Posted on 04/08/2016 7:58:31 PM PDT by Kaslin
Fully sourced. Read it, and if you're honest, weep.
That article doesn't say much of anything, actually. So some guy digs around, finds a few quotes from the 1990s that he can put out of context, and from that, we are to believe that Trump is a soul mate of Soros. After all, that article *is* in the WaPo, which is nothing but propagandist garbage.
There is an old saying, which maybe you've heard of: "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain." The saying takes many forms and is attributed to many thinkers, but it represents a common phenomenon. People do get wiser when they get older, and positions that they once thought were enlightened are positions that they later reject as they become wiser and more experienced. Should I hold it against Trump that he demonstrates that with age, he has become more wise? No; the fact that he is able to change his opinions (thus remaining honest to his core morality) as he learns new information and gains more experience means he is intelligent and honest.
There is still no evidence that Trump was ever a flaming socialist, and the fact that he earned his billions honestly, through building up his father's construction business, is a pretty clear indication that he is not, and never was, a socialist. Because it is impossible for a true socialist to make money honestly.
There is a little too much being read into what was basically a repudiation of abortion by Trump back in 1999--when he said what essentially is a majority opinion, where he personally opposes it and thinks it is horrible but wouldn't take away the "choice"? That is a far cry from saying he loves abortion and wants even more women to have abortions.
No matter what you say and how much you support the establishment, you cannot convince me to support the establishment candidate. He isn't even a good candidate--a slick talking lawyer with very little practical experience, who came from the same law school as the current lawyer occupying the top executive office. Why are you so against electing someone on the basis of his qualifications to do the job? If you are in a position to hire people, do you hire them for their ideological purity, or for their ability to do the job?
You don’t have a good enough rep for me to watch.
Trump is the Establishment. Always has been, always will be. A 0.1%'er born with a silver spoon in his mouth who's used lawyers and laws against "little people" his whole life, and who -- until about a year ago -- never had a conservative thought in his brain is suddenly an "outsider" and "uber conservative." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You told me "honestly" you couldn't see where the "liberal meme" came from. Well, if you're really an honest person and you've read those articles or watched that video, now you know.
It came straight from your horse's ... mouth.
How thoroughly unsurprising.
Like the muslims, if your beliefs were really all that solid, you wouldn't spend so much time ignoring what's out there and trying to silence everyone else.
I guess thinking isn't something you do often: why in the world would I hire a liberal to be President -- especially if he could "do a good job?"
Wilson "did a good job." The Roosevelts "did a good job." LBJ "did a good job." The Clintons "did a good job."
And because of their ideology, they destroyed the country in the process.
You should go back to being a Dem (or maybe you've never stopped) if you think "doing a good job" is more important than obeying the mandate of the Constitution you swear to support, protect, and defend.
No one wants to read hate filled rants against other FReepers on FR. Don’t post them.
You need to quit! Step away from the computer a day go for a nice walk.
Part of the problem of politics is that it *is* politics. Too many people care more about whether a candidate fits into a particular ideological mold than whether they actually have the credentials, skill, and experience to do the job.
As an example, I am a medical researcher, advanced in my career to the point of overseeing research rather than doing it these days. It makes no difference whatsoever whether someone identifies as a "liberal" or a "conservative" in this field. What matters is that we hire lab techs who know how to operate the instruments, run the experiments, and keep good data. What matters is that PhD level scientists we hire to design and lead the research are able to apply for grants, publish their data, and contribute to advances in scientific knowledge. Their ideology is so irrelevant that I do not know what it even is.
Wilson "did a good job." The Roosevelts "did a good job." LBJ "did a good job." The Clintons "did a good job."
And what, exactly, are you calling a "good job"? The job of the President is to uphold the Constitution, by formulating a budget, commanding the military, and so forth. The president is, in fact, the chief executive officer of the country. I don't know too much about Wilson, other than that he was great-grandma's cousin. But Roosevelt--I assume you mean FDR, and not Teddy--hardly did a "good job." He prolonged the depression with ill-thought-out unconstitutional policies that prevented the economy from self-correcting. LBJ started the "war on poverty" which couldn't have been better designed to keep generations of people mired in the lower class. Subsidizing poverty is not a Constitutional function, and neither is manipulating the economy to keep it depressed. Bill Clinton entered office with all kinds of anti-Constitutional ideas, but backed off the worst of them due to losing the house and senate. At best, he did a mediocre job.
And because of their ideology, they destroyed the country in the process.
See the above. They allowed their ideology to get in the way of the Constitutionally mandated job of the president. In an ideal world, voters would elect people based on who is qualified to do the job, not on their ideologies. Unfortunately, too many voters completely ignore credentials in favor of ideology.
You should go back to being a Dem (or maybe you've never stopped) if you think "doing a good job" is more important than obeying the mandate of the Constitution you swear to support, protect, and defend.
I was raised in that culture of poverty that LBJ worked so hard to create. That culture teaches kids that there is nothing they can do to better their circumstances, that the reason they are poor is that the rich stole everything and hoard it for themselves. Politicians [socialist ones] encourage that culture, using it to scare its adherents into thinking that if they don't vote for those politicians, they will end up with nothing. That poisonous culture exists in order for politicians to amass political power. When you have been taught that culture, as I have, it is exceedingly difficult to purge yourself of it. I call myself "exDemMom" precisely because I did manage to overcome that culture and become successful despite it.
The fact that I support a candidate who demonstrates the qualifications and desire to actually do the Constitutional job of the president is not, in fact, an indication that I am still a "Dem." It indicates rather that I am a pragmatist who judges by qualifications and experience and not by ideology. I will also add here that the purist ideological conservative in the world is worthless if he doesn't have the skills and qualifications to actually do the job the Constitution mandates.
But it's primarily from Cruz supporters.
It's not even close, the "religious" fervor for each of the two candidates by their supporters is almost always coming from the Cruz camp.
Those of us who support Trump have no skin in supporting him for "religious" reasons. That's not so of Cruz supporters.
Wrong. The establishment is the political class. You know, those people who get elected and go to Washington in order to exercise power and control over the rest of us. To my knowledge, Trump has never held elective office; therefore, by definition, he is not the establishment. He has never had control over a single person's life in the way that politicians do. And the very essence of his campaign is a threat to the political power structure--hence the histrionics over his running. Cruz, OTOH, does not threaten the power structure; whether he wins or loses to Hillary or Sanders, the establishment keeps its power.
If not for the fact that you signed up on FR before I did, your comment about Trump being one of the "0.1%ers" would convince me that you are one of those internet trolls who lives for disrupting on-line discussions. Did you ever research Trump's background? His father owned a small construction business. Young Trump became interested in the business and began expanding it--in the 1970s, when the economy was terrible. Thus, contrary to your characterization of Trump as a "0.1%er", he actually came from blue collar roots and worked his way up from there. He never would have achieved the impressive success he did if he did not have an exquisite understanding of his business. He also would not have become successful if he were a liberal/socialist--because the kind of success he achieved--through hard work--is impossible for liberal socialists.
As I have already said, he lives conservative principles. Despite the memes, there is nothing liberal about him.
I bow to your invincible ignorance.
Clearly, you know nothing about who the establishment is, nor have you ever bothered to research it. Like Drumpf, a thing with you is whatever you say it is, right now, today, and nothing more or less. But in the world of reality, the establishment consists of the permanent political class and its enablers, most of whom aren't part of your "establishment" at all.
As for El Supremo's father, you know even less about him than you do about Drumpf. He didn't "own a small construction business." He was a real estate developer who made most of his money bilking taxpayers during the Depression and the Second World War and its aftermath. His net worth was about $300 million dollars. Hardly a "small construction business."
Once again, thanks for a fact-free presentation.
(Parenthetically, the old man's net was roughly what TheDonald®'s is now; that means that the overblown braggadocio of Drumpf and his cult notwithstanding, he is far from a successful businessman. He expanded nothing. He's simply taken his inheritance and churned it uselessly around.)
Good grief. That just might be the most inapt analogy ever presented on FR, and that's saying something. In a political job political ideology defines the policy goals you will pursue for the part of the polity that elected you.
The job is ideological.
What you're saying is tantamount to saying that in your own analogy, "It doesn't matter to me if the researchers I hire believe in biochemical and biological etiology, or demonic possession or the Evil Eye as causative agents, as long as they get results." Which is, of course, why your "analogy" is nonsense.
The job of the President is to uphold the Constitution, by formulating a budget, commanding the military, and so forth.
Congratulations! You have taken an ideological position. That is not the ideology that Barack 0bama brought to the White House, nor will it be the one brought by Hillary Clinton, nor -- based on his prior record -- Donald Trump.
Wilson was a President who believed (and said publicly) that the Constitution was an impediment to the execution of the President's performance. Still think ideology doesn't matter?
Please up your reading comprehension level a bit. I said, "Roosevelts" and I meant ALL of them. Theodore Roosevelt was a power crazed lunatic who thought the United States should be involved in every conceivable conflict on the surface of the earth. He pioneered the use of the Justice Department against ordinary citizens, and he created the modern regulatory Federal government. Eleanor was a Leftist busybody who cemented the idea in place that the First Lady ought to be an NGO in her own right. No, she shouldn't. The spouse of a politician has no place in the political arena whatsoever. She has been elected to nothing. And Franklin Roosevelt brought the emerging Socialism of his party to America. Still think ideology doesn't matter?
