Is Trump Just Plain Nuts?

[Lord Jim]

Food for thought:

To the Go-Along Republicans

Memo to Paul Ryan: Trump’s problem is his character, not his ‘ideas.’

By Bret Stephens

There’s an old saying that in politics there are no permanent victories—and no permanent defeats. Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964 but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in 1996 and 14 years later we got ObamaCare.

The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Liberals overreach. Statist solutions fail. Voters tire of one-party rule. To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign-policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal. If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is—an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue—they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency. I know I do.

But to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn’t mean there is no permanent dishonor. Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy and Bull Connor are the foul names of America’s 20th century, and always will be. And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.

This is where Republicans now find themselves with their presidential nominee. Of all of Donald Trump’s vile irruptions—about Sen. John McCain’s military record, or reporter Serge Kovaleski’s physical handicap, or Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s judicial fitness—his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest.

This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention.

No: What makes Mr. Trump’s remarks so foul is their undisguised sadism. He took a woman too heartbroken and anxious to speak of her dead son before an audience of millions and painted a target on her. He treated her silence as evidence that she was either a dolt or a stooge. He degraded her. “She was standing there. She had nothing to say,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

In this comment there was the full unmasking of Mr. Trump, in case he needed further unmasking. He has, as Humayun’s father Khizr put it, a “black soul.” His problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human decency. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low.

This is the point that needs to dawn—and dawn soon—on Republican officeholders who pretend to endorse Mr. Trump while also pretending, via wink-and-nod, that they do not. Paul Ryan has tried to walk this razor’s edge by stressing how much he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s “ideas.” On Sunday the speaker issued a flabby statement extolling the Khan family’s sacrifice and denouncing religious tests for immigrants without mentioning Mr. Trump by name.

Mr. Ryan is doing his personal reputation and his party’s fortunes no favors with these evasions. The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner.

It will not do for Republicans to say they denounce Mr. Trump’s personal slanders; his nativism and protectionism and isolationism; his mendacity and meanness and crassness; his disdain for constitutional protections—and still campaign for his election. There is no redemption in saying you went along with it, but only halfway; that with Mr. Trump you maintained technical virginity. To lie down with him is to wake up with him. It’s as simple as that.

That’s a thought that ought to frighten Republicans. The Khan slander was not Mr. Trump’s first and will not be his last or worst. As one wag on Twitter put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Nor are we likely done with new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s business practices and associations. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.

Politics is mostly the business of maintaining popularity in the here-and-now. Not always. Come January, Mrs. Clinton will likely be president. Whether there is a GOP that can still lay a claim to moral and political respectability is another question. Mr. Ryan and other Go-Along Republicans should treat the Khan episode as their last best hope to preserve political reputations they have worked so hard to build.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-the-go-a ... ?mg=id-wsj

[Econoline]

[Joe Guy]

[Big RR]

Well we're lucky the Obama administration prosecuted so many of those who were responsible for the economic collapse, aren't we? And set forth banking regulations to prevent this from happening again, right?

Wait, they didn't? Were were they forbidden to by their corporate donors?

You mean the Republican congress. You will recall they are responsible for regulation of the banking industry. Obama cannot prosecute for things the GOP-led congress insists are legal.


yrs,
rubato

Come on rubato--Congress doesn't run the justice department (Obama does) nor does it interpret laws (which rests with the courts). There are plenty of laws that were broken, but the republicrats won't prosecute. Follow the money to see why.

[rubato]

Regulations passed to prevent the bubble caused by mortgage-backed securities and non-banks writing liar loans from happening again = Zero



yrs,
rubato

[Burning Petard]

The Olympics include shooting sports and USA has collected at least two golds in shooting--Women's air rifle and Men's Trap.

The Donald has been demonstrating his skills at shooting himself in the foot. I think he has at least medaled at that activity. But it seems it may be a skill shared by the family.

On the last day of the Republican National Convention in July, Ivanka Trump strode across the stage in a blush-toned dress from her namesake label. Then she shattered party norms, pledging that her father would revolutionize support for working mothers.
“Policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties,” she declared. “They should be the norm.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ity-leave/

Except her own company, the source of the dress she wore while making that speech, does not do it.

snailgate

[Big RR]

rubato--true, but that has nothing to do with prosecution of persons who have broken existing laws--or do you think no laws were broken? Enforcement of laws is the province of the executive, not the legislature. Likewise, regulations are promulgated and enacted by the administrative agencies, not the legislature (which only enacts laws). so to the extent that neww reglations should have been passed, blame Obama, not Congress.

I blame Obama for not enforcing the existing laws and prosecuting some of those responsible for the collapse on them, although it doesn't surprise me that he chose not to bite the hand of his feeders.

[Crackpot]

Not to mention that upon finding yourself dug into a hole it is unwise to break then regardless of the fact that they got you there.

[Guinevere]

Seen the latest crazy video? Where he says: "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment," Trump said. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."


Is he suggesting HRC or her (potential) appointments, or current SCOTUS justices should be assassinated?

Is it not problematic that we are even having this conversation about the words of the GOP nominee?

Will he try to say, again, that it's a joke? Will anyone but wesw believe him?

[Joe Guy]

I'm baffled that someone like Trump can say some of the most outrageous, stupid and dangerous things, including lies and, depending on how you interpret it, encouraging people to shoot his opponent, and he still is popular with so many people.

A large number of people are more stupid than I gave them credit for. I wonder how anyone could believe that Trump is qualified to be president after all the ignorance and lack of control he has shown?

He is just plain nuts and it becomes more obvious every day.

[Crackpot]

There is a size able segment of the population that think what he suggests would be a good idea.

[BoSoxGal]

The election of President Obama and ensuing Republican insanity, culminating in this monster being nominated by the party, has shown how many racists, misogynists and idiots we share this country with.

[RayThom]

Seen the latest crazy video? Where he says: "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment," Trump said. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
Is he suggesting HRC or her (potential) appointments, or current SCOTUS justices should be assassinated?
Is it not problematic that we are even having this conversation about the words of the GOP nominee?
Will he try to say, again, that it's a joke? Will anyone but wesw believe him?

Thank God. Here's Drumpf explaining what he means;

[Bicycle Bill]

Not to mention that upon finding yourself dug into a hole it is unwise to break then regardless of the fact that they got you there.

You know, Crackpot, I've been looking at this post for the last 12 hours and even after all that time I'll be damned if I can figure out just what you meant or are referring to.

-"BB"-

[Bicycle Bill]

Trump's "Second Amendment" Speech
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Click here to read the transcript of Trump's speech in which he 'warns' of the demise of the Second Amendment if Hillary is elected and gets "to select her own judges" to the Supreme Court.

Let me just say that if I had turned in an essay like this in my college English classes the instructor not only would not have accepted it, he would have taken out his cigarette lighter and burned it right in front of the entire class (I'm not kidding; he did do it to someone else's paper).  The number of sentence fragments, unsupported phrases and clauses, and the way he jumps all across the board from one topic to another ... this is more a stream-of-consciousness screed the likes of which I would expect to have come from Jack Kerouac or Hunter Thompson — neither of whom ever met a hallucinogenic they didn't like.

And, as usual, *NOWHERE* in this is there any concrete, firm proposals for how he is going to turn things around and bring jobs back to this country.  The closest thing, in fact, is where he is talking about how the Carrier people moved some of their production of HVAC products south of the border and he tosses out a remark about "With me, we inform them that if you move, you’re gonna pay a 35 percent tax on every single air conditioner that pour across our now very secure borders."  All that means is that whenever Carrier or anyone else sends something across the border, whether it's an air conditioner or an iPhone, that "35% tax" (and by the way, Donny, it's called a tariff, not a tax) just gets added on to the wholesale price and winds up being paid by the end purchaser/consumer.

This guy (Trump) is no more qualified to be POTUS than any other escapee from the booby hatch.  The trouble is that there are too many people out there who are eligible to vote who seem to escaped from the same booby hatch, and they all seem to be drawn to Trump like flies to a pile of shit.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

The Trump people realize that claiming that he was "joking" when you're talking about encouraging lethal violence against government officials (a lot of the media are interpreting this as talking about Hillary being shot, but the way it reads and sound to me, he was talking about her judicial nominees being shot...not as though that would exactly be an improvement...) doesn't work as an acceptable explanation...

They're claiming that he meant that "2nd amendment people" would use their political clout to oppose them...

This illustrates yet again how Trump is just constitutionally incapable of avoiding going off script and adding to the more and more politically solidified narrative that he is just unfit to be President...

From his hostage video endorsements of Ryan, McCain and Ayotte on Friday, through his scripted speech on economic policy yesterday, he was only able to go a grand total of four days without saying anything to seriously fuck himself...

The even better news for Hillary is he's promising not let up:

Trump: Not 'appropriate' to start changing temperament

Expecting a new Donald Trump for the last few months of the election? Don’t count on it.

Coming out of a tumultuous week for his campaign, Trump said he has no plans to change, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has enjoyed a growing lead in the polls. In fact, he doesn’t think it would be appropriate to.

“I've always had a good temperament and it's gotten me here. We beat a lot of people in the primaries and now we have one person left and we're actually doing pretty well there. But we'll see how it all comes out,” Trump said on Fox Business News Tuesday morning. “I certainly don't think it's appropriate to start changing all of the sudden when you've been winning. I mean I've beat many people and now we're down to one. And we'll see how it all works out. But I think it's going to work out well.”

Trump’s temperament was criticized last week after he attacked the parents of an American soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004. The parents of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan spoke out against Trump during the Democratic National Convention, and the GOP nominee went on offense in response.

On Monday night, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine became the most recent Republican lawmaker to announce she would not be supporting Trump. Collins cited Trump’s criticism of the Khans as one of the reasons she could not vote for the nominee of her own party.

On Tuesday, Trump also disputed reports of a cooling relationship between him and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Last week, Trump praised Ryan’s primary opponent and withheld his endorsement for a few days before eventually backing Ryan on Friday.

“I have a good relationship with Paul. No, I don't think there's an icing,” Trump said. “Maybe the press reports that. But we've had a good relationship. And I endorse Paul.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /88455594/

[Econoline]

It's become obvious that Trump has refined the art of dogwhistling to the point where he can say (or clearly imply) absolutely *ANYTHING*--no matter how outrageous or unacceptable--and then afterwards say, "Who, me? Why that's not what I meant AT ALL, heh heh, wink wink..."






.

[oldr_n_wsr]

(and by the way, Donny, it's called a tariff, not a tax)

Call it a tax, a tariff, a duty, a user fee......
A tax by any other name still means more money coming out of my pocket.
And I do not like that.

[Crackpot]

A tax is something you pay for regardless of use a user fee is something you pay for use. You think things are free?

[oldr_n_wsr]

A tax is something you pay for regardless of use a user fee is something you pay for use. You think things are free?

Nothing is free.
And there are "user fees" I pay thatI do not use. The commuity pool and park "user fee" I have on my property tax bill.
Not only is it on my tax bill (as a seperate line item), but they started charging to go into the park and pool also. So if I choose to go there, I get to pay two user fees. One I have no choice, the other I do.