Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472304 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Jeb Bush lurking here?
« Reply #800 on: February 29, 2016, 10:21:34 AM »
Jeb Bush now considers a point I raised back when Trump first announced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/09/jeb-bush-jokes-of-trump-clinton-conspiracy-theory-heres-a-look-at-the-evidence/

I asked then and I ask now:  What did Bill and he discuss in their phone call the week before Trump announced?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #801 on: February 29, 2016, 10:59:39 AM »
Trump seems to be improving in late polling.  Tomorrow is Super Tuesday.  The only group more incompetent at this game than the Trump campaign is the anti-Trump movement.

Crafty, Your point is interesting but there is no way the Clinton campaign likes what it sees coming.  Yes, he should be easier to beat than a serious candidate, but win, lose or draw, this is going to be ugly.

If this is what passes for politics and winning in our day, my interest is past tense.

I wish Pat could explain to me why this is a good thing.

It seems to me that there should be one more momentum shift in a process like this.  I just can't see it coming.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Patriot Post
« Reply #802 on: February 29, 2016, 01:24:32 PM »
Trump's Most Taxing Questions
Super Tuesday — Caveat Emptor
By Mark Alexander • February 29, 2016     
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." —George Washington (1796)
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts." —Patrick Henry (1775)
 

Last Friday, after being pummeled in the 10th GOP primary debate, Donald Trump demonstrated once again that he is the undisputed media master. As the mainstream media (MSM) prepared to devote the day's news to the beating Trump took from Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz (both of whom defeat Trump head-to-head), the most "establishment" of establishment candidates stepped up to endorse Trump.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose own campaign fell flat, joined Trump at a rally and threw his weight behind the pro-promoter, effectively diverting attention from the previous night's debate.

Christie, in an opportunistic bid for an attorney general appointment, declared, "Always beware of the candidate for public office who has the quick and easy answer to a complicated problem. ... I just don't think that [Trump] is suited to be president of the United States. ... We do not need reality TV in the Oval Office right now. [The presidency] is not a place for an entertainer. ... Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. ... [If you vote for Trump] we could wind up turning over the White House to Hillary Clinton for four more years."

Wait, that's what Christie said before he endorsed Trump. But now he has pledged allegiance to Trump, declaring, "The best person to beat Hillary Clinton in November ... is undoubtedly Donald Trump."

"Undoubtedly"? Reputable polls consistently show Trump to be the only remaining Republican candidate who loses to Hillary in a head-to-head matchup.
Trump knows how to work the media as well as he does a crowd. But as I wrote in "The Trump Freight Train," Caveat Emptor: "Virtually none of his adoring media has devoted any bandwidth challenging Trump's long list of prevarications — at least not yet. And the list keeps growing. If Trump sews up the Republican nomination, the mainstream media will stop appeasing and start tearing him apart ahead of the general election — they will eviscerate him. And there is so much to hang around Trump's neck that the barrage will be relentless until the last general election vote is cast."

Mark my words: There's a bottomless pit of Trump material that hasn't YET been aired, and Democrat opposition research teams will hand it all over to their MSM enablers as soon as Trump wraps up the Republican nomination.
 

Over the last eight months, I have devoted a few columns to the Trump phenomenon and the danger he poses to something far more important than the Republican Party — Liberty. I have assessed the Trump attraction, his "New York values," his inexcusable diversionary tactics of playing the "9/11 Card" and the "Veterans Card," and have asked, "If Trump is the answer, what is the question?"

But beyond that critical analysis, there is the deadly serious issue of Trump's tax returns — which he has perennially resisted releasing. Every Trump supporter should be asking one question: What is my preferred candidate trying to hide?

Trump has refused for years to release any verifiable tax information, particularly anything that might reveal his actual net worth or the organizations he supports. He has implied that it's just too complex and too long for us rubes, or blamed lawsuits, ad infinitum...

In the most recent debate, Trump claimed, "I want to release my tax returns but I can't release it while I'm under an audit." He added (with a straight face, no less) that he's being audited "because of the fact that I'm a strong Christian." Both of those assertions are false.

It's worth noting that he and other candidates did file some information with the Federal Election Commission last July, but that information is so broad as to be meaningless and does not begin to provide insights into who and what Trump has supported in recent years. Notably, over the weekend, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio released profile tax returns for the last five years, which provide much more detail than the FEC filings. They challenged Trump to do the same.
Last week, the pressure to stop evading the tax return requests made news again, when former presidential candidate Mitt Romney pushed for the release of Trump's tax records from recent years because voters "have a right to know if there's a problem in those taxes before they decide."

Romney, who reluctantly released his own records in 2012, insists that the billionaire's failure to disclose tax returns suggest he's hiding something.

"I think we have good reason to believe that there's a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes," declared Romney. "I think there's something there. Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn't been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing. And the reason I think there is a bombshell in there is because every time he's asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says, 'Well we're working on it.'"

Trump responded with his standard scorched-earth rhetoric: "Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope! I'm going to do what Mitt Romney was totally unable to do — WIN!"

The question of Trump's net worth may account for some of his evasion because he has crafted his entire persona around his billionaire image. He's based his campaign on two central claims: He's rich and he's a populist. The polls prove the latter, but he is very defensive about any encroachment on the veracity of the former.

Trump is so sensitive about his billionaire image that in 2011 he launched a $5 BILLION libel lawsuit against a New York Times reporter who dared suggest that Trump may not be worth as much as he insists he is.

That reporter, Tim O'Brien, wrote in his book, "TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald," that "[t]hree people with direct knowledge of Donald's finances, people who had worked closely with him for years, told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. By anyone's standards this still qualified Donald as comfortably wealthy, but none of these people thought he was remotely close to being a billionaire."
Trump insisted that his reputation was severely damaged by O'Brien's claim, but he lost both the original lawsuit and his appeal. According to the New Jersey Superior Court:

"It is indisputable that Trump's estimates of his own worth changed substantially over time and thus failed to provide a reliable measure against which the accuracy of the information offered by the three confidential sources could be gauged. ... The materials that Trump claims to have provided to O'Brien were incomplete and unaudited, and did not contain accurate indications of Trump's ownership interests in properties, his liabilities, and his revenues, present or future."

During the case, Trump refused to allow the court to review his tax returns, which would have put to rest the question of his net worth.

Fortune Magazine, which annually rates the wealthiest Americans, noted the difficulty they have in assessing Trump's wealth:

"That difficulty is compounded by Trump's astonishing ability to prevaricate [emphasis added]. No one is saying Trump ought to be held to the same standards of truthfulness as everyone else; he is, after all, Donald Trump. But when Trump says he owns 10% of the Plaza hotel, understand that what he actually means is that he has the right to 10% of the profit if it's ever sold. When he says he's building a '90-story building' next to the U.N., he means a 72-story building that has extra-high ceilings. And when he says his casino company is the 'largest employer in the state of New Jersey,' he actually means to say it is the eighth-largest." (That was before Trump's bankruptcies...)
 

So, it's obvious that Trump will go to great lengths to avoid any third-party assessment of what he claims to be worth, and he'll suppress any other assessment that does not fit his altered reality. Last week he declared, "One of the things I'm gonna do if I win, is I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles we can sue them and win lots of money."
But while the speculation about his wealth may seem trivial to some, what cannot be seen as trivial are the questions of who and what Donald Trump has supported with all that wealth over the last five years. Romney might be onto something when he suggests, "Perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or the disabled like he's been telling us," but I think this goes much deeper.

We know for example, because federal law requires access to annual filings by 501-C3 entities like the Trump Foundation, that he's sent at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but over the last five years he only sent $57,000 to veteran support organizations. Some veterans groups are calling Trump out for using them as political pawns — or as I noted previously, playing the "Veteran Card."

Republicans and conservatives should ask, has Trump supported groups opposing the Second Amendment or other leftist assaults on Liberty? We know for a fact that he's personally supported Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other loathsome leftists.

That said, here is my open letter to Donald Trump, as sent to his campaign last week:

Mr. Trump,
I understand you are very protective of your tax returns because they may indicate a discrepancy between your claimed and actual net worth. Though I believe you should release full tax returns, I am not requesting evidence of your net worth.  However, there is important information in your tax returns, which will speak volumes about your political views, and I believe those whom you have asked to support you deserve to better understand those views.
I am, therefore, asking you to release this most basic documentation for each of the last five years:

1.   Net income and Federal and State taxes paid.

2.   A full listing of all C-3 and C-4 donations and contributions.

This information may be certified by an independent accounting firm of your choosing.
Sincerely,
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Of course, Trump won't respond, and he won't release any of this basic information. In effect, his tax return evasion is a proxy Fifth Amendment assertion of his right against self-incrimination.

In the final analysis, will it make any difference to Trump's loyalists? As I have written regarding the "Obama Effect" on Republican voters, "Seven years of Obama's repressive regime has fomented despair, division and delusion among the ranks of Republican voters — so much so that they some are willing to take leave of their senses and join a cultish movement with a self-promoting charlatan at its head. History is replete with examples of such movements, and the tragic result — the suppression of Liberty." So confused are some Republicans that they no longer can distinguish between "conservative" and "establishment" candidates.

And I believe it's likely that some of Trump's primary voter support is coming not from Republicans but from Clinton crossovers, who want to ensure Trump is her opponent. Political pundits have noted the low primary Democrat turnout — that's because they have been turning out for Trump!
Last week, after his Nevada victory, Trump said two things that jumped out at me. First he declared, "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." And then he added, "When others drop out, I will pick up more. Sad but true." These two statements are perhaps the most truthful words he has spoken in this campaign cycle.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
MSNBC discomfitted
« Reply #805 on: March 01, 2016, 12:25:34 AM »
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 12:28:29 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Sen Ben Strasse on Donald Trump
« Reply #807 on: March 02, 2016, 09:23:11 AM »
AN OPEN LETTER TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS
To my friends supporting Donald Trump:

The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry.

I’m as frustrated and saddened as you are about what’s happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.

Please understand: I’m not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I’m a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign” – like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic.

At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: “Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?”

Before I explain why my answer is “Neither of them,” let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late.

WHY I RAN FOR SENATE

***No, I’m not a career politician. (I had never run for anything until being elected to the U.S. Senate fifteen months ago, and I ran precisely because I actually want to make America great again.)
***No, I’m not a lawyer who has never created a job. (I was a business guy before becoming a college president in my hometown.)
***No, I’m not part of the Establishment. (Sheesh, I had attack ads by the lobbyist class run against me while I was on a bus tour doing 16 months of townhalls across Nebraska. Why? Precisely because I was not the preferred candidate of Washington.)
***No, I’m not concerned about political job security. (The very first thing I did upon being sworn in in January 2015 was to introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits – this didn’t exactly endear me to my new colleagues.)
***No, I’m not for open borders. (The very first official trip I took in the Senate was to observe and condemn how laughably porous the Texas/Mexican border is. See 70 tweets from @bensasse in February 2015.)
***No, I’m not a “squishy,” feel-good, grow-government moderate. (I have the 4th most-conservative voting record in the Senate: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/benjamin-sasse/ http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/S001197 )

In my very first speech to the Senate, I told my colleagues that “The people despise us all.” This institution needs to get to work, not on the lobbyists’ priorities, but on the people’s: https://youtu.be/zQMoB4aUn04?t=3m8s

Now, to the question at hand: Will I pledge to vote for just any “Republican” nominee over Hillary Clinton?

Let’s begin by rejecting naïve purists: Politics has no angels. Politics is not about creating heaven on earth. Politics is simply about preserving a framework for ordered liberty – so that free people can find meaning and happiness not in politics but in their families, their neighborhoods, their work.

POLITICAL PARTIES

Now, let’s talk about political parties: parties are just tools to enact the things that we believe. Political parties are not families; they are not religions; they are not nations – they are often not even on the level of sports loyalties. They are just tools. I was not born Republican. I chose this party, for as long as it is useful.

If our Party is no longer working for the things we believe in – like defending the sanctity of life, stopping ObamaCare, protecting the Second Amendment, etc. – then people of good conscience should stop supporting that party until it is reformed.

VOTING

Now, let’s talk about voting: Voting is usually just about choosing the lesser evil of the most viable candidates.

“Usually…” But not always. Certain moments are larger. They cause us to explicitly ask: Who are we as a people? What does the way we vote here say about our shared identity? What is actually the president’s job?

THE PRESIDENT’S CORE CALLING

The president’s job is not about just mindlessly shouting the word “strong” – as if Vladimir Putin, who has been strongly bombing civilian populations in Syria the last month, is somehow a model for the American presidency. No, the president’s core calling is to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.”
Before we ever get into any technical policy fights – about pipelines, or marginal tax rates, or term limits, or Medicare reimbursement codes – America is first and fundamentally about a shared Constitutional creed. America is exceptional, because she is at her heart a big, bold truth claim about human dignity, natural rights, and self-control – and therefore necessarily about limited rather than limitless government.

THE MEANING OF AMERICA

America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because our Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. It said something different than almost any other government had said before: Most governments before said that might makes right, that government decides what our rights are and that the people are just dependent subjects. Our Founders said that God gives us rights by nature, and that government is not the author or source of our rights. Government is just our shared project to secure those rights.

Government exists only because the world is fallen, and some people want to take your property, your liberty, and your life. Government is tasked with securing a framework for ordered liberty where “we the people” can in our communities voluntarily build something great together for our kids and grandkids. That’s America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of speech – the First Amendment is the heartbeat of the American Constitution, of the American idea itself.

WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO MR. TRUMP?

So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment – or an attack on it?

Which of the following quotes give you great comfort that he’s in love with the First Amendment, that he is committed to defending the Constitution, that he believes in executive restraint, that he understands servant leadership?

Statements from Trump:

***“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
***“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”
***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.
***The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: "I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things." “I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you.”
***“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
***On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.
***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt...”
***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.

And on it goes…

IF MR. TRUMP BECOMES THE NOMINEE...

Given what we know about him today, here’s where I’m at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.

I do not claim to speak for a movement, but I suspect I am far from alone. After listening to Nebraskans in recent weeks, and talking to a great many people who take oaths seriously, I think many are in the same place. I believe a sizable share of Christians – who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time – are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy.

Conservatives understand that all men are created equal and made in the image of God, but also that government must be limited so that fallen men do not wield too much power. A presidential candidate who boasts about what he'll do during his "reign" and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America.

TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT

Thank you for listening. While I recognize that we disagree about how to make America great again, we agree that this should be our goal. We need more people engaged in the civic life of our country—not fewer. I genuinely appreciate how much many of you care about this country, and that you are demanding something different from Washington. I’m going to keep doing the same thing.

But I can’t support Donald Trump.

Humbly,
Ben Sasse
Nebraska


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #810 on: March 02, 2016, 05:44:58 PM »
notice the date : July 2015.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Trump's health care plan
« Reply #811 on: March 02, 2016, 06:18:45 PM »
Trump Health Care Plan


Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

1.     Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

2.     Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

3.     Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

4.     Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

5.     Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

6.     Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

7.     Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation’s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.

Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job – and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.

To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #812 on: March 02, 2016, 08:40:43 PM »
One would think the repubs would rally around a health plan like this.

Levin who has spent the last several years bashing Obamacare give Trump a "bad" rating on health care.  Why?  because Trump said we have to take care of the very poor homeless?

Why his plan is exactly what Levin has been calling for!   :?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #813 on: March 03, 2016, 02:39:40 AM »
When I posted it I must say I was surprised after Trump's simpleton answer at the last debate at how closely it tracks my own thinking, including my treasured variable about making prices transparent.  Has Donald become another one of our famous lurkers?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, Late Bloomer?
« Reply #814 on: March 03, 2016, 09:14:14 AM »
When I posted it I must say I was surprised after Trump's simpleton answer at the last debate at how closely it tracks my own thinking, including my treasured variable about making prices transparent.  Has Donald become another one of our famous lurkers?

It must be Donald's writers lurking here because, as you say, he didn't have a clue about having a plan just a few days ago.

Smart guy, really smart guy, just wrong on nearly everything by his own standards for the first 69 years.

Maybe we can start tracking what age he was when he saw the conservative light on each issue.  He turns 70 this June.  Then we can track his trackback in his general election pivot.  He still has an open mind...

At 65 he turned pro-life but at 69 still supports Planned Parenthood.  "They do good work."
At 69 he dropped the wealth tax and went for supply side economics.  Or did he?
At 69 he dropped support Bernies Sanders single payer, socialist healthcare and proposed introducing Ben Carson/Crafty market reforms to healthcare.

Still to go:  
At what age will he recognize government takings of private properties for cronies' use is fascism?
At what age will they tell him about the nuclear triad and that Putin doesn't represent our interests in the Middle East?
At what age will he find out it was the "Bush Lied" accusers who lied?
At what age will he learn that trade wars never have and never will 'make America great again'?
At what point will he admit that his support of Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Clinton and government nationalizing industries like the mortgage business is what brought this country down to near destruction?

At what age will he admit being stupid and self centered the first 69 3/4 years?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Open letter from national security leaders
« Reply #816 on: March 03, 2016, 09:57:03 AM »
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

From the letter:

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.

Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.

Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.

His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.

He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.

His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
------------------------------------------------

76 signatories (?), Trump will just say this is the establishment upset about losing power.  But every statement made here is backed up with substance.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: I did not see this coming
« Reply #818 on: March 03, 2016, 09:41:05 PM »
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/03/03/shock-poll-donald-trump-earns-more-muslim-support-than-rest-of-gop-field-combined/


That means the other Republicans aren't winning any Muslim votes either.

Yet 80% of Muslim Americans disapprove of Trump and 70% strongly disapprove.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Trump's shock strategy works until it doesn't, Megan McArdle
« Reply #821 on: March 04, 2016, 08:43:28 AM »
Megan McArdle nails the Trump problem.  This strategy works for him until it doesn't.  For Republicans, his downfall will most likely be too late.

As ccp asked, how does Trump close his general election gap.  By acting like a serious candidate.  But at doing that he was about the 16th best Republican and that doesn't erase the tape of this unPresidential circus.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-02/trump-s-shock-strategy-works-till-it-backfires
Trump's Shock Strategy Works, Till It Backfires
1087 MAR 2, 2016 3:30 PM EST
By Megan McArdle

Many Trump followers love that he doesn’t care about being called racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, etc. They’re sick of the media demanding that every Republican in the land disavow some dumb thing said by someone they’ve never heard of. They’re happy when Trump won’t “play the game,” as they keep tweeting at me, including when Donald Trump waffled on denouncing former Klan leader David Duke on CNN this past weekend. Given his big wins two days later, on Super Tuesday, his followers are likely to see vindication that this strategy works.

But this strategy “works” only in a narrow, shortsighted sense. Such thinking is likely to cost the party the election, and saddle Trump and his supporters with costly baggage that will make it harder for them to achieve their goals in this or any other election cycle.

That starts with an observation: Politics is a long game. It’s no good just sweeping up some support, getting your guys in office, and passing some laws. What’s to stop the Other Guys from waiting until you get bored, and unpassing those same laws? There is, to be sure, some amount of stickiness in politics, but certain laws are stickier than others. In particular, laws that require active, ongoing efforts (like border enforcement) are a lot harder to keep around than things that just involve, say, telling the federal computers to send bigger checks to various program beneficiaries.

That means that politicians need to stick around. This is what game theorists call a repeat game. And the thing about repeat games is that you can’t just think about winning the next round; you have to think about what happens in the next round, and the round after that.

