Despite NY Win, It Was a Bad Week for Trump

Townhall.com ^ | April 22, 2016 | David Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

Despite his big win in New York on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has had a pretty bad week. But will it matter? It should -- and just might.

During an NBC "Today" show town hall Thursday, the host read a question from Twitter concerning Trump's views on LGBT issues and how he plans to be inclusive as president. "Speak about North Carolina bathroom law in particular."

Trump responded: "I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. Well, look, North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they're paying a big price, and there's a lot of problems. ... North Carolina, what they're going through, with all of the business that's leaving and all of the strife -- and that's on both sides -- you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble."

In response to a follow-up question, Trump said he would not support putting new bathrooms in Trump Tower. "I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way."

These politically correct answers from the alleged king of political incorrectness have to be music to the ears of Democrats -- not only those far left enough to agree with Trump's view but all others because they know this will alienate Trump from the tons of Republican voters who recognize such lunacy. Perhaps Trump should have been more forthcoming about his true New York liberal values.

Before you buy into Trump's inevitable walk-back of this disaster, remember how he began his answer: that he had anticipated the question. I'm not sure whether that should be more damning than if his answer had been purely spontaneous, revealing his true feelings apart from political calculation, but it's greatly troubling either way.

Trump says he is concerned about the strife and "the economic punishment (North Carolina is) taking." But it seems he also sees the issue from the perspective of adult men who want to use little girls' bathrooms. Has he even considered this from the perspective of the parents of these girls and all other sane people who don't feel comfortable sharing bathrooms with people of the opposite gender?

Who thinks like this, other than a candidate pandering to new constituencies? Who actually believes that prohibiting grown men from using little girls' bathrooms is discriminatory against the transgender community rather than against the 99 percent of people who have always had the comfort of going to public restrooms without the fear that people of the opposite gender could invade their privacy? Isn't protecting public safety one of government's chief duties?

It will be interesting to see how Trump's infinitely forgiving fans explain this one away or whether they'll even bother to try. I get it; all they think about is unfair trade and "the wall," so maybe they'll explain why Trump wants to tear down public bathroom walls.

Also on Thursday, Trump said he would support raising taxes on the rich, which should concern all economic conservatives who support reducing taxes across the board to stimulate robust economic growth. It should also concern Trump's defenders who believed he was standing by the tax plan posted on his website, which includes a cut to the top rate, from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

Those convinced that Trump has few ideological moorings and an inclination toward liberal positions are vindicated -- again. No matter what written plans Trump has proposed for use in his campaign, his instincts are to support the liberal position on many issues. And for those who buy that he's made a strong conversion from his previous liberal ways, you should know that there has apparently been no change in Trump's views about taxes since 1991, when he testified as a Democratic expert witness and described Ronald Reagan's tax cuts as "catastrophic."

Those who still believe in the sincerity of Trump's conversion to conservatism should be aware of the other bombshell that exploded this week in Camp Trump, which may be the most troubling of all.

In a private meeting aimed at reassuring concerned GOP leaders about Trump's positions and electability in a general election, Trump's "chief lieutenants" reportedly told them that Trump has been "projecting an image" up to this point in the primary season and "the part that he's been playing is evolving" in a way that will make him more palatable to general election voters. How utterly comforting.

Trump's new campaign guru, Paul Manafort, reportedly told Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities -- a private one and another one when he's onstage. "When he's out on the stage, when he's talking about the kinds of things he's talking about on the stump, he's projecting an image that's for that purpose. You'll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You'll see a real different guy."

So his own campaign chief just comes right out and says Trump has been playing a role -- pretending to be someone he's not? This is just incredible stuff, folks.

For the life of me, I don't understand how Trump's most ardent supporters can feel comfortable relying on his always-shifting promises -- even on immigration. Those who still feel comfortable about his candidacy baffle me.

Yes, Trump won his liberal home state resoundingly, but looking back, this could be one of his worst weeks of the campaign.

[Kaslin]

steichmerambugglnaufundrutschwidderrunderdubloedl

[LNV]

No squishes like this guy. Cruz’s pick to replace Scalia donated to Dems in 2008.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-scotus-pick-cut-check-to-democrats/

[Agamemnon]

One reason I prefer Trump is that he is a real person.

I see the "image" management thing (i.e, Trump is one thing in public and another thing in private) that Manafort was talking about has gulled you completely and unquestioningly.

It will be real interesting to see how all the Trump supporters feel when his "real person" believes he has no counterbalance and he decides to go "double-down" and smash-mouth on folks like you, when the core Democrat liberal he has been until 9 months ago emerges from the Tranny-safe bathroom at Trump Tower and you've had enough of the schtick.

Of course I discovered in a debate yesterday with FReeper screen-named, "dynoman," how attractive he finds trans-sexuals and men who prefer to act and look like women in bathrooms and elsewhere.

"Trump just said it's OK if transgendered men share the bathroom with daughters, granddaughters" post #137

Wasn't long ago we called such people perverts.

