Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472256 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #950 on: April 25, 2016, 11:25:48 AM »
G M:   I think I would rather have all the looming catastrophic incidents looming happen under her watch.

Along those lines, I don't want the next round of wrong and failed policies with failed results to be proof that our policies don't work.

After George Bush, America desperately needed bold change.  When we needed a sharp turn to the right, all we were offered was the failed status quo versus a sharp turn to the left.  

Said of George Bush, he gave supply side economics a bad name, without ever trying it.  

Tax rate cuts brought in phenomenal revenue gains once they were fully enacted.  Meanwhile George Bush grew government in a big way.  Taxes aren't the only burden of government.  Government spending also diverts resources away from their most productive use and so do government rules like stifle industry and make bad loans.  Bush and the Republicans did a couple of things right, and then screwed it all up by leaving in place all kinds of bad programs, see Fannie Mae,  CRAp and so many other dangerous programs, not to mention the folly of the Fed distorting markets to the point of blowing it up.  The Bush administration was enjoying all the distortion effects of that monetary expansion on the way up when they should have been warning against it.  While markets and incomes were going up he should have used that opportunity to cut and reform all the programs of proven failure.  He didn't do that and he couldn't articulate the things he did right.

My point here is that I don't want my views, our poicies, judged by the success or failure of Trump policies which are largely the opposite.  He now admits wanting to "raise taxes on the rich" along with expanding the role, power and scale of government.  If that's Republican, I'm not one.  If we are going to double down on Democrat failed policies and it fails further, as GM suggests, it should be called Democrat failure.  

The failure of George Bush was the failure of Democrat policies (that he wrongly continued) and especially fault of the incoming Democrat Congress with its de facto leaders, Senators Hillary and Barack.  Instead they threw out the Republicans.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 11:31:59 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #951 on: April 25, 2016, 09:26:04 PM »
Trump is awful.

At least he is for a big increase in military spending, defending the border, a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and strongly for the Second Amendment.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #952 on: April 26, 2016, 04:21:53 AM »
"He now admits wanting to "raise taxes on the rich" along with expanding the role, power and scale of government."

Doug I haven't seen this.  Generally I don't listen to him anymore because it is just too much of the same to me.  Indeed I am tired of listening to all of them frankly.  I would hazard a guess that many others are tired of the non stop wall to wall day in and out campaigning with the same stuff.

I thought he wanted across the board corporate and personal income tax cuts.  Expanding government how ? besides actually enforcing immigration laws and his vague health care promises to even the poor?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #953 on: April 26, 2016, 08:09:11 AM »
Crafty said,

"Trump is awful."

Yes.  yesterday he was shown making fun of the way Kasich eats.  He is not only vulgar, but just as ridiculous.

I wonder when Clooney is going to announce he is running for something. 2018?  Or maybe he is waiting for an appointment with the Clinton White House first.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 08:13:02 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #954 on: April 26, 2016, 08:44:01 AM »
"He now admits wanting to "raise taxes on the rich" along with expanding the role, power and scale of government."

ccp:  Doug I haven't seen this.
-------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-tax-cuts-top-1-set-general-election-fight

Donald Trump is running on a plan to dramatically cut taxes for the ultra-rich while talking up his willingness to raise taxes on the same group. Sooner or later, it’s going to get him into trouble.

“Do you believe on raising taxes on the wealthy?” Trump was asked on the TODAY Show on Thursday morning.  

“I do,” he said. “I do. Including myself, I do.”

(2nd source:  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/21/trump-oh-you-bet-i-support-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-n2152154)
------------------------------------

When I read the left I always look for the lie in the first sentence or point they make, but when ripping Trump, now they are able to just run with the truth.

I wrote previously that I like Trump tax plan in some ways better than Rubio's or Cruz'.  Rubio massively bumped up a tax credit, didn't lower ordinary rates enough and unrealistically lowered capital gains rates to zero - that will never happen.  Ted Cruz creates a new 16% tax on everything certain to be used against us forever by liberals while unrealistically lowering the top tax rate on the rich to just 10% - and that will never happen.

The problems with Trump's tax plan are that it isn't his, he hasn't read it, he isn't pushing it and he doesn't believe in it.

Besides giving the left endless fodder, his wishy-washiness, lack of a core and endless inconsistencies expose more than a tax rate problem.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 08:48:21 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #955 on: April 26, 2016, 09:51:26 AM »
Trump is awful.

At least he is for a big increase in military spending, defending the border, a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and strongly for the Second Amendment.

But if I use my gun on the government agents taking my house I will lose my gun too, along with my house and my remaining freedom.

He has already divided and destroyed the Republican party and what was once the conservative movement.  He will do much more damage as nominee and President.
--------------------------------------------------

Breitbart has the long inside story on the fight inside Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.  Schlafly was a friend of Reagan and a friend of my mom.  Brilliant, but I always warned mom Schlafly misguided on trade protectionism, while presciently right on nearly everything else, culture wars, peace through strength, etc.  At 91, still very sharp, she endorsed Trump.  Many on her conservative board predictably back Cruz. The split and fight on her board, including her daughter siding with the dissidents, is a microcosm of the anger and division on the right. 
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/25/phyllis-schlaflys-last-stand-inside-story-conservative-icons-internal-battle-survival/

Larry Kudlow has a piece today BEGGING conservatives to be civil to each other.  It isn't working and the split is all about Trump.  Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Walker and all the rest could have survived this but the vitriol was 'raised' to new low.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/25/larry_kudlow_a_plea_to_my_conservative_brethren.html

Conservative talk show hosts feel the anger and the divide.  Those who endorsed one or the other are hated by the rest.  Those who didn't choose sides are hated by all.  We have 6 months to go but the damage is done and it's irreversible.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #956 on: April 26, 2016, 10:19:26 AM »
We have become Babel.  Civil war between the parties.  Civil war within the parties.  Between families,  Father against son son against brother mother against daughter daughter against daughter, race against race, class against class , foreign born vs natural born, and with
a President who doesn't believe in the concept of country or nation and is doing everything he can to accelerate the process.

The world, one nation (not under God) , one world governing body run by elites and their cronies.  That is Obama's dream.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #957 on: April 26, 2016, 10:56:31 AM »
Orange-Hued Makeup on an Orange-Hued Corpse of a Campaign’

Michael Brendan Dougherty, columnist for The Week and sparring partner of our Kevin Williamson, has been somewhat sympathetic to Donald Trump, contending he’s a natural response to a Republican party that has forgotten the white working class.

Somewhere along the line, he feel out of love with Trump, hard, and he’s pretty intensely repulsed by the talk of a Trump makeover:

Becoming an establishment creature now would dispirit many of Trump’s core supporters. It would wreck any momentum his candidacy had at renovating the Republican Party’s stale ideology. Trump will have worse problems than even Mitt Romney did in trying to explain the convenient evolution of his views. Trump’s unreliability extends even to his own stunts. Months ago he skipped a Fox News debate to raise $6 million for veterans. They haven’t seen the money.

Trump cannot succeed in a general election without an unforeseeable intervention from beyond our normal politics -- think a sudden economic crash, a terrorist attack, or the likelihood of war. A little campaign makeover certainly won’t change what is now the most well-defined and lustily disliked campaign in modern memory. The Trump reboot will not make Trump viable. It just makes his new campaign manager viable. This is nothing more than another layer of orange-hued makeup on an orange-hued corpse of a campaign.

Okay, but . . . some of us saw this from the beginning. Some of us are a lot less surprised by the off-the-charts unfavorable numbers and the disastrous outlook for Republicans in November with a Trump nomination. Some of us put enormous effort into trying to avert this scenario, and some of us never wrote:

. . . it seemed that Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency contained the seeds of an ideological revolution. Trump had tapped into something that felt like a fresh European import, an ideological right wing motivated by populist nationalism rather than conservatism . . .

In Trump we suddenly seemed to have the kind of culture warrior imagined by thinkers like James Burnham, who opposed liberalism not because it offends the Constitution or runs roughshod over the little platoons of civil society, but because it is the verbal justification for the contraction of Western societies: the diminution of their military power and the demographic decline of their native populations.

Over in the Federalist, Grant Stinchfield, a conservative talk-show host in Dallas, Texas, suddenly realizes who he voted for:

Donald Trump is off the rails. He is a train wreck. It’s not just his antics and childish behavior that has me so put off, it’s his failure to improve as a candidate.
After nine months on the campaign trail, I expected Trump to fully grasp the issues and have in-depth policy solutions to our problems. Yet he still is “winging it.” He has failed to surround himself with top-notch, respected experts to craft a legitimate conservative platform. The reality is now clear: Trump has no depth, and he fails to grasp even the most basic conservative principles.

I fell victim to my own hatred. Donald Trump offered me a vehicle to stick it to the bloviating bureaucrats I despise. I dedicated my life to exposing self-promoting career politicians and their love of big government programs. Trump was the guy who was going to scare the hell out of the “establishment,” the guy who was going to turn Washington on its head. So I voted with anger in my heart. I gave my vote to Trump with expectation he would find his way by putting smart constitutional conservatives by his side. Trump didn’t find his way; he got lost.

Gee, if only someone had warned him.

There Is No New Trump, Continued

The “improved” Trump talk is all pretty moot, because you can’t change the style of a guy with the impulse control of a toddler.
He doesn’t like hearing he has to do things differently. There is no point to hiring the “best people” if you refuse to listen to the advice of the “best people.”

Let’s check in with the best people:

Donald Trump is bristling at efforts to implement a more conventional presidential campaign strategy, and has expressed misgivings about the political guru behind them, Paul Manafort, for overstepping his bounds, multiple sources close to the campaign tell POLITICO.

Trump became upset late last week when he learned from media reports that Manafort privately told Republican leaders that the billionaire reality TV star was “projecting an image“ for voters and would begin toning down his rhetoric, according to the sources. They said that Trump also expressed concern about Manafort bringing several former lobbying colleagues into the campaign, as first reported by POLITICO.

Now Trump is taking steps to return some authority to Manafort’s chief internal rival, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Neither Lewandowski nor Manafort responded to requests for comment, though Manafort on Sunday during an interview on Fox News blamed Lewandowski’s regime for shortcomings in the campaign’s delegate wrangling operation.

Lewandowski’s allies responded by privately questioning whether Manafort has done anything to improve the situation. They grumble that Manafort has spent a disproportionate amount of time on television -- just as Trump himself has been avoiding the Sunday morning talk show circuit at Manafort’s urging.
When you hear anecdotes like this . . .

After Trump’s resounding victory in last week’s New York primary, for instance, Manafort handed the candidate a speech he’d written for him that aimed for a more presidential tone, according to two campaign sources. Trump took a quick look at it and told Manafort he’d consider using such a speech down the road, but in the glow of his huge win in his home state, he preferred to wing it.

How long does Manafort stick around? How often does a candidate brag about ignoring his advisers’ recommendations during a speech?

“If I acted presidential, I can guarantee you this morning I wouldn’t be here,” Trump told a capacity crowd of more than 3,000 at Crosby High School, where others stood outside, listening to audio provided for the unlucky.

The gym rocked.

“My wife tells me, ‘Be more presidential.’ My daughter tells me to be more presidential. And Paul Manafort and Corey [Lewandowski, another top aide] and a lot of them say, ‘Be more presidential,’” Trump said. “And now people are starting to say, ‘You know, look what got you here.”

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #958 on: April 27, 2016, 08:12:41 AM »
“Do you believe on raising taxes on the wealthy?” Trump was asked on the TODAY Show on Thursday morning.   

“I do,” he said. “I do. Including myself, I do.”

FWIW, Larry Kudlow was on the John Batchelor radio show yesterday and gave 'his' clarification of what Trump meant by this statement.  Trump would effectively raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes while lowering overall personal and corporate rates.   Kudlow whose raison de ter (sp?), if you will, is 'lower taxes' and 'growth of the economy'.  He said he thought Trump's tax plan was the best one offered though maybe Cruz would have had one just as good.

Two things I don't like about his tax plan is there are 4 brackets and 50% of the population will pay nothing which is just plain wrong:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #959 on: April 27, 2016, 08:55:39 AM »
If we could believe Pres Trump would get the Trump tax plan enacted, then he would be a million times better than Hillary.  He also has agreed to the 'penny plan' to limit federal spending.  If both were to happent, he could cut tax rates, grow the economy, rein in government AND balance the budget.

I see he is in talks with Paul Ryan on policy.  If the nominee and the House can get on the same page, that will help define the choices in the contested Senate races and also set up a mandate in case of a win.  If everything were to go right for him in this election, he still won't have anywhere near 60 votes in the Senate to enact real change.  In the fights with the Senate, after calling Rubio Little Marco, I wonder what Trump will call Dick Durbin in opposition...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #960 on: April 27, 2016, 12:02:47 PM »
I suspect not "Little Dick" lest he stir up memories of Rubio's witticisms.

I caught Trump's foreign policy speech this morning.  I must say I thought it quite good.   :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #961 on: April 27, 2016, 01:15:06 PM »
"I caught Trump's foreign policy speech this morning.  I must say I thought it quite good. "

His calling out globalism and claiming he will put America first is EXACTLY RIGHT.   He hit the target square on the bulls eye.  No freakin' rhino would have said this. 
We don't need our President going around the world putting us down, talking  up enemies, and giving our country away to the world.
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump foreign policy speech - text and comments
« Reply #963 on: April 28, 2016, 12:31:36 PM »
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/27/trumps-foreign-policy-speech/

Good points in there.  This speech was good only because Obama, Hillary and Trump himself have lowered the bar so far.  From my point of view, he is right on some of it, vague on most and wrong in parts.

Vagueness:  South China Sea gets a mention.  " Look at what China is doing in the South China Sea. They’re not supposed to be doing it."  Then what??  Israel gets a mention:  "Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East.  President Obama has not been a friend to Israel."  Right...

Good points: 1) Defense buildup.  He starts to mention things like the number of ships:  "The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships."  People have been trying to get him to do that for over a year.  Keep in mind this is a well prepared script.  "We will spend what we need to rebuild our military."  Vague but strong.

2) International agreements:  "Under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs".  This is very good, my points below about trade agreements notwithstanding.  We need to be able to negotiate TPP and trade agreements that do not infringe on our sovereignty.

Hypocrisies:  1) Iran deal, 'bad, bad bad, very bad'.  But in Iraq he makes clear he would have left Saddam to go nuclear by now because that is some kind of great political selling point of the moment.  But would you prefer Saddam in Iraq going nuclear or for Iran to do it  The right answer is no, no, no.  Do what we need to do to stop both. 

2) Willingness to walk in negotiations.  What is his leverage over the Chinese when he admits before negotiating that our consumers will not end up stuck with the 45% tariffs threatened.  We are willing to walk economically on the Chinese?  I don't think so.  Willingness to walk in negotiations was one of the few things I took from his book, 'Art of the Deal'.  Now I'm 59 and single.

Wrong:  1) He has more criticism of the decision to go into Iraq than the decision to abandon and lose all gains.  Trying to set up a western-style democracy wasn't the low moment of the American effort.  Handing back all gains to terrorism was.  There were 23 reasons to go into Iraq spelled out in the congressional authorization.  His answer to that was - do nothing?  If he had the same intelligence GWB had, he would have said, hey, we're not nation builders and that's not our problem?  I don't think so.

2) Nafta isn't what's wrong with manufacturing here.  Before Nafta, Mexico had steep tariffs on American goods and we had virtually none on theirs.  He wouldn't have taken that deal?  Nafta was the hemisphere wide free trade zone that was a dream of Reagan's.  Trump is siding with Perot, Smoot and Halley while Bill and Hillary sided with Reagan.

3) Along those lines is the "trade deficit".  In fact we have an export deficit and an enterprise deficit and it is partly because the rest of the world is screwed up and partly because we have made nearly impossible to manufacture here.  Taxes and regulations that won't go away by renegotiating with Mexico and China.

4) Punish companies that leave.  This is right out of the Bernie, Barack, Hillary playbook.  Throw one more tax and regulation on them when it was taxes and regulations that drove them out in the first place.  Pure economic ignorance showing big government instincts over limited government and freedom.  Let's say Carrier moves to Mexico and Trump slaps a penalty on the air conditioners they send back here.  WHO PAYS THAT TAX?  Clue:  Not the corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of the speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html?_r=0

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you to the Center for National Interest for honoring me with this invitation. It truly is a great honor. I’d like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country, one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.

It’s time to shake the rust off America’s foreign policy. It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold, something we have to do. The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be.

That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make.

America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration. But to chart our path forward, we must first briefly take a look back. We have a lot to be proud of.

In the 1940s we saved the world. The greatest generation beat back the Nazis and Japanese imperialists. Then we saved the world again. This time, from totalitarianism and communism. The Cold War lasted for decades but, guess what, we won and we won big. Democrats and Republicans working together got Mr. Gorbachev to heed the words of President Reagan, our great president, when he said, tear down this wall.

History will not forget what he did. A very special man and president. Unfortunately, after the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

They just kept coming and coming. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper. Very bad. It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans and just killed be lives, lives, lives wasted. Horribly wasted. Many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill that void much to their really unjust enrichment.

They have benefited so much, so sadly, for us. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy. Today I want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.

First, our resources are totally over extended. President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders. Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year.

We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own. Ending the theft of American jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild our military, which has to happen and regain our financial independence and strength. I am the only person running for the presidency who understands this and this is a serious problem.

I’m the only one — believe me, I know them all, I’m the only one who knows how to fix it.

Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share, and I’ve been talking about this recently a lot. Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so.

They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries besides America, are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia.

The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security. A Trump administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded, and funded beautifully.

Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us. We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies, something that we’ve never seen before in the history of our country. He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms even before the ink was dry. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. Remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

And under a Trump administration, will never, ever be allowed to have that nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors — so vividly I remember that day. In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table.

When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win — you just can’t win. At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place. President Obama gutted our missile defense program and then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic. He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel, and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place.

Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel, a force for justice and peace, for acting as an impatient peace area in the region.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power. Iran has, indeed, become a great, great power in just a very short period of time, because of what we’ve done. All of the expense and all at the expense of Israel, our allies in the region and very importantly, the United States itself.

We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help. Remember that. Not good.

Fourth, our rivals no longer respect us. In fact, they’re just as confused as our allies, but in an even bigger problem is they don’t take us seriously anymore. The truth is they don’t respect us. When President Obama landed in Cuba on Air Force One, no leader was there, nobody, to greet him.

Perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and prestigious history of Air Force One. Then amazingly, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia. It’s called no respect. Absolutely no respect.

Do you remember when the president made a long and expensive trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, to get the Olympics for our country, and after this unprecedented effort, it was announced that the United States came in fourth — fourth place? The president of the United States making this trip — unprecedented — comes in fourth place. He should have known the result before making such an embarrassing commitment. We were laughed at all over the world, as we have been many, many times.

The list of humiliations go on and on and on. President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands further and further with its nuclear reach. Our president has allowed China to continue its economic assault on American jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade deals and apply leverage on China necessary to rein in North Korea. We have the leverage. We have the power over China, economic power, and people don’t understand it. And with that economic power, we can rein in and we can get them to do what they have to do with North Korea, which is totally out of control.

He has even allowed China to steal government secrets with cyber attacks and engaged in industrial espionage against the United States and its companies. We’ve let our rivals and challengers think they can get away with anything, and they do. They do at will. It always happens. If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.

Finally, America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals. Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, we’ve lacked a coherent foreign policy. One day, we’re bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians. The next day, we’re watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place.

We’re a humanitarian nation, but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We’ve made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before. We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.

We have done nothing to help the Christians, nothing, and we should always be ashamed for that, for that lack of action. Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS, and we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem.

Hillary Clinton also refuses to say the words radical Islam, even as she pushes for a massive increase in refugees coming into our country. After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep. Incredible.

Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie, proven to be absolutely a total lie. Our ambassador was murdered and our secretary of state misled the nation. And, by the way, she was not awake to take that call at 3 o’clock in the morning. And now ISIS is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling Libya oil. And you know what? We don’t blockade, we don’t bomb, we don’t do anything about it. It’s almost as if our country doesn’t even know what’s happening, which could be a fact and could be true. This will all change when I become president.

To our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again. America is going to be reliable again. It’s going to be a great and reliable ally again. It’s going to be a friend again. We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests and the shared interests of our allies.

We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world. Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water’s edge. We need a new rational American foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, and it will be by both parties — Democrats, Republicans, independents, everybody, as well as by our close allies.

This is how we won the Cold War and it’s how we will win our new future struggles, which may be many, which may be complex, but we will win if I become president.

First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam. Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States and indeed the world. Events may require the use of military force, but it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.

In this, we’re going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence, attacks and everything else. It is a dangerous world, more dangerous now than it has ever been.

We should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical Islam. But this has to be a two-way street. They must also be good to us. Remember that. They have to be good to us, no longer one way. It’s now two-way. And remember, us and all we’re doing, they have to appreciate what we’ve done to them. We’re going to help, but they have to appreciate what we’ve done for them. The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies. We have no idea where these people are coming from. There’s no documentation. There’s no paperwork. There’s nothing. We have to be smart. We have to be vigilant.

A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or frankly, much worse. All you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th, one of the great catastrophes, in my opinion, the single greatest military catastrophe in the history of our country; worse than Pearl Harbor because you take a look at what’s happened, and citizens were attacked, as opposed to the military being attacked — one of the true great catastrophes.

And then there’s ISIS. I have a simple message for them. Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must...

... we must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops. We tell them. We’re sending something else. We have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.

But they’re going to be gone. ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly. They will be gone very, very quickly.

Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what’s happened to us. Our nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal. And it has to happen immediately. Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today. These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room.

And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25 percent from what we were spending in 2011. Our military is depleted and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.

We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody.

But we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. In this time of mounting debt, right now we have so much debt that nobody even knows how to address the problem. But I do. No one dollar can be wasted. Not one single dollar can we waste. We’re also going to have to change our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again. And to put Americans first again.

This will ensure that our own workers, right here in America, get the jobs and higher pay that will grow our tax revenues, increase our economic might as a nation, make us strong financially again. So, so important. We need to think smart about areas where our technological superiority, and nobody comes close, gives us an edge.

This includes 3D printing, artificial intelligence and cyber warfare. A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute, and I mean absolute. A Trump administration will give our servicemen and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve and where they serve. And the best care in the world when they return as veterans and they come back home to civilian life. Our veterans...

Our veterans have not been treated fairly or justly. These are our great people and we must treat them fairly. We must even treat them really, really well and that will happen under the Trump administration.

Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests. Businesses do not succeed when they lose sight of their core interests and neither do countries. Look at what happened in the 1990s. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — and this was a horrible time for us — were attacked. and 17 brave sailors were killed on the U.S.S. Cole.

And what did we do? It seemed we put more effort into adding China into the World Trade organization, which has been a total disaster for the United States. Frankly, we spent more time on that than we did in stopping Al Qaeda. We even had an opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden and we didn’t do it

And then we got hit at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, the worst attack on our country in its history. Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests. And the following will be my priorities.

In the Middle East our goals must be, and I mean must be, to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clearsighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies. And believe me, we have groups that no matter what you do, they will be the enemy.: We have to be smart enough to recognize who those groups are, who those people are, and not help them. And we must only be generous to those that prove they are indeed our friends.

We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.

Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.

Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.

Fixing our relations with China is another important step — and really toward creating an even more prosperous period of time. China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect.

We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and I mean quickly, to balance. A strong and smart America is an America that will find a better friend in China, better than we have right now. Look at what China is doing in the South China Sea. They’re not supposed to be doing it.

No respect for this country or this president. We can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways. If need be, that’s what’s going to have to happen.

After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win.

I will never sent our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V.

Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction. The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy. With President Obama and Secretary Clinton we’ve had the exact opposite — a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy, one that has blazed the path of destruction in its wake.

After losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worst shape in the Middle East than ever, ever before. I challenge anyone to explain the strategic foreign policy vision of Obama/Clinton. It has been a complete and total disaster.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very, very persuasive, but we need to use them selectively and with total determination. Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules. In other words, if they do not treat us fairly. Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce that line in the sand. Believe me.

However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. Although not in government service, I was totally against the war in Iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary has been has been Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their very rich oil reserves, something it has wanted to do for decades.

And now, to top it off, we have ISIS. My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people.

We have to look to new people because many of the old people frankly don’t know what they’re doing, even though they may look awfully good writing in The New York Times or being watched on television.

Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread universal values that not everybody shares or wants, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.

These are my goals as president. I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, so important, and which our friends and allies will respect and totally welcome. The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends and when old friends become allies, that’s what we want. We want them to be our allies.

We want the world to be — we want to bring peace to the world. Too much destruction out there, too many destructive weapons. The power of weaponry is the single biggest problem that we have today in the world.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership. Again, many Americans must wonder why we our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than in defending their own. Americans.

Americans must know that we’re putting the American people first again on trade.

So true. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy. The jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down and will never enter.

And under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the United States and has emptied our states — literally emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. And I’ve just gotten to see it. I’ve toured Pennsylvania. I’ve toured New York. I’ve toured so many of the states. They have been cleaned out. Their manufacturing is gone.

Never again, only the reverse — and I have to say this strongly — never again; only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. There will be consequences for the companies that leave the United States only to exploit it later. They fire the people. They take advantage of the United States. There will be consequences for those companies. Never again.

Under a Trump administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of a foreign country.

I will view as president the world through the clear lens of American interests. I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.

The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest. America will continue and continue forever to play the role of peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to play the role, we must make America strong again.

And always — always, always, we must make, and we have to look at it from every angle, and we have no choice, we must make America respected again. We must make America truly wealthy again. And we must — we have to and we will make America great again. And if we do that — and if we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever, ever known. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #964 on: April 28, 2016, 02:13:21 PM »
Worth pointing out this is written by someone from the W administration.  I am not sure any of those people are going to exactly be objective when speaking of Trump:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-america-first-neo-isolationism-113331890.html

ccp

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

G M

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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Trump's foreign policy
« Reply #967 on: April 29, 2016, 11:03:06 AM »
http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/at-last-america-first/

America First was our foreign policy before Pearl Harbor, as Buchanan admits.  The nice thing about not addressing threats abroad is that they will come to us soon enough - after gaining numbers, strength, confidence, momentum, riches, weapons and a few victories under their belt.

Buchanan was the most anti-Iraq-war of all Republicans, he opposed the first gulf war too, after Saddam invaded and took control of Kuwait.  But I haven't heard his answer or Obama's or Trump's to what they would have done otherwise (nothing) about Saddam Hussein joining the nuclear club.  Iraq Study Group, said Saddam was 5-7 years away from the capability.  From 2002-2003, that makes Saddam's Iraq nuclear in roughly 2007-2010.  The 2016 equivalent strategy for 'stability in the region' would be to hand Iran that capability.  Thank you President Obama, mission accomplished.  (

Buchanan:  "Military intervention for reasons of ideology or nation building..."

This is a straw man argument right out of the Obama left vocabulary.  Those motives are not among the 23 compelling reasons in the authorization approved by a 3:1 margin in the House and a majority of both parties in the Senate, nor were they the hidden reason.  We didn't go into Iraq for ideology or nation building; we were addressing a threat recognized at the time by all the best intelligence agencies in the world as 'grave and gathering'.  Saddam had attacked four of his neighbors by the time we deposed him, had gassed the Kurds and given financial support to suicide bombers.  The first World Trade Center bombers traveled under Iraqi passports.  What threat?

The lesson AFTER overthrowing Saddam, and after he was hanged after a fair trial, is that if we were going to spend hundreds of billions more and lose thousands more lives in pursuit of stability, don't needlessly squander the gains when we're done.  We didn't abandon Germany or Japan immediately after that 'surge'.  


A couple others (from the right) join my criticism of Trump's foreign policy speech (famous people reading the forum?):

Noah Rothman at Commentary:  After again demonstrating that he doesn’t know what a trade deficit is by contending that it should be balanced “quickly,” he asserted that the world should “look at what China is doing in the South China Sea.” Without defining what that is, he noted: “they’re not supposed to be doing it.” You’ve heard the same turn of phrase from Secretary of State John Kerry when he’s utterly flummoxed by the actions of American adversaries and has no way to counter them.  https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/trumps-flawed-foreign-policy/

Charles Krauthammer:  "His foreign policy speech is an incoherent jumble of contradictory ideas."
"Trump...is inconsistent and often contradictory. He pledged to bring stability to the Middle East. How do you do that without presence, risk and expenditures (financial and military)?"

"More incoherent still is Trump’s insistence on being unpredictable. An asset perhaps in real estate deals, but in a Hobbesian world American allies rely on American consistency, often as a matter of life or death."

