The Trump way: “phony” Vander Plaats
Now, I wouldn’t think this was the way to ingratiate yourself with Iowan evangelicals—or most people, actually.
But maybe I’m just behind the times.
I hadn’t heard about this until now [hat tip: commenter “Jim“], or I probably would have incorporated the story into this post from earlier today. At any rate, it’s relevant to the topic of Trump’s treatment of people who don’t do as he would like them to, as I think you’ll see when you read it—and I suggest you read the whole thing, because the excerpt really doesn’t convey the flavor of what happened:
Donald Trump took to Twitter Tuesday to attack one of rival Ted Cruz’s more influential Iowa endorsers, Christian conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats.
“This plays to Trump’s judgment and temperament,” Vander Plaats told The Des Moines Register in response. “He will burn anybody.”
Trump, a Republican presidential candidate, unleashed multiple tweets critical of Vander Plaats, calling the CEO of the Family Leader “phony” and a “bad guy.”
“Why doesn’t phony @bobvanderplaats tell his followers all the times he asked for him and his family to stay at my hotels-didn’t like paying,” Trump tweeted Tuesday morning.
…Early on when Trump was considering running for president in 2016, he courted Vander Plaats…
“He invited my wife, Darla, and me to come to New York and he made sure we stayed with him, and he’d be offended if we stayed with anyone but him. And he refused payment,” Vander Plaats said…
Okay, that’s the background. This is the far more important part, in my opinion:
On Twitter, Trump followed up by tweeting Vander Plaats “begged me to do an event while asking organizers for $100,000 for himself ”” a bad guy!”
Vander Plaats replied “@realDonaldTrump you know that’s not true. I gave you an introduction and opportunity and you charged the guy $100K. May work in NY not IA.”
The back story there, Vander Plaats told the Register, is that in late 2014, he suggested that a good way for Trump to meet Iowans would be to come to the annual real estate conference hosted by Steve Bruere of Peoples Company.
…Trump charged Bruere money for his presence at the 2015 conference, even though Vander Plaats said he warned Trump that “he should not be charging to come into Iowa. That is not a good impression.”
Peoples Co. officials confirmed to the Register that the company paid Trump $100,000.
Vander Plaats said he was paid nothing for introducing Trump to Bruere, and no donation was made to the Family Leader….
“He’s trying to discredit my endorsement. I’m sure he’s not happy,” Vander Plaats said. “I was warned about this by plenty of others ”” if you don’t endorse him, watch out.”
And I think that Trump is well aware that others reading this story—people he would like to fall in line with him—will get the message, loud and clear, about the costs of disobeying.
As I said, read the whole thing. This really hasn’t been covered all that much, although it obviously is making the Iowa papers.
It certainly appears as though Trump is lying in this case about the fee; here’s the evidence. If so, this fits in perfectly with what I’ve already observed of Trump’s behavior, particularly what I learned from the Aberdeen story: if you cross him, he will attack you, and truth is no obstacle for him.
Trump has a very large closet that holds many skeletons.
Hey neo . . .
Ya think it’s time to create a “Trump” category for the list of archived post categories found towards the right of the screen?
M J R:
It’s way past time, I suppose [sighs]. I’m afraid to see how many posts will end up in it.
Neo: “[sighs]”
It may help to justify it that in current events, the Trump category is more than about Trump or his presidential candidacy as such.
It’s about an existential crossroads – either already arrived at or imminently approaching – for the mainstream conservatives of the Right and by second-order effect the GOP.
If I was naming the tag category, it wouldn’t be “Trump”. It would be “alt-Right” for the Left-mimicking activists driving the Trump phenomenon and their campaign to displace mainstream conservatives and take over the GOP, following the precedent of the Left’s displacement of mainstream liberals and takeover of the Democrats.
“It’s way past time, I suppose [sighs]. I’m afraid to see how many posts will end up in it.”
Just imagine what it’ll be like if he gets elected. Yikes!
I suspect that among other reasons, stories such as this are why Trump is declining to engage in tomorrow’s debate and might avoid future debates.
Of course, if stories such as this are raised in debates in which Trump does participate, he will say that Republicans are treating him unfairly, thereby justifying his considering an independent run for president.
Pretty discouraging that the likes of Clinton, Sanders and Trump just might be elected president.
@Ira:
The Fox debate is now Kiddy Show 2.
CNN is covering Trump’s Wounded Warriors event in Iowa in direct competition.
The Muslim activist and the Immigrant won’t get to ask Trump their gotcha questions.
Cruz is trying to get back into relevance by challenging Trump to a debate.
The media have talked about nothing else but the fight between Trump and Fox, depriving other candidates of any air-time.
Guess who had this, plus numerous other winning scenarios, figured out way ahead of time.
The Trump true believers scare me the same way Obama believers did when he was running.
This probably isn’t the best place to put this, but Ted Cruz tweeted out this video in honor of Trump:
PatD:
I guess if you’re a kiddie, you consider a presidential debate a kiddie show, compared to a fabulous Trump rally.
I wonder why CNN would want to carry it? Hmmm….thinking, thinking…trying to think why it would be…
Mr. Frank:
Cults of personality draw similar reactions, once they get going. Left, right, doesn’t change that fact.
They are largely awful! A flood of stupid personal insults, no substantive engagement, and they are all about the feels. Everything Trump does amazing! masterful! fantastic! Trump “pwns” everyone, especially cuckservative Fixed News. Sick burn!!! They’ve all bought into the progressive mantra that politics is personal, all evidence to the contrary. Trump is their own personal Jesus, someone to hear their prayers someone who cares. It’s pitiful and infuriating simultaneously.
Funny how PatD keeps insisting he’s not a fan of Trump, then belittles the debates or other candidates in regal Trumpian fashion.
More drama.
I heard a little bit of Glen Beck tonight and he asserts he has dirt on Donald. Trump is allegedly ruining people (jobs lost) and others are being quiet because they are in fear.
We will see.
OlderandWheezier:
I don’t think PatD has ever denied being a Trump fan. He’s not a troll however; he usually tries to argue for his points.
AMartel:
Actually, only some have bought into that. Others just want to destroy the Republican Party and think Trump is a good vehicle to do it. And some of that latter group is on the right, some on the left.
It’s an interesting troika.
Some may also be paid by Trump; have no idea if that’s true or not, but it’s possible.
I
PatD:
Speaking of fabulous Trump rallies:
@neo-neocon: Let’s see which channel gets the ratings tomorrow night. The undercard debate has been called the Kiddy Show. Without Trump, I doubt the second debate will draw anything like the ratings of previous debates. So, to my mind, that makes it Kiddy Show 2. If I’m wrong, and Fox maintains its ratings, I will cease and desist from calling Presidential debates “Kiddy Shows”.
Would CNN like to beat Fox? Sure. Would they like to grab audience share? Sure. If Trump presents them with a golden opportunity, CNN will go for it. We never used to watch CNN, but have started watching them much more this election cycle.
@neo-neocon (again): The sources you cite on Vander Plaats (The Des Moines Register and Redstate) have a history of opposing Trump. It was Redstate that excluded Trump from a conservative event and the Des Moines Register has been feuding with Trump for months. Maybe the clams about Trump are true, but I’d like less biased sourcing.
@OlderandWheezier: I’m a declared Trump supporter. I have three issues and Trump is steadfast on all three.
@Cornhead: My wife started a Glenn Beck 9-12 Group and it was successful. We enjoyed his stint at Fox News for a while. But then he went sort of strange, so we backed away. He is totally in the tank for Cruz, so I wouldn’t break out the champagne just yet.
@neo-neocon:
No actual organizations have been named. Some deserving organizations that support veterans will receive checks after the event. Will they cash them or return them? Their choice.
PatD:
I already responded to your remarks about ratings for tomorrow, here. It’s normal for ratings to continue to go down with each debate, and I expect this one will be lower, as well. If they are a lot lower, it could be for any number of reasons—including the loss of Democrats who have no intention of voting in the GOP primaries but just watch it for the entertainment of Trump’s presence. Or it could be that even Republicans won’t want to watch without Trump.
