Thursday morning links

Trump is the warning shot. He’s the food riots before the revolution. He’s the stack of letters to the editor in protest over some issue. People do not go from happy to bloody revolt overnight. It’s a process and the early stages are warnings, at least they should be viewed as warnings. If the people in Washington insist on flooding the country with helot labor, despite what’s happening in the election, the people are going to insist on building scaffolds in Washington. The Trump phenomenon is the warning.

Trump and foreign policy

How difficult was it to run America’s foreign policy during an era of virtually unquestioned dominance? Why—with so many advantages—have our elites produced so many failed policies? And why do they feel no shame? No matter how many individual positions he changes, Mr. Trump will never satisfy the architects of these massive mistakes or, for that matter, their ardent supporters on editorial boards and television screens. To be clear, it is entirely appropriate to criticize Mr. Trump’s views or, for that matter, his temper. Both have long been important components in our electoral politics. What is not appropriate is to attempt to shut down public discussion of critical national issues.

Yet this is exactly what some seek to do.

Defining U.S. National Interests: The Argument Continues

This
is How Democrats Will Absolutely Destroy Donald Trump if He’s the
Nominee - See more at:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/this-is-how-democrats-will-absolutely-destroy-donald-trump#sthash.Swnlod14.dpuf

Britain To Take In Syrian Refugees From Other European Nations That Don’t Want Them…

Why Russia Resents Us

The Holocaust Without Jews

These Are The Two Reasons Refugees Are Flooding Into Germany

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:05 | Comments (25) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

How Democrats will destroy Trump?

I don't get it. Why would recycling and rehashing the same ole, same ole, make the difference, if it hasn't to date. Does this dope think he is offering up something fresh or new?

#1 Exasperated on 2016-05-05 07:51 (Reply)

Dem strategist on Fox said recently that Hillary spent $4M on Trump opposition research. And yet her new 'ads' were pretty pedestrian and very typical of a democrat candidate. These same ads could've been tweaked for Cruz, so that is why I claim this. They were not Trump-specific in any way that I could see. Not unique. Not fresh. And, in fact, the one with all the quotes from Rubio, Cruz and Romney about how awful Trump is, only makes him more viable a candidate to independents and Democrats.

The strategist also said the $4M didn't help at all and that her camp is terrified.

This is not a traditional election. The Clinton machine is built for a traditional campaign and a traditional candidate. She is going to look old, out of touch and her hits won't hit that hard.

Trump has made it through the gauntlet of negative ads already MONTHS of them. The biggest thing he can do is to continue what he has always done, stay strong against the onslaught. Don't show any weakness. And hit back twice as hard.

What these strategists aren't thinking about is what voters look for in a President. They look for someone who is tough and will stand up for them. They want a fighter.

Hillary will be lost in PC Landia trying to do damage control when she says more stuff like 'off the reservation.' Which PC group will she insult next? If she is stuck defending her own words, she won't have much time to attack Trump.

Trump loves being on the news. Hillary avoids it like the plague. Trump hosts news conferences. Hillary has screened questions asked in controlled settings.

The differences will be striking.

#1.1 MissT on 2016-05-05 12:12 (Reply)

Ah, yes...the French Revolution. As I recall that didn't end so well. After killing off as many of the opposition as possible they began to eat their own. My observation is that a great many Trump supporters are disillusioned Obama supporters who found out that they're not getting free medical and have lost their jobs thanks to illegals and over regulation. Not Conservatives, not Republicans, not Libertarians...just an angry mob who believe that the crony capitalist will wave his magic wand and a Wall will appear, really truly free medical--this time--and no more illegals!

#2 Kathryn of Wyoming on 2016-05-05 10:13 (Reply)

Funny, my observation is that a lot of Trump supporters are people who were Tea Party folks, conservatives, who worked to get control of the House and Senate into Republican hands.

And who feel pretty damn stupid in having done so only to watch the Republicans do next to nothing with their majorities. Why? Hell if I know - but all I can figure is that they're more concerned with how the media portrays them than whether or not they're effective in loosening the bureaucratic stranglehold on the economy, reforming the tax code, or reforming immigration policy.

I was a Cruz supporter - but I'll have no problems voting for Trump. I'd have had severe problems voting for Bush, who was the GOPe anointed before he was rejected.

#2.1 JLawson on 2016-05-05 11:59 (Reply)

Trump is a nationalist and not a conservative but he definitely has far more in common with republicans than democrats. Sanders is a national socialist and has been giving Hillary fits. Look at the nationalism rising in Europe. When citizens see politicians selling them out in every venue and those same politicians arrogantly denying taking care of only the political elite then you see nationalism arising everywhere and if they try to stop it they will get the gallows. We are in a large degree economic/financial downturn and there will be a changing of the guard.

#2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2016-05-05 20:48 (Reply)

I agree with you.

#2.2 Becky on 2016-05-05 14:08 (Reply)

Whatever comes of the Trump candidacy, I can't unsee the casual bigotry and condescension expressed toward regular working people and the deliberate misrepresentation of their motives.

At this point, how dull witted and out of touch do you have to be, to not realize that revealing this malice just feeds into the Trump narrative.

#2.3 ContrarianCoot on 2016-05-05 17:35 (Reply)

Wait, drowning wasn't a cause of death before the Middle Ages?

Romans who stepped off their ships on the beaches of Briton wouldn't drown as their heavy armor held them down if the water was to deep?

#3 JK Brown on 2016-05-05 10:53 (Reply)

Re: HuffPo: Legal Gun Owners Can’t Shoot Violent Attackers In Self-Defense Because It Denies Them A Fair Trial…

I don't read HuffPo. Is this what passes for reasoned thought there? I guess I haven't been missing anything.

#4 mudbug on 2016-05-05 11:03 (Reply)

That article had no reason and no thought...the author is a fool--I'm being courteous. The bad guy who threatens me or my family better be ready to pay the price.

#4.1 rocdoctom on 2016-05-05 11:20 (Reply)

re This is How Democrats Will Absolutely Destroy Donald Trump if He’s the Nominee

OTOH Rush Limbaugh thinks Trump will win in a landslide.

It is just entertaining reading at this point.

Means nothing.

#5 feeblemind on 2016-05-05 11:06 (Reply)

Krauthammer: GOP ‘Being Led By a Non-Conservative,’ As of Now, ‘I Don’t Think I’d Be Capable of Voting for Donald Trump’

Don't know exactly where he lives, but I'm guessing whether he votes or not doesn't matter as he lives in an overwhelming DemProg area. What he's worried about is that with Trump as the candidate, his invitations to DemProg cocktail parties will decline.

Funny, Romney wasn't much of a conservative, being the architect of Obamacare, but they rallied round him. I guess because he had such condescension for 47% of the voters, but wasn't smart enough to keep it to himself. But then he was in the room with a lot of other "conservatives" and needed to do some signaling.

#6 JK Brown on 2016-05-05 11:23 (Reply)

Romney was 'electable', according to the GOPe. Until he was the nominee and suddenly... wasn't.

McCain was 'electable'... until he actually was the candidate, and then he got some advice that knocked him out of the running. (Suspending his campaign? WTF?)

I'm really thinking the GOPe don't WANT the Presidency. There's a lot of stuff that's got to be taken care of that's been neglected a long time, and the DNC and the Media are going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo. Why would anyone want that? Better to lose gracefully and let the DNC suffer the problems.

Never mind they created them in the first place. (Shrug.)

Trump's a problem. He might not lose - which means they'd have to actually step up and try to fix things.

#6.1 jlawson on 2016-05-05 12:08 (Reply)

It's amazing the number of supposed adults in elite positions of power who are having stompy-feet temper tantrums just because they aren't getting their way. After all, they're the smartest cuckoo in the birdcage.

We no longer need to wonder about where all those young snowflakes learned their lessons about being "special"?

An American correspondent for France24 commented about the reports of Trump being the most hated candidate, the least educated for the job, the most disruptive to our political process, etc. So, he concluded, why did he win the candidacy? Because the voters love him. 'Nuff said.

#7 jma on 2016-05-05 11:50 (Reply)

Voters. (Spit.) What do THEY know, anyway? Stupid peons shouldn't have any opinions of their own - they just get in the way of the elite.

Seriously though, they tried hard to shove Bush as the candidate, and were appalled when he was ignored. Trump was a clown and wouldn't be taken seriously worldwide, they said. He was a (oooh, icky!) businessman - what could he possibly know how the world worked! You needed a politician for that!

Well, I think a lot of people are tired of politicians at this point. I know I am, and I've actually enjoyed seeing how Cruz is trying to change things in DC - and the resistance is to be expected. The DC culture sees what they want (either D or R) as The Best Thing For The Country - and they ignore any inputs FROM outside DC.

People are tired of it. Thus - Trump.

#7.1 JLawson on 2016-05-05 12:15 (Reply)

If nothing else, this election is a case study in political power and all its ramifications. How many people knew the difference between a caucus and a primary election, or that neither one makes a hoot's worth of difference since the PTB control the delegates who actually decide on the candidate. That is, unless the voters take back control of who and what rules them.

We now are controlled by thousands of rules and regulations that have never seen the light of day in Congress, but are designed and implemented by a cabal of departments, sub-departments, minions and lobbyists with the power to destroy your life -- no questions asked, no voting, no opinion, just shut up. No wonder so many lawyers are in politics.

