Politicians, deception, and Trump
From a commenter at Ace’s, saying he preferred Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump for the following reason:
I prefer a wolf to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’m not sure which I’d prefer—wolves are wolves, after all—but I understand the principle that the wolf you know a lot about might be easier to deal with than the wolf who masquerades as something else.
But don’t all politicians masquerade, and don’t they all lie?
Indeed, politicians often lie, or seem to have lied. Sometimes they lie about a single issue, sometimes more issues. But sometimes they just make promises they can’t keep, and their enemies call them liars. Barack Obama, however, was the first politician I can recall in my lifetime who was purposely deceptive about his basic political orientation when he was running for office.
I believe that Trump would be the second.
I wrote the above words last night as notes for a post to finish writing today. Between then and now I saw this story, which seems highly relevant:
Trump’s newly hired senior aide, Paul Manafort, made the case to Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities: one in private and one onstage.
“When he’s out on the stage, when he’s talking about the kinds of things he’s talking about on the stump, he’s projecting an image that’s for that purpose,” Manafort said in a private briefing.
“You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You’ll see a real different guy,” he said.
The Associated Press obtained a recording of the closed-door exchange.
“He gets it,” Manafort said of Trump’s need to moderate his personality. “The part that he’s been playing is evolving into the part that now you’ve been expecting, but he wasn’t ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase. The negatives will come down. The image is going to change.”
I find this fascinating, and also fascinating are the responses to it. Many of Trump’s vocal supporters think it’s just great, as we’ve come to expect—a clever pivot showing his wonderful flexibility. His opponents think it’s remarkably duplicitous, beyond what is customary for a politician.
And of course, Trump is fond of touting his NON-politician status, and his supporters his “authenticity.” I guess he’s an authentic chameleon, not just about policy (we already know that) but in personality as well.
It’s not the least bit reassuring. Nor is this “politics as usual” (from the supposed non-politician, yet). Everyone has a public face (sometimes somewhat different in different public roles) and a private face (sometimes different with different people). But for people of integrity and character, there is a basic sameness and a basic thread that runs through all their encounters, both public and private. In other words, there’s a reason the description “two-faced” is ordinarily considered pejorative.
Manafort (see *NOTE below) assured the group that the Trump version 2.0 they are about to see is the “real” Trump. But having done a lot of research on Trump—seeing countless articles, profiles, and interviews; a biography, and videos—I have to say that if the “real” Trump is the one we haven’t seen yet, then Trump’s been acting a role for his entire public life, because the Trump persona we’ve seen in this campaign so far is highly consistent with the persona he’s been projecting towards the world for close to four decades—that is, most of his adult life, which has been spent in the spotlight.
What’s more, when a politician adopts a public persona, usually that presentation is of a person who is more sober, more serious and well-informed, than he or she might be in private. The private persona is usually the looser one. With Trump, according to Manafort, it’s the other way around. If Trump has been deceptive with the American public and what we’ve seen is not the real Trump, then he must think the American public consists of stupid, crass fools.
And of course, he may be right about a lot of people.
I happen to think that Trump is running a con. Now, politicians often have a lot of overlap with con artists, but it’s a matter of degree. But Trump’s overlap seems greater to me, the con bigger. Take a look at this description of con artists, for example [comments in brackets are mine]:
In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means…
Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends & Influence People [a book that happens to have been an influential book during Trump’s formative years] is kind of the unofficial con artist’s bible, because a lot of those tactics [Carnegie] talks about, in terms of building relationships and being successful in business, are ideal for getting people to trust you. One of the really easy things is creating a feeling of familiarity. You’re more likely to trust someone who feels more familiar to you. It’s even enough to exploit something called the “mere exposure effect,” where, say, you just go to the same coffee shop as someone every single day, and they may not consciously note you, but all of a sudden you feel more familiar. [Americans have become very familiar with Donald Trump though his constant celebrity, and particularly through his popular show “The Apprentice,” which makes many of them think they know him and therefore can trust him.]
In summary, at this point I cannot imagine why anyone would trust anything Donald Trump says in any of his personae.
[*NOTE: Paul Manafort, the man who reassured the RNC that they’d see the “real” Trump soon, has an interesting history of presenting the public with candidates who’ve gotten a personality makeover. His most recent client in that regard prior to Trump was Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, although Yanukovych was not favored by the US due to his alliance with Putin. This was Manafort’s role [emphasis mine]:
In 2010, under Manafort’s tutelage, the opposition leader [Yanukovych] put the Orange Revolution [that had previously overthrown him in 2004] on trial, campaigning against its leaders’ management of a weak economy. Returns from the presidential election gave Yanukovych a narrow win over Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a leader of the 2004 demonstrations. Yanukovych owes his comeback in Ukraine’s presidential election to a drastic makeover of his political persona and, people in his party say, that makeover was engineered in part by his American consultant, Manafort.
Sound familiar?
It didn’t end well for Ukraine, as you can see by Yanukovych’s subsequent history.]
For better or worse, this is classic branding strategy and it happens all the time in business. Hillary’s doing the same thing (“AH don’ feel no ways tahred.”), she’s just not very good at it.
Let’s not forget that Trump built a successful real estate career and then a successful clothing brand and then a successful celebrity reputation through television. Whether this is good or bad is open to discussion but it is not without skill.
As for the average American voter being stupid and clueless, well, we are. We buy products all the time at the urging of whiter teeth, shinier hair, looking thinner, lustrous skin, attracting the opposite sex, and on and on; remember the Marlboro man? Virginia Slims?
Once again I repeat what it seems is becoming my mantra, if one is #NeverTrump or #NeverCruz, then one is, by default #ProHillary.
T:
At this point, being NeverTrump—as long as you’re pro-Cruz—is not being pro-Hillary except in the technical sense.
Polls indicate that Cruz is more likely to beat Hillary than Trump is. Neither Cruz nor Trump is the nominee yet, so the present contest is between Trump and Cruz.
Once Hillary and Trump really are the nominees, if that happens, it would be at that point that “NeverTrump” would become a passive support for Hillary. But for people who really believe both Trump and Hillary would be disasters for the country, although in different ways, then the argument about NeverTrumpers being pro-Hillary loses its force.
“At this point, being NeverTrump–as long as you’re pro-Cruz–is not being pro-Hillary except in the technical sense.”
Of course, that’s why I include both #NeverCruz AND #NeverTrump. But the fact is that anyone in the “Never. . .” camp is more likely to sit out the election.
“But for people who really believe both Trump and Hillary would be disasters for the country, although in different ways, then the argument about NeverTrumpers being pro-Hillary loses its force.
Here you lose me. Sitting out the election (eventually) and claiming one is not-pro Hillary is an exercise in tortuous loigic. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Good men do not choose evil.
If an election in this bureaucratic oligarchy no longer means “my vote, my choice”, people really should question whether what they are fighting for is worth the trouble. Assuming Soros isn’t filling your bank account up at certain regularly scheduled periods.
Ymarsakar:
“If an election in this bureaucratic oligarchy no longer means “my vote, my choice”, people really should question whether what they are fighting for is worth the trouble.”
Indeed, participatory politics subsume electoral politics.
As such, “what” they’re fighting for is worth it, but how they’re fighting for it is insufficient on its face.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is, yet most conservatives self-limit their political participation like they’re trying to lose the game.
Add: The vote isn’t the only nor most effective way for We The People, sufficiently organized, to compel political office holders to accord with preferred agenda and hold them accountable to it.
“The vote isn’t the only nor most effective way for We The People, sufficiently organized, to compel political office holders to accord with preferred agenda and hold them accountable to it.” [Eric 11:53 am]
You are echoing Milton Friedman who famously said that the point is NOT to elect good people to do good things, but to make it politically advantageous for BAD/INCOMPETENT people to do good things. If we can’t do this, the good people will not survive the political establishment anyway (as we have seen). If we DO accomplish this, electing good or bad people makes less of a difference.
“The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is, yet most conservatives self-limit their political participation like they’re trying to lose the game.” [Eric @ 11:47 am]
I agree. The old phrase is “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
Neo:
Your comment that Trump is “running a con” is interesting, because people who know con artists say it is impossible to con an honest man. That is, if the mark doesn’t have larceny in his soul, he will not go for your con no matter how clever or attractive it is.
How does this pertain to Trump? Having attended an early rally for Trump in Reno, I was struck at the 5,000 or so attendees. They did not strike me as political, they struck me as angry. And not people whom I would expect to vote.
So perhaps that’s the con: get the enthusiastic support of people who want revenge more than political success. Is this the recipe for a successful campaign? I continue to think it is not, but I have been wrong about a lot of developments during this campaign.
The fact that you have to claim there are two trumps at all is disturbing. Yes everyone has a public face but if it differs too much from the real person it is a serious problem
Back when Trump was garnering about 30%, I commented:
Trump’s position has improved since then.
You can’t count on the GOP to win an activist game. That’s not their place. As it always has been, it’s up to conservatives to change the equation by actively (belatedly) competing for real.
“Here you lose me. Sitting out the election (eventually) and claiming one is not-pro Hillary is an exercise in tortuous loigic. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Here you lose me. You have an unspoken assumption that the level of evil in a Hillary presidency is significantly greater than the level of evil in a Trump presidency. Why? Because he’s been successful in his hostile takeover of the Republican party?
Why is he better? Do we know what he’ll do? I’ve heard the “well, let’s roll the dice and find out” argument once too many.
He *might* be better, but not enough for me to sell out most of the principles I hold dear to cast a vote for the man.
No way.
