Now I wonder if we are seeing a pattern here. If Forbes and Art Laffer are writing his economic platform, it is hardly likely to embrace his rhetoric.
Posted on 08/24/2015 12:50:28 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rahm Emanuel worked on Wall Street——and was a fund-raiser and top aide to Bill Clinton AND a G/S lobbyist at the same time.
Rahm later became Obama’s COS-—then Obama gave him a second job-—in the Dept of The Treasury AT THE SAME TIME.
What dirty work they were up to, we still do not now.
Now I wonder if we are seeing a pattern here. If Forbes and Art Laffer are writing his economic platform, it is hardly likely to embrace his rhetoric.
“Rahm Emanuel worked on Wall Street——and was a fund-raiser and top aide to Bill Clinton AND a G/S lobbyist at the same time.”
I forgot about Rahm. Jeb Bush worked for Lehman brothers after his term as governor of Florida. Lehman was at the center of the 2008 meltdown. The key actors in both political parties are dependent on the big banks for campaign money and lucrative do nothing consulting jobs when they are out of office. Too much cronyism.
The concentrated wealth at Goldman, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, MetLife, Bank of America and Wells Fargo plus a few large private equity firms and hedge funds is excessive and detrimental to the republic. The New York centered banking/investment cartel needs to be broken up if we are to restore liberty in this country. These firms act as an oligopoly and control the national political agenda.
The Chicago mayoralty (and its--cough--"benefits") is a job poor Emanuel has coveted since he was a penniless Democrat machine go-fer back in the 1980s.....before he became (1) Bill Clinton's national campaign finance chairman and served a dual role as (2) Clinton's senior White House aide, AND, (3) a Goldman Sachs lobbyist.
After Rahm "accidentally" became a multi-millionaire, thanks to a measly few months at a Wall Street investment firm......he decided to run for Congress (was there for four terms).
Hard-scrabble Rahm's accidental stumble into politics culminated in Rahm picked as (1) Obama's White House chief of staff .... and a dual role as (2) Obama's hand-picked man at Treasury with an unarticulated "job description."
Later, when he left the WH--penniless, of course---Rahm held a presser declaring he "just remembered" he really, Really wanted to be Mayor of Chicago.
Then Rahm happily announced he had "accidentally" raised $30 million for his campaign "in just a matter of weeks."
Golly, I hope the poverty-stricken little bugger did not "accidentally" wire-transfer federal tax dollars offshore at the time he was in a dual role as Obama's COS AND in charge of the entire US Treasury.
Sob.
The minute Obama/Valerie/Rahm/Axelrod/Geithner, and that Practiced bunch of Chicago criminals, landed in the WH they did two things that were apparently crucial to their evil plans
(a) they took control of the US Census;
(b) Obama placed his COS Rahm Emanuel in control of the US Dept of the Treasury (cabinet-level agency oversees IRS).
THE SMOKING GUN---WSJ REPORT--On Jan 20, 2009 Timothy Geithner was appointed Obama's Secy of the Treasury. But within three weeks, the Obama White House tightened its grip on Treasury. Obama put his COS, Rahm Emanuel, in charge of Treasury---Rahm Emanuel's dual role was an unusual move.
When he got to Treasury, WH COS Rahm Emanuel was so involved in the inner workings of the Treasury that the phrase "Rahm wants it" had become an unofficial mantra among subservient govt staffers, prostrate in obeisance, scurrying to accede to Rahm's wishes, according to Treasury government officials. Reported by WSJ / 05/31/09
SOURCE http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113406528875137.html
I simply say that he is not a reliable conservative and we conservatives who are furious at decades of betrayal should be very cautious about a man who so obviously does not share our deepest values.
True... BUT conservatives SHOULD use Donald TRUMP like BEAR SPRAY...
SPRAYING liberals, progressives, commies, rinos, democrats, and other malefactors LIBERALLY...
Preparing the way for TED CRUZ... when the REAL donnybrooke starts..
Payback to George Soros?
I agree with you Trump is not a conservative. I suggest none of the Republican candidates running for President since 1988 have been conservatives. At best they have been compromising moderates, at worst they have consciously furthered the progressive agenda. All have identified with the elitist urban country club class and have followed economic policies benefiting foreign countries, global corporations, and Wall Street investment firms at the expense of the average working class American. None have defended that nation at its borders. In fact they have ignored the invasion across the southern border by millions of unskilled third world illegal immigrants who have become a tremendous burden on the taxpayer, not to mention the source of crime and cultural degradation. While turning their backs to the defense of the homeland’s borders these Republican presidential aspirants have actively pursued policies resulting in wasted blood and treasure on foreign adventures which have not enhanced our security but have earned us the hatred of other peoples while loading future generations with an unbearable financial debt.
What Trump does seem to understand and no other candidate seems to grasp, with the possible exception of Cruz, is if we don’t have border integrity, we don’t end the one sided “free trade” agreements with mercantilist protectionist nations, and we don’t give up the neocon delusions of endless military intervention in the name of nation building the Republic will end. The other Republican candidates are either true believers in the policies bringing the Republic to its knees or they are pragmatists who lack the conviction and backbone to fight the forces allied against American exceptionalism, limited government and individual freedom. Trump is alone in both offering a logical and appealing alternative to the progressive world view and displaying a willingness to actually fight for the policies he claims to support. His is putting his own fortune on the line. What personal sacrifice are the others making?
I do not agree with those who state that Trump does not need anyone’s money. He has succeeded as a businessman by using borrowed money to build his hotels, resorts, condominiums and real estate developments. His organization is as dependent on the Wall Street banking cartel for funding its activities as other politicians are dependent on special interest money. The difference I see in Trump is he seems willing to clearly tell those same special interests he will not bend to their political agendas. There is no equivocation in his public statements and when challenged for making blunt comments contrary to the positions of the ruling elites, he does not back down.
Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and the other Wall Street investment firms can easily bring Trump’s empire to its knees by cutting off his access to borrowed capital in the same way they can end the campaigns of any other Republican candidate by cutting off the flow of corporate cash to campaigns. In fact we’ve seen some corporate interests (Disney/ESPN, Macy’s, Univision) take very specific action to hurt Trump economically. Instead of backing off his message, these efforts seem to make him even more intent on winning the nomination and taking on the corporatists.
Given a choice between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump I will take a chance on Trump. Unlike his brother George, the pretend “compassionate conservative”, Jeb has chosen to ignore conservatives and play to the media and his elite country club friends by clearly stating his support for key elements of the progressive agenda. Trump’s independence is refreshing when juxtaposed against an elitist candidate who would be more comfortable dining with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi than attending a church picnic in a middle class neighborhood.
In the end all aspirants for political office are all corrupt or will be corrupted by the process of raising money and campaigning. In the early years of the Republic some of our founding fathