US Election: 2016

[Altair]

Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?

From what he/she has said, a civilian with deep appreciation and respect for the military and issues that effect it.

 

[Kirkhill]

A big chunk of the problem, in my opinion, is related to the maxim identified by Ralph Klein as "getting in front of the parade and leading it."

It is also related to the instruction to commanders: "never give an order you don't expect to be obeyed".

Too many of the folks who have the ability to influence our lives have come to see themselves as commanders, and not leaders.  And too many of them have never learned of the risks of the grenade between the bed springs.  They believe that giving a command, (ie writing a law, implementing a regulation) will result in change.  They don't understand the bit that Ralph intuited. People.

People have their own mass, their own momentum.  They tend to continue to move in the direction they were moving.  It is possible to nudge them to a new course over time.  But if you become impatient, and try to reduce the time factor to zero, as when you write a law and expect an instantaneous response, you are likely to be disappointed, at very least.  You will create friction.  And if you become frustrated and try to impose yourself on that rolling mass you run the real risk of being steam-rollered.

That, I think, is where our bureaucratic elite finds itself just now. 

It has never learned leadership.  It has learned all about command authority.  It goes to school to learn how to work with other commanders, to write commands, to become commanders.  But it never actually puts itself in situations where it has to work with people that don't want to be commanded.  They are separated from those people by people who do want to be commanded and want to be commanders themselves.

Meanwhile the vast mass of people go rolling along with their lives, making their decisions in their own interests.  They ignore the wannabe commanders to the greatest extent possible.  Very few of them keep up to date with the endless stream of commands that end up in the law books and the regulations.  They accommodate the wannabes when they have to.  But they rarely, willingly want to change.

They can be convinced to change. They can be encouraged to change. But they will resent imposed change.  Eventually they will react.

And I think that is where we find ourselves today.  For a number of years, probably decades, people have been confronted by commanders imposing change.  Originally small changes would have been willingly accommodated.  Then, as the changes pile up and friction and resentment increase some portion of the population, arguably an increasing portion, just drops out and tries to ignore the changes and the commanders.  I believe this is reflected in reduced voter turnouts.  These people that are ignoring the situation are not the violently inclined.  They are the solid/mushy middle.

Meanwhile the floor is left to the partisan wannabe commanders.  And their squabbles become less intelligible, less meaningful, to the mushy middle.  But they can't ignore them.  Because as we swap one set of wannabes for another they end up giving orders that are immediately contradicted by the next guy.  Planning becomes impossible.  Ignoring the fights of the wannabes becomes impossible.

And at that point, all it takes is for somebody to stand up and say: "A pox on both your houses!" or, in the words of another reformer "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

 

[Kilo_302]

Just more examples of the left projecting their own hypocrisy and eliminationist rhetoric/actions on their opponents.  Nothing new here.  It's a matter of free speech and free association only for me, not for thee.  When it comes to Trump/anti-Trump, the spiritual descendants of the Sturm Abteilung are the ones launching vitriol, disruption and violence at Trump, and they're much too stupid to realize that they're helping his ratings.  :facepalm:

This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.

Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?

Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting twofer today. First off, a summary by Instapundit on where the Trump/Sanders phenomina comes from. Chris Pook has also made largely the same point; people have no desire to be led, nudged, manipulated , foldes, spindled or mutilated, and this election is a big "F_U" to the powers that be. The US isn't the only place, and indeed this has been unfolding in Europe for much longer (the growth of Nativist parties like the National Front or AfD as prime examples). The second part is five potential game changers which could totally overturn whatever narratives are in play today. This is the infamous formulation of Harold Macmillan to "what was the most difficult thing about his job." "Events, dear boy, events." Watch for these "events" to suddenly emerge:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229044

FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP: The US elite abandoned the American dream – Trump is the terrifying result.

There was a time when Americans were taught with considerable rigour about how their government worked, and the sacred principles of their Constitution. It started with a primary school mantra: the government has three branches – the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law and the judiciary interprets the law. By the end of high school, it was proper civics, which involved full-blown participation in a political project of your choice – registering voters, lobbying for a Bill, working on a candidate’s campaign.

Alongside this, there was the study of the great documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution (“We the people…”), the Gettysburg Address (“government of the people, by the people, for the people”). All of this was seen as initiation into what you were told unreservedly was the greatest country on earth, created and sustained by the will of its own population. With knowledge came a sense of responsibility.

Well, that isn’t entirely gone. But it is countered relentlessly by what many Trump supporters would see as an urban intellectual elite – and particularly an educational establishment – that is obsessed with national guilt: over slavery, and then segregation, and the treatment of native Americans, and the various excesses of American militarism. However justified that self-criticism, it has tipped over into self-loathing and left a furious electorate feeling that this is no longer the country they called their own.

The problem for the elite was that sticking to the rules of the Republic limited their opportunities for graft and self-importance. So they chose otherwise. They chose . . . poorly. In weeks and months to come, a lot of people are going to wish for the old-fashioned norms of bourgeois decency that they happily trashed in the past. But those are easier to banish than to summon up.

and

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-problematic-five-events-with-the-power-to-reshape-the-2016-election/

The Problematic Five: Events With the Power to Reshape the 2016 Election
Hard evidence verifying the potency of these events takes a search engine and ten minutes to find
By Austin Bay • 03/11/16 9:00am

Five ongoing events possess more than enough explosive political power to radically reshape America’s 2016 presidential election.

These events aren’t “black swans,” not in that omen metaphor’s use as an ex post facto television talk show excuse: “Right, Matt, yes Megyn. Black Swan! Totally unexpected occurrence. No one, no one, saw this coming. Not even The New York Times!”

Tsk. The Problematic Five aren’t—to employ an apt term—classified info. Their freighted trains of complex causes and dire initial effects have already jumped the rails, though the candidate and media clown cars lined up at the crossing prefer to avert their gaze. For inquiring voters, hard evidence verifying their potent menace takes a search engine and ten minutes. Look at a map, mull disturbing numbers, learn what a Navy carrier strike group does, read a page of U.S. legal code governing the handling of classified information. Presto: 2016’s Problematic Five.

P1: Puerto Rico’s Economic Crisis This could be the most potent of the P5 because it puts Big Debt in American’s face. It also happens on Barack Obama’s watch. The media will ask candidates what they’re going to do about all the suffering—a predicate to spending more money. But we’ll also hear intelligent people ask just how much debt does Uncle Sam bear? If federal, state and local pensions, entitlements and bond debts are included, the debt load may exceed $60 trillion.

The Puerto Rican debt segues into a discussion of the weak U.S. economic recovery, which Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz voters have noticed. This number will appear: 93,600,000. That’s the number of working age Americans who are not working. It serves as a rough gauge of slack in the labor market. In February 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said the actual unemployment rate is around 10.5 percent. The Obama Administration’s official figure is 5.4 percent. Now answer this question. Where are Obama’s shovel-ready projects?

Events P2 through P4 entwine.

P2: The FBI criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s alleged mishandling of classified national security-related information The investigation has raised serious questions about Ms. Clinton’s integrity and fitness for high office. If the FBI recommends her indictment and/or the indictment of senior aides, then it is decision time for Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Failure to prosecute could seriously undermine morale throughout key defense and intelligence agencies.

P3: Libya 2016 The terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, should have been an issue in the 2012 election. Successful lying by key members of the Obama Administration, to include Ms. Clinton, muted Libya 2012. So did CNN  debate moderator Candy Crowley when she intervened on Obama’s behalf when Mitt Romney raised the issue. Several Clinton emails obtained by investigators confirm she misled the electorate about Benghazi (A P2 TIE-IN). Libya 2016 serves as shorthand for the Obama Administration’s war on the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL). U.S. forces are back in Iraq. Syria has shattered and Russia is resurrecting the Assad dictatorship.

P4: South China Sea and North Korea A world away from Libya, China’s power is growing and North Korea tests nuclear weapons. China has built and fortified islands in the South China Sea and claims sovereignty over a vast region. Chinese security forces spar with those of the Philippines, a U.S. ally. The U.S. claims the right of freedom of navigation in the region. China objects—your ships need our permission, Beijing says.  A U.S. Navy carrier group is entering the region this week.

P2, P3 and P4 collectively resurrect foreign policy and national defense as major campaign issues. In 2008 candidate Obama promised Smart Diplomacy. Yet Russia’s slow war in eastern Ukraine continues, despite Mr. Obama’s and Ms. Clinton’s “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations. Mr. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal has angered U.S. supporters of Israel. There is a slow revolt among American Jewish voters, once a fixture of the Democratic Party coalition.

Which takes us to:

P5: Mainstream Media Loss of  Clout and Credibility P5 began with the advent of talk radio and the Internet. With proliferating Internet and digital media sources, P5 is in full swing. Mainstream media organizations no longer determine the election’s information agenda. Major media organizations have favored Democrats since WW2, so their loss of clout and credibility hurts the Democratic Party far more than it does Republicans—remember Candy Crowley 2012. P5 has policy implications. Internet transparency and search-ability give individual citizens unfiltered access to what Sen. Charles Schumer had to say in 2007 regarding any Supreme Court appointment by President George W. Bush during his last year in office—Mr. Bush couldn’t make one, not when Democrats controlled the Senate! In 2006, Senator Obama filibustered a Bush high court nominee, Samuel Alito—the first sitting president to have done so as a senator. Spin can’t erase the blatant digital historical record. That record is undermining the Obama Administration’s case for appointing a Supreme Court replacement for deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

Finally, mainstream media political correctness riles at least half of the electorate. Political correctness has become an election issue and it is reshaping the campaign. Donald Trump is receiving credit for directly challenging mainstream media political correctness. Oh yes, he can say this about that. However, Ted Cruz has challenged political correctness, particularly in the so-called government shutdown debates.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.

Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."

Thanks for finally wrapping your stance up into a neat tiny package. You, obviously from your own posts, disagree with the First Amendment. You appear to believe anarchist solutions are the de rigueur. Mass ad hominem and physical attacks on a group of people, based on the acts of a few individuals are ok, but you, yourself, believe you should be immune to the same (good for the goose). You endlessly pull out the race card, even after being warned about it. Xenophobic, ditto. Finally, and only because I'm getting tired of this, you yank out the ultimate, Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Desperation, fluid (non)facts, broad generalizations, etc. in support of your ideological opinion. Refusing to answer a factual challenge, when backed into a corner (G2G's nurse question), hoping the discussion will shift so you need not admit you might be wrong. Yeah, we get where you're coming from.

I suspect, given that you placed all your warning triggers into a single paragraph, that you expect I (we) will ban you. You can then emerge as the martyr, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" style and tell all your buds how you were banned by racist, xenophobic, jack booted military guys for simply stating your Utopian view of the world.

Not going to happen this time.

Your last complaint? Go look into a mirror.

 

[cavalryman]

This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.

Thanks for proving my point about projection.  You just outed yourself as totalitarian, no different from any other flavour of totalitarian.  Folks who think like you are the real threat to democracy, which cannot survive if differing opinions are shut down by whoever yells the loudest or punches the hardest. 

