President Trump

[DougMacG]

Trump interview on Fox News Sunday yesterday.  He looked and sounded very good.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/10/18/donald-trump-talks-taxes-trade-11-and-why-takes-personal-shots-at-political/

Some humor in the fact that Chris Wallace is one of the 'journalists' Trump ripped after the Fox debate, and they included an old clip of Trump interviewed by Mike Wallace.

Still he couldn't jump past the eminent domain question that apparently will dog him until his demise.

The limo parking lot for the big project is more important than the homes of small people, even though in both examples, the so-called 'smart planning' for economic growth failed economically.  He tried unsuccessfully to compare that with building highways and pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the innuendo in this next piece was about a candidate I favor, I would consider it very unfair.  They never really come out and accuse Trump of anything and have no evidence or smoking gun.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

That said, this quote fits nicely with their story: 

“I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me,” he said. “And that’s a broken system.”

Then they go on to describe how Trump's big projects were built in mob controlled areas.  In particular, Trump Tower was constructed of concrete while the mob controlled the concrete contractors in that area.

Trump swam in mob-infested waters in early years as an NYC developer

"Nearly every major project in Manhattan during that period was built with mob involvement, according to court records and the organized crime task force’s report. That includes Trump Tower, the glittering 58-story skyscraper on Fifth Avenue, which was made of reinforced concrete."


Agenda driven Washington Post planting the seed that things eventually will come out of Trump's business dealings that were better left under the table.

[ppulatie]

WaPo and others are going to make claims like this, and also the fact that he dealt with unions. But they will not admit that if you are doing business in NY, NJ and other East Coast cities, unions and mobs are a fact of life and cannot be gotten around. Trump did what he had to do.........just like any developer would have done.

From what I am hearing, there is a YUGE contingent of union members supporting Trump at the local levels. He will apparently be pulling the union members into his camp in numbers far larger than normal, and probably greater than Reagan. Bodes well for cross party support.

[DougMacG]

"Trump did what he had to do.........just like any developer would have done."

Agree.  So did Mitt Romney as CEO of a private equity firm - in a much cleaner way than Trump..  Yet he could not relate that to the common person, answer his critics or overcome it in the general election.

Now Trumps fails to answer the distinction between highways, hospitals and private development.

" I’ll be honest with you. And remember, you’re not taking property, you know, the way you asked the question, the way other people—you’re paying a fortune for that property. Those people can move two blocks away into a much nicer house."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/07/donald-trump-claims-taking-of-property-for-private-development-is-not-taking-property/

Swing and a miss.  Strike Two.

[ppulatie]

Only a very tiny percentage of the electorate care about this subject. Immigration is much more important.

[DougMacG]

Only a very tiny percentage of the electorate care about this subject.

Including the founders, and most of them are dead.

[ppulatie]

I have to ask.....

If Trump met your position on Eminent Domain, would you support him, or is there another issue or three that you have against him?

[DougMacG]

I have to ask.....

If Trump met your position on Eminent Domain, would you support him, or is there another issue or three that you have against him?

It's a good question.  To the first part, no, he wouldn't be my first choice anyway.  I see the private use takings issues as a symptom of a bigger government view than mine.  He has shown many more examples over the years, giving money to the Clintons, and supporting the Pelosi Reid congress, etc.  He had his reasons every time but I don't see him politically as on my side, even though most of his positions now line up pretty well.  He has the right to change his mind and I have the right to not be fully convinced.

On the second part, the guy rubs me the wrong way.  In 1987, I bought his bestseller, 'Art of the Deal', thinking I was going to learn something important about making real estate deals from the best in the profession and I was severely disappointed.  Even back then I re-named his  book, 'Aren't I Great and Don't I Know a Lot of Important People', by Donald Trump.  It contained nothing to help the reader except to be aware of how great Donald Trump is.  On his second chance to make a good first impression, take an honest look at the off-topic material in this campaign like his answer to why he gave so much money to both sides.  The example he came up with was that he got celebrities to come to his wedding - Clintons, nonetheless.  It doesn't work for me.

He is the strongest candidate on immigration, but other than building a fence and deporting murderers and rapists, what is he going to get done more than under several of the other candidates?  Nothing I think, especially if he loses.

The immigration issue is polarizing already and Trump made it more so.  There is going to be some kind of political settlement in the end.  He can head into those negotiations with the most hardline stance, but it doesn't help the outcome if it causes him to lose the election.