Trump has won the early rounds of this race. But you have to remember all the things that had to line up for this to happen: a crowded field that didn’t winnow as fast as it should have, the lack of a beloved ex-president who could rally the party around an establishment figure; Jeb Bush’s insane decision to run with his toxic last name, and then spend over $100 million of donor money attacking everyone but Trump.

Sean Trende and David Byler argue that he was effectively the only candidate in one of the four “lanes” of Republican politics, so he consolidated a lot of support while other folks were trying to claim more crowded lanes.

But he’s also had a particular, weird skill that really helped him: Trump was able to use his monopolization of media attention through outrageous statements to keep that consolidation from happening in other lanes, because no one else could get enough attention to become the obvious choice for the voter base they were pursuing. By the time the race consolidated, it was too late.

But before you start hailing his brilliance, you have to ask yourself why no other candidate has done this in living memory.

Trump is just starting to find out what other politicians have long known: being a front-runner is very different from being a loudmouth in a crowded field. As I remarked after his debate debacle, Trump is not good at debating; he’s good at getting attention, which is valuable when there are 19 people trying to get noticed. But the way he goes about getting that attention is going to be a negative when he’s one on one, and he can no longer “win” by depriving the other candidate of media oxygen. As the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton is going to get just as much airtime as he will.

Trump's debate performance in a shrunken field was so bad that his praise of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi went nearly unnoticed because of all the other cringe-worthy moments. Next summer and fall, however, it will not. It will be running on every screen in the country, as Democrats point out that under Qaddafi, Libya accepted responsibility for the airplane bomb that killed 189 Americans. They’ll be running that Klan clip to horrify Americans and to drive up black turnout. All of those attention-getting, outrageous statements that his supporters loved, the ones that helped him dominate the primary, are going to come back to bite him in the general. Along with all the baggage, such as Trump University, that is only now coming out for Trump, in contrast to the other viable GOP candidates, who have gone through the standard press vetting that any Senate candidate gets. Trump eluded that until now simply because no one really thought he could win.

But Trump fans want to shout at me: He is winning! Ah yes. In low-turnout elections, a very small fraction of highly motivated supporters can swing things. At the moment, Donald Trump has collected about 3.3 million votes, with about a third of the states having voted.

Trump is just starting to find out what other politicians have long known: being a front-runner is very different from being a loudmouth in a crowded field. As I remarked after his debate debacle, Trump is not good at debating; he’s good at getting attention, which is valuable when there are 19 people trying to get noticed. But the way he goes about getting that attention is going to be a negative when he’s one on one, and he can no longer “win” by depriving the other candidate of media oxygen. As the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton is going to get just as much airtime as he will.

Trump's debate performance in a shrunken field was so bad that his praise of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi went nearly unnoticed because of all the other cringe-worthy moments. Next summer and fall, however, it will not. It will be running on every screen in the country, as Democrats point out that under Qaddafi, Libya accepted responsibility for the airplane bomb that killed 189 Americans. They’ll be running that Klan clip to horrify Americans and to drive up black turnout. All of those attention-getting, outrageous statements that his supporters loved, the ones that helped him dominate the primary, are going to come back to bite him in the general. Along with all the baggage, such as Trump University, that is only now coming out for Trump, in contrast to the other viable GOP candidates, who have gone through the standard press vetting that any Senate candidate gets. Trump eluded that until now simply because no one really thought he could win.

But Trump fans want to shout at me: He is winning! Ah yes. In low-turnout elections, a very small fraction of highly motivated supporters can swing things. At the moment, Donald Trump has collected about 3.3 million votes, with about a third of the states having voted.

To win a general, he’s going to need another 55 million or so. And as I noted a few months back, the bigger the coalition you need, the more blandly inoffensive you have to be: the political equivalent of Applebee's, or Olive Garden, or TGI Fridays.

Trump is not doing that. His strategy is all primary, no general. It clearly works … for certain values of the word “work,” which would probably not include “winning a general election” or “winning re-election before the folks with pitchforks descend to chase you out of town.”

And indeed, that’s what we’re already seeing with Trump. He’s alienated a substantial chunk of the Republican base pretty badly, so badly they coalesced into the #NeverTrump swarm. That means he needs more independent voters or disaffected Democrats. Which his primary strategy makes him less likely to pick up.

To sum up: Trump looks like the Teflon candidate largely because none of the traditional political tools have yet been deployed against him. In four short days between Thursday and Tuesday, simply by attacking him loud and long, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz managed to check his momentum and deny him an expected 11-state sweep on Super Tuesday; if Kasich hadn’t been in, Rubio would have won Virginia as well. On Tuesday, before the results came in, I mentally composed a tweet to commemorate the results: “Things fall apart, the ceiling cannot hold.” Then it held; Trump remains stuck around 35 percent, even as the field winnows (bye, Ben Carson!) and his front-runner status ought to be creating momentum.

Meanwhile, his front-runner status means that he is no longer going to be immune from those traditional attacks. His support may begin to slip in the primary, as his opponents finally start doing what they long ago would have done to any other front-runner: hammering him with every bit of oppo research, and rolling out those negative ads.

Even if they don’t, the Democrats certainly will. These ads will be devastating. Most Americans already dislike him even more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, even though most of them probably don’t yet know about the Klan gaffe or the fraud trial. By November, I guarantee that they will.

Which means that casting a vote for Trump in the primary most likely means you’re casting a vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. Trump supporters wrote to me to ask whether #NeverTrump folks understood that not backing Trump was equivalent to backing Clinton. They should start asking themselves whether backing Trump is also equivalent to backing Clinton.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Loius Farrakhan for Trump
« Reply #822 on: March 04, 2016, 10:46:13 AM »
Because he "doesn't take money from Jews":

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/louis-farrakhan-on-donald-trump-i-like-what-im-looking-at

Now where is the public outrage???


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Trump is changing for some reason - are we seeing him moving left?
« Reply #827 on: March 04, 2016, 05:50:14 PM »
As pointed out on Mark Levin tonight Trump is now reversing course on the J1 visa program and appears to be slowly moving left.

Now he is for it.

This is a huge cave.  If he keeps this up his 35% will finally see the writing on the wall and start moving (hopefully) to Cruz or my distant second choice Rubio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271765-trump-quickly-walks-back-remarks-on-visas

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Trump is changing for some reason - are we seeing him moving left?
« Reply #828 on: March 04, 2016, 06:32:34 PM »
As pointed out on Mark Levin tonight Trump is now reversing course on the J1 visa program and appears to be slowly moving left.

Now he is for it.

This is a huge cave.  If he keeps this up his 35% will finally see the writing on the wall and start moving (hopefully) to Cruz or my distant second choice Rubio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271765-trump-quickly-walks-back-remarks-on-visas

Trump has been as conservative as we will see him. This is all about "making the deal". Anyone who thinks Trump isn't going to screw us over, can I interest you in some Trump steaks, or classes at Trump University?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 07:30:29 PM by G M »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Trump, Moving left and still defrauding
« Reply #829 on: March 05, 2016, 07:32:19 AM »
G M:  "Trump has been as conservative as we will see him. This is all about "making the deal". Anyone who thinks Trump isn't going to screw us over, can I interest you in some Trump steaks, or classes at Trump University?"

I wonder if I can get in on the class action fraud lawsuit.  I have been almost alone calling his book Art of the Deal a fraud and a scam since 1987.  Yes, I am still bitter about my hardcover purchase 29 years ago for somewhere between $10 and $20.  Those were hard earned dollars and I expected something of value out of it - to me.  I can imagine how the people who are out $36,000 feel, asked to keep putting in more to get the real secrets.  Secrets like be Donald Trump.  Be as handsomw as Donald Trump.  Be as well connected as Donald Trump.  Trump calls this book "the No. 1 selling business book of all time, at least I think, but I’m pretty sure it is."  It belongs over by People magazine, not by the Harvard Business Review.

PolitiFact dug in and found some people who agree with me:

"Trump is full of B.S.," said Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of business management at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. "The best selling/most important business books would have to be In Search of Excellence by (Thomas) Peters and (Robert) Waterman that started the genre, Built to Last by Jim Collins, The One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard and The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey."

The Art of the Deal isn’t used in business schools like Michael Porter’s Competitive Strategy, nor is it a text business executives find useful like Machiavelli's The Prince, said Lawrence White, a business and economics professor at New York University's Stern School.


When you compare it with books of similar intent, 'How to Win Friends & Influence People' by Dale Carnegie outsold 'Art of the Deal' by 13-fold.  And people weren't pissed off about their purchase.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/06/donald-trump/donald-trumps-art-deal-best-selling-business-book-/

"We rate the claim False."

But instead of hearing that the claim was false, we continue to hear he wrote the nest selling business book of all time.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Interesting POTH piece on Donald's decision to run
« Reply #830 on: March 06, 2016, 08:32:49 AM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/nyregion/donald-trump-new-york-governor.html?emc=edit_th_20160306&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Donald Trump Considered Path to Presidency Starting at Governor’s Mansion in New York

By SUSANNE CRAIG and DAVID W. CHENMARCH 5, 2016


In late December 2013, after Donald J. Trump had met with a number of Republicans to discuss a possible run for governor of New York, he received a memo from an attendee, a freshman assemblyman from upstate.

The four-page briefing outlined the challenges that most first-time political candidates face, including “endless chicken dinners” and a high probability of a “loss of income from serving in government.”

But the document also had the particular interests of Mr. Trump in mind: It was titled “Springboards to the Presidency.”

Mr. Trump has a long history of musing about running for office, and then abandoning the idea. His flirtation with the 2014 race for governor was viewed then as another headline-grabbing stunt, much as his current presidential bid had been initially dismissed.

But unlike previous dalliances, Mr. Trump’s deliberation on whether to challenge Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, would be far more than a public-relations trifle.

An examination by The New York Times of contemporaneous documents and emails, as well as interviews with people who met with Mr. Trump during that period, found how he carefully weighed a run, measuring whether the governor’s office was a necessary steppingstone to his long-held goal: the White House. His calculations at the time run contrary to the seat-of-the-pants image he projects on the campaign trail, and offer a look at a formative stage of his presidential ambitions.

Photo
Mr. Trump spoke in April 2014 in Albany against the Safe Act, a gun-control law signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo the year before. Credit Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

He discussed with state Republican leaders the idea of using the governorship as a platform to run for president, a situation in which he would serve for a year or so and be succeeded by his lieutenant governor.

Mr. Trump also foreshadowed themes that have surfaced on the campaign trail, giving a blunt assessment of what he felt was ailing New York State and the country: jobs going overseas, crushing taxes, restrictive gun laws.

During another meeting with state Republican leaders at Trump Tower in Manhattan, the conversation migrated to the nation’s future. Mr. Trump told them he did not think the country could withstand eight years of Hillary Clinton after eight years of President Obama, according to a document summarizing the meeting. Mr. Trump added that he wanted to “save the country” from debt and felt the political left was going to destroy the American work ethic.

“He made it clear he wanted to run for president,” said Daniel W. Isaacs, then the Republican Party chairman in Manhattan, who attended the meeting. “Our pitch was if he runs for governor and makes it, he would be the presumptive front-runner.”

For his supporters, the recruitment drive offered an unexpected look at Mr. Trump’s budding strategy to capture the White House, which he predicted he would begin in 2015. As such, they tailored their local pitch to his national ambitions, saying that his road to Washington almost certainly ran through Albany.

“The most common path to the presidency is through a governor’s office (19 out of 43) and the most common governor’s office to hold is New York (4 out of 19),” Assemblyman Bill Nojay, the freshman legislator who represents the Rochester area, wrote in the memo given to Mr. Trump and a small group of Republicans.

Mr. Trump hosted numerous meetings with state Republican leaders at his office in Trump Tower, used his private jet to attend upstate rallies and even tried to secure the support of another voting bloc, the Conservative Party.

His allies commissioned a poll, and in one meeting even presented Mr. Trump with documentation to register an official exploratory committee, with a notary public at the ready.

Many would-be Trump organizers were convinced that he was serious about unseating Mr. Cuomo. “He came to us,” said Sandra King, chairwoman of the Yates County Republican Committee. “He took our phone calls. He listened to what we had to say.”

Mr. Trump ultimately opted not to run, in part because he was irked that party leaders would not clear a path to his nomination. But in hindsight, supporters said, the experience helped inform his presidential bid as a populist with little regard for conventional politics.

Mr. Trump confirmed in a statement that the state Republican Party’s inability to assure an uncontested race was a deal-breaker, though he played down his interest. “I never looked seriously at running for governor,” he said, adding, “If I ran, I would have won.”

He said d that “even then, what I really wanted to do was run for president, and obviously, now that I am the substantial front-runner, I made the right decision.”

‘Almost Iconic Figure’

Mr. Trump is no stranger to being the object of political speculation. He hinted at running in the 1988 and 2012 presidential races, and his name was also mentioned as a possible candidate for New York City mayor in 1989 and for governor in 2006.

Perhaps his most sustained effort before now, though, involved his establishing an exploratory committee for a possible run as a Reform Party candidate for president in 2000, when he suggested that Oprah Winfrey would be his vice president.

But when Mr. Trump declared his White House bid last year, this campaign was no fleeting thought.

In 2013, New York Republicans were casting about for a candidate to take on Mr. Cuomo, who had amassed more than $33 million by January 2014 for his re-election campaign and was widely expected to win a second term the following year.

David DiPietro, a Republican lawmaker from the Buffalo area, said he and Mr. Nojay were on the floor of the State Assembly that June, lamenting the corruption in Albany, when they first hit on the idea of encouraging Mr. Trump to run for governor.

“We have to find someone to clean up” this mess, Mr. DiPietro recalled telling Mr. Nojay.

A few months later, Mr. Nojay put their thoughts down on paper.

“In many respects Trump is not considered a Republican — he is his brand, an almost iconic figure of Rockefellerian proportions,” Mr. Nojay wrote in October in a three-page memo, “2014 NY Governor Race Analysis,” which he sent to a small group of party members, including Edward F. Cox, the state’s party chairman and a son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon.

The conditions for a Trump for governor bid, the analysis continued, were ideal. New York City was about to elect Bill de Blasio, its first “truly radical” mayor, whom the memo referred to as a Marxist who honeymooned in Havana. “By 2014 a pro-business, proven executive will be welcome to offset” a Mayor de Blasio, the memo said.

The memo was leaked to The New York Post, and Mr. Trump used Twitter to tell Mr. Nojay thanks, but no thanks.

Behind the scenes, another story was playing out. A member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle contacted Mr. Nojay, and in early November he and Mr. DiPietro found themselves meeting Mr. Trump for the first time, at Trump Tower in a large conference room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking Central Park.

New York Governor Race Analysis and Trump

An October 2013 memo sent to senior New York State Republicans urged them to consider Donald J. Trump as the party's nominee for governor.
OPEN Document

The meeting, scheduled for roughly 30 minutes, stretched beyond two hours. The group denounced the Safe Act, far-reaching gun-control legislation that Mr. Cuomo signed into law, and bemoaned job losses and economic erosion.

Intrigued, Mr. Trump agreed to keep talking about a possible bid for governor. A larger meeting was convened in early December.

Path to the White House

Mr. Nojay, armed with data, ran Mr. Trump through a list of presidents and their résumés. “Going back to George Washington, there has never been a president who has not served in high public office,” he said he told Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nojay recalled that while he was speaking, Mr. Trump asked an aide to bring his daughter Ivanka and sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and additional employees into the conference room.

After they entered, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Nojay to repeat his pitch for their benefit.

“He read the political landscape better than anyone,” said Joseph C. Borelli, a Republican councilman from Staten Island who was an assemblyman when he attended the meeting. “He all but said he would enter the presidential race in the summer of 2015 and he would be first in the polls.”

In late December, Mr. Trump received Mr. Nojay’s “Springboards to the Presidency” memo. It included an exhibit titled “Paths to the Presidency,” again outlining the careers of past presidents, all of whom had previous public service. “This is not an accident of history,” he wrote.

The notion of a Trump bid for governor gained more momentum among his supporters when a group that opposed Mr. Cuomo commissioned a private poll, conducted by Kellyanne Conway, a Republican strategist. The poll showed Mr. Cuomo leading Mr. Trump in a head-to-head matchup, Ms. Conway said, but it also highlighted the governor’s vulnerabilities. It suggested that Mr. Trump, with his name recognition and ability to finance a sizable campaign, could be a formidable opponent.

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, including Roger Stone, a veteran political consultant, opposed the run for governor, arguing that Mr. Trump did not need Albany to serve as a prelude to his 2016 presidential bid. But as a sign of Mr. Trump’s interest, one of his top lieutenants contacted Michael R. Long, chairman of the state’s Conservative Party, to discuss the possibility of an endorsement and a crucial extra ballot line.

Mr. Long said he went to Trump Tower in December 2013, “under the pretense that Mr. Trump would be there.” Instead, Mr. Long experienced something even more surreal: He arrived at Mr. Trump’s office, only to realize that Mr. Trump was not there and he would be speaking to him by phone.


It was clear, Mr. Long said, that Mr. Trump was “up to speed” on New York issues, and that he had a real animus toward Mr. Cuomo. But Mr. Trump, unwilling to face competition for the nomination, told Mr. Long that one condition for his candidacy would be to get Rob Astorino, the Westchester County executive who was already planning to run, out of the race.

“I made it clear to him, that’s not how politics works,” Mr. Long said. “It isn’t us picking up a phone and telling a candidate you can’t run.”

Around the same time, Mr. Trump reached out directly to Mr. Astorino, whom he knew for many years through his golf club in Briarcliff Manor in Westchester. When they met at Trump Tower, Mr. Astorino said he told Mr. Trump, “Look, my intention is to stay in.”

Eventually, Mr. Astorino recalled, he was asked (though he would not say by whom) to consider joining a “unity ticket” in which Mr. Trump would run for governor and Mr. Astorino for lieutenant governor. Mr. Astorino would become governor after Mr. Trump declared his presidential bid.

“I didn’t think that was fair to me, or the people, or the process,” said Mr. Astorino, who ended up losing to Mr. Cuomo.

Bigger Plans

In January 2014, a small number of political operatives met privately with Mr. Trump in his penthouse at Trump Tower. One participant, Ralph C. Lorigo, the chairman of the Erie County Conservative Party, recalled that he brought the necessary papers for Mr. Trump to form an exploratory committee to run for governor, with a notary stamp in his pocket.

“He toyed with it back and forth,” Mr. Lorigo said. “But I couldn’t convince him.”

Mr. Trump and the group then took the elevator down to his corporate offices, where they huddled with a larger group of dozens of Republicans, including numerous county leaders, who hoped to enlist Mr. Trump.

Not long after these sessions, Mr. Cox, the state’s Republican Party chairman, began to voice his concerns of a Trump candidacy. At a meeting at the University Club in Manhattan, which was attended by some of the same people who had just met with Mr. Trump, Mr. Cox said he told the group, “I am really concerned this is not something he wants to do.”

Mr. Trump’s supporters were livid. “Donald Trump didn’t run for governor because Ed Cox wouldn’t get out of the way,” said Michael Caputo, a political consultant who helped arrange several of the meetings.

Undeterred, Mr. Trump flew to Buffalo and Syracuse, where he headlined local party fund-raisers. In New York City, at a February fund-raising event, Mr. Isaacs unveiled a large blue and red sign that read “Trump For Governor.” The crowd erupted in applause, and many attendees expected Mr. Trump would announce his candidacy that night.

He did not. Several weeks later, over dinner at the mogul’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Cox told Mr. Trump that the New York State Republican Committee could not stop other candidates from competing.

“He made it clear to me that night he wasn’t going to run,” said Mr. Cox, who described Mr. Trump as upset. Mr. Cox would not elaborate further.

A few days later, Mr. Trump ended the speculation via Twitter: “While I won’t be running for governor of New York State, a race I would have won, I have much bigger plans in mind — stay tuned, will happen!”

Susan C. Beachy contributed research.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, a dunce on trade
« Reply #831 on: March 06, 2016, 10:52:55 AM »
I saw DT on a couple of channels this morning and some of it was from campaign speeches.

'We lose on trade.  The are beating us by billions and billions of dollars and we get nothing for it', paraphrasing him pretty closely.

Let's examine that.  Every trade transaction is what?  A mutually beneficial arrangement.  What part of, both sides benefit, doesn't he understand? 

Yes we would like our exports to be larger, much larger.  Yes it is nice if export amounts are similar to import amounts, that makes the balancing of the other side of the equation simpler.  But the difference is not a "deficit" and the pronouncement that we get nothing from it is naive and dangerously false

We basically prohibit manufacturing in this country, see EPA and a billion other regulations.    That is the main reason for our export dearth, and the second biggest problem is that the rest of the world mostly has screwed up economies.  Then we have the tax code with the highest business taxes in the developed world.  So when we invent something great like the iphone, we go there to build it.  If we are the most prosperous country in the world, we will never have the lowest wage rates either.  So we have to build what we build best, not stop the trade of low wage products. 

We can increase our exports without stopping imports; these are two partially unrelated phenomena.

Back to imports.  Who buys them and why?  One generalization is Walmart shoppers, isn't that the heart of Trump's support?  Why do we buy there?  The low cost of basic supplies lowers the cost of living and raises our standard of living in ways that wage gains haven't for many, many years.  Important point here is not just Walmart, but nearly all suppliers in nearly all industries.  In building maintenance, we buy large amounts of supplies everyday from the 'big box' stores.  I buy custom metal roofing made in Wisconsin, toilets from Chile and plumbing valves made in China.  We are always looking for the best price for acceptable quality.

It's called comparative advantage.  As Conrad might say, it's covered in Econ 102 and a mental, f'ing 12 year old should be able to figure it out.  On the consumer side we want to buy from the people who build and sell it most efficiently and then produce what we can build and sell the best.

Let's look at the Trump 'solution'.  Threaten a trade war, levy a 45% tax, cut off all imports, we don't get anything out of anyway!?  Really?  Who pays the import tax?  China?  No.  An import tax goes straight to the American consumer.  He doesn't have taxing jurisdiction over China, only on the importer and the retailer.  Then what?  Our cost of living goes up, our standard of living goes down, they retaliate and the global economy spirals down the tubes.

Trump's plan is to threaten a suicide trade war with Mexico and China, not actually have one.  One problem there is that he sounds like the Executive Order President we have now, but he is running for President of a divided power government, not King, so he can't do that alone anyway, not to mention that he is bluffing, they know it and it would have no effect on them anyway.

There are a number of ways that we could negotiate a lot tougher with the Chinese and work smarter with our Mexican neighbor.  Trump supporters see that possibility in him but not from anything he has been saying so far.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
brokered meeting between tech and GOP insiders
« Reply #835 on: March 08, 2016, 06:11:45 AM »
I wonder who elected Kristol, Rove, or Larry Page.  And i wonder what in the world tech CEOs have got to do with it other than undermining our own tech grads with cheaper foreign workers.

Is countering this why Trump recently did an about face on visas?   Levin points out the a large percentage of our grads cannot get jobs.  And evidence surely points out that all the new jobs go to foreigners.  Well I had many foreign IT workers as patients and none were geniuses that warrant them being hired over US born.  Again the GOP (along with the vote hungry crats) continue to sell us out.

Notice that not one mention that while stopping Trump could be  conjoined with lets rally around Cruz????  Again the voters are ignored:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/tech-ceos-and-top-republicans-take-secret-meetings-to-stop-trump-with-brokered-convention/

PP where are you.

Crafty ,  can you email PP and ask if he would return to the board.  I  miss his posts.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Trump will likely reduce not increase Republican turnout
« Reply #836 on: March 08, 2016, 07:42:50 AM »
This is absolutely true that some Republicans would vote for Hillary over Trump.  Without a doubt many would simply stay home.  So for those who tell us he would bring voters to the Republican side there are many he would drive away - in droves - probably much worse then Romney.  My own sister is one of them.  She is very afraid of Trump.  He is nuts she says.  Unfortunately I could not convince her to consider Cruz either who she says no one he works with likes him.  He was always this way even when he was an aide. 

http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-bret-baier-some-republicans-could-back-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Trump will likely reduce not increase Republican turnout
« Reply #837 on: March 08, 2016, 09:42:51 AM »
This is absolutely true that some Republicans would vote for Hillary over Trump.  Without a doubt many would simply stay home.  So for those who tell us he would bring voters to the Republican side there are many he would drive away - in droves - probably much worse then Romney.  My own sister is one of them.  She is very afraid of Trump.  He is nuts she says.  Unfortunately I could not convince her to consider Cruz either who she says no one he works with likes him.  He was always this way even when he was an aide. 

http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-bret-baier-some-republicans-could-back-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/

Rush has been making the point that Republicans have wanted to reach and bring in new voters and Democrats etc. and Trump is doing that.  What he doesn't say is that Trump is doing that at the expense of driving others away, still scoring worst in general election matchups.

Would I vote for Trump over Hillary?  Of course.  But my motivation to vote would be VERY low and if something else should come up... pulling the lever for a lesser evil isn't going to be a highest priority or a proudest moment.
-------------------------------------------------------------

More from Thomas Sowell:

What are the chances that the world's greatest violinist would make a good quarterback? Or that the world's greatest quarterback would make a good violinist? Why then would anyone think that a successful businessman would make a good president — especially when he is demonstrating almost daily why he would not?

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/03/16/random-thoughts-b2798

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: Donald's foreign policy
« Reply #838 on: March 08, 2016, 09:50:07 AM »
y Damian Paletta
Updated March 8, 2016 9:21 a.m. ET
292 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—Republican front-runner Donald Trump has sketched out a foreign policy that would mark a sharp change in the way the U.S. approaches global hot spots, mollifying tensions with some leaders and widening fissures with others.

Part of Mr. Trump’s appeal to voters is his rejection of the status quo, but some of his ideas—launching a trade war with Mexico, taking oil out of Iraq, imposing steep tariffs on China—have spooked diplomatic advisers from Democratic and Republican administrations. But Mr. Trump has been unapologetic.

“When I see the policy of some of these people in our government, we’ll be in the Middle East for another 15 years, if we don’t end up losing by that time because our country is disintegrating,” Mr. Trump told MSNBC last week. “We are spending trillions of dollars in the Middle East, and the infrastructure of our country is disintegrating.”

While some of Mr. Trump’s proposals appear to be off-the-cuff, many others, like a temporary a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., are more planned and have formed the basis of a sweeping, if turbulent, foreign policy that would reorder American priorities and relationships.

The basic tendencies in Mr. Trump’s foreign policy are these: confrontations with China and Mexico, particularly over trade and immigration, but cooperation with Russia. He has also expressed reluctance to challenge dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere, saying that inevitably drags the U.S. into costly predicaments that unsettle the region.

As Mr. Trump continues to amass delegates toward the Republican nomination, the voices of alarm are increasing. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP White House nominee, said last week Mr. Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. “less safe.” That sentiment was echoed by more than 100 conservative national security experts in a recent open letter that criticized his proposals dealing with Russia, Japan, and the treatment of Muslims.


“Trump is a throwback to an earlier isolationist age,” said Thomas Wright, director of the Brookings Institution’s Project on International Order and Strategy. “He has a consistent worldview dating back 30 years. He would destroy America’s alliances, close the global economy, and give free license to authoritarian leaders.”

But Mr. Trump’s posture of strength and straight talk appears to be serving him well. His supporters often say they believe he would stand up for America against other countries, and they applaud his assertion that American leaders have for too long allowed the country to be played for a fool by others.


The next president will inherit a plethora of global challenges, including Russian aggression in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the emergence of Iran as a regional power, unstable regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and Islamic State’s large footprint. The U.S. is also grappling with China’s economic struggles and military expansion.

Some Republicans, including presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, have embraced a hawkish approach to these threats, while Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas advocates using force relatively narrowly—a split that loosely reflects the divide within the GOP and the conservative movement.

Mr. Trump’s proposals don’t fit neatly into either category. He has appointed just one person to his national security advisory committee—Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.). And there are gaps in his positions; he hasn’t detailed plans for dealing with the weak governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

Just last week, Mr. Trump reversed himself after vowing for months to order the torture of terrorists and the targeted killing of their family members, telling The Wall Street Journal Friday he wouldn’t force the military to perform illegal acts. Legal experts believe that torture and the targeted killing of terrorists’ family members violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

In many areas, Mr. Trump promises a new toughness, even when it comes to allies. He has said he would demand that Germany, South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia increase payments to the U.S. for military protection.

He has also promised to lead a confrontation with China and Mexico, countries he accuses of fleecing the U.S. by improperly luring manufacturing jobs to distort trade. He vows to build a 1,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, to be financed by Mexico’s government, an idea angrily rejected by Mexican leaders.

Mr. Trump would formally label the Chinese government a “currency manipulator” and he has threatened to impose tariffs on its exports. Many economists believe China puts downward pressure on the value of its currency to give it a trade advantage and spur exports.

In contrast, Mr. Trump would look to improve relations with some countries, notably Russia. The U.S. and Russia are at odds in multiple conflicts, including over the fighting in Syria, where Russia has helped prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Trump has traded compliments with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader most American leaders don’t trust, saying Mr. Putin could help resolve the war in Syria.

Former diplomats and national security experts said they are still waiting for Mr. Trump to outline a unified strategy. Many say the incomplete proposals he offers in his stump speeches don’t make a comprehensive approach.

“I would feel better had he gone out and made a foreign policy speech where he explained these statements he’s made,” said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
End of Reagan era
« Reply #840 on: March 09, 2016, 09:45:15 AM »
Certainly the left would love to have us think so.
Frankly we have been out of the "Reagan" era for some time.  Has little to do with Trump.  "making America great again" is absolutely a theme from Reagan.  Making us proud not ashamed of our country certainly are themes from Reagan.  So I don't agree with Joe on this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/joe-scarborough-donald-trumps-rise-144831312.html


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #844 on: March 11, 2016, 05:48:34 PM »
"How am I supposed to vote for this fcuktard?"

Hold your nose, and keep an image of Hillary Clinton in your mind and the possibility of holding that thought for 8 years.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #845 on: March 11, 2016, 08:20:58 PM »
Latest Poll, Hillary leads Trump 51-38%. 
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-trump-rubio-cruz-would-fare-against-clinton-november-n534191

Trump is wrong on protectionism.

Trump is wrong on property (non) rights.

Trump is wrong on the constitution.

Trump is wrong on defense and doesn't care to know the basics.  see nuclear triad.

Trump has been wrong on almost every vote he has taken, by his own standard, having come to our side so recently.

Trump turns good people away with his personality.

Trump has been wrong about Presidential powers.  (Has corrected himself some on this)

Trump loses to Hillary.

Trump polls worst against her of the top 3.

Trump is a caricature of what others think the GOP is, hate Muslims, sympathy for KKK, misogyny...

Trump will lose the Senate for the GOP.

Trump will lose future Presidential elections for the GOP.

Barack Obama sold more guns and lost more Democratic seats in America in history.  similarly, Trump is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party.


"Hold your nose, and keep an image of Hillary Clinton in your mind and the possibility of holding that thought for 8 years."

I don't know G M's state but Trump is not putting MN in play.  I don't have to hold my nose and vote for him.  His kind of bravado doesn't sell here, but he will cost MN their Republic state legislature and probably two congressional seats.

Trump last known phone call before entering the race was to Bill Clinton.  I don't buy the conspiracy aspect that implies, but all the signs are there.

Our party and our country is in the process of making a historic mistake. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #846 on: March 12, 2016, 03:54:50 AM »
Yes I agree the polling is depressing.

The ones who have polled best against the Dems are rhinos.

Which basically means we have lost the country and it is over anyway.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #847 on: March 12, 2016, 06:57:19 AM »
I realize Rubio is not perfect, but nonetheless he has polled best against EDC-- he is hardly a RINO.  Cruz polls nearly as well and he is most certainly noT a RINO.

Note the poll is a NBC poll, plenty of other polls show Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich all beating Hillary.O

OTOH Trump is a fkg disaster.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2016, 10:12:34 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #848 on: March 12, 2016, 08:01:01 AM »
Well Rubio does score well on conservative review.  He would be winning if not for immigration probably.

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #849 on: March 12, 2016, 08:04:45 AM »
Well Rubio does score well on conservative review.  He would be winning if not for immigration probably.

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard
[/quote

His pandering to illegals makes him just another selling us out.