 

[Altair]

This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.

Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."

Nobody is denying them a right to speak up. But at the same time, these protesters are going out of their way to disrupt trump rallies.  Why not go down the street? Why not do it downtown? Why go into a place with 25000 trump supports and disrupt things for people who want to hear what the man has to say?

I have not seen any trump supporters (yet) go to another rally and start stupid shit.  I have seen people go to trump rallies. The first amendment exists for a reason, of course, until these protesters hear something they don't like, then it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Kilo_302]

Thanks for finally wrapping your stance up into a neat tiny package. You, obviously from your own posts, disagree with the First Amendment. You appear to believe anarchist solutions are the de rigueur. Mass ad hominem and physical attacks on a group of people, based on the acts of a few individuals are ok, but you, yourself, believe you should be immune to the same (good for the goose). You endlessly pull out the race card, even after being warned about it. Xenophobic, ditto. Finally, and only because I'm getting tired of this, you yank out the ultimate, Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Desperation, fluid (non)facts, broad generalizations, etc. in support of your ideological opinion. Refusing to answer a factual challenge, when backed into a corner (G2G's nurse question), hoping the discussion will shift so you need not admit you might be wrong. Yeah, we get where you're coming from.

I suspect, given that you placed all your warning triggers into a single paragraph, that you expect I (we) will ban you. You can then emerge as the martyr, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" style and tell all your buds how you were banned by racist, xenophobic, jack booted military guys for simply stating your Utopian view of the world.

Not going to happen this time.

Your last complaint? Go look into a mirror.

How can it be called "pulling the race card" when Trump has built an entire campaign on racism?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/6-times-people-got-attacked-at-trump-rallies/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/get-him-out-racial-tensions-explode-at-donald-trumps-rallies/2016/03/11/b9764884-e6ee-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-not-long-killed-trump-rally-article-1.2549868

http://www.politico.eu/article/15-most-offensive-things-trump-campaign-feminism-migration-racism/

And again with Godwin's Law. Trump's own supporters are doing the Nazi salute at rallies, on Sunday someone was recorded telling protesters, "Go to Auschwitz!"  The fact that you are somehow offended that I dare to mention the racist and xenophobic side of Trump and his supporters suggests that you're either unaware of these incidents, or you tacitly support them.

 

[Rifleman62]

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 11:05:38
Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?

K2:

Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."

K2, I was not attacking you. I just want to know where you are coming from. You do not have to fill out your profile, you can "stretch" your profile, but you should have the courage of your convictions to fill some of it out. Anonymous posts in any blog to me are hiding behind apron strings. My opinion.

Anyway, K2 is a good abbreviation of your username.

K2 and Altair are entitled to their opinions, but God it is continuous, repetitious and boring.

P.S. While writing this I received a phone call advising that I had won an all inclusive five day trip to Disneyland in Florida. Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.

 

[Altair]

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 11:05:38
Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?

K2:
K2, I was not attacking you. I just want to know where you are coming from. You do not have to fill out your profile, you can "stretch" your profile, but you should have the courage of your convictions to fill some of it out. Anonymous posts in any blog to me are hiding behind apron strings. My opinion.

Anyway, K2 is a good abbreviation of your username.

K2 and Altair are entitled to their opinions, but God it is continuous, repetitious and boring.

P.S. While writing this I received a phone call advising that I had won an all inclusive five day trip to Disneyland in Florida. Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.

Don't like the commie, thanks though. You and kilo go and let me know who makes it back in a box.

 

[Kilo_302]

Don't like the commie, thanks though. You and kilo go and let me know who makes it back in a box.

Commie alert! I'm coming for everyone and their young! :

I wouldn't be caught dead in the altar to consumerism that is Disneyland, and I only wait in lines if there is refrigerator at other end.

 

[Rifleman62]

Full of free food that the rich paid for.

 

[Kilo_302]

Full of free food that the rich paid for.

No, provided by glorious State.

 

[FJAG]

P.S. While writing this I received a phone call advising that I had won an all inclusive five day trip to Disneyland in Florida. Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.

Disneyland's in California. Down here it's Disney World. Better check your tickets before you get on the plane.  If it's actually Disney World let me know when so that I can avoid the place for those days ;D

:cheers:

 

[Rifleman62]

Spam phone call/award. Probably was Disney World. As it was spam, the offer to the other two for their use was appropriate.

 

[cupper]

Interesting take by Joe Scarborough on how Trump may be playing the media by creating a false crisis every time he needs to shift focus away from his opponents, and keep himself front and center in the news cycle.

Donald Trump’s Chicago scam

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/13/donald-trumps-chicago-scam/

We keep talking to ourselves. Constantly. Trying to make order out of chaos and sense out of the surreal. And this year, most doing the talking have gotten it wrong. Wrong about Trump. Wrong about Rubio. Wrong about Sanders. And now wrong about the road ahead.

What are we talking to ourselves about now on the Sunday shows, on cable news, in newspaper columns, in the blogosphere, on Twitter, Snapchat and Facebook? We are grimly warning the world that following Friday night’s fracas in Chicago, America faces a deepening divide that is tearing away at the fabric of this great land.

What mind-numbing nonsense.

Friday’s freak show was as prepackaged as a rerun of “The Celebrity Apprentice.” The only difference was that Donald Trump delivered his lines on the phone from a hotel room in the Windy City instead of on the set of his made-for-TV boardroom.

It was all a scam.

