Posted on 07/31/2015 7:59:26 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Today he is up around 40% of the GOP polled. I’m not seeing the Ponzi Scheme collapsing, but rather growing.
I’m not sure if it is Trump, anyway, but rather something he represents... It’s millions of pissed off people, or, if not angry (which I think is said, politically, to make these people sound like Neanderthals), just determined not to elect a GOPe politician who lies to them to get their vote.
Who are the GOPe Politicians? ANYONE already in Washington.
The media hates Trump because they have no control, plain and simple.
As July turns into November, what say you now?
I’ve always enjoyed your stuff. It’s time for another vanity.
When I used to analyze companies for a living, I was fond of saying that many an investor has gone broke being right at the wrong time and I still believe that the fundamental assumptions concerning Donald Trump and his campaign will prove true, the timing is the problem. Fortunately for the argument, the fundamental assumptions allow for variations in timing. That vanity was filed just before the first debate and it predicted that Trump would eventually (that is not necessarily as a result of the first debate) "top" and then see his poll numbers begin to deteriorate. This did not in fact occur after the first debate, indeed it did not occur after the second debate but it does appear to be happening now, at least in Iowa.
Just a few minutes ago I watched a "debate" on Fox in which the contention was made that Trump's numbers in Iowa are deteriorating as a result of ads which emphasize his penchant for eminent domain and which include the allegation that he personally profits from exploiting eminent domain. Although I have no way of judging what sort of ads are actually appearing in Iowa, it is abundantly clear that there are multiple points of vulnerability of this sort which can be exploited in ad campaigns against Trump. It's clear the Trump has the financial wherewithal to respond in kind but can he "win" such as air war? Pissing contests are not healthy environments for one who can survive only so long as he is larger-than-life. When an organization such as the Alliance for Growth showcases these attack ads, Trump has no individual, no person, whom he can Alinsky-like humiliate and discredit. The Lilliputians can thus bring him down with a thousand cuts.
Having been burned several times getting the timing of investments wrong, reality has taught me to be to be wary of going on the public record to predict Donald Trump's political eclipse when it is attached to any timeline. Nevertheless the temptation to do so is strong when one looks at the polls in Iowa which show remarkably similar results and proclaim a radical reversal of fortunes for Trump and Carson. These two polls can be very significant because much of Trump's appeal, or at least much of the tortured rationalizations in support of Trump's grotesqueries, are "so what, the man is a winner -just look at the polls." Well, let's look at the two polls in Iowa and we must conclude from them that the Emperor has no clothes, at least in Iowa. Trump is not inevitable, rather he is vulnerable and he has a record which makes him vulnerable on every front. He is vulnerable to attacks from the left and he is vulnerable to attacks from the right. He is vulnerable to attacks for his boorishness and he is vulnerable for attacks for his misogyny. There is scarcely any issue in which he is not offended both sides at one time or another with his public remarks. Donald Trump is vulnerable.
Thank you for your kind words.
I used to know the answer to that question (why Pickett didn’t recieve support.) But I forgot a long time ago. I’m old.
There was a fundamental divergence of opinion between General Longstreet whose corps would have furnished the "missing support"and General Lee about how to wage that battle. It is a simplification but largely accurate to say that Longstreet was thinking tactically and Lee was thinking strategically, although Longstreet's tactics were to quite consciously exploit the strategic geographical map.
Lee wanted to bring the European powers into the war if possible even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he wanted to win a signal victory in the North which would break the morale of the North, and encourage the antiwar forces there. He knew that his army could not well subsist in Virginia but it have to get by quite apart from a logistic line of support by foraging in the North. Indeed the battle itself occurred because the Confederates had heard that there were some shoes to be had in Gettysburg. Lee felt that his window of opportunity to bring about a decisive engagement was limited by his lack of logistics, and his inferiority of force.
Lee, with some justice, felt that his army was invincible after Chancellorsville and the whole record of 1862. He knew that a long war meant inevitable defeat for the outnumbered and outgunned South. So he's famously said words to the effect, there is the enemy and there is where we will fight him. Lee sought a major victory to end the war before the weight of numbers and matériel simply overwhelmed his Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy.
Longstreet looked at the maps, one topographical of the area around Gettysburg and the other strategic of the theater of war. He saw from the former that the Union forces occupied the superior ground to the rebels' disadvantage and he sought to remedy that by reference to the larger map.
He argued that Lee should continue to maneuver to interposes army between the Army of the Potomac and a strategic city such as Washington, Baltimore, or Philadelphia, occupy high ground and compel general Meade to offer battle at is his disadvantage but which could not be declined because the Confederates had maneuvered into a strategic position which the Yankees must attack.
Advantaged by hindsight, I am inclined to agree with Longstreet but Lee was not so favored by second sight and determined to fight. Many have faulted Longstreet for being tardy. I think events have proved Longstreet evaluation of the terrain to be correct.
Another possible reason for the lack of support was the shortage of ammunition for the artillery which was supposed to soften the Yankee lines. A message was sent out from the artillery commander who said in effect, for God's sake if you're going to attack, attack now I am running out of ammunition.
Finally, there is the question whether there was any real lack of "support" considering all the factors, including the terrain, the Yankee artillery and strength.
If there had been a breakthrough, one wonders whether the Confederates had sufficient strength to capitalize on that local victory and decisively beat general Meade's whole army. It is been the tragic story of the Army of Northern Virginia that Lee could not capitalize on his brilliant victories because he simply did not have the resources to follow through. Without a decisive victory over the whole of the Yankee army, Gettysburg would not have altered the inevitable outcome of the war. After Gettysburg the Confederacy could not win the war but the union could in fact lose it at home in the North.
In high school, I was the expert in the politics of the Civil War, aND especially of the Reconstruction. A childhood friend was the expert of the waging of the war. He’s now a retired colonel. In high school, we’d all go to Gettysburg once a year. We’re both old now. I haven’t walked the battlefield in five or so years. And our friends are starting to die off.
I forgot what year that occurred, do you know?
I believe it was 1913.
I remember seeing the film many times. Like so much else, I don’t remember the year. I count it a blessing that when I go to the doctor and the girl behind the counter asks my birthdate, I still remember.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.