The Truth is Berners Don't Know What Lying Means

A lie is something that's not true but for the Berners it means something they don't want to hear.

"With just one week to go before this state's primary, supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders are starting to ask whether media coverage will skew results by declaring Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party."

"Here's what's really bad," said RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of the pro-Sanders union National Nurses United, after the candidate held an event with its members. "At 5 o'clock, evidently, there's this plan for the media, if Clinton wins New Jersey, to say: 'This is over. She's got it locked up.' That's a lie. That's a lie."

"It's a lie," a nurse in the audience said loudly.

"[Clinton decisively wins Democratic primaries in 4 states]"

"DeMoro was referring to not-so-secret plans for media outlets, which have been keeping their own delegate counts, to mark the moment when Clinton wins the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. The Associated Press's count, the basis for many other media outlets, has Clinton at 2,312 — 1,769 won in primaries and 543 superdelegates. There are 12 delegates up for grabs in the U.S. Virgin Islands on June 4, and 67 more in Puerto Rico the next day. At her current pace, Clinton would hit the 2,383 target on June 7 at 8 p.m. Eastern time, when polls close in New Jersey and the state's 142 delegates are parceled out."

"This is what I call trouble, what I'm about to start here," Chris Matthews said on MSNBC last week. "At 8 o'clock that night, Eastern time, the networks — including this one — will be prepared to declare that Hillary has won."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/31/sanders-backers-worry-that-clinton-will-clinch-nomination-before-californias-polls-close/?tid=a_inl

The fiendish plan to report that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee is no less fiendish due to the fact that it's true.

The media should serve the Higher Truth that your vote doesn't matter unless your one of the minority of people who voted for him during the primary.

Ironically, the nurse from the union has actually been part of a real lie: that Bernie doesn't have a super PAC. He does and her union has run it.

But she doesn't realize that lies are things that aren't true. She thinks lies are things that don't make Berners happy.

Bernie also doesn't seem to know what the words press conference means. He called a press conference at this nurse's union Super PAC party and failed to answer a single question.

In other corporate Shillary Killton Liar's club news, a new poll shows Hillary leading Bernie 51-38 in California. The only reason they're claiming this is because Shillary is paying them to.

http://www.hoover.org/press-releases/hoover-institution-golden-state-poll-clinton-13-over-sanders-harris-sanchez-lead

What you have to grasp is that there's truth in terms of what is actually factual and accurate. That's bourgeois truth. That's what corporate shills use.

Then there is the Higher Truth of the Berners-Proletarian Truth. Stalin started this in the 30s.

You might think that 2+2=4. But this is just your bourgeoisie indoctrination. You want real, Proletarian Truth, assuming you can handle it? Ok, it's that 2+2=5.

Similarly though Hilary has 2312 delegates and Bernie has 1545, this doesn't mean that Shillary is winning. Nope, because Proletarian Math tells the Berners that 2312 is less than 1545 according to Berner class interest.

Trump's Lies About Vet Donations Especially Shameful Day After Memorial Day

Trump is outraged that his alleged largess towards veterans' organizations have become public fodder.

After all, he clearly never wanted any of this to be public as is clear from the noisy event he held opposite the GOP debate just before the Iowa Caucus.

"Donald Trump, whose entire campaign can seem like an experiment in free media, was simply trying to keep a low profile when he held an impromptu, televised fundraiser for veterans groups back in January in lieu of attending a GOP primary debate."

"At least that’s the story the presumptive Republican nominee was spinning to dozens of reporters gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower Tuesday morning—and to millions more watching the cable networks’ live blanket coverage of the entire 40-minute press conference—as he chastised the media for failing to give him his due, blasting one reporter as a “sleaze” and another as “a real beauty."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-veterans-donations-223730#ixzz4AGJUWyva

Yep, how Masterly Persuasive of him. He has persuaded me that as President freedom of the press will go the way of the dodo bird.

Trump continues to throw invective at the judge in his Trump University trail. He ought to be grateful to the man who pushed back the date of the hearing until after the election.

Great for him, not so great for the people he ripped off. What do you think their chances are of winning the trial if he wins the election?

I'm sure the judge who is refusing to hold a hearing for him because he's the Republican Presidential nominee will indict him if he wins.

Trump thanked the judge by saying he is biased and slurred him as a Mexican. This is a Master Negotiator? The judge responded to his invective by unsealing the record of the case. 

In today's news conference which had no news, Trump suggested that simply in asking questions about these donations that he boasted about, somehow breaks libel laws.

"Despite his professions of disgust at the media for forcing him to respond to its lingering questions about his fundraising, Trump held forth with reporters for nearly 45 minutes. He tangled with CNN’s Jim Acosta and Fox News Channel’s Carl Cameron, and blasted Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who is trying to recruit a mainstream conservative to step forward as an independent candidate to prevent Trump from winning the White House, calling him “a loser” whose magazine “is failing.”

"Trump suggested that their stories are “probably libelous” and warned that he’s willing to stay on the offensive against the press, all while the television networks continued to broadcast his remarks for free to millions of viewers."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-veterans-donations-223730#ixzz4AGMLzdsZ

Meanwhile, it remains how much he actually raised for veterans groups and how much he personally contributed. His press conference, ostensibly about that, contained no such information.

"During the Trump Tower press conference, Trump announced that he raised $5.6 million for veterans groups, down from the $6 million he originally said that he raised for veterans group at the January fundraiser he held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. But since his initial claim, it's been unclear just how much Trump raised, how much he personally donated to veterans groups, and which groups received donations as a result of the fundraiser. Trump on Tuesday characterized the number as "almost $6 million."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-veterans-press-ashamed

It seems that in truth he never raised a dime in January as he claimed but that he now may have wrote a personal check for $1 million late last week when he was questioned about it.

Trump's lies about the help he didn't' give to veteran's groups is particularly shameful the day after Memorial Day. I spoke to a vet yesterday and thanked him for his service.

I was struck by how grateful he was for this recognition. For this day to be followed by Trump's shameful lies is particularly offensive for this vet and the many like him.

America, we are on trial.

Jerry Brown: Time for Dems to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

This is a very welcome and timely endorsement- a week before the Dem primary. True, you can argue that Brown dragged his feet in endorsing a candidate who with her husband has long been a bitter rival.

Who can forget the fireworks when Brown and Bill debated in 1992. Bill more or less warned Brown he'd take his head off if he went after his wife again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kUITklALQ

Then too, there's no question as I've previously argued that Jerry Brown was in some ways a proto Bernie Sanders in 1992. Bernie's think is the '$27 dollar donations', Brown was about his 1-800 number and all those donations of no more than $100 dollars.

Was Brown holding on this long because it's hard to totally put old feelings behind him? Maybe. But you have to give him credit for seeing that the Trump threat is far more serious than these old battles.

And arguably, his endorsement is worth more now than it would have been if he had done it too readily.

"California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton this morning in an "Open Letter to California Democrats and Independents" in which he says that a vote for Clinton "is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump."

"Brown's letter is highly complimentary toward Bernie Sanders and his campaign, and says he is "deeply impressed with how well Bernie Sanders has done." It also argues that, in a sense, Brown's own 1992 primary campaign offered a template for the sort of grassroots fundraising effort that Sanders has taken to a new level."

"But he says that Clinton "has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda." And that currently her "lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown — by millions of votes — that they want her as their nominee."

"Consequently, he thinks it's time for the party to come together:

"But there is more at stake than mere numbers. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has called climate change a "hoax" and said he will tear up the Paris Climate Agreement. He has promised to deport millions of immigrants and ominously suggested that other countries may need the nuclear bomb. He has also pledged to pack the Supreme Court with only those who please the extreme right."

"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818364/jerry-brown-endorse-clinton

I appreciate him acknowledging all of us Democrats who want her to be our nominee. Unlike Bernie who tries to erase us as 'Just the Establishment' or 'Just the South' or 'Just the wealthy.'

It's clear that a vote for Bernie Sanders next Tuesday is a vote for Donald Trump.

Although it's more than a little sarcastic, even Seth Abramson is sort of getting it.

"If you can trust one thing in this unpredictable election cycle, it’s that nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, could possibly happen in the next two months that would keep Hillary Clinton from being the Democratic nominee. No indictment — of her or anyone close to her — would stop that from happening; no undisclosed medical condition; no cratering poll numbers against her prospective Republican opponent; no historically bad (and worsening) unfavorables; no polling showing that fully 50 percent of her primary opponent’s supporters won’t support her in the general; no sudden disclosure of all her Wall Street transcripts, revealing that much of her campaign platform with respect to Wall Street was a lie; no string of defeats on June 7th, producing a scenario in which Mrs. Clinton would have lost 18 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses, the worst second-half performance of any major-party candidate in a primary election season in U.S. history; no surprise entry into the race by Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren as a unity ticket; no sudden and unexpected news event that changes dramatically the viability of one or many of Clinton’s campaign promises or policy positions; no — and take it from people who sit behind desks in D.C. and New York City — there is nothing anyone could possibly do or that could possibly happen over the next two months that would cause any change whatsoever in how the super-delegates will vote on July 25th."

http://linkis.com/huffingtonpost.com/w6jxq

By Jove Seth Abramson has finally got it. The denial is finally over and he's on to angry acceptance.

And if you think otherwise you — please don’t take this personally — are a delusional dead-ender.

"None of which should suggest to anyone that the super-delegate system is a sham intended to guarantee an Establishment candidate is selected no matter what. That’s a pathetic view of the facts and I strongly urge you not to have it at a dinner party."

"In other news, the Chicago Cubs have won the 2016 World Series."

That 2016 Cubs analogy is hardly apt. We're much further along in the primary than just a little over 25 percent in like in the baseball season. What Abramson is saying now has been true since March 15.

Why Trump Really Won't Release His Tax Returns

There can be any number of reasons and it's probably for multiple reasons but I think this may well be the crux.

Trump's shady accounting:

"Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses."

"POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns."

“I know Donald, I’ve known him a long time, and it gets under his skin if you start writing about the reasons he won’t disclose his returns,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who declined to be identified by name so as not to draw Trump’s ire. “You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-money-net-worth-223662#ixzz4AFE2cxE1

Indeed. If you tell the truth about Trump's finances you risk getting sued. And this is before he's President of the United States.

These are two big questions:

1. How much is he really worth?

2. How many years has he paid zero tax?

My educated guess is the over on 1 and the over on 2.

This morning #IStandWithGawker is trending on Twitter.

But if you think Peter Thiel poises a threat now, imagine if he ran the country. Donald Trump would probably be about the same in terms of freedom of the press-which is probably why Thiel is supporting him.

And remember what Thiel says about democracy:

"To me, the good news/bad news of the situation is that we don't really need to worry about a Thiel-induced slippery slope leading to the collapse of the free press and the democratic system. Thiel has a much more plausible path to achieving this through his support for Trump's presidential campaign."

"And make no mistake about this — Thiel wrote in 2009: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" because a system of universal suffrage subjects capitalists "to the unthinking demos that guides so-called 'social democracy.'"

"The fate of our world," he wrote "may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism." At the time he was referring to Patri Friedman's ridiculous plan to build an offshore utopia composed of boats that would be free from the long arm of the state. Thiel's decision to serve as a Trump delegate at the forthcoming Republican convention in Clevelandseems to suggest that he's turned away from that turn away from politics and has now embraced a new Great Leader to make the world safe for capitalism: Trump."

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11798470/peter-thiel-donald-trump-gawker

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself

As the greatest Democratic President of them all once said.

Greg Sargent:

"A fresh round of hand-wringing among Democrats broke out over the weekend, and at the core of it was the same old storyline that we keep hearing again and again: Donald Trump is unconventional and unpredictable! The normal political rules don’t apply! Democrats are getting caught off guard by this, and you should be terrified!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/31/clintons-lead-over-trump-may-be-bigger-than-you-think/

As Matt Yglesias put it a few weeks ago, while certainly we should be concerned and not complacent, the antidote to complacency is not panic.

Those who panic are also counterproductive and actually making a President Trump more rather than less likely.

You have all kinds of silly hagiography about Trump's brilliant unconventional tactics. I argued yesterday that Scott Adams has become his chief ideologist.

Greg disagrees:

"Someone pointing out Trumps MO isn't a propagandist and honestly other than the feeling of being able to say "I told you so" I don't think Adams wants Trump as president. He would be against many of the policies a candidate Trump seems to support but again, candidate Trump has supported many different things."

"Trumps effectiveness is more a comment on us than him. People have to want to be hypnotized. If you think hypnosis is bullshit you won't be hypnotized."

"But even if you aren't hypnotized everyone can be influenced in ways they are unaware of by someone who uses different techniques, which are well described in many books and courses.
Trump doesn't need to make everyone like/trust him, he just needs to make a majority like/trust him more than Hillary. If he's a 4 on a likability/trust scale and Hillary is 3.95 he can get the nod."

"Scott is just telling us why he's effective and how he's doing it."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/scott-adams-has-became-trumps-chief.html?showComment=1464700313577#c3166242238498177784

I have no idea what makes Trump and the way he has manipulated the laws for his own personal gain at the expense of the public more likable-the one thing you have to love about Tom Brown is he like Scott Sumner sees nothing remotely likable about Donald Trump. 

I can only assume that anyone who sees him as more likable than Hillary Clinton grades him with a much more gentle curve than Hillary Clinton. Just like many did for Hitler vs. the Social Democrats in 1933.

For me, the question is simple. Do you want to take the possibility of Hitler 2.0 off the table or don't you? That is the only thing I care about. Those who say something other than "Hell yes' make their preference clear.

I agree with Greg that Adams doesn't want Trump to win necessarily for ideological reasons but I also agree with him that Adams wants him to win just so he can say he told you so.

But while Adams obviously is sanguine about a President Trump-he figures life will go on for himself much as it has until now-it would be a tragedy for many people.

Those who, unlike Adams, are not white, male, wealthy, and quite privileged.

So for Adams, the answer is no. He doesn't want to take President Trump off the table. In fact, he hopes there is a President Trump-so he can be the genius who predicted him. The fact that this will harm many people of color, poor people, and women, is just a byproduct of him getting to be the genius.

Another example of Trump apologetics is Lorenzo from Oz-a regular commentator at Scott Sumner's Money Illusion who also writes his own blog.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/a-question-begging-post-on-trumps-appeal.html

The message of Scott Adams is 'Trump is just fooling with his talk about building a wall and banning Muslims. He's just a Master Persuader.'

Lorenzo from Oz's message is that 'No Trump's not a fascist, he's just a demagogue, which is nothing to get too worked up about.'

Basically both Lorenzo and Adams are either fine with President Trump or actively want it.

This election is going to test us like none ever before. This is an election where democracy itself will be on the ballot.

Those who are anything other than 110 percent opposed to Hitler 2.0, full stop, will be found wanting.

Taking Donald Trump Seriously

This is kind of in the same spirit that many liberal pundits back in January began to speak of Taking Bernie Seriously. 

This was a very crucial and important demand as before that everyone would sort of just sit back and say Wow! Isn't it great that he's making all these promises to do all this?!

What many rightly started doing was asking not 'What will you do'? but 'How will you do it?

This was something Bernie was never able to adequately answer-and seemed very uninterested in answering.

Now the corollary with Donald Trump is a little different. Taking Bernie seriously meant demanding that he explain how is going to produce the puppies and rainbows on every porch he boasted of.

With Trump it's a question of holding him accountable. If Trump is one of the two remaining nominees to be President, if he 'really might be President' then it's time to hold him accountable.

What this means is pointedly rejecting the Scott Adams defense.

Greg left this comment regarding Scott Adams yesterday.

"Someone pointing out Trumps MO isn't a propagandist and honestly other than the feeling of being able to say "I told you so" I don't think Adams wants Trump as president. He would be against many of the policies a candidate Trump seems to support but again, candidate Trump has supported many different things."

"Trumps effectiveness is more a comment on us than him. People have to want to be hypnotized. If you think hypnosis is bullshit you won't be hypnotized."

"But even if you aren't hypnotized everyone can be influenced in ways they are unaware of by someone who uses different techniques, which are well described in many books and courses.
Trump doesn't need to make everyone like/trust him, he just needs to make a majority like/trust him more than Hillary. If he's a 4 on a likability/trust scale and Hillary is 3.95 he can get the nod."

"Scott is just telling us why he's effective and how he's doing it."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/scott-adams-has-became-trumps-chief.html?showComment=1464693160032#c5272759827443695560

I'm skeptical. I think a lot of times merely describing something is justifying it. I think that there's such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Clearly Adams is pretty sanguine with the idea of a President Trump. The Dreamers who want to take advantage of Obama's executive actions but who are afraid as it takes them out of the shadows don't have the luxury of 'explaining Trump' in such technical, agnostic terms.

In 2000, the media kept saying Al Gore wasn't likeable and then gloated when polls showed voters would rather have a beer with W than Gore. But weren't they being too modest in not taking credit for this?

The media decided that it's more important to harp on Gore allegedly saying he invented the Internet than the lies in W's tax and budget plan.

If they hadn't decided to do this, I suspect perceptions would have been different.

When an echo chamber forms, many of the independents simply assume it's true.

I still think Trump's GOP win is more about the ignorant bigotry of the Republican party than any such Master Persuasion.

