Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 430312 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2015, 05:38:30 PM »
Apparently Donald has threatened to run third party if he thinks the Reps are unfair to him.

Play Perot and put a Clinton into the White House?

Almost like we've seen this before.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2015, 07:34:37 AM »
If Trump wants more attention, here goes...

Trump supports the Kelo decision where big business partners with big government to Trump the liberties of small people.  Is that populism?

Trump is hugely pro-choice.  How is that trending with Republicans and independents?

Trump was pro-Pelosi, meaning he favored a Democratic Congress.

Trump was pro-Hillary.

Trump is pro-amnesty.  Ask him.  What do you do with those here who didn't break laws other than illegally coming or staying.  Reasonable position possibly, but not likely what the hard core he stirred up want to hear. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #53 on: July 26, 2015, 01:47:08 PM »
Has he attacked Hillary yet? If not, why not?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2015, 09:36:44 AM »
"Has he attacked Hillary yet? If not, why not?"

Good question.  But I am glad he is in race and want him to carry on.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2015, 10:46:13 AM »
Yes, very good question.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2015, 01:08:26 PM »
The Trump Card — Ace of Anger Affirmation
Legitimate Concerns v Trumped-Up Rhetoric
By Mark Alexander • July 29, 2015     
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." —George Washington (1796)
 

(Publisher's Note: Trump supporters, before sending hate email, see the disclaimer posted below this column.)
Given that his celebrity name recognition and contentious remarks have landed billionaire Donald Trump at the top of pop-presidential polls, I'm now being asked by some grassroots leaders across the nation, "What about Trump?"

First, his support reflects very little about his qualifications, but a lot about how dissatisfied a growing number of disenfranchised grassroots conservatives are with Republican "leadership." Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have, in effect, underwritten Trump's rising stardom. Despite greatly increasing the numbers of conservatives in the House and Senate in the historic "Republican Wave" elections nationwide in both 2010 and 2014, the much-loathed "establishment types" still hold the reins. They continue to marginalize or ignore the concerns of the Republican base — grassroots conservatives — and we are rightly outraged.

Second, Trump can be brash, and he brings some much-needed debate, humor and levity to an otherwise distinguished but dry quadrennial Republican presidential field. Of course, he takes himself much more seriously than I take him.

And third, he has the potential of being a spoiler in 2016 if his campaign lasts beyond 2015, because Trump, like the current White House occupant, is a textbook pathological narcissist. He will, predictably, generate a lot of damaging fratricidal attacks against genuine Republicans and conservatives, rather than focus on Democrats.
As noted by George Will, “If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behavior be different? I don’t think it would be.”

Unlike Barack Obama however, if Trump makes it to the 2016 primary, he will rate low single-digits because, unlike Democrats, most Republicans still have the aptitude and acuity for discernment and can distinguish between a charlatan and a genuine conservative presidential candidate. However, post-primary, this egomaniacal celebrity might refuse to throw his residual support behind the party nominee. In a close election, that could hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton, assuming that enough low-information Democrat voters make this loathsome liar their nominee.

That is precisely what happened the last time a Republican billionaire entered the race when another lying Clinton was on the Democrat ticket.1

Can the nation survive four more years of Obama's failed domestic and foreign policies?
 

You're fired
So who is Trump?

In the words of Samuel Adams, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men."

Let's take a look at this public man's character.

The 69-year-old was born into wealth just after World War II, the son of New York real estate mogul Fred Trump and his Scottish immigrant wife, Mary Anne. Trump attended the finest schools, though he was expelled from high school for "disciplinary violations." Like his contemporary, Bill Clinton, Trump dodged the draft with college student deferments, graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968 and then receiving a medical draft deferment.

“I had a minor medical deferment for feet, for a bone spur of the foot, which was minor,” said Trump. Minor indeed, given that he can't even recall which foot: “You’ll have to look it up."

He was handed the keys to his father's company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization, amassing enormous wealth in real estate assets in the ensuing years. His worth is estimated at $4 billion today, with annual income of $250 million (Mitt Romney's entire net worth).

Trump presided over the failure of two marriages prior to his current administration.

In 1977 he married Czech immigrant Ivana Zelníčková, and they had three children. They were divorced in 1992 after Ivana discovered his affair with celebrity actress Marla Maples. He married Maples in 1993, and they had one child. They were divorced in 1999, and in 2005 he married Slovenian immigrant Melania Knauss. They have one child.
In 2003, he became host of the hit show "The Apprentice," where his fame reached new heights for yelling "You're Fired!" at contestants who fail. He even filed a trademark application for the term.

But Trump himself has presided over four major failures — Chapter 11 bankruptcies at his Taj Mahal casino (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009). (Note that the latter two came after his Apprentice fame. One wonders why he didn't fire himself.) Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago was also a financial disaster, but he was able to walk away from that one. Of those failures, Trump says, "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on 'The Apprentice.' It's not personal. It's just business."

Unless, of course, you are one of his creditors or have your pension or savings invested in one of those businesses.
On his religious views, Trump says: “I’m a religious person. I go to church. Do I do things that are wrong? I guess so. [Seriously, he said "I guess so."] If I do something wrong, I try to do something right. I don’t bring God into that picture. ... When we go in church and I drink the little wine ... and I eat the little cracker — I guess that’s a form of asking forgiveness.”

So what exactly is the Trump appeal?

Well, as noted, it's celebrity, demagoguery and the fact he's clearly not from the Republican mold and brand.

But when announcing his candidacy, Trump hit this note on an issue that is a concern for millions of grassroots Americans: "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems [to] us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

While most of the Republican field appear equivocal on the illegal immigration issue, as do Republican congressional ”leaders,” Trump is clear on his objections, which resonates with a lot of Americans.

Of the estimated 11.3 million illegals in our country, 8.1 million hold jobs. At the same time, there were an average of 9.6 million unemployed Americans in 2014. It's easy to understand the grassroots groundswell this issue generates for Trump.

And the recent murder of California native Kate Steinle on a pier in the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco by an illegal immigrant released once again after seven felony convictions and five deportations, rightly has stirred outrage across the nation. Her murderer is among more than a million illegal aliens who have committed crimes, some 690,000 of whom were charged with serious crimes but are today on the loose.

This, understandably, has kept Trump's immigration platform front and center.

McCain: POW in Hanoi

On the other hand, in his unmitigated arrogance, Trump has succeeded in alienating the handful of grassroots military Patriots who supported him.

Apparently forgetting that he himself was a draft dodger, Trump challenged the notion that Sen. John McCain deserves any recognition for his service in Vietnam. According to Trump, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

Recall that as a naval aviator, McCain, the son and grandson of Navy admirals, asked for additional combat missions over Vietnam. After being shot down, a badly injured McCain refused his captors' propagandistic offers to leave his fellow POWs and return home — meaning he was a target for additional torture.

McCain responded brilliantly: “I think [Mr. Trump] may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country. ... In the case of many of our veterans, when Mr. Trump said that he prefers to be with people who are not captured, well, the great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes. I’m not a hero. But those who were my senior ranking officers ... those that have inspired us to do things that we otherwise wouldn’t have been capable of doing, those are the people that I think he owes an apology to.”

Trump's callous remarks fall into the "Hanoi Jane" Fonda category of slandering American POWs, and the rest of the Republican field rightly condemned Trump's remarks.
A Wall Street Journal editorial opined, “It came slightly ahead of schedule, but Donald Trump’s inevitable self-immolation arrived on the weekend when he assailed John McCain’s war record."

