The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: EasyAce on February 25, 2016, 01:48:28 am
-
Getting under Donald Trump’s skin is about as difficult as finding a rush hour traffic jam on the Long Island
Expressway. That doesn’t make The Donald’s published threats against the owners of the Cubs any less
odious. And they have nothing to do with whether the Cubs might upend the Mets in a postseason series
to which each team has an excellent chance (so far) of going this year.
The Ricketts family includes Ameritrade (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi94aWCmpHLAhVOwmMKHYxGDiIQFghYMAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stockbrokers.com%2Freview%2Ftdameritrade&usg=AFQjCNEloHHnEOEe1ulPX2oCqcncF6YJUQ&sig2=9v_5KZIVFxa0dKKwMIokQA) founder J. Joseph Ricketts and Nebraska governor
Pete Ricketts. The family’s heinous offense, so far as Trump is concerned, is contributing money “secretly”
(his word) to a political action committee whose avowed mission is doing what it can to thwart The Donald
in assorted primary states.
That has not been simple business, considering Trump has won two Republican primaries and one state
Republican caucus at this writing. You would think a victor with that sort of batting average could afford a little
magnanimity. Trump’s magnanimity seems limited to his real estate investments, his
willingness to play the neighbourhood bully on behalf of them (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431694/donald-trump-global-bully), and his willingness to debase what remains
of the country’s political discourse.
This was Trump’s tweet upon discovering the Ricketts’ contributions to Our Principles PAC, and Marlene
Ricketts’s having spent a reported $3 million to date on ads zinging The Donald in Iowa (he lost the Republican
caucuses there), New Hampshire (he won the Republican primary there), and South Carolina (he won the
Republican primary there, too): I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending
$’s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!
Among the traits for which Trump has become renowned of late are a bent toward hyperbolic exaggerations
at various levels. There was absolutely nothing secret about the Ricketts’ spendings against his behalf. As Emily
Zanotti points out in The American Spectator (http://spectator.org/blog/65553/trump-tells-ricketts-family-stop-spending-against-himor-else), a publication not heretofore renowned as a safe haven for
Democratic politics, Trump could have seen the Ricketts’ spending for himself courtesy of Open Secrets
and the Our Principles PAC’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ms. Zanotti notes further that one of the worst kept secrets in Chicago and elsewhere is that the Ricketts aren’t
exactly a family of the left. “Prior to financing the campaign to depose the self-proclaimed Republican
frontrunner,” she writes, “the Ricketts financed Gov. Scott Walker’s short-lived campaign, and have
contributed to everyone from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, to Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, to Gov. Chris
Christie, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and former Gov. Jeb Bush. They are one of the few large donor families
making big spends against Trump this cycle–at least, so far.”
For those heinous acts Trump threatens a smear campaign against the Ricketts family. You wish that, in
their fustian on his behalf, The Donald’s sycophancy comprehended the odiousness of a man threatening
anyone with retaliation for nothing worse than exercising their rights under the First Amendment.
“It’s unbecoming of a candidate to be so thin-skinned, but more importantly, it throws his theory of
governance into question,” Ms. Zanotti notes. “We’ve already endured one petulant Administration hell
bent on punishing political opponents by weaponizing government services—as any 501(c)(4) subject
to the whims of Lois Lerner (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/06/irs-scandal-blame-it-all-on-lois-lerner-and-move-on/#9ee723af5257) can no doubt tell you—do we really want to reward such repulsive behavior
by seeking it as a characteristic in our Presidential contenders?”
Trump, who was actually once scouted by a major league baseball team or two (yes, you can look it up:
the Phillies and the Red Sox were said to be interested in him once upon a time (http://brobible.com/sports/article/donald-trump-baseball-player/)), didn’t begin his public
commentaries on baseball and its personnel with his bid to blackmail the Ricketts family. When
commissioner Rob Manfred ruled against Pete Rose’s reinstatement before 2015 ended, The Donald
tweeted thus: Can’t believe Major League Baseball just rejected @PeteRose_14 (https://twitter.com/PeteRose_14) for the Hall of Fame.
He’s paid the price. So ridiculous – let him in!
Manfred’s ruling had nothing directly to do with the Hall of Fame. Baseball government doesn’t write
the Hall of Fame’s rules. Manfred could and did only address whether Rose was eligible to hold a job
for any major league baseball franchise. The Hall of Fame ruled on its own that personnel on baseball’s
permanently ineligible list are ineligible to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Hardly the first time Trump declined to let facts interfere with a hearty schpritz. But it isn’t
necessarily incomprehensible as to why Trump would have stood up for Rose. Like Rose did once
upon a time, Trump on the campaign trail enjoys a following about which “fanatic” is not an impolite
or false adjective. Like Rose, Trump behaves often enough as though he’s immune to some rules and
the victim (the victim, mind you) of others.
Trump’s supporters like to think that he’s exactly the exterminator needed to get the vermin of metastatic
government out of the house and out of their faces once and for all. Like their man, they are blissfully
unaware that no exterminator worth his license approaches a job intending to blow up the house while
he’s at it. Or deciding first which vermin are too valuable to exterminate (http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/27/5-times-trump-told-you-he-loves-big-government/).
Once upon a time, we recoiled at elected officials who threatened or acted against anyone’s First
Amendment rights. Now, we sit back and recoil at a man who’d like to become the nation’s highest
elected official, thinks nothing of threatening or acting against anyone’s First Amendment rights—even
those of baseball owners—and has a following that doesn’t seem to find that terribly out of line.
If the Cubs should beat the Mets in the coming postseason, a Trumpian bid to use eminent domain
—something Trump is not renowned for despising (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house)—on behalf of razing Wrigley Field would not
necessarily prove out of character. What the hey, if The Donald’s entitled to exaggerate his own importance (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO0bLyjZHLAhUO9GMKHTG2BfIQFgghMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fwonk%2Fwp%2F2015%2F07%2F28%2Fwonkbook-donald-trump-exaggerated-his-wealth-analysis-finds%2F&usg=AFQjCNFHWYIvvJwZPILafMUiAxpVSE_g4A&sig2=4DRvuTfJar_7y_UkQChlGQ),
I’m entitled to exaggerate the measure of revenge he might exact if a team from his native turf falls to the
Ricketts’ pets.
(From yours, truly's baseball blog, Throneberry Fields Forever: A Calm Review of Baseball (http://throneberryfields.com/2016/02/24/the-donalds-case-of-ricketts/).)
-
Did you write this Easy?..I would like to showcase it
-
Did you write this Easy?..I would like to showcase it
Yes I did! :) And thank you!
-
This inclination toward vengeance, I think, is what makes Trump so endearing to his followers. They feel they have been victimized by their own party (which they have), as well as by the Democrats and OPapaDoc. They see Trump as a vehicle to tear everything down. They have absolutely no qualms about unleashing the bull into the china shop.
But make no mistake about it. The Constitution of the United States is a very, very delicate thing. And it is teetering over the edge. The bull could very well be the thing that causes us to lose our constitutional protections altogether.
-
This inclination toward vengeance, I think, is what makes Trump so endearing to his followers. They feel they have been victimized by their own party (which they have), as well as by the Democrats and OPapaDoc. They see Trump as a vehicle to tear everything down. They have absolutely no qualms about unleashing the bull into the china shop.
But make no mistake about it. The Constitution of the United States is a very, very delicate thing. And it is teetering over the edge. The bull could very well be the thing that causes us to lose our constitutional protections altogether.
Yes, Victor, and especially since Trump has alluded to "forcing" businesses to bring jobs back, or to impose the death penalty for cop killers. For a presidential candidate to advocate a boycott against a major American company indicates he has zero understanding of federalism or constitutional limitations on the executive.
-
Agreed, VM. Excellent essay, Ace!
-
This inclination toward vengeance, I think, is what makes Trump so endearing to his followers. They feel they have been victimized by their own party (which they have), as well as by the Democrats and OPapaDoc. They see Trump as a vehicle to tear everything down. They have absolutely no qualms about unleashing the bull into the china shop.
But make no mistake about it. The Constitution of the United States is a very, very delicate thing. And it is teetering over the edge. The bull could very well be the thing that causes us to lose our constitutional protections altogether.
Could you elaborate on that a bit for us, Victor? Is it because there's no guarantee on who he would nominate to the Supreme Court?
Because it seems you are completely discounting the Republican House and Senate.
-
Could you elaborate on that a bit for us, Victor? Is it because there's no guarantee on who he would nominate to the Supreme Court?
Because it seems you are completely discounting the Republican House and Senate.
The GOP will lose the Senate if Trump is the nominee. Katy-bar-the-door when Hillary defeats him.
Trump would use EOs a lot more freely than Obama has.
-
The GOP will lose the Senate if Trump is the nominee. Katy-bar-the-door when Hillary defeats him.
Trump would use EOs a lot more freely than Obama has.
He wouldn't get away with that....because
1) He's not black
2) The GOP/Democrats wouldn't be afraid to go apesh*t on him.
-
He wouldn't get away with that....because
1) He's not black
2) The GOP/Democrats wouldn't be afraid to go apesh*t on him.
So you admit he would try. You know damn well he would try.
Trump is not going to change his management style after 50 years in business. And his style is not collaborative.
-
Could you elaborate on that a bit for us, Victor? Is it because there's no guarantee on who he would nominate to the Supreme Court?
Because it seems you are completely discounting the Republican House and Senate.
I fear Trump will overreach his presidential authority. Having a Republican congress will make it easier for him to do so since they will be very unlikely to resist, any more than they resisted GWB. The only reason I can support Trump in the general is because I have hope he will appoint a palatable judge to the Supreme Court. But, in truth, no one knows what Trump will do at any given point in time, and that is the problem.
I do like Trump more than Rubio, only because I have come to despise neocon policy, and Rubio is a neocon policy wonk through and through. But I am absolutely certain of Cruz's ideology and of the remaining three candidates, his is the most compatible with mine.
I will also say this. I am not going to enjoy saying "I told you so" when Trump turns out to be a turbocharged version of an establishment politician holding his super-elegant White House parties with the Clintons and the Romneys, basking in the glory of the presidency -- the big prize he won, as he racks up more and more debt and does very little to reverse the course of the country.
-
This cannot be repeated often enough:
I am not going to enjoy saying "I told you so" when Trump turns out to be a turbocharged version of an establishment politician holding his super-elegant White House parties with the Clintons and the Romneys, basking in the glory of the presidency -- the big prize he won, as he racks up more and more debt and does very little to reverse the course of the country.
The only difference? I AM going to enjoy saying it.
-
This cannot be repeated often enough:
I am not going to enjoy saying "I told you so" when Trump turns out to be a turbocharged version of an establishment politician holding his super-elegant White House parties with the Clintons and the Romneys, basking in the glory of the presidency -- the big prize he won, as he racks up more and more debt and does very little to reverse the course of the country.
The only difference? I AM going to enjoy saying it.
:laugh: I know you will, my friend!
-
This cannot be repeated often enough:
I am not going to enjoy saying "I told you so" when Trump turns out to be a turbocharged version of an establishment politician holding his super-elegant White House parties with the Clintons and the Romneys, basking in the glory of the presidency -- the big prize he won, as he racks up more and more debt and does very little to reverse the course of the country.
The only difference? I AM going to enjoy saying it.
I'm not! Because at that point this once great republic that I so love will be DEAD DEAD DEAD!
-
Got it another infantile "how dare you fight back when we attack you." screed.
Childish is the best word that can be used to describe this article
-
Agreed, VM. Excellent essay, Ace!
Got it. Your side is free to attack Trump all they want but it is "an assault on the 1st Amendment" for Trump to fight back!
Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
-
Got it. Your side is free to attack Trump all they want but it is "an assault on the 1st Amendment" for Trump to fight back!
Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
That you assume we don't think is a result of you not thinking.
-
If the author cannot comprehend the difference between who is the aggressor and who is the defender in this case, and the moral/intellectual difference between aggression and defense there simply is no rational basis for anyone to have a discussion with them. They have simply welded shut their mind. Logically absurd to argue that the aggressor is excising their 1st Amendment Rights but want to condemn Trump for doing the same thing in response!
This author has an emotion based opinion and is merely trying to wrap their option in a fake glaze of reason by establishing one standard for the side they like and a completely different standard for the side they dislike.
-
Yes I did! :) And thank you!
Just want to let you know I enjoyed reading that. Thanks for your posting your composition.
-
If the author cannot comprehend the difference between who is the aggressor and who is the defender in this case, and the moral/intellectual difference between aggression and defense there simply is no rational basis for anyone to have a discussion with them. They have simply welded shut their mind. Logically absurd to argue that the aggressor is excising their 1st Amendment Rights but want to condemn Trump for doing the same thing in response!
This author has an emotion based opinion and is merely trying to wrap their option in a fake glaze of reason by establishing one standard for the side they like and a completely different standard for the side they dislike.
So it's OK, with you, for a presidential candidate to act like a mob boss in threatening a private citizen with "she'd better watch out." Should she relocate her family?
Trump's doing what he always does, go ballistic when someone opposes him. That you don't find that at least unseemly is astounding.
-
Got it. Your side is free to attack Trump all they want but it is "an assault on the 1st Amendment" for Trump to fight back!
Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
My "side" is support for the First Amendment. I believe in the use of campaign contributions as a legitimate expression of one's First Amendment rights. And I did think about it.
-
Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
Oh. Now it's clear. An essay in praise of The Donald is temperate and objective, an essay criticising him in
any way, shape, or form---never mind one written rather in rather temperate language (certainly, temperate
compared to that customarily deployed by The Donald himself)---is a screaming tirade.
And, speaking of thinking about points, I note you say absolutely nothing about one of the keys to The Donald's
threat against the Ricketts family: he fumed over their "secret" spending---spending which was just about the
worst kept secret on the turf. Funny, too, how The Donald speaking against any other candidate or idea isn't
"aggression," never mind that any other candidate or activist doing nothing more devastating than standing
athwart him isn't exactly "aggression."
One thing I have noticed is that an awful lot of people standing with The Donald now, on the grounds that
he'll blow up the house while he's exterminating the vermin therein, are some of the people who, in other
forums, once stood with George W. Bush and his then-Republican majority and did nothing but run down,
dress down, and if they could run out of town (meaning those forums) anyone who saw that administration
and that Congress for what it was, the very thing about which Mr. Michael Tanner wrote against in Levia-
than on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. (And,
while that administration and Congress were at it, tilled the soil that could be farmed into the world of His
Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life
President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States.) When these people now fume that the
house is rotten and only The Donald can blow it up to be rebuilt the "right" way, they fume about the
monster they suckled.
-
This inclination toward vengeance, I think, is what makes Trump so endearing to his followers. They feel they have been victimized by their own party (which they have), as well as by the Democrats and OPapaDoc. They see Trump as a vehicle to tear everything down. They have absolutely no qualms about unleashing the bull into the china shop.
But make no mistake about it. The Constitution of the United States is a very, very delicate thing. And it is teetering over the edge. The bull could very well be the thing that causes us to lose our constitutional protections altogether.
Oh please? Where in the 1st Amendment does it say "Hold still while we use our money and influence to attack you politically but don't hit us back when we do it".
-
Oh please? Where in the 1st Amendment does it say "Hold still while we use our money and influence to attack you politically but don't hit us back when we do it".
Shouldn't you ask that question of Mr. Trump, too?
-
Sophomoric argument. Trump is not a Government official using his office to threaten anyone. He is a private citizen the same as those attacking him. if anything Trump is being kind. He could simply of released the dogs, instead he issues a warning. "Be ready to play for keeps if you wish to play this game against me"
But I got it. Simply will not let go of the emotion based talking point and see reason. The rationalization to validate the Anti Trump emotions here is just too strong for for intellectual honesty and reason to over come it.
-
Sophomoric argument. Trump is not a Government official using his office to threaten anyone. He is a private citizen the same as those attacking him. if anything Trump is being kind. He could simply of released the dogs, instead he issues a warning. "Be ready to play for keeps if you wish to play this game against me"
But I got it. Simply will not let go of the emotion based talking point and see reason. The rationalization to validate the Anti Trump emotions here is just too strong for for intellectual honesty and reason to over come it.
You are broken record Johnnie. You must have learned the word "emotion" for Christmas and use it in every post. It's really funny.
-
Right. That target must hold still while you hit him.
Curious if Cruz or Rubio is candidate if you all will be advocating the same passive acceptance of the Clinton Attack machines punches?
I doubt it. This has nothing to be with any ethical principals, it has only to do your feelings about the guy doing the punching back.
-
He could simply of released the dogs, instead he issues a warning. "Be ready to play for keeps if you wish to play this game against me"
Not exactly. He said they better be careful, they have a lot to hide. That sounds a bit more threatening than "be ready." Emotional, even.
-
Right. That target must hold still while you hit him.
Curious if Cruz or Rubio is candidate if you all will be advocating the same passive acceptance of the Clinton Attack machines punches?
I doubt it. This has nothing to be with any ethical principals, it has only to do your feelings about the guy doing the punching back.
And some of us have those negative feelings about the "guy punching back" because he has given us ample reason to have them. Crude, insulting, angry, racist, bigoted, lying...........not exactly attributes that inspire.
-
Got it. Your side is free to attack Trump all they want but it is "an assault on the 1st Amendment" for Trump to fight back!
Are we really this childish that any screaming tirade at Trump is automatically applauded without the slightest hint of actually THINKING about the point.
The author is a member.
Any member is free to write and post an article in this section.
If you disagree with the article, comment on it saying why. Or write your own. It will be given equal prominence.
-
Sophomoric argument. Trump is not a Government official using his office to threaten anyone. He is a private citizen the same as those attacking him.
Except that he aspires to become a government official---presumably, the highest government official in the land, never mind that the presidency was not
intended to become a kind of elected monarchy. It is hardly sophomoric to ponder whether a man aspiring to the presidency and threatening those who
oppose him for nothing more heinous than that they do oppose him would use the office as the American Spectator writer cited in the original
essay describes, to attack those who oppose him for no good reason other than that they do oppose him.
(I)f anything Trump is being kind. He could simply of released the dogs, instead he issues a warning. "Be ready to play for keeps if you wish to play this game against me"
That would be fine talk indeed coming from a man whom some of his supporters, seemingly, think should have a licence to attack without response, a man
who seems to believe he is or should be impervious to criticism or opposition. A man, too, who seems to think---very much like the incumbent he wishes
to succeed, to say nothing of the incumbent's predecessor government---that the Constitution is irrelevant to the need to get whatever it is he thinks
needs to be done, regardless of that pesky other law against which many have bumped and ignored to their and the country's peril: the law of unintended
consequences.
But I got it. Simply will not let go of the emotion based talking point and see reason.
If that is what you got, you got nothing.
-
donny let the dawgs out last night...and they ran way with their tails between their legs..while he was being spanked by FACTS....to within an inch of his political life!!
the poor foppish boy dishes out all manner of off the wall...FALLACIOUS NONSENSE...but he doesn't seem to like ti when other cut loose on him with comments of his REAL WORLD ISSUES!!
lets all have a moment of silence for the SPINELESS BLOWHARD!
OKAY THE MOMENTS OVER!!! GO TED GO MARCO!!!!