Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472271 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #150 on: September 02, 2015, 04:32:08 PM »
DMG,

The difference is that Trump

1. Admits to being a crony capitalist in using the rules that exist to benefit his business.

2. Decries those same rules as allowing lobbyists and  crony capitalists to influence politicians.

3. Says that he will not allow the donations that causes the influence in his campaign.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #151 on: September 02, 2015, 04:39:10 PM »
The RNC is now demanding that potential candidates sign a Loyalty Pledge to not run as a third party if they lose the nomination. Another attack against Trump.

http:/][url]http:/[/url]/www.politico.com/story/2015/09/republican-national-committee-2016-campaign-pledge-213283

Questions:

1. What about Lisa Murkowski of Alaska? She lost to the Tea Party candidate in the primary, then ran as an independent and was supported by the RNC.

2. What about Tadd Cochrone in Mississippi, where the RNC took out his challenger in the runoff?

3. What about McCain in 2008 when asked about if he lost and whether he would support the nominee. His response was that it would depend upon the candidate and who was running for the other side.

I guess the Loyalty Oath requires a stretched out Arm Salute last seen in Germany in WW2. Maybe a Hydra Salute.

And people wonder why I hate the GOPe.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #152 on: September 02, 2015, 04:50:06 PM »
How about the GOPe sign a loyalty oath to the Republican base?

*crickets*

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #153 on: September 02, 2015, 04:51:58 PM »
"Clintons sold influence.  Trump bought influence."

Pithy.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #154 on: September 02, 2015, 04:54:34 PM »
Oaths only go in one direction. And the GOPe are the only ones who know what is in the best interest of the people.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The new Trump campaign logo!
« Reply #155 on: September 02, 2015, 05:54:41 PM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #156 on: September 02, 2015, 06:11:17 PM »
Took me a bit to realize that the website was was playing games with the logo of Obama. I knew I had never seen that for a Trump logo.

G.M.

as Sister Mary would say............."go sit in the corner for trying to deceive me".
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #157 on: September 02, 2015, 06:53:34 PM »
Took me a bit to realize that the website was was playing games with the logo of Obama. I knew I had never seen that for a Trump logo.

G.M.

as Sister Mary would say............."go sit in the corner for trying to deceive me".

Well, hardly the first time I have been sent to the corner.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #158 on: September 02, 2015, 08:20:22 PM »
And you enjoyed it too much.

I am not going to spank you, no matter how much you want it or beg me!!!
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #159 on: September 02, 2015, 09:59:23 PM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #160 on: September 03, 2015, 08:05:07 AM »
GM,

The  other candidates cannot speak to the people like Trump. They are used to lecturing people and speaking down to them. In other words, they speak to with people.

Donald speaks "with" the people. He interacts and does things that are instinctual. This is a process that cannot be learned.

Additionally, the key to Donald is that he speaks off the cuff. He does not need a teleprompter, nor notes to follow just about word for word. Therefore, it inhibits their ability to speak as Donald.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trumpand the Loyalty Pledge
« Reply #161 on: September 03, 2015, 08:06:47 AM »
Trump will be signing the Loyalty Pledge. You can bet that there are other things going on behind the scenes. He is not doing this because the RNC has him over the barrel.

It will be interesting to see what occurs down the road.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Obama on Trump
« Reply #162 on: September 03, 2015, 08:50:48 AM »
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 09:09:32 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #163 on: September 03, 2015, 08:58:18 AM »
Just dealt with an undocumented democrat a short time ago.Out on a PR bond for driving under revocation. Previously deported for crimes in el Norte and free as a bird now.



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #166 on: September 03, 2015, 12:03:15 PM »
The author, Jameson Parker is a liberal hack who has been attacking anything conservative. He quotes from an article written by SV Date, an NPR hack.

To achieve this claim, Date and others dismiss the Trump financial statement filings and instead use other measures to arrive at a net worth far lower than what is on the filings. Then they take the $200m that Trump inherited in 1974 and make the claim  that if the money had been put in a SP 500 index fund of Mutual Bonds, it would now be worth nearly $3b.

Of course, this measure stick would mean that Trump never bought and sold other businesses, created jobs, built buildings and all other things that create wealth for the people of the country.

Damned liberal hacks that don't understand the reality of business operations, risk, wealth creation, and all the benefits that others receive from such activities.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #167 on: September 03, 2015, 12:08:22 PM »
A) Very funny GM;

B) We need to be able to handle these.  Good response PP;

C) Just caught his press conference announcing his pledge to support the Rep nominee and take questions.  I must say I thought it a very strong performance.



objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #168 on: September 03, 2015, 12:21:10 PM »
TRUMP AND "REJECTING" CONSERVATIVE VALUES

This isn't about values. It's about crisis.

September 3, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   
 

There have been numerous pieces in the conservative media that blast Trump supporters for "rejecting" conservative values.

Now conservative values have been in flux for a while and some of the same people attacking Trump supporters as RINOs claim that illegal alien amnesty and transnational trade policies are conservative values. In the battle of the RINOs, this gets very confusing.

But a key point that is being missed here is that Trump is getting support from conservatives who believe it's more important to stop and roll back the damage that Obama has done in two terms than in advocating positive conservative values.

So they're less concerned by Trump's calls for tax hikes on the rich than they are by Obama being able to ram through amnesty. It's not that they don't care about free market principles, it's that they know these will be an abstract if the left wins its demographic war on America. The common denominator among many Trump supporters is that they see this as a final conflict, a battle at the gates.

That makes them less concerned with long term value policies and just looking for an emergency solution to stop the left's takeover.

It's that sense of urgency which divides many of them from a Republican leadership that appears not to sense this emergency.

Of course their calculation assumes a lot about Trump that isn't in evidence, but they are reacting to a legitimate crisis and looking for a crisis manager. And it's a fundamental flaw in the Republican field that few politicians in it have communicated their sense of crisis.

Trump projects confidence. The ability to get things done without caring about procedure and niceties. While the analogy may make some people moan, he's tapping into Andrew Jackson type populism with its revolution against the elites. (Even if Trump lacks Jackson's common background.)

In a sense, we've been divided between those who still see a long view in which America would be viable 50 or 100 years from now, and those who don't. The polls show more people who don't believe the future will get better.

That's the elephant in the room.

A lot of Republican elites are taking the long view. So are a lot of upper rank conservatives. But the Republican base isn't. It's worried about what will happen now.

This isn't about values. It's about crisis.

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

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #169 on: September 03, 2015, 12:41:35 PM »
CD,

I liked the press conference myself. Some are already saying that it was a mistake to sign the Pledge and Trump will lose support, but I don't believe that to be the case. The Trumpeters realize that this was the smart move to take an issue off of the table. Plus, the GOPe is now faced with treating Trump "fairly". They don't do it and Trump can really go after them.

Object:

For most Trumpeters, it is more about having been sold out by the RINOs and GOPe. We are tired of listening to the GOPe select the candidates for us, telling us that they are electable, and then finding them to be idiots who can't get out of their own way.  Think McCain and Romney.

Now, they have tried to ram Bush down our throats, and that will not be accepted.

There is also the issue that the GOPe claimed give us the Senate and the House, and we will stop Obama. Instead, we have the traitor Corker Bill that has given Iran the bomb.
We also have to deal with the crybaby Boehner who only wants to get along with the opposition and with McConnell who has cajones the size of an atom, and has courage equivalent to that size.

The pundits really don't understand the anger and frustration of the base. We are tired of being back stabbed at every turn, and then tired of being called every name in the book when we complain.

Burn the GOP down.......!
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #170 on: September 03, 2015, 12:51:47 PM »
Ppulatie,

I agree 100%.  That is the way I feel as well.  I was just offering Greenfield's article as a response to those such as Erick Erickson who continue to slam Trump for not being "a real conservative."  It's beyond that now.  We DO know he's not a liberal.  And yes - frankly, these Republicans haven't done jack sh*t to stop Obama and the Democrats from accomplishing everything they set out to do.  The country is truly at the brink.  We're about to lose it.  Someone has to oppose and roll back this devastating agenda that has us at the precipice.  While I don't think ANY President can stop the economic collapse and resulting devastation that is coming, regardless of his/her economic policies, Trump, IMHO has the best understanding of how to mitigate the damage to whatever extent it's possible.

Further - I strongly believe that a silent majority is sick to death of political correctness.  Trump has no use for this cowardly tactic either.  This appeals to people in a way that those living inside the Washington D.C. beltway cannot understand.  They live in their own little hermetically-sealed universe where it's just politics as usual, and everything will be just fine if we are "bipartisan."
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 12:55:42 PM by objectivist1 »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #171 on: September 03, 2015, 01:48:04 PM »

When I look at the immigration issues in the US, I must look to what is happening right now in Germany and other European states.  Illegal immigration is overwhelming the European continent. It is causing the people to react against it and the government in ways that will invariably lead to "civil war". We are no different in that aspect, just a couple of years behind.

I also look at the Black Lives Matter crowd. It is only a small portion of the population, with blacks and whites included in the movement, but the aggressive nature of BLM is growing rapidly. Add to this the Anarchists, the Occupy Wall Street and other radical movements, we are seeing the forming of an army for a civil war in the US.  This mix of volatility is spreading and something is going to trigger it if action is not taken now to stop it. But the question is how do disarm the movements.

If we do nothing about immigration, the fuel mixture will detonate and cause the war, just as we are beginning to see in Europe. At that point, the other movements will become involved as well. We will have to act in a reasoned manner that will allow for a reduction in the volatility of the illegal immigration movement. Done correctly, it would not trigger the other radical movements to act.

Essentially, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.


PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #172 on: September 03, 2015, 01:55:02 PM »
ObJ:

Very impressive analysis by Greenfield.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #174 on: September 04, 2015, 07:07:56 AM »
Okay CD. Yes it is a "win".  But let's talk reality.

Hewitt said that Carly did not know the questions. But if she has any sense, she or a staff member would have listened to the Trump interview, and then looked up the names and positions, so I don't by the claim that she did not know what was coming. I would have been more impressed if he had asked Carly about her support for Cap and Trade, Man Made Global Warming, and why she supported Hillary in 2008.  Oops.....

Hewitt pulled the same crap in each previous election. He asked about the far east, and 43 could only name one of 4 countries. McCain had his own issues.

Hewitt is a Bushie. He has worked with 43 before back in the 2005 time frame. He falls in the fashion of Erickson with Red State, another Bushie and avowed Trump hater.
Hewitt thinks that he is the smartest man in the room, and wants everyone to know it. So he plays these type gotcha games.

BTW, most pundits are reporting this, but they are also saying that not knowing the names is not a big deal. Instead, on Day 1 of the Presidency, everything changes with the "first" real briefing. All presidents learn things about what is going on that is not in the public realm.

One final point. Back in the 1920's, Ford was on trial in a civil matter. (I don't remember all the details.) He was on the stand being grilled by opposing counsel. Opposing Counsel was asking all types of questions and each time, Ford would answer I don't know. The purpose of the line of questioning was to show how "stupid" ford was.

Finally, fed up with the process, Ford told the attorney that he had no need to know the answers. If he needed to know, he called in the right people who could answer the questions for him.  So would be the same with Trump.

Let's just see what happens to Trump's support from here.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #175 on: September 04, 2015, 08:21:03 AM »
To Trump, anything he doesn't know is a gotcha question.  His attack the questioner reactionis as reflexive as the Clintons' attack the accuser modus operandi.  By instantly switching the focus to the questioner, we don't get to know what Trump does or doesn't know.  It's not a gotcha question because as pp points out, Trump's support is not going to go down based on not knowing the answers to those questions.

BTW, I disagree, Hewitt isn't a hack or a Bushie.  Sure he has a shtick, but he is better than your average radio host or questioner, among the best, I think.  He is a Harvard grad, Michigan law school, teaches constitutional law, clerked in the DC Court of Appeals, served in the Reagan administration.  I listen and near as I can tell he is trying to ask tough, fair, relevant questions to all the candidates.  Here he was tough on Jeb over supporting Justices appointed by his father and brother, not letting him weasel off with excuses:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jeb-bush-john-roberts-supreme-court-119487  Hewitt has offered Trump all the time he wants.

What about Trump's birther chapter that Obama was poking fun at.  We looked at that question here and easily figured out a) there was nothing to it, Obama is the son of a woman from Kansas,  b) nothing was going to come out of it, and c) it was a distraction from all the real issues we should have been fighting.  That wasn't a childhood error; it was one Presidential term ago, and it was his lead issue, not immigration, taxes, regulations or big government.  When a guy doesn't listen to aides, shoots from the hip and doesn't care about what he doesn't know, what else is he going to get wrong?

DMG,
The difference is that Trump
1. Admits to being a crony capitalist in using the rules that exist to benefit his business.
2. Decries those same rules as allowing lobbyists and  crony capitalists to influence politicians.
...

No.  In the case of private takings he used that to his power and advantage and then celebrated the Supreme Court upholding the same power.  Where has he attacked loose bankruptcy laws that allow an admitted multi-billionaire to escape his own agreed, contractual obligations?  Nowhere.  

Also, I am looking forward to an answer of how a private taking is constitutional (Trump's view) or how we can enjoy the 'benefit' of righting a government wrong (inability of a lender to foreclose a loan) with an another government wrong (private taking) without setting up endless and limitless abuses of crony government power with the legalization of private use takings.  How Trump views the constitutional protections of individual liberties is not a small or peripheral issue for the person in charge of appointing Judges and Justices.

Immigration may be the most crucial issue today and Trump has been out front on that, yet we don't know he will build a bigger wall or send more people home.  What we do know is that the next Republican President if there is one needs to carry something like 40% of the Hispanic vote.  Scaring all Hispanics when you are only sending back rapists is a sure way to lose an election IMHO and never get a wall or increased enforcement.

CCP, These are old figures but we spend more money in this economy advertising laundry soap than we do protecting our liberties at home.  We DON'T spend too much money on elections.  We spend too little, giving those with larger special interests who give wildly (like Trump) disproportionately large voices.

Did anyone here give money to a celebrity (Trump to Hillary) to get them to come to their wedding?  That gaffe was just last month.  Did that expose unbelievable shallowness or was it covering up his real reason for giving millions?  Both, I presume.  This is not a guy the ordinary voter can relate to.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 08:25:17 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #176 on: September 04, 2015, 09:20:22 AM »
Doug writes,

"This is not a guy the ordinary voter can relate to"

Maybe.   But the latest poll shows he increased his favorability rating from 20 to 59%.   Poll error or bias?   I don't know.   He was on MSLSD this Am.   Frankly I thought he was spectacular.   He blew all the libs away with his answers which were spot on and even Joe Scarboro was giving him high marks.    After he wiped Eugene Robinson's smirk off his face with an unexpected and terrific answer to his question (about the Kentucky clerk news item) he later charmed Robinson so much that Eugene could not stop laughing and having a great time.

Clearly Trump is a VERY quick study and getting better by the month.

The Spanish vote is not one block.

He said he "will win the" Spanish vote.   I would not count him out on this.   So far he is doing great.  I don't see how caving in to radical Latino demands is going to help us with the Spanish vote.   They keep coming and coming and turning around and demanding more and more. 

That said immigration is not the only issue important to me.   I think he can be strong on the debt, taxes, health care, and foreign policy despite he doesn't know the names of some Arab leaders in the Middle East.
Surely that was a "gotcha" question.  Even the left leaning David Gergen had to admit it was.

