MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html
It’s hard to know exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the “stupid party.”
…
The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican predecessors only pretended to be.
Mr. Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Quds Force and the Kurds. He can’t identify the nuclear triad, the American strategic nuclear arsenal’s delivery system. He had never heard of Brexit until a few weeks before the vote. He thinks the Constitution has 12 Articles rather than seven. He uses the vocabulary of a fifth grader. Most damning of all, he traffics in off-the-wall conspiracy theories by insinuating that President Obama was born in Kenya and that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It is hardly surprising to read Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Mr. Trump’s best seller “The Art of the Deal,” say, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.”
Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The Washington Post that he reached decisions “with very little knowledge,” but on the strength of his “common sense” and his “business ability.” Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability to get to the gist of an issue, he said: “I’m a very efficient guy.” What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked where he got military advice, he replied, “I watch the shows.”
Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars. He called for tariff increases that experts warn will cost millions of jobs and plunge the country into a recession. He claimed that Mexican immigrants were “bringing crime” even though research consistently shows that immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native-born. He promised that Mexico would pay for a border wall, even though no regional expert thinks that will ever happen.
Mr. Trump also proposed barring Muslims from entering the country despite terrorism researchers, myself included, warning that his plan would likely backfire, feeding the Islamic State’s narrative that the war on terrorism is really a war on Islam. He has since revised that proposal and would now bar visitors from countries that have a “proven history of terrorism” — overlooking that pretty much every country, including every major American ally, has a history of terrorism.
Recently, he declared that he would not necessarily come to the aid of the Baltic republics if they were attacked by Russia, apparently not knowing or caring that Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty obliges the United States to defend any NATO member under attack. Last week, Mr. Trump even invited Russia’s intelligence agencies to hack the emails of a former secretary of state — something impossible to imagine any previous presidential nominee doing. It is genuinely terrifying that someone who advances such offensive and ridiculous proposals could win the nomination of a party once led by Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote more books than Mr. Trump has probably read. It’s one thing to appeal to voters by pretending to be an average guy. It’s another to be an average guy who doesn’t know the first thing about governing or public policy.
The Trump acolytes claim it doesn’t matter; he can hire experts to advise him. But experts always disagree with one another and it is the president alone who must make the most difficult decisions in the world. That’s not something he can do since he lacks the most basic grounding in the issues and is prey to fundamental misconceptions.
In a way, the joke’s on the Republican Party: After decades of masquerading as the “stupid party,” that’s what it has become. But if an unapologetic ignoramus wins the presidency, the consequences will be no laughing matter.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html
It’s hard to know exactly when the Republican Party assumed the mantle of the “stupid party.”
…
The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican predecessors only pretended to be.
Mr. Trump doesn’t know the difference between the Quds Force and the Kurds. He can’t identify the nuclear triad, the American strategic nuclear arsenal’s delivery system. He had never heard of Brexit until a few weeks before the vote. He thinks the Constitution has 12 Articles rather than seven. He uses the vocabulary of a fifth grader. Most damning of all, he traffics in off-the-wall conspiracy theories by insinuating that President Obama was born in Kenya and that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It is hardly surprising to read Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Mr. Trump’s best seller “The Art of the Deal,” say, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.”
Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The Washington Post that he reached decisions “with very little knowledge,” but on the strength of his “common sense” and his “business ability.” Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability to get to the gist of an issue, he said: “I’m a very efficient guy.” What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked where he got military advice, he replied, “I watch the shows.”
Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars. He called for tariff increases that experts warn will cost millions of jobs and plunge the country into a recession. He claimed that Mexican immigrants were “bringing crime” even though research consistently shows that immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native-born. He promised that Mexico would pay for a border wall, even though no regional expert thinks that will ever happen.
Mr. Trump also proposed barring Muslims from entering the country despite terrorism researchers, myself included, warning that his plan would likely backfire, feeding the Islamic State’s narrative that the war on terrorism is really a war on Islam. He has since revised that proposal and would now bar visitors from countries that have a “proven history of terrorism” — overlooking that pretty much every country, including every major American ally, has a history of terrorism.
Recently, he declared that he would not necessarily come to the aid of the Baltic republics if they were attacked by Russia, apparently not knowing or caring that Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty obliges the United States to defend any NATO member under attack. Last week, Mr. Trump even invited Russia’s intelligence agencies to hack the emails of a former secretary of state — something impossible to imagine any previous presidential nominee doing. It is genuinely terrifying that someone who advances such offensive and ridiculous proposals could win the nomination of a party once led by Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote more books than Mr. Trump has probably read. It’s one thing to appeal to voters by pretending to be an average guy. It’s another to be an average guy who doesn’t know the first thing about governing or public policy.
The Trump acolytes claim it doesn’t matter; he can hire experts to advise him. But experts always disagree with one another and it is the president alone who must make the most difficult decisions in the world. That’s not something he can do since he lacks the most basic grounding in the issues and is prey to fundamental misconceptions.
In a way, the joke’s on the Republican Party: After decades of masquerading as the “stupid party,” that’s what it has become. But if an unapologetic ignoramus wins the presidency, the consequences will be no laughing matter.
THE GREAT TRUMP TAX MYSTERIES: IS HE HIDING LOOPHOLES, ERRORS, OR SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS?
Why won’t Donald Trump release his taxes? An investigation into the G.O.P. candidate’s finances—the extensive deductions he could claim, the F.E.C. filings from his Scottish and Irish golf resorts, and his declarations to the British government—reveals a disturbing pattern of mistakes, hype, and contradictions.
The Great Trump Tax Mysteries: Is He Hiding Loopholes, Errors, or Something More Serious?
Donald Trump Ducks Tax Disclosure
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/donald-trump-ducks-tax-disclosure.html
Why won’t Donald Trump release his taxes? An investigation into the G.O.P. candidate’s finances—the extensive deductions he could claim, the F.E.C. filings from his Scottish and Irish golf resorts, and his declarations to the British government—reveals a disturbing pattern of mistakes, hype, and contradictions.
The Great Trump Tax Mysteries: Is He Hiding Loopholes, Errors, or Something More Serious?
Donald Trump Ducks Tax Disclosure
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/donald-trump-ducks-tax-disclosure.html
More praise here for Trump from Russian MP & chair of Duma foreign affairs committee [Alexei Pushkov]. Trump supports Putin's policies.
Заявив, что большинство жителей Крыма выбрали Россию, а не Украину, Трамп показал себя куда большим демократом, чем Обама или Х. Клинтон. [Stating that the majority of Crimean residents chose Russia, not Ukraine, Trump has shown itself far more democracy than Obama or Hillary Clinton.]
Заявив, что большинство жителей Крыма выбрали Россию, а не Украину, Трамп показал себя куда большим демократом, чем Обама или Х. Клинтон. [Stating that the majority of Crimean residents chose Russia, not Ukraine, Trump has shown itself far more democracy than Obama or Hillary Clinton.]
"If individual Republicans don't break off their support for Trump's candidacy now—by, say, withdrawing their endorsements—they run the risk of having no choice but to do so after Trump sinks even further into wretchedness and depravity, to a point of true no return. (Presumably there is such a point.) At that juncture, their move will look unprincipled and desperate, leaving them stained—perhaps irrevocably—with their previous willingness to stick by him during much of his descent, and depriving their break with him of whatever moral force it might have had if done earlier."
— Greg Sargent, in the Washington Post, with a very important observation about Republicans who continue to stand behind Trump, even as his ruthless and reckless scoundrelly reaches its nadir. Or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/01/the-khan-family-highlights-a-huge-gop-problem-no-one-knows-how-low-trump-can-go/ (The Khan fight highlights a huge GOP problem: No one knows how low Trump can go)
— Greg Sargent, in the Washington Post, with a very important observation about Republicans who continue to stand behind Trump, even as his ruthless and reckless scoundrelly reaches its nadir. Or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/01/the-khan-family-highlights-a-huge-gop-problem-no-one-knows-how-low-trump-can-go/ (The Khan fight highlights a huge GOP problem: No one knows how low Trump can go)
“Every time it is demonstrated that Donald Trump is plainly ignorant about some basic public policy issue, some well known fact, he comes back with a certain bravado and tries to explain it away with a tweet or a statement. He did it on Brexit. He did it on the nuclear triad. He did it really on how U.S. debt markets work. He thought that Tim Kaine was the governor of New Jersey. And now with this,” he said.
“It’s sort of amusing to watch — how’s he going to pull it off this time? What is he going to argue? Usually he adds that the press hates him. But there’s a term for this kind of thing. This is the mode of a bullshit artist,” Zakaria added.
Such antics “can be amusing, it’s entertaining if the guy is trying to sell you a condo or a car,” he continued, “but for President of the United States it’s deeply worrying.”
“It’s sort of amusing to watch — how’s he going to pull it off this time? What is he going to argue? Usually he adds that the press hates him. But there’s a term for this kind of thing. This is the mode of a bullshit artist,” Zakaria added.
Such antics “can be amusing, it’s entertaining if the guy is trying to sell you a condo or a car,” he continued, “but for President of the United States it’s deeply worrying.”
How Paul Manafort Wielded Power in Ukraine Before Advising Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
WASHINGTON — Few political consultants have had a client fail quite as spectacularly as Paul Manafort’s did in Ukraine in the winter of 2014.
President Viktor F. Yanukovych, who owed his election to, as an Americandiplomat put it, an “extreme makeover” Mr. Manafort oversaw, bolted the country in the face of violent street protests. He found sanctuary in Russia and never returned, as his patron, President Vladimir V. Putin, proceeded to dismember Ukraine, annexing Crimea and fomenting a war in two other provinces that continues.
Mr. Manafort was undaunted.
Within months of his client’s political demise, he went to work seeking to bring his disgraced party back to power, much as he had Mr. Yanukovych himself nearly a decade earlier. Mr. Manafort has already had some success, with former Yanukovych loyalists — and some Communists — forming a new bloc opposing Ukraine’s struggling pro-Western government.
And now Mr. Manafort has taken on a much larger campaign, seeking to turn Donald J. Trump into a winning presidential candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
WASHINGTON — Few political consultants have had a client fail quite as spectacularly as Paul Manafort’s did in Ukraine in the winter of 2014.
President Viktor F. Yanukovych, who owed his election to, as an Americandiplomat put it, an “extreme makeover” Mr. Manafort oversaw, bolted the country in the face of violent street protests. He found sanctuary in Russia and never returned, as his patron, President Vladimir V. Putin, proceeded to dismember Ukraine, annexing Crimea and fomenting a war in two other provinces that continues.
Mr. Manafort was undaunted.
Within months of his client’s political demise, he went to work seeking to bring his disgraced party back to power, much as he had Mr. Yanukovych himself nearly a decade earlier. Mr. Manafort has already had some success, with former Yanukovych loyalists — and some Communists — forming a new bloc opposing Ukraine’s struggling pro-Western government.
And now Mr. Manafort has taken on a much larger campaign, seeking to turn Donald J. Trump into a winning presidential candidate.
To the Go-Along Republicans
Memo to Paul Ryan: Trump’s problem is his character, not his ‘ideas.’
To the Go-Along Republicans
There’s an old saying that in politics there are no permanent victories—and no permanent defeats. Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964 but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in 1996 and 14 years later we got ObamaCare.
The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Liberals overreach. Statist solutions fail. Voters tire of one-party rule. To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign-policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal. If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is—an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue—they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency. I know I do.
But to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn’t mean there is no permanent dishonor. Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy and Bull Connor are the foul names of America’s 20th century, and always will be. And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.
This is where Republicans now find themselves with their presidential nominee. Of all of Donald Trump’s vile irruptions—about Sen. John McCain’s military record, or reporter Serge Kovaleski’s physical handicap, or Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s judicial fitness—his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest.
This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention.
No: What makes Mr. Trump’s remarks so foul is their undisguised sadism. He took a woman too heartbroken and anxious to speak of her dead son before an audience of millions and painted a target on her. He treated her silence as evidence that she was either a dolt or a stooge. He degraded her. “She was standing there. She had nothing to say,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
In this comment there was the full unmasking of Mr. Trump, in case he needed further unmasking. He has, as Humayun’s father Khizr put it, a “black soul.” His problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human decency. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low.
This is the point that needs to dawn—and dawn soon—on Republican officeholders who pretend to endorse Mr. Trump while also pretending, via wink-and-nod, that they do not. Paul Ryan has tried to walk this razor’s edge by stressing how much he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s “ideas.” On Sunday the speaker issued a flabby statement extolling the Khan family’s sacrifice and denouncing religious tests for immigrants without mentioning Mr. Trump by name.
Mr. Ryan is doing his personal reputation and his party’s fortunes no favors with these evasions. The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner.
It will not do for Republicans to say they denounce Mr. Trump’s personal slanders; his nativism and protectionism and isolationism; his mendacity and meanness and crassness; his disdain for constitutional protections—and still campaign for his election. There is no redemption in saying you went along with it, but only halfway; that with Mr. Trump you maintained technical virginity. To lie down with him is to wake up with him. It’s as simple as that.
That’s a thought that ought to frighten Republicans. The Khan slander was not Mr. Trump’s first and will not be his last or worst. As one wag on Twitter put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Nor are we likely done with new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s business practices and associations. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.
Politics is mostly the business of maintaining popularity in the here-and-now. Not always. Come January, Mrs. Clinton will likely be president. Whether there is a GOP that can still lay a claim to moral and political respectability is another question. Mr. Ryan and other Go-Along Republicans should treat the Khan episode as their last best hope to preserve political reputations they have worked so hard to build.
Memo to Paul Ryan: Trump’s problem is his character, not his ‘ideas.’
To the Go-Along Republicans
There’s an old saying that in politics there are no permanent victories—and no permanent defeats. Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964 but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in 1996 and 14 years later we got ObamaCare.
The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Liberals overreach. Statist solutions fail. Voters tire of one-party rule. To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign-policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal. If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is—an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue—they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency. I know I do.
But to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn’t mean there is no permanent dishonor. Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy and Bull Connor are the foul names of America’s 20th century, and always will be. And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.
This is where Republicans now find themselves with their presidential nominee. Of all of Donald Trump’s vile irruptions—about Sen. John McCain’s military record, or reporter Serge Kovaleski’s physical handicap, or Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s judicial fitness—his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest.
This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention.
No: What makes Mr. Trump’s remarks so foul is their undisguised sadism. He took a woman too heartbroken and anxious to speak of her dead son before an audience of millions and painted a target on her. He treated her silence as evidence that she was either a dolt or a stooge. He degraded her. “She was standing there. She had nothing to say,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
In this comment there was the full unmasking of Mr. Trump, in case he needed further unmasking. He has, as Humayun’s father Khizr put it, a “black soul.” His problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human decency. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low.
This is the point that needs to dawn—and dawn soon—on Republican officeholders who pretend to endorse Mr. Trump while also pretending, via wink-and-nod, that they do not. Paul Ryan has tried to walk this razor’s edge by stressing how much he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s “ideas.” On Sunday the speaker issued a flabby statement extolling the Khan family’s sacrifice and denouncing religious tests for immigrants without mentioning Mr. Trump by name.
Mr. Ryan is doing his personal reputation and his party’s fortunes no favors with these evasions. The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner.
It will not do for Republicans to say they denounce Mr. Trump’s personal slanders; his nativism and protectionism and isolationism; his mendacity and meanness and crassness; his disdain for constitutional protections—and still campaign for his election. There is no redemption in saying you went along with it, but only halfway; that with Mr. Trump you maintained technical virginity. To lie down with him is to wake up with him. It’s as simple as that.
That’s a thought that ought to frighten Republicans. The Khan slander was not Mr. Trump’s first and will not be his last or worst. As one wag on Twitter put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Nor are we likely done with new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s business practices and associations. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.
Politics is mostly the business of maintaining popularity in the here-and-now. Not always. Come January, Mrs. Clinton will likely be president. Whether there is a GOP that can still lay a claim to moral and political respectability is another question. Mr. Ryan and other Go-Along Republicans should treat the Khan episode as their last best hope to preserve political reputations they have worked so hard to build.
Trump: My Position On Keeping Terrorists Out Is What Bothered Khizr Khan
“When you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else.”
Trump: My Position On Keeping Terrorists Out Is What Bothered Khizr Khan
In an interview with a local Ohio television station on Monday, Donald Trump said that Khizr Khan was really bothered by his position on border security — specifically his promise to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.
“Well, I was very viciously attacked, as you know, on the stage,” Trump told Columbus’s ABC affiliate ABC6, when asked about Khan’s DNC speech. “And I was surprised to see it. And so all I did — I have great honor and great feeling for his son, Mr. Khan’s son. But, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s a hero.”
When the interviewer brought up Trump’s position on border security, Trump said, “It’s a very big subject for me. And border security’s very big. And when you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else.
“When you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else.”
Trump: My Position On Keeping Terrorists Out Is What Bothered Khizr Khan
In an interview with a local Ohio television station on Monday, Donald Trump said that Khizr Khan was really bothered by his position on border security — specifically his promise to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.
“Well, I was very viciously attacked, as you know, on the stage,” Trump told Columbus’s ABC affiliate ABC6, when asked about Khan’s DNC speech. “And I was surprised to see it. And so all I did — I have great honor and great feeling for his son, Mr. Khan’s son. But, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s a hero.”
When the interviewer brought up Trump’s position on border security, Trump said, “It’s a very big subject for me. And border security’s very big. And when you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else.
CdnGuy
New Member
Damn Donald what won't you say to get attention? lol 
Donald Trump claims the U.S. election 'is going to be rigged'
Donald Trump claims the U.S. election 'is going to be rigged'
Damn Donald what won't you say to get attention? lol
Donald Trump claims the U.S. election 'is going to be rigged'
You think he's wrong? The DNC primaries were clearly rigged. The RNC threatened to rig their primaries, and only chickened out at the last minute. With establishment democrats and republicans both against him and for Hillary, what is there to stop them? Take a look at the complete asinine BS being posted in this thread. That's coming out of main stream media on both sides of the water. I haven't seen anything close since the lead up to the Iraq invasion. They will say anything to discredit him while all but ignoring documented factual evidence of Hillary's corruption.
CdnGuy
New Member
Don't know if he's right or wrong Flenser. But reading BTL he's basically admitting he isn't winning the presidency imo.
Never was much doubt about the winner. It amazes me, though, that there are still thinking people in the world watching the process and not completely disillusioned by it.
CdnGuy
New Member
Politics is just as dirty as the Cartels 
This khan and the democrat party thrust himself in the media spotlight in this political game and are now crying because he got his attention. And the ignorant are just eating it up. If you didn't want any backlash you shouldn't have gotten on stage and slammed a presidential candidate for the world to see. You got no one to blame but yourself.
Richard Hanna, R-Barneveld, represents New York's 22nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) will cast his ballot for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton this November, becoming the first Republican member of Congress to cross party lines and vote directly against Donald Trump.
"For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country," Hanna wrote in an op-ed for Syracuse.com published Tuesday.
Rep. Richard Hanna letter: We should all be done with Donald Trump (commentary)
Rep. Richard Hanna letter: We should all be done with Donald Trump (commentary)
By Richard Hanna
Our country is desperate for a functioning two-party system. A system that understands that compromise is the sweet spot of peace in a pluralistic society that values tolerance and inclusiveness. Not these endless attempts to run the table in two- and four-year cycles that produce few results and parties that seem to regard gridlock as an accomplishment.
Government has become unable to address big problems. Talking points are presented as if they were solutions. Critical issues like tax reform, infrastructure, immigration, the environment and any future investments in people and assets are relegated to the opinions of the extremes of both parties. Electing Donald Trump will only make this worse, much worse.
Months ago I publicly said I could never support Trump. My reasons were simple and personal. I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader. Little more than a changing mirror of those he speaks to. I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect.
I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins.