"Trump’s scripted, telepromptered speech was intended to finally clarify his foreign policy. It produced instead a jumble. The basic principle seems to be this: Continue the inexorable Obama-Clinton retreat, though for reasons of national self-interest, rather than of national self-doubt. And except when, with studied inconsistency, he decides otherwise."
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-world-donald-trump-article-1.2617950

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
VDH on Trump phenomenon
« Reply #968 on: May 03, 2016, 05:40:29 AM »
Some good points and succinct conclusions though he concludes that Trump is akin to Samson who will pull the column on the Right down and the column on the LEFT down on us, the Philistines with everyone dying in the process.  I agree that is the risk, though concluding that is the future definitive outcome is fortune telling. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434807/donald-trump-his-supporters

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Trump links Cruz's dad to Lee Harvey Oswald
« Reply #969 on: May 03, 2016, 10:57:39 AM »
second post

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/05/03/donald-trump-just-linked-rafael-cruz-to-lee-harvey-oswald-transcript/

=============================================================================


Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican-party front-runner:

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.
A Cruz campaign spokesperson told the Miami Herald, which pointed out numerous flaws in the Enquirer story, that it was “another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage.”

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being -- you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”
The Miami Herald notes, with almost comical understatement, “The explosive suggestion that Cruz’s father would have had any affiliation with Oswald is not corroborated in any other way.

Where are the Republican elected officials willing to say, “This is stupid”? This is a stupid argument from a stupid man, too stupid to support, too stupid to serve as commander-in-chief and the leader of the free world. And if you believe that Ted Cruz’s father was tied to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, you’re stupid, too.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 04:05:06 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #970 on: May 03, 2016, 06:52:31 PM »
Like I said....

[youtube]FahA3C8Xpqo[/youtube]

On a positive note.... going for a passport at the end of next week.... you all will be able to beat me for this in either a couple weeks or months.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 06:56:36 PM by DDF »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Trump links Cruz's dad to Lee Harvey Oswald
« Reply #971 on: May 04, 2016, 06:58:29 AM »
There are a number of things to note about this.  One is photoshop, second, the source is the enquirer.  Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't known to be the assassin of JFK a week before the assassination.  Rafael Cruz is not a bad guy, he is pro-American, anti Castro, this doesn't expose something helpful to know about him.  He had an alcoholic past, who knows where he was hanging out in his darker years.

But worst of all is the timing, a minute before the clinching primary.  Did Trump need this to win?  There was no time to respond.  There is no way to respond, the official report is still under seal, and this was an attack against family.

Is the problem with Cruz that he is he is a liar, as painted by Trump?  No.  Is it that his family has dark, anti-American connections?  No.  Is Rubio too short?  I think he played college football.  Is Carly too ugly?  Still has a pretty nice figure for a lady in her sixties, and an amazing success story.  And so on.  The guy is a walking and talking distraction.  Did his advisers hand hm this and tell him to run with it?  No.  This is a peak into his own little brain.

I heard Trump on the radio yesterday during the Indiana primary talking about what is wrong with the economy in Indiana.  Carrier is leaving for Mexico apparently because we don't have enough taxes, regulations or penalties on leaving.  So he is going to slap a 35% tax on the selling of their air conditioners back here after they leave.  But it would be the consumer here who would pay that tax, not the manufacturer there.  No matter.  He wouldn't have the power as President to do that.  No matter.  It violates the constitution to target a company.  No matters.  It would violate Reagan's hemisphere wide vision of a free trade zone written in law in NAFTA.  No matter.  He opposes Nafta anyway.  It is a ratified and binding treaty.  No matter.  It was badly negotiated.  But it was the Americans who got all the tariffs removed from selling into Mexico; we already had super low tariffs.  No matter.

So what is the matter with the economy in Indiana after 7 years of Obama?  A serious answer is topic for another post and my view is all over these threads.  Suffice it to say that none of the real problems came up when Trump was asked and none of the real solutions were advanced.

I disagree with his view of the economy.  I disagree with his view of foreign policy.  I disagree with his view of the constitution.  And there are no remaining alternatives on 'our' side.  Is Trump better than Obama or Hillary Clinton?  What a miserably low standard to be the last question remaining 6 months before a Presidential election!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Trump and the silencing of the generals
« Reply #972 on: May 04, 2016, 07:22:23 AM »
Trump: Generals should be barred from talking to the press. The Presumptive Republican nominee for president doesn’t think the military should tell the American people what they’re doing, or why they’re doing it. And he sure doesn’t want generals on television.

Speaking in Indiana on Monday, Donald Trump said, “I don't want [generals] saying things like ‘our nation has never been so ill-prepared.’ Even though it's true.” He added, “I don't want our generals on television. I will prohibit them.” Trump also flashed his grasp of history, telling his audience, “you think Gen. George Patton or Gen. Douglas MacArthur, do you think they'd be on television saying about how weak we are? Number one, they wouldn't be on television because they'd be knocking the hell out of the enemy and they wouldn't have time.”

For sure. If there’s one thing that we know about generals Patton and MacArthur, it’s how much they hated any hint of self-promotion or media attention.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Trump and the silencing of the generals
« Reply #973 on: May 04, 2016, 08:33:18 AM »
Trump: Generals should be barred from talking to the press. The Presumptive Republican nominee for president doesn’t think the military should tell the American people what they’re doing, or why they’re doing it. And he sure doesn’t want generals on television.

Speaking in Indiana on Monday, Donald Trump said, “I don't want [generals] saying things like ‘our nation has never been so ill-prepared.’ Even though it's true.” He added, “I don't want our generals on television. I will prohibit them.” Trump also flashed his grasp of history, telling his audience, “you think Gen. George Patton or Gen. Douglas MacArthur, do you think they'd be on television saying about how weak we are? Number one, they wouldn't be on television because they'd be knocking the hell out of the enemy and they wouldn't have time.”

For sure. If there’s one thing that we know about generals Patton and MacArthur, it’s how much they hated any hint of self-promotion or media attention.


Facepalm**

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #974 on: May 04, 2016, 09:32:39 AM »
In my very humble opinion now is NOT the time for conservatives to turn away from Trump.  Some posting just the opposite - that now is the time to distinguish conservatism from Trump.

I think the best thing IS engagement between Trump and conservatives.  That is the only way we can influence his thought and moving forward.  We may be able to influence him.  We know we will not influence the uncompromising left.

Time to rally around the party's leader  (what a weird thought - Trump!?!?%#!*@) boys.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Wow
« Reply #975 on: May 04, 2016, 05:18:14 PM »

 :-o   Rush :  in my gut Trump wins in landslide in Nov:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/05/04/my_gut_trump_beats_hillary_in_landslide

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Ann Coulter called it!
« Reply #976 on: May 04, 2016, 08:35:13 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #977 on: May 05, 2016, 07:21:38 AM »
She sure did!  PP from this board did too.  I wonder how he is doing?

She would have been right about Sanders too, if not for the 'bought and paid for' super delegates that are part of the Democrat mafia machine.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump. Some other viewpoint.
« Reply #978 on: May 05, 2016, 12:32:18 PM »
In my very humble opinion now is NOT the time for conservatives to turn away from Trump.  Some posting just the opposite - that now is the time to distinguish conservatism from Trump.

I think the best thing IS engagement between Trump and conservatives.  That is the only way we can influence his thought and moving forward.  We may be able to influence him.  We know we will not influence the uncompromising left.