Now we just call them Trump's more perverted "Liberal NYC Values" apologists.

The quality of poster here at FR seems to have changed over the years, or maybe emboldened under the smash-mouth umbrella of the Trump persona they feel more comfortable about outing themselves, particularly in this election season.

FReegards!

[Fantasywriter]

‘His campaign is actually very liberal in that many liberals campaign on promises of utopia, with few specifics on how they will perform in office. Liberal campaigns, too, rely on hate-mongering and avoid talking about issues. It is no wonder that Cruz is being rejected.’

Excellent analysis. Plouffe’s book, The Audacity to Win, failed to acknowledge two essential ingredients. 1, Never has the MSM so slavishly backed a candidate, and 2, Democrats are more easily led than than Republicans.

First, there was the MSM, proclaiming Obama a great orator, a “lightworker,” and in one case, not to blaspheme, but “a god.” And then of course there were the never-ending stories of people fainting when Obama gave his “soaring” speeches. It was and remains unprecedented.

Second, Democrats lapped it up. They *wanted* to believe Obama was a, not to blaspheme, ‘messiah.’ When they listened to Obama’s pedestrian, teleprompted snoozers, they didn’t exclaim that the emperor had no clothes; they dutifully fainted in turn.

Cruz failed to grasp that Republicans—and conservatives in particular—don’t fall into line. We examine, evaluate, analyze and critically investigate. We don’t settle for vague rhetoric, and if the MSM tells us something, we’re liable to believe the opposite.

Bottom-line: The Audacity to Win tactics worked about as well for Cruz as an exploding cigar. Let’s hope he concedes while there’s time, profits from his experience, and re-emerges to a much more promising future.

[upsdriver]

Free Republic used to be a good, conservative website. Now it has morphed into a tool for advancing liberalism. How sad.

Free Republic still is a "good conservative website". You just need to learn how to choose your battles. Trump is running on a good conservative platform to enforce the borders, deport illegal aliens, strengthen our military, cut taxes and regulations, negotiate fair free trade agreements from a position of strength, etc.

These silly arguments on the degree of one's position via pro-life doesn't matter a hill of beans. Abortions continue unabated regardless of who enters the White House.

[Pravious]

“...I would have preferred him just ducking some questions...”

Whenever I think the same thing, I have to remind myself that one of the reasons I love the guy is because he speaks his mind.

[montag813]

Salem Witch Media shills for Cruz again with utter nonsense

[bray]

The only reason David has a voice is because he is Rush’s brother.

[Defiant]

OMG. Now I know why Rush is so crummy lately. He’s got the less intelligent brother whispering in his ear. Rush has been unlistenable for weeks, and no one ever read brother David.

[exDemMom]

It will be real interesting to see how all the Trump supporters feel when his "real person" believes he has no counterbalance and he decides to go "double-down" and smash-mouth on folks like you, when the core Democrat liberal he has been until 9 months ago emerges from the Tranny-safe bathroom at Trump Tower and you've had enough of the schtick.

You know what? Trump has been a public person for decades. We know who he is; we have seen it for years. Trump will only get in trouble if he starts trying to be something he is not. I think he is too smart to even try such a thing.

The "image" thing is no big deal, IMO. It is like learning better interview skills in order to make yourself competitive for a new job you really want. Knowing how to present yourself properly--speaking in clear sentences, wearing modest and clean clothing, learning not to fidget--does not change who you are as a person. But it certainly makes you look better.

It is also a big jump to conclude that Trump wants flocks of barely-disguised trannies crowding women's restrooms, when he questioned why we are even discussing this. In my whole life, I have never seen a male over the age of about 5 in a women's restroom or locker room--this "issue" wasn't even on the radar until the left made its obsession with sexual deviancy front and center (a consequence of the Obama presidency). This is not a matter for the president to concern himself over, in any case--the president actually has a lot of high level tasks he must perform, like giving direction to the armed forces, negotiating with other state leaders, developing a budget to present to Congress, etc. Why on earth do we want the president weighing in on who goes to which restroom? Let issues like that stay where they are handled best--at the citizen level. We don't want men in our restrooms; if a man decides to enter anyway, we'll let him know he is not welcome (ditto, for a woman entering a men's restroom).

The quality of poster here at FR seems to have changed over the years, or maybe emboldened under the smash-mouth umbrella of the Trump persona they feel more comfortable about outing themselves, particularly in this election season.

The quality of poster is the same. My core values are the same now that I have posted thousands of times as they were the day I first signed up to FR and posted my first thread comment. FYI, the site owner, Mr. "FreeRepublic" Jim Robinson himself, supports Trump.

[Defiant]

If he makes them go back while he also starts enforcing the border, they CAN'T come back, because they don't have visas or green cards. All he has to do is enforce the law. If Congress wants to pass a law that allows those with jobs, homes and property in the US, and who pass a background check, maybe there can be criteria for some of them to come back. Congress would be responsible for determining that program, and Trump would have to sign off. After that, they would have legitimate ID cards, and would be in the system for jobs, taxes and benefits.