If polls matter in the ones where he is winning - every state right now for the nomination, why don't they matter in general election matchups?  He trails Sanders by 9 points in polls where others are even or better.  That's not going to close the border or get any illegals sent home.

[ppulatie]

Okay, I can accept your position. But I would say this..............

1. No one is going to win the election on the Pubbie side without being able to drawn from normal Dem supporters.

2. Cruz cannot win in a general election. He will be destroyed for his Tea Party connections. Even winning the nomination will be difficult.

3. Jeb cannot win against Biden. His support is dropping so fast that he cannot bring out the anti Bush pubbies to vote for him.

4. Rubio is Jeb lite. He is the most likely to win the nomination. But his ability to appeal to the base is very questionable, especially since he waffles on immigration and supports Common Core.

5. Carson appears on paper to be a good candidate, but he is very liberal on immigration with statements suggesting he would support amnesty. His views on health care in the past show a more liberal position. Views on Affirmative Action tend to be more moderate. His comments on Ferguson were disturbing. His statements after 9-11 about not going into Afghanistan but that negotiations and jobs would be more effective with the Taliban were very problematic.  Likely, he will not be able to deal with the politicians on either side in Congress. he  will get rolled time and again.

6. The others have no hope at all.

Again, I expect that Rubio will end up the nominee. GOPe manipulations in the convention will deliver the nomination to Rubio, no matter how Trump or Carson performs. Then, Rubio loses in the general election.

[objectivist1]

Panicked establishment gets ready for war against Trump

By BYRON YORK (@BYRONYORK) • 10/19/15 6:02 PM

This weekend was an inflection point in the Republican presidential race — a moment in which some significant part of the GOP establishment came out of denial and realized Donald Trump might well become their party's nominee.
"The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win," noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. "I've heard that from everybody. I don't hear anybody saying he can't win the nomination anymore."

That doesn't mean Republicans have made their peace with a Trump victory. On the contrary — some are preparing to do whatever it takes to bring him down. Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party's likely nominee

"Massive resistance," was the answer. "He's not a conservative."

Insiders have watched as Trump defied what many believed were immutable laws of the political universe. First they thought Trump wouldn't run. Then they thought voters wouldn't take a reality-TV star seriously. Then they thought gaffes would kill Trump as they had other candidates. None of that turned out as expected.

But there is one belief Trump has not yet tested, and that is the political insiders' unshakeable faith that negative ads work.

"I don't think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire," says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It would force him to spend money. That's when this starts to get real for him." ("Points" refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

There is no central anti-Trump conspiracy. But one group that would like to play a leading role in taking him down is the Club for Growth. In September, the Club ran two ads against Trump in Iowa — 2,000 points — with one arguing that Trump is not a true conservative and the other hitting Trump for his support of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain.

McIntosh is looking for donors to fund an anti-Trump campaign that would hit hard in the month before voting begins. It might be a Club for Growth production, or it might be a combination of efforts. "There is no other group that has decided to do it," says McIntosh. "There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it."

The triggers for the anti-Trump onslaught would likely be: 1) if next month arrives with Trump still in the lead, and 2) if Trump begins airing his own ads. "Once that starts, you'll see a lot of people saying we've waited long enough," notes McIntosh.

While that is going on, officials at the Republican National Committee vow to stay out of things. Asked what role the RNC might play in any movement against Trump, strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said, "None. None. Zero. It is up to Republican voters to decide who our nominee is, not the RNC." Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

The anti-Trump campaign will face several challenges. The biggest is the voters who support Trump. Conservative groups like the Club believe they can convince those voters that Trump is not a true conservative. Perhaps they can. But what if a large number of his voters are not wed to conservative orthodoxy as defined by Washington-based organizations?

The other problem is Trump himself. If he decides to spend serious money on his campaign — and some GOP veterans still aren't convinced he will — he can launch a serious counterpunch to any anti-Trump campaign.

And then there is the fact that Trump is improving as a candidate. Just look at Sunday's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he was sharp, focused, and forceful. A talented candidate who does something over and over again will get better at it. Trump is better than he was just a month ago, which is not good news for his opponents.

Some anti-Trump Republicans still harbor hope Trump will begin to fade all by himself. Yes, Trump, who has been atop the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for three months straight, has outlasted the various flavor-of-the-months from the 2012 GOP race. But opponents point out that Rudy Giuliani led the poll average for an incredibly long time four years earlier — from February 2007 to January 2008 — before sinking when voting actually began. Their hope is the same will happen to Trump.

It could. But a closer look at the 2007-2008 polls shows that Giuliani was almost always trailing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And of course, ignoring the early states killed his candidacy. Trump, on the other hand, is on top in those three states, plus Nevada — all the states that will vote first in February. His organization is growing. He is hiring smart operatives. The Giuliani analogy doesn't apply.

Which makes it more likely that the anti-Trump forces will ultimately have to take it on themselves to go on the attack. Their core belief is that Trump cannot withstand a long and withering bombardment of negative ads. But core beliefs have been cast aside repeatedly in this race. That might happen again.

[ppulatie]

To show that I am fair to Doug, I will save him the trouble and post this for him............Trump reversed himself on Afghanistan.  Just more ammo for the Anti-Trumps. He is the only way who makes these mistakes.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/donald-trump-afghanistan-war-not-a-mistake/index.html

[ppulatie]

Everyone wonders what the appeal of Trump is. This article does perhaps the best job so far of explaining his appeal. His support comes from the blue collar wing.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/trump-lead-alienates-white-collar-voters?mref=home

I have no problem with this analysis, and it actually supports my own observations of those who support Trump. Watch his rallies and you see blue collar, middle class everywhere. They are readily identifiable. What one would assume to be white collar are less so.

Around my own community, the same divide exists. Those who are better educated will visibly recoil when people mention that they are supporting Trump. And those willing to voice their support are certainly middle class.

The divide between the pro and con Trump forces reflect a divide that currently exists across educational and economic levels throughout the country. In many ways, it reflects the differences in the GOPe and the Tea Party factions, but goes much deeper because it affects Dems as well as Reps. One could probably compare this to the divide between the Coasts and the Fly Over Country.

The problem is that for the elitists, it is too easy to dismiss the Trump supporters as lo info voters, rubes, under educated and income wise, lower middle class. The Trumpkins just simply "don't understand the world" and what is really going on. So the elitists must guide them through the morass for their own protection.

Where this will lead remains to be seen. If one believes that a 4th Turning in America is around the corner that will radically change the direction of the country, then the divide certainly will play a huge role in what happens over the next 15 years. However, if one believes that everything will "be okay" with just a few hick ups along the way, then a different perspective exists.

In the end, I still expect that at this point, it will be Rubio due to some major GOPe manipulation. And if this happens, the GOP is finished as a major party and force for decades. The GOPe risks the party if it ignores the Trumpkins and Carsonistas forces.

[DougMacG]

PP, Good posts.  I'm not out to get him.  We all need to know more about his appeal.  He sounded rather Presidential in the Chris Wallace interview and most of the time in the second debate.  But that was made possible because Wallace gave him a pass on the previous Fox insults.  Any candidate that might win the nomination needs to keep in mind they need to unite very soon with the other candidates' supporters to win the general election.  The so-called blue collar vote or blue collar Dems or Reagan Dems are already part of the 40-something percent of the vote counted on our side.  To win, one of these candidates needs to really turn out all sectors of the conservative coalition (if there is one) and reach at least a part way into the traditional support of the other side.  Polarization turns out the opponents as well, so appealing to both is a delicate balance.

[ppulatie]

But none of the other GOP candidates can pull together the party either.

1. Cruz represents the Tea Party. The GOPe has no intention of accepting that. And the Dems will demonize him.

2. Bush........the base does not want another Bush. And Bush cannot bring them into the fold.

3. Rubio.....Bush lite. He waffles on immigration, wants Common Core and is the alternative for the GOPe. Can he bring together people? I doubt it.

4. The dwarfs..............forget them....ain't going to happen.

5. Carson can bridge some of the different sections. But as more attention is paid to him, the more liberal his views will be shown to be. And.....does he have the toughness to go against the Dems......and if he were to win all, against his own party in Congress?

As to Trump, his appeal is simply among the blue collar workers. He says the non PC things that they have been feeling for decades. He represents their views that are totally ignored by both parties.

The blue collar worker finds himself under threats from all sides. Economically, he is going backwards. Socially, he is becoming more and more castrated. The elites have no respect for his views and believe themselves to be far superior.

All the blue collar worker wants is to be respected and treated fairly, something that has not occurred for decades. They don't want political pandering to special interests, social welfare programs that only benefit non working groups who have no intent of improving their own lot in life, nor programs that only serve to worsen their lot. They want a fair shake.

Simply, they believe the system is broken in favor of Wall Street, the Banks, and those who can afford to buy politicians.

Trump, will all of his warts, represents to them a hope of a change in direction. Whether change occurs or not, if Trump really tries, then they will consider him a success. If he folds like a cheap suit, then they will walk away entirely from the political process and never return. After all, if Trump folds, it means that every person and institution is corrupt and there is nowhere to turn. So for them, the country is lost.

Heck, I even feel that way. The country is out of control and the political masters don't care. They are in it all for themselves, and their cronies. For me, Trump is a "long shot hope" and nothing else. If he can upset the apple cart, great. If he fails, let it burn.

This comes from someone (me) who has been an eternal optimist since his first presidential election in 1972. Now, the optimism is gone, replaced by a feeling of betrayal, disillusionment and despair. If the Uni-Party continues at its present course, the country's demise is unstoppable. Why continue doing the same things over time and again, voting for the same idiots when the results never change? For me, it is "try something new" or walk away from it all.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/20/watch-morning-joe-hosts-stunned-reaction-to-donald-trumps-chillingly-accurate-prediction-made-in-book-months-before-911/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FireWire%20-%20HORIZON%2010-20-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire

[G M]

1. Cruz represents the Tea Party. The GOPe has no intention of accepting that. And the Dems will demonize him.

The left demonizes everyone that opposes them, including Trump.

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/10/22/donald-trumps-foreign-policy-for-dummies/?singlepage=true

[Crafty_Dog]

y Karl Rove
Oct. 21, 2015 6:42 p.m. ET
136 COMMENTS

Having led the polls for three months, Donald Trump has shown he’s no flash in the pan. Voters and the media should therefore treat him as a traditional front-runner, examine his temperament and require him to go beyond sound bites.

A governing agenda is essential to win the White House. Candidates must demonstrate mastery of the issues and cannot wing it. Platitudes don’t cut it for swing voters. Inquiring minds might like to hear Mr. Trump explain what specifically he would do as president.

He has said that he would deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., and in two years or less, thanks to “really good management.” But what exactly is Mr. Trump’s plan to arrest, detain and deport—with all the litigation that entails—15,000 people a day? That’s roughly 10 times the number of daily arrests in the U.S. for violent crime. How will Mr. Trump round up these people in a way that is, as he promises, “very humane” and “very nice”? And how many tens of billions will this cost?

Mr. Trump says he will then “expedite” the return of “the good ones” and proclaims that he doesn’t mind “having a big beautiful door” in his border wall to hasten their return. Question: Wouldn’t it be more practical to identify the “good” illegal immigrants first, to thereby avoid the cost of deporting them merely to expedite their return? Wouldn’t it be easier to determine who qualifies as “good” before deportation?

Then there’s the billionaire hotelier’s pledge to build that wall on the southern border. Mr. Trump has neither said how much it would cost nor dealt with practical considerations. For example, would Mr. Trump build a wall along the 1,254 miles where the Rio Grande separates Texas and Mexico? Would he wall off Lake Amistad and Falcon Lake, two reservoirs straddling the border where Americans go fishing and boating? What would he say to Texas officials who, instead of a wall along most of the Rio Grande border, would prefer to spend money on more Border Patrol agents, air assets and technology?

He is similarly vague on health care. In a Sept. 27 interview on “60 Minutes,” he said health care should be a universal, government-provided right. “Everybody’s got to be covered,” he said. “I don’t care if it costs me votes or not.” When the interviewer asked how, and who would pay for it, Mr. Trump answered, “I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people,” and pledged that “the government’s gonna pay for it.” During the Aug. 6 GOP debate Mr. Trump praised socialized medical systems elsewhere. “As far as single payer, it works in Canada,” he said. “It works incredibly well in Scotland.”

So how would TrumpCare operate? How many Americans would be eligible? What would it cost? It isn’t enough for Mr. Trump to go on “60 Minutes” and claim, “They can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.” Americans have heard empty promises before. They want an actual proposal that works.

There are already huge gaps between what Mr. Trump says and reality. For instance, he has complained about “hedge fund guys that are making a lot of money that aren’t paying anything” in taxes. Yet when he released his tax plan, he proposed dropping the top rate on hedge fund fees to 25% from 39.6%. True, the plan would raise taxes on their performance bonuses to 25% from 23.8%. But the result would be a generous tax cut provided to people Mr. Trump claims pay no taxes despite “making a hell of a lot of money.”

What about entitlements? “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican,” Mr. Trump says. “And I’m not going to cut Medicare.” But the Social Security Trust Fund will go bankrupt by 2034, and the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2030. The only way the next president can save these entitlements is to reform them and help America avoid a debt crisis.

Mr. Trump has proven he can do outrageous. But soon Mr. Trump must demonstrate that which he has so far avoided: substance.

Republicans, too, face a test: Will the party choose a nominee with a conservative agenda or one reflecting populist anger? The two are hardly the same. Conservative principles provide a winning path to the White House. Populist outrage alone will end in defeat. In three months, Republican primary voters will begin deciding which they want. A good start would be to demand more from The Donald.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the 1896 Election Still Matters,” out in November from Simon & Schuster.

[ppulatie]

Coming from the Head Jeb supporter............

[Crafty_Dog]

Well, duh-- but what of the points he raises?

[DougMacG]

...but what of the points he raises?


The details of mass deportation are unanswered because they are unanswerable.  Toothpaste back in the tube, as they say in non-human terms.  Healthcare, same thing.  There isn't a simple or easy answer after the government takeover already took hold.

Details of the wall, fence or border will need to be worked out - with the Congress and with those states.  Not with the county precinct chairs in Iowa.

Both the Rove piece and the Roger Simon piece, PJ Media, in GM's post on foreign policy indicate that Trump hasn't thought all these things through yet.  (Nor has Carson.)  Further it indicates that he is as surprised as anyone that his frontrunner status had stood this long.

Rove's opening is right, the frontrunners have earned the most scrutiny.  See Hillary's discomfort with Trey Gowdy's Blumenthal questions.  No one looked into Herman Cain or came forward to discredit him until he took the lead.

[ppulatie]

Trump doing a rally in Florida right now. Jorge Ramos is pissed. Trump would not let him in to the rally. Of course, Trump owns the property so to hell with Ramos.

That is good non pc behavior.

[Crafty_Dog]

Who is Jorge Ramos?

[G M]

Who is Jorge Ramos?

Someone even more pro-illegal invader than Jeb.

[ppulatie]

He was the reporter for Univision who got tossed out of a previous rally, but let back in.

[Crafty_Dog]

Ah yes, now I remember 

[DougMacG]

3rd poll shows Trump trailing in Iowa, Monmouth, losing by largest margin ever.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-carson-now-holds-15-point-lead-over-trump-in-iowa/

Trump built his whole brand name and reason for existing as a candidate around polling and being a winner.

What's a frontrunner to do?

If past experience is any guide, the role of the frontryunner is to be everyone's target, face the most scrutiny, fail to rise above it and relinquish first place to someone else.

Normally what a leader does in anything, sports, etc., is do more of the same.  Do what you did to take the lead.

In Trump's case that was: 1) Identify the sleeper issue illegal immigration, and take the boldest and strongest position on it right out of the gates.  2) Tear everyone down that challenges you.  No. 2) has gotten old.  No. 1) is still a very important issue but filling in the details actually weakens it while building up the opposition against him.

The traditional role of the successful frontrunner is to ignore everyone else and go about the business of telling people how you will govern and why that is good.  For Trump that would mean stop being Trump and start being a conventional politician, something he has never done, isn't very interested in and isn't very good at.

It's hard to imagine a better position to be in than sustained frontrunner nationwide and in almost every state for more than 100 days coming into the final stretch before the primaries begin.  3 polls in Iowa don't change that , but they change the trend line and the story line.  Trump looks stuck, has used up his opening strategy, run out of new ideas, and seems to have nowhere to turn.

As usual, we will see.

[ppulatie]

DMG,

Good points. It does provide talking points. But there are only two other states where Carson is leading, Oklahoma and Louisiana, both of which are heavy evangelical as well.
Everywhere else, Trump is generally kicking ass.

Iowa has not shown any predictive values in the last two election cycles, going for candidates who did not survive Super Tuesday. So though Carson is showing well, it means little at this point.

Everything boils down to being able to win 8 primaries so that their names can go into nomination at the Convention. Then the real games begin.

Can Carson win 8 primaries? Can Rubio? Can Cruz? (Ain't gonna happen with the Bush/Shrub/Tumbleweed)

Trump with his leads in almost every state must be derailed prior to Mar 15 so as to blunt his chances. Otherwise, he goes to the convention and his name is placed into nomination. But how to do it remains the question.

Can Carson win 8 states? Not likely without a major failure by Trump. And the only way to denigrate Trump is to challenge his "attacks" and "childish behavior". But the problem is that the Trump supporter does not care on this. They are more  focused upon Illegal Immigration and understand that the attacks against Trump are about taking him down and implementing the typical Repub agenda that hasn't worked in the last two national elections, and just barely in prior elections.

Rubio must have Carson out of the process to pick up his votes so as to challenge Trump in the primaries and pick up 8 wins. Or else, he has to rely upon the GOPe changing Rule 40 at the convention to allow those without 8 wins the have their names placed into nomination.

At this point, there are both strategic and tactical goals being fought over with each side. Tactical is the day to day arguments, fights, etc. Strategic is the strategy to obtain the 8 wins necessary for having the candidates name placed into nomination.

So far, Trump has the strategic goals well in hand. Only good tactics by the opposition can derail his strategic goals, and so far, there seems little on the horizen to suggest a change.

[Crafty_Dog]

Very relevant points on tactics.

What of Trump's support for Single Payer?  And if Carson drives home his HSA based program, how will that play out politically?

[ppulatie]

The single payer was long ago. Now, he speaks of a different story, including what I imagine has been discussed here in depth.

Trump wants the artificial lines of state boundaries that prevent health care companies from offering programs in different states to be eliminated. That would allow for competition across state lines, with a likely reduction in costs.

That alone would negate claims of single payer support.

But let's be realistic as well. Obamacare has really screwed up the entire health care system, as it was designed to do. It brought in greater numbers of medicaid users at the expense of state governments and eliminated many insurance programs forcing people into government run programs. So what can be done?

There will now have to be a hybrid system developed now that can work to resolve these issues created by Obamacare. It is not possible to totally repeal Obamacare without a hybrid system to ensure that those affected by Obamacare will still be taken care of. Over time after the hybrid system is put into place, can changes be made that will further mitigate the problems created by Obamacare.

What this program will be is up in the air. It will have to be negotiated out like all other legislation. Who knows what form it will take, but it will not be single payer, and it will entail private insurance options.

[Crafty_Dog]

"There will now have to be a hybrid system developed now that can work to resolve these issues created by Obamacare. It is not possible to totally repeal Obamacare without a hybrid system to ensure that those affected by Obamacare will still be taken care of. Over time after the hybrid system is put into place, can changes be made that will further mitigate the problems created by Obamacare."

Here we disagree.  I see Carson's solutions as Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot whereas your step by step strategy IMHO will lead to endless skirmishes with endless class and race warfare tactics by the Dems sapping Rep will-- this is not a winning strategy for freedom.

[ppulatie]

CD,

Always the optimist? You seem to be denying the political realities in getting anything done...........

[G M]

There is no fix until the system collapses of it's own weight.

[ppulatie]

GM,

Agreed fully....

[Crafty_Dog]

If we control the Congress and the White House much can get done.

[ppulatie]

Yeah...........lots done with politicians who are bought and paid for by Wall  Street and the COC and will only work on their agenda.

BTW, 6 years ago, it was give the GOP the House and we will stop Obama. 4 years ago, give us the Senate and we will stop Obama. Each time, the base responded and gave the GOP what it needed and look at the results. Now they expect the White House and they will finally do what we want.

1. We want an end to illegal immigration. Yet with Ryan as Speaker and McConnell in the Senate, that will not happen. Especially with Rubio, etc.

2. We want real government reform, not b.s. Ryan, McConnell and Rubio will not deliver that.

3. We don't want TPP, but that will occur under Ryan, McConnell and Rubio.

Why should we believe the GOP this time? They are like

 - the cheating spouse who gets caught and says it won't happen again.

-  the alcoholic who promises to never drink again.

-  the driver pulled over by a cop for speeding and who promises the cop he will never do it again if he is not ticketed.

-  the child who promises he will never lie again.

-  the pedofile who promises never to touch a child again.

-  the criminal who promises to go straight if he is paroled.

-  the politician who promises he will always vote for your interests and tell the truth.

-  the employer who promises that when he can afford to, he will give you a raise.

-  the military commander who promises if you get into problems on a discreet mission, he will pull you out.

