Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s find something each candidate once did that was not to our liking and reject them all
Let’s excoriate Ted Cruz for changing his mind on fast-track. Let’s do the same to both Rubio and Walker on amnesty. Let’s ignore their stated reasons for doing so. And by all means, let’s resurrect a post-9/11 speech Carly Fiorina gave fourteen years ago when as CEO of Hewlett-Packard she praised the ancient civilization of Islam (not the present one) in ways that very much reflected what George W. Bush was saying at the time, based on the work of Bernard Lewis and others. Let’s ignore everything else she’s said in recent years about Islamic terrorism, because of course that earlier speech on ancient Islam represents her real views on the matter of what to do with terrorists today.
And oh, while we’re at it, let’s ignore everything Donald Trump has said recently—not a few years ago or decades ago, but very recently—about matters such Pam Geller and how she “taunted” people and should have found something better to do than the “draw Mohammad” contest, as well as how single-payer health care in Canada is a great success. The statements about Geller were made by Trump in May of 2015, and the one about Canadian single-payer was made during the Fox debate this past Thursday.
If anyone other than Trump had said what Trump said in his answer about single payer last Thursday, conservatives (and even the “let it burn” crowd) would have rejected that person as a viable candidate. Health care insurance is a huge issue, not a tangential one, and Trump’s statement was recent, not years ago. Trump’s statement displayed an unfortunate but not uncharacteristic combination of error, misdirection, inconsistency, confusion, braggadocio, and vagueness (characteristics which also are on display in his policy on amnesty).
It seems obvious to me that, at least generally speaking, recent statements are more indicative of a candidate’s current thinking and judgment as well as his/her future plans than older ones are (and the older the statements, the less relevant they tend to be). In other words, to be clear, let me say that I care less about what Trump said 15 years ago about how great Canadian single-payer was than what he said just the other day. What’s more, certain subjects are far more important than others: for example, even if Fiorina happens to continue to think that Islamic civilization from the 800s to the 1600s was pretty inventive and creative (as she did in her HW speech from 14 years ago), that is relatively unimportant to me and evidence of very little as long as right now she speaks out against Islamic terrorism, calls it evil, and is determined to fight it. Which she does, conveying great conviction.
But perhaps even more importantly, I don’t understand this business of getting angry at a candidate for flip-flopping, otherwise known as changing one’s mind. To never change one’s mind is to risk being ossified, stubbornly clinging to outworn or outdated points of view in the light of new learning or new information. Of course, sometimes when people change their minds it is disingenuous. But that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, using evidence from the candidate’s demeanor and history of betrayals or breaking his/her word. There’s nothing inherently disingenuous or wrong about changing one’s mind, however (take it from me; I’ve changed my mind on a lot more than they have).
Most people change. They change over time. They learn things. They realize things. They grow older and perhaps wiser (one hopes wiser). Our job is to sort out sincere changes from insincere manipulative ones, not to reject every single person who’s ever changed his or her mind, or believed or said something we are not in 100% agreement with. We are human beings, and the perfect is most definitely the enemy of the good.
But if you’re really determined to look back at what candidates were saying a decade and a half ago, and to hold it against them, let’s actually take a look at Donald Trump’s words on health insurance policy back in 1999 and 2000 (and on abortion, if that’s a big issue for you):
“If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care,” he said. “I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.”
Asked if he thought it was an entitlement, Trump affirmed he did indeed believe it was one from birth.
“I think it is. It’s an entitlement to this country, and too bad the world can’t be, you know, in this country. But the fact is, it’s an entitlement to this country if we’re going to have a great country.”
Speaking with The Advocate that year, Trump said he’d fund his universal health care plan with an increase in corporate taxes.
“I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes,” Trump said.
In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump also spoke favorably of the Canadian health care system and said he “we need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.”
On Dateline NBC that year, Trump also mentioned he was “totally for choice” when it came to abortion.
“I hate the concept of abortion,” said Trump. “I hate””, I hate anything about abortion, and yet, I’m totally for choice. I think you have no alternative, too.
Trump had a short third-party run for the presidency in 2000, by the way, and his support for single-payer was clearly stated:
…I would press for universal health care…I would put forward a comprehensive health care program and fund it with an increase in corporate taxes…I like the Canadian system, although their health care is not the best. If you combine their system with the quality of our health care, we could provide cradle-to-grave health care for everyone.
I don’t know about you, but that indicates not only a support for single payer, and a lack of knowledge of the major flaws in the Canadian system, but a far more profound misunderstanding of (a) what the effects of increased corporate taxes high enough to fund single payer health care would be on the business life of the US; and (b) the inherent contradiction between our high quality of health care and a single payer system. Trump’s entire statement back then makes me wonder (and I can’t believe I’m saying this about Trump, of all people) if Trump understands the things that give capitalism its strength.
However, as I said earlier, I don’t care all that much what exact position Trump held on single-payer fifteen years ago—that is, if he could give a cogent and intelligent reason for a change of mind, and showed understanding of the entire system and a clarity of thinking about it then or now. Quite simply, he did not show these fundamentals then and far more importantly he does not show them now, and he demonstrated that in the debate last Thursday.
We need to clear the field some before we start trying to pin this stuff on Trump. It’s too early to do this, and it seems any judgment of him only makes him stronger. He needs to stay in until some of the weaker candidates drop out (Graham, Gilmore, Kasich, etc.). We need to narrow it down to the top 4 or 5 to really get into the details.
Look, I have changed my opinions on things as I have gotten older. I’ve always been conservative, but I definitely had weaker moments in my youth when more liberal ideas caught my attention.
I am fine with someone changing their views from 10 or 15 years ago…either based on changes in the world itself or recognizing that a solution that seemed viable then, is not viable now.
Why does Trump get walking papers while the others, sometimes do or don’t? Because he isn’t a real politician. I suppose Carly isn’t either, but she is playing as if she were. Trump is… like a caricature, even as a man but certainly as a politician. A vote for Chump isn’t a vote for the Republican (should he get the nomination) or even independent (big or little i) party. A vote for Chump is a rebuttal of the political system.
I don’t think Chump would do better, or worse. He would sell out. He would play to make himself richer. He would abuse the office. He would make huge mistakes. And, really, I don’t think he cares a bit more than any of the other candidates. The Dem candidates care, but not for the things I would hope they would care. They are anti-American, anti-education (in truth), anti-Christian, anti-life. But they do care. Republicans just want business to go on, without interruption. They care about business, but that isn’t enough.
It’s very difficult to get excited by a bunch of obvious liars. Might as well pick the one that entertains.
First of all, Fiorina’s position on AGW isn’t a deal breaker for me, but I felt I should do my due diligence and look into her positions a bit deeper. She and Cruz are still my top choices. I was actually going to send her some money this morning, but the 2001 speech and her “straddle the fence” on AGW has given me pause. I may wait awhile on financial contributions at this stage and think and examine more.
And, haven’t we all been saying for a long time how BHO’s history pointed to what sort of president he was going to be, and that history proved to be telling indeed? So, in some sense getting a clear picture of a candidate over a period of time is important. Yes. the positions can evolve, and that’s good. But, getting a picture of the whole person is vital.
I also think this all haunts back to what I said awhile ago about the difference between conservatives and the left. We’re an very independent lot, cherish our principles, and all seem to hail from Missouri. As such we are really bad at politics, and tend to form circular firing squads. Whereas the the left have no principles, other than the quest for power, and march in lockstep an with an amazing amount of discipline.
physicsguy:
I didn’t mean to suggest for a moment that a person shouldn’t look back at the entirety of a candidate and his/her history.
But what’s important is (a) how important the issue is; (b) what the candidate has said recently about it; (c) the candidate’s history of action on the subject, if there is any; (d) whether this is one problems of many with this particular candidate, or one of very very few; (e) what the candidate actually said and did back then and actually said and did now, not just a summary by some pundit or commenter (in other words, look at the original sources).
For example, I was suprised at what I saw when I went back to look at Trump’s actual words back then. They showed greater flaws than I expected. And when I looked at his actual words in the debate, they were pretty bad, too.
Context is also important. For example, during the 2012 campaign, I wrote reams on how some of Romney’s compromises were inherent in the situation of dealing with a Democratic legislature so overwhelmingly dominant that they could override anything he wanted to do, and that he could only soften some of their positions and make them a bit more conservative, which he actually did (and veto a few things that he knew would be overridden, which is what happened).
physicsguy:
I don’t want to double-post but here was my comment to you and Cornflour in the thread under Neo’s August 8 @12:48PM entry entitled “Why support Trump when there are other non-establishment, bona fide conservatives in the race?” (This is comment # 153 in that monster thread, so I don’t blame you for not going back to it!):
physicsguy, Cornflour:
I’m going to stick [up] for Carly on the global warming thing. I just re-watched the Katie Couric clip, twice. Listen to the first 28 seconds or so. What Carly actually said was, “We’ve got to read the fine print. Every one of the scientists who tell us that climate change is real and being caused by man-made activity also tells us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.” She doesn’t say she believes in it or that it’s man made.
She goes on to discuss innovation (in the clean-coal effort) rather that legislation as an approach, warn=s about the trade-offs of “green energy (e.g., wind power killing thousands upon thousands of birds) and won’t concede until repeatedly pressed near the very end that “climate change” is “a serious issue”. Hell, yes it’s a serious issue: The Left is using it as a propaganda pretense for all kinds of totalitarian laws and (worse) rule-making. It’s the greatest fraud in human history since “The Silent Spring” led to DDT being banned ( I was going to say since the Piltdown Man hoax, but compared to CAGW, that was child’s play).
She’s chosen her words very carefully and never says that she “believes in” CAGW. Remember: (1) she wants to be elected and (2) the MSM pillories anyone who calls CAGW a fraud (ask Mark Steyn).
If anyone has a clearer declaration by CF that she believes in the MSM- endorsed version of “Climate Change”, please point it out.
Carl:
“Is human activity contributing to climate change? Yes. “There is a lot of consensus among the scientists that climate change is real and human activity contributes to it,” Fiorina said at an event hosted by the New England Council and New Hampshire Institute of Politics in February. Fiorina called climate change a “big issue” in an editorial she wrote for the Washington Post last year.
Should we do anything about climate change? Unclear. “There is also absolute consensus among the same scientists that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all,” Fiorina said at the February event.”
link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/the-guide-to-republicans-and-climate-change-20150208
It is unclear what her position really is. I would also agree that climate change is real (duh.. climate is always changing), and that humans have contributed. BUT, the real question is not “climate change”, but the real issue the AGW crowd are pushing of global warming, and the AMOUNT that humans contribute. Not clear at all by her statement where she sits on those questions.
physicsguy:
I think her statements are crystal clear statements of fact about what the majority of scientists say.
“There is a lot of consensus among the scientists that climate change is real and human activity contributes to it,” Check. How can anyone disagree that that is the consensus among scientists?
“Fiorina called climate change a ‘big issue” in an editorial she wrote for the Washington Post last year.”
Check. It IS a big issue. How could anyone disagree with that?
“There is also absolute consensus among the same scientists that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.”
Check once again.
She is wisely sticking to policy considerations rather than making a scientific judgment she is unqualified to make.
“Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” Benjamin Franklin
The quote above makes clear my basic agreement, provided that the change of position has a principled rationale in support of it.
The vast majority of politicians cannot do so, their position varies with the direction of the political wind. I too had Fiorina’s prior comments brought to my attention and it too gives me pause. Carly’s appeal is not to those supportive of Trump and now that these issues have arisen, she has an obligation to clarify them to “give a cogent and intelligent reason for a[her] change of mind, to show an “understanding of the entire system and a clarity of thinking about it then or now.”
If she does so, she will have my full support, otherwise my support will be, at best tepid given what it will have demonstrated about her character. The same applies to any candidate seeking my vote.
Geoffrey Britain:
But why on earth would Fiorina (or anyone else, for that matter) need to clarify their position on the greatness or non-greatness of Islamic civilization from the 800s to the 1600s? Seriously. If that person is determined to fight Islamic terrorism and always has been, and is not calling the Islamic world “great” at present, who cares about the rest?
Fiorina doesn’t pull her punches on that and other issues, so it’s not an issue of her general mealy-mouthedness.
““There is a lot of consensus among the scientists that climate change is real and human activity contributes to it,” Check. How can anyone disagree that that is the consensus among scientists? ”
I can easily disagree! There is NO consensus, (see the oregon project) and even if there was, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates to even depend on “consensus” . I don’t want to go off on a tangent where I end up going through all the contrary evidence against AGW. Again, her statement, like GB suggests, needs clarification.
physicsguy:
But there IS “a lot” of consensus. Hardly complete consensus. But she just says “a lot.”
neo,
No discussion of Europe’s medieval civilization would be complete without mention of its brutality; constant wars, religious persecution and the crusades. So too with Islam. During the period of 800 to 1600, Islam engaged in near constant, expansive wars of aggression. Most of Islam’s ‘great’ accomplishments were stolen from conquered civilizations, including ‘Arabic’ numerals (India).
Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Islam’s theological imperatives. No discussion of Islamic terrorism that does not start with that fact is avoidance based and doomed to failure when considering opposition to Islamic terrorism.
Given her prior comments, it is thus incumbent upon Fiorina to demonstrate that she now understands these facts, otherwise her views on Islam have simply ‘evolved’ to a more PC position on the right.
Illegal immigration, America’s indebtedness, abysmal economy, race ‘relations’, Islamic terrorism, China’s military build-up and regional aggression are the BIG issues and primary threats against our civilization. Any candidate that fails to educate themselves on these issues demonstrates through their ignorance their unfitness for the Presidency. More than ever, we need competence and clear thinking in our next President.
Trump is undoubtedly all the things you mention and most probably a stalking horse for the Clintons. But he is also the only person willing to open up a truthful conversation about illegal immigration and thus expose the disconnect all of the Republican candidates have with the majority of their party and nation. Many of us believe open borders are not only a threat to our culture but most likely a real threat to our physical existence. (And one of two reasons I’m not a registered Libertarian.) This is an extremely important issue that even your most conservative candidate, Ted Cruz, has waffled on. His latest stance is that after the borders are shut down illegals already here should be rewarded with amnesty, but without a path to citizenship.
You are correct that on the surface and by some of his actions Cruz has the bona fides of a true conservative. He has made very sure of it. But he is also an Ivy League graduate married to a Goldman Sachs employee. He graduated cum laude from Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International affairs, and earned his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard where he was “off the charts brilliant” as a debater according to Alan Dershowitz. He’s had to go out of his way to distance himself from these otherwise impeccable credentials as a member of the ruling elite. I’m not buying any of it for a second. He became a hardcore neocon and Israel supporter when he wanted millions from Jews for his upcoming presidential campaign. How convenient. As was his recent tirade against McConnell. It reeked of political calculation, as did his turn around on trade authority at the last minute. Perhaps the worst example however, is his feigned indignation and outrage at the gay marriage ruling. In order to secure social conservative support he actually proposed nullification at the state level. As a highly skilled attorney, Texas Solicitor General, law clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he knew better. It was a disgusting display of political posturing meant to fool us “rubes” once again. I could go on deconstructing Cruz, but this should suffice.
As to Trump, what he is allowing us to do is blow off steam. No one actually believes he has a chance at the nomination. The only worry is that he’ll to go third party and help elect a democrat. Don’t worry, Neo, he’ll be neutered long before that can happen.
I am going by memory, but I have followed his global warming story from the beginning, and I am pretty sure Mark Steyn says exactly what CF has said: there has been warming and human activity contributes to the warming.
From there, the many related questions, both scientific and political (including, is it bad or good?), become extremely complex.
But the one policy question which is fairly easy is the one CF cites – – even if all the hysteria were true, what can one nation do about it? (answer: absolutely nothing).
CF has not adopted the hysterical posture (and posturing). That is good enough for me.
The Golden Age travesty is so widely held, so thoroughly ingrained in academia and elsewhere, it is a marvel when someone knows it is false.
Personally, I would love it if CF or Cruz read Mohammed and Charlemagne revisted (by Scott) which is pretty persuasive that islam was the cause of the so called Dark Ages in Europe.
Or if they read Sailing From Byzantium, which discusses the ignorance islam imposed on moslems’ great gift of possessing the Greek classics (books and learning which moslems otherwise did use to some extent, and to a great extent accounted for their intellectual “achievements”).
But CF and TC are not exactly sitting around on their posteriors with time for a lot of fascinating literature which illuminates The Historic and Intellectual Foundation of Our Present Time.
If they know what to do about ISIS, I will be happy.
Ted Cruz was a free market conservative in high school. Wiki: “During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where he learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises. The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.”
That is pretty heavy duty.
Cruz apparently dedicated his high school years to spreading the word of Ludwig von Mises.
That makes me feel better about his sincerity.
Is there any way non-press people like us can get the Fiorina campaign to clarify her position on Global Warming policy? FWIW, I don’t think there’s any such thing as “a lot of consensus”; there either is a consensus or there’s not. This is a big deal for me because I’m appalled by the corruption, politicalization and lack of intellectual honesty in the CAGW community (or religion?). Just think about that term “Denier”. I’m hoping she knows this game is just a front and a fraud, but is parsing her words in an effort to avoid being demonized (literally) as a “Denier!”.
Cruz has been quite forthright on this subject, and he sees it for the fraud that it is. I only wish he was more “like-able”.
Tonawanda, I don’t doubt that Cruz is a free market advocate. It is probably the reason he was in favor of giving free trade authority to Obama, and all the more damning that he voted against it out of political calculation. What I see in Cruz is an extremely intelligent man willing to do almost anything to get elected. Because of that ALL of his stances are questionable. How are we to know what he actually believes? Of course the same can be said of Trump except that he’s not pretending to be a consistent advocate of conservative values.
This came through an email this morning. The sender’s name and email address have been deleted to protect his privacy. I have no idea what the writer’s connection is to Donald Trump but it surely sounds like he has inside and current information on what Mr. Trump stands for:
If you want to have a better understanding on Donald Trump, then definitely take the time to read this.
Copied in part from email received:
Trump, hopefully at least, is awakening the willfully ignorant. And yet the criticisms of Trump are curiously missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he’s had and all the business deals he’s made there is a curious void of criticism.
In fact, long-term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. While it may surprise many, he’s actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness.
A good example is the story that tells of his limousine breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage. And yet, he didn’t brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others.
But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trump’s plan is for America. It’s funny how so many people say they don’t know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it when in case of point, the information is readily available if people would just do a little homework.
Since most Americans refuse to do their own research, here in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trump’s positions and plans:
1. Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the monumental expense of going to war, then those nations we help must be willing to pay for our help.
Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly more depending on which sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human lives. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military as well as $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.
2. Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn’t said it directly that I know of, Trump’s attitude about America and about winning tells me he’d most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle.
Clearly Trump is a “win at all costs” kind of guy, and I’m sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too.
3. Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles (which seem to support my comment in the last point):
· American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
· Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
· Only go to war to win.
· Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
· Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
· See the unseen.
· Prepare for threats before they materialize.
· Respect, honor and support our present and past warriors.
4. Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals as the Obama administration presently treats them.
5. Trump makes the point that China’s manipulation of their currency has given them an unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He states we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America to create jobs here. Although he sees China as the worst offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing.
For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the US, which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the US, once again, creating jobs here.
6. Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act — NOPEC — S.394), that would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, this would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically thereby increasing domestic production, creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.
7. Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. (And, he says he’ll get Mexico to finance the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business acumen, I wouldn’t put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our present immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.
8. Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to choose to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy.
He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we’ve lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed.
For citizens, he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax as follows:
· Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%
· From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%
· From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%
· $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%
9. Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it’s a “job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity” that “can’t be reformed, salvaged, or fixed.” He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.
10. Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don’t stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.
11. Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy.
On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses, they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.
12. Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.” He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.
13. Trump believes climate change is a hoax.
14. Trump opposes Common Core and believes that our schools should be administered and guided by their local communities.
15. Trump is pro-life, although he allows for exceptions due to rape, incest or the life of the mother.
16. Trump is pro Second Amendment rights.
Limit restrictions on guns. Ban some assault weapons and extend the waiting period for purchase. During a 2013 interview with Fox News, the real estate mogul defined himself as, “a very strong person on the Second Amendment.” He believes guns are necessary for self-defense and has written that he generally opposes gun control. In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve” Trump wrote that he supports a ban on assault weapons and a slightly longer waiting period to buy a gun. ( [link to http://www.pbs.org]
17. Trump’s view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
18. Trump supports the death penalty.
Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense and innovative thinking in Washington (Hmmm… looks like he believes in good ole horse sense!). He says it’s about seeing the unseen and that’s the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around.
He tells a personal story to illustrate the point: “When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it’s on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done.
The problem wasn’t the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy. We didn’t need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense.”
On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been closed for remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.
Donald Trump’s entire life has been made up of success and winning. He’s been accused of bankruptcies, but that’s not true. He’s never filed personal bankruptcy. He’s bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as other businesses do all the time. But he’s never been bankrupt personally.
He’s a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation.
Earlier, I quoted Trump saying, “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately… fiercely, even.” We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans. Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them.
Looking over this list of what he wants for America, I see a very necessary set of goals that are long past due. Before we criticize someone because the media does, perhaps we should seriously consider what he has to offer?…
Makers vs takers …. cough, cough. :coffeesip:
carl in atlanta:
I believe that “a lot of consensus” describes the scientific community’s attitude towards AGW.
“Consensus” means: “general agreement,” but I think the confusion comes from the fact that it used to be used more often to mean “harmony of opinion” and now is usually used to mean “majority of opinion.” See this. From Fiorina’s usage I think it is quite clear she means that the majority of scientists agree on AGW, which is true. I don’t see how her words could be interpreted to mean there is NO disagreement or discord among scientists on the subject.
If you want her to clarify that, I suppose you could get the word to her and she would probably be happy to do so. I would be extremely surprised if she said “it’s a done deal and every single scientist agrees on AGW.”
Her main point (which I think was also clear) was that we don’t even need to go there in order to decide as a matter of policy that our doing things unilaterally wouldn’t do a thing to help the problem if there indeed is such a problem. So why on earth would we do that?
G6loq:
But although most of what Trump now supports is perfectly fine with most people here (as are the platforms of several other candidates, by the way), the question is not that, nor is it what the people who worked for him in business said about him.
It is about his ability to work with others in government to reach those goals. He has shown zero capacity to do that or potential for doing that. It is his narcissistic and thin-skinned character, as well as his confused ability to think (I’ve seen a great deal of evidence for that, and described some of it in relation to his statements on health care systems and how to raise money for them).
He reminds me very much of Obama. Not in his politics, but in the “just trust me, I’ll do it” vagueness of how he thinks he can get from here to there on the sheer force of his will and his sterling personality and brains. A narcissist par excellence.
He reminds me very much of Obama. Not in his politics, but in the “just trust me, I’ll do it” vagueness of how he thinks he can get from here to there on the sheer force of his will and his sterling personality and brains. A narcissist par excellence.
A narcissist par excellence… diagnosing without having met the patient?
And disregard his track record while comparing him to a nobody who rode the women’s vote … TWICE?
I am a Cruz guy at the moment but I won’t let Trump be shouted out of the room without having his say even if I don’t like his style all that much.
That Kelly bimbo P*&sd me off.
[B-t-w, easy answer would have been, ISIS and female slaves graded by boob sizes, economy, etc… and you berate me for calling a fat shrew for what she is?
Missed his chance.]
We might be in a real life Magic Christian chapter.
Cracker. scroll one page up at link.
G6loq;
As far as that piece by Mytheos Holt goes, unlike Holt I don’t think people don’t understand Trump’s appeal. I certainly understand it, as I think I’ve said many many times. However, although he’s having his “national moment” (Holt’s words) because of his flaws, a moment does not a leader make.
Nor have I ever called Trump “racist,” “sexist,” “fascist,” “phony,” or “crypto-Nazi,” the anti-Trump epithets Holt lists as being hurled by Trump’s critics on the left and some on the right. I certainly haven’t seen many on the right say that about him. My objections have been aired, so I don’t need to repeat them.
Holt also writes that he doesn’t think Trump will be nominated, and he doesn’t know how long he’ll stay in the race, but he thinks his entry into it was good. I think that Trump could be nominated, and I think if it fed his ego enough he would stay in the race. I don’t think the chances are huge, but they are not so small as to be dismissed. Is he good for the race? Yes and no. I do think he’s shaken it up and made some of the other candidates more hard-htting (Cruz and Fiorina were already hard-hitting before he entered). I see the main risk of his entry (aside from his being nominated) as the elevation of the candidacy of Jeb Bush, a candidate I do not support. Trump’s entry helped Bush the most, at least until the debate, where Bush’s bad performance may have hurt Bush. The other thing I am concerned about with Trump is that he will turn enough people away from Republicans in general that the eventual nominee (even if it isn’t Trump himself) will lose votes and the election to Hillary or her replacement. The question is whether he attracts more people than he repels. I don’t know the answer, but I think it may be that overall he repels more.
G6loq:
That he is a narcissist not a diagnosis from me. I am not offering it that way nor have I described it that way.
It is an observation from me as a human being about him as a human being. It is an observation I think is about something that’s obvious, and that most of his supporters would concede is true. They don’t think of it necessarily as a drawback, however.
“Narcissist” is also an observation (not a diagnosis) I have made many times about Obama and about Kerry when I first was writing this blog.
It is a word with a basic, non-technical meaning in plain English as well as a semi-technical one. When I write on this blog I speak in plain English unless otherwise noted.
By the way, if I were offering a diagnosis the correct term would be that he has narcissistic personality disorder (see this). And diagnoses are generally used these days almost solely for third-party billing purposes.
K-E again; ” He needs to stay in until some of the weaker candidates drop out (Graham, Gilmore, Kasich, etc.)”
Good lord man. Kasich is a very successful Governor of a very important state. Gilmore was also a successful Governor (of my former state) and a key player in national security policy. These are serious men. What are you thinking? These are not weak candidates just because you are apparently ignorant of them; and because they are not well known nationally–yet. That is one of many problems with the Trump phenomenon, he is sucking the air away from serious candidates with his grandstanding and the media’s fascination with anything that looks like a high school food fight.
Republican primaries are rigged to collapse from the inside out, such as Giuliani dropping out and giving his votes to X.
Whether some of the various X YZ candidates receive proper attention is meaningless. The primaries are rigged. They cannot be UnRigged.
Unless pure at birth, kill them all. 😉
Hey, neo – surely you recall Nixon’s secret plan to end the war in Vietnam?
How many other presidents got elected without fully sprung formed policies like Athena from a head!
This doesn’t reassure us, however – I know.
But consider what Trump DID offer during the debate, points hit on FNC “Special Report” Monday evening (twice with video clips): open ALL fifty states to health insurance competition; backup plans for the poor….
Now, that’s not HSAs and tax credits, etc – which is the Heritage/CATO core reform plans – but it’s not far away from it, either.
Another example from Monday. At Hotair, John Fund goes full Trump derangement syndrome, and a lengthy commenter answers (in part):
“Trump’s documented Healthcare solution is free market. We have market free trade for the rich, but controlled market purchasing power for the poor and middle class. The rich can buy junk from China, and the poor are allowed to buy it from the rich at a huge markup. In healthcare, Trump wants individuals to be allowed to form their own buying clubs, to buy volume like corporations [i.e. the rich] do, and to buy health insurance across state lines. He also wants to bargain with hospitals for cut rate coverage for the indigent. Guaranteed that would be cheaper than Medicaid, and the hospitals would get paid for the non insured they now have to treat for free by law. He is not for the government determining your care. His plan is similar to the GOP plans but IMHO superior and most importantly, he actually believes in his plan, while the GOP wants the problem to go away. .
Fund uses sleaze talk to call Trump a sleaze.”
-“entagor”
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/08/10/i-was-wrong-about-trump/comment-page-2/#comment-3368494
I don’t know, but this sound promising to me.
And it’s way Way WAY early. So take a chill pill or go to the beach – summer’s too short. THIS can all wait until Cali and mid-September to flesh out….or maybe later.
(There are strategic considerations in NOT being too specific, yet…Cf, Nixon, etc, etc…. Let it be.)
“Good lord man. Kasich is a very successful Governor of a very important state. Gilmore was also a successful Governor (of my former state) and a key player in national security policy. These are serious men. What are you thinking?”
First of all, not like you could tell from my post, but I’m a woman, not a man. 😉
Kasich is dead to me because he expanded Medicaid. Gilmore was a great governor, but that was a LONG time ago, and he won’t win. Sorry, but he won’t. He is a late-comer and nobody is paying any attention to him. I’m just going with realistic winners here…Gilmore is not going to win the nomination.
They can be ‘serious men,’ but it doesn’t mean they can win. I want a winner. I want a true conservative. I want someone who is outspoken and won’t care what the press or the left says about their policies and actions while in office. Kasich and Gilmore and Graham are not those people. Sorry, they aren’t.
Given what I’m seeing this morning about his west coast trip, I’m beginning to think we all need to worry a lot more about Sanders than HRC. A declared socialist and drawing huge crowds…I don’t like to think about what this means for the US. We all keep talking about the “drive over the cliff”; maybe we already did that and are now in free fall.
Neo: what’s your take on Sanders?? That would at least get us off the topic of Trump 🙂
Physics, the Left can only mobilize its full power when their leader combines secular with religious authority, similar to Islam.
This piece by David French, amplifies Neo’s point regarding Carly’s approach to handling the Left’s global warming hysteria:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-climate-change-left
Touché , Neo (even though I’m way late in acknowledging it)!