December 9, 2015

"I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race."

An interview with Donald Trump. Published today in The Washington Post but done on December 3, the morning after the San Bernardino massacre.

Also in WaPo: "Jeb Bush tweets Trump-Clinton conspiracy theory. Here’s a look at the ‘evidence.’"

78 comments:

Rick said...

A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent.

I'm willing to bet 68% of his current polling number doesn't vote for him in the Republican Primary.

mccullough said...

The conspiracy theory is pretty weak. The evidence shows Trump is not much of a Republican and has been at least friendly way too h the Clintons. (I doubt either Trump or the Class now one have any actual friends).

But it's a good fact to continually remind Hillary supporters and Democrats that Hillary Clinton (and Bill) have no principles. They gladly acc of money and pal around with people like Trump and the Saudi royalty. The problem for most Republicans is they love the Saudi Royal money as well.

Gusty Winds said...

Let's pretend is true. Then this would be the most unethical and criminal manipulation of the voting electorate in US history.

And the manipulated voters would not be the ones who voted for Trump, but rather the voters that fled the false candidate and fled to the arms of the manipulators (Clintons) who they would not have supported otherwise.

Fpervis said...

Jeb Bush and multiple others in the so called race who have less than 3% should have dropped out long ago. If the battle was between Trump, Carson, and Cruz, there would actually be a sensible race for the nomination where the old establishment would have no horse in the race. The old establishment candidates lose every time. If anyone is in the bag for the Clintons, it is certainly the Bush family.

Brando said...

No Trump fan would ever consider the possibility that Trump could lose to Hillary, let alone that he would try to ensure her victory. But there are some questions Trump has provided no satisfying answer to:

1) What did he ever get from the Clintons in exchange for his donations and having them at his wedding? He keeps talking about "leverage" and the great deals he gets from politicians, how he gets them to jump--but you'd think a brilliant negotiator would get something concrete out of it (e.g., a friendly meeting with an official who could fast track a zoning problem). Instead, it seems to be he got the pleasure of their company at his wedding, which I can't understand why anyone would want simply because they're famous (especially when he's been famous longer than them).

2) What was his phone call with Bill about? Considering it happened just before he announced his candidacy, there's a presumption the call prompted his decision. What did Clinton say that made Trump decide to jump in?

3) He criticized Romney's "anti-immigration" rhetoric after his 2012 election loss, saying it alienated Hispanics. What's different between that, and now? Does Trump's own rhetoric not alienate Hispanics as Romney's did? Or did he decide he doesn't care?

Trump fans argue he couldn't be in this for Hillary because he's going to definitely beat her next fall, and maybe the Clintons tried to get their old friend Trump in the race with sabotage in mind but he went "rogue" and is now trying to win it for real. I wouldn't put anything past the Clintons, and considering Hillary's prime strategy is firing up the non-white vote and scaring those voters away from Republicans, Trump is doing exactly what Hillary would want him to do. There's no way Trump is going to do better than Romney with the non-white vote (which as a percentage of the electorate is going to be greater than it was in 2012) and there's not much room for improvement with the white vote. The numbers simply aren't going to work for the GOP next year at this rate.

But regardless of whether these are all just odd coincidences or if the Clintons really tried to put Trump up to this, it doesn't matter--he'd still make an awful president if he somehow managed to get elected, but we're not likely to find out because the GOP is splitting apart. Things are going Hillary's way whether she engineered this or just got lucky.

damikesc said...

He's leading. What candidate would discuss leaving? Is Bush planning on leaving?

traditionalguy said...

That is a well tuned Trump Trumpet signaling the song his followers need to hear. Quitters are never followed.

Alexander said...

That's rich given that the Republican establishment is beginning to peel off and trying to drum up 'Better Clinton than Trump.'

Just like how in France the socialists are withdrawing candidates to support conservatives over the nationalists.

The one-party structure is being revealed for what it is, and it's men like Trump who are revealing the ugly despot behind the curtain.

Trumpians, onward!

eric said...

Are they getting desperate or what?

I'd believe a Bush Clinton conspiracy theory as more likely.

traditionalguy said...

More proof that the $125,000,000 Bush scion IS A Controllee under the thumb of his rich donors who have always despised Reagan Conservatives like Daddy used to do.

That hit piece had no rational thought in it. It was aimed at the John Burch Society guys, although they are all Rand Paul men.

Tom said...

Hillary's negatives are two high to win a two-way race. She only wins with a three-way race. Whether Trump knows it or not, he's being played like he's Anakin Skywalker.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

No, he'll run as an independent.

David said...

He's a racist and a fascist who is anathema to everything that is great about America.
OR
He's a Democratic plant doing everything he can to undermine the Republican party by running a campaign that will most help Hillary.

And he's dominating state and national Republican primary polls.
And now he's refusing to quit.

David said...

He's a racist and a fascist who is anathema to everything that is great about America.
OR
He's a Democratic plant doing everything he can to undermine the Republican party by running a campaign that will most help Hillary.

And he's dominating state and national Republican primary polls.
And now he's refusing to quit.

hombre said...

I have argued here before that Trump is a shill for Clinton and the ultimate crony capitalist. After his nomination puts the finishing touches on the Republican Party, he will lose to Hillary. His fortune will double as she expresses her gratitude.

That is why Limbaugh is wrong about the media being upset by Trump. He increases their revenue and, if nominated, guarantees a Hillary victory.

Henry said...

From the interview: When you’re a football player, you don’t want to be taking sides in campaigns and having the Hillary [Clinton] people now say you’re not as good as Bart Starr.

I really want to hear the Hillary people announce that Tom Brady is not as good as Bart Starr. Take that, Brady. You're not even George Blanda in our book.

Original Mike said...

Never give up. Never surrender.

Quaestor said...

I hope this doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

PS
Message to Message Voters: The message never gets through.

Fernandinande said...

"Jeb Bush tweets Trump-Clinton conspiracy theory. Here’s a look at the ‘evidence.’"

Trump has previously mentioned that he had bribed Billary, who was at his beck and call (Or words to that effect).

Char Char Binks said...

Will he keep campaigning if he wins?

Nonapod said...

Nonsense. He'd leave it if he ever starts having to spend loads of his own money to keep in it.

garage mahal said...

Run as an independent if you have to. Never give up!

bbkingfish said...

If you accept Bush's theory, it seems to me you must accept that Hillary understands the GOP base better than does any of the GOP candidates.



Anonymous said...

Oh yes please Santa, have the Donald announce a third party run for Christmas!

David said...

Nope. He's white and he's going to stay white.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

So not passing the mantle to Ted Cruz.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Let's say that there was absolute irrefutable evidence that Trump had conspired with the Clintons to disrupt the Republican Party. Wouldn't Trump just say he was playing the Clintons?

chickelit said...

It kind of figures that Bush III is leading the dump Trump movement. Didn't he as much as state that he'd vote for Hillary over Trump?

Mike Sylwester said...

Trump will arrive at the Republican convention with at least a plurality of the delegates.

I figure that in this election race, about a quarter of the Republican electorate are single-issue voters on the immigration issue. I am one of them. Trump's statements on other issues -- no matter how outrageous -- will not cause us to abandon him.

However, many of us -- I am one of them -- will switch from Trump to another candidate who adopts a sufficiently hard line resisting massive illegal immigration.

In my opinion, Cruz is almost close enough. If he says he will complete the border barrier and try to fix birthright citizenship (by Constitutional amendment, if necessary), then that will be good enough for me to switch from Trump to Cruz.

If Trump is the only candidate who is not a squish on the immigration issue, then I will keep supporting Trump, despite all his grave faults.

Bob Boyd said...

Jeb's working his way through the Kubler-Ross Model.

steve uhr said...

He is in a precarious position. Serious hit to his bottom line if major law firms, etc. decide to boycott his hotels. And why wouldn't they?

Once written, twice... said...

It does not matter. What matters is that for years Republicans cultivated a base of support for the party made up of racist, xenophobic, hate-driven voters. Now they have turned the Republican Party into an ugly clown show. Don't blame Trump; blame those who debased the party for shot term political gain.

Achilles said...

It is funny to watch all of the lefties shout racist! xenophobic! Hate-driven! Fascist! at the top of their puny little lungs and in the next breath they defend Sharia law and it's proponents.

Progressives wrote and implemented and fought for slavery.

Progressives were and are behind eugenics.

Progressives made fools of themselves in the 30's agreeing with a certain historical figure.

Progressives in the 50's were drooling over the next mass murderer.

Progressives segregated the schools and defended separate but equal.

Progressives have segregated our modern public school system.

Progressives continue to defend racial spoils systems to this day that dis-enfranchise minorities.

At no time in this nations history have black people lost more wealth while the wealthy benefited than under president Obama.

Progressive brown shirts are all over college campuses now acting as they have always acted.

traditionalguy said...

This Bush nonsense reminds me of the way the old line GOP money brokers hated FDR for not fearing them and beating them four times while leading as a great Commander-in-chief winning a two front World War with several World Empires involved.

Bush guys are not smart enough to do that.

tim in vermont said...

If it does come down to Trump vs Hillary, I am going to campaign for the Green Party to get them to the level where they get matching funds. I think there will be a lot of Democrats disgusted enough with Hillary, as long as they are sure she is going to win, to vote to put the Green Party on the map electorally.

Freder Frederson said...

If he says he will complete the border barrier and try to fix birthright citizenship (by Constitutional amendment, if necessary)

So someone who was born in Canada of one U.S. citizen parent (and who didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2013) is going to make a priority of ending birthright citizenship?

Riiiiiiight.

damikesc said...

I love that the party of Black Lives Matter and safe spaces feel the need to call anybody "clowns"

Bob Ellison said...

Trump can't beat Hillary, but he can ensure her victory.

He may be too dumb to know that. It's possible.

But I suspect that he knows it and is working on that assumption.

Sammy Finkelman said...

He has to leave the race when the Republican Convention nominates somebody else.

Sammy Finkelman said...

And if Donald trump runs as an independent, he has to leave the race at the time of the November election....

...Unless there is no decision and it goes into the House of Representatives.

eric said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
If he says he will complete the border barrier and try to fix birthright citizenship (by Constitutional amendment, if necessary)

So someone who was born in Canada of one U.S. citizen parent (and who didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2013) is going to make a priority of ending birthright citizenship?

Riiiiiiight.


Yeah, makes sense. By birthright citizenship, he means, people given citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil.

The Godfather said...

According to the TV news, before Tromp proposed barring all Muslim entry into the US, Jeb proposed allowing in Syrian "refugees" only if they were Christian. Why is that position "moderate" while Tromp's position is "hateful"?

In case you wonder, both positions are stupid.

Eric said...

I can't believe three, maybe four SCOTUS seats depend on this, the most ridiculous election modern times.

mccullough said...

If Trump can take Hillary down with him, he will have done a great service to the country. Just tell us what The Clintons did in exchange for your donation. Bribing and accepting a bribe are both illegal.

Grackle said...

It would have been way more interesting if Trump had run as the Democrat that he is.

F.G.

chickelit said...

Sammy Finkelman said...

He has to leave the race when the Republican Convention nominates somebody else.

Suppose that the RC nominates Jeb Bush because big donors say they should or else. This would be tantamount to electoral suicide at this point.

mccullough said...

I don't think Trump is a Democrat or a Republican. But he knew he would do better in the Republican primaries just like Comrade Bernie knew he'd do better in the Dem primaries.

I think Trump should run as an independent and Sanders should run as a Socialist.

The national Republican Party should have never let Trump run as a Republican. But they are pretty stupid

Guildofcannonballs said...

Conservatives must support lying, quasi-traitors like Rubio because GOP!.

GOP! can destroy conservatives with charges of racism, crony-ism, stupidity, and evil because that has worked for a long time and helped to retain power, like Brad Dayspring can tell you. Or Murkowski in Alaska.

Hillary is soooooo scary we can't risk Trump or Cruz, yet if the rubes do nominate either extremely extreme extremist it will be in vogue for elected Republicans to describe how not voting for the unserious clowns is actually the best way to help conservatism and the GOP, like Bobby "Bob" Dole is doing now.

Well, I say Welcome President Hillary along with Jebby and Bobby and Georgie and Colin and Scarbourough and, well, many millions of people I guess who used to vote GOP before an unacceptable clown led them.

Thanks for using the "vote my way or I vote Hillary" argument against me, as I wouldn't have thought of it but it is perfectly impeccable, guaranteed to win hearts and minds.

Also, unless you got killed today, thoughtfully thank God in your prayers as they obviously work very well for you. Your thoughts and prayers were enough today, again, you lucky bastard.

Once written, twice... said...

"It would have been way more interesting if Trump had run as the Democrat that he is."

Trump could not have run as a Democrat. His hillbilly voters are in the Republican Party. (Hillbilly does not refer to social economic status. Instead, it refers to a mind set. There are many economically well off racist, xenophobic hillbillies. The Republican Party has for years cultivated them to be their voter base.)

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Saw the first political yard sign of the General Election season today.

"Hillary/Satan - 2016"

Bob Ellison said...

There was this guy called Ross Perot.

John Henry said...

By birthright citizenship, he means, people given citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil.