I have long held the belief that the Republican Party is becoming increasingly less capable of nominating a person who is electable as president. The primary process is so geared toward the party's political base, which ignores the fact that we have largely alienated women, Hispanics, the LGBT community, young voters and many others in general.
Thankfully gerrymandering does not protect candidates in a national election.
If I compare the life stories of both candidates I find Trump deeply flawed in endless ways. A self-involved man who is worth billions yet is comfortable -- almost gleefully -- using bankruptcy laws to avoid the consequences of his own choices. A man of character would not defend his actions but rather display shame and or at least regret. He is unrepentant in all things. Think about those average people who paid for his choices.
In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he's proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.
Secretary Clinton has issues that depending on where one stands can be viewed as great or small. But she stands and has stood for causes bigger than herself for a lifetime. That matters. Mrs. Clinton has promoted many of the issues I have been committed to over the years including expanding education and supporting women's health care.
While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public's anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) will cast his ballot for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton this November, becoming the first Republican member of Congress to cross party lines and vote directly against Donald Trump.
"For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country," Hanna wrote in an op-ed for Syracuse.com published Tuesday.
Rep. Richard Hanna letter: We should all be done with Donald Trump (commentary)
Rep. Richard Hanna letter: We should all be done with Donald Trump (commentary)
By Richard Hanna
Our country is desperate for a functioning two-party system. A system that understands that compromise is the sweet spot of peace in a pluralistic society that values tolerance and inclusiveness. Not these endless attempts to run the table in two- and four-year cycles that produce few results and parties that seem to regard gridlock as an accomplishment.
Government has become unable to address big problems. Talking points are presented as if they were solutions. Critical issues like tax reform, infrastructure, immigration, the environment and any future investments in people and assets are relegated to the opinions of the extremes of both parties. Electing Donald Trump will only make this worse, much worse.
Months ago I publicly said I could never support Trump. My reasons were simple and personal. I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader. Little more than a changing mirror of those he speaks to. I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect.
I do not expect perfection, but I do require more than the embodiment of at least a short list of the seven deadly sins.
I have long held the belief that the Republican Party is becoming increasingly less capable of nominating a person who is electable as president. The primary process is so geared toward the party's political base, which ignores the fact that we have largely alienated women, Hispanics, the LGBT community, young voters and many others in general.
Thankfully gerrymandering does not protect candidates in a national election.
If I compare the life stories of both candidates I find Trump deeply flawed in endless ways. A self-involved man who is worth billions yet is comfortable -- almost gleefully -- using bankruptcy laws to avoid the consequences of his own choices. A man of character would not defend his actions but rather display shame and or at least regret. He is unrepentant in all things. Think about those average people who paid for his choices.
In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he's proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.
Secretary Clinton has issues that depending on where one stands can be viewed as great or small. But she stands and has stood for causes bigger than herself for a lifetime. That matters. Mrs. Clinton has promoted many of the issues I have been committed to over the years including expanding education and supporting women's health care.
While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public's anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.
Khan was a setup. He has strong financial ties to both the Sauds and the Clinton Foundation. He's only crying in public. Things couldn't have gone any better for his employers.
I have a hard time believing this man "wrote" this with a straight face!
Donald Trump’s Many Business Failures, Explained
Donald Trump's business failures: a comprehensive guide
…
Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.
He is also pretty good at self-deception, and plain old deception. Trump is willing to claim success even when it is not there, according to his own statements. “I’m just telling you, you wouldn’t say that you're failing,” he said in a 2007 deposition when asked to explain why he would give an upbeat assessment of his business even if it was in trouble. “If somebody said, ‘How you doing?’ you're going to say you're doing good.” Perhaps such dissembling is fine in polite cocktail party conversation, but in the business world it’s called lying.
And while Trump is quick to boast that his purported billions prove his business acumen, his net worth is almost unknowable given the loose standards and numerous outright misrepresentations he has made over the years. In that 2007 deposition, Trump said he based estimates of his net worth at times on “psychology” and “my own feelings.” But those feelings are often wrong—in 2004, he presented unaudited financials to Deutsche Bank while seeking a loan, claiming he was worth $3.5 billion. The bank concluded Trump was, to say the least, puffing; it put his net worth at $788 million, records show. (Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of the loan to his company, so Deutsche coughed up the money. He later defaulted on that commitment.)
Trump’s many misrepresentations of his successes and his failures matter—a lot. As a man who has never held so much as a city council seat, there is little voters can examine to determine if he is competent to hold office. He has no voting record and presents few details about specific policies. Instead, he sells himself as qualified to run the country because he is a businessman who knows how to get things done, and his financial dealings are the only part of his background available to assess his competence to lead the country. And while Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters.
…
Donald Trump's business failures: a comprehensive guide
…
Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.
He is also pretty good at self-deception, and plain old deception. Trump is willing to claim success even when it is not there, according to his own statements. “I’m just telling you, you wouldn’t say that you're failing,” he said in a 2007 deposition when asked to explain why he would give an upbeat assessment of his business even if it was in trouble. “If somebody said, ‘How you doing?’ you're going to say you're doing good.” Perhaps such dissembling is fine in polite cocktail party conversation, but in the business world it’s called lying.
And while Trump is quick to boast that his purported billions prove his business acumen, his net worth is almost unknowable given the loose standards and numerous outright misrepresentations he has made over the years. In that 2007 deposition, Trump said he based estimates of his net worth at times on “psychology” and “my own feelings.” But those feelings are often wrong—in 2004, he presented unaudited financials to Deutsche Bank while seeking a loan, claiming he was worth $3.5 billion. The bank concluded Trump was, to say the least, puffing; it put his net worth at $788 million, records show. (Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of the loan to his company, so Deutsche coughed up the money. He later defaulted on that commitment.)
Trump’s many misrepresentations of his successes and his failures matter—a lot. As a man who has never held so much as a city council seat, there is little voters can examine to determine if he is competent to hold office. He has no voting record and presents few details about specific policies. Instead, he sells himself as qualified to run the country because he is a businessman who knows how to get things done, and his financial dealings are the only part of his background available to assess his competence to lead the country. And while Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters.
…
Party A) spouse lied about graduating college
Party B) has never told the truth in her life. Lied to congress and the American people time and time again
Party A) own and or endorses hundreds of companies and has utilized bankruptcy 4 times in many, many years.
Party B) high powered attorneys and high level politicians who held the title as president for 8 years. Left the oval office flat broke... according to them.
Party A) called out the family of a war hero who completely trashed him
Party B) sent thousands of americans marching off to their deaths.
Party A) no political experience
Party B) has been in politics for many years. Probably the most corrupt politicians that has ever served the US.
Party A) has acknowledge respect for putin
Party B) has back door deals with putin to line her own pockets and sell out her own country
Party A) won't show his tax returns
Party B) was ordered by a judge to reveal her emails due to illegal activity emails subpoenaed. Ran home and destroyed evidence erasing subpoenaed emails and scrubbed her hard drive. Also, having shady and most definitely illegal dealing through non profit foundation.
We can go on and on...
Who's not qualified. One of these people are not even qualified to be walking amongst free people.
Party B) has never told the truth in her life. Lied to congress and the American people time and time again
Party A) own and or endorses hundreds of companies and has utilized bankruptcy 4 times in many, many years.
Party B) high powered attorneys and high level politicians who held the title as president for 8 years. Left the oval office flat broke... according to them.
Party A) called out the family of a war hero who completely trashed him
Party B) sent thousands of americans marching off to their deaths.
Party A) no political experience
Party B) has been in politics for many years. Probably the most corrupt politicians that has ever served the US.
Party A) has acknowledge respect for putin
Party B) has back door deals with putin to line her own pockets and sell out her own country
Party A) won't show his tax returns
Party B) was ordered by a judge to reveal her emails due to illegal activity emails subpoenaed. Ran home and destroyed evidence erasing subpoenaed emails and scrubbed her hard drive. Also, having shady and most definitely illegal dealing through non profit foundation.
We can go on and on...
Who's not qualified. One of these people are not even qualified to be walking amongst free people.