Has anyone noticed that Trump’s campaign now regularly stages media events designed to eclipse any negative coverage that predictably follows Republican debates?

The Feb. 25 debate in Houston where Marco Rubio delivered the campaign’s most withering critique of Trump was followed the next morning with Chris Christie’s headline-grabbing endorsement. That Friday press conference consumed all political coverage throughout the weekend and limited any fallout from the Fox debate to a hardy band of Trump deniers on Twitter.

Then last Thursday, Rubio delivered the debate performance of his life in Miami. But with Florida and Ohio five days away, the Trump campaign took no chances. It leaked the news of Ben Carson’s coming endorsement before the debate even began and held another Friday morning press conference to showcase it. But Carson was just the warm-up act.

When news broke early Friday night that the Chicago rally had been canceled because of safety fears, you didn’t need to be a programming genius to predict what would be jamming America’s airwaves for the rest of the night. And for the next four hours, the candidate who is promising to weaken libel laws spoke on cable news channels about how his First Amendment rights were being violated. He was doing all of this while reaching a far larger audience than he could have ever done while actually speaking at a rally.

As has been the case throughout the entire 2016 cycle, Trump thrives on the political chaos that he helps creates. If it is true that opportunity and chaos are the same word in Mandarin, Trump should stamp that word on a poster and sell it at his next scheduled event. For the Manhattan billionaire, manufactured chaos is just as profitable for his brand as Paris Hilton’s sex tape was for hers.

But now important voices warn us that America is on the brink of chaos despite the fact that Friday’s spectacle in Chicago was more reality show than political revolt.

The rally was canceled, we were told, because law enforcement officials consulted with the campaign and concluded that scrubbing the event was in the best interest of public safety. One problem: The Chicago Police Department said that never actually happened.

And if you find that curious, perhaps you will find it even more interesting that a political campaign whose security has been so stifling as to draw angry comparisons to fascist regimes would plan a key rally for Trump in the middle of a racially diverse urban campus. The fact that this campus sits in the middle of a city that is so Democratic that it has not elected a Republican mayor since before Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in as president makes the venue’s selection even more bizarre.

Following the rally’s cancellation, Trump supporters expressed surprise at the number of protesters that were filling the lines and streaming into the event on a campus that is 25 percent Hispanic, 25 percent Asian and 8 percent black. William Daley, son of former Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, did not share that surprise. “Whoever picked that location knew what they were doing as far as poking that sleeping dog there,” Daley said, suggesting to the New York Times that the venue was staged for the purpose of provoking protests that would energize Trump’s own supporters.

It would also land Trump on cable news channels throughout the night, talking nonstop over endless loops of skirmishes that paled in comparison with rowdy celebrations that often explode in American cities after sports championships. Yet everyone got sucked into the political sideshow. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s brief appearances on TV during the rolling cable news coverage only made their own candidacies seem smaller under the glare of Donald’s Big Tent Show.

It was all a far cry from the kind of political riots that Americans saw during the 1968 Democratic convention. Those riots flickered across Americans’ television screens while the nation was still absorbing the shock waves of violent convulsions that had ripped across the country during the first half of that horrifying year. The Tet Offensive, launched in January, led to February’s record number of Americans killed in Vietnam, more than 500 in one week alone. In March, Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek reelection after being shocked in New Hampshire’s primary by antiwar crusader Eugene McCarthy. The next month, dozens of cities went up in flames following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Eight weeks later, Bobby Kennedy was gunned down in California after winning that state’s Democratic primary.

As Mayor Daley’s city went under siege on the night of Aug. 28, Americans were more divided politically, racially and culturally than any time since the end of the Civil War a century earlier. Serving as backdrops to the Chicago riots were a bloody war, campus chaos, urban riots, murdered heroes and a 200-year-established order suddenly under siege.

America was at war with itself and for good reason. But Friday night’s farce was a made-for-television event with a handful of Trump supporters squaring off against protesters offended by Trump’s presence on their campus.

Unfortunately for his opponents, most of the protesters who appeared on camera during the night shouted profanities at cameras, intimidated others being interviewed by networks and played directly into the Republican front-runner’s hands. Fox News’s John Roberts kept asking a stream of protesters why they were out in force against Trump, and none could answer the question.

Perhaps they should have just used the New York developer’s own words against him to explain why Friday’s event took an ugly turn, like the time Trump said of a protester at a Las Vegas rally, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

Or when he declared that “in the good old days,” protesters wouldn’t show up “because they used to treat them very, very rough.”

Or when he told his audience to “Knock the crap out of them, would you?”

There was so much that could have been said but instead those protesting against Trump being interviewed on camera seemed to be about as shallow as the reality-show routine of the man they love to hate. The difference, of course, is that Trump wants to be the next president of the United States. But that will never happen unless the man who is about to lock down the GOP nomination drops his reality-show routine, starts working on uniting his party and gets serious about the daunting task before him.

Mark me down as skeptical.

 

[cupper]

Just looking back through the 20th century and early 2000's, the GOP has had a history of issues between various wings of the party that have ultimately played itself out through the primaries.

A Century Of GOP Intra-Party Wars Sets Stage For Cleveland Convention

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/13/469862119/a-century-of-gop-intra-party-wars-sets-stage-for-cleveland-convention?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160313

This year's campaign is headed toward an epic clash of Republicanism at the Cleveland convention this summer. But it's not the first time the party has been rocked by turbulence ahead of its convention. Again and again since 1912, splits between establishment GOP figures and the party's most ardent conservatives have hobbled the party's performance in November.