You mean people who are Constitutionally citizens under the 14th Amendment.

As opposed to people like him who are statutorily citizens by act of Congress.

Cruz is on the right side of the immigration issue, though not as right as Trump.

Birthright citizenship is not a problem and is one of the things that distinguishes us from many other countries. What do you do with a 3rd generation Turk, born in Germany, of parents and grandparents born in Germany, who can't get German citizenship?

No, this bright line on citizenship is a great thing in part because we do not have that problem.

Want to stop it? Stop pregnant women from coming into the country. Make a law that the parents or other relatives can never enter the US under any circumstances. Take away the "anchor" in anchor babies.

But if they were born in the US, they are citizens, irrevocably with all rights and obligations as such.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Has Trump ever even hinted that he would run 3rd party if not nominated? Lots of talk about it but nothing I have heard from him. Anyone got any links?

I think it is good that so many people think he might (I don't) because it gives him a perceived nuclear option if the party screws with him too much. That keeps the screwing down.

Don't think they are screwing with him? Look at all the talk not about how a particular candidate can win but how Trump can be "stopped". Or the NH GOP trying to keep him off the ballot.

Shouldn't it be up to the voters to decide who their preferred candidate is? Shouldn't all candidates be treated equally through the primaries? Is Trump?

Actually, the threat of an independent run is all the more reason for good little repos to support him. He might be be able to beat Hilary as a Repo. If he runs 3rd party, it elects Hilary (I am not positive of that myself) and there is no chance of a Repo prez.

So if you do not support Trump and do believe he will run 3rd party, you are supporting Hilary's win.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Brando said...

1) What did he ever get from the Clintons in exchange for his donations and having them at his wedding? He keeps talking about "leverage" and the great deals he gets from politicians,

What do you expect him to say? That he got a meeting with a zoning official he might not have gotten? That might be bribery and illegal. Certainly unseemly and embarassing for the official and the pol who set the meeting. Even if it did not violate ethics laws.

That Hilary introduced a special bill that gave Trump some benefit? That would be bribery and illegal.

I assume he is getting something from pols he donates to. Why donate otherwise? Especially in large amounts.

I also know that he is never going to give any specifics because he is smart enough not to incriminate himself.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Blogger mccullough said...
I don't think Trump is a Democrat or a Republican. But he knew he would do better in the Republican primaries just like Comrade Bernie knew he'd do better in the Dem primaries.

In 1988, he talked with George HW Bush's people about being VP candidate. Wouldn't he have had to be a Republican to do that?

My source is Meacham's bio of Bush.

Too bad they didn't take him seriously.

More to your point, he has to swim in those waters. He has to work with pols on both sides of the aisle to run his business. It is in his interest not to identify strongly with either party.

If he is a strong Repo, a demmie mayor is not going to do him any favors and may even throw monkey wrenches into his business. If he identifies strongly as a Demmie, the mayor doesn't need to go all out to help him since he has Trump anyway.

Sort of like the position black Americans find themselves in.

As a weak repo or undecided, the mayor may think "I can woo this guy. I can pry him away from the repos. Let me see what he wants and what I can do for him."

John Henry

mccullough said...

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.

What is the argument for and the argument against him me ting the definition of a "natural born citizen" under Article 2?

Rubio was born in the US to Cuban parents. He is definitely a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Does the 14th Amendment affect the definition of Article 2's natural born citizen requirement as to those born in the US?

John Henry said...

Re Ross Perot:

Never forget that he got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. This was after he had his paranoid breakdown and withdrew from the race then came back in. I was a fan of Perot for many years and thought he would have been a good president up until he went nuts. No way I would have voted for him after that. I suspect many people felt the same way.

Suppose that 1) the American people knew Perot as well as they know Trump? or at least think they know Trump. He did not have anywhere near Trump's name recognition. 2) Perot had not had his breakdown and in-out-in. 3) He had picked someone other than James Stockdale for his VP. Stockdale is a hero and an extremely intelligent man. In the debate and other appearances he looked like a buffoon.

And Perot still got 19% of the vote.

I suspect strongly that he would have carried enough states to at the least throw the election to the House of Representatives. Perhaps enough to win the presidency.

I also do not think it is clear from the numbers that he caused Clinton to win. He seems to have attracted as many demmies as repos.

John Henry

Sammy Finkelman said...

Gusty Winds said... 12/9/15, 11:41 AM

Let's pretend is true. Then this would be the most unethical and criminal manipulation of the voting electorate in US history.