As we can see in his Trump U case, his attacks on the judge, his slurring him as a Mexican did not persuade the judge. To the contrary it actually hurt Trump as the judge has now unsealed the case.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/trump-master-persuader-and-trump-u.html

Why do so many racists and anti Semites support Trump? Is it because he's a Master Persuader or they take him at his word?

My argument is that if you are in any way a thinking voter you have to hold Trump accountable. The only way to do this is to take him at his word on everything.

Allow him no plausible deniability. Again, if he doesn't want to be called a white nationalist, then he shouldn't propose such policies and he shouldn't play footsie with David Duke.

Hillary Clinton never gets the benefit of the doubt on anything she says. Neither can Trump be allowed to.

Taking Trump seriously, means holding him accountable and holding him accountable means taking him at his word, of assuming he does mean what he says rather than he doesn't or might not.

A Question Begging Post on Trump's Appeal

Lorenzo From Oz has a very odd apologia for Trump. He explains Trump is not a fascist-'he's just a demagogue.' Whatever that's supposed to mean.

"If we are to understand The Donald, we have to keep focused on the dynamics of demagoguery. The Donald is not Hitler redux, he is not Mussolini redux, he is not a fascist. He is not fascist in so many ways--no overt rejection of democracy, no paramilitary movement, no organised street violence (except by opponents), not in favour of a belligerent foreign policy, no fetishising of violence. (Indeed, a persistent theme in comments supporting voting for The Donald, is that The Donald is the less belligerent choice.) He does engage in Jacksonian rhetoric, but the notion that violence is the way the deep nobility of man manifests (a deeply fascist idea) is not what he is selling."

"Moreover, fascism has an ideology (albeit somewhat protean one) and if you think The Donald has an ideology, you haven't been paying attention. Looking at the list in Umberto Eco's 1995 New York Review of Books piece on Ur Fascism (pdf) certainly shows The Donald's rhetoric has some echoes of Italian Fascism, but rhetorical echoes are not enough. The Donald simply lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence which is so central to fascism in its various form."

http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/

I'm quite dubious about this neat division between a demagogue and a fascist.

There may be ways that he differs from Hitler and Mussolini, there are also ways that he's very similar to them.

I'm not so sure fascism has an ideology. If so, what is it? It seems to me that fascism is very similar to Trumpism in its attitude towards ideology.

1. Trump does not reject democracy? Actually Lorenzo rightly says 'overtly.' Ok, so what about a covert rejection of democracy? Many things he says from his admiration of dictators the world over, to his desire to crackdown on the press, to the way he goes after protesters sounds like he may well reject democracy.

He also keeps copies of Hitler's speeches by his bed. Scott Sumner thinks this is so he can study the greatest demagogue. If this is true, then we know that a demagogue and a fascist or nazi are not necessarily the same thing.

Then there is Trump's buddy Peter Thiel who supports Trump. Thiel has had it with democracy and says as much:

"To me, the good news/bad news of the situation is that we don't really need to worry about a Thiel-induced slippery slope leading to the collapse of the free press and the democratic system. Thiel has a much more plausible path to achieving this through his support for Trump's presidential campaign."

"And make no mistake about this — Thiel wrote in 2009: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" because a system of universal suffrage subjects capitalists "to the unthinking demos that guides so-called 'social democracy.'"

It's like the old joke: if HItler is not an anti Semite then why are you supporting him?

Just as Trump has lots of racist friends he has lots of anti democratic friends. Just a coincidence. 

https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-donald-trump-racist.html

2. As for the idea that Trump lacks the notion of purifying and ennobling violence, I read this as Lorenzo has never watched a Trump rally. If he did, he'd realize how absurd this claim is.

Sorry, but this claim doesn't even pass the laugh test.

"Trump's campaign manager allegedly assaulted a reporter covering a Trump event.
Trump himself has incited crowds at his rallies against specific reporters. "

"Recall that back in mid-March during a swirling controversy about violent behavior by Trump supporters, Trump tweeted what can really only be interpreted as a threat to send goons to beat up Bernie Sanders supporters."

"He then followed this up by suggesting that he would use the resources at his disposal to help his supporters obtain immunity from legal consequence for violent acts they undertook on his behalf."

JUST IN: Trump tells @MeetThePress' @ChuckTodd he's going to look into paying for legal fees for the man who threw the sucker punch on Sat."

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11798470/peter-thiel-donald-trump-gawker

As for the idea that he will run a less belligerent foreign policy, I wonder what this is based on. He may criticize the Libya intervention now but people forget that at the time he was criticizing Obama for not being tougher in Libya.

Remember, he criticized Mitt Romney in 2012 for not releasing his tax returns. He's now demanding that his for VP vet, all candidates must release their own tax returns.

What this demonstrates is that Trump is perfectly capable of criticizing something that he does even more egregiously himself.

Most of what he does say about US foreign policy sounds like the ingredients for a more rather than a less belligerent world.

He wants Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, he talks openly about using them himself. His talk about leaving Nato shows that his 'America First' policy is going to be about a more unilateral America that will break its treaties and alliances. 

He also wants a trade war with a rising China.

Someone should ask him about the rules of the UN. I'm sure if you listen you'll hear that he thinks this is also an illegitimate curb on US power.

We have tried unilateralism-the pre WWII status quo. Whatever you want to say about the postwar multilateral status quo it's a huge improvement. Europe has seen 71 years of peace.

This didn't happen by accident but through the political will to form multilateral agreements and alliances.

America First of course was about leaving Hitler to his own devices. Sort of understandable that Hitler 2.0 would have given Hitler 1.0 a pass.

You are seeing all kinds of specious arguments like Lorenzo from Oz.

1. He doesn't mean it, he's just a Master Persuader. To which I say, you have to hold Trump accountable and the only way to do this is to assume he means just what he says, Is this somehow unfair?

https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/assume-donald-trump-means-just-what-he.html

2. He's actually Noam Chomsky who just happened to be audited 25 years in a row.

3. He's not a racist, it just happens for some weird reason that the racists all love him.
At the end of the day, these are the sorts of arguments that were made in 1933 as well and not just from the Right and Center, but the Left.

Is Donald Trump a Racist?

Some say no. He just cares about the law or national security, or making deals, it's not racial.

You can't help but notice, though, that most of the countries he says are screwing us are non-white countries. You have Mexico, Japan, China, etc.

Not many white countries get mentioned.

Then again he has an awful lot of racists and anti Semites supporting him. Is it his fault who supports him? Yesterday my own father tried this piece of sophistry on me.

Suffice it to say, it turned into a testy dinner as I did not let this one pass. Supposedly this was to celebrate his birthday, my birthday, and Mother's Day all that occurred in May.

His trouble is he says he doesn't want to talk about politics. Then he talks about politics. Then why I disagree with him-he doesn't want to talk about politics.

But the vexing question is why do these racists and bigots support Trump as opposed to say, Hillary Clinton?

My Dad thinks that Trump did disavow David Duke. That's not what I saw. I saw a nod-nod, wink-wink. It was enough signal to let these guys know he hears them.

But the question begs-if 9 out of 10 white nationalists and neo nazis love Donald Trump, why is this? Again, why don't they vote for Hillary Clinton? Or any other mainstream politician.

Let me just offer this disclaimer. My father won''t vote for Trump. Not when the time comes for it. He had talked about voting for Trump in the primary but when my mother got to him and made sure he pulled for Hillary.

But if he's saying things like this, you can imagine what others are saying. After all Pop has never voted Republican since he's been in this country.

There's  the saying 'Some of my best friends are Jewish.' Some of Trump's best friends are racists, white nationalists, and anti Semites.

Like Roy Cohn. Peter Manso tells of his sitting next to Donald Trump as a young reporter at a dinner party of rich Right Wingers. Trump and Roy Cohn go way back:

"So far I hadn’t engaged, really, hanging back as I usually would do early on in a reporting assignment, but that changed when we all sat down to eat. Cohn had put me beside Trump. Back then he was years away from becoming The Donald, but he was already the boyish-faced real estate mogul, habitué of Le Cirque and staple of Page Six. In the weeks that followed this dinner, I would learn more and more about his unusually close relationship with Cohn—a relationship crucial to understanding each of them."

"The two met in 1973 when Trump, then 27, and his father were being sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination. Cohn counter-attacked, accusing the federal prosecutors of using “Gestapo-like tactics.” Later, Cohn secured for Trump massive tax abatement deals from the city for Trump Tower and even introduced Trump to Roger Stone, Richard Nixon’s dirty trickster who’s currently The Donald’s in and out chief braintruster. Cohn was legally indispensable but socially indispensable, too, introducing Trump to nightclub owners, media heavyweights and underworld figures. And, of course, there were the politicos, which included most of the city’s major elected officials and a handful of New York City judges who were said to be at Cohn’s beck and call 24/7. His win-at-any-cost style, brashness and love for the spotlight made an impact on the younger Trump."

"Trump was sitting to my left, Ivana opposite us, beside Cohn, the others seated around the table, and all of them, I gathered, friends for years. Di Portanova (a.k.a. “Ricky the Playboy” if you read the tabs) was a Cohn client as well."

"Things got off to a happy start with the perennially tanned Cohn playing toastmaster: There was a toast to Ronald Reagan, the still very new president, and another to Alfonse D’Amato, the rookie senator from New York. Then Cohn introduced me as “the Playboy man in our midst,” which obliged me to rise and take a bow. When he finally sat down, the food was served by two of Cohn’s office boys who, I’d already heard through the grapevine, were, as a group, Cohn’s lovers; one of whom our genial host openly addressed as “Saboo.” Why Saboo? Because, as I later found out from Roy himself, the dark skinned Filipino fit “the profile.”

"Was Cohn a racist? Of course. Roy Cohn was an anti-Semite, a homophobe, a woman hater and of course an anti-Communist. He harbored a bundle of thinly concealed prejudices that he’d trot out whenever one or more of them worked for him, whenever they were useful. What else is new?"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-dinner-party-213923#ixzz4AAfDhitm

Just because Trump's close friend Cohn is a virulent racist, just because his butler-and Mar Lago historian-is a racist who wants to see Hillary and Obama hung-just because he has racist policies...

Just because he has stated that he will only consider a white male VP, just because his trade and immigration policies are racist, just because he keeps a copy of Hitler's speeches locked in a cabinet by his bed.

Just because David Duke and many other white nationalists support him, just because his supporters threatened Ben Shapiro and even his family with anti Semtic rants about putting them in the ovens....

I mean surely this doesn't in any way suggest Donald Trump could be a racist?! No, that's just way too big a reach.

Scott Adams Has Became Trump's Chief Ideologist

I was browsing Tom Nichols, a principled NeverTrumper and saw he had this exchange with Kristi Evans:

"Do you not have the insight to understand sales/persuasion? Do you think Trump believes this..? It's a TECHNIQUE."

https://twitter.com/GotKidsNoPeace/status/737333333198262272

Nichols has this great response to her:

"I understand sales and persuasion and I think you're exactly the kind of person who bought Trump Steaks."

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/737336985237491713

Brilliant technique. Saying you are going to do terrible things you have no intention of doing for the votes.

But it got me to thinking. Scott Adams is really becoming a Trump enabler. A lot of people are saying we should elect this guy because he's such a Master Persuader, though he seems to have used his own brilliant skills counterproductively with the judge in his Trump U case.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/trump-master-persuader-and-trump-u.html

I think you have to assume Trump means just what he says-if he doesn't mean it he has no one to blame but himself.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/assume-donald-trump-means-just-what-he.html

So if we do get Hitler 2.0. Adams will be sort of like Trump's Carl Schmitt.

"Schmitt joined the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933.[12] Within days, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, rejoicing in the burning of "un-German" and "anti-German" material, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.[13] In July he was appointed State Councillor for Prussia (Preußischer Staatsrat) by Hermann Göring and in November he became the president of the Vereinigung nationalsozialistischer Juristen ("Union of National-Socialist Jurists"). He also replaced Hermann Heller as professor at the University of Berlin,[14] a position he would hold until the end of World War II. He presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the Führer state with regard to legal philosophy, particularly through the concept of auctoritas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

I wonder what cabinet position Adams gets.

None Dare Call it Fascism

Except for a NY Times article. Trump's victory in the GOP primary opens up a new global debate on Fascism!

"The comparison was inflammatory, to say the least. Former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts equated Donald J. Trump’s immigration plan with Kristallnacht, the night of horror in 1938 when rampaging Nazis smashed Jewish homes and businesses in Germany and killed scores of Jews."

"But if it was a provocative analogy, it was not a lonely one. Mr. Trump’s campaign has engendered impassioned debate about the nature of his appeal and warnings from critics on the left and the right about the potential rise of fascism in the United States. More strident opponents have likened Mr. Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/world/europe/rise-of-donald-trump-tracks-growing-debate-over-global-fascism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Pleased to meet you. My name is Mike Sax and I an a more strident opponent. My nickname for Mr. Trump is Hitler 2.0. Which shouldn't be an insult for The Donald. He is an acute admirer of Hitler's speeches.

In isolation, maybe you could dismiss that story. But when you mix it with so much else he talks about, it fits a clear pattern. One is that the men he admires are always dictators. Putin, Kim Jong-un, the Chinese government's Tinanmen Square Massacre.

If you're an undocumented immigrant thinking of taking an advantage of Obama's dreamer plan you can't afford to dismiss it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/immigration-trump-deportations-dreamers-223658

Actually give Bill Weld some props.

Some early polls suggest that he and Gary Johnson on a ticket may be able to garner 10 percent of the vote-which will come at Donald Trump's expense.

Walter Shapiro

"It isn't good sign for GOP when NYTimes puts the name of their nominee in a headline that ends with "Global Fascism"

https://twitter.com/MrWalterShapiro/status/736732605643657216

Jennifer Rubin in her advice for Hillary on how to win over 'sane Republicans' urges some compassion for the GOPers-after all, at least we Democrats will soon be done with Bernie Sanders. Trump is the GOP nominee.

Agreed. I give her kudos for her principled stand against Trump.

And, yes, maybe it's time for a little sympathy for Mitt Romney who is not uniting behind Hitler 2.0 just because he's a Republican.

His motivation: “I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.”

"Today, the GOP anti-Trump chorus is dwindling, leaving Mr. Romney among the few making the case publicly."

"Mr. Trump, in an interview on Wednesday, said of Mr. Romney: “Once a choker, always a choker. I’ve got a store worth more than he is.” He said Mr. Romney’s attack “has nothing to do with his country. It has to do with me. I’m the one who forced him out” of running in 2016."

"Former House Speaker Gingrich, referring to Mr. Romney in a Journal interview this week said: “Having a guy like that go berserk in public makes you wonder what his problems are.”

“He feels like the last lion,” one Romney confidant said.

"Mr. Romney said he is acting on his own behalf and acknowledged many Republicans think his Trump attacks could help the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Still, he said, “others, including myself, believe our first priority should be to stand by our principles and if those are in conflict with the nominee, the principles come first.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-mitt-romneys-increasingly-lonely-challenge-to-donald-trump-1464354734

Romney says he won't vote for either Trump or Hillary-which is fine; basically a vote for Hillary for someone who has always voted Republican. 

Maybe he gets to vote for Bill Weld-that would be ironic considering the two are from the same GOP Massachusetts lineage.

There comes to a point when it's not credible to say that Trump is a con artist and totally unqualified to be President and he is appealing to all these terrible things like nationalism and racism, but you know, Hillary Clinton will continue with Obamacare.

Give Romney some credit and sympathy here-though the Bushes are also staying away.

It's one thing to have a disagreement within the bounds of democratic parameters-like over healthcare. Donald Trump is a threat to those very parameters.

The time to say so is now.

P.S. Another conservative for Hillary, Tom Nichols:

"Trump is an existential menace to our system of government. So if #NeverTrump means accepting Hillary's win, so be it."

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/736404872212418560

Assume Donald Trump Means Just What He Says

Some argue that Trump will be a hard opponent to beat as he constantly shifts his positoins and says himself that this is all negotiable. 

Maybe. But do you really want to take that risk? Can we afford to take the risk that it was all just a joke? I mean what are the percentages that he meant it vs. that it was all just a joke?

One thing I can believe already is that he would be a big setback in terms of discrimination policies as he's already vowed that his Vice President will be a white male. so clearly he believes in affirmative action in reverse. 

Does he really plan to ban Muslims or deport 12 million people or let Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons? 

How much if it worth to you to find out? When you do a risk-reward analysis what is the risk vs. the reward? 

There's something called the Upton Window and even if he doesn't do exactly the worse things he's said about immigrants and Muslims, there is a lot he could do short of that which would be very bad but would seem reasonable compared to it. 

After all, his GOP opponents never ruled out his Muslim ban so much as promised to not go so far. For instance Jeb just wanted to ban Muslim refugees from Syria rather than all of them. 

While we don't know how much Trump means or doesn't mean I think it's certainly safer to assume he means everything he says. To assume otherwise seems to me like jumping off the Trump Tower and trusting that Trump will catch me before I hit the ground. Possible but not a great bet. 

Meanwhile, just the threat of Trump's mass deportations are having a chilling effect. 

"DREAMers face nightmare of Trump’s deportation force."

"Undocumented immigrants eager to seek relief under Obama’s executive actions could expose themselves to Trump’s mass deportation plan."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/immigration-trump-deportations-dreamers-223658#ixzz4A9qa63Jo

Just remember what it means when pundits breezily proclaim 'Trump could win.' This is what undocumented immigrants have to factor in too.

So does he mean it? They don't have the luxury of presuming he really doesn't.

Beyond this what Trump is proposing is not unprecedented. He talked about Operation Wetback in the 1950s under Ike.

He talked about FDR's Japanese internment camps. This stuff has a history.

It's easy to forget that Trump's proposals today are basically what US immigration policy was for almost 40 years until civil rights and LBJ's Great Society-part of which was immigration reform whereby the nation became open to large scale nonwhite immigration.

P.S. Off topic I've been reading a lot about LBJ and RFK-Bobby Kennedy-and their feud which defined the Democrats in the 1960s.

I think there's something to what LBJ said in his fight with RFK on the best way to help poor people particularly people of color.

LBJ said of RFK's preference for community action: 'That's not government policy, that's social work and it doesn't help hungry children eat or learn to read.'

https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Contempt-Johnson-Kennedy-Defined-ebook/dp/B008CNZZKM?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&redirect=true&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect

On the other hand many Black activists seem to favor community action. But even if it has a part to play I'm skeptical that it can just replace government action.

Paul Ryan has recently gotten interested in things like relieving poverty and race, and, of course, his focus is more in line with RFK.

The enemy for Ryan and all conservatives remains LBJ.

However, many of the things that we most take for granted as social goods we have LBJ to thank for.

The Berners Want a Rigged System in Bernie's Favor

Chuck Todd called out Bernie for his blatant double standard yesterday regarding super delegates. It's an assault on democracy-if the SDs are for Hillary. If they're for Bernie, then it's perfectly fair.

"Noting states in which he won “landlside victories,” Sanders said he would tell superdelegates from those states, “Do what the people in your state want. They voted for Bernie Sanders, you as the superdelegates should follow their wishes.”

“We’re going to make the case for the superdelegates,” Sanders explained. “‘Your job is to make sure that Trump is defeated, that Bernie Sanders, in fact, for a variety of reasons, not just polling, is the strongest candidate.'”

"Todd stopped Sanders by pointing out the hypocrisy of also appealing to superdelgates from states Clinton won to switch their votes."

“You’re saying you want them to respect the vote in their state, then at the same time, you say, ‘But oh, by the way, for those of you that are a superdelegate in a state that Clinton won, why don’t you think about the general election?’ It’s a little bit hypocritical to be on both sides of those issues,” Todd said.

“No, no, no, that’s not what I’m saying,” Sanders argued, adding that superdelegates have a “grave responsibility” to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t become president."

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/chuck-todd-slams-sanders-for-being-hypocritical-over-superdelegate-votes-now-that-he-needs-them/

Yes, yes, yes, Bernie. If you cared about stopping Trump from being President you wouldn't be working so hard to undermine Hillary Clinton at every step of the way.

But you clearly have a dual standard: a different standard for delegates in states she wins the popular vote and where you win.

In Wyoming over the weekend the Dems were able to avoid the theatrics at Nevada.

"Wyoming's Democratic Convention on Saturday didn't erupt into chaos. There was no chair-throwing, and there were no procedural disruptions."

"But supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders did come away with a small victory. The Wyoming Democratic Party opted to forward a petition to the Democratic National Committee proposing a change to the state's delegate allocation so Sanders would get five district-level delegates and Hillary Clinton would get three. That would represent a shift of one delegate to Sanders."

"The petition, by Wyoming land surveyor Richard Kusaba, is meant to make the delegate allocation better reflect the outcome of the caucuses. Sanders won the state's caucuses with 57 percent of the vote, while Clinton got 43 percent."

"I have studied the Delegate Selection Plan and found that this is wrong," Kusaba wrote in his petition.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/wyoming-democrats-sanders-clinton-223695#ixzz4A9gj7RKP

Note that Kusaba and the rest of the Berners has a pretty flexible idea of what is wrong.

In Nevada they felt it was wrong that Hillary got more delegates even though she got more votes. Now in Wyoming it's wrong that Bernie does not get more delegates even though he got more votes.

Basically the candidate with more votes wins-regardless of district apportionment and proportional rules-if Bernie gets more votes.

If Hillary gets more votes than it doesn't matter who gets more votes. Clearly the Berners are all about Absolute Justice.

So all this over 2 delegates just like Nevada was a fight over 2 delegates. Kusaba apparently doesn't realize Bernie trails by a lot more than 2 delegates.

P.S. Tom seems to be giving me a friendly warning.

"Now Mike, don't go make it more difficult for Berners having a tantrum to swallow their pride and come around the HRC eventually (in the various twitter battles I imagine you're having). Point out that Trump is Hitler 2.0, but let the Berners get it out of their system. I don't want you to piss them off so much they feel they have to punish you personally. =)"

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/berners-for-donald-trump.html?showComment=1464556180330#c9085117140231315472

Tom's probably right in principle but the Berners sure make it hard. 

The trouble is that their grievances are just so absurd. They are ready to riot over a two delegate difference that has no impact anyway.

But they basically want the rules bent in their favor. We have had this same Democratic primary system since Tad Devine pioneered SDs in 1984. Yet the Berners want to change the rules in midstream.

Who's to Blame for Donald Trump?

The conservatives claim President Obama. What is true is that the color of his skin does indeed offend many of the Trump voters. But the President is hardly culpable for this.

The Vichy Republicans continue to cover themselves in glory:

"This week, the Republican Party wrapped itself in the white flag."

"Donald Trump has won enough delegates to to guarantee that he will clinch the GOP nomination. And one of his fiercest opponents, Marco Rubio, cozied up to him, almost begging for a chance to speak at the GOP convention — even after Trump attacked the party’s most prominent Latina."

"While a few stray #NeverTrumpers can be heard in the distance, complaining that the self-proclaimed billionaire “makes George Wallace look like Churchill” and vowing to never ever vote for a candidate who is the choice of pretty much any strutting online anti-Semite you can find, resistance is futile."

http://www.nationalmemo.com/definitive-list-blame-nomination-donald-trump/?utm_source=National+Memo+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=fe88f120ea-Morning_Memo_5_30_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f8e3f883b-fe88f120ea-194808597

Rubio's position seems to be this: Trump is a con artist who makes racist appeals that Rubio agrees are unfortunate. But Trump is not Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton will continue with Obamacare.

We'd rather bring back the gas ovens-as some of Trump's supporters want to do based on their own words-than have Obamacare.

Meanwhile Trump has recently revealed that he thinks choosing a woman or minority candidate would be pandering. To avoid being accused of pandering, he's going with a white male.

So while we have all the speculation of a Rubio VP, Trump has already ruled it out: after all, a Rubio VP would be pandering.

Who is to blame for Donald Trump? I'd blame two entities first and foremost.

1. The Beltway media who insists on playing the false equivalence game. For years I joked that if the GOP said the Holocaust never happened and the Dems said it did, the media would also lecture the Dems to just be a little more reasonable and compromise more.

And now we have a guy who probably does think that Holocaust was a hoax-he thinks everything including the California drought and global warming is made up-and lo and behold, the media is more upset over Hillary's emails or razzing her about being 'unlikable' than holding the Neo Nazi candidate to account.

2. But most of all, the blame goes to the Republican party itself. When you deny reality and play dog whistle politics for years, you can't be shocked someone like Trump would clear the field.

As horrendous a candidate as Trump is, he still seemed a breath of fresh air next to their real candidates.

Why should the GOP voters vote for a dog whistle when they can vote for the bullhorn?

As usual, however, the Beltway is wholly clueless:

"The GOP is now officially Trump’s party. Yet at the same time, “Very Serious People” want us to absolve the GOP for delivering us a candidate whose great public accomplishments include getting rid of the talent portion of beauty pageants, using racism to undermine America’s first black president, and winning a major party’s nomination by vowing to ban 1.6 billion people from entering the country."

"Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle tells us not to blame the Republican party for Trump, rejecting the notion that this insecure conman is a “monster that Republican leaders created” and now “broken free of its chains and was hell bent on destroying its former master.”

"McArdle seems to reject the notion that conservatives should be responsible for the ideas they’ve advanced over the past 50 years, because voters ultimately ignored the “horrified pleading of conservative leaders and intellectuals” and backed Trump anyway. As if a few months of caution from the “establishment,” which conservatives have been training primary voters to reject since the inception of the movement, was supposed to be more effective than generations of feeding voters carefully coded messages designed to stir up racial and religious resentment.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/definitive-list-blame-nomination-donald-trump/?utm_source=National+Memo+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=fe88f120ea-Morning_Memo_5_30_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f8e3f883b-fe88f120ea-194808597

Yeah, Megan McArdle. What ineffective 'horrified pleading.' This horrified pleading amounts to: 'Stop making bullhorn racist appeals and go back to the dog whistle racist appeals.'

Meanwhile, Ms McArdle seems no longer horrified. She now seems much more horrified over Hillary Clinton's emails than the spectre of a Donald Trump Presidency.

Much of this 'horrified pleading' has gone out the window now that Trump is President. You know, he's not fit to be President-unless the choice is Hillary Clinton who would continue Obamacare.'

And conservatives like Ms. McArdle wonder why their horrified pleading was so ineffective.

At least those like Jennifer Rubin, Ben Howe and some writers at the National Review and RedState are worthy of some respect. They remain horrified now that Trump is the GOP nominee.

Most like McArdle has forfeited what credibility they ever had.

Trump hasn't expanded the GOP, he has exposed it along with the complicit Beltway media.

Trump the Master Persuader and Trump U

Greg talks about Scott Adams in a conversation he had with Greg yesterday:

"Hey Tom."

"Wish I would have seen Maher. Im curious what you thought of Scott Adams? He's got a very interesting perspective on things. He's written a few books,( two Ive read one Im in the process of finishing). I think you might like his short story called "Gods Debris", it has a sequel called "The Religion War". They are both thought provoking and maybe a little unsettling........... but I think you could handle it ;-)"

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/berners-for-donald-trump.html?showComment=1464563705152#c8959413642288730673

I agree Adams is very interesting. Who knew the writer of Dilbert had so much to say about politics? But let's face it, the reason everyone loves him so much now is because he says Trump will make mincemeat of Hillary and will beat her in a landslide just like he did in the primary to Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco, and Lyin' Ted.

Adams thinks that this proves Trump is a Master Persuader. Yes, it's impossible to beat the guy.

Then I look at this story about the judge in the Trump University case.

"A federal judge blasted Friday by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has taken note of the fact that Trump isn't happy with the way the judge is handling lawsuits over alleged fraud by the Trump University real estate seminar program."

"Just hours after Trump used a campaign speech at a San Diego convention center to unleash a remarkable verbal fusillade against U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge — who also happens to be based in the same Southern California city — acknowledged, in a much more measured fashion, the criticism Trump has aimed at the court."

"Defendant became the front-runner for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue," Curiel said in an order unsealing a series of internal Trump University documents that Trump's lawyers asked be kept from the public."

"The judge's order didn't make reference to Trump's 12-minute tirade Friday afternoon in which the all-but-certain Republican nominee called Curiel a "hater" and again invoked his Latino heritage. However, the judge cited a series of news stories from earlier in the campaign, including an NBC story that noted Trump called Curiel "extremely unfair" and an Associated Press story titled, "Trump: Judge’s ethnicity matters in Trump University suit."

“I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. ... I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself,” Trump said at Friday's rally, echoing many of the same points he made in speeches a few months ago. “I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK?"

"Curiel said in his order Friday that Trump's presidential campaign and his criticism of the court were reasons to overrule his objections to the release of so-called "Playbooks" describing Trump University's operations. The judge also noted that one version was published by POLITICO in March. "The entire 2010 Playbook has been posted online by Politico," Curiel wrote.

"It's unclear whether Curiel knew of Trump's latest volley of attacks when the judge issued the order Friday afternoon, but it seems possible. Curiously, the Republican candidate laid into Curiel at about the same time the judge was holding a hearing less than a mile away on a motion by The Washington Post seeking unsealing of the Trump University-related files. The judge's order was released a couple of hours after the hearing."

"Trump suggested Friday, as he has before, that he might move to recuse Curiel from the suits. However, the real estate mogul's lawyers have never brought such a motion."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/05/donald-trump-university-judge-unseals-files-223687#ixzz4A94E2Qx2

This sure doesn't sound like a Master Persuader to me. Maybe he persuaded GOP voters in the primary to vote for him but he didn't seem to be very persuasive to this this judge.

 Think about it.

1. He calls the judge unfair and slurs him as a Mexican.

2. Before he did that, the judge had actually postponed the hearing until after the election.

3. That is quite an accommodation.

4. It is also not too fair for the people who were ripped off by Trump U. They better hope Hillary Clinton wins. After all, if she doesn't, what are the chances they win that suit?

5. If the judge is already accommodating Trump before the election, is he really going to find a President Trump guilty?

6. This is the judge Trump calls unfair and slurs him ethnically as a Mexican.

7. In response the judge unseals court files.

Number 6 shows that Trump is not any kind of Master Persuader or Master Negotiator. When the judge is ruling in your favor, probably very unfairly to your opponent, you shut your mouth.

Yes, Trump won the Republican primary. But he has also totally burned his bridges as far as his tv empire is concerned. He's lost The Apprentice, he's lost the Miss America pageant, he's lost everything.

All of this shows he's something less than a Master Persuader or Master Negotiator.

P.S. Here is the comment from Tom about the Bill Mahrer show:

"Bill maher had quite a crew on on Friday: Sanders was his 1st guest. On the panel he had a journalist, a former Libertarian party candidate who now supports Trump and tried to explain how Trump is a Libertarian, and Dilbert writer Scott Adams, who's sticking by his prediction that Trump wins in a landslide. Adams explained why Trump is successful and how his fact free methods relate to those of a hypnotist. The Libertarian guy would loudly pipe up with nonsensical BS in support of Trump, and Bill would point at him and say to Scott "omg, You're right!... Listen to this guy!"

"Also Mellissa Harris-Perry was there."

Whoever thought Scott Adams would be a celebrity? He is now because he says the Evil Witch is going to lose in a landslide. Now everyone loves him.

If not for that no one would be talking about him.

I'm glad I missed the show as it would only have ticked me off. His show was full of Hillary haters-not the least being Melissa Harris-Perry who was obsessed with Biden running until late last year.

I don't want to re-litigate why she quit MSNBC, but I can't deny that losing a Melissa Harris-Perry show for a Joy Reid show is to my mind a major step up.

Then of course, St. Bernie is the first guest.

Why interview Bernie at this point? I know Mahrer was a Bernie man. But he has said Hillary will be the nominee. Giving Bernie more airtime only makes it harder for Hillary to unify the party.

I wish I ran MSNBC. LOL. There would be some changes there overnight.

Berners for Donald Trump

Browsing the Huffington Post comments section we get a flavor of the kind of absurd arguments the Berners are making to not vote for Hillary Clinton in November: ie, effectively vote for Donald Trump-who is Hitler 2.0.

Mike Bieringer

"Hillary DOESN'T believe in a single payer health system that would eliminate your medical bills instantaneously."

"Hillary DOESN'T believe in $15 minimum wage which would increase your life options dramatically."

"Hillary DOESN'T believe in Tuition -Free education, a staple of EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED NATION ON EARTH, which would increase your CHILDRENS earning capacity exponentially."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/my-choice-for-president_b_10145992.html?

She also doesn't have the support of white nationalists and supporters who make anti Semitic insults and threats against those who criticize Trump-and their families.

She doesn't plan to have a Muslim database and ban Muslims or deport 11 million people.

But she supports a $12 federal minimum wage and not $15 so this makes no difference.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Right. Hillary is for $12 federal MW and Trump wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage, indeed, thinks wages are too high: clearly both positions are still evil.

We've heard this song before with the Marxists in 1933 who said there was no difference between Hitler and the Social Democrats-they called them the Social Fascists.

In other news: Bret Stephens of the Wall St. Journal just endorsed Hillary.

No he didn't say the words "Hillary Clinton' but he did say 'I will absolutely not support Donald Trump and will vote for the least left wing alternative to him and want him to lose so badly Republicans learn their lesson once and for all.'

Shorter Marco Rubio: Hitler's a Con-Man but He's not Hillary Clinton

He 'tweet explained' his Trump support the the other day but it's not very complicated. Basically Trump may be a con-man and he may have had white nationalists phone banking for him, but at least he's not Hilary Clinton.

As for Trump''s white nationalist support, Rubio doesn't like it but 'it is what it is.'

"Florida Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio granted a hot exclusive interview to CNN’s Jake Tapper, revealing on Sunday morning’s State of the Union that he would be releasing his delegates to the Republican convention, casting his tepid support for Donald Trump as a lesser evil than voting for Hillary Clinton, and reflecting on his own failed campaign. Tapper repeatedly pressed Rubio on some of the more disturbing aspects of Trump’s candidacy, including the vocal support he has garnered, and at times reciprocated, from white supremacists."

"Rubio expressed the sort of displeasure you’d expect from someone who sat through the season two premier of Wayward Pines, but in the end, took a tautological view of Trump’s white nationalist backer"

"It is what it is.'

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/marco-rubio-on-donald-trumps-white-nationalist-support-it-is-what-it-is/

Rubio remains as profound as ever. It's like when they asked him about global warming and he said 'I'm not a scientist, man.'

Or in the debate when he said 'We have too many philosophy majors in our economy.'

The guy is so shallow you'd almost mistake him for being deep.

