Tag Teaming Trump

[lupinus]

Ron beat me by a second, but yes, because she has boobs.

And, it seems, a vagina.

These days one can never have to many qualifications on gender.

[charby]

Tag teaming against another candidate just shows they want to play the Beltway Games. 

[Ben]

Tag teaming against another candidate just shows they want to play the Beltway Games. 

Likely, which is why I was a bit disappointed in Cruz. The "collusion" charge is mostly media and politically motivated. I'm pretty sure for it to be collusion, they would have had to do it in secret and be found out. If you announce it at a press conference, it's not collusion, but it is beltway games.

[Perd Hapley]

So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?

[Hawkmoon]

The only real positive I see in Trump is his nationalism.

You forgot, "He's not Hillary."

[Hawkmoon]

So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?

Yes -- on artificial respiration and life support.

I received an e-mail today from the Kasich campaign. I'm sorry I deleted it, it was hilarious. He was bragging about losing five more primaries. In his view, coming in second in four of the five somehow proves that he's a winner, that he's the guy to STOP TRUMP!, and that he's the only R who can beat Hillary.

This, of course, ignores the inconvenient reality that his delegate count still hasn't caught up to Rubio, who dropped out a omnth ago.

[Hawkmoon]

As I just heard, he was also looking to shut down the "Trump just won five states" stories which it may have successfully done. 

Again, too little, too late.

The whole country already knows that Trump just won five states. And in most of them Cruz was locked out. Picking Carly can't change that.

[Firethorn]

Again, too little, too late.

The whole country already knows that Trump just won five states. And in most of them Cruz was locked out. Picking Carly can't change that.

Kaisch has been winning over Cruz lately, though as you say - he's such an underdog that he's still below a candidate that officially dropped out. 

Going into the conference, if I was a delegate, I can't help but think - at least Trump has people getting out and voting for him.  Will he steal votes from the democrats?  Will he be able to pull in independents?  Will he so tick people off that, other than his followers, he'll encourage more democrats to come out and vote against him?  Are the other candidates any better?  Because Trump is, in the face of it, a rather lousy republican, yet he won that.

[Ron]

Citizens United for Cruz & Kasich otherwise known as C.U.C.K

[Perd Hapley]

Citizens United for Cruz & Kasich otherwise known as C.U.C.K

Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."


So if Cruz had 900-some delegates, and Trump and Kasich were the underdogs, would it be wrong, or dirty, or "beltway" for them to team up against Cruz? What's the problem?

[roo_ster]

So what is the problem with two candidates trying to derail another candidate? They're trying to keep their campaigns alive, right?

I do not see one, my own self, in and of itself.  OTOH, folk are free to comment on it, think it signals this or that, look on it as dirty pool.  For my own part, I think it was a big mistake for Cruz.  He gained nothing but looked both desperate and willing to get in bed with GOPe.

Cruz & Kasich are not keeping their campaigns alive.  The GOPe & GOPe donors are doing that.

Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."

No, that won't fly.  Trump is not a leftist.  He is not a rightist.  He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American. 

If someone looks at Trump and hopes for a doctrinaire "Conservatism, Inc." card-carrier, they are delusional.  Same with those who look at him and see a leftist.

[Fitz]

After trumps foreign policy speech john podhoretz wrote, disdainfully, that it could have been a rand paul foreign policy speech.

 

[Ron]

Because opposing a known leftist is so very "establishment."


So if Cruz had 900-some delegates, and Trump and Kasich were the underdogs, would it be wrong, or dirty, or "beltway" for them to team up against Cruz? What's the problem?

It's just a funny little acronym I ran across.

We know Kasich is a statist neocon who is more than likely bought and paid for by the big money guys. He is something of a squishy manlet also.

Cruz has done a decent job of appearing not to be those things except for his neocon hawkishness. Being a US Senator married to a bankster doesn't bode well for future actions on his part independent of the powerful and monied interests.

To be fair, Trump does talk about destroying ISIS like the neocons but in true form he never says how. Of course he isn't funded by the big money guys, he considers himself one of the big money guys. Neither is he opposed to big government in principle.

Still, if we were going to choose who the "kept" men are out of the three; Cruz and Kasich are the ones who are beholden or in sympathy with the establishment, much more than Trump.  

At this point Trump still seems to be an independent actor. I'm not sure it is true but that is how it looks. If he would even change or try to make things better as we define it I have no idea.

We have our first viable third party candidate, it's just that he is in the process of subverting the Republican nomination away from the GOPe instead of starting from scratch. Pretty impressive IMHO.

  

[wmenorr67]

No, that won't fly.  Trump is not a leftist.  He is not a rightist.  He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American. 

Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.

[roo_ster]

Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.

That is a fair summary of his life.  Not sure that is what is motivating him to run for POTUS, though. 

His actions this election season have the smell of a nobleman financing the building of a monastery so they'll pray his butt out of purgatory faster than he deserves.

[Fitz]

That is a fair summary of his life.  Not sure that is what is motivating him to run for POTUS, though. 

His actions this election season have the smell of a nobleman financing the building of a monastery so they'll pray his butt out of purgatory faster than he deserves.

he's building a temple, and making Satan pay for it!

