The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: HAPPY2BME on November 30, 2015, 05:34:03 am
-
WND
Joe Kovacs
Although Donald Trump has signed a pledge to support the Republican Party’s nominee, that doesn’t mean the party’s establishment will support him, should he win the GOP presidential nod.
A report by the Hill suggests the big money Republican donors are actually looking to support Hillary Clinton for commander in chief if Trump is at the top of the GOP ticket. Yes, the Democrat Hillary Clinton could be getting millions of dollars from Republicans.
The website says: “In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to the Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”
When asked for whom he would cast his vote if the choices are only Mrs. Clinton and Trump, the former mayor of Los Angeles and a longtime Republican establishment figure, Dick Riordan, said: “I would probably go find a deserted island.”
“I think Hillary is disgusting,” Riordan told the Hill. “And I think Trump is crazy.”
The paper says Trump was the topic at a recent Beverly Hills lunch hosted by former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Rockwell Schnabel.
In attendance in a private dining room of the Hotel Bel-Air were powerful donors said to include Ronald Spogli, the venture capitalist and former ambassador to Italy under President George W. Bush; his business partner Bradford Freeman; and Riordan.
The donors reportedly faced the hypothetical question: “If it was Donald Trump running against Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?”
The Hill reports:
One version has it that most of the Republicans at the table put their hands up for Clinton.
Schnabel disputes that account and said in a telephone interview Tuesday that it was just banter among friends and that he is confident that all the Republicans at the table would support the final GOP nominee for president, whomever that turns out to be.
Schnabel called back later on Tuesday afternoon to clarify what he meant. “My only caveat would be that … I assume that the Republican we’ll nominate will be somebody that would make a great president,” he said. “That’s not a conversation we’ve had to have in the past, but obviously there are some we would be concerned about.”
The hesitation among establishment GOP donors comes as no surprise to Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager.
The GOP establishment will do anything they can to stop Mr. Trump from being the GOP nominee,” Lewandowski told the Hill.
Not all big GOP donors, though, are sour on the New York businessman.
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn and Doug Manchester, a California developer and chairman of Manchester Financial Group, are among those in Trump’s corner.
“I met with Donald himself and was again very impressed with a Man [sic] who does not have to be doing what he is but believes as I do that we need to Make America great again and believe he can do it!!” Manchester wrote to friends in an email seen by the Hill.
“As all of you know I was all in for Mitt but unfortunately he did not make it!!”
“I think Trump can win,” Manchester added.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/gop-establishment-to-back-hillary-if-trump-nominee/#5WGbEJQFBCxz4omi.99
-
Whirled Nut Daily once again shows why they are not ready to be taken seriously as a source of news. To back up the ridiculous title they quote “I think Hillary is disgusting,” Riordan told the Hill. “And I think Trump is crazy.”(both true but not an indication Riordan will vote for Hitlery) and an out right denial by Ronald Spogli.
The interesting question is why is Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager pushing this story?
stuart stevens @stuartpstevens
We call this "pre-spin"
When campaign knows it's going to lose.
Shoshana Weissmann @senatorshoshana
@stuartpstevens and it will be the best, most glorious loss your eyes have ever seen. It will be so good, it will feel like a win
-
Doug Manchester has the best point, in my opinion. Trump's detractors are satisfied to say Trump is running for president as an act of vanity. Nothing is further from the truth. Without running, Trump is already living the life of a king. Why subject himself to the rigors of a campaign, or the public beating/trashing/character assassination that comes with a political race? Plus, he continues to run his empire while running for office. Talk about time management skills!
Trump has had an interest in politics for nearly two decades. He decided to enter the race now because he believes he can make a difference and has selflessly volunteered himself for public service. There are more rewarding ways for a successful man with personal wealth rivaling several small nations to move into his golden years. Trump doesn't need this.
In my opinion, Trump has chosen the harder road and for all the right reasons.
-
....or...the GOPe is trying to strong arm Trump supporters not to vote for him for fear if they do, Hillary will be elected. Vote your conscious everyone; vote for whom you think will make the best president. :patriot:
-
If this is true, it just confirms the real ties between the GOPe and the Dems.... who cares about the voters...
-
In doing a "google" search, there are several news sources citing the same. Although Limbaugh's comments were in reference to a budget deal and Cruz, he had predicted that the GOPe would throw support towards Hillary over a month ago. So...it's going to be a long shot, but perhaps this is why Trump has stated he would run 3rd party?? He had also spoken of making Cruz his running mate, but I'm not so sure he could convince Cruz to leave the GOP.
..."“I have the idea they would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz, and that’s not a feeling,” Limbaugh said. “I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They, as members of the inside-the-Beltway establishment, no way, no how do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House.
“They would much prefer Hillary,” he added. “The only thing that explains this, looked at in any kind of prism of common sense, is that there is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pockmark.”
http://conservativetribune.com/rush-bombshell-gop-hillary/
-
Doug Manchester has the best point, in my opinion. Trump's detractors are satisfied to say Trump is running for president as an act of vanity. Nothing is further from the truth. Without running, Trump is already living the life of a king. Why subject himself to the rigors of a campaign, or the public beating/trashing/character assassination that comes with a political race? Plus, he continues to run his empire while running for office. Talk about time management skills!
Trump has had an interest in politics for nearly two decades. He decided to enter the race now because he believes he can make a difference and has selflessly volunteered himself for public service. There are more rewarding ways for a successful man with personal wealth rivaling several small nations to move into his golden years. Trump doesn't need this.
In my opinion, Trump has chosen the harder road and for all the right reasons.
What astounds me is that you actually, probably, believe this.
Most Americans would never put "Trump" and "selfless" in the same sentence.
And you say Trump "doesn't need this." Of course he needs it. His ego needs it. A billionaire who is now king of the world?
-
The GOP establishment will do anything they can to stop Mr. Trump from being the GOP nominee,” Lewandowski told the Hill.
It isn't just Trump and that "anything" includes helping Hillary if that's what it takes to preserve the inside the beltway game as it currently is! Not news to members of this forum as I told you this a long time ago!
-
What astounds me is that you actually, probably, believe this.
Most Americans would never put "Trump" and "selfless" in the same sentence.
And you say Trump "doesn't need this." Of course he needs it. His ego needs it. A billionaire who is now king of the world?
You're engaged in thought experiment. Nothing factual to back it up. I did however preface my comments with 'in my opinion'.
-
You're engaged in thought experiment. Nothing factual to back it up. I did however preface my comments with 'in my opinion'.
When it comes to Trump, there is very little that's factual.
-
When it comes to Trump sinkspur, there is very little that's factual.
Fixed it for you!
-
Whatever happened to 'Sit down, shut up, vote as you're told, we must be unified to win'? Apparently we've stumbled down another of those one way streets that seem to be loved by the GOPe.
What these big business Republicans want is all the socialism (plus an occasional war) that benefits their businesses, but yet they don't want Hillary because she might hurt or even take their business. In otherwards total self-interest and nothing else.
Unless it seems the nominated Republican isn't to their liking, then they go with Hillary anyway.
-
For all you Trump-phobes.......
Just curious. Did it move? :smokin:
:laugh:
-
It isn't just Trump and that "anything" includes helping Hillary if that's what it takes to preserve the inside the beltway game as it currently is! Not news to members of this forum as I told you this a long time ago!
DITTO and TRUMP has been running 3rd party the whole time. RIONGOP and the DEMS are and have been the party of ONE for along time. They are deathly afraid of TRUMP and CRUZ and will do anything to preserve they PARTY of ONE which will include assassination which is probably on the table and there money status over the peasants called the AMERICAN People. :patriot:
-
Assassination?
**nononono*
-
Fixed it for you!
When it comes to sinkspur, there is very little that's factual.
:beer: Thank you! Someone finally said it.
-
For all you Trump-phobes.......
Just curious. Did it move? :smokin:
:laugh:
Truthfully, there is so much more heat than light being expelled at this political moment that I don't sense anything really "moving" at all, other than jaws and mandibles.
In the early going, which is to say, in this silly pre-primary season, what tends to happen is that presumptive candidates are not "vetted" by others so much as the end up vetting themselves, most often by means of what comes out of their mouths in splendidly unguarded moments.
To the true Political Junkie, "gotcha" questions are never as much fun as unforced errors, such as when Hillary(->) claimed to have been named after a great adventurer whose name was virtually unknown until 6 years after her birth, when he bravely mounted one of the few remaining spots on earth that remains to this day unmounted by her future husband.
Likewise, I find it amusing whenever Jeb Bush tries to sound vital, confident and useful, as though he were auditioning for the role of Fredo Corleone. Never takes sides against the family again, Jeb. Hey: wanna go fishing?
Or when Bernie Sanders tries to explain the evils and excesses of capitalism to an audience of Manhattan trust fund millionaires dining on fois gras, lobster and Kobe beef.
Or for that matter, when Donald Trump makes fun of a disabled guy and then denies having done it, like Richard Pryor used to do when caught cheating on his wife: "Who you gonna believe, woman: me or yo' lying eyes?"
None of it really matters yet, so my advice for everyone here is to take deep breaths and relax. Chill. Enjoy the holidays and your families. Eschew the ad hominem attacks on fellow Republicans and instead embrace the perverse entertainment of watching Robbin' Obama and his band of Not-So-Merry-Persons-of-Indeterminate-Gender lead America downhill on a toboggan sled to Hell.
Next year, we will eventually come to some semblance of agreement about who will lead the parade.
Why? Just look at the alternative. But not for too long.
-
I have very big doubts that World Nut Daily has any inside information, about what the many and diverse components of the "GOP establishment" will do.
From personal experience I know the big money sources, like company employee PACs spread their money between many and various candidates. That way no matter who wins, presumably they still get a seat at the table, influence wise. IOW your phone call gets answered.
I think articles like this are written to stir up their narrow niche of readers, by feeding them ideas they like to hear, but for which they offer zero proof.
IOW a headline without proof in the body of the article. A "made up" article. For gullible readers.
People that are in denials they are being manipulated, are nevertheless being manipulated.
-
Pretty sad that people believe anything from Worldnut Daily.
-
Pretty sad that people believe anything from Worldnut Daily.
I rarely read anything from them. I always scroll down to see the link before I read any article on these nets.
