[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Imagine If Donald Trump Ran As A Democrat — It’s Not Too Hard To Do
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/13/i ... mocrat-its-not-too-hard-to-do/
Published: Dec 14, 2015
Author: Jamie Weinstein
Post Date: 2015-12-14 04:40:22 by tomder55
Keywords: Trump is a Democrat
Views: 4044
Comments: 49

Imagine for a moment if Donald Trump made the decision to run for president as a Democrat instead of as a Republican.

As Trump-mania continues to dominate the Republican presidential primary, it’s not hard to envision an alternate reality – one where the real estate billionaire is taking the country by storm as a Democrat.

In many ways, it would have been easier for Trump to enter the Democratic primary than the Republican primary. Trump was registered as a Democrat from 2001 to 2009 and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid over the years. (In fairness, he has donated a lot of money to Republican candidates as well.)

As a native of liberal New York City, it’s not surprising that Trump has a much longer record of being pro-choice than he does of being pro-life.

“I support a woman’s right to choose,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 2000.

Trump was never a staunch opponent of gay marriage either until recently. In fact, Rick Santorum says that Trump chided him in 2011 for being “too hard-core” on gay marriage and abortion.

“I don’t know anyone that shares that opinion with you,” Santorum said Trump told him.

So it’s not too hard to envision Trump running as a socially liberal Democrat. Indeed, it would seemingly be a far easier act for the thrice-married New Yorker to pull off than convincing evangelicals that he is staunchly pro-life and against gay marriage.

On foreign policy, Trump isn’t all that different from Barack Obama. To the extent his foreign policy worldview is comprehensible, he comes across as the least hawkish candidate in the GOP field, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, even though rhetoric sometimes masks this. While he says he wants to increase military spending and “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, he regularly makes the case for reducing America’s leadership role in world affairs and focusing on nation building at home.

“I’ll tell you what, there is going to be nation building. You know what the nation’s going to be? The United States, that’s what the nation’s going to be,” Trump told me in September, speaking of his foreign policy outlook.

As Trump also repeatedly highlights, he opposed the Iraq war (though the first evidence of this comes from 2004, over a year after the war began). Such a position is far more endearing to the Democratic base than Hillary Clinton’s support for the military action that removed Saddam from power.

Trump wouldn’t be out of place on economic issues in a Democratic primary either. At this anti-Wall Street moment, Trump could paint himself as the insider who is ready to turn enemy of his class for the good of the country.

What’s more, Trump has a record of favoring proposals that would be far more vexing to the one percent than anything Bernie Sanders has proposed. In 1999, Trump proposed a one-time 14.25 percent tax on wealthy Americans and trusts over $10 million. Even now he doesn’t back away from that proposal philosophically, even though he says he doesn’t intend to pursue it in the White House.

“At that time we could have paid off the entire national debt and we could have started the game all even,” Trump told Sean Hannity in August, noting that the proposal was actually “very conservative.”

Trump is also a supporter of universal health care, if not Obamacare.

“I am going to take care of everybody,” Trump said on “60 Minutes” in September. “I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Trump even praised the single payer health care programs of Canada and Scotland during the first Republican presidential debate in August.

“As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland, it could have worked in a different age, which is the age you are talking about here,” Trump said when asked by the moderators about his past support for single payer health care.

Of course Trump would have had to made the strategic decision to position himself to run in 2016 as a Democrat way back in 2010, before he went on his birther kick. You probably can’t win a Democratic primary as one of the leading birthers in the country.

His rhetoric on immigration also wouldn’t fly in a Democratic primary. But if he made the decision to position himself as a Democrat contender back in 2010, he would never have called for the deportation of all the illegal immigrants in the country. In fact, after Mitt Romney lost in 2012, Trump criticized the Republican contender’s rhetoric on immigration as “mean-spirited,” which suggests Trump’s instincts on illegal immigration may be less harsh than what we are seeing today

“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump told Newsmax. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”

But if Trump made the decision to run as a Democrat in 2010, he may be even better positioned to win the Democratic presidential nomination today than he is to win the Republican nomination. The Democratic field is far smaller and with Joe Biden’s decision to not enter the race, there is no candidate opposing Hillary Clinton who people can actually imagine winning the nomination, even if Sanders could potentially threaten her in a few states.

Trump may have been that guy. He could have successfully branded Clinton as untrustworthy and even criminal over her email scandal and shady Clinton Foundation dealings, just like he negatively branded so many of his GOP foes. And it very well may have worked, just like it seems to have worked with “low-energy” Jeb Bush.