Trump may be a con-man and he may get tons of white nationalist support-also anti Semitic support-but, hey, it is what it is, and he's not Hillary Clinton.

I'm sure Rubio would say the same thing if the GOP nominated Hitler himself. Trump is the next best thing to Hitler anyway, and he keeps a copy of The Fuhrer's speeches locked in a cabinet by his bed.

But hey, he's not Hillary Clinton.

You know Jewish conservative pundit Ben Shapiro has gotten anti Semitic hate mail from Trump supporters. That's not enough for them, they've even gone after his family.

They say he and his family belong in the ovens.

But you know what? It's one thing to bring back the ovens and the gas chambers. But Hillary Clinton will continue with Obamacare.

Rubio may not like ovens and gas chambers but he likes Obamacare even less. After all it's a real threat to liberty.

In listening to Rubio now we can see why he lost and deserved to lose. He kind of is walking, talking analogy of the deadlock of today's GOP party.

It's certainly obvious why he failed to defeat Trump. His argument: he's a con-man, he's dangerous but at least he's not Hillary Clinton just doesn't work.

There's a debate on whether or not he stays in the Senate. I certainly hope he doesn't. He can only be a drag on things. As a nation we are fortunate to turn the page on him.

Bernie's New Illusion: it all Comes Down to California Unless We Lose

He calls California the Big Enchilada. While the state is worth a lot of delegates, in truth the primary is already over.

All the states which have already voted and given Hillary a 3 million vote lead are the Big Enchilada. The idea that if Bernie wins California then he wins the nomination is the latest creative fiction. He was saying that about NY before.

He is also hedging his bets with Cali like he did NY. If he loses it's still not over. Huh? What will make it over Bernie? Hillary currently is just 74 delegates from 2383 and yet you say if you lose Cali it's still not over?

Bernie''s whole theory of elections seems to be Heads I win, Tails You Lose. If he won NY, then Hillary would be shown to be a weak candidate even if she won the nomination. She won by double digits, so NY didn't matter.

Same with Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Ohio. Now it's all about California if he wins it. If he loses then it's not all about California.

"Capturing the California primary will be critical for Bernie Sanders’ hopes of capturing the Democratic nomination, but the Vermont Senator said Sunday the Golden State isn’t a do-or-die for his campaign."

“Obviously, if we don't do well in California, it will make our path much, much harder,” Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “No question about it. But I think we have a good chance to winning California, maybe win big, and maybe win four or five of the other states that are off on June 7th.”

"Recent polls have showed the race between Sanders and front-runner Hillary Clinton is narrowing, but the former secretary of state still has an edge. Democrats are also voting that day in New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and North Dakota."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-california-223689#ixzz4A3WWlgHy

Big surprise, Politico mischaracterizes California. One poll showed it tighter. The averages still show her up by double digits. Last week two California polls came out. One showed it a 2 point race, one showed it an 18 point race.

The media declared it a 2 point race.

Dianne Feinstein has a reality based analysis. But, of course, Bernie doesn't like reality. Or there is bourgeoise reality and then there's proletarian reality.

"California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Sunday called on Bernie Sanders to consider suspending his campaign in an attempt to unify the party around front-runner Hillary Clinton."

“He ought to be able to read the signposts as well as anybody else, and if he did that, he would know that it's all but over,” Feinstein said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I know the passion of a campaign. I know when you're in it, and you just keep go, go, go until the last hour is there. Well, the last hour is close by.”

"Clinton stands a chance of securing enough delegates to put Sanders away on June 7 when California and other states hold their primaries. Sanders is focused on trying to halt Clinton's progress with a strong showing that day."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/dianne-feinstein-bernie-sanders-223691#ixzz4A3XNBePf

Politco does it again: 'Stands a chance.'

Not stands a chance but simply she will clinch on June 7. She's only 74 delegates away now and Cali itself is worth 475. No way she fails to win 74 even if it were a Bernie landslide which it won't be.

Does Trump Really Want to be President or Just Love the Attention?

Here is an interesting comment by one of LBJ's admen back in 1964. As Trump in many ways represents the same threat to America Goldwater did then-certainly they are similar in terms of talking openly about using nuclear weapons as well as having the support of a number of white nationalist groups.

Robert: What are the inherent advantages and disadvantages of running against a guy who has no experience, and has never held public office?"

Lloyd: My opinion is that Trump is suffering from what I call “Attention-Seeking Deficit Disorder.” He doesn’t want to serve. He doesn’t want to be president; he wants the attention that accompanies the campaign. And now, I think he’s rather afraid that he might win. [Laughs] I don't think he knows what he’s going to do as president."

"I never had that same view about Goldwater. While we felt strongly that he was not adequately concerned about nuclear proliferation, he had some solid views — views I respected, and which would have enabled him to be an effective president."

Sid: For the purposes of campaigning, Trump’s statements of policy are almost like a voting record. Goldwater’s congressional experience and his statements of policy are what we attacked, and you would attack Trump’s statements just like we attacked Goldwater."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-johnson-lbj-campaign-1964-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-political-ads-daisy-213925#ixzz4A3NIIIx8

What underscores Lloyd is what Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort said recently about what Trump is looking for in a VP. He wants someone to do the part of the job Trump doesn't want to do. Turns out Trump sees the job more as a 'chairman of the board' type position for him.

What now? And this is the guy Republicans are unifying behind now? Marco Rubio who said he's a conman is now saying vote for the conman as he's not Hillary Clinton?

"Yesterday, Manafort sat down with the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman for a fairly long interview, and while the two covered quite a bit of ground, there was one exchange in particular that stood out for me."

"The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said."

“He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”

"This is no small acknowledgement. For months, it’s been clear that Trump has no meaningful understanding of public policy or even how government works at a basic level. By any fair measure, his ignorance and incompetence about affairs of state is unlike anything Americans have ever seen in a major-party presidential candidate. The question has long been when we can expect Trump to get up to speed."

"And the answer is, he has no intention of doing any such thing. Day-to-governing and overseeing the executive branch apparently represent “the part of the job he doesn’t want to do.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/there-are-presidential-duties-trump-doesnt-want-do

Basically then, his VP will be running the country. So why isn't he on top of the ticket. We do know, at least, that it will be a white male as to not do so would be 'pandering' Trump claims.

"White men make up about 30.6 percent of the United States population. In 2012 they made up 35 percent of voters. But according to Donald Trump's campaign chair, white men make up 100 percent of people who could possibly be qualified to be vice president."

"That's certainly the implication of what Trump campaign chair and chief strategist Paul Manafort told the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman in an article published Wednesday:

"The campaign probably won’t choose a woman or a member of a minority group, he said. "In fact, that would be viewed as pandering, I think."

"The assumption: The only reason someone might pick a woman or person of color for a job would be because they're a woman or person of color."

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11784848/trump-vice-president-woman

So he's announcing he will discriminate in his choice of VP candidate. Right. The fact that guys David Duke support Trump is just a coincidence. Nothing to read into there.

Yet we have Berners telling us it makes no difference whether Trump or Hillary Clinton wins. Just like it made no difference whether Hitler or the Social Democrats won back in 1933.

All the Way With HRC

I've argued that contrary to what some say you can win based on the 'politics of fear.' Don't get me wrong, no election is purely about fear but neither is it purely about aspiration. It's usually a combination of both.

There is plenty of aspiration with Hillary starting with her being the first female Presidential candidate of a major party.

But there's no question that thanks to Donald Trump, a lot of independent and even Republican voters who aren't normally in play can be in play this time.

The other day my buddy Artie told me his very Republican mother is considering voting for Hillary Clinton. But she is sure she won't vote for Donald Trump.

If you want to see how the politics of fear can be productively used, start with All the Way With LBJ back in 1964. In significant ways his opponent was very like Donald Trump.

True, at least Goldwater had actual government experience. Trump is a cross between Goldwater and Wendell Wilkie.

This only makes Trump an even more risky bet. Whoever thought the old Daisy ads would be relevant again?

"It’s rare for a political ad to go viral, and rarer yet for an ad 52 years old, but that’s just what happened in March with “Confessions of a Republican.” The theme of the spot from Lyndon Johnson's 1964 campaign was eerily contemporary: a young actor talking about how his lifelong identification with the GOP was just shaken by an extreme nominee who “scares me.” “When the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups, come out in favor of the candidate of my party — either they’re not Republicans, or I’m not,” he says.