Time to rally around the party's leader  (what a weird thought - Trump!?!?%#!*@) boys.

A different view.  Now ends the best time for Trump to rally conservatives and conservatism.  Trump opened with a great head fake right on immigration.  Ever since has been saying he doesn't need any of us, has his own coalition, distrusts the party, etc.

Here we go again, nominating a RINO. That's his own description, having no ties to the party beyond the R by his name.  We went through this with McCain and Romney most recently.  Right before the election they remember they neglected to lock down the conservative vote and try to reach right when they need to reach to the center.   One way to sweep conservatives votes is to be one.   Another way is to fake it.  

Strange that it was the Trumpests who first declared that we aren't going to settle or sell out this time.  We've done that too many times before and been burned every time.  People like Boehner and McConnell were telling us we have no choice but to support them or it will be Hillary Clinton and the Dems in power.  What did Donald Trump do when faced with those choices?  He gave to Pelosi-Reid-Clinton-Obama of course.  That was because of a pending project in NY??

I would rather have Democrats raise taxes than Republicans do it.  I would rather have Democrats grow government than let Republicans do it.  I would rather have Democrats advance trade protectionism than have Republicans do it.  I would rather see Democrats treat Palestinian terrorists and Israelis as moral equivalents than see Republicans do that.  I would rather see Democrats advance crony government takings and appoint justices that invent a pro-choice right than see Republicans do it.  I would rather see Democrats abuse executive privilege and executive orders than see Republicans do it.

If this is the new Republicanism and conservatism, you can call mine, 'some other viewpoint'.

The time for Trump to tell conservatives how conservative he is has passed.  In my view, he failed.

He knocked out the others in the field at the expense of alienating their supporters, not by trying to woo them over.  That was his choice.  Others were more cautious and lost.  Those who chose Trump knew what they were getting and not getting.  They are getting the person with the highest disapprovals.  They won't be getting 100% turnout from those who have to hold their nose to vote and be told this awful smell is better than something else even worse.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 12:47:24 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #979 on: May 05, 2016, 12:52:22 PM »
"Ever since has been saying he doesn't need any of us, has his own coalition, distrusts the party, etc."

I am not so sure.  From what I have seen the last week is he is starting to come around to the Republicans more generally.  "a 40% chance" his VP pick could be one of his opponents.

OTOH , was it Pat Caddell who actually said he may be converting the Republican Party from a conservative (or a faux conservative party in the last 25 yrs) to a populist party.


" Being told this awful distaste is better than something even worse is a lousy campaign slogan."

I don't disagree Doug.  I started out very intrigued by Trump and initially was willing to look past his personality, vulgarity, crudeness, and deviations from conservatism.  Then as time went on I found him very tough to palate. 
Yet I really do like some of his themes. 

Whether we like it or not we are with either him or Hillary.  I would pick him over her.  I think some on the right may not just sit back and let her take over hoping everything will crash and burn leaving the door open for a real conservative in 4 to 8 years.   I don't wish for that.  He is big risk but he does seem to have some loyalty to those who support him.  So sucking it up seems to me the best bet to influence him and keep him on the right.


DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #980 on: May 05, 2016, 12:55:36 PM »

Whether we like it or not we are with either him or Hillary.  I would pick him over her.  I think some on the right may not just sit back and let her take over hoping everything will crash and burn leaving the door open for a real conservative in 4 to 8 years.   I don't wish for that. 

Exactly so.... and I do.

What in the hell is that Hindu goddess? Shiva? Destroy everything with one hand and create with the other? 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #981 on: May 05, 2016, 01:09:27 PM »
Newt for VP?  Some think he fits because of his experience would support Trumps success.  I like Newt but I don't like him for VP.  He is too much of a lightening rod and he also has demonstrated
some flaws that always seem to crop up.  We don't need that.

I would like Rubio (though obvious issues between the Trump and him that make this problematic)

Maybe Cruz.  Definitely NOT Kasich.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #982 on: May 05, 2016, 01:28:54 PM »
Trump needs someone to round out his skill set.  But for the fact he is an anus, Kasich has a great resume in this regard.

Cruz would add nothing, indeed would arouse the secular humanist bigots.

Rubio, appeal to the Latino vote?  Maybe , , , but hard to nominate a guy who said you had , , , little fingers.

I have always liked Newt (see the substantial thread on this forum) but not sure what he would add in the way of getting votes.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #983 on: May 05, 2016, 09:06:38 PM »
Trump needs someone to round out his skill set.  But for the fact he is an anus, Kasich has a great resume in this regard.

Cruz would add nothing, indeed would arouse the secular humanist bigots.

Rubio, appeal to the Latino vote?  Maybe , , , but hard to nominate a guy who said you had , , , little fingers.

I have always liked Newt (see the substantial thread on this forum) but not sure what he would add in the way of getting votes.

I like Kasich as a prediction, not as a choice of mine.  Sort of a Biden 2.0.  He's been around the block, if he gaffes, he's just old John Kasich.

Cruz doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.

Rubio?  To me, that is sort of the Dole Kemp thing.  Rubio won't be at his best trying to defend Trump.  If they were on the same page policy wise, and they both wanted to make it work, they could overcome the personal differences.  But they aren't and they won't.  Rubio doesn't bring Trump Hispanics.  I don't see why Trump would think he needs Rubio to carry Florida when he just trounced him there.  In that sense, Kasich is more valuable.  Trump didn't win Ohio.

Of the vetted 17, I like Carson, but it won't be him either.  That would be bold and out of the box.   He doesn't have a black following but he would be hard for those who are tired of failed liberalism to ignore.

I hear good and bad with Susanna Martinez, check the boxes for woman, Hispanic and small swing state.  I don't see Trump taking a Palin-like risk on a newcomer to the national scene.  No one has a better record than Rick Perry and the national scene didn't work for him.

Look through Trump's eyes.  While we hope for the best successor, that isn't how he sees it.  He doesn't need a successor or help in governing, he needs to get elected.  It isn't who gives the best speech; it's who delivers the best attack.  Enter Chris Christie, I'm sorry to say.  He is the prosecutor who can prosecute Hillary.  He took down Trump's biggest rival, Rubio.  Fully vetted, he is last of the two term governors.  Christie won't deliver NJ but he will make Hillary's life a living hell across the country and throughout the media, and that is the VP nominee's purpose - in Trump's humble opinion..


« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 09:13:16 PM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Who could have seen this coming? Drumpf begins to morph already , , ,
« Reply #985 on: May 06, 2016, 08:11:12 AM »
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5486/4-signs-last-24-hours-trump-suckered-conservatives-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=020616-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot

Talking out of both sides of his mouth is what he does.  Don't knock it - Obama won two terms.  That's why I'm not begging to suddenly hear conservative lip service mixed in.  It doesn't mean anything.  If this gets him elected and then he governs well, great, but he will never be my someone I proudly identify with.  The unknown of Trump is better than Hillary or Barack and that's as far as it goes.

He doesn't need my support until Nov 8 and doesn't need it then either because he has no plans to make my state a swing state.  Another consideration is that I am a contrary indicator.  The direction I think a Presidential election should turn is typically opposite of how it does.  (See my bet with ccp that Hillary won't run, won't be nominated, etc.)  I believe this election is all about getting things right on issues and communicating more clearly.  In fact, chaos and confusion is selling best.  What are Hillary's care values, while were at it.  Same as Trump's.  Get herself in power at all costs.  After that, stay in power.  What will Barack miss most of the Presidency, he was asked: Air Force One.  Not leading the greatest country in the world, but to command that kind of power for himself.  Trump already has a jet, but the concept is the same.

While Trump flirts with people who want the government setting private sector wages, and flirts with the tax hikers, trade protectionists, Bernie supporters, big government Democrats and moderates, he can keep in mind that, like others before him, he never locked down the conservative base.  As Elizabeth Warren would say with total sarcasm, good for him.  Put another way, f. you Donald Trump.  )


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #987 on: May 07, 2016, 04:30:50 AM »
Well, it's an interesting thought.
China or Europe would probably move in.
Dollar replaced by Euro or Yuan?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #988 on: May 07, 2016, 04:36:22 AM »
Well, it's an interesting thought.
China or Europe would probably move in.
Dollar replaced by Euro or Yuan?

Europe isn't in any condition to do anything. China's ability to project power outside of Asia is limited, except for cyberwar. We might be in for prolonged power outages if they were pissed off. Although this might make a gold backed yuan the new global currency.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #989 on: May 07, 2016, 03:26:45 PM »
Well IMHO it is not an "interesting thought", it is a profoundly stupid and ignorant thought of the sort the Peronists of Argentina have used to destroy the Argentinian economy various times.

Anyway, here is this piece of Trump propaganda:  https://www.facebook.com/politicalq/videos/1781655088788269/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #992 on: May 08, 2016, 08:24:57 AM »
“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
   - Full faith and credit of the US government takes on new meaning.  [No meaning]

"Dollar replaced by Euro or Yuan?"

"...not an "interesting thought"[Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less], it is a profoundly stupid and ignorant thought of the sort the Peronists of Argentina have used to destroy the Argentinian economy various times."

"this might make a gold backed yuan the new global currency"
-----------------------------------------------------------

If a currency was truly gold backed, would it matter what country issued it?

Yes, Europe and China are in worse shape at the moment and would be pulled down with us if we collapsed.

As we move toward all transactions being electronic and immediately convertible back to any other currency, is there really going to be a 'world currency' of the future?

Yes, Trump's idea is profoundly stupid, yet we are devaluing our debt continuously at a targeted rate of 2% per year - while we continue to add to it. 

Other than having to borrow in some other country's currency, aren't we already following quite closely with the rest of our policies in the footsteps of Peron-Argentina, Chavez-Venezuela, and the other third world failures that could be and should be first-rate economies?

Yet Trump would mostly copy failure the way I hear him.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #993 on: May 08, 2016, 09:17:47 AM »
In that Trump opposes entitlement reform (yes, yes the issue that Chris Christie ran on-- but I digress) he profoundly adds to the likelihood of such a scenario.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, 11 states just flipped to the Dems
« Reply #994 on: May 08, 2016, 09:42:26 AM »
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/06/11-states-flip-toward-democrats-in-latest-cook-political-report-analysis/

11 states flip toward Democrats in latest Cook Political Report analysis

MN doesn't count in the 11 even though Rubio was leading Hillary here.

Saying 'I told you so' to conservative leaning Trumpists isn't very satisfying.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Truth or Dare with Drumpf
« Reply #995 on: May 08, 2016, 03:11:16 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Truth or Dare with Drumpf
« Reply #996 on: May 08, 2016, 03:24:44 PM »
"Pat points out that the Cook poll did not predict his victory."

It isn't the pollster, it's the people who are polled that are saying this.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #997 on: May 08, 2016, 06:00:32 PM »
I think Trump's theme could be to make and keep America great again vs the Democrat/liberal/leftist party them which is get rid of the United States and make the world all into one nation.

one world socialist government vs America as it has always been.

A theme based on this could appeal to most people in the country. 

I think......

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
VDH hits another grandslam
« Reply #998 on: May 09, 2016, 05:01:40 AM »
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435138/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-conservatives-never-trump-2016