Give me one GOOD reason why I should believe any of these professional politicians? Then give me one GOOD reason why all of them should not be hung, drawn and quartered?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/26/trump/0zMqF3cIfYrYGX5q1a3pTJ/story.html

[ccp]

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/10/28/trump-walks-backs-low-immigration-high-wage-plan/

[ppulatie]

CCP,

I did not view it as Trump changing his mind. He has always supported H1B visas legally done, when the need existed.

If Trump changes his stand on illegal immigration, then he is finished.

[ccp]

PP,
I hope you are right.
It could be a msm interpretation too.

Notice how the msm news on the debates is all about how Jeb was not good.  Nothing positive about the other candidates.  On the Democrat side all we heard was how wonderful Hillary was.  Now all we hear is how bad Bush was.  Nothing constructive about any of other of the Repub candidates most of whom did well.

the bias continues.

[Crafty_Dog]

Not only is he right, but he has tremendous instinct for the political jugular

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10153816849336336/

[DougMacG]

This thread sure has slowed down.  Hmmm...

I watched Donald trump host Saturday Night Live.  He did fine.  Was likable.  Is a big celebrity and a New Yorker so I'm sure the ratings were great.  He was mostly the straight guy while they made jokes around him.  Not that funny, not that memorable.  They brought out a couple of their Trump imitators who I'm sure they've used often preciously.  Larry David is too convincing as Bernie Sanders.  Very real, but not very funny.  They had Trump dance badly as a small part in a skit were the point was to dance badly.  He did fine.  They poked fun of his frown which must be his trademark from 'you're fired', or whatever his big show was.

My main observation is that if this is the biggest celebrity of our time, and this is the funniest comedy show of the last several decades... then we live in kind of sad, unimaginative, unmemorable times.

[ppulatie]

I kept up my record......never have watched SNL. Was going to record it for later, but screwed it up. Guess I missed nothing.

Don't worry, after the Fox debate, there will be more to say about Trump...Bartiroma is going for a knock out blow. She is still pissed that Trump did not marry her after Marla Maples. 

[Crafty_Dog]

She's cute enough but IIRC she was a real **** in her questions to the Reps in 2012 (or was it 2008?)

[Crafty_Dog]

By Donald J. Trump
Nov. 9, 2015 7:33 p.m. ET
3 COMMENTS

If we are to make America great again, we must do all we can to make sure that American interests are protected and that all Americans benefit from the actions of their government. Sadly, that is currently not the case. The incompetent, rudderless Obama administration’s negligence in foreign policy, trade and national security is making America less confident, less prosperous and less safe. Americans deserve better, and a Trump administration will turn us into winners again.

In late September, President Obama signed an agreement with the Chinese head of state that was intended to add a layer of protection to intellectual property in both countries. The ink was not dry before Chinese-sponsored agents began cyberattacks on private companies in the U.S. That agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on and the Obama administration is not doing a thing to fight back. Unfortunately, this has become an all-too-common pattern of behavior for President Obama.

The American people need to be told the truth about our “partner” China. China holds over $1.4 trillion in U.S. debt. The Chinese are, by far, the largest foreign debt holder. As of the end of August this year, the U.S. trade imbalance with China is already at $237 billion, on the way to an annual trade imbalance north of $350 billion. China’s economy is controlled by the government. Any notion that their economy is based on a free-market system is simply not true. If an American company wants access to the Chinese consumers, that company must share its intellectual property, a condition that violates international fair-trade standards, World Trade Organization rules and common sense.

But the worst of China’s sins is not its theft of intellectual property. It is the wanton manipulation of China’s currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs.

Again, special interests and crony capitalism have weakened the resolve of the Obama administration in confronting China over its currency ploys. Economists estimate that the yuan is undervalued anywhere from 15% to 40%. Through manipulation of the yuan, the Chinese government has been able to tip the trade balance in their direction by imposing a de facto tariff on all imported goods. Imagine the impact these practices have had on our weakened manufacturing base, our agriculture industry and every small business unable to compete internationally.

By watching the Obama administration, you might think that nothing can be done about all this. What is most alarming is that much can and should be done, but the White House chooses to do nothing to protect American workers and companies.

On day one of a Trump administration, the U.S. Treasury Department will designate China a currency manipulator. This designation will trigger a series of actions that will start the process of imposing countervailing duties on cheap Chinese imports, defending American manufacturing and preserving American jobs. Add to these actions direct and focused protection of intellectual property and we will be back on the path to being the world standard for economic liberty and growth. But these actions alone won’t ensure Americans’ long-term security and prosperity.