But as the inimitable humorist Mark Twain once quipped, "The report of my death was an exaggeration." And so it may be with Trump's campaign, as it continues to gain traction.

The real significance of Trump's campaign is that it's a barometer of just how deeply disgusted grassroots conservatives are with the Republican Party, and a litmus test of what issues motivate grassroots conservatives.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson concludes, "Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of 'working across the aisle' and 'bipartisanship' as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, fearlessness of the media and the PC police, and no-holds-barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump.
 

Trump to Republicans

But the hard, cold fact is, Trump is all about Trump, and his record of public policy support is that of a big-government tax and spend liberal, who is far to the left of those much-maligned establishment Republicans, including his support for ObamaCare, raising taxes and a plethora of social issues abhorred by grassroots conservatives.
But the real test of Trump's legitimacy as a Republican is how he measures up against the Gold Standard of 20th century presidents, Ronald Reagan. Unlike the rest of the large Republican field, Trump doesn't even register on the Reagan scale.

On August 3, the nation would have gotten its first look at Trump on stage with genuine conservatives at the Voter’s First Forum in New Hampshire. However, after one of the event sponsors, the New Hampshire Union Leader, appropriately eviscerated Trump for his absurd remarks about John McCain, Trump backed out.
Charles Krauthammer laments, “This is the strongest field of Republican candidates in 35 years … and instead all of our time is spent discussing this rodeo clown."
Shame on Dr. K. for insulting rodeo clowns!

Oh, and the short answer when I'm asked about Donald: Remember the words of George Washington: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." Don't get Trumped. Tell him "You're fired!"

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2015, 01:22:34 PM »
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." —George Washington (1796)

Could easily apply to the present President of the US.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Noonan on Donald Trump
« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2015, 05:36:27 PM »
second post

July 30, 2015 8:14 p.m. ET
4 COMMENTS

I had a conversation this week with a longtime acquaintance who supports Donald Trump. She’s in her 60s, resides in north Georgia near the Tennessee line, lives on Social Security. She voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and was in fact the first person who alerted me to the breadth of his support. In 2012 she voted Republican, disappointed in Mr. Obama not from the left or the right but the center: He couldn’t make anything work or get anything done.

So, why Trump? “The whole country will be in better shape. And ISIS won’t like it that he’s in charge. He’s very wealthy and can turn around the economy. He’ll get things moving. The Donald will kick a—.” She knows other supporters locally and among friends of her son, an Iraq vet. “They’re completely disgusted and just furious, and he’s igniting their passion. He’s telling them ‘I will make this country great again,’ and they believe him.” Mr. Trump is dismissed as exciting, but “we have to get excited to get up out of the chair to vote.”

Does he strike her as a serious man, a patriot? Yes. “All he does is talk about how great this country is and how greater he can make it, how he wants to get good trade deals and take care of veterans. . . . He doesn’t need this job, he’s already got everything, it’s a pay cut. He doesn’t need the stature. I think he wants the job because he wants to do it.”

Does he have common sense? Yes, she says, he is concerned about what everyone is concerned about, except politicians. “A lot of deals have to be made and he knows the art of the deal. The biggest problem is all the illegal immigrants.”

Is it OK with you that the next president could be a reality star who plays the part of himself, who acts out indignation and fires people on TV? “It doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t bother the American people. And if you asked the people down South here, they don’t care either. They just want somebody in who’s plain and simple who can get the job done.” Otherwise, she worries, “we’re gonna be Greece in another four, five years.”

Does it bother her that Mr. Trump has never held elective office? She paused half a second. “It bothers me a little bit. But I think we need a very tough businessman with great business acumen. We can restore the highways and tunnels and airports, he’ll rebuild them. He’ll build a wall with Mexico. If he was a reality TV show guy that’s OK. Get it done.”

Afterward, a longtime GOP operative underlined her comments on infrastructure, but from a different angle: “Trump intuits that the Republican base loves this country and yearns for an American restoration. The GOP once was a party of industry—bricks and steel—and Trump, the builder, connects with that narrative.”

Some Trump anomalies that have to do with the tropes people use to categorize others:

He was born to wealth and went to Wharton, yet gives off a working-class vibe his supporters admire. He’s like Broderick Crawford in “Born Yesterday”: He comes across as self-made. In spite of his wealth he never made himself smooth, polite. He’s like someone you know. This is part of his power.

His father, a buyer and builder of real estate, was wired into New York’s Democratic machine and its grubby deal making. Donald knew the machine and its players and went on to give political donations based on power, not party. Yet his supporters experience him as outside the system, unsullied by it. He’s a practical man who did what practical men have to do.

He never served in the military yet connects with grunts. He has lived a life of the most rarefied material splendor—gold gilt, penthouse suites—and made the high life part of his brand. Yet he doesn’t come across as snooty or fancy—he’s a regular guy. A glitzy Manhattan billionaire is doing well with Evangelicals. That’s a first.

His rise is not due to his supporters’ anger at government. It is a gesture of contempt for government, for the men and women in Congress, the White House, the agencies. It is precisely because people have lost their awe for the presidency that they imagine Mr. Trump as a viable president. American political establishment, take note: In the past 20 years you have turned America into a nation a third of whose people would make Donald Trump their president. Look on your wonders and despair.

Mr. Trump’s supporters like that he doesn’t in the least fear the press, doesn’t get the dart-eyed, anxious look candidates get. He treats reporters with courtesy until he feels they’re out of line, at which point he calls them stupid. They think he’ll do that with Putin. His insult of John McCain didn’t hurt him, and not because his supporters have any animus for Mr. McCain. They just saw it as more proof Mr. Trump will take the bark off anyone.

They’re not nihilists, they’re patriots, and don’t experience themselves as off on a toot but pragmatic in a way the establishment is not. The country is in crisis, we can’t keep doing more of the same. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” We have to do something different. He’s different. If it doesn’t work we’ll fire him.

Trump’s power is not name ID. He didn’t make his name in this cycle or the last, he’s been around 35 years. He’s made an impression.

His ideological incoherence will not hurt him. His core supporters don’t prize him for his intellectual consistency. He has called himself pro-choice but so are some of his supporters, and no one sees him as a ponderer of great moral issues. In the past he has described himself as “quite liberal” on health care. That won’t hurt either. An untold story right now is that everyone was “right” about health care. The Republicans were right that ObamaCare would not and will never work. Democrats—though they haven’t noticed because they’re so busy clinging to and defending ObamaCare—were right that America would support national health care, but not as they devised it. We’ll get out of ObamaCare by expanding Medicare. Most of America, after the trauma of the past five years, won’t mind.

The GOP is waiting for Mr. Trump to do himself in—he’s a self-puncturing balloon. True, but he’s a balloon held aloft by a lot of people; they won’t let it fall so easy.

The first GOP debate looms, next Thursday in Cleveland. If Mr. Trump were on the stage with the second tier, who have nothing to lose, one or two would go at him. But he’ll be with the first tier, who will treat him gingerly. A guess: He will come out with friendly dignity, shake hands, wait quietly for a question, attempt to demonstrate a statesmanlike bearing to anxious and opposed Republican viewers. But he won’t be able to sustain it. And his supporters won’t really want him to. They’ll want him to be The Donald. Bombast will commence.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Donald Trump hypocrisy?
« Reply #61 on: August 01, 2015, 11:40:25 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump hypocrisy?
« Reply #62 on: August 01, 2015, 01:11:29 PM »
Probably not a reliable source, but , , ,

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.517901514969574.1073741825.346937065399354/904479802978408/?type=1

Does anyone take Trump seriously? Looking for intellectual consistency from the Donald is like looking for legitimate athletic competition at a professional wrestling show.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump on Hugh Hewitt
« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2015, 09:20:28 AM »
Audio and transcript on Hewitt's blog:  http://www.hughhewitt.com/

Mostly a softball interview except that Hewitt takes the occasion to persuasively make the case that Trump should rule out running as a third party candidate.  I think Trump heard that and will do that.  Also Hewitt is pinning candidates down on planned parenthood funding de- funding. SInce Obama will veto it, the question is whether you would shut the govt down over this and Trump said he would.

As a professor of constitutional law, why doesn't Hewitt push or at least expose Trump on Kelo and takings?  Or about past support for Hillary, a Pelosi congress, etc.  No, just popular issues. 

For the most part, Trump handles himself well and it's easy to see why people take him seriously as a candidate.

Trump does not agree with me or us on everything but he would stand up to anyone and stand up for what he thinks is right.  People are tired of weasels and wimps. 

Like Rubio and others, Trump believes this country could be great again if we would just stop screwing everything up.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Rove rips Trump yet another new anus
« Reply #65 on: August 06, 2015, 10:34:43 AM »
second post

By
Karl Rove
Aug. 5, 2015 6:23 p.m. ET
352 COMMENTS

Which Donald J. Trump will show up at Thursday night’s Republican debate in Cleveland?

There’s the Trump who calls the other GOP candidates “clowns” and responds to criticism with schoolyard insults. Then there’s the Trump who last week tweeted about the coming debate: “it is certainly my intention to be very nice & highly respectful of the other candidates.” Mr. Trump seems to have recognized that as the candidate atop the Republican heap, he now will be held to a higher standard than he was as a celebrity polling in low single digits.

Even more interesting than the style Mr. Trump brings to the stage is what opinions he has with him. Over the years he’s held many conflicting positions on many important issues.

Will the Trump who walks on stage Thursday night be the one who in 1999 told CNN’s Larry King that “I’m quite liberal and getting much more liberal on health care”? The one who wrote in his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” that the U.S. should consider a single-payer health system like Canada’s government-run plan? That system “helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans,” this Trump wrote. “We need, as a nation, to re-examine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.” Or will debate viewers instead get the Donald Trump who earlier this year called ObamaCare a “filthy lie” and “total catastrophe”?

The Trump who shows up Thursday night could be the one who in 1999 told NBC’s “Meet the Press” during a conversation on abortion that “I’m very pro-choice.” Or it could be the Trump who told Bloomberg Politics in January that “I’m pro-life and I have been pro-life,” and who now says he’s willing to shut down the federal government to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Trump who in 2000 wrote, “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun” might be there. Or it might be the Trump who told AmmoLand last month that “the Second Amendment is a bedrock natural right of the individual to defend self, family, and property.”

On Thursday night Trump the taxman could show up. “I would impose a one-time, 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million,” he wrote in that 2000 book. But so might the antitax Trump. “I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman,” he said on Sunday. “The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse.”

One Trump opposed the flat tax offered by Steve Forbes in 2000, writing in his book that “only the wealthy would reap a windfall.” The other Trump said on Fox News earlier this year that he favors “a fair tax, a flat tax or certainly a simplified code.”

The Trump who tweeted last Sunday that GOP presidential candidates who spoke at the Koch donor conference were “puppets” might attend the debate. But so might the Trump who was a registered Democrat for most of the 2000s, who donated thousands of dollars to Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and who explained those gifts recently by saying, “I’ve contributed to everybody. They did whatever I said.” It would be worth knowing what this Trump told Sens. Reid, Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry to do.

This may be the same Trump who gave $20,000 in 2006 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to help elect a Democratic majority in the House and make Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker, and the one who says he knows politicians are controlled by their big donors because “I used to be one of those people.”

Thursday night, Americans could see the Trump who criticized Mitt Romney in a November 2012 interview for his “crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal. It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

In this same interview, this Trump said Republicans need to back comprehensive immigration reform “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country.” Or viewers could see the Trump who characterized immigrants this way in June: “You have people coming in, and I’m not just saying Mexicans—I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they’re coming into this country.”

There’s even a Trump out there who was a registered Democrat in 2004 because, as he told CNN, “It just seems that the economy does better under Democrats.”

Whichever version of Trump appears at the debate Thursday, it will be interesting to see how Republicans react—and whether the moderators drag any of the other Trumps on stage, too.

Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads.


Set your profile to public to comment
There are 352 comments.
 

All comments will display your real name. Read our commenting rules.
NewestOldestReader Recommended
George de Luna
George de Luna 2 minutes ago

This is a fair article by Karl Rove.I was expecting more trashing of Trump.
Flag ButtonShare
Jeffrey Krause
Jeffrey Krause 7 minutes ago

I'm a big fan of Trump but this one bothers me a lot. 


"Trump who was a registered Democrat in 2004 because, as he told CNN, “It just seems that the economy does better under Democrats.”


I would like to see him explain that.

Flag ButtonShare
Robert Morris
Robert Morris 9 minutes ago

As has been pointed out below, politicians often change their minds. However, I have trouble believing that Trump's current statements reflect his true beliefs.

John Maynard Keynes famously said that when the facts changed, he changed his mind. What facts have changed that would have made Donald Trump change his mind 180 degrees since 2000 on so many issues as pointed out by Karl Rove? Part of conservatism is the belief that certain principles are timeless, so changing with the political winds, as Trump has appeared to do, looks mighty suspicious to me.


If the GOP had followed through on their 2014 election promises, i.e. reign in Obama's executive orders, do something about illegal immigration, do something about IRS abuses, etc. then Trump wouldn't have a candidacy.   The fact that they have done nothing, and I could argue worse than nothing given their support for DOA trade agreements and the idiotic Corker bill, gives someone outside the GOP a better chance than someone inside.   Sorry dedicated GOP'ers, that is just a fact, they blew it, and only Trump can give it back to them, either on purpose or by self destructing.  But all of this criticism that he isn't "disciplined" like regular politicians misses the point so badly that it is embarrassing.


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Ann Coulter: Trump Still Right About Mexican Rapists...
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2015, 10:52:28 AM »
DONALD TRUMP: STILL RIGHT ABOUT MEXICAN RAPISTS

The horrific culture of child rape being imported into America.

August 6, 2015  Ann Coulter   

There's a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn't exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)

In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim's illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.

"She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant -- the family needed the stepdad's paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her. When she talks about it, tears stream down her face."

Far from "I am woman, hear me roar," these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

Maria dismissed the firestorm of publicity surrounding the sexual precocity of her own daughter, laughingly referring to the 11-year-old rape victim as "my wild child." She even criticized the girl's older sisters for complaining about the young girl's promiscuous clothing choices, saying -- of an 11-year-old: "Well, she's got the body, so leave her alone."

In 2013, illegal immigrant Bertha Leticia Rayo was arrested for allowing her former husband, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, to rape her 4-year-old daughter, then assisting his unsuccessful escape from the police. The rapist, Aroldo Guerra-Garcia, was also aided in his escape attempt by another woman, Krystal Galindo. (Kind of a ladies man, was Aroldo.)