I have a feeling that Trump knows this, and doesn't want to get into specifics, because if he says that they are all going back and most are not returning, he will be attacked. Better to leave it vague for now, especially since the GOPe and Ted Cruz are all for the cheap labor express. Save that battle for later.

[Bubba Gump Shrimp]

-—To the contrary, this was the best week of the campaign. Trump has established himself as the presumptive nominee after the much better than expected showing in NY and now he’s headed towards five primaries on Tuesday where he has double digit leads. His main challenger was in third place in NY and fading fast.
.
.
.
Exactly how I see it. On top of that, his new staffing seems to be on the ball in terms of logistics, his messaging is gearing towards the general, with Cruz becoming more of a footnote.

But hey, the opposition has to have some I hope I reckon, they have to continue to sell magazines.

[FreeReign]

I honestly don’t think Trump’s plan is “touchback amnesty.” If I did, I wouldn’t support him. His “great big beautiful door” always has the phrase “legally” attached, and if you look at the process, once you’re out, you can’t come back in if you broke any laws.

It's not so much about the "great big beautiful door" thing that he says, that I'm concerned about. It's the legalization amnesty without deportations for the non criminals that he talked about up until mid July. And he also said at that time that he would consider a citizenship amnesty, maybe later. After mid July 2015, it's the deporting them all and then "expediting the good ones back" thing that concerns me.

Well, guess what? That eliminates all who were here illegally.

A legalization amnesty would make them "legal". I'm pretty sure that Ryan and Mitch would be all in on that.

I think he knows this. I spent some time with Sen. Sessions two weeks ago. There is no doubt in his mind that Trump does not intend any “touchback amnesty.” Coming in “legally” reassures all those deported who have been fooled by the rhetoric that they are NOT here ILLEGALLY.

I hope you are right, but I don't think so. And Trump could actually clear this all up by clarifying what he means, but he doesn't.

[FreeReign]

Is that the Trump Tower in Chicago...the one financed to the tune of 160 million by Soros?

[Georgia Girl 2]

David Limbaugh is so deep in the Kool Aid I see no way to sober him up.

[exDemMom]

Excellent analysis. Plouffe’s book, The Audacity to Win, failed to acknowledge two essential ingredients. 1, Never has the MSM so slavishly backed a candidate, and 2, Democrats are more easily led than than Republicans.

I had to look that book up, and now I understand Cruz's failure better than I did before.

I now have a factual support for my previous impression that Cruz would be Obama, part 2, if he were ever to win the presidency. He has the same education and experience as Obama. To the trial lawyer, the narrative is the crucial component of winning; facts and truth are only important if they support the narrative, but can be ignored if they don't.

Second, Democrats lapped it up. They *wanted* to believe Obama was a, not to blaspheme, ‘messiah.’ When they listened to Obama’s pedestrian, teleprompted snoozers, they didn’t exclaim that the emperor had no clothes; they dutifully fainted in turn.

Many liberal/Democrats have turned away from organized religion, and they look to men to fill the biological need for religion (yes, there is scientific evidence that we are "programmed" with a need for religiosity). That topic is worthy of much discussion in itself, but I will leave that for another time. Cruz made the mistake of thinking that conservatives are exactly the same as liberals, except that the positions we blindly hold are "conservative" rather than "liberal." The reality is that a conservative is much less likely to base an opinion on something just because it can arbitrarily be dropped into a neat ideological box; the conservative needs facts and evidence to form an opinion. Most of us are not looking for a messiah, and don't want one.

Bottom-line: The Audacity to Win tactics worked about as well for Cruz as an exploding cigar. Let’s hope he concedes while there’s time, profits from his experience, and re-emerges to a much more promising future.

Indeed. Thank you for bringing that book to my attention. I understand the Cruz campaign so much better now because of it.

[Fantasywriter]

ExDemMom, that was a fascinating piece of analysis. I have made a mental note of your screen name, and I plan to be on the lookout for your posts in the future. You have immanently worthwhile insights, and you express them very well. That post was a pleasure to read!

[Fresh Wind]

How is this “bathroom law” supposed to be enforced?

[Nacho Bidnith]

As Trump himself once said, he could gun down someone in cold blood on the streets of NYC, and his followers would still support him. I believe Trump to be correct in this comment.

What you wrote is not accurate. He did not say that he "could shoot someone" and get away with it, he was talking about how the pollsters had characterized the loyalty of his voters.

Listen to the video yourself. It can easily be found with any search engine and your credibility is going to be seriously damaged by continued propagation of false statements.

No need to thank me, I'm happy to help.

Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose voters

www,youtube.com

[exDemMom]

Thank you! I usually post about health-related issues, and only rarely venture into more political discussions.

Your posts, too, have been very interesting and informative.