politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Trump Goes On
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... campaign-will-end_1007525.html
Published: Aug 8, 2015
Author: Steven F. Hayes
Post Date: 2015-08-10 07:34:18 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 8460
Comments: 146
It’s not over. And it’s likely to end badly. In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.” He refused to apologize, of course, but after widespread condemnation, Trump, who is running on candor and straight talk, sought to explain his comments in a Tweet. “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). Just got on w/thought.’” It’s a comment that might end any other presidential campaign. Trump is different, in part because this isn’t a campaign. It’s an extended media-driven ego ride. From the beginning, he’s played by different rules because the media have let him. Trump works just blocks from the headquarters of the major broadcast and cable outlets. But as he’s rolled out his Trump for President brand, he has gotten journalists to come to him. He sits for interviews in the gilded atrium of Trump Towers, a nice home field advantage and one that sets him apart from the other politicians sitting in boring studios. Trump has conducted frequent telephone interviews on cable networks, sometimes several times a day, and last weekend did “phoners” on two Sunday morning political shows. (Has any other candidate this cycle, in either party, been given an opportunity to do a television interview by phone?) If he were asked policy questions, the arrangement would give him an unfair advantage, with the opportunity to answer questions with a cheat sheet in front of him and Google at his fingertips. But substantive questions about the country and its problems are the exceptions in Trump’s conversations with journalists, who prefer to ask him about his latest controversial comment or seek to provoke the next one by asking him about his opponents. (Trump’s comments about Kelly didn’t provoke any follow-up questions from CNN host Don Lemon, whose interview with Trump continued for several more minutes). So the cycle continues: Trump says something outrageous that may or may not have any relevance to serving as president, he’s asked about it in a largely substance-free interview, and ratings climb—along with Trump’s name ID and poll ratings. Trump is right, sadly, when he boasts that he is partly responsible for the 24 million viewers who tuned into the debate Thursday night. He has convinced himself that people watch because they love him and in a limited sense, he’s probably right about that, too. While I suspect that the Trump hype is driven by curiosity more than admiration, there is no doubt some segment of the population that is properly understood now as “Trump supporters.” That segment is small and will be shrinking in the coming weeks, but it won’t disappear. The true Trump apologists are way too far in now. They've invested too much to bail on him. So his defenders will become increasingly desperate to convince people that this is all part of the establishment's failure to understand their anger and the media's failure to appreciate Trump’s appeal. That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs; if not his kindergarten Twitter insults, then perhaps his sad and compulsive boasting; if not his incomprehensible answers to substantive questions at the debate, then maybe, finally, his juvenile and misogynistic put-down of the female moderator Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame. It doesn’t matter that they’re angry about the incompetence in Washington. Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator. It’s embarrassing, but rather than embarrassment, the Trump followers will feel more anger and their pose will shift from self-righteousness to victimhood. And many of them will dig in further. More worrisome, for conservatives and for the country, so will Trump. As he’s abandoned by more rational beings, Trump, a man of deep and evident insecurity, will need these remaining supporters as validation that it’s the world that’s gone crazy, not him. They will encourage him to march on, guided by the misapprehension that there are many more behind them, perhaps hard to see, but following in the distance nonetheless. Trump will tout this support and insist, unconstrained by reality, that he can win. (This is the man who continues to say Hispanics love him and will support him, despite polls showing his favorability among Hispanics in the mid-teens). As Republicans scramble to distance themselves—with many candidates denouncing his remarks about Kelly, as they had his mockery of John McCain—Trump will feel the swelling pride of a man whose bluff is being called. Treat me nicely or I’ll leave, he warned repeatedly. This is why Bret Baier’s first question Thursday was the single most important question of the debate. Although Trump had left open the possibility of running third party, in the days leading up to the debate he had backed away from those threats. “I’m pretty confident in the answers I’ve gotten from him,” Sean Hannity said Wednesday night. “I’ve asked him a few times. I’m pretty confident he’ll never run third party.” Less than twenty-four hours later, Trump reversed himself again, raising his hand to show he wouldn't pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. When Baier asked if Trump meant to be conveying what he seemed to be saying, Trump responded, twice: “I fully understand.” Trump threatened to leave if Republicans treated him badly. Now, because he’s a churl and a buffoon, Republicans have no choice but to treat him badly. It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-52) not displayed.
.
.
.
I think there are about 20-21 primary states before Florida, so a lot could happen before then -- with or without Trump.
Florida is still #5.
IA/NH/NV/SC/FL. Anyway, I think NV is after NH but maybe it's before NH.
Floriduh is the first big contest. In 2008 and 2012, Florida tried to move up its primary and also award all its delegates as winner-take-all (whereas Florida is part of the bloc of states that have agreed to award delegates proportionally). Florida did this to try to make itself the kingmaker of GOP primary states (just like NH and SC both try to be the kingmakers). Supposedly in 2016, Florida will hold its primary on the allotted day and will award delegates proportionally.
If this had been done in 2012, you might have seen a big move for Newt! as the GOP nominee as Newt (and the lovely Callista) drained tycoon Adelson and his wife dry on donations running an expensive media campaign in Florida, trying to wrestle the nomination away from Romney. After Florida, Adelson threw in the towel, Newt dropped out, and Santorum became the final anyone-but-Romney candidate which allowed him to win more states but always with Romney pulling further and further ahead in delegates.
I think that is likely to happen with Bush too. It is the natural strategy for any party insider like Romney or Bush with the biggest warchest. This is exactly why they covet a big warchest so much.
#54. To: TooConservative (#53)
IA/NH/NV/SC/FL.
Where did you get your list?
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Where did you get your list?
Memory. It really is not a very long list, you know.
Woh, I see your point. RNC made a very major change. Florida got their ass kicked, way back in the pack from their old #5 spot. I guess if a state party flips off the RNC two elections in a row like Floriduh in 2008 & 2012, they get their asses totally kicked.
#56. To: TooConservative (#49)
Another "Yuck" moment.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
I spared you the really lurid stuff. I try to avoid the truly NSFW quotes.
#58. To: TooConservative (#53)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58) (Edited)
I see you take SurveyMonkey very seriously.
It's a corporate cloud-based PollDaddy. Not real phone polling.
Remember, when you see Chuck Todd, it's all lies.
SurveyMonkey is just as silly as all those (self-selected) instant texting polls that FNC tried to in 2012 ("text #9921 if Romney won,text #9922 if Gingrich won, text #9923 if Ron Paul won", etc.). The Ron Paul techie types naturally figured out how to bomb them with fake votes for Ron Paul. I recall Vannity going completely insane over Ron Paul winning those, time after time despite Fox trying to get everyone to text their votes in just so Ron Paul wouldn't win again. Very funny stuff.
#60. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, liberator, CZ82, A K A Stone (#55)
Here's the 2016 GOP primary line up month by month, state by state:
Most of the 'damage' is done in March.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#61. To: All (#0)
Weekly Standard has another anti-Trump piece today, this time by mousy Fred Barnes. Worth a glance.
Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP FutureFred BarnesAugust 10, 2015 9:50 AM Republicans have been slow in recognizing the real damage Donald Trump is doing to their party. The harm is not to the party’s image. What Trump has done is exacerbate the increasingly bitter rift between the party’s leaders and its grass roots. He’s made the GOP’s future dicey. The quarter of the Republican electorate Trump has attracted consists largely of this alienated group. Since he voices their resentment of Republican elites – especially their arch-enemies in Congress – he’s become their champion. And champions are hard to dethrone. Trump doesn’t have to run as an independent to be a serious troublemaker. As long as he stays in the GOP race, the split in the party is likely to deepen and primaries may turn into nasty and divisive contests. And imagine if he wins enough delegates to disrupt the Republican convention by making demands. The media would again make him the center of attention. “The Republican party created Donald Trump, because they made lot of promises to their base and never kept them,” Erick Erickson, the conservative editor of RedState, told Molly Ball of the Atlantic. Erickson is right. “At this point, most of the people I encounter on radio and on the internet, they’re not really people who at the end of the day want to vote for Donald Trump,” Erickson said. “But they sure do like that he’s burning down the Republican Party that never listened to them to begin with.” In Washington, the rift isn’t taken seriously. But it should be. Even before Trump arrived on the Republican scene it was getting worse. It began to grow after Republicans won the House in 2010. A significant chunk of the rank and file, spurred by right wing talk radio, blamed Republican leadership in Washington for failing to thwart President Obama and reverse or minimize victories he’d won in his first two years of office when Democrats had large majorities in both houses of Congress. After Republicans captured the Senate in 2014, things got worse. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against John Boehner for another term as House speaker. This was an unusually large bloc of dissenters and reflected the dissatisfaction with GOP leaders of many grass roots Republicans. Now the conservative media is asking why Republicans, with their control of Congress and dominance in statehouses across the country, has achieved so little in Washington. “Why does the Republican party exist?” Ben Domenech wrote in The Federalist. He pointed to three Republican failures: to kill renewal of the Export-Import Bank, defund Planned Parenthood, and block the Iran nuclear deal. Republican leaders have credible explanations for each of these setbacks, but their critics are not persuaded. Domenech wrote: “Perhaps you believe the Republican party exists as a party of limited government and free markets.” But that is “impossible,” he said, after McConnell cleared the way to revive the Ex-Im Bank, whose charter expired June 30. Sen. Ted Crux (R-TX) accused Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of promising a vote to Democrats get their support for a trade bill. But it didn’t take a secret deal for a vote on the bank to occur, given its strong support (most Democrats, nearly half of Republicans). On Planned Parenthood, Domenech questioned whether the GOP is credible as a pro-life party after McConnell declined to allow an up-or-down vote on halting its federal funding, at least on funding for “taxpayer subsidization of harvesting organs from aborted babies.” Democrats had earlier blocked a vote on procedural grounds. The problem with raising the funding issue is simple: it might lead to a government shutdown. And McConnell is bent on avoiding just that. He fears Republicans would be blamed, even if the cause of a shutdown were an Obama veto. Chances are, they would be, and Democrats would be delighted. Still, there are many Republicans who think another bid to defund Planned Parenthood is worth the risk. On the Iran deal, Domenech faulted Senate Republicans for settling for a weak hand in taking up the deal, ceding “their Constitutional duty.” Obama packaged the deal as an executive agreement, which means it doesn’t require congressional approval, much less a two-thirds majority as in the case of a treaty. The downside for Obama is that an executive agreement can be rescinded by the next president. And several Republican presidential candidates, including Scott Walker and Rick Perry, have vowed to do that if elected. But how Republicans could successfully turn the agreement into a treaty that requires Senate ratification is unclear. Trump has barely touched on these three issues, but he’ll probably find his way to them. He has his following. It’s hardly a majority of the Republican party, but it’s sufficient to keep his campaign alive and to drive the wedge deeper between Republicans. There’s a larger picture here in which Trump is playing a part, though he may personally be oblivious to it. The two parties are redefining themselves. For decades, Democrats were a coalition party, Republicans a consensus party. Democrats remain a collection of interest groups – labor, liberals, feminists, minorities, etc. – but they’re no longer ideologically diverse. Conservatives aren’t welcome and moderates are barely hanging on. Left liberalism has triumphed in the Democratic party. Republicans have been a consensus party, generally agreeing on issues, for roughly a half century. Despite this, factions are now growing – that is, factions that don’t get along with each other. Grass roots conservatives, egged on by talk radio, loathe their leaders. Social conservatives feel slighted. Libertarians are scarce in senior GOP circles. Obama united Republicans early on. But the failure to derail his initiatives now divides them, mostly on tactics and strategy. Trump divides Republicans all the more. He’s a one-man wedge issue. |
#62. To: redleghunter (#60)
Most of the 'damage' is done in March.
RNC finally revamped the system to deal with the date-jumping by FL and their violating the winner-take-all vs. proportional rules.
Man, did Floriduh get punished. They only slapped their wrists for what they actually did in 2008 and 2012. But this is real and rather permanent punishment of the FL GOP for rulebreaking in two elections.
#63. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, tomder55 (#59)
SurveyMonkey is just as silly as all those (self-selected) instant texting polls that FNC tried to in 2012 ("text #9921 if Romney won,text #9922 if Gingrich won, text #9923 if Ron Paul won", etc.). The Ron Paul techie types naturally figured out how to bomb them with fake votes for Ron Paul. I recall Vannity going completely insane over Ron Paul winning those, time after time despite Fox trying to get everyone to text their votes in just so Ron Paul wouldn't win again. Very funny stuff.
Here's what Realclear has so far. These polls will matter as we get closer:
Seems Trump is leading in most state polls right now. Even in a virtual dead heat with Bush in FL.
Interesting tidbit is only Bush and Walker seem to do better against Hitlery head to head. Trump is down 10 pts against Hitlery in NH.
Again it is early. Who knows what happens when Trump gets bored with this political game and where his current base will go. Right now I think many people see Trump as a protest vote against Bush.
Hitlery by the polling linked is cleaning up state by state. She is in the 50s in most states and no one even close. Guess the Dim voters don't care she is a liar.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#64. To: redleghunter, tooconservative (#63)
morningconsult.com/2015/0...after-debate-controversy/
I expect TC to say it is a conspiracy and not real.
#65. To: misterwhite (#11)
" I think what bothers George is that Trump might actually carry out the conservative agenda instead of just paying lip service to it. "
Yup, that, plus the fact that Trump is not part of " the Club ". Cannot allow some lowly peon non member to get in.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
#66. To: redleghunter (#63) (Edited)
Uh-huh.
Let's review Gallup's state of the race from October 2007. Hitlery was also the presumptive nominee for the Dims, just like in 2015.
| Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has held a statistically significant lead in every Gallup national preference poll since February, averaging a 12-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson the past three months. Arizona Sen. John McCain is third, but usually just a few points behind Thompson. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not gained much traction in the national polls. In the most recent Gallup Poll, just 10% of Republicans chose him for the Republican presidential nomination. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has seen his support pick up a little in the past few months, but he remains in single digits. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback’s departure from the race -- announced this past weekend -- will almost certainly have little direct effect, as he consistently polled at only 1% or 2% of the vote.
Romney’s campaign team is banking on an initially strong performance in key early caucus and primary states to overcome their candidate’s relatively poor showing among Republicans nationwide. Romney in fact does lead all recent polls in the key early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire (more comfortably in Iowa than New Hampshire). Huckabee also outperforms his national numbers in Iowa, and is currently vying with Giuliani and Thompson for second place in that state.
Fifty-one percent of Republicans nationwide say they would vote enthusiastically for Giuliani next November should he be the party’s nominee. McCain, Thompson, and Romney are not generating the same level of enthusiasm among the party base. (The level of enthusiasm toward Giuliani is significantly lower than that generated by Democratic front-runner Clinton.)
Republicans continue to rate Giuliani more positively than his leading competitors on Gallup’s favorability measure, but he by no means dominates on this measure. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans and Republican leaners have a favorable opinion of Giuliani, compared with 61% for McCain, 53% for Thompson, and 41% for Romney. Romney’s and Thompson’s lower ratings are due in large part to the fact that they are not as well-known as Giuliani (and McCain) -- roughly one in three Republicans do not have an opinion of Thompson or Romney. For example, Giuliani’s +40 net favorable rating (67% favorable – 27% unfavorable) is roughly the same as the lesser-known Thompson’s +36 (53% favorable – 17% unfavorable). Giuliani’s favorable rating among Republicans has also declined -- it was 74% as recently as August and has been in the 80% range. |
Giuliani was even more of a heavy favorite in 2007 than Trump is today. And without the extremely high negatives that Trump has. And Giuliani had Fox News in the tank for him, across the board.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
I expect TC to say it is a conspiracy and not real.
It's all name identification at this point. Trump is at 98% name recognition, ahead of Hillary! and ¡Jeb!
#68. To: misterwhite (#6)
8 million registered Republicans stayed home last election. We might set a new record in 2016 .
Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#69. To: redleghunter (#63)
Hitlery by the polling linked is cleaning up state by state. She is in the 50s in most states and no one even close. Guess the Dim voters don't care she is a liar.
and yet Bernie Sanders is filling arenas around the nation regurgitating his populist pablum. Waiting for the emperor to pull the rug out from under Evita's legs . Btw . imagine the reaction if Trump had said "Evita is never off the rag " .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#70. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#53)
Here's an interesting tidbit from Rasmussen Reports:
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#71. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#70)
Thirty-eight percent (38%) think Biden would make a better president than Clinton. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say Clinton would be a better chief executive. One-in-three voters (33%) is undecided.
They must have called Vic this time.
I see why the Dims prefer Biden. The Xlintons compromised too much on the lib agenda and they don't trust them not to do it again. The big Wall Street banks behind Hitlery do not make her any more attractive to the Dim voter herd.
#72. To: TooConservative (#66)
I was responding to your #SurveyMonkey comments as not scientific. I provided what RealClear recorded state by state from local newspapers.
I was not making the point that who leads now will lead later. In fact my comments conclude differently.
So regardless of #SurveyMonkey, most state polls show Trump ahead NOW.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#73. To: misterwhite (#42)
So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
A lot of it will just go away. Trump has pulled in a lot of people who'd given up hope. Come November they'll stay home, unless he's running as an independent. They were never JEB's.
#74. To: tomder55 (#69)
Waiting for the emperor to pull the rug out from under Evita's legs .
We will know for sure that will happen if Biden jumps in the race.
imagine the reaction if Trump had said "Evita is never off the rag " .
On that I think even Chrissy Matthews would support Trump:)
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
#75. To: tomder55 (#68)
"Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign ."
Those 8 million stay-at-home registered Republicans said 'hello' to Obama's second term. Did the GOP learn anything? Doesn't look like it.
Perhaps 16 million Republicans staying home will catch their eye. Does that need to happen?
#76. To: nativist nationalist (#73)
"A lot of it will just go away. Trump has pulled in a lot of people who'd given up hope. Come November they'll stay home, unless he's running as an independent. They were never JEB's."
Very likely.
#77. To: misterwhite (#75)
Perhaps 16 million Republicans staying home will catch their eye. Does that need to happen?
Almost guaranteed if Trump is the GOP nominee.
#78. To: TooConservative (#77)
"Almost guaranteed if Trump is the GOP nominee."
So you're saying 8 million stayed home for Romney because he wasn't liberal enough and 16 million will stay home for Trump because he's more conservative than Romney?
In other words, the GOP is going in the wrong direction with their candidates.
#79. To: TooConservative (#66)
Giuliani was even more of a heavy favorite in 2007 than Trump is today. And without the extremely high negatives that Trump has. And Giuliani had Fox News in the tank for him, across the board.
Yes, but Giuliani never had ME.
(And your tent feels so empty without me.)
#80. To: redleghunter (#70)
Thirty-eight percent (38%) think Biden would make a better president than Clinton.
Did you get this from SNL??? :)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#81. To: misterwhite (#78)
...and 16 million will stay home for Trump because he's more conservative than Romney?
I think Romney actually is a lot more conservative than Trump in his personal life and in his business life.
Some of you guys are really closing your eyes to Trump's long history. He is no conservative. Well, unless your reasoning is along the lines of:
- I am a conservative.
- I like Donald Trump.
- Ergo, Donald Trump is a conservative.
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
(And your tent feels so empty without me.)
The tent is overrated.
#83. To: tomder55 (#68)
Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign .
If Bush is the nominee that is a sure thing. So we better get someone like Cruz or Trump in there.
No way I vote for Bush. I know maybe two people that would vote for Bush. He isn't their first choice either. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't. I know a lot of people who never voted before who would only vote for Trump.
#84. To: TooConservative (#67)
It's all name identification at this point.
No it isn't. Trumps support started at 3 percent and grew because of what he said.
Bush has name recognition. But he is behind Scott Walker and Carson. I guess they have higher name recognition then Bush.
#85. To: TooConservative (#81)
1. I am a conservative.
2. I like Donald Trump.
3. Ergo, Donald Trump is a conservative.
I believe your reasoning is:
1. I am a conservative.
2. I don't like Donald Trump.
3. Ergo, Donald Trump must not be a conservative.
"Some of you guys are really closing your eyes to Trump's long history.
You mean as a businessman? Sure, in one sense. Now he's running for President. Priorities change.
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
I believe your reasoning is:
Touché. But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#84)
Trumps support started at 3 percent and grew because of what he said.
I think part of the Trump surge is just people wanting to know what he's going to say next. He is totally unscripted.
#88. To: TooConservative (#86)
But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does.
Bush was liberal to moderate. Didn't you vote for him?
#89. To: TooConservative (#86)
"But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does."
Liberal political statements as a businessman. Interests and priorities are different when running for office.
#90. To: misterwhite (#89) (Edited)
Liberal political statements as a businessman. Interests and priorities are different when running for office.
So he was all for the Kelo decision as a businessman and used it to evict some old lady because he coveted his neighbor's property. But, as president, he'll suddenly swing into line with conservative policy on eminent domain seizures?
What kind of magical thinking is this? Why would you even believe that?
He's not going to change at all. I doubt he's capable of it.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#88) (Edited)
Bush was liberal to moderate. Didn't you vote for him?
I had 4 chances to vote for a Bush.
I only failed once to reject the Bushes. How about you? You're old enough that you had the same four chances to vote for a Bush. What's your score?
I still tend to think that Gore would have been as bad or worse than Bush, just in different ways. But I can't say that Gore would have invaded Iraq, Dumbya's biggest mistake.
#92. To: TooConservative (#90)
"So he was all for the Kelo decision as a businessman and used it to evict some old lady because he coveted his neighbor's property."
When you have to lie to make your point you've lost the debate.
"But, as president, he'll suddenly swing into line with conservative policy on eminent domain seizures?"
And do what? Single-handedly overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision? Who do you think he is, Obama?
#93. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#92)
When you have to lie to make your point you've lost the debate.
I'm not lying. If anything, I'm understating what Trump said and did on eminent domain.
LarryElder.com, 2011:
| Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today noted that Donald Trump once tried to use eminent domain to evict an elderly widow from her Atlantic City home to build a limousine parking lot, and has repeatedly tried to use eminent domain as a tool of his development business: "First we find out Donald Trump is a liberal on taxes, health care, and trade. Now we find out he's an abuser of eminent domain. Eminent domain abuse is an assault on freedom, pure and simple" said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. "No real conservative would ever use eminent domain in order to take the private property of citizens. I'm shocked and appalled by these revelations. Club members and conservatives ought to know where Donald Trump stands on the issues." Donald Trump: A History of Eminent Domain Abuse In 1997, Trump tried to evict an elderly widow to expand an Atlantic City casino: Vera Coking agreed to drop her lawsuit against Donald Trump yesterday and accepted a settlement of $90,000 from Trump's demolition contractor for damage to the rooming house she has long refused to sell. The settlement does not affect the longstanding battle over ownership of Coking's house on South Columbia Place, a block from Trump Plaza. Coking is still fighting a court battle to keep her home in the face of a state eminent domain action to assist Trump with the expansion of his casino. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/19/97) Trump would have used the land to build a "limousine waiting area": Superior Court Judge Richard Williams said the state's plan to seize the parcels for an expansion of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was flawed because it set no limits on what Mr. Trump could do once he obtained the land. Mr. Trump had said the land would be used for a park, a parking lot and a limousine waiting area. (New York Times, 7/26/98) Trump on pro-eminent domain Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London: "I happen to agree with it 100 percent": CAVUTO: You know, the one thing that sticks in the craw of a lot of people with this court, Donald -- and I don't know where you come down on it, but this eminent domain issue that essentially allowed someone's home to be bulldozed, as was the case in New London, Connecticut, if it gets in the way of developers. Now, you're a pretty successful developer in your own right. What did you think of that decision? Was the court overdoing it with that decision? TRUMP: Well, it's sort of not a good one for me to say, because I noticed every article written about it said, "Will Donald Trump take over your home?" sort of using me as the example, Neil. And it's sort of -- it's an interesting situation to be in. But I happen to agree with it 100 percent, not that I would want to use it. But the fact is, if you have a person living in an area that's not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it's local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that's not good into a good area, and move the person that's living there into a better place -- now, I know it might not be their choice -- but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good. (Fox News, 7/19/05) In 1994, Trump proposed using eminent domain to purchase land in Bridgeport, CT to build an amusement park: The city currently owns Pleasure Beach, which makes up about 40 percent of the 100 acres. The remaining 60 percent is privately owned. Under the Trump proposal, the city would acquire the private land through eminent domain and then convey it to Mr. Trump. The Trump organization and the city's Parks Board would enter into a long-term lease for the Pleasure Beach area. (New York Times, 6/3/94) |
This is no recent GOPe attack on Trump. His history is well-documented. As with many other things, a lot of Trumpsters are projecting their own ideas onto Trump and don't seem to care (or want to ask) what his real record and positions are.
A march of low-info Republicanish voters.
So I'll thank you not to lie about me lying about Trump, hypocrite.
Worship your false gods if you must but don't expect me to join you.
.
.
.
Comments (94 - 146) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]