Here's a look at the drama that has come before:

1912

Theodore Roosevelt returns four years after leaving the presidency to challenge the man who succeeded him with his blessing: William Howard Taft. Losing at the convention, TR runs as a Progressive, splits the Republican Party and brings about the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

1920

Ten names are placed in nomination at the Chicago convention, but none can get a majority. Ohio Sen. Warren Harding is interviewed by party leaders at 2 a.m. and nominated the next day on the 10th ballot. He wins in November, restoring Republicans to the White House.

1928

Herbert Hoover extends GOP dominance into third White House term.

1932

As Great Depression deepens, FDR defeats Hoover in a landslide.

1940

Republicans assume they can deny FDR a third term but their convention is split between an Eastern Establishment moderate (Thomas E. Dewey of New York) and a conservative (Robert A. Taft of Ohio, son of the former president). On the sixth ballot, the delegates turn to a third option. He is Wendell Willkie of Indiana, a public utility executive with no political experience who has risen in polls despite have entered no primaries. Willkie loses to FDR in an Electoral College landslide.

1948

Dewey, who had been the nominee in 1944 (losing to FDR), returns as the frontrunner. But he is once again opposed by Taft, the champion of the party's hardcore conservatives. It takes three ballots, but Dewey prevails, frustrating Taft's loyalists. In November, Dewey is upset by a resurgent Harry Truman, who has been president since FDR's death in 1945.

1952

Taft forces come to Chicago confident their turn has come. But the Eastern Establishment has found a new hero, a war hero, in Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who has been serving as president of Columbia University in New York. The convention begins with a series of fights over rules and credentials, most of them regarding delegates from the South. Eisenhower came up a few votes shy during the first ballot, but a shift away from a third candidate broke a near-tie and frustrated the Taft faction once more.

1960

Ike's vice president, Richard Nixon, had the votes to be nominated but there were two high-profile "favorite son" candidates: New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. These inheritors of the Dewey-Taft rivalry both stepped aside for Nixon. "Let's grow up, conservatives," said Goldwater. "If we want to take this party back — and I think we can someday — let's get to work." Nixon lost narrowly in November to Democrat John F. Kennedy.

1964

Goldwater's "someday" comes in the very next cycle, as his wins in key primaries in the West unhorse Rockefeller and the Eastern Establishment. Rockefeller leads a walkout from the convention and Goldwater's acceptance speech declares war on moderates. Goldwater loses 44 states in November.

1968

Nixon unites the party factions well before the convention, turning back an eleventh hour bid from California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Nixon then wins one term narrowly and a second in a 49-state landslide before resigning in disgrace in 1974 after the Watergate scandal.

1976

Reagan returns to challenge incumbent President Gerald R. Ford (Nixon's vice president) for the nomination, reviving the Dewey-Taft wars of a generation earlier. With a late surge in Southern and Western primaries, Reagan cuts Ford's lead. But his attempt to break the convention open with rules changes comes up short by 111 votes. Ford wins on first ballot but loses in fall to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

1980

Reagan loses Iowa to moderate George H.W. Bush, but wins New Hampshire, wraps up nomination in May and takes Bush as running mate. Reagan serves two terms, winning the second with 49 states.

1988

Explicitly religious conservatives emerge as a major bloc, but Bush holds off a big field of primary challengers. Dividing the votes of conservatives, Bush wins on first ballot and takes 40 states in November.

1992

Incensed by Bush's acceptance of tax increases in a budget deal, Patrick Buchanan challenges his renomination. Summoning the spirits of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, Buchanan still fails to block a second Bush nomination but weakens the incumbent. Billionaire Ross Perot runs as an independent on Bush's right, helping Democrat Bill Clinton win with just 42 percent of the popular vote.

1996

Buchanan again leads the charge from the right, but several others split the conservative bloc and insider Bob Dole, the Senate majority leader who was Ford's running mate 20 years earlier, wraps up the nomination in March. He loses to Clinton in November.

2000

Once again a large field forms with ten early candidates vying for the votes of "movement conservatives." Establishment voters coalesce around Texas Gov. George W. Bush, forcing out "maverick" challenger John McCain by the second week of March. Bush loses the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore but wins the Electoral College after the Supreme Court shuts down a recount in Florida.

2008

McCain returns and dispatches rival Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, early in the Establishment lane. Again there are ten early contenders for the conservative mantle, but most drop either before or after the first primaries. Baptist minister Mike Huckabee is the last of them, withdrawing in early March. McCain names a conservative favorite, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as his running mate. Their ticket gets less than a third of the Electoral College vote.

2012

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney renews his 2008 bid, this time as an insider favorite more than a conservative option. He easily dispatches other contenders to his left while more than half a dozen conservatives take turns leading in the polls. One, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, wins Iowa and extends the struggle into May before conceding. Restive conservatives at the convention in Tampa are only partially placated by the choice of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate.

 

[cavalryman]

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/03/14/random-thoughts-on-the-current-chaos-n2132949/page/full

Here's the money shot

"Trump: A lot of my pals are #NeverTrump. Their arguments are sound, and don’t look to me to argue that they should vote for a Dem-donating, vulgar liar with Consistency Deficit Disorder other than to say I will if he’s the nominee because he’s better than the evil Democrats. But this Nazi-slur crap has to stop. If you really think a substantial portion of the conservative-leaning segment of the American people are active fascists, then you may as well give up now. And I refuse to get the sads when a dude in a John Deere cap who probably got shot at in Fallujah smacks some commie creep who crashes a Trump rally to set fire to Old Glory.

