April 16, 2011

"[T]he less we hear about the birth certificate from this point forward, the better chances I gather that this is real."

Says Mediate, summarizing Trump's interview with Rush Limbaugh. (17-minute audio at the link.)
The conversation broached many subjects and, while it was a good interview, perhaps the most interesting note is what they didn’t talk about. Not once during the call did the subject of President Obama’s birth come up. Trump’s investigators in Hawaii must feel so insulted.
Mediate doesn't realize that this was Trump's second interview on Rush's show. I can't get the search function on RushLimbaugh.com to work anymore for some reason, but the previous interview was a couple weeks ago, and they did go through the whole birther thing then.

My impression, from listening to both Rush-Trump interviews, is that Trump's main issue is the way the Chinese are hurting American business interests (including Trump's own interests). On yesterday's show, this was Trump's most passionate moment:

Rush, if we ever wanted them to stop manipulating their currency, which makes it almost impossible for our companies to compete -- and I know because I build buildings, and I have to get so much stuff whether it's curtain walls or other things from China, and I hate do it. But they manipulate their currency to such an extent that it's very hard, almost impossible for our companies to compete; and if you ever said to them, "Folks, the game is over." You know, we're rebuilding China, Rush. We're rebuilding China. They're building bridges like twice the size of the George Washington Bridge.

The George Washington Bridge is like a small bridge. They are building airports, they're building cities, with our money -- and it's mostly from us because we have leadership that doesn't know what they're doing. If you ever said to them, "There's a 25% tax, a 25% tax on all of your products coming in," we would, first of all, never really probably have to oppose the tax because they would come to the table -- if you meant it, if you really meant it -- so fast. Now, if they didn't come to the table, we'd make a fortune. We'd take in a lot of money and guess what? Jobs would start going to Alabama and North Carolina and all our places. So when you ask me about the polls, people know -- and I made a lot of money with the Chinese, believe me.

Both in terms of selling them very big apartments -- I sold one for $33 million recently to a Chinese gentleman -- but also in terms of deals. I made a lot of money with the Chinese, and I know the Chinese very well. By the way, they don't love us. I will tell you that. Just in case anybody has any question. They don't. When I see Obama having a dinner at the White House, Rush, for the president of China -- who's been screwing us worse than anybody other than OPEC -- for years, it's not the right and appropriate location for a dinner, believe me. So there are ways of handling it, and they need us, Rush. That's the one thing. They always say, "Oh, but they have our debt." Think of it they take our money and then they loan it back to us and we have to pay 'em interest. It's very... It would be something to solve very easily, if you have the right messenger. We don't have the right messenger. Obama is the wrong messenger.
He really wants to kick China's ass. 

27 comments:

Gimli 4 the West said...

I'll reenlist if its about kicking ass in China. The Muslims aren't worth the effort.

edutcher said...

Those who watch Cavuto on Fox know that what Ann describes as "Trump's main issue is the way the Chinese (and the Saudis - my added) are hurting American business interests" is one of his main topics.

This economic nationalism is what might make him a credible candidate generally. I think a lot of people might see this as another knock against not only Little Zero and the Lefties, but also the RINOs.

The birther thing is a new subject, mostly to call attention to his possible candidacy.

Hagar said...

Donald Trump owns the Miss America pageant.

Carol_Herman said...

Pre-ROE. What do you know about the shame women faced back in 1965 for having a racially mixed kid. (Where the term "mulatto" was used. And, not just down south.)

There was communities back in the 1880's, who broke the bonds of tradition, and were set up (in the USA) to be "free love." Then, of course, Marx came along. You think this guy got a lot of sex? It doesn't seem to matter, given that his ideas took hold.

Now, what you can probably figure out. Back in 1965, when Stanley Ann Dunham was having sex, even though she wasn't married to anyone ...

Could tell you that 'getting married first' wasn't how it all began for many, many females.

And, like Monica Lewinski, this stuff can start in by the time a female reaches the ripe age of 15.

Do you need a bed?

You mean you can't do it under the staircase; or behind a tree?

Why hasn't Obama released his records? Well, how come you know Gore earned a "D" in science, at Yale. While the drunken Bush managed to eke out a gentleman's "C"?"

How come Tubby Kennedy got so many passes, that while at Harvahd, he'd send in others to take his exams. But when he was driving Jo Kopeckni around, he took the keys to the Oldsmobile.

Some things get hidden in plain sight.

Or as Trump would say: Why not lie, when journalists no longer value a pulitzer? (Of course, it also means journalists that do, couldn't find anyone to pay them money.)

