Trump Timeline ...

Discussion in 'Political Discourse' started by CdnGuy, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. Trump Is the Good Guy
    Trump Is the Good Guy, by Conrad Black, National Review
    By Conrad Black — December 15, 2015

    It is time to look more seriously at the Donald Trump presidential candidacy. He continues to lead the polls among Republicans; his closest rivals seem now to be Senators Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz, easing ahead of Dr. Ben Carson. There does not seem to have been much effort to see the Trump candidacy in any sort of historic context. For the first time in its history, the United States has had four, and arguably five, consecutive terms of unsuccessful federal government, from administrations and Congresses of both parties. The last Clinton term under-reacted to the original terrorist incidents at the Khobar Towers (1996), the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies (1998) and the USS Cole (in 2000); and stoked up the housing bubble through the Community Reinvestment Act and executive orders to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to invest massively in sub-prime mortgages. George W. Bush responded well to terrorism, and his economic countermeasures were adequate after the 9/11 attacks, but he did nothing to let the air gently out of the housing bubble, his response was contemptibly inept when the economic crisis erupted, and his intervention in Iraq was for unsubstantiated reasons and resulted in a major strategic victory for America’s Iranian enemies, a vast waste of lives and treasure, and an immense humanitarian crisis.

    President Obama has doubled the national debt accumulated in 233 years of American independence in eight years, not really produced an economic recovery, facilitated nuclear weapons for Iran after a great deal of purposeful braggadocio, and humiliated the United States by drawing and erasing a “red line” in Syria and being chased out of its air space by the Russians. Two-thirds of Americans, in all polls, feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, Obama does not get a positive job-performance rating even in the most leftish polls, and a majority consider Obamacare to have been a retrograde step. It is unlikely that the United States has been less respected in the world than it is now, at least since the time of Hoover, who was blamed for the worldwide Depression, if not since the prelude to and early days of the Civil War.

    The crime rate, after decades of decline, is rising again, in part because of police discontent at public and media focus on what is widely regarded as a coast-to-coast shooting gallery conducted largely in the African-American districts of the country’s cities. The habits of decades of the political system simply ignoring problems as they festered and grew — abortion, immigration, wealth disparity — has disgusted the country, and coincided with a pecuniary inundation of politics on a scale the world has rarely glimpsed in a democratic country. Most congressmen and senators are unambiguous representatives of the leading economic interests in their states or districts, and presidential campaigns, as we are seeing, last for years and cost over a billion dollars for each party. It is a corrupt and vulgar system and virtually all Americans know it, and everyone above the age of 40 has seen an alarming decline in the quality of candidates for high, and especially national, office since the Reagan years.

    The presidencies between Polk and Lincoln (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan sharing three terms) were inadequate, and so were those between Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, though Coolidge retains his apologists), but none of these presidents was re-elected after a full term, and neither talent drought was as profound or extended as the 20 years of misgovernment the United States is reeling from now. In the circumstances, it is little wonder that the country is looking elsewhere than the ranks of its elected officials to find a possible president. There is precedent for this, but usually with generals (Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, and unsuccessful candidates including Cass, McClellan, and Hancock), plus not entirely career soldiers such as Hayes, Garfield, and both Harrisons, and Colonel Theodore Roosevelt: These named individuals were major-party nominees for national office in a total of 20 elections, but wars and their generals have not been as popular lately; Colin Powell was the last who could have done it). And there have been non-military candidates for the presidency as an entry-level elective office, including Horace Greeley, Alton B. Parker, Wendell Willkie, and Herbert Hoover.

    Viewed from that perspective, the rise of Donald Trump is not so surprising, and he is not running as a spoiler, as Ross Perot did against George H. W. Bush did in 1992, nor as an aggrieved Theodore Roosevelt did in 1912 against William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. He has the populist aptitudes of the old Progressive party because of his often outlandish Archie Bunker–esque political incorrectness, but he is more credible than Archie because his views emanate not from a blue-collar reactionary, but from an accomplished billionaire as well as a successful television personality. As he is financing himself, it is refreshing that he is not constantly seeking life support from controversial individual sources, or from a vast and aggressive fundraising organization, or from a coalition of sleazy and opinionated philistines in the entertainment industry.

    But his rather iconoclastic techniques and his promises to effect radical change if elected — and even to be at the head of an angry movement of scores of millions of Americans who feel their country has been stolen and mismanaged and that there is no point merely to ejecting the incumbents — has a profound appeal: They have tried turning the rascals out many times in the last 30 years and they just get worse rascals. The liberal media establishment is frenzied in its animosity to Donald Trump, and their hysteria is becoming more vociferous and desperate as he utters clangorous violations of the normal parameters of political discourse. The echo chamber explodes, the commentariat foams at the mouth, but he seems to pay no penalty in the polls. I think there are two explanations for this: Donald doesn’t really say such outrageous things as his opponents spinningly impute to him; and vast sections of the population are more bitterly disappointed and angry at the deterioration of their country and the misinformation of the mainstream media than the subjects of that resentment can imagine.

