Another of the reasons I’ve come to feel Trump is unsuitable for the presidency. He’s not only dishonest but he’s dishonest in ways that make you feel he thinks he can get away with anything. I’ve always railed against the Clintons, not only for their dishonesty but how prolifically they lie and what a poor job they do of it. But Trump is beginning to make them look like amateurs. And worse, he seems to have no doubt about getting away with it. I imagine that in the business world such chicanery might pay off as the person being fooled doesn’t know any better, but you’d think that someone as media-savvy as Trump would know better than to try some of the stuff he’s been doing lately with all the scrutiny he’s under. It kind of reminds me of an occasion back in the eighties when he took to taking press calls on his phone while pretending to be one of his employees, as if members of the media wouldn’t instantly recognize his voice. I’d thought that was just a one-off that he’d tried for some odd reason and then moved on from since it didn’t work, but apparently not.
Addendum to Mighty_Girl: I forgot to mention Trump’s comments about killing terrorists’ families as another reason I’ve abandoned him. I’d heard mention of it before but sort of blew it off as something he said just to get attention, but he sounded pretty sincere in the clip shown in the Oliver bit.
I agree John Oliver may be a good way to study Trump’s positions. Here’s another John Oliver documentary comparing the nuances of Trump’s position on nuclear proliferation with those of Obama.
:eek: I couldn’t be more surprised!
Heather Digby Parton calls Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s recent interview with Trump "His most terrifying interview yet.
One of Trump’s reasons for pulling troops out of South Korea is that country pays nothing for it. CNN has since pointed out South Korea pays 55% of the cost.
Yeah, it’s like the whole hard-sell schtick of just trying to overwhelm the other party with BS coming at you fast and heavy so you can’t stop to call him on it and putting you on the spot to buy now just so he’ll let you breathe. Doesn’t matter as long as you can close, once you close it’s the buyer’s problem. In politics, however once you “close” it still is your problem.
Also, it gives me a feeling about the “he speaks what’s in his mind” trope – yes, he does, BUT “what’s in his mind” is whatever is crossing his consciousness right here and now or that he thinks will put him on top of the conversation, right here and now. The Clintons, as professional politicians, know they do not need to “beat” a mere journalist every single time they speak…
Today while eating dinner in a sports bar I saw a TV ad running on Fox News. It was by & for Trump.
It said “Call 800-xxx-yyyy and press 1 if you think it’s not fair for the Republicans to deny Trump the nomination in a contested convention.”
Over and over, that was the image on the screen, alternating with pix of Trump. The ad ran several times over the hour I was there.
So the point of the message is that if Trump can’t get the 1237 delegates to win outright, it’ll be unfair if he doesn’t win anyhow. Regardless of whether he’s in first, 2nd, or 3rd place by then.
Between that and his squealing that Kasich remaining in the race is “unfair” to him, I see a trend here.
Many Americans think “fair” is a synonym for “benefits me; not the other guy.” Trump is trying to characterize the entire nominating process as one of “fairness” in that sense. If he wins it was fair. If he doesn’t it wasn’t.
That’s a very powerful rhetorical, nay demogogical, device for galvanizing the folks who haven’t been winning in the last 30 years.
It’s also further proof the guy’s a whiny bully. Two personality traits that are especially dangerous together.
My guess is that the point of the ad is to get Trump’s supporters to call and voice their support for him at a rate of x number of dollars per call.
Exactly how unfair is it? I mean, on a scale of 1 being blaming Hillary for not personally overriding the decisions of the State Department security specialists on adequate protection for every little outpost in the world, and 10 being “Bush kept us safe” after 3000+ died in NYC, but blaming Obama for not stopping an attack in Brussels that killed 35 or so?
We can add the Civil Service to the list of things he doesn’t understand.
I am hearing a whole mess about the collapse of Trump this week. Can someone explain to me what has fundamentally changed?
Latest poll still has him +7 over Cruz in the national polls. Odds already had been pretty good for a contested convention in my book and lose WI by double digits or not, he is virtually assured of taking NY DE NE and PA’s WTAs. He will still hit the convention with a solid plurality and still likely winning the overall popular vote of GOP voters by a plurality as well. Maybe a slight bit less strong of a plurality but still a solid one.
The circumstance does not seem very changed to me. It can be taken from him in a contested convention and such is a completely legit thing to do but the party machers are also very aware that such will be disenfranchising more than a third of their likely voters and one can bet with some confidence that Trump will not be working the healing circuit to party unity behind Cruz or whoever at that point. I don’t see how his latest irrationalities make doing that significantly any less or more costly of a choice than it was before.
It would be easier to list the things he does understand.
Does a null set count as a list?
To be sure it was at least intended to harvest phone numbers. And in many ways it’s like those traditional mail pieces the parties and campaigns send out that purport to be a survey about voters’ electoral priorities but are really just a way to incite outrage in their base.
The point wasn’t so much that Trump is advertising, but that he chose to “assume the sale” of deserving the nomination, and then used “fairness” of the nominating process as his wedge issue. In his telling of the event his losing will be *prima facie *evidence that the process was unfair.
It explicitly wasn’t any of the usual political stuff like claiming his polices are good while the other guys’ policies suck. Nor that he’s great, honest, wise (and humble) while the other guys are lying stealing schmucks.
This was politics up a different dimension. That’s what makes it noteworthy.
Remember Man of the Year, where Robin Williams plays a TV comedian (loosely based on Stewart/Colbert) who runs a joke campaign for president and “wins” due to a computer error – after the election but before the inaugural, the outgoing president shows him the Oval Office and he sits down behind the desk and he’s got this "Shit, what do I do now?!" look on his face?
Trump, if, Og forbid, knock wood and spit three times, if, you know, if, then he is not going to show that look before his inaugural. He is not going to show that look on his first day. He is going to show that look after he’s been president a week and finally understands and cannot avoid facing how far out of his depth he is.
But Reagan and Dubya were out of their depth also. I don’t know that this really matters as long as you surround yourself with a bunch of people who can basically tell you what to do and run things for you while you goof around and enjoy the perks.
And a helluva lot faster.
With the caveat that he has to listen to them, and I really don’t think he’s capable of that.