-
DITTO and TRUMP has been running 3rd party the whole time. RIONGOP and the DEMS are and have been the party of ONE for along time. They are deathly afraid of TRUMP and CRUZ and will do anything to preserve they PARTY of ONE which will include assassination which is probably on the table and there money status over the peasants called the AMERICAN People. :patriot:
I usually ignore your incoherent tripe, but this is so far beyond the pale that it should be removed from the thread.
-
It isn't just Trump and that "anything" includes helping Hillary if that's what it takes to preserve the inside the beltway game as it currently is! Not news to members of this forum as I told you this a long time ago!
===========================================
What has the BUSH / CLINTON / BUSH / CLINTON globalist Elitist cycle done for this nation?
A: DESTROYED IT
-
===========================================
What has the BUSH / CLINTON / BUSH / CLINTON globalist Elitist cycle done for this nation?
A: DESTROYED IT
You mean how GW Bush formed the North American Union???
-
(http://uprisingradio.org/home/graphics/nau.JPG)
-
Assassination?
**nononono*
There, there, there..
-
assassination
Please refrain from using this word in connection with any politician...
-
Pretty sad that people believe anything from Worldnut Daily.
IMO a major thing on this site which has CHANGED, is much more frequent posts from these types of sources.
It is now the norm, instead of an occasional thing. WND is an online fundraising scheme, not honest journalism.
-
World Nut Daily
Ahem. That's Wing Nut Daily. :laugh:
-
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4xamlW3eR1qjh5dso1_1280.jpg)
-
World
Net Nut Daily The biggest, dumbest wingnut site on the Web . Nobody looking for a credible source for news goes to WND. Even Ann Coulter Trump's biggest supporter has been at war with WND, her calling them a FAKE news origination.
If you want me to believe this World Net Story about the GOP sending money to Hillary, then you in turn will need to believe World Net Daily's story that ran in July, stating Trump is a Phony Christian.
Donald Trump: Phony Christian
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/donald-trump-phony-christian/
-
If the story was true, and I don't give a WND story any credibility, but if it was - Trump must be worse than even I imagined.
-
IMO a major thing on this site which has CHANGED, is much more frequent posts from these types of sources.
It is now the norm, instead of an occasional thing. WND is an online fundraising scheme, not honest journalism.
That is true..
-
Ahem. That's Wing Nut Daily. :laugh:
Thank you for the correction..
-
World Net Nut Daily The biggest, dumbest wingnut site on the Web . Nobody looking for a credible source for news goes to WND. Even Ann Coulter Trump's biggest supporter has been at war with WND, her calling them a FAKE news origination.
If you want me to believe this World Net Story about the GOP sending money to Hillary, then you in turn will need to believe World Net Daily's story that ran in July, stating Trump is a Phony Christian.
Donald Trump: Phony Christian
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/donald-trump-phony-christian/ (http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/donald-trump-phony-christian/)
I'm still waiting for the North American Union and the Amero..
-
I'm still waiting for the North American Union and the Amero..
When I was on TOS the tin-foil hats types were forever posting WND stories, believing every story as factual - and no matter how many people with more common sense who posted replies, trying to set them straight, they would not be moved. And there was some wildly crazy headline stories. The internets version of a super market tabloid.
-
When I was on TOS the tin-foil hats types were forever posting WND stories, believing every story as factual - and no matter how many people with more common sense who posted replies, trying to set them straight, they would not be moved. And there was some wildly crazy headline stories. The internets version of a super market tabloid.
I remember those days as well.. I think the supermarket tabloids has more legit stories than the WND..
-
The website says: “In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to the Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president.”
Hmmmmmm.......
Lemmmmmeeeeesssseeee here......
If Hillary wins, the GOPe will no longer be in the majority, but still continue as the "business as usual" minority, a position in which they actually seem more comfortable.
If Trump wins, they may be relegated to the far-back burner, with little or no influence at all.
Ahhhhh!
Now I understand!
-
libertybele wrote:
"So...it's going to be a long shot, but perhaps this is why Trump has stated he would run 3rd party?? He had also spoken of making Cruz his running mate, but I'm not so sure he could convince Cruz to leave the GOP."
I put this up months' back, when Scott Walker was still in the race.
Substitute "Cruz" for Walker:
======================
It's mid-October 2016. It's also the first 4-way presidential race in modern times.
Running on the democratic ticket is Hillary Clinton. Polls show her with support of 29% of likely voters. But her terrible performance in both campaign speeches and interviews is hurting her, as well as a near-breakdown in the second televised debate.
Nipping at Hillary's heels is Bernie Sanders, running for his newly-minted Social Independent party. He's pulling 22% of likely voters, but he is gaining vis-a-vis Hillary. Bernie is hitting hard with his populist/liberalist/socialist theme, to enthusiastic young audiences. This is clearly his last hurrah and he's upbeat and making hay out of it. Adding to Sanders' momentum is his VP candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who graciously accepted his offer for the spot.
Struggling with the Republican ticket is Jeb Bush. He's been saddled by weakness on immigration, and new revelations about how his wife got into the country years ago. He's currently pulling about 22% of the voters.