When I am president, I will go to the American people and ask them to join me in getting Congress to reform our oppressive tax code. Specifically, capital held offshore will be brought back at a one-time tax rate of 10%. Corporate tax rates will be cut to 15%. This will spur immediate investment in America as we will once again be competitive. We will also need to attack deficit spending through budget discipline and begin the painful, but necessary, process of reducing our debt—especially reducing the debt held by foreign countries. To ensure the security of the nation and our investments, we will build the military we need to contain China’s overreach in the Pacific Rim and the South China Sea.

The American people need an administration that will tell them the truth and a president who will put America first. That’s what I intend to do.

Mr. Trump is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

[DougMacG]

A well written article.  I like that he takes on the Obama administration. Trump has economics and the policy implications about half figured out.   I get a little nervous when he promises us the best Smoot Hawley jobs preservation Act this country has ever seen. 

[ppulatie]

I keep hearing people that Trump is incorrect about the trade issues. I wonder how many of those complainers  would lose money if Trump's policies were initiated and that is the reason for their opposition.

However, I do have concerns about a full scale trade war being initiated............

[DougMacG]

I keep hearing people that Trump is incorrect about the trade issues. I wonder how many of those complainers  would lose money if Trump's policies were initiated and that is the reason for their opposition.

However, I do have concerns about a full scale trade war being initiated............

Acknowledging already that he is half right on economics and policy, I am skeptical about his main point.  Many prominent economists agree with him about the currency manipulation point.  

One possibility if Trump is elected is that the Chinese will fix this as their response to his threat.  But the threat isn't worth anything if he isn't willing to do it, see Obama's red line in Syria.  So let's take him at his word, the currency exchange rate is off by 40%.  Either Trump will impose a 40% tariff or the Chinese will adjust their currency up by 40%.  Think of a 40% price increase at Walmart for example for all the blue collar Trump voters across the heartland, and everyone else, and a 40% increase in iphones and solar panels  for all the liberal voters.

Percapita income is measured in PPP, purchasing power parity.  That is a 40% hit in how far your paycheck goes to buy things.  Of course, not everything is made in China, but again taking Trump at his word, everything is made there and nothing is made here anymore.

Meanwhile our domestic production isn't ready to step it and fill that void, see his other points, overtaxation and over-regulation to name a couple.

PP:  "However, I do have concerns about a full scale trade war being initiated............  "

PP is correct with that concern; that is what went wrong in Smoot Hawley mentioned, triggering the great depression.  But the first 40% hit in our purchasing power comes before the really bad stuff happens, taking the assumption that the other player would just sit there and take it.  

The issues about intellectual property rights, ending cyber warfare and basic human rights of their own people are far more pressing.

Another view, mine, is that these currency issues will take care of themselves.  No country can build wealth by devaluing itself and no centrally planned, crony command economy will ever out-perform its free and dynamic competitor.  Our problem and main challenge is to get our own act together.

Regarding the rising conflicts in the China seas, there is a reason why the US is supposed to have the most feared Navy and fleet in the world that is lost on current management in Washington.
-------------------------------------------------
This being also about an election, no China critique should be complete without mention of Hillary Clinton on a crusade as first lady for women's rights around the world removing the chapter of her book critical of China in order to get it printed and sold in China.  What a worthless windbag.

[ppulatie]

Thanks for the reply. It gives me a bit more clarity.

I do agree that Intellectual Property Rights and Cyber Warfare is much more pressing. The problem is how to approach those subjects?

[ppulatie]

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform

[DougMacG]

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform

With a little digging I'm sure we can find that same message in two Obama campaigns.

What is an example of the Chinese caving in negotiations?  When they helped is with North Korea?  Gave up false claims on islands?  Freed political prisoners?  What if they call our bluff as they always do.  Pres. Trump can impose duties against them as he promises which are a tax on the American consumer.  The Chinese will retaliate by doing whatever they can, unload more American debt?  Open up some other claim against us?  Who wins?  Who loses?  Who needs whom the most?  None of that is clear.  What happens if Trump takes bold executive action, then prices go up and his popularity tanks?  Who caves then?  What happens when Politburo popularity falls in Communist government China?  Nothing.  Trump may be on the right track here, but the PRC and PLA are not analogous to dealing with a pipefitters union that wants a hotel construction contract.