what do you think?” They all stand up and give me a standing ovation, OK?
…what we’re going to have is we’re going to have private plans, we’re going to have maybe the health care savings plans which are very good. We’re going to get rid of the lines. You know what happens when you get rid of the lines? You have tremendous competition and the price goes way down.
I realize that Trump doesn’t drink, but then what is the explanation here for the incoherence? “And we’ll work out either through Medicare which we’ll save or something.” Is his tactic just to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks? Does Trump’s answer sound like a plan of any kind, other than repetition of a bunch of extremely general options? And notice the continual reminding us of his crowd approval, “And by the way I get standing ovations from Republicans, from Republican groups. I got one yesterday”; “Every single time I say that, I say to people in the audience ”” I say, ‘so what do you think?’ They all stand up and give me a standing ovation, OK?”
If that wasn’t enough, you can take a look at this, a stroll down memory lane.]
Sorry but I can’t agree that Trump was engaged in meaningless ‘verbiage’ in order to run out the clock.
My perception is that his outrage, which to me comes across as sincere, at the endemic lack of opportunity for American youth makes questions about the situation of ‘dreamers’, children who should not even be here, whose parents are lawbreakers… of minimal importance compared to the much larger issue.
If I read him correctly, Trump is suggesting that our priorities are so out of place that ‘dreamers’ get the media’s attention, while silence reins on 92+ million Americans who are out of work, concealed by purposely deceptive job numbers, unquestioned ‘numbers’, repeatedly touted by the media. Purposely used to mask the reality that while Wall Street has done fine under Obama, Main Street is in a never ending depression.
A depression where 100% of the job growth under Obama has gone to legal and illegal immigrants. I read the man as so frustrated with the media’s slanted, gotcha questions that he simply has no patience with them. I’m fairly confident I’m seeing a man who realizes that giving those questions civil consideration is simply allowing the media to set the narrative. Sure he’s rude and dismissively arrogant to the media but nothing less will set the media back on their heels and keep them off balance. I sure wish Cruz and Rubio got in the face of the media half as much as Trump does because we can’t win this fight with political correctness tying one hand behind our back.
It’s obvious that Trump is not an intellectual or an extemporaneous speaker, deeply versed in the issues. But assuming him not to be a covert democrat plant… his gut instincts about the most important issues facing America is solidly accurate.
I read Trump as saying that we have to place America first or there won’t be an America anymore and, that he has no tolerance for fools because America no longer has the wherewithal to spare time for them.
None of this is intended to deny Trump’s negatives, such as his lies, much less suggest that he’d be suitable as a President but that doesn’t equate to him being wrong here.
Once our minds are made up, it is so easy to say of those we dislike that, they are ‘mulishly stubborn’ but… I am ‘tenacious’…
Geoffrey Britain:
I never said it his verbiage was meaningless; in fact, I’ve heard it before, and I’m pretty sure it’s part of his general message and stump speech (if he can be said to have a stump speech; he doesn’t always say the same words, but he tends to touch on the same themes in his talks).
My point is that in this press conference it was a distraction from a question he was unable to answer. It wasn’t BS in and of itself. It was just like when a student is asked to write about, let’s say, the symbolism of Moby Dick on a final exam, and instead he says that he’d like to write about the symbolism of Billy Budd—and does it because he’s read Billy Budd but is not really conversant with Moby Dick.
I would have had no problem whatsoever with Trump’s answer had he given it and then gone on to answer the question. He did not, and clearly could not, off the cuff. And his promise to “look at it” did not suffice.
Seen earlier today, a reminder about Trump and the Dreamers from just a couple of years ago.
Oh, and then there’s the emerging tape of Trump in 2002 telling Howard Stern the US should invade Iraq.
I doubt that he got the context of “Dreamers” as the media player intended — at the first shot.
BUT.
Trump latched on to the destroyed dreams of Americans… as it occurred to him that the media player was speaking of Mexican dreams.
So he FLIPPED the (MSM// maladministration) script.
