Posted on 08/17/2015 3:49:35 AM PDT by expat_panama
...Trump said “We don’t win anymore…we don’t do anything right.” And yet, if we’re losing and can’t beat anybody, as he claims, then why is the rest of the world so confident about the U.S. and eager to come here and do business? Don’t take it from me: just read the AT Kearney survey of global business executives, which says—for the third year in a row—that the United States has the world’s best macroeconomic outlook— better than anywhere else, including China and Mexico, two countries he claims are eating our lunch.
Another study shows those executives putting their money where their mouth is. International firms poured $236 billon into the United States in 2013...
[snip]
This kind of simplistic bumper-sticker talk goes over well with folks who apparently don’t want to think for themselves...
[snip]
That Trump talks in broad terms with little to no policy detail (“I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created”) is a rap against him, but then again, political candidates are generally advised to avoid specifics that may be picked apart and cost votes later on. More seasoned politicians like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have already fallen into this trap; is Trump politically savvier than them? No, his campaign—new, understaffed and disorganized—is just out of the gate, and he’ll make similar mistakes soon enough.
But another reason Trump hasn’t talked all that much about his ideas is because they’re not, well, conservative enough. “I’m a free trader,” he claims, yet...
[snip]
He’s a protectionist in free-trader clothes, a stance that squarely aligns him with labor unions, environmentalists and big-city liberals like Nancy Pelosi. That’s hardly the way to win the backing of the Republican party, now, is it?...
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Thank God Trump will never be president because one Dictator per lifetime is more than enough.
Tell that to the Iranians.
k
“All I’m telling you is Trump can’t deliver what he is telling you. Any of it.”
And Reagan couldn’t do tax reform for the same reason but he did anyway. Presidents can suggest legislation to congress and sign or veto it at their discretion. But what Trump is doing is saying this is the legislation I want to sign. Congress will do the legislation if they believe their job is on the line.
Trumps plan is the one he would put before congress but parts of it he could do.
He could have the border patrol enforce laws
He could veto everything until congress passes a bill - possibly with some changes.
He could issue a blanket amnesty for anyone who kills an illegal alien (Unlikely)
There several things he could do that would expedite the legislation.
Having Jeff Sessions as the Senate sponsor is a good place to start
You are however right he can’t do it unilaterally but if no candidate even makes the proposal it will never get done.
Statist economics, along with womanizing and strong anti-foreigner rhetoric.
Where in the history books have I read about that kind of approach?
>> I had to keep checking the year... It is deja vu all over again <<
Indeed.
I’m wondering, Which candidate will be best to make the trains run on time?
I'm sure that there are Iranians in the US who have legal status and/or are citizens who send money home.
Of course there are many US citizens of Hispanic descent and legal Hispanic immigrants who wire transfer money home. King Donald wants these wire transfer companies to determine who is legal and who is not. Or maybe King Donald is planning on seizing these assets of legals and citizens.
The banks are in this money transfer business as well. They are much cheaper than the wire transfer companies, but they require accounts to be set up.
Trump trolls are the appendix of the human body. No purpose and willing to kill the nation for attention.
>> Attacking him like this only makes him stronger and more popular <<
As far as I’m concerned, “attacking” is one thing, while “criticizing with facts” is entirely something else. And it seems to me that this article in the latter category.
Therefore, if you can analyze the factual inaccuracies in the article, that would be a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the issues.
I’m not a Trumpeter, so no thanks. I was just giving friendly advice.
“eliminate due process, birth right citizenship, or seize assets/money transfers.”
This country is under invasion by an enemy. We’re at war. You don’t follow due process when you’re at war. It sounds like you’ve swallowed the liberal line and want to play according to the rules established by the Marxists, while those same Marxists follow no laws or rules.
>> I’m not a Trumpeter, so no thanks. I was just giving friendly advice <<
OK, sorry for the mix-up. My apology for the slight.
Still, I think the article in question is basically a sober analysis of the facts, as opposed to being simply an “attack.”
Will it change any minds, pro or con? Not by itself. But I think the steady drip-drip of facts will eventually spell an end to Donald’s current surge.
And I disagree. He’s not playing the same game as the other candidates. Imagine PT Barnum, Huey Long and George Wallace all rolled into one.
“That would require an actual discussion about his distant and recent past but all I get is screeching.”
Why all these nebulous references to “his distant and recent past” flips? He has voiced a change in abortion. He has contributed to both democrats and Republicans, with probably a little more overall to Republicans, and he has explained that many times. Can you at least point to some glaring flips that have occurred recently, as you mentioned?
I'd be happy if we just agreed to face the facts:
“But I think the steady drip-drip of facts will eventually spell an end to Donald’s current surge.”
Sounds like water boarding.:) Otherwise, i trust 90% of the media, including Fox News, to present the unbiased facts.
“LOL how very progressive of you to declare when history begins and ends.”
First, nothing about my post can be construed to hint at anything having to do with when history begins and ends, either literally of figuratively.
Second, some of those headlines I agree with.
Third, Coulter evidently is not alone in changing her thinking about Trump and issues.
Fourth, I have never been a Bush - “see you at the amnesty signing” - fan.
Here is a wonderful article by the same guy who wrote this one.
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-embrace-obama-062000349.html
LOL.I was joking with my suggestion yesterday about jumping into the virtues of The Donald fray. Now you done jumped in with both feet.
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.