People like me are going to take a lot of abuse if Trump is nominated and ends up losing. But it’s not my fault he’s the nominee. And I’m impervious to Trump blackmail – “Vote for me or SHE gets in”.
“Why is he better? Do we know what he’ll do? [Bill @12:43]
I have written on numerous occasions that all of this is conjecture until Jan 20, 2017.
First let me point out, once again that I would be happier of Cruz was the eventual Republican nominee (I have written that SEVERAL times at this blog).
Is Trump better (than Hillary)? I actually have no idea, but I see a man who “. . . built a successful real estate career and then a successful clothing brand and then a successful celebrity reputation through television. Whether this is good or bad is open to discussion but it is not without skill.” [T@10:50 above].
Conversely, I see a woman who was instrumental in fomenting the destruction of an erstwhile stable government (Libya), who was unwilling to defend her own ambassadors, who has compromised the country’s international security to unknown depths, who accepts enormous speaking fees from organizations having business before congress, who has been (accurately IMO) been called a congenital liar, who has not even a whiff of any successful accomplish despite a lifetime of “public service.” The list goes on.
So the principles you hold dear would allow this miscreant into the oval office and you salve your conscience by saying “It’s not MY fault”? Exactly what principle is THAT?
It is perfectly logical to be able to be against two things at once. What seems tortuous to be me is trying to decipher a difference between Trump and Hillary. I’m not voting for a vile whiny Democrat bitch, and that’s what Hillary and Trump are. If you see a difference, cool for you.
There is no way that Donald could be as bad as Stalin in a pants suit.
Lest we get carried away…
1) Trump is not set up to finance a Fall campaign.
He doesn’t have the funds, himself.
He’s alienated all of the big money donors.
He’s never received the public’s support the way Bernie has.
2) No-one washes off Trump’s negatives with women with ease.
3) Trump is the nominee that Hilary WANTS to face.
Her staff freaked out when Ted Cruz pulled into view.
Remember?
&&&&&&
Donald’s done wonders to expand the Overton window.
But his policy suite is half-baked — a shambles, mostly.
4) The MSM is building Trump UP because they figure him to collapse in the Fall. Cruz really worries them.
5) Trump is able to draw Democrat votes only in states that are hopelessly out of reach — California, New York.
6) Trump is a turn off to such a degree that he’ll lose Utah to Hillary. Yikes.
7) There is no way that Trump’s pitch is going over well with Mexico — which doesn’t mind meddling with our election.
Think Univision.
&&&&&&
Cruz needs to back off his evangelical pals. They scare athiets — their numbers are large.
If you live in a state that is less than 75% democrat and, Trump is the GOP nominee, I can see no valid reason for not voting for him.
Here is why; if Hillary Clinton is elected, the Republic is lost. Period, end of story. Even if, as a result, there is civil war, America as we knew it… will not be recoverable.
As President, Trump would be a disaster and especially so, if he is insincere on his core issues. All disasters however are not the same. Trump may be a typhoon but Hillary (due to the forces in support) is the Yellowstone supervolcano re-erupting, which would wipe out N. America. Typhoons are survivable, a supervolcano would both directly and indirectly, kill nearly all life in N. America.
It is not that Trump is less malicious than Hillary, it is that for all of his flaws, he does not want a Marxist State, nor is he looking forward to the day when, having disposed of his enemies, their families can be re-educated… Hillary has devoted her life to that goal.
Dictators can be overthrown, 1984 is structuraly, far more durable, than any Caesar.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is, yet most conservatives self-limit their political participation like they’re trying to lose the game.
It’s an ideological sticking point. A lot of conservatives were originally individuals, based on the Founding Father role model. That means their belief was based around individual free will and moral agency. They believed they, as individuals, could triumph over the masses, over statist tyranny, over Systems that oppress, merely because of the Strength of the Individual. That means they refused to see how the Left’s SJW systems and Slave Plantation Systems and Institutional Racism Systems and Labor Union systems, were oppressing humans and enslaving them in their own damn country.
And when people do that long enough… individual free will is not going to save people. Harriet Tubman didn’t carry around a handgun just so she could shoot at Southern slave lord mercenaries and bounty hunters, while she was traveling the Underground Railroad with escaped slaves. Some of those slaves wanted to go back to Massa, for that way was food and safety, and would have endangered and exposed the Railroad network of safe houses and Christian abolitionist families. She had that gun to use on those escaped slaves who still had that slave mentality. She didn’t just assume those blacks and fellows had that “Freedom of Spirit” that was enough to beat the System.
Republicans could easily have fought back against the Left’s cries of RACIIISSM by pointing to Leftist plantations in Chicago and Detroit. Why didn’t they? It couldn’t have purely been the Status quo power brokers like McCain. McCain wasn’t controlling every Republican in this country.
So the principles you hold dear would allow this miscreant into the oval office and you salve your conscience by saying “It’s not MY fault”? Exactly what principle is THAT?