That same year, the government busted up a child pornography operation in Illinois being run out of the home of three illegal aliens from Mexico, including a woman. At least one of them, Jorge Muhedano-Hernandez, had already been deported once. (Peoria Journal Star headline: "Bloomington men plead guilty to false documents.")

The Baby Hope case in New York City began when a Mexican illegal alien, Conrado Juarez, raped and murdered his 4-year-old cousin, Anjelica Castillo. His sister helped him dispose of the body. Police found the little girl's corpse in a cooler off the Henry Hudson Parkway, but the case went unsolved for two decades, because none of the murdered girl's extended illegal alien family ever reported her missing. Anjelica's mother later told the police she always suspected the tiny corpse in the cooler was her daughter's, but never told anyone.

In 2014, Isidro Garcia was arrested in Bell Gardens, California, accused of drugging and kidnapping the 15-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, then forcing the girl to marry him and bear his child. The mother had suspected Garcia, then 31 years old, had been raping her teenage daughter, but did nothing. All three were illegal aliens from Mexico, making this another case for the "Not Our Problem" file.

In 2007, Mexican illegal immigrant Luis Casarez was convicted in New Mexico for repeatedly raping a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old. During his sentencing, Casarez borrowed Marco Rubio's talking points about hardworking illegal immigrants with roots in America. "I have been here for many years," Casarez told the judge -- incongruously, through a translator. "That's why," he added, "I've been working instead of getting involved with problems." Other than that one thing.

Two weeks after Luis Casarez was indicted for child rape, his son, Luis Casarez Jr., was indicted in a separate case of child rape.

When the crime is this bizarre, it's not "anecdotal." "Child rape perpetrated by more than one family member" isn't your run-of-the-mill crime. It's rather like discovering dozens of cannibalism cases in specific neighborhoods.

How many fourth-generation American father-son child-rape duos do we have? How many American brother-sister teams are conspiring in child rape and murder? How many mothers are helping their boyfriends and husbands get away with raping their own children?

And how many 12-year-old American girls are giving birth -- to the delight of their parents?

In some immigrant enclaves, the police have simply given up on pursuing statutory rape cases with Hispanic victims. They say that after being notified by hospital administrators that a 12-year-old has given birth and the father is in his 30s, they'll show up at the girl's house -- and be greeted by her parents calling the pregnancy a "blessing."

This happens all the time, they say.

And yet, in the entire American media, there have been more stories about a rape by Duke lacrosse players that didn't happen than about the slew of child rapes by Hispanics that did because Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor. No wonder they hate Trump.


"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2015, 12:20:06 PM »
Trump Can Win
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on August 6, 2015
Donald Trump isn't going to drop out or suddenly leave the race. And he might just win it.

Trump has firmly planted his feet on the no-man's-land between the reality all Americans see around them and the fiction the conventional wisdom and politically correct speech define. In the process, he has increased his vote share to a lead in the Republican primary and improved his favorability rating by 17 points.
 
In the July 30 Quinnipiac Poll, he registered a 50-33 favorable rating among Republicans and a 27-59 among all voters. This rating was a big improvement over the 20-69 rating he had with all voters in their previous poll.

The establishment is waiting for Trump to make a mistake. But even as he tip-toes over the line of political correctness, his detractors need to understand that he - unlike they - is a media pro. Where they may occasionally appear on camera, Trump does it every week. He constantly threads his way between critics and says what he thinks. Doing so in a political context is no big deal for him.

Trump has taken the care -- whether by learning or intuition -- to align his own attitudes with what the people are thinking. He reacts to events with the same visceral understanding of what is going on as does the man in the street. In this, he is a throwback to Harry Truman.

He says what we think and what the other politicians do not dare to say.

He speaks openly and plainly about the link between illegal immigration and crime. The fact is that 800,000 people who are illegally in the United States have been convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Why are they still here? We had them in our custody -- why did we let them go? How many times must we throw them out before we devise a system that blocks their re-entry?

These are the questions Americans are asking. But the political establishment goes into a panic when crime and immigration are mentioned in the same sentence, lest they appear racist. But facts are facts. We would likely have one-third less crime in the United States if we had no illegal immigrants within our borders.

While politicians fret about income inequality and the left speaks of raising taxes on wealthy people in order to give more to the rest of us, Trump boldly faces the question of how China is decimating the manufacturing industries of America. Why won't the others discuss this fact? Because they are allied with corporate management that makes money from importing its products rather than producing them in the United States at a decent wage.

Trump correctly states that the major factors in depressing the wages of our American workers are imports on the one hand and illegal immigration on the other. How can Americans expect to get a decent wage when there are people willing to work dirt cheap as long as they can get a job?

This is the age-old question Republicans like Abraham Lincoln have been asking since slavery. You cannot permit so large an influx at the bottom of the pay scale and expect the rest of us to earn decent living.

There are other areas Trump needs to explore.

Disability: While there are many truly disabled people getting needed benefits, a great many of those who have recently joined the rolls are not truly needy. To some extent or another, they are faking their way to benefits.

There has been virtually no increase in the number of people with real diseases like cancer, heart disease, or strokes that are claiming disabilities. All the increase has been in hard-to-measure problems like back pain and psychological trauma. President Jimmy Carter stopped requiring a medical exam or even a note from a doctor to apply for disability. Since then, the way has been open for a massive influx onto the rolls. There are very, very few who ever get off disability and go back to work.

Obama wants to encourage the maximum use of disability and other programs to increase the number of people who depend on the government and will, likely, vote as they are told.

Welfare Benefits: Entitlements of all sorts used to comprise one-third of the federal budget, 20 years ago. Now they make up two-thirds.

About one-third of our entire population is receiving welfare benefits - payments tied to need. This does not include those on Social Security or Medicare or veterans benefits -- benefits we have paid into during our working years or have earned by our service in the military. The stat includes over 50 different welfare programs, many of which are beset with massive fraud. Particularly, the Earned Income Tax Credit program has been found, in government audits, to be paying out almost a third of its money to people who are no eligible.

In the past, when America began to recover from recessions and unemployment dropped, the number of people on food stamps has decreased as well. But that hasn't happened now. Obama is signing up people for food stamps and encouraging them to stay there regardless of their need.

ObamaCare: Polling shows that the American people value certain aspects of the program: the guarantee that coverage will be possible regardless of pre-existing conditions, the prohibition against raising rates or dropping coverage when you get sick, the coverage of kids up to 26. The polling also shows that Americans are very unhappy with the requirement that everybody buy insurance and that businesses have to provide insurance for all full-time workers. If the GOP concentrated on repealing these dual mandates, they could probably get 60 votes in the Senate to pass it and, very possibly, get enough to override Obama's veto.

Trump goes where the others fear to tread. It is their timidity that makes Donald's courage obvious. He's not getting out of the race. Indeed, he could win.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Nate Silver, Trump winning the polls, losing the nomination
« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2015, 07:02:47 AM »
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination-2/

the “election” these polls describe is hypothetical in at least five ways:

They contemplate a vote today, but we’re currently 174 days from the Iowa caucuses.
They contemplate a national primary, but states vote one at a time or in small groups.
They contemplate a race with 17 candidates, but several candidates will drop out before Iowa and several more will drop out before the other states vote.
They contemplate a winner-take-all vote, but most states are not winner-take-all.
They contemplate a vote among all Republican-leaning registered voters or adults, but in fact only a small fraction of them will turn out for primaries and caucuses.
(more at link)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2015, 08:27:07 AM »
I find it remarkable that virtually no one in the Pravdas, FOX, or the Rep candidates themselves are not making a major point of showing how Trump and the other candidates are polling against Hillary.

IIRC there are 4 or 5 Rep candidates who are beating Hillary by a point or two in certain major primary states while Trump is down about 14%.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2015, 11:59:03 AM »
I find it remarkable that virtually no one in the Pravdas, FOX, or the Rep candidates themselves are not making a major point of showing how Trump and the other candidates are polling against Hillary.

IIRC there are 4 or 5 Rep candidates who are beating Hillary by a point or two in certain major primary states while Trump is down about 14%.

That could be right.  But another electoral angle is that if Trump can carry New York state, the math left for the Dems gets real scary.

People on the right need to start focusing soon on who can win.  That is one thing people can try to visualize as they see each one at the debate podium.  Trump failed and was covering up his failure in the post debate by making the story into a war between himself and the evil media.  But the evil media happened to be the conservative's favorite, Fox News and all their top headliners.  As someone said, if you can't handle Megyn Kelly, how are you going to handle Vladimir Putin?

Funny that he accused someone else of blowing hot air.

Another observation is that Trump is the Barack Obama of this cycle.  Walk right in with no experience. Stay vague on the issues and positions and win by name calling and lashing out with personal insults on anyone who challenges you.  Just what we need...  (

It bugs me that shows like Rush and Hannity (along with everyone else) are giving him more than even a frontrunner's share of coverage, and mostly without real scrutiny.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2015, 12:34:49 PM »
I continue to entertain the notion that Bill Clinton's phone call to Trump the week before he announced may indicate a truly nefarious plot by the Clintons for Trump to play Ross Perot and by so doing tip the election to Hillary  , , , if she isn't on trial or in jail , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2015, 12:59:08 PM »
"It bugs me that shows like Rush and Hannity (along with everyone else) are giving him more than even a frontrunner's share of coverage, and mostly without real scrutiny."

Also Michael Savage and to lesser extent Mark Levin.

That is because he is the only one saying the things that need to be said.

Yes he has a temperament problem and name calling is not going to help but he IS a good orator.   None of the others hold his candle in this regard IMO.   And that includes Rubio.

And he is right about some things like no other - immigration probably would have not even been mentioned in the debate without him.


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2015, 01:09:52 PM »
With regard to Crafty's concern that Trump is secretly in cahoots with the Clintons - I find that very hard to believe at this point - since IF that were true, we never would have even heard about the phone call in the first place.  Note well that it was a CLINTON aide that leaked that story.  Highly unlikely scenario in my opinion - plus - no one seems to be able to pin down the date of this phone conversation more precisely than within a 3-month period. 

Rush addressed this specific concern on his program yesterday, as he had two callers in a row advancing Crafty's hypothesis.  His response was that he finds it highly unlikely that this is the case - that he suspects the phone call never even occurred - but that ultimately, he understands the concern that Trump is a phony (not who he says he is) and that all of this will come out in the wash before long if that is in fact the case.  We have a LONG time to go before the election.  It's still quite early, and I also believe that if Trump's candidacy is a Democrat plot, it's an almost unbelievably stupid one, and will be exposed sooner rather than later.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #74 on: August 12, 2015, 02:20:27 PM »
Staffers seeking to appear important to reporters leak things they shouldn't all the time , , ,

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
The Donald Uber Alles
« Reply #75 on: August 12, 2015, 06:17:06 PM »
Something tells me a graphic designer just got fired:

http://20committee.com/2015/07/15/trump-and-hitlers-recreated-bodyguard/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Donald Trump & Warren Buffet?!?
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2015, 01:39:05 PM »
I heard that Trump says Warren Buffet will be in his cabinet?!?  :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Sisters for Trump
« Reply #77 on: August 15, 2015, 09:32:02 PM »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Michael Savage on Trump, Megyn Kelly, Fox anchors...
« Reply #78 on: August 16, 2015, 08:56:34 AM »
Whatever you think of Savage - and often I don't think much of him - here IMHO he makes some excellent points in a hilarious manner:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yawAyr4Ch-o



"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Gutfield
« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2015, 07:28:09 AM »
My take:

A lot of 'Bushees' work for Fox.  They must all be pissed their guy is not doing well so far.   Gutfield must think he has an in with his pal Perrino:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/gutfeld-like-the-left-trump-is-using-emotional-stances/

A long way to go.

Far more likely than not Donald will eventually shoot himself in the foot.  Personally I hope not.

And yes.  I would rather Donald negotiate with Putin the Jeb at this time.  And if Donald can sustain this I would even feel more that way.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2015, 10:36:05 AM »
(ccp) Far more likely than not Donald will eventually shoot himself in the foot.  Personally I hope not.

Sometimes it seems inevitable that he will fall to his own words or temperament and other times in interviews he seems just as knowledgeable on a wide range of issues as the average governor or senator running - and far more passionate about it than most.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Donald Trump and the case against birthright citizenships
« Reply #82 on: August 18, 2015, 06:08:17 AM »
I know we have discussed this previously.  Can someone find where?
================================================

Birthright Citizenship?
By Mark Alexander · Aug. 26, 2010
Print Email Bigger Smaller
Only if your mother was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (Ciudadanía por Nacimiento – sólo si su madre estaba sujeta a su jurisdicción)

    “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” –George Washington

Coming to America

Given the far-reaching implications of illegal immigration, and more recently the Left’s objections to enforcing immigration law in border states like Arizona, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is receiving some long-overdue attention.

Like every contemporary political debate, the questions raised concerning the meaning of the 14th Amendment are, essentially, about whether we are a nation subject to Rule of Law codified in our Constitution, or we are subjects under the rule of men, subject to a “living constitution” amended primarily by judicial diktat and legislative mischief, rather than amended by the people, as prescribed in Article V.

Does the 14th Amendment mean what its framers intended and the states ratified, or does it mean whatever the courts and Congress have construed it to mean today?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which pertains to immigration and naturalization, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate about the authority of our Constitution must begin with First Principles, original intent.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

This language is plain and easily understood.

“[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This language, too, is plain and easily understood, unless there is a contemporary Leftist political agenda, which does not comport with that understanding, in which case benefactors and beneficiaries of that agenda will interpret (read: misconstrue) it to fit their purposes.

So, what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually mean? Beyond the apparent plain language definition, a factual interpretation is supported by the context in which this amendment was framed and ratified.

After the War Between the States, freedmen (former slaves) may have been liberated by Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, but they didn’t enjoy the same rights as those who freed them. Though slaves were in the United States legally, and thus, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they had no assurance of equal rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to rectify this injustice by noting in part, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. … All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

The first definition of “citizenship” in legal references is “nationality or legal status of citizenship.”

The 1866 act defined “persons within the jurisdiction of the United States” as all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.

However, concern that the Act might be overturned by a future Congress motivated its sponsors to make it more resistant to the arbitrary rule of men, so they proposed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.

Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Thus, in the plain language of its author, those who are born to parents who are legally in the U.S., who have no allegiance to a foreign power (as diplomats), are thus, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and have claim to birthright citizenship. Just as plain is the fact that the 14th Amendment would exclude those born to illegal aliens.

Despite the confidence of the 14th Amendment’s authors that it wouldn’t be subject to legislative and judicial mischief, subsequent generations of legislatures and judges have so twisted its plain language as to all but alienate it from its original intent – as they have likewise done with the rest of our Constitution.

For that reason, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is now proposing a measure to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by way of another amendment.

The problem is that Boehner and likeminded conservatives still erroneously rely on the Rule of Law, an assumption that our Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been thoroughly subordinated to the rule of men.

Where does that leave the birthright citizenship debate?

Today, more than 20 percent of all children born in the United States are born to those who have entered the United States unlawfully, and who are, by any authentic definition of the 14th Amendment, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are not citizens. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie assert that the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants are owed all the entitlements of an American citizen.

The near-term consequences of this fallacious assertion have dire implications for the future of Liberty, for the Rule of Law, and for the very survival of our nation. But this is consistent with Obama’s objective of “fundamentally transforming” our nation by breaking the back of free enterprise, which is a foundational component of Liberty.

In 1776, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson proposed the national motto, “E pluribus unum” (“Out of many, one”), but that unity will not last much longer if we do not take dramatic action to restore the Rule of Law.

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Indeed.

Now, writes Graglia, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry,” making a child born to that immigrant “an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.”

For the record, according to both the Justice Department and Homeland Security, “A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment.”

So, according to current laws and regulations, consistent with the original intent of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment as duly ratified on 9 July 1868, the child of a diplomat born in the United States, though that diplomat is legally on U.S. soil, has no birthright entitlement to citizenship.

However, according to Obama and his Leftist cadres, inconsistent with both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, a child born to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally has a birthright entitlement to citizenship.

Which will it be, then: Rule of Law or the rule of Obama?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump and the case against birthright citizenships
« Reply #83 on: August 18, 2015, 11:13:28 AM »
I know we have discussed this previously.  Can someone find where?
================================================

A couple of references to anchor babies, birthright citizenship and the origin of the 14th amendment:

Patriot Post
"...The 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil as we implied.

Patriot reader and Harding University political science professor Cheri Pierson Yecke wrote in to clear up the matter. She noted that birthright citizenship "began with the Supreme Court decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). SCOTUS shamefully ignored congressional intent and gave the following opinion: 'A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."'"

Dr. Yecke added, "As can be seen in the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment (39th Congress, First Session), a provision for 'anchor babies' was never the intent of Congress." Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI) argued for adding the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to the Amendment, saying, "This [Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers..."
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1709.msg29121#msg29121
---------------------

Ann Coulter:
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1850.msg39499#msg39499
« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 05:07:35 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #84 on: August 19, 2015, 08:15:01 AM »
We all know the wave of people swarming over the boarder and overstaying their visas will turn into a tsunami of even greater heights now.

There has to be *at least* a half a million illegals in NJ alone.  I am not talking just the obvious people from South of the Border.  I am talking from all over the world.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #86 on: August 19, 2015, 09:14:27 AM »
That is quite cutting  :lol:

That said, the question remains about the American working and middle classes in a globalizing world which destroys their jobs and pushes them towards minimum wage. 

Marco Rubio has dialed in on this too.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
(Where have we already heard this? http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2551.msg88495#msg88495)

Now the Washington Post chimes in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-

Trump celebrated the Kelo decision upholding government takings for private purposes:  
“I happen to agree with it [the Kelo decision] 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen

That puts him at odds with roughly 100% of constitutional conservatives.

Most notably, that puts Trump to the left of Bernie Sanders on government power over private citizens, and most startlingly puts Bernie Sanders is to the right of Donald Trump on constitutional protections of private property rights.  http://volokh.com/posts/1120223955.shtml


John Stossel had one story of Trump's, government-backed takings of private property for private use, pre-Kelo, in March 2004 (below):  Is this really who conservatives want to rally around?  Is this an insignificant issue or is it a sign of core principles (lacking)?? How would you like Trump's tough talk aimed at you - in your home?  These people were living legally in a home they owned.  For the 'crime' of not agreeing to sell to this bully at his price on his schedule they got to have Donald Trump publicly call out their home as ugly, "terrible stuff, Tenement housing", and with his economic and political clout he got the Atlantic City government lawyers to take legal action attempting to force these residents to vacate.  Read below.   The 'win' the residents had in court was prior to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision upholding this power - that Trump supported "100%".  These residents would lose in court now.  - Doug


http://reason.com/archives/2004/03/01/confessions-of-a-welfare-queen/4
(Stossel)  Sometimes citizens fight back, and when they do they can win -- even against a foe as big as Donald Trump and the Atlantic City politicians in his pocket. In the early 1990s, the billionaire already owned Trump Plaza, Trump Tower, Trump Parc, Trump International Hotel, Trump Palace, Trump World’s Fair, and Trump Taj Mahal. But he wanted more. He wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City.

Vera Coking was in the way. The elderly widow had lived in a house in Atlantic City for more than 30 years, and she didn’t want to move. Trump offered Coking $1 million if she’d sell. She said no.

This annoyed Trump. He told reporters her house was ugly, and it would be better if it were torn down to make room for a parking lot for limousines waiting outside his casino.

I wouldn’t think that was "public use," but before you could say "corporate welfare," New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit in 1994 to "acquire" Coking’s property. It told Coking she must vacate her home within 90 days or the sheriff would forcibly remove her.

Suddenly the $1 million offer was off the table. The authority said Coking’s house was worth only $251,000 -- one-fifth what Trump paid for a smaller lot nearby.

It looked to me like the government was robbing Vera Coking to pay off Donald Trump. The government officials wouldn’t talk to me about it, but Trump did.

Stossel: In the old days, big developers came in with thugs with clubs. Now you use lawyers. You go to court and you force people out.

Trump: Excuse me. Other people maybe use thugs today. I don’t. I’ve done this very nicely. If I wanted to use thugs, we wouldn’t have any problems. It would have been all taken care of many years ago. I don’t do business that way. We have been so nice to this woman.

Trump said Coking turned down his offer because "her lawyer wants to get rich, and everybody wants to get rich off me."

Stossel: So don’t pay it. Let them stay. Basic to freedom is that if you own something, it’s yours. The government doesn’t just come and take it away.

Trump: Do you want to live in a city where you can’t build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil.

Stossel: But we’re not talking about a hospital. This is a building a rich guy finds ugly.

Trump: You’re talking about at the tip of this city, lies a little group of terrible, terrible tenements -- just terrible stuff, tenement housing.

Stossel: So what?

Trump: So what?...Atlantic City does a lot less business, and senior citizens get a lot less money and a lot less taxes and a lot less this and that.

Sadly, claims that people will be deprived of "this and that" can now be used by politicians to condemn your house. It didn’t seem right to Vera Coking. "This is America," she said. "My husband fought in the war and worked to make sure I would have a roof over my head, and they want to take it from me?"

Usually the Donald Trumps of the world and their partners in government get what they want. But Vera Coking was lucky enough to get media attention -- and to have a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, take her case to court. In 1998 a judge finally ruled against Trump and the government, finding that taking the property would benefit Trump, not the public. Vera Coking got to keep her home. She still lives there, surrounded by Trump’s hotel.

Such victories against the awful advantages that government loves to grant to the wealthy and well-connected are possible. But to see more of them will require a great deal of diligence on the part of citizens -- and the news media. If we want to live up to the old saw that the press should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," the TV cameras need to spend more time focused on the ugly realities of welfare for the rich.

