"Calling him egotistical or a 'loudmouth' doesn't really explain it — those are reasons to find someone off-putting and to avoid him, but not to hate him. After watching this previously unreleased movie about Trump from the early '90s, I finally understand. A large part of my job involves construction-site safety, which is something I feel strongly about. The description of the construction work on Trump Tower (where Trump lived in luxury after developing it), starting at 31:20 in the movie, is outrageous."
Writes Jaltcoh.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६५ टिप्पण्या:
It would be entirely possible to be egotistical and loud while being genuine.
But Donald Trump is profoundly phony — dishonest, not what he claims to be. Right now he's promoting himself as a conservative Republican with the skills of a can-do businessman. Every bit of that is a lie.
That's not reason enough to hate Trump, if you're a conservative, or a Republican, or a person from the world of business — or remotely interested in honesty? It is for me.
Agree with Beldar. He's an egotistical phony. P.T. Barnum without ethics.
No John, that's not it.
Try again.
I concur with Beldar. Trump's persona and biography scream "don't hire me and don't trust me". If he were handsome and took better care of his obnoxious manner of speaking and dress (and hair), he would come across better.
He seems awful at first glance and just gets worse the more you are exposed to him. But obviously lots of folks out there like him, probably the way they like Snooki.
There are two kinds of people in the world: (1) those constantly in search of a leader, and (2) those who mistrust everyone who wants to lead. #1 types tend to be willing to overlook faults, and #2 types tend to think desire for power is itself a personality fault.
Trump-lovers are extreme #1 types.
It's remarkable how misunderstood the enthusiasm for Trump is.
Right off the top of my head -- this is just a blog comment, after all -- it makes sense from the perspective of evolutionary psychology that hatred would accompany the perception of someone else being egotistical or a 'loudmouth.' Those are ways to describe someone who takes an unjust share of scarce resources.
I shouldn't think that there was much use for the egotistical or the loudmouthed back in the Pleistocene when we were living as hunter/gatherers in bands of 20 to 100 individuals.
It seems like an unsophisticated way to look at it, but a lot of the otherwise inane things that people say and do sort of make sense when understood as a mindless way to identify and punish (what that lecturer on evolutionary psychology called) "cheaters."
I am curious to see who Beldar considers a GOOD political candidate.
I don't hate Trump because he's a psychopath. I hate him for the same reason I still hate everyone who supported LBJ's evil immoral war on Vietnam and dodged the draft because they had the means to obtain a student deferment, all the while knowing someone else, someone without the same means, would be required to go in their place. Psychopathic, cowardly, and/or simply selfish, in my life, those are some of the most despicable human beings I have personally known.
Meade, did you serve? Were you drafted?
No.
I thought we we supposed to evaluate the direction the candidated wanted to take the country and how they would do that.
The left is ignoring the flaws of the individual and focus on what they promote. ignoring that what the leftist want, runs counter to the constitution. If $15 minimum wage of good, why not $30? How do you take what the !% have? And if you have the power to do that, why stop with the !%? It's all happy talk, but structurally, nearly impossible to implement.
On the right, the focus is on the individual, ignoring their past record. Walker and Perry have both done good jobs as executives, but somehow that is not important. Same for Trump. A proven manager.
Somehow Clinton's wife has 'it', Trump does not. Bernie is exciting, Cruz is fringe radical.
Actually, the movie sounds like the Donald and Hillary! have a lot in common.
It's awfully easy to hate someone these days.
In the old days, someone would have to had harmed you personally in some sort of traumatic way.
Now, it's 'construction cite safety'?
I don't love or hate Trump. I don't know the man personally, and I don't believe much I read in the media about anybody so I have very little to judge him on. I do love how he has everybody's panties in a wad. Especially the media.
Blogger Tank said...
It's remarkable how misunderstood the enthusiasm for Trump is.
Especially, when asked, his supporter give a pretty direct, one sentence explanation as to why.
It's remarkable how misunderstood the enthusiasm for Trump is.
Exactly. The people who currently support Trump aren't evaluating his effectiveness to be president. Many, if not most, (like me) have no intention of ever voting for Trump...we just like the way he fights back. He doesn't retreat and apologize, he doesn't kneel at the feet of the MSM and he doesn't kiss the ring of the Washington establishment.
If you remember, one of the incidents that helped Reagan was when he made the "I paid for this microphone" remark, and fought back.
We see Reid and Pelosi fighting fiercely for the interests of their party and voters.
We see Boehner and McConnell rolling over and explaining why they can't do anything.
The best argument you can make in favor of the republican Congress is that they have slowed Obama and the democrats down incrementally.
You want to get rid of Trump? Find a Republican with a spine and the will to fight.
"It's remarkable how misunderstood the enthusiasm for Trump is."
I agree. Peggy Noonan's column yesterday did a pretty good job of explaining it, at least for those of us who don't like him.
American political establishment, take note: In the past 20 years you have turned America into a nation a third of whose people would make Donald Trump their president. Look on your wonders and despair.
I agree. Many thought Hitler was a clown. This is a sign that Americans have just about had enough. Normal Americans, that is.
Such vitriolic "hatred" of Trump is mostly irrational and media driven. All this "Liking" of stuff on Facebook and Instagram has to be balanced by Hate somewhere.
"we just like the way he fights back"
If enough people think that, they deserve Hillary!, good and hard.
"a nation a third of whose people would make Donald Trump their president"
If they keep it up, they'll deliver the nation to Hillary! right quick.
Trump is a loathsome character. Any "support" for him as a "candidate" is cause for dismay.
Even on illegal immigration, supposedly his signature issue, his position is barely distinguishable from that of a mainstream Dem. See recent CNN interview. He is selling snake oil wrapped in hot air.
Of course, after O, the "pragmatic" candidate of '08, anything goes.
The movie is old. It shows Trunp being bombastic and self important. It shows how his financial worth is overstated and that he is on the verge of financial collapse. The movie is old.......I've no doubt that Trump is a shabby human being, but I can't help but think that he's somewhat better than many of his critics, Remember how you used to read of John Edwards' model marriage and John Edwards' extraordinary career as a lawyer fighting for the little guy. What lies beneath?.......Praise for Edwards and criticism for Trump: where there's smoke, there's usually a smoke making machine.
I don't think this is the explanation for "why so many people seem to hate Donald Trump".
"Many people" probably don't know about this stuff.
I don't want to be an apologist for Trump, but it seems Jaltcoh is couching this as an explanation of something that puzzles him when in fact he just wants to help put this hit piece out there for more to see.
Putting it out there for more to see is perfectly legitimate on its own and so is attacking Trump. Why try to portray what you are doing and the piece itself as some kind of reluctant objectivity?
Who cares who the real Donald Trump is. Right now, the public is cheering someone who is going after and exposing the establishment on both sides of the aisle. The public wants some reckoning of the last 8 years. It is pitch fork time.
I agree with the comments that people like what Trump has done for the election campaign. He has introduced politically incorrect language, inconvenient facts and has taken difficult, but correct positions on a number of key issues.
Trump's popularity is not a love of the man, but an appreciation of what he is doing.
Meade's comments about Vietnam are difficult to understand. I grew up in that era, loved America, valued the military and found the way the Vietnam war was being conducted to be politically dishonest and destructive to America. The draft passed me by and I did not serve. Am I despicable like Trump?
"we just like the way he fights back"
If enough people think that, they deserve Hillary!, good and hard.
No..we deserve a Republican with some balls. It is slightly ironic that the Republican candidate with the most balls so far is Carly.
I have hopes still for Cruz. If he comes out feisty and willing to fight at the debate, he might steal Trump's thunder.
again, most of us "Trump supporters" don't want to vote for Trump. But we don't want to vote for the appeasers even more.
The Washington establishment has relied on the "vote for us, or the Democrats will be worse" argument one time too many.
Bob Boyd has it right. I don't really see hate toward Trump. Dislike and ridicule may be, but not hate. However, like I said in my previous comment, right now he is getting applause for saying the emperor has no clothes.
"The draft passed me by and I did not serve. Am I despicable like Trump?"
No. Read my comment again. It's very clear and easy to understand.
"found the way the Vietnam war was being conducted to be politically dishonest "
For most of us this was found after the war when the Johnson administration actions were understood. Most of the opposition during the war was focused on the draft and collapsed when Nixon ended the draft.
Did anyone go to the place in the movie that John recommended and get up to speed on the material about construction workers?
