Trump: When I get to Washington, I’m Going to Become Part of the Establishment so I can Make Deals With Democrats

[Formerly Once-Ler]

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/22/trump-get-washington-im-going-become-part-establishment-can-make-deals-democrats-video/

I am not making this up or exaggerating what Donald Trump said. These are his words and you can see the video for yourself. Via the Blaze, Trump literally says that when he gets to Washington he’s going to become an establishment politician so that he can get some really great, super huge, classy deals done.

Here he is speaking in Las Vegas last night.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-v48yT-YEU

    Trump: And you know what, there’s a point at which, let’s get to be a little bit establishment, because we gotta get things done, folks, okay? Believe me, don’t worry, we’re gonna get such great deals, but at a certain point, you can’t be so strident, you can’t not get along, we gotta get along with people. You know in the old days, Ronald Reagan, and I remember it so vividly, I was a young guy, I helped Ronald Reagan, I really liked him… so what happens, Ronald Reagan would get along with (Democrat) Tip O’Neill, and they’d sit down, and they’d make great deals for everybody. That’s what the country’s about, isn’t it? I mean, we can all be tough but at some point we gotta get our country back on track.

Donald Trump right now is actively taunting his supporters to see if there is literally anything he can say that will make them stop supporting him. He really is. He’s trying to see if there’s any 180 degree turn he can pull off that’s so completely different from what he was saying even a couple days ago that you’ll turn around and say, “holy cow, this guy is no different from the rest of them, and in fact maybe he’s a bit worse.”

You’ve all been had, and Trump is daring you to notice.

[katzenjammer]

Like I said yesterday, this hack Wolf is going to make people long for Erickson.

Restate now to be known for making up paraphrased comments to use in a headline as if it were a direct quote.

What a piece of trash.

(Of course many will flock to it so that they can't start breathlessly panting about how bad Trump is.  Articles like this not only make Redstate look like a joke, they detract from the quality of discourse on this forum.)

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Like I said yesterday, this hack Wolf is going to make people long for Erickson.

Restate now to be known for making up paraphrased comments to use in a headline as if it were a direct quote.

What a piece of trash.

(Of course many will flock to it so that they can't start breathlessly panting about how bad Trump is.  Articles like this not only make Redstate look like a joke, they detract from the quality of discourse on this forum.)

OK you don't like Wolf.  Any comment on Trump promising to work with rats?   Trump is now saying he's going to sit down with Pelosi and make a deal.  How is that different from Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain, and the rest of the Establishment?

Meet the new boss...

[katzenjammer]

OK you don't like Wolf.  Any comment on Trump promising to work with rats?   Trump is now saying he's going to sit down with Pelosi and make a deal.  How is that different from Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain, and the rest of the Establishment?

Meet the new boss...

Are you trying to be as disingenuous as Wolf?  Did you hear him say a word about Pelosi in the video?  I didn't think so.

Trump is wise enough to know, if he is ever fortunate enough to actually be elected President, that he will NOT be able to effect any change whatsoever without working with the Congress.  People can't have it both ways, people litter the forum daily on how he is going to be a "dictator" and rule by executive order, then at the same time criticize him for acknowledging the fact that any President needs to be able to work with Congress to have any chance at success.  He used the example of Reagan and Tip O'Neil to illustrate that point.

So, setting aside the absolute trash "journalism" from Wolf, which way do people want to have it?  Want to keep running around calling him a "dictator" in the making, or criticize him for acknowledging the realities of how things get done in DC?  Because you can't have it both ways, and even pretend to have a shred of intellectual honesty.

As far as being the same as " Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain,...," that remains to be seen.  It is a logical fallacy to equate a President wanting to work with Congress, to some of the worse examples of such.  All Yugos are cars, but not all cars are Yugos.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Are you trying to be as disingenuous as Wolf?  Did you hear him say a word about Pelosi in the video?  I didn't think so.

Trump is wise enough to know, if he is ever fortunate enough to actually be elected President, that he will NOT be able to effect any change whatsoever without working with the Congress.  People can't have it both ways, people litter the forum daily on how he is going to be a "dictator" and rule by executive order, then at the same time criticize him for acknowledging the fact that any President needs to be able to work with Congress to have any chance at success.  He used the example of Reagan and Tip O'Neil to illustrate that point.

So, setting aside the absolute trash "journalism" from Wolf, which way do people want to have it?  Want to keep running around calling him a "dictator" in the making, or criticize him for acknowledging the realities of how things get done in DC?  Because you can't have it both ways, and even pretend to have a shred of intellectual honesty.

As far as being the same as " Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain,...," that remains to be seen.  It is a logical fallacy to equate a President wanting to work with Congress, to some of the worse examples of such.  All Yugos are cars, but not all cars are Yugos.

Thank you for your reply.  It seems you have no concern about what Trump said.  I'll keep trying.

[katzenjammer]

Thank you for your reply.  It seems you have no concern about what Trump said.  I'll keep trying.

Why should any rational person have a concern about what Trump said?  He spoke truthfully about how things must work in government of divided powers. 

I am not sure of what you are "trying," but perhaps some are trying a bit too hard.

All that any Trump supporter here at this forum expects, is the same thing that any supporter of any other candidate expects.  And that is fair treatment of the candidate (and her/his supporters).  The constant posting of these disingenuous hit and smear pieces, in which Trump's words are twisted, edited, or otherwise misrepresented doesn't do this forum any good, aside from the fact that no one is going to be "fooled" by any of them.

Hap was kind enough to post a thread earlier in which almost of all of Trump's actual positions on the issues were clearly spelled out.  Were there any substantive discussions about his positions?  (Either debating the merits of a position, or the manner in which they were presented.)  No, of course not.  Just a bunch of emotional bile and innuendo about how no one can "believe" him.  As if any other politician is deserving of unchallenged belief.

If people want this forum to have some value as a place where adults discuss the issues of the campaigns and candidates, then an effort has to be made to raise the level of dialogue to a place of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity.

/rant

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Why should any rational person have a concern about what Trump said?  He spoke truthfully about how things must work in government of divided powers. 

Yet Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell are despised for making deals to get stuff accomplished.   Just weird to see some of the anti-establishment figure this out now.  Cruz supporters, the ones who cheered the shutdown and have been shouting for years "No Deal is better than this deal," are going to have a problem with what they see as Trump capitulating with the Washington establishment...and they think they are rational.

All that any Trump supporter here at this forum expects, is the same thing that any supporter of any other candidate expects.  And that is fair treatment of the candidate (and her/his supporters).  The constant posting of these disingenuous hit and smear pieces, in which Trump's words are twisted, edited, or otherwise misrepresented doesn't do this forum any good, aside from the fact that no one is going to be "fooled" by any of them.

My post and the author included video and a transcription of Trump's actual words.  If commentary from redstate is not worth posting then the pool of information that is acceptable is severely limited.  My guy is Rubio, but Cruz is perfectly acceptable, as is Kasich, or whoever else is still in the race.  I don't expect fair treatment of Rubio and I have not been disappointed.  The guy at the top gets the most attention.  That is why most of the articles are about Trump.

Hap was kind enough to post a thread earlier in which almost of all of Trump's actual positions on the issues were clearly spelled out.  Were there any substantive discussions about his positions?  (Either debating the merits of a position, or the manner in which they were presented.)  No, of course not.  Just a bunch of emotional bile and innuendo about how no one can "believe" him.  As if any other politician is deserving of unchallenged belief.

I didn't see the thread, and Trump's positions change month to month, so I don't see a need to search it out.

If people want this forum to have some value as a place where adults discuss the issues of the campaigns and candidates, then an effort has to be made to raise the level of dialogue to a place of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity.

/rant

Debate that disagrees with one's world view can often seem unfair.  Intellectual honesty does not equal agreement, nor should it.  I'll refrain from commenting on our "emotional maturity," and let you contemplate how that made it into your argument

[katzenjammer]

Yet Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell are despised for making deals to get stuff accomplished.   Just weird to see some of the anti-establishment figure this out now.  Cruz supporters, the ones who cheered the shutdown and have been shouting for years "No Deal is better than this deal," are going to have a problem with what they see as Trump capitulating with the Washington establishment...and they think they are rational.

>> Did you miss this from the prior post?  As far as being the same as " Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain,...," that remains to be seen.  It is a logical fallacy to equate a President wanting to work with Congress, to some of the worse examples of such.  All Yugos are cars, but not all cars are Yugos.

My post and the author included video and a transcription of Trump's actual words.  If commentary from redstate is not worth posting then the pool of information that is acceptable is severely limited.  My guy is Rubio, but Cruz is perfectly acceptable, as is Kasich, or whoever else is still in the race.  I don't expect fair treatment of Rubio and I have not been disappointed.  The guy at the top gets the most attention.  That is why most of the articles are about Trump.

>> Right, and the video and transcript of his actual words proved the headline to be a disingenuous distortion of his words.  Correct, at this point, under Wolf, there isn't much from Redstate that is worth discussing.  An honest news article, or opinion piece, that doesn't lie, twist, or otherwise misrepresent, about any candidate or their positions is worthy to discuss, be it Rubio, Cruz, Trump, or any other.

I didn't see the thread, and Trump's positions change month to month, so I don't see a need to search it out.

>> It was referenced as an example of the level of intellectual dishonesty and irrational nonsense that has infested the forum.  Whether or not you search it out is irrelevant.

Debate that disagrees with one's world view can often seem unfair.  Intellectual honesty does not equal agreement, nor should it.  I'll refrain from commenting on our "emotional maturity," and let you contemplate how that made it into your argument

>> Intellectual honest is all that anyone is looking for.  Whether or not we agree, or disagree, is irrelevant.  I could care less if you comment on the  "emotional maturity" level that the forum is descending to, it is on display for everyone to see it.  I have no need to contemplate it at all, I can see it in almost every thread.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Again I thank you for a substantive reply.  You've presented your opinion well, but I'm still a little confused.  Would it be fair to say you don't have a problem with Establishment style deal making like TPP, budgets, debt ceiling increases...but rather with the outcomes?


And since we are chatting I'm curious if you are bothered at all by the endorsement of Trump over Cruz by Establishment figures like Orin Hatch, Bob Dole, Peter King, Trent Lott, and Rudy Giuliani?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Trump is wise enough to know, if he is ever fortunate enough to actually be elected President, that he will NOT be able to effect any change whatsoever without working with the Congress.  People can't have it both ways, people litter the forum daily on how he is going to be a "dictator" and rule by executive order, then at the same time criticize him for acknowledging the fact that any President needs to be able to work with Congress to have any chance at success.  He used the example of Reagan and Tip O'Neil to illustrate that point. 

     :thumbsup2:

[libertybele]

Thank you for your reply.  It seems you have no concern about what Trump said.  I'll keep trying.

I think you'd have better luck beating your head against a wall.   Trump himself states that his IS the ESTABLISHMENT (corporate and otherwise) ... and plans on becoming part of the Washington cartel. Denial by voters who have already been duped into supporting him will be disastrous.  Hopefully, they will swallow their pride and get behind another candidate.

TRUMP SUPPORTERS:  WAKE UP.  TRUMP IS AN ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE (Hint:  watch the video).

[Longiron]

Why should any rational person have a concern about what Trump said?  He spoke truthfully about how things must work in government of divided powers. 

I am not sure of what you are "trying," but perhaps some are trying a bit too hard.

All that any Trump supporter here at this forum expects, is the same thing that any supporter of any other candidate expects.  And that is fair treatment of the candidate (and her/his supporters).  The constant posting of these disingenuous hit and smear pieces, in which Trump's words are twisted, edited, or otherwise misrepresented doesn't do this forum any good, aside from the fact that no one is going to be "fooled" by any of them.

Hap was kind enough to post a thread earlier in which almost of all of Trump's actual positions on the issues were clearly spelled out.  Were there any substantive discussions about his positions?  (Either debating the merits of a position, or the manner in which they were presented.)  No, of course not.  Just a bunch of emotional bile and innuendo about how no one can "believe" him.  As if any other politician is deserving of unchallenged belief.

If people want this forum to have some value as a place where adults discuss the issues of the campaigns and candidates, then an effort has to be made to raise the level of dialogue to a place of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity.

/rant

Have to realize that the TRUMP haters are all very happy with the deals the Republican Conservative Party that control both the House and Senate are doing. See who can CAVE faster the House or Senate and give Obama everything he wants and that give him some other things he had not thought of so he does not get PISSED at them. This is called reaching across the idle and working government. They do not know what WINNING is like because they never win. Making a deal to the TRUMP haters means TOTAL CAVING like the Omnibus bill, Obamacare, TPP well you get the point. 

[katzenjammer]

Again I thank you for a substantive reply.  You've presented your opinion well, but I'm still a little confused.  Would it be fair to say you don't have a problem with Establishment style deal making like TPP, budgets, debt ceiling increases...but rather with the outcomes?


And since we are chatting I'm curious if you are bothered at all by the endorsement of Trump over Cruz by Establishment figures like Orin Hatch, Bob Dole, Peter King, Trent Lott, and Rudy Giuliani?

Since you've asked, I prefer that the budget process return to regular order.  How many years has it been?  It's been so long that I would have to look it up.  I prefer that the deals made between the Executive and Congress (as the only route to actually passing legislation under our Constitution) not continually subjugate the power of one branch to another (e.g., shredding the Treaty Clause like the Corker Bill), and at least have some semblance of representing the will and interests of the citizenry.  Just because we haven't seen much of that on display in quite some time, I retain hope to some day see it restored.

As far as endorsements, I really don't pay them much heed.  No candidate can control the motivations of any that come forward into the spotlight to announce "support." 

[Carling]

The headline doesn't at all match what Trump actually said.

Weak sauce, Redstate.  Credibility shot.  What Trump said about Reagan is factual, by the way.

I suppose I'd be creamed by today's GOPe voters for supporting Reagan if he were running this year.

[DCPatriot]

The headline doesn't at all match what Trump actually said.

Weak sauce, Redstate.  Credibility shot.  What Trump said about Reagan is factual, by the way.

I suppose I'd be creamed by today's GOPe voters for supporting Reagan if he were running today.

Thanks for being here, Carling.     

[Carling]

Thanks for being here, Carling.     

Back at you, DC!  Hope you're surviving the snow.  60 and showers here in Portland.

I'm not even a Trump supporter, as I'm completely for Cruz, but to criticize Trump for accurately portraying how Reagan got things done makes no sense.

Throw in that I'm apparently supposed to then throw my support to principled and unyielding political lifers who would never ever work with Dems like ... Kasich and Rubio?

That kind of defeats their own argument, doesn't it?   

[Sanguine]

Note:  Harry Reid is no Tip O'Neill.

[Carling]

Note:  Harry Reid is no Tip O'Neill.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are, though, after their work on the Omnibus bill.  Maybe that's who Trump is talking about working with in DC in terms of working with the opposition.    

[Sanguine]

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are, though, after their work on the Omnibus bill.  Maybe that's who Trump is talking about working with in DC in terms of working with the opposition.    

Could be....

 

[Jazzhead]

I have no disagreement with what Trump said.   He's tacking to the center and those voters who prize pragmatism.  He's setting himself in contrast to Cruz, because he's trying to force him early from the race.   Cruz's mistake was in trusting a snake.   

This election is all about temptation, folks.   

[DCPatriot]

Back at you, DC!  Hope you're surviving the snow.  60 and showers here in Portland.

I'm not even a Trump supporter, as I'm completely for Cruz, but to criticize Trump for accurately portraying how Reagan got things done makes no sense.

Throw in that I'm apparently supposed to then throw my support to principled and unyielding political lifers who would never ever work with Dems like ... Kasich and Rubio?

That kind of defeats their own argument, doesn't it?   

Truthfully, I had simply noticed that this is about the twelfth instance when an anti-Trump thread headline didn't at all match the content.

I understand not wanting to work with the Dems.  Vengeance and exposure and humiliation seem so much exciting to witness.

But stepping back, it's going to take somebody from the OUTSIDE to conduct the transfusion to rid the body politic of PELOSI-REID rule and hatred.

And it will work perfectly if at the same time, the economy explodes as I predict.

There's a TRILLION $$$ being held by American corporations.   That's a lot of new plants and jobs.

As soon as OBAMACARE dies...it will be Springtime in America.

[aligncare]

OK you don't like Wolf.  Any comment on Trump promising to work with rats?   Trump is now saying he's going to sit down with Pelosi and make a deal.  How is that different from Bush, Ryan, McConnell, McCain, and the rest of the Establishment?

Meet the new boss...

Once-ler, the puzzle piece you're missing is that Trump wrote the book on negotiations and has a lifetime of experience going up against people and bureaucracies hostile to his project. Whether it's an environmental group threatening to protest in front of his construction site, or an obstinate government bureaucracy, in the end he wins them over and the project gets done. Just take a look at the firestorm he faced building a golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland. He had to fight everybody, at every level and at every stage in order to get it done. But, he got it done.

I see the same thing happening in government. Trump will talk to you, will negotiate with you, but he plans on being on the the winning end of that deal. And the winning end, once he's in office, is the American people.

[240B]

Confusing.

So, because Trump says he will be 'the establishment', we are supposed to not like him and instead vote for 'the establishment'. The whole discussion makes no sense. There is no logic to it.

Trump is winning because things cannot be any worse. Electing Trump is throwing a bomb into D.C. Trump could say that he is a transvestite gay hooker, and I would not care. Who cares? I have no loyalty to Washington D.C. Bastards and assholes.

No matter what Trump is or does, he cannot possibly be any worse than what we have now. I believe that I am speaking for a lot of Americans. Screw it. Burn Washington down.

[katzenjammer]

Confusing.

So, because Trump says he will be 'the establishment', we are supposed to not like him and instead vote for 'the establishment'. The whole discussion makes no sense. There is no logic to it.

Trump is winning because things cannot be any worse. Electing Trump is throwing a bomb into D.C. Trump could say that he is a transvestite gay hooker, and I would not care. Who cares? I have no loyalty to Washington D.C. Bastards and assholes.

No matter what Trump is or does, he cannot possibly be any worse than what we have now. I believe that I am speaking for a lot of Americans. Screw it. Burn Washington down.

It isn't intended to make any "sense," 240B.  It is just a hack like Wolf (who is not alone in his disingenuous flailing) throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick and fool the guilible.

[Longiron]

Confusing.

So, because Trump says he will be 'the establishment', we are supposed to not like him and instead vote for 'the establishment'. The whole discussion makes no sense. There is no logic to it.

Trump is winning because things cannot be any worse. Electing Trump is throwing a bomb into D.C. Trump could say that he is a transvestite gay hooker, and I would not care. Who cares? I have no loyalty to Washington D.C. Bastards and assholes.

No matter what Trump is or does, he cannot possibly be any worse than what we have now. I believe that I am speaking for a lot of Americans. Screw it. Burn Washington down.

If it were not for the RINOGOPe and The Establishment Conservatives who do nothing TRUMP would not be in the race. The haters say TRUMP will make deals and that is a bad thing. WE do not MAKE deals NOW The RINOGOPe, just CAVES on EVERYTHING. Name ONE thing the Republican Conservatives GOT in any negotiations with and DEM. NOTHING! NEVER any thing in a deal, JUST 100% TOTAL Surrender. Luv or hate TRUMP one thing will happen In any deal he is involved in as POTUS with the DEMS is he will WIN. The PUBBIES are so use to losing they do not know how to WIN in any deal. THE DAYS of CAVING are OVER.