September 14, 2016

"But in selling his case, Mr. Trump stretched the truth, saying that his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, has no such plan of her own and 'never will.'"

"Mrs. Clinton issued her plan more than a year ago, and it guarantees up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for a newborn or a sick relative, financed by an increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans. On Twitter, her campaign posted a link to her plan after Mr. Trump’s remark."

From a NYT article "Donald Trump Unveils Plan for Families in Bid for Women’s Votes." The 2 links in that quote go to the same webpage. I watched Trump's speech last night and couldn't figure out why he said Hillary had no plan of her own.

Could someone get him to explain what he meant? If there isn't some tricky explanation, it's either a blatant mistake or a lie.

90 comments:

tim in vermont said...

It's probably an ignorant mistake made by an amateur. Hillary can lie about stuff that is easily checked, but Trump doesn't have the media to cover for him.

"Tax the rich
Feed the poor
'Til there are no
Rich no more..." - Ten Years After

Funny how the line isn't "'Til there are no poor no more..." But we know that doesn't work, latest case in point? Venezuela.

Brando said...

What's clear is we don't have a choice this year between "less government" and "more government". Our choice is "more government" and "more government".

Gabriel said...

Huh. It was probably a lie, like when Democrats and their media allies said Republicans proposed no alternatives to Obamacare.

CJinPA said...

There is NO WAY anyone would think a feminist politician would not have a plan for paid maternity leave.

One explanation: his claim makes people talk about his proposal, which isn't controversial, and therefore not something media would want to talk about.

Look at the NYT headline, 'Trump said something in desperate bid for women's votes. As if.' They would love for this to be forgotten.

Now, even Clinton's campaign is letting folks know Trump has a family leave plan. Every mention of Trump's lie has to remind people Trump has a plan.

That could explain the easily disproved lie. Or maybe I've read too much Scott Adams.

The Drill SGT said...

He screwed up, and the press caught him at it.

She screws up and the press covers up.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Blogger Brando said...
What's clear is we don't have a choice this year between "less government" and "more government". Our choice is "more government" and "more government".


9/14/16, 8:07 AM

Go ahead and tell us when "we" had a choice between "less" and "more" government.

It is always more and more, and Paul Ryan is too impotent and powerless as Speaker or just the little old Chairmen of the Ways and Means to do anything but spend as much as Pelosi and Obama wanted.

Some folks think Paul Ryan wants "less" government because Paul Ryan is a liar who claims that, but his actions have never, ever, indicated that is his goal.

"Slightly less than Pelosi" government is not by definition "less" government, it is merely "less than what tax and spending ultra-mega extremists" want.

If you live in a home with 44 cats, 15 dogs, 3 sheep, and a llama, saying your cousin wants a smaller pig sty to live in by adding only 5 dogs doesn't make any sense, none at all. When your cousin says "but Marna done did say she wants to add 6 dogs ergo I am for cleaning this place up goodlike and proper" you are free to kick your cousin in the nuts.

Tom Coburn and Jim Demint were men who truly wanted less government, but even all they could do was slightly, slightly lower the increase in the size of government for a short bit, not reduce the size overall.

Piece of crap John Kasich ran around bellowing he produced a 3 trillion dollar surplus as a congressperson. He should have gotten socked right in the mouth every time he repeated his lie. Apparently to Kasich producing a bullshit budget saving (POTENTIALLY!!!) x amount over a decade is the same as actually producing x amount, even as the decade goes by and THERE AIN'T NO DAMN SURPLUS.

The violence these politicians and Brando have done to my language is worse, much worse, than any rhetorical gambits of verbal violence I employ strategically, and mostly non-strategic too. Having to spell that out for you idiots makes me want to slap your mama.

readering said...

That was probably one of 10 examples that day of Trump just saying whatever came into his head and sounded good. To ask him what he meant would be to miss the point entirely. I don't know why Althouse persists in treating Trump like a conventional politician with conventional rationales for what he says. He's a con artist.

Freder Frederson said...

I watched Trump's speech last night and couldn't figure out why he said Hillary had no plan of her own.

Because he is a pathological liar who has no regard for the truth. You should have figured that by now. He says what he thinks his audience wants to hear, it doesn't matter if it has any relation to the truth or his actual plans.

AprilApple said...

Lying about a liar doesn't really count.

rhhardin said...

Both plans are idiotic, so I don't think that bragging rights matter.

The women's vote screws everything up. Nothing true matters.

David said...

Is this news to you? Where are you not aware that Trump lies constantly, blatantly, shamelessly? Did you know that CNN developed an entire new method of fact checking, with their chyrons, in order to deal with his constant lies?

rhhardin said...

The optimistic view is that Trump needs the women's vote and panders to them rather than informing them, because informing women doesn't work and pandering does.

The pessimistic view is that Trump thinks the plan is a good idea.

rhhardin said...

The optimistic pessimist thinks that Trump advisors will get it right once he gets in past the women's reasoning, aka feelings.

AprilApple said...

It is not surprising that Trump is moving in for the middle and those who want free stuff. Sadly, this is America now. Free stuff. Hillary is still trying to sure up her crazy base.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Politicians do this all time. Pretend their opponent "has no plan." It's only surprising in this case because the Republican is doing it.

Peter said...

If Trump wants to hear feminist outrage, specify that the paid maternity leave is only for mothers who are married at the time of birth.

Drago said...

Speaking in "Clintonian", Trump is technically correct since the plan being touted as "Hillary's Plan" was really developed by staffers so it's really the staffers plan and all Hillary does is simply repeat the words given to her about the staffers plan.