We'vew been stretching more than bankruptcy downhill.

As to the "birther" talk ... this time Obama feels the blows. They must medicate him something good, just to keep his teleprompter skills up to speed.

Or? As Trump says, Obama "campaign's well." So, too, did Jimmy Carter.

Scratch off the birth certificate ... (And, given that Lillian Carter said she was sorry she even got pregnant. So, there ya go. Fighting over "who was the worst president, ever. And, you've got two moms who were sorry they carried to term.)

Then along came ROE. And, changed the variables.

You know if Trump can swing this thing, he'll change the rules of journalism, as well.

Alex said...

Racism, pure and simple. Economic nationalism just doesn't fly anymore.

Alex said...

Oh and Amy Chua aka "Tiger Mother" would eat Trump for lunch.

CHINA POWER!!!

Carol_Herman said...

Okay, what has conservatives pissed off the most about Donald Trump, is that he just walks into the republican nomination process ... and he cancels out all those locals who spent years trying to get a seat in the auditorium. Where they will carry signs. As if "sign carrying" influences anything at all!

Trump's math includes his knowledge of the "customer base."

Conservatives foam at the mouth at RINO's. Let alone libertarians. Or Independents.

They wanted to short-circuit the system. Since McCain reduced the voltage on his 2008 selection process. (Then? You had to "hold your nose." As you saw all those people "who would never vote for a black person," materialize. Along with all those dames who where Hillary's voters.)

You might add that McCain, the GIGOLO, also thought his wife would pick up the major tab for running. And, nothing wet's the pants of conservatives than getting something for nothing.

Trump's coming out at about the same point that Ross Perot came out, in 1992. And then, Ross Perot shot himself in the foot; by saying he was "withdrawing." Where he had hoped this would icrease his popularity. It didn't.

Can't cry over spilt milk.

And, there hasn't been a Bull Moose party ... throwing the republicans into 3rd place, since Theodore Roosevelt.

What's been the biggest error so far? Oh, well. That's easy. The crap that surfaced in Congress, after the voters were told to leave.

You want to count Trump's supporters? Start with this number: ALL the voters who were pissed off by DC ... when someone handed Karl Rove the steering wheel.

Chip S. said...

@Alex

...and then she'd cough up a hairball.

rhhardin said...

Trump is wrong on trade. What's killing US industry is US regulations. Look for a sharp decline in living standards if Trump gets his way on it.

Most products don't have a country that they're from except for the last person to touch it.

edutcher said...

rhhardin said...

Trump is wrong on trade. What's killing US industry is US regulations. Look for a sharp decline in living standards if Trump gets his way on it.

Most products don't have a country that they're from except for the last person to touch it


Add regulations to taxes and union greed, and that's how the Demos, not the manufacturers, send the jobs overseas.

G Joubert said...

I don't know if Trump is wrong on trade, but there is something going on in/with China that we are woefully misunderestimating in our zeal to do business with them. And I think that's a big part of his point.

Sixty Grit said...

Carol Herman - so Lilian Carter is Obama's mother? Is ROE like ROI, only different? You lost me somewhere...

traditionalguy said...

Trump's eye opener about China and Opec is that 40 years of American politicians (See, Bush I and Bush II)have sold out to them for $$$ arrangements for themselves under the table, but the Trump Army plans to fight the real economic war on our side and not China and Opec's side.

AllenS said...

Trump knows that millions of Americans realize that we have to establish our manufacturing base again if there is ever to be an economic recovery. Don't count this man out.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Hey, if a fraud such as Zero could get elected, so could the Donald. Of course, without the blessing of the GOP, this task is more difficult. I've already heard that Karl Rove is dismissing Trump as a joke candidate.

Popville said...

So far Trump has our family vote. At least he'd be interesting.

Me hates RINOs as much as Lefty Fundamentalists. Who was minding the $t0re during Bush II? We essentially had a balanced budget after 16 years of hard work under Reagan/Clinton (ignoring Bush I). All that effort tossed under the bus.

It's the ecomony, stupid.

Irene said...

Trump is right that Americans overlook the Chinese threat.

But it's about more than business, the debt, or the economy.

Global governance has been a goal of every Communist regime. They want to take over, and they plan to dominate us.

My lefty friends correlate this opinion with "McCarthyism." They now paint any anti-Chinese comment as "racist," and they suggest that the U.S. should get *its* human rights record in order before playing bossy-pants to China. Their eagerness to embrace globalization greases the path for China.

The lurch toward moral relativism is startling.

Yesterday, for example, the House of Representatives conducted a hearing about "Communist Chinese Cyber-Attacks," but few media outlets, except Fox, reported on it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Trump is talking about China purposely undervaluing its currency. As I understand it, undervaluing its own currency lets China buy up our debt, which keeps our interest rates low, and lets them sell us exports at a discount. If China suddenly revalued its currency, it would hurt our economy badly. (And, by extension, theirs, unless their export destinations become a lot more diversified first.)

Undervaluing Chinese currency also hurts Chinese consumers, but I don't think that ranks as a top concern for the Chinese government.

Some people say it's no big deal because even if we are dependent on Chinese goods, China is dependent on US consumers. I think that's short-sighted though. If China's economy depends more and more on the actual production of things, and ours depends more and more on the selling of things made elsewhere, which country is in a better position if a real conflict ever arises?

I think it would be much easier for China to find someone else willing to buy cheap goods than it would be for us to find someone else willing to sell goods to us at the same, artificial discount. Even if this isn't a current concern, it's obviously easier to gear up for a real war if you have a great deal of industrial infrastructure already in place than it is if you have to catch up. Plus, good luck catching up if your economy is crippled by massive debt and entitlements.

And who owns the debt that funds the entitlements? China.

Sounds like we're buying rope.

Apfelkuchen said...

All you Trump lovers, how do you think all the Waukesha County folks living in their McMansions will accept Trump's anti China trade message? How do you think these merchants with their China manufactured products a Walmart, will feel when they realize Trump will hurt their way of earning their income? I suspect Trump will either change his tune about China trade or he will be firmly rejected by the merchant class.

Freeman Hunt said...

Who are the Trump lovers?

I see a lot of people happy to talk about the issues Trump is talking about. I see very few people excited about Trump 2012.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Lot of us here seem to have failed "Economics in One Lesson".

Protectionism is a system of using the government to take money out of the pockets of all of us and divert it into the pockets of a few.

China sells us stuff cheaper than we can make it ourselves. The wages we lose from manufacturing are available to create other jobs! Just like the wages from taxes would be available if the government cut the tax rate.

Almost everyone here is against the notion that you can "create jobs" by having the government tax our money and spend it. Why, then, do so many of us here want trade restrictions on China in the name of "creating jobs" which will do the very same thing? If Obama said, "Let's raise the taxes on everything at Walmart by 5% and spend the money to create new jobs", you'd be against that. But here's a guy talking about lwas to do effectively the same thing.

It's the same fallacy: diverting capital to where it is not needed.

But as Bastiat pointed out, we can see the people who benefit from trade restrictions, but we can't see the people who benefit from their absence, because it's all of us.

Freeman Hunt said...

Gabriel, it's not a matter of opposing free trade. One side is controlling its currency valuation and purposely undervaluing it. You have one side engaging in protectionism (China), and one side not engaging in protectionism (us).

Trump seems to be arguing in favor of forcing China to drop its protectionist measures by threatening to enact protectionist measures of our own.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Freeman:

You have one side engaging in protectionism (China), and one side not engaging in protectionism (us).

Yes, and if we engage in protectionism, we will be poorer for it, and money from everyone will be going into the pockets of a few.

It doesn't matter WHY China can sell us stuff cheaper than we make it ourselves. We can only shoot OURSELVES in the foot by engaging in protectionism.

Here's an article about Canadians calling for restrictions on Netflix, which competes "unfairly" with Canadian brodcasters and movies. How is what Trump wants any different, or any less stupid, than what Canada is trying to do?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/broadcasters-call-for-crtc-to-regulate-netflix-service/article1985547/

Fen said...

Apfelkuchen: All you Trump lovers...

Fuck you. Come back when you learn some manners, little bitch.

Carol_Herman said...

Check off the things that are probably on the "first" birth certificate:

Child's race: Mulatto.

Child's religion: Muslim?

Child's parents: 2 of 'em? HELLO.

Time of birth: 7:24 PM.

Doctor in attendence: Did she pay a bill? I don't think so. (Free delivery only came at homes for unwed mothers.)

Of course, to counter the bamster fraud, we can ask Donald if his first name is "THE" ... Since he's called "The Donald."

Barry? He was always called Barry. But his mom was never called Stanley.

Freeman Hunt said...

Trump is not calling for protectionism. He's calling for threatening it to get China to end theirs.

Carol_Herman said...

Lillian Carter is Jimmy Carter's momma. She went on Johnny Carson, long ago, and said she was sorry she got pregnant.

Then you have Stanley Ann Dunham. Barry's mom. At least it's been said "she was there."

Two different moms. Pre-ROE. The variables all change in 1973.