    They started by mocking Trump; and his preoccupation with unserious matters, such as where the president was born, made that simple. But Trump’s durability now scares them. Last week, the New York Times accused Trump of being on “the brink of fascism.” The worthy Max Boot, respected strategic writer, compared him to Joseph R. McCarthy. There is a good deal of this sort of overreaction, and of course the public will be too intelligent to buy into much of it. McCarthy announced that Roosevelt, Truman, General Marshall, and even Eisenhower were effectively Communist dupes. Fascists are identified with lawlessness, mob rule, racism, the physical intimidation of opponents, and the overthrow of democracy. The Times and Max Boot should know better than to descend to this sort of thing.

    Just to set the record straight, let me review the key positions Donald Trump has taken.

    On immigration, he wants to deport 351,000 illegal immigrants in American prisons; stop all illegal immigration, chiefly by constructing an Israeli-like wall on the Mexican border; and conduct an imprecisely defined screening action to deport a large number of illegal immigrants and regularize entry of the others, citing Eisenhower (who certainly did not deport people in the numbers spoken of in this campaign). He acknowledges that the U.S. is partly responsible for the refugee crisis in the Middle East but still opposes admission of any of its victims. His latest wheeze, of suspending admission of Muslims unless they are returning people who have already been granted residency or accredited foreign officials, was clumsily phrased and hysterically misrepresented. He will presumably clean it up enough to reduce the controversy.

    In other areas, he does not advocate much increase in defense spending, but a reallocation toward anti-terrorist operations. On health care, he seeks the repeal of Obamacare, the shattering of the insurance cartel, and the provision of universal health care, with health-savings accounts and with, presumably, where necessary, the according of discretionary tax credits. He is for gradual, extensive legalization of drugs with some of the proceeds of savings available to drug education and treatment. He is a militant opponent of cruelty to animals, supports anti-pollution standards but deplores the excessive zeal of the EPA, thinks climate change is a hoax, and cap-and-trade both insane and hypocritical. He would disband the Department of Education and distribute its funds to the states, and leave legalization of specific drugs, like the rules over same-sex marriage, to the states.

    He does not believe gun control is the answer to violence, and thinks better policing, tighter immigration control, and greater facilities to identify and treat mentally deranged potentially violent people are preferable. He would abolish super PACs, lift limits on individual contributions to candidates, and ban soft money. He is a medium protectionist to support domestic-manufacturing and other employment; his tax plan is a moderate reduction in income taxes and a steeper reduction in the corporate rates; he seeks, effectively, to turn the national debt into a sinking fund, cutting expenses beneath revenues and steadily shrinking the deficit.

    Trump gets a little closer to a reactionary view in international affairs. Germany, he believes, can sort out Ukraine with the Russians, who are welcome to Syria, and let Russia destroy ISIS. It’s a bit flippant and doesn’t entirely square with his call for the U.S. to behave in a way that commands the world’s respect again. (Though what he does propose would be an immense improvement on the Obama-Clinton-Kerry Gong Show of the last seven years.)

    He favors retention of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences, and seems not to notice the rot in the U.S. legal system, or at least has not much commented on it yet; and he has largely avoided abortion as a subject, though he opposes it personally, and would ban it in the late term, other than in extraordinary circumstances.

    In general, his policy positions, though vague in places, and subject to being moved around in response to his apparently spontaneous aperçus and reminiscences, are not especially radical or provocative. The Trump effect appears to rest on his talent for shocking conventional opinion, and on his extreme contempt for the conventional wisdom, the degraded political modus operandi, and the snipers’ gallery of the biased and lazy senior media. He still leads the polls of those for whom people absolutely will not vote, and I suspect that in the end the elected Republican politicians will stand on each other’s shoulders and deny him the nomination, while making profound concessions to his policy preferences.

    Donald Trump — who, I should disclose, is an old friend, a fine and generous and loyal man, and a delightful companion — is striking very close to the heart of the American problem: the corrupt, dysfunctional political system and the dishonest media. My view, as persevering readers know, is that it all started to go horribly wrong with Watergate, when one of the most successful administrations in the country’s history was torn apart for no remotely adequate reason and the mendacious assassins in the liberal media have been awarding themselves prizes and commendations for 40 years since. Ten times as many people believe Rush Limbaugh as Bob Woodward (and they are correct in that assessment), and Donald speaks in fact (obviously not ex officio) for many more people than Obama. I suspect the Bush-Clinton era, which had its moments, is ending, and that whatever happens next year, Donald Trump will have played an important role in it. But the desperation prayer of the liberals — that he will split the Republicans — will not happen: He was never going to run as an independent, and the Republicans recognize how great a bloc of voters he can bring to them. To adapt George Wallace’s old phrase, he has shaken the American political system “by the eyeteeth,” and it will be better for it.

    — Conrad Black is the author ofFranklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of FreedomandRichard M. Nixon: A Life in Full.

    Editor’s Note: This piece originally stated in error that the USS Cole bombing occurred in 1998. In fact, it was 2000.
  2. TheGuy85

    TheGuy85 Member

    My post got cut off. But I was going to say that all of my criticisms of Obama aren't in perfect sync with neocons. I try to base my opinions on facts, data, and evidence. I'm not sure why people even bother to listen to people that constantly lie, let alone vote for them. Either they are ignorant or they willingly buy into lies. Regardless, that is the mentality that has fucked this country up, beyond repair. The people of these United States have a duty to question authority and make sure that this nation's government is controlled by the people, and only exists to serve the people. The people of this nation have failed to remain vigilant of this government's activity and as a result the government has way too much control over the people.

    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” (Franklin)

    Thomas Jefferson on expansive government.

    Expansive government is always going to be a project of those who would subject individuals to collective, national goals. The founders were well aware of this danger, which is why they gave us a constitution of enumerated — and therefore limited — powers. As Thomas Jefferson put it: “I consider the foundations of the constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the US, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people’. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definitions.”

    Time and time again, this government has seized powers, that are only reserved to the people, that the constitution prohibits; and the people of this nation have failed to uphold their responsibility to preserve the integrity of this constitutional republic.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
    Str8Shooter likes this.
  3. Gramps

    Gramps Member

    Hillary will fuck us over while inviting illegals in (democrat votes being bought) and taking away our rights to defend ourselves. Trump will fuck us over while bombing illegals and leaving us the ability to defend ourselves. There will be some fucking going on regardless of who is elected. I'll go with any who will bomb illegals as that will leave me more money to take care of myself as well as more room to do so.

    I'd rather have a business owner who's never held an office over a community organizer (current blow hole "in charge") who's never had a real job when it comes to someone taking charge of my Country.
    tenpoundsleft and Str8Shooter like this.
  4. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    The money that goes to illegals would go to the bombs you use to bomb them in your example. You're still out your money in either case. The money to make and buy the bombs, the gas used for air strokes, the training of the pilots used, the aircrafts used, etc etc etc. In the end you would probably be worse off financially
  5. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    You didn't even need to poll the audience to win!
    brutus79 likes this.
  6. The RNC absolutely despise Donald Trump and think he's unelectable, but they refuse to do the one thing that would take him out of the race: Adopt his position on immigration. Slowing immigration is what the overwhelming majority of voters want. And yet not a single Republican candidate has done it.


    With a few partisan exceptions like the Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, the same wealthy donors support both parties and those donors want increased immigration. Both parties go along because immigration gives the Chamber of Commerce the cheap labor they want and the Democrats get a bunch of new voters (immigrants overwhelmingly support Democrats).

    The longer Trump remains a threat without anyone else taking up his position on immigration, the more obvious it becomes that both parties represent the wishes of the donors, not the people.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
  7. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Morefyah and Docd187123 like this.
  8. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

  9. CdnGuy

    CdnGuy Member

    On a Trump side note. He is currently constructing a 63 storey hotel & tower in my city. Today's news, the mayor requested in a letter to the developer to remove Trumps name on the building. Sited on Trumps "racist views" on Muslims being completely ban from entering the states. The city has a petition with over 50000 signatures.
  10. Gramps

    Gramps Member

    Hmmmm... Broke surrounded by freeloaders or broke surrounded by peace and quiet... That's a tough one.
  11. TheGuy85

    TheGuy85 Member

    What I can't figure out is how someone can actually believe that Bernie Sanders is for some reason irrational and that Donald Trump is somehow more rational than Bernie Sanders. True fiscal conservatives hate trump and for good reason. Libertarian leaning republicans (limited government) also despise Trump because of his authoritarian proposals on foreign and domestic policy. You have the current GOP front runner talking about intentionally targeting civvies in air strikes and that is absolutely absurd, not to mention completely unlawful. And to actually expect servicemen to comply with such a directive is absolutely horrific. He has proposed policies that are unconstitutional and illegal. He is the poster child for fascism and anyone who disagrees needs to check a fucking dictionary. His nationalistic, authoritarian, "right-wing" views oppose everything this country was supposed to stand for, especially the idea of limited government. Republicans have loosely and incorrectly tossed around the word fascist, but in the case of Donald Trump, he does deserve the title of fascist.

    I don't believe Trump actually believes most of the things he is saying (just look at the things he has said in the past that are very liberal). Trump knew he would never be able to run as a Democrat and win, especially with his position on being tough on illegal immigration (which I do think he sincerely believes in). Donald Trump has turned the GOP into a clown show, and any true conservative republican should be enraged that this man is destroying the image of the GOP. The fact that Donald Trump is currently the GOP front runner shows just how fucked up the party has become. I don't even think these people know what conservatism is.

    The fact that people actually believe that Trump has more rational thinking than Bernie Sanders is ridiculous. Sanders voted against the Brady bill despite that being a very unpopular decision for a liberal to make at that time. But he believed his job was to serve and represent the people of his state (which it is), and not a political party. But these whackos will still believe if he becomes president, he for some reason would take everyone's guns away and he will make us all become communists. The fact that he wants to start a revolution and the fact that Hillary is attacking him on his views on gun rights; should be plenty to give some republicans a major hardon. Maybe he should have ran Republican and spewed out some hate rhetoric regarding immigrants and Muslims, and went about spreading some more fear mongering. Maybe he could have been the Republican front runner because lets be honest, you now have a large portion of the GOP voter base that seems to have no idea what conservatism is. If they had a clue, you would never see Donald Trump leading polls.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
    brutus79 and Docd187123 like this.
  12. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    You think you'll have peace and quiet? I'm not saying I'm all for illegal immigration (my parents came to this country legally and have since become citizens and it wasn't easy to get in from their country during that time) but that's not how it will play out.

    You eliminate the illegal aliens by bomb or even something less ridiculous than that and the demand, people who want to get in this country, might drop a little but it won't disappear. What you'll create is a void. Who then will rush to fill this void? It won't quite be the white Christian guy your hoping for. It'll be a criminal or cartel who will bring these people over anyway. Only now they'll be doing it under a "prohibition" which will make it very profitable for them much like it is doing with the drug trade.

    Bottom line is in your scenario you'll still have illegals coming in only now you'll also have to deal with an increased criminal element to it. If you want to treat illegal immigration simply bombing them or shipping them back out won't work. It doesn't address the cause only the effect.
    brutus79 and TheGuy85 like this.
  13. brutus79

    brutus79 Member

    Freeloaders are loud? Strange their noise level is what concerns you and even stranger you have so many quiet citizens where you live.
  14. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

  15. Gramps

    Gramps Member

    Nope. I'm surrounded by loudmouth illegals who happen to be of the criminal element mentioned above. Those who never experience it wouldn't know which is getting more obvious by the posts here defending, or at least defending the rights of these cocksuckers. To live in peace is just a dream. I can at least have that.
  16. tenpoundsleft

    tenpoundsleft Member

    I said not to be overly argumentative... just pointing that out to you since you seem a bit slow... ;-)

    Not a GOP fan - I'm a libertarian, so I'll pick whomever is less likely to try to control my life and, above all, not steal my money. It does require nose-pinching. The non-Rinos among the GOP pols are relatively palatable - the Dems on the other hand have spiralled totally out of control over the past couple decades, nothing but socialist populists left in that party's leadership, and those are the good ones.

    Your entire line of reasoning is naive - if it's applicable to every single person running for office, then it's not a useful criterion for down-selection.

    Better to elect an already wealthy person than one looking to make a fortune while in office - take a look at the rotten-to-the-core Clintons if you're looking for bastardized and perverted politicians.

    (I won't even bother replying to Doc - if he's not voting at all, even bragging about that, then he can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.)
  17. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    Oh please, you have no idea where Brutus or I have been or what we've experienced. And don't be so quick to judge. Most of those illegals you're talking about have worked longer and harder than you or I have or ever will. Those cocksuckers as you call them are human and have certain rights regardless of what you think of them. It probably burns you to remember that doesn't it?
    bigstretch likes this.
  18. tenpoundsleft

    tenpoundsleft Member

    Well, it's in f-ing Canada, what do you expect? A country that's slid several floors further down the drain pipe than the US, practically at the same level as the pathetic Europeans. No offense intended toward you of course. Just wish the folks in New England and in California would pack up and migrate north of the border.
  19. Docd187123

    Docd187123 Member

    What an idiot. An already wealthy person will just look out after his personal fortune like anybody else so long as money keeps being involved in politics. The fact you're too naive to realize that is no one's fault but your own.

    Voting is letting your voice be heard is it not? And not voting is the same voice being heard. So long as money keeps corrupting politics I choose not to vote. I will not choose between the lesser of two evils bc I stand by my convictions yet you'd gladly whore out your convictions out to the person who's just as unfit for office based on a ridiculous criterion. Ohhhhh mommy look, he's already wealthy he won't be corrupt bc he's got his own money....before trying to point out what you think is naïveté in others take a long hard look in the mirror and open your eyes or get yourself a pair of glasses, whichever one will help you the most.
    flenser and brutus79 like this.
  20. brutus79

    brutus79 Member

    I did not down selecting. I was proving that his wealth does not absolve him from corruption, bias and influence from major corporations. Read it again.