Reflections on the March 3 GOP debate: Trump’s ever-changing visa program, and plans as military leader
Many things happened during last night’s GOP debate. The level of debate discourse (can I use highfalutin words like “discourse” without being called a snobbishly out-of-touch member of the “elites”?) has fallen even further and we are now reduced to talking about the size of Trump’s male member and his hands, both of which interest me not at all (by the way, this talk of Trump’s hand size is decades old; see this).
There were substantive revelations as well, although they got somewhat lost in the din. One was that Trump mentioned what appears to be a change in his policy towards H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers, and later took it back again after he got a lot of criticism for it, saying he was never talking about that in the first place. But the intent of the question in the transcript was clear, as was Trump’s answer, and later Ted Cruz even mentions H-1B visas by name when asked a related question.
Here’s an article describing Trump’s back-and-forth on this, and here’s a piece I wrote on the subject of H-1B visas back in November when it came up in a debate in the context of Rubio’s policy on them.
The relevant part of last night’s debate went like this:
KELLY: Mr. Trump, your campaign website to this day argues that more visas for highly skilled workers would, quote, “decimate American workers”. However, at the CNBC debate, you spoke enthusiastically in favor of these visas. So, which is it?
TRUMP: I’m changing. I’m changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have.
So, we do need highly skilled, and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They’ll go to Harvard, they’ll go to Stanford, they’ll go to Wharton, as soon as they’re finished they’ll get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately, they’re not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: So you abandoning the position on your website…
TRUMP: … I’m changing it, and I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.
There’s nothing equivocal there. Trump repeats the word “highly skilled” and mentions Silicon Valley, which is where this visa program is often used, and he adds a list of elite colleges to make it even more clear. He also agrees that this represents a change in his policy. Later, Trump’s walkback went like this:
Trump’s post-debate statement suggested that Kelly’s question wasn’t specific to the H-1B program: “Megyn Kelly asked about highly-skilled immigration.” Then the statement goes to attack the visa program:
“The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse and ending outrageous practices such as those that occurred at Disney in Florida when Americans were forced to train their foreign replacements. I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program.
What are those who are not in the habit of rationalizing every utterance of Donald Trump to make of this? In the transcript, you can see that Kelly’s question—which was not long or involved—used the word “visa” twice and the word “immigration” not at all. So Trump’s later statement is demonstrably false on that score. We also know that he explicitly said this represented a change; how does he now explain what he had thought he was changing during the debate? I don’t think he even attempts to do so. And his description of the H-1B visa program, which he explicitly cites as being the relevant program in his later statement, is factually wrong. He says these workers are temporary and “not high-skilled,” and yet one of the main criticisms of the program (I go into it in my lengthy November piece on H-1B visas) is that these workers tend to later be sponsored for green cards and permanent citizenship, and they are overwhelmingly in STEM occupations (science, technology, engineering, and math). In addition, they are undoubtedly “high-skilled”; it is part of the requirement for entry into the program:
…Requirement 2 – Your job must qualify as a specialty occupation by meeting one of the following criteria:
A bachelor’s degree or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for the particular position;
The degree requirement is common for this position in the industry, or the job is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by someone with at least a bachelor’s degree in a field related to the position;
The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or
The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.Requirement 3 – Your job must be in a specialty occupation related to your field of study…
So these are the possibilities for what we can conclude about Donald Trump, after his statements on this in the debate and his later correction/clarification:
(1) Trump stated his true opinion during the debate, later saw that it didn’t sit well with some of his supporters, and then lied to them about what he really meant. Or perhaps his statement during the debate was the lie and the revision was the truth. Or maybe none of it is the truth and we (and he?) have no idea what his actual position is.
The entire episode, if he expects to get away with it, is an example of his contempt for the ability of people in general to follow what he’s actually saying and doing, as well as his confidence in his supporters’ blind faith in him. Perhaps he is correct on both scores. The sequence of events also appears to indicate the extreme mutability of his promises and of his entire program, since immigration policy is probably the single most important foundation on which his popular support rests.
(2) Or, alternatively, Trump simply has no idea what the H-1B program is about. Now, I find this hard to believe, because as I’ve said before I think he’s a smart man, and he’s also a businessman who should know these things even if he weren’t running for office. However, his original ad-lib answer actually indicated some understanding of the program, and it was his written revision that indicated a lack of understanding, which undercuts this explanation further. Nevertheless I include it as a possibility.
These two explanations (first one “knave,” second one “fool”) appear to be the only logical ones the fit the circumstances. Both are extremely chilling, and either ought to completely destroy him as a viable candidate. But I think I rest on safe ground in predicting that they won’t.
There was much more during the debate. But the exchange that makes my blood run cold was this one [emphasis mine]:
BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.
So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?
TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.
BAIER: But they’re illegal.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.
…Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.
BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.
Now, I’ve already seen Trump supporters trying to defend this. For example, on this very blog commenter “Kinch” had the following to say:
If you look into what the JAG types are sticking their noses into these days, it’s practically illegal to shoot a guy until the instant he points his RPG directly at you.
There. Are. Too. Many. Laws. And Lawyers.
Again, Assembled Light Bearers, this does not mean I support Nacht und Nebel Orders. And I suspect nor does Trump.
But the topic that was under discussion was not the Rules of Engagement (something we’ve talked about and criticized on this blog, for example here). The topic was Trump’s desire to expand beyond waterboarding in terms of physically coercive methods of interrogating prisoners (perhaps including outright torture; as with most things he says, he fails to specify the all-important details) and targeting terrorist’s families.
So Kinch’s reply is off-topic in that sense—plus, he does what a lot of people do with Trump, imagines that what Trump really meant is not only different, but better, than what Trump said. But Kinch’s comment is also irrelevant in another way—as are the topics of whether we should torture captives or go after families of terrorists—because Trump is not talking here about following some procedure for changing the rules. He’s talking about his own leadership skills in overcoming the rules and ordering troops to do whatever he says to do, whether his orders violate the rules and are illegal or not. He simply doesn’t care.
In essence, Trump is talking about throwing out the Rule of Law and replacing it with the Rule of Trump. And he is stating his contempt for the US military as a separate institution with its own rules, and his contempt for the members of the military, whom he sees as They Who Must Obey their Commander in Chief, Donald Trump, once the Great Leader has spoken.
[NOTE: I’ve written before of Trump’s tyrannical intentions and his lack of a respect for the limitations on presidential power and his contempt for the rule of law, here and here. The evidence mounts, based on last night’s debate.
It’s almost a side issue, but I’ll mention it anyway, that Trump equates his “leadership” skills as builder of casinos and golf resorts—which is essentially a planner and funder and employer and boss situation—with the sort of leadership and judgment required of a military Commander in Chief.]
If…
Trump is persona non grata to the GOP/Cons on account he is, in effect, Hitler, a tyrant, a fascist xenophobe, a loudmouth, not a conservative, and has poor social skills and is ill mannered
If further…
Trump was just so before he announced his run for the presidency under the GOP banner
Then…
Why was he not denounced then, and ushered to the door.
Let’s say David Duke had so announced such intentions to run for that office under that banner. I expect he would have been disavowed and kicked out pronto. As Mr Trump was not so treated, I expect no-one thought him so outrageous as a Hitler, tyrant, fascist xenophobe, loudmouth, not a conservative, cursed with poor social skills and bad manners. I expect everyone assumed he hadn’t a chance to win. They’d apparently only found out what a terrible person he was when he started winning over the “mob” of likely voters of the Republican persuasion, winning the primaries, and racking up delegates. Way to play the game GOP. Delenda est GOP. Or at minimum scrub it with Clorox and Lysol.
BTW, has it ever occurred to the GOP/Cons enablers (voters) that the GOP, as a party, has no great desire to govern, wants no part of being a political force, and wants nothing more than a place at the table where they may intermittently shuffle and deal and allocate and distribute according to their lights. You know, a swing at cronyism, i.e., replenishing the personal (and party) treasury.
BTW (2), The Tea Party had not been of concern to the GOP until TP candidates started knocking off GOP/Cons establishmentarians.
Apropos of the chorus of OMG!! now – passionate persuasion — then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwzGhdY
Apropos of GOP/Cons stratagems to remain the only viable loyal opposition party — emphasis loyal – to the grand globalist new world order scheme.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/03/final-tripwire-triggered-mitt-romney-admits-gope-globalist-grand-scheme-the-splitter-strategy/
BTW (3) We may, if Trump triumphs, be rid of both Miley Cyrus and Rev Al Sharpton who’d promised to leave the country in the event of President Trump. Tell me Trump isn’t worth it.
Thanks for the link to Trump being a short fingered vulgarian, Neo.
JurassiCon Rex:
The answer to your first question is that—as you probably already know—the vast extent of what’s wrong with Trump only emerged as this campaign season has gone on. So “ushering him to the door” for what he’s said and done since the campaign began is imagining they have far more ability to predict the future than they have.
What’s more, based on past experience (his previous presidential runs), they thought he’d be a flash in the pan. The fact that he was NOT going to be a flash in the pan only emerged over the summer, and even then they were slow to realize that his support will not evaporate. They thought he would doom himself by his actions and statements; so far that has not happened. But at least at the outset it was not an unreasonable expectation for them to have had.
What’s more, I’m not sure there’s a mechanism for declaring that a person who has announced his/her candidacy and membership in the party, and has followed the rules for getting on the ballot in the various states (set by each state, I believe), can be drummed out of the party. Which is certainly a flaw in the system, I would think, if true.
To respond to your last statement: No, Trump isn’t even remotely worth it.
Neo-neocon,
True enough, Trump has revealed more of himself than ever before. There is more that is manifest to dislike. More than enough for not voting for him. But where does the hate, vilification, contempt come from? It comes from winning, leading, and being a threat to neo-conservatives who’ve hijacked the party.
From, off all people, the one voted most likely to be tone deaf to all but liberal high pitched squawks:
Trump stands out there with something the other candidates lack, a compelling message. Trump speaks, like it or not, as an American. He goes after Putin [sic], the Chinese, the Pope and the presidents of Mexico. He even says he’ll be even-handed with Israel and its neighbors.
Trump speaks as a nationalist, that’s how he talks. He speaks not of how he’ll handle the job of president–how he’ll operate the government of Washington, what bills he will sign or veto, but, rather, how he will lead America in the world.
Trump’s rivals for the presidency speak of government; he speaks of country, this country, and that makes all the difference. Someone like Rubio cannot contest Trump on this level. It’s too late for him to try or even imagine fully what Trump is doing. Rubio cannot at this late stage muster a winning strategy.
Trump has one. It’s in his slogan. Make America great again.
– Chris Matthews
Proving yet again anyone, everyone, is capable of perspicacity and insight.
Neo says:
“…Trump equates his “leadership” skills as builder of casinos and golf resorts–which is essentially a planner and funder and employer and boss situation…”
Wait until he tries to order around or rein in any part of the bureaucracy, which has been packed to overflowing at the highest civil service positions with radicals and Marxists specifically to prevent Republican presidents from accomplishing anything, and discovers that saying “You’re Fired!” means absolutely nothing.
Every one of his initiatives, his Executive Orders and Memos, his commands to enforce immigration laws, will be slow-walked or ignored, even openly opposed or defied, by the people he believes report to him.
For those skeptical of how bad this “packing” was, PJ Media used FOIA to get the resumes of every top civil service hire in the DOJ from 2009-2011. Every Single One of the 113 was a radical and/or Marxist, with backgrounds at La Raza, the NAACP, student activists, LGBTQ orgs and lots more. Not even one conservative, libertarian or moderate was hired.
This no doubt will continue until January 2017, and there is no evidence that suggests that the hiring practices have been any different in the entire federal government.
So good luck with your leadership skills, Mr Trump.
JurassiCon Rex:
Ah, so now we’re quoting the judgment of a man whose 2008 judgment caused him to have a thrill up his leg at the prospect of President Obama.
That’s sort of sad, actually.
As far as the question of where “the hate, vilification, contempt come from”—I assume you’re not asking about Trump’s “hate, vilification, and contempt,” although he demonstrates all three in abundance. But in answer to your question, I have posted close to 100 posts on Trump so far, and most of them fully answer that question. So your question is disingenuous and rhetorical, of course. You know full well. Even in this very thread I have pointed out some of the reasons a person should hate and fear a Trump presidency based on Trump’s own statements, and there are plenty more on this blog and elsewhere.
JurassiCon Rex:
“We may, if Trump triumphs, be rid of both Miley Cyrus and Rev Al Sharpton who’d promised to leave the country in the event of President Trump. Tell me Trump isn’t worth it.”
If all those who promised to leave the country if Reagan or Bush I or II became POTUS had actually done so, the Marxist Party would be down by 50% already. Problem is, keeping your word, like character, honor, integrity, honesty, morals, ethics and principles, is considered a weakness by Alinskyites. (See alt-right for similar tendencies at the JayVee level.)
Neo-neocon,
What’s even sadder is your contention that someone who is mostly wrong cannot be right — ever.
And you believe what? That there is nothing to hate about our predicament and those who caused it.
We have a political class that is entirely corrupt. If anyone cannot hate that then what is hate for. The (GOP/Cons) are so out of touch with the base that it is actually frightened, and hates its own base – and will lie to them to frighten the kinder back into line.
It’s not as though there’s anything new under the sun though:
Nelson Rockefeller white knighting the GOP from extremists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM0rvez7ugk
JurassiCon Rex:
What’s even sadder, my old Pal, is that you seem to have misunderstood what I said.
I wrote: “Ah, so now we’re quoting the judgment of a man whose 2008 judgment caused him to have a thrill up his leg at the prospect of President Obama.
That’s sort of sad, actually.”
And you somehow interpret that as my “contention that someone who is mostly wrong cannot be right — ever.” Which of course is not what I said or even thought. In fact, you know the old saying about stopped clocks being right twice a day.
This is what I actually meant, by the way: It’s sad that you are reduced to quoting none other than Chris Matthews—whose judgment in general has been so spectacularly wrong on so many things, including of course Obama—to shore up your thesis about Trump. Surely there are people whose judgment is more reliable that you can quote. That last is demonstrably true, because some people who usually show at least some good judgment have indeed endorsed Trump. So it’s sort of sad and odd that you chose Chris Matthews.
Neo-neocon,
I chose Chris Matthews because his voice, in this instance, had all the requirements for a voice of reason. Who else might I have chosen. Sessions? He is now officially a rat-fink or some such thing for having endorsed Trump. It’s obvious, is it not, that a noose has been set aside for any ‘conservative’ who might have the temerity to back a reactionary enemy of the PARTY. Especially one making inroads, taking ground — even if by the low road. Not that the GOP would be unfamiliar with the low road.
Your Pal forever,
JurassiCon Rex, (aka the Knight Errant Of The Sad Countenance)
It appears there was a leaderless movement that discovered someone willing to express anger. Not their anger necessarily, but with some overlap. While this is a particularly dramatic political example for American terms, I’m betting there is something very common about this in all human endeavors.
Interestingly, it allows the followers to revere those leaders later, even when they have moved to other ideas. Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind here.
I am opposed to Trump for what I think should be obvious reasons. And, no, I will not post what is a very long list of flaws, shifting positions, past positions, general ignorance of Constitutional governance (isn’t that the reason conservatives loath bho?), and issues of appropriate character for the job (another reason we loath bho).
I do not hate Trump, I see him unworthy of my anger. 5However, I do fear Trump. I fear the damage he will do in securing another progressive POTUS or conversely the long term damage that would result from kis occupancy of the Oval Office.
Assistant Village Idiot:
“It appears there was a leaderless movement that discovered someone willing to express anger.”
That’s the gist of it.
I’ve characterized the Trump phenomenon as an exploitation of a market inefficiency, which is a fitting metaphor for an entrepreneur.
The market inefficiency is the chronic gap of activism among conservatives and therefore the GOP, which depends on the Right for the necessary activism, the same as the Democrats depend on the Left for activism. The difference is the Left reliably delivers the necessary activism and the Right doesn’t.
Neo has talked about how Levin, Limbaugh and other Right commentators have stoked discontent with the GOP “base” – with justification. With the same justification, Neo has done her part, in her way, of prepping her audience along the same lines.
However, Neo had envisioned that the politically prepped GOP “base” would be marshaled in 2016 to elevate a President from an impressive selection of up-and-coming dynamic conservatives poised to take over the GOP from the “establishment”.
Where Neo and other conservative commentators fell short was they overlooked their self-induced, chronic gap of activism in an activist game.
Their prep of the GOP “base” with ressentiment, alienation, and anomie themes was like a Marxist-method activist prep. However, conservatives and therefore the GOP neglected to organize and train the activist teams – the social political machinery – to properly harvest the fruit of their political labor.
Trump apparently identified the market inefficiency and equipped his campaign with the equivalent of knock-off John Deere harvesters – ie, Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists – to reap the crop that commentators like Levin and Limbaugh, and to a lesser extent, Neo, had sown and cultivated with an eye on 2016.
The Trump campaign has shown only a “jayvee” level of activism. But that’s enough when their competition has shown negligible counter-activism. Apparently, the extent of the harvesting equipment prepared by the GOP candidates – either establishment or Tea Party – was Senator Cruz’s “data driven ground game”.
That may have been sufficient to rally the Right like Neo envisioned had Trump (in consultation with Democrat-front Left activists?) not recognized the market inefficiency, that the GOP campaigns were vulnerable to a leftist style campaign, and moved to exploit the gap, thus derailing Neo’s vision for 2016.
Assistant Village Idiot:
“Interestingly, it allows the followers to revere those leaders later, even when they have moved to other ideas. Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind here.”
I’m not sure that you’re referring to the same thing, but I wrote a term paper in college about “Martin Luther King: Integrationist and Black Separatist”.
Parker,
Conservatives do NOT loathe BHO for his ignorance of Constitutional governance. O is no more ignorant of Constitutional limitations than your run of the mill SCOTUS appointee. They are both loathed for making the shit up as they go. The bulk, the residue, of conservative loathing is reserved for the conservatives who had done nothing about it.
Face it, Trump may do no more damage to the nation than is allowed by the gutless, yellow bellied conservative Congress. In which case it is evident that the presidency, the Executive branch hubris, is the least of our problems and the absence of nemesis – a Congress – our greatest.
“Making shit up as you go along” is not Constitutional goverance. I think we can agree on that. Your boy Trump is an expert at making up shit as he goes along. Pardon me if I want a change from the “making shit up as you go along” and will never support a man who is the crown prince of making up shit as he careens across the political stage.
Careful Mr. Rex, because you will step in some. Might want to scrape your shoes off before you enter the kitchen. 🙂
JurassiCon Rex — the reason Neo and many people here are opposed to Trump is that he is an asshole. I do not want an asshole representing the United States of America, the Republican Party, or me. Is that simple enough for you?
What you don’t seem to realize is that he is running for President, not Duce.
Richard Saunders,
Didn’t Trump say he got his info from watching the morning news? That’s just enough to supply him with a bombastic statement per day. He never digs further into issues. So i would add an adjective to your description: He is an ignorant asshole.
He also thinks that everyone should make life decisions on money. But even the wealthy people I know do have other things they value and they have enough moral character to restrict their actions.
JurassiCon Rex Says:
“… the gutless, yellow bellied conservative Congress.”
Excuse me? What conservative Congress?
You’ve obviously never been to ConservativeReview/scorecard/.com and seen how many Republicans get a passing grade of 70%? 67 of 246 in the House, 12 of 54 in the Senate, a half dozen of whom have lower to just slightly higher scores than Bernie freakin’ Sanders.
Now do you wish to revise your statement to read “the gutless, yellow bellied Republican Congress?”
Conservatives have been fighting RINOs for decades. Then the Tea Parties finally galvanized the 2010-2014 elections to bring in a number of strong conservatives.
If Trump hadn’t come along, Cruz would have handily wrapped up this campaign and we had a chance for an historic realignment of the GOP behind the closest thing to Reagan to have come along in decades.
Then a liberal Democrat hustler said a few un-PC things, copied Cruz’ long-time views on immigration only louder, and half the Tea Partiers and a gaggle of political novices, LIVs, and reprobates swooned before they even got to hear from Cruz.
Trump has zero coattails; even he wins, he’ll face a Democrat Senate, and we can kiss goodbye to even a tenuous 4.5-4.5 standoff in SCOTUS.
Trump is a clown, and any supporters who aren’t at least questioning their support are fools.
Trump’s base is NOT WATCHING any of these ‘debates.’
Instead, clips and snippets are making their way around the blogs.
The Alt-right is framing Rubio as fay… a real gamma.
Whereas, the Alt-right is largely IGNORING Ted Cruz.
Like the MSM, they can’t handle Cruz.
Rubio’s support may have hit a Seneca cliff.
As Carson and Walker can tell you, once you have inverse momentum — the fall back is RAPID.
You’ll note that Rubio has largely fallen from grace even at Fox.
He’s no longer their poster boy.
Super Tuesday crushed him.
That – plus the polling in Florida.
Kasich is — IMHO — very unlikely to win in Ohio.
With absolutely no path to the nomination, he will be abandoned wholesale.
He’s the wrong man for the times.
He’s twenty years late…. exactly.
Matt_SE Says:
March 4th, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Trump is a clown, and any supporters who aren’t at least questioning their support are fools.
&&&&&
While true…
They do wildly out number us.
His boorish banter is aimed at the folks who think WWF is not play-wrestling.
The topics we toss around here in neo’s house are TOO brainy for the typical ‘Trump voter.’
They think (emote) that this election is about sticking your head out the window and screaming, “I’m not going to take it anymore!”
Hence, the tabulations on Super Tuesday.
BTW, I’m of the opinion that Minnesota was an activist fix to keep Rubio in the contest.
All of the open primaries have queered tabulations.
We just don’t know how skewed they are.
On its politics, you’d have thought that Minnesota would’ve pledged to Trump — as he is in everything but tame — a Liberal Democrat.
Rubio couldn’t even gain much traction in Nevada — which is virtually a ‘home’ state for him.
It’s over.
&&&&&&&&
The GOPe is packed in its doomsday bunker — unable to comprehend that Wenk is not coming, neither is Steiner.
They are so low in spirits — and morals — that they’d prefer Hillary Rodham-Clinton-Goldman-Sachs over a principled man.
Once the nomination is in Trump’s hand — the MSM will erupt with salvoes from its immense quiver.
Parker,
Easy on the melodrama.
If every word uttered by Trump until this very moment was a lie, including the ‘uhs’ and ‘thes’, they, all of them, could not have harmed a hair on your manly self. On the other hand the shit made up by SCOTUS has, just off the top of my brain, managed the deaths of fifty plus millions of babies… and made you considerably less free than… say… oh… say your father.
Richard Saunders,
Yes, that’s simple enough. No assholes representing the US of A.
Note to all political candidates. All candidates will now submit themselves to our asshole detector – Richard Saunders.
“What you don’t seem to realize is that he is running for President, not Duce.”
I seem to have said nearly the thing several days ago on this blog — that we are voting for president, not Caesar.
So how could I not realize that Trump is up president not Duce? That’s president, as in the Executive branch, as in checked and balanced not just by the other two federal branches, but by the States, and the people. But… but you… can’t possibly believe that Trump will pronounce himself der fuhrer, demand the Pope coronate him, and the rest of the government will silently acquiesce. I mean the guy’s good but he’s no Ophila.
Geokstr,
I will not revise. Save for a handful of them, most all of them represented themselves as, to some degree, conservative — either fiscally/economically, or socially/culturally. That they talk like Patton and operate as Quisling has long been my observation and it no longer surprises me.
Let’s see:
Trump, not a day in the oval office and the power that goes with it and already he’s a Hitler/NAZI/tyrant, etc.
Cruz, not a day in the oval office and the power that goes with it and he’s the second coming of Reagan.
Do you hum “Day Dream Believer” when you fantasize about Cruz?
Facing a Democrat Senate! How had the Republican Senate stymied BHO.
Mr. Rex,
You warn me about melodrama? How amusing! Trump is melodrama every second of his waking day, and he dreams in melodrama of his greatness. 😉 My manly chest and belly have plenty of grey hairs. Thank you for paying homage to my manly chest. 🙂
Trump is a braggart, someone should have set his ass on the ground 55 years ago, or perhaps that happened and he has been hiding behind his bellicose persona ever after. Lack of ability to see the donald for what he is, is a sure sign one so blind should not warn others about “melodrama” when they trumpet the virtues of the queen of melodrama.