That's why I put up this post. I think this is something that will be news to many people. I'm a little disappointed in the failure of commenters to engage with the post.
So he hired subs that dangerously flaunted the law. On the scale of vile deeds, it's not like he abused a position of great power to intimidate his political enemies or something.
You could of had Mitt to deal with now, but he was evil and vile or something back then, too.
"right now he is getting applause for saying the emperor has no clothes"
If we use your (bad) analogy, it's actually the applauders who have no clothes. Nakedly feeding demagoguery.
I'm a little disappointed in the failure of commenters to engage with the post.
We are engaging with the post. A Leftwinger digs through the past to dig up "dirt" on the Republican frontrunner. We've seen it all before. Next week we'll find out that Trump was a bully in middle school.
How about a post about Hillary and the White House travel office in response?
If we use your (bad) analogy, it's actually the applauders who have no clothes. Nakedly feeding demagoguery.
Because none of the other candidates, especially the Democrats, have ever engaged in demagoguery.
Hey, Meade, take it easy. You are wasting your big words/expressions on me. I am an observer at best.
So, some years back, I am at a bar in a Trump Casino when this hot woman with blonde hair and a short skirt -- no doubt as expensive as it is short -- sits next to me. She orders a drink, then stares off into the distance, obviously in some inner turmoil. It takes me a moment, and then I realize she is Ivanka Trump, Donald's daughter.
"Let me guess," I say, lighting a cigarette. "It's about a man, right?"
Ivanka looks at me, says nothing: just eye contact.
"Men. We can fuck up just about anything, sometimes."
She looks at me for a few seconds longer, then breaks into a small beguiling smile.
"Yes. Yes you can," she says.
"Let me make another guess: he just doesn't understand you -- your needs, your feelings -- the things that make you 'you'."
"It has always been this way," she says, shaking her head. "Men say they love me, but they either just want me because my Father is rich or because I am a hot piece of ass."
"I don't love you," I say, taking a drink.
"Excuse me?"
"I don't know you; I can't pretend to love you. But I do know you are indeed a hot piece of ass."
"Thanks a lot."
"Never let being a hot piece of ass make you feel down on yourself. Then the losers win."
I am suave that way.
Anyway, long story somewhat shorter: we are up in a fancy casino suite, Ivanka's skirt is pulled up over her no-tan-line hips and I am fucking her in the ass in front of the desk mirror when there is a knock at the door.
"You better get that," she says.
"Really? Now?"
"It's my Father."
Sure enough: I wipe my cock off on a towel, put on a robe, answer the door and standing there is Donald Trump.
"I'll give you five-thousand cash for you to stop fucking my daughter in the ass," he says, squinty.
"What makes you think --"
"Son, I know EVERYTHING that happens in my casino. If a fucking single sparrow falls I see it."
"Actually, I was going to say what makes you think fucking your daughter in her beautiful ass is only worth five-thousand dollars?"
"Good position, there. Never take the low bid. I like you, kid: how about I make it ten-thousand?"
"Sir, I --"
"I get it, I get it: you are a man that appreciates value. My daughter: I lover her, but I know she is a hot piece of ass. Tell you what: how about I give you one of my Mercedes? Silver, all the accessories, leather, the works."
"Sir, your money cannot buy me. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go back to ass-fucking your daughter." With that, I closed the door.
As I approach Ivanka I can see a single tear in her eye.
"That is the most noble thing any man has ever done for me."
"Your ass is THAT fine, Ivanka: your ass is THAT fine."
I am Laslo.
People don't like The Donald because he's an arrogant son of a bitch. And yes it really is just that simple. It's the part he's chosen to play and now he has to deal with it
"difficult, but correct positions on a number of key issues"
If enough people believe Trump has taken "positions" that are "difficult," "correct" no less, on "key" issues, or when enough people believe selling snake oil wrapped in hot air counts as being a "Republican with some balls," America deserves Hillary!, good and hard. Here's hoping voters will show enough sense to dump the phony apprentice "candidate."
"It is slightly ironic that the Republican candidate with the most balls so far is Carly. "
I've been watching her and she seems to be doing better than she did in California in the Senate race, I just contributed some money. Maybe Trump is pushing the envelope and she can slip stream in behind before he blows up.
Here's hoping voters will show enough sense to dump the phony apprentice "candidate."
Here's hoping the Republican Party will reject the establishment asskissers and nominate someone worth voting for.
I did watch it starting at 31:20. Its a hit piece on Trump. You have to take what they say with a huge grain of salt. Some of it seemed believable, some not so much.
Trump is guy who has actually operated in the real world. He actually built some things. There they are.
Did he lie, cheat and steal to get it done? Maybe. His detractors claim he did.
But he got it done, didn't he? Do you compare Trump's ways with an ideal world that doesn't exist and has never existed? Or do you compare it to the way everyone does it? I'm sure construction in NYC is full of people with their hands out on both sides of the law. Mobsters, corrupt union officials, corrupt building officials, politicians, community organizers. Is Trump better or worse than other developers? I don't know.
But even if he's the worst of them, I have more respect for Trump's accomplishments than for the histrionic gasps and cries of mock outrage of the professionally virtuous (I'm not referring to Jaltcoh here) who have never even built a bird house. Who have never done anything but promote themselves as some kind of moralistic all-knowing judges of mankind telling us all how things should have done and how ashamed we should all be that it wasn't done that way going back to the beginning of time. Never mind how these people conduct their own sordid affairs.
I'm all for full disclosure on Trump. Expose away. But be fair. Do the same for Hillary, Obama, etc.
Citizens United anyone?
Ann Althouse said...
Did anyone go to the place in the movie that John recommended and get up to speed on the material about construction workers?
That's why I put up this post. I think this is something that will be news to many people. I'm a little disappointed in the failure of commenters to engage with the post.
8/1/15, 9:24 AM "
Too much to ask to watch the movie. A clip would have sufficed. That said, without going in to detail since I like being anonymous, a late uncle of mine had a nephew (now deceased), we have a rather large "extended family", who back then was a very prominent NYC engineering contractor that did a lot of Trump's work. He had a simple rule when it came to dealing with Trump: once the deal was signed never take another call from Trump since as far as Trump was concerned no deal was ever final. Now if you were the contractor that would be irritating in the extreme. If you were a shareholder in project you might have a different point of view. A Trump presidency with that attitude with respects to the deals Obama made wouldn't be such a bad thing at all. That Trump is obnoxious, a phoney is a given. How does that make him different than Clinton? Or Obama for that matter in terms of phoniness? As for actual competence and effectiveness in the job and promoting the American national interest I don't see how its possible for Trump to be as ineffective and incompetent as Obama and Clinton doesn't demonstrate any ability to be better than Obama which is about as low as the bar can be set.
Meade I was too young for Vietnam but it appears to me that had I have been of age at the time I too would have ducked going. What for? LBJ went in because he was too afraid of the right in America not to get in and once in too afraid of the communist to fight to win so what were we fighting for? LBJ's political career? Was that a good enough reason to fight for?
As noted by other here, Trump has struck a nerve with the public but so has Sanders. Perhaps after 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Obama the public has had enough of both parties.
So many people hate Donald Trump?
I was wondering how Trump managed to become the top choice for the GOP PresNom. People must really hate him.
You know, Jaltcoh really should wash off his premises after he pulls them out of his dark hole of invalidity. Less stinky.
Jaltcoh has a long way to go.
Did he lie, cheat and steal to get it done?
are we talking about Obama? ;)
Trump has struck a nerve with the public but so has Sanders.
Well, Sanders people are the niche anti-Hillary, lefty Obamabots. Trump's people are more diverse.
Gahrie said:
"You want to get rid of Trump? Find a Republican with a spine and the will to fight."
Bingo!
And I was leaning to support Scott Walker but his ideas/ comments/ actions so far are pathetic and mealymouth and wishywashy. If you don't believe me, subscribe to his lame Twitter feed.
Ann Althouse said... I think this is something that will be news to many people.
I'm sure it is which is why jaltcoh saying I finally understand why people hate Trump and using the info from that video as the reason makes no sense.
Trump is an arrogant vulgarian. The right kinds of people look down on the vulgar, and when the vulgar get ahead (get rich, become celebrities, etc) the result is hatred. It's pretty obvious Trump doesn't have many deeply-held political beliefs, so his current success is a bit galling to people who have held the beliefs/positions he now claims to hold.
At any rate, jaltcoh has given an example of why people SHOULD hate Trump, perhaps, but not a reason that many people DO (now).
I prefer Walker or Cruz, but neither of them - or anyone else - has emphatically said that he (or she) will build the fence. Trump has. Trump gets my vote.
So he hired subs that dangerously flaunted the law.
If you've got it, flout it!
I'd be interested in a balanced investigation of Trump's construction practices. This transparently ax-grinding presentation wasn't it.
Yes Madam, I did go to that point of the movie, and that's why I made my comment.
Now, the Contractor is solely responsible for all aspects of safety on a construction project. The Owner should carefully stay out of it.
However, there are several ways of selecting a Contractor for a project, so it is a little like what the meaning of "is" is.
There are also some other entities who are responsible for seeing to it that Contractors toe the line with respect to safety laws and regulations, etc.; such as OSHA, EEO, some other Labor Dept. agency, City Building Inspection, City Health, etc., etc.
Where were they?
On a project the size of Trump Towers, there should always have been at least one person from these on site at all times, and there should have been frequent inspections by all. Especially after willful violations became apparent.
This kind of thing to my experience is often on Federal projects where the contractors specialize in government work and are heavily engaged in public corruption, relying on the politicians to keep the agencies off their backs.
Private developers generally can't afford the protection, and do not want the grief and worry that comes with this sort of thing without political cover.
I think a lot of the poll support for Trump boils down to his apparent lack of fear--specifically fear of being called a racist. Everyone's afraid to be called a racist, especially those on the Right. That fear causes all sorts of absurd things (Media refusing to cover some stories or covering them in ways that intentionally cause confusion), so saying something over the top that would normally get anyone else hounded off the stage (Mexicans coming here are rapists, etc) can give the appearance of courage. Bonus points, of course, for subsequently refusing to apologize and slink off.
"Meade I was too young for Vietnam but it appears to me that had I have been of age at the time I too would have ducked going. What for? LBJ went in because he was too afraid of the right in America not to get in and once in too afraid of the communist to fight to win so what were we fighting for? LBJ's political career? Was that a good enough reason to fight for?"
I didn't mean to make this conversation about LBJ and Vietnam. I just wanted to offer my personal reason for why I hate Donald Trump. Hating Donald Trump was the topic of JAC's post Ann linked to and brought up for discussion here.
On the surface Trump has classy NYC manners and connections, but underneath it all he is 100% a walking warrior ethos that will do whatever it takes to survive and win.
That is why Trump is hated. And that is also why Trump is valued at this moment in American politics. That is exactly what we need.
After Trump beats our enemies, then we sweet, compassionate Quakers can recall that we hated his aggressive style all along.
I'm disappointed that Laslo failed to engage this hit piece on its merits. Quite disappointed.
1. Trump is a businessman. He's a pragmatist. He's market-driven, not product-driven. Like me.
The public knows him. The people who support him have decided to ignore his negatives so they can achieve greater goals.
Can Trump fix the illegal immigration problem? Maybe. Can he put the U.S. on a path to greater success? Maybe. Can any other declared candidate in either political party do those two things? I don't think so.
Trump's ego? That's one of the things I'm counting on. He suffers serious setbacks but he refuses to fail in life.
2. Walker? Some people like him because he "took on the unions." Big deal. In business I took on the Teamsters and beat them in nine days. Maybe I should become President.
3. I was in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. I volunteered. I don't care what other guys did back then.
There's no valid reason to hate Donald Trump. He's rich loud performer, so what?
If the Left perceives him of trying to prevent their unending quest for free stuff and power, then, Yes, Leftists will hate him.
My only concern is that he not run as a 3rd Party candidate. Short of that, I find him interesting and refreshing. However bombastic he is, clearly he's struck a chord on immigration. Nobody can deny that.
"neither of them - or anyone else - has emphatically said that he (or she) will build the fence. Trump has. Trump gets my vote."
If enough people believe that Trump believes what he says, that he will act on that "belief," and that his action will solve the problem, America deserves to get Hillary!, good and hard.
"his ideas/ comments/ actions so far are pathetic and mealymouth and wishy-washy"
Walker and others have their problems, but they are not Trumpy Dem plants out to wreck the GOP primaries and hand the election to HIllary! Some actually want to win, particularly in battleground states, which requires being sufficiently "wishy-washy" not to piss off people you need to get to 50+1.
Sebastian: I hear you but I don't believe in conspiracy theories and I think the country needs big changes in direction. We won't get that unless we convert more voters [i.e. millenials and middle class Dems]. To do that we need bold ideas not wishy washy candidates.
pm317 said...
Did he lie, cheat and steal to get it done?
are we talking about Obama? ;)
I see what you're saying.
But I'm not defending crooked ways or saying the end justifies the means. I just don't like the selective outrage, the double standards and the moral preening. Why is a hit piece on Trump automatically credited as truthful and legitimate, but criticism of Hillary or Obama is dismissed as sexist or racist?
Which of the three would win the Sleeze Olympics? I'd bet on Hillary.
The description of the construction is not only not outrageous it is a particularly obvious union piece. He hired a cheap demolition team? He, Trump, was the GC? Cohen may be "concerned" about construction safety but if he finds this reason to "hate" another human being then Cohen is a lightweight construction expert and a smug and sanctimonious ethicist.
People riddled with envy and people who are snobs hate Trump because he appears less smart than they are and yet has accomplished so much more and because his tastes are not up to snuff. And because he is brash and brags. It drives all the really smart people into hatred who have decided not to get much done because they don't hold crass values, don't live for money (just enough for the small house in Italy for summers and sabbaticals) and are, well, just better humans.
And my take on Lyndon Johnson is that dealing with the Kennedy's war in Viet Nam was about the one thing LBJ was not equipped for.
But to call him evil, etc. is B.S. We made LBJ.
Some of the people around him, who should have known better and should have tried to hammer some sense into him rather than goad him on; now those I may have words for.
And Trump is not a "businessman." He is a promoter.
Meade
Do you hold the same views of those who opposed LBJ/s war but availed themselves of deferments? Or is your hatred reserved for those who supported the war but avoided it?
I think Bob Boyd's comment at 10:01 sums up what a lot of people feel about Trump. He built it and found a way to make money building it. That's an achievement, and that's why people are so forgiving.......Also, Hagar's comments about OSHA are on point. Why didn't the documentary film maker ask the OSHA people some hard questions about their oversight of his projects.........If you have a BS detector, it's hard to get an accurate reading on Trump. Trump is radiant with BS, but so are the people who report on his BS.
Hagar
And he is not a "businessman" how? He is a developer. He owns assets and operates them. He licenses his name. He operates some assets that others own. He has a chief financial officer. He has assets in Europe.
Keen to know how a "promoter" develops and operates hotels without being a "businessman."
You obviously are neither a "businessman" or a "promoter."
I served during Vietnam. I joined the Air Force, mostly because I felt that there was less chance of getting my ass shot off in that branch of service. I had a friend who served in a combat position and volunteered for an extra tour in Vietnam. I don't think he was more patriotic than me, but he was definitely braver. I don't think either of us pondered the geopolitics of our involvement in Vietnam with a great deal of consideration. We went where our self interest and central nervous system took us.
Meade- do you hate Joe Biden too? I think he had multiple deferments.
Trump Tower was constructed by HRH Construction, the general contractor on the project, then one of the largest contractors in NY. They also built CitiBank's tower on the east side.
Trump developed the building in connection with the Equitable Life Assurance company.
I presume Cohen knows the difference between an owner and a contractor and the roles and obligations of each. I presume as well that he would understand the asset management and construction oversight that a major insurance company would have provided to a project of this magnitude.
Were any of the allegations in the film clip adjudicated?
Yes, Michael; I am a working stiff. Or was. Not cut out for anything else.
I define a "businessman" as a person who does business and is responsible for that business and his conduct of it.
I suspect that if you could follow the paper trails and check into it, you would find that The Donald actually is not legally responsible for much of anything that is operating under his name. The "businesses" may go bankrupt, but I wish you luck pinning any of it onto The Donald.
For everyone here who is ragging on Trump (and others, e.g. Cheany, et al) for "avoiding" the "draft" I would remind you that it was not technically a draft but called SELECTIVE Service. The publics' OWN REPRESENTATIVES designed it such that certain people were deemed more valuable than others, i.e. a PhD candidate in Chemistry being more valuable to the nation in a chem lab than a H.S. or College Dropout. Hence no Chem majors in foxholes, nothing but lower educated cannon fodder with limited potential. (Please don't think I approve of this schema, I only am analyzing)THERE IS AN INELUCTABLE LOGIC to this approach--for the same reason farmers were exempt from the draft in WW II--they were LITERALLY more valuable to the war effort than a G.I. in a foxhole.
So don't charge Trump with "avoiding" the draft, Congress designed the system specifically to allow/encourage the Trumps of this world to avoid combat by virtue of their superior potential for society en grosso mondo.
"I had been wondering why so many people seem to hate Donald Trump."
The operative word here is "seem." Not "hate" in the traditional sense. Rather, mob-scorning of a target designated as scorn-worthy by the media. Much the same as a flash-mob invasion at a retail establishment.
Blogger Meade said...
"Meade I was too young for Vietnam but it appears to me that had I have been of age at the time I too would have ducked going. What for? LBJ went in because he was too afraid of the right in America not to get in and once in too afraid of the communist to fight to win so what were we fighting for? LBJ's political career? Was that a good enough reason to fight for?"
I didn't mean to make this conversation about LBJ and Vietnam. I just wanted to offer my personal reason for why I hate Donald Trump. Hating Donald Trump was the topic of JAC's post Ann linked to and brought up for discussion here.
8/1/15, 10:29 AM
How is Trump materially different than Bill Clinton in dodging military service during Vietnam? And unlike John Kerry, Trump never aided and abetted the enemy. Do you also hate Bill Clinton and John Kerry? Yes Trump is an obnoxious guy, a narcissists, arrogant and phoney. In other words he is materially no different in that respect than either Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama but unlike those people he lives in his stratosphere on his money and not on other people's money.
Kerry defamed every serviceman over there, remember the Winter Soldier carp, and Clinton told
Colonel Holmes, 'he loathed the military,' Trump did some of that during the Iraq War, which I count against him,
Wasn't the NYC real estate developer who killed his wife and child in "The Devil's Advocate" based on Trump, to the point they shot interior home scenes in Trump's Trump Tower apartment?
"I don't like Alexander Cullen."
"I was wondering how Trump managed to become the top choice for the GOP PresNom. People must really hate him. "
He is at 18%, last I noticed. You could get that many people to support his dog. The debate will be a significant milestone. He could blow up or he could look like a real candidate.
After Obama there is no limit to how low the voters will go on the competence scale.
Pretty nasty commentary in the video about Roy Cohn.
Bob Boyd said...
pm317 said...
Did he lie, cheat and steal to get it done?
are we talking about Obama? ;)
I see what you're saying.
But I'm not defending crooked ways or saying the end justifies the means. I just don't like the selective outrage, the double standards and the moral preening. Why is a hit piece on Trump automatically credited as truthful and legitimate, but criticism of Hillary or Obama is dismissed as sexist or racist?
Which of the three would win the Sleeze Olympics? I'd bet on Hillary.
8/1/15, 10:45 AM
I wonder if Mr. Cohen has changed his opinion on Citizens United. Had the court ruled for Hillary then this movie would also be problematic.
Sebastian said...
"neither of them - or anyone else - has emphatically said that he (or she) will build the fence. Trump has. Trump gets my vote."
If enough people believe that Trump believes what he says, that he will act on that "belief," and that his action will solve the problem, America deserves to get Hillary!, good and hard.
"his ideas/ comments/ actions so far are pathetic and mealymouth and wishy-washy"
Walker and others have their problems, but they are not Trumpy Dem plants out to wreck the GOP primaries and hand the election to HIllary! Some actually want to win, particularly in battleground states, which requires being sufficiently "wishy-washy" not to piss off people you need to get to 50+1.
8/1/15, 10:40 AM
I'm curious, you mind telling me what can Hillary offer Trump? For all of the money the Clinton's have gotten post presidency as grifters its still small money compare to Trump's. Trump builds luxury condos, hotels and office buildings so what exactly will a Hillary Clinton presidency going to do for him? If anyone has a concern about handing the election to the other party it ought to be Hillary. Sanders can peel off the base left vote if he goes third party and Trump can pull what was back in the 80's called the Reagen Democrats. There is nothing inevitable about a Hillary Clinton win.
"After Obama there is no limit to how low the voters will go on the competence scale."
With the wheels coming off Hillary's candidacy, if Trump had decided to run as a Democrat the same media folks who are so full of contempt for him now would be taking him seriously, splaining us:
"Trump cut a lot of ethical corners building Trump Tower and why that's a good thing!"
"Do you hold the same views of those who opposed LBJ/s war but availed themselves of deferments? Or is your hatred reserved for those who supported the war but avoided it?"
No.
Yes. Those who supported and avoided while knowing that someone else would go in place of themselves.
Wow, the movie was kept "secret".
What the hell does that mean? Should my conspiracy synapses be kicking in just now?
do-do-doo-doo, do-do-doo-doo
the last time there was a bonafide war hero, on the ticket, who voted how again,
"Do you also hate Bill Clinton and John Kerry?"
Viscerally. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Donald Trump — all cut from the same despicable cloth. Also, two brothers I was in high school with in 1969 — Tom and W. Neil Eggleston, the lawyer who serves as the White House Counsel under President Barack Obama.
So, the reason People who Hate Trump hate Trump is 30 minutes into a movie about Trump some serious allegations about construction worker safety? Really? At best, this suggests that a subset of the People Who Hate Trump like to flatter themselves with post hoc reasons, to justify the caste-based hatred the Brahminical academic/legal types bear in all cultures towards the crass business/tradesman.
"I'm curious, you mind telling me what can Hillary offer Trump?"
She doesn't have to offer him anything. As long as he gets to gratify his ego and bamboozle the rubes, the process works for him. Throwing the election to his old Dem buddies is a bonus. Unlikely to happen, though, unless he goes third party and gets snake-oil aficionados like some on this blog to send a message to the GOP establishment (he'll build a wall! he has no fear of the media! he tells it like it is! he's not wishy-washy!) by voting for a blowhard billionaire.
Perot redux.
that can't be, he served in Vietnam, as he occasionally reminds us,
well the pool of disenchanted is much larger this time around,
Donald Trump is fabously wealthy, a giant among men, his wealth is yuuuuge and his ego yuuuuuuuuuger.
It's hard to hate a clown, but to the extent that my feelings for Trump rise to the level of hate it would be because this country is on a dangerous course and this man's ego may well hand the presidency to the left for four more years.
Meade said...
"Do you hold the same views of those who opposed LBJ/s war but availed themselves of deferments? Or is your hatred reserved for those who supported the war but avoided it?"
No.
Yes. Those who supported and avoided while knowing that someone else would go in place of themselves.
8/1/15, 11:40 AM
So tell us your real feelings about John Kerry. A man who joined the Navy to pad his future political resume (just before military service became unfashionable) and picked a service in the Navy that looked heroic like the other JFK's PT boat service but at the time wasn't actually a real risk only once in finds the rules have changed and now he is really at risk so he finds a way to concoct a medals award for a couple of scratches (and who exactly put him up for those medals?) and from there discharge, later slanders the troops, aids and abets the enemy and finally runs for president as a war hero. Has anyone ever seen his discharge papers? Its only been 12 years. Compared to that, Trump seems rather modest.
Meade said...
"Do you also hate Bill Clinton and John Kerry?"
Viscerally. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Donald Trump — all cut from the same despicable cloth. Also, two brothers I was in high school with in 1969 — Tom and W. Neil Eggleston, the lawyer who serves as the White House Counsel under President Barack Obama.
8/1/15, 11:46 AM
I stand corrected on my 12.09 comment. I didn't see yours when I posted mine.
I agree that this is not about Vietnam but there is one thing that screams for correction. Someone said LBJ got us into VN because he feared the right wing if he did not.
Bullshit!
He ran, in 1964, specifically on a platform to get us out of VN.
It was a pretty close election, though (yeah, right). 61%/39%, LBJ carried 45 states, 486 electoral votes to 52.
Running to get us out of VN.
Why the Hell would he have feared the right after that?
Not long after we had over half a million troops in country and another quarter million or so in the general area.
Nixon, for all his faults, did get us out and he even did it with some dignity and honor until the Demmie Congress stabbed the Vietnamese in the back.
Here's the troop count by year: http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
Perhaps a little less bullshit would do well here.
John Henry
And Goldwater said either do it right or don't get involved at all,
I've not watched the movie yet but will. I do have a couple of comments:
1) The movie was made (or at least paid for) by Leonard Stern. Stern is a trust fund kiddee, inherited Hartz Mountain and then decided to go into real estate. Perhaps this is just one competitor trying to kneecap another. By unfair means? I'll let you know when I've watched the movie.
2) As several people have noted, Trump was the owner, not the contractor. Not even the owner's representative. He hired a reputable construction firm and the expectation is that the contractor will obey all laws and regulations. In the few large construction contracts to which I have been party (Industrial facilities) it was specified as a contract clause.
3) If safety was so lax, where were the regulatory agencies. Back in the 80's I used to have OSHA and other agencies sniffing up my ass pretty much weekly.
4) Why was the film never released in all these years?
5) I call bullshit. I do reserve my right to withdraw that after seeing the film. But for now I call bullshit.
John Henry
Sebastian said...
"I'm curious, you mind telling me what can Hillary offer Trump?"
She doesn't have to offer him anything. As long as he gets to gratify his ego and bamboozle the rubes, the process works for him. Throwing the election to his old Dem buddies is a bonus. Unlikely to happen, though, unless he goes third party and gets snake-oil aficionados like some on this blog to send a message to the GOP establishment (he'll build a wall! he has no fear of the media! he tells it like it is! he's not wishy-washy!) by voting for a blowhard billionaire.
Perot redux.
8/1/15, 11:48 AM
The same can be said about Sander's campaign. As for ego gratification true, but that is just as true for Hillary! the phoniest one of all. She won't even do softball interviews. Have you considered that not does Obama really dislike the Clinton's and probably prefers a weak Republican to succeed him (funny how the shit for Hillary in the media for once is starting to get real) and Democrats are afraid that things are really going to go south during the next presidency and would prefer that the Republicans get all the blame since they can always count on their hacks with bylines to spin it it that way. By the way, just exactly was Perot wrong about? I voted for Bush in 92 but the read my lips no new taxes crap really pissed me off as guess what, I had to pay those new taxes. Maybe you missed the Clinton ran like a moderate Republican in 92, a good ole boy and not some lefty prog. Hell he even rushed back to Arkansas from the campaign trail to execute a retard just to show how law and order he was. Would the country had been better of if Perot had not been in the election in 92 and taking votes from Bush? Yes. But that was only knowable in hindsight. As for Trump, he is doing the country a favor. He is cutting through the PC BS and forcing the Republican candidates to either go to the right where the base is or go moderate in the fantasy of thinking they are going to appeal to the 'middle". Sander's is doing the same for the Democrats.
" this man's ego may well hand the presidency to the left for four more years."
That is why I don't support him but "hate" is a pretty strong term. I think we lost the future when Romney lost in 2012. That was the last time we could turn the ship before hitting the iceberg.
What I fear now is a repeat of 2001 when Bush took over just as Clinton's fecklessness resulted in the dot com collapse and 9/11. There is a reason why "The Path to 9/11" has been blocked from view for years. That block began when Hillary was the assumed D candidate in 2008. It was shown once on TV when Bush was president. It is an excellent mini-series and will be seen when she is no longer a candidate especially if the next president is GOP.
So, we get President Walker and the economy collapses from the Obama debts and Iran attacks us. Who gets blamed by the LIVs ?
@Bob Boyd, Which of the three would win the Sleeze Olympics? I'd bet on Hillary.
Yeah, I understood where you were going with it but had to sneak in Obama. And about Hillary winning the Sleaze Olympics, not so fast. Obama has already won it by leaps and bounds. And, at end of the sleazefest this time around, Obama may make sure that Hillary does not get to play her sleazefest at all. It will be Biden.
"Perhaps a little less bullshit would do well here."
The left lives on bullshit.
you want a better argument, here's one,
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-advisers-racist-facebook-posts-2015-7?op=1
other JFK's PT boat service
We probably really, really, really, don't want to go there.
Look up why the other JFK (A/K/A St Jack) was on PT boats in the middle of nowhere.
Look up Inga Arvad. At the time thought to be a German spy.
And, JFK's paramour. First they sent him to Florida to keep him away from her but he kept coming back to DC on weekends. They figured that there was no way he could get back to her from there.
He should never have been in the Navy, being disqualified by severe medical problems. But Poppa Joe, big FDR fundraiser and fixer, got them waived.
John Henry
This video will have zero effect on The Donald's ratings. He plans to use the same trash haulers in negotiations with Iran.
. It is pitch fork time.
...and torches. Don't forget the torches.
He plans to use the same trash haulers in negotiations with Iran.
They'd drive a harder bargain than Obama did in Vienna. We haven't seen such a capitulation since the rail car at Compiegne.
Delete
Blogger John said...
I agree that this is not about Vietnam but there is one thing that screams for correction. Someone said LBJ got us into VN because he feared the right wing if he did not.
Bullshit!
He ran, in 1964, specifically on a platform to get us out of VN.
It was a pretty close election, though (yeah, right). 61%/39%, LBJ carried 45 states, 486 electoral votes to 52.
Running to get us out of VN.
Why the Hell would he have feared the right after that?
Not long after we had over half a million troops in country and another quarter million or so in the general area. "
Why did Johnson put 500,000 troops in VN? Because he was afraid if the communist won then he would have been blamed for the loss along with the Democratic Party. As in who lost China. Incidentally do you think that if JFK had not been murdered he would have been reelected? That he had he been reelected he would not have committed 500,000 troops to VN? Or that LBJ on his own without the Kennedy murder ever been elected president? I agree with you on your comment on Nixon.
No doubt there are people who hate Trump, but Jaltcoh may be conflating them with people who mistrust him, are comtemptuous of him, are suspicious of him, etc.
None of these necessarily equate with "hate," an overused term in today's uncivil culture.
the more significant point,
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/does-trump-trump-angelo-codevilla-on-our-present-moment.php
the Gulf of Tonkin attack was not a surprise in light of the attempted landings on those islands, earlier that summer,
Do you compare Trump's ways with an ideal world that doesn't exist and has never existed?
Trump got his Tower built; meanwhile Community Organizer Obama couldn't get the toilets at Altgeld Gardens fixed.
A lot of people hate everyone. We're a hateful species. My guess is that 30% of the people who know or have known each of us don't like us and that 10% hate us.
A smooth operator or a saint can shift the numbers 5%. Why do so many people hate Obama--lots of people think they know him. The Pope? Trump? You?
Hire a blind survey of your high school class about if they hated you--if you dare.
Blogger John said...
other JFK's PT boat service
We probably really, really, really, don't want to go there.
Look up why the other JFK (A/K/A St Jack) was on PT boats in the middle of nowhere.
Look up Inga Arvad. At the time thought to be a German spy.
And, JFK's paramour. First they sent him to Florida to keep him away from her but he kept coming back to DC on weekends. They figured that there was no way he could get back to her from there.
He should never have been in the Navy, being disqualified by severe medical problems. But Poppa Joe, big FDR fundraiser and fixer, got them waived.
John Henry
8/1/15, 12:38 PM
Mostly true. His pecker lead him astray many a time and its true he probably shouldn't have been in the Navy due to his back but the PT boat service was the real deal. He wasn't in some safe backwater, he really was at risk when he volunteered unlike the other JFK. As for Kennedy what was glossed over is the what really happened to his PT boat and did Kennedy screw up in combat. As for the screwing a potential Nazi sympathizer when he was a nothing pales into comparison to banging a mobster's girlfriend while president.
"As in who lost China. Incidentally do you think that if JFK had not been murdered he would have been reelected? "
Oh, I think so. That was the beginning of politics as "Hollywood for ugly people." It would have been interesting if Goldwater had been the GOP nominee but the result would have been the same. Not by that margin. Like LBJ, the troop buildup would've been after the election.
Kennedy might have been smart enough to avoid the "Great Society" disaster and therefore the consequences we see now. He was more conservative than LBJ. The Democrats went far left in 1968 and Kennedy would have been finishing his second term.
Everybody has forgotten the old right wing joke. "JFK will be president until 1968, then Bobby will be elected for 8 years, then Teddy will be elected for 8 years. Then it will be 1984."
Stephen King most recently we althistory, he figured a JFK under those conditions wouldn't have been able to pull off the Civil Rights Bill, eventually Wallace becomes President and he nukes Hanoi, and it gets stranger from there on,
Re Meade @ 8:14: That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I was a married, 25 year-old law student without a pot to piss in who took a test and got a student deferment. I wasn't a man of means and I didn't support the war - although I didn't support the behavior of Hanoi Jane and Hanoi John either.