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON   May 9, 2016 4:00

What do conservatives do when there is no conservative candidate? I watched Donald Trump serially blast apart all my preferred candidates — Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz — as if for sport they were sent up in succession as clay pigeons. And now the November Rubicon — vote for Donald Trump, or stay home and de facto vote for Hillary Clinton — is uncomfortably close. Most of the arguments pro and con have been aired ad nauseam. The choice is difficult for principled conservatives, because no sooner should they decide to vote for Trump than Trump will surely say something outrageous, cruel, or crude that would ostensibly now have their imprimatur on it. And note, this matters to conservatives much more than it does to liberals. Few Obama supporters at Harvard or the Ford Foundation or the New York Times worried much in 2008 that their candidate had dismissed his own generous grandmother as a “typical white person” or that he tried to get away with airbrushing out the obscene Reverend Wright and mythologized his close friendships with reprobates like Bill Ayers and Father Michael Pfleger. Aside from his dubious political loyalties, Trump persists in being mean-spirited. He seems uninformed on many of the issues, especially those in foreign policy; he changes positions, contradicts himself within a single speech, and uses little more than three adjectives (tremendous, great, and huge). But the problem with many of these complaints is that they apply equally to both the current president and the other would-be next president. When Hillary Clinton, playing to the green vote, bragged that she would put miners out of work, and then, when confronted with an out-of-work miner, backtracked and lied about her earlier boast, we had a refined version of Trump’s storytelling. The Clinton Foundation’s skullduggery and Hillary’s e-mail shenanigans seem to trump the Trump University con — and involve greater harm to the nation. Her combination of greedy Wall Street, for-profit schmoozing and paint-by-the-numbers progressivism is repulsive. Trump’s cluelessness about the nuclear triad is a lowbrow version of Barack Obama’s ignorance, whether seeking to Hispanicize the Falklands into the Maldives (wrong exotic-sounding, politically correct foreign archipelago, Mr. President), or mispronouncing “corpsman,” or riffing about those Austrian-speaking Austrians; or perhaps of Hillary Clinton’s flat-out lie about the causes of Benghazi, hours after she had learned the truth. I don’t think reset, Libya, Benghazi, red lines to Assad, step-over lines to Putin, and deadlines to Iran attest to Clinton’s foreign-policy savvy. It is easy to be appalled by crude ignorance, but in some ways it is more appalling to hear ignorance layered and veneered with liberal pieties and snobbery. The choice in 2016 is not just between Trump, the supposed foreign-policy dunce, and an untruthful former secretary of state, but is also a matter of how you prefer your obtuseness — raw or cooked? Who has done the greater damage to the nation: would-be novelist and Obama insider Ben Rhodes, who boasted about out-conning the “Blob” D.C. establishment, or bare-knuckles Trumpster Corey Lewandowski? Neither Jefferson, Lincoln, nor Reagan is on this year’s ballot. So voters must deal with realities as well as principles. Neither Jefferson, Lincoln, nor Reagan is on this year’s ballot. So voters must deal with realities as well as principles. Note as well that so-called Republican elites really did help to create Trump: On matters of illegal immigration, offshoring and outsourcing, huge deficits, trade, and political correctness, many conservative pundits, handlers, and politicians sounded about the same as their liberal counterparts. When they debated on TV, it was like listening to two divorce lawyers; in the green room, would they sip bottled water and swap stories about their crazy clients? I recently watched Fox’s star anchor Megyn Kelly, in fawning fashion, interview firebrand Michael Moore as if he were a genuine documentarian. Moore praised Kelly to the skies, and engaged in jocular buddy joshing about her post-Fox career plans, before he waxed on in magnanimous style about how he had felt poor George W. Bush was simply incompetent rather than malicious. His disingenuous mush went unquestioned. Yet Moore remains a reprobate who after 9/11 thundered: “If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California — these were the places that voted against Bush.” Of the American dead in Iraq, he once gloated, “I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” Michael Moore cuddles on Fox the way Al Sharpton goes to the Oval Office. What is the difference? In the last five years, I have attended perhaps a dozen lectures by various establishment politicians and pundits (who supposedly believe in the “rule of law”) in which they pompously lectured down to their conservative audience that illegal immigration was a minor problem for the rube wing of the Republican party but for the enlightened was mostly an opportunity to win pro-family new voters. These are politicians and pundits whose children go to private schools, who live in apartheid communities, and whose experience with illegal aliens, to the degree it exists, is via a housecleaner or landscaper. Another dilemma hinges not on the omnipresence of crudity but on how one prefers to have it presented — delivered in a chartreuse monster truck, or by Tesla? One is the gutter sort — besmirching John McCain’s war record, or fibbing about releasing tax returns, or bragging about rank adultery; the other is dressed up with sonorous cadences about why you must be the first presidential candidate to reject campaign-financing-reform rules in the general election, when you vowed you would be the most transparent candidate in history (as you hid both your medical records and your university transcripts and became Wall Street’s most endowed cash recipient). When Obama later was forced to admit that his autobiographical memoir was mostly fiction, or when Bill Clinton was revealed to have jetted around with convicted sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, or when Obama invites as an honored White House guest a rapper whose latest album cover glorifies homies on the White House lawn gloating over the corpse of a white judge at their feet, I think we long ago eroded any notion of presidential decorum. The honest and quite legitimate argument against Trump on this count is the one we never hear: that instead of offering a corrective to the present crudity, he might continue to erode the dignity of the office in the manner of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Even Trump, however, could hardly do more damage with the Iranians than did Obama’s in-house wannabe novelist, Ben Rhodes, who, in the twilight of his one and only policy career, now brags how he misled the Congress and the public by easily salting the media field with phony nuggets of expertise and punditry. The point is that we are worried about Armageddon on the Trump horizon while we are living amid the Apocalypse. No one today much worries that in the 2008 campaign Obama smeared the working classes of Pennsylvania, revved up his supporters in Philadelphia (“folks in Philly like a good brawl”) to bring their guns to a knife fight, and urged others to “get in their face,” and quite unapologetically lied about his supposedly sporadic presence in front of Reverend Wright’s racist and anti-Semitic pulpit — after earlier bragging in a Chicago newspaper interview about his perfect attendance. Few cared about the felon Tony Rezko’s sweetheart discounted sale of backyard real estate to the Obamas — an academic’s downscaled version of something like Trump Steaks. If anyone knows of another case of an obscure underdog Senate candidate suddenly surging ahead of, first, his favored primary opponent and, later, his favored general-election opponent — after both had the details of their sealed divorce and custody records mysteriously leaked — please cite a parallel. Trump is, of course, spring-loaded; he has no safety and can go off at any time. Trump is, of course, spring-loaded; he has no safety and can go off at any time. But whether he is amnestied like Obama or Biden will depend on his ability to limit his insanity to weekly rather than daily outbursts or to dress up his gaffes and blunders in nasal tones in the style of liberal grandees. No one knows how to square the Trump circle of cleaning up his act without ruining it — only that the circle has to be squared.  So, the issue for conservatives in November is twofold: One, would a Trump presidency represent a new ethical and cultural low; that is, would he say and do things far beyond what we have come to contextualize and excuse from the Clintons or Barack Obama? In this regard, I grant that how one expresses one’s cruelty — coarsely or with double-entendres and snark — matters in our shallow and media-driven culture. Whether a plagiarist or fabulist ends up wrist-slapped like Fareed Zakaria, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Maureen Dowd or fades like Jason Blair and Stephen Glass, or whether a bad racist joke about CP (“colored people”) is repulsive or merely out there, depends entirely on your buzz and what you represent — and whether you are Hillary Clinton or not. Two, would Trump’s convention-stamped agenda be more or less conservative than that of Hillary Clinton? Trump is certainly no conservative, and he has moved the Republican party leftward in some areas; Hillary’s latest progressive personification is beyond liberal, and has moved the Democratic party much further leftward in all areas. Or, to put it another way, whose most recent opportunistic incarnation now seems the more conservative on matters of illegal immigration, budgeting, defense, domestic spending, and foreign affairs? Not voting for Trump is not just like voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 but rather like voting for a 12- or 16-year continuation of Obamism. There is also a 30–70 chance that Trump might recalibrate his candidacy in the next six months. It may be easy to continue with the Never Trump movement as long as he daily spins his conspiracy theories and tall tales. But what happens to conservative resistance if by August he has reinvented himself into a more sober Trump and announced that if elected he’d like to appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court, John Bolton as secretary of state, Larry Arnn as secretary of education, and General Jack Keane as secretary of defense? Will we say that it is just a ploy to get our votes, or confess that it is a shameless, naked ploy that is still preferable to the likely Clinton alternative? And what happens if even his more outrageous promises are reified with not-so-outrageous details: Making Mexico pay for the wall could easily be accomplished by slapping a 10 percent federal surcharge on all remittances sent out of the country by those who cannot document legal residence; rejecting the Iran treaty could be couched in terms of reviewing how Ben Rhodes deceived both the public and the media in unconstitutionally rerouting the treaty around Congress. There are six long months to go in what has already become a reckless, grueling, and unpredictable campaign between two iffy candidates. By the time of the election, Hillary Clinton will be 69, she has health problems, and she is mired in a host of scandals, from the shakedowns of the Clinton Foundation to a possible federal reprimand or indictment over her reckless use of her private e-mail server for State Department business; Donald Trump is a year older, with a trail of business controversies, and he is capable of saying anything at any time. Amid that dilemma, my suggestion is to curb the hysteria about “Never Trump,” while watching him closely over the rest of the spring and early summer, in the context of assessing, not whether he is a humane and principled conservative, but whether he is, as alleged by some conservatives, really less conservative and less humane than Hillary Clinton. The Reagan horse left the 2016 conservative barn many months ago, and it is coming to be time to pause and assess whether we are really left with only two bad choices — or with a bad Trump and a far, far worse Clinton. If it is the latter, then it is an easy choice in November. — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435138/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-conservatives-never-trump-2016

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Truth or Dare with Drumpf, Trump is -46% with suburban women
« Reply #999 on: May 09, 2016, 05:34:40 PM »
http://cookpolitical.com/file/AW.3.05.png

"Pat points out that the Cook poll did not predict his victory."

It isn't the pollster, it's the people who are polled that are saying this.

67% of suburban women view Trump unfavorably. 

Is it Cook or suburban women saying that?

"Trump is viewed negatively by 67 percent of suburban women and 63 percent of white women."
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9588

This is not the first impression of an unknown.  It is a studied reaction after 12 months of wall to wall coverage of a guy already the most well-known in the country.

I suppose it is so 2012 to think suburban women decide Presidential elections.