Church of Trump

[boutons_deux]

RNC Chair: Nobody Cares How Awful Trump Has Been To Women




In its effort to rally behind Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee, the Republican Party is embracing a new messaging strategy: None of the terrible things Trump has said or done matter to anybody.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said as much Sunday morning. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Priebus about the Saturday New York Times story cataloging multiple times Trump has mistreated women in private. “Does that bother you?” Wallace asked.

“Well, you know, a lot of things bother me, Chris,” he replied, “and obviously I’m the wrong person to be asking that particular question.” When Wallace pointed out that he was the chairman of the party and this was the nominee, Priebus continued, “What I would say is we’ve been working on this primary for over a year, Chris, and I’ve got to tell you. I think that all these stories that come out — and they come out every couple weeks — people just don’t care.

“I don’t think Donald Trump — and his personal life — is something that people are looking at and saying, ‘Well, I’m surprised that he’s had girlfriends in the past.’ It’s not what people look at Donald Trump for, so I think the traditional playbook and analysis really don’t apply.”

On ABC’s This Week, Priebus repeated almost the identical line when also challenged about Trump refusing to release his tax returns and a recent Washington Post report that Trump pretended to be his own press person. “After a year of dealing with this primary one-on-one… I don’t think the traditional playbook applies, John. We’ve been down this road for a year, and it doesn’t apply. He’s rewritten the playbook.”
He added, “People don’t look at Donald Trump as to whether or not he releases his taxes or what this story was of 30 years ago.

People look at Donald Trump and say, ‘Is this person going to cause an earthquake in Washington, D.C. and make something happen?’ That is it. That’s how he is being judged by the American people, so all these things that we’ve been analyzing for a year and that Mitt Romney’s obsessing over, it hasn’t done a thing.”

Moments later, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who has endorsed Trump and advises him on national security issues, echoed the same sentiment.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...s-trump-women/

[boutons_deux]

Meet Donald Trump’s New Energy Adviser

Kevin Cramer calls himself a climate-change skeptic yet he might support a carbon tax

Cramer, who has expressed support for a small carbon tax to replace the Clean Power Plan

(iow, just over whatever the Knitter has done),

said he may offer Trump advice on climate change that challenges the candidate’s assertions about it being a hoax promoted by Democrats.

“He can do all that if he wants,” Cramer said of Trump’s climate position in a lengthy interview. “But my advice would be, while I’m a skeptic, as well, he is a product of political populism, and political populism believes that there needs [to be] some addressing of climate change.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-adviser/

Effective populism (politicians actually do what the populus prefers and wants) is dead in USA. Citizen preferences almost ALWAYS get overridden by corrupted, politicians doing what their corrupt big donors want.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is always an interesting comment, and I don't mean to assume anything about you, but it typically comes from the same people who complain about lazy moochers stealing from taxpayers by taking advantage of as much of the en lements they legally can.

I'm a little perplexed by your position. We are talking about following the law and filing an accurate tax return based on that law. Are you proposing that it is morally wrong to take legal deductions and attempt to not pay more tax than one is obligated by law to pay? That one should willfully pay more tax than is due?

[CosmicCowboy]

Meet Donald Trump’s New Energy Adviser

Kevin Cramer calls himself a climate-change skeptic yet he might support a carbon tax

Cramer, who has expressed support for a small carbon tax to replace the Clean Power Plan

(iow, just over whatever the Knitter has done),

said he may offer Trump advice on climate change that challenges the candidate’s assertions about it being a hoax promoted by Democrats.

“He can do all that if he wants,” Cramer said of Trump’s climate position in a lengthy interview. “But my advice would be, while I’m a skeptic, as well, he is a product of political populism, and political populism believes that there needs [to be] some addressing of climate change.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nergy-adviser/

Effective populism (politicians actually do what the populus prefers and wants) is dead in USA. Citizen preferences almost ALWAYS get overridden by corrupted, politicians doing what their corrupt big donors want.

I don't think anyone denies anthropogenic climate effect. The argument is over degree.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think anyone denies anthropogenic climate effect. The argument is over degree.

There are plenty of Your People who still say:

AGW is joke and hoax,

an IPCC world-wide conspiracy,

"climate always changes", etc, etc.

And of course, the Your Repug politicians have and will block ALL attempts to reduce GHG, etc, etc.

[ducks]

what about making a lot of rules for people in the usa about air pollution then winds blow the Canada and mexico air in az and then they put more rules in place for businesses in az
more rules will not fix the quality of the air because it blows in from MEXICO!!!!

[boutons_deux]

Little Is Off Limits as Donald Trump Plans Attacks on Hillary Clinton’s Character

Donald J. Trump plans to throw Bill Clinton’s infidelities in Hillary Clinton’s face on live television during the presidential debates this fall, questioning whether she enabled his behavior and sought to discredit the women involved.

Mr. Trump will try to hold her accountable for security lapses at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and for the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens there.

And he intends to portray Mrs. Clinton as fundamentally corrupt, invoking everything from her cattle futures trades in the late 1970s to the federal investigation into her email practices as secretary of state.

Drawing on psychological warfare tactics that Mr. Trump used to defeat “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Little Marco” Rubio and “Low-Energy” Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries, the Trump campaign is mapping out character attacks on the Clintons to try to increase their negative poll ratings and bait them into making political mistakes, according to interviews with Mr. Trump and his advisers.

Another goal is to win over skeptical Republicans, since nothing unites the party quite like castigating the Clintons. Attacking them could also deflect attention from Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities, such as his treatment of women, some Trump allies say.

For Mrs. Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox. She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency — it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Mr. Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us...g00000003&_r=0

[Spurminator]

I'm a little perplexed by your position. We are talking about following the law and filing an accurate tax return based on that law. Are you proposing that it is morally wrong to take legal deductions and attempt to not pay more tax than one is obligated by law to pay? That one should willfully pay more tax than is due?

As long as we're not talking about tax havens, no I don't think it's morally wrong to take as many deductions as you are legally en led to.

I'm just observing that some people seem a lot quicker to rush to defend billionaires for taking advantage of deductions and tax benefits, while turning around and criticizing the 47% who either don't pay taxes or receive en lements as lazy moochers. It's all legal, right?

[RandomGuy]

Maddow makes no mention of Clinton and people actually in the intelligence community seem to have more concerns about Clinton than Trump. Maddow FTL.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/former-off...opstories.html

Confirmation bias, meet data, data meet confirmation bias.

Meh, as a former intel guy, his remarks, and the reporting read fairly even handed.

Unless, of course you are a partisan hack looking to make a point. Then it "seems like" the guy was more critical of X than Y.

[boutons_deux]

Republican leader: Trump’s alter ego ‘a little odd’

Imagine an alternate recent history. Imagine if, on Friday morning, Donald Trump were asked about the times he pretended to be his own publicist when talking to reporters, and he replied, “You know, ‘John Miller’ and ‘John Barron’ were jokes that went awry. This was years ago and I was just kidding around.”

Bizarre fakery scandal hurts Trump character

The proof that Trump created a bizarre alter ego for himself still would have been a story – if you’re pretending to be someone else in order to feed praise about yourself to reporters, you probably have some issues – but it probably wouldn’t have been quite as captivating a story.

Except the Republican candidate just can’t help himself. Trump felt compelled to lie reflexively, denying what he’s already admitted, and pretending his voice on a recording isn’t really his.

The new challenge is coming up with a defense. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, for example, hasn’t quite figured out exactly what he wants to say on the subject. CBS’s John erson asked Priebus about this yesterday on “Face the Nation.”

ERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you about a report that Donald Trump in the 1990s served as his own spokesman under another name. What do you make of that?

PRIEBUS: It’s just – it’s a little bit odd, but I will just tell you that I think, of all the things facing this country right now, and after being through this primary for a year, I can assure you that that particular issue is not going to move the electorate.

Maybe, maybe not.

Trump has no record of public service, and no real policy platform, so voters are left to evaluate the presumptive Republican nominee on some of his more personal qualities.

The fact that he pretended to be his own publicist, making up an alter ego to brag to reporters about his professed greatness in third person, only to lie about it years later, might very well move some of the electorate.
Paul Manafort, one of the Trump campaign’s top aides, tried a slightly different tack with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: In 1990, under oath, he testified that he did use the name John Barron. And in 1991, he told People magazine that he did use the name John Miller. So, this has already been admitted previously. I don’t understand why now.

MANAFORT: I don’t – I don’t know those facts to be true or not. I just know that he said it’s not him. I believe him. I don’t even know the relevance of this, frankly, other than it’s 25 years old…. Why the media is spending so much time going back 25 years old to talk about a People magazine interview – article – tape that may or may not be Trump, totally irrelevant.

That might be a decent response, were it not for a few glaring problems.

First, Manafort believes the recording of Trump isn’t a recording of Trump, which is a little silly.

Second, again, if all we have to judge Trump on is the force of his personality, it’s relevant for Americans to know he’s the kind of guy who makes up alter egos in order to pretend to be his own publicist.

Third, he lied about this a few days ago, not 25 years ago. When presidential candidates get caught lying in the middle of a campaign season, it’s “relevant.”

And finally, as Tapper was quick to remind the candidate’s aide, Donald Trump has spent a fair amount of time recently making the case that Bill Clinton’s sex life in the 1990s is of great interest in 2016 – and Bill Clinton isn’t even a candidate.

In other words, as Team Trump sees it, Americans should care about Bill Clinton’s misdeeds from 25 years ago, but not Donald Trump’s behavior from the same period.

The Republican candidate’s allies have had a few days to come up with a compelling explanation for Trump lying about his bizarre alter ego. So far, they evidently haven’t come up with much.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republican-leader-trumps-alter-ego-little-odd?cid=sm_fb_maddow

come on, RMT, TLONG, etc, SPIN Trump yet again on his hilarious bull and lies. Your Guy obviously has a disordered personality. He's a mental sicko, so what does that make you as his supporters, supporters of a mentally ill person for Pres?

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Helps Trump Try To Con America Into Believing He’s Bernie Sanders

Trump said, “I mean, I view myself as a person that, like everybody else, is fighting for survival.

I, that’s all I view myself as. And I really view myself now as somewhat of a messenger…

You know, this is, um … This is a massive thing that’s going on.

These are millions and millions of people that have been disenfranchised from this country.”

All that was missing from Trump’s comments was a call for a political revolution. Donald Trump is such a political parasite that he is trying to steal the iden y of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The truth about Trump is that he has never had to fight for anything.

Trump started out, not with a $1 million loan, but $40 million when he became president of his father’s real estate company. That’s right.

Trump didn’t even have to start his own business. His successful business was handed to him by his father.

One couldn’t create a person who is more different from Sen. Bernie Sanders if they tried, but here is Trump trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters are across the United States of America. The logic behind Trump’s ploy is simple.

He believes that if he can capture the supporters of Sanders and combine them with his Republican supporters, he’ll beat Hillary Clinton.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/16/fox-news-helps-trump-con-america-believing-bernie-sanders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed &utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Polit icus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

WSJ Publishes Pro-Trump Op-Ed Without Disclosing Its Author Works For Trump Campaign

The Wall Street Journal published a pro-Donald Trump op-ed without disclosing that its author, Anthony Scaramucci, works as part of the Trump campaign’s national finance committee.

The Journal wrote that Scaramucci is “the founder and co-managing partner of SkyBridge Capital,” failing to mention that he joined the Trump campaign as part of Trump’s “nascent national finance committee.” According to The Washington Post, Scaramucci was “one of the first traditional bundlers to join the Trump campaign.”

In his May 15 op-ed, led, “The Entrepreneur’s Case For Trump,” Scaramucci hyped Trump as a “pragmatic entrepreneur,” “team builder,” and a candidate with “empathy” who can win. Scaramucci concluded his piece urging his “fellow Republicans to listen to the will of people” and “unite not only for the good of the party, but for the good of the nation”.

Trump responded to Scaramucci’s op-ed, tweeting, “Thank you, Anthony Scaramucci”:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05...rica+-+Blog%29

[DMX7]

The video is hilarious. "John Miller" praises Trump for a while, then says "I've seen her" when talking about Carla Bruni, and then starts talking about Trump in the 3rd person again. Trump also stated in court that he used the name John Miller, but completely denies it now. This guy is a total weirdo

The part where he says, "Well she [Madonna] called and wanted to go out with him [Trump]... that, I can tell you" was so vintage Trump it had me literally laughing out loud.

[boutons_deux]

The enthusiastic embrace of ignorance

President Obama delivered a powerful commencement address at Rutgers University over the weekend, taking some time to celebrate knowledge and intellectual pursuits.

“Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science – these are good things,”

the president said, implicitly reminding those who may have forgotten.

“These are qualities you want in people making policy.”

He added,

“Class of 2016, let me be as clear as I can be. In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not ‘keeping it real,’ or ‘telling it like it is.’ That’s not challenging ‘political correctness.’ That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.”
Donald Trump heard this and apparently took it personally. The presumptive Republican nomineeresponded last night with arguably the most important tweet of the 2016 presidential campaign to date:

“ ‘In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.’ This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!”

I assumed someone would eventually tell the GOP candidate why this was unintentionally hilarious, prompting him to take it down, but as of this morning, Trump’s message remains online.

