Posted on 01/24/2016 7:23:45 AM PST by Kaslin
My reaction to the "Against Trump" issue of National Review: It's about damn time.
It's not like contributors and editors of the conservative journal had been ambiguous on their feelings toward the billionaire and current GOP frontrunner. They've clearly had problems with him from the jump.
But they'd done so individually. Now, they've spoken collectively in a way few conservative organizations would dare. To them, I quote John McClane form Die Hard in saying, "Welcome to the party, Pal."
The appeal of a Donald Trump is obvious:
1) He has his own money, which means he's beholden to no one.
2) He eschews political correctness and focus-group-approved language.
3) He has charisma and guts enough to broach topics considered radioactive for other candidates.
On those fronts, Trump is an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy.
It's been seven months since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, and I still have little idea what he wants to do as president. He wants to "make America great again," and I'm all for that. But how? In what ways?
President Obama has made it quite clear he thinks America is great right now. How does Trump's vision for the country differ from Obama's?
Saying "Obama messed things up" and he'll "make it better" is great - we need a cheerleader in the White House. But presidents are more than cheerleaders; they're the coach, too. And although a good slogan is helpful, it's not a plan; it's not an agenda.
I honestly have no idea what Donald Trump stands for, but there's very little in his pronouncements to indicate it's anything resembling conservative.
On immigration, the issue that made him, he's all over the place. He wants a wall, and he's somehow going to make Mexico pay for it. That much is clear, except for the part about how he'll get Mexico to pay for it. When pressed, he responds that he's got good friends in Mexico, does a lot of business in Mexico, and he'll get the government to pay.
Now, we want a wall, and I honestly don't care who pays for it. It's that important to our national security and national sovereignty. The "making Mexico pay for it" is, like so much of the Trump phenomenon, simply bravado. It's how people who are full of confidence talk when they talk about things they have no idea how to do.
Trump has done a lot, especially for himself, so bragging that he'll simply get something done is viewed as enough by many people. He's done stuff before - more than anyone else running for president - so he'll be able to do it again. Never mind that forcing a nation to build a wall it doesn't want is different from negotiating with municipal bureaucracies and local ordinances to erect a skyscraper. He's Trump. He does stuff.
But it's meaningless. It's the governing equivalent of sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Would you trust a medical doctor with your taxes? The doctor may be bright and have a lot of education, but it doesn't mean he knows enough about taxes to keep you out of prison. Yet that is a large swath of Trump's appeal.
Additionally, Trump's immigration "plan" is continually evolving. Aside from the wall, what used to be mass deportation (again with no details) is now essentially the equivalent of "tagging up."
He has no idea about the logistics of deporting 11 million to 30 million people. Thanks to our laws and liberal courts, each person will be entitled to legal representation at taxpayer expense and a drawn-out process. It would be a legal and social nightmare under the best of conditions.
And I say this as someone who supports the notion - although I would do it by making illegal aliens unemployable and blocking their access to social services.
So he's tried to alleviate this by changing his tune a bit. Well, adding to it, actually.
He's now stressing the "Then we can bring them back legally" caveat. All illegals would have to do would be to go home, fill out some paperwork, then return - quickly for "the good ones." But they've all broken the law. They've all cut in line ahead of people trying to come here legally.
Why should any of them get to come back "quickly?" How does that help Americans? We have plenty of low-skilled workers already - our public schools churn them out at an alarming pace. They're already competing for jobs with legal and illegal aliens. Why allow them to get back in quickly and basically reset the current situation?
This is just one example of Trump's vagaries. He's for tariffs, then he's against them. He wants to raise taxes, then he wants to cut them. He has a plan for dealing with ISIS but won't say what it is because he doesn't want to tip them off. The only thing on which Trump is specific is the polls he cites constantly.
This is enough for some people. Democrats have done such horrible things to the country, and Republicans too often have been either their willing accomplices or dupes that someone who rocks boats for the sake of rocking boats seems like a good option. But although raising your voice is important, screaming just to make noise is counterproductive.
Trump deserves credit for changing the discussion on immigration. Without him, we'd simply be talking about varying degrees of amnesty. But as his plan evolves, like so much of what he says that contradicts other things he's said, the difference between his ideas and amnesty seem to involve only a plane ticket in the middle.
I'm happy to see more conservatives, especially on an institutional level, questioning Trump's plans and credibility. Whoever wins the nomination must go through serious scrutiny. Unfortunately Trump won't take this opportunity to address specific charges and, perhaps, alleviate concerns and coalesce conservative support around his candidacy. He'll simply continue to do what he's already done: launch non-sequitur attacks against critics, no matter how valid their grievance.
Too much is riding on whoever follows Barack Obama's presidency to fall for "hope and change" simply because the candidate has an R behind his name as opposed to a D. Trump may end up being the nominee, but without seriously and coherently addressing conservatives' concerns with his campaign and pronouncements, he won't be president.
As a successful businessman, you'd think he'd recognize this problem and address it now. The questions are will his ego allow him to and whether the questions indeed can be answered.
He has no idea about the logistics of deporting 11 million to 30 million people.
Seems to me that Obama effectively did the same damned thing in taking away the entire country's health insurance program and replacing it with myth, n'est pas?
Derek's only 'logistics' are sitting behind a damned keyboard probably dressed in his onesies and spewing elitist venom like the other 'conservatives' of the establishment.
He had me going for a bit
Then:
‘President Obama has made it quite clear he thinks America is great right now.’
Talk about demanding specifics. What? Transforming America? Lecturing us for not making his stupid ideas work. For not making the white man grovel enough?
Then:
“ How does Trump’s vision for the country differ from Obama’s?’
Uh, try stopping the flood of illegal America hating immigrants to start. Just do tgat alone for four years. That’s what it will take
If you want specifics about policy talk to Jeb! He will bore you to death with detail. If you want a Leader who will Fight and Win on the major issues of our time, talk to Trump.
Thanks to our laws and liberal courts, each person will be entitled to legal representation at taxpayer expense and a drawn-out process. It would be a legal and social nightmare under the best of conditions...
on deportation.
is that true? why would they have a right to legal representation
Meanwhile Hillary gets a total pass on every worthless, symbolic means-nothing platitude she utters.
"President Obama has made it quite clear he thinks America is great right now. How does Trump's vision for the country differ from Obama's?"
At the link below, Trump's positions outlined in specifics in five main areas: US-China relations / VA & Vets / Tax reform / 2nd Ammendment / Immigration
If you don't like what you see, don't vote for him.
I worry that DT is the release valve for rightfully enraged Americans. We need the anger high and bright all the way to November.
Trump deserves credit for changing the discussion on immigration. Without him, we’d simply be talking about varying degrees of amnesty
**********************************************************
Every one of the other candidates was happy to let the issue remain dormant, they did not want to talk about it.
Especially the ones who have already worked on legislation to legalize illegal aliens. That was the only solution being offered until Trump.
Trump has laid out policy positions more clearly than most and yet the pundits still claim he hasn’t been specific enough.
"Would you trust a medical doctor with your taxes?" But, of course I would, a whole lot more than I would the know-how-to-do-nothing-practical-at-all folks who have taken over the apparatus of governing, public and private, in D.C. The medical doctor runs a business, has an income and expenses and has to make it all balance out while running his practice well enough to forestall ambulance chasing attorneys, virtually all of the time.
Derek demonstrates that NR is in an awkward corner where their best defense against Trump is to invoke Obama's assurance that America is already great. Already I have made the point that liberals and conservatives are playing a bizarre game at the 50 yard line trying to push each other out of bounds, left and right.
Trump tries to move the ball down the field and NR screams that this is fraud and the fans are patsies, because he is not moving the ball down the right side of the field and in the past has a bad habit of moving the ball down the left side of the field.
I have always had an inkling that NR had become irrelevant with the retirement of Bill Buckley from day-to-day editorial control. Now I know.
Typical BS as usual by a run at the mouth no brains writer. Obviously he has not the ability to retain anything said beyond short phrases because he conveniently eliminates or mocks the numerous explanations ...all of which make sense...of how the wall will be built with Mexico paying for it. Where was he when Trump said build the wall with the money Mexico receives in Foreign Aide...as an example? Or perhaps he thinks Tariffs on all Mexican products entering the U.S. won’t work? Or perhaps he can’t see that renegotiating NAFTA some that America isn’t getting its throat cut by Mexico and Canada won’t produce big bucks for America?
As far as raising taxes is concerned, he has said he’d raise taxes on hedge fund managers, for example. But the taxes on middle America would b lowered so Americans have more of their own money which won’t be wasted by the government. LISTEN you rock headed so-called journalist, before you write negative crap about a man who will be the next President.
Illegals will go home when the Freebies stop being distributed. Those that don’t will be deported according to the law which has been completely ignored. Why should we put up with the costs of feeding and housing 28% of our felons who are illegal aliens. Make their countries take them back or pay for their upkeep in our jails.
Listen to Trump and you will get your answers or go to his website and try to read.....the answers are there!
I think that is very true. I hate the pundits. They are just egregiously dishonest.
The problem is that there are DC rules football and you have to play by those rules. Trump has grabbed the ball, run over to a new field, and said, ok we are going to play a different game of trying to get something done for America and its citizens for a change. They don’t like it because they have no idea how to play that game.
We are now finding out that even those writers that we thought were on our side are really part of the DC Uni-Party. They provide the perceived “balance” that keep us rubes in the sticks under control.
Trump has started a revolution for the American People and the DC Uni-Party is scared shitless!
There is a very old saying: “Office shows a man.” It is so old that Aristotle calls it an old saying. It means that you never know who someone is until he has held political power and responsibility. Many conservatives are wary of politicians, and we are also wary of non-politicians, too. The Donald included. Trump’s supporters correctly blame the Democrats and the Congressional Republicans for the mess we have before us. Trump doesn’t respect the Democrats or the elected Republicans, and neither do they. Voting for Trump tells the “Establishment” that they have failed. But my contempt for Obama and McConnell does not lead me to trust Trump to save and serve the Constitution. Does he know what it says? Does he respect principles of limited government an individual freedom? He says things that suggest that he does not. Opposing him does not mean that I support anyone else in particular, but it means that too much is at stake for me to support someone who might very well abuse that support.
National Review Violates Non Profit Status In Trump Trashing – Will The IRS Pull Their 501(c )3?
The National Review is in violation of their 501(c) 3 status for a nonprofit organization. It seems their political murder attempt on Trump’s presidential run turned into a suicide mission for the own future ambitions. In April of 2015 the failing and financially propped up National Review was became a not for profit organization to solicit tax-deductible donations so those contributing could deduct their contributions on their taxes. Just another way of taking care of the donors and fat cats they write articles for. Looks like before the first vote was even cast they have violated federal laws for running their new 501 (c )3.
The IRS web site informs us that “The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.â€
Last year in an interview with Politco, editor Rich Lowry said the move to nonprofit status officially recognized “what has always been the case: We’re a mission and a cause, not a profit-making business.†He added, “The advantage of the move is that all the generous people who give us their support every year will now be able to give tax-deductible contributions, and that we will be able to do more fundraising, in keeping with our goal to keep growing in the years ahead.â€
A mission and a cause has always been the fire brand of the fat cats that rule the establishment. The likes of the republican Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Goldman Sachs and so on. Yes, they have a vested interest in the power of persuasion and sheep herding the masses into the proper mindset to vote for their darling candidate. Usually the one that will do their bidding in return for Super PACs and other perks.
“We are making the change from a position of strength. We are the largest opinion magazine in the country (150,000 circulation all told) and employ more people than we ever have,†said Lowry. “We want to go out and tap the conservative philanthropic community to get even bigger and better.â€
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/national-review-goes-nonprofit-204795#ixzz3y5mfuHyq
Well, this large 150,000 circulation goes to who? I am sure out of the 330 million people who live in the United States, your average voter isn’t reading it. Their base is less than .05 %. Looks to me like they have a very selective audience. I’m sure there are a few common folk curiosity readers, but trust me….most readers are sustainable development for the 21st century gate keepers watching their future interests and investments.
None the less, the National Review is in a hot spot at the moment. Time will tell if they keep their tax exempt status for their donors, or if they lose it? Will they be fined? One thing is perfectly clear, the anti-Trump issue of National Review was a direct hate filled propaganda attack against a political candidate. The cover itself said it all – “AGAINST TRUMPâ€. The question is – will the IRS take any action against the National Review? I, for one, don’t look for that to happen. After all, the UN directs the IRS, and Trump is certainly not for the UN nor the National Reviews idea of “conservatismâ€. It is obvious by their own actions….they forgot what that word meant if ever they understood it at all.
Vote Trump. He is the only candidate we can trust to do what is right for the American people and make America great again!
Your opinion, Kaslin, is to find each and every derogatory article you can find on Trump whether it has any scrap of intelligence behind it or not. You have posted enormously from Townhall for months, every hit piece you can find. What do you do, spend 24 hours out of 24 searching for stupid stuff that appeals to your limited and quite irrelevant OPINION? Still sore your guy lost?
NAILED it.
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.