Posted on 10/24/2015 10:06:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
ARE YOU crazy about Barack Obama? Do you fervently hope the next president of the United States will be as similar to the current president as possible?
Then Donald Trump may be the candidate for you.
Of all the candidates running for president, the one who most resembles the incumbent is not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley. To be sure, the Democrats' policy views largely overlap with Obama's. But when it comes to attitude and self-image, it's Obama and Trump who are birds of a feather.
Everyone knows about Donald Trump's bottomless narcissism; this is a man who has affixed the name "Trump" to everything from hotels to golf courses to cologne. Asked the other day which world leaders he would reach out to upon being elected, Trump replied that he wouldn't need to call anyone: "I think I'd probably have them call me."
But Obama's march to the White House also involved startling displays of self-glorification, from Greek-style columns to a triumphal foreign tour to his own official seal (complete with Latin motto). From the earliest days of his presidency, it was clear that Obama was deeply enamored of himself, and had no doubt that the rest of the planet was just as smitten. "I am well aware," he told the UN General Assembly, "of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world." He gifted the queen of England with an iPod that included his own speeches. Obama's addiction to the first-person singular pronoun — "I," "me," "my" — has been remarked on by many; he has even referred to "my military" and the troops "fighting on my behalf."
Anyone who finds such vanity attractive should relish the prospect of a Trump presidency. Trump, after all, never doubts his own brilliance. He's always the smartest person in the room; just ask him. Sound familiar?
"I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters," Obama told campaign aides in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm gonna think I'm a better political director than my political director."
When a presidential candidate talks that way, what could possibly go wrong?
Baloney! I am opposed to electing someone (Cruz) who is going to LOSE because he is too erudite for the average voter. People think he is cold and stuck up and doesn’t get through to the average American. Trump is already showing that he can bring in a wider range of people under the Republican tent than I have seen since Reagan. I’ve been at this since Eisenhower’s reelection so I’m no neophyte at politics as you seem to think.
The way you get from Minority to Majority is to appeal to the masses. My father always said you have to choose in business whether you are going to appeal to the classes or the masses. He was correct. conservatives have to appeal to a wide range of people and then teach them what they need to know.Trump appeals to the people because he tells it like it is. He offers people hope that he can turn this country around from the Communist path it is on. If you are willing to throw away a very possible WIN for the sake of your inflexible insistence that we need a constitutional lawyer to lead the fight, then you suffer largely of a mule’s blockheadedness and certainly a lack of plain old fashioned horse sense.
Trump didn’t get where he is by being a bully.
That’s because trump mouths dammocrap talking points:
“Bush’s incompetence led to 9/11.” “Walker has a $2.2 billion deficit, and crappy schools, and roads.” “The economy does better under democrats. “
That’s lies and capitulation, not persuasion and compromise.
I won’t for that, either. We’re probably voting for a closet liberal.
In New York, in large part, folks get somewhere precisely by being a bully. That’s often get unions to do what you need. That’s how you get bond holders to forgive billions in debt and take equity instead. Oh, and tens of millions from daddy helps a lot, too, to get started.
I suppose that depends on your perspective. But Buffet isn't running. Buffett seems happy with status quo, using his wealth to promote HIS interests. If as you say, Trump is not at the same level as Buffett, it makes Trump's willing to sacrifice so much for his country quite admirable.
Whatever your feelings of Trump's competitors, and I agree with some of your points, none would push for the massive reset that is required. We get that, then maybe we'll have something left to build on in 4 or 8 years for a Cruz who respects the Constitution.
You are nit picking issues which are not even in the focus of Trump’s campaign. Trump, not Cruz, is insisting on a closed border and a fence. The American people, including Hispanics, are with him. Cruz is talking about admitting more foreign people to take more of American jobs.
Bush remarks are in answer to Jeb trying to ride his father and brother’s coattails. Bush is dead because of Common Core and because he was a big government and higher taxation governor of Florida. Florida is through with him.
You’re digging a long time back to try to find criticism of Trump.
You try to cite Roman and Greek history so I’ll give you one:
Henri IV of France was a Protestant and fought against the Catholics in the wars of religion. However, when it came to pass that he was the next in line for King of France,but was advised he would have to convert to Catholicism, he replied, “Paris is worth a mass.” Although he converted, he protected the Protestant cause and became the most beloved of all the kings of France. Just last year he was again selected by the French people as the most loved of all their rulers.
Absolutes in life just do not exist, but everything depends on the man himself and his inner strength.Reagan switched party and so has Trump. My bet is on Trump to bring America back to the American Way.
Why don’t you just admit it. You are against Trump because he is rich. Nobody cites over and over “his daddy’s money” without having a psychological hangup. Yours is glaring.
Lol. Are you a psychologist now? I don’t really care if he’s rich or not, if he got a lot of money from his father or not.
But I care about t he truth, and when I see people frequently cite that he’d make a good president because he’s a really richcheated “self-made billionaire,” It makes me want to tell the truth. Yeah, he’s a successful guy.
But not nearly as successfu, as he brags.
He brags that hes got ten billion. Independent assessments are about two to four billion. Still, lots of money. And who is to quibble?
But from where I come, that kind of exaggerated bragging is called lying.
Ok, he’s a New Yorker. I was born there, I stil l have lots of relatives there. When I moved, I had to learn that that sort of hyperbolic speech is considered lying here. So I am personally very careful to avoid it myself. I try to understate my own “bragging rights” so as not to unintentionally fall into exaggeration. I try to condition my language in contingencies so as not to claim more than is true.
Then there’s the whole “self-made “ thing. If you get a bunch of money or other tangible stuff from your father toward the start of your career, you’re not “self-made.” You’re carrying on the work of your father. Which is an honorable thing! But different from”self-made.”
It’s just a matter of telling the truth. To which trump seems to have an aversion.
Believe me when I say I agree with you on eminent domain issue. I have extended family still fighting in court in Arkansas to get what they feel they are owed.
On the other hand an army corps of engineers eminent domain issue that took/bought 60 houses immediately south of me a few years ago that backed up against a canal (which by the way I joined with those owners and fought against) knocked down the houses and dug down about 20 feet and took out a couple million cubic yards of dirt and made a retention basin/park that has made it so I and my neighbors dont have mandated flood insurance and also probably saved my home and all my neighbors from a 1000 year storm we had about 3 years ago considering a typical monsoon storm turned our road into a river and one time that was not even a 100 year storm, we had water 15’ from our door, the sidewalk was underwater by 6”.
To me it means laws need to be changed plain and simple. But that said, it is not my number 1 issue on a presidential election. It similar as the tax issue, Do we hate people/corporations for using current tax laws to their benefit or do we believe the laws need to be changed?
So where that line is drawn is above my pay grade I suppose.
And you seem to have a royal hangup in refusing to see that Trump has innumerable qualities that are made for this moment. Have you never heard the old question, Do the times make the men or do the men make the times. Cruz caannot at this time WIN. Trump CAN! Half a loaf is better than none.
The Marines would not accept Audie Murphy because he was too small. The Army accepted him and he became the most decorated hero of WW2 and then he became a movie star.. .
Go ahead and waste your vote on a loser, someone not yet ready for the big time.
Using eminent domain so that the Army Corps of Engineers can improve public infrastructure is the RIGHT way of using eminent domain. That’s what the Constution provides for.
Using eminent domain to try to build a billionaire’s limousine parking lot is using the power of the state to bully little people in to trying to force others to give you your way.
Anyone who endorses this use of eminent domain has no real concept of the right to property, or any understanding of the philosopicalocal principles that under eminent domain gird it.
Such a person may be a great guy, perhaps a very successful businessman.
But his total lack of understanding of the real essence of America renders him entirely unfit to be president.
Ding, ding, ding - we have a thread winnah!
I think he has innumerable qualities that make him a very successful crony capitalist: a bullying nature, no qualms about buying politicians, an ardent desire to use eminent domain to force people to go along with his projects, no real moral backbone, few if any abiding principles, an irreligious nature.
In many ways he reminds me of a wildy less successful but melodramatically louder Warren Buffett. Another billionaire for whom I have great respect as a busunessman, but for whom I would NEVER EVER vote for president.
I don’t want a good crony capitalist for president.
I think Cruz will surprise you l. He started as an extreme underdog to Dewhurst and the establishment party, but at the end, he won going away.
When Trump thinks he's a phenomenal success AND he's making more than a million dollars a DAY, he's stating the obvious.
Big difference.
You are willing to place the future of this country on the shoulders of an admitted new world order lawyer?
Here's what happened when it was (like with most of other Trump celebrity brand-name corporate entries, which were non-inherited and that he started himself, public or private — which means they didn't have a nice downward chart with the words "default" or "bankruptcy" prominently displayed for everyone to see):
Oh, and in the process he stiffed many people who invested in him via stock or debt loans, while structuring it so that he could only make money while not losing a penny himself (from royalties and salary and dividends from special class of zero-cost preferred stock) but sticking the losses to the celebrity-blinded "investors" ("how can you lose investing in Trump, right?"):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3331138/posts - FR, 2015 August 20
There are plenty of people who did the calc that he underperformed both the stock market and the real-estate market. Do the search. He is YUGE in his own mind / ego and his celebrity persona which feeds Trump brand.
:
I think there is less there than meets the eye. Another bugaboo raised by fake conservatives. Remember, Ike was a communist. Lol.
That was what he meant that he was a great negotiator. To him, that means, “I win, and you lose. Oh, and I get to take your money.”
You’re good at labeling people you know nothing about. Eisenhower was definitely far too much of an Anglophile but I think you stretch things a bit by calling him a Communist. I’d say FDR was much more of a Commie.
It’s a joke. For all your political knowledge, you don’t know that fringe right-wingers called Eisenhower a communist in the 50s, and that we all laughed at them? *chuckle*
No, I don’t remember that. I do remember he was called an Anglophile and with good reason. He never was a “General” of Americans, he was just a diplomat, always deferring to the English (Montgomery). If he was called a Communist, it most likely had to do with his disgraceful treatment of Patton. Patton wanted to take the Germans and teach the Ruskies a lesson. Eisenhower took up for the Russians. Obviously, Patton was right, but by then he had been murdered.
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.