ADVERTISEMENT

Who is Donald Trump - Must REad!

pokemagain

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 15, 2001
4,847
232
63
This article nails it...


OUTSTANDING PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT IS GOING ON....THE NEW YORKER: .
On Monday, February 1, 2016 11:29 AM,

Excellent read. The author is a political correspondent for Bloomberg

"Who is Donald Trump?" The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the "Republicans In Name Only." They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.

Ben Carson is not an "establishment" candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse. Besides - lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an[islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why?

Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
· Anyone named Bush
· Anyone named Clinton
· Anyone who's held political office
· Political correctness
· Illegal immigration
· Massive unemployment
· Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures
· Welfare waste and fraud
· People faking disabilities to go on the dole
· VA waiting lists
· TSA airport groping
· ObamaCare
· The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes
· Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
· Michelle Obama's vacations
· Michelle Obama's food police
· Barack Obama's golf
· Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures
· Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America
· Valerie Jarrett
· "Holiday trees"
· Hollywood hypocrites
· Global warming nonsense
· Cop killers
· Gun confiscation threats
· Stagnant wages
· Boys in girls' bathrooms
· Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century... and that's just the short list.

Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!" The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support an establishment candidate.)

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts - and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. "But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!" That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008 - knowing he would lose to Obama. But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both - and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wander[ing] through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O'Donnell is a fat pig.

Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of

property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations. While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much.

You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, … [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton's John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.
 
Trump is so like Reagan. Its eerie, really.
That's true, I'm not sure Trump would run up huge deficits.

"Who is Donald Trump?" The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
That's true, I'm not sure Trump would run up huge deficits.

"Who is Donald Trump?" The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?" The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.


That's fine. They certainly deserve it. The unintended consequences might not be what you've bargained for though. He could turn out OK; I obviously don't have a crystal ball.

It's just quite peculiar that Trump, and especially his supporters, run around rippling every other candidate and then squawk like a millennial teen when anyone voices any criticism of The Donald. And they make up a lot of hilariously stupid arguments in his favor -- why not just stick with the middle finger explanation and leave it at that?

Who knows what his true positions and beliefs are; he barely does. For instance, he said during (at least) one debate that he's all for INCREASING legal immigration, when his plan expressly calls for reducing H-1B visas.

I personally do not believe he's fit to be POTUS. So, I stand ready to be amazed if he wins and everything doesn't go to sh!t.
 
That article is spot on. The biggest threat to this country is the financial mismanagement which has been going on for generations by both parties. He's arrogant, not conservative and likely not a real republican although that is no badge of honor. The economy and illegal immigration are the two things Americans are concerned the most about and that is what Trump is better situated to deal with. The establishment/professional politicians have gotten us into this mess. A non-politician can't do worse and may actually shake up the apple cart that is the DC/Wall Street cabal and that has them scared sh*tless.
 
That's fine. They certainly deserve it. The unintended consequences might not be what you've bargained for though. He could turn out OK; I obviously don't have a crystal ball.

It's just quite peculiar that Trump, and especially his supporters, run around rippling every other candidate and then squawk like a millennial teen when anyone voices any criticism of The Donald. And they make up a lot of hilariously stupid arguments in his favor -- why not just stick with the middle finger explanation and leave it at that?

Who knows what his true positions and beliefs are; he barely does. For instance, he said during (at least) one debate that he's all for INCREASING legal immigration, when his plan expressly calls for reducing H-1B visas.

I personally do not believe he's fit to be POTUS. So, I stand ready to be amazed if he wins and everything doesn't go to sh!t.

Marshall,

I wanted to follow up on my criticism of NR. Kevin Williamson, whom I pretty much idolize as a wordsmith and wit, is guilty of misleading.

Tonight he posts "Trump lies, again, about self funding his campaign"

here
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431952/trump-lies-again-about-self-funding-his-campaign

In the article he cites a NYT blurb.

here
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ld-trumps-campaign-outpace-self-funding/?_r=1

As I interpret the intent of what Trump is communicating when he says he is self funding, is that he is not taking money from large donors or accepting help from PACs....the "influence" that big donors can apply and expect for their large sums. This money represents the "special interests" that outweigh the single vote you or I or a big donor (that's not an entity) can cast.

Trump has stated that he will accept small donations. This is not new. So unless I'm missing something, Kevin Williamson is using legalistic interpretation of words to paint a less than rosy view of Trump.

It's garbage such as this that I find untenable.
 
That article is spot on. The biggest threat to this country is the financial mismanagement which has been going on for generations by both parties. He's arrogant, not conservative and likely not a real republican although that is no badge of honor. The economy and illegal immigration are the two things Americans are concerned the most about and that is what Trump is better situated to deal with. The establishment/professional politicians have gotten us into this mess. A non-politician can't do worse and may actually shake up the apple cart that is the DC/Wall Street cabal and that has them scared sh*tless.

Damn, imprimis. Why are you always so smart?
 
I think self funding means self funding. Does Bernie Sanders describe his campaign as being self funded?
 
It's pretty plain that Trump has sought to give the appearance that he's paying it all out of his own pocket up to this point.
 
Last edited:
Even if Trump gets the nomination and loses to clinton in the general election, Washington had better take notice that people are pissed off at the status quo and not be naive enough to think it's only Republicans.
 
Even if Trump gets the nomination and loses to clinton in the general election, Washington had better take notice that people are pissed off at the status quo and not be naive enough to think it's only Republicans.

Color me cynical, but if cankles wins, it will only get worse in Washington; all she cares about is getting elected and doesn't give a damn what the people think.
 
Color me cynical, but if cankles wins, it will only get worse in Washington; all she cares about is getting elected and doesn't give a damn what the people think.
I'm also referring to the Republicans, but I agree on clinton.
 
It's pretty plain that Trump has sought to give the appearance that he's paying it all out of his own pocket up to this point.

Except for the numerous occasions where he provided guidance or answered questions, plain as day, that he was fine accepting donations that met his criteria, all while providing the distinction and "spirit" of what his intent is in establishing a criteria. Distinctions (between him and every other candidate currently) that correctly provide cover for his those statements of self funding.

Other than all of those occasions, you are probably correct.
 
Except for the numerous occasions where he provided guidance or answered questions, plain as day, that he was fine accepting donations that met his criteria, all while providing the distinction and "spirit" of what his intent is in establishing a criteria. Distinctions (between him and every other candidate currently) that correctly provide cover for his those statements of self funding.

Other than all of those occasions, you are probably correct.
Show me an example where he has qualified that during a national debate or town hall prior to say South Carolina? When he continually says I'm self-funding, "and I don't need ANYONE'S money" it's perfectly obvious the impression he is trying to give. If you want to believe otherwise, knock yourself out.

And just to be clear: I personally don't care that Trump is dong this. But, to say that Kevin Williamson is being misleading is absurd.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT