Up Like Trump

[Gronthaing]

Wasn't he responding to a hypothetical construct? He is not a politician, but he should have known better the media is after soundbites to play against him.

I've read more than a few people who said essentially the same thing. An interesting crack in the Trump Fanclub^TM.

Has he reached his hubris moment? Find out and see: he may have, he may not have. But he is going to have to pivot, most likely after the Republican nomination is a done deal. To a deal man like Trump, a deal done is a deal stuck to. If the Republican Party "signs the deal" making him the nominee, it's Trump's show. He and his supporters will make that plain.

Wasn't his hubris moment reached with the illegal mexicans comment? Maybe it was about islam? Could it be kelly's blood?

I've lost track. And those were way, way more potent.

Were they way, way more potent than getting behind Social Security reform?

(Yes, that's a hint.)

560+ millions of TRUMP hubris bashing, non stop. From the GOP. They are contemplating cheating him because they could not stop him. That tells me he is the real man for DNA level splicing of the system.

You sure? Doubt he will bring that type of change if he gets in office. He benefited from the system all his life. Why change it now? I believe reason why the establishment doesn't want trump in power is because they can't control him. Not like most other politicians. He looks like a loose cannon to them. Saying whatever is convenient for him at the time. But that doesn't mean he is very different from the rest of the establishment. Or the other donors and owners. How many politicians has he personally bought for example? And what did he ask of them?

[1714639254]

1714639254

[1714639254]

1714639254

[1714639254]

1714639254

[1714639254]

1714639254

[1714639254]

1714639254

[1714639254]

1714639254

[Wilikon]

560+ millions of TRUMP hubris bashing, non stop. From the GOP. They are contemplating cheating him because they could not stop him. That tells me he is the real man for DNA level splicing of the system.

All righty; I'm observing, not lobbying. Fancy that.

To be honest, a lot of Donald Trump's campaign strategy can be figured out simply by reading The Art Of The Deal. Its kernel, I'm sure, is his advice to walk around the neighbourhood and get a feel for it and its inhabitants before buying a building. He's prolly had his poll-dependent rivals pegged as that newly-minted MBAer working for Prudential REIT that he lobbed off an apartment building to when he was still working with his dad.

This and no more has been his "secret sauce." He walked around the political "neighbourhood" and used his entrepreneurial skills to find out that there were a whole slew of folks that were all-but disenfranchised - and were really angry about it. His own view of the world aligning with theirs, he built his entire campaign representing them in a way that a poll-drive candidate would not have dreamed of.

The only question remaining: will his quintessentially entrepreneurial approach to campaigning - latching on to a populace that feels disenfranchised and re-enfranchising them - scale? Will it work in the general election?

To be honest, I don't know - and I'm someone who cheerfully bet money that Mr. Trump would win the Pubbie nomination a/o six months ago.

Every single step, the attacks, crisis, faux pas, foxnews kelly -TRUMP wars, all are written in his book. He said this much himself. No secrets.

The hubris was for the GOPe not to read the book.


 

[Wilikon]

Wasn't he responding to a hypothetical construct? He is not a politician, but he should have known better the media is after soundbites to play against him.

I've read more than a few people who said essentially the same thing. An interesting crack in the Trump Fanclub^TM.

Has he reached his hubris moment? Find out and see: he may have, he may not have. But he is going to have to pivot, most likely after the Republican nomination is a done deal. To a deal man like Trump, a deal done is a deal stuck to. If the Republican Party "signs the deal" making him the nominee, it's Trump's show. He and his supporters will make that plain.

Wasn't his hubris moment reached with the illegal mexicans comment? Maybe it was about islam? Could it be kelly's blood?

I've lost track. And those were way, way more potent.

Were they way, way more potent than getting behind Social Security reform?

(Yes, that's a hint.)

560+ millions of TRUMP hubris bashing, non stop. From the GOP. They are contemplating cheating him because they could not stop him. That tells me he is the real man for DNA level splicing of the system.

You sure? Doubt he will bring that type of change if he gets in office. He benefited from the system all his life. Why change it now? I believe reason why the establishment doesn't want trump in power is because they can't control him. Not like most other politicians. He looks like a loose cannon to them. Saying whatever is convenient for him at the time. But that doesn't mean he is very different from the rest of the establishment. Or the other donors and owners. How many politicians has he personally bought for example? And what did he ask of them?