So is "Hillary's" Plan really Hillary's Plan?

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Or maybe Trump was simply dehydrated. I hope he "Powers Thru This"!

Drago said...

Peter: "If Trump wants to hear feminist outrage, specify that the paid maternity leave is only for mothers who are married at the time of birth."


If Trump wants to hear feminist and SJW outrage, simply speak. Or not speak. Or show up. Or not show up.

That sort of thing.

Brando said...

"It is not surprising that Trump is moving in for the middle and those who want free stuff. Sadly, this is America now. Free stuff. Hillary is still trying to sure up her crazy base."

An echo, not a choice. This attempt to "out freebie" the Dems is exactly what led to the Goldwater/Reagan movement to take over the GOP. I guess the lesson in all that is that the GOP isn't really about less government, it just needed a strongman who could piss off the Left. As they say, he has all the right enemies and that should be enough.

Brando said...

"Go ahead and tell us when "we" had a choice between "less" and "more" government."

So you're fine with all that, then. Duly noted.

readering said...

My favorite story on this topic is Trump claiming his companies provide enployee child care. Upon investigation it turns out what he was describing in vivid detail was amenities for hotel guests and golf club patrons/members. No employee childcare from the Trump Organization.

rehajm said...

Trump is +6 in Ohio this morning after the Weekend At Hillary's from an A+ rated pollster, +5 from another. His prospects are looking up but needs to close the gap in at least one more big swing state, and the women pander plays best in WI and PA. Later on today we'll have forgotten this and begun to spin Hillary's momentum loss...

Brando said...

Ann is shocked, shocked, to discover Trump in a lie. Glad to see she got out of that coma she was apparently in for the past year. I don't want to be the one to break the news about David Bowie to her.

Michael said...

It is a lie. So what? A little late to get all sensitive about the truth.

viator said...

I'll go with this one:

CJinPA said...

There is NO WAY anyone would think a feminist politician would not have a plan for paid maternity leave.

One explanation: his claim makes people talk about his proposal, which isn't controversial, and therefore not something media would want to talk about.

Look at the NYT headline, 'Trump said something in desperate bid for women's votes. As if.' They would love for this to be forgotten.

Now, even Clinton's campaign is letting folks know Trump has a family leave plan. Every mention of Trump's lie has to remind people Trump has a plan.

That could explain the easily disproved lie. Or maybe I've read too much Scott Adams.

Trump has done the before, many times, and even admitted he dose it. It's his free MSM campaign advertising shtick.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: I guess the lesson in all that is that the GOP isn't really about less government...

A lot of people figured that out a long time ago. That you think you're being clever and ironical here indicates that you've yet to catch on.

The Cracker Emcee said...

April nails it. Playing altar boy to a whore is a mug's game. And the person that does is laughed at, not elected. Why would anyone think Trump doesn't understand this?

Mike Sylwester said...

Clinton will pay for these benefits by taxing the rich.

Trump will pay for these benefits by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

In fact, the benefits will be charged to employers.

tim in vermont said...

Like the repeated lie that the Republicans had no alternative to Obamacare. This was a lie that the media was more than happy to cover for. It was actually a lie of the mens rea sort.

Mike Sylwester said...

This issue should not be the Federal Government's business.

Brando said...

"A lot of people figured that out a long time ago. That you think you're being clever and ironical here indicates that you've yet to catch on."

Apparently a lot of the Trump supporters who claim he is the conservative candidate in this race also have yet to catch on. But maybe your hero can continue scamming them.

I'm sure you won't be scammed though, Trump will be true to whatever you want him to be.

Brando said...

"This issue should not be the Federal Government's business. "

Amen to that. But apparently it now is.

viator said...

The Greatest Cognitive Dissonance Trap of All Time

"This is a textbook set-up for cognitive dissonance. The facts we observe (Trump is smart, the media is gullible) is opposite of the media’s worldview in which they are smart and Trump is uninformed. So what do they do?

They act as if Trump is the dumb one in this situation. Because that fits their worldview.

And…they…fact-check his claim."

Scott Adams

Michael McClain said...

A lie told by a liar about another liar cancels the original lie out. Rather like adding -1 to +1 producing zero.

rehajm said...

Playing altar boy to a whore is a mug's game.

This is the best sentence I've seen in a while. Obviously written by a Spillane Fellow.

Michael McClain said...

Actually less a lie than a mistake.

Once written, twice... said...

"Hello big spender!"

Once written, twice... said...

Small government conservatism has lost.

You can thank the hillbillies for that.

rhhardin said...

Feds sue Hooker to clean Love Canal.

- famous headline

Unknown said...

Ask Scott Adams, I'm sure he'll convince you that Trump was just being cagey and really has an ingenious reason for saying this latest load of crap accusing Clinton of having no plan.

viator said...

Of course up until now, until Trump mentioned it, there have been no family leave laws in place

MadisonMan said...

Key words: No plan "of her own"

Clintonesque dodging of the truth.

rhhardin said...

A man, a plan, a canal : maternity leave.

Xmas said...

I'm going full political judo here and saying Trump made an easily refuted factual error on purpose. Clinton's camp can respond by pointing out their plan, which includes tax increases on the rich. But now they have to work on three different things: comparing Trump's plans to Hillary's, defend tax increases, deal with her ongoing health issues. This diverts resources from the health issue.

Meanwhile, Trump gets free press for his maternity leave and childcare plans.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Recipe for roast turkey: First, catch a turkey.

First, get elected.

After all, GOP Congress will have something to say about all this.

Too bad "conservative GOP" spent themselves running away from Trump. Now, no markers to call in. Outside the tent, as it were, of their own volition. That's assuming they get reelected on a NeverTrump platform, of course.