I don't see how Trump didn't handle the question well IMO.

Doug, your strong reservations and even dislike and distrust of Trump are understandable.  

He is either for real, or the world's second greatest con artist.  The claim to the 'world's greatest con artist' will always belong to slick Willie.  




« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 09:24:51 AM by ccp »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #177 on: September 04, 2015, 10:10:12 AM »
CCP,

Good reply.

As to Hewitt being a Bushie, he donated $100k to the 43 campaign in 08.

Then, there is this.

1. Salem Media Group owns Red State, Hotair, Hugh Hewitts show/website, and others. All of Hotair contributors are on the anti Trump bandwagon. Red State also.

2. Salem is partnering with CNN on the next debate. That is  why Hewitt is moderating.

3. Salem supports Bush and is a Super Pac contributor to Bush.

4. Red State's Erickson disinvited Trump from his gathering, and then invited Megan Kelly to appear.

5. If you don't toe the Red State line and do support Trump, you get banned.

6. Salem broadcasts many Spanish programs on radio.

7. Hewitt supports Common Core.

8. Hewitt supports Anchor Babies -  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/make-the-border-kids-americans-109045#.U8kjXV7EdBU

9. Hewitt does want a fence.  (See, I am fair and balanced.) But he says to let all who are here now stay.  (Amnesty)

10.  Hewitt wants a more aggressive stance against the terrorist groups. He advocates for a Declaration of War.

As to the two interviews, they were not as bad on Trump as it was made out to be. And if you listen to the Quod' question and response, one could easily mix the two up as Trump did.



PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
An Anti-Trump Rant
« Reply #178 on: September 04, 2015, 01:13:25 PM »
Dear Reader (if there are any of you left),

Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.

No, I’m not making some mad dash to the center. No, I’m not hoping to be the first alternate to Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe, nor am I vying to become my generation’s Kevin Phillips. I will never be a HillaryCon. And I have no plan to earn “strange new respect” from the Georgetown cocktail-party set I’m always hearing about but never meeting. But even if I have no desire to “grow” in my beliefs, I have no intention to shrink, either.

The late Bill Rusher, longtime publisher of National Review, often counseled young writers to remember, “Politicians will always disappoint you.” As I’ve often said around here, this isn’t because politicians are evil. It’s because politicians are politicians. Their interests too often lie in votes, not in principles. That’s why the conservative movement has always recognized that victory lies not simply in electing conservative politicians, but in shaping a conservative electorate that lines up the incentives so that politicians define their self-interest in a conservative way.

But if it’s true that politicians can disappoint, I think one has to say that the people can, too.

And when I say “the people” I don’t mean “those people.” I mean my people. I mean many of you, Dear Readers. Normally, when conservatives talk about how the public can be wrong, we mean that public. You know the one. The “low-information voters” Rush Limbaugh is always talking about. The folks we laughed at when Jay Leno interviewed them on the street. But we don’t just mean the unwashed and the ill-informed. We sometimes mean Jews, blacks, college kids, Lena Dunham fans, and countless other partisan slices of the electorate who reflexively vote on strict party lines for emotional or irrational reasons. We laugh at liberals who let know-nothing celebrities do their thinking for them.

Well, many of the same people we laughed at are now laughing at us because we are going ga-ga over our own celebrity.

Behold the Trumpen Proletariat

Yes, I know that there are plenty of decent and honorable people who support Trump. For instance, my friend John Nolte over at Breitbart is one. He constantly celebrates Trump because Trump has all the right enemies and defies the conventional rules governing politics and media:
 

 

But this is not an argument for Trump as a serious presidential candidate. It is really no argument at all. It is catharsis masquerading as principle, venting and resentment pretending to be some kind of higher argument. Every principle used to defend Trump is subjective, graded on a curve. Trump is like a cat trained to piss in a human toilet. It’s amazing! It’s remarkable! Yes, yes, it is: for a cat. But we don’t judge humans by the same standard.

The Tempting of Conservatism

I’ve written many times how the phrase “power corrupts” has been misunderstood. Lord Acton’s original point wasn’t that power corrupts those who wield power, it was that it corrupts those who admire it. In a letter to a historian friend who was too forgiving of the Reformation-era popes, Acton wrote:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Popularity -- which in democracy is a very important kind of power -- works the same way. We routinely forgive the rich and famous for sins we would condemn our neighbors for. Trump’s popularity apparently trumps all standards we would apply not just to our neighbors, but to our leaders. A small example of what I am talking about can be found in Ted Cruz’s vow not to criticize other Republicans -- if by “Republicans” you mean “Donald Trump.” I have a lot of respect for Cruz, but this doesn’t pass the laugh test. The Texan has been lambasting the entire Republican party for his entire time in office. Some of his critiques are valid, of course. But he has shown not an iota of reluctance to criticize fellow Republicans when it’s in his interest. Cruz isn’t criticizing Donald Trump because, as a smart politician, he wants to woo Trump’s followers when/if Trump eventually falters. Similarly, I’m constantly hearing from Trump fans that it’s “disrespectful” for me to criticize the Republican front-runner -- as if these fans would refrain from criticizing Jeb or Rubio or Kasich if they were in the lead.