Why do we suppose Trump supported the war or used his "means" to get out of it. Wasn't he just a kid?
"Would the country had been better of if Perot had not been in the election in 92 and taking votes from Bush? Yes. But that was only knowable in hindsight"
No. Predictable and predicted.
"As for Trump, he is doing the country a favor. He is cutting through the PC BS and forcing the Republican candidates to either go to the right where the base is or go moderate in the fantasy of thinking they are going to appeal to the 'middle"."
If enough people believe that, they will have four years of Hillary! to amuse themselves with their own fantasies.
By the way, the real Trump is a squish. The notion that he "cuts through the PC BS" or "goes to the right" is part of the snake oil.
Sure, the GOP is the stupid party, but there are limits. One would hope.
"Wasn't he just a kid?"
Trump’s medical deferment is listed for October 1968, months after he had left Wharton. And despite the campaign’s statement that it was “expected to be short-term,” there is no evidence in the records of it being dropped before the draft lottery in 1969.
As I said — I hate guys like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Show me dispositive evidence of either one of them in 1969 finessing their positions on LBJ's Vietnam War and evading the draft while knowing someone else would have to take their place — and I will be happy to stand corrected.
Sure, the GOP is the stupid party,
Well we do keep electing Establishment insiders....
but there are limits.
You would think, but they keep putting people like Boehner and McConnell in charge of Congress and nominating McCain and Bush for president.
One would hope.
I've been hoping since 1984. Frankly, I'm tired of hoping.
Trump is not a nice Bush III RINO man. He is a popular and successful loudmouth that wars verbally by the speed with which he directs winning attacks at his enemies instead of apologizing to them for calling him childhood recess slurs.
And what's more, in 1970 at age 24 the SOB used his father's influence to draw a very high Draft Lottery call-up number.
the Gulf of Tonkin attack was not a surprise in light of the attempted landings on those islands, earlier that summer,
What the f....?
The Gulf of Tonkin was not a surprise, quite right. It was cooked up in DC so the people who cooked it up could hardly be surprised, could they?
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a a complete lie. It never happened. It was used to lie us into the VN War. Much the same way Wilson lied us into WWI and FDR lied us into WWII.
John Henry
I have some questions:
Did Trump break any laws? If so, why isn’t Trump sitting in jail? Was he ever indicted by the local law enforcement folks? If not, aren’t they also responsible for the safety violations?
What about the bank officers who approved the financing of Trump Towers? Aren’t they also morally culpable?
It looks to me that the government safety inspectors were in bed with some of the contractors. Any of those bureaucrats indicted? Or fired? Or even reprimanded by their government agencies for not doing their jobs?
Did any of the subcontractor violators see jail time? If not, why?
Where does culpability begin and end?
Also, I saw a lot of hearsay evidence offered, stuff that would not be allowed in a courtroom and for good reason, since our judicial system has long recognized that hearsay cannot be relied on.
If anyone wants to read an excellent book on Donal Trump, I recommend Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann. Free on Kindle. I am currently about halfway in on John C Dvorak's recommendation.
It doesn't mention Trump by name, probably because it was published in 1922. It does tell us to a T who he is, what he is doing and how.
John Henry
I like Trump because he mostly makes the right enemies.
In the Republican camp, the people who hate him are people like Beldar. They call him a liar and lash out at him like a baby throwing a fit, but they never bother to back up anything they feel. They just share their feelings of hatred for him. I'm sure Beldar is lining up to give us Jeb Bush, because moderate!
I love Trump because of guys like Sebastian who write stuff like
Blogger Sebastian said...
If enough people think that, they deserve Hillary!, good and hard.
If they keep it up, they'll deliver the nation to Hillary! right quick.
If enough people believe that, they will have four years of Hillary! to amuse themselves with their own fantasies.
This is the establishment Republican line through and through. Don't vote for that guy! They are un-electable! You have to vote for McCain! You have to vote for Romney! You have to vote for who we tell you to vote for, or else you're voting for the Democrat!
Trump helps me to laugh at Sebastian and want to stick it to him harder. Hey pal, you vote for your candidate in the primary, and I'll vote for mine, and we'll see how it shakes out.
Don't try and threaten me anymore with your shitty pretend game of being a prophet. We know you're not and cannot predict the future.
So far, the only criticism of Trump that I agree with is Meade's. It's a terrible thing to run away from a war and not do your duty as an American citizen. And if Trump were 40 years younger, I'd count it against him. But we grow older and wiser and I don't see Trump as the same man he was all those years ago.
Michael K wrote;
So, we get President Walker and the economy collapses from the Obama debts and Iran attacks us. Who gets blamed by the LIVs ?
The economy has already collapsed. It's being artificially propped up right now until it can be blamed on a Republican administration.
If you really want to get rid of Trump, Gahrie has the solution for you. I'm not interested in voting for another Republican politician wimp. I'm tired of them. Give me a Trump that's conservative and fights and I'll vote for him. So far, the only closest one is Ted Cruz, and the same people who hate Trump seem to also hate Ted Cruz, go figure.
But at this point, I just see Ted Cruz as a useful bit of chum for people like me. A way to split the vote. The minute we abandon Trump and start touting Ted Cruz we're going to start hearing all the same bullshit, "Ted Cruz is for Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is a liar. Ted Cruz is an egomaniac. I agree with Ted Cruz, but, the way he did it was wrong." Etc, etc.
It's a trick they used in 2012 to divide and conquer and get Romney elected. Each time another candidate rose to the top, the sharks would gather to take him down.
Any of those bureaucrats indicted? Or fired? Or even reprimanded by their government agencies for not doing their jobs?
Forget it, Jake. It's the Big Apple. (Don't mind the maggots)
Beldar said...
Right now he's promoting himself as a conservative Republican with the skills of a can-do businessman. Every bit of that is a lie.
No bigger a lie than the National Republican leadership (with their thumbs on the nominating scale) bailing on rolling back the ACA, surrendering Senate treaty authority on the Iran deal and rescucitating the Ex-Im Bank.
"You have to vote for Romney! "
Had we elected Romney, he had the skills to pull the country out of the death spiral it is in. A lot of Obama kids who were techies did what they did because they think they are immune to what is going to happen.
I know lefty kids, some of them my own, who are obsessed with abortion and gay rights and think they will never have to suffer the consequences of the fucked up economics of leftism.
Trump is the Pied Piper but he will either prove me wrong and shape up or implode. I just hope you and the others who seem devoted to him don't let him do another Perot. That would be tragic. Of coyotes, I am 77 and my income is mostly tax exempt so you have my permission to go on the Children's Crusade.
Good luck.
Autocorrect likes "coyotes" not "of course."
Sebastian said...
"Would the country had been better of if Perot had not been in the election in 92 and taking votes from Bush? Yes. But that was only knowable in hindsight"
No. Predictable and predicted.
"As for Trump, he is doing the country a favor. He is cutting through the PC BS and forcing the Republican candidates to either go to the right where the base is or go moderate in the fantasy of thinking they are going to appeal to the 'middle"."
If enough people believe that, they will have four years of Hillary! to amuse themselves with their own fantasies.
By the way, the real Trump is a squish. The notion that he "cuts through the PC BS" or "goes to the right" is part of the snake oil.
Sure, the GOP is the stupid party, but there are limits. One would hope.
8/1/15, 1:40 PM"
Ooohhh! JEB (who I voted for twice for governor), Boehnor and McConnell are really gonna stick it to the left! Yes sir, they are gonna rollback the progressive state. Like I said, Trump is forcing issues and stripping the PC BS. Its up to each candidate to step up to the plate. So far I don't see any Republican so-called front runner being anything but a kinder, gentler and more efficient administrator of the welfare-progressive state. As for 92, no it wasn't predictable since Clinton ran as a good old boy and the way he campaigned it didn't appear to be all that different than Bush. Perot, like Trump wouldn't have matter in the least unless there was a strong enough chord in the public to stir so many votes in 92 or right now so much support in the polls. As for Hillary, enough. She couldn't win among Democrats in 2008 and she hasn't gotten anymore likable or favorable since. And her shit does stink a lot more than Trump's by the way.
Blogger Michael K said...
"You have to vote for Romney! "
Had we elected Romney, he had the skills to pull the country out of the death spiral it is in. A lot of Obama kids who were techies did what they did because they think they are immune to what is going to happen
All I can say to this is maybe. It seemed to me, about Romney, that he is a really good man. A smart man. A hard working man. And he certainly would have been better than Obama. But a wet brick would be better than Obama.
I'm looking for more than a leaner.
We are trying to escape the clutches of the Empire. We've fallen into a trash compactor. Our leadership are all leaners. They see the walls closing in and the run up and lean against the wall, while the Democrats play in the dirty water and refuse to see the walls closing in. So we keep voting for the Republican who lean. Because leaning against the wall is better than what the Democrat children are doing who keep splashing in the water and laughing at the Republican leaners while insisting the walls aren't closing in.
But leaning against the wall isn't going to stop us all from getting smashed. We need a better solution than that. We need to communicate with R2D2 and get him to stop the walls from closing in on us. We need the process reversed.
And McCain, Romney, Jeb, these guys, while I'm sure they are all fine people, are just going to lean against the wall. If we're going to elect another leaner, we may as well elect Chris Christie, because he's the biggest of them and may have the most effect by sheer body mass.
Had we elected Romney, he had the skills to pull the country out of the death spiral it is in.
I happen to agree with this. But backing down and apologizing for the 47% and Binders full of women remarks didn't help him, and helped convince many Republicans to stay home. Imagine if instead of rolling over, Romney had punched back against those attacks?
It is absolutely simple...they American people want someone who is going to fight for them.
I'm not disagreeing but I do think we lost our best chance with a guy who has run businesses that were in trouble and rescued the SLC Olympics when it was in trouble. He's not on the ballot this year.
Trump just seems unserious but I am willing to see what happens. Right now, I'm watching Carly to see how she handles herself.
A lot techies don't like her because of HP but HP is still in business and did not go BK. Trump has a few BKs.
@Beldar: "But Donald Trump is profoundly phony — dishonest, not what he claims to be. Right now he's promoting himself as a conservative Republican with the skills of a can-do businessman. Every bit of that is a lie."
Nice try to point out the obvious, but the thread shows we'll need stronger medicine against the snake oil he's selling.
But Donald Trump is profoundly phony — dishonest, not what he claims to be.
So are the establishment Republicans..what's your point?
Romney was probably too nice a guy to be president in these times. Eisenhower may have been our best president in 70 years but he would never make it now.
"helped convince many Republicans to stay home."
This I think is a myth. Romney got more votes than expected according to some but Red State doesn't agree.
Romney won independents by 10 points in Ohio. But lost the election. Likewise, he won independents by 5 nationwide, but lost the election. Oftentimes, independent support isn’t the strength of independent thinkers leaning in your direction.
If evangelical voters cost Romney the election, I hope they are happy with what they have now. I personally, think that evangelicals got turned off by the late disclosure of Bush's DUI in 2000 and let the election go to a tie.
We'll never know.
I just hope you and the others who seem devoted to him don't let him do another Perot.
Us Trump supporters do not “let him do” anything. He sort of does things on his own without pre-approval from us or anyone else. It’s called ‘leadership.’ And I believe that’s part of his appeal.
As far as a third party possibility I do not believe that will be a factor unless Reince Priebus starts calling Trump followers as “crazies” or throws other ad hominem around.
For folks who are worried about Trump and a third party split-off: Your best bet is to write or email the RNC people urging them to be fair in their treatment of Trump.
When is it the turn of the establishment types to "take one for the team" like they have been demanding of us for the last thirty years?
"But Donald Trump is profoundly phony — dishonest, not what he claims to be.
So are the establishment Republicans..what's your point?"
I believe most of the field are people of good conscience. I see no reason, at this point, to extend that courtesy to Trump. I can not ignore the list of positions on which he has done a 180.
You guys aren't listening!
We don't really want Trump. We want someone who will fight, and Trump is the only one fighting. (Except for Carly)
The support for Trump is a message to the Republicans to grow a pair of balls and stand for something. Then the American people will reward the Republicans with a 1984 style landslide.
Cruz gave me hope when he accused McConnell of lying on the Senate floor. He will have a chance to show us something in the debate, but I am not holding my breath.
Blogger Original Mike said...
"But Donald Trump is profoundly phony — dishonest, not what he claims to be.
So are the establishment Republicans..what's your point?"
I believe most of the field are people of good conscience. I see no reason, at this point, to extend that courtesy to Trump. I can not ignore the list of positions on which he has done a 180.
Give me your best shot on where Trump has done a 180. Just one. There's a whole list to choose from, so make it good.
Beldar:
Take a listen to Cathy McMorris Rodgers's Repub radio address today to hear what the establishment Repubs claim to have achieved in the last six months.
I bet you will agree their claims are much ado about nothing and more like smoke and mirrors.
"Give me your best shot on where Trump has done a 180. Just one. There's a whole list to choose from, so make it good."
Universal health care.
"email the RNC people urging them to be fair in their treatment of Trump."
That depends on what you think "fair "is. I think he should be allowed to act like the other candidates at the debate. Let's see if he has enough self control.
Blogger Original Mike said...
"Give me your best shot on where Trump has done a 180. Just one. There's a whole list to choose from, so make it good."
Universal health care.
We're on a blog. There is no time limit to your response. If you want to claim Trump has made a claim, then reversed the claim 180 degrees, you need to provide evidence for your assertion.
Don't be so lazy. It makes us think you've got nothing but accusations.
Michael K said...
"email the RNC people urging them to be fair in their treatment of Trump."
That depends on what you think "fair "is. I think he should be allowed to act like the other candidates at the debate. Let's see if he has enough self control.
8/1/15, 4:22 PM
That alone has great entertainment value.
"There is no time limit to your response."
Sure there is. I'm much more interested in spending this beautiful Saturday building my deck than arguing on the internet. But you see the claim a lot (see, for example, here. As to whether I've done my own independent research; I have not.
Since I've got some time on my hands, let me lay out what I think were Donald Trumps positions back in 2000, when he wrote a book on his positions, and what his positions are now (Or in 2012) when he wrote another book on his positions.
On Immigration (2000)
America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.
The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.
It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave.
I think we can agree he is pretty much the same on Immigration. He has added "Build a wall" and a few other talking points. But his position on Immigration is pretty similar between now and then.
Military (2000)
To tell the enemy we’re not going to invade defies common sense. That lack of confidence may reflect another troubling reality: our diminished military forces. To wage our aerial assault on Yugoslavia we had to call upon US forces from all points of the globe. Why? Because we’re spread too thin. The US last year spent 3% of gross domestic product maintaining our military forces. Compare that with past figures: Defense spending in the last year of the Carter administration came to 4.9% of GDP. During the Reagan buildup it was 6.5%. We are still living off the Reagan military buildup of nearly 20 years ago. The question is: What will we live off ten or fifteen years from now if we do not invest again?
You can’t pursue forward military and foreign-policy objectives on a backward military budget. I’m not advocating that America go forth and police the world. I’m just saying that if we’re going to use our military power abroad, we had better make sure that power is ready to be used.
His position on the Military has also seemed consistent. He was for spending more on a stronger military then, just as he is now.
Taxes (2000)
I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt [and shore up the Social Security Trust Fund].
My proposal would also allow us to entirely repeal the 55% federal inheritance tax. The inheritance tax is a particularly lousy tax because it can often be a double tax. If you put the money into trust for your children, you pay the inheritance tax upon your death. When the trust matures and your children go to use it, they’re taxed again. It’s the worst.
Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions. The 14.25% net-worth tax would be offset by repeal of the 55% inheritance-tax liability.
I disagree with his one time tax while I agree with his repeal of the inheritance tax. Has he changed his position on either of this? I'm not aware that he has, but I'm willing listen. He also said back in 2000 about taxes
(cont)
Let me sum up what is wrong with the tax code.
Its complexity bleeds off billions of productive hours.
Tax rates are too high.
Hidden taxes take even more.
High property taxes punish people for improving their property.
Our code discriminates against married people.
The complexity of the tax code allows too much government intrusion into our lives.
The tax code is liable to change overnight in ways that could jeopardize your plans for a small business or retirement.
That all sounds pretty fiscally conservative for way back in 2000. Has he become less conservative now?
Israel (2000)
The U.S. must continue to nurture and safeguard our special relationship with the state of Israel. This relationship must remain the cornerstone of our policy tactics through the entire Middle-East region, as it has been for administrations of both parties for more than half a century.