The establishment will be on the DNA splicing table. And this is not just in the USA...

[Spendulus]

You sure? Doubt he will bring that type of change if he gets in office. He benefited from the system all his life. Why change it now? I believe reason why the establishment doesn't want trump in power is because they can't control him. Not like most other politicians. He looks like a loose cannon to them. Saying whatever is convenient for him at the time. But that doesn't mean he is very different from the rest of the establishment. Or the other donors and owners. How many politicians has he personally bought for example? And what did he ask of them?

Really?  We have the loose cannon in office right now.  He is called Obama.

There is another looser cannon waiting.  That's called Hillary.

I think what you mean to say is Trump isn't "Their loose cannon."

[Wilikon]

Thank you all for contributing in the conversation

 

[Gronthaing]

You sure? Doubt he will bring that type of change if he gets in office. He benefited from the system all his life. Why change it now? I believe reason why the establishment doesn't want trump in power is because they can't control him. Not like most other politicians. He looks like a loose cannon to them. Saying whatever is convenient for him at the time. But that doesn't mean he is very different from the rest of the establishment. Or the other donors and owners. How many politicians has he personally bought for example? And what did he ask of them?

Really?  We have the loose cannon in office right now.  He is called Obama.

There is another looser cannon waiting.  That's called Hillary.

I think what you mean to say is Trump isn't "Their loose cannon."

Agreed. Obama and clinton are bought and paid for. Nothing much will come out of them. And trump isn't the establishment's loose cannon. Sure. But the distinction I'm trying to make is that it may not matter. It doesn't make much difference, if he thinks and acts like the owners of the system anyway. Because he is one of them.

[Wilikon]

You sure? Doubt he will bring that type of change if he gets in office. He benefited from the system all his life. Why change it now? I believe reason why the establishment doesn't want trump in power is because they can't control him. Not like most other politicians. He looks like a loose cannon to them. Saying whatever is convenient for him at the time. But that doesn't mean he is very different from the rest of the establishment. Or the other donors and owners. How many politicians has he personally bought for example? And what did he ask of them?

Really?  We have the loose cannon in office right now.  He is called Obama.

There is another looser cannon waiting.  That's called Hillary.

I think what you mean to say is Trump isn't "Their loose cannon."

Agreed. Obama and clinton are bought and paid for. Nothing much will come out of them. And trump isn't the establishment's loose cannon. Sure. But the distinction I'm trying to make is that it may not matter. It doesn't make much difference, if he thinks and acts like the owners of the system anyway. Because he is one of them.

Why would one of them be targeted by them, if he is one of them?

GOP: 565M for negative campaign against TRUMP so far.


 

[Wilikon]

#TheChalkening: Old Row’s quest to make Liberals cringe


For the past week, wimpy college students at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia have been screaming bloody murder at the sight of Donald Trump’s name on their sidewalks. These students have gone before James Wagner, president of Emory, and petitioned to keep anything Donald Trump out of Emory. These students have asked for safe spaces and counseling for those ‘traumatized’ by these chalkings. In response, James Wagner wrote this on one of the sidewalks next to the anti-Trump petitioners:

http://hypeline.org/thechalkening-old-rows-quest-to-make-liberals-cringe/

http://trendsmap.com/topic/%23thechalkening

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/716029594944471040

 

[Wilikon]

W Bush's brain: Don't vote for TRUMP. Vote for [    ]

GOP Elites for the steal–
Karl Rove says a “fresh face” in Cleveland might just be the thing we need to turn this election around.
The Examiner reported:

    One thing that unites many supporters of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is the suspicion that party elders might try to hand the Republican presidential nomination to another candidate if neither Trump nor Cruz arrives in Cleveland with the 1,237 delegates required to win.

Important voices in the conservative world have voiced such concerns. Rush Limbaugh, for one, has speculated that the Republican establishment will try to “install whoever they want” at a contested convention. (Limbaugh guessed such a final choice might be Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan.)

Now Karl Rove, a man many view as the physical embodiment of the establishment, has poured gallons of fuel on the Republican fire. Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday evening, Rove said a “fresh face” chosen at the convention might turn the GOP’s fortunes around and win in November.

