Trump the dealmaker: hiring the best people
Donald Trump learned the real estate development business at his father’s knee, serving a long apprenticeship that taught him every aspect of the business from the ground up. He also seems to have had a natural aptitude for it and interest in it, and has been quite successful at it although he has admittedly (at least, I’ll admit it) made some mistakes.
But like a lot of people who are successful in one arena, Trump thinks that translates into being successful in areas he knows much less about. Right now, for example, he seems to be running into some unaccustomed roadblocks in his campaign—with his organization, tactics, and the personnel he’s hired to be in charge.
Trump’s hype is that he’s a dealmaker extraordinaire, but the skills involved in real estate deals are not necessarily the same as those needed for political deals, nor is the knowledge base. Trump is fond of calling many other people stupid and himself smart, but is he smart enough to know what he doesn’t know? Trump says he hires “the best people”—but he doesn’t seem to have done so during his campaign, and it’s really starting to show. The long apprenticeship his father put him through taught him a lot about the real estate development business he’s been immersed in for his entire adult life, but he hasn’t served an apprenticeship in politics except as influence-buyer and observer of others.
For example, why did Trump choose Corey Lewandowski to manage his campaign? Lewandowski is a relative novice, and what experience he has had doesn’t seem to have involved being all that successful at campaigning, either as a candidate or behind the scenes:
In 1994, while an undergraduate student, Lewandowski ran for a seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, losing to Thomas A. Golden Jr., a Democrat…
After graduating from college, Lewandowski worked on Capitol Hill in Washington while earning a master’s degree in political science at American University. In 1999, Lewandowski was arrested for bringing a handgun and ammunition into Longworth House Office Building…
Lewandowski worked on Ohio Republican Bob Ney’s campaign, and after the election became Ney’s congressional chief of staff. In 2007, before Ney was sentenced on federal corruption charges arising from the Abramoff scandal, Lewandowski wrote a letter to the presiding judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle, saying that Ney was a mentor and “surrogate father” to him and asking for leniency in sentencing…
Lewandowski served as campaign manager for the 2002 re-election campaign for U.S. Senator Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire. Smith was defeated in the Republican primary by John E. Sununu. During the campaign, Lewandowski generated controversy by publicly suggesting that Sununu, who is of Lebanese descent, had divided loyalties in fighting terrorism.
Lewandowski then worked in the private sector for a while, as well as being a lobbyist, and trained as a NH police officer. His stint with an advocacy group called “Americans for Prosperity” was marked by “fiery confrontations” with fellow employees. After that:
In 2012, while still working for Americans for Prosperity, Lewandowski unsuccessfully ran for town treasurer of Windham, New Hampshire. NPR reported that during the campaign, Lewandowski “upended the town’s politics, using public records laws to probe local government and launching robocalls targeted at voters to stoke outrage over a visit to the town by President Obama.”
In 2014 Lewandowski met Trump, “at a political event in New Hampshire,” and six months before Trump made his announcement as a 2016 candidate, Trump hired Lewandowski as his campaign manager.
Is this an impressive resume? Would it impress you? However, it—or something about Lewandowski—appears to have impressed Trump mightily. Perhaps he sensed a kindred spirit in Lewandowski: pugnacious, confident, cocky, unafraid to make waves. At any rate, Lewandowski became his indispensable right-hand man. This Politico article quotes Lewandowski as having said that Trump has, “the most cohesive, loyal staff, the most loving staff I have ever had the privilege of working with on a campaign.” Perhaps that’s true, considering the previous campaigns he’s worked on, and his role in them.
If Lewandowski is an example of hiring the best people, I really wouldn’t want to see the worst.
[NOTE: There’s also this Keystone cops situation for the Trump campaign in Washington state.]
Lewandowski sounds like an amoral sociopath. I don’t know if he wants power for its own sake, or if he has an agenda to drive, but whatever the case I doubt any tenure would be ethical.
Apparently, Lewandowski offers utter loyalty and ruthlessness in service to Trump. Reminds me a lot of Valerie Jarrett. Above all, narcissists require their ‘yes men’.
Trump likes bullies with big egos. Competence doesn’t count.
And don’t forget Roger Stone. He’s apparently smarter/more talented than Lewandowski, but still a bully. Stone’s tactics turned Mark Levin into Never Trump yesterday. Which I was a little surprised to hear about since earlier in the week he was accusing Never Trumpers of being frauds, phonies, and buffoons. He has always been a “vote for the most conservative in the primary but support whoever the nominee is in the general” guy. One of the only noble reasons I think Levin and Limbaugh are/have been supportive of Trump is that in the past they were strongly opposed to a candidate and then had to turn on a dime for the general. I think they realized this was damaging to that future candidate and to their own credibility. So I think this time they were trying to keep their options open.
KLS,
Rush in particular went out of his way to ‘explain’ the Cult of Trump in a positive light. I am sure he knows DJT from his sojourn in NYC, and knew exactly what kind of pettifoging boychild is the donald. I will never listen to him again, and I let the local radio station that carries his program know they and their advertisers have lost me for 3 hours a day, Monday through Friday.
It was Levin that puzzled me the most as I considered him to be head and shoulders more intelligent and truly conservative than Rush. Now that his ox has been gored, his dander is up. A bit to late for me.
parker: yep, Rush has pretty much turned into the all Trump all the time show. Kind of disgusting. And yes, with Levin; it shouldn’t take a personal attack to make you see the light, but I guess he’s human, too.
“Trump likes bullies with big egos”
Disagree. He wants sycophants – consummate brown nosers.
He wants them to be bullies with big egos on his behalf, but they must bend a knee to him.
@neo – his campaign very recently fired their Colorado delegate manager, as Cruz is cleaning up on winning the delegates they favor.
Frankly, this is all indicative that Trump has no grip on strategy, planning, nor operations, let alone being a bad judge of those he hires.
Notwithstanding his lack of knowledge in the business of politics and its processes, those skills should all have translated well from running a variety of large business operations. Basic blocking and tackling. It hasn’t.
Also, comparing his wealth from what he inherited, he barely kept pace with the S&P500. His business is rather risky, so he should be keeping pace with the NASDAQ, and even higher bar, which he falls well short of.
IOW, he’d have been significantly better off investing his fortunes in the stock market and been on permanent vacation.
Mark Levin is more than capable of defending his actions regarding Sir Donald and his minions. Essentially, months ago he cooled to Trump but stated that Trump was better than any democrat, even after Mark Levin openly endorsed Ted Cruz weeks ago. But Sir Donald treats all who do not pledge fealty the same eventually and it came time to treat Levin the same as all others. Especially since Levin has not gone along with changing the selection rules to favor Sir Donald.
Sir Donald appears to have decided to burn the house down (GOP) if he is not the nominee.
I am glad that Mark Levin has renounced the Trump option.
@Matt_SE – you the same guy on disqus? If so, compliments… You write some great stuff over there!
Big Maq Says:
April 9th, 2016 at 6:45 pm
…
Also, comparing his wealth from what he inherited, he barely kept pace with the S&P500. His business is rather risky, so he should be keeping pace with the NASDAQ, and even higher bar, which he falls well short of.
IOW, he’d have been significantly better off investing his fortunes in the stock market and been on permanent vacation.
Knock this BS off.
1) Donald has extracted — over the years — astounding amounts of CASH.
That return on investment is entirely missing from your calculus.
2) He DIDN’T ‘inherit’ his fortune. His daddy, Fred, lived decades after Donald was launched.
Fred launched Donald by way of a Purchase Money Mortgage.
Think Carlton Sheets financing.
A PMM is a fancy term for Fred taking back Donald’s IOU so that Donald could swing his first real estate deal.
Fred did NOT give his properties away.
He gave his son properties that were a pain in the neck for himself. They were rent controlled… like all habitation in NYC.
( The rent control scheme extends even to HOTEL rooms.
( Really!
I don’t want Trump as the nominee — but don’t pass around false agitprop.