I've tracked Trump since the early 80s and have alway wished to be a fly on the wall as he made his decisions just to learn his process. This is going to be interesting.

#7.1.1 jma on 2016-05-05 13:43 (Reply)

QUOTE:

90% Of American Households Have Lower Real Net Worth Today Than In 1970s

This chart from the study helps clarify the issues.
https://agenda.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/saezfig1.png

Notice how wealth became concentrated, leading up to the Great Depression. Then the New Deal period made a conscious effort to lower economic inequality. This was followed by what is known as the Affluent Society, when marginal tax rates were very high, there was vast investment in infrastructure, and economic gains were felt throughout society. This was, in turn, followed by an increasing concentration of wealth leading up to financial meltdown in 2008.

#8 Zachriel on 2016-05-05 12:17 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Then the New Deal period made a conscious effort to lower economic inequality.

That's not all Roosevelt did. He hobbled business activity with regulations and taxes which contributed to the length of the Great Depression. Obama is doing the same thing and is getting similar results.

#8.1 mudbug on 2016-05-05 12:29 (Reply)

mudbug: That's not all Roosevelt did. He hobbled business activity with regulations and taxes which contributed to the length of the Great Depression.

Average real GDP growth from 1933-1939 was about 7%.

mudbug: Obama is doing the same thing and is getting similar results.

Unlike the Great Crash, the 2008 financial meltdown was immediately addressed by the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, so GDP didn't shrink nearly as much as it did during the Great Crash. Consequently, growth resumed at a more typical rate for a developed economy. Indeed, the U.S. is doing better than most of its direct competitors.

#8.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-05-05 12:43 (Reply)

Wait a minute! Wait another minute! "...the 2008 financial meltdown was immediately addressed by the Bush Administration..." Bama never admitted that. He and the Dems Blamed BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!

#8.1.1.1 Sam L. on 2016-05-05 19:36 (Reply)

Sam L: the 2008 financial meltdown was immediately addressed by the Bush Administration...

Yes. The Bush Administration was well aware that the banking system had suddenly collapsed. The Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, went on his knee, and begged Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for help ending the crisis. The effort resulted in the The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorizing spending of up to $700 billion to purchase toxic assets from, and supply liquidity to, distressed banks.

Sam L: {Obama} never admitted that.'

Both presidential candidates in 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain, voiced their support for the bill. Here's Obama, as Senator from Illinois, addressing the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSCMd9OIUE4

#8.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-05-05 20:23 (Reply)

Z: Average real GDP growth from 1933-1939 was about 7%.

So by that measure, we're in a much worse economy than during the Great Depression. Also unemployment was in double digits during that time.

Z: ... Consequently, growth resumed at a more typical rate for a developed economy.

Growth since the Great Recession is the worst of any recover for which there is reasonable data. In fact, by your own admission, growth now is worse than during the Great Depression.

#9 mudbug on 2016-05-05 13:09 (Reply)

mudbug: So by that measure, we're in a much worse economy than during the Great Depression.

You can only reach that conclusion by ignoring our comment. The economic response to the 2008 crisis was much quicker and stronger than the economic response to the 1929 crisis, including economic stabilizers, bank bailouts, and stimulus, so the economy didn't drop nearly as far.

#9.1 Zachriel on 2016-05-05 15:35 (Reply)

American Household Income.......
When we came out of WWII, we had a huge backlog of demand for housing, and all things auto. We had new or revitalized industries like electronics, chemicals, modern medicine, aviation, plastics, television,…..the Interstate Highway System. These industries provided a base for jobs suitable for regular folks; whereas today the high paying skillsets are in the creative, or mathematical/ abstract paradigms. Not to mention we were the only major industrialized economy left standing, as in hardly any competitors. We rebuilt Europe and Japan.
I apparently lack vision because I just don’t get how yoga studios, flea markets, beaders, and aroma therapy candle shops will make up for the jobs that generate “real, as in grow the pie, wealth”.. I just don’t see how dead end service jobs, stoop labor, or government jobs are going to make up for the significant revenues and infrastructure that would have been generated and supported by the manufacturing sector.
Some see a future shaped by automation that would “permanently end” what one author calls “the age of mass human labor,” allowing productivity to rise without significant increases in wages. In this world, the current American middle and working class would be economically passé, or, if you are in Britain, Redundant. Today more people are employed by the government than in the production of tangible real wealth.
Not to worry, the Dems have handouts and subsidies and the Reps think you will start your own business, go into the military, or work multiple, short term, dead end jobs in the vibrant service sector.

#10 Exasperated on 2016-05-05 17:03 (Reply)

And I still await the EIGHTH Annual Tour of The Summer Of Recovery!

#11 Sam L. on 2016-05-05 19:37 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, May 5. 2016

Thursday morning links