Let’s be clear, conservatives: During this race, Trump fans are our opponents. But always and forever, the leftist scumbags of Occupy, BLM, MoveOn and their leaders like Bill Ayers, are our enemies, and if it’s a choice between the two I’ll side with the team that at least doesn’t hate America every single time. No equivocation. No hesitation. No regrets.

This nonsense in Chicago was a preview; to the extent Rubio and Cruz hinted that somehow Trump himself was even partially responsible for an organized mass of leftist thugs shutting down his speech they were at a minimum wrong and possibly strategically confused in thinking they can ride the progressive tiger for a bit until it eats Trump. If the left wants to make it a rumble, then we need to say “Let’s go,” not “Use your words.” Never take sides against the Family with the anti-American left, Fredo. Never."

 

[a_majoor]

Bernie Sanders supporters have openly taken "credit" for disrupting the Trump rally, yet the narrative carefully avoids this fact. (Incidentally, under US law, disrupting free speech rights like that is a civil rights violation).

https://www.veooz.com/news/7KZAuwp.html

How Bernie Sanders Supporters Shut Down Donald Trump's Rally in Chicago
NBC News  · 2 days ago

"Everyone, get your tickets to this. We're all going in!!!! #SHUTITDOWN," he posted on Facebook last week. By the night of the Trump rally, more than 11,600 people had RSVP'd on the page saying they would attend the event. The plan was to wait until Trump took the stage, then wait for the applause to die down and have all the protesters erupt at once.

Maybe we should start calling Sanders supporter's "Bernshirts". It has a certain ring to it.

 

[cupper]

It appears that we finally have proof to back up the old adage "How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." Trump appears to do it once every 5 minutes.

Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods
POLITICO Magazine subjected the GOP front-runner to our fact-checking process. This is the result.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730

Donald Trump says he is a truthful man. “Maybe truthful to a fault,” he boasted last week at a North Carolina rally where one of his supporters sucker punched a protester.

But truthful he is not.


With the GOP front-runner scooping up delegates in a march toward the Republican nomination, POLITICO subjected a week’s worth of his words to our magazine’s fact-checking process. We chronicled 4.6 hours of stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis.

The result: more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one misstatement every five minutes on average.

From warning of the death of Christianity in America to claiming that he is taking no money from donors, the Manhattan billionaire and reality-show celebrity said something far from truthful many times over to the thousands of people packed into his raucous rallies. His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources.

Many were straight-up wrong, such as his claim that the United States has a “$500 billion a year trade deficit with China,” which has been debunked over and over by fact checkers, and his statement that he never settles lawsuits, when in fact he has.
Trump's week of errors, exaggerations and flat-out falsehoods

In other instances, Trump stretches the limits of reality to distort the records of his rivals. Marco Rubio was a main target last week and saw Trump twist the truth about his immigration position to warn voters that the senator is “totally in favor of amnesty.”

Then there are the seemingly small falsehoods, piled one atop another. Trump misstates the timing of things – an omnibus spending bill, for example, was called “the craziest thing I’ve ever seen six weeks ago” when in fact it was a spending package passed in December. He exaggerates polls and rankings of other things – such as his position among Hispanics and how he performs in Wall Street Journal polls. He even claims ownership of a successful winery that denies any ownership tie to the GOP front-runner.

That Trump so frequently ventures so far from the truth perhaps shouldn’t surprise given how much of his campaign is unorthodox. Offensive barbs against Muslims, Mexicans, women and people with disabilities would have quickly sunk the fortunes of other White House candidates but they haven’t hurt the real estate mogul’s standing in the polls, or, more importantly, with Republican voters.

Certainly, many politicians stretch the truth – the practice of political fact-checking began long before the 2016 election cycle. But none so much as Trump. These untruths – strung together as they are in all of his speeches – have helped drive one of the most rapid ascents in modern presidential campaign history. Stephen Colbert once invented a word to define the political discourse of the time. “Truthiness,” the comedian declared on his debut episode in 2005, was the truth as felt in one’s heart and gut, not what was written up in reference books. A decade later, Trump has taken the idea and run (for president) with it.

The Trump campaign did not respond to attempts to get comment for this story or these individual instances of inaccuracies.

Here’s POLITICO’s run-down of a week in the life of a Donald Trump fact-check:

“WE DON’T WIN ANYMORE”: TRADE AND ECONOMICS
“$500 billion a year trade deficit with China.” (March 7 rally in Concord, N.C., and at least four other times last week)
That’s overstating the case by $134 billion. The imbalance peaked at $366 billion in 2015.

“You have Japan, where the cars come in by the hundreds of thousands, they pour off the boats. ... [W]e send them like nothing. We send them nothing, by comparison, nothing.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C. and at least one other time)
The United States exported $62 billion worth of goods to Japan last year.

“We have a trade deficit with Japan of over $100 billion a year.” (March 8 victory press conference in Jupiter, Fla. and at least one other time)
The trade deficit with Japan in 2015 was about $69 billion.

“We’re losing our jobs and the politicians don’t tell you that.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
Politicians from both parties rail against unemployment and outsourcing. For example, the Obama White House in 2012 put out a fact sheet with “outsourcing” in the title.

“We don’t win at trade. We lose to everybody at trade. Trade we lose to everybody.” (March 11 in St. Louis)
In 2015, the U.S. had trade surpluses with a number of countries including Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the UAE and Australia.

“Remember we used to have Made in the USA, right? When was the last time you’ve seen it? You don’t see that anymore. You don’t see that anymore.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
The U.S. Economics and Statistics Administration authored a report called “What Is Made In America?” in 2014 that found that U.S. manufacturers sold $4.4 trillion of goods that classify as “Made in the U.S.A.” Manufacturing contributes $2.17 trillion to the U.S. economy and employs 12.33 million Americans.