Jiu jitzu!
Rather than tarnish his campaign — this clip makes him look all the better.
This clip also is a ‘tell’ that Donald is not a Democrat ‘plant.’
He’s on his own hobby horse.
I’ll support him in November — IF he’s the GOP nominee.
But, Ted Cruz is my man all the way to the GOP convention.
Then again, I’m in California — so I have no meaningful vote.
One-party politics makes a mockery of republican democracy.
cf Illinois, Hawaii, California….
blert:
This is the transcript of what was said:
He then goes into the riff on black dreamers.
So, he certainly seemed to hear the question all right. And if he didn’t understand the question, why didn’t he understand it?
Is he that disinterested? Is he that stupid? Seriously, why on earth would you think he didn’t understand?
And what about at the second shot, when she asked again at the end? It was a very simple question at the end: “REPORTER: So, deferred action, Mr. Trump, would you revoke their deferred action?”
And he said: “I’ll look into it.”
Why didn’t he ever answer? Do you really think he has an answer and chose not to answer?
To me it seems he had no answer and just blew her off.
And of course it will only help him with those who like him! As he said, he could shoot someone…
That’s not my point. My point is that it’s deplorable that he doesn’t know his own specialty (supposedly): immigration. BS artist. Of course BS works.
As I wrote to Geoffrey Britain in my previous comment on this thread, his answer would have been fine if he’d gone on to answer the actual content of the question after giving his riff on the black dreamers, etc. No problem with that—it actually would have been a good answer. But he didn’t do both, because he couldn’t answer the question.
And I have little doubt that if he just mooned the press corps, it would help him, too.
Heh, Ben Sasse reads tweets from Trumpers. Good God! The man can read!
Quoting The Right Scoop: “Donald Trump was on CNN tonight and told Anderson Cooper, when asked about the Obamacare mandate, that he liked the mandate. Really, he said that.”
His entire manner and presentation is so, so annoying.
The finger pointing. The rambling style. The adjectives. Repeating himself. No substance. The bragging.
A question for those who watch the late night shows: are they making jokes about this guy? Seriously (as they say), Trump comes across as a blithering idiot. Yeah I know the Trumpers like apparently Geoffrey Britain will say he really meant something profound but Occam’s razor says Trump is just blowing smoke and does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about. If the jokes are not coming methinks the late night comics, leftwingers all, are holding their fire until he gets the Republican nomination and then they will eviscerate him and the jokes will be repeated throughout the MSM.
Bob…
You’ve nailed it.
The Left, the MSM, they ALL want to run against Trump.
Cruz, Rubio — not so much.
Trump is a juvenile Elvis, without Elvis’s sense of rhythm.
GB,
Careful there partner you may be under the spell of the donald’s kool-aid rays.
neo,
I heard back from my contact. He is in SC working his fingers to the bone, but promised to pass your idea up the chain. Time will tell. I have been invited to participate in trench warfare in NV, and I am seriously considering the idea. Mrs. parker is sleeping and will probably torpedo the idea in the morning.
Bob, blert,
Duh, you think so? 😉
…what we’re going to have is we’re going to have private plans, we’re going to have maybe the health care savings plans which are very good.
He’s glommed on to Dr. Carson’s plan for health care reform. Has he also made a deal with the good doctor to stay in the race to the convention and thus deny Cruz and Rubio his followers? He certainly has fanned the flames of discord between Cruz and Carson. His segue to black dreamers was meant as a sop as would a Carson VP pick, at least in his pinhead brain.
neo
Head to head polling indicates that BOTH Cruz and Rubio CRUSH Trump.
Both voting blocs are NOT-Trump voters.
I don’t see Trump pulling ANY strength from Cruz or Rubio supporters.
I don’t see Trump pulling ANY strength from the rest of the field.
He’s run clean out of nihilists.
&&&&&&&&&&
But,…
It’s worse than that.
My brother is a Trump fanboy.
If you knew my brother — that’s the Kiss of Death.
He’s positively ATTRACTED to the criminal mind.
