Posted on 06/16/2015 5:22:09 PM PDT by GIdget2004
Donald Trump, in his own words…
Trump on Health Care “We must have universal healthcare,” Trump wrote in his book, “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one.” In an interview earlier this year he continued to applaud single payer health care systems used in other countries.
Trump on Taxes “I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million,” Trump said. “For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt.”
Trump on Trade Trump has called for “a 20% tax for importing goods,” and a “Twenty-five percent tax on China, unless they behave.”
Trump on Eminent Domain When asked about the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, that allowed economic development to be a legitimate reason for government to exercise eminent domain, Trump told Fox News (7/19/05), “I happen to agree with it 100 percent.” Trump was unsuccessful in his own attempt to have officials in New Jersey use eminent domain to condemn a home on property he wanted to buy for part of his hotel and casino.
(Excerpt) Read more at clubforgrowth.org ...
Might be true in theory, but if you’re comparing Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan, my personal feeling is that’s a pretty big stretch.
‘Monroe and Lincoln come to mind as executives that took very strong actions that were controversial but avoided others because they felt constrained by the office and their oath.”
Lincoln himself admitted he disregarded the Constitution. Carl Sandburg called him America’s first dictator.
Liberals? lol! I've been posting in this conservative forum in excess than 10 years longer than you have; my conservative bona fides have been well established.
Could you line out briefly how a “clown” could build up a $9 billion company There are many clowns, but few billionaires.
Don't confuse politics with business. Trump is very much a clown in the world of politics. If you watched his announcement today and didn't see that, you might want to research what it is to be presidential. Come to think of it, he may want to do that also.
He instituted a steel tarriff to protect American steel companies that were going bankrupt.
The alternative is to bring in cheap imports that run American companies out of business. The correct thinking was there - also if we put tarriff’s on Chinese goods, all things from China would be more expensive with the idea of putting American workers in manufacturing jobs. Yes, we’d have to pay higher prices for American goods but theoretically would raise wages all around. Who knows the answer?
“The temporary tariffs of 8–30% were originally scheduled to remain in effect until 2005. They were imposed to give U.S. steel makers protection from what a U.S. probe determined was a detrimental surge in steel imports. More than 30 steel makers had declared bankruptcy in recent years. Steel producers had originally sought up to a 40% tariff. Canada and Mexico were exempt from the tariffs because of penalties the United States would face under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Additionally, some developing countries such as Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey were also exempt. The typical steel tariff at the time was usually between zero and one percent, making the 8-30% rates seem exceptionally high. These rates, though, are comparable to the standard permanent U.S. tariff rates on many kinds of clothes and shoes.” This is rom Wikipedia 2002 United States Steel Tarriff
Part of the Trump appeal is the way he talks. He isn’t intimidated and collegial. He fights back.
This is a good lesson for the other milk toasts. They need to learn how to fire up people.
This crap about being all nice to people who are destroying this country has to stop because it gives the very wrong impression.
Anyone (including you) are free to look past anything they would like. I choose not to when one is so clearly liberal.
The Donald does not have a combover! On Megyn Kelly's show tonight they showed part of an earlier interview and she asked about it. He lifted is hair in front and she lifted it and inspected it. Only a slight recession, but hair covering most all his head.
It looks like his hair has just thinned, so it's thinner all over, and shows especially at the bangs, not being as thick as before some areas just look pretty thin with long hair combed over different parts of his head.
Thinner hair just won't cover and stay in place as well as the thicker hair of youth.
Cruz is like that. Walker is like that. And they don't have Trump's liberal bona fides as shown in Post 9. And the milquetoasts are people most of us don't support here anyway.
It matters not even if you have been posting here since day one. I merely stated that liberals do, in fact, call him a clown. They called Reagan a clown, George W. Bush a clown, etc. Note, they never called Jimmy Carter a clown, and he was certifiable. Rush thought he did good, as did Mark Levin. Republican politicians too often prefer to use the Joel Osteen manner of speaking.
Talk is cheap.
You can’t read his writings, conversations and speeches without the understanding that he felt constrained by his office and his oath.
I’m sick of the nation settling for oligarchs ruling as all powerful executives or petty tyrants. I wish we had a legislative branch.
I don’t think anyone’s saying they’ll vote for Trump over Cruz or Walker. Just that if it came down to it, he wouldn’t be so bad. And the good thing is, Trump is in there to stir it up, he see’s this country we all love going down the drain with PC correctness and he’s doing the opposite, stirring things up. It’s a good thing.
Whether I like it or not, he’s in, so I hope it’s a good thing.
I agree that talk is cheap. It isn’t so much the talk, it is the way the talk is done and the connection it makes.
Most of us a retired of losers who never call things for what they are.
I don’t dislike Trump, but I am not sold on any of them at the moment.
Yes,many mills were declaring bankruptcy,they had failed to upgrade their process to continuous-cast.The offshore mills also had much better quality,particularly cold rolled product.Their were/are many more employees working in steel parts production plants,than were employed in steel making(mills) plants.
Those that could (steel parts mfg) moved operations to Mexico.Those who couldn’t stayed here,and got the double whammy of higher steel prices and increased compition from parts Mfg in Mexico.Thank you very much,may I have another.
That hit the ten ring.
Excellent.
And no doubt why some want to bar him from debates with any of these career government types.
Professional career politicians have nearly left America dead on the floor.
Actually, it really doesn’t matter. The word is universally used throughout this forum. But you are relatively new so perhaps you didn’t know that. You do seem to have a good working knowledge of the liberal lexicon, which is somewhat interesting. Other than that, this discussion really is pointless. Bye.
“I don’t intend precisely to throw the Constitution overboard, but I will stick it in a hole if I can,” he told a Cabinet officer. The enemy was violating the Constitution to destroy the Union, he argued, and therefore, “I will violate the Constitution, if necessary, to save the Union.” He instructed a messenger to the Secretary of the Treasury, “Tell him not to bother himself about the Constitution. Say that I have that sacred instrument here at the White House, and I am guarding it with great care.”
Carl Sandburg - from A Lincoln Preface
Seems by the amount of posts in this thread that Trump should be in the debates.
That’s fallacious economic thinking. Anytime you analyze an economic policy, you need to ask, And then what? For every policy, there are primary effects (which are “seen); but there are also secondary, and tertiary, and so on effects (which unfortunately are “unseen”).
A steel tariff protects steel jobs. Those saved steel jobs are *seen*; so you say, “Obviously, this policy saved jobs.”
But what is unseen? How about an American manufacturer, operating on paper-thin margins, for whom steel is a primary input? He now has to pay above-free-market prices for his inputs and then cover those costs by increasing his prices, putting him at a disadvantage to his international competitors, who can purchase steel for less. What happens to that American manufacturer?
That American manufacturer likely goes out of business, and jobs are lost. But because that company wasn’t an “industry,” you never read about those lost jobs the Wall Street Journal. You didn’t save any jobs; you simply affected which jobs would be lost.
Put it this way: I’m sure you’d agree that our 35% corporate tax rate puts U.S. manufacturers at a huge disadvantage to their foreign competitors, because those corporate taxes are costs they need to cover by increasing their prices. So why would you think that artificially increasing the cost of a U.S. manufacturer’s raw materials would not put him at an equal disadvantage?
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.