Mr. Rex @ 8:31 pm,
How hilarious, now you have hyperbole and melodrama on your shoes.
I have a real life, and its time to walk the dogs and pick up their shit. Dog shit, pig, sheep, chicken, cattle shit; I’ve dealt with all forms of shit, including BS, from farm boy to old age. I know shit when I see/smell it. I also know when I have stepped in it. I offer free lessons, come to NE Iowa for a one day conference, bring your fellow trumpsters.
Yes, I am teasing, but you seem in need of an intervention.
parker:
Your note on shit from all sources reminds me of Hubert H. Humphrey, after being chosen as running mate by LBJ, stepped on a cow patty at LBJ’s ranch. Said to Lyndon and the reporters as he held up his foot, “Look, Mr. President. I’ve just stepped on the Republican platform!”
Parker,
You seem positively belligerent to my notion that you have been harmed not a hair by Trump. You may of course, hate him, belittle him, jump up and down on an effigy of him, but don’t tell me his lies have done you wrong or his shit stinks more than what SCOTUS regularly evacuates in a session… it’s just not so.
And for what it’s worth, I am not a Trumpster. All my comments regarding him have been a defense of him on principle — he’s done plenty to warrant disdain of him but nothing by which he may be indicted in the court of public opinion as Hitlerian, NAZI, or tyrant. One may warrant the indictment, but not by dint of being a mere asshole. I’ve also asserted he has a superior read, better than any of the other candidates, on the mood of the rank and file GOPsters. This, I believe, is incontrovertible — sum the delegates if you doubt me. Otherwise, I have not presumed to foist him on to anyone. After all, I’m not the GOP.
No Mr. Rex, I say again that I do not hate Trump. Opposing Trump is not the same as hating him. Neo, your humble fellow poster, and hordes of others have explained over and over again why Trump is merely Trump. What you see is what you get (I will give him that) and all I and others see is a bombastic, crude, and ever shifting on principles megalomaniac.
Here is food for thought: how can a casino go bankrupt when the odds always favor the house? I have never owned a casino nor set foot in one, but I can see only a few possibilities to explain how a casino goes bankrupt.
1. The casino was built in a location where there are too few potential players to fleece. So much for hiring the best people. 2. The casino was poorly managed and unable to compete with other casinos in the local market place. So much for hiring the best people. 3. Larceny and fraud. So much for brilliant (YUGE!) business acumen.
Finally, any businessman who thinks his name if worth 3 billion has never met Soros, Buffet, and a few hundred others.
JurassiCon Rex Says:
“I will not revise. Save for a handful of them, most all of them represented themselves as, to some degree, conservative — either fiscally/economically, or socially/culturally.
Then you’re easily duped by liars and con artists, like the Trump worshipers, which you claim to supposedly not be one of. Yet you spend more time here than most of us aggressively defending the man you are not a fan of, while you put down one of the “handful” who really are conservative, who has a stellar record of conservative voting and fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law his entire life. The establishment in both parties fear Cruz a lot more than the crude loudmouth, who’s apparently admitted that everything is negotiable, even “DEPORT THEM ALL!”
So whom do you support – Hillary or Bernie? Or does the Chaos and Anarchy Party have a candidate this year?
Let’s see:
Trump, not a day in the oval office and the power that goes with it and already he’s a Hitler/NAZI/tyrant, etc.
Cruz, not a day in the oval office and the power that goes with it and he’s the second coming of Reagan.
Do you hum “Day Dream Believer” when you fantasize about Cruz?
Based on the perspectives of their past history, their records, their associations, their demonstrated principles, honor, honesty, ethics, morals , character or lack of them – you know, that crap that told thinking people exactly what Obama would be like, and what Trump will be like but is also being ignored by his supporters, you’ve summed up the future quite well. Do you have an orgasm and cluck with approval during your nightly viewing of “1984?” (I can play personal insult, too.)
Facing a Democrat Senate! How had the Republican Senate stymied BHO.
Now it’s the Republicans fault, since it would obviously be stupid to blame conservatives for not stopping Obama.
You’ve complained about SCOTUS above, which was my point about Trump facing a Democrat Senate. Even if McConnell grows a pair and a spine, do you believe he will stall Obama’s nominee for ten months? Let’s say he does, and Trump wins and Schumer is now Majority Leader. He will definitely prevent Trump from getting his nominee approved for the following two years unless they’re to the left of his sister.
But everything is negotiable, right? Let’s assume Schumer will accept a centrist nominee, say, another O’Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, or Souter (in which case we lose anyway, only slower.) What does the toughest negotiator in history get in return – approval for online gambling, maybe, or a law expanding eminent domain to allow crony capitalists to take the properties of others without the government middleman?
Richard Saunders:
My objection to Trump is nowhere near as simple as “he is an asshole.” Of course, it depends on your definition of “asshole,” but to me it implies a bit more fool than knave.
I think “knave” when I think of Trump. I think that, in addition to his character flaws (that what I think of when I think “asshole”), Trump has no interest in small government or the Constitution (except perhaps the 2nd Amendment) and is a classic strongman who will take as much power as he can. That’s some of the “knave” part, and that just scratches the surface of my objections.
My definition of “asshole’ is definitely not a fool. It’s someone who has made a deliberate, conscious choice, to think only of himself; to say and do whatever he needs to do to get ahead; to ignore facts, law, and morals if they are in his way; to take credit for what others have done and never take responsibility for what he has done; who is a braggart, bully, and brute. In short, a knave — not to put to fine a point on it, a Donald J. Trump.
parker Says:
March 4th, 2016 at 11:09 pm
Knock it off about the casinos.
No-one else could make money there, either.
Merv Griffen split the pie with Donald Trump — and he lost his shirt too.
Indeed, the ENTIRE Atlantic City ‘industry’ has proved to be a black hole.
Every player that’s touched has been burned.
The only logical reason is that the skim by the NJ mob has proved to be unstoppable.
This can be done outside the counting room — by compelling the casinos to buy essential services from mobbed up businesses.
EG — EVERY trash collector in NY City is mobbed up.
If you’ve ever been to Manhattan you’ll see the most pristine garbage trucks on the planet.
They can afford to lavish paint and wax jobs on that fleet — because it’s a mobbed up cartel.
Similar antics haunt Atlantic City.
&&&&&&&
I have to break ranks.
NOTHING in Trump’s profile fits tyrant.
Whereas everything in Barry’s profile fits tyrant.
He is the absolute opposite of meglamaniac.
His troops — 22,000 employees swear by him — not at him.
He’s the absolute opposite of Hillary Rodham-Clinton-Goldman-Sachs.
She dumps on the ‘small people’ ALL the time.
There is NO COMPARISON as to who you’d want in the Big Chair.
Hillary has PLENTY of tics that indicate that she’s a natural born tyrant.
&&&&&&&
Trump’s critical flaw is that he has too much BAGGAGE.
Even if I’m right about a Trump Presidency — his baggage and the lock-stop Left, MSM, HRC kamp will beat him up like a rented mule.
The John Oliver hit piece is merely a foretaste of the bitter brew to be served.
The Deep State, K Street, Wall Street — ALL of them actually want Trump as a candidate — as they are sure that they can beat him — or turn him.
Either way, reason enough to rally to Ted Cruz.
He really IS the cure for the Washington Cartel.
And as the race tightens, Ted is surging in the tabulations.
Only two fellows are mucking things up:
Rubio and Kasich.
Neither has ANY route to the nomination. Both are FAR to close to the GOPe and HRC on policy to be accepted.
&&&&&&&
Most of the flak Trump is getting is due to the MSM spin machine.
Trump does not have the clever mind to parry the Press.
Ted Cruz does.
It’s why the Press has imposed a black out on Ted.
He’s too frustrating for them to deal with.
The more he gets exposure, the more the public rallies to him.
Between the two candidates — Trump is plainly the inferior nominee. He’s not a monster — just the fellow that Hillary WANTS to run against.
Meaning he’s McCain and Romney redux.
If you’ll recall, the Press loved both during the primaries.
After the convention, both were flipped into villains.
Trump will be EASY to flip over into villain mode, illustrated in this thread.
He just won’t make it.