Trump. A different take.

a reply to: queenofswords

Agreed. Despite an all-out effort to find anything, not one single scandal connected to him or any member of his family.

That does speak volumes.

a reply to: crazyewok

What took you so long to post? LMAO.

It is rhetoric, and you know it. It's the attitude that's the real point here. That attitude is enough is enough with this bull of 'open borders' and all that we are paying FAR more for now than ANY wall would cost. One that was, by law, started in the Bush Administration and continued, to a lesser degree in the Obama administration.

Again, the message to Mexico is clear, they WILL pay for their lack of co-operation on border security in the long run....

Bring your A game, crazywok. This is too easy....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

What took you so long to post? LMAO.

It is rhetoric, and you know it. It's the attitude that's the real point here. That attitude is enough is enough with this bull of 'open borders' and all that we are paying FAR more for now than ANY wall would cost. One that was, by law, started in the Bush Administration and continued, to a lesser degree in the Obama administration.

Again, the message to Mexico is clear, they WILL pay for their lack of co-operation on border security in the long run....

Bring your A game, crazywok. This is too easy....

Rhetoric? Well thats makes him just as bad then as all the career politcians that lie as part of there rhetoric.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp

One of the thing I learned, this is a few months out of date, he didn't have a campaign manager-apparently, he does now- it was described as a promotion, not a campaign. He was promoting himself as largely he was a unknown outside N.Y..

He is then described as a negotiator. He pointed out that the last majority leader promising there would be no gov't shut down effectively gave Obama carte blanch in that he gave away Congress's leverage on the Executive branch and was a terrible move. One negotiates from the hard point and compromise downward from there.

As far as the corporate cronyism label, I am skeptical for one major reason.

Not one candidate, in either party has exposed the member Corporations in the TPP or it's content. Not a one.

Simply put, the whole batch is treading REAL carefully on that one. Singling out Trump is, by that standard, inaccurate, in my books. Besides, as I stated in the OP. If he is a 'buyer' that's a damn sight better than being bought....

If he was up against just about anyone else, I could agree. But, Cruz and Paul are the only senators who have been steadfastly combating governmentalism as well as its sibling, cronyism.

I am not against free trade at all. I just know that free trade should not require new legislation, only repealing existing legislation so any package of law (especially secret) that claims to enable it must be a lie.

We all know how deleterious the "revolving door" is with regulators and their clients. In this case, as a client, he would simply be temporarily switching hats and breezing through the turnstile to the regulatory side. It doesn't seem any different than any other cronyist placement to me.

a reply to: greencmp

Normally, I'd agree re: Paul and Cruz. I respected and, to a degree, agreed.

Now my perspective has changed. I've held the view that the Constitution cannot be restored to it's original form. First and foremost, it would be 'unconstitutional' to do so. Too many precedents that are now accepted as 'constitutional', too many vested interests, especially in the Judicial Branch to maintain the status quo that gave them lifelong tenure...etc..

Consider this, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but if I can figure that out, so can Paul and Cruz! What a safe mantra to be a 'supporter' of the constitution! it pisses off no vested interest as it changes nothing in reality. The ever quoted voting record obscures the fact that that single vote changes nothing...except bragging rights.

My bottom line is no one, including Paul and Cruz AND Trump is exposing the contents of these 'deals' like the TPP. Until they do so, I will keep my cynical view of their actual intentions.

(At least trump can lay claim to the fact he isn't currently in gov't and perhaps isn't privy to that information. Not that he couldn't get it if he truly want to.)

a reply to: crazyewok

Hey. No argument from me on that score. That's a given, from what I can see.

So it becomes a useless point!

I'm down to business as usual, or take a risk. Screw it. I'm all in....

I will admit that the Trump candidacy is interesting as it is weird. I have been collecting Trump memorabilia ever since he announced. Hats, T shirts, bumper stickers, pins, posters any thing. My mother had collected everything Nixon and we just sold it for $$$$ to a private collector.

I would be surprised if Trump makes it to the GOP convention, but I will be there as a media rep and adding to my collection in case Donald decides to force a brokered convention. That should be a blast.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp

Normally, I'd agree re: Paul and Cruz. I respected and, to a degree, agreed.

Now my perspective has changed. I've held the view that the Constitution cannot be restored to it's original form. First and foremost, it would be 'unconstitutional' to do so. Too many precedents that are now accepted as 'constitutional', too many vested interests, especially in the Judicial Branch to maintain the status quo that gave them lifelong tenure...etc..

Consider this, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but if I can figure that out, so can Paul and Cruz! What a safe mantra to be a 'supporter' of the constitution! it pisses off no vested interest as it changes nothing in reality. The ever quoted voting record obscures the fact that that single vote changes nothing...except bragging rights.

My bottom line is no one, including Paul and Cruz AND Trump is exposing the contents of these 'deals' like the TPP. Until they do so, I will keep my cynical view of their actual intentions.

(At least trump can lay claim to the fact he isn't currently in gov't and perhaps isn't privy to that information. Not that he couldn't get it if he truly want to.)

I am forced to agree that expecting politicians to vote as a group against their own interests is a losing proposition. But, that doesn't mean that we can't amend the constitution difficult and dangerous as that may be.

Furthermore, we have some good governors so along with a constitutionalist president we may very well have a chance at truncating the federal government's authority. This is to me the paramount goal and it can be done without dramatically changing the numbers at all initially.

The first step is to move all federal programs except the military out to the states. We can proceed from there within each state and take our time phasing out the myriad interventionist policies some of which will undoubtedly prove to be uncuttable or even beneficial, I am prepared for that possibility.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Trump is a chickenhawk. He talks about how we need to do this militarily, but I don't remember ever seeing Trump in the armed forces.

But I digress, for "Trump has always felt he was in the military,"whatever the Hell that means.

He talks about "going on, blowing 'em up, and having Exxxon rebuild."

Yeah - "and he represents us little guys," LOL.

a reply to: olaru12

Actually, Reagan was even further left than Trump when he moved to the right. He slickly rebutted that the democrat Party left him, not the other way around.

I haven't seen this in print, however Trump, apparently, freely admits giving donations to the Dems and Hillary, then a N.Y. Senator, as that was how business was done in N.Y.. You donated, baby, or you did not flourish in that Democrat arena called N.Y.C..

Pragmatic, if not admirable. He largely got the results, with a few failures tossed in. (Unlike Soros or Buffet, who had no BKs, I see that as an indicator he wasn't particularly an 'inside player'.)

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: mobiusmale

Trump is a chickenhawk. He talks about how we need to do this militarily, but I don't remember ever seeing Trump in the armed forces.

But I digress, for "Trump has always felt he was in the military,"whatever the Hell that means.

He talks about "going on, blowing 'em up, and having Exxxon rebuild."

Yeah - "and he represents us little guys," LOL.

And its the chicken hawk/Neocon crowd Trumps getting a lot of his support from.

Trump Supporter= Neo con in a different wrapper

After the catatrophic events of neocon foreign policy i think many of them slunk off to hide but now a new loud mouth chicken hawk on the scene they are coming out the woodwork.

a reply to: nwtrucker

My main problem with trump is that he may be even a bigger narcissist than Obama, and I think that this would translate into another presidential tenure where the president would be more concerned about his legacy than the good of the nation.

But that's not my only problem with him, just my main one right now.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nwtrucker

My main problem with trump is that he may be even a bigger narcissist than Obama, and I think that this would translate into another presidential tenure where the president would be more concerned about his legacy than the good of the nation.

But that's not my only problem with him, just my main one right now.

Perhaps your right.

I see a difference though. Upbringing, education, ideological beliefs, life experiences all differ.

As long as he's an American narcissist....for America, I can deal with it.

Another huge difference is Trump is up front with his attitudes and beliefs. With Obama, it was 'change', etc., you'd had to really dig to find where he really was at. The media chose not to. Another distinction, the media was pro Obama. Trump?

Meh, not so pro-Trump...LOL

a reply to: crazyewok

As usual, your are incorrect in your assessment of Trump supporters. Many, including millennials are just pissed off with the whole machine that is D.C.. Trump, daily, proves his isn't one of 'them'.

With the possible exception of Paul, the Republican candidates are fairly tough on ME issues. Not just Trump. Even Sanders.

"Chickhawk", Neo-Cons....on and on same old labels. You should cut and paste your yesterday's post and the day before's and the day before that...

It would save time...

a reply to: nwtrucker

I am only saying this bc I am incognito on this message board, I am a democrat, but something tells me, I cannot put my finger on it, that Trump would not be a bad president.

(do not tell anyone I said that)

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: queenofswords

Agreed. Despite an all-out effort to find anything, not one single scandal connected to him or any member of his family.

That does speak volumes.

Besides an entire career of ripping off investors?

Besides racial discrimination in his property rentals?

Besides all the married women he has bragged about sleeping with?

For staters.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Not necessarily a scandal, just a massive ego problem.

"Subconsciously or consciously, all the women on the Apprenctince flirted with me. That was to be expected."

The dude compares prep school to military service, he's a nut.

Making fun of and mocking reporters with physical disabilities? Where some would say, "He's not a personal computer!," I think it has nothing to do with "PC." Mocking people with physical disabilities is just low, it's something an egotistical douchebag would resort to.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Good enough points, but I still get concerned when the top public official in the nation is more concerned about himself (and openly so in the way that he speaks) than about the nation. That's the only conclusion I can come to at this point with Trump.

But I must admit that his life prior to this campaign is much better than Hilary Clinton's.

There's a new ABC poll out that has 69 percent of the electorate with "anxiety" about Trump becoming president.

That's a huge obstacle to turnaround in a general election.

I still think his poll numbers are overstating his actual support. I think the majority of Republicans don't want him as the candidate.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
There's a new ABC poll out that has 69 percent of the electorate with "anxiety" about Trump becoming president.

That's a huge obstacle to turnaround in a general election.

I still think his poll numbers are overstating his actual support. I think the majority of Republicans don't want him as the candidate.

yep. An ABC poll. anxiety...LOL. I'd dearly love to see the demographics of that slanted poll. I'd bet if you polled the same individuals, they'd have an even higher anxiety percentage if addressing D.C., overall, the economy, the future, jobs...on and on....

I wonder the anxiety levels for sanders, Hillary, so on....even higher, at least for me.

Having said that, there is risk in Trump. freely admitted. There's risk in all of them. even more if it's business as usual....