The Bonfire of Principles

If I sound dismayed, it’s only because I am. Conservatives have spent more than 60 years arguing that ideas and character matter. That is the conservative movement I joined and dedicated my professional life to. And now, in a moment of passion, many of my comrades-in-arms are throwing it all away in a fit of pique. Because “Trump fights!”

How many Republicans have been deemed unfit for the Oval Office because of comparatively minor character flaws or ideological shortcomings? Rick Perry in 2012 saw his candidacy implode when he couldn’t remember the third item on his checklist of agencies he’d close down. Well, even in that “oops” moment, Rick Perry comes off as Lincolnesque compared with Donald Trump.

Yes, I know Trump has declared himself pro-life. Good for him -- and congratulations to the pro-life movement for making that the price of admission. But I’m at a total loss to understand why serious pro-lifers take him at his word. He’s been all over the place on Planned Parenthood, and when asked who he’d like to put on the Supreme Court, he named his pro-choice-extremist sister.

Ann Coulter wrote of Newt in 2011: “If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt’s not your guy.” Now Ann leads a chorus of people claiming that Trump is our only savior. Has Trump changed, or have Ann and her followers? Is there a serious argument behind the new thinking, or is it “because he fights!”?

It is entirely possible that conservatives sweat the details of tax policy too much. Once in office, a president must deal with political realities that render the fine print of a campaign pamphlet as useful as a battle plan after the enemy is met. But in the last month, Trump has contemplated a flat tax, the fair tax, maintaining the current progressive tax system, a carried-interest tax, a wealth tax, and doing nothing. His fans respond, “That shows he’s a pragmatist!”

No. It shows that he has absolutely no ideological guardrails whatsoever. Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Trump is close to the reverse. He’s a mouth at the wrong end of an alimentary canal spewing crap with no sense of responsibility.

In his embarrassing interview with Hugh Hewitt last night, Trump revealed he knows less than most halfway-decent D.C. interns about foreign policy. Twitter lit up with responses about how it doesn’t matter and how it was a gotcha interview. They think that Trump’s claim that he’ll just go find a Douglas MacArthur to fix the problem is brilliant. Well, I’m all in favor of finding a Douglas MacArthur, but if you don’t know anything about foreign policy, the interview process will be a complete disaster. Yes, Reagan delegated. But he knew enough to know to whom to delegate.

If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.

I’ve written a lot about my problems with populism. One of my favorite illustrations of why the populist mindset is dangerous and anti-intellectual comes from William Jennings Bryan. “The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver,” Bryan announced. “I will look up the arguments later.” My view of conservatism holds that if free silver is a bad idea, it’s still a bad idea even if the people of Nebraska are for it. But Trumpism flips this on its head. The conservatives of Nebraska and elsewhere should be against single-payer health care, even if Donald Trump is for it. What we are seeing is the corrupting of conservatives. 

Homework Is for Losers

I agree that presidents don’t need to be experts on everything. But they do need to do their homework. This is a standard I’ve held for years:

This is my biggest gripe about some of the GOP candidates in recent years. They don’t think they have to do their homework, perhaps because they aren’t so much running for president as running for greater celebrity.

Consider Herman Cain. I love listening to him, and so do a lot of conservatives. He’s smart enough to be president. But he simply didn’t do his homework, and he acted like that was something to be proud of, as when he of bragged about not knowing the names of leaders of “small, insignificant states” like Uzbekistan (which he jokingly pronounced “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan”).The one thing you cannot buy in politics is charisma. If you could, Mitt Romney would have bought a pallet of it at Costco and he’d probably be president now. Cain and Perry had the charisma, the natural political talent, and they squandered it by thinking all they needed was the sizzle without the steak.

Trump has the charisma, I’ll grant him that. But there is no evidence he’s thought deeply about the job beyond how much classier it will be once he has it. His whole shtick is an eminence front (“It’s a put on!” -- The Couch).

When running for president, doing your homework is a question of character and even patriotism. If you love this country and want to be the president, quite literally the least you can do is be prepared.

So let’s return to the issue of character.

In 2012, Mark Steyn wrote that a President Gingrich would have “twice as many ex-wives as the first 44 presidents combined.” If that (quite brilliant) line resonated with you three years ago, why doesn’t it for a President Trump?

I understand the Noltean compulsion to celebrate anyone who doesn’t take crap from the mainstream media. But when Newt Gingrich brilliantly eviscerated the press in 2012, there was a serious ideological worldview behind it. Trump’s assaults on the press have only one standard: whether the journalist in question is favorable to Trump or not. If a journalist praises him, that journalist is “terrific.” If the journalist is critical of Trump he is a “loser” (or, in my case, a loser who can’t buy pants). Not surprisingly, Hugh Hewitt is now “third rate” because he made Trump look bad. I’m no fan of Arianna Huffington or Gail Collins, but calling them “dogs” because they criticized you is not a serious ideological or intellectual retort. (It’s not even clever.) I think Trump did insinuate that Megyn Kelly was menstruating during the debate. He denies it. Fine. But what in the world about his past would lead someone to give him the benefit of the doubt? This is the same man who said, “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

Trump’s glass-bottom id lets the whole world see his megalomania. He talks about himself in the third person all the time. He explains that Trump is great because Trump is rich and famous. He’s waxed profound on how he doesn’t want blacks counting his money (he prefers Jews in yarmulkes). He makes jokes on national TV about women fellating him. He pays famous people to attend his wedding and then brags about it as if he got one over on them. He boasts in his books how he screwed over business associates and creditors because all that mattered was making an extra buck.