Personal conscience. When the State orders you to pull the trigger on women, children, and families who are not your enemies, you Either Obey or you do not.
And if you Obey, those seeking Vengeance will not take the excuse that you were “just following orders”. They may not be strong enough to hit the Tyranny that ordered the deaths, but they can reach the storm troopers and those Obedient to such orders, they can hit those at the bottom first, the low hanging fruit.
Conscience is about what you are personally willing to do. What other people do is not your problem to worry about. We are not “all in this together” as per social justice dogma. I am not responsible for the evils Hussein committed, but if I had voted for Hussein or helped him or destroyed his enemies, then I would be responsible, same as he would be.
Anyone that votes for Trump or supports X, including Cruz, will be held accountable, personally, for what happens next. ANd people are beginning to realize this, on a personal and spiritual level.
“It is not that Trump is less malicious than Hillary, it is that for all of his flaws, he does not want a Marxist State, nor is he looking forward to the day when, having disposed of his enemies, their families can be re-educated… Hillary has devoted her life to that goal.”[GB @1:36]
Eloquently stated. As I have noted in the past, I may or may not fare well under a Trump presidency, but Hillary has already announced that I AM the enemy.
To juxtapose a modern propaganda trick, if “my vote isn’t my choice” in primaries and elections, then what people are doing is called collective punishment or responsibility.
Meaning, kill the son and daughter of the father who has wrong you, because sins and guilt passes down to relations. Or, vote for Romney and if you don’t vote for him and Hussein wins, then you are collectively responsible for Hussein just because you’re in the same country as he is. Related to him.
And the reason why America is where it is… just look at how many people believe in collective punishment. They have already abdicated their principles for tactical or strategic reasons. And I personally think those aren’t even very beneficial tactics or strategies.
he does not want a Marxist State, nor is he looking forward to the day when, having disposed of his enemies, their families can be re-educated…
Bureaucratic oligarchies aren’t really about what the person at the top wants. That’s because irregardless of what Hussein wants, a lot of the problems in America comes from the people he installed into power, not because Hussein personally is working day and night to collapse America. Hussein is too busy having vacations at your expense and playing golf. And that’s a good thing, given the amount of damage he could do if he was more activist about it.
DC and the US is already a Bureaucratic Oligarchy. Worrying about Trump not being a Caesar or being a whatever capitalist robber baron, isn’t really an issue any more. It doesn’t matter what he is, it won’t change the Throne he is put on.
Interesting – but, in the case of Trump, at least, mostly – in the end – unconvincing…
I should like to point out a couple of rather large-scale flaws in your overall theme, BTW:
“…Barack Obama, however, was the first politician I can recall in my lifetime who was purposely deceptive about his basic political orientation when he was running for office…”(emphasis added)
Actually – no, no he was not –
If anyone cared enough to actually listen to what he said (as opposed to what people wanted to hear), and watch what he actually all-too-often did – in particular, the small bits-of-business, the everyday stuff he did and/or didn’t do – he was really very open about who and what he was, and what was to come…he was, after all, self-professed, Mr. “Fundamental Change”.
And an open, admitted Socialist/Marxist/soft-grade-Communist.
Yes, he’s The Flim-Flam Man, and pretty-much a total fake – but, he’s not very good at it (nor is he, personally, much good at anything else; one of his very few “saving graces”, as far as America is concerned, is that he’s just NOT very smart, mostly, and is a horrible, clumsy bungler, overall, both mentally and physically) – and, had he not had the full force of the Chicago Leftist “handlers and fluffers” plus the Major-league Slimy Media around him and at his back, he’d never have whizzed past even a weak-reed like Clinton.
More than enough was there, though, and clearly visible, all along, that he made no effort to conceal just what he was or where he was headed. So – however much he or his “handler/fluffers” might have wanted to keep his real nature covert, it was right there, in plain sight – if anyone wanted to actually see it and hear it. Yes, Barky tried to be a li’l bit deceptive – deliberately – about himself…but, he’s also an egomaniac (it’s about the only thing he’s any good at being), so, in the end, he couldn’t even do that properly.
“…I believe that Trump would be the second…”
Possible, I suppose – but…not plausible – not really.
Yes, Donald Trump plays his hands close-to-the-vest – but, once he decides just what to reveal, and when and how to reveal it, he’s one of the least-subtle people you’ll ever meet or see.
And yes, as a salesman (which is, in the end, just about all he is, or wants or needs to be – he’s a large-scale capitalist entrepreneur, a builder-upper of properties and fortune; being a salesguy – especially, of himself and his abilities at organization, administration, marketing and control – selling is what he does), he comes on a lot with a bit of a “con”.
In the end, though, it’s quite true that you cannot cheat – or “con” – an honest person. However – they’ve got to be honest with themselves…
Trump’s not hiding anything from anyone that they really need to know about him or his campaign. Practically-speaking, its a near-impossibility for him to do so, anyway – he’s working out in plain sight, with multiple major-league enemies scrutinizing everything about him and his actions, 24/7/365.
If he succeeds in getting where he’s clearly headed – it won’t be because he managed to be deceptive about who or what he is or intends to try to do – not even by omission.
So, your basic premise is wrong – and any possible conclusions you might possibly draw therefrom are equally incorrect.
Sorry ’bout that…
“Trump’s newly hired senior aide, Paul Manafort, made the case to Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities: one in private and one onstage.”
As I recall, that latter thought is practically verbatim what Dr. Ben Carson said of Donald Trump when he endorsed him.
For what it’s worth . . .
Peggy Noonan has it as Criminal v Crazy Man.
I have it as Criminal v. Con Artist.
I will never vote for a known criminal.
But we do have a binary choice.
Prince (RIP)
Donald Trump (Black Version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkBs2tw89dk
That reference to Dale Carnegie reminded me that the long con has been part of the air we breathe as a society for quite a while now. Perfectly distilled in one version or another of “sincerity is everything, if you can fake that you have it made.”
interesting theories.
except for one thing
there is zero examples in history of a company owner who has 560 subsidiaries in 100 countries and 30,000 employees and is a con man.
ie. thats too much work for a con
if you can tell they are a con, then they are not that good at being a con, for thats the whole point. to NOT appear that way.
however, a whole lot of the things that people dont like about his personality are the things that you do in business that most, who are not successful to that degree in business, dont like, dont think you should do, and so on. like admit mistakes, show any lack of confidence, and more..
if you have worked with such high performers, who most never get to see the person in any real way, you would know you have it all wrong about these people and this behavior.
you can see the SAME behavior in larry ellison, Tilman Fertitta (especially), and more..
and i find it funny that this unfamiliar behavior of the successful is panned as something else from what is mostly much less successful people and how their cynicism is not even percieved in their assesments by themselves.
there are TONS of normed things, many of them by feminism that are very toxic to success and the image you need to project even if people now are taught to hate them… (mostly so they are not successful, the successfu dont need welfare, and so on… do they? and without that where would the advisors be?)
leaders have to appear faultless because doubt is toxic to leadership…
we will side with and work with the guy that puts forth an image of perfection more than we will side with and work with a person who is honest about such. this despite the fact that tons of things suggest the latter, but in truth its bad.
power leaders are not keen about admitting errors and mistakes..
heck, we even sell antipersperant to women with the idea… “never let them see you sweat”
From INC magazine..
[edited for length by n-n]
I want a president who will be able to deal with the unknown unknowns he will encounter in both a rational and moral manner. In order to choose such a person, I need to see a bit of him revealed during the campaign. Manafort says Trump hasn’t done this, so they are going back to the table to create another version of him.
I can disagree with a person on individual policy issues if I think he will allow the other side a chance to present its case. Trump doesn’t seem to hear what anyone else says. He just complains about not being treated fairly.
He feels no responibilty to be America’s face to the world. That is the president’s job.
Art:
Bernie Madoff, Ponzi, Donald Trump.
Artfldgr:
I have been speaking primarily of Trump as a politician, not his business career. But even Scott Adams, who has written extensively on Trump (and often admiringly; at least, he is cited often by Trump’s admirers) admits that Trump is a con man.
However, even as a businessman, Trump sometimes cons (although not always, of course). Trump University, for example. Most of the population of the country of Scotland, where he built his luxury golf course, now considers him a con man who promised a ton of things he never delivered (I have written extensively about that already).
Here is some of Trump’s history:
Plenty of successful business people are con artists.
J. S. Bridges:
Spare me your fake sorrow on my behalf.
And no, I’m not wrong.
Of course, people who were astute and watched Obama carefully (and did their homework) realized who and what he was before his election. I was one of those people, actually (see this and this, for example).
But that has little to do with what I’m referring to in my post today. That some people could glean Obama’s true intentions through the haze of false leads and purposeful deception that he threw up is hardly the point. Fact is that the false leads and purposeful deception worked on enough people to elect and re-elect him. You can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time, but you can fool enough people…
And Trump is looking to be the same in that respect; although it’s unclear whether he’ll succeed in fooling enough people to get nominated and then enough to get elected (I think the former is likely although not certain by any means, and I think the latter is highly unlikely). He is in many ways a liberal statist, and he pretends to be otherwise but (like Obama) he reveals himself to those who pay attention. That doesn’t mean he’s not trying to con people, and doing so successfully in many many cases.
[Trump] “does not want a Marxist State, nor is he looking forward to the day when, having disposed of his enemies, their families can be re-educated…”
“Bureaucratic oligarchies aren’t really about what the person at the top wants.” Ymarsakar
As you well know, the person at the top can easily dominate our bureaucratic oligarchies, appointing those of like mind. Obama has convincingly demonstrated this to be true.