    - John Stossel,  March 2004  
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 10:06:40 AM by DougMacG »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Trump Doing Better Than Jeb Bush With Liberals, Moderates, Democrats...
« Reply #88 on: August 25, 2015, 01:01:26 PM »
TRUMP DOING BETTER W/LIBERALS, MODERATES AND DEMOCRATS THAN JEB BUSH

Trump and Jeb Bush get the same amount of the non-white vote

August 21, 2015  Daniel Greenfield    


The consultant class messaging is that Trump would scare away far too many moderate and minority voters. So far there's no sign of that. In matchups against Hillary, the latest CNN poll shows Trump and Jeb Bush getting the same amount of the non-white vote (very little).

It also shows Trump having a slight lead among liberals, moderates and Democrats. The amount is within the margin of error and insignificant, but it shows that the claim that Trump will alienate middle of road voters isn't currently being reflected in polls. Or rather, Trump is not any more alienating than Republican candidates to a demographic that is thoroughly media injected.

Trump however does somewhat worse than Jeb Bush with independent voters and he appears to move a few percent of Republican leaning voters to Clinton.

Trump does much better with the 35 to 49 age group voters than Jeb Bush. His performance is terrible with younger voters though. And there is a troubling warning sign in the poll. Trump performs worse than Jeb Bush among under $50K voters, the people he's supposed to be appealing to with immigration populism.

Trump's biggest problem appears to be the South. Clinton and Bush are neck and neck there. With Trump, Hillary has a solid poll lead.

He does pick up more Tea Party support than Jeb. And Trump does significantly better in the Northeast than Bush, but that may matter less in an election. Trump is somewhat better in urban areas, but much worse in rural areas. It looks like that may be a hole in his campaign that he needs to fix.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #89 on: August 25, 2015, 03:02:44 PM »
All right........in the email group that CD and I are in, they are not discussing Trump.  Maybe I can get it going here. Here is why I am supporting Trump.

1.  I am fed up with the GOPe throwing "electable" candidates at me that lose. I have had to hold my nose or take disinfecting showers in every election year starting in 1988. All GOP candidates have been jokes.  (1976 also.)

2. I remember the GOP taking the same type of negative position with Reagan. He did not turn out too bad.

3. I watch RINO politicians like Boehner and McConnel throw away every advantage that they have in the House and Senate because they are afraid to make Dems mad.

4. I look at JEB and he is pro amnesty, big government, Commoncore and global warming.  Enough of the Bushes.

5. Fiorina is man made global warming, Cap and Trade and Amnesty driven. Rubio is Bush lite.

6. Cruz is better but he cannot win. He will be destroyed by the Dems for Tea Party support.

7. Walker can't win. And the other dwarfs are no better, nor can they win.

As I go around my more "liberal" middle class neighborhood, I cannot believe the support that Donald is drawing. People, unless they are far left, are really getting behind the Trump campaign.  Simply put, Trump is echoing their concerns.

A good part of my neighborhood is Hispanic. They are overwhelmingly supporting what Trump is saying, especially about anchor babies. They want illegal immigration to end. They also believe that he will not be bought, give in to the political parties, and can help the economy.

IMO, this election is the most critical election since Lincoln. The country faces obstacles that are driving conditions, financial and social, out of control. If we do not get a grip on the problems, then the country will not survive as a republic much longer. Yet, if we have either the Dems or GOPe selecting the nominees and ignoring the people, then we cannot attack the issues of concern. This is because the "elites" only care about themselves, power retention, and money. They care nothing for the values that made this country great.

If Bush is the nominee, I and large numbers of conservatives will sit out like what happened in 2012 with Romney. Better to have a Dem in and know I will get screwed than to vote for a GOPe praying that the nominee will win, while knowing that even if he does win, he will go RINO.

Can Trump do anything if he wins?  Who knows? But at least he is not a weasel politician..............

PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
The 14th Amendment Does NOT Confer "Birthright Citizenship"...
« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2015, 05:35:28 PM »
Crafty,

I believe you will find this particularly illuminating:

SUPERB examination and explication of this subject by Mark Levin interviewing Professor Edward Erler on this topic on Levin's radio show - August 19, 2015:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzzi3s9vJ4

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2015, 07:38:57 PM »
FYI,

I spend most days doing consulting work for attorneys. The work mostly involves developing arguments on foreclosure and lending law, but it frequently crosses over into the realm of fraud and other subjects. To do this work, I have had to develop a firm understanding of how to read and understand statutes, regulations, and case law. This has been especially important since I am often retained to be an Expert Witness in various cases.

Since the subject of Anchor Babies arose, I have been reviewing the Constitution, 14th Amendment, the Intent of the legislation and of course, SCOTUS case law. Based upon my own non-professional observations and readings, I believe:

1. As has been represented by Levin and others, the 14th did only address the issue of Slavery. It did not expand further rights to other parties.

2. The fact that in 1924, Congress passed additional legislation giving all Indians the right of citizenship that did not exist prior thanks to SCOTUS rulings is further proof of the 14th Amendment intent.

3. The 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed. From the wording,  Congress can enact laws to either expend or shrink the scope of the Amendment.

Now, talking with friends who are legal immigrants currently, some Green Card and others who have been awarded Citizenship, I have yet to hear any say that illegals and anchor babies deserve Citizenship. More over, most like the idea of Trump sending them back, and this includes two who have their own businesses and who actually employ illegals.

On a more personal level:

1. My wife is first generation from El Salvador. Her mother and father came over in the 1930's legally. 7 sisters also immigrated legally.  All support Trump and his policies.

2. My son-in-law is first generation from Italy. His father, mother and grandparents all came over during WW2, legally. They support Trump.

3. My son married a Canadian. She came into the US and went through all citizenship requirements. The cost was incredible for them but she did it. They support Trump.

I can go on ad on, but you get the idea.......
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18470
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #92 on: August 26, 2015, 07:31:02 AM »
ppulatie,

Thanks for that excellent post.  Agree 100% and that is one big reason I could never vote for Bush, Kasich, or Graham.

They have surrendered to the identity politics of the Democrat party at the expense of the rest of the country.

Trump is the only one standing up to this and that is why he is, so far, popular among us.

The intent of the 14th amendment is obviously not to allow us to be walked all over by people flooding into our country illegally.

And yes, they are "anchor babies".   The OB floors in our hospitals are revolving doors of illegals having babies.  It is absurd and nothing less.

I have one niece from England.  Another from S. Africa.  They had to go through a lot to become citizens.

 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #93 on: August 26, 2015, 08:26:42 AM »
Loved what Trump did with Ramos last night in Iowa. Can;t wait to see Black Lives Matter try their act on Trump.

Trumps support will increase to 40% now and if he does the same to BLM, then it is over 50%.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #94 on: August 26, 2015, 07:30:22 PM »
"The 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed. From the wording,  Congress can enact laws to either expend or shrink the scope of the Amendment."

I like this approach - or any other way to get the Supreme Court to revisit this mistake.  Still it would take significant support from Dems to override a veto.  Obama isn't going to sign it and R's don't have 60, much less 67 votes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Mr. Trump: There is no such thing as Big Government Conservatism
« Reply #95 on: August 26, 2015, 08:33:33 PM »
Getting tossed out of a Trump event for interrupting it is better treatment than Vera Coking got for the 'crime' of owning a house where Trump wanted a parking lot.

How one behaves when no one is watching is one window into character.  In the case of Donald Trump and Vera Coking, the bullying was in full public view.  Trump called Coking's home "ugly", "tenement housing".  He did it loudly, in public, in trademark Donald Trump style.  

Trump used his purchased political connections and hefty economic clout to join forces with government officials for the purpose of forcing this owner/resident out, using eminent domain by government taking - from a private citizen for the purpose of turning it over to their preferred private project, a Trump casino limosine parking lot.  Welcome to Donald Trump's career.

The developer-in-bed-with-government alliance became famous about 10 years later with the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London, CT where Suzette Kelo lost her house and her Supreme Court case to a Pfizer project - that never happened.  Donald Trump insists he agrees 100% with that decision.  

When those with the most economic clout make alliance with bigger and bigger government power and use that power to enrich both themselves and the government, while tromping (Trumping) over the private property rights of the 'smaller' people - that is the worst kind of crony capitalism that makes the right, left and middle angry and cynical.  Yet we keep letting it happen and supporting the perpetrators.

Trump (and the 5 Justices that upheld Kelo) have economic policy and private property rights wrong and backwards.  We aren't better off when our government partners up with the most powerful businesses like they do in the most corrupt, third world countries of the world.  We need our government to govern.  Maintain a safety net, security, public services and infrastructure, but mostly we need government to maintain a level playing field that doesn't favor one class of participants over the others.

Mr. Trump, there is no such thing as a Big Government Conservative, nor will there ever be a head of government who "creates the most jobs in history".  What will make our country great again is to right-size our government down to its proper functions and restore a fair path and reward for honest work and risk taking.

Trump is a serious contender for President so his (lack of) character and principles matters.  When faced with a choice between calling in purchased government power and favoritism over conserving private property rights - even for people who don't contribute millions to both parties, Donald Trump didn't flinch, and has no regret.  Instead he jokes about what he bought with all his contributions, from condemnation of people's property in his way to buying the attendance of the Clintons at his wedding.

It's really not that funny.  My two cents.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 09:20:13 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #96 on: August 26, 2015, 08:52:27 PM »
I like Trump's ballsiness and lack of groveling, but he sure isn't my choice.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #97 on: August 27, 2015, 09:17:17 AM »
Answer me this...............

Is there anyone else who could be elected (and this is the key criteria) that would change things?

Carly is a closet liberal who supports amnesty, cap and trade and health care.

Bush is amnesty, global warming and commoncore.

Rubio is Bush lite and supports amnesty and commoncore.

Cruz can't win. He will be Tea Party papered with all the derogatory comments destroying him.

Walker is falling apart. On immigration, in a 30 minute speech, he flipped flopped 3 times.

Carson would be good, but otherwise cannot win. His lack of knowledge and experience would get him bounced out quick. Plus being a black conservative would really go against him.

This country needs a radical change from where we are now. But there are no "leaders" that can do so among the political elite. Sure, Trump has his bad points, but you are not going to find a true conservative anywhere that can get elected. Purity and the ability to be elected does not exist.

All I know is that if Bush or Rubio is the nominee, then I am sitting the election out and for the first time since I could vote in 1972.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69315
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #98 on: August 27, 2015, 09:59:38 AM »
OTOH Trump is a crony capitalist narcissist of little discernible principals.

I am interested to know more about Fiorina on illegals, immigration, global warming etc.   Please post info on her thread.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18205
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, and others
« Reply #99 on: August 27, 2015, 12:18:06 PM »
PP,  First, glad you're in on the discussion!  Second, I think I'm with you on policies and issues, just not all the conclusions.  

You are kind of tough on some of the other mortals trying to be President, so let's apply that same standard to Trump.  He is a Rino in as many ways as the others who commonly earn that title; he's just not a wishy-washy one.  Most notably, he earns that mark by siding with big government solutions whenever it suits him.  The term Cino is now emerging, conservative in name only.  Trump makes Romney look consistent - and "severely" conservative.  (

"Purity and the ability to be elected does not exist."   - True.  But Trump is also a Rino on constitutional issues, to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor(!), and I don't consider the right to pick the next Supreme Court Justices to be a minor part of the job.  Most of what is wrong with the country today can be traced back to bad Supreme Court decisions.

Yes, I think electing Rubio could change the mindset and direction in this country, and he polls better than Trump and the others in the general election matchups.  In that sense, it is Trump who is unelectable (looking at it today).  Losing the election, by definition, means not being able to change things.  Conversely, the country will have to change its mindset in order to elect a Republican in these new demographics.  So the question becomes, who can make that case most persuasively - to the people who are most persuadable?  Trump is hitting a chord right now with people that are already pissed off. To me, it is Rubio who has a chance to change minds without evoking the usual negative reaction so many voters tend to have toward conservative candidates.  We can discuss Rubio further on his own thread; I sense you disagree.  

On immigration Trump says he will send them all back but it isn't going to happen.  Pressed for details he says start with the gangbangers, murderers and rapists.  I think we can get Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Carson and others to agree with at least that.  Rubio went soft on amnesty trying to get a deal (there goes purity) but also got a real world lesson on how Democrats don't negotiate in good faith and how you have to win more elections and bigger ones to make positive changes.  Now he says, secure the border first.  Like Trump, he may actually mean that and accomplish it especially if a like-minded congress got on board.  In the end, I don't see a real policy difference left on immigration beyond that one is going to alienate everyone along the way, and one might win and get border security done.  

PP knows many Hispanics who support Trump.  But most Hispanics know someone pretty closely who is vulnerable to mass deportation talk.  Trump's polling is net -51% with Hispanics.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/184814/hispanics-frown-trump-not-rest-gop-field.aspx  (chart below)  We need to start enforcing the law without the grandstanding to scare everyone (IMHO).

Jeb Bush has stubbornly stuck with Common Core long after everyone else on the right figured out it is a big leftist government takeover.  I don't know where Rubio is on that but I know his underlying principles are not big, federal government centric.  No one speaks out better on liberty than Rubio, IMHO.   Having the federal government bully the states on state issues doesn't match anything else Rubio is saying or doing.  I don't know where Trump is on it, but taking from his other positions, he will head up the best federal government run schools in the world!  

I don't know if Walker survives his latest flipflops.  I've also wondered if Carly is a closet liberal and if statements she made trying to ease the left in California will come back to haunt her.  Now I suspect it is the opposite; she tried sounding moderate in Calif but really was a closet conservative.  She may have some explaining to do along the way but sounds very good to me right now.  I like Cruz but he doesn't seem to know the full political game or have enough appeal, especially crossover appeal to go it alone.  I have the concerns with Carson that PP expressed, does he know enough to survive the process?  It is a long process though and perhaps the answer will be yes.  And when you hear that he lost his two older cousins on the streets of Detroit before he figured out to set his own life on a good path, maybe he knows things about turning things around that the rest of us could never know.  If a significant number of the people currently unproductive by choice suddenly jumped into our economy, amazing things would happen.  Being a black conservative is a GREAT thing!   All of those, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz, Walker, would be fine with me, and Jindal too, though I don't see him catching on.   As PP said, just pick the one who will win - and the one who will get the right things done if they do win.  

Jeb Bush is a topic all his own.  He was a good governor but is wrong about the two issues mentioned and declared he doesn't need the support of people like me to win.  So he can win the nomination without the support of people like me.  Kasich is perhaps in a similar situation.  Let's deal with the question of sitting out the general election only if it comes to that.  Our job right now is to make sure we don't need to.

Gallup Chart: