Postscript to Saturday’s “Trump tyrant” post
Hey, I get busy for a day and don’t get on my computer, and when I return I see there are 158 comments to plow through in the “tyrant” thread. No better proof of the fact that discussions around the blogosphere are more heated than ever these days.
The post used this quote by Donald Trump to indicate that he has, as I said, “tyrannical impulses.” I’ll repeat the quote here, just to remind you what we were talking about:
And one of the things I’m going to do, and this is only going to make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m going to do if I win ”” and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading ”” is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected. You see, with me, they’re not protected because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money. So we’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before. We have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.
It occurred to me when I read some of the comments to the post that some people were defending Trump by arguing the merits of the current defamation laws re the press, and saying that they disagreed with those laws. So that’s what prompted this postscript.
The operating case is NY Times vs. Sullivan, which protects news outlets from libel suits for printing falsehoods except in the case of actual malice. Proving malice requires, among other things, knowledge of error and purposeful publishing anyway. That is a very high standard for establishing guilt, and of course NY Times vs. Sullivan could be overruled, and we could have a discussion on the merits of that, and no doubt it would be an interesting discussion.
For example, we could ponder this background to the case:
Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations from the Southern states, and it had caused many publications to exercise great caution when reporting on civil rights, for fear that they might be held accountable for libel.[citation needed] After The New York Times prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements. The Times maintained that the case against it was brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support segregation.
After Sullivan, the rule was this:
…”the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).”
As I said, we certainly could have an argument on the merits about that. For example, if you think that sets too high a bar for defamation and you think the press is now abusing it, how could Sullivan be overruled, and would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Does actual malice need to be proved? If it didn’t need to be proved, couldn’t the law be used to sue for honest errors, in order to silence opposition and freedom of the press? How we would we know if the pendulum had swung too far?
Do you really think I’d devote a post to calling someone a tyrant who merely brought that subject up, and questioned whether Sullivan set the bar for defamation too high? If you think that, you don’t understand where I’m coming from, and where I’ve been coming from for my entire blogging life. If you misunderstand me that deeply, that’s certainly discouraging, to say the least.
I personally have some problem with Sullivan as it stands, and I also have problems with doing away with it, and have never been able to decide if its a net plus or minus on the whole. As I said, that be a worthwhile discussion.
That’s not what that post was about. And it’s not what Trump said—and if it had been, there would be no quarrel whatsoever between Trump and me on the subject.
What Trump actually said was that if elected he himself is (he used the word “I”) somehow going to “open up the libel laws.” In the post, I wrote the following:
I wonder, also, how one “opens up” laws. I’d be awfully curious to hear Trump explain (extemporaneously, without consulting others)””other than to say he’ll do it, and it will be great.
I would like to know whether Trump knows what our current liberal laws are based on, and how they might be changed.
Trump did not refer to Sullivan by name, but one can assume that the case is at least a part (probably a large part) of what he must have meant, and since Trump has sued many times for defamation I can only assume he knows something about the law of defamation. So, how does one “open up” laws as president? He doesn’t discuss how, so he is either just threatening the press so that they don’t criticize him (part of his tyrannical impulse, by the way) or he is planning some sort of strange executive action on it (also what tyrants do) or he is planning to pressure judges to change the law or he is letting us know what he wants to do.
In connection with what might actually be in Trump’s mind, notice that in that post I used the word “impulses” (“point to the fact that he has tyrannical impulses“) and emphasized that word with italics, to indicate that I am speaking of Trump’s wishes and druthers, not necessarily what he could actually accomplish. I would hope that our court system and constitution are strong enough to resist his tyrannical impulses (and “intent,” another word I used in the post). But it is highly possible that they are not. And to say “Hillary is no better” is scant comfort.
We are currently in the primary season. Super Tuesday is tomorrow. If one is choosing a candidate as presidential GOP nominee one would do well not to choose one with stated and demonstrated tyrannical impulses. That was my point, and I think I made it clear. But many people seem to want a strong man to make things all better, and they seem to be trusting Trump to do exactly what they want, no more and no less.
I used to think there were more people in the GOP who were wary of tyranny than there were among the members Democratic Party. There still might be more—a few more. Perhaps. But not nearly as many as I used to think.
O.K. I’ll bite. What’s the difference from acting like a tyrant and using rhetoric that supports that supposition and wanting to be one and lying about that right up until the minute you get into office?
The latest from Trump is that he didn’t hear the question asking him about the KKK and David Duke. Claimed he had a bad earpiece.
That’s what a con artist does. Blames someone or something else for the problem. It is the fault of the media! Find that ear piece! Test it.
Same deal with his tax returns. His lawyers tell him not to release them. He’s paying them. Of course they say that. And he dodges the issue of returns for years not being audited.
Reports that he won’t be at the debate on Thursday. He doesn’t want to be crossed by three sharp lawyers: Kelly, Cruz and Rubio.
Trump claims the four bankruptcies were not his fault. The banks are “killers” and “not babies.”
He’s a complete con artist. People believe what they want to believe. They want to make America great again and blow off the facts and his poor character.
I don’t want Trump as the nominee — as I see him as the target HRC wants to aim at.
He’s going to LOOK strong — and then fade at the finish…
AKA a Show Horse. ( aka LOSER in the end )
However, the idea that he’s a mini-Hitler is absurd.
He doesn’t profile like ANY of the tyrants of history.
In fact, he’s the REVERSE.
He’s closer to being a dilettante WRT politics.
Yes, he THINKS he knows a lot more than he does.
But, he’s not a buffoon.
I KNOW where HRC is at: her subliminal war on MEN — WHITE MEN — like the Clenis.
I know that she has a violent temper and exceedingly bad judgment.
EVERYTHING she’s ever touched has turned to mud. And that’s putting it politely.
Whereas, Trump actually has had a wonderful upbringing, doesn’t have any internally damaging demons to quell, and is eclectic on policy — to the extreme.
He’s just bombastic.
His STYLE is more towards Elmer Gantry.
That’s not the worst thing to be. Burt Lancaster’s pals from his youth ALL stated that Lancaster WAS Gantry.
I realize that this pitch-man style is GRATING to many.
Don’t confuse Donald’s spew for malice.
BTW, compared to his real estate development peers — Donald Trump is a SAINT.
His bankruptcies in that line of country are MEANINGLESS.
There is NO known real estate mogul that did not have the perils of Pauline with his creditors.
They just don’t exist.
Cautious developers never reach national prominence. Period.
&&&&&&
The reason Donald Trump refuses to be “reasonable” and walk back his comments is that such efforts ENTIRELY BACKFIRE.
This is LOST on the average Joe and Mary.
They think that he ought to be “reasonable” fencing memes with (Hillary’s) Press Team who are swarming him with gotchas.
Trump was EXTREMELY WISE to NOT walk back his tweet.
The correct tactic is to BLOW IT OFF.
Which is exactly what he did.
&&&&&&&&
For those who’ve never lived in a sea of salesmen — all of this is alien — totally alien.
Having seen this all my life, I know that those afraid are conflating a chaff spewing salesman with tyrannical impulses.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
He’s just throwing jabs — and sucking all of the Media into his Overton Window.
He’s being DELIBERATELY outrageous.
Nothing is ever going to come of these statements.
They are CHAFF.
They cause the MSM to get their knickers into a twist — and to ignore any statements made by Rubio or Cruz or Kasich or Carson.
And boy are they working.
Step back and look at the forest… not the bark, nor the beetles on it.
Stump for Ted.
Vote for the nominee.
Don’t play it like a disgusted Weimar voter.
Yes, HRC profiles like Stalin.
The fellow that killed more than Adolf,
The fellow that initiated WWII in Europe.
{ We have that in writing courtesy of the Soviet state archives.
We know that HRC was behind the Egyptian ‘revolution’ that put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge.
We know that HRC was behind the ‘revolution’ that destroyed Libya.
We know that HRC was SOLELY behind her criminal private (public to Moscow, Tehran, Beijing) server.
We know that she muffed the Iraqi political negotiations — every bit as much as the President. (2011)
We know that she totally muffed our diplomacy with Putin.
( “Overcharge” — KIev — Poland — Czech Republic … )
Just HOW can Elmer Gantry take America THAT LOW ?
blert:
Every tyrant of history represents something similar and something different. That’s one of the reasons tyrants ascend to power—people don’t perceive them as tyrants, ordinarily, or not enough people.
Trump is a potential tyrant that’s only possible in the world of the internet and social media, particularly Twitter. That’s his perfect medium.
Don’t expect tyrants to look like each other. Each one suits the time and place.
whether he actually could achieve his goal remains to be seen. But the desire is there.
I see some irony in Cornhead’s comments about Tapper asking Trump to disavow David Duke’ endorsement, in the setting of Neo’s comments about NYTimes v Sullivan and “actual” malice.
The Tapper is allowed to bully The Donald about Duke? Despite Trump’s pretty repeated denials of knowledge of the man? Even if there is remote digital evidence Trump had once heard of him? No malice there? And Tapper then brings up the KKK?
Bringing up the KKK is pretty malicious in my book. It is “Let’s throw this shit against the wall and see if it sticks”.
David Duke is a tired old has-been with a minimal radio audience somewhere who was in the KKK about forty years ago, when the KKK was already a mere shadow of its former self. He ran for the Louisiana governorship as a Republican against the very corrupt crony serial governor, Democrat Edwin Edwards. The Dem bumper stickers for Edwards read, “Vote for the crook! It’s important!” The DNC can re-issue that for the Hillary campaign.
The antics of the Tappers are hardly unknown to us. It is they who are poisoning their own wells. John Q Public sees this and is revolted, and just wants to slap the media down. He does not know or care about libel law. There’s the danger to us all. The danger is in the Tappers and in the Trumps. Each appeals to people who think their knee-jerk reflexes represent serious cogitation.
Trump, champion of the alt-right, is on a mission to destroy the GOPe. I understand why frustrated (and angry) people think this is a wonderful idea. I have the same impulse, that is why I supported Cruz. But the Donald???
Now we have 2 people I respect as genuine conservatives who have jumped on the Trump steamroller: Sessions and Gringrich. We have entered the twilight zone and/or the X-files. Trump will not only destroy the GOPe, he will destroy all credible resistance to the the dark side.
Frog:
There is plenty of evidence that Trump knows about David Duke and has known about him for a long time:
This is genius, and tells it better than any of us could..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
Blert
I see so many people rationalizing so many aspects of Trump’s record. Four bankruptcies in the casino industry has to be a world’s record.
Reports that it was so bad that Trump had to sell his yacht or it would have been personal BK. He was down to his last five million or so.
The laugher is he reportedly values the brand equity in his name at 3 billion. Remarkable after the business failure of 12 Trump branded businesses.
Parker,
Sessions is a 2-issue person and supports Trump’s take on these while neglecting many other things he says. Gingrich really likes big talk, and while he has accomplished things, he often goes off the deep end WRT some things. He wants to remain in the limelight.
My problem with Trump is character and the fact that he will ruin us internationally. He thinks everybody values making money more than anything else. Did you see the PJM piece today on Hobby Lobby’s take on Trump? They say he lacks humility and he scares them.
Neo:
“I used to think there were more people in the GOP who were wary of tyranny than there were among the members Democratic Party. There still might be more–a few more. Perhaps. But not nearly as many as I used to think.”
Warning off your disillusioned faith is a reason I’ve liked to cite the illustrative example of the Columbia civil-military campus advocacy that successfully campaigned to restore the status of ROTC at Columbia. With the point being that the Columbia leftists, on their side, assumed safe haven on campus like you did regarding the GOP.
Understandably so; the activist reputation of the left at Columbia is, of course, renowned. The ouster of the then-storied ROTC program at Columbia was a crown jewel well earned in their victorious Vietnam War protest-based activist game. The University Senate itself was formed in part as an institutional control to ensure that the trustees and administration could not restore the status of ROTC without faculty and student approval, which the campus left assumed would always be reliable. Again, understandably so.
But, much like you assumed wrong about the GOP, they assumed wrong about the Columbia campus. Like you apparently underestimated the power of activism to move your group, the Columbia left underestimated the power of activism to move their community against their preferences, despite that the left had reified their preferences on campus with activism in the first place.
With all their asymmetric advantages on their home turf, the campus left was flummoxed and outplayed by the pro-military activists. The campus left was shocked that the same University Senate their forebears had set up explicitly to guard against ROTC return was moved to vote overwhelmingly to restore the status of ROTC.
Moral of the story? People is people. Activism works for anyone for any cause. Or against anyone for any cause. The general will of We The People is a function of activism.
With similar structure and similar incentives, if your belief about the GOP was once true, it was only true because capable activists with contradictory agenda hadn’t yet undertaken a dedicated campaign to transform the GOP side like they had successfully undertaken to deconstruct then reconstruct conditions on the Democrat side.
Despite the ample warning from the fate of liberals (the real ones, not leftist “liberals”) who fell under activist siege, the vast majority of conservatives apparently assumed safe haven like you did and undertook little to no counter-activist ‘doomsday prep’ for the day when the Right’s turn would arrive to face a similar activist assault intent on displacing conservatives in the American political ecosystem.
Politics are downstream of culture and culture is a function of activism. Republicans exist in the same social milieu as Democrats, so as Left activists have captured social nodes and used them to re-program the zeitgeist to suit their preferences, social conditions for the Republican have been shifted, too, to the present state of affairs. Alt-Right activists (who may also be Left activists who may also be foreign operatives) have simply picked up the fundamental changes already constructed in the arena.
It’s easy work when your putative competition refuses to compete.
Politically, principles are not the foundation for real effect. They are empowered only to the degree that the people who prefer those principles are practically willing and able to empower them. For any people to effect their principles while competing with other people who champion conflicting principles requires competitive activism to take and hold the social nodes necessary to reify the society they prefer.
Due to their willful negligence in rejecting activism, conservatives have fallen behind in the activist game and dragged the GOP down with them. But on the bright side, the activist game never ends. And your competitors now attacking from either side are just as vulnerable to activism as you are. The power of the people is always available to conservatives, too. It’s the GOP’s only hope.
Is it tyrannical impulses upon Trump’s part or his gut certainty that we are at the point where Constitutional governance can no longer withstand propagandist efforts to destroy it, while protected by the very constitution being destroyed? IMO, it could be either.
Lincoln warned of this, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
The MSM makes impossible the bringing to the people of the real facts. Both Obama’s 2012 election and that even today 44% of republican voters do NOT feel betrayed by the GOPe make plain that reality.
Trump may be everything we fear, certainly neo and others make a strong argument for that circumstance. A strong argument however is not definitive proof. Whereas, Hillary’s entire life is definitive proof of her intent. Choosing certain doom over the possibility of an uncertain degree of disaster is yet, a bridge too far for me.
Trump’s tyrannical impulse to open up the libel laws may simply be a case of speaking in general terms of his realization that protected propaganda, safe from consequence, that inundates a society will in time destroy it.
70% of our young adults supporting socialism makes clear just how effective that PC propaganda has been and signals the not too distant destruction of America.
One historical personage that Trump has yet to be compared to is Oliver Cromwell, who destroyed England’s oligarchic reign.
When Charles II assumed the throne, he accepted what his father could not, the end of the monarchy’s unlimited power.
Sen. Sessions is right, America’s oligarchy must be disinherited. Both the left and right wings of America’s oligarchy are leading her to her doom.
Trump may well be an American Caesar and prove as fatal to our republic as did Julius Caesar to Rome’s republic. Hillary Clinton however is a Stalinist and, we know what Stalinist’s do… they hate and they act on their hate. Hillary will have the entire democrat left to facilitate her hate.
Eric:
Let me get one thing completely straight: I NEVER thought the GOP was safe haven. Never.
I never joined the GOP, and I’ve said that over the years. I have never trusted it. That’s because I am quite cynical about people and very cynical about politics and politicians.
I merely thought there were more people in the GOP than among Democrats who felt that ends don’t justify means, and who had more respect for the Constitution, etc. Now I still think there are more, but fewer than I originally thought.
That’s all.
Geoffrey Britain:
It’s very simple to answer your question, because there’s plenty of evidence.
Trump has a long long long history of wanting to intimidate and quash the press whenever it prints anything bad about him. He has deep pockets and sues at the drop of a hat for defamation, in addition to trying to destroy anyone who says anything bad about him. This goes back many many many decades and predates his political career. It is a deeply held trait of his: to threaten and bully anyone who speaks against him, to call them “liar” when they are telling the truth, and to use lies against them.
If there is one thing we know about Trump it is the answer to your question. Trump also has no interest in the Constitution, never speaks in the terms you posit in your question, and in my opinion not only is uninterested in that topic but is actually ignorant of it.
Tom…
As I’ve stated.
He’s a lousy nominee.
Of course, HRC wants to run against him.
Oliver’s crowd was NEVER going to vote for Trump – – in the first place — so he’s preaching to his own choir.
I just can’t imagine Trump pulling blue states his way.
And Oliver’s just begun to scratch the surface.
I have NO DOUBT that HRC’s oppo team has SCADS of damning video, tweets, and audio.
It’s going to POUR in from the swarm.
&&&&&&&&&
All in all, the election is probably going to be decided — tomorrow.
As HRC intended.
Neo:
I was aware of Trump’s 2000 remarks, but not last year’s.
Duke still does not deserve a moment’s thought or a journalist’s question.
Thanks for the Sasse link.
Frog:
Trump does have significant white supremacist support.
That doesn’t mean that Trump is a white supremacist; I don’t think he is. It does mean, however, that it is fair game to ask him about what he thinks of that support and that group.
It also means that if Trump lies and says he knows nothing about the fact the Duke exists or who white supremacists are, that’s newsworthy too.
Cornhead Says:
February 29th, 2016 at 5:19 pm
Blert
I see so many people rationalizing so many aspects of Trump’s record. Four bankruptcies in the casino industry has to be a world’s record.
{ The worm turned for EVERY Atlantic City casino.
Reports that it was so bad that Trump had to sell his yacht or it would have been personal BK. He was down to his last five million or so.
{ That fiasco, was BEFORE his casino fiascos. He wasn’t down to his last $5,000,000 he was BELOW zero — and the bankers gave him a $650,000 per MONTH allowance. This was nationally reported in Barron’s magazine.
{ The banking syndicate did not want to run his properties — and agreed with him that the worm would turn. They all ended up in clover when the business cycle returned to UP.
The laugher is he reportedly values the brand equity in his name at 3 billion. Remarkable after the business failure of 12 Trump branded businesses.
{ Zany as that sounds, his record with Big Bankers indicates that he’s MORE correct than John Oliver. Lesser promoters would’ve lost ALL of their properties to the banking syndicate. He charmed them clean out of foreclosing.
{ Now THAT’S a salesman.
&&&&&&&
I’m convinced that he’ll do fine as President — he just won’t be elected — that’s all.
If you think Donald is petty …
You obviously have not seen the slime trail that follows Hillary Rodham-Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.
H. L. Menken was RIGHT.
This Fall will be filled with negative campaigning.
Ted Cruz has been deliberately marginalized by the MSM as THEY want to see the Show Horse go down to defeat.
If Ted were the nominee — Hillary might have a seizure standing at the lectern.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has a virtually pristine past.
I must note the number of folks who conflate Ted’s legal representation for the Bush crowd for his own personal politics.
I also must note that Ted Cruz was hard line on illegals LONG before Trump. Yet, somehow that reality gets tossed over.
Hillary is BY FAR the worst — it’s not even close.
Trump has at least SOME successes.
Rodham-Clinton has nothing but fiascos.
Being holier than thou in November is to cast a vote for the evil queen.
That’s the raw math.
This election is certain to be decided by the LIV.
My Brother is its exemplar.
He thinks Donald Trump is the cat’s pajamas.
I’ll take Donald over Hillary — but I’m a Ted Cruz voter all the way to the convention.
I’m certain that Cruz can lay on the charm — and Hillary is a staggeringly fat target.
There are MANY Democrat voters — the Sanders crowd — that are gagging WRT Hillary even more than neo is WRT Trump.
Hillary is — literally — a criminal… Given a pass by our anti-President.
It’s plain that Barry will pardon her — even prior to charges being filed, Gerald Ford, style.
blert:
Why compare Trump to Hillary at this point?
I was under the impression there still are other GOP candidates in the running who don’t have that history.
If it come down to choosing which brand of poison I will down, I’ll have to weight that odious comparison. But right now that’s not the choice.
The proper comparison now is Trump with the other GOP candidates.
Since the Atlantic City casinos keep coming up…
“After the death of James M. Crosby, Trump made an offer to all remaining Resorts International shareholders in late 1987 to buy all of the remaining outstanding shares of the company’s stock that he did not already control.
Trump was challenged for control of the company in early 1988, though, when Merv Griffin, through his Griffin Gaming & Entertainment company, also made a bid for all of the stock in Resorts International. After a two-month battle for control of the company, Trump and Griffin finally reached an agreement to divide the company’s holdings between them. Trump would receive the stalled Taj Mahal Casino, while Griffin would receive ownership of both Resorts Atlantic City and Resorts Paradise Island in the Bahamas.[13]
{ Merv Griffin lost his shirt — same as Trump. No-one ever called Merv Griffin a business screw up.
{ Yet the evidence is clear, Trump totally trumped Griffin in his deal making. This was all detailed in Barron’s magazine — decades ago.
The casino later became the location of filming for Merv’s variety/game show Ruckus.
After the conclusion of the deal between Griffin and Trump, Griffin spent $90 million making improvements to Resorts Atlantic City, while selling the Paradise Island property to Sun International Hotels. Griffin later sold the remainder of Griffin Gaming and Entertainment in 1998 to Sun International Hotels for $350 million. Sun International was headed by Sol Kerzner, and under his leadership the company planned a $500 million revamping of the property after completing the purchase. However, the company only completed a $48 million expansion and renovation to Resorts Atlantic City in 1999 before refocusing its efforts on its other international properties.
{ No-one is having any better luck than Trump did.
{ I don’t know about you, but I smell the Mob as being the critical factor. See the movie: “Casino.”
{ None of these super businessmen ever doped out how much of their winnings would be skimmed off the top by the NJ mob.
In 2001, Sun International sold the property to Colony Capital for $140 million; less than half of the cost the company originally paid to buy the property.[14]
Wiki
%%%%%
I can’t and won’t hold Trump’s casino fiascos against him — as EVERY other monster investor was similarly burned.
It’s a specious target.
President Obama has done MUCH worse than sue in civil court, which, BTW, is actually a legally approved way of settling dispute and anger.
When you upset President Obama — he cancels your parole and quashes you in prison for a year.
In so doing, he’s established quite the instructional for Darth Hillary, HIS apprentice.
He appointed Hillary to State — for her mendacity.
Considering what he intended as foreign policy — he needed a gal that knew how to turn tricks.
A vote for Hillary — is like a vote for Goering.
After a fashion.
neo…
I’m more than concerned that the election will be decided tomorrow.
I absolutely do not want Trump as the GOP nominee.
He’ll go down like a lead zep.
I can’t understand why Rubio is being talked up — other than he’s not the hyper enemy — Ted Cruz.
The ONLY fellow that — IMHO — is man enough to both win in November AND execute the office to save our Constitution… and economic way of life.
Donald is a fantastic salesman.
But, it’s a RARE firm that allows a salesman to rise to the CEO position.
The job slot does not fit salesmen — only exceptional salesmen — like Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s not that exceptional.
&&&&&&&
Having no political ‘center’ to his ethos, one must look to his ‘crew’ as he assembles it.
So far, all the right kind of folks are propping him up.
If Donald follows his life-script… he’ll dump the heavy thinking to his crew.
That’s the way he’s ALWAYS operated.
&&&&&&&&
I just can’t see Trump winning in November.
The Super PACs are going to make him look a buffoon.
So, even tomorrow, I equate a vote for Trump as a vote for Hillary.
It looks like the fix is in on Bernie Sanders.
It’s what a crook — or the Mob — would do.
blert:
I have long predicted that a Trump nomination will mean a Hillary victory. And I recall that you have said so too, many times.
So we are on the same page with that.
1. Jake Tapper was also a “moderator” in the September 2015 Republican debate. Look at the actual transcript of the Trump-Tapper exchange, and it looks more like Tapper was going the route of “gotcha” journalism, and leading questions (“when did you stop beating your wife?”). Tapper has already arrived at the conclusion that he wants, and there is more of an attempt to make news instead of reporting the news. (Likely, Trump sensed this on an instinctual level.)
2. I’m not a member of ricochet.com, but I am appalled when I see something like this:
https://ricochet.com/never-trump/
With his statements on Trump and the KKK, the editor Jon Gabriel is either lying (I hate having to say that), or can’t do basic research. The truth is that Trump has disavowed David Duke. Just see his Twitter posts.
3. There are only 5,000-8,000 members of the KKK today, out of nation of 320,000,000. There are fewer Klansmen today than there are murder victims in a year. Ricochet.com has a larger membership than the KKK. And surely the neoneocon.com website has more visitors, on an annual basis?
4. A better answer for Trump would be along the lines of why give any media time to such an insignificant and minuscule group. (Humor break: “They’re losers. Nobody likes them. Ted Cruz has more friends.”)
5. Of course, there is also Barack Obama, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers, and many others. And the Clintons, and all of their unsavory relationships–real people and real associations, not something whipped up in a media frenzy.
We all want our own tyrant. Trump is just a Republican version of Obama. He’ll take care of the white working class by brute force instead of minorities.
Yankee- Trump has retweeted white supremacists constantly on Twitter. He dog whistles them all the time and they comprise much of his online support energy. He only disavowed later despite the fact he knew exactly who David Duke was. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that Trump’s Dad was a racist and got arrested at a Klan rally. He also refused to rent apartmenta to blacks. I’m sure the Donald is much more enlightened.
Neo offered@5:58pm:
“Frog:
Trump does have significant white supremacist support.”
I have yet to encounter a White Supremacist. I live in the Gulf South, where it is not unusual to encounter blacks, but White Supremacists? Where are they? Not strolling about here. In the deep and remote woods of far northern Minnesota? How does one find them? I don’t mean the tattooed “Aryans” serving prison time, either. Jailbirds don’t count.
Holmes supports the White Supremacist theme, claiming Trump dog whistles them on Twitter. I do not tweet, so how does he know of these “dog whistles”? Just asking.
Tom, thanks for the link. It was great.
If you go to a publication like the WP comment section, you will get a feel for how Trump’s disavowal of David duke plays in the mainstream. The best description I saw was that it was so weak as to read as a wink. I think he has been having the time of his life, got caught up in his invincabiity, and thrown caution to the wind by carelessly retweeting from sources he doesn’t know anything about. He also must be aware if not before, then now, that there is serious support from this segement. He has built his campaign on being in tune with supporters; the forgotten people, I don’t think he is racist based on his 2000 statements, but I don’t think he wants to take a popularity hit, so saying as little as possible and ignoring is a strategy many politicians use. Chris Christie holds a press conference today to announce New Jersey SC candidates and refuses to talk about anything else.
Frog:
First of all, you might have encountered many white supremacists without knowing it. They don’t necessarily wear the T-shirt.
But the basis of my remark about a significant number of them supporting Trump is online support. There are many blogs where white supremacists gather, and that’s what I’m talking about.
See this list, for a few examples.
Yankee:
I don’t think the Klan’s membership tells you how many non-member sympathizers it has.
And yes, the suggestion you made for his possible alternative response would have been a much better answer by Trump. However, instead he chose to lie through his teeth and say he had no idea who these people are.
Why do you suppose he did that?
I can think of two reasons. One is that he’s well aware these are supporters of his and he doesn’t want to alienate them, even by belittling them as per your suggestion. The other is that his reflex mode, his default state, is to lie. Why tell the truth when a lie will do just as nicely, and you’re so used to doing it when in doubt?
Hey y’all: We’re now down to brass tacks. I just voted (Cruz, FWIW) and can report that my polling place here in Ga. was PACKED. I didn’t have to wait this long in line in 2008 or 2012. Mostly GOP-looking voters. Don’t know what that signifies other than it looks to be very high turnout in my district among GOP voters.
NOTE: There was zero discussion or chit-chat among the voters while we waited in line; everyone was quiet and rather glum-looking. Made me think that everyone is wrestling with very hard-to-make decisions this time around.
Neo: How about a thread for Super Tuesday anecdotes ?
I can’t belive how many fascists on this blog insist the next President should be in the business of denouncing individual citizens and groups. Obviously Trump isn’t racist, but the mob here wants him to put people’s head on a pike anyway just for show.
Cornhead Says: That’s what a con artist does. Blames someone or something else for the problem.
your right cornhead.. the dems in press would never give him a screwed yp ear piece so he comes out looking the fool.. which is why there are so many news covers that paint clown faces over him, call him the devil, and so on… cause thats not malice, they actually know he is the devil… then there is the comparison of a capitalist to a socialist hitler… then there is the comparrison of a capitalist as stalin (though nothing about bernie being a stalinist, and how bernie fought for civil rights, despite no dems voting for civil rights, but only republicans…)
Cornhead Says: Same deal with his tax returns. His lawyers tell him not to release them. He’s paying them. Of course they say that.
yeah… he should release them the way clinton did, the way obama did, the way pelosi did… right? cause its only fair that those people get to hide their returns, hide their education, hide their grades, hide everything about themselves, but he should expose himself DURING A CASE… the police dont release information on a case or make a comment on a life case, no government agency makes such (including the IRS saying they cant comment on an open case), and so on..
Cornhead Says:Reports that he won’t be at the debate on Thursday. He doesn’t want to be crossed by three sharp lawyers: Kelly, Cruz and Rubio.
yeah. nothing like taking on three people to attack you when you have who to defend you? oh yeah, cornhead, will defend trumps right to be trump and to say what he should say… cause having three enemies dog pile on one candidate, is sooo fair… where were you when you were a racist making any comment about obama? did obama get to go on stage with a press that hates him and two oppositions who will attack the third candidate?
Cornhead Says:Trump claims the four bankruptcies were not his fault. The banks are “killers” and “not babies.”
i clamed bankruptcy, chapter 13.. my ex cleaned out all the accounts, stiffed the landlord by taking the rent checks, and then went off and took my son to a bank and tried to rob it after faking her murder and destroying my career… but that bankruptcy is all my fault… what are the DETAILS of the bankruptcy cornhead? bet you $10 you have no idea of the DETAILS, and if you do, they come from left press as there is no right press that covers him.
filed for corporate bankruptcy in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. Three of the cases were related to his casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, N.J.
where is your yelling about the OTHER casinos that also closed that are not trumps… the Borgatta.. and what about the whole city of atlantic city being run by democrats and the whole freaking city being bankrupt? they get a pass?
nice thing about being a politician is that you dont build companies so you dont risk bankruptcy.. and chapter 11 is restructuring, not like my chapter 13, belly up and zero credit for 15 years.
obama will never have his companies bankrupt for you to complain about, he doesnt start any or make any real jobs without your tax money.. same of bill, hillary, bernie, cruz, rubio, and all of the others..
[edited for length by n-n]
He’s a complete con artist. People believe what they want to believe.
that goes for you too?
i met the man three times, the second two times he remembered my name and prior meetings when i was taking pictures.
his employees past and present all say he was tough but fair, and treated women like men, and paid them well (Which is why you didnt hear them complain about his treatment of women)
his ex wife is on his side, which is more than i can say for 90% of ex wives, and even less for ex wives of very wealthy men… his daughter converted to judaism, and is observant..
Donald Trump, a champion of women? His female employees think so
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
Sunshine said she bears no grudges and instead considers Trump a valued mentor. A political fundraiser with no prior real estate expertise, Sunshine ascended to executive vice president of the Trump Organization, joining a cadre of female executives who have played central roles in Trump’s empire.
Donald Trump’s female employees say he helped them grow, mentored them
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/11/24/donald-trumps-female-employees-say-he-helped-them-grow-mentored-them/
what a con man..
and note, when you have 30,000 employees under you, its impossible to know what all of them do, what their policies they make when your not there that they didnt tell you, etc… but you are still held to the thing as if you can watch 30,000 people.
how did hillary do with her female employees?
Hillary Clinton Demands Equal Pay But Doesn’t Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is
Hillary’s State Dept. Paid Men $16,000+ More Than Women Annually
Even after accounting for education and job category, men were paid more than women
how did obama do?
Male-female pay gap remains entrenched at White House
but the evil trump capitalist pig pays better, and thats a con man
and note that those two have spent millions of your tax dollars hiding their finances, emails (on private servers with top secret stuff), college transcripts, and more.
oh. and really your measure is pretty low given that Clinton had c u m stains on a dress and used a cigar in the oval office to have sex with an intern. trump as far as WE know has never cheated, paid women fairly, mentored them before it was trendy and pc to do so, and more.
Artfldgr:
But the transcript of the interview with Trump indicates that there was no bad earpiece. The relevant part is this:
So he absolutely heard the question about Duke and white supremacists, because he repeated those things in his answer. The part he may not have heard, however, was about the KKK, because he didn’t repeat that part later when asked about it. So he might have heard that and might not have heard it; we don’t know. But Duke and white supremacists he absolutely heard and refused to condemn during the interview.
Trump’s later claim was this:
And yet he clearly heard the David Duke question during the interview, and explicitly refused to disavow him. Same for white supremacists.
boxty:
Calling people “fascists” for wanting a candidate to do something like condemn or even just disagree with outright racists is, to say the least, over-the-top and uncalled for. Plus, disagreeing or disavowing someone’s point of view is not even remotely the equivalent of “head on a pike.”
I want to call your attention to these rules of the blog, written several years ago. They still stand.
This White Supremacy business is pure agitprop. The people vociferously opposed to this small number also gave us diversity, no-fault divorce, Roe, affirmative action, the war on poverty, gay marriage, etc.
I do not see any agitation about Black Supremacy. Chris Rock leading off at the Oscars for the event being too white, for example.
Let’s get a little balance here.
Of course Trump isn’t racist. He doesn’t have to denounce anyone to prove that. It’s also silly because it plays into the left’s Alinskyite rules. Do you see the left wing media insist that Bernie disavow communists? Of course not. They are not concerned that Trump is a racist. They are just playing by Alinsky rulebook and you are falling for it.
It would be fascist for the next President to go around denouncing private individuals or groups. Yes, I truly believe that anyone that insists Trump must denounce certain private individuals or groups to prove some point is a fascist. That’s not me trying to be provocative or trolling. It’s the truth.
“Head on a pike” may be colorful than “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” but it’s intended effect is the same.
Live up to your own rules and stop calling Trump a fascist or tyrant when he clearly is not and has not been. Every leftist in Hollywood that has worked with him says only good things about working with him except maybe Rosie O’Donnell. Nor does he have a reputation for being a jerk like Steve Jobs at Apple did. Even his kids are well adjusted and love him.
boxty:
Have I called Trump a fascist? I certainly missed that. What he is (and what I have called him several times) is a crony capitalist par excellence, which is a very different thing.
Although I have indeed written that Trump’s statements often indicate tyrannical impulses. Because they do.
Plus, saying that Trump—or Obama, or McConnell, or any politician you happen to want to criticize—is a tyrant (even if he’s not) or even a fascist does not violate any rules on this blog. The rules apply to abusive language towards me or towards one’s fellow commters.
Here’s another post that makes it more explicit. Please read. It includes mass name-calling towards commenters, by the way, although that particular post focuses on insults directed towards individuals.
Last thing: I think you don’t understand the word “fascist.” See this.
For a prospective voter to comment on a blog and say that a candidate for president of the US in a party that represents that person would do well to condemn racists who might support that candidate is not the least bit fascist. It’s asking that candidate to conform to a standard that the voter has set for the opinions of candidates he or she could support. That is part of the ordinary voting process and is hardly anything that could be called “fascist.”
As for my own objection to the David Duke incident, it was not that Trump must denounce Duke and the others. It would have been okay with me (as I indicated in another comment of mine) if Trump has merely said he’d answered earlier and didn’t need to do it again or (as “Yankee” had suggested in a comment in this thread) had merely said the group wasn’t significant enough to bother about. Even that would have been better than what he actually did (and what he object most to), which was to lie through his teeth about what he knew and didn’t know (see this).
Apologies if I violated your policies. I was unaware of their existence and hope to see you enforce them when maybe as much as 40% of your readers are called stupid, mindless supporters of a strongman/fascist/tyrant.
By the way, Thesaurus.com has tyrant listed as a synonym for fascist. Oh, snap! Those who live by the dictionary, die by the dictionary. 😉