If your neighbor talked this way, maybe he’d still be your friend, because we all have friends who are characters. But would you want him to be your kid’s English teacher? Guidance counselor? Would you tell your kids you want them to follow his example? Would you go into business with him?

Would you entrust him with nuclear weapons?

Remnant Here I Come

Karl Marx coined the term lumpenproletariat to describe working-class people who could never relinquish their class consciousness and embrace the idea of a classless socialist society. Hence, they were useless to the revolutionary cause. I’m no Marxist, so I don’t buy the idea that anybody -- never mind a whole class of people -- are beyond persuasion. But I am tempted to believe that Donald Trump’s biggest fans are not to be relied upon in the conservative cause. I have hope they will come to their senses. But it’s possible they won’t. And if the conservative movement and the Republican party allow themselves to be corrupted by this flim-flammery, then so be it. My job will be harder, my career will suffer, and I’ll be ideologically homeless (though hardly alone). That’s not so scary. Conservatism began in the wilderness and maybe, like the Hebrews, it would return from it stronger and ready to rule. But I’m not leaving without a fight. If my side loses that fight, all I ask is you stop calling the Trumpian cargo cult “conservative” and maybe stop the movement long enough for me to get off.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #179 on: September 04, 2015, 01:29:00 PM »
Who wrote this?

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #180 on: September 04, 2015, 01:57:07 PM »
Sorry.  Jonah Goldberg.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #181 on: September 04, 2015, 02:14:44 PM »
Figures............Goldberg is so far in the tank for Bush, he needs Windex to clean Bushes stomach so he can see out.

Goldberg does not recognize the faults of the GOPe. Instead, he promotes their beliefs and the current crop of elected officials are just great. He talks about supporting Conservative Principals,but ignores that Boehner, McConnell and others just ignore principals.  Goldberg has also attached the Tea Party and anyone who disagrees with mainstream GOP thoughts.

Goldberg and the entire staff of National Review can shove it up their collective asses.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #182 on: September 04, 2015, 02:27:10 PM »
If Townhall radio, National Review, WSJ, (and Doug :wink: ) are all too liberal, you are planning to build a majority out of a mighty thin sliver.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #183 on: September 04, 2015, 02:51:46 PM »
"Doug, your strong reservations and even dislike and distrust of Trump are understandable. "

Yes, thank you.  He stole from me twice as I see it.  I was a victim of a private taking which he supports with his cavalier disregard for the constitution and secondly I will never forgive him for the $10 I gave him via some big retailer for the best selling 1987 book, 'Art of the Deal'.  All the way through that book I was saying he should have named it, "Aren't I Great" and "Don't I know a lot of Important People".  There was absolutely nothing in that book even intended to help a young real estate investor interested in 'the art of the deal'.  In helpfulness, I would rate at it well below the Andre Agassi and Keith Richards autobiographies.  (That was meant as an insult to all of them.)

"As to Hewitt being a Bushie, he donated $100k to the 43 campaign in 08. "

I think you mean '00 or '04 but I don't see it there either.  I also supported both Bushes - after all good candidates were eliminated.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/hugh-hewitt.asp?cycle=14

"He is either for real, or the world's second greatest con artist."

And I see him as somewhere in between. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #184 on: September 04, 2015, 03:02:40 PM »
Pat:

Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" has been an influence on me and I do not recognize most of your description of him when I see him on the panel of Bret Baier Special Report.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #185 on: September 04, 2015, 03:03:22 PM »
Doug,

It is not a matter of whether those groups and writers are conservative, liberal or space alien dictators. It is all about having candidates rammed down our throats because it is good for the special interest big donors. And it is about those officials that are elected actually trying to work for the people who elected them, not ignoring them.

For example:

What happened to reducing government spending?
What happened to repeal or reforming Obamacare?
What happened to controlling the borders? Stopping amnesty?

Four years ago, we were told that if we gave the GOP the House, they could stop a lot of the dimwit programs. So we gave it to them. Then it became, oh, we need both the House and the Senate to stop the dimwits. So we gave it to them. Now, we need the House, the Senate and the White House to change things. I DON'T BELIEVE THEM ANYMORE!!!

The GOP promised us that the following were "electable".

Bush 41 in 1992.  And this even after his Read My Lips, No New Taxes pledge that he broke.  (The claim is made that it was Perot's fault. Recent studies now show that Perot pullled just as much from Clinton as Bush, so it would have made no different.)

Dole in 1996.  (It was Dole's turn. He had been a good GOP soldier.)

Bush 43 in 2000. (Jeez....he could not even beat Gore in the popular vote.)

Bush 43 in 2004. (The only saving grace was he was running against "I was in Vietnam" Kerry. And then the idiot "reported for duty" with a salute at the Convention.)

McCain in 2008. (The only reason it was not worse was Palin. Otherwise it would have been a bigger route. Even then, the McCain people were stabbing Palin in the back during the campaigning.)

Romney in 2012. (Mr. Nice Guy. Would not go after Obama. Let Candy Crowley wipe him out in the debate.)