Why do we have this special relationship? It is not out of charity, guilt, or what some call “ethnic lobbies.” We have been there for Israel because Israel is there for us. Israel is a stable democracy in a region filled with dictatorship.
As Israel has matured, our close ties also bring America a fair trading partner and a fellow pioneer on the high-tech frontier of medicine and communications that will enrich Americans’ lives in the coming century. Our two countries must continue to stand strong together as pillars of freedom and progress.
Has he changed his position on Israel? I don't believe he has. His strong talk back in 2000 on Israel and North Korea and such were pretty hard lined conservative. I don't believe he has become less conservative now.
Social Security (2000)
The solution to the Great Social Security crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds. Federal guidelines would make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches. The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one’s heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires.
Privatization would be good for all of us. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth.
Has he become less conservative on this now? BTW, as a conservative, I completely agree with this. Let me invest my own social security money.
Abortion (2000)
I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban.
This is the first time I would say he has done a 180. But I wouldn't call it a total 180. Even when he was talking to Tim Russert, he was saying he is pro-life but that he thinks women have a right to choose. I believe now he says he is Pro-life except for rape and incest? Therefore, in the last 15 years, he has done a 180 on this, but it makes sense to me. He was for a ban on partial birth abortion 15 years ago. It only makes sense to continue to evolve in the pro-life direction once you recognize the horror of partial birth abortion.
Gays (2000)
One of our next president’s most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable.
I disagree with Trump on this. I oppose hate crimes. We shouldn't be looking into why someone did what they did. Has he changed his view on this? I hope so.
Free Trade (2000)
You only have to look at our trade deficit to see that we are being taken to the cleaners by our trading partners. We need tougher negotiations, not protectionist walls around America. We need to ensure that foreign markets are as open to our products as our country is to theirs. Our long-term interests require that we cut better deals with our world trading partners.
He is saying the same thing today. Not a 180 on Free Trade.
Gun Control (2000)
It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
and
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
I believe he has done a 180 here since 2000. Again, I don't have trouble believing his 180 here, as he already admitted he opposed gun control. It's not too hard to see after 15 years how the left wants to take away all guns through bans like on assault weapons, which they can't even define.
Health Care (2000)
I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.
I think it's pretty accurate to say he has done a 180 on health care. This seems to be the one issue where he has done a complete 180. He did offer some language "Freedom of choice" and seem to mix a little free market with government talk into there, but I'd say he now opposes this idea. A total 180. Is it because of Obamacare? Or is it because he is just being political and trying to fool us?
Blogger Original Mike said...
"There is no time limit to your response."
Sure there is. I'm much more interested in spending this beautiful Saturday building my deck than arguing on the internet. But you see the claim a lot (see, for example, here. As to whether I've done my own independent research; I have not.
No worries, I did the work for you.
In the end, I'd say you haven't given Trump a fair shake. You've bought the media line that because he donated to Democrats and has Democrats he calls friends, that he's a liberal Democrat and always has been. Forget the fact that all of this stuff was written in 2000, that he ran against Pat Buchanan in the Reform Party, that he made his positions clear all those years ago, you're just sure he is a Democrat in Republican clothing that you see all of his statements through a particular lense. And then you accuse guys like me of doing that.
I'd say Trump isn't the devil you make him out to be. He is just a normal man, a successful man, who has changed his positions in a few areas over the last 15 years and has become slightly more conservative.
Jaltcoh, I think you got snookered.
I have now looked at the relevant part of the movie and a couple of other pieces and stand by my bullshit statement of earlier.
I have also looked up the producers and production company.
This was a film commissioned by Leonard Stern, paid for out of his pocket, for the purpose of damaging Trump. One would think that a man as smart as Stern (who also avoided serving in the military, BTW)would have gotten better value for his money.
This is even weaker then the TRUMP RAPED HIS WIFE!!!!! that they tried out last week.
John Henry
Gahrie @ 4:00
Yep.
Blogger John said...
Jaltcoh, I think you got snookered.
It doesn't matter. We are now in the, "Throw everything we can against the wall and see what sticks" stage of the game.
Sebastian and Beldar are absolutely right. Trump is having fun trying to take down the GOP which he (as a longtime moderate, as anyone who paid attention could see) sees as too far right, and help his buddy Hillary in the process. Be hat does this super successful billionaire ( as this classless creep keeps reminding us he is?) have to gain? Besides attention (which like Kanye he lives on) do you really think a billionaire developer who long used political ties to enhance his fortune couldn't see some use in directly helping the next president (who is no stranger to corruption) get into office? Are we really buying this crap that he's a true conservative??? As Sebastian says, if we buy that then we deserve what Hillary will do when she takes office.
And yeah, how cool and noble that he "tells it like it is" except this clown isn't articulating anything at all, he's just being an ass but apparently to some that is mistaken for speaking truth to power. Clearly the GOP is a cheap date.
At this point, we deserve Hillary. She pulled an easy con and a fifth of the GOP is so full of venom they prefer an obvious fraud over a slate of conservative candidates.
Blogger Brando said...
Sebastian and Beldar are absolutely right. Trump is having fun trying to take down the GOP which he (as a longtime moderate, as anyone who paid attention could see)
At least he's no longer being called a longtime liberal. I call that progress.
At this point, we deserve Hillary
In other words, vote for my candidate or else we'll get Hillary.
Ugh, this is so tiresome Brando. Give it a rest. We get it. You don't like Trump. You're starting to sound like Mick, repeating yourself in every post.
"Do you want to go on a walk?"
"Coyotes."
"There are coyotes? I don't want to walk then."
"Coyotes there aren't coyotes."
"There aren't? "
"Coyotes not."
That depends on what you think "fair "is.
reiteration: As far as a third party possibility I do not believe that will be a factor unless Reince Priebus starts calling Trump followers as “crazies” or throws other ad hominem around.
Let us see if the RNC people treat Trump like they treat the other GOP hopefuls. If I were Priebus I would make sure Trump isn’t singled out and treated differently than any of the other GOP candidates seeking the office of POTUS … if I wanted to prevent a third party more than I wanted screw Trump, that is.
But if preventing Trump becomes the RNC’s overriding mission then in my opinion Trump is justified in running on a third party ticket.
One observation of Donald Trump is that he is a very nice man to everyone he meets, except for his enemies seeking to do him or his responsibilities harm.
I would be glad for him to be responsible for me. And he is not all that enamored by the wealth powers that ALL of the other politicians swear by as their guiding star whether they are socialist or capitalists. Trump is pragmatic and he is a friend to the common man. That is obvious to everyone no matter how many cliches of both ideologies that people try to pin on him.
Overheard at meadhouse just now:
"Did Zeus get his dinner?"
"Of coyote!"
Waitaminute... he cut corners while building a building... then he LIVED in that same building? I don't care what he did/didn't do during construction. He had enough faith that it was constructed safely that he lived in it.
"He had enough faith that it was constructed safely that he lived in it. "
Trump strikes me as so narcissistic that potential failures of his decisions never occur to him.
Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with student deferments? Especially for, say, ROTC students? If we are to field a military for the long haul, where should we get officers from?
What about West Point cadets? Are they on student deferments, too? Is the West Point Class of 1972-75 who didn't serve in Viet Nam morally suspect because they started at the USMA in 1967-71? Or the Naval Academy?
Or is your moral preening reserved for the kids who didn't have the clout to get Congressional appointments?
How about kids who genuinely just wanted an education first, and were perfectly willing to serve afterwards, who were just taking advantage of the rules in place at the time? Maybe they wanted to serve as officers, for any number of reasons... family tradition, etc.
No, you want to paint everyone who had a student deferment with the same brush.
Same goddamn smugness you exhibited over the Confederate Flag douchebaggery.
Lighten up on people, dude.
The Republican Machine continues to support people because it's their turn. As if the U.S. serves it's political masters instead of politics serving the public. Trump is left field and looks like he's not part of the machine; I have a different perspective.
The government machine has politicos looking to aggregate power, and big-business (like the military industrial complex) throw support across the fence. Trump is part of the machine, the throw money across the fence type.
I'm naïve enough to think that at some time politicians were in it to serve, but literally everyone I talk to seems think it was when they were in middle school. I suspect the only way to through a wrench in the machine is term limits.
Methinks a good deal of this "hate" is just sheer frustration at the dummies who continue to think Trump is the real deal, when even a cursory look reveals that everything he says, and much of what he does, is phony.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा