The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: HAPPY2BME on March 13, 2016, 05:51:37 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs
President Reagan ordered the CHP and Berkeley police to "use whatever method they choose against the protesters". These were his own words.
-
This is EXACTLY how Donald Trump would handle Chicago.
-
This is EXACTLY how Donald Trump would handle Chicago.
Great find. Thanks for posting! :beer:
-
This short film proves that Trump's mindset is much like Reagan's was.
Seeing it here in black and white should tone down those sensitive tender souls that warn us that Trump is too strong is his speech.
They said much the same about Reagan. I am glad to be reminded that Reagan did not misplace blame and responsibility for rioting, unlike longwinded constitutional scholars.
-
Michael Reagan to Donald Trump: You’re No Ronald Reagan
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/01/29/michael-reagan-donald-trump-youre-ronald-reagan/
-
Michael Reagan to Donald Trump: You’re No Ronald Reagan
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/01/29/michael-reagan-donald-trump-youre-ronald-reagan/
Would YOU care to comment on what Reagan said and did, per the film ???
Forget Michael Reagan and forget Trump. What about Reagan's handling of the situation and what he said on the film.
Agree, or disagree ??
Times were far more serious. By the end of Vietnam over 58,000 Americans would die. More than 10 times the number to date in the all volunteer "war on terror."
-
I don't see any similarity. Reagan handled to situation with strength. He didn't promote violence and then cry victim.
-
I don't see any similarity. Reagan handled to situation with strength. He didn't promote violence and then cry victim.
If you don't see a similarity, you aren't serious.
-
"He didn't promote violence..."
"President Reagan ordered the CHP and Berkeley police to "use whatever method they choose against the protesters".
She's right you know. By "whatever method" then Governor Reagan meant free ice cream if they would behave, or bedtime stories, or the candy of their choice, etc. But not in any way or by any means, force.
-
If you don't see a similarity, you aren't serious.
I'm not serious? You're not serious! Trump goes around the nation promoting division and hate and you think you have a comparison?
I couldn't find a statement Reagan statement on Tiananmen Square but I am sure it wouldn't be similar to Mr. Trumps. This is what I am talking about. He promotes hate. What would you guess Chinese students would feel about Mr. Trumps idea of strength? Any students? I am sure that Reagan would have condemned it.
CNN moderator Jake Tapper asked Trump to react to concerns about his previous positive comments about authoritarian dictators:
TAPPER: Mr. Trump, some of your Republican critics have expressed concern about comments you have made praising authoritarian dictators. You have said positive things about Putin as a leader, and about China’s massacre of pro-democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square, you’ve said: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it, then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
How do you respond?
TRUMP: That doesn’t mean I was endorsing that. I was not endorsing it. I said that is a strong, powerful government that put it down with strength. And then they kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing. It doesn’t mean at all I was endorsing it.
In 1989, after Chinese troops murdered protestors, President George H.W. Bush didn’t offer amoral ramblings about strength. Instead, he defended freedom with moral clarity.
“The demonstrators in Tiananmen Square were advocating basic human rights including the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association. These are goals we support around the world. These are freedoms that are enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Chinese Constitution.”
“Throughout the world we stand with those who seek greater freedom and democracy. This is the strongly felt view of my administration, of our Congress and, most important, the American people.”
By agreeing with the Chinese government’s version of events, Trump is positioning his candidacy on the wrong side of the tank column and the wrong side of history.
http://opportunitylives.com/no-donald-tiananmen-square-was-a-massacre-not-a-riot/
-
"He didn't promote violence..."
"President Reagan ordered the CHP and Berkeley police to "use whatever method they choose against the protesters".
She's right you know. By "whatever method" then Governor Reagan meant free ice cream if they would behave, or bedtime stories, or the candy of their choice, etc. But not in any way or by any means, force.
Different situation. And if you think any means is telling your goons you can rough someone up and Trump will pay the legal fees your nuts.
-
http://opportunitylives.com/no-donald-tiananmen-square-was-a-massacre-not-a-riot/
Pretty much an anti-Trump site.
Pat Buchanan says Donald Trump is the future of the Republican Party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/12/pat-buchanan-believes-donald-trump-is-the-future-of-the-republican-party/
-
http://opportunitylives.com/no-donald-tiananmen-square-was-a-massacre-not-a-riot/
Pretty much an anti-Trump site.
Pat Buchanan says Donald Trump is the future of the Republican Party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/12/pat-buchanan-believes-donald-trump-is-the-future-of-the-republican-party/
And so did he say it? Yes he did. What does it matter what the site was? That was how he viewed strength. Ugly but they got it done.
-
Reagan also called the Soviet Union "the evil empire". Are you going to accuse him of inciting hate, violence and divisiveness?
-
Reagan also called the Soviet Union "the evil empire". Are you going to accuse him of inciting hate, violence and divisiveness?
Regarding Trump, if it weren't for a double standard, conservatives would have no standards and all.
-
"He didn't promote violence..."
"President Reagan ordered the CHP and Berkeley police to "use whatever method they choose against the protesters".
She's right you know. By "whatever method" then Governor Reagan meant free ice cream if they would behave, or bedtime stories, or the candy of their choice, etc. But not in any way or by any means, force.
Reagan was president in 1969?
Maybe you mean Governor Reagan? So in your mind there is not a lick of difference between a sitting governor who, as such, is in charge of maintaining the peace, and a private candidate for political office? Or maybe you've so aggrandized Trump you think he's as good as the sitting executive right now?
And for the record, I don't, and never have, condoned the actions of the rioters - better to call them by what they really are - and the mere fact that I've pointed out that Trump is not exactly as innocent as the driven snow when it comes to ratcheting up the violence does not gainsay that.
It would have been really, really good if the Chicago PD had stepped up to the plate and actually engaged in law enforcement. Then again, perhaps they were given orders, sub rosa, to stand down by the democrat leadership in Chicago?
-
:beer:
Reagan was president in 1969?
Maybe you mean Governor Reagan? So in your mind there is not a lick of difference between a sitting governor who, as such, is in charge of maintaining the peace, and a private candidate for political office? Or maybe you've so aggrandized Trump you think he's as good as the sitting executive right now?
:beer:
-
http://opportunitylives.com/no-donald-tiananmen-square-was-a-massacre-not-a-riot/
Pretty much an anti-Trump site.
Pat Buchanan says Donald Trump is the future of the Republican Party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/12/pat-buchanan-believes-donald-trump-is-the-future-of-the-republican-party/
Pat Buchanan, noted anti-semite, is wrong. Trump is tearing the Republican Party apart. The Republican Party will not be the party of Trump. 35% of the vote is not indicative of the "base" at all.
Trump, after his inevitable loss to Hillary, will be shuffled off to the side. Trumpism will be dead, except in the minds of the sucker-punchers and bigots. They'll start their own party, never to be heard from again.
-
http://opportunitylives.com/no-donald-tiananmen-square-was-a-massacre-not-a-riot/
Pretty much an anti-Trump site.
Pat Buchanan says Donald Trump is the future of the Republican Party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/12/pat-buchanan-believes-donald-trump-is-the-future-of-the-republican-party/
Then it'll be a very dark future indeed.
-
I don't see any similarity. Reagan handled to situation with strength. He didn't promote violence and then cry victim.
Every comparison of Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan is nothing more than a joke.
There is no similarity between the two men. Not one whit.
You are right that Trump has promoted violence. It is factual, not emotionally based. His words have encouraged violence.
Reagan never acted the buffoon and told people he'd like to punch them in the face.
Again.......... the comparison of the man (Reagan) and the boy (Trump) is laughable.
-
Then it'll be a very dark future indeed.
Indeed.
If Buchanan is right (and he's not), then people who have been life-long Republicans, with conservative values and moral principles, will flee the party in droves. There will be no Republican party left.
Which, of course, is the goal of many of Trump's supporters.
Not 'making America great,' not any form of value, but only sticking it to the hated Republican party.
The trouble is that in their attempt to destroy Republicans, they are in actuality, destroying Conservatism, because in Trump, and Trumpism, the concept of actual conservatism is completely foreign. There is not a shred of Conservatism in this Trump mania.
And there is no shred of Reagan, nor his values, either.
-
Pat Buchanan, noted anti-semite, is wrong. Trump is tearing the Republican Party apart. The Republican Party will not be the party of Trump. 35% of the vote is not indicative of the "base" at all.
Trump, after his inevitable loss to Hillary, will be shuffled off to the side. Trumpism will be dead, except in the minds of the sucker-punchers and bigots. They'll start their own party, never to be heard from again.
:yawn2:
-
Indeed.
If Buchanan is right (and he's not), then people who have been life-long Republicans, with conservative values and moral principles, will flee the party in droves. There will be no Republican party left.
Which, of course, is the goal of many of Trump's supporters.
Not 'making America great,' not any form of value, but only sticking it to the hated Republican party.
The trouble is that in their attempt to destroy Republicans, they are in actuality, destroying Conservatism, because in Trump, and Trumpism, the concept of actual conservatism is completely foreign. There is not a shred of Conservatism in this Trump mania.
And there is no shred of Reagan, nor his values, either.
Donald Trump is so popular he's virtually guaranteed to reach the finals in the race for the 2016 GOP nomination, says conservative pundit Patrick J. Buchanan, who served as senior adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.
"He is so strong now that unless there's something really disqualifying and explosive, Trump virtually is guaranteed to be the outsider, insurgent candidate going into the semi-finals and the finals for the Republican nomination right now," Buchanan said Wednesday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/pat-buchanan-donald-trump/2015/08/12/id/669830/#ixzz42oV0TvkI
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
-
It is hilarious to ME, to witness phony conservaives, upon learning that Reagan, strong Law & Order man, strong National Security man, really did talk tough, and act tough.
They attempt double-back-flips, pretzel contortions to claim that what was said and done was "different," etc.
I was a college student, soldier, then again college student during the period in question. I lived it, and remember how Reagan handled it.
Most that are claiming it was "different," a) didn't live it, b) look silly, to the point of looking sort of something akin to stupid, c) may be amateur or paid disruptors, d) by opposing Trump they are taking the side of the very "establishment" they claim to oppose.
Call them "Sea Island" Republicans," where the forces of Karl Rove meet Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs, etc.
That is the TRUE world of "anybody but Trump."
In that world, they have empathy and sympathize with rioters and disruptors. They advocate kumbaya understanding instead of "overly harsh" words and phrases. You are, in reality, wimpish--just exactly like Obama.
You lack even the first clues about handling such situations, for your career in constitutional debates have given you zero real world experience, on the ground, with much of anything. You are indeed, professional talkers.
The fact that in May 1969 Reagan endorsed law enforcement to go out and crack some heads, if necessary, surprised you. Caught off guard, and completely unschooled in the FACTS of that era, you resort to "it was different."
-
Different situation. And if you think any means is telling your goons you can rough someone up and Trump will pay the legal fees your nuts.
Original statement: "He didn't promote violence..."
Now come the qualifications, the explanations, the "what I really meant": "Different situation. And if you think any means is telling your goons you can rough someone up and Trump will pay the legal fees your nuts."
Lol.
-
"If Buchanan is right (and he's not), then people who have been life-long Republicans, with conservative values and moral principles, will flee the party in droves. There will be no Republican party left."
Oh, say it isn't so. You mean the Republican Party which has failed to fulfill its promises to its supporters for 7+ years; which has lied to and ignored Conservatives time and again; which not once but twice was given strong majorities in both Houses because the voters wanted them to rein in Obama but did nothing of the kind; the Republican Party which passed us the Omnibus Spending bill which gave Obama everything he wanted? That Republican Party?
Gosh, I sure am gonna miss it.
-
"If Buchanan is right (and he's not), then people who have been life-long Republicans, with conservative values and moral principles, will flee the party in droves. There will be no Republican party left."
Oh, say it isn't so. You mean the Republican Party which has failed to fulfill its promises to its supporters for 7+ years; which has lied to and ignored Conservatives time and again; which not once but twice was given strong majorities in both Houses because the voters wanted them to rein in Obama but did nothing of the kind; the Republican Party which passed us the Omnibus Spending bill which gave Obama everything he wanted? That Republican Party?
Gosh, I sure am gonna miss it.
==================================
That's why both Rubio and Cruz are hitting the Evangelical circuits so heavily. It was the Evangelical vote that propped up, and re-propped up what you so aptly described over the space of the last two decades. It was also the Evangelical vote that elected both Ronald Regan, and each of the Bush's.
Amazingly, Donald Trump is winning or at least competing very heavily with both Rubio and Cruz among Evangelicals.
-
It is hilarious to ME, to witness phony conservaives, upon learning that Reagan, strong Law & Order man, strong National Security man, really did talk tough, and act tough.
They attempt double-back-flips, pretzel contortions to claim that what was said and done was "different," etc.
I was a college student, soldier, then again college student during the period in question. I lived it, and remember how Reagan handled it.
Most that are claiming it was "different," a) didn't live it, b) look silly, to the point of looking sort of something akin to stupid, c) may be amateur or paid disruptors, d) by opposing Trump they are taking the side of the very "establishment" they claim to oppose.
Call them "Sea Island" Republicans," where the forces of Karl Rove meet Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs, etc.
That is the TRUE world of "anybody but Trump."
In that world, they have empathy and sympathize with rioters and disruptors. They advocate kumbaya understanding instead of "overly harsh" words and phrases. You are, in reality, wimpish--just exactly like Obama.
You lack even the first clues about handling such situations, for your career in constitutional debates have given you zero real world experience, on the ground, with much of anything. You are indeed, professional talkers.
The fact that in May 1969 Reagan endorsed law enforcement to go out and crack some heads, if necessary, surprised you. Caught off guard, and completely unschooled in the FACTS of that era, you resort to "it was different."
I'm guessing we are nearly the same age and my recollection of Reagan was that he was forthright, law, order and America great and first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall!
The "tear down this wall" speech was not the first time Reagan had addressed the issue of the Berlin Wall. In a visit to West Berlin in June 1982, he'd stated "I'd like to ask the Soviet leaders one question [...] Why is the wall there?",[2] and in 1986, 25 years after the construction of the wall, in response to West German newspaper Bild-Zeitung asking when he thought the wall could be "torn down", Reagan said, "I call upon those responsible to dismantle it [today]".[3]
On the day before Reagan's 1987 visit, 50,000 people had demonstrated against the presence of the American president in Berlin. During the visit itself, wide swaths of Berlin were shut off hermetically from the event to suppress further anti-Reagan protests. The district of Kreuzberg, in particular, was targeted in this respect, with movement throughout this portion of the city in effect restrained completely (for instance the subway line 1 was shut down).[4]
The speech was also a source of considerable controversy within the Reagan administration itself, with several senior staffers and aides advising against the phrase, saying anything that might cause further East-West tensions or potential embarrassment to Gorbachev, with whom President Reagan had built a good relationship, should be omitted. American officials in West Germany and presidential speechwriters, including Peter Robinson, thought otherwise. Robinson traveled to West Germany to inspect potential speech venues, and gained an overall sense that the majority of West Berliners opposed the wall. Despite getting little support for suggesting Reagan demand the wall's removal, Robinson kept the phrase in the speech text. On May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential," and Deputy US National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in."[5]
-
This short film proves that Trump's mindset is much like Reagan's was.
Seeing it here in black and white should tone down those sensitive tender souls that warn us that Trump is too strong is his speech.
They said much the same about Reagan. I am glad to be reminded that Reagan did not misplace blame and responsibility for rioting, unlike longwinded constitutional scholars.
Brilliant comparison between Reagan and Trump. They are so much alike. I guess that is why Trump worked like hell to get Carter reelected in '80.
FEC records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show that after Reagan announced his bid for president in 1979, Trump donated to the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-ronald-reagan-donations
-
Brilliant comparison between Reagan and Trump. They are so much alike. I guess that is why Trump worked like hell to get Carter reelected in '80.
FEC records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show that after Reagan announced his bid for president in 1979, Trump donated to the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-ronald-reagan-donations
The restof the story;
Trump did donate to Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984, according to the Wall Street Journal.
-
The restof the story;
Trump did donate to Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Oh in chronological order you mean to say Trump was against Reagan before he was for Reagan. Flip flop, waffle, bend, sway, 190. negotiate.....
-
Oh in chronological order you mean to say Trump was against Reagan before he was for Reagan. Flip flop, waffle, bend, sway, 190. negotiate.....
I found that line of argument a little odd too. It makes Trump look like the shiftless unprincipled person he really is.
-
I found that line of argument a little odd too. It makes Trump look like the shiftless unprincipled person he really is.
ALL the 'lines of argument' on Trump's behalf are more than a little odd.
Most of them come right out and tell you what's wrong with the guy and try to twist it to defend it.
I've never seen anything this weird in politics. Ever. The truth is right in front of their noses and they refuse to see it.
Black is white. Up is down. Left is right.
Scary days.
-
Oh in chronological order you mean to say Trump was against Reagan before he was for Reagan. Flip flop, waffle, bend, sway, 190. negotiate.....
It's GOPers who keep doing the same and voting for the same expecting to get different results. It is idiotic if not insane.