So it doesn’t take too much of an imagination to envision a world where Donald Trump is on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination. In fact, it may even be far easier to get your head around than our current reality.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: tomder55 (#0)

Keywords: Trump is a Democrat

You're probably being too subtle. LOL

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-14   5:01:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tomder55 (#0)

To address the article more, I would observe that Trump's biggest fan base is in the Northeast and eastern seaboard. That is where he is best known, most admired for his business deals, where his TV show was always the most popular.

So Trump is most popular in northeast liberal states where voters would sooner elect a dead cat president than a Republican.

Of course, that cuts both ways. Trump might arguably be able to win Pennsylvania and a few other purple states that seem perpetually out of reach for the GOP since Reagan. And no one knows how many inactive voters might turn out for Trump that wouldn't turn out for any other GOP (or Dem) pol. It might be a larger number than anyone thinks possible.

I think Trump is a Dem running as a GOP, just like Bloomberg ran for mayor as a Republican, except he was also a lifelong Dem who, even after being elected as a Republican, still kept giving huge amounts to Dem pols and hanging out with them constantly. Oh, wait, Trump also kept giving large amounts to Dems after he became a Republican, including the Xlinton Foundation so Billy and Hilly would show up for Trump's third marriage to another foreign bimbo.

Trump really isn't a Republican. He's a Dem that couldn't get elected by the Democrat party. Like Bloomberg. But more than that, Trump is Trump. His ego is far too large to be contained by either political party.

I think a lot of support Trump is getting is a way for the party base to flip off the party bosses and GOPe. As primaries draw near, Iowa and New Hampshire are going to take a very hard look at Trump. He's made a number of statements that indicate he knows almost nothing about Christianity of any flavor and still crudely attacked the faith and denomination of other GOP candidates. He's flipflopped from extreme pro-abortion to pro-life and extreme antigun positions to saying he's pro-gun. Trump has not yet faced the RKBA and hardcore pro-lifers. Nor has anyone talked much about his choices for the Court but we already know he wants to appoint justices like his sister, a federal judge and extreme pro-abortion activist on the bench.

I just think that has to catch up with Trump sooner than later. Unless he can tap into the Perot effect -- "oh, look, a rich old White Knight will save us all from those evil politicians" -- and turn out an army of new voters to support him, Trump will face some days of reckoning with the voters.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-14   5:17:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#2)

I think you don't get Trump is for Trump, he uses the media so that everyone is focused on him and no other candidates get any air, In this way he makes them appear mediocre, he will have most of them drop out before the first primary, he puts out extreme views and tests the support. He may draw voters away from the democrats because everyone is looking for an alternative

paraclete  posted on  2015-12-14   5:35:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: paraclete (#3)

I think you don't get Trump is for Trump

Yeah, I think I guessed that a while back.     : )

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-14   5:53:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: paraclete (#3)

I think you don't get Trump is for Trump,

He's more than that . He is a Trojan horse liberal saboteur . He uses rhetoric to the extreme to give credence to every Democrat stereotype of Republicans. Republicans hate Hispanics... look what he said about Mexicans Republicans wage war on women ... look what he said about Megyn Kelly and Carley Fiorina. Republicans hate Muslims ...He wants to keep ALL of them out Republicans hate Jews ... He spoke to a Jewish organization using every stereotype he could think of .

Last week should've been one of the emperor's worst weeks . He made a ridiculously lame address from the Oval Office (where traditionally only major policy initiatives or changes in policy are addressed }. The Dems and the press were poised to critique his address badly . Then Trump threw the emperor a life line with his call to ban all Muslim immigration. The conversation instantly changed .

More important .... This campaign has become a clash of personalities instead of policy ideas .That does not do us any good. His answer to any policy is to put the right people in the right place in government (reeking of a typical Democrat solution ala JFK and his team of 'best people' ).

Before he announced his run ,he had a phone call with Bubba Clintoon. Bubba reportedly encouraged Trump to run.They also extensively discussed the political landscape and presumably plotted Trump's campaign.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   7:15:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tomder55 (#0)

In many ways, it would have been easier for Trump to enter the Democratic primary than the Republican primary. Trump was registered as a Democrat from 2001 to 2009 and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid over the years. (In fairness, he has donated a lot of money to Republican candidates as well.)

He was a Republican since the 60's. Then Bush the asshole came along in 2001.