In case it’s not blisteringly obvious, candidates for national office generally don’t argue publicly that ignorance is a virtue. But Donald Trump is a different kind of candidate, offering an enthusiastic, albeit unconventional, embrace of ignorance.

There’s been a strain of anti-intellectualism in Republican politics for far too long, and it comes up far too often.

House Speaker Paul Ryan last month dismissed the role of “experts” in policy debates;

former President George W. Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have publicly mocked those who earn post-graduate degrees;

Jeb Bush last year complained about Democrats using too many “big-syllable words.”

As a rule, prominent GOP voices prefer to exploit conservative skepticism about intellectual elites to advance their own agenda or ambitions. They don’t celebrate stupidity just for the sake of doing so; anti-intellectualism is generally seen as a tool to guide voters who don’t know better.

Trump, however, has come to embody an alarming at ude: ignorance is a virtue.

If the president believes otherwise, it must be seen as proof of his awfulness. The Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee intends to lead a movement of those who revel in their lack of knowledge.

History will not be kind.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Republican Tom Anderson, who was named Monday as Trump’s press representative in the state, was convicted in 2007 of bribery, extortion, money laundering and conspiracy for accepting bribes from a private prison company in exchange for advancing the company’s interests in the Alaska legislature.

He served four years in federal prison and was released in 2011.
Anderson was listed as the press contact on Monday’s announcement naming an assortment of state Republicans to Trump Alaska 2016, the campaign organization for the presumptive GOP nominee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...o0apxyy0evcxr&

[TheSanityAnnex]

Republican Tom Anderson, who was named Monday as Trump’s press representative in the state, was convicted in 2007 of bribery, extortion, money laundering and conspiracy for accepting bribes from a private prison company in exchange for advancing the company’s interests in the Alaska legislature.

Smart move by Trump, now Hillary can't hire him.

[DMX7]

boutons_deux, you are so biased. You've had it out for Mr. Trump since the beginning. If you gave the man a fair shake, you would appreciate all the great things he can do for our country. We have to take our country back!

[boutons_deux]

appreciate all the great things he can do for our country

you stupid

[ducks]

you stupid

he will do more for the country then BOUTONS_DEUX
he already does by paying more taxes then you

[DMX7]

he will do more for the country then BOUTONS_DEUX
he already does by paying more taxes then you

So true. boutons_deux is probably just another taker.

[boutons_deux]

The enthusiastic embrace of ignorance

President Obama delivered a powerful commencement address at Rutgers University over the weekend, taking some time to celebrate knowledge and intellectual pursuits.

“Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science – these are good things,”

the president said, implicitly reminding those who may have forgotten.

“These are qualities you want in people making policy.”

He added,

“Class of 2016, let me be as clear as I can be. In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about. That’s not ‘keeping it real,’ or ‘telling it like it is.’ That’s not challenging ‘political correctness.’ That’s just not knowing what you’re talking about.”
Donald Trump heard this and apparently took it personally. The presumptive Republican nomineeresponded last night with arguably the most important tweet of the 2016 presidential campaign to date:

“ ‘In politics, and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.’ This is a primary reason that President Obama is the worst president in U.S. history!”

I assumed someone would eventually tell the GOP candidate why this was unintentionally hilarious, prompting him to take it down, but as of this morning, Trump’s message remains online.

In case it’s not blisteringly obvious, candidates for national office generally don’t argue publicly that ignorance is a virtue. But Donald Trump is a different kind of candidate, offering an enthusiastic, albeit unconventional, embrace of ignorance.

There’s been a strain of anti-intellectualism in Republican politics for far too long, and it comes up far too often.

House Speaker Paul Ryan last month dismissed the role of “experts” in policy debates;

former President George W. Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have publicly mocked those who earn post-graduate degrees;

Jeb Bush last year complained about Democrats using too many “big-syllable words.”

As a rule, prominent GOP voices prefer to exploit conservative skepticism about intellectual elites to advance their own agenda or ambitions. They don’t celebrate stupidity just for the sake of doing so; anti-intellectualism is generally seen as a tool to guide voters who don’t know better.

Trump, however, has come to embody an alarming at ude: ignorance is a virtue.

If the president believes otherwise, it must be seen as proof of his awfulness. The Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee intends to lead a movement of those who revel in their lack of knowledge.

History will not be kind.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

OBAMA ALIENATES MILLIONS WITH INCENDIARY PRO-KNOWLEDGE REMARKS



NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY — President Obama handed the Republican Party a gift for the general election by making a series of offensive pro-knowledge remarks at Rutgers University over the weekend, a leading Republican official said on Monday.

According to Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, the President’s inflammatory comments, in which he offered full-throated praise for such controversial fields of knowledge as math and science, are sure to come back to haunt the Democrats in November.

“If President Obama was trying to alienate millions of Americans in one speech, mission accomplished,” Priebus told Fox News. “When I watched him speak, I said to myself, ‘Well, Christmas came early this year.’ ”

While many Republicans expected Obama to walk back his ill-advised praise of knowledge, facts, and evidence, the White House as of Monday morning had refused to do so.

“The President seems to be doubling down on this, which is not surprising,” Priebus said. “This is a man who never met a fact he didn’t like.”

The R.N.C. chairman said that the Party was already creating negative ads that would make extensive use of the President’s polarizing pro-knowledge rant.

“This fall, we will ask the American people, ‘Do you want four more years of knowledge, or do you want something else?’ ”

Priebus said. “Because the Republican Party has something else.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-alienates-millions-with-incendiary-pro-knowledge-remarks?intcid=mod-most-popular

[boutons_deux]

The media’s latest Trump ‘narrative’ is plainly wrong

Some of the political media establishment has apparently settled on a new “narrative”: Donald Trump will appeal to Democrats by breaking with Republican orthodoxy and endorsing some progressive goals. It might be a compelling thesis, if it were in any way true.

The Washington Post got the ball rolling last week with a provocative, attention-getting headline: “How Donald Trump is running to the left of Hillary Clinton.” As proof, the article noted, among other things, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, and his willingness to shift “to the left on the minimum wage and tax policy.”

The problem, of course, is much of this is factually incorrect. Given its historical underpinnings, there’s nothing liberal about Trump’s “America First” vision, and the media hype surrounding Trump’s purported shifts on the minimum wage and tax policy turned out to be completely wrong. The Post’s entire thesis struggled under scrutiny.

And yet, there it was again in the New York Times yesterday.

On a range of issues, Mr. Trump seems to be taking a page from the Sanders playbook, expressing a willingness to increase the minimum wage, suggesting that the wealthy may pay higher taxes than under his original proposal, attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left on national security and Wall Street, and making clear that his opposition to free trade will be a centerpiece of his general election campaign.

As Mr. Trump lays the groundwork for his likely showdown with Mrs. Clinton, he is staking out a series of populist positions that could help him woo working-class Democrats in November.

Again, if these observations were rooted in fact, the thesis might have merit, but it’s important not to fall for shallow hype and bogus narratives.

Trump did not endorse a minimum-wage hike; he actually said there shouldn’t be a federal minimum wage at all.

He did not call for higher taxes on the wealthy; he proposed literally the exact opposite.
And far from “attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left on … Wall Street,” a few hours after the Times article was published,

Trump insisted he would repeal Dodd-Frank reforms – which represents an attack from the right, not the left.
The Times sees Trump “staking out a series of populist positions,”

but there’s nothing even remotely populist about

massive tax breaks for the wealthy,

repealing Wall Street safeguards,

opposing an increase to the federal minimum wage, and even

opening the door to en lement cuts.

It’s easy to get the impression that the media likes the idea – not the reality, but the idea – of Trump having broad national appeal, enough to woo disaffected Democrats and Bernie Sanders’ most ardent backers, and defeat Clinton in a general election. But the thesis is belied by reality.

Trump’s platform – on the economy, on immigration, on taxes, on policies towards women, on race, on torture – offers literally nothing for progressive voters, which is probably why Sanders has said he’s prepared to fight as hard as he can in the coming months to ensure Trump’s defeat.

To be sure, favorable media coverage might advance Trump’s cause on his behalf, and if the public is led to believe the Republican really is “running to the left of Hillary Clinton” and “staking out a series of populist positions,” it might actually help the presumptive GOP nominee win.

But that doesn’t make the coverage true.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

[DMX7]

Look at the polls; he's already making up ground on Hillary. In fact, some national polls have him ahead of Hillary.

[CosmicCowboy]

Look at the polls; he's already making up ground on Hillary. In fact, some national polls have him ahead of Hillary.

Just common sense. Trump is the only Republican candidate and supporters of others are consolidating behind him. Same will happen with Hillary when she gets rid of Bernie. The current polls are misleading.

[DMX7]

Just common sense. Trump is the only Republican candidate and supporters of others are consolidating behind him. Same will happen with Hillary when she gets rid of Bernie. The current polls are misleading.

But Bernie is beating Trump in the head-to-head polls vs. Trump... basically all of them.