-
This attempt to elevate Trump to Reagan's status is both unseemly and disingenuous.
The Donald today says the Gipper was a ‘great president,’ but his first foray into politics was spent ripping the commander-in-chief as an amiable dunce.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/01/trump-used-anti-obama-riffs-against-reagan-first.html
-
Dan McLaughlin
@baseballcrank Dan McLaughlin Retweeted NBC News PR
Trump responds to violence by blaming a video on the Internet.
LOL!!!
-
It's GOPers who keep doing the same and voting for the same expecting to get different results. It is idiotic if not insane.
So you want us to vote for a Democrat to shake things up. Funny argument since this is the GOP Breifing Room with a picture of Reagan in the banner.
-
So you want us to vote for a Democrat to shake things up. Funny argument since this is the GOP Breifing Room with a picture of Reagan in the banner.
Aren't you the poster who stated Trump is a GOP member? I want change from the SOS, the deception, broken promises and outright lies. You are welcome to keep eating sh*t sandwiches. I've had my fill. I hear a GOP candidate who wants change and making America great again and that's what I want.
-
Aren't you the poster who stated Trump is a GOP member? I want change from the SOS, the deception, broken promises and outright lies. You are welcome to keep eating sh*t sandwiches. I've had my fill. I hear a GOP candidate who wants change and making America great again and that's what I want.
Except he can't "Make America Great Again." None of what he proposes will pass Congress.
Congress is not going to abrogate NAFTA, or impose tariffs on foreign goods, or penalize American companies for offshoring jobs (Trump himself offshores jobs at this very moment).
He is not going to change the First Amendment so that media companies can be sued for criticizing him. He is not going to change the law on waterboarding, or force the military to commit war crimes.
Trump is not going to do ANYTHING he's saying. He's blowing smoke up your butt.
-
Except he can't "Make America Great Again." None of what he proposes will pass Congress.
Congress is not going to abrogate NAFTA, or impose tariffs on foreign goods, or penalize American companies for offshoring jobs (Trump himself offshores jobs at this very moment).
He is not going to change the First Amendment so that media companies can be sued for criticizing him. He is not going to change the law on waterboarding, or force the military to commit war crimes.
Trump is not going to do ANYTHING he's saying. He's blowing smoke up your butt.
You're just not smart enough to realize it.
You can continue to eat the sh*t sandwiches served to you.
How are Rubio, Cruz and Kasich doing? What have they proposed to change the SOS?
-
You can continue to eat the sh*t sandwiches served to you.
How are Rubio, Cruz and Kasich doing? What have they proposed to change the SOS?
What a juvenile response.
-
So you want us to vote for a Democrat to shake things up. Funny argument since this is the GOP Breifing Room with a picture of Reagan in the banner.
Some are clearly trying to get as far away from Reagan as is humanly possible.
I can't imagine two more drastically different human beings than the honorable Ronald Reagan, and the despicable Donald Trump.
-
What a juvenile response.
You didn't address the questions. I have had to lower myself to your standards of posting to respond to you. What goes around comes around. A taste of your own medicine isn't so pleasant? You can do something about it.
-
You're just not smart enough to realize it.
Smooth, dude. Nothing like a personal attack to make your point. Don't worry, I reported it.
-
truth_seeker wrote above:
"Call them "Sea Island" Republicans," where the forces of Karl Rove meet Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Silicon Valley, Goldman Sachs, etc."
I guess you can add the "Sea Island" Pubbies and other assorted NeoCons with the leftists who are doing this:
(http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh499/Lazamataz/BlameTrumpForAttacks_zpsmobku2ai.jpg)
-
You didn't address the questions. I have had to lower myself to your standards of posting to respond to you. What goes around comes around. A taste of your own medicine isn't so pleasant? You can do something about it.
Your questions are juvenile and have no relation to this thread.
I'm so trying to save you from embarrassment.
-
Smooth, dude. Nothing like a personal attack to make your point. Don't worry, I reported it.
Of course you did. That's what thread nannies do. Read the insults posted by the person you're defending.
-
Of course you did. That's what thread nannies do. Read the insults posted by the person you're defending.
As with the purported Field's videos, post them here, and then report them.
-
As with the purported Field's videos, post them here, and then report them.
I don't report posters. Tattiling is for children.
-
I don't report posters. Tattiling is for children.
Which is your way of saying you have no proof and are just blowing smoke.