Fun game: instead of Trump's position, would would your would-be candidate's position be? Bonus question, how would it play with the electorate?

Just remember Chuck, when you betray Trump and let all those Democratic ringers and other frauds vote in your Precinct, they will be voting the straight Democratic ticket.

damikesc said...

What's clear is we don't have a choice this year between "less government" and "more government". Our choice is "more government" and "more government".

Paul's flameout and Cruz's lost assured us of that. I have no misconceptions that Trump is going to shrink anything. I just hope he won't expand it as fast as Hillary.

Look at the NYT headline, 'Trump said something in desperate bid for women's votes. As if.' They would love for this to be forgotten.

Now, even Clinton's campaign is letting folks know Trump has a family leave plan. Every mention of Trump's lie has to remind people Trump has a plan.

That could explain the easily disproved lie. Or maybe I've read too much Scott Adams.


It makes sense.

Go back to Obamacare.

Even Obama admitted at a retreat with the GOP (I saw the video years ago) that they had reform proposals that got ignored.

Yet the Left --- including Obama --- keep saying "The Republicans offered no proposals". They say it to this day

At least with this, Trump having a proposal cannot be ignored.

Sebastian said...

"couldn't figure out why he said Hillary had no plan of her own." Why would he say she did? Look over there, my opponent also has a great plan, compare and contrast! Mine is just a teensy bit better. As "lies" go, this is small potatoes.

Of course, I'd prefer campaigns to be conducted as a Habermasian ideal speech situation, with all truth claims offered in good faith and examined by consistent, universal standards, but since progs play dirty, even with a squeaky clean guy like Romney, might as well play dirty in return. A bit of tut-tutting from Madison, WI, is a small price to pay.

Terry said...

I saw a picture of Trump kissing a baby the other day. It always looks corny when a politician kisses a baby.
Not many people know this, but Hillary has never kissed a baby. Not even her own daughter. Not even her own granddaughter. Some people say it is because Hillary has a super-weak immune system, and a baby's kiss could be the death of her. Other people say that it is because she hates humanity and hates babies most of all.
I say 'why can't both be true?'

LYNNDH said...

Political rhetoric. Most things politicians and want to be politicians are "lies". And this bothers you now? Are Trump's lies more damaging than Hillary's? Seems that a good many of the above commenters think that is so.

Henry said...

It all depends on how narrowly you define "such".

This election becomes more boring by the minute.

Fabi said...

Accusing one's opponent of not having a plan for this or that is nothing but politico-speak shorthand for dismissing their plan.

khesanh0802 said...

Bad Lieutenant @ 0903 The clear voice of reason. Thank you. If you don't win you can just sit in a corner and ..... If you win you have the opportunity to do good things - and bad - but you have the opportunity. You want less government? Close the Ed Department, rein in the EPA; fire every other lawyer in the bureaucracy. Do that and you can pay for a full year's maternity leave and bulld a couple of aircraft carriers on the side.

Really what's the alternative? Clinton? GAG!!!

...and @ Sebastian Absolutely. Play dirty! Play to win! If she brings a .22 you bring a .45. Simple.

khesanh0802 said...

Wow! Look at these polls. I am not a big believer in the polls as an absolute, but the movement toward Trump is impressive.

LakeLevel said...

Yeah, Hillary and Obama never, ever make straw man arguments. Seems like Ann is starting to telegraph her vote.

Brando said...

"Paul's flameout and Cruz's lost assured us of that. I have no misconceptions that Trump is going to shrink anything. I just hope he won't expand it as fast as Hillary."

I don't even have that hope--nothing about Trump suggests he would hesitate to open the Treasury's money spigot at the slightest whim. Any way you slice it, we're getting the same result no matter what happens in November--we'll be looking back at half-trillion dollar deficits as the good old days.

Stock up on whiskey, there'll be a run on it soon.

n.n said...

Clinton's plan excludes or just plans over one million deplorable babies. Perhaps as a class diversity scheme, as a cover-up of the refugees from her and Obama's (and Ban Ki-moon's) progressive wars, or the mass exodus of other people from second and third-world nations. Hopefully, Trump will couple entitlements with economic revitalization rather than trickle-up poverty (e.g. redistributive change, progressive debt), and this will discourage abortion rites. He can tax the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood to reduce the incentive for catastrophic anthropogenic child cannibalism.

CWJ said...

"Actually less a lie than a mistake."

This comes closest to the situation. I've noticed that as a general rule, Trump's lies getting things wrong, while Hillary generally lies to cover up her shall we say misbehavior. One is incorrect, the other intends to keep her out of jail.

Kinda like venal vs. mortal sins. Both sins, but keep on flogging Trump's lies as if they were equivalent to Hillary's and her campaign.

mikee said...

GuilodofCannonballs, your method of correction for idiot cousins, or government functionaries, is hereby endorsed, seconded, promoted and praised by me.

"Kick 'em inna nuts."
A great concept, this is, which will work to improve government more than any local, state, or federal program started in the last century.

Trump should use this line, it would bring him millions of female votes from all political & racial groups.

Mike said...

It's an easy mistake to make. She never talks about her plans in any specific way. She's being general along the hopeandchange lines her predecessor laid down. Why should we believe a page on her site? Why should we accept that is really her plan? All she talks about is Trump. And voters who will vote for Trump. That's her patter. I haven't heard policy out of her since 2008.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Clinton will pay for these benefits by taxing the rich.

Trump will pay for these benefits by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

In fact, the benefits will be charged to employers.


Economically Trump's plan makes quite a bit of sense. Compared to tax the rich and give the money away by the government. Trump's plan puts the choices into the private sector and into the hands of the parents.

A tax deduction or a bottom line expense deduction for big companies like Google etc, that provide child care either on site or that provide a subsidy to an offsite child care facility for working mothers and fathers is actually a pretty good idea. And would be cost effective in the long run for the company.

It keeps the employee around to do the work, instead of calling in sick every time the kid has the sniffles. This way productivity and continuity in the workplace is improved. Also the parent's are happier at their job because the gigantic cost and burden of finding quality child care is taken away and the worker will be more likely to remain in their position.

I didn't hear his plan so I'm just guessing that is what he meant by tax credits.

However, the same cost/burden placed on a small business, a mom and pop store or less than 25 employees would be crushing to the company.

A tax credit for the personal return is also a nice idea for those parents who do not work for a company that provides for child care, yet still have to shell out THOUSANDS of dollars a year for babysitting, pre school and other child care. Yes it would reduce their income tax burden a bit but would also be providing jobs for those child care worker.

However, when the small reduction in taxes from those tax payers is offset by elimination of some of the most egregious and redundant government programs, eliminating whole departments, waste and fraud in government......It would be a Yuge thing!

Economically it makes sense and anytime you can reduce government it is better for everyone.

eric said...

It's not a mistake. I'm not sure it's a lie either.

As was mentioned above, it's more politico speak.

The Democrats created these rules. There are certain, obvious, lies you get to tell about politicians without having to worry about being called a liar. For example, no alternatives to Obamacare. These are pretty commonplace lies that Democrats and their media counterparts tell constantly. This hits it's zenith during shutdowns. The obvious lies, I mean.

Trump is playing the game the way the Democrats do. It's distasteful. Especially to many Republicans. It's like cheating in football.

And yet, the New England Patriots keep winning. So, if you're going to win, you need to start playing by the same rules as the patriots. Sense it doesn't seem like they will be stopped by the rules.

Tank said...

There's gambling going on here.

OMG !!!!

Achilles said...

Trump is running on a platform that includes CC reciprocity, a border, and market based health care reform. Trump put out a plan that includes tax deductions for child rearing.

Yeah it is time for the real conservatives like Brando to tell us trump is big government. The same people who gave us romneycare, Medicaid part b, 2wars they refused to win, and a larger budget every year since Gingrich gave us our only balanced budgets and tried to sneak in amnesty every few years while mewling empty platitudes about small government and purposely trying to lose elections. Now the GOPe is doing everything in its power to elect Hillary.

Buck up son. We are tired of the spineless wanking. Someone is actually listening now and actually wants to do what it takes to win.

Meeeea said...

Clinton has kept her plan on the down low for several reasons, among them her plan for universal pre-k--insanely expensive and a move towards mandatory pre-k, which many American's are opposed to.

The creepiest part of her proposal that strangely has no legs yet, is she will enact "home visits" for kids in HeadStart. And the model for these "home visists" is based on (biased) research that contributed to the "evidenced based medicine" rules for Maternal and Child health" that will be enacted under her to regulate birth spacing (effectively four years between children) and the hammer will be pretty strong if one does conceive within that period. (Loss of tax deduction, on to the possibility of CPS intervention as you are endangering your "existing" child's well-being.)

And the funny part is, the initial roll out for the "home visits" are those in Head Start--mainly black families, and the purpose of the visit is to ensure the Mom's (who in the study were given incentives (free stuff--especially long acting contraceptives like Depo provera) and disincentives (told the second child, if conceived within the "interconception period" would not qualify for head start--ergo cost-free day care) which is how they achieved the results they wanted for the "peer reviewed research") where was I, oh, most are black families, so once again, as the left demonizes Trump for something an ass like David Duke says, Hillary and her ilk are busy contracepting and aborting blacks, and all the while not even worried about them leaving the Dem plantation, and voting D.

grackle said...

Apparently a lot of the Trump supporters who claim he is the conservative candidate in this race also have yet to catch on. But maybe your hero can continue scamming them.

Readers, I ask you: Is building a wall on the border a progressive idea? How about no more catch and release, beefing up the Border Patrol and ICE, instructing law officers to enforce the immigration laws currently ignored and eliminating federal funding to sanctuary cities? Are these Liberal leftwing concepts?

How about cutting corporate taxes and taxes for middleclass families and simplifying the tax code – are these policies that conservatives oppose?

And there’s Trump’s strong support of gun rights – conservatives oppose this?

This Trump supporter has NEVER claimed that Trump is a conservative. Trump is a big tent, right of center moderate with a libertarian reluctance to engage in foreign adventures. Trump is a pragmatist. He is NOT an ideologue and therefore not what some hardcore rightwingers would call a conservative.

On this basis they would rather have 2 terms of Hillary and Slick Willie, a SCOTUS packed with progressives, attenuated or virtual elimination of the 2nd Amendment and maybe the 1rst, open borders, a large new Democrat voting bloc after millions of those illegals are citizen-ized and all the rest of it – just because Trump offends their delicate conservative sensibilities. Poor darlings, they are so misguided I almost feel sorry for them.

Meeeea said...

And how expensive do you think these little home visits by armies of licensed nazi social workers is going to cost you? Especially if they are (and I presume they will be) government workers with all the costly perks and benes attached and lots of room for padding expenses. (Vehicle, mileage, O/T, meals, etc.) The cost of an expanded Head Start (where workers make a tad above minimum wage) will be less than the eugenic traveling army.