I wasn't for Republicans when Bush was in office either.

Trump like the whole country, save 3 percent don't like Bush.

Bush made a lot of peole leave the R party.

Tomder is a statist who doesn't believe in the constitution. So of course he would like Bush and his extraconstitutional activities.

Trump is smarter then you. By light years.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:29:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: tomder55 (#0)

The establishment knows Trump is going to win. You guys are getting desperate.

You just like those illegals coming across the border. It is very important for your slave labor manufacturing.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:31:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tomder55 (#0)

Trump is pro-life. He does believe in a rape/incest exception, which means that he's not as absolutist on the matter as, say, Santorum, but he is, nevertheless pro-life. You can't run for national office as a pro-lifer at all on the Democrat side.

Trump's position on abortion is where a lot of Americans fall: he doesn't support it, but he's not going to block it for rape and incest cases. Religious purists would allow no exceptions, and on their logic they're right, but most of the nation doesn't share their logic. Rape is the wedge issue that the Democrats, many (most?) of whom would "abort" a three-year old if it were convenient for the mother's sex life and job prospects, use with very powerful effect to ensure that the majority stays pro-choice.

Pull that rape issue out of there, and the incest issue, and the majority line moves over to the pro- life side. That's where Trump is: pro-life, with rape and incest exceptions to the law. It is not a good answer, from a religious perspective, given that the babies of rape and incest are innocent too, but it's a whole lot less terrible than abortion on demand for all, paid for by Obamacare.

But it's a much stronger position politically and electorally than pro-life with no rape exception, simply because pro-life WITH a rape exception is within the pale of what many women will vote for, but pro-life WITHOUT a rape exception is an absolute non-starter for huge numbers of women and independents.

Trump's position on the matter neutralizes it for many women, because most women won't get an abortion, but very few women will tolerate having the right to one taken away if they're raped, or for kids who are raped by their uncles and the like.

Pro-life with a rape and incest exception is not a Democrat position at all. It's a moderate center- right position. And he's the only Republican candidate who has it. Which means that he's the only one who can get a lot of those votes that the others never can get.

And it's not a "nuanced position" he is taking. It's what he actually thinks, and he's always been willing to discuss it. I've heard him say it: Doesn't believe in abortion, thinks it's terrible, but thinks rape and incest and having to carry the baby is more terrible, so isn't going to block abortion in those cases. That's what he thinks, and a lot of women agree with that. They'll vote for a man who has that view. They won't vote for a man who tells them that they have to carry a rapist's baby to terms.

You can yell at them with your religious dogma all you like - and I do - but they will not change their minds, and they'll just hate you and make a point of voting Democrat. Trump's position on abortion is where our democracy is - that's as pro-life as anybody can be and still get elected in 2015. It's a position that can save a lot of babies, but not all of them. An unhappy compromise to my eyes, but better than any Democrat. And the Santorums cannot WIN, so the purity of their position is academic.

Trump wasn't a staunch opponent of gay marriage, and neither are most Americans. Most Americans are urban, and most urban Americans really don't CARE what people do, as long as they don't do it on the bus. Most Americans are not howlingly offended that two guys want to get it on behind closed doors. But most Americans are more worried about religious fanatics who want to get into people's bedrooms. It's just like with the rape and incest exceptions to abortion. Most Americans are nominally Christian, and willing to enforce big moral issues (like no murder, no rape, no incest, feed the poor, etc.), but they are not fanatics, and don't want to punish people for homosexuality because they don't really CARE.

Huge numbers of people have had immoral sexual experiences of whatever stripe - sex outside of wedlock is immoral, divorce and remarriage is immoral, dating while separated is immoral, watching porn is immoral - they know it's immoral at some level, but they don't care, and they CERTAINLY are not going to permit ANYBODY to get in their grill and start telling them what they can do. The Westboro Baptist Church punches the sort of buttons that would result in their being beaten to a pulp or shot if the bulk of people had their way about them. People accept that there are limits, but they are not willing to cede the policing of those limits to religious fanatics. Nor are they willing to allow the religious to set what those limits are, because most Americans are over the line of where religion sets the limits.

So it's a question of "what" and "how much". Most Americans think that gay sex is just sex, don't care, and want to leave people alone. Most people WERE of the mindset to think that marriage is different, and not liking the public sashaying around of gays that are "married". THAT was over the line for most Americans five to ten years ago.