We are tired of the Uniparty that only cares about keeping in power and not willing to risk their comfy lifestyles for doing what their constitutes want. We are tired of being told that certain candidates are electable and that we must vote for them. If not, we are rubes, rednecks, lo info voters, vulgar and all the other things that we are called.

The GOP is corrupted like the Dems. It needs to be replaced. We will not take it anymore, even if it means that Hillary will win. We will sit out the election in numbers far larger than with Romney.

BTW, when I get mad like this, you know it is serious because I can usually accept anything.








PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #186 on: September 04, 2015, 03:05:45 PM »
CD,

Read all of his articles now. He is anti anyone who is not GOPe.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #187 on: September 04, 2015, 04:11:51 PM »
Yeah. The GOPe is not plotting to take down Trump and put in their own candidate, usually Bush. Nor are they denigrating the people who want Trump. In fact, they are supporting all candidates in the  hope of getting an acceptable candidate that can win, and will actually try to do what he promises. (Sarcasm off now.)


From the New York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/politics/talk-in-gop-turns-to-a-stop-donald-trump-campaign.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Talk in G.O.P. Turns to a Stop Donald Trump Campaign

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE SEPT. 4, 2015


Quiet conversations have begun in recent weeks among some of the Republican Party’s biggest donors and normally competing factions, all aimed at a single question: How can we stop Donald Trump?

Republican strategists and donors have assembled focus groups to test negative messages about Mr. Trump. They have amassed dossiers on his previous support for universal health care and higher taxes. They have even discussed the creation of a “super PAC” to convince conservatives that Mr. Trump is not one of them. But the mammoth big money
network assembled by Republicans in recent years is torn about how best to defuse the threat Mr. Trump holds for their party, and haunted by the worry that any concerted attack will backfire.

In phone calls, private dinners and occasional consultations among otherwise rivalrous outside groups, many have concluded that Mr. Trump’s harsh manner and continued attacks on immigrants and women were endangering the party’s efforts to compete in the general election. Yet after committing hundreds of millions of dollars to shape the Republican primary contest and groom a candidate who can retake the White House, the conservative donor class is finding that money — even in an era of super PACs
and billion dollar presidential campaigns — is a devalued currency in the blustery, post policy campaign fashioned by Mr. Trump, driven not by seven figure paid advertising campaigns but by Twitter feuds and unending free publicity.

“People are somewhat perplexed by the whole Trump phenomenon,” said Ray Washburne, a Dallas businessman who is Gov. Chris Christie’s finance chairman. So far, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group and a Republican media buyer, there has barely been any advertising targeting Mr. Trump. Out of $90 million worth of ads reserved or bought in the Republican primary, just $1,300 has been spent attacking Mr. Trump — an ad in Spanish that ran briefly in California that was sponsored by a Spanish language
television network.

The Club for Growth, which has spent millions of dollars on feisty intraparty campaigns attacking Republican candidates who deviate from conservative economic orthodoxy, appears closest to moving against Mr. Trump, soliciting advice from among its members and researching potential lines of attack. The group helped torpedo the populist presidential bid of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, in 2008, and has long been a thorn in the side of Republican leaders — making it, many Republicans believe, a
credible foil to Mr. Trump.

But the club’s president, David McIntosh, said his group was still grappling with how to handle the protean Mr. Trump, whose appeal is based less on policy positions than on tapping into the raw anger of Republican voters against Washington leaders. Mr. McIntosh said some members had even told him they agreed with Mr. Trump’s critique of Washington’s ineffectual establishment even if they did not regard him as very principled. “Part of our research has been why would a conservative Republican voter find this appealing,” Mr. McIntosh said. “A wonkish explanation that trade is actually good for the country probably won’t assuage them.”

In interviews, several savvy and typically confident Republican donors and strategists seemed puzzled about how to topple Mr. Trump, increasingly worried about the feelings he has stirred among the activist base and uneasy about the consequences for the party. Andy Sabin, a New York supporter of Jeb Bush, said the question of what to do about Mr. Trump had come up repeatedly on the Hamptons fundraising circuit this summer, as what seemed like a summer romance by disenchanted
blossomed into a full blown insurgency. “He’s been a topic, and he obviously disgusts a lot of people, because he’s been vile,” said Mr. Sabin, who is also a donor to American Crossroads, the party’s leading super PAC. “But he’s also been able to bring out what people feel about their government.”

The cost of an anti Trump campaign would be daunting: Reshaping opinions about Mr. Trump, a candidate with universal name recognition and a knack for garnering free airtime and column inches, could cost as much as $20 million. A sustained campaign aimed at Fox News viewers could cost $2 million a week, one Republican consultant working for a rival candidate estimated, while a more targeted effort, aimed at Iowa caucus goers later this fall, would require as much as $10 million. And there is no certainty of success: A group identified with the Republican establishment would risk ending up in a war with Mr. Trump, while a new group — such as a political nonprofit to which other donors and
organizations could secretly funnel cash — would play into Mr. Trump’s comments about lobbyists and corporations scheming to prop up his rivals.

Mr. Trump also has begun to preview such attacks. This week, he lambasted both Karl Rove, a Crossroads co-founder, and the Club for Growth, which he said once asked him for a million dollar contribution. (A club spokesman said that Mr. Trump asked for the meeting with Mr. McIntosh, which took place in May.)

“Many Super Pacs, funded by groups that want total control over their candidate, are being formed to ‘attack’ Trump,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday on Twitter. “Remember when u see them.” Some Republican leaders continued to hold out hope that the improvisational Mr. Trump would prove unable to convert his popularity and name recognition into a campaign organization capable of winning primaries next year, as the lazy summer months give way to a grinding ground campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. But several donors and strategists acknowledged that their earliest hope — that Mr. Trump would fade away on his own — was looking less likely every day. “Obviously the discussions have changed to say, ‘He’s someone who’s going to be there right to the end,’” said Ronald Weiser, a real estate developer and former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.

While many Republican leaders and donors are convinced that something must be done to stop the billionaire Manhattan developer, few seem ready to take him on directly, given Mr. Trump’s tendency to counterattack viciously. Allies of Mr. Bush, arguing that Mr. Trump helps the former Florida governor by stealing voters and attention from other anti establishment candidates, remark that perhaps donors to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, or Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, might take the lead in financing a Trump takedown. Mr. Walker’s supporters, in turn, suggest that the work might best be handled by a super PAC with plenty of cash but an under performing candidate — like Rick Perry, the former Texas governor. “Everybody’s got different agendas and different conflicts,” said Austin Barbour, an adviser to a group of super PACs, known as Opportunity and Freedom, that have raised more than $17 million to back Mr. Perry, whose own campaign is floundering and bankrupt. “Our No. 1 priority is to go take this fight to support Governor Perry. There’s a lot of time here.”

The biggest outside groups not tied to a specific candidate — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the political network of Charles and David Koch and the Rove founded
American Crossroads — are for now staying clear, although the Koch organizations have conspicuously snubbed Mr. Trump in several ways, declining to invite him to their policy forums or give him access to the network’s state of the heart voter database.

Among Republican strategists not working for the campaign, the emerging consensus was that voters would need to be persuaded by the candidates themselves, not by super PACs. But candidates like Mr. Cruz have not only avoided criticizing Mr. Trump, but have praised him, hoping to position themselves to pick up his supporters should Mr. Trump falter.

One Republican strategist described “a sigh of relief around town that the Bush campaign finally did something,” referring to Mr. Bush’s decision this week to release a video of Mr. Trump looking askance at Iowa, describing himself as “very pro choice,” and calling for tax increases on the rich.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
PPulatie



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #190 on: September 05, 2015, 08:07:06 AM »
I am so sick of the whole Same Sex Marriage garbage. The Supremes have ruled and that is that.

Trump was right. She could have resigned, but she wanted her 15 minutes of fame. She had no authority to refuse to issue the licenses, and when she ignored the Court's order, then Contempt was present and she should have gone to jail.

The Same Sex Marriage issue now becomes like the Abortion Issue. It is something that opposing sides can use to establish their own special interest groups, receive donations, and no longer have to work for a living.

Keep the people divided, and you can have "everything", or at least money.
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
"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: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #192 on: September 07, 2015, 12:42:03 AM »
Interesting.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #193 on: September 07, 2015, 09:33:39 AM »
PP writes:

"It is all about having candidates rammed down our throats because it is good for the special interest big donors."

I haven't done any research to verify or confirm but someone recently cited a statistic that is 400 families are responsible for 80% of the national political donations.  At least I think it refers to national politics but I am not sure.

Reminds me of Churchill in his own autobiography writing that 200 or 300 families control all of England (circa ~ 1900).  I wouldn't call it "control" but would certainly call it remarkable influence now.

Back to Trump.   His ego is a huge concern.  Could, if he was to be elected (still a long shot) be even more of megalomaniac than Obama? More of an autocrat than the present "One"?

Just some food for thoughts?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Donald Trump on the issues
« Reply #194 on: September 07, 2015, 09:47:31 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 09:06:25 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #196 on: September 08, 2015, 07:34:27 AM »
Doug,

Come on. Krugman did not say a word about Trump's economic policies. Instead, he does his typical rant about how good things are now, and then makes comparisons to Bush.

Sounds to me like Krugman is scared of Trump, so he tries a piece like this.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #197 on: September 08, 2015, 09:46:01 AM »
Doug,
Come on. Krugman did not say a word about Trump's economic policies. Instead, he does his typical rant about how good things are now, and then makes comparisons to Bush.
Sounds to me like Krugman is scared of Trump, so he tries a piece like this.

Fair enough.  I didn't read it - until now.  Still learned nothing from Krugman.  What a waste of time he has become.  This is another case of the headline writer misleading the reader.  I have my own reasons to believe Trump is a big government (non)conservative. 

Where is it, after all the rhetoric, that Trump gives his view of how to maximize growth in the economy?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #198 on: September 08, 2015, 09:50:38 AM »
"I have my own reasons to believe Trump is a big government (non)conservative."

Very possibly true. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #199 on: September 08, 2015, 10:35:38 AM »
Read Trump's book...Time to Get Tough. (I have the epub version.)  Though written in 2012 when he was thinking about running, it gives a good idea of what he is pushing for, including tackling the debt and also taxes. He does not get overly specific, but it does give a good idea.



If someone sends an email to me at ppulatie@pacbell.net, who knows what might happen.
PPulatie