It amazes me how she uses bashing (mainly white, or R's of all colors) men as cover, while behind the curtain she is trying to completely control women--especially the "Julia" types.

eric said...

I feel terrible. Seriously.

Professor Althouse, I challenge you on your assertion that he was mistaken or lying. I clicked the link to Hillary's "plan" and I feel dupped. I should have done that before commenting my first time.

She doesn't have a plan. Trump was right. Here are some examples.

Make preschool universal for every 4-year-old in America.

How will she make preschool universal? This is not a plan. It's a result she desires. What's the plan?

Significantly increase child care investments so that no family in America has to pay more than 10 percent of its income to afford high-quality child care.

How will she increase child care investments? Again, this is a result. Not a plan. What's the plan?

Improve the quality of child care and early learning by giving a RAISE to America’s child care workforce.

How will she improve quality of child care? Again, a result with no plan to reach this destination.

I challenge you, Professor Althouse, to tell me what Hillary's plans are to achieve these results. If you're unable to do so, perhaps you should change your assertion that Trump was either mistaken or lying.

Brando said...

"Yeah it is time for the real conservatives like Brando to tell us trump is big government. The same people who gave us romneycare, Medicaid part b, 2wars they refused to win, and a larger budget every year since Gingrich gave us our only balanced budgets and tried to sneak in amnesty every few years while mewling empty platitudes about small government and purposely trying to lose elections."

Amazing. Here I was thinking I opposed all of those things but apparently people like me gave you that.

It's fine if you like big government and prefer Trump because he'll give you that plus a wall (which of course he won't, but hopes and dreams are nice to have). Just don't go around blaming those of us who prefer small government for the GOP's many betrayals. If anything enabled them, it was "conservatives" who give a pass to such betrayals.

"This Trump supporter has NEVER claimed that Trump is a conservative."

I'll take your word on that, and I don't mean that sarcastically. My comment was directed at those who try to play Trump off as the heir to Reagan-style conservatism (and a not-insignificant number of Republicans make this rationalization).

"Trump is a big tent, right of center moderate with a libertarian reluctance to engage in foreign adventures."

I'd quibble with this--big tent, maybe, in that his variety of views and constant pivoting seem to offer something for anyone at any given time, for at least a little while.

"On this basis they would rather have 2 terms of Hillary and Slick Willie, a SCOTUS packed with progressives, attenuated or virtual elimination of the 2nd Amendment and maybe the 1rst, open borders, a large new Democrat voting bloc after millions of those illegals are citizen-ized and all the rest of it – just because Trump offends their delicate conservative sensibilities. Poor darlings, they are so misguided I almost feel sorry for them."

Where do you get this "they would rather have 2 terms of Hillary..." from anything I said? Though if you're addressing that towards someone else, never mind.

eric said...

If not our hostess, can anyone tell me what her plan is?

Got kind of quiet in here. Don't tell me what results she desires, please. Tell me her plan to achieve those results.

Or admit Trump was right.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ eric

Hillary does not have a "plan". She is proposing goals, but no plan of action to get there other than take money from the "rich" which is a pretty nebulous group of people. Making promises with no freaking idea of how to deliver.

Here is Trump's actual plan and proposals on how to get there. I don't agree will all of his plan or proposals but it is at least a detailed plan.

Trump's plan

Brando said...

"If not our hostess, can anyone tell me what her plan is?"

Without looking it up, I am sure I can guess what her plan is. Tax only the "super rich" and this will automatically create enough revenue to pay for free college for everyone below a certain income level, fund massive infrastructure spending, and pay women to take time off for maternity leave. Oh, and shore up Obamacare.

Trump will do the same but will find all that magical money by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse which apparently is a specific line item in our budget bills.

The good news is neither of them has a snowball chance in hell of passing these idiotic plans, which is fine because they cannot find the revenue for them anyway. This is the goop to fuel up voters who want their piece of the pie.

eric said...

Brando,

That might be her plan. But she doesn't say that's her plan.

Are we supposed to guess their plans now? Trump was right. She has no plan.

Brando said...

"Are we supposed to guess their plans now? Trump was right. She has no plan."

I'm just guessing because googling anything about Hillary's promises will only be depressing. But if the GOP holds at least one house of Congress (a better than even chance) it won't make it through.

damikesc said...

Without looking it up, I am sure I can guess what her plan is. Tax only the "super rich" and this will automatically create enough revenue to pay for free college for everyone below a certain income level, fund massive infrastructure spending, and pay women to take time off for maternity leave. Oh, and shore up Obamacare.

And that assumes that the super rich don't create a "charity" that is little more than a money laundering and pay-for-access operation to hide money and then insure that they donate a lot to this "charity" that they run.

Brando said...

"And that assumes that the super rich don't create a "charity" that is little more than a money laundering and pay-for-access operation to hide money and then insure that they donate a lot to this "charity" that they run."

The rich have plenty of incentive to pay good money for professionals to find ways to get them around paying the highest rates. And the higher those rates are for them, and the more byzantine our tax system gets, the greater those incentives will be. Every time they talk about taking from the "very rich" to pay for all these goodies, just round down their estimates of what they'll pull in from this--even during the days of 90% top marginal rates, the wealthy found ways to legally shelter their earnings. (Not that it's efficient for the economy for them to be doing this, either).

But it sounds great at election time--just tell the masses that they won't be paying a cent more, they'll be getting all sorts of fun stuff that show how much the candidate cares, and it just means some rich person they don't know will have to get a slightly cheaper luxury car or have a slightly shorter vacation to the East Indies. Then when none of this happens they can blame gridlock or something.

grackle said...

My comment was directed at those who try to play Trump off as the heir to Reagan-style conservatism (and a not-insignificant number of Republicans make this rationalization).

Really? Can we maybe see some examples of Trump being praised and also being labeled in the same comment as ANY kind of “conservative?” Just for the sake of credibility, eh? Because I for one cannot remember any. Refresh our memories. Educate us.

I said earlier, “Trump is a big tent, right of center moderate with a libertarian reluctance to engage in foreign adventures."

A reply: I'd quibble with this--big tent, maybe, in that his variety of views and constant pivoting seem to offer something for anyone at any given time, for at least a little while.

No, “big tent” in that Trump, like Reagan, is bringing in new voters from new demographics to the Republican party’s campaign for POTUS.

I said earlier: "On this basis they would rather have 2 terms of Hillary and Slick Willie, a SCOTUS packed with progressives, attenuated or virtual elimination of the 2nd Amendment and maybe the 1rst, open borders, a large new Democrat voting bloc after millions of those illegals are citizen-ized and all the rest of it – just because Trump offends their delicate conservative sensibilities.

A reply: Where do you get this "they would rather have 2 terms of Hillary..." from anything I said? Though if you're addressing that towards someone else, never mind.

In a two-nominee race if one of the nominees is being constantly and invariably castigated by a commentor I MUST assume that the commentor wants the other nominee to win.

No other logical conclusion is possible, other than the commentor is out of touch with reality. I think we all know what’s likely to happen if Hillary wins – I list just a few of the likely outcomes in my comment. There are many more disgusting possibilities I could list – THAT I can tell you.

Brando said...

"Really? Can we maybe see some examples of Trump being praised and also being labeled in the same comment as ANY kind of “conservative?” Just for the sake of credibility, eh? Because I for one cannot remember any. Refresh our memories. Educate us."

The pundit class is full of such examples, such as Hugh Hewitt, not to mention GOP officeholders such as Paul Ryan justifying their support for Trump as the "conservative" option in the race. Or did I miss when they said "Trump is no conservative but we like him because of the wall"?

"In a two-nominee race if one of the nominees is being constantly and invariably castigated by a commentor I MUST assume that the commentor wants the other nominee to win."

No, you do not have to assume that. If two psychotic chimps started throwing poop at each other, an observer does not have to pick a favorite. And frankly either of those chimps would be better than the choice we have this fall.

If you feel the need to vent your frustration at Hillary supporters my way, I suppose you have to do what you have to do. But I was NeverHillary long before Trump ever jumped in (which is more than I can say for Trump, but I guess we're supposed to forget all that), and nothing has changed my opinion of her.

Mary E. Glynn said...

Hillary's plan is: Whatever the Blacks Want, Give it to them...

If she does not shore up the Obama supporters, the working-class whites will prove too numerous for her to maintain her margins of victory.

The young,
the minorities,
those watching videos and not the candidates' lips moving...
they are voting for Trump, or 3rd party candidates.

Mrs. Clinton has been tripped up by her past policy positions, and her lies. The videos, and the results, from her work are in. She can't run on her record, so she is the second coming of Oprah: whatever you want, we will give it to you!

Promises, promises... but she won't keep them after the election.
Anybody paying attention to her career understands that.

Trump in a Rust Belt landslide... with significant coatals support too. He simply does not have her record to run from...

Anglelyne said...

Brando: The pundit class is full of such examples, such as Hugh Hewitt, not to mention GOP officeholders such as Paul Ryan justifying their support for Trump as the "conservative" option in the race. Or did I miss when they said "Trump is no conservative but we like him because of the wall"?

Brando, there is no plumbing the depths of your confusion on this issue. Pressed to justify your swirling phantasmagorical claims about "Trump supporters" and "conservatism", you transmogrify them all into GOPers and adduce the "pundit class" and Hugh Hewitt and Paul Ryan as examples.

Yes, folks, Hugh Hewitt and Paul Ryan and "the pundit class".

You should do stand up, Brando. I'm dyin' here. Hewitt, lol. Paul Ryan, grassroots sincere true-believin' "Trump supporter" whose endorsements totally have nothing to do with political expediency.

Sir, I salute your deadpan trolling. No one could really be this clueless.

cyrus83 said...

Trump is playing on perception. Did the average voter have any idea she had a plan when he spoke yesterday? If it was issued more than a year ago, when nobody but political junkies were paying much attention, how much has she referred to it since? If the answer is not enough to break into the voter consciousness, then for all intents and purposes to the voters, she doesn't have a plan...and it doesn't matter how much she or the media point to some website from 2015.

This is the downside to a campaign whose primary message is anti-Trump and which doesn't have a strong slogan or campaign theme. She has spent so much time attacking Trump and he has sucked up so much of the media attention that she hasn't really developed much of a pro-Hillary message. Throughout the campaign, Hillary has been nagged by having to defend against a variety of self-inflicted problems - the server, the e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, and now her health issues, and all the time spent deflecting those is time not spent on message. It leaves an opening for Trump to define her as here, even if it's not accurate.

As for the slogan, "Stronger Together" is great if the country is feeling it, but when we can't even stand to sing the national anthem anymore without it becoming a flame war, this message falls flat. I don't think the media realize it, but this anthem protest that Kaepernick started and which seems to be spreading is not going to play well in rust-belt America and sort of feeds into Trump's message about the elites of society not being America first.

grackle said...

I said earlier: "Really? Can we maybe see some examples of Trump being praised and also being labeled in the same comment as ANY kind of “conservative?” Just for the sake of credibility, eh? Because I for one cannot remember any. Refresh our memories. Educate us."

A reply: The pundit class is full of such examples, such as Hugh Hewitt, not to mention GOP officeholders such as Paul Ryan justifying their support for Trump as the "conservative" option in the race.

Aside from the fact that my request was for examples of a comment and NOT examples of claimed rhetoric from the idiot pundit class or from idiotic, ineffective Congressional “leaders,” we asked for examples, not 2nd hand assertions with nary a link or URL to back them up. However, we’ll continue to patiently wait for something substantial from the commentor.

Just as an aside: If the commentor believes what Ryan has said and done in regards to Trump(“ … textbook definition of a racist comment …”) counts as support for Trump then I do not know what world the commentor lives in.

http://tinyurl.com/h4fnhda

Or did I miss when they said "Trump is no conservative but we like him because of the wall"?

Meaning “they” to be Hewitt and Ryan? And the point? Or has the commentor devolved from undocumented 2nd hand assertions into vague implication? Your guess is as good as mine, readers.

I said earlier: "In a two-nominee race if one of the nominees is being constantly and invariably castigated by a commentor I MUST assume that the commentor wants the other nominee to win."

A reply: No, you do not have to assume that. If two psychotic chimps started throwing poop at each other, an observer does not have to pick a favorite. And frankly either of those chimps would be better than the choice we have this fall.

When the logic of the commentor’s argument gets challenged he reverts to scatological themed, ridiculous hyperbole. The hyperbole is a classic reaction. The scatology? Well, NOT classic, for sure.

… I was NeverHillary long before Trump ever jumped in (which is more than I can say for Trump, but I guess we're supposed to forget all that), and nothing has changed my opinion of her.

Although the commentor has been doing his level best to get Hillary elected, I doubt that that he’ll actually vote for Hillary. Such an act would bring on too much cognitive dissonance, a good pant-load from which he must already be suffering.

No I pick him as either a libertarian, “open borders” Gary Johnson voter, a write-in vote or a stay at home. So … NeverHillary? You betcha.

Paul Snively said...

"Mrs. Clinton issued her plan more than a year ago, and it guarantees up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for a newborn or a sick relative, financed by an increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans."

So what Trump could simply have meant is that his plan is realistic, and Hillary's is la-la-land fantasy.

NB: I'm not claiming Trump's plan is realistic. Only that it's easy to imagine him believing it is and that Hillary's is a fantasy, and "she doesn't have a plan" is a punchy way of saying "her 'plan' is batshit insane."

eric said...

Paul, she has no plan. Our hostess was wrong.

If someone thinks she has a plan, I'd like to see it.

Brando said...

"Pressed to justify your swirling phantasmagorical claims about "Trump supporters" and "conservatism", you transmogrify them all into GOPers and adduce the "pundit class" and Hugh Hewitt and Paul Ryan as examples."

Now you're being intentionally obtuse--you know full well they both endorsed Trump. You know exactly what I mean and you're trying to pretend you don't. Don't play stupid here.

"Aside from the fact that my request was for examples of a comment..."

Grackle, I'm not going to search all the comment streams on this blog to find you examples of Trump supporters claiming the man is the conservative preference in this race. If you don't believe a substantial number of Trump's supporters justify supporting him that way, then we'll agree to disagree. I'm not so interested in convincing you that I'm going to plumb through the depths of comment boards to show you examples.

"Just as an aside: If the commentor believes what Ryan has said and done in regards to Trump"

Ryan officially endorsed Trump, and spoke on his behalf in prime time at the convention--in my opinion, gave perhaps one of the more convincing arguments for Trump skeptics to get on board with him. And Hewitt repeatedly writes columns in support of Trump, justifying voting for him despite reservations. That's support.

"The scatology? Well, NOT classic, for sure."

I'll try to use more classic scatology next time....but my comparison still stands. You reject it because you like Trump, but many of us cannot stand either choice. It doesn't mean we prefer Hillary.

"Although the commentor has been doing his level best to get Hillary elected, I doubt that that he’ll actually vote for Hillary."

You're right about not voting for Hillary, but if you think my comments here are "trying to get Hillary elected" then you're giving me too much credit for the amount of influence I wield here. Just accept that some of us agree to disagree, and enjoy debating one another over these things. That's all it is. Nothing more at stake.

"No I pick him as either a libertarian, “open borders” Gary Johnson voter, a write-in vote or a stay at home."

I don't know about the rest, but I've never been "open borders" and find it telling that you have to assume anyone skeptical of Trump must therefore be "open borders". He's done a good job of branding on this one.

grackle said...

Grackle, I'm not going to search all the comment streams on this blog to find you examples of Trump supporters claiming the man is the conservative preference in this race.

Nope. We are not going to get any examples of any Trump supporter commenting that they believe that Trump is a conservative. Why? Because there aren’t any.

Just some friendly advice to the commentor: When you are caught indulging in bullshit it’s always better to gracefully admit it and move on. Doubling down while giving lame excuses only damages the credibility further.

Ryan officially endorsed Trump, and spoke on his behalf in prime time at the convention--in my opinion, gave perhaps one of the more convincing arguments for Trump skeptics to get on board with him.

Readers, here’s an example of Paul Ryan speaking on Trump’s “behalf:”

House Speaker Paul Ryan ripped Donald Trump's recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

http://tinyurl.com/h4fnhda

If in the commentor’s mind Paul Ryan calling Trump a racist equals “support,” then I must gently suggest in the most diplomatic way possible that the commentor’s viewpoint has very little relation to reality.

And Hewitt repeatedly writes columns in support of Trump, justifying voting for him despite reservations. That's support.

The commentor is long on hotly declared assertions but very short on citations to lend validity to them.