“We have lousy health-care, where it’s going up 35, 45, 55 percent.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
Premiums rose by an average of 5.8 percent a year since Obama took office, compared to 13.2 percent in the nine years prior, Politifact found in October.

“If you look at the jobs reports, which are totally phony, because if you stop looking for a job you are essentially considered employed.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
In the way the unemployment rate is calculated, discouraged workers who give up on looking for a job leave the workforce so they don’t count toward unemployment, but they don’t count as employed either.

“I know there are some companies where the people were full time for 25 years. Now they’re part-timers and they go out and get another job, and that has to do solely with Obamacare.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C. and at least one other time)
There are many reasons Americans tend to change jobs more often and work on a part-time basis more than they used to, and the trend predates Obamacare.

“LIKE SWISS CHEESE”: IMMIGRATION
“The migration, they’re coming across. Obama wants to bring thousands and thousands of people in. He has no idea who they are.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C. and at least one other time)
No one has suggested accepting refugees without screening them for security, a process that refugee advocates currently call daunting and far too time consuming.

About Rubio: “He’s totally in favor of amnesty.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Rubio opposed amnesty while running for Senate but, in an effort to draft compromise legislation, co-sponsored a bill that included a path to citizenship. That’s not the same as blanket amnesty, he said in the Jan. 28 debate.

“Really they’ve shut Christianity down.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
Seven in 10 Americans identify as Christian, according to Pew.

“SELF-FUNDING”: CAMPAIGN FINANCE
“I’ve spent the least money and I’m by far number 1. So I’ve spent the least.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
As of Jan. 31, Trump’s campaign had spent $23.9 million, more than John Kasich’s campaign, which has spent $7.2 million, or $19.5 million if you include outside groups supporting him.

“I’m self-funding my campaign.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C., and at least two other times)
“I’m not taking money. ... I’m not taking. I spent a lot of money. I don’t take.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
“I’m not going to take any money. I don’t want any money. ... You know, I’ve self-funded my campaign. ... Right now, I’m into, you would know better than me, maybe $30 million, maybe more.” (March 11 press conference in Palm Beach)
There’s a big blue “DONATE” button in the top right corner of his campaign website. As of Jan. 31, his campaign had accepted $7.5 million from donors not named Donald J. Trump. Trump gave his campaign only $250,318. He lent another $17.5 million, but that’s repayable at any time until shortly after the election.

“I’m already in for $30 million cash.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
Not unless he’s made a lot more contributions since Jan. 31. As of then he had only contributed $250,318, plus the loan of $17.5 million.

“I think I have $50 million of negative ads against me in Florida. $50 million. Somebody said $50 million.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
As of last Friday, outside groups had spent $15 million in Florida.

“So many horrible, horrible things said about me in one week. $38 million worth of horrible lies.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Every Republican dollar not spent by Trump on TV and radio from March 1 through 7 comes to $10.57 million, according to The Tracking Firm, a service that monitors media buys. And not all of that money was negative against Trump.

“How many times do you think Marco and Ted and all of them were calling their super PAC? Is that right? It’s called life. ... They talk to their super PAC. They’re not supposed to but that’s the way life works.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Trump provided no evidence that Rubio and Cruz talk to their super PACs. Candidates coordinating with super PACs is against the law; Trump has not filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

“In New Hampshire, as an example, I spent $1.5 million and somebody else spent $48 million. I was one, the other person was number five.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Trump actually spent $3.1 million in New Hampshire, not $1.5 million, according to Politifact. The Bush campaign and super PAC actually spent $36 million in the state, not $48 million. Bush also came in fourth in New Hampshire, not fifth.

“Countries have lobbyists also. They have lobbyists. They have their donors.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
Foreign countries can and do hire representatives in Washington, registered under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act. But foreign nationals are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

“NASTY GUY”: ATTACKING HIS RIVALS
“I have not even focused on Hillary yet. ... I haven’t even started with her other than four weeks ago.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Months ago, in December, Trump said Clinton’s bathroom break during a Democratic debate was “disgusting” and Barack Obama
“schlonged” her in the 2008 primaries.

“Little Marco Rubio. You know, he’s a no-show in the U.S. Senate. He never goes to vote.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
Rubio missed 229 of 1,517 votes between January 2011 and March 2016, according to GovTrack.us. That’s 15 percent. The median record for missed votes for senators currently serving is 1.7 percent.

“Wasn’t that funny last night when Cruz said, ‘I’m the only one that can beat Donald Trump. I have demonstrated that I can beat him. I won five states.’” (March 11 in St. Louis)
Cruz correctly stated he won eight states, not five, according to the debate transcript.

“Ohio got lucky because they struck oil. And the budget of Ohio went up more than any budget in the entire United States. Higher than any budget.” (March 11 press conference in Palm Beach)
Ohio’s budget increased from $55.9 billion in 2010 to $64 billion in 2015. North Dakota’s increased more in percentage terms, and New York’s in dollar terms, according to data from the National Association of State Budget Officers.

“EVERYBODY LIKES ME”: POLLS
“One of the polls just came out, and a number of them have just come out. I’m beating Hillary Clinton quite easily, thank you.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C. and at least one other time)
Trump is likely referring to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll from mid-February, which showed him two points ahead of Clinton. A clear majority of other polls show she would beat him.

“After Paris, all of a sudden it started changing. We started getting polls in. And everybody liked Trump from the standpoint of ISIS, from the standpoint of the military.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C. and at least one other time)
After the Paris attacks, fewer than half (42 percent) of GOP respondents in a Washington Post-ABC poll said Trump was the best candidate to best handle the threat of terrorism.

“They do a poll in South Carolina, [Lindsey Graham] endorses somebody else and the poll in South Carolina has me at 47.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Trump never topped 42 percent in all the polls collected by Real Clear Politics and won the state with 32.5 percent of the vote.

“Upstate New York I poll higher than anybody ever.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Hillary Clinton would beat Trump 56 percent to 33 percent in upstate New York, according to a recent Siena College poll. The same poll found that the only region in New York he would win is by 5 points in the state’s suburban areas.

“They [the WSJ/NBC poll] had me practically dying in South Carolina the day before. ... And it looked like I was really in trouble and then I won in a landslide. The poll was wrong.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
The last South Carolina NBC/WSJ poll had Trump at 28 percent versus Cruz at 23 percent. A national WSJ/NBC poll around the same time had Cruz ahead of Trump 28 percent to 26 percent.

“Then all of a sudden they [WSJ/NBC] come up with this poll that was very close. They put it on the front-page of the Wall Street Journal, front-page. They never do that. ... I never do well in the Wall Street Journal polls; it’s set against me.” (March 11 in St. Louis)
The Journal routinely covers polls on its front page, and Trump does well in many of them. For example, a headline from mid-January reads: “Poll: Donald Trump Widens His Lead in Republican Presidential Race”.

“We’re winning every poll with the Hispanics.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
A Washington Post-Univision poll in February found that 8 in 10 registered Hispanic voters viewed Trump unfavorably.

“NOBODY IS GOING TO MESS WITH US”: SECURITY
“We have tremendous problems with crime and other things.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
Crime rates have declined dramatically since the 1990s and remain at historically low levels.

“If you look at the Iran deal, where we give a terror nation $150 billion” and “got nothing”. (March 11 in St. Louis and March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
Credible estimates vary for the value of sanctions relief to Iran, topping out at $100 billion. But it’s false to suggest the U.S. gains nothing from the deal. Iran agreed to ship uranium out of the country, dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges and accept rigorous inspections.

“The Gulf states aren’t spending. The Gulf states have so much money, they’re not spending anything. By the way, they’re not taking anybody, they’re not taking, they’re not spending.” (March 7 rally in Madison, Miss.)
At a February London aid conference, Gulf states pledged at least $537 million to help mitigate the Syrian crisis, and the United Arab Emirates has accepted more than 100,000 Syrian nationals since the civil war began in 2011.

ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.

“Eight weeks ago, they signed a budget that is so bad. It funds ISIS.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
The omnibus spending bill, passed in December, is not strictly a budget, and it’s not clear what part of it Trump thinks gives money to ISIS. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for a reference on this specific claim.

“BIGGEST,” “BEST,” “MOST BEAUTIFUL”: PERSONAL BOASTS

“It turned out I’m much richer than people think.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss.)
Trump says he’s worth more than $10 billion. Forbes Magazine says he’s worth $4.5 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index estimated his net worth at $2.9 billion.

“By the way, four times on the cover of Time Magazine over the last number of months. ... I think I was on the cover of Time twice over 30 years and now I think I’ve been almost, I think it’s four times in the last three or four months.” (March 7 in Concord, N.C.)
“It is a movement. It’s been covered on Time magazine covers many many times.” (March 11 in St. Louis)
Trump has been on the cover of Time three times since he started running for president nine months ago, not four times over the last three or four months. Before his presidential run, he was on the cover just once, in 1989, not twice. In the last four months, he’s been on the cover twice, not three times.

“I built an unbelievable, some of the greatest assets in the world, very little debt, tremendous cash flow, tremendous. ... Almost all of my businesses work.” (March 7 in Madison, Miss. and at least one other time)
Four of Trump’s companies have declared bankruptcy, meaning they could not repay their debts. For example, the Trump Plaza Hotel declared bankruptcy in 1992 with $550 million in debt. The Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 carrying an estimated $1.8 billion in debt. In December 2008, Trump Entertainment Resorts couldn’t pay a $53.1 million interest payment for a bond.

“I don’t settle lawsuits. ... I don’t do it.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
In 2013, Trump settled with condo buyers who had sued over a project in Baja California.

“It’s the largest winery on the East Coast. I own it 100 percent. No mortgage. No debt. You can all check. You have to go check the records, folks. In fact, the press, I’m asking you, please check.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
Trump Winery in Charlottesville is not the largest vineyard or winery on the East Coast, according to the National Association of American Wineries.
And the winery’s own website denies that Trump owns it. “Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates.”

“We make the finest wine. As good a wine as you can get anywhere in the world.” (March 8 in Jupiter, Fla.)
None of the wines from Trump Winery made the top 100 list of the best wines in 2015 as ranked by Wine Spectator Magazine. Looking at just Virginia wines, none of Trump’s wines were finalists in the flagship 2016 Governors’ Cup.

“I’ve been hearing from virtually everybody in the Republican Party and they’re congratulating me and they’re saying, we’re going to get together.” (March 11 in Palm Beach)
There are many Republicans who are not engaging with Trump or congratulating him.

“ABSOLUTE SLEAZE”: THE PRESS
“The only way, now everybody’s talking about how massive these crowds are, the only way they find out about the crowds, the only way is with the protestors.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
The press has long noted the size of Trump’s audiences with or without protestors. For example, last August, CNN covered Trump’s crowd of 30,000 at an Alabama football stadium.