LBJ: Subsidizing poverty is not a Constitutional function, and neither is manipulating the economy to keep it depressed.
This is an ideological statement on your part. Still think ideology doesn't matter? Johnson did a fantastic job of advancing that ideology. Except for Vietnam, most Democrats would consider his Presidency successful. They would certainly consider Medicare to be.
This is why I say thinking is not your long suit.
You tell me that only "qualifications" -- whatever that abstract term may mean without any reference to the "qualifications" of a President -- matter. Yet in trying to refute my claim that the Presidency is an ideological job, you fail one President after another because his public policy goals do not conform to your ideology. You don't seem to be the least bit aware that you are calling for a President who has an ideology: YOURS.
Duh.
I will also add here that the purist ideological conservative in the world is worthless if he doesn't have the skills and qualifications to actually do the job the Constitution mandates.
The skills, apparently being that "we're going to have great, great people. A great, great team."
This is where you Drumpfsters are all over the road. You're like the Arabs cheering Osama bin Laden in the streets, for killing Americans, who then turn around and say 9/11 was an "Israeli plot."
You first try to argue that TheDonald® is a conservative, that he's "been quoted out of context," "has grown," or "will appoint the right people despite what he's said," then turn around and claim that it doesn't matter about his ideology because he "has qualifications" and will "get things done."
He has never proven he has any qualifications to be anything but a real estate developer; he isn't even running a very good campaign. And he has no ideology, either. He's an opportunist. That's all.
Drumpf has said what he's said. I'm not surprised that you don't want to listen to it.
Clearly, you know nothing about who the establishment is, nor have you ever bothered to research it. Like Drumpf, a thing with you is whatever you say it is, right now, today, and nothing more or less. But in the world of reality, the establishment consists of the permanent political class and its enablers, most of whom aren't part of your "establishment" at all.
Good job insulting me. Typically people turn to insults when they have no data to back their position, but have no desire to alter it when presented with challenging facts.
The biographies of Trump are public knowledge. You, too, can spend a little time on Google to find them.
The establishment is the political class. Period. Yes, I know how politicians extort protection money from businesses. I also know that businesses that are the most generous to politicians buy a lot of influence and can sometimes change politicians' votes with large enough donations. The paying of protection money (which Trump did, out of necessity) is not cronyism. However, paying politicians not to vote for business-killing legislation is cronyism--and you know cronyism is taking place when a piece of legislation affects a single company. Cronyism is mostly a liberal democrat tool to control businesses; as such, it is closely related to fascism.
All of that said, even businessmen who engage in cronyism are not part of the establishment. As I recall, Ken Lay of Enron had some sweet crony deals going on with Bill Clinton's administration. But in the end, that did not save him from prosecution, because only members of the establishment are immune (more accurately, exempt themselves) from prosecution. Bill Clinton, OTOH, was never even criticized for his role in the Enron melt-down--because he was, and is, part of the establishment.
Who, exactly, are the "enablers" of the establishment? Obviously, the media, since they are willing to repeat any lie the establishment tells. The useful idiots--those ideologues who are so blinded by their ideology that they can be lead to imprison and kill people without ever questioning the basic goodness of their ideology. The enablers are NOT the businesses--those are the people who really are between rocks and hard places, who only survive because politicians allow them to.
Look, I can tell that you detest Trump, and you allow that hatred to color everything you see and hear about him. I suspect you get your information unquestioningly from conspiracy sites or the MSM (which are not that different in this case), since you have not made any claim about him that is actually verifiable by checking the public record. Try sticking with verifiable facts, and maybe a conversation will become possible. As things stand, you are so closed-minded that you are beyond reason. Just try to consider this: why is the establishment (and its enablers that you support) pulling no punches when it comes to Trump? Could it be because Trump, and only Trump, presents an actual and true threat to the establishment gravy train?
And this, in a nutshell, is why the country is nearly 20 trillion in debt, why the number of workers is at its lowest since the 1970s, why massive numbers of illegals are pouring into the country. Because people like you look at government as a big political debate arena, and don't even care that government has very specific purpose and functions. I understand clearly now why you support a lawyer over a person who actually has the education, experience, and qualifications to hold an executive office. Because lawyers are all about the clever arguments, and facts and truth mean nothing when the goal is to prove oneself the most adept and slick with words.