Me earlier: "No I pick him as either a libertarian, “open borders” Gary Johnson voter, a write-in vote or a stay at home."

A reply: I don't know about the rest, but I've never been "open borders" and find it telling that you have to assume anyone skeptical of Trump must therefore be "open borders". He's done a good job of branding on this one.

Readers, below is a URL to Gary Johnson’s views on immigration as of the 0216 CNN Libertarian Town Hall:

http://tinyurl.com/h6k7atz

Reading it we find that Johnson thinks that Trump building a wall and deporting illegal aliens is “incendiary.”

Here’s a few quotes:

We should make it as easy as possible for somebody that wants to come into this country and work to be able to get a work visa …

They are not taking jobs that U.S. citizens want …


And I just love the gem of wisdom cited below:

The reason for the 11 million illegal immigrants is because there are jobs that exist in this country and they can't get across the border legally, so they cross illegally.

But there’s more, much more”

… Gary Johnson understands … that a robust flow of labor, regulated not by politics, but by the marketplace, is essential … Militarizing the border, bigger fences, and other punitive measures espoused by too many politicians are all simplistic "solutions" to a problem caused by artificial quotas, bureaucratic incompetence and the shameful failure of Congress to actually put in place an immigration system … I think it's going to lead to racial profiling. I don't know how you determine one individual from another--is it color of skin? --as to whether one is an American citizen or the other is an illegal immigrant.

And, finally, Johnson’s Immigration piece de resistance:

Q: Would you open the borders and make it easier to immigrate legally?

A: My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

Some more advice: Always take the time to find out the facts about anything you want to debate.

Brando said...

"Nope. We are not going to get any examples of any Trump supporter commenting that they believe that Trump is a conservative. Why? Because there aren’t any."

So you're saying anyone wishing to vote for the "conservative" candidate is not picking Trump, then? They're all not voting, or going third party, or voting Clinton? I don't think you actually believe that.

But more importantly, if you believe Trump is not a "conservative" in the limited government sense, do you think people who want a small government conservative should not vote Trump? Do you think that Cruz, who claims to favor small government, was wrong to not support Trump?

"Readers, here’s an example of Paul Ryan speaking on Trump’s “behalf:” "

I pointed out Ryan's convention speech. If you don't think that was supportive of Trump then there's no point in arguing further.

"The commentor is long on hotly declared assertions but very short on citations to lend validity to them."

Did Hewitt or did he not support Trump?

Rather than argue this ad nauseum, I'll try and be fair and sum up where I think you're coming from--you think Ryan and Hewitt (just to take two examples) don't support Trump because they've criticized him a great deal in the past. They have, no argument there. But my point is that even with all that criticism, they've both picked Trump--they will both vote for him, and both have publicly urged others to do so. And unless you think they're complete outliers, they represent a number of conservatives who similarly have problems with Trump, but will support him (grudgingly, but yes, still over Hillary) in the end--because they consider him the conservative option in this election.

That was my point. Many conservatives support Trump (maybe not as happily as you and your cohorts, but their votes will be crucial this fall) because they consider him the conservative option. If you want to try and pretend you don't understand it, then let's drop it as this could go on and on.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see what that has to do with me and open borders so no need to comment there.

Brando said...

"Some more advice: Always take the time to find out the facts about anything you want to debate."

Thanks for the advice, but none of the points I made above are refuted by any "facts" you cited. So I'll give you equally irrelevant advice--don't tie your shoes when going through a revolving door.

William Chadwick said...

Of course Hillary has a plan. It's the opposite of Barry Goldwater's. BG's speechwriter, Stephen Shadegg, referencing Goldwater's experience as a pilot, titled his campaign biography of the Arizona senator, "Freedom is his flight plan." An honest biography of Queen Cacklepants could be titled, "Statism is her flight plan." Ironically, when she was a tyke she supported Goldwater, but then she got Religion; so I guess Statism has been her flight plan since she dropped Goldwater and began writing mash notes to Saul Alinksy.

eric said...

I'm sad the professor didn't come back here and address her false dichotomy.

Trump was right, she has no plan.

grackle said...

I pointed out Ryan's convention speech. If you don't think that was supportive of Trump then there's no point in arguing further.

Ryan’s main “supportive” activity seems to be regurgitating MSM anti-Trump talking points.

http://tinyurl.com/ha42edf

And the commentor’s high opinion of Ryan’s “support” is not shared by the venerated Wall Street Journal:

Speaking at a lunch hosted by The Wall Street Journal here, the Wisconsin Republican said that while he and Mr. Trump differ on certain policy proposals—for example, building a wall on the U.S.’s border with Mexico, or banning Muslims from entering the country —they are “on the same page” on the party’s core principles. “We’re a big tent party. Big tent—real big,” he said.

Mr. Ryan endorsed Mr. Trump last month, after initially declining to do so, but has kept his distance from the presumptive nominee, at times criticizing the businessman for controversial comments—for instance, his tweet of an image that critics called anti-Semitic.

His tepid embrace of Mr. Trump creates an awkward situation for the speaker, who is serving as chairman of the convention but is expected to keep the focus more on his policy proposals than on the party’s nominee.


http://tinyurl.com/hu8ot7w

So … we learn that Ryan goes along with the MSM anti-Trump talking points on The Wall, the temporary Muslim ban(two important components of Trump’s campaign) and the MSM-fabricated anti-Semitic image story. That sure doesn’t look like support to me. Even the WSJ, which can be expected to depict Ryan, one of their establishment heroes, as favorable as possible has to admit that Ryan’s so-called “support” of Trump was a “tepid embrace.”