Yup.
&&&&&
I’d vote for Trump in November — but my vote doesn’t count under any circumstances.
I’m in California.
Cruz is MY man. I’d stump for him… but I’m in California.
Cruz or Rubio would sweep my town and the counties around for miles on end.
But, so what. Think Los Angeles. Done.
Rubio is an acceptable fall back — though I figure him to be a slow boat to ruin.
The rest of the field is headed straight for the falls.
As for Rodham-Clinton she’s more asp than Cleopatra.
He fingerprints are ALL OVER the fiasco that is Libya and Syria.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
And I don’t even groove with Jeffrey Sachs.
Cornhead,
Trump is far more than just annoying. I would put him somewhere near puke-inducing disgusting. I listened to a bit of neo’s last link. What is wrong with America? We have gangsta rappers on one end and Trumplike rich and artsy crafties on the other. Money isn’t everything. Bling and gold bathroom faucets aren’t everything. I just don’t get it.
Marco Rubio sat on a wall [of candidates]
Marco Rubio had a great fall
All the King’s [Republican establishment] horses
and all King’s men
Cannot put Marco Rubio together again.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/if-trump-wins-he-has-1367322603880502.html
“Is his tactic just to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks?” Bless your heart, Neo. That’s not a tactic. That’s his strategy!
neo,
“Merriam‑Webster verbiage:
1 : a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content”
Given the definition of verbiage, perhaps you can understand that I interpreted your use of it to equate to meaningless?
Consider the following;
REPORTER: Who have the deferred action given to them by the Obama administration..
TRUMP: Sure. I think it’s great.
very simple question at the end:
“REPORTER: So, deferred action, Mr. Trump, would you revoke their deferred action?”
And he said: “I’ll look into it.”
Alternative explanation; Trump answered the question succinctly, “Sure. I think it’s great.”
asked again, having already answered it and losing patience; “I’ll look into it.” i.e. ‘I may decide to give it further consideration at some future date.’
As for Trump’s ‘lack of in depth expertise’ on his ‘signature’ issue, Trump is not a ‘detail’ guy, nor was Ronald Reagan and neither is George W. Bush. They rely on their gut instincts, on the bottom line. Reagan’s Soviet ‘strategy’ was and I quote, “they lose, we win”.
Demanding of Trump that he be conversant with every aspect of the issue is insisting that he be a detail guy, rather than a big picture guy.
Pres. Carter was the quintessential ‘detail guy’, a micro-manager. But his gut instincts were and are in the toilet and we all know what that brought us.
Again, as far as Trump and others of similar attitude are concerned, the plight of ‘dreamers’ is of minimal interest because they’re lucky to be here at all and if, for instance they have to pay more for college, that’s the consequence of their parents actions, NOT the American taxpayer’s obligation to act as their sugar daddy.
You might consider that Trump went on his ‘rant’ because that issue is of far more importance than the plight of the dreamers and, in reaction to a media that wants to occupy all his time with gotcha questions and inconsequential issues, rather than the important issues, which they are actively avoiding in order to support the democrats.
“Careful there partner you may be under the spell of the donald’s kool-aid rays.” parker
LOL. Rest easy partner, there is absolutely NO chance whatsoever that I will ever be a fan of Donald Trump. I simply give credit where I believe credit to be due and like neo, try to be objective in my assessments.
Trump’s negatives are legion, in many ways he’s a despicable human being. I’m simply not convinced that Trump is the monster neo and others are portraying him as. As for him being a dem plant, my jury is still out.
Geoffrey Britain,
George W. Bush sought advice about areas beyond his expertise and seriously looked at problems that arose. Do you remember the questioning he did about embryonic stem cell research? Trump doesn’t think being president requires any learning. He also doesn’t seem to think there will ever be hard problems to solve. He sees a news report or hears about some conspiracy theory and spouts off without doing a bit of homework. He may be getting away with some of this now among the Trmpster, but when he takes this to an international level, he will cause lots of problems. Foreign leaders don’t like being insulted in public.
He has no idea of them many things Bush had on his plate during his term. Bush couldn’t say “You’re fired” and wait for next week’s episode.
Did you read J.Christian Adam’s piece on his bankruptcies and other bad business deals at PJM? The American people will be stuck paying for his bankrupt projects, and not just in money.
Geoffrey Britain,
From what I gather, President Bush was detail oriented. Which doesn’t preclude gut instinct, too.
sdferr:
“Oh, and then there’s the emerging tape of Trump in 2002 telling Howard Stern the US should invade Iraq.”
Set the stage for that with the actual grounds of the decision for OIF and you have a compelling compare-and-contrast of Bush-vs-Trump to highlight the point.
See the answer(s) to “What were President Bush’s alternatives with Iraq?”, “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”, “Did Bush allow enough time for the inspections?”, “Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?”, and the rest.
Donald Trump is a fraudster who pretends to be a “big picture” guy. James Madison for an example, I’d submit, was a genuine big picture guy. Attempt to imagine Donald Trump in a question and answer dialogue with James Madison concerning the big picture question of justice, the question every politician must confront. Then try not to laugh.
Eric,
I have read otherwise by people that were there.
expat,
“George W. Bush sought advice about areas beyond his expertise and seriously looked at problems that arose.”
Like being advised and accepting that “Islam is a religion of peace”? Or, being sold the flawed premise that a universal aspiration for self-determination superseded cultural and religious imperatives? That kind of expertise and serious study on the problems that arose?
My point being that while Bush may have sought advice on the areas beyond his expertise, his seeking was selective and, his insights lacked enough depth to see the flaws in the advice he was being given or, even the ability to listen critically to the arguments against what he was being told by some, which should be a given for any President. Contrary advisement which any decision maker must solicit, if they are to avoid disastrous mistakes.
“Trump doesn’t think being president requires any learning.”
That may be true but at this time, that is an assumption upon your and other’s part. The same charge was leveled against Reagan.
Once again, I am NOT defending Trump. I am arguing against one interpretation of what he said and the speculative assertions as to his motivations, which are presented as factual.
I am NOT saying that, the interpretation against which I argue is wrong, it may well be right but there are alternative interpretations, which are equally possible.
sdferr,
Trump may well be a ‘fraudster’ but ‘may’ is the operative word. His positions on illegal immigration and Muslim migration strongly argue that he is a ‘big picture’ guy.
Were he not, he never would have made them his focus, as to argue that he cleverly tuned into conservative rage and cynically exploited it… is to admit that he is a big picture guy, just someone you rightfully oppose. Leaving only the alternative explanation that he is in fact a democrat plant.
Other than Ted Cruz, imagining any of today’s candidates in a question and answer dialogue with James Madison is ludicrous. Very few Presidents have been in his league.
It was pretty obvious to me that he misspoke and intended to say ‘medicaid’ as he was talking about the poor.
Which is true. We will need to do something to cover those who cannot afford insurance, right? Either with medical savings accounts, fixing the Medicaid program, etc.
Bullshit is bullshit with Trump. That’s as genuine as he gets. He does not seek to repair the injustices and the anger arising from them that he uses to attain to powers he can only now dream of possessing.
There’s a good reason to use a high standard in men such as Madison for comparison purposes, in particular when a fool like Trump says “I think it’s great” in direct contradiction of everything Madison stood for.
Trump doesn’t think being president requires any learning. He also doesn’t seem to think there will ever be hard problems to solve.
I have never gotten that impression. He has talked about ‘hiring the best people,’ which to me implies he will have hard problems to solve and intends to find fantastic, smart people who can solve them. I have no doubt that Trump knows how to hire good managers and will do that in his administration.
I’ve also never heard him claim that he knows everything and doesn’t need to learn. This clearly is just your impression of him. I have heard him say things when asked about this or that, ‘we’ll look into that.’ Which implies not only that he doesn’t ‘know everything’ and he will learn about the subject.
By the way, I did not intend to use Madison as a Presidential exemplar (he doesn’t seem to be the best example there), but rather as a political-philosophical thinker and law-giver (in the ancient’s sense of “law-giver”, or as a wise founder of a sturdy and stable political regime) — one who thinks deeply about the fundamental questions every law-giver must consider, which questions, on settlement, lesser politicians are presumed to follow in governance as from the hands of wiser predecessors.
The remarkable thing about statesmen, great operating politicians or leaders — considered as apart from the run-of-the-mill politicians — is their mastery of both the greater sweep of the big picture issues of their times (and of course as of all times) along with the concomitant mastery of the varied and pressing details, leading to widespread support and public cooperation in accomplishment of their purposes — as for instance a Lincoln or a Churchill, or a Thatcher operating in the midst of necessities or crisis demanding forceful action. We may not have such a one from whom to choose at the moment, but we have with certainty no such a one in Donald Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/18/exclusive-pat-buchanan-donald-trumps-rise-is-rejection-of-a-quarter-century-of-bush-republicanism/
Julia Hahn has a reflective piece up over at breitbart.
“Buchanan observed that there is nothing about Bush Republicanism that is particularly attractive to American conservatives.
He said, “After the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative?
His foreign policy is Wilsonian.
His trade policy is pure FDR.
His spending is LBJ all the way.
His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy…
In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.”
Geoffrey Britain:
You asked me this question:
But the word “verbiage” has many meanings, and in the dictionaries I saw when I looked it up just now that was NOT the first one. Nor was is it the one I meant, nor is it the one I’ve commonly seen used—and I pay a lot of attention to words. I certainly don’t look up every word I use if I think I am using it in the common way. Here is the sort of meaning I’ve always heard it given; either a lot of words (not necessarily meaningless at all) or just plain words:
I have never heard it used to mean “meaningless” unless it is prefixed by an adjective meaning something like “meaningless.” It certainly wasn’t the way I meant it, but if that’s the definition you are used to, I understand why you might have thought I meant it at first reading. What I don’t understand is why you didn’t find those other meanings when you looked, and accept my explanation for what I meant. Why would I think his words about blacks and dreaming had no meaning, anyway? They were clear and they obviously had a meaning, so why would I say it? My point was that he evaded the question.
You also wrote:
Immigration and illegal immigration, and what to do about future immigration as well as the immigrants and illegal immigrants already here, is Trump’s signature policy, the one on which he is attracting much of his supporters. The question was about deferred action on DREAMers, which is one of the biggest things that Obama did that most Republicans objected to. This was the policy being asked about:
Do you remember what a brouhaha that caused? It is—in case it’s not already clear—you could even argue that it’s a form of amnesty (although not citizenship) for people here illegally. That was one objection to it. Another was how it was done: executive rather than Congressional action—that is, an executive grant of amnesty because Congress wouldn’t do it.
If in fact—as you claim—Trump was saying “It’s great!” that would (a) be enormous news and a huge reversal in his usual attitude towards immigration and amnesty, and (b) require an explanation of some sorts, at the very minimum.
That’s why it is more logical to assume he was just BS-ing the question because he didn’t know what she was talking about, and then the “look into it” remark was another brush-off of the question.
However, as I said, if your interpretation of Trump’s remark is correct, it would be a “stop the presses” moment, and he owed us more than “it’s great.” Including telling us whether he thinks the whole thing was great, including the method by which it was done, and why he is departing from most of the GOP on this.
You write:
But being minimally conversant with something that was not a small story, or a little unimportant detail—on an issue that is your own signature issue—is not asking someone to be a detail man. It is asking someone to have the absolute minimum of knowledge about something you’ve supposedly been studying and thinking about since June and ever before June. What’s more, if Trump really meant what he said “it’s great,” than his “gut instincts” on it were wrong.
I was an adult during the presidency of Reagan and certainly during Bush’s, and if either had ever done anything remotely like this people would have been howling about it. This was not about a detail or something tangential.
You wrote:
DACA was not a detail, I repeat, nor tangential—this was a big part of the immigration policy of Obama and of his general way of doing things (executive action), and it was and is highly controversial and under much discussion.
You also write:
The issue here was not solely or even mostly college tuition—although that’s part of it and Trump appears (by your interpretation of his words “it’s great”) to be saying, if he’s saying anything on that issue, that the taxpayer should act as their sugar daddies (DACA did not actually establish that policy, which is decided state by state, but it certainly tended to expand it if the state decided to expand the policy to DACA youths). But tuition is not the only thing the “deferred action” that Obama implemented effected, not by a longshot (it’s not even the main thing):
Finally—and in a way this might be most important—DACA is one of the reasons for the influx of under-18 illegal immigrants to this country that picked up steam during the summer of 2014. I wrote about it in this post, citing this CS Monitor article:
That was the consensus on the right. It was not a detail. This was what really began the groundswell of recent anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment that has fueled Trump’s presidency. This is not a detail!!
Although, come to think of it, maybe Trump thinks it’s “great” because without it he wouldn’t have had a chance at being nominated. And whatever benefits Trump is “great.”
(And come to think of it, there’s a lot of “verbiage” in this answer of mine. But I think my verbiage is far from meaningless.)
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary_clinton_just_cant_win_democrats_need_to_accept_that_only_bernie_sanders_can_defeat_the_gop/
H.A. Goodman at Salon is throwing in the towel on Rodham-Clinton.
“Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate capable of winning the White House in 2016.
Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation,
negative favorability ratings,
questions about character linked to continual flip-flops,
a dubious money trail of donors,
and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.
In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats, and certainly not the person capable of ensuring liberal Supreme Court nominees and President Obama’s legacy.”
Goodman should’ve written that Rodham-Clinton is best prepared to fight off Jeb! — and that’s about it.
Geoffrey Britain,
I’m getting tired of hearing Bush criticized for saying that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Should he have said to the Indonesians, Turks, Morroccans, Jordanians, etc that there religion was vile and promoted terrorism. There are peaceful Muslims in the world. Many now are being radicalized, but is it better to alienate the peaceful ones? Trump can’t even begin to iimagine how his words play out across the world because he lives in a bubble of rich Manhattan moneymakers.
As to Bush’s thoughts that he could transform the culture in Muslim lands–please don’t believe Bush was so stupid. He at best hoped that he could plant some strains of tolerance by showing people that their lives could be better without tyrants. I remember people from Bagdad who talked about how mixed the city was and how they did basically get along. They hoped that together they could build a better life there when Saddam was gone. Anyone with a half a brain knows that it takes a long time for cultures to change, but you haveto start somewhere. Today’s internet connections are showing some young people options that they never knew existed before. Unfortunately, much of our trashy culture seems to hide the good that is in America.
neo,
The word “verbiage” does indeed have a number of meanings. I choose the one I did because I agree with Merriam Webster’s placing of it first. Verbiage is commonly used to describe an excess of words that, when used by politicians is typically meant to confuse, obfuscate and avoid.
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, it is instinctual to turn to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.” George Orwell
Thus my interpretation of ‘verbiage’ equating to meaningless, at avoidance by Trump, which you repeatedly assert was his intent, to cover up his ignorance.
The issue of the dreamers is by far the most contentious in the debate over illegal immigration. Many of these are children whose formative years were spent in America. They are almost as alien to central and south American cultures as are you and I. Deferring action on the deportation of dreamers makes sense, if not DACA itself. Regardless of how improbable, Trump may have meant that, or he may not, in which case you’re right.
But whether you’re right or not is not my issue. It is the certainty with which you present your somewhat speculative opinion upon Trump wherein we disagree. It’s obvious that Trump’s history supports your opinion but past comments do not encapsulate all of a person’s growth, nor the attitudinal, gradual formation of positions at odds with previous beliefs. Especially not so for those not given to self-examination, to extroverts like Trump… as articulating the nuances and step by step evolution of their positions is something that is ‘alien’ to how they process information. (Myers-Briggs)
DACA’s failure to vet for eligibility is a problem. But so is the idea of deporting dreamers who through no fault of their own are here. Deferring action for a few years is eminently sensible or would be if the democrats actually saw illegal immigration as a problem instead of an invaluable opportunity.
As for Trump’s egotism, patriotism is not automatically invalidated by egotism. Trump is an egotist, it is the defining characteristic of his extrovertism but someone can be an egotistical patriot.
The RCP poll of a match-up between Sanders and Trump has Sanders ahead by 7.8 points but losing soundly to Kasich.
Do I laugh or cry?
Bob from Virginia:
I choose “cry.”
I find the situation we are in to be tragic. It is bizarre and I suppose there are comic elements—and certainly ironic ones. But tragic is what I see.
We endured 2 terms of Obama, only to nominate Trump, when there are some very good candidates available? The Obama years and all that has gone with them have perhaps driven many Americans round the bend. Or maybe we were already round the bend in 2012.
Donalds supporters always seem much smarter than Trump himself. They are trying to make sense of what their candidate actually said to match what they assume he said.
Look this guy is just what he appears to be. A mediocre businessman who can’t play well with others. I dream some times of giving that dramatic take no prisoner speech which shakes my opponents into line. Trump supporters dream that dream. Never works, ever. Guys who were really good at that like FDR, Reagan and Churchill put in years of time and effort to try to get what they supported done. You can’t have just a tough speaker, you need one with real political skills as well.
Neo — my take, based on Trump’s nonverbal cues, (he actually paused, you could see him thinking) was that he made a conscious decision not to talk about the Dream Act, but to take the opportunity to try to pick up black votes. I think he’s decided he’s going to get at least some of the votes of legal, working Hispanics but not the la Raza-type supporters of illegals, so why bother — let’s go after the African-Americans!
Geoffrey Britain — Expat is correct. Bush said “Islam is a religion of peace” just to get the Arab states into the anti-Saddam coalition. Pure political cover.
expat,
“I’m getting tired of hearing Bush criticized for saying that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Should he have said to the Indonesians, Turks, Morroccans, Jordanians, etc that there religion was vile and promoted terrorism.”
Yes. We are NOT at war with Islamic ‘radicalism’. Islam is at war with us. Islam has been at war with the West for 1400 years. America’s first war was with a element of Islam. ‘Radical’ jihadists are Islam’s cannon fodder.
Today, Islam is at war with the modern world and America is the modern world’s foremost representative. Islam has renewed its war with the West because the modern world’s inadvertent, unavoidable cultural intrusion into 7th century Islamic societies is a mortal threat to them. Islam’s agents, its Imams and Mullahs, at some level deeply sense that 7th century Islam cannot survive another century of exposure to the modern world.That is what motivates the jihadist, who are the most devout of Muslims, regardless of whether able to articulate it or not.
Islam itself must be confronted because ultimately a refusal to do so will result in Richard Fernandez’s “The Three Conjectures”. Obama’s ‘deal’ with Iran is advancing that most horrific of scenarios.
Islam’s majority of moderate Muslims is an illusion. Moderate Muslims go along with the prevalent zeitgeist of the society within which they live. The more Islamic, the fewer the moderates and the less moderation. Ask Egypt’s Copts for confirmation. 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy. Half of American Muslims support sharia law.
Bush did believe that democracy and human nature (a universal aspiration for self-determination) could transform the culture in Muslim lands. I remember him arguing strenuously for that POV. I remember it well because at the time, I shared it. MY second post on May 13, 2008 argued for just that position, “Iraq, Invasion, NeoCons and the War on Terror”
The people from Baghdad “who talked about how mixed the city was and how they did basically get along” were living under Saddam Hussein. Saddam’s Baathist pan-arab communist party sought to incorporate all peoples into ‘new men’. As soon as the Baathists were out, Iraqi society reverted to its tribalism and religious sects. Afghanistan is returning to the Taliban, rather than throw them out.