I hate politics with a passion, precisely because of people like you for whom ideology is more important than figuring out what works and what doesn't. Policies and programs should not be instituted on the basis of whether they fit most closely into a "conservative" or a "liberal" mold. They should be decided on the basis of whether they achieve the stated goal. If they don't, they need to be ditched.
What you're saying is tantamount to saying that in your own analogy, "It doesn't matter to me if the researchers I hire believe in biochemical and biological etiology, or demonic possession or the Evil Eye as causative agents, as long as they get results." Which is, of course, why your "analogy" is nonsense.
Given that you have demonstrated that for you, ideology trumps everything (no pun intended), I am not surprised that you completely missed the point of the analogy. Political ideology is as irrelevant to the question of whether a person has the skills, qualifications, education, and experience to do a specific job as their choice of sports teams to support. A person who holds New Age beliefs that diseases are caused by bad spirits (or whatever they believe) is not qualified in any respect to design a research strategy to elucidate the mechanism of infection caused by a newly identified virus. That person wouldn't get past the first stage of the hiring process, let alone be allowed into a lab.
Wilson was a President who believed (and said publicly) that the Constitution was an impediment to the execution of the President's performance. Still think ideology doesn't matter?
This is an ideological statement on your part. Still think ideology doesn't matter? Johnson did a fantastic job of advancing that ideology. Except for Vietnam, most Democrats would consider his Presidency successful. They would certainly consider Medicare to be.
Those are both strong examples of why it is so damaging to allow ideology to trump (again, no pun intended) a person's actual qualifications. In both cases, those men were strong ideologues who allowed their ideology to blind them. And their programs are continued by ideologues who, I think, are perfectly aware of the damage those programs, e.g. the war on poverty, cause. If, instead of hiding behind ideology, "liberal" politicians would honestly examine those problems with a critical eye, they might actually work on finding real solutions to help people out of poverty.
Your other examples fall along the same lines. In your argument to convince me that politics is nothing more than a kind of game where we're pitting one ideology against another, you keep bringing up examples of strong ideologues who did great damage precisely because they (and the people who voted for them) *did* place ideology above qualifications.
Personally, I don't think we should even have parties. I think that every person who runs for an office should have to demonstrate that they have the skill set required to perform in the office they run for. If they run for county judge, they should have to demonstrate understanding of the law and the ability to apply the law fairly. If they are running for comptroller, they should demonstrate understanding of fiscal matters; if they run for school board, they should understand education and have some executive skill. And so on. In this case, the office of the president is an executive office with the Constitutionally prescribed functions of presenting a budget, commanding the armed forces, negotiating treaties, and so on. So a person running for that office should have to demonstrate executive experience. An ideologue is a detriment to that office, regardless of the ideology he espouses.
The job of the President is to uphold the Constitution, by formulating a budget, commanding the military, and so forth.
Congratulations! You have taken an ideological position. That is not the ideology that Barack 0bama brought to the White House, nor will it be the one brought by Hillary Clinton, nor -- based on his prior record -- Donald Trump.
Right. I could almost begin to question whether you even understand the word "ideology." Hint: following the Constitution is *not* an ideology--it is the basis of our founding and our system of government. And quit talking about how politics is purely about ideology, while throwing out example after example of just how much damage ideologues cause to the country.
You first try to argue that TheDonald® is a conservative, that he's "been quoted out of context," "has grown," or "will appoint the right people despite what he's said," then turn around and claim that it doesn't matter about his ideology because he "has qualifications" and will "get things done."
First of all, most of those quotes are nothing I've said. Don't put words into people's mouths. You are doing exactly the same thing the MSM does when it sets out to destroy a conservative candidate. The only one I might have said is the one pointing out that he has been quoted out of context--since quoting out of context does happen to be one of my pet peeves--but I don't think you actually quoted me on that one, either.
He has never proven he has any qualifications to be anything but a real estate developer; he isn't even running a very good campaign. And he has no ideology, either. He's an opportunist. That's all.
As a real estate developer, he has amply demonstrated that he has the real world skills needed to occupy an executive office. Negotiation, budgeting, managing people, managing a large business, etc.--which of those skills he uses on a daily basis as a highly successful businessman are NOT directly applicable to the presidency? Negotiation (treaties)...budgeting (the president submits one every year)... managing (the president has a large staff)... managing a business (commander-in-chief) (and don't believe for one second that the military is not a business)... and so on. Contrast that to a lawyer by training, whose real world experience consists of arguing a few cases in court, before entering politics and never having a smidgeon of real world experience again. If the minimally experienced lawyer has the level of qualification and experience needed to be POTUS, then I might as well hire a first grade science fair participant to be my lead researcher.
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.