> “Trump not that long ago said the Canadian healthcare system was the model we should use and that the US system was killing us.”
You think I haven’t seen that? You think people here are so stupid they haven’t seen that?
I’ll give you a clue. You’re missing the context. I said “facts AND context”, I didn’t say “facts OR context”.
> “He also said single payer was the way to go.”
See above.
> “Additional context can’t really fix that.”
You haven’t got any context to begin with so you shouldn’t be talking about ‘additional’ anything until you’ve got something to start with.
> “Now he says the “free market” is the solution. You can’t have it both ways.”
There is no ‘both ways’ here. There is a change of mind. Even Ted Cruz has changed his mind. Even Ronald Reagan changed his mind.
> “Nor can there be such a dramatic swing in fundamental core beliefs at his age over such a short time.”
It’s not a short time. The reported statements were from a long time ago.
*************************************8
You’re not going to persuade anyone with incomplete pointless and skewed ‘internet stories’ about any candidate least of all Donald Trump unless the listener is very gullible. You won’t find many of those among long timers on FR.
The first thing a person should do is to ascertain whether a candidate’s actions are law abiding, respectful of the Constitution and credible. I said ACTIONS, I didn’t say WORDS.
Because anyone can perform magic tricks with words. Even the corrupt little weasel Rand Paul can get a good writer to gin up some red meat for conservatives and one will hear the ‘words’ and can come away thinking “Golly gee that Rand Paul is such a conservative”. But his ‘actions’ and the motive and intent of his actions tell the real story.
Donald Trump was talking about how universal healthcare worked so well in Scotland from many years ago or so. But he was ‘talking’ meaning ‘words’.
Donald says a lot of ‘words’ but his actions meaning his final decisions are what counts. I have watched him a number of times where he appears misinformed, he appears wrongly informed by what he says and then presto he says “Maybe we do something like this” which is the decision he is considering because he says maybe, and amazingly his candidate decision comes out on target with the correct direction. He’s accurate nearly always and then he has people get him the precision he demands.
He has an ability to get to the right decision irrespective of the information given to him.
It goes like this in logic and inference.
Fact 1 (words)
Fact 2 (words)
:
______
Correct Decision (action)
Bad Fact 1 (words)
Bad Fact 2 (words)
:
______
Correct Decision (action)
When ‘information’ as ‘words’ are input, regardless of their validity or completeness, out pops the correct action. (logic 101: F>>>T = T always) This is a talent of Donald Trump. Like watching a ballplayer at the plate swing and miss, swing and miss, and then bam over the fence. Whereas the first two strikes are unnerving, they don’t matter if the result is a home run.
I’ve watched Trump on a wide range of issues and I think I have him pegged. He wants to make things the best ever, the best of everything. No matter what it is, he wants it to be the best. That means he’s not going to live with some rinky-dink retarded socialist model of healthcare. He’s going to find the most talented people and make them want to work for him. And then he’s going to make them work harder than they ever worked in order to meet his standards.
Donald Trump also consults with trusted and respected attorneys to make sure he can do what he would like to do. That means he is law-abiding. Is Obama law-abiding? Is Hillary law-abiding?
And Trump as President needs to follow, be guided by the Constitution. He needs people like Ted Cruz by his side. But does anyone doubt he will follow the law and the Constitution? Of course he will.
Did he violate the Constitution, the law or the spirit of the law and the Constitution when he is alleged to have taken inappropriate advantage of eminent domain?
Facts and Context, Facts AND Context, not ‘OR’, but ‘AND’.
I can tell you there is circumstantial evidence as clear as the Sun rising in the East that contradict alleged negative aspersions of Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in an alleged eminent domain scandal. That circumstantial evidence is this: if there was anything to it, his enemies would have blistered him with it by now. Their silence on it speaks volumes. That tells me there’s nothing to it. It’s garbage.
But I will keep an open mind for anyone that puts forward credible verifiable Facts AND Context on any matter that suggests Donald Trump is unfit to be President.
I will not put up with those that think as follows:
“Well I don’t like his egotistical manner, his loudness, his NY accent, his braggadocio, THEREFORE he’s guilty of all charges that anyone can dream up even in the absence of evidence to support, even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. He’s just not likable to my senses, therefore he’s BAD because I say he’s bad.”
I’ve been here longer than you (since you bring up how long people have been here).
So in other words you are too lazy to look up stuff yourself and anyone who says something contrary to your views without a reference is full of shit...
Here’s your “internet” story:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/04/enter_the_donald_take_two.html
The references contained in that should lead back to the original source.
There is NO context that fixes single payer. And 15 years ago for a 69 year old isn’t that long ago on something so fundamental.
He also proposed taxing all wealth “one time”, not income, but wealth over ten million dollars at nearly 15%... Oh ya, that’s real constitutional... Open that Pandora’s box and see where it leads...
And you go on about words being meaningless without context well Trump is all words these days and his history is the only context available and you want to ignore that.
Here’s Trump on eminent domain:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen
This was 4 years ago long before TDS so you can’t blame this story on that. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it ethical or proper. He’s forced people to court which is a pretty awful experience just to retain their rights to their own property because he couldn’t close the deal any other way. With Kelo that barrier has been breached.
Trump has expressed little interest in the constitutional limits of government from what I’ve seen.
I don’t doubt Trump has good intentions regarding is run. Many liberals have good intentions. Intentions are not enough. In order to actually get there there has to be core principles based on the constitution and limited government.
And last but not least, if all you have to offer is personal snark, don’t bother.
Excellant...