For a culture to change, it must either be internal or the old culture must be decisively discredited, as Japan’s Bushido culture was in WWII with the view that it had only brought destruction to Japan accepted by the great majority. That never happened in Iraq or Afghanistan because Islam was not discredited. Iraq and Afghanistan being mere outposts of Islam.
“Geoffrey Britain – Expat is correct. Bush said “Islam is a religion of peace” just to get the Arab states into the anti-Saddam coalition. Pure political cover.” Richard Saunders
Certainly that was an important consideration. That however is not explanitive as to why he has consistently maintained that position to this very day, when any need for political cover has long expired.
So, either saving face is more important to him, despite all evidence proving it to be untrue or he actually believes it or he knew from the beginning that it was untrue, which would make him a bald-faced liar.
Which rationale would you prefer? Or, as Churchill famously asked, ‘are you going to pick yourself up and run along, as if nothing ever happened?’
Richard Saunders:
One problem with your theory is that a pause could mean he didn’t know what to say, and he was deciding in what direction to go.
But more importantly—you would need to explain what he meant by “it’s great.” He actually said that, you know.
Plus, if you are correct about the meaning of the pause (and if you manage to somehow explain his “it’s great”), why would it be okay for him to just blow off important questions, if your theory is correct? Doesn’t he need to tell us what his policy is, if he’s asking people to vote for him, particularly on the immigration issue that is the centerpiece of his campaign, and on this very important aspect of it?
Does his war with the press mean he does not have to tell us anything?
Trump blows off questions a great deal. Now, I don’t say he has to answer everything. But he is consistently reluctant to give details, so much so that one would have to conclude he doesn’t know much about the things on which he keeps refusing to answer. You would not give a single other candidate a pass on this sort of thing, particularly on an issue important to his campaign. Nor would you ignore “it’s great!” Why on earth would the inexperienced Trump, with no policy track record, and whose only record is in a completely different field, not have to at least prove that he understands the issues?
You need to look at this new post of mine.
Neo – I can’t stand Trump, one of the reasons being his non-responsive bullshit answers to every question. I was just speculating on whether he didn’t know what the Dream Act is or decided to make another point. My answer is “Yes.”
Trump’s use of the word “great” is the equivalent of “umm” or “Ah” in any other candidate. It’s just a sound, an autonomic response — “I’m great, they’re great, you’re great, we’re going to make this country great.” Or perhaps he’s just learning person. Next it’ll be gender, then number — just you wait!
RS…
Trump uses “great” the way the Japanese use “hai.”
While nominally “hai” means yes — in Japanese culture it doesn’t mean the Western yes at all.
It’s more towards “yes, yes, yes — I’m hearing you — I’m paying attention.”
Such “hai” do NOT mean that the listener is actually in agreement.
It’s just that it is forbidden in Japanese culture to be so bold as to openly contradict the speaker.
Which, in feudal Japan, usually meant your superior… as in your laird// samurai lord, et. al.
&&&&&&
In Trump’s real estate dealings with American politicians – he picked up the Japanese subservience — token — to his political masters.
Should you EVER have to get favors from a politician or Sicilian MAFIA don, you’ll find your self in reflexive “agreements” too.
&&&&&&
As Scott Adams would put it, you can’t analyse Donald’s running commentary in a ‘Ted Cruz,’ logical rational way.
Donald Trump is never in argumentative mode — he’s always in SALES mode.
Folks are not sold — logically.
If everyone — or even a plurality — were as logical as neo — we would be in a different society.
Truly.
Humanity runs towards rationalizations — not rationality.
Richard Saunders; blert:
In this case I think Trump either doesn’t know what the reporter was talking about, or that he actually does support DACA. You know, there is evidence for the latter. See this.
Or every single word out of his mouth is meaningless bullshit.
Maybe all three.
neo
It’s all three.
Schumann (1838): Kinderszenen, Op. 15, 1. Von fremden Lé¤ndern und Menschen, 7. Tré¤umerei