GOP Establishment Trains More Fire on Trump

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 20, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[SamAdams76]

His creditors took a risk too. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It’s amazing how few people understand how business works. No wonder our country is in the shape it’s in.

[Carry_Okie]

His creditors took a risk too. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It’s amazing how few people understand how business works. No wonder our country is in the shape it’s in.

I've done project management for a Fortune 100 company. This isn't about what I don't understand; it's about a reality you refuse to acknowledge. Trump signed papers with a promise to pay. He renegged on those promises. Did he have the money to pay? Sure, squirreled off in some other corporation. It may be legal, but it's still breaking a promise. He went through marriage vows. They say "until death do us part." He renegged on those promises too. That's evidence he breaks promises.

Got it now?

You chumps for Trump have your heads so far up your asses defending him you can't even read a post for what it says. So, what makes you believe that he will do what YOU BELIEVE he will do (without any evidence or plan as to how). The man has told you UP FRONT that he plays to people's fantasies with hyperbole. That's how he uses people. That's how he stiffs their intentions. But you're just A-OK with all of that because his promises make you feel just a little less desperate?

[SamAdams76]

So I suppose you did not vote for Reagan. He “broke” his marriage vow too.

[Carry_Okie]

So I suppose you did not vote for Reagan.

At the time he ran for governor of California, I was 13. Once he ran for President and I could vote, I had plenty of indication Reagan was not a fraud and did vote for him.

Not the case with Trump.

[SamAdams76]

But you are not consistent. You said that Trump is not to be trusted as president because he broke his marriage vow. Yet you state you voted for Reagan even though he did the same thing.

[Carry_Okie]

I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal, 1987.

Note that the obvious implication is that there is a difference between what Trump actually intends and what his victims believe he means AND HE PLAYS TO THAT DIFFERENCE.

What makes you believe that he will do what you BELIEVE he means to do, with plenty of historic evidence (not to mention systemic factors beyond the control of the President) to the contrary?

[Carry_Okie]

But you are not consistent. You said that Trump is not to be trusted as president because he broke his marriage vow.

No, that is not what I said. I said there is evidence he breaks promises. You are playing word games, not debating. You have yet to answer a single question I have posed to you. Cut the crap or we're done.

[SamAdams76]

The quote you pulled from Art of the Deal is a good one. People do get excited by people who think big. Reagan tapped into that sentiment as well. After the moribund 1970s and Jimmy Carter, Reagan's can-do spirit entered the scene at just the right time.

[Carry_Okie]

People do get excited by people who think big. Reagan tapped into that sentiment as well.

Not with the intention of using it against them, rarely was he deliberately hyperbolic, nor did he regard their belief in America as a fantasy.

You are still spinning and you still haven't answered a single question. We're done.

[SamAdams76]

I know it must be a kick in the stomach to you that Trump is doing so well. But if Trump does fall, I will support Cruz.

[Carry_Okie]

Look at the final results and get back to me.

Why should I when the handwriting is on the wall?

Mr. Trump lists 515 companies in which he is a trustee, president, chairman or member. Many are limited liability corporations attached to Mr. Trump's real estate holdings, including properties in Panama, Istanbul, Mumbai, Puerto Rico and Dubai. Source

Let's see, he's investing big in Istanbul and Dubai (where they pay virtual slave wages to the workers). I wonder how many "good ones" he wants to permit from there? I wonder how hard on Islamic jihadis or Erdogan he's really going to be?

Now, repeat after me, "He can win, He can win, He can win..."

No, he can't. His negatives are nearly as high as Hillary's. He won't carry the conservative evangelical base, especially after they learn he does major business with our enemies. Unless she's indicted, he's a sure loser.

[DoughtyOne]

CO, please look a the election results.

If your Gore/district info meant anything, it would have meant something big in the state. It didn’t.

Even after it being shown McClintock couldn’t pull it together, you’re blaming me for it.

Guy, that just doesn’t make sense.

[Carry_Okie]

Even after it being shown McClintock couldn’t pull it together, you’re blaming me for it.

It was many like you who were the reason he couldn't, because you voted your fears, with the rationale, "Arnold's not so bad; he can WIN." Well, he was, and California lost. Trump is just as bad and you are in denial now just as you were then.

