Simon Cameron
Posted on 09/02/2015 1:08:37 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Donald Trump openly boasts that he donates to politicians so he can exact favors from them after they reach office.
He did so for Jeb Bush in 1998, holding a high-dollar fundraiser for the gubernatorial candidate in Trump Tower and shelling out $50,000 to the Florida Republican Party. But when Bush took office in 1999, Trump didn't get the political help he needed to make his casino dreams a reality in the Sunshine State.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Funny, Lehman Brothers paid Jeb 1.3 million a year for what?
And then taxpayers got to bail out the crater they left.
Simon Cameron
Now we are expected to believe that when Donald Trump changes sides in this equation and becomes a politician he would not be corrupt even though he was corrupt on the other side of the same equation.
Granted, Trump does not need anyone's money but he has needed favors and cooperation and he has demonstrated that he was willing to go to corrupt lengths to get it. Should he gain the highest office in the land just like every other president he will need favors and cooperation from Congressman, bureaucrats, governors, judges, media personalities, and foreign players.
Now the admittedly corrupt player will no longer be corrupt when he becomes a politician. Are we to believe that Trump will change his stripes because he changes sides in the equation?
The Art of the Deal is about more than money, it is about power, it is about manipulation. Politicians are not corrupt only when they are venal, they are corrupt because they are God players. They seek political power because they seek power and government offers the greatest scope for that ambition. They seek power because they are God players. It is an ego trip. The obvious example is Hillary Clinton but Hillary Clinton's ego is no bigger than Donald Trump's; both are classic narcissists.
To believe that Donald Trump will put aside corrupt practices when he is playing for power instead of for money is naïve in the extreme.
It's easy to look the other way when Trump is doing things we like (or promises-or seems to be promising- that he will do the things we like) to get elected but what happens when the man is elected and starts doing things his ego persuades him to do that are utterly repugnant to conservative constitutional values? Do we call that corruption? Do we call that tyranny?
Seems it wasn’t really up to Jeb!
“2004 Voters approve a constitutional amendment with 50.8 percent of the vote allowing Broward and Miami-Dade counties to approve slot machines at local tracks and jai alai frontons; Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casinos in Tampa and Hollywood open.”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/a-timeline-of-gambling-in-florida/1054345
Just vote for the liars that dont admit to playing the bribery game then......I dont see any of THEM speaking out against it .......only TRUMP.....
The people want no more blsht...and in case you missed it.....the U.S. NEEDS a financial manager right NOW.
not another bush....not a doctor....a Business man....
When moral relativists pretending to be conservative show en’masse they have no more discernment or conservatism than a Democratic Underground poster, there’s little to be done but reflect on fond memories of America Nate. They will discover the time honored truth that wanting and having are very different things.
If, for example, Carly Fiorina is alleged to have engaged in some sort of influence buying a la Donald Trump, will we be told that disqualifies her or will we merely be told that because she did it that makes it okay for Trump to have done it?
If the country needs a financial manager and Trump is the only man qualified, you are promoting him for the wrong job, he should be running the Fed. A conservative president does not manage the economy, he manages politicians and bureaucrats and hopes that he can stop them from managing the economy. If you believe that Trump will keep his hands off the economy, or a better way to put it, that Trump will keep his ego out of the economy, you must have witnessed his epiphany which I somehow missed.
The anti-establishment conservative alternative to Jeb Bush is not Donald Trump, it is Ted Cruz.
Meanwhile, virtually every other candidate but Trump has played word games to cover up the fact that they support massive legalization by defining "amnesty" exclusively as a "pathway to citizenship." But you are here trying to wonder if Trump is corrupt or not because he made money donations to candidates?
You need to get your perspective checked.
I have two big worries about Trump:
a) If elected, he won’t build the wall and instead will get bamboozled by congressional dems into some sort of gang of 8 compromise since Donald likes to be “liked” as much as anyone. He’ll want the attention of the Dems.
b) He’ll nominate supreme court justices that will be middle of the road and they’ll end up in the liberal block.
That said, I’m willing to take that chance because I’m not sure a more conservative candidate will do much anyways.
This is a condition of our culture so it is hardly surprising that patriotic conservatives succumb to the culture, that is, in their frustration at the political consequences of cultural relativism they cry out invoking that very tactic in their despair.
The duty of a clerk, for example, to issue a marriage license does not have to do with whether we approve or disapprove of homosexual marriage. It is fatal to interpret the Constitution by working backwards from the result, that is how Justice Ginsburg operates but it is not the conservative way. The argument should proceed from the constitutional and legal basis to require the clerk to issue the license considered in the light of her constitutional right, or absence of right, to defy the requirement. Her rights and her duties do not turn on our visceral rejection of homosexuality. The rights of the homosexual applicants to the license, equally, do not turn on our support or opposition to homosexuality. They turn on due process.
As we abandon our tether to the Constitution, as we abandon conservatism for situational relativism, as we despair ever more about the condition of our culture, as we increasingly fear the political and economic consequences to come, patriotic conservatives, being human, yearn for a Savior. We ought to take pause and consider what the nation saw in the Black Messiah in 2008.
Concerning Donald Trump, frustrated conservative patriots see a demigod but they might just get a demagogue.
Mr. Trump appears to be an even bigger fan of executive orders than the current occupant.
Just because we prefer his diktats to Obama's is hardly a reason to favor him.
I'm getting all kinds of signals beyond demagogue: gadfly, political dilettante, ego, intemperate, indeed, just about anything and everything but conservative!
Immensely entertaining, to be sure, in terms of his effect on the establishment and the media. But highly disturbing as a voice for conservatism.
Does The Donald truly understand the Constitution and how our system of government is supposed to work (as opposed to how it's working now)?
“This even though he admits he paid money to politicians to corrupt them, that is to get favors and cooperation.”
More importantly, is why does a citizen need to bribe politicians to get what they deserve in the first place??
Isn't that what Ted Cruz is for? Resolving the illegal immigration mess? And appointing original-intent judges?
Love Ted Cruz....I’m not convinced he can win a general election however.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom pumped out by GOP pundits and the mainstream media, I actually do think Trump would be a strong candidate in the general election precisely because he would draw in moderates and working Dems.
I do not "wonder" I make a flat-out assertion based on his own words.
Meanwhile, virtually every other candidate but Trump has played word games to cover up the fact that they support massive legalization by defining "amnesty" exclusively as a "pathway to citizenship."
The discussion was about whether venality is limited to one side of the equation or both sides and whether venality is limited to financial reward but extends to power trips. I don't know how that discussion morphs into a discussion of the politicians' positions on amnesty.
But it is probably well that you bring it up. What does Trump have to say about amnesty? Most of his supporters here say he will build a wall-so far so good- and he will deport illegals (that is not what he is written but what he has said-perhaps a big difference?). So far no amnesty but what will he do next? He will readmit them-only the "terrific" illegal aliens. Trump has not troubled to define "terrific" for us. We are left to the mercy of Donald Trump's ego should he obtain enough power to have his way.
So Donald Trump is speaking clearly about amnesty when others are double talking? What is it exactly that Donald Trump proposes about amnesty? You don't know!
You need to get your perspective checked.
Before you tell me to get the log out of my eye perhaps you should check your own perspective.
>>The anti-establishment conservative alternative to Jeb Bush is not Donald Trump, it is Ted Cruz.
Then Cruz needs to up his game and beat Trump. When you are #1 in the polls you don’t quit. Why are you trying to convince us that the guy who is #4 is the best choice? If he was the best choice and Trump was just a phenomenon, the Cruz would be #2. But he’s not. He’s losing to a guy that you can barely hear when he speaks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.