President Trump

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html?emc=edit_na_20160518&nlid=49641193&ref=cta

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.hotgas.net/2016/05/we-are-the-trump-americans/

[DougMacG]

Buchanan is NOT a great guy in my opinion, there have been repeated whiffs of antisemitism from him over the years.

Agreed.

[G M]

https://www.hotgas.net/2016/05/we-are-the-trump-americans/

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM[/youtube]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

[DougMacG]

https://www.hotgas.net/2016/05/we-are-the-trump-americans/

I read it but I am still wondering who are the Trump Americans.  It seemed quite general and fluffy.  Motherhood and apple pie but no new data.

I read the agenda and it omitted every objection I have had with the candidate which are rather numerous.*  Can we vote for only the good stuff mentioned?

Is this hope and Change again only under the words Make America Great Again?  Blank easel offered, paint your own picture on it?  Will he build a bridge to the 21st century too?

*  No word about ending rule by executive order and returning to coequal branches of government.
    No word about reform or an end to unconstitutional private takings.  Yes I'm still stuck on this as he has doubled down against me and against constitutional limits on government
    No word on trade protectionism.  This is a divisive question even if the easily deceived support depression era policies.
    No word on minimum wage where he has been all over the map, mostly with the big government planners and controllers.
   The last big government conservative was G.W. Bush.  Trump is offering big government without the conservatism?
    No word on whether he ever thought about a different plan to counter Saddam in Iraq while he would have left him in power, supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons.
    No clarification of whether the written plan with tax rate decreases is his tax plan or if the spoken one with tax rate increases supersedes that.  
    No backtracking on previous namecalling of those he now wants or doesn't want for allies.  Is Carly still ugly?  Was Ted really the biggest liar?  Was Marco too short?  Was Megyn bleeding out of her wherever?  Did McCain serve his country badly?  Did any of these ugly episodes serve to bring down the general level of discourse?
    No coverage of the Chris Christie bailout plan where we found out payback was part of the secret backroom deal that got him nominated.
    Did Nafta really cost us jobs?
    Do the Chinese manipulate their currency any worse than we do?
    Does he now know Quds from Kurds?  Nuclear triad?
    This one from GM, does he know which is the bad Korea?
    Is there a new reason we should get excited about the lesser of two evils - that has happened "too many times"?
    Should we vote for him for winning, even if the principles that would win aren't our own - or what will make America great again?
    If he is so great at winning, why does he need anyone's vote!
    
    

[G M]

Trump Americans=makes scientologists look like a meeting of a skeptic's group.

[ppulatie]

I am chuckling at your reviews, no, I am laughing at them. 

The purpose of an article is to communicate a thought to a specific group of people. A technical article requires one type of writing, a “sophisticated” elitist requires another style of writing. And reaching a specific demographic like the middle class requires another distinctive style of writing.

This article was designed to reach the common, middle class person who has been fed the same crap that I have heard time and again about supporting Trump. It was not designed to give “full-throated” defenses of Trump to people who are “my betters”, to people who will only vote for Trump because the alternative is too “unthinkable”.

The article was written to deliver an emotional message.

1.   People supporting Trump are not alone. There are millions of people experiencing the same attacks and denigration and we stand together.

2.   The use of the term Americans in its many instances was deliberate and specific. Where the elitists use Nationalism as a degrading term, I used the term Americans to deliver a specific definition that was identified by each section and the photos that were used.  American in this case meant Patriotic.  Seems that the people reading the article caught on to that.

3.   The use of the WW2 photo of Americans at Omaha Beach was to show that the people who support Trump are the same ones that time and again, have risked their lives for an ideal, a uniquely American ideal.

4.   The Red Cross photo and the catastrophes that we respond to across the world represented the American spirit of generosity and the propensity to lend a hand wherever needed, at home or abroad.

5.   The At Home Section represented the people supporting Trump were the same people that you see every day in cities and communities. These are the people who make up the communities, who are the people who hold them together. They are the people who you will find at the core of any successful community.

6.   The All We Ask section was self-explanatory. As was what we want.

The message that I delivered was that the people who support Trump want a return to American Values from the 50’s and 60’s. Reagan values, Love of Family, Country, Community and God. We want a financially responsible country where people once again become dependent upon themselves and not the government.

With the supporters, there will be differences, represented by Pro Choice or Pro Life. But those positions do not adversely affect the underlying values that we seek a return to.

I realize that what I wrote did not meet your standards, but I don’t give a damn. You were not my target audience.

I wrote this to a specific demographic which represents the majority of the people in this country, the upper lower class, the middle class person and upper middle class people. These are the people that will Make America Great Again, not the insufferable upper class who believe themselves to be smarter and wiser than anyone else.

BTW, as to Cruz, the guy all of you loved, why don’t you check out his religion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

Read it and you realize that he was the Christians own version of Islam where religious leaders were the only ones fit to rule. Pathetic.

And as I post this, I see GM has commented again. Now I am truly pissed off. I came back just for the last couple of days, and I get this crap.

Well, I am truly through with posting here.

And GM, go fuck yourself, you arrogant bastard.

Now, CD you can ban me. I don't care because I won't be back.

[DougMacG]

Pat, I don't expect to change your mind: I never have. With due respect, I think you're operating with a little double standard here. Both you and Trump freely insulted other candidates, with  humor, then take offense when it comes back.

On the first part, I see your point that you were appealing to a certain audience with emotion. I read the comments and I think you were successful.

A different argument is needed for this group.

PS,  I was for Rubio, not Cruz.

[DougMacG]

"the insufferable upper class who believe themselves to be smarter and wiser than anyone else."

That retort was probably easier than addressing my specific objections,  where I find him wrong on economic policy, lacking on foreign policy, and oblivious to constitutional limits on government.

[DougMacG]

"a specific demographic which represents the majority of the people in this country, the upper lower class, the middle class person and upper middle class people. These are the people that will Make America Great Again, not the insufferable upper class"

I will leave this alone shortly, but once again it is all about class and the politics of division - not unlike what has been used so successfully by the Dems.

I respectfully disagree.  Correction, I vehemently disagree.  There aren't groups or classes that will make us great again, and others that will not.  Nor do the patriots mentioned in the article fall neatly in those classes.

"The majority of the people in this country, the upper lower class, the middle class person and upper middle class people" include Suzette Kelo, Vera Coking and are exactly the people who a new round of regressive tariffs will hit the hardest.  Attention Walmart shoppers, prices are going up by 45% in aisles 1-247 if you believe what is said in campaign rhetoric.

"Insufferable" (upper class), meaning intolerable, unbearable, unendurable, insupportable, unacceptable, oppressive, overwhelming, overpowering, conceited, arrogant, boastful, cocky, swaggering.  (Synonyms) As mentioned previously, blaming the boogeyman worked for Dems and worked for that one German leader who used emotion and divisiveness to perfection and nearly ultimate power.  Our problem isn't the economic activity of the upper class; it is the voting pattern of the whole electorate.  And this solves that how?

The GOPe is now Trump and the old guard are now GOPformerE.  Trump cut the back room deals with Christie, Carson, Palin, Jindal and whoever he needed to crowd the field and then clear it.  Trump is the one who sets the platform, picks the VP, picks the Supreme Court nominees (if he wins).  Trump decides if Paul Ryan runs the convention and who speaks on which nights for how long.  Trump lines up the sponsors, works the donors and buddies up with wall street, or not.  Trump overthrew the (non-existent) establishment.  Now he IS the establishment.  And guess what?  We get to criticize.  That's what people out of power do.  It's all we have left with no candidate and no path forward.

"Trump Americans=makes scientologists look like a meeting of a skeptic's group."  - That was over the top while everything Trump said, bleeding out of her wherever, was Presidential?  Good grief.

[G M]

"PatrickPu Basileus • a day ago
Thank you all for the kind words. I have just so abused, put upon, denigrated and simply castigated by the "elites" and those who are anti-american that I just had to put this together.

We are different that the Reagan Democrats because we encompass so many different groups. Rep, Dems, Indies, we are it. We are the Trump Americans and damned proud of it."

 

[G M]

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/GTY_trump_wedding_clintons_jef_150806_16x9_992.jpg

There is a club. We aren't in it.

[DougMacG]

GM:  "There is a club. We aren't in it."

If I am an "upper class elite", this economy is in worse shape than we knew!


PP: "Better to have a Dem in and know I will get screwed than to vote for a GOPe praying that the nominee will win, while knowing that even if he does win, he will go RINO."

"I am not going to vote for Bush, Rubio or any of the others outside of Cruz or Carson. If Bush or the others are pushed down my throat, it doesn't matter because the results will be the same as if Hillary were the President."

No empathy for any of us having Trump 'pushed down our throat'.  Pat has been ripping the other candidates since August, "neutered pigs", "weasel Politicians", "Burn the GOP down!", but feels "just so abused, put upon, denigrated and simply castigated by the "elites" and those who are anti-american" when someone expressing genuine reservations about his chosen one. 

"[Trump] "needs to reduce the personal attacks. It will backfire at some point"

[DougMacG]

Without anyone to defend our nominee, we are stuck with words already posted:

"Doug,
You really need to read the Section on Taxes in his book, Time to Get Tough. It spells out his thoughts on taxation. He cites:
The problems with High Corporate Taxes and overseas issues. ...
For companies who outsource to other countries, 20% tax rate. If they return, 0%
Imports get hit with a 20% "tax".
(To be fair, Trump also eliminates and reduces other taxes.)
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php#4   - Pat P.


Brilliant.  That's what the world economy needs right now, a shutdown of world trade.

To be fair to Smoot Hawley, the Depression triggering legislation raised tariffs on only 20,000 items by only 6.3% to 19.8%.  Trump proposed (in 2011) raising it from 0% to 20% on ALL imports.  

What the "emotional appeal" to replay the Great Depression is, is beyond me.  Can anyone tell me what the US economy looks like without world trade?  (see below only it would be far worse now)  What will security issues look like when Europe, China and Mexico all fall into economic collapse?  That won't hurt the border issue, will it?

Among other ill-conceived miscalculations, is a tax on an activity you are trying to eliminate a reliable revenue source??

On this important economic point, that wasn't an issue, Hillary Clinton has a better track record and appears smarter.  (

"Better to have a Dem in and know I will get screwed than to vote for a [RINO..." and get the same bad policies and results, or worse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who don't like world trade, take a look at our economy without it.  Note that this is a far greater increase and we are far more reliant on trade now than we were then.
U.S. imports decreased 66% from $4.4 billion (1929) to $1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from $5.4 billion to $2.1 billion. GNP fell from $103.1 billion in 1929 to $75.8 billion in 1931 and bottomed out at $55.6 billion in 1933.[20] Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act#Tariff_levels

Note that this was a net "improvement" in our "trade deficit", for you trade deficit hawks.  Imports fell 66%, exports fell *only* 61%!  

GDP (we call it now) fell over 25%!  Probably an unrelated development...

[G M]

Trump=



Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug.

[DougMacG]

Reminiscing about how unfair we were to Trump and his emotional appeal proponents, I recall that nearly all conservative media outlets had to be trashed in order to explain why they weren't jumping on board for Trump.  Hot Air, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Townhall, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, and on and on, all bought and paid for by the establishment, or else why wouldn't they see the brilliance of Great Depression economics and letting Saddam Hussein go nuclear?  In fact, all of the above regularly rip Republicans especially establishment when they go off the track, based on their own published views.

Ripping conservative media to advance a candidate, even when false, case in point:

 Re: Donald Trump   on: September 14, 2015, 04:02:16 PM
Powerline is owned by Salem, which is in the tank for Bush.  - pp
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2551.msg89597#msg89597

Unfortunately, facts are stubborn things.  Paul Mirengoff of Powerline ripped Rubio throughout Gang of 8 more ruthlessly than anyone in media.  I wrote to him multiple times to complain.  John Hinderaker endorsed Rubio, not Bush.  Steven Hayward, the most pro-Trump of the group, doesn't take marching orders from anyone - have you met the guy?  Read his work.  None of them ever supported or endorsed Bush.

In fact, they aren't "owned by Salem", a right wing conservative group, and they weren't in the tank for Bush.  Whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google search for  "Powerlineblog is owned by Salem Communications"

Salem Media Group
Salem Media Group, Inc is an American radio broadcaster, Internet content provider, and ...
Missing: powerlineblog

Power Line
www.powerlineblog.com/
Missing: salem ‎communications
-------------------------------------------

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

[DougMacG]

"Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug."

I know, flaunting my elite public school education.  Like most upper class elites removed from reality, I worked all the way through college, commuted from my parents house to the nearest public university during the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter boom years.  Today, like a lot of ivory tower elites, after a little writing I will go up to north Minneapolis, clean tenant debris and see if I can get a couple of toilets to flush more smoothly - 2 blocks from where Jamar Clark was shot. 
 http://www.startribune.com/No-charges-against-police-in-Jamar-Clark-shooting-death/373979481/#1

Economics is all theoretical to me.  I already have it made, born like George Bush with a silver foot in my mouth.

[G M]

So what you are saying is you weren't smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. Well Trump was! So there!

"Don't try confusing us with your elite arguments, Doug."

I know, flaunting my elite public school education.  Like most upper class elites removed from reality, I worked all the way through college, commuted from my parents house to the nearest public university during the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter boom years.  Today, like a lot of ivory tower elites, after a little writing I will go up to north Minneapolis, clean tenant debris and see if I can get a couple of toilets to flush more smoothly - 2 blocks from where Jamar Clark was shot. 
 http://www.startribune.com/No-charges-against-police-in-Jamar-Clark-shooting-death/373979481/#1

Economics is all theoretical to me.  I already have it made, born like George Bush with a silver foot in my mouth.

[G M]

How Trump Would Deal with the National Debt

 MICHAEL TANNER   May 11, 2016 4:00 AM @MTANNERCATO

The candidate’s various plans range from useless to disastrous. The budget deficit is going up. The Congressional Budget Office recently warned that revenues this year are lower than had been expected. This means that the deficit will almost certainly be higher than the $544 billion previously projected. With our national debt now topping $19.15 trillion and likely to reach $29 trillion by 2026, this is not good news. But don’t worry — Donald Trump has a solution for this growing tide of debt. He just won’t pay it. Last week Trump initially said, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” to pay bondholders less than full value on the debt owed to them. This is, after all, the sort of thing Trump has done with creditors when, say, one of his casinos went bankrupt. It is also more or less what Greece has repeatedly negotiated with its bondholders over the last few years. But the United States is neither Greece nor one of The Donald’s businesses. There wouldn’t be any outside entity to force bondholders to accept less than face value. And a President Trump would have little leverage in any negotiation without threatening a general default. But even the hint of a default would inject an almost unprecedented level of uncertainty into international markets, causing interest rates to spike for all other kinds of debt, from corporate debt to state- and local-government debt. In this maelstrom of uncertainty, liquidity would probably collapse, since financial institutions, in an attempt to reduce their exposure, would be unwilling to make loans. This, in turn, would lead to a huge drop in business investment and consumer spending. It would be like the last economic crisis on steroids. The last country to try this route was Argentina, which defaulted on some of its debt in July 2014. The result wasn’t pretty. The economy was thrown into recession, contracting by 3.5 percent. Inflation spiked to as much as 41 percent. Consumption fell by 4.5 percent. The country was shut out of international markets. It may be years before Argentinians dig their way out of the mess. Oh, and those bondholders who would get screwed under Trump’s proposal? That would be you and me. Roughly 55 percent of government debt is owned by Americans, mostly through their 401(k) or company pension funds. If Trump reduces the value of those bonds, we can say goodbye to our retirement plans. Moreover, in the aftermath of Trump’s “renegotiation,” investors would obviously be reluctant to take a risk on future U.S. bonds; interest rates would need to be higher to offset the increased risk. But every percentage-point increase in interest rates costs the federal government $120 billion in additional interest payments. Thus, in attempting to lower the debt, Trump’s plan could actually end up increasing it. And not that the Constitution matters that much to Trump, but there is a little provision that says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” Faced with the utter implausibility of his idea, Trump quickly traded Greece for Venezuela, saying, “You never have to default because you print the money.” Not since Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin has anyone seriously proposed inflating our way out of debt. Massive inflation would mean that the savings and investments of millions of Americans would be wiped out. The cost of living would skyrocket, and low- and middle-income Americans would find it more difficult to afford even the basic necessities of life. Those on fixed incomes, like senior citizens, would be among the biggest losers. Businesses would be forced to offset rising costs by slashing payrolls, throwing millions of Americans out of work. The cost of imports would rise dramatically, which would be a disaster for consumers, but, on the bright side, it would save Trump the trouble of imposing all those tariff hikes. Eventually, Trump backed into his third position on the issue: He would have the Treasury Department reconfigure U.S. debt by issuing new Treasury bonds to buy back older bonds that trade at slightly lower rates. (Because of quirks in the bond market, investors have a preference for newly issued Treasuries.) Such an approach probably wouldn’t disrupt financial markets. But it also would result in only a minuscule reduction in our total debt, and it would do so by increasing the interest rate the U.S. is paying on that debt, so it would basically just be shuffling things around without actually changing anything. Trump’s rapidly multiplying positions didn’t just display how little he knows about how the U.S. government and the U.S. economy really work. It also underscored the fact that Trump has no plan to reduce the size and cost of government. Yes, he has said he would cut taxes, though he has now repudiated his own tax plan, but he has no plans to cut spending beyond vague promises to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.” In fact, in areas ranging from defense to the VA to border enforcement, he wants to hike spending. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Trump’s plans would add as much as $15.45 trillion to the national debt over ten years, including interest costs. At the same time, Trump has specifically taken reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid off the table. Since those entitlement programs account for half of all federal spending, there is no serious debt-reduction plan that exempts them. In fact, given that those programs face more than $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Trump’s plans would virtually guarantee that we would continue down the same disastrous road to fiscal collapse that we have been taking for the past 15 years. Trump declares himself the ‘king of debt’ and says, ‘I love debt.’ He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Trump declares himself the “king of debt” and says, “I love debt.” He must, since he wants to create so much of it. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is an old-fashioned tax-and-spend Democrat. The CRFB suggests that her proposed $1.8 trillion in new spending over the next ten years would be mostly paid for by new taxes, with other policy proposals like enacting immigration reform making up most of the remaining difference. Others, such as the Tax Foundation, point out that when you consider the reduced economic growth that would result from Hillary’s tax hikes, her spending increases would add roughly $1.2 trillion to the debt over the next decade. Hillary is no fiscal conservative. A Clinton presidency would mean bigger and more costly government, financed by more taxes and, most likely, more debt. That’s bad news. But on this issue, it’s hard to see that she’s worse than Trump. Either way, the American economy and the American people will be the losers. — Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis. You can follow him on Twitter @mtannercato, or on his blog, TannerOnPolicy.com.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt

[Crafty_Dog]

Know that the original on the NRO site has paragraphs!  MUCH easier to read.

In my opinion, this matter of nothing serious on spending restraint/reduction by Trump is a huge and glaring weakness.  He should talk to Christie on this.

[G M]

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2016/05/03/four-reasons-donald-trump-cannot-be-trusted-on-gun-rights/

Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights
By: goldwaterconservative (Diary)  |  May 3rd, 2016 at 05:08 PM  |  2

Many Donald Trump supporters believe that their candidate has genuinely converted to the conservative persuasion. I am not inclined to agree. On the issue of gun rights and the Second Amendment, which is critically important, I believe that Donald Trump cannot be trusted.

Reason 1: Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2000


The policy advocated by Trump in 2000 was not simply an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, he thought about it enough to put it in his book The America We Deserve in preparation for a potential presidential bid. Here is what Trump said:


It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”

Reason 2: Trump has been friends with Michael Bloomberg for over a decade

Nobody in America is more anti-gun than Michael Bloomberg. Nobody has done more personally to attack the Second Amendment than he has.



Reason 3: Trump praised President Obama’s remarks following the Newtown shooting

Below is a real, verified tweet. Click on it, it is real.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/280754630047199232

During his speech, Obama introduced his “even if it saves one child” argument for gun control:

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.

And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

Reason 4: Trump has banned guns on his properties for years

This issue was actually brought up during a debate:

“We called a few Trump resorts, a few Trump properties that do not allow guns with or without a permit. Would you change those policies?” moderator Carl Quintanilla asked.

“I would change them,” Trump tersely replied.

Yet so far the policies haven’t been reversed on Trump properties. “If Donald Trump wants to earn the support of gun owners, he needs to follow through on that promise,” the group’s statement continued.

A number of Trump properties in which the Republican presidential front-runner does still own remain gun-free zones, among them Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, Trump National Gulf Club in Los Angeles and Trump International Hotel Waikiki Beach Walk in Honolulu.

Conclusion:
Do you still trust Donald Trump on the Second Amendment after reading this? All you have is his current word. After his recent claims that convicted rapist Mike Tyson is innocent, and that Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, we know how good is word is.

[ccp]

"Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, "

Any one here about the final conclusion of that published photo? Was that really him in the photo standing near Lee Harvey Oswald after his arrest?

It was implied that was him but was it really?  I never heard whether it was or not.

If it was him in the photo so what.  So he was an anti-Castro guy.

[G M]

utterly unfounded, like most of what Trump says.

"Rafael Cruz was involved with the JFK assassination, "

Any one here about the final conclusion of that published photo? Was that really him in the photo standing near Lee Harvey Oswald after his arrest?

It was implied that was him but was it really?  I never heard whether it was or not.

If it was him in the photo so what.  So he was an anti-Castro guy.

[ccp]

I am not that impressed with the site PP boasts off 'hotgas'.    In any case here is our dilemma.  I have personally decided to back Trump.  Not as a man blind to his his many faults but as a practical matter.   I do understand those who continue to not be able to support him.  We do know what Hillary will do to us.  We do not know what Trump will do for certain   One can argue that we are taking a huge risk in backing him.  I say better to take the risk and try to influence the outcome.  We will have NO influence with Clinton and we know in advance the outcome.  I would like to influence my own destiny rather than be relegated to a back seat, no say, serf who will have everything rammed down my throat.

I just  came back from a cross country flight.  I sit in the seat in the airplane and have to listen to some PC pitch from United airlines about how they are actively recruiting women and all sorts of jobs are available to them .  I then proceed to open a Journal of the American Medical Association (They send it to me for free .  I am not and never have been or plan to be a member) and I first see an article written by some apparently Mexican psychiatrist who tells stories about he is confused for the parking valet while waiting on line for his car at a fancy restaurant with his wife and then speaks of the endless "micro aggressions" because of his ethnicity. 
How these endless micro aggressions lead to PTSD like symptoms etc.  I have to stop and think:
what about the micro aggression to me a white male?  I am sitting there minding my own business bothering no one and I have to be under constant assault all day  long with this PC stuff. 

I don't want Hillary Clinton.  If she gets in we will be hearing about girl power from the second we wake up every single day till we go to sleep.  Trump is the only thing standing in the way of this.  And I don't mean just gender PC I mean the whole onslaught of PC.

I will vote for Trump.  One can call it the choice of the lesser of 2 evils.  I call it no choice:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435671/donald-trump-supporters-principle-conservatives-triumphalism

[G M]

I am still wrestling with this decision. Do I hold my nose and vote for Littlefingers, because the Dowager empress would be much worse, or do I go 3rd party protest vote? I won't tell you not to vote for Trump, but steel yourself for when he fcuks us.

[DougMacG]

I am still wrestling with this decision. Do I hold my nose and vote for Littlefingers, because the Dowager empress would be much worse, or do I go 3rd party protest vote? I won't tell you not to vote for Trump, but steel yourself for when he fcuks us.

From my point of view it would depend on what state you are in.  Trump is not going to make my state competitive, so why vote for a candidate I don't support.  For people in Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, etc. they have to deal with the guilt of getting Hillary elected if they don't vote for the most competitive alternative.

Pat suggests:  "Better to have a Dem in and know I will get screwed than to vote for a [RINO] ..."

Trump is proud to be Republican In Name Only.  He hates the party, called Bush a liar, helped Democrats take the House and the Senate, didn't want to support the nominee if it wasn't him.  Now he is the definition of GOPe; he sits at the head of the table when they cut the back room deals.

[ccp]

Rumor today that Trump is meeting with Bob Corker of Tennessee.  He ran as a conservative then turned into a deal making sell out.  Mark Levin for one has been very  critical of Corker saying he is no better than say McConnell or Boehner.    He helped the gang of 8 immigration deal.  So now Trump whose biggest rant was to be tough on immigration might choose this amnesty guy? 

https://www.conservativereview.com/members/bob-corker/

[G M]

https://twitter.com/GRAAmerica/status/734406891040825344

[DougMacG]

Four Reasons Donald Trump Cannot Be Trusted On Gun Rights (summary)
Reason 1: Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2000
Reason 2: Trump has been friends with Michael Bloomberg for over a decade
Reason 3: Trump praised President Obama’s remarks following the Newtown shooting

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.
If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

Reason 4: Trump has banned guns on his properties for years
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reaction to reason 2, assault weapons ban, was that one has to be informed through a site like this to know why such an innocent sounding thing is bad.  You would not know that living in a city where Michael Bloomberg is considered a Republican and the NY Times is considered objective.

The Obama Newtown reason is different.  Instead of coming together as a nation to grieve our loss and ask ourselves how such a shooter could be stopped (shoot the shooter before he shoots again), this President immediately used the dead children tragedy as a political opportunity to push forward with his own pre-ordained, anti-constitutional agenda - and every honest observer knew it.  Except Trump, apparently.

Are YOU a second amendment guy (or gal)?

Reminds me of a favorite trick question, WHICH IS YOUR FAVORITE AMENDMENT?  If you believe in the constitution, hopefully it is ALL of them!

My favorite clause of the constitution I suppose is Article 5.  If the Founders got something wrong, they gave us a process to AMEND it.  And it doesn't say have one pandering guy issue an executive order to violate it.

I tried to make the point early on, that a private takings advocate is not going to be overly hung up on any constitutional limit on government.  I was told by our own Trump advocate that was not a big issue.  In terms of primary votes and nomination, he was right.  Still it was illustrative in separating the central planner from the freedom advocates.  Even in politial loss, I will hang with the latter.

[ccp]

" I was told by our own Trump advocate that was not a big issue"

The rationalizations by the Trumpets is to such an extent that it is "irrational".   While I have professed I will vote for him I do not just turn the other way about his huge negatives, uncertainties, and repeated contradictions.

[DougMacG]

" I was told by our own Trump advocate that was not a big issue"

The rationalizations by the Trumpets is to such an extent that it is "irrational".   While I have professed I will vote for him I do not just turn the other way about his huge negatives, uncertainties, and repeated contradictions.

If contested in my state, I might vote for him too but I am not going to sit quietly in my opposition to much of what Trump believes and says.

I like the exposure of an "irrational rationalization"!  (I got my name in the WSJ credits for catching Al Gore accuse his opponents of an "explicit implication", James Taranto's column.)

Private takings put our side on the wrong side of the crony economy concern shared by more than 50% of voters, and it puts people like Bernie on the right side.  (    THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN!

In tennis, we call these "unforced errors".  You don't aim for the last inch of the court when it wouldn't be a winner anyway in the low percentage chance you actually that spot.  One casino gets a couple of parking spaces while we all lose a part of being secure in our homes.  In sad fact, Pfizer build no plant and Trump paved no lot while we all lost a basic right and freedom - for no God Damned reason.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/23/for-the-records-week-in-review-trump-has-tax-problems-bigly/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160523GlenBeckDailyV2_FINAL&utm_term=Smart%20List%20-%20Responsive%20Group%20B%20v2

[DougMacG]

1. Update for Pat who can't resist sneaking a peak at the forum, I now know two people who support Trump.  Pat and my sister-in-law who said she likes Trump and has liked him from the start.  She also liked his TV show which I think is an under-appreciated part of his media experience and appeal.  Her support I think is not directly about issues but about strength of personality to stand up to the elected politicians currently screwing everything up.  The number of people I know supporting Trump could jump to 3 or 4 as I touch with conservative cousins over the summer.  Must of the rest of my family voted for Rubio without much push or pull from me.  Some liked Scott Walker but that choice was gone before we voted here.

2.  The tax problems in the previous post look pretty trivial, disputes totaling 13,000 over many companies dealing with dollars in the trillions.  The tax law is open to interpretation and the IRS is the side wrong plenty often.  Trump cos. could just pay that if they didn't want to dispute it.  Trump is never going to open his private dealings beyond what is leaked or visible from the outside.  Hillary jumped on the bankruptcy aspect, but that charge didn't hurt him in the primaries and isn't new anymore.

3.  What is up with Trump attacking Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico?  Woman, Hispanic, head of the Republican Governors Association, re-elected with 57% of the vote in a swing state, get a grip! It looks like loose cannon material but it has to be intentional.  Punishing her for not jumping on board and sending a message to others?  Whatever happened to humbly asking people for their support, politics of the past?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/trump-blasts-susana-martinez.php

[ccp]

I prefer the party to be for everyone although I don't mind if he includes the "middle class" as part of everyone.  I don't know what to make of the term "worker's party".  Not good.  Sounds like Lenin:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/26/presumptive-gop-nominee-donald-trump-republican-party-now-a-workers-party/

[G M]

I prefer the party to be for everyone although I don't mind if he includes the "middle class" as part of everyone.  I don't know what to make of the term "worker's party".  Not good.  Sounds like Lenin:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/26/presumptive-gop-nominee-donald-trump-republican-party-now-a-workers-party/

Perhaps in an attempt to win over Bernie voters, he'll call it a national socialist worker's party.

[Crafty_Dog]

C'mon GM 

[G M]

C'mon GM 

Why not? I doubt he knows the history of the terms he's using.

[Crafty_Dog]

Why not?

Because it goes beyond your mastery of snark into something that lowers the quality of the conversation.

[Crafty_Dog]

Respect that Trump did not flinch on this.

Trump: Cameron “not willing to address the problem” of Islamic terror

MAY 17, 2016 7:43 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER103 COMMENTS

“We have a tremendous problem with radical Islamic terror. The world is blowing up and its not people from Sweden that’s doing the damage okay. So we have a real problem.”

It’s amazing that after 9/11 and 7/7 and Fort Hood and Boston and Chattanooga and Garland and San Bernardino and Paris and Brussels and tens of thousands of other jihad attacks worldwide, and numerous boasts of imminent destruction and conquest from al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other jihad groups, that such a statement would be controversial at all.

“Donald Trump Slams Cameron And Khan On Islam Comments: ‘Don’t Pretend It’s Not A Problem,’” Reuters, May 16, 2016:

Donald Trump has said he is unlikely to have a good relationship with David Cameron because the British prime minister cast the U.S. presidential candidate as “divisive, stupid and wrong” for proposing a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.  After Trump’s call for an entry ban on Muslims, Cameron criticised Trump in the British parliament and suggested that Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, would unite Britain against him if he visited.

“It looks like we’re not going to have a very good relationship, who knows,” Trump told Britain’s ITV television station in an interview aired on Monday when asked how ties would be if he won power in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I hope to have a good relationship with him but it sounds like he’s not willing to address the problem either,” Trump said, although earlier in the interview he said he didn’t care about the Cameron comments.

The United States is Britain’s closest ally and political leaders from both nations often speak of how the countries’ enjoy a special relationship.  Cameron earlier this month refused to retract his “divisive, stupid and wrong” comment but said that Trump deserved respect for making it through the gruelling Republican primary process.

“We have a tremendous problem with radical Islamic terror,” Trump told ITV when asked about the proposed ban on Muslims. “The world is blowing up and its not people from Sweden that’s doing the damage okay. So we have a real problem.”…

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/it_is_time_for_trump_to_unify_the_party.html

[G M]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/it_is_time_for_trump_to_unify_the_party.html

We are so fcuked.

[Crafty_Dog]

As we predicted here months ago , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?emc=edit_th_20160601&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

[G M]

As we predicted here months ago , , ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?emc=edit_th_20160601&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0

Are the victims here also considered "Trump Americans" ?

[Crafty_Dog]

The "marks" or "suckers" would also be appropriate terms.

[ccp]

This to me is very politically damaging.

"max out" your cards to go to school.   

Well I haven't heard from the majority of students who Trump says give the University high marks.  Where are they?  Has anyone seen or heard from THEM?

[G M]

This to me is very politically damaging.

"max out" your cards to go to school.  

Well I haven't heard from the majority of students who Trump says give the University high marks.  Where are they?  Has anyone seen or heard from THEM?

Actually using credit cards rather than student loans makes better sense. Often better interest rates, and you can discharge CC debt through bankruptcy. Now, it has to be a better school than Trump U to actually be worthwhile...

[Crafty_Dog]

My doggy nose smells here Trump as PT Barnum and I agree this has potential to be seriously damaging politically.

Clever idea about credit cards and bankruptcy.

[ccp]

Larry has been complimentary of the Don on talk radio as well:

The new TEFLON DON.  Move aside Gotti!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/01/larry-kudlow-trump-may-not-pure-free-market-guy-hes-growth-guy-opportunity-guy/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/attorneys-suing-trump-u-paid-675000-to-clintons-for-speeches/

[G M]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/attorneys-suing-trump-u-paid-675000-to-clintons-for-speeches/

No shock here.