Don’t pollute this thread with ‘facts’ that are known to be nonsense.
&&&&&
The TRUE source of Donald’s real estate success is that for decades on end — he was Short The Dollar.
That is, he mortgaged is properties.
Real estate — for the average Joe — is not getting more valuable. ( screwy markets affected by Chinese and Russian monies are exceptional. )
Instead, in real terms, the mortgages on properties have faded away in real value // burden.
This is most obvious with hotels and bowling alleys.
The room rate or lane fees can be — and is — adjusted day bay day. (UP)
The mortgage stays the same. It’s NOT adjusted for inflation// the decline in the value of the dollar.
THAT is the source of Donald Trump’s real estate genius.
TL/DR: Much of conservative media has poisoned the electorates’ minds. Get out of the c-media bubble and look for voices who give a more objective observation of reality – such as this site.
Re: Conservative Media – e.g. Rush, Levin, Ingram, Drudge, Breitbart, Coulter, etc… The repetitive anger and negativity coming from many in conservative media back in 2012, is where it became apparent they’ve become less a help to their stated cause, than a hindrance.
They effectively soured many on the GOP side from voting. So much discussion in the echo chamber then of “staying home”, “not voting for a RINO!”, or of “holding my nose”, as if Romney was anything like Obama – far from objective reality.
They have and they continue to deny they have that kind of influence, but it is clear they do, as not just commenters come up with the c-media’s pet notions and phrases, but even neighbors and co-workers (“Overton Window”, or “Operation Chaos” anyone?).
Then, last summer, started seeing Drudge pump headlines that didn’t make any sense from an independent observation. Today, even, claiming a “Media campaign intensifies against Trump”.
No – the media is finally realizing (now seeing more articles on such) the free ride they gave Trump. Not a peep from Drudge and gang on how that helped (instead, they attribute it to Trump’s “brilliance”).
Since this goes unacknowledged, then at this point, ANY reasonable level of scrutiny of the man and his campaign would seem like a “campaign against Trump”. Example of an interesting article here on Trump’s free ride…
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/09/donald_trumps_disastrous_free_ride_finally_the_new_york_times_commands_the_obvious/
Many (most?) in c-media went along to get along. They feared losing their audience. And, Trump was a ratings bonanza.
Many didn’t outright endorse Trump (Limbaugh still feigns “neutrality” trying to straddle both sides of the “anti-establishment” camps), but became explainers and apologizers for Trump.
Some claim to be Libertarian, yet, incredibly, they talk like Trump fanboys. Others claim they are agnostic, or that they hate what Trump stands for, but give bubbly, fawning talk about Trump’s “master persuasion” (e.g. Dilbert’s Scott Adams – who believes the masses are “meat puppets”, btw).
Only recently are we having some come around to seeing what that anger for the past number of years has wrought and are appalled at the direction it took (including Mr Ace). Others completely threw in with Trump, seeing opportunity rather than principle.
See something, say something. Personally took a LOT of heat, in comments and one-on-one, for speaking out early on about the silence, particularly from the Cruz campaign (who had the most credibility to critique him, and, perhaps derail him), on Trump, as that seemed a huge mistake. It was.
The fundamental problem is still the same as 40+ years ago when we had maybe only five TV channels to consume. We had no choice then, but we self select now on just as narrow a band.
If most/all we consume is sourced from this same conservative media, we will have a very poor understanding of what the reality is, the degree of agreement there really is (no, it is not “the will of the people” if Trump doesn’t reach 1237), and how to deal with it.
If we get angry and won’t entertain challenges to our thoughts and ideas, instead shutting them down with ad hominems and pithy jabs for up-votes, avoiding any debate, we will get a skewed sense of the strength of our argument, and, worse, actually missing or disaffecting completely the very people we need to convince to win politically.
Bottom Line: People need to get out of the bubble they put themselves in. Stop going to Drudge (I have – RealClearPolitics is much more rounded), and listening to the ones who deal more with anger and blame than in discussion of facts and give a reasonably fair reading of them (doesn’t mean they give up their point of view).
neo’s site is a great example of those that give a more reasonable voice to the same problems we collectively see.
Seek them out, and give them our business.
blert – sorry, you are wrong.
All that you wrote says nothing about how his wealth stacks up against simply investing in the S&P500 (vs NASDAQ is more appropriate for the risk).
There is enough data available to see for yourself.
Your math stinks.
IQs at neo’s house are not that impaired.
1) Your S&P stat EXCLUDES dividends.
2) Trump was using massive leverage.
3) No-one — other than Trump — has the slightest handle on how much he has extracted over the years.
You must be trolling us with your ‘calculus’ — which is nothing but reverb from spin masters.
I don’t favor Trump as the GOP nominee — but I feel no impulse to pull crazy math out of my ear to defame him.
His own utterances defame him well enough.
A friend of mine says that if Trump gets elected his Presidential Library won’t have books but videos for “how to get rich quick” and various MLM schemes and at the best, _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ That is a classic but — not exactly what you expect to see in a Presidential library, at least not to the exclusion of other books. My buddy was joking but it is not too far off from the way I see Trump. Heh —
It’s 1963, and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) is giving a talk at UC Berkeley, “Slavery by Consent: You’re being made to enjoy your servitude.” Absolutely fascinating:
http://tinyurl.com/hpqfkf7
Worth listening to the whole thing and the Q&A afterwards.
He talks about the vision of dictatorship in “1984” and in his own novel, written in the early 1930s. He also makes a fascinating point about “the 20%” of humanity who are easily hypnotizable, the 20% who cannot be hypnotized, and the middle mass who can eventually be brought round.
[For the record, I don’t subscribe to the overheated fantasies that Trump would be “a dictator”; I’m more concerned with the real pros at mind control — the Leftists. You’ll see a lot of their techniques prefigured in Huxley’s speech.]
Beverly Saysat 2:14 am
“For the record, I don’t subscribe to the overheated fantasies that Trump would be “a dictator”; I’m more concerned with the real pros at mind control – the Leftists.”
Well stated. That is something we all need to remember.
Neo:
“Right now, for example, he seems to be running into some unaccustomed roadblocks in his campaign–with his organization, tactics, and the personnel he’s hired to be in charge.”
The Trump campaign’s success to date hasn’t been due to the Trump campaign, but rather the Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists that are the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon. Viewed in isolation through traditional electoral prism, Trump the candidate and his campaign are jokes.
The strength for the Trump campaign hasn’t been the Trump campaign. Rather, its strength has been the activist component that’s unmatched by the GOP candidates.
However, the same activist component is also a potential weakness for the Trump campaign because of the misalignment in purpose. The Trump-front alt-Right’s principal purpose is not getting Trump elected President. Their purpose is setting off on their Gramscian march. For the alt-Right, the Trump campaign is a means to an end. They’re mainly looking at this stage to displace conservatives, take over their space in the American political ecosystem, and following that route, eventually take over the GOP. Their model is the Left activists who displaced liberals and took over the Democratic party.
The alt-Right activists and the Trump campaign have been fellow travelers, but at some point, the Trump campaign goal to get Trump elected President seems likely to diverge from the Trump-front alt-Right’s goal to set off on their Gramscian march with the goal of displacing conservatives.
It remains to be seen how the Trump campaign and the Trump-front alt-Right activists will negotiate that decision point. It’ll be interesting because at this point, the center of gravity for the Trump campaign is not the Trump campaign, but the Trump-front alt-Right activists.
Beverly:
“[For the record, I don’t subscribe to the overheated fantasies that Trump would be “a dictator”; I’m more concerned with the real pros at mind control – the Leftists. You’ll see a lot of their techniques prefigured in Huxley’s speech.]”
You should be concerned about the (Democrat-front) varsity Left social activist movement. You should also be concerned about the (Trump-front) “jayvee” alt-Right social activist movement that’s modeling their Gramscian march on the Left.
Of the two, I’d be more concerned about the alt-Right because, while the Left is more mature and extensive, they’re at least an opponent competing from the outside. The alt-Right is a cancer breaking you from the inside.
Big Maq:
“Stop going … to the ones who deal more with anger and blame than in discussion of facts”
I disagree.
The discontent, which Neo has also cultivated with her “more reasonable voice”, was needed to make a difference.
As Neo has noted, the GOP candidates should have been able to tap into the cultivated discontent to galvanize the constituency to raise the 2016 Republican presidential candidate who emerged from an impressive field of GOP candidates.
The critical flaw in the plan is the GOP lacked the activist mindset and method to best harvest the cultivated discontent on the Right. The critical flaw may not have been exploited until the general election if the GOP nomination contest had been limited to traditional GOP campaigns, all of which lack activism.
However, the Trump campaign commandeered the cultivated discontent by exploiting the market inefficiency with alt-Right activists who jumped the curve by mimicking the Left activism whose effectiveness is well established versus conservatives and the GOP. They’re not sophisticated activists, but even “jayvee” Left-mimicking activism confers a major advantage in the arena versus the activism-deficient GOP.
The GOP campaigns only looked to ‘tap’ into the cultivated discontent. The Trump-front alt-Right activists set out to aggressively harvest, manufacture, and package it.
The glaring exploitable competitive weakness is not the GOP’s fault. The GOP depends on the Right for competitive activism in the same way the Democrats depend on the Left for competitive activism. The shortfall of activism is the fault of conservatives who chronically reject activism but then blame the GOP for the consequences of conservatives’ negligence.
Big Maq:
“Seek them out, and give them our business.”
I agree. But that adjustment requires conservatives to collectively commit fully, zealously, and permanently to a social activist movement that competes head-on versus the Left, alt-Right, and any other challenger in order to establish dominant control of the American political ecosystem and put down any subsequent challenge to that social dominance, at home … and abroad. Not just for elections, but perpetual and full spectrum. The activist game is throughout culture and society and it never ends.
Note that the Left activism mimicked by the Trump-front alt-Right is a strategic choice designed to exploit the proven vulnerability of the Right and GOP to that particular style of activism.
However, Left activism is not the only style of activism. Just like effective counterinsurgency, eg, the COIN “Surge” that defeated AQI in Iraq, is not insurgency repurposed, effective counter-Left (and alt-Right) activism is not necessarily Left activism repurposed.
You don’t win the activist game by simply cargo-cult copying your opposition, although for activist beginners, copying more-advanced activists is often the 1st step to figuring out what works for your team in the arena.
Beverly:
Do you think that most dictators telegraph their intent in no uncertain terms? Do you really think you could recognize a dictator-in-the-making if you saw one, early in the game? Do you think it’s that unequivocal or that clear?
Au contraire, in my opinion. The signs are often subtle. Not only is the idea that Trump might go the dictator route—or try to—not an “overheated fantasy,” but it is based on an array of subtle and not-even-so-very-subtle signs he has given out that such a danger is not at all outside the realm of possibility. I have noted and described some of these signs.
Not only that, but I’ve noticed an alarming and marked tendency in many of his supporters to think it would be perfectly okay if he’s somewhat of a dictator if he dictates the things they want to see happen.
Big Maq:
I agree with your analysis of the role that many figures in conservative media have played in stoking the anger of their listeners/readers and preparing the way for a candidate like Trump. I have watched it build and build, particularly since 2012. I wrote about it here as well as other places.
What America needs is not Donald Trump. America must be governed by professional politicians who have law degrees, preferably from the top four or five law schools in the United States. That system of restricting our national politicians to professionals and well-credentialed lawyers has served the US well for over twenty-five years, and has proved itself with the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations.
ErisGuy:
I assume you’re being sarcastic.
Just because Trump isn’t a lawyer doesn’t mean he’s better than a lawyer would be. And by the way, he went to an Ivy League graduate school, too, Wharton, and got an MBA there.
I have no idea why you include Bush in the lawyer category, since he—like Trump—was not a lawyer, but was a graduate of an Ivy League business school. Bush got his MBA at Harvard Business School.
Big Mag, you are right to criticize Cruz for not taking him on until Trump turned viciously on the attack. I had the urge to shake him during the early stages of the primary when he was having the love fest.
Parker, same here with Limbaugh. I’ve stopped listening to the agitprop.
Beverly Says:
April 10th, 2016 at 2:14 am
He also makes a fascinating point about “the 20%” of humanity who are easily hypnotizable, the 20% who cannot be hypnotized, and the middle mass who can eventually be brought round.
This:
The plight of the middle class
Beverly Says:
April 10th, 2016 at 2:14 am
It’s 1963, and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) is giving a talk at UC Berkeley, “Slavery by Consent: You’re being made to enjoy your servitude.” Absolutely fascinating…
Here:
Absolutely fascinating.
Keep in mind:
Trump and his campaign associates are absolute sociopaths.
Trump in particular has been long distance diagnosed as a narcissist of a particular rabid sort.
A very perceptive and talented artisTE created this naked picture of that Trump err… creature.
It captures the essence of his Trumpian subhuman ugliness.
Demonize, demonize, demonize …. it works!
Big Maq Says:
@Matt_SE — you the same guy on disqus? If so, compliments… You write some great stuff over there!
Yep, that’s me. I only use one handle online.
Oh, also thanks!
neo: according to buzzfeedAndrew, Trump received an undergraduate degree in Econ from Wharton. He transferred in after two years at Fordham. Others have pointed this out, also. I think his acceptance also required a donation and begging on the part of his father. It may be an MBA only program now, I believe it was different when he attended.
KLSmith:
I stand corrected. Interesting. So he didn’t get an MBA, he got an undergraduate degree there. I had somehow thought it was an MBA.
The point is the same, though—which was that George W. Bush didn’t get a law degree, he got an Ivy MBA, and that Trump also got a business degree from an Ivy school (U. of Pennsylvania, where Wharton is located).
neo: I’m sure he wants people to assume he earned a MBA degree. Your point is the same, but we may disagree if this is a reflection on Trump’s intellectual chops and dedication/interest in studying. I can’t listen to the “stuff” he spouts and then think, bright guy.
KLSmith:
There are different sorts of intelligence. I think Trump is bright about certain things (manipulation of people, pressuring people, figuring out investment angles, sometimes charming people when he wants to), but he is not particularly bright in the academic sense, although it’s hard to know if that’s a true lack of intelligence or a lack of interest. Or maybe it’s part of his desire to appear a certain way to the public. The effect, though, is of a person who’s bright but only in very limited areas.
neo: you are a lot nicer than I am.
I have watched it build and build, particularly since 2012. I wrote about it here as well as other places.
Neo – thanks…great read.
@Matt_SE – fabulous! Been up-voting most of your comments I come across. “Gonna hafta” branch out more, as maybe getting into my own “bubble” of confirmation bias – 😉
@Beverly – you would then love Scott Adams’ (aka Dilbert) blog. I don’t buy it – that people are “hypnotized” by a “master persuader”. Aka they are “meat puppets” according to Adams’ terminology.
I believe the vast majority of people, except for a minimal group (certainly well short of 20% of the population who may have some physical mental “damage”), are very capable of thinking for themselves. We may not like, nor agree with their decisions, and they may be seriously flawed, but they are capable of walking through the analysis as much as most others.
I do believe that most humanity has a natural bias towards authority, perhaps a relic from our eons of evolution. Thus, when we have people talking assertively, if not aggressively, in a tone of superiority, we defer, if not follow. Plenty of examples in c-media of this.
Ultimately, most of us choose blinders, or other obfuscations / self delusions, ala Huxley.
@Other Chuck – what is rather disappointing, if not angering, is all the posturing about conservative principles these guys did, but when push comes to shove, they failed to follow through.
@blert – adding dividends makes the case worse for Trump, if you were assuming no dividend reinvestment were the basis of the original calc. Same with using leverage. Anyway, looking up my old notes and will see if something can be nicely posted here as a comment in response to walk you through it.
There are some valid points to debate on the issue of Trump’s wealth making capability vs passive investment, but sorry to say you didn’t hit upon them. Would rather that it wasn’t so, since we agree on Trump overall.
However, it is an important point, because it is part of the myth that Trump is relying upon to validate his “superiority”, “intelligence”, and “winning!”. If we relinquish the point on his terms, he wins. That is partly how the left has been winning in the political sphere – we let the frame the discussion.
@Eric – maybe you and I agree, or maybe not. I come from it from the POV that Liberty is a Responsibility (not a Right, as is commonly held belief, which leads to passivity, but with plenty of expectations). Like many things in life (marriage, family, job, community, etc.) it requires attention, care, and feeding.
Too many have left it to others to be involved. Sort of a “free rider”, or “tragedy of the commons” type problem. Of course, we all have our reasons (“too busy”, “not interested in ‘politics'”, etc), but the default is that those most interested then drive the processes that select and vet candidates, get them elected, and hold elected officials accountable to their expectations (and the more power is centralized, the more incentive there is for special interests to be involved, influencing the use of that power).
It is no accident that polls are indicating that many of Trump supporters have a low propensity to vote, among other things. One can rightfully wonder if these people “have been abandoned” as they claim, or if they are the ones who have been “abandoning” (in context of the above).
That we have government with fingers into nearly every aspect of our lives, and that we see an increasing level of “corruption” is not all on their laps, as we all had collectively something to do with how this all came to be.
But, yes, people do have to get involved, advocate for their own interests, engage others to bring them on board, and organize as a potent counter to all the rest of the interests.
You call it “social activism” – okay, but to me that phrase comes across with a lot of other connotative baggage from the left, so may be taken wrong by folks you want to convince.
Do I understand you correctly, Eric?
Caught with a gun and ammo illegally on federal property but later trained as a NH police officer. Under federal law if convicted and could receive a 1 year sentence or greater, one loses their 2nd Amendment rights. I am pro-gun, but seems like he never should have been accepted for police training under the law. But hey, laws are for little people.
Neo:
It does not surprise me to read that Trump has hired neophytes and borderline-thugs for his campaign. As the saying goes, first-rate minds hire assistants with first-rate minds; second-rate minds hire assistants with third-rate minds.
With that in mind, I’d be curious as to what you think of Ted Cruz’s assistants. I keep reading that he invested early in his ground game, and I recall that one early staffer was fired for causing trouble. But I haven’t taken the time to dig more deeply than that. What do you think?
when your used to crap deal that smell like sh*t, you miss the smell and normalicy of that… and think that they are good deals… well, if they were, we would make out as good as the others… we dont, so they are crap deals… but we are so nice, and such milquetoast feminist image people, we cant be real about it… we put perfume on the stink, and think that good deals are bad cause they are not as nice… not as freindly… but then again, giving away the farm in a deal generally makes the people bending you over the table happy and willing ot come back over and over till you have nothing worth bending you over for
But yet the Trump campaign has been winning. Not sure how you can criticize the campaign manager of a successful campaign as not being ‘the best.’ If the candidate is winning, it sounds like you are saying Trump is winning despite his terribly picked campaign manager.
Something about that doesn’t ring true.
K-E: I’d recommend Allahpundit’s 2:01pm article at hot air.com
K-E:
Whether Trump is winning or losing is not necessarily based on anything Lewandowski has done or not done. Would he have been doing better without him? Maybe. Or worse? Maybe.
What we do know is that Trump has been doing poorly in the most recent stage (delegate selection) of the campaign. Is this Lewandowski’s fault? We don’t know that, either.
But none of that is what my piece is about. My piece is about Lewandowski’s previous record of non-achievement in politics, plus his poor character. Put the two together and it tells you a lot about the sort of people Trump is drawn to, and the sort who want to work for him. Lewandowski is not unusual, either, in terms of the record and character of Trump’s assistants and helpers (Roy Cohn, Katrina Pierson, just to take two prominent examples).
This makes it particularly ironic that one of Trump’s talking points is that he will hire the best people.