Finally, there is Donald Trump, running on the American Restoration Party ticket. Against all odds, Trump has built a strong conservative base with loose but frank talk that resonates with many Americans. Trump is running without a VP co-candidate, but he's stated that if elected, he will ask Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to hire on as Vice President and chief advisor. He's polling around 28% and is gaining. After his closing speech in the last debate, in which he proclaimed "No more Bushes! No more Clintons!", he seems not only to be pulling voters from Bush, but some from Hillary's side as well.
Who ya gonna vote for?
-
Unnamed sources again...
Riiiiiiiight... They would probably sooner jump to Deez Nuts* than Hillary.
*Disclaimer, Deez Nuts is an actual presidential candidate.
-
libertybele wrote:
"So...it's going to be a long shot, but perhaps this is why Trump has stated he would run 3rd party?? He had also spoken of making Cruz his running mate, but I'm not so sure he could convince Cruz to leave the GOP."
I put this up months' back, when Scott Walker was still in the race.
Substitute "Cruz" for Walker:
======================
It's mid-October 2016. It's also the first 4-way presidential race in modern times.
Running on the democratic ticket is Hillary Clinton. Polls show her with support of 29% of likely voters. But her terrible performance in both campaign speeches and interviews is hurting her, as well as a near-breakdown in the second televised debate.
Nipping at Hillary's heels is Bernie Sanders, running for his newly-minted Social Independent party. He's pulling 22% of likely voters, but he is gaining vis-a-vis Hillary. Bernie is hitting hard with his populist/liberalist/socialist theme, to enthusiastic young audiences. This is clearly his last hurrah and he's upbeat and making hay out of it. Adding to Sanders' momentum is his VP candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who graciously accepted his offer for the spot.
Struggling with the Republican ticket is Jeb Bush. He's been saddled by weakness on immigration, and new revelations about how his wife got into the country years ago. He's currently pulling about 22% of the voters.
Finally, there is Donald Trump, running on the American Restoration Party ticket. Against all odds, Trump has built a strong conservative base with loose but frank talk that resonates with many Americans. Trump is running without a VP co-candidate, but he's stated that if elected, he will ask Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to hire on as Vice President and chief advisor. He's polling around 28% and is gaining. After his closing speech in the last debate, in which he proclaimed "No more Bushes! No more Clintons!", he seems not only to be pulling voters from Bush, but some from Hillary's side as well.
Who ya gonna vote for?
I will vote for neither.. I don't vote for Democrats..
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12341044_10207196146116279_925921061536011435_n.jpg?oh=7698571d4fddadd7e1b947ab6f2ec2ab&oe=56D401DE)
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12341044_10207196146116279_925921061536011435_n.jpg?oh=7698571d4fddadd7e1b947ab6f2ec2ab&oe=56D401DE)
LOL!
You jackasses don't realize that when the American black sees that graphic with Sharpton and Jackson....they'll VOTE for him.
-
LOL!
You jackasses don't realize that when the American black sees that graphic with Sharpton and Jackson....they'll VOTE for him.
Hey I'm not moron who is supporting a reality show candidate who is friends with Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton.
-
I will vote for neither.. I don't vote for Democrats..
The salient point.
Trump is a Democrat, and we shouldn't be asked to vote for a Progressive running on the Republican ticket.
-
The salient point.
Trump is a Democrat, and we shouldn't be asked to vote for a Progressive running on the Republican ticket.
Thank you.. Somehow I don't believe in his conversion..
-
If this is true, it just confirms the real ties between the GOPe and the Dems.... who cares about the voters...
.
Those ties are obvious here. One poster today even criticized Trump for taking advantage of federal tax credits to put $200m of his company's money into renovating a crumbling and ignored building.
-
Thank you.. Somehow I don't believe in his conversion..
I might believe he was actually a Republican if he had 'converted' more than 2 years ago, and hadn't voted for Obama and supported Obamacare and the Stimulus Package.... **nononono*
-
I might believe he was actually a Republican if he had 'converted' more than 2 years ago, and hadn't voted for Obama and supported Obamacare and the Stimulus Package.... **nononono*
"Yes, Donald Trump is a Republican. He is a registered Republican in the State of New York as of the year 2009."
By my count that's almost 7 years. (Not counting the years after Trump registered Republican originally in 1987 before switching parties)
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/24/jeb-bush/bush-says-trump-was-democrat-longer-republican-las/
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12241301_1163010130392959_7138770567720856251_n.jpg?oh=baeffc6d8f8a9909eccd56a5beedb8e5&oe=56F049B7)
-
"Yes, Donald Trump is a Republican. He is a registered Republican in the State of New York as of the year 2009."
By my count that's almost 7 years. (Not counting the years after Trump registered Republican originally in 1987 before switching parties)
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/24/jeb-bush/bush-says-trump-was-democrat-longer-republican-las/
I concede that he may have registered as a Republican in 2009 (7 short years ago), but that was the same year he supported Obama's stimulus package.
How many actual Republicans you know did that, aligncare?
And how many Republicans/Conservatives do you know who support single payer government health care?
He's a Democrat.
btw, how many months was that registration change after he voted for Obama?
-
Month and year of registration Party affiliation
July 1987. Republican
October 1999. Independence Party
August 2001. Democrat
September 2009. Republican
December 2011. No party affiliation (independent)
April 2012. Republican
"We don’t need to go back as far as 1987 for this check, of course, but it shows Trump has switched quite a bit. After 12 years as a Republican, he registered with the Independence Party in 1999. That moved Trump to New York’s version of the Reform Party, which is neither Democratic nor Republican. He even won the Reform Party’s California primary for president in March 2000, despite withdrawing from that contest."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/24/jeb-bush/bush-says-trump-was-democrat-longer-republican-las/
-
Please refrain from using this word in connection with any politician...
Can we use the first 3 letters? :whistle:
-
I concede that he may have registered as a Republican in 2009 (7 short years ago), but that was the same year he supported Obama's stimulus package.
How many actual Republicans you know did that, aligncare?
And how many Republicans/Conservatives do you know who support single payer government health care?
He's a Democrat.
Perhaps. But he's not an Alinsky Marxist Socialist like the other 'guy' we're being given.
And Reagan was a Democrat too.
I'm going to wait and see during the general. I'll put money on it that Trump will have a similar "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. THEY left me".
-
Score:
Republican or Independent = 22+ years
Democrat = 8 years
(for some reason this seems to matter to some people)
-
"We don’t need to go back as far as 1987 for this check, of course, but it shows Trump has switched quite a bit. After 12 years as a Republican, he registered with the Independence Party in 1999. That moved Trump to New York’s version of the Reform Party, which is neither Democratic nor Republican. He even won the Reform Party’s California primary for president in March 2000, despite withdrawing from that contest."
I would suspect that if you examined ANY successful business owner you would see similar trends, that is why they are successful, they adapt which seems to to be an unpalatable trait with some.
-
Month and year of registration Party affiliation
July 1987. Republican
October 1999. Independence Party
August 2001. Democrat
September 2009. Republican
December 2011. No party affiliation (independent)
April 2012. Republican
"We don’t need to go back as far as 1987 for this check, of course, but it shows Trump has switched quite a bit. After 12 years as a Republican, he registered with the Independence Party in 1999. That moved Trump to New York’s version of the Reform Party, which is neither Democratic nor Republican. He even won the Reform Party’s California primary for president in March 2000, despite withdrawing from that contest."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/24/jeb-bush/bush-says-trump-was-democrat-longer-republican-las/
None of that changes the fact that he's a liberal who supports massive government health care (as recently as the debate this past summer), praised the Stimulus package, praised Bill Clinton as a great president and voted for Obama.
He's NOT a Republican. Republicans don't do any of those things.
-
And if you read the article, Trump gives the reason for his "Democrat" years... (Not that I expect his detractors to care or even read the article)
-
I would suspect that if you examined ANY successful business owner you would see similar trends, that is why they are successful, they adapt which seems to to be an unpalatable trait with some.
Praising Bill Clinton and supporting Obama's policies should be unpalatable to any Conservative/Republican.
-
And if you read the article, Trump gives the reason for his "Democrat" years... (Not that I expect his detractors to care or even read the article)
The reason I'm a "detractor" is because I've listened to him supporting leftist causes in the past 10 years.
And I don't support ANY liberal.
-
Score:
Republican or Independent = 22+ years
Democrat = 8 years
(for some reason this seems to matter to some people)
Playing Sherlock Holmes.....seems to me the evidence says that he hated George W. Bush. He was only a Democrat during those two administrations.
-
One last thing. I supported Democrats from 1969 to 1988, after which I voted straight Republican.
Now I'm more libertarian and independent minded. I also like the tea party and eschew the GOPe.
-
None of that changes the fact that he's a liberal who supports massive government health care (as recently as the debate this past summer), praised the Stimulus package, praised Bill Clinton as a great president and voted for Obama.
He's NOT a Republican. Republicans don't do any of those things.
Boehner Praises Signing of Bipartisan Economic Stimulus Plan - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-praises-signing-bipartisan-economic-stimulus-plan#sthash.1AydA5cg.dpufBoehner (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-praises-signing-bipartisan-economic-stimulus-plan#sthash.1AydA5cg.dpufBoehner) Praises Signing of Bipartisan Economic Stimulus
“Getting our economy moving again is critically important, and the bipartisan legislation signed into law today is a good step in the right direction.
-
Playing Sherlock Holmes.....seems to me the evidence says that he hated George W. Bush. He was only a Democrat during those two administrations.
I've said it before, Donald Trump is not a Democrat he's a businessman. There's a difference.
-
Boehner Praises Signing of Bipartisan Economic Stimulus Plan - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-praises-signing-bipartisan-economic-stimulus-plan#sthash.1AydA5cg.dpufBoehner (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-praises-signing-bipartisan-economic-stimulus-plan#sthash.1AydA5cg.dpufBoehner) Praises Signing of Bipartisan Economic Stimulus
“Getting our economy moving again is critically important, and the bipartisan legislation signed into law today is a good step in the right direction.
Boehner?? LOL!
-
One last thing. I supported Democrats from 1969 to 1988, after which I voted straight Republican.
Now I'm more libertarian and independent minded. I also like the tea party and eschew the GOPe.
You'll be interested in knowing then, that Trump is losing with the Tea Party/Conservatives in Iowa, and winning with the GOPe supporters.
-
Praising Bill Clinton and supporting Obama's policies should be unpalatable to any Conservative/Republican.
ML, if you are in business, especially if your goal is to create a big business, your business becomes your wife, your kids and your mother all rolled into one because all of those people rely on that business and you will publicly adopt whatever position will keep that business healthy. If you need cheap labor, you go find it. If you need better access to raw materials, you go find it. If patting a jerk on the back and telling them how great they are gets you the next contract, you do it.
Not saying I agree with it or even like it but that is just they way these guys roll.
-
ML, if you are in business, especially if your goal is to create a big business, your business becomes your wife, your kids and your mother all rolled into one because all of those people rely on that business and you will publicly adopt whatever position will keep that business healthy. If you need cheap labor, you go find it. If you need better access to raw materials, you go find it. If patting a jerk on the back and telling them how great they are gets you the next contract, you do it.
Not saying I agree with it or even like it but that is just they way these guys roll.
And that's justification for putting an unprincipled businessman, however successful, in the White House? That's why it's ludicrous to even consider a person with no political experience for the highest office in the land.
Look at what we have now. And you want somebody with even LESS experience with an even bigger ego?
-
And that's justification for putting an unprincipled businessman, however successful, in the White House? That's why it's ludicrous to even consider a person with no political experience for the highest office in the land.
Look at what we have now. And you want somebody with even LESS experience with an even bigger ego?
Unprincipled? Is that an opinion or do you have facts to back that up?
No political experience? He has had to negotiate with dictators, kings, legislators and presidents to build consensus to grow his business... and has been quite successful with it... What has Bush done?
If you really believe that the other candidates do not have an equivalent ego I want some of whatever your taking.... They are just to PC and afraid to stand tall and put themselves out for a media bashing...
-
Unprincipled? Is that an opinion or do you have facts to back that up?
No political experience? He has had to negotiate with dictators, kings, legislators and presidents to build consensus to grow his business... and has been quite successful with it... What has Bush done?
If you really believe that the other candidates do not have an equivalent ego I want some of whatever your taking.... They are just to PC and afraid to stand tall and put themselves out for a media bashing...
Yes, unprincipled. You said it yourself. He has had to kiss every political butt in New York and other places and he will do whatever he has to do and say whatever he has to say to get the business.
If that's not unprincipled, I don't know what is.
"Nobody has a bigger ego than me, EdinVA. I have the biggest ego of all time".
-
Unprincipled? Is that an opinion or do you have facts to back that up?
No political experience? He has had to negotiate with dictators, kings, legislators and presidents to build consensus to grow his business... and has been quite successful with it... What has Bush done?
If you really believe that the other candidates do not have an equivalent ego I want some of whatever your taking.... They are just to PC and afraid to stand tall and put themselves out for a media bashing...
I just listened to an interview with Trump.
One line that stuck out was when Trump said he's never been a politician but he's had to deal with them his entire career.
One example. After proposing to build a golf course in Scotland Trump encountered fierce opposition from every level of Scottish government, national and local, and from environmental and special interest groups. However, after negotiations, Trump won them over and the course was completed. And now Trump International Golf Links, Aberdeen is an outstanding championship links course recently ranked by Golf World as one of the best golf courses in the world.
-
That'd be the golf course that created 200 jobs rather than the promised 6000, that left the local residents without water for years, and has NEVER turned a profit then? And that is currently back in the news because The Donald is trying to block a wind farm off the coast there and is complaining that he can't get a fair hearing in the Scottish courts?
Alrighty then. :shrug:
If you are going to pick an example of his international chops, you might want to pick a successful one ....
-
That'd be the golf course that created 200 jobs rather than the promised 6000, that left the local residents without water for years, and has NEVER turned a profit then? And that is currently back in the news because The Donald is trying to block a wind farm off the coast there and is complaining that he can't get a fair hearing in the Scottish courts?
Alrighty then. :shrug:
If you are going to pick an example of his international chops, you might want to pick a successful one ....
EC, I cannot find anything on the web to backup your assertions, except that he is battling the windfarm...
If you have any links to share I am interested....
-
http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-bullied-a-90-year-old-woman-over-scottish-golf-course-2015-6?r=US&IR=T
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/scotland-business/715934/trumps-aberdeen-golf-course-investment-narrows-losses/
There's two to be going on with.
We don't like the Scots much (at all) so we do tend to hear ALL about them.
-
Trump' $550 million golf empire may be in the weeds, say experts
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/trumps-550m-golf-empire-may-be-in-the-weeds-experts.html
-
I've said it before, Donald Trump is not a Democrat he's a businessman. There's a difference.
Democrat is a political philosophy. Businessman is an occupation.
-
And that's justification for putting an unprincipled businessman, however successful, in the White House? That's why it's ludicrous to even consider a person with no political experience for the highest office in the land.
Look at what we have now. And you want somebody with even LESS experience with an even bigger ego?
I want my surgeon, my bus driver, even the guy cooking my lunch at Denny's to have some experience before trying out their job on me.
Amateurs are called amateurs for a reason.
-
I want my surgeon, my bus driver, even the guy cooking my lunch at Denny's to have some experience before trying out their job on me.
Amateurs are called amateurs for a reason.
As an international businessman, Trump has more experience interfacing with politicians and bureaucracies as an end-user of government services—by his own experience, not through theory—than his remaining political competitors, the senators and governors still in the race.
-
Democrat is a political philosophy. Businessman is an occupation.
Absolutely right! And a VERY important point in this discussion!
-
Absolutely right! And a VERY important point in this discussion!
Then you both miss the point of that comment. My apologies, I wasn't more clear.
-
I said it before and I will say it again. I am far more interested in a candidates Character than I am in what party they use to identify with. Trump's character stinks to high heaven. I consider myself a pretty good judge of character and he has not earned my respect or trust. I see him as a bully.
-
Then you both miss the point of that comment. My apologies, I wasn't more clear.
I took your point to be that all businessmen behave as Trump does because that is what they are required to do as businessmen. I emphatically reject that POV!
-
As an international businessman, Trump has more experience interfacing with politicians and bureaucracies as an end-user of government services—by his own experience, not through theory—than his remaining political competitors, the senators and governors still in the race.
He does have experience sucking special tax breaks and favors out of hapless Atlantic City politicians, displacing small businesses and homeowners with his rampant use of eminent domain, and making promises to politicians about the success of his projects he cannot keep.
-
I said it before and I will say it again. I am far more interested in a candidates Character than I am in what party they use to identify with. Trump's character stinks to high heaven. I consider myself a pretty good judge of character and he has not earned my respect or trust. I see him as a bully.
I agree. Watched a hour long Tv show last night. The Making Of Trump. Didn't remember he had tried to run for prez before. Forgot he cheated on his wife.
-
I want my surgeon, my bus driver, even the guy cooking my lunch at Denny's to have some experience before trying out their job on me. Amateurs are called amateurs for a reason.
Just out of curiosity what level of experience do you consider adequate for someone to be President? You do realize, do you not, that Abraham Lincoln's experience, if that is what it can be called, was one term as a Congressional representative (1846-1848)? After that he acted as a lawyer and did not reenter politics until 1854 & 1858 when he lost races for the US Senate. His opposition to slavery led him to be a major player in the founding of the Republican Party, but he held no political office until elected President in 1860.
In your opinion did Lincoln have sufficient experience to be Prez?
-
Just out of curiosity what level of experience do you consider adequate for someone to be President? You do realize, do you not, that Abraham Lincoln's experience, if that is what it can be called, was one term as a Congressional representative (1846-1848)? After that he acted as a lawyer and did not reenter politics until 1854 & 1858 when he lost races for the US Senate. His opposition to slavery led him to be a major player in the founding of the Republican Party, but he held no political office until elected President in 1860.
In your opinion did Lincoln have sufficient experience to be Prez?
NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
-
I said it before and I will say it again. I am far more interested in a candidates Character than I am in what party they use to identify with. Trump's character stinks to high heaven. I consider myself a pretty good judge of character and he has not earned my respect or trust. I see him as a bully.
Remember when we were united in condemning Bill Clinton because he lacked character?
Overall, he made a few good choices as President (like going along with the Republican Congress), but NONE of us admired him, nor thought he had the character to be President.
Apparently a portion of us now disagree with that criterion for a President and are rooting for someone who lacks character.
We are in sorry shape........ **nononono*
-
NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
Lol. BigUn, my inquiry doesn't relate to the quality of Lincoln's Presidency, but rather Once-Ler's criteria for experience. You and I share, it appears, a similarly low opinion of Massa Lincoln otherwise.
-
Lol. BigUn, my inquiry doesn't relate to the quality of Lincoln's Presidency, but rather Once-Ler's criteria for experience. You and I share, it appears, a similarly low opinion of Massa Lincoln otherwise.
Lincoln did have a redeeming feature in the minds of some businessmen of the day. I'm sure you've heard it before elsewhere. It goes something like this: " I like Mr. Lincoln! Once he's bought he stays bought!"
-
Electrocuted Trump
https://vine.co/v/iaHjtEW1Ii5
-
Remember when we were united in condemning Bill Clinton because he lacked character?
Overall, he made a few good choices as President (like going along with the Republican Congress), but NONE of us admired him, nor thought he had the character to be President.
Apparently a portion of us now disagree with that criterion for a President and are rooting for someone who lacks character.
We are in sorry shape........ **nononono*
I don't believe that our ideal criterion for a President is that far apart, I have just come to accept that our "nice" guy will loose to their bully, it is that simple for me.
And even if our "nice" guy manages to win, can that "nice" guy take on isis/russia/china/congress and win?
I don't care how, but deliver on all of the glorious, touchy feely, we have to be a kinder gentler nation, and in the end make the US better off?
-
I don't believe that our ideal criterion for a President is that far apart, I have just come to accept that our "nice" guy will loose to their bully, it is that simple for me.
And even if our "nice" guy manages to win, can that "nice" guy take on isis/russia/china/congress and win?
I don't care how, but deliver on all of the glorious, touchy feely, we have to be a kinder gentler nation, and in the end make the US better off?
I'm not talking about being "nice," and certainly not talking about being 'touchy feely.'
I'm talking about fundamental character. Honesty. Decency. Morality.
We've clearly given up on that standard.