I’m not watching tomorrow, but that’s because I have another engagement that evening.
Your point about RedState and the newspaper being biased sources is irrelevant, although they certainly are anti-Trump. That doesn’t matter if the facts are true. It it was an opinion piece, I’d say you had a point. This is news, which appear to be fully substantiated. Trump lied through his teeth. If that turns out to be untrue, then you can say that the bias of the source mattered, and I would probably agree.
Do you really mean to suggest that you only believe something bad about Trump if it’s reported by one of his fan clubs? Absurd.
If a liberal paper reports something true about a conservative I like, for example, it’s still true.
And it’s interesting that you use that approach rather than responding to the news itself. Since it appears to be true that Trump did what the paper says he did, can you manage to react to it? The substance of it, rather than the messenger? Would a lie like that by Trump trouble you?
I just want to take the donald up on his stabbing claim… well only just to watch him empty his bowels if he would seriously take me up on my offer about his belt buckle. In fact I would let him don kevlar.
What an ignorant, pompus buffoon!
I grew up in Iowa, but haven’t been back for many years. Still, I can’t believe that the people there have changed too much.
I’ve also lived in New York, and liked most of the people I met there. Trump represents some of the worst qualities of a very small minority of New Yorkers. More accurately, his public persona is a caricature of that, and of himself. In other words, he’s one of the biggest phonies in politics. He’s also completely different from what most Iowans respect in a man.
If Trump wins the Iowa caucuses, then it’s a measure of one thing: the anger of the white working class and lower middle class. This will overwhelm every other candidate, issue, and policy. Nothing else will matter.
And if Trump can win in Iowa, he will win everywhere, but all the polls show he can’t win the presidency. So say hello to our first female felon president.
“Proceeds to be donated to veterans.” Proceeds from what? Is he charging for admission to a campaign event? I actually received an invitation and it said admission was free. And does the auditorium he is using allow for admission to be charged without affecting things like insurance coverage and local taxes? Or perhaps Trump will just make a personal donation to veterans. Good for him, but that is not “proceeds.” There are some unanswered questions out there. I wonder when (if ever) we’ll get answers. Probably not from journalists, who are cowed by Trump and probably not eager to ask questions.
F,
The proceeds will magically appear from the rear ends of trump’s stable of unicorns. the donald says it is so, so of course it is so. “It depends upon what the meaning of is is.” Deja vu’ all over again.
I knew I didn’t like Trump, and that he could be an ass. This is mafia-like.
Cornflour:
I don’t know why you would say that if Trump wins Iowa, he wins the whole thing.
Firstly, Iowa has never been a typical state, nor have its results been predictive. I think, however, what you mean is that Trump being able to win in Iowa is exactly what you wouldn’t expect, so if he does, that means his appeal is enormous.
But all polls in all the states where Trump is leading say approximately the same thing: 1/3 of the GOP primary voters want him. Basically, the voters are voting 2/3 against Trump.
The real question is how fast other candidates will drop out, who will drop out, and where their votes will go. If no one drops out, and the votes continue to be split, Trump could win or it could go to a brokered conventions. If people start dropping out, their votes will go to someone, and according to polls where people choose a #2, most of those votes wouldn’t go to Trump.
So unless he starts winning outright, with majorities, it’s still up in the air.
A bunch of Trump’s supporters have been going around the entire blogosphere, spreading the mantra, “If Trump wins Iowa, he wins the whole thing.” Or alternatively, “Trump’s already won.” They say it over and over, and then I’ve heard people who don’t support Trump repeat it over and over, demoralized. But mathematically and logically, I don’t see it.
Which isn’t to say that Trump can’t win. He can. But it remains to be seen.
Another thing I see people say is “Trump’s support keeps going up and up.” I haven’t seen that. It certainly was true through the summer and early fall. But it’s been pretty stable for quite a while. In Iowa, Trump was leading, then Cruz pulled ahead, now Trump’s ahead but it’s close and depends on turnout. Trump’s greatest strength is with Independents, not party members, and I wonder if these Independents are trying to screw things up for the GOP? No way of knowing. Only 48% of those polled (in a poll I just glanced at) say they are completely certain of their vote. About 15% are either totally undecided or fairly undecided.
There have been no polls taken after Trump’s announcement about the debate, or after this Vander Plaats thing. I have no idea if that would change anything.
Matt_SE:
There is actually quite a bit of evidence going way back that this is the way he operates. He lied quite a bit in the Scotland golf situation, including lying to the government (or perhaps misrepresenting?) about how much money he planned to invest, in order to get the Scottish government to waive some environmental rules and allow him to build the golf course. Later it was revealed he didn’t spend anywhere near that much money or create anything like the number of jobs he said he would. They felt he double-crossed them.
Then later he got into a Twitter feud with Salmond (see this—which just happened last month, and was hardly reported on—and this is the guy who says he gets along with everyone and isn’t nasty!!!).
I’m attempting to write a piece about it—the Scots mostly hate his guts at this point.
@F:
As the crowds roll in they will be solicited for donations to veteran’s causes by volunteers. They’ll drop $5 here, $10 there and at the end of the day, Trump has raised 10,000 x $5 or $50k minimum. Peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Trump will write a check that makes it a respectable number and a lot of money goes off to Veterans charities. THose who didn’t want it won’t be getting any of it.
He’s used to writing $32,400 checks to the RNC and related organizations so doing a one-timer like this will be Trump-change.
PatD:
Trump’s not been much of a philanthropist, considering his wealth.
Neo:
Yes, I was saying that Trump is completely contrary to what Iowans respect and value, so if he can win there, he will win everywhere. Most people who support him care little about the issues. It’s pure raw anger.
I expect some candidates will drop out after New Hampshire, so South Carolina will show us how their few supporters divvy themselves up. If Trump wins Iowa, then I think the rage barometer indicates that Trump will win South Carolina and beyond. If Trump doesn’t win Iowa, then maybe anger won’t overwhelm every other issue. If that’s so, then maybe the drop-outs will matter.
@neo-neocon: I would like confirmation from neutral sources, not agenda driven sources. If a Trumpster denied the story, it would not help me.
A 10% drop in ratings would be expected. A 50% drop would not. Let’s see. I’m betting a yuuge drop in ratings for Fox.
Trump winning Iowa causes Cruz huge problems because he bet the bank on Iowa. Then he HAS to win New Hampshire or South Carolina to stay viable. He isn’t doing well enough there, and Texas is too far away.
If Cruz loses. then it is the gaggle of establishment supported Republicans fighting to get to the top of the heap in the next two states. Let’s suppose Jeb’s surprise NH poll numbers are real and he finishes 2nd or 3rd. Then he can go to SC with some confidence. Same with Rubio.
But, as super Tuesday approaches, the gaggle will still be squabbling. If the GOPe wants to stop Trump, it needs to get behind one candidate and force the rest out. It won’t be Cruz. It is probably between Bush and Rubio. Carly might have been a good choice but she’s faded from the radar.
I hate to be optimistic before the first vote is cast and I hate to trust polls, but the race is now Trump’s to lose.
PatD:
The confirmation is from the people who paid Trump the $100,000, as reported by the Des Moines Register.
You think the Des Moines Register just made it up? And no one in the Trump camp, or from the group that is reported to have said they paid the $100,000, has seen fit to challenge it? You think the Des Moines Register would take that risk? What would you take as proof? If the Breitbart site said it? Would that be enough? Or do you require proof in a court of law?
The Des Moines Register is not a fan of Trump, for sure, but this is something so easily verified that it’s hard to see how they could think they would get away with it, if it was a lie, especially with a guy like Trump.
At any rate, I posed a hypothetical, and you didn’t answer it. Imagine that it’s true, since we have no evidence that it’s not true. What would you think if Trump did that? You seem awfully reluctant to answer.
10,000 x $5? PatD, “What a fool believes he sees. No wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be.” My only meager power is to drive down gravel roads to knock on doors in Iowa to defeat the donald on the first of many battle fields.You seem to think the donald is the solution, but the donald is the same old same old with a paparazzi veneer. Witnessed that in 2008 and 2012, its dangerous and boring.
PatD may be a dnc mole. “The almighty says, just answer the fucking question.” The trumpsters when confronted with verifible facts refuse to answer the fucking question.
Goodnight all, including trump chumps. Tomorrow I will drive the rural, gravel roads of Dubuque County knocking on doors for Cruz. One farm house by farm house we shall overcome the donald.
This tale is likely to have Trump falling Plaat.
For he is digitally on the hook for lying about relations with a highly honorable fellow.
THIS … right in the shadow of the caucus voting.
Hoisted, I’d say.
&&&&
With Ted Cruz you have a dream candidate.
He’s so dreamy that he gives the GOPe nightmares — and Hillary cold sweats.
The gravy train IS the problem — so it’s no wonder that its engineers — a the throttle — are frantic about suffering a board room shake up.
Considering the chopping ahead // a head — Carly would be a natural fit as the heads-man.
I believe the task ahead is so huge that Ted will need to have a VERY thick skinned Vice president.
The duo would be the first:
Latino President
Female Vice president.
That’d be a studied contrast to Hillary first:
hyphenated President
pre-pardoned President
most corrupt President — EVER
Stalinist President
Neo makes a great point that nearly 65% of GOP voters want someone OTHER than Trump.
As Bush, Paul, Carson, Huckabee etc drop out, where do their voters go? Not Trump. That’s why I think this race goes on for a long time.
eo-neocon Says at 12:19 am:
“Then later he got into a Twitter feud with Salmond (see this–which just happened last month, and was hardly reported on–and this is the guy who says he gets along with everyone and isn’t nasty!!!)”
I looked up the link Neo provided to prove how nasty Trump is and low and behold Trump is on the right side on the issue. Trump says we have a problem with Islam and Salmond claims that Islam is just peachy and that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. If that is the basis of their argument then cheers to Trump.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12055057/Donald-Trump-calls-Alex-Salmond-totally-irrelevant-has-been.html
i bet he did ask for 100k… pay to play..
its the norm now, not the outlier we protest on…
but hey… bernie is paranoid like most socialists, and wants microsoft to be investigated that bill gates is somehow going to manipulate the outcome… while hillary says she will consider putting Obama up for a judgeship in the supreme court.
life is a comedo-trajedy..
Wooly Bully Says: Trump has a very large closet that holds many skeletons.
If that were true they would be parading them out and making them dance the charleston on stage… just look at cosby and others who didnt tow the line… two supreme court justices, and others too… its been modus operandi (if you study detailed history) for over 150 years.
PatD Says: The sources you cite on Vander Plaats (The Des Moines Register and Redstate) have a history of opposing Trump.
In all the years i have lived in nyc, and have watched trump till i met him, he has NEVER had good press. he has ALWAYS been hated by the liberal press for one reason or another, ranging from his money, the idea he got a leg up from inheritance, that he didnt make as much as he could have if he did something that didnt exist when he got the cash, that he showed how poor union nyc state workers are by fixing the rink, how they hate that he puts his name on his work, that his hair is not great, that he got divorced (though his ex likes him, and stands up for him, which is more than i can say for most wealthy divorces), his opinions, etc.
When has he EVER got good press?
what drives me crazy is that the people who complain about the press being this way and that, forget their own points on that the second the subject changes as if the concept is isolated, and then go on to pretend that what thye know is valid, despite complaining about how bad and invalid the press is.
its inane at best…
PatD Says: No actual organizations have been named.
“Wounded Warriors” is the name of the organization
Wounded Warrior Project
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/
Snarker Says: The proceeds will magically appear from the rear ends of trump’s stable of unicorns.
you mean like obamas, hillaries, and all the other leftist ideas that need to be paid?
sorry, but many of these people collect speaking fees, its been a staple of the lefts appearances… you really should get with the program rather than think that something that has gone on for 40 years is new, and to be derisive about..
besides, your points on bad trump only apply if you agree on non points being points and want to commiserate in hate…
i would prefer something of substanve that doesnt show that a person has amnezia about the fact the press hates him and always has… never ever ever has he been portrayed in a non negative light… and THAT controls your opionion more than anything else, and you would know that if you ever sat in a studio and watch them do the work and what they select
for instance… ever notice that trump stuff is always close up to avoid showing you a crowd? or they come in tight on a white section of the crowd to insure you dont see others… kind of like when they tried to get everyone in tizzy about how the whites were bringing guns to the tea party stuff in texas, and the image was actually a black man carrying, but they cropped it.. or neos discussions on how they cropped the image of Phuck who was running from vietnamese.. or how the polar bears are drowning by using an image that was never intended and relied on the fact people know crap about polar bears.. and then global warming.. you can keep you doctor… no one is starving in ukrain in holodomar, but nice pulitzer, etc
one second your complainging about dirty water
the next second you drinking coffee made from it and thinking the coffee is bad, not the water…
hitler, eichman, stalin, etc were all right…
they knwo that you can be played with and your ego will defend your not played with and that there is no need to adjust your verticle or horizontal..
silly…
you cant expect them to stop that crop if it works so well and is self defended..
Trump’s not been much of a philanthropist, considering his wealth.
you realize that leftists as a group and even leaders donate less… and that many of their donations are to organizations that are manipulating things so they get credit for funding bad stuff..
and who the hell are we to judge philanthropy and decide what others should do with their money?
after all, doesnt that allow those in power to be telling you what to do with it? doesnt that make that whole thing a manipulative thing?
does donating 28 million to stuff that isnt all that politically beneficial worth more than donating to code pink?
this is getting really asinine as we jump on like communist party members and big judges and that when a candidate is wealthy and does what he wants just as you do, and its not what you imagine he/she should do… they are aweful
ever realize that the reason lottery winners mostly go broke and have nothing and not to seldom end up worse and on welfare is cause they do exactly what people are clamoring for them to do, help family, give to charities, etc.
then they become the charity
besides, we forget that he has created a place where 30,000 people are employed, get education benefits and more… but thats not on the list..
so there you have hillary, creating foundations to get credit to donate other countries money to sociliast fronts, and she has 100 million and is poor and gives squat and makes no jobs
and ther youhave a man who employs over 30,000, has given nearly a quarter of the worth of the clintons, has no socliast fronts and has yet to even try to cash in on it… heck, if he wanted to game you, i guess all he has to do is give more
let me know when you find a candidate that is at least beatified…
blert Says: This tale is likely to have Trump falling Plaat. / For he is digitally on the hook for lying about relations with a highly honorable fellow.
relationships change…
ask anyone who has been divorced…
you can show happy wedding photos, and horrid ends
duh
this has nothing to do with your ability to administrate
and only has bearing on the old school people who think that X should behave proper and so on..
its ridiculous…
you want someone who can break balls
or else you want to lose the nation to the “new”‘s
how about being an alcholic or drug user? that seems to be ok…
[trump has more in common with past presidents we are ignorant of than current milqutoats who cant even walk through a gate wiht an umbrella]
John Adams John Adams could really tear it up. When he got into Harvard at age 15, he was regularly drinking beer for breakfast.
Martin van Buren. Martin van Buren used to drink so much that, apparently, he developed an Andre the Giant-esque tolerance. He could drink for days and not show any signs of being intoxicated, so his friends gave him the nickname “Blue Whiskey Van.”
Franklin Pierce. Franklin Pierce might have been America’s MOST alcoholic president. When the Democratic party decided not to re-nominate Pierce after his first term in office, he told reporters, “There’s nothing left but to get drunk.” Holla, Franklin Pierce.
[edited for length by n-n]
Dennis Says: Then later he got into a Twitter feud with Salmond
first of all you got the name wrong, second i have sat with Mr Rushdie, and he is a total boorish ass way beyond trump who remembered me and my conversation with him after a year had passed…
you cant imagine how much of an ass Rushdie is… his wife was nice, he was incredible to the point that he often has to leave venues early as the mood changes around him.
and if you dont believe me, here are photos that friends took of him at fashion week when i was a photo journalist… (you cant see my stuff cause i dont put up my name)
http://tinyurl.com/gr29rfl
the donald never came to fashion week, i met him at other press conferences… there was no need for him to be nice, the upper crusties are usually nasty, ignore you, or kiss your butt to move up the list chain from B to A… or be printed as they know if i dont post the image they dont appear in the news.
now ask me about the time i spent with lots of these people and know many of them personally…
yet, you guys think you know someone from their public image and media constructions created by leftists who want a state change to a velvet hand a iron fist…
crazy…
even more so that under equality and such experience counts for nothing and imagination as long as its PC is everyting..
ArtfldgrsGhost Says:
“Wooly Bully Says: Trump has a very large closet that holds many skeletons.
If that were true they would be parading them out and making them dance the charleston on stage… just look at cosby and others who didnt tow the line… two supreme court justices, and others too… its been modus operandi (if you study detailed history) for over 150 years.”
The Democrats and their media allies currently have no motivation to do that; they’re saving them in case Trump gets nominated. If he does, they’ll start releasing them gradually, one-by-one, until election day. Trump is the one “Republican” candidate who could actually get Hillary or Sanders elected president.
Artfldgr:
Your arguments for Trump in this thread seem to be “other people have been worse” in this trait or that.
That really wouldn’t convince a lot of people.
Trump, by the way, is a teetotaler (as you probably know).
Miscellaneous information:
The current primary system came together in 1976. Since then, there have been 7 Democratic races without an incumbent and 6 Republican. Iowa and New Hampshire chose different people 10 out of 13 times. The three cases where the states chose the same candidate were all on the Democratic side.
When Iowa and New Hampshire disagree on the Republican nominee, the winner in New Hampshire is more likely to win the nomination (4 times out of 6). When there’s a disagreement on the Democratic side, they’ve gone with the winner in Iowa twice, New Hampshire once, and in 1992 they chose Bill Clinton who had won neither.
Dennis:
Trump has been feuding with Salmond since long before the Muslim thing, and they’ve been insulting each other as a result. Trump was right about the Muslim part and wrong about the rest, but the Muslim part is late in the game.
Trump had promised Salmond—and Scotland—that he’d invest a certain amount of money and create a certain number of jobs. He invested far far less and created far far less, after Salmond stuck his neck out for him and got waivers to allow him to build the course. Trump conned Salmond and Scotland, and Salmond was mad at him.
Great dealmaker, nice guy, everyone happy, not a nasty guy like Cruz? Exactly the opposite is the case. And it ain’t about what Trump said about Muslims—it happened long before that, and it’s about Trump’s lies and his treatment of the little people he tried to make leave their property.
Please forgive as the people i am quoting are long winded old fashioned smart people who gave real answers and not short snarks… you know when books had more than 200 pages in large type without pictures, newspapers did not seem like comic strips (complete with made up talking balloons), and music and movies where hours long not 2:45…
neo-neocon Says: Your arguments for Trump in this thread seem to be “other people have been worse” in this trait or that.
no.. though i would agree if that was my point, but thats if you focus on ME and not the bs crapola… ie. the main arguments are “trump is so bad”, as if others are more saintly in some way, or the past was cleaner… thats THEIR argument… not mine… i have been asking for arguments as to administration ability, real understanding of economics, understanding how taxes affect business and productivity, and so on.
[edited for length by n-n]
this is necessary to make my point from the prior post.. i am again sorry… these points and people are wordy.. and some are dead so i cant write to them to get a better quote. 🙂
again..
you keep searching for saints to serve and your going to make a farce of diogenes and Milton Friedman from his phil donohue interview
this is a tiny part…
Milton Friedman: Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Phil Donohue: Seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.
Milton Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think… American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted.
And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.
sorry.. but out of context it doesnt have the same impact..