[RevDisk]

Trump is a Capitalist/Businessman, all he is concerned about is making money.

Except he's not not that good at business either. If he was concerned about making money, he'd could be somewhere between five and ten times rich if he had thrown his money in a S&P 500 index fund and did... well anything reasonably affordable for the last couple of decades. He made a career out of ego gratification. Which isn't a bad thing, maybe he doesn't care about what number his bank account says. Guy has more than enough money to indulge his hobbies.

He started off in the business the old fashion way. Inheriting money and a successful business. Give or take, he got around $100m when his dad kicked the bucket. He's now allegedly worth maybe $2b on paper, but most of that is tied to businesses that may not be easily liquidated and heavily variable depending who is buying them and for how much. Had he thrown that $100m ish amount into an index fund, he'd be worth in excess of $6b. Far in excess of any reasonable estimate of his wealth. Realistic best case scenario would be that he's worth a third of what his inheritance would have gotten him if competently invested and managed. Realistic worst case, a tenth or less of competent investment.

It'd be a slam on the guy, if you were strictly measuring him by his bank account. But with hundreds of millions of dollars, dude could live in any manner that wasn't excessively wasteful. He looks for opportunities to feed his ego, and that's what he uses his inheritance towards. It's certainly not the worst pastime someone could take up. Better than a coke habit, or buying gold Lambos.

He is a businessman, but it's not his competency, it's his hobby/brand/etc.

[Perd Hapley]

Trump is not a leftist.  He is not a rightist.  He is neither because his speech and actions over decades indicate the man is not particularly ideological, other than being generally pro-American. 

If someone looks at Trump and hopes for a doctrinaire "Conservatism, Inc." card-carrier, they are delusional.  Same with those who look at him and see a leftist.

He's a leftist in the same sense that anyone who doesn't want to outlaw abortion is pro-abortion. Not having a position is taking a position.

[wmenorr67]

Except he's not not that good at business either. If he was concerned about making money, he'd could be somewhere between five and ten times rich if he had thrown his money in a S&P 500 index fund and did... well anything reasonably affordable for the last couple of decades. He made a career out of ego gratification. Which isn't a bad thing, maybe he doesn't care about what number his bank account says. Guy has more than enough money to indulge his hobbies.

He started off in the business the old fashion way. Inheriting money and a successful business. Give or take, he got around $100m when his dad kicked the bucket. He's now allegedly worth maybe $2b on paper, but most of that is tied to businesses that may not be easily liquidated and heavily variable depending who is buying them and for how much. Had he thrown that $100m ish amount into an index fund, he'd be worth in excess of $6b. Far in excess of any reasonable estimate of his wealth. Realistic best case scenario would be that he's worth a third of what his inheritance would have gotten him if competently invested and managed. Realistic worst case, a tenth or less of competent investment.

It'd be a slam on the guy, if you were strictly measuring him by his bank account. But with hundreds of millions of dollars, dude could live in any manner that wasn't excessively wasteful. He looks for opportunities to feed his ego, and that's what he uses his inheritance towards. It's certainly not the worst pastime someone could take up. Better than a coke habit, or buying gold Lambos.

He is a businessman, but it's not his competency, it's his hobby/brand/etc.

Give me $100m or so to play with.  I would feed my ego from here to hell and back. 

[roo_ster]

He's a leftist in the same sense that anyone who doesn't want to outlaw abortion is pro-abortion. Not having a position is taking a position.

OK, Humpty Dumpty.

[Perd Hapley]

Sure, you could say Trump's not ideological. Neither is the "GOPe." That's the whole problem we've been having with them. Don't get me wrong; I prefer Trump's brand of middle-of-the-road, unprincipled pragmatism to the establishment's brand. I'm just sayin'.

[roo_ster]

Sure, you could say Trump's not ideological. Neither is the "GOPe." That's the whole problem we've been having with them. Don't get me wrong; I prefer Trump's brand of middle-of-the-road, unprincipled pragmatism to the establishment's brand. I'm just sayin'.

I can see where you're going there.  Makes sense.

I still do not think it accurate to call Trump a leftist.  That would require more ideological commitment than he can muster.  And if he is not non-ideological, I think it an easy case to say ideology does not mean much to him, one way or the other. 

Also, non-ideological != unprincipled.  An ideology is usually a set of beliefs that have some sort of logic or rationale that is carefully thought out (by someone, if not the holder).  Many folks' principles are not nearly so systematic and when pushed to logical bounds, it is easy for them to clash with other principles.  This is not as big a deal as some might think:
1. Most folk are not concerned that their beliefs are a consistent whole.
2. Most folk don't live on those logical bounds and their principles serve them perfectly well where they do live.

 I think GOPe and Trump are both, as you point out, not particularly ideological, but they both do have principles.  Those principles, however, are very different.

[charby]

Trump/Sanders 2016, that would make people's heads explode.

[wmenorr67]

Trump/Sanders 2016, that would make people's heads explode.

Bite your damn tongue.

[Hawkmoon]

After trumps foreign policy speech john podhoretz wrote, disdainfully, that it could have been a rand paul foreign policy speech.

Germany didn't like the speech, which tells me that Trump probably said something good. (I didn't see or hear the speech.)