Accordingly, the post you are ignoring was about the Donald and his investments in Istanbul and Dubai. Pray tell, what is he going to do for the Kurds with a hotel in Istanbul? How is he going to expel jihadists with big investments in Dubai?

[DoughtyOne]

For the record, I have lamented Schwarzenegger's record as governor.  I have never had second thoughts about voting for him.

Cruz Bustamante was an unacceptable man to be our governor, and in my estimation and that of the numbers from that election, he was too big a threat to become governor if you got your way.

This is how I saw it then and how I see it now.

Here was the registration breakdown in that October, 2003, Special Election:  LINK

43.68% Democrat
35.30% Republican
21.02% Independent (1.9%) and mostly other (19.12%)

64.70% Non Republican Registered Voters at the time of the election

Republicans were outnumbered almost two to one.  To be totally acurate, 1.832 to 1.

Cut that 35.3% down considering only about half of the Republicans are die hard Conservatives and what do you get?  (And I would probably peg that at about 1/3rd, but for this discussion I'll go to 50% for argument's sake.)

You get 17.65% of the electorate voting for hard line Conservative principles.  (only 11.8% if I am right and only 1/3rd are actually die hard Conservatives)

You observed this and thought McClintock was a sure winner if only I and other FReepers would have voted for him.

So going into that election, silly me, I thought it was impossible for McClintock to get the 17% or so the polls were stating he would get.  What did he wind up with?

In that Special Election McClintock wound up with 13.5% of the vote.  Let's recognize this for what it was.  He needed 33.3% of that vote plus one if you break it down to Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, and McClintock.  Of course that's an in your head calculation.  Again, for accuracy's sake, it would work out to a bit less, because some folks did vote for others.  Here's the actual breakdown.  LINK

48.60% Schwarzenegger
31.50% Bustamante
13.50% McClintock
93.60% between them
09.40% others

This means that McClintock actually needed 31.2% plus one providing the others section didn't shift, if the vote was dead even.  In actuality Bustamante pulled 31.5%.

If McClinton pulls 31.50% plus one (Bustamante's final tally plus one vote), where does the excess over and above the 13.50% come from?  It isn't going to come from Busamante.  It would come from Schwarzenegger.  He would need at least 18.00% (plus one vote) from Schwarzenegger.  Let's say he gets it.  Where does that put the numbers?  It puts McClintock at 31.5% plus 1 vote, Schwarzenegger at 30.60%, and Cruz Bustamante at 31.5%.  Now, what would have happened if Schwarzenegger had been seen as vulnerable?  Truth is, he would have bled off Democrat votes too, not just Republican votes.

This would have left this result:

30.60% Schwarzenegger  (31.69% between the three)
31.50% Bustamante (32.65% between the three)
31.50% McClintock (plus one more vote than Bustamante) (32.65% between the three)

This doesn't even take any Democrat bleed off from Schwarzenegger into consideration.

I've tried to tell you it was a dead heat if McClintock had bled off votes from Schwarzenegger.  You've never admitted it.  Look at those figures.  There's no way McClintock could have run the game on the other two, considering registration in the state.  This would have left the three men with less than 1% difference in the vote.  Who would have been McClintock's biggest rival?  Curz Bustamante is the answer.

I've tried to tell you this for 12 years now.  You still won't admit to it.

[HomerBohn]

We’ll always wonder what #84 stated and why the hall monitor found it to be excessive.

[Carry_Okie]

Unfortunately, the only Internet Archive capture goes only to post 74.

I take it you liked the plan?

[itsahoot]

I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured.

We expect Trump to change how the government is structured not work within the structure. He may not do any of the things we would like to have done, but we know for sure none of the other candidates will. I for one believe Trump loves America first and foremost, he may do the country harm as in being stupid, but no one believes he will harm it on purpose.

[Carry_Okie]

We expect Trump to change how the government is structured not work within the structure.

Under the Constitution, that's not a Presidential power. If you think Obama was bad, just wait until we get the next Democrat after all the precedents Trump would set.

You want a king, as do most of Trump's supporters, which means you have no respect for limited government at all.

[itsahoot]

which means you have no respect for limited(or otherwise) government at all.

By jove I think you are on to something.

[Carry_Okie]

By jove I think you are on to something.

There is no consistency in your position: If you have no respect for government per se, they why are you advocating for a person who promises despotism?