    If we have somebody who we think has, has been battle-tested, and has strong conservative principles and the ability to articulate them, and they are nominated at this convention, there will be a lot of acrimony from the people who were seeking the nomination. But if it’s somebody who has, you know, has those convictions that they can express in a compelling way, we could come out of the convention in relatively strong position … And a fresh face might be the thing that could give us a chance to turn this election and win in November against Hillary.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/gop-elite-karl-rove-says-fresh-face-convention-might-best-party/


--------------------------
TRUMP is no friend of the GOPe

[Wilikon]

#thechalkening

[Moloch]

[mOgliE]

Right definition. That's it. That's the words. That's the truth. Get real.

[Wilikon]

Where's the Presidential Debate on GM's Crony Capitalism? GM paid $904M more in taxes to China than the US in 2015

In the 1950s, General Motors President Charles Wilson famously said: “What was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

You might do a double take on that comment after you venture a look at GM’s current remarkably low tax bill.

A dive into GM’s filings with the Securities & Exchange Commission reveals that while the carmaker makes nearly all of its profits in the U.S., it pays virtually no U.S. federal, state or local taxes. The carmaker paid just $5 million in federal taxes last year, its SEC filings show. For its total federal, state and local bill, all in, it booked zero taxes, the filings show. Meantime, in 2015, GM paid more than $908 million in taxes to China, due to its profits from its joint ventures there, the filings show (see here:https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/en_us/english/Group4/InvestorsPDFDocuments/10-K.pdf).


GM’s historically low tax bill has flown under the radar screen in this presidential election season, when candidates from both parties offer ideas on reforming the corporate tax code. While the White House has railed against loopholes for big corporations, Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders continue to stump for getting companies to pay their “fair share,” and the GOP candidates largely push for lower tax rates.

Ask yourself, how come the candidates aren’t debating how the GM bailout is a textbook case of crony capitalism? A bailout in which taxpayers paid millions of dollars in “advisory” fees to companies like Evercore Partners to arrange, and given that GM is paying more in annual taxes in China than it is paying in the U.S.?

All in, GM got a $51 billion bailout, for which it refused to pay back some $10.5 billion to U.S. taxpayers, since that $10.5 billion hit arose from the Treasury Dept.’s losses on the automaker’s stock when it sold the shares in late 2013 (the bailout took the form of a loan and a 61% equity stake in GM by the Treasury Dept.).

The bailout was an “investment,” President Barack Obama insisted at the time, adding that it would cost taxpayers “not a dime.” The White House also held up the GM bailout as an example of how to battle China’s ascendancy in manufacturing, even though GM was mastering the art of outsourcing its new vehicle development and global export operations to the Middle Kingdom—to the point where it has been touting the fact it will be the first U.S. carmaker to actually import and sell one of its Chinese-made SUVs, the Buick Envision, back into the U.S. this year (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-to-import-chinese-made-buick-suv-1447349781?mg=id-wsj). It’s estimated China plans to increase production in China by 65% through 2020.

The reason for GM’s low tax bill: A big fat tax break in the bailout. This sweetheart deal from the Obama Administration let GM deduct $45.4 billion in costs going forward, against current year taxes, even though it discharged those sums in bankruptcy.

The $45.4 billion included things like its losses in the years before GM entered bankruptcy, costs for its pensions and post-retirement benefits, as well as costs for its equipment and factories. That means the actual cost of GM’s bailout to taxpayers is much higher, likely on the order of nearly $75 billion, tax experts note.

Update: After this report was published on Thursday, General Motors made the following statement to FOX Business Network: “GM adheres to all applicable federal, state and local tax laws and regulations. Since 2009, we have also made significant investments in the U.S. – totaling approximately $17.8 billion – which have created approximately 6,250 new jobs and secured another 20,700 positions.”


http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/03/31/wheres-presidential-debate-on-gms-crony-capitalism.html


 

[Wilikon]

[Wilikon]

China slaps 46% steel tariff on the UK. Says UK imports hurting domestic industry.

China has risked raising tensions over its role in the UK steel crisis by imposing a 46% import duty on a type of high-tech steel made by Tata in Wales.

The Chinese government said it had slapped the tariff on “grain-oriented electrical steel” imported from the European Union, South Korea and Japan. It justified the move by saying imports from abroad were causing substantial damage to its domestic steel industry.

Tata Steel, whose subsidiary Cogent Power makes the hi-tech steel targeted by the levy in Newport, south Wales, was unable to say on Friday whether any Cogent products are exported to China.

News of the tariff emerged as David Cameron confronted the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, on the sidelines of a summit dinner in Washington on Thursday night, urging him to use Beijing’s presidency of the G20 group of leading countries to tackle the problem.

Asked if Cameron raised concerns about British job losses from Chinese steel dumping, a senior government source said: “He highlighted his concerns, yes.” The source added: “He made clear the concerns that we have on the impact this is having on the UK and other countries.”

British politicians have been accused of pandering to China by blocking new tariffs on Chinese imports to the EU, a measure designed to prop up Europe’s struggling steel industry.

The tariff move by the People’s Republic is likely to anger steelworkers and unions, who blame China for much of the industry’s recent troubles. Steel firms say one of the key reasons for the UK industry’s woes is that state-subsidised firms in China are “dumping” their product on the European market, due to flagging demand at home.

The UK business secretary, Sajid Javid, who visited Tata Steel’s struggling Port Talbot plant on Friday, has been accused of blocking measures to crack down on Chinese imports. Javid voted against EU plans to lift the “lesser duty” rule, which would have allowed for higher duties to be levied on Chinese steel imports. The UK has also lobbied for China to be granted “market economy status”, which would make it even harder to crack down on steel dumping.

“The fact is that the UK has been blocking this,” European Steel Association (Eurofer) spokesperson Charles de Lusignan told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “They are not the only member state but they are certainly the ring leader in blocking the lifting of the lesser duty rule. The ability to lift this was part of a proposal that the European commission launched in 2013, and the fact that the UK continues to block it means that when the government says it’s doing everything it can to save the steel industry in the UK and also in Europe, it’s not. It’s not true.”


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/chinese-imposes-tariff-on-eu-steel-imports-tata

[tvbcof]

I'm not terribly concerned.  The negative perception, if it is even true and not another fairly common form of propaganda leveraging group-think dynamics, was achieved by the establishment media pulling out ALL the stops and sinking to extreme depths of dishonesty.  Even some of my highly progressive family cannot ignore it any more.  7 months is plenty of time to engineer a backlash, if it even needs any engineering at all.

I would suggest to Trump that he develop a brief catchy civics lesson ...

Reason for the backlash is probably because it contradicts pro life ideas right? Not about the abortion being done legally or not and the women punished because of that. Pro life movement doesn't want to punish the women. Only those that do the abortions. The doctors. As far as I know. If that is the case it looks inconsistent to me. So his position here makes sense. Don't agree with it but it is consistent. If abortion is illegal everyone involved should be punished.

The 'backlash' I was talking about would be a general and reasonably forceful rejection of the mainstream media at large by an increasing number of citizens.

The abortion trap was just one of many operations these guys have pulled vis-a-vis Trump.  When it came down to the wire, almost all of the mainstream media went all-in for Establishment Inc's choice Bush in Bush v. Gore.  By chance it was Mathews who started the ball rolling on operation abortion trap, and I remember Mathews the most in the Bush v. Gore event.  The difference is that in Bush v. Gore it was in the critical last few weeks when they really showed their hand.  In the Trumpian era, they showed it even more clearly than in Bush v. Gore with even nastier and more dishonest tactics, and 7 months from zero-day.

Bush v. Gore 15 years ago was when I simply stopped paying attention to the mainstream media except occasionally to study what his between the lines in order to understand certain underlying strategies.  Usually I find more truth by taking their material as being lies.  This has only gotten worse (or 'better' if one analyses material a layer or two deep) since relatively recent de-regulations which occured since that time.



It is worth note that corporations activities generally align with the desires of those who sit on the board of directors.  This tends to be the ultra-wealthy or functionaries thereof.  Thus, even if 'six multi-national corporations' seem to provide some 'diversity', it is mostly an illusion.

For my part, I get most of my 'news' from individuals who have the time and interest to dig things up and/or present their own novel take on their areas of interest.  If one of their thesis merits interest in my mind, I follow up with my own research (which, again, sometimes includes seeing what the mainstream media is saying and analyzing it carefully and critically.)  Possibly this for of information intake is why there is some desperate interest in trying to shut down news aggregation linking, tighten up 'fair use' intellectual property 'loopholes', and generally try to increase intellectual property regulations globally.

[Wilikon]

I'm not terribly concerned.  The negative perception, if it is even true and not another fairly common form of propaganda leveraging group-think dynamics, was achieved by the establishment media pulling out ALL the stops and sinking to extreme depths of dishonesty.  Even some of my highly progressive family cannot ignore it any more.  7 months is plenty of time to engineer a backlash, if it even needs any engineering at all.

I would suggest to Trump that he develop a brief catchy civics lesson ...

Reason for the backlash is probably because it contradicts pro life ideas right? Not about the abortion being done legally or not and the women punished because of that. Pro life movement doesn't want to punish the women. Only those that do the abortions. The doctors. As far as I know. If that is the case it looks inconsistent to me. So his position here makes sense. Don't agree with it but it is consistent. If abortion is illegal everyone involved should be punished.

The 'backlash' I was talking about would be a general and reasonably forceful rejection of the mainstream media at large by an increasing number of citizens.

The abortion trap was just one of many operations these guys have pulled vis-a-vis Trump.  When it came down to the wire, almost all of the mainstream media went all-in for Establishment Inc's choice Bush in Bush v. Gore.  By chance it was Mathews who started the ball rolling on operation abortion trap, and I remember Mathews the most in the Bush v. Gore event.  The difference is that in Bush v. Gore it was in the critical last few weeks when they really showed their hand.  In the Trumpian era, they showed it even more clearly than in Bush v. Gore with even nastier and more dishonest tactics, and 7 months from zero-day.

Bush v. Gore 15 years ago was when I simply stopped paying attention to the mainstream media except occasionally to study what his between the lines in order to understand certain underlying strategies.  Usually I find more truth by taking their material as being lies.  This has only gotten worse (or 'better' if one analyses material a layer or two deep) since relatively recent de-regulations which occured since that time.



It is worth note that corporations activities generally align with the desires of those who sit on the board of directors.  This tends to be the ultra-wealthy or functionaries thereof.  Thus, even if 'six multi-national corporations' seem to provide some 'diversity', it is mostly an illusion.

For my part, I get most of my 'news' from individuals who have the time and interest to dig things up and/or present their own novel take on their areas of interest.  If one of their thesis merits interest in my mind, I follow up with my own research (which, again, sometimes includes seeing what the mainstream media is saying and analyzing it carefully and critically.)  Possibly this for of information intake is why there is some desperate interest in trying to shut down news aggregation linking, tighten up 'fair use' intellectual property 'loopholes', and generally try to increase intellectual property regulations globally.

Astrosurf vs. grassroot. How hard is it for you to tell them apart?

[tvbcof]

...

Astrosurf vs. grassroot. How hard is it for you to tell them apart?

It's usually fairly easy to form an opinion to a workable degree of confidence.  Say, 80%.  After that it's just a matter of matching semi-random related observations against the general hypothesis.

It is increasingly clear that a lot of the 'protest' activities against trump are rent-a-mob astroturf, and one can see signs (figuratively and literally in this case) of it in a lot of the tangential reporting.

I might take the time to mention again that what sparks my interest in delving into a subject is often something which some activist dug up and presented, and, since I frequent this list, you personally have been 'responsible' for doing this on more than one occasion.  So, thanks.

[Wilikon]

...

Astrosurf vs. grassroot. How hard is it for you to tell them apart?

It's usually fairly easy to form an opinion to a workable degree of confidence.  Say, 80%.  After that it's just a matter of matching semi-random related observations against the general hypothesis.

It is increasingly clear that a lot of the 'protest' activities against trump are rent-a-mob astroturf, and one can see signs (figuratively and literally in this case) of it in a lot of the tangential reporting.

I might take the time to mention again that what sparks my interest in delving into a subject is often something which some activist dug up and presented, and, since I frequent this list, you personally have been 'responsible' for doing this on more than one occasion.  So, thanks.

TRUMP was big news. No one started a thread about him and the US election, in any shape or form. I thought bernie was big news too. I started a thread about him too. Harpy the same, etc.
I like my bias to be full and frontally nude. Then people can do the research, counter argue or agree with the ideas shared...

The TRUMP thread was weird because, for the longest time, it has lots of views but little amount of participation. It could be funny to see when people actually started to participate, troll it, etc... We need deep analytic tools here.

I thank you, and anyone else sparing their precious time on bitcointalk.org

 

[Wilikon]

#thechalkening

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/716136845592170497