But once again, most people really don't CARE, but they really REALLY don't like the people who DO care so much, because those same people are the ones who would take away the rape exception on abortion - and that's an absolute non-starter, and they're the same people who were in the bag for W, who were gung ho for the Iraq war, etc.

When the judges ruled on abortion long ago, it didn't settle things, because most people really do worry about all that abortion. But when the courts moved on gay marriage, the people sort of shrugged their shoulders, because most people really don't care what other people do, as long as they don't do it on the bus.

And once again, Trump is just about there, right in the middle of the pack of Americans.

Which means that when it comes to third-rail issues of rape exceptions and leaving gays alone, Trump doesn't have a no-go position, but the other Republicans do. And that is why Trump can win a general election but the others can't.

Back in the day, Republicans used to have the trump card of national security. But then came W and disastrous wars and military incompetence. The Republicans also had a better reputation at handling the economy, but then came Clinton, whose economy boomed, followed by Bush, who left the country in foreign quagmires, mired in debt, in an economic depression. The Republicans lost their national security and economic stewardship brands. All they had left where hard right social positions, which are not electable, but they tried to slip Romney past, to dupe the hard right while being acceptable to the center. It didn't work. The center wasn't convinced, and the hard right wasn't either.

Trump is a different animal. He is center right on social issues, and everybody knows it, and he's economically successful, and he's touched directly on the economic issue that touches huge numbers of Americans: immigration. AND he's looking to fight the terrorists a very practical way: keep them OUT of HERE.

This plays right down the plate for most Americans, so he's popular. The Republican Establishment hates it because they lose control of the party. The Democrats fear it more and more, because Trump will get the independents and win, if he's the nominee.

So you have all of this flak coming at him. It helps him because he's picked the right enemies. Most of the people agree with HIM, and not his enemies, so THEIR drawing attention to the issue is like free campaign advertising for him: LOOK! I'm not a religious nut! LOOK! I don't favor the illegal invaders! LOOK! I don't favor the hedge fund guys. That's why they all hate me. Etc.

Trump is believable in the role because that's actually where HE stands,so he's not striking poses, and people know it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-14   7:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: tomder55 (#5)

He uses rhetoric to the extreme

Only a liberal open borders moron would say that.

Oh wait it's tomtard

Pat Buchanan is conservative and supports Trump. Pat Buchanan is so much smarter then tomtard.

Tomtard likes selling out American workers so he can make a few extra bucks to the detriment of his citizens. That is a liberal position. You're liberal on a lot of issues.

Maybe you should vote for Hillary if Trump wins. She is running against America. She agrees with you that trade deals that sell out Americans are good. She agrees with your foreign policy. Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion safe and rare so I'm sure you could get on board with Hillary.

That is who you will vote for. Or Trump. You'd pick Hillary because she is more liberal.

You also like open border Rubio. It doesn't bother you that he used checks unauthorized then got caught and later paid it back. You have a moral problem it appears.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

Pro-life with a rape and incest exception is not a Democrat position at all. It's a moderate center- right position. And he's the only Republican candidate who has it. Which means that he's the only one who can get a lot of those votes that the others never can get.

Incorrect. Many of the candidates have that position.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:42:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tomder55 (#5)

he had a phone call with Bubba Clintoon

so you think all of this is to get Hillary elected

paraclete  posted on  2015-12-14   7:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

Christian, and willing to enforce big moral issues (like no murder, no rape, no incest, feed the poor, etc.), but they are not fanatics, and don't want to punish people for homosexuality because they don't really CARE.

You are incorrect here. Faggots is not a small moral issue. God judged faggots with fire and brimstone. I never brought down fire and brimstone to someone who didn't feed the poor. In fact he told his people not to give their money to the poor. Because poor people will always be with us. Some people are lazy and make bad decisions. That isn't the only reason people are poor. But it is the predominate one in America.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: paraclete (#11)

he had a phone call with Bubba Clintoon so you think all of this is to get Hillary elected

He's going retard sneakypete on us.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   7:47:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tomder55 (#0)

Trump may have been registered as a dhimocrat at one time - but that's irrelevant now.

Like Trump or hate him or (like me) be indifferent about him - here's the deal: the present day dhimocrat party is a religion - with a bunch of lockstep lemmings following a failed tyrant off a cliff. They have a party loyalty second to none - their adherence to their agenda would make Nazis and Fascists envious.

Say what you want about Trump - he is NOT a follower.

And he could no more worship at the altar of Zero than he could ever be contrite or humble.

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . "

~Psalm 33:12a

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-12-14   8:00:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

abortion is another issue he flip flopped on .

“I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors,” Trump 1999

"I support a woman’s right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial- birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban. " ' The America We Deserve', by Donald Trump, p. 31-32

He was pro-choice until he decided to run as a Republican. Then he either had a road to Damascus moment ;or his position 'evolved ' like the emperor ,or he was just being politically opportunists . You decide . The way I see him flip on other issues makes me believe it's political opportunism .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   8:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tomder55 (#15)

He was pro-choice until he decided to run as a Republican.

I give him the benefit of the doubt.

When have you ever seen a pro choice democrat say they are pro choice but uncomfortable with the procedures.

He was never hard core abortion. Like say Hillary.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   8:08:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#6)

He was a Republican since the 60's. Then Bush the asshole came along in 2001.

He changes parties like the wind based not on core beliefs but crass opportunism .

Here is his party registrations and the dates he registered :

July 1987 Republican

October 1999 Independence Party

August 2001 Democrat

September 2009 Republican

December 2011 No party affiliation (independent)

April 2012 Republican

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   8:46:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tomder55 (#17)

Ok you convinced me. I'm not voting for him. ;)

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   8:57:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited)

Tomtard likes selling out American workers so he can make a few extra bucks to the detriment of his citizens. That is a liberal position

and Trump talks a good game about Chinese stealing our jobs . Then we find out that he sells Chinese goods in his store.

The day after his tirade, the Trump Store inside the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York boasted an array of imported goods, including teddy bears and T-shirts from China alongside products from Haiti, Nicaragua and Lesotho.

Trump mentioned China two-dozen times in the opener to his 2016 presidential bid, accusing that country and Mexico of putting Americans out of work. . "They can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs,"

In fact he says he has an obligation to buy cheap Chinese goods :

"A friend of mine is a great manufacturer. And, you know, China comes over and they dump all their stuff, and I buy it," "I buy it, because, frankly, I have an obligation to buy it, because they devalue their currency so brilliantly. "

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   9:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: tomder55 (#17) (Edited)

Speaking of switching parties. You know Reagan did. Your number one hero Guiliani did too. Opportunistic bitch he is.

From wiki. Giuliani did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War. His conscription was deferred while he was enrolled at Manhattan College and NYU Law. Upon graduation from the latter in 1968, he was classified by the Selective Service System as 1-A, available for military service. He applied for a deferment but was rejected. In 1969, Judge MacMahon wrote a letter to Giuliani's draft board, asking that he be reclassified as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee. The deferment was granted. In 1970, Giuliani received a high draft lottery number; he was not called up for service although by then he had been reclassified 1-A.[26] [27] In 1970, Giuliani joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.[28] In 1973, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and became executive U.S. attorney.[21]

In 1975 Giuliani switched his party registration from Democratic to Independent[23] as he was recruited to Washington, D.C. during the Ford administration, where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Harold "Ace" Tyler.[23] His first high-profile prosecution was of Democratic U.S. Representative Bertram L. Podell (NY-13), who was convicted of corruption.[29] From 1977 to 1981, during the Carter Administration, Giuliani practiced law at the Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler law firm, as chief of staff to his previous DC boss, Ace Tyler. Tyler later became critical of Giuliani's turn as a prosecutor, calling his tactics "overkill".[23]

On December 8, 1980, one month after the election of Ronald Reagan brought Republicans back to power in Washington, he switched his party affiliation from Independent to Republican.[23] Giuliani later said the switches were because he found Democratic policies "naïve", and that "by the time I moved to Washington, the Republicans had come to make more sense to me".[13] Others suggested that the switches were made in order to get positions in the Justice Department.[23] Giuliani's mother maintained in 1988 that:

He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He's definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn't. He still feels very sorry for the poor.[23]

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tomder55 (#19)

and Trump talks a good game about Chinese stealing our jobs . Then we find out that he sells Chinese goods in his store.

I try to buy American. You can't always find things made in America.

You didn't know that?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:04:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone, tomder55 (#18)

Ok you convinced me. I'm not voting for him. ;)

Wow, you're so right. Now I'm not voting for Trump either.     : )

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-14   9:05:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tomder55 (#19)

In fact he says he has an obligation to buy cheap Chinese goods :

If you are bidding against a competitor. You may be foreced to if you want the job. Otherwise your price would come much higher.

I thought you said you were in business.

If we tariff foreign goods like the founders. It levels out the field. We have regulations the Chinese don't. So because of that and other factors they undercut us.

Your sell out candidates will continue the sell out.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: TooConservative (#22)

Wow, you're so right. Now I'm not voting for Trump either. : )

Like Bush's money men who say they will vote for Hillary.

In the back of my mind I kinds of thought you were an establishment sell out. Thanks for coming out of the closet.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:09:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#20)

Speaking of switching parties. You know Reagan did.

No one was surprised by Reagan's switch. It was consistent with the conservative positions he had taken for years as a spokesman for GE . He campaigned for Ike in 1952 and 1956 .

In 1960 he wrote Nixon a letter declaring his support for the Vice President, as Reagan felt that Kennedy would impose communism on the US. Nixon asked that he remain a Democrat in name as Reagan's endorsement would be more effective then.

1962,He was at a campaign event supporting Nixon's run for governor. A women asked him if he had registered as a Republican yet, and he responded that he hadn't but intended to. The women happened to be a registrar and had brought a form with her for the purpose. Reagan officially switched on the spot.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   9:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: tomder55 (#25)

I was talking more about your new york city hero Rudy. Who is and was a liberal and you adore him.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)

I was talking more about your new york city hero Rudy. Who is and was a liberal and you adore him.

He ran NYC as a conservative and was an effective Mayor . I did not support his run for President ;but would've voted for him if he was nominated .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   9:19:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: tomder55 (#27) (Edited)

He ran NYC as a conservative and was an effective Mayor . I did not support his run for President ;but would've voted for him if he was nominated .

Rudy is pro abortion.

You need to shut up about Trump changing his position.

You're a pro abortion voter. You vote for abortion. You vote for abortion. You vote for murder.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:24:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: redleghunter (#27)

I was talking more about your new york city hero Rudy. Who is and was a liberal and you adore him. He ran NYC as a conservative and was an effective Mayor . I did not support his run for President ;but would've voted for him if he was nominated .

Redleg. Would you ever vote for pro abortion Rudy?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   9:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A K A Stone (#10)

Incorrect. Many of the candidates have that position.

Who?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-14   10:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#12)

God judged faggots with fire and brimstone. I never brought down fire and brimstone to someone who didn't feed the poor. In fact he told his people not to give their money to the poor. Because poor people will always be with us. Some people are lazy and make bad decisions. That isn't the only reason people are poor.

The whole economic plan of Scriptures focuses especially on the poor, Torah through Christian Epistles. Your position about the poor is not Scriptural. It's "Christian" in the sense that there are heretical Christian churches that preach such nonsense. To which of those do you belong, so that I can specifically go look at the garbage they put out and refute it with Scripture.

I gave you pages and pages of Scripture on the matter, you just will not listen.

As far as homosexuals go, it is true that God forbids sodomy. There's no question about it. There's also no question that the bulk of Americans do not agree with God on the matter, and do not want to prohibit men from having sex with men, and women from women. MARRIAGE is a separate issue, but most Americans simply do not care, and are not going to be MADE to care.

The problem with YOUR heretical form of Christianity is THIS: Americans DO care about the poor, about poverty and poverty relief in youth and old age, about taking care of the sick - including themselves being taken care of. THOSE parts of Christ's and YHWH's message resonate.

Where Christians rightly stand for poverty relief and then also remember the babies and worry about homosexuality, it is consistent. But that's not where the religious right is.

No, the religious right in America is like you: obsessed with money full of hatred of the poor, which you express. And with that, you run out on half of what Christ said. The hypocrisy and heresy is OBVIOUS to everybody who ISN'T in your weird little heresy.

And your heretical views on poverty then torpedo the entire agenda of the right. People in general care a lot more about poverty than they care about who is having sex with whom. And you sacrifice any ability to speak for God or to even be taken as a moral or Christian person when you deny the poverty Gospel and the mountain of commandments for compassion for and aid to the poor.

Worse, because you take those stances in the name of Christ, you end up polluting Christ's name before men, and allowing the people who really hate the religion to point at Christians and Christian Churches like yours and say: See, Christians hate the poor and are obsessed with sex.

And when they do that, when speaking of you, THEY ARE RIGHT, because you DO hate the poor, you despise them and spit on them, and you ARE obsessed with sex and controlling sex through the law.

So Christianity eclipses further and further, because it is INSANE if that's what it really is.

The fact is that the tithe was given to take care of the poor, and was mandatory, and Jesus spent oceans of time calling for help for the poor and sick, and giving it, and warning against people taking the hard-hearted, money-serving stance you take.

It's not Christian, but you firmly insist that it IS Christian, and people who are inclined to dislike the Christian position anyway because of the sexual restraints and the abortion restrictions then find Christians to be mean, petty moneygrubbers. Without Christ's compassion for the poor, the Christianity you practice looks like a nationalistic, money-grubbing, oppressive ideology, and people side together to put it down and out.

Trump, on the other hand is more Christian than that, for HE talks of the need to take care of everybody medically. Everybody. THAT is Christian, not your money-focused mean-spirited heresy.

As far as gay marriage goes, no that isn't Christian. And it wasn't popular either, but we GOT to the point where the Left was strong enough to do it BECAUSE American "Christians" have given so much divine service to money and to war that they lost their claim to morality. With Christianity weakened and sullied, a population that was better than the Christian heretics - because the general population (correctly) WANTS to assist the poor and the sick, went ahead and set up social welfare WITHOUT the likes of you money- serving Scripture-twisting heretics...with the net result that relief of poverty was ceded, by "Christians" to the socialists, to the left, and they WIN.

And having won BECAUSE of money and war issues, they THEN win on an abomination like gay marriage.

So, now we're a post-Christian society, and in this society, people are not going to outlaw gay sex anymore. Gay marriage is now the law of the land BECAUSE "Christians" like you served money and power so adamantly you took the charity and the peace out of Christ and made him into an icon of American imperial capitalism.

And that is evil, and it lost. You sullied Christ. And you continue to sully Christ by pretending that he does not COMMAND men and kings, churches and governments, to mobilize the resources necessary to take care of the poor and sick and old and orphan - ALL OF THEM. All of them, everywhere in the world.

You get your country in order, and then you don't send armies to capture oil reserves, you spend the money you would waste on sending your souls to hell as mass murderers and you use it to feed the poor and help the widow, the sick, the orphan in those countries you'd invade.

And then you are obeying Christ, as Christ and YHWH spoke in Scripture.

We have gay marriage because of your beliefs about money. Socialism, and in many places Communism, won BECAUSE the Christians did not obey Christ about money and about brotherly love. That left the field that Christians SHOULD have utterly dominated a threadbare set of band-aid dispensers, into which people with better instincts than money-serving Christians stepped, and seized it, and used that as the basis to take over everything.

But you can always repent, actually listen to God and to his Son, admit your error, admit that, in fact, individuals AND Churches AND the state ALL have a duty to God to look after the poor - not grudgingly - and then we can pretty quickly reverse the field.

American conservatism has failed because free market free trade capitalism with open immigration impoverishes more and more of the work force, and leaves them with an unravelled social safety net, while the money that SHOULD be spent on that is spent on bloody wars all over the world, serving an imperium. And the "Christians" who should have been preventing that, en masse, are instead pretending that Jesus wears an American flag bandanna and doesn't care about the poor. When Christianity gets THAT cancerous and contrary to Christ, a vacuum is opened, and you end up with state socialism that has the charity but leaves out God...but that is no more immoral than your particular brand of Christian heresy.

And there are a lot more poor people than rich people, so in then, your brand of heresy loses. It loses the electorate, loses the country, loses the elections, and then in the end loses salvation.

Pretty bad deal, really. You should come out of the death trap in which you've put yourself.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-14   11:11:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#12) (Edited)

Faggots is not a small moral issue.

I agree that it's not when it comes to God. But it is when it comes to the American electorate.

The Christians lost their ability to hold the ground because they sided with the Republicans and became rah-rah cheerleaders for a screw-the-poor sort of capitalism, which is not Christian, and because they became cheerleaders for the aggressive American military power, which isn't Christian either.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-14   11:16:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone, tomder55 (#29)

Not for President, US Senator, nor for the House of Representatives.

He was an effective mayor as NYC politicians go.

I did not live in the City nor NY State when he was mayor. However during my military service I did visit my home state to visit with family from time to time.

When growing up near NYC and going to university in the NYC, downtown Manhattan was a dump. I would often take the Metro North to Grand Central Station and the first thing that would hit me was the smell. The 'Grand' was gone from it. Homeless living there going to the bathroom in tunnels on the tracks. You get the picture. It was not like NYC had a lack of homeless shelters either.

Went back to NYC to visit in the late 90s after not going there for several years. Took the same train, and got off at Grand Central and no smell, everything clean, the yellowed out and broken large bay windows replaced and sun finally shining through into the train station. The homeless were in homeless shelters and not living in phone booths. Walking around the tourist locations there were visible patrolling police officers. The streets were clean with no trash in site.

Rudy brought back at least the downtown area to the prominence most people remember from my parents youth. It also attracted more tourists.

So yes, from the standpoint of cleaning up the city, Rudy did a good job.

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-12-14   11:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: redleghunter (#33)

Rudy brought back at least the downtown area to the prominence most people remember from my parents youth. It also attracted more tourists.

So yes, from the standpoint of cleaning up the city, Rudy did a good job.

I agree with that. Giuliani was an effective Mayor. He turned a lot of things around.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-14   12:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: redleghunter (#33)

I did not live in the City nor NY State when he was mayor. However during my military service I did visit my home state to visit with family from time to time.

When growing up near NYC and going to university in the NYC, downtown Manhattan was a dump. I would often take the Metro North to Grand Central Station and the first thing that would hit me was the smell. The 'Grand' was gone from it. Homeless living there going to the bathroom in tunnels on the tracks. You get the picture. It was not like NYC had a lack of homeless shelters either.

Went back to NYC to visit in the late 90s after not going there for several years. Took the same train, and got off at Grand Central and no smell, everything clean, the yellowed out and broken large bay windows replaced and sun finally shining through into the train station. The homeless were in homeless shelters and not living in phone booths. Walking around the tourist locations there were visible patrolling police officers. The streets were clean with no trash in site.

Rudy brought back at least the downtown area to the prominence most people remember from my parents youth. It also attracted more tourists.

So yes, from the standpoint of cleaning up the city, Rudy did a good job.

I said he had few accomplishments.

He didn't do everything wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-14   13:13:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: A K A Stone (#7)

You just like those illegals coming across the border. It is very important for your slave labor manufacturing.

And the illegals vote Democrat.

Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-12-14   13:20:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#35)

I said he had few accomplishments.

He didn't do everything wrong.

I already documented a number of his accomplishments in one of the bluest city in the country . He turned the city around regarding crime ,quality of life , fiscal reform making the city friendly and safe to open a business. People were abandoning the city in troves before Rudy .

New York was recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for five consecutive years.Under his watch whole neighborhoods were transformed from abandoned buildings to places where property values were so high that people complained they couldn't move there .

All this was accomplished while he faced off against entrenched municipal unions ,an entrenched Tammany Hall like city hall bureaucracy ,and identity- group politicians and agitators like Al Sharpton.

Before the Gingrich House attempted to reform welfare Rudy had already done it in NYC . Over 640,000 people were cut from welfare rolls. Unemployment dropped from 10.4% to 5.0%, personal income rose 50%, a $2.3 billion budget deficit was turned into a $2.9 billion surplus by 2001, there was a 17% reduction in New Yorkers tax burden.

Rudy was a strong advocate of school choice. He created the Charter School Initiative in 1999, which led to creation of 17 new schools by 2001.

He cut off city funding for the Brooklyn Museum because it had a painting of Mary mother if Jesus next to elephant dung and female genitalia pictures. Unfortunately the museum and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against him on violating the First Amendment. The courts forced him to restore funding. As mayor he refused to invite the likes of Arafat and Fidel Castro to official city events . When the Twin Towers fell ,he refused to accept a donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal .

Don't let his positions on abortion ,homosexual "marriage" ,and gun control cloud your view of the rest of his conservative accomplishments . I already said that I would not support him for a run for President . But every liberal city in the nation could use some of the reforms he instituted in his 2 terms in NY .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-12-14   14:46:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: tomder55 (#37)

Rudy was a strong advocate of school choice. He created the Charter School Initiative in 1999, which led to creation of 17 new schools by 2001.

I've seen Rudy admit that his greatest failing as mayor was that he didn't take on the public school problems directly.

You can tell he thinks he could have fixed them. But he already had a lot of other irons in the fire, etc. He does seem genuinely regretful that he didn't make NYC public education a much higher priority.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-14   20:44:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: tomder55 (#5)

Before he announced his run ,he had a phone call with Bubba Clintoon. Bubba reportedly encouraged Trump to run.They also extensively discussed the political landscape and presumably plotted Trump's campaign.

And there you have it.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-14   21:18:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A K A Stone (#7)

The establishment knows Trump is going to win. You guys are getting desperate.

Trump IS the establishment.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-12-14   21:19:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 49) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com