Comments

Trump’s latest speech on immigration — 85 Comments

1. I’m thinking that Scott Adams’ analysis of Trump’s positions a few months ago is correct. Trump is a bargainer – he’ll start with an outrageous position (A border wall!! That Mexico will pay for!!!) because it’s territory he never intends to defend; it’s a ploy that allows him to fall back to a more “reasonable” position, which is probably the one he intended to adopt from the outset.

2. Brian Swisher:

   That’s not just something Scott Adams said. That’s something tons of people said.

   That’s one of the reasons I’ve always said that Trump’s positions are completely mutable. Those who point to this position or that position as the reason they support him are barking up the wrong tree.

3. Just think of Trump as stimulating dialogue aka conversations as Democrats like to call them. Now we can all feel better.
   Why you quote the Clinton News Network, aka CNN, is beyond me.

4. “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” In Trump’s eyes that’s definitely a feature, not a bug.”

   The last eight years have demonstrated that given the dumbed-down populace we have now, it’s THE feature.

5. Frog:

   I don’t see any CNN links in this post or in the comments so far.

   However, CNN is sometimes a good source for factual things (sometimes, for example, they have the most complete quotations). Sometimes—for a certain fact or set of facts, anyway—it’s the best link that comes up in the first 20 or so Google links, the others being things like Salon, which are even worse.

   But again, I’m not sure why you bring up CNN in this thread.

6. I have a notable blogger friend who maintains that to understand Trump, one must study the WWE, where a persona is developed in something of trial-and-error method to see what sells and what doesn’t. It is largely what all politicians do, just more intensely with Trump.

   A Bayesian approach to character development.

7. I recommend Paul Mirengoff’s take on the Trump speech on Power Line.

   http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/trumps-immigration-speech.php

   A lot more depth there than sniping at his past inconsistencies.

8. OK, Neo, it is a quote of a quote: “CNN’s Maeve Reston tweeted…”

9. AVI:

   The question then would be: When will Trump’s Face-Heel Turn occur?

10. Frog:

    So, are you addressing Byron York when you ask why “you” quote CNN? Because he’s the one doing it, not anyone here.

    I quoted that paragraph of York’s because I was trying to answer the question he posed in that paragraph. I think that’s very obvious.

11. Frog:

    And who’s “sniping” at Trump’s past inconsistencies? I’m pointing out the purpose of his inconsistencies, past, present, and future. They are very glaring, and I think there’s a strategic reason for them.

12. Frog’s right that the go-to Trump speech analysis is at the Powerline link.

13. Or, he could just be a clown.

14. Not likely at this point, Smith. Not likely at all.

15. Neo,

    The problem with Rubio was the amnesty bill he got tricked into by Schumer. Had he never fallen into that trap, at I think the behest of John McCain, he might have never allowed Trump to get to his right on the issue.

    What to do with those who remain isn’t that important, and never was. If Trump just carries out 8 of the 10 bullet points, what remains isn’t much to worry about. Now I am cynical enough to expect nothing is going to be done if Trump is elected- even if he were sincere last night, but he beats Clinton on the issue by light-years. Listening the to the critiques on the Left today leads me to believe he has completely boxed her in on the issue, and you aren’t likely to hear any more out of her unless she is asked a question point blank in the debates.

16. Here’s a somewhat different view, ‘They Lose Me At “Trump Said”‘.

    It is nearly always better to pay attention to what a politician has done, rather than what he is saying, now. You”ll learn more about his immigration views from how Trump Agency encouraged immigration fraud, and how he brings in Rumanians at Mar_I_Crooko than anything he says, now.

17. “The problem with Rubio was the amnesty bill he got tricked into by Schumer.” Yancey Ward

    There is compelling evidence that Rubio did not get ‘tricked’ into anything and knew full well what he was doing.
    “Ted Cruz: Marco Rubio ‘Fought Tooth and Nail to Try to Jam Amnesty Down the American People’s Throat’ “

    “Cruz explained that he and his colleagues offered several conservative enforcement amendments, but that Rubio “opposed every single one of them. Every single amendment.”

    Moreover, for months Rubio put off meeting with Immigrations and Customs (ICE) enforcement officers to get their input on the bill. Eventually, right before the bill was dropped, Rubio finally did meet with the ICE Officers’ President Chris Crane and promised him he would fix the bill. But Crane says that Rubio did no such thing— accusing Rubio of lying to immigration enforcement officers about the contents of his bill”

    Given that evidence, it’s much more likely that he needed to boost his resume with some ‘important’ legislation for his Presidential run.

18. neo,

    “If this is substantially different from Marco Rubio’s position (or that of most of the other GOP candidates’) I’ve yet to figure out exactly how, although I suppose that we can nitpick about this or that wording or emphasis.”

    No nitpicking needed;

    “In Spanish Interview, Marco Rubio Says It’s ‘Important Not To Cancel’ Obama’s Executive Amnesty”

    Ted Cruz’s view is unequivocal as linked above.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would have provisions that blocked building a wall and continued to allow illegals to flood into the country.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would never “End catch and release”

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would continue to tolerate criminal aliens.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would not block funding for sanctuary cities.

    Nor would it cancel unconstitutional executive orders.

    Much less suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would have no provisions to ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

    Nor would it complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill would never turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.

    Rubio knew that a Schumer led bill wouldn’t even suggest that legal immigration be reformed.

    Whether Trump can get many of these points done is questionable but at least he’s mentioned them, which is important because solving a problem starts with identifying it by publicly stating it in terms that the average person easily grasps.

    “Yes, Trump says please go home (just as Romney did, for which Trump excoriated him), but the request has no teeth–not a single one–because there are no penalties for staying.”

    Turning off the jobs and benefits magnet is by far the sharpest teeth one could ask for because no jobs + no benefits = self-deportation. Turning off the jobs starts with enforcing the laws on the books. Turning off the benefits starts with cutting off the benefits through issuing executive orders that create regulations which make difficult the issuance of benefits.

    Will he do any of this? Who knows but it’s a cast iron certainty that Hillary will increase illegal immigration and Muslim migration and, do none of the above.

19. Geoffrey Britain:

    I don’t expect you to remember everything I’ve ever written (heck, even I don’t remember everything I’ve ever written), but I’ve dealt with that story a long time ago.

    It was a mistranslation of Rubio’s remarks in Spanish. See this. I also wrote about some of the mistranslations involved in representations of Rubio’s remarks here.

    More here.

    For that matter, what did Trump say about DACA and/or amnesty, not just during the last few days but during the last couple of years? I wrote two posts on that, too, here and here.

20. neo,

    I can’t argue as to a mistranslation but actions speak louder than words. Rubio’s actions are on record and reputable men like Ted Cruz and ICE Officers’ President Chris Crane have spoken clearly as to Rubio’s actions.

    That applies to Trump as well. If elected, what he does is what will count, not what he’s said, contradictory as it has been.

    Whereas, there is little to no doubt of what Hillary will do.

21. Geoffrey Britain:

    Cruz was campaigning against Rubio when he said what he said. The posts and articles I linked to dealt with Cruz’s remarks, too, as well as Crane’s.

    I have paid tremendous attention to what Rubio has done and said, and I see no difference between his point of view and the others, including Trump (and Trump has been all over the place on these issues). I wrote many posts on Rubio’s immigration views, and I think his views have been distorted by other people with their own agendas (including Cruz, who I support, by the way). These people are not angels, you know.

    Here’s another piece on Rubio, if you’re interested.

22. Cruz said this. Rubio said that. Translated. Mistranslated…

    At this point what difference does it make?

23. You know, as I sit here streaming one of Trump’s speeches from today (The American Legion), I actually have to marvel at this man. Two yuge events yesterday and I believe two events today also.

    He is working hard. That, added to the fact that he has gone so far in this campaign with being such a political neophyte, has me completely in awe of him and what he has done.

    One thing I have thought about him is that in many ways he reminds me of Bill Clinton, and it’s my belief that, if elected, he’d govern in the same deal making, centrist way too. Ok, not great, but as long as he defeats Mrs Clinton, he’s A-OK in my book.

24. Trump has said many things over the last 5 decades. Many of those words have a half-life of a few seconds. Reminds me of an Elvis song, “Wise men say only fools rush in but I can’t help falling in love with the donald.”

25. neo,

    I disagree with the proposition that Cruz’s words regarding Rubio and the gang of eight bill were opportunistic campaign rhetoric.

    I read the linked article and on the gang of eight portion I remain unpersuaded. I do not fault Rubio in many areas but I remain convinced that he is a political opportunist.

    No way did Rubio not know that Schumer would shaft America in that legislation and, the proposition that Rubio and then the House version could move the Democrats to the right is sheer lunacy. The Democrats had momentum on their side on illegal immigration, they didn’t need to do anything to keep gaining ground. So the only way that they would ever agree to pass immigration legislation is if it opened a path to amnesty and moved their agenda forward. As otherwise, they were better with a status quo that kept the borders open under Obama.

26. Vamderleun:

    I guess you don’t care about learning the truth. I do.

    I happen to like both Rubio and Cruz. I’m funny that way. I also happen to get really annoyed when people’s words are misrepresented or people are lied about.

27. When the man has changed what he says on anything as frequently and as quickly as trump does, it is a wonder that anyone is foolish enough to take him at his word.

    Powerline has it right?… give me a break.

    It is incredible that people won’t admit that there is good reason to doubt much of what trump is saying.

    Powerline provides an itemized list like some great revelation, and declares it is where trump “needs to be”.

    Huh? Guess he wasn’t “there” before.

    “I think most Americans will agree with most of these points. Most conservatives will agree with all or nearly all of them. ”

    Except there is that sticky problem of believability, even if that were true.

    So, if we are to believe trump, where is their explanation for his stance last week?

    Instead they focus on Byron’s York’s article and conclude that it is “Possible “Appropriate disposition” could mean some form of legal status. ”

    But isn’t this precisely the point?? That it is vague enough that trump tries to play it both ways? Always some plausible deniability in every policy.

    Stay posted… Next week will be a new truth!

    Just too much like the Ministry of Truth in “1984”.

28. Trump is perfect at projecting the problems of a declining civilization on to easy targets – illegal aliens – as if all our problems from a declining birth rate, breakdown of the family, massive technological change, broken institutions, and drug use can be solved if we just deport “those bastards”. Like every demagogue preceding him, Trump needs scapegoats. Instead of looking inward at our own failings and continuing corruption, and offering thoughtful solutions, he plays the blame game. He would have us believe that poor white & black people don’t have jobs because wetbacks steal them, while the truth is that they are too lazy to get off their asses, move out of the dead and dying towns and cities to seek work, or study and retrain for 21st century jobs. What they would rather do is lay back, smoke a joint, or shoot up. No one held a gun to their heads and forced them to become worthless drug addicts.

    Here’s an official report from the DEA that spells out the extent of the drug problem that Trump says will be solved with a border wall. Read it and tell me that deporting illegals will even make a dent in it. The drugs come in from Columbia, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, from everywhere. Because their is a market for them. Because we buy them. (Note the second map and the reach of the Sinaloa Cartel.)

    https://www.dea.gov/docs/2015%20NDTA%20Report.pdf

    (It’s a slow download, but worth it.)

29. TOC –

    Moving out of the cities and looking elsewhere for work will only get you so far. Over at the comments at Ace’s blog a week or two ago, there was discussion that it was getting harder and harder to run a handyman type business (electrician, plumber, etc…) because of the various laws involved… and the fact that businesses of those types that hired illegal aliens instead of legal residents freely ignore those laws. In essence, if you want to run a business like that and only use legal residents as employees, you’re going to be forced to charge a lot more than companies that use illegals as employees, and end up effectively pricing yourself out of the market.

    This started out in just one or two industries (construction was mentioned, iirc), but has started spreading out into the related jobs (plumbing was specifically mentioned, among others).

30. ‘No way did Rubio not know that Schumer would shaft America in that legislation’

    To that I would have to say, ‘indeed’ or perhaps ‘duh’. If Rubio didn’t know that he is very gullible, like a small child.

    ‘At this point what difference does it make?’

    ‘I guess you don’t care about learning the truth. I do.’

    At least one of these statements must be a joke.

31. Steve D:

    Unlike the great Steve D who can peer into the future and see it crystal clear, Marco Rubio did not. Yes indeed, he was naive—not like “a very small child,” but like many adults

    He has since admitted many times that he was mistaken and if my recollection is correct, he has admitted he was naive.

    I never said otherwise. And yes, I am interested in the truth, and seek the truth, and I believe this entire blog is testament to that. So I think the statement “what difference does it make?” is the joke, although I’m not convinced you’d agree with me.

    As for Rubio’s naivete during the Gang of 8 incident, I give you Rush Limbaugh at the time (the segment is titled, appropriately enough, “On Naivety and Marco Rubio”). It’s what Limbaugh thought was going on, based on conversations with Rubio. And some naivete was part of it.

    Personally, I think it was a combination of naivete, gambling, and the idea that the alternative was allowing Obama to issue an executive order that would change everything and make it even worse (this was an attempt to finesse him with something that was at least somewhat better). I’ve written about this many times; not going to go into it again. I think that what actually happened was the Rubio harmed himself politically, and I think Rubio was indeed somewhat naive, but is no longer that naive.

32. “When the man has changed what he says on anything as frequently and as quickly as trump does, it is a wonder that anyone is foolish enough to take him at his word.” Big Maq

    Few here, if any have suggested that Trump be taken at his word. What we are suggesting is that we can take Hillary at her words… You worry about the conman at your door, while the out of control wildfire approaches.

    “Trump is perfect at projecting the problems of a declining civilization on to easy targets — illegal aliens — as if all our problems from a declining birth rate, breakdown of the family, massive technological change, broken institutions, and drug use can be solved if we just deport “those bastards”. Like every demagogue preceding him, Trump needs scapegoats.” ToC

    15 million illegal immigrants with another 15 million sure to come as well, all granted amnesty and a path to citizenship is ‘scapegoating’? Doubling our Muslim population from Shariah supporting societies is ‘scapegoating’? Continuing America’s obscene trade imbalance is ‘scapegoating’?

    The factual proposition that if those 30 million undocumented democrats get citizenship that our “declining birth rate, breakdown of the family, massive technological change, broken institutions, and drug use” will never be addressed by a permanent democrat majority… is scapegoating?

    America does indeed have many problems but addressing them starts with stopping the Left and that starts with preventing them from creating a one party State.

33. If this is substantially different from Marco Rubio’s position (or that of most of the other GOP candidates’) I’ve yet to figure out exactly how…

    the difference isnt in what they promise, the difference is that we know rubio and others wont actually follow through an more than they did before trump, and over the past 30 years…

    rubio first went into office:
    January 3, 2011

    he has been in various places with the earlist date listed as 2006.

    so what has he actually done towards his list of things over the 10-15 years he has been part of the game?

    In this time he has put forth 21 bills

    1) A resolution recognizing the importance and inspiration of the hubble space telescope.

    2) A bill to amend the national labor relations act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees.

    3) A bill to provide for the establishment of nationally uniform and environmentally sound standards governing discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel

    4) A bill to eliminate the payroll tax for individuals who have attained retirement age, to amend title ii of the of social security act to remove the limitation upon the amount of outside income which an individual may earn while receiving benefits under such title, and for other purposes.

    5) A bill to amend title 38, united states code, to provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the department of veterans affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes.

    6) A bill to rescind certain federal funds identified by states as unwanted and use the funds to reduce the federal debt.

    7) A bill to restore second amendment rights in the district of columbia. [who knew that DC could negate your rights and a law is required to return them ignoring the constitution?]

    8) A bill to require the secretary of the treasury to implement security measures in the electronic tax return filing process to prevent tax refund fraud from being perpetrated with electronic identity theft.

    9) A bill to authorize the secretary of state and the administrator of the united states agency for international development to provide assistance to support the rights of women and girls in developing countries, and for other purposes. [F*ck the boys and men… they have no rights or what do you think an unprotected class is? unprotected what, or from what?]

    10) A bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for qualified elementary and secondary education tuition.

    11) A bill to require the secretary of state to offer rewards for information on the kidnapping and murder of james foley, peter kassig, steven sotloff, kayla mueller, or any other united states citizen by a foreign terrorist organization.

    12) A bill to terminate operation choke point.

    13) A resolution expressing the sense of the senate that the internal revenue service should provide printed copies of internal revenue service publication 17 to taxpayers in the united states free of charge.

    14) A bill to authorize escambia county, florida, to convey certain property that was formerly part of santa rosa island national monument and that was conveyed to escambia county subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance.

    15) A bill to allow seniors to file their federal income tax on a new form 1040sr.

    16) A bill to improve the transition between experimental permits and commercial licenses for commercial reusable launch vehicles

    17) A resolution honoring the life and legacy of georgia jones-ayers.

    18) A bill to promote unlicensed spectrum use in the 5 ghz band, to maximize the use of the band for shared purposes in order to bolster innovation and economic development, and for other purposes.

    19) A bill to prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers.

    20) A bill to amend title 18, united states code, to prohibit taking minors across state lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions

    21) A bill to amend the water resources development act of 1996 to deauthorize the ten mile creek water preserve area critical restoration project.

    How many have anything to do with the shopping list your paying attention to and pretending they will work towards? have you ever taken the time to compare their selling points for votes to what they do over decades?
    [edited for length by n-n]

34. “You worry about the conman at your door, while the out of control wildfire approaches.”

    Another argument constructed to set up the straw man.

    When you loose your money to the con man you loose your house. When the fire burns down you house you loose your house. Both threats require vigilance and preparation. I’m surprised you didn’t say that you spent all your money and time on Girl Scout cookies (not a con man) instead of building a fire break around your house.

35. That’s one of the reasons I’ve always said that Trump’s positions are completely mutable. Those who point to this position or that position as the reason they support him are barking up the wrong tree.

    no…Starting high and going lower is NOT a sign of mutability, its a sign of achieving your target vs hillary who says the way to do it is start at your target and then talk to death the opposition till your friends and make a deal.

    they aim at, and end up compromising what they want
    this doesnt work..

    your completely wrong as to how your reading that.

    and this is something that poor people who haggle know more of intuitively than wealthier peole who never haggle… who pay the tag price..

    everyone siding with trump knew and knows this is the process… just watch junkyard gold or any show where haggling happens… you start high, they start low, you meet where its acceptable for both.

    so trump starts an a crazy extreme… and the people who are very poor dealers who have sold away americas gold, its factories, its borders and such and always do, yell and scream thats the wrong way

    meanwhile, everyone latches on to that as if THAT was the point… ie. i come in to sell my home and i start at 1 million for a house valued at .5 million.. does anyone other than the left and their head games assume that i wont budge on the 1 million? or that my goal was to get a bit more than the half it was worth

    wealthy people spending other peoples money without any real limits.. dont deal… they deal in a way in which closing a deal even if its bad is their kudo

    with trump, capitalists, poor people from most coutnries outside the us all haggle, and deal, and they know that winning a bad deal is not a kudo!!!

    the left wants you to be happy they made a deal
    not be unhappy the deal gives away your money, your jobs, your future, your childrens future, your sovereignity, etc..

    the capitalists say any deal that closes that does that was a deal that should not be made

    and THATS what your not getting in your paragraph up there. the point is only mutable if you care about closing any deal over closing a good one!!!!

    maybe i have been too poor growing up
    maybe my family and myself have lived or been in places where they look at you nuts if you pay sticker price.

    the problem i see is that the elite, and the college educated and all these people who are dysfunctional in the real world outside their contrived places, dont know they are that way, and that the way they do things and the goals are not right or norm

    you only have to watch certain “reality” shows to see how dysfunctioal… they basically show how domesticated people are today in that they cant function outside that narrow existence.

    i sometimes watch and see them do all kinds of deadly stupid things cause they are lacking basic skills, basick knowlege etc.

    take this for instance… a couple is naked and trying to survive for a month… they start eating grubs, and such, and they avoid snakes like the plague, and get weaker and weaker… maybe even to the point of calling it off… anyone else would say why walk away from the snakes which are full meals?

    whn i go to indonesia, i watch tourists pay full price.. my wife and i laugh at them… as she goes over and gets the same item for 1/10 after haggling.

    same here.
    the point is that the person that starts that way can return to that if the other side doesnt come to the table or get real!!!! but if you start with the goal and not ahead of it, going to crazy land is not possible without looking like tit for tat revenge or spite.

    ie. trump takes a crazy position to moderate a goal, and have a refuge to go to that is not spiteful. but politicians dont take the crazy position, and so are stuck wiht the moderate position, and have to give more and more and more to get it because they have no place to push back with, so all they can do is bribe the other with more goodies till the deal closes.

    look mom, i got some magic beans for a cow say the politicos.

36. Arfldgr:

    Cruz would follow through. He has been almost entirely consistent on the matter, with a few small exceptions that are dwarfed compared to the many vacillations I have fully documented with Donald Trump. I’ve written at length in this blog on Cruz and his accomplishments in that arena, such as for example here.

    Trump has not only vacillated over the years in his message, and violated his own beliefs on immigration in his businesses, but he has even vacillated on the subject during this campaign year, as I’ve written about many times and am not going to go into once again in this short comment.

    Plus, Trump supporters are very fond of suggesting that Trump will do this or that, based on nothing. He’s never had to do anything because he’s never held office, so he has a convenient lack of any record whatsoever on this. Not very convincing about anything, really.

37. how dumb are our smart leaders?

    FBI: Hillary Clinton Lost Cell Phones with Classified Emails

    Clinton told FBI she didn’t understand classified intel

38. by the way, the key to “getting this” is to understand that the goal is not a wall, but to stop the influx. the THREAT is the wall (another would be to station snipers and shoot people as they come over)… neither would be the goal, but the threat…

    the dems through argument ad absurdum, their favorite after lie by omiission, want you to think the threat IS the goal

    if mexico sits at the table, and trump sits at the table, and they stop the influx and such without a wall, would anyone on trumps side be upset? no.

    the goal is to stop the influx and criminals

    if mexico is not going to do their thing, then a wall may be necessary.. if they ARE,. then a wall does not become necessary

    same with the other points… you confuse method and means with goals and ends.

    and thats the way the dems want it, cause you then react to the method of the process negating the process and not let it happen which is what they want from you…

    its like this:
    if you dont clean up you bedroom, you wont get desert for a month, the tv stays off and you dont get to go to the party…

    is the punishment the point or is the clean bedroom the point? want to bet that those siding with trump get this, and those that dont are not getting this?

    basically trump is bringing punishment for non compliance or cooperation back to the table in negotiations rather than bartering and pying them off with our money to buy the deal at bad rates and outcomes.

    with war off the table, why shouldnt iran play every deal as nothing and take the reward?

    with no wall to landlock all of south america in mexico making this their problem not ours, why would they stop people from coming in and sending money back? why shouldnt they dump their prison population here? what would we do? posture? complain? pay them off? (which they would take and keep and do nothing)

    the wall gives teeth to the issue
    so does stopping the money
    otherwise, why stop anything?

    Never appeal to a mans better nature, he may not have one, appealing to his self interest gives you more leverage

    stopping the flow is not in the self interest of mexico, as long as there is no punishment, or problem that exceeds the benefit. which is why it hasnt stopped.

    your a fool if you think anyone could negotiate a end to it without any force behind it to make them comply that would actually happen.

    all trump is saying and always said was, either you cooperate and we get this hole plugged up, or i will plug it up but good without you and without caring about your issues or problems in doing so as you had your chance

    and the college elites and people who went and are completely domesticated docile submissive dont get that world leaders are not domesticated, docile and submissive and will gladly agree to things without teeth and do nothing.

    study history.
    russia had 8 peace treaties with latvia before it invaded and took the country…
    treaties have no teeth
    so nothing stopped them, and no one punished them for doing that.

    same with the border and your so used to the dems throwing the game that you think that is normal (it isnt) and cant tolerate a real deal with teeth and a goal that has nothing to do with the means.

    sigh…
    [unbelieveable]

39. “Few here, if any have suggested that Trump be taken at his word.” – GB

    Not true.

    “Frog’s right that the go-to Trump speech analysis is at the Powerline link.” – Vanderluen

    The Powerline link articulates key points they took away from trump’s speech and claims that it is “about right”.

    What is all that if it is not indicative of a belief in trump’s latest view?

    When links to articles like this are provided as a counter point or proof of something, then we ought to take that as a point of trust in trump’s veracity and commitment to what he is saying – especially if it is, in part, a response to Neo’s comment about that very aspect about trump’s character.

    The key issue is folks wish more onto trump than is reasonable to assume given how mutable he as been on just about everything.

    To think that Powerline article is meaningful without recognizing how glaringly mutable trump is, just comes way too close to cheerleading for trump vs being “reluctant” on trump.

40. neo-neocon Says:
    September 2nd, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Arfldgr:

    Cruz would follow through.

    nope…. his whole future would have been nothing. you think cruz would have survived the onslaught thrown at trump that trump survicved? that he would not cave? that his wife would not be in a straight jacket?

    if so, your nuts…

    He has been almost entirely consistent on the matter, with a few small exceptions that are dwarfed compared to the many vacillations I have fully documented with Donald Trump.

    not really, but the difference is this.. you get elite bs stuff, and dont get low level dealing.
    you conflate method and means with goals and outcomes.

    you can even see it in what your saying…
    consistency is not key, success is key regardless of consistency.
    you CAN consistently lose
    you CAN be consistent and never win
    but if you win, you dont have to be consistent
    you dont get it..

    its the difference between going around a system that prevents you and getting stuck in it doing nothing
    and the larger point is your comment said, marco rubio, not cruz.. nice moving the goal posts.
    [edited for length by n-n]

41. Artfldgr:

    Cruz has been both consistent and courageous on this, and Trump has not. Yes, I think Cruz would have followed through. Since he is not president, we’ll never know who is correct, you or me.

    But no, I did NOT say Rubio only in my original post, so no, I haven’t moved the goalposts. I wrote “from Marco Rubio’s position (or that of most of the other GOP candidates).” Take a look; that’s what I wrote, and that’s what I meant. Rubio was the first I listed because people usually discuss him most, but I certainly was not thinking solely or even primarily of him, as I believe I made crystal clear by what I wrote in parenthesis. I even added Romney’s self-deportation policy, a bit later on in the post.

    Sometimes I think you read things too quickly and miss some of the details that matter.

42. Leverage is everything-don’t begin to pry until you’ve got the long arm on your side
    Oliver Wendell Holmes

    Parker: Context is everything, leverage is everything else

    The Way Millionaires View Money Is Different From Everyone Else
    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-millionaires-think-about-making-money-2014-7

    2. The wealthy use leverage.

    In the minds of millionaires, leverage is everything. The wealthy strategically focus their efforts on the most profitable areas of their businesses while leveraging their contacts, credibility, and resources to maximize the results of every action they take. The middle class sees hard work as a badge of honor. The wealthy sees success as a more important badge of honor.

    Think about what you were taught about hard work growing up. If you’re not exactly raking in the money, make a decision to let go of any limiting beliefs you have about hard work, and start thinking about how you can use leverage to become more successful.

    -=-=–=
    the above is why the labor theory of value has any play with those who work hard and get less

    and its also why working hard to get a deal done, even if its bad is good for most
    while for people like trump (and myself) a bad deal is a deal which wasted your hard work
    and in order to be successful you need leverage to make the opposition do what you want, or else they will just agree and not do it.. agree to shut you up or close the effort, ignore to get what you want because you have no leverage..

    ergo, we be losing for so long

43. “You worry about the conman at your door, while the out of control wildfire approaches.” GB

    “Another argument constructed to set up the straw man.”

    So now comparing the Left to an “out of control wildfire” is a strawman argument? Hillary’s support; of the Iran deal, intent to import 650,000 Muslim migrants from Sharia supporting societies and amnesty in the first 100 days are NOT an approaching out of control wildfire? SCOTUS appointments that will gut the Constitution? Etc, etc…

    “The Powerline link articulates key points they took away from trump’s speech and claims that it is “about right”.

    What is all that if it is not indicative of a belief in trump’s latest view?”

    Saying the right things is an indication that the speaker is at least aware of the issue, rather than in denial of it.

    Whether Trump will follow through on what he promises is another issue. You no more know what Trump will do, than do we. Of what Hillary will try to do, there is no doubt whatsoever.

44. Let’s take The Wall two ways:
    An actual physical structure. A wall is better than nothing. An effective wall is more effective than an ineffective wall.
    So that would be good.
    And then there’s the metaphor: We’re going to be tougher in a number of ways. Some of these ways might be biometrics. Some might be jailing those caught in durance vile–have Sheriff Joe arrange the accomodations–and we can double the border patrol.
    We won’t put illegals on welfare. We won’t bus them to the interior of the country as has been alleged by, among others, Border Patrol agents.
    So when Trump says “wall” it verges on dishonest to insist that, since a wall won’t solve, or even address most of the issue, it’s entirely useless and he has no other ideas.

45. Oh, yeah. I figure there’s a rhetorical technique I call “fake Asperger’s”.
    When somebody uses an obvious metaphor, react as if he’d made a completely literal statement.

    So you see a guy on a bus stop in a college town completely absorbed in his smart phone, standing four feet from a trio of attractive young women.
    You remark, “Some guys could get run over by the marching band. And, sitting amongst the tubas and bass drums, ask what the hell happened.?

    Somebody else says, sharply, “There’s no marching band here!”

    I think I have a terrific idea, “Fake Asperger’s”.

46. Unless it’s real, I suppose.

47. Blacks loved their Messiah cum God King, Hussein. Now whites are feeling left out, so they want a God King to lie to them as well, since they believe that will make them superior to their persecutors, the blacks and the white SJWs.

48. Vanderleun Says:
    September 1st, 2016 at 9:36 pm
    Cruz said this. Rubio said that. Translated. Mistranslated…

    At this point what difference does it make?

    What difference is Trum going to make? America is still going to hell, no matter what.

    It’s like people lack imagination of the future. They didn’t imagine that Clinton was this way before 2007. They didn’t think the Left was a big problem after 2007. But now they think they have a grip on what matters and what difference things make. Humans still have no clue, as usual.

49. Ymarsakar,

    To name just a few, protest against; threatening marriage, societal norms and attempting to deconstruct the Constitution are not evidence of wishing for a white God-King.

    Millions of Americans knew and spoke out that Clinton was this way before 2007, remember the great right-wing conspiracy? And even more did the same with the Left before 2007.

    But thank you for that ‘non-human’ perspective.

50. “Saying the right things is an indication that the speaker is at least aware of the issue, rather than in denial of it. “ – GB

    Even it that were correct, this bypasses the key issue… believability.

    The closest that writer comes to addressing this is, as I said…

    “Instead they focus on Byron’s York’s article and conclude that it is “Possible “Appropriate disposition” could mean some form of legal status. “

    That level of vagueness itself hits at that core point. But the writer gives it little attention or consideration.

    “Whether Trump will follow through on what he promises is another issue. You no more know what Trump will do, than do we.” – GB

    You make my very point for me. The point I’ve been making all along.

    trump should have no credibility, since he is so vague and reverses himself regularly, to the point that he is completely unpredictable, yet, people are pointing to articles like the powerline one as if it is proof of anything wrt trump and a counterpoint to Neo’s article above.

    They evidently believe trump this time, and it must follow that they expect trump to see the listed items in that article through.

    Makes no sense to rebut Neo’s post if they were rather wary about what trump will really do.

51. The ambiguous leader role was played by Yassir Arafat when he still lived. It irritated even other Arab leaders because you could never get him to commit to anything.

    That is no way to run a country.

52. “Whether Trump will follow through on what he promises is another issue. You no more know what Trump will do, than do we. Of what Hillary will try to do, there is no doubt whatsoever.”

    Those who claim to know the future with absolute certainty when if comes to what Hillary will do but amazingly don’t know with certainty what Trump will do. Actually those don’t know either. It’s has been pointed out before.

53. OM.
    Hillary has a history of doing things in government she’ll be in a position to do in government.
    Trump’s activities and statements are not supported by or contradicted by his activities in government.
    To presume Hillary would not continue to sell us out because we don’t have perfect future knowledge isn’t prudent.
    We can’t prove it, which is meaningless. You’d have to suggest there’s a strong possibiity she’d change what she’s done all her life.

54. “You’d have to suggest there’s a strong possibiity she’d change what she’s done all her life.”

    She probably won’t change, and neither will Trump (other than changing from day to day). Uncertainty in the Federal executive has it’s own costs; think about FDR and all the “experiments” he tried, and the ruin that ensued.

    The country is in for a hard hard time. Trump supporters seem to minimize that and assume it will be less worse with him, instead of as worse in different ways.

55. “Trump’s activities and statements are not supported by or contradicted by his activities in government.”

    He has no experience in government so it’s not possible prove the negative (impossible). A big hope with no “dope” to back it up (dope sheet for shooters).

    His role in government to date is to contribute to politicians, possibly to buy influence or not, but other than that he has no experience. Not even on a school board, or dog catcher. So the country will be lead by an apprentice in OJT. That’s a confidence builder (but he may be a con man)./s

56. Artfldgr,

    Context, leverage? I understand leverage very well. Never get caught over leveraged to twist in the fickle pop psychology of the markets. That is why I own farm land, rental property, my home all debt free. That is why I am modestly wealthy from trading in commodities, and going for a week of hiking and fishing In the Canadian Maritimes. What are you doing during the next 8 days?

57. Wishing you a good vacation, eh!

58. OM. That’s the point. WRT Trump, we don’t know. WRT Hillary, we do. Unless somebody wants to say she’ll make a major change in the way she works in government.
    Don’t know is better than what we know (about Hillary).

59. Richard Aubrey:

    You really don’t know but you feel one risk is less than the other. That is the point of contention, which risk is greater with worse long term consequences.

60. Big Maq,

    “the key issue… believability.”

    That was the key issue, during the primaries…

    Now… the key issue is an authoritarian vs an ideologue whose ideology is antithetical to individual liberty.

    “You make my very point for me. The point I’ve been making all along.”

    I’ve never disputed it. I agree as to Trump’s uncertainty and even predict the probability of disaster. What I assert is that history confirms that a marxist progressive is, in the long run, much worse than an oligarchic authoritarian. Which is my entire point.

    “Makes no sense to rebut Neo’s post if they were rather wary about what trump will really do.”

    It makes sense to dispute certain points others make when they posit that certain disaster is preferable to uncertain disaster. When they assert that, things really aren’t that bad. That we will have time to reverse our nation’s course after another 4-8 years of Hillary.

61. OM,

    As Richard points out, there is no doubt of what Hillary wishes to accomplish, she has a long, consistent history in support of that certainty. The same is not true of Trump.

    “Uncertainty in the Federal executive has it’s own costs; think about FDR and all the “experiments” he tried, and the ruin that ensued.”

    Many here who argue that voting for Trump is a necessity, also agree that there will be a cost to be paid and that it may be quite painful. One price or the other, that is your choice.

    “So the country will be lead by an apprentice in OJT.”

    Yes, just like Obama and that has been disastrous. What’s your point? That it’s better to elect a traitor?

    “you feel one risk is less than the other. That is the point of contention, which risk is greater with worse long term consequences.”

    It is not ‘feelings’ that lead us to that assessment but history. Maybe a Pinochet OR a Castro wanna be… choose.

62. GB

    Without facts it is opinion, feel better about that word?

    Traitor? Would that be DJT or HRC if both undermine the rule of law and the constitution? So tell everyone what is known about HRC and balance it against DJT and his alt-right tendencies and toadies or his NY liberal history.

    And BTW BHO is and has been a disaster. So you are all in for another apprentice? All you have is he’s not her.

63. This Wall Street Journal article backs up what I said above about lazy Americans vs. illegals. It is what I see around me and know from personal experience running a business. Trump can scapegoat illegals all he wants, but the facts I know first hand prove him wrong.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-idle-army-americas-unworking-men-1472769641

64. This conversation is almost unreal. Trump is a con-man. Arguing about what he says is like arguing with your spouse about how much money that nice Nigerian prince is going to deposit into your bank account.

65. @GB – you are trying to square that circle again by confusing the original issue.

    You are trying to make it about what the future looks like with clinton and that trump would be better. That was not the original point.

    What is the purpose of citing a powerline article as a rebutal of Neo’s point if folks didn’t believe that trump was going to follow through on his statements?
    .

    YOU may not dispute trump is mutable. THEY, in essence, are.

    Actually, you are side stepping it when you are saying it is irrelevant now, as it is only important in the primaries. I disagree.
    .

    As OM says, the point of contention seems to be who poses the greater risk. Well, maybe not with your argument…

    YOU assert trump is authoritarian and acknowledge he is mutable. Not sure if you commented much about his temperament and how that plays into this.

    Nonetheless, those first two points each alone surpass a threshold of acceptance for me, and probably any other here challenging the view that we must support trump in defeating clinton. Temperament just amps up the volatility in that risk.
    .

    So far as I can tell, YOU are the only one saying those things wrt trump, of those here who are in support of trump. Your argument is rather distinct, unless the others are hiding their true assessment.

    The rest are either believing (wishing and hoping really – IOW they are “believing”) that trump will deliver on what they assume are his positions.

    The ones vigorously arguing for trump rarely acknowledge the downside risk that come from issues such as trump’s mutability. That powerline article is an example, and pointing to that is effectively either ignoring or arguing against the existence of trump’s flip flop flips (…flop …flips).

    They may also, along with other rather “reluctant” trump supporters, be assuming that somehow the media, Congress and/or SCOTUS would act as a big enough hurdle to trump to suppress the worst scenarios should he be elected. That is a big bet that hasn’t held up in recent years.
    .

    Of course, if they really hold a position similar to yours, they don’t care about mutability, nor authoritarianism in pursuit of defeating clinton. Those were only relevant in the primaries and now are features, not downside risks.

    They are rather expecting that there won’t be much really holding trump back, because they believe we can somehow find our way back to some situation better than today’s “cannot suck any worse” country.
    .

    Hence my question posed to those so strongly in support of trump… “What is your limit in pursuing a defeat of clinton?”

    If they are aligned with your thinking, GB, then there really isn’t any limit, and all our arguments about any downsides to trump are irrelevant. It is as close to a “burn it all down” argument without having to say it is one, as I can see.
    .

    I get that argument, but I not only disagree, I think it is an appalling notion – for many reasons articulated several times in this blog, but most specifically because it veers so far from conservative principles in order to save – what? IDK – if it is not a country based on conservative principles.

    Just what is that “better” than the unexceedable “suck” of today?

    It is not clear at all what that “country” looks like.
    .

    It seems that a willingness to be open ended like that on principles is exactly the kind of thing that attracts the alt-r crowd. After all, what they care about is hardly “conservative” at all.
    .

    Bottom line: I don’t think you are speaking with the majority of trump supporters, but maybe I am wrong, as few (any?) ever took up an answer to my question.

66. As I might have mentioned before, the central problem isn’t Trum or HRC, but their supporters. A nation that is so broken, by definition, that they can elect a traitor as President of the US… isn’t going to get fixed any time soon. Even assuming human efforts are capable of reversing evil and this level of destruction, which hasn’t happened yet in evidence.

    People in general as well as here, focus too much on individuals, and thus do not pay as much attention to what else is going on. Hussein was focused on. Kerry was focused on. Bush II was focused on. But those individuals, once you get rid of them, still doesn’t solve America’s problems. If Trum and HRC both die tomorrow or next year… America will still be just as Broken then as it is now. There’ll be another traitor or two that will then be “elected” to the office and gain power as usual in DC.

    People can try to pour more and more political power to DC, but that’s not going to help them elsewhere in the country. It’s similar to throwing money at welfare. The money wasn’t the problem.

    To name just a few, protest against; threatening marriage, societal norms and attempting to deconstruct the Constitution are not evidence of wishing for a white God-King.

    Millions of Americans knew and spoke out that Clinton was this way before 2007, remember the great right-wing conspiracy? And even more did the same with the Left before 2007.

    Oh, Americans said Clinton was unAmerican, unpatriotic, a traitor, and also Evil To Boot in 2005-2007 when she talked about body armor in Iraq implicating Bush II in the murder of US soldiers?

    I don’t think so, the mainstream was very Republican established back then. There were things that even if you thought about it, you didn’t put it out in public. Because if you did, you’d get hammered and relegated as a minor crazy.

    Millions of America did nothing except kneel down in front of the MainSewerMedia propaganda about Iraq and Bush. Even the minority who fought a last ditch propaganda war against the Left over Iraq and domestic Bush policies, didn’t go so far as to paint the Left as evil and in need of destruction.

    The genetic wing of the Alt Right has already said that they do not care about the US Constitution, only that the FOunding Fathers were white and that demonstrates White Superiority, the way BLM says black culture demonstrates black superiority…

    Trying to make DC less powerful by putting more politicians in DC, isn’t going to do anything. One might as well throw more gasoline in the fire. It might burn down DC, that’s the hope of Trum supporters, but it isn’t going to fix America’s problem. America’s culture and religion has broken down morally, and marriage is merely the end destruction result. One can’t fix marriage and thus magically fix the culture using DC power.

67. Trump’s activities and statements are not supported by or contradicted by his activities in government.

    Since Trum hasn’t been in government, asking for that proof is like asking a person to prove they are Not God.

68. YMar.,
    Precisely. The other side of that is there is nothing on which we can rely to prove anything about Trump. If he says something we don’t like, he’ll say something different about it later. Or people will say that nothing he says has any relevance to what he’ll do, whatever that is.
    So it hardly matters what he says save for the vote-getting it may generate or repel.
    One overlooked benefit to electing Trump is that he won’t have the media covering for him.
    Hillary could sell Rhode Island to Putin and the NYT would suggest the state wasn’t very big anyway, and we’ll get it back in a couple of years. And once Iran starts exploding nukes, WaPo would point out we did it for years in the Nevada desert and nothing happened.
    Presuming we heard about either.

69. The other side of that is there is nothing on which we can rely to prove anything about Trump.

    Which is why I personally don’t focus on Trum. I comment because everybody around me, including here, talk about it like it matters.

    I focus on longer range/term strategic and logistics, because that is what usually decides a war. Personalities are nice for a reality tv show, but the fate of a nation is going to take more than a few traitors like Benedict Arnold and more than a few saints like Washington, to figure out.

    http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2016/09/jonah-goldberg-on-core-alt-right.html

    I may have linked this before, but I think this topic (in the comments there) is what’s important and will be more popular in the future to talk about.

    I often criticize generals and leaders for fighting the last war, such as Shinigami Shinseki’s example. Which is why I don’t merely go with the flow of the masses and what they like to think or talk about.

70. The other side of that is there is nothing on which we can rely to prove anything about Trump.

    Also, that statement is false. Since a person’s character doesn’t change easily, and with Bush II, his character was seen even in his public persona. Although Bush II had a private persona that was slightly different, some say better or worse.

    Trum is not a super human being better than me. He is a 70 yo New York Democrat. He is extremely transparent to read, the same as when people talked about Hussein being an empty suit, whatever that meant. Something is empty though. People pour in their hopes and dreams, just as they did with Hussein, for that precious Hope and Change. Humans aren’t any better, no matter what faction or tribe they think they belong to. A pathetic yet ridiculous clown act all in all.

71. One overlooked benefit to electing Trump is that he won’t have the media covering for him.

    That is slightly compensated by the fact that Russia’s former KGB is interfering with US politics, by backing the supporters of Trum. Same as when Russia stirred up and set up the Ossetians against the Georgians.

    Foreigners love messing around with US Presidential elections, reason why Hussein lifted the credit card fraud protections on donations to his campaign.

    Again, this goes back to my reference about people focusing too much on Trum. The world stage, the American soul and family, gets overlooked merely because it’s election season for the US King.

72. OM,

    “Without facts it is opinion, feel better about that word?” [traitor]

    There are innumerable facts supporting the contention that HRC is a traitor.

    “Traitor? Would that be DJT or HRC if both undermine the rule of law and the constitution?”

    HRC has repeatedly proven her bonifides. If Trump violates the Constitution, he certainly is guilty of that but that does not make him a traitor because presumably he has not offered aid and comfort to an enemy. Which BTW, Obama did with the Iran ‘deal’.

    “So tell everyone what is known about HRC and balance it against DJT and his alt-right tendencies and toadies or his NY liberal history.”

    I have repeatedly done so and reached the conclusion that DJT with his alt-right tendencies, toadies and his NY liberal history is, at this point, the far better bet.

    “And BTW BHO is and has been a disaster.”

    I said that…

    “So you are all in for another apprentice? All you have is he’s not her.”

    It is HRC who has declared herself to be his apprentice. Trump has, in the strongest of terms, criticized them both.

    No OM, all WE have is… he’s not her. A point you refuse to see. Which changes the reality not in the least. But it is not HRC herself which is the definitive factor. It is the strength of the forces behind each, wherein the difference lies.

    Which still leaves Ymarsarkar’s entirely valid and deeper point that the electorate is the real problem. A point that I have been in agreement with for a number of years.

73. Big Maq,

    I may get confused with the back and forth but I will never try to be deceitful in order to win an argument.

    You appear to be hung up on Trump’s veracity, on his trustworthiness. Of course that is a concern and it certainly disqualified his candidacy, as it should with any candidate. But here we are… with either Hillary or Donald as the ‘choice’ that the electorate, in the aggregate, has imposed upon us. Given that choice and given the strength and ideology of the forces at their back, I cannot but conclude that the choice is obvious. I fully grant anyone’s right to disagree, I only dispute the offered rationale that claims Hillary to be the ‘better’ option.

74. “Which still leaves Ymarsarkar’s entirely valid and deeper point that the electorate is the real problem. A point that I have been in agreement with for a number of years.”

    That’s the problem, we need new and better citizens. We need better humans for our grand and glorious country, or planet, not those flawed, fickle, immora,l and ungodly scum that Y often castigates from his lofty perch. Or are they ants to be stepped upon?/s

    Regarding the “valid” point on the nature of the electorate (man). Well things have been messed up with man since the Fall, and the founders of this country knew that too.

    You refuse to recognize that Trump is an apprentice, dance around that fact. It’s not an opinion or feeling.

    And while I am not defending HRC or BHO regarding “traitorous” behavior you may have noticed that treason is a pretty hard case to prove, much harder than “high crimes and misdemeanors,” so keep saying traitor if it makes you feel better.

75. “But it is not HRC herself which is the definitive factor. It is the strength of the forces behind each, wherein the difference lies.”

    So it’s not HRC after all it’s those who are, NO!, don’t look behind the curtain!

    “But it is not” DJT himself “which is the definitive factor. It is the strength of the forces behind each, wherein the difference lies.”

    There, fixed it for you.

76. OM,

    Not better human beings, better citizens. Pointing out that necessity is not suggesting that the flawed, fickle, immoral and ungodly masses prepared to vote for Clinton should be ‘stepped upon’. Please refrain from implied strawman accusations.

    Yes, the founders well knew of humanity’s “feet of clay” and in their time, human beings were no better than they are today but overall, the moral fiber of America at that time made for better citizens.

    Stating that we need better citizens does offer support for Pres. Adams having the right of it; “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I’ve also previously explained what IMO Adams meant by “a moral and religious people”, which given his history, I do not think meant people who cleave to religious dogma unthinkingly accepted at Sunday lectures.

    That Y offers egotistical advice from Mt. Olympus does not mean that he is wrong on that issue.

    Trump is an apprentice of whom? Evidence please.

    HRC and Obama are traitors, as their actions provide definitive proof of that charge. That an infamous congress stands unwilling to prosecute, changes the truth not in the slightest. And a factual statement stands independent of ‘feelings’.

    “But it is not” DJT himself [or HRC herself] “which is the definitive factor. It is the strength of the forces behind each, wherein the difference lies.”

    There, I fixed it for you with a bit of emphasis to ensure ‘clarity’.

    I’ve been entirely consistent in that position and have repeatedly listed the specific factors that have led me to the conclusion that the forces at Hillary’s side are far more powerful and therefore far more dangerous than are those that stand at Trump’s side.

    But even should events prove otherwise, history demonstrates that societies, in the aftermath of a Pinochet, recover far more easily and surely than in the aftermath of a Castro or Chavez.

    That is NOT an endorsement of the path down which a Pinochet leads, simply recognition of what history teaches about each path.

    I’ve also said that I don’t see any way to avoid one or the other of those paths. Hopefully, I’m wrong about that but the evidence for that being the reality we face, IMO appears fairly certain.

    Maybe… an Article V Convention could open up another path but of that, I am not hopeful. I will fully support a movement for such a convention if Hillary gets in and, depending upon his behavior may also support one with a Pres. Trump.

77. “Please refrain from implied strawman accusations” from the mouth of the scarecrow.

    Apprentice – no actual experience in working as a government employee of any kind, never worked in any context serving the nation or the local community, no experience even serving in his congregation (elder, deacon, etc.) no actual experience running for public office for anything.

    But he knows hotels, casinos, golf courses, and universities. /S

    And you don’t seem to get the problem that requires Article V. The problem is bigger than HRC or DJT, congress, the judiciary, and the executive (and their regulators) have to be reigned in. No matter how your NY Pinochet/Franco/Mussolini behaves.

78. OM,

    I have never intentionally engaged in a strawman argument, if I have inadvertently done so, I apologize. That however does not excuse you from having done so and responding with what is effectively an admission, “well you do it too”… while refusing to openly admit to it, does not speak well of your character.

    Ah, now I see in how you are using the label ‘apprentice’ as it applies to Trump. Sure, that’s certainly true. Which in no way changes the reality of the choice we face, unless you posit that an untried, inexperienced apprentice is worse than a marxist progressive ideologue.

    I fully get the problem that an Article V convention would hope to address, I’m just doubtful that it will work to our advantage. While if Hillary is elected, I realize we’ll have little left to lose, even if it works out as I fear it might.

79. “You appear to be hung up on Trump’s veracity, on his trustworthiness.” – GB

    It is not being “hung up” (since you and I both recognize this problem with trump) really. Instead, it is that others seem to be ignoring that part of trump.

    Actually, it is more about how they go further and point to an article that discusses what trump recently has said on an issue, as if that makes it any clearer and is somehow proof of what he will actually do, without also explaining how it is to be believed in context of the wide variations he has articulated prior.

    trump’s mutability on just about everything is only ONE of the problems that disqualifies him.

80. @GB – also, I’ve been pretty clear that BOTH trump and clinton are well past acceptable as candidates.

81. OM is projecting a little bit here, given the arrogant and contemptuous attitude OM has shown to various people for Trum, who don’t want to be called Trum supporters of course, such as GB or others.

    While people can say they know arrogance and pride, because they themselves are arrogant and prideful, I wouldn’t buy too deeply into that one.

    I have observed verily and in great detail, the manner in which OM ridicules and harasses people who have said that conscience is not an issue in this election. When people like OM believes that makes his brand of Christianity “better” because of their “conscience”, yet the behavior does not confer upon them the moral righteousness they crave, an element of cognitive dissonance results. Which is a crisis of faith, not a crisis of psychology.

    If people are going to a hell devised by the actions of their own soul, while on this mortal shell on Earth, then let them do so if that is their true desire. If they wish to discard their conscience and vote for the devil or for some other person who is better than the devil, then that is still their choice and the consequences will be theirs to bear, even if they believe everybody else should be like them. This does not make people who declare conscience as an overriding concern in this election, “better”. This is why it is easy for me to say that it doesn’t matter to me what people vote for. I am not on the anti Trum side, the anti Right side, the anti Left side, or even “Any Side” at all.

    I had no “side” to be on in 2007, and no god seemed existent on any mountain in 2007 as the world went under the heels of the Left and Islam’s evil either.

82. That’s the problem, we need new and better citizens. We need better humans for our grand and glorious country, or planet, not those flawed, fickle, immora,l and ungodly scum that Y often castigates from his lofty perch. Or are they ants to be stepped upon

    That is what makes you a Christian heretic, OM.

    The Gospel was for the transformation of humanity, and given what we see of human nature now, it could use some upgrades. Relying on divine power to transform mortal human spirits is not the same as relying on human powers to do the same.

    I speak in OM’s language, because frankly OM has been stepping on GB and others here as if they were ants, for awhile now. But then again, I wouldn’t expect sub average humans to perceive my mirror like qualities.

83. Ymarsakar Says:

    He/she/? says a lot of lofty pretentious stuff and has decided the state of my soul and my relationship with Jesus Christ – “That is what makes you a Christian heretic, OM.” – now need’s his attention.

    Frankly it isn’t for Y to judge or to decide, which is a good thing, since burning “heretics” not being permitted in these degraded times in the west.

    Y may be longing for the good old days when burning at the stake was permitted for Christians or maybe he wished to live in a Moslem-majority in country where heresy is, shall I say more than just frowned upon. There is a problem for Y going to said countries: leaving the LDS faith, decisions, decisions, maybe a revelation is coming to Y?

    So continue to make stuff up Ymarskar, don’t stop with percentages and theology, just keep the self parody coming.

    Reign down your “wisdom” from on high. Or not.

84. “perceive my mirror like qualities.” LOL, ROFLOL

85. Heh OM. You were funnier back when you were using sarcasm tags to hunt down heretics here against your Religious Authority, after tasting the full and bitter brew of this election year. But that’s not my problem.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>