Donald Trump is 70

“It is easy to be ‘holier than thou’ and say the voters are stupid etc. That is totally missing the point.”

donald-trump-grow-upI’ll admit it: I used to watch the reality show The Apprentice, for the first two seasons. As a business librarian, I thought it was an interesting concept to see which contestant could meet various challenges to get a job in the organization of one Donald J. Trump. The hotelier was pompous and arrogant, but interesting enough. But I never saw Celebrity Apprentice, because that seemed to violate the original premise.

Virtually everyone was wrong about Donald Trump running a sustained, let alone successful campaign for the Republican nomination for President, including me. Except for Ann Coulter, and THAT fact is its own punishment.

Jeff Sharlet wrote in Esquire:
“After hearing Seth Myers shell Donald Trump from the podium, at the 2011 Correspondents’ Dinner, I didn’t think Trump would or could ever want to retry professional politics.

Recently, comedian Jon Stewart referred to Trump as a “man-baby”, but when he left his show in August 2015, he too just saw the comedic aspects of Candidate Orange. I wonder when he would have decided that Trump just isn’t funny anymore, as his protege Larry Wilmore on The Nightly Show did in December 2015?

He has such an…interesting history. His past crude sex talk doesn’t seem to affect Donald Trump’s Amen Corner.

Then there’s the fact that Trump Used His Aliases For Much More — And Worse — Than Gossip. “In his fictional identities, Trump could also be quite threatening… Trump: What’s The Deal recounts a wide variety of Trump lies, exaggerations, and manipulations, but the misconduct of greatest interest to voters may be his threatening litigation in a scheme to deny payment to about 200 illegal Polish immigrants tearing down the old Bonwit Teller building on Fifth Avenue (an act of architectural vandalism). Many of the men lacked hardhats or face masks, used sledgehammers rather than power tools, had to pull out live electric wires with their bare hands, in a building laced with asbestos — all in blatant violation of worker safety laws.”
Rum.make America great
Trump Didn’t Pay Hundreds Of Employees, which should surprise no one. Plus Trump University was a bigger fiasco that we thought. A recent New York Times investigation notes Even as Donald Trump’s Atlantic City casinos failed, he made millions — and others paid the price. There’s a Biblical parable about doing well with the small things, then you’ll be given responsibility for the larger things. Given his track record, I’m not optimistic about his fiscal policy.

One could easily find ten things about Donald Trump that his supporters should have to defend. But as this cartoon notes, Donald is just recycling.

As a Boston Globe headline read, the Trump rally oozes fear, anxiety, and paranoia. His supporters share a common trait: perceived victimhood.

Yet, my distrust of Trump comes not from his positions, or his statements, but rather his apparent utter lack of conviction. Last month in the Boston Globe:

“Donald Trump says so many things that are offensive, incorrect, and dishonest that it is often impossible to keep up. In just the past few days, he’s flip-flopped on his tax position, his support for raising the minimum wage, and his so-called Muslim ban. He even denied he imitated a public relations executive in the 1980s named John Miller or John Barron, even though he’s publicly joked about it for years and there’s an audiotape to prove it.”

Former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan Tells Trump to Stay Offensive. He writes, “Why, then, should he apologize for speaking the truth, as he sees it?: But the sentence before: “Assume, as we must, that Trump believes what he said.” And, largely, I don’t.

Can he hold the same policy position for longer than 24 hours? His tax plan is a fraud, but it surely will NOT lose him the election.

And he occasionally softens his rhetoric: “Look, everything, honestly, is going to be up… we’re going to negotiate. I can’t make these decisions myself. We have Congress…we have to deal with a lot of people. I mean, you know, I can’t just take executive orders like Obama and .. it’s me, and lots of congressmen and lots of senators and lots of everything. So I would say that certain things will be changed, certain things will be, stay exactly the same.” So the red meat ranting that won him the nomination now pivots to a seemingly rational being. Except when it doesn’t.

No wonder they are mocking Trump, even in New Zealand.

Trump aide Paul Manafort called the presidency the “ultimate reality show.” And Trump is way better at playing it than the others. He may have already destroyed the GOP by pointing out its irrelevance to his nomination.

This Quora response is at least partially correct: “As a Wall Street Journal article recently put, Trump did to the Republican party what AirBnb did to the hotel industry. Airbnb ignored the middlemen and directly went to the hosts & guests – with the simplest model. In the same way, Trump made the party irrelevant and directly went to the voters.

“It is easy to be ‘holier than thou’ and say the voters are stupid etc. That is totally missing the point. Trump’s rise has revealed a fundamental flaw in the US political system – its effective two-party system doesn’t give a voice to diverse interests.”

‘President Trump?’ Here’s How He Says It Would Look. And I think it could very well happen. No, that is NOT my desire, but rather my fear. And it’ll be his disgusting victory lap, rather than Obama’s measured response, that we’ll hear after a national tragedy, in this case, after 49 people died in the Orlando attack.

Listen to Ken Burns at Stanford University’s June 12 commencement ceremony: “For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and characters of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified.

“So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much-maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn’t seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn’t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment…”

From The New Yorker:

If Trump came to power, there is a decent chance that the American experiment would be over. This is not a hyperbolic prediction; it is not a hysterical prediction; it is simply a candid reading of what history tells us happens in countries with leaders like Trump.

Countries don’t really recover from being taken over by unstable authoritarian nationalists of any political bent, left or right—not by Peróns or Castros or Putins or Francos or Lenins or fill in the blanks. The nation may survive, but the wound to hope and order will never fully heal. Ask Argentinians or Chileans or Venezuelans or Russians or Italians—or Germans. The national psyche never gets over learning that its institutions are that fragile and their ability to resist a dictator that weak.

Finally: “Last of all comes…the tyrant…In the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes everyone whom he meets…making promises in public and also in private, liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to everyone…This…is the root from which a tyrant springs” -Plato

This is what overt racism looks like

Ironic then that Trump refers to Judge Curiel as a “hater.”

Racism is one of those words so ugly that people will contort all logic to deny its existence, especially when it comes to themselves. So I was THRILLED when Leon Wolf, in the ultraconservative website Red State, wrote on 3 June: “This is What Overt Racism Looks Like.”
Trump-lemon (1)

I am sorry, but there is nothing else to call this. The Wall Street Journal has… released an interview with Donald Trump in which Trump explains his repeated and continued attacks on Gonzalo Curiel, the judge assigned to the Trump University case. Curiel’s decision to release records related to the case in response to a public interest request filed by the Washington Post has clearly infuriated Trump…

In a rambling tirade against the judge…, Trump said, among other things, that Curiel was “a Mexican, we think.” (Curiel, as it happens, is from the Chicago area, but his parents are of Mexican heritage.) The WSJ finally got around to asking Trump the question that should have been asked from the first moment he mentioned the judge’s ethnicity, which was actually a couple months ago when Curiel refused to dismiss the case on summary judgment. That question, of course, is “Why would you bring up the judge’s ethnicity at all?”

An excellent question. Note that NOW Trump says his words were misconstrued. I call BS.

Trump’s answer was, shall we say, revealing:

…Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

So, because the judge is of the same ethnicity as the people who would be presumably kept out of the United States by a wall, he clearly cannot be fair and impartial. Donald Trump is suggesting an ethnic litmus test for federal judges.

Think about what Trump is saying for a minute. Forget that Trump himself repeatedly bragged on the primary campaign trail that he would win the Hispanic vote and focus on what he is now saying: he is saying that no Hispanic person on earth can be trusted to give him a fair hearing. He is saying that no one – even a Mexican born in America – can be trusted rule impartially in accordance with the law simply because of Trump’s stance on whether there ought to be a wall on the Southern border.

This was not a slip of the tongue that he walked back. In fact, on CBS’s Face the Nation this past Sunday, he confirmed his intent.

Keep in mind, Curiel himself is not an illegal immigrant, or even an immigrant. I have no idea whether his parents were even immigrants or illegal immigrants. They are of Mexican heritage, therefore he cannot be trusted to pass judgment on Trump, who supports a wall on the Mexican border.

Look, there’s no other way to say this: that’s just overt racism. Saying that this guy has a “conflict of interest” against Trump solely based on his Mexican heritage is also an accidental admission on Trump’s part that he is opposed to Mexicans.

And THAT is what racism looks like in this modern world. It’s not separate water fountains or derogatory names. It’s suggesting that a judge of an ethnic minority, at least when he’s in conflict with Trump, cannot be trusted to give a fair hearing on an issue that affects his tribe.

Might not a white male be biased IN FAVOR of the wall? And how would you measure this? Or is that one should automatically disqualify women judges in cases of contraception, black judges in any case about racial discrimination, LGBT judges in gay equality cases, any judge that isn’t a Christian in the separation of church and state doctrine, et al.? The implication is that the non-minority (or man) would be MORE fair, somehow, makes no sense to me.

Or should we ban white judges from trials involving white defendants?

It is ironic then that Trump refers to Judge Curiel as a “hater.” Because it is the Republican nominee for President who’s showing the disdain. In the short term, painting the attributes of oneself onto another may work in the short term, but is generally rooted out.

“I love Hispanics!” is a weird thing to say about a group of people who you say are inherently untrustworthy when it comes to anything they say about you, Mr. Trump.

He’s not dog whistling it any more. He’s not doing the wink-and-nod thing. He’s flat out saying: you cannot trust anything this guy says about me because he’s a Mexican. If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

In the comments, in the various news columns about this story, several people have said, “But Trump has a point.” Yes, the “point” is that Trump is making racist observations, and one rationalizing their legitimacy means those commenters ought to check their own biases.

No, he’s not really going to build a wall, and let Mexico pay for it. He will not be able to get every Muslim to be blocked at the border. But he has made it the norm to be racist and to vent these kinds of un-American things.

Yet the Republican leaders reacted to Trump’s most recent racist rantings as though they came “totally out of left field,” when it’s been consistent with his message literally since he announced for president. The question is whether the party will continue to disavow their candidate’s bigotry.

And Trump may be interfering with the due process of the legal proceeding. The judge cannot comment on the case, per the code of conduct. HuffPo says: “Legal scholars said Trump could face consequences for slamming the judge, although many have speculated that Curiel was unlikely to sanction him formally.” The judge can, but probably WON’T slap down Trump because it’ll be seen by others through both a political and racial lens.

 

The Central Park jogger and Donald Trump

trump.ad
The case of the Central Park jogger made headlines well beyond New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

This photo of The Donald along with a picture of a full page advertisement was reposted on Facebook by my fellow former Binghamtonian, John Hightower. He writes that “the $85,000 worth of ads, ran in May 1989 in The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and New York Newsday. The 600-word appeal, signed DONALD J. TRUMP, is titled ‘BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. Bring Back Our Police!'” This involved a woman jogger being attacked in New York City’s Central Park a month earlier.

“FIVE juvenile males, including 4 BLACK and one HISPANIC were arrested and tried. They came to be referred to as THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE. After their 1990 trials, they received SENTENCES ranging from 5 to 15 years. They individually spent between 6 to 14 YEARS in PRISON.

“HOWEVER, 12 years later, in 2002, a person, with NO relation to the accused, a male, CONFESSED to raping the jogger. DNA EVIDENCE confirmed his involvement. If ‘MR. KNOW IT ALL-TRUMP’ had HIS way, the INNOCENT FIVE would have been EXECUTED. The convictions against the Central Park Five were vacated, and they have SUED the City and the State. So far they have received about $40 million, and additional legal settlement is being sought.”

PLUS

The mind of Donald Trump. Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity — a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.

Why D.C.’s think tanks can’t figure out Trump.

The Nazi Tweets of ‘Trump God Emperor’.

There will be a motion picture based on sexually explicit Donald Trump fanfiction.

Tom the Dancing Bug: Donald and John, a Boy and His Imaginary Publicist.

Trump could be President

Which path will save their collective hides? They don’t know yet.

trump.taco

Chris found my last Ask Roger Anything to pose this:

Why the **** doesn’t it bother Republicans that rational respected leaders of their own party have branded Trump as dangerous?

Two presidents, a presidential nominee and the speaker of the house won’t endorse him. Romney gave a beautiful and impassioned speech on why Trump would be terrible for the nation.

Why don’t they even listen to their own?

Because Donald J. Trump could be President, as I first suggested on January 27.

Because the people who are supporting Trump don’t care about what the Republican leadership thinks.

Because the GOP leadership has been, depending on the particular voter’s POV – and more than one of these can be true:
* are TOO liberal, RINOS (Republicans In Name Only), who actually (occasionally) compromised with the President; when I saw John Boehner and Paul Ryan so dubbed, I realized there was an almost an impossibly obstructionist standard that must be met
* are too financially reckless; George W. Bush paid for the Iraq war, in particular, on a credit card
* are too corporatist, beholden to the rich and powerful, exporting jobs abroad
* are not securing the borders
* are doing too little on the national security front
* are too socially conservative on issues such as gay marriage and even abortion
* are too religious, in that judgmental way
* are too political correct
* are not racist enough
* are letting the world change too quickly
* are not entertaining enough

It’s a dance, really. The Republican party was thrilled when Donald Trump generated interest in their brand in the early debates. The August 2015 debates were watched by FOUR TIMES more voters than the debates in 2011. So, when Trump inevitably abandoned his campaign, as he had always done before, the GOP figured it could use that pixie dust on a more conventional candidate, and the voters would pivot to a Rubio or, shades of 1992, yet another Bush.

It’s not unlike the Tea Party, that the conventional Republicans, such as former House Speaker John Boehner, thought they could control, but it was the Tea Party that ended up controlling them. Obviously, Boehner could not, and he ended up resigning.

Even as Trump said more and more outrageous things, there was a good chunk of the Republican electorate who were not repelled by his comments, but embraced him, because he told it “like it is,” even when it was internally illogical, not to mention racist, sexist and xenophobic.

Virtually every pundit in 2015 said that Trump had a ceiling, of 20 or 30% of the Republicans. This proved to be true when the number of candidates was in double digits, but the numbers of candidates got smaller, his numbers got larger.
DonaldTrump
If he WINS the presidency, and I think he can, especially against Hillary – polling in May is just not that definitive – then he might make it difficult for a governor or a senator or a House member to distance from him. If he LOSES, the GOP could lose the Senate.

Oh crap, what DO they do? Stand up against their party’s very likely nominee? Will that be seen as a moral stance, or as the action of a party hack, out of touch with the electorate? Which path will save their collective hides? They don’t know yet.

In some ways, I think Donald Trump in 2016 is like Barack Obama in 2008, with one slight difference. BHO represented the hope of America; “Yes, we can.” It was seen as proving that America is better than it had been. Hey, America’s not racist; we elected a black man and watched Oprah to boot. But he failed to solve racism, and the world is a scary place. The social experiment, electing the black guy, did not work out.

DJT is nostalgia, mixed with fear. “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Great, again. It was great at some unspecified period in the past, when America’s dominance and supremacy were not questioned. “Girls were girls, and men were men.” THOSE were the days. We want to get back there, or as far back as we can while keeping our smartphones. Even if he’s insincere, and is now hiding his views on minorities better now.

The Republican leadership can say no, but if the American people say yes, then the party bosses become all but irrelevant, even more insignificant than they had before. They want to back the right horse, but they can’t tell yet who that will be.

On the other hand, Leon Wolf from Red State, a conservative website, notes:

The temptation is going to be to go numb to all of this. That when the next person who we should have counted on stuns us all by actually suggesting that Donald Trump is fit to be President of the Untied States, that we just write it off with barely a second thought. There comes a certain point where you feel like you just can’t allow yourself to continue to be surprised and hurt when another person that you once respected shows that their judgment and principles forever tainted by the love of the office they hold.

Don’t. Going numb to the corruption wrought by Trump is what got us in this mess. Trump – and support for Trump – must not become the new normal in the conservative movement. Maybe it will become normal in the Republican Party, which ceased to stand for anything meaningful as an institution a long time ago, but it can’t become normal for the actual conservative voters who believe in things like limited government, equality under the law, free markets, free trade, and basic public decency.

The only way this won’t become the new normal is if you allow yourself to be hurt every time someone caves to this perversion of conservatism and the Republican party. Be horrified. Be aghast. Feel betrayed. Ask aloud to yourself, “How could you?” Ask aloud to THEM, by calling, writing, or emailing, “How could you?”

Because the minute you stop feeling that, the closer you become to assimilating it and accepting it yourself. And if that happens, the conservative movement as we know it dies.

See, much of the right is no happier with The Donald than the left is.

 

Bigotry as pack mentality

The word miscegenation was coined in an anonymous propaganda pamphlet published in New York City in December 1863, during the American Civil War.

teens1When I linked to a couple of articles about obvious signs of bigotry, my friend Chris wrote: “Holy 1952, Batman! What’s up with all the crazy racism stories? Are they more prevalent or are they being reported more?”

Well, yes. Both, I would assert.

At the same time, I’ve come up with a theory. There was a period that bigotry, at least in the public forum, was considered impolite, inappropriate, untoward. What changed is that people have been able to more easily find like-minded folks online. In other words, bigotry as pack mentality.

So, if Malia Obama is going to Harvard — but is taking a year off first, that’s a rather benign story. But the racial vulgarity that appeared in comments in the FOX News, just-as-tame, report, was a torrent that forced FOX to disallow comments altogether.

Old Navy tweeted a picture of an interracial family and Twitter is inflamed in racist blather. It echoes the 2013 Cheerios TV commercial generated Sturm und Drang in numbers so great that the General Mills website likewise had to forego comments.

I contend that a “lone wolf” bigot, being shouted down by other readers, might give up. But when he finds like-minded allies, this emboldens the bigot to spew vile, knowing that at least some others will also take up the cause.

One of the comments in the Old Navy story made reference to the word miscegenation, a rather old-fashioned term:

Miscegenation comes from the Latin miscere, “to mix” and genus, “kind”. The word was coined in the U.S. in 1863, and the etymology of the word is tied up with political conflicts during the American Civil War over the abolition of slavery and over the racial segregation of African-Americans. The reference to genus was made to emphasize the supposedly distinct biological differences between whites and non-whites…

The word was coined in an anonymous propaganda pamphlet published in New York City in December 1863, during the American Civil War. The pamphlet was entitled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. It purported to advocate the intermarriage of whites and blacks until they were indistinguishably mixed, as a desirable goal, and further asserted that this was the goal of the Republican Party. The pamphlet was a hoax, concocted by Democrats, to discredit the Republicans by imputing to them what were then radical views that offended against the attitudes of the vast majority of whites, including those who opposed slavery…

Only in November 1864 was the pamphlet exposed as a hoax…

By then, the word miscegenation had entered the common language of the day as a popular buzzword in political and social discourse. The issue of miscegenation, raised by the opponents of Abraham Lincoln, featured prominently in the election campaign of 1864.

In the United States, miscegenation has referred primarily to the intermarriage between whites and non-whites, especially blacks.

Before the publication of Miscegenation, the word amalgamation, borrowed from metallurgy, had been in use as a general term for ethnic and racial intermixing.

Of course, President Obama is the child of a white mother and a black father. For a time, I think that partially insulated him from the full brunt of bigotry. “His mom’s white; maybe he’ll be all right.” But once he showed that he actually expressed the feelings many blacks in America experience, he had his “half-white” card revoked.

Not all gatherings are online. Check out White Power Meets Business Casual: Inside the Effort to ‘Make White Nationalism Great Again’. “Trump, the engrossed crowd was told, intends to smash an oligarchic system ‘stacked’ against white America. The only way to break free from the system that blocks ordinary white Americans from fighting against the ‘disease’ of multiculturalism and the unilateral rule of the American elite is to get behind a candidate with tremendous cultural capital who is also capable of funding his own campaign in full.”

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial