[helene_t]

"Phase one of my plan to destroy the wanker party is now completed".

http://www.salon.com...s_trump_tweets/

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2016-May-12, 13:11, said:

"Phase one of my plan to destroy the wanker party is now completed".

http://www.salon.com...s_trump_tweets/

Perhaps of interest: If you scroll down that page you find a graph showing historical exit poll percentage of Republican primary voters who are conservative, and the percentage who are very conservative. For 2016 the results are 76% conservative, 33% very conservative. I guess the Republican plan is to get out 109% of the vote? This could work!

Ok, I suppose very conservative is a subset of conservative. A bit misleading, I think.It's like someone checking "agree" and "strongly agree". Oh well.


Anyway, Bruce Bartlett appears to be seriously nutty.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 14:55, said:

Perhaps of interest: If you scroll down that page you find a graph showing historical exit poll percentage of Republican primary voters who are conservative, and the percentage who are very conservative. For 2016 the results are 76% conservative, 33% very conservative. I guess the Republican plan is to get out 109% of the vote? This could work!

Ok, I suppose very conservative is a subset of conservative. A bit misleading, I think.It's like someone checking "agree" and "strongly agree". Oh well.


Anyway, Bruce Bartlett appears to be seriously nutty.

So that's where the silent majority resides - I thought it was Chicago.

Ken,

This gal agrees with you about the Chait article:

Quote

But as pleasurable as it is to hear that people who disagree with you are just idiots, this easy dismissal of the intelligence of millions of people lacks for intellectual rigor, which is deeply unfortunate for someone trying to posit that their problem is they’re just too smart for the little brains of the world.

The problem with calling people stupid is that it’s satisfying, but ultimately meaningless. For one thing, it’s nearly impossible to measure it. It’s easy to dismiss Trump as a buffoon, but his likely retort to that is hard to argue: He did manage to score the nomination of a major political party and rally millions to his side, which is more than Chait has done with himself.

The problem is “intelligence” is hard to define, and therefore hard to measure. I, for instance, am good at a lot of things that require intelligence: Pithy jokes, analyzing politics, explicating movies and TV shows, Mario Kart, bar trivia. But put me in front of a computer and ask me to program in Python, and I would seem like a screaming moron.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-May-12, 12:34, said:

It seems to me that the bankruptcies and the Trump University scam would be more effective to flog than would Trump's casino ownerships. The students scammed know they were suckered, but a lot of the suckers in the casinos don't see themselves that way and would be angered to be labeled that way.

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

I have no objection to people making money, I don't object to them making a lot of money. I am not so pleased with seeing this money being made by taking advantage of the poor, the old, the uneducated, but if it is legal we have to put up with it or change the laws. But we don't have to elect the people who do this to high office. Trump has a cadre of lawyers to keep him on the right side of the law. We should set a higher standard for public office.

Again, I think people can understand this once they start listening.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 16:32, said:

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

I have nothing against Trump operating casinos. If people want to throw away their money at the slot machines, so be it.

The issue with Trump and the casinos is the return on investment that the investors in the casinos realized. (Which was about the same as anyone who was stupid enough to pay for training at Trump University).

Trump has a long and storied history of screwing over anyone who has trusted him with their money
This is the story that needs to get told.

"Don't trust Donald. He'd screw you over to enrich himself"
This needs to be told over and over and over, with lots of different examples.

If Trump's daughter is willing to stand in the same room as him come November, then the Democrats haven't done their job.
If his wife hasn't divorced him, something went very very wrong.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 16:32, said:

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

I have no objection to people making money, I don't object to them making a lot of money. I am not so pleased with seeing this money being made by taking advantage of the poor, the old, the uneducated, but if it is legal we have to put up with it or change the laws. But we don't have to elect the people who do this to high office. Trump has a cadre of lawyers to keep him on the right side of the law. We should set a higher standard for public office.

Again, I think people can understand this once they start listening.

Question: Why is it O.K. to call people screwed over by Trump "suckers" but not O.K. to call Trump supporters "idiots"?

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-May-12, 17:20, said:

Question: Why is it O.K. to call people screwed over by Trump "suckers" but not O.K. to call Trump supporters "idiots"?

A good question.

I guess I look at it this way. I see Trump as living by "never give a sucker an even break". I am focused on his intent, I mean it primarily as a description of him. Instead of making money by doing something useful, he intends to make money by getting people to make unwise choices.

Early on I mentioned that if he changed every position he held and agreed totally with me on everything I still would not vote for him. It's why I find it so disappointing that Paul Ryan wants to learn more about him. How long does it take to recognize him for what he is?

But of course you are right, at least sort of. The "sort of" is that we are all, at one time or another, suckered into something. We learn from it and we move on. Being an idiot is a permanent condition. But I won't push this distinction too fiercely. I do think that some supporters of Trump might have second thoughts, and I think some on the edge can be pulled back to safety.

I was talking briefly with my older daughter about this. She thinks Trump voters are beyond salvation. I stick to my naive optimism. We still get along.

[Al_U_Card]

Being open-minded and having a healthy skepticism frees you from the emotional attachment to ideals that pushes you to call people with whom you disagree, stupid, suckers, idiots and deniers.
In critical thinking, appeals to emotion are anathema. (Liking someone or something is not a logical evaluation criterion.) Factual analysis is fundamental but being able to enlarge perspective by accepting the validity of other views ensures an enhanced perspective.
Ultimately, the freedom to pursue and support any course of action is necessary to ensure a vibrant and inclusive spectrum of opportunity. Limiting oneself and others to strictly enforced positions is not a viable survival strategy.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-May-13, 05:32, said:

Being open-minded and having a healthy skepticism frees you from the emotional attachment to ideals that pushes you to call people with whom you disagree stupid, alarmist and catastrophist

FYP.

[PassedOut]

Seems Donald Trump is furious with Jeff Bezos and the Post. Looks like the fun part of the campaign has started: Donald Trump masqueraded as a spokesman to brag about himself

Quote

The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian. The man on the phone vigorously defending Donald Trump says he’s a media spokesman named John Miller, but then he says, “I’m sort of new here,” and “I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and even “I’m going to do this a little, part-time, and then, yeah, go on with my life.”

A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

The more voters who see Trump as a comic figure, the better off we'll be.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 20:26, said:

A good question.

I guess I look at it this way. I see Trump as living by "never give a sucker an even break". I am focused on his intent, I mean it primarily as a description of him. Instead of making money by doing something useful, he intends to make money by getting people to make unwise choices.

Early on I mentioned that if he changed every position he held and agreed totally with me on everything I still would not vote for him. It's why I find it so disappointing that Paul Ryan wants to learn more about him. How long does it take to recognize him for what he is?

But of course you are right, at least sort of. The "sort of" is that we are all, at one time or another, suckered into something. We learn from it and we move on. Being an idiot is a permanent condition. But I won't push this distinction too fiercely. I do think that some supporters of Trump might have second thoughts, and I think some on the edge can be pulled back to safety.

I was talking briefly with my older daughter about this. She thinks Trump voters are beyond salvation. I stick to my naive optimism. We still get along.

Well, I hope you are right but from living among them I understand that faith-based ideologues are not easily persuaded to abandon their beliefs. I am sure not all Trump supporters are of this ilk, but when those are the only ones seen and reported on it gives the appearance of ownership.

[Zelandakh]

It may be heretical but the best way of persuading Trump's supporters to desert him might well be doing the reverse of this. Trump's biggest appeal is that he is seen as not being a part of the Washington establishment. Poking fun at him actually increases his appeal as a candidate of protest. An interesting alternative is to play his game a little by highlighting his ties to corporate America and the political elite around the world. The aim would be to show that he is only really offering more of the same but with less experience. I doubt Hilary will go down this route, mainly because she does not really need to win over large parts of the Trump base, but if she did I think that would be a more successful approach than the one that has been used so far.

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 07:42, said:

I will focus on your last sentence. If you walk up to a Trump supporter and call him stupid he will remain a Trumps supporter. I agree. My point was a different one. Suppose you walk up to a Trump supporter and chat with him, sharing your concerns but letting him speak his mind and refraining from calling him stupid. Might he then give some thought to what you said and perhaps change his mind? No doubt some won't, but maybe some will? This is what I was getting at.

As a matter pf basic philosophy, I am opposed to writing people off. As a political strategy, I would definitely advise against writing people off.

Agree with all this. Worse: when argument fails and we resort to insult, others interpret it as an admission of defeat

[PassedOut]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:56, said:

It may be heretical but the best way of persuading Trump's supporters to desert him might well be doing the reverse of this. Trump's biggest appeal is that he is seen as not being a part of the Washington establishment. Poking fun at him actually increases his appeal as a candidate of protest. An interesting alternative is to play his game a little by highlighting his ties to corporate America and the political elite around the world. The aim would be to show that he is only really offering more of the same but with less experience. I doubt Hilary will go down this route, mainly because she does not really need to win over large parts of the Trump base, but if she did I think that would be a more successful approach than the one that has been used so far.

I doubt that Clinton can flip a significant number of Trump supporters no matter what she does, nor does she need to. She does need to hold her own voters and get most of the Sanders voters. If she can flip some of the moderate republicans, that would be icing on the cake.

[kenberg]

Parties realign. Here is a question: In 1980, Democrats voted for Reagan in large numbers. They were referred to as Reagan Democrats. Is this term correct, or should they have been called Reagan ex-Democrats?

Thinking along these lines, I consulted Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia...Reagan_Democrat
We find a quote from the conservative columnist George Will:

Quote

Conservative commentator George Will, noting the long-term movements of partisanship, said in 2012 that: "White voters without college education—economically anxious and culturally conservative—were called "Reagan Democrats" when they were considered only seasonal Republicans because of Ronald Reagan. Today they are called the Republican base."[9]

I would not dare to suggest to the WC folks that they take their lessons from George Will. But here is the issue: Is the Democratic Party interested in re-connecting with its traditional base? Of course Clinton will hope for the votes of Republicans just as Reagan hoped for the votes of Democrats. But is that all? Is the pitch going to be "Given the fact of the Republican nominee, where else can moderate Republicans go?" or is it going to be "Welcome moderate Republicans, I think you will find a comfortable home here"?

I think that there are opportunities. This could get very interesting.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-May-13, 08:18, said:

Parties realign. Here is a question: In 1980, Democrats voted for Reagan in large numbers. They were referred to as Reagan Democrats. Is this term correct, or should they have been called Reagan ex-Democrats?

Thinking along these lines, I consulted Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia...Reagan_Democrat
We find a quote from the conservative columnist George Will:




I would not dare to suggest to the WC folks that they take their lessons from George Will. But here is the issue: Is the Democratic Party interested in re-connecting with its traditional base? Of course Clinton will hope for the votes of Republicans just as Reagan hoped for the votes of Democrats. But is that all? Is the pitch going to be "Given the fact of the Republican nominee, where else can moderate Republicans go?" or is it going to be "Welcome moderate Republicans, I think you will find a comfortable home here"?

I think that there are opportunities. This could get very interesting.

I think Hillary needs to distance herself from some of the policies of Bill and move closer to the policies of Bernie - not close, but a touch closer. It is difficult to be a sponsor of free trade without also being at least O.K. with the lessening of influence of unions. Of course, the GOP has taken union bashing to a whole new level. Hillary needs to take another tact and encourage union strength and growth, both public and private unions.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:26, said:

FYP.

Just proved that I am like you. Viewpoints differ because of our differences.
As for using RCP 8.5 scenarios as anything but an outlier (way way out) is a classic cherry-pick of an unrealistic situation. (Just reading it beggars belief let alone lending credence to what the models then project.)

[Al_U_Card]

Wasn't LBJ a powerhouse legislator (crook?) and one of the few Presidents that managed to cut through the House/Senate gridlock?
Does anyone see either Hil or DT being able to get anything through congress?
The choice of candidate appears moot.
Personally, I would be able to laugh more at Trump and Hil would only depress me so...

[barmar]

The problem with trying to focus on how Trump took advantage of investors in his casinos is that it was still all legal. It seems like you're trying to paint him as being like Bernie Madoff, but there's a big difference. The casinos are legitimate businesses, and the investors were just foolish to believe that Trump would be able to operate them at a profit. They're not really that much different from all the voters who are being taken in by his bombast during the primaries.

So if anyone lost money investing in Trump, it can be painted as their own fault. So we're back to calling people stupid, and if we try to relate this to the election, we're basically saying "If you vote for Trump, you're as stupid as the people who invested in his casinos." And as we've said, telling voters they're stupid won't work.

I'm worried that there's really no good countermeasure to Trump. We've had teflon politicians before, but I don't think I've ever seen one as non-stick as Donald. He said it himself: he could murder someone in Time Square and his supporters will still rally behind him.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2016-May-13, 11:15, said:

The problem with trying to focus on how Trump took advantage of investors in his casinos is that it was still all legal. It seems like you're trying to paint him as being like Bernie Madoff, but there's a big difference. The casinos are legitimate businesses, and the investors were just foolish to believe that Trump would be able to operate them at a profit. They're not really that much different from all the voters who are being taken in by his bombast during the primaries.

So if anyone lost money investing in Trump, it can be painted as their own fault. So we're back to calling people stupid, and if we try to relate this to the election, we're basically saying "If you vote for Trump, you're as stupid as the people who invested in his casinos." And as we've said, telling voters they're stupid won't work.

Trump's claim to fame is "Look what a great business man I am. Look how much money I have made."

I am simply pointing that ability to enrich one's self isn't what we want from businessmen.
We want "Ability to create shareholder value."
We need "Ability to create wealth for the people who are trusting you with their money"

(And oh, BTW, his personal returns were significantly below that of the S&P 500)