Keep searching for your socialist angels who dont say bad words, are not economically interested like a monk, dont work for themselves (so trust them when they say its all for you) and more and more
i prefer to deal with reality… and everyone of the people professing to be that have been quite the horror in power.. and some of the worst blowhards and agressive men (And women: thatcher) have been the BEST in history…
this just came up lost the link… sorry..
Today the editors of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal slammed GOP frontrunner Donald Trump for his opposition to the publication’s long-standing support for open border trade and immigration policies. The Wall Street Journal, like Murdoch, is decidedly open borders. In 1984, the WSJ editorial board wrote, “If Washington still wants to ‘do something’ about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.” Breitbart News has previously exposed how Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful open borders immigration lobbying firms in the country, the Partnership For A New American Economy..
neo-neocon Says 1:07 pm:
“Trump was right about the Muslim part and wrong about the rest, but the Muslim part is late in the game.”
Somehow I’m not surprised. That is what is so frustrating about Trump, he is spot on at times, but he is such a nasty piece of work no one can trust him.
Cornhead Says:
As Bush, Paul, Carson, Huckabee etc drop out, where do their voters go? Not Trump. That’s why I think this race goes on for a long time.
Unfortunately, no matter who ends up the nominee, they will have spent an ungodly amount of money beating each other up – as always – doing the Marxists’ oppo research for them, and go into the general depleted of energy and resources, with tattered images to boot, while the ten thousand leftist 501cs are just getting started with billions of dollars behind them, and the media turning viciously on the R candidate. It’s really a wonder we ever win.
I can’t even count the number of bad, i.e. RINO or worse, candidates we’ve gotten just since the Tea Parties began in 2009. The damn Tea Parties couldn’t even agree in the same race most of the time, backing multiple candidates, allowing the incumbents and RNC choices to win with bare pluralities, who then disappointed conservatives in office – as always.
Self-identified conservatives supposedly make up 40% of the voters, so why can’t we win? Because the left is relatively united in their quest for power, and we pull in so many different directions at once. We really needed someone who could unite conservatives, who could tap into the anger on the right like Trump does.
Also unfortunately, the one we got is Trump, and he and his supporters are determined to trash anyone that criticizes or threatens him, including what should be his natural allies on the right.
If Trump really was a Trojan horse for Hillary, what would he be doing differently?
ArtfldgrsGhost Says at 12:15 pm:
“Dennis Says: Then later he got into a Twitter feud with Salmond
first of all you got the name wrong, second i have sat with Mr Rushdie, and he is a total boorish ass way beyond trump…”
Art, I believe that you may be talking about a different person. Are you discussing Salmon Rushdie the author of The Satanic Verses?
Art @1:49pm-
Great post on Milton Friedman.
I think Trump would appreciate it too.
There is a modest difference, perhaps, between “Make America Great Again” and “Hope and Change.”
Frog:
Not really, because both are just empty phrases that allow everyone to fill them in with their own most fervent wishes.
I’ll riddle you this:
Do you really believe that Trump can “make America great again” by making deals with hardcore leftists like Pelosi and Schumer, both of whom he says he likes and gets along fabulously with? Even if he really wants to build that wall, he’ll have them, the bureaucracy and the media slowing him down, reducing the height and the media attacking him for his lack of empathy and humanity.
We simply cannot make deals with Marxists anymore. Doing so for the last 70 years is how we incrementally got where we are now. If we can keep the Senate, we need someone who is going to use all the Constitutional power available to even begin to turn this ship around. Pelosi and Schumer should be cut out of it as much as possible. It’s what they would do to us.
But it appears right now the only people he’s willing to get “nasty” with are on the right. When does he intent to show how he can get “nasty” with the biggest problem – the left?
The Trumpening is yet another case of True Believers finding a new idol.
As Eric Hoffer put it, True Believers shift from one cause to another.
They can’t shake its magic.
On a phone. If the trump scandals were as claimed everyone. Would be all other them.
Cav was ok. Pag was brilliant.
Looks Trump has raised $5M and counting. Cruz seems to have had a bad night.