“Confessions” was a linchpin of perhaps the most influential ad campaign in political history, a creative, theatrical attack by Democrats on the disruptive right-wing Republican candidacy of Barry Goldwater. Before 1964, political ads were staid, awkward scenes — short speeches read on-camera. But LBJ's ad campaign was the political equivalent of Sgt. Pepper’s, a masterwork that changed what people thought possible from the medium. Fears of nuclear radiation were related by showing a child eating ice cream. One spot showed Klansmen burning a cross as a drawling voice-over read a KKK endorsement of Goldwater. Another began evocativelywith a nighttime landing of Air Force One — the return flight from Dallas after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Another is arguably the most famous ad in political history, “Daisy,” in which a young girl in a sunny meadow counting petals is menaced by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear bomb. “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home,” intoned the announcer. The New York Times called it “probably the most controversial TV commercial of all time.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-johnson-lbj-campaign-1964-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-political-ads-daisy-213925#ixzz4A3HrcIab

Wow. I mean we have Klansmen and other white nationalist groups getting behind Trump. We have his supporters attacking conservative pundit Ben Shapiro and his family on anti semitic grounds.

The stakes were too high then and they're way too high now.

The stakes are too high for Americans to do anything but vote for Hillary Clinton on November 3.

Bernie's Failed DNC Coup

That didn't last long did it? Bernie made some absurd demands of kicking Barney Frank and Dan Malloy off of the Convention Steering Committee.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/concessions-only-emboldening-bernie.html

Bernie feels that anyone who criticizes him shouldn't get on it-while he puts Cornell West who has some very nasty insults and criticism of both Hillary and President Obama.

But now, Bernie's DNC coup is in tatters.

"The Bernie Sanders campaign sought to keep two key Clinton allies from co-chairing Democratic National Convention committees at the Democratic convention in July, according to a report from Politico."

"Now, according to the Associated Press, the DNC has rejected the Sanders campaign's request."

"The AP reported the DNC did not find that the complaint had merit and they were "compelled to dismiss it."

"In the original complaint letter obtained by Politico,, the Sanders campaign asked for both former Rep. Barney Frank (R-MA) and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy to be stripped of their co-chair positions on their respective Standing Rules Committee and Standing Platform Committee."

"Sanders' council wrote "both Governor Malloy and Mr.Frank (the"Chairs") have been harsh,vocal critics of Senator Sanders and equally active supporters of his challenger, Hillary Clinton."

"While it is expected, acceptable and even desirable, that committee members and leaders at the Convention will represent a diversity of political views and presidential preferences,the preferences of party officials must not interfere with the fair and neutral administration of Convention business and procedures," the complaint said.

"The letter went on to explain specific incidences when the surrogates criticized Sanders."

"Mr.Frank's animosity toward Senator Sanders dates back decades," the later stated. "After Senator Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primaries in February, Mr.Frank wrote an opinion piece in which he professed his "resentment" toward the Senator. And Mr.Frank's invective against Senator Sanders has only intensified as Senator Sanders has notched additional primary victories."

"In an interview with Politico, Frank offered an explanation."

"I think what you have here is this: Sanders is losing to Hillary Clinton because she is getting many more votes and many more pledged delegates. Some of [the Sanders supporters] are trying to lay the claim that he's being unfairly deprived of this."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-campaign-moves-to-remove-clinton-allies-from-dnc-committees

That's what's really going on. Bernie has sour grapes because he's lost and is trying to somehow delegitimize her landslide victory.

She won not because of Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz's fiendish Saturday night debates-Reince Priebus also later had some fiendish Saturday night debates of his own and received zero criticism over-and not because of the Confederacy or because of rigged or stolen elections.

She won because Democrats are not that into the Bern but are very into the Hil.

Take heart, Hillary lovers. it won't be much longer. California and New Jersey vote in just 10 days and once this is done with, it will be over.

The Hillary Team Should Study Trump's Chris Matthews Town Hall with a Fine Tooth Comb

In discussing Matthews with Tom Brown I remembered that. Tom was talking about not being happy with the job Matthews did Friday night.

"One funny thing, Matthews let slip the word "Americans" when describing the pro-Trump protesters. Ann Coulter was one guest and she jumped on that, agreeing they were the Americans vs the un-Americans. Chris spent the rest of the broadcast apologizing for that slip. I was just rolling my eyes..."

"That segment ended with Ann and another woman talking over each other. He just had to cut them off."

"And while I thought he went overboard on his apologizing, on one other point I couldn't believe how dense he was. That woman arguing with Ann at the end pointed out to chris that net immigration from Mexico is near zero and that the Obama administration has been very aggressive in deportations... Much more so than Bush... But Chris kept saying "yeah, I've heard that before, but who on the liberal side is saying they're going to do something about it? What are the proposals on the left?" ... The guest was rightfully dumbfounded by that statement. Let's see, Obama is aggressively enforcing the law and objectively immigration is now zero. Wtf is the problem? She already answered you Chris. I've noticed recently that he sometimes doesn't seem to understand what people are saying to him. Not all the time, but maybe once per broadcast he either hears something that wasn't there, or fails to hear a direct response. Old age maybe? Lol

https://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/donald-trump-attacks-mexican-judge-in.html?showComment=1464466257141#c9123322716037722899

It sounds like Matthews really stepped in it more than once. However, then I remembered his Town Hall meeting with Trump in March where Matthews really got to Trump in a way that few other moderators or interviewers did.

He somehow would confuse Trump and yet get him to drop his guard and say the wrong thing-like that women need to be punished for abortion.

It was the way Matthews asked it-and also because Trump as usual was just winging it and didnt'' understand the way the pro life movement spins things well enough.

When Matthews tried to get him, Trump as usual tried to change the subject by pointing out that Matthews as a Catholic also is supposed to be pro life.

But Matthews had a good answer: 'Yeah, but that's religion. You're running for the law, you're about the law. What do you do if a woman has an abortion?'

Trump was a bit off balance: "Well, there'd have to be a punishment, there'd have to be a fine.'

Matthews: "A fine?! For Murder?"

Trump: 'Well we'd have to go back to women having back alley abortions. But there's be punishment, people would have to go to jail.'

That was not the only thing Matthews got him on either.

Take, for instance, this conversation they had on using nuclear weapons:

MATTHEWS: Where would we drop -- where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.

Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?

MATTHEWS: No. To drop a nuclear weapon on a community of people that are...

TRUMP: No, no, but you can't say -- first of all, you don't want to say, "Take everything off the table..."

MATTHEWS: No, just nuclear.

TRUMP: ... because you'd be a bad negotiator if you do that.

MATTHEWS: Just nuclear.

TRUMP: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? We had (inaudible).

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/30/35330907-full-transcript-msnbc-town-hall-with-donald-trump-moderated-by-chris-matthews?lite

How would that look in an ad? Just playing that clip? Trump's attitude is 'Gee, we make these wonderful nuclear weapons, we've got to use them.'

Last week Chuck Todd said the politics of fear won't get people to the polls. That depends. Some it will, some it won't. For those it won't, Hillary has other things to offer them.

In 1964 it certainly did. I mean after seeing this clip, it's time to dust off LBJ's Daisy ad.

MATTHEWS: Can you tell the Middle East we're not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

TRUMP: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: How about Europe? We won't use it in Europe?

TRUMP: I -- I'm not going to take it off the table.

MATTHEWS: You might use it in Europe?

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: No, I don't think so. But I'm not taking...

MATTHEWS: Well, just say it. "I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe."

TRUMP: I am not -- I am not taking cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: OK.

"The trouble is, the sane people hear you and the insane people are not affected by your threats. That's the trouble. The real fanatics say, "Good. Keep it up."

As Hillary says, Trump is a huge recruitment tool for ISIS.

MATTHEWS: But in principle, the person who hires someone illegally -- I'm not talking about leaf-raking out in front of the house or helping to push the snow out of the way. I'm talking about somebody who hires them to save money on labor.

"You bring in somebody into the country, you give them a free -- you're basically encouraging illegal immigration, because that's why this guy or woman is coming here, right? Isn't that right?"

TRUMP: You can -- yes, and you can solve the problem with e-verify. And other systems...

MATTHEWS: Well, why doesn't your party and you back that?

TRUMP: Well, I back it, and my party backs it.

MATTHEWS: No, they don't.

TRUMP: Many -- well, many people...

MATTHEWS: Ryan won't even bring it up on the floor.

TRUMP: Well, but many people in the party do that.

MATTHEWS: Ryan's not -- they're not trustworthy. They're not bringing it up. They talk a line about illegal immigration, they want to play these games.

TRUMP: Like I said, there are many people...

MATTHEWS: They like the cheap labor.

TRUMP: And there are many people...

MATTHEWS: Don't they?

TRUMP: Well, they -- they do in one way, but many people don't, they don't want it.

You know, what, labor -- labor is one thing.

MATTHEWS: The regular working guy doesn't want it, but the business guys, the corporate leaders want the cheap labor.

"The business guys want cheap labor, one of these being Donald Trump who has used illegal immigrant labor on his own hotels."

Again, these are just a few exchanges. I'm not being exhaustive here. Look at all the great ads the Matthews Town Hall provides.

Chris Matthews may have had a bad night last night but he was on fire back in March.