“He is in many ways a liberal statist, and he pretends to be otherwise but (like Obama) he reveals himself to those who pay attention. That doesn’t mean he’s not trying to con people, and doing so successfully in many many cases.” neo
The latest evidence of this is Trump’s opposition to the recently passed NC law, that simply states the an individual must use the public bathroom that matches their birth gender as registered on their birth certificate.
Allowing men into women’s bathrooms is an open invitation to pedophiles and Trump HAS to know this, as you would have to be an idiot not to realize it, so his political correctness is showing and the hell with little girl’s and boy’s safety.
It’s an obscenity to the most profound degree, as a society which will not protect its children has no future. That equally applies to every transgender and supporter of the right of men to invade a woman’s bathroom or locker room. It is when women and children are at their most vulnerable.
As you well know, the person at the top can easily dominate our bureaucratic oligarchies, appointing those of like mind. Obama has convincingly demonstrated this to be true.
True, but once he appoints them, they tend to have bureaucratic powers not reliant on Hussein’s approval. The oligarchy doesn’t function like a kingdom, because no work would be done if the king had to sign on everything. Holder was essentially his own king and signed off on a bunch of stuff. Hussein just didn’t care, first amongst equals.
Trump will be no different. There’s a specific limit to how much he can micromanage, even if he just wakes up trying to do it. The bureaucracy will be de facto determining who gets killed or executed more times than not. Was Waco and Benghazi due to execution orders Hussein signed? Most definitely not. But somebody signed the orders.
Bho’s history and his time in the Illinois senate and then the US senate were readily available to any that cared to investigate the messiah. The same is true of DJT.
All this back and forth about choosing the lesser evil in a djt versus hrc contest is premature. We ain’t there yet, and we may never reach that destination.
Another example of this is Valerie Plame and Wilson, her husband. These were CIA operatives, not appointed by Bush II, yet… look at how much influence they began to wield as a result of their CIA connections and the CIA’s bureaucratic power in the Executive Branch.
Was Bush II just incompetent at controlling the CIA or was his CIA director on the take? Or some other combination. But anyways, trying to control the US bureaucracy from DC, is not so easy to micro manage, even for the decent leaders.
Politicians typically “lie” like advertisements “lie”. We are used to exaggerations, vague but good sounding words, fine print and conditions.
The kinds of lies we have heard from Obama, and now Trump are different and in a league of their own.
It is like the product in the ad is not anything like what you will be buying… almost like the “Sea Monkeys” ad we saw in the back of comic books when we were kids, and their cartoon depictions of “monkeys” with smiles.
http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/sea_monkey_pic_0.jpg
We see “infomercials” with greater integrity than what we are getting in 2016 from the leading candidates.
That many don’t see it, is boggling.
Some try to give it some moral equivalence, but there isn’t, if they were honest with themselves.
Big Maq:
That is what I think, too. There is a difference in kind as well as frequency—and it’s the kind part that’s most important. But many people don’t see it that way at all, just as they didn’t see it with Obama (although it’s not necessarily the same people not seeing it for each Obama vs. for Trump).
Trump’s most powerful draw might be simply that he’s promising his supporters they can be “winners” just like him. For people who’ve felt left out, ridiculed, etc., the appeal of that must run very deep.
i don’t know. i don’t see what all the fuss is about. he may be a con and he may not be. none of us know. we do know hrc is evil and has evil intentions.
what i don’t understand is the absolute love for cruz? what has he done or proven? have you payed attention to his words?
the dude could be just as much a con as trump is being accused of being. i think he as much of a chance being elected as rubio (none)
cruz – the “champion conservative”
– liar about border control
– tried to control sex toys in tx (and selling in one’s home no less)
– submitted a tax plan that’s decent but no one pays attention to the vat inside it or the tax increase that has to happen for it to work
– stating he wants tax returns on a postcard (which I’m all for!) but never proposed one in congress which is where it’d be done
why the love?
the economy is gonna tank soon and we’re gonna be in deep, deep trouble and i see no candidates with any serious proposals.
yes, people like trump b/c they feel screwed by the political machine. cruz is just as much a part of that machine as anyone else.
i honestly don’t know what i would do come election day. i didn’t vote in my primary b/c i don’t like trump or cruz. just don’t understand the cruz love
c:
Anyone who characterizes the support on this blog for Cruz as “Cruzlove” has no idea what most people here (including me) are actually saying about him, or why his supporters on this blog support him. Maybe you should read up a bit, and then you’d understand better.
I support Cruz as the best candidate at this point. I respect him as a very smart person who has worked all his life for conservative causes, who was the Tea Party candidate in Texas and has held to those positions about 99% (maybe even more) of the time, and who can explain those positions in clear and cogent detail.
I’ve written post after post about why Trump is totally untrustworthy. You can do your research on that if you care to, as well.
You say you didn’t vote in your primary because you don’t like either Trump or Cruz. But do you dislike them exactly the same? And what of Kasich and/or Rubio? Do you dislike them all equally?
By the way, in virtually every single poll this election year so far, both Rubio and Cruz did better than Trump against either Clinton or Sanders. In fact, Rubio consistently beat her, over and over. So your idea that Rubio had no chance is not based on any evidence.
Ann:
I think you are correct.
And that’s why I’ve been fearing a Trump bandwagon effect, post-NY-primary.
Cruz made too many extreme statements courting the evangelical vote for my taste, and most importantly, for the general election. Nevertheless, he is my favorite.
If Trump becomes the nominee, it will be a discouraging conundrum for me. If he is not polling well against Hillary, I would rather that he lose disastrously so that he and his followers would be discouraged. I wouldn’t vote for either.
If he polls well against Hillary, then I would face the devil I know vs. the devil I don’t know. Early in his campaign he seemed so ill informed and reckless. I think that is the real Trump. Right now, I don’t know whether I would vote at all; I might even prefer Hillary. Ugh!
Sent from my iPad
Alan F:
That is indeed the dilemma, and it is a very real and very harsh one. It is especially sharp for people who live in swing states or states where the polling might end up being close. All of that lies in the future, though.
I admit I am feeling more and more discouraged, post-NY. It’s a gut feeling of momentum for Trump, and a very powerful feeling that he’s a terrible candidate both in terms of how he would govern, and whether he could win.
It’s kind of like the old joke “the food is bad, and such small portions”—except this is no joke. It’s like a bad dream from which we are not likely to waken.
c Says:
April 22nd, 2016 at 7:09 pm
what i don’t understand is the absolute love for cruz? what has he done or proven? have you payed attention to his words?
cruz — the “champion conservative”
— tried to control sex toys in tx (and selling in one’s home no less)
&&&&&
As Solicitor General Ted Cruz HAD to argue in support of the legislature.
They were his client.
Such absurd cases pop up all the time — and every Solicitor General HAS TO sustain the law, as adopted.
Don’t conflate his profession obligation with his own beliefs.
&&&&
The same thing was true when Ted represented the Bush Campaign, et. al.
The positions ascribed to Ted were the positions of his CLIENTS.
&&&&
Ted’s track record WRT illegal immigration is STRONGER than Donald’s.
Period.
As for Trump, you may spin the dial. He’s been for and against most of the issues in the public eye.
Because of this Tom Oliver conjured up a witty ‘debate’ — video clips — of Donald Trump debating Donald Trump.
It was hilarious.
Come the Fall, such videos are going to swamp the airwaves.
Trump is a sure-fire loser in the Fall — which is why the MSM keeps talking him UP.
%%%%%%%
As for your spelling and punctuation — sheesh.
IMO, should November come down to a choice of the donald or hillary, which is merely a speculation right now, hillary and the msm will win in a historic landslide. It will not matter how any of us vote.
c,
Just curious… are you totally clueless or what? Cruz has a well known record. Do your homework. Lay off digesting the propaganda.
blert — Hillary will beat Cruz like a rug. It’ll be Goldwater in 1964 all over again. Trump might, just MIGHT, with all his BS, position switching, ignorance on foreign policy, etc., etc., etc., be able to confuse the Machine enough to beat her.
And besides, he’ll be the first candidate in history to run as his own Vice-President!
Richard Saunders:
I happen to think Hillary would beat either Cruz or Trump, but I think Cruz has the better possibility of beating her. But unlike your claim that Trump would, mine is based on the evidence so far.
Simply put, Cruz would get most of the votes on the right. Trump might get a few Democrats (although the polls have actually never indicated he would; I have discussed that over and over in this blogs and analyzed those polls), but he will lose a lot of people on the right.
That is the way it has looked ever since Trump threw his hat in the ring, and nothing about it has changed.
Richard Saunders,
Cruz as nominee will have a slim chance of beating whichever dem is the nominee. That is a given. Even cherubic Rubio would have a hard row to hoe. The donald….. oh please, he is the left’s ideal opponent. However, the donald must come to the convention with at least 1237, otherwise he will not be the nominee. The RNC is not a suicide pact.
blert Says:
There is no way that Donald could be as bad as Stalin in a pants suit.
Then I would say you lack imagination.
Trump recently said that he saw no problem in letting South Korea and Japan get nukes, and that it was probably inevitable that Saudi Arabia would get them too.
Nukes, in the Middle East. With SA’s mortal enemies Iran having them too!
Never in my life have I heard anything so grossly irresponsible come out of a candidate’s mouth, and that includes Hillary.
Trump: Nukes in the ME? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
J. S. Bridges said:
Trump’s not hiding anything from anyone that they really need to know about him or his campaign.
Odd, because that’s the exact opposite of what Trump’s campaign manager said. He said so, right in the except you read.
Saunders:
1) Hillary has so much baggage that I can’t see her gaining ANY of the ‘Romney states.’
2) As a Latino-American, I expect Ted to surprise all with decent strength in purple states — and has a real stab at New Mexico.
3) A LOT of the Democrats voting for Bernie are voting against Hillary.
Integrity counts for them.
4) Ted’s tax plan of no income taxes on the first $36,000 per year is going to be VERY popular with the hoi poloi.
5) I expect ISIS to continue to injure Barry and Hillary’s narrative.
She owns every bit of Libya, Egypt, et. al.
6) She’ll absolutely fold up in any ‘debate’ structure versus Ted.
He’s no Romney.
7) She’ll continue to cough herself silly at the lectern.
8) She’s so repugnant to Republicans that the motivation of the base will astound.
9) Ted will be able to out raise any sum that Trump might conjure up. He’ll need much, as HRCGS is going to spend huge.
10) The tabloids are going to constantly keep e-mail-gate on the boil.
Just having her private server — in and of itself — was a crime.
The entire thrust of her scheme was illegal. Public officials are not allowed to have hidden records. Everything they do is to be subject to audit and over-sight by the President and by the Congress.
Alan F Says:
Cruz made too many extreme statements courting the evangelical vote for my taste, and most importantly, for the general election.
Could you give us some links? Not that I doubt he’s said *some* religious things, but I keep hearing his critics refer to him as a Bible thumper, but I’ve never heard him say anything like that.
Alan F Says:
I would rather that he lose disastrously so that he and his followers would be discouraged.
We don’t need to wonder about how Trump supporters or Trump will react in case of a loss. We’ve already seen it in Colorado.
I imagine the same excuses and scapegoating will occur in a general election. Trump is a sore loser.
Well neo, I liked what Carly was saying early on but she couldn’t get her message out + she had a bunch of ppl trashing her, unfairly IMO
Like some of what trump has to say but don’t like the man
Cruz’ family thinks G*d told him to be president — yeah, ok (too much crazy in that family)
Carson – can’t vote for a cultist
RUbio, kasich, bush – G*d help us
I like what walker has done in WI but he never seemed to get traction.
I see serious economic problems on the very near horizon and I just don’t see anyone with real solutions. I thought Carly was promising and I think trump being business minded could be interesting. I honestly think anyone in govt is too invested in their career to actually fix what’s wrong which is why I’m rooting for states to seize the opportunity and have constitutional convention. I really see no other way
Show me one of these 2 candidates who proposes to actually fix social security, medical system and debt. Trump has alluded to fixing medical but I’ve heard nothing from Cruz on it (truly fixing it)
lower case c,
You warn of near term economic/fiscal catastrophe and in the next breath you opine about fixing social security, medicare, and winding back the debt clock. Which is it? You can not have both. Sorry to be rude, but you are either less than clueless and totally uninformed or ______ fill in the blank.
C:
I’m not at all sure there’s a way to really “fix” Social Security. But I can tell you this: whoever described it, and used it as a platform, would lose the election. That’s one of the problems, because it would take too much austerity and people wouldn’t like it one bit.
Carly and Scott Walker were my initial favorites. Nevertheless, after that, it was Rubio or Cruz for me, whoever was the last of the two standing.
I don’t hold someone’s family against him. Cruz seems very levelheaded and logical to me.
Matt_SE; Alan F:
I believe that if Trump loses (by whatever margin, large or small), his followers will continue accusing others of backstabbing and double-crossing. It is a very very dangerous situation (see this).
Nope, once trump loses (which will happen) either at the convention or the general, his cultists will fade back into the shadows.
I hope parker is correct. The Trumpsters are scary.
Nice analysis of Trump the con man, Neo. You really did your home work.
Donald can’t properly be called a con man. He’s not engaged in criminal deceits.
The better term of art: pitch man.
He bears more than a passing resemblance to the Wizard of Oz… with his ‘second personality’ being kept behind a curtain.
If there is any ‘long con’ going on — it’s being run by the Media.
The pitch being that Donald can win in the Fall.
No-one wins such an office with an empty war chest.
Yet, compared to HRCGS, Donald has no financial resources at all.
{ $ 2,500,000,000 > $ 150,000,000 }
Stalin in a pants suit is going to own the airwaves.
At a fundamental level, that IS her campaign strategy.
blert:
The classic and literal definition of con man involves criminal acts, mostly to gain money.
Some of Trump’s history may involve actual cons (Trump University, for example). But for the purposes of this post I am using con man in the more general sense of someone who gains influence over gullible or trusting people using deceptive and manipulative means and false promises, in order to gain something for himself. Many politicians have something of the con in them. Trump has a lot.
c, God has never spoken to you? I suppose you’ve never had that gut instinct that told you not to be stupid, having ignored it until now.