In a Presidential election, at any rate. Things like this must have happened in a Gubernatorial race before.

In Louisiana any number of times I think, maybe. (Getting candidates into the race to divide up the vote for your opponents or to drive away voters from the other party)

And..

In fact, I think it happened in Arkansas in 1984 when Bill Clinton was running for re-eleection.

Some erstwhile Clinton supporteres got behind....Orval Faubus.

Yes, that Orval Faubus.

He was the chief competitor to Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary.

In a Presidential election - maybe the Election of 1824, when people were supporting Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, who had had a stroke and whose condition was not widely known. The idea of a stroke wasn't so widely known! (a more recent example of hiding a medical condition occurred in Chicago in 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stroger

If I am correct, in 1824, supporters of General and Senator and former Governor (of Florida territory, which he had also been instrumental in seizing from Spain) Andrew Jackson, where they couldn't get Electoral votes themselves, were touting Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford in order to keep Speaker of the House Henry Clay out, knowing that the House could not select him, and portraying Secrerary of State satte John Quincy Adams (Massachusetts) as too much of an eastern establishment figure, or a Federalist, or something like that. (He was the son of former president John Adams who had lost to Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr in 1800)

Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, came in third in the Electoral College, thus excluding Henry Clay from consideration by the House of Represenatives. The real choices were only Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

(The 12th amendment had limited the House only to the top 3 finishers, unlike the original constitution, where there were not separate votes for presdident and Vice president, when they could pick among)

In the end Speaker of the House Henry Clay, although a westerner (Kentucky) like Jackson (Tennessee) supported Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, because he believed him competent, and decent, and then after John Quincy Adams named him Secretary of state. Andrew Jackson charged a "corrupt bargain" and spent the necxt four years running for president.

There was no deal, nor could it have been enforced.

Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had faced trouble in the south as a strong supporte of the federal government, and had decided to run for Viice President, where there was little competition.

Later, he concluded there was no future in national politics for southerners if there was a difference bwteen the north and the south on slavery and there was difficulty having any influence if southerners were defensive on the slavery issue and he began arguing about 1840 or so that slavery was a positive good, something which eventually caused the Civil War. Up to 1832 abolition had actually been a possibility in the south - at least in Virginia.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Perot did not have aparanoid reaction. he was manipulated by Bill Clinton. He got vonvimnced that Bush had tried to disrupt his daughter's wedding, plus things were happening and double agent Ed Rollins gave the final blow.

In different circumstances Perot couild have won. And so could Bloomberg in 2016, if he runs as third party candidate with Hillary Clinton and the Donald Trump as the opppsing nominees (but for this Bloomberg would have to find Hillary unacceptable, so we'd need more scandals)

Sammy Finkelman said...

Donald Trump has switched parties several times.

In the 2000 presidential election, he sought the nomination of Perot's party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000

Sammy Finkelman said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...12/9/15, 1:26 PM

Let's say that there was absolute irrefutable evidence that Trump had conspired with the Clintons to disrupt the Republican Party. Wouldn't Trump just say he was playing the Clintons?

No, that would hurt the Clintons, and if he had conspired with them, he wouldn't want to do that.


John Henry said...

Blogger mccullough said...
Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.

What is the argument for and the argument against him me ting the definition of a "natural born citizen" under Article 2?


Cruz is a statutory citizen. He is a citizen because the Congress passed a law that a person born in his circumstances is born a citizen. In the past the law has varied somewhat. My nephews, born and raised in German to an American mother, had to fill out some paperwork to affirm(is that the right word?) their US Citizenship when they reached 18. One of them, who has lived in the US for 20-30 years now, had some sort of altercation. A bar fight, I think which led to arrest. My sister was worried that he could be deported back to Germany because he had not crossed some t in his documentation and there was a question abut whether he was an American citizen and even legally in the US. In the event, they got it straightened out and he is still here.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow that a person born in Cruz identical circumstances next week is not a US citizen. They could not take away Cruz or anyone citizenship absent fraud or the like.

Cruz is a citizen because of Congress. That is why there is a question about whether he is natural born. Different people come down on different sides of the issue. Me, I think we have gone a 2-1/2 centuries without a president or major candidate born outside of the US, or a territory that became the US (Goldwater). McCain was the first exception. I do not think he was qualified either, being born in Panama.

Why start electing non-native born citizens now? I like Cruz a lot, probably my favorite. I think he would make a great president. I cannot support him because of his Canadian birth.

Rubio, as you point out, is a Constitutional citizen under the 14th Amendment. Absent amendment, that can't be changed. Nor should it be.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Speaking of my sister and birthright citizenship, her husband was an ethnic Czech. He was born in 1940 or so in the Sudetenland which had been invaded by Germany.

Because of that unpleasantness in the late 30s and 40s he was neither a citizen of Czechoslovakia nor of Germany. He had a German passport and lived in Germany but was not a citizen of Germany or anywhere else. Apparently this was not uncommon and did not get straightened out until the 80s or 90s. He is now, I think, a German citizen.

We don't realize how lucky we have it in the US.

John Henry

SukieTawdry said...

I can see it all now. The GOP bosses will refuse to nominate Trump even if he comes into the convention with the most delegates. They instead nominate an establishment candidate. Trump runs as an independent. None of the three candidates wins a majority of the electoral college votes. The election is decided by the Republican House and we end up with the establishment candidate. It will make Florida 2000 look like child's play.

Or, Trump runs as an independent giving Clinton the win and it's deja vu all over again.

grackle said...

What did he ever get from the Clintons in exchange for his donations and having them at his wedding?

I would think that a billionaire real estate developer would be bereft of his duties if he did not sprinkle cash over many political heavyweights, including prominent democrats. What does such a donator get for his money? The same as all the rest of the big donors – who like Trump probably gave to both sides. Politics as usual.

But this is really a backhanded endorsement of Trump, isn’t it, readers? Who of all the candidates does not accept big donor contributions? Why, that would be Trump – the only candidate who would not be bought and paid for before they were even sworn in.

What did Clinton say that made Trump decide to jump in?

This Washington Post article reveals that Clinton called Trump, so we know that Trump did not seek out Slick Willie. The article claims Clinton “encouraged” Trump. One plausible explanation? I’ll bet Clinton was ‘feeling out’ Trump, trying to see if Trump was serious about a bid for the nomination.

https://tinyurl.com/oqpu4vd

He criticized Romney's "anti-immigration" rhetoric after his 2012 election loss, saying it alienated Hispanics.

Sounds to me like Trump was thinking of running as a Democrat back then and was laying the groundwork. But I guess he finally decided the GOP would be the more appropriate party for what he wants to do. Trump is not an ideologue, if you want an ideologue, vote for one of the others.

Trump is not a conservative and he is not a liberal. Neither am I so this is a non-issue for me but I realize that some will feel that their cherished conservative principles would be trampled by a President Trump. But if they really want to see conservatism suffer all they have to do get in a snit and stay home on election day if Trump wins the nomination.

Then Hillary, then corruption, then idiotic foreign policy, then idiotic “agreements” that are really treaties, then more economic decay, then billions given away for climate change and salt the SCOTUS with even more liberal judges, Obama administration redux.

Michael K said...

"I also do not think it is clear from the numbers that he caused Clinton to win. He seems to have attracted as many demmies as repos. "

I also do not know. I might have voted for him if he had not had the meltdown in the summer.

Trump sure brings out the trolls.

Mark said...

Rubio lets Democrats be Truthers too. Isn't America grand?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Trump is winning presidency for Clinton. Looks like we get 4 more years of Obama.

Brando said...

"What do you expect him to say? That he got a meeting with a zoning official he might not have gotten? That might be bribery and illegal. Certainly unseemly and embarassing for the official and the pol who set the meeting. Even if it did not violate ethics laws."

So that leaves the following possible explanations for his Clinton donations:

1) He actually did bribe them, making his actions and theirs illegal, and obviously cannot publicly admit it.

2) He didn't technically "bribe" them but "bought access" in a way that stays just this side of legal, which he can admit to but has not admitted so far.

3) He donated because he genuinely supports them and what they do, which he won't admit to for political reasons.

Is there any other possibility?

damikesc said...

According to the TV news, before Tromp proposed barring all Muslim entry into the US, Jeb proposed allowing in Syrian "refugees" only if they were Christian. Why is that position "moderate" while Tromp's position is "hateful"?

In case you wonder, both positions are stupid.


Don't see why Jeb's is "stupid"? Who has a bigger claim of needing refuge than a Christian from the Middle East who have been getting eradicated for a few years now. There is an undeclared genocide on Christians in the ME.

Brando said...

"I would think that a billionaire real estate developer would be bereft of his duties if he did not sprinkle cash over many political heavyweights, including prominent democrats. What does such a donator get for his money? The same as all the rest of the big donors – who like Trump probably gave to both sides. Politics as usual."

That doesn't really explain what he gets. Big donors donate because they favor the candidate's policies (e.g., the Koch's, Soros), or because they want to be able to get attention from the people regulating them (e.g., oil companies) or in illegal instances, want to influence the candidate. If Trump had been trying to get something legit from this, why not explain what that is? Simply saying "I get her to jump" while at the same time talking about how she has done nothing but awful things makes you wonder what sort of "jump" he ever got. The kick of having her show up at his wedding makes little sense if he opposed her and her policies. If you could make a donation and get Obama at your wedding, would you do it? I wouldn't.

"This Washington Post article reveals that Clinton called Trump, so we know that Trump did not seek out Slick Willie. The article claims Clinton “encouraged” Trump. One plausible explanation? I’ll bet Clinton was ‘feeling out’ Trump, trying to see if Trump was serious about a bid for the nomination."

It's possible Clinton was just curious, though the fact that they even had a personal conversation suggests at least a friendship if not a political alliance. Perhaps Clinton didn't try to get Trump to run, and it was all neutral. Perhaps Clinton asked Trump to help his wife, and Trump said no way and decided to run on his own. But I don't think Trump fans would have given the benefit of the doubt if this exact thing happened between Bill Clinton and any of the other candidates.

"Sounds to me like Trump was thinking of running as a Democrat back then and was laying the groundwork. But I guess he finally decided the GOP would be the more appropriate party for what he wants to do. Trump is not an ideologue, if you want an ideologue, vote for one of the others."

I agree with you there--I don't think for a minute Trump believes half of what he says, and it's as likely he was genuine when talking about Romney's loss as he is now. I just don't really see why so many people are willing to trust this guy.

grackle said...

Trump could not have run as a Democrat.

Yep, sure looks like Trump made the right decision, to run as a GOP candidate. And look how well he’s done. Good judgement.

His hillbilly voters are in the Republican Party. (Hillbilly does not refer to social economic status. Instead, it refers to a mind set. There are many economically well off racist, xenophobic hillbillies. The Republican Party has for years cultivated them to be their voter base.)

Yes, it is a well-known fact that the Democrats have had a white male voter deficiency since the sixties. Those darn hillbillies will just not fall into line! It’s a big problem. But they have to be patient – white males(and white females for that matter) are a dwindling demographic group and will be no problem in 20 years – or so some believe.

So that leaves the following possible explanations for his Clinton donations: He actually did bribe them, making his actions and theirs illegal, and obviously cannot publicly admit it. He didn't technically "bribe" them but "bought access" in a way that stays just this side of legal, which he can admit to but has not admitted so far. He donated because he genuinely supports them and what they do, which he won't admit to for political reasons. Is there any other possibility?

Yes. The other possibility is that Trump the billionaire real estate mogul donated to both sides, Democrat and GOP – a practice that is common among wealthy business types. If I were wealthy I would have done the same. It’s a form of insurance. It buys access. It buys consideration. It buys influence. According to the SCOTUS it’s as legal as giving to the Salvation Army.

It’s a regular(though weak) debate tactic: Take the routine, ordinary and commonplace and try to elevate it to some sinister significance.

Actually, the threat of an independent run is all the more reason for good little repos to support him. He might be able to beat Hilary as a Repo. If he runs 3rd party, it elects Hilary (I am not positive of that myself) and there is no chance of a Repo prez.

A refreshing bit of sense amid a sea of hysteria. Aw, go ahead and be “positive.” For sure it would put Hillary in the Whitehouse. But there are always those who will actually prefer Hillary over their party’s nominee for fear their power over the GOP would disappear in a party led by Trump. The power brokers are getting extremely nervous. Billions are at stake.

Donald Trump has switched parties several times.

I keep telling folks that “parties” are irrelevant when it comes to Trump but it doesn’t seem to sink in.

To repeat: If you are looking to vote for an ideologue Trump is not your candidate. Bush, Kasich, Rubio, etc. are the best bets for party purists. Forget Trump. He’ll never make you happy.

Mike said...

I'm still of the mind that Hillary's negatives are so high and disgust with her among both the left and right is so fixed that she cannot win. Only hard-core D faithful stand with her (although Jeb!'s superPAC may or may not support her -- still not sure about where that rumor sprung from) and Trump is drawing huge numbers of blue collar voters who feel abandoned by the D party and haven't felt affinity for an R since RR in the 1980s. BOTH establishment wings of the Corporate Government Party made up of Rs and Ds in power are freaking out over Trump. Hillary's false bravado "I can't wait to face Trump" is a weak act that I don't buy. He is the one target her Alinsky tricks won't work against. He has a higher positives fixed in the general population by virtue of years of network exposure, but he hasn't supported all the R things that the D machine would usually throw at an R in the General Election, he isn't asking for tax cuts, he isn't easy to ridicule in the usual D way. His choice of subjects and his masterful way of presenting them (which in the funhouse mirror of Mainstream Media looks so different to the "experts" and "thinkers" that they literally can NOT see) appeals to the marginalized, the blue collar folk harmed by Obama's war on coal, the people disgusted by both Major Parties and their Washington ways. But most of all he provides clarity to an electorate sick to death of obfuscation and fakery, which are the hallmarks of modern government.

Want one example? Virtually NO working person in America who worries about their bills and their kids and their future is at ALL as concerned about global warming compared to radical Islam.

Want another? The electorate has been seething about illegal immigration for 30 years as all low wage workers are displaced by aliens and huge majorities don't trust either Major Party to fix the border or take the issue seriously. Like with the above issue, the nation's citizens, most of whom don't turn out to vote EVER, are mobilized this year and thankful to the clarity Trump brought to the border issue.

I still don't see a path to victory for the Hildabeast unless the Rs succeed in propping up another dead candidate like Jeb! or Kasich etc. on the crucial brokered ballots next summer. The Stupid Party does tend to lose to the Evil party quite often because of that.

Kirk Parker said...

" The national Republican Party should have never let Trump run as a Republican. But they are pretty stupid "
Stupid or not -- okay, who am I kidding, of course they're stupid -- they don't really have that power, do they?

Fernandinande said...

Once written, twice... said...
hillbilly


HillaryBillary.

Peter said...

And what, exactly, is the value of Trump's word on anything?

Trump is notorious for continuing to negotiate after he's agreed to something whenever he figures he can get a better deal by abrogating whatever he previously agreed to.

Everyday brings a fresh calculation of gain-and-loss, and Trump adjusts his actions accordingly. If Trump said something yesterday but there's a better deal today, then yesterday's something is inoperative.

How can anyone miss that basic characteristic of Trump? Or waste their time obtaining a non-enforceable agreement with him about anything?

grackle said...

Again and again, every time I read that Trump has said something outrageous, I go looking for the tape, and Trump didn't say anything like what the media is saying he said. It's always the media quoting each other on what they assume he said or meant. It's stupid.

Trump says Muslim entry into the USA should be temporarily suspended. MSM claims Trump says ALL Muslims should be banned FOREVER. Rounded up and shipped off in boxcars. Put into internment camps, etc. None of it true to anyone paying attention.

Moreover, the MSM claims and is still claiming that Trump’s suggestion is unconstitutional while actual constitutional scholars say it would be constitutional, that the SCOTUS has always ruled it constitutional.

Repeat this technique with every major Trump utterance. The public is getting wise.

That's why I'm very understanding of Trump. He will bring up the issues.

I was unfamiliar with the “Overton Window” until yesterday. If you have balls, you can change the debate to your advantage. Trump’s balls drag the ground.

If Trump said something yesterday but there's a better deal today, then yesterday's something is inoperative. How can anyone miss that basic characteristic of Trump?

We are not missing it. We Trump supporters are celebrating it! Imagine having a POTUS who is a shrewd judge in dealing with opponents instead of giving opponents like Iran everything with nothing from them in return. After 2 terms of Obama the prospect is literally breathtaking.

grackle said...

I'm still of the mind that Hillary's negatives are so high and disgust with her among both the left and right is so fixed that she cannot win.

As long as ISIS exists Hillary has an Obama/Democrat-manufactured weight around her neck. Barack needs to get cracking if he wants Hillary to win. But we all know he will not get after ISIS. He wants to leave the mess in the ME to the next POTUS, so the MSM can have fun knocking down the war-loving GOP President when troops have to be sent in.

Of course, if Hillary would win the MSM narrative would change to how ISIS should be destroyed by Hillary. They would all quickly turn into hawks.

However, when I try to picture a scenario of Hillary winning in a race with Trump, I fail. And I have a vivid imagination. I think Trump would destroy her.

Actually I’m surprised Hillary’s still in the race. I thought Obama would have indicted her already. But I didn’t factor in that she is literally all they have. There’s no one among the Democrats that would be viable in an election with which they could replace her.

And too, I believe Obama wants a long career in politics AFTER his stint as POTUS. Indicting Hillary would not be good for that. I think he will be a senator again.