Strength is not equated with loudness or bullying (or lying). We need character in our leaders, or we have given up on what really counts.
-
Just out of curiosity what level of experience do you consider adequate for someone to be President? You do realize, do you not, that Abraham Lincoln's experience, if that is what it can be called, was one term as a Congressional representative (1846-1848)? After that he acted as a lawyer and did not reenter politics until 1854 & 1858 when he lost races for the US Senate. His opposition to slavery led him to be a major player in the founding of the Republican Party, but he held no political office until elected President in 1860.
In your opinion did Lincoln have sufficient experience to be Prez?
Lincoln also had a long career in the Illinois state legislature prior to his Congressional seat, but I prefer my candidate has won statewide office at least once, and better yet twice. I think it is clear that Lincoln's amateur status when elected solidified the states who seceded, and gave legitimacy to the much better qualified Jefferson Davis as the President of the Confederate States.
-
Electrocuted Trump
https://vine.co/v/iaHjtEW1Ii5
Thanx for the laugh.
-
I don't believe that our ideal criterion for a President is that far apart, I have just come to accept that our "nice" guy will loose to their bully, it is that simple for me.
And even if our "nice" guy manages to win, can that "nice" guy take on isis/russia/china/congress and win?
I don't care how, but deliver on all of the glorious, touchy feely, we have to be a kinder gentler nation, and in the end make the US better off?
Its not a "nice guy" leading a kinder gentler nation we are looking for - but we do understand that we are one bad Tweet away from Nuclear War. We need whoever sits at the head of the table of The Joint Chiefs of Staff to take the job with all seriousness, and be able to make well informed decisions, able to listen and take others advice. A controlled temperament can never be used in describing Trump.
-
You mean how GW Bush formed the North American Union???
==================================
Never forget - > - > - > Barack Obama COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT GEORGE W. BUSH
-
Its not a "nice guy" leading a kinder gentler nation we are looking for - but we do understand that we are one bad Tweet away from Nuclear War. We need whoever sits at the head of the table of The Joint Chiefs of Staff to take the job with all seriousness, and be able to make well informed decisions, able to listen and take others advice. A controlled temperament can never be used in describing Trump.
I like Trump's approach to foreign entanglements: "I'd bomb the sh*t out of them."
Seems like a pretty clear strategy to me. And then, he probably take the oil, too! :police: :patriot:
-
I'm not talking about being "nice," and certainly not talking about being 'touchy feely.'
I'm talking about fundamental character. Honesty. Decency. Morality.
We've clearly given up on that standard.
Strength is not equated with loudness or bullying (or lying). We need character in our leaders, or we have given up on what really counts.
In 2008, we had an Honest, Decent, Moral candidate and he got his butt handed to him by someone who was not.
Helery is 10 times worse than BO.....
-
In 2008, we had an Honest, Decent, Moral candidate and he got his butt handed to him by someone who was not.
Helery is 10 times worse than BO.....
yes she will be. Just think if she becomes prez she has beat prison and after getting away with all she has sold and done she will be worse than ever.
-
I like Trump's approach to foreign entanglements: "I'd bomb the sh*t out of them."
Seems like a pretty clear strategy to me. And then, he probably take the oil, too! :police: :patriot:
I trust you have a pretty decent fallout shelter and it is well stocked. That kind of talk sound good from the guy at the end of the bar, but Foreign Policy is nothing to leave to a hothead.
-
In 2008, we had an Honest, Decent, Moral candidate and he got his butt handed to him by someone who was not.
Helery is 10 times worse than BO.....
You have a fundamental flaw in your argument, Ed. You make the assumption that people of character cannot also be strong, and have an impact on history. Two come immediately to mind.... William Wilberforce, who almost single handedly ended the slave trade, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who stood almost alone against Adolf Hitler.
(There are many more historical examples, but I think you get the idea).
Granted, we don't know if any of our candidates this year have the kind of character and strength required for these dangerous days, but one thing we know for sure is that Donald Trump doesn't.
-
I like Trump's approach to foreign entanglements: "I'd bomb the sh*t out of them."
And by the way, that is exactly what they want us to do. They fully expected Raqqa to be bombed, and for Russia, and France to join the war, and for tensions between Russia and the West to increase leading to total confrontation. The 20-year, 7-Step Plan for Islamic Domination Of The World Is Right On Track. And we are now in Phase 6.
• The Sixth Phase - from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” .
◾The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.
Its going to take a lot more than "I'd bomb the sh*t out of them" to get us out of this mess alive. What worries me is if none of the candidates can turn back this caliphate clock. If not - look up for HE is coming soon.
-
And by the way, that is exactly what they want us to do. They fully expected Raqqa to be bombed, and for Russia, and France to join the war, and for tensions between Russia and the West to increase leading to total confrontation. The 20-year, 7-Step Plan for Islamic Domination Of The World Is Right On Track. And we are now in Phase 6.
• The Sixth Phase - from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” .
◾The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.
Its going to take a lot more than "I'd bomb the sh*t out of them" to get us out of this mess alive. What worries me is if none of the candidates can turn back this caliphate clock. If not - look up for the for HE is coming soon.
:amen: ...and to think the liberals don't think Hussein is the anti-Christ.