TRUMP: not a liberal or a conservative, but a pragmatist

Intellectual Froglegs ^ | 2/5/16 | Mychal Massie

[DoodleDawg]

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see problems and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

So in other words, Trump gets his success by compromise. But there are some positions in politics that one should not compromise on. Trump doesn't have any.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Do you believe he will govern as a conservative?

[lentulusgracchus]

He’s a Leader

In German, that's Reichsleiter.

In Spanish, El Lider -- that was Juan Peron's "title".

You really want to take us there?

[Don Corleone]

If you have no core principled belief system, who's to say you would solve problems in the correct way, if at all?

What is the CORRECT way? Your way? My way? My neighbors way? Obama's way?Hillary's way? How about the PRO AMERICAN way? I know, Bernie's way./s

[Impy]

We desperately need a conservative “ideologue” in the White House.

Highly amusing to see people here bragging about how their guy isn’t a conservative and how that’s a good thing.

[entropy12]

Except career politicians stay in power by NOT fixing problems. If all problems disappear, there would be no need for big taxes and a big federal government.

Trump on the hand, has actual record of fixing problems successfully, and that is why he is 10,000 times richer than most of us on FR.

[entropy12]

Barbra Streisand. If career politicians could fix problems, the country would be swimming in prosperity and there would be no illegals living on welfare paid by tax payers.

[bigtoona]

People see patriotism in Trump. They also see the writing on the wall and understand that Trump is the only one of the republicans who can actually win the election. They also believe that he will move the ball in the right direction.

CRUZ WIL NEVER EVER MAKE IT TO THE END. His own party will throw in for Hilary rather than elect a non establishment candidate. That is why people are willing to accept that Trump is not a conservative ideologue.

People are tired of Thomas Sowell and all the other defenders of conservatism sitting in their think tanks and radio shows, and have no effect on the conservative makeup of the federal government. They want to see someone get in there and defend America and ACTUALLY SUCCEED!

[gleeaikin]

This just in, Bloomberg has said he would commit up to $1 billion of his own money to run as an Independent, especially if Cruz and Bernie are the candidates. He would have to commit in early March to get on ticket in 50 states.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/08/michael-bloomberg-confirms-im-thinking-about-running-for-presi/21309738/

[upsdriver]

The only difference between a political conservative and a political liberal is the degrees in GROWTH of the federal government. I've come to despise the use of the word "conservative" on here. A word people use to bludgeon anybody who happens to disagree with them. PC on the right run amok.

I said that neither does Trump view himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it. He does not see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned.

That says exactly what I want to see happen. We have problems that need solving. You can spout conservatism and constitution all day long but what good does it do if the same problems exist at the end of the day? Career politicians either lack the will or lack the ability to solve anything. Time for solutions, not political rhetoric.

[Truthsearcher]

I’ve heard all this before...

McCain is a plain-spoken pragmatist who can build a coalition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968491/posts

Military culture, pragmatism shape McCain
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0519/p01s01-uspo.html

A strong-willed pragmatist, McCain would need to reach across the aisle
https://www.colby.edu/news/2008/10/19/a-strong-willed-pragmatist-mccain-would-need-to-reach-across-the-aisle-14/

Pragmatist is media-speak for moderates who cave to the left.

[Impy]

So goes the Trump supporter meme, which I reject both as to Trump’s alleged strength and Cruz’s alleged weakness. I think Trump is a horrible general election candidate, only Bush is worse in term of electability in my opinion.

[ModelBreaker]

“He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it.”

So he’s a progressive. At least he is if the government is involved in the fix. As he is running for President, he almost certainly sees the federal government as his tool of choice for ‘fixing’ those pesky ‘problems.’

That’s the philosophy that got us into the ‘fix’ we are in.

[RipSawyer]

“Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to out crazy one another.”

It is not LIKE that it IS listening to two lunatics trying to out crazy one another.

[RipSawyer]

“If you have the “willingness and boldness” to remove graffiti from a wall by knocking down the building you have solved nothing and created more problems.”

Yep, I have seen too much of that kind of boldness. It makes me think of a farmer who took a load of watermelons to the market and upon hearing how low a price was offered said he would take them back to the farm and let them rot rather than accept such a low price. A real genius he was, burned more fuel going home because he was still loaded, had to unload them himself rather than watching someone else load them on a bigger truck, had to smell them rotting and gave up the money he coud have gotten which, though meager, was better than zero.

[Reagan Disciple]

We don’t know Trump’s way that’s for sure. He just tells us his plans are great.

[ek_hornbeck]

But nobody can give you the moral authority to impose such costs on me. Period. Stop. End of story.

The government has no more and no less "moral authority" to impose tariffs than any other type of tax. If the government can tax income or consumption, it can impose import duties. In fact, import duties accounted for most of Federal Revenue in the 1800's, when there were no income or corporate taxes.

[Hawthorn]

>> import duties accounted for most of Federal Revenue in the 1800’s, when there were no income or corporate taxes <<

Of course. But “tariffs for revenue” were understood during the 1800’s to be conceptually and morally different from “tariffs for protection.”

Tariffs for protection are morally indefensible, while tariffs for revenue are a legitimate (if not always efficient) government tool.

[ek_hornbeck]

19th century tariffs were both a source of revenue and a tool to protect startup American industry from cheaper goods from (long-established) British and European industries. Washington and Hamilton realized that without protective tariffs, the US would not become a manufacturing power, it would be an economic backwater selling raw material and agricultural goods to Europe.

For most of the 19th century, the most important dividing issue between Republicans (and their Federalists/Whig predecessors) and Democrats (Democratic Republicans) was tariffs vs. free trade.

[Hawthorn]

>> Washington and Hamilton realized that without protective tariffs, the US would not become a manufacturing power, it would be an economic backwater selling raw material and agricultural goods to Europe <<

I don’t know about Washington’s position. Never studied it. But you’re correct about Hamilton. And Hamilton was flat-out wrong on the matter, as were Henry Clay and countless other Whigs, Free Soilers and Republicans. But I’ll give them a pass on the issue, since they opposed and ultimately abolished slavery.