Posted on 01/27/2016 7:37:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: There is essentially not a major Wall Street entity that Donald Trump or his companies have not taken out loans from or received financing from.
Who said that?
>>>>>I do NOT necessarily consider that a disqualifying factor.<<<<<
Yeah, me neither! A government that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fortune 500 is just like the founders envisioned it...
His wife is a managing director for GS. Heads up their Houston Office (although she is on “leave” right now).
RE : Ted Cruz and gay donors
Why is that a problem?
Aren’t gays Americans too?
Aren’t there gay Republicans?
Aren’t there gays whose lifestyle you disagree with but who are fiscally conservative?
I see no problem with Ted Cruz accepting donations from these gay folks.
Just as I have no problems with Rush Limbaugh inviting the gay and liberal Elton John to sing at his wedding.
Have to admit Trump was 100% correct when he said, “”I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
FYI; Donald Trump said he is “EVOLVING” on gay marriage.
RE: His wife is a managing director for GS. Heads up their Houston Office (although she is on “leave” right now).
Anything wrong with that?
DISCLOSURE: I used to work for Goldman as a computer consultant.
RE: Donald Trump said he is “EVOLVING” on gay marriage.
Evolving conservatively or evolving liberally?
“Evolving conservatively or evolving liberally?”
Yes. It depends on the audience he is trying to con at the moment.
Why? Because it makes him look duplicitous like a Lawyer when it appears he says one thing to Christians then per the NYT article something different to rich gay activists for their money?
The loan was reported before the primary run-off. The criticism is that the loan was AGAIN reported in conjunction with the general. This is described by the liberal media as “failing to report.” Trump who was a Democrat up to 2011 repeats their lie.
This is just like Trump repeating the lie of the liberal media about Gov. Walker’s budget.
And, it is just like Trump saying he can work with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Trump may have re-registered as a Republican, but he is still in many ways a Democrat.
We can only Trust Trump because he is the only one with enough money to not have to raise any for his campaigns.
Everyone else is disqualified for not having enough of their own $$$. (and Cruz especially for being Canadian)
That is why Trump is debating by himself Thursday, no one else is qualified to debate him.
Trump wins by default, the only one legitimate candidate
Trump makes the rules.
My point was that having investments with, or loans from, large investment banks is not exactly unusual and NOT NECESSARILY a disqualifier from office, at least from my perspective. The Founders and many who came after them were much more concerned with central banks (i.e., the Federal Reserve Bank, which is as “federal” as Federal ammo) than large, international investment banks.
RE: Why? Because it makes him look duplicitous like a Lawyer when it appears he says one thing to Christians then per the NYT article something different to rich gay activists for their money?
Look, I am a Christian and I have gay friends (and a gay relative).
As a friend and relative,I make it a point to let them know what the Bible says about their lifestyle
I also have gay CONSERVATIVE friends who are concerned with abortion, the debt, a weak foreign policy and the immigration mess.
Which issue do we disagree with? GAY MARRIAGE.
I call it a sin and their response is “Don’t impose your morality on me”.
Finally, we came to a compromise, they do their “thing” as long as they don’t force me to celebrate what they do.
They are agreeable to this.
In fact, my conservative gay friends are in dismay at seeing the government forcing bakers and people like Kim Davis to participate in a ceremony they do not agree with.
So, you cannot put every homosexual into the same basket.
It is possible for a gay person to have a “Live and Let live” attitude.
Question -— Who are these gay folks who are contributing tot he Cruz campaign?
I believe they are the “Live and Let live” type.
How do I know that?
Simple: They contribute to the Cruz campaign DESPITE Cruz openly supporting Kim Davis when she was jailed in Kentucky.
As long as gays KNOW and ALLOW Christians to freely believe as we do and NOT USE government to COERCE celebration, I can live with it.
I think that’s what Cruz and Rush Limbaugh believe as well.
He has said essentially the same thing in both places - another BS accusation.
RE: We can only Trust Trump because he is the only one with enough money to not have to raise any for his campaigns.
I have my doubts about Trump’s ability to self-finance.
Don’t get me wrong. I would certainly vote for Trump if he’s the nominee.
However, I have two major qualms about him.
The first is that I question how conservative he’d be if he gets into office. Given his mixed track record on conservative issues, I doubt if even the most diehard Trump fans would hold that against me, but the bigger problem is that I just don’t think he can win a general election.
There are a number of reasons for that, but the largest one is that Trump couldn’t be FINANCIALLY COMPETITIVE.
That may seem bizarre since we’re talking about a man whose name is synonymous with wealth, but even Donald Trump doesn’t have enough money to self-finance a general election run at the presidency.
Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton and the Super Pacs supporting her will spend north of 3 BILLION DOLLARS.
On the other hand, if you take away the value of his NAME, Trump’s net worth is probably somewhere in the 3-4 billion dollar range and most of it is tied up in ASSETS.
Ask yourself if Donald Trump is really going to sell Trump Tower, the Trump International Hotel, his golf courses and his other properties at cut rate prices to pour the money into his political campaign.
It may not even be possible, but even if it is, do you really think Trump would liquidate most of his fortune to run for President? When you consider that Trump has been so tight-fisted during the primary that he might run the first Presidential campaign ever to turn a profit, it seems very unlikely.
On top of that, keep in mind that Donald Trump has made the fact that he’s self-funding a central part of his messaging. If Trump were to win and change his mind, not only would it hurt him with his core supporters, it probably wouldn’t be all that effective.
Trump’s fund raising operation so far has understandably been mediocre and the Super Pacs that were gearing up to support him were asked to stand down. Those Super Pacs were particularly important because there are hard limits on what rich supporters can give to campaigns, but not on what they can give to a Super Pac. Without major help from Super PACs, it’s highly unlikely that Donald Trump could win a general election.
Yep but Once he wins the primary, if he does, he will play by a completely different set of rules as he has imposed on those he beat.
He makes the rules as he sees fit, very frequently.
Expect him to raise $$$$ from the $$$ crowd then and explain why its OK for him to do it.
So tell me, Enlightened One, can you name a major bank in the United States that has not paid fines, been investigated for regulatory violations of one type or another or has not contributed to political campaigns? I can save you some time, no, you can’t.
I worked high-level money-laundering and terrorist financing investigations for quite a few years and everyone - EVERYONE - whether they know it or not, moves their money through these banks, all of which have had legal and regulatory problems, some of which were public and some of which were not.
Show me some evidence that Ted Cruz, Donald Trump or Donald Duck was complicit in some activity of Goldman Sachs or any other bank and I’m with you. But the fact that Cruz’s wife works for Goldman, or that he and Donald Trump have investments with, or have taken loans from Goldman means diddly. I’ll bet that the bank that carries your mortgage - assuming you have one - has paid fines of some type or has been investigated at one time or another. What does that say about you? Absolutely nothing.
His beard worked for Goldman Sachs. That is what the poster meant. You knew that though.
RE: His beard worked for Goldman Sachs
That is not an elaboration. That’s simply making an observation.
When I worked for Goldman Sachs ( as a computer consultant ), I did not support every single crony business the higher ups did with Washington DC.
Working or having worked with a firm does not necessarily “Prove” that when elected, you will do a quid-pro-quo for them ( unless of course there is adequate evidence ).
Well maybe not EVERY night (lol channeling Mr Haney). One of the Cruz daughters is said to refer to him as ‘’a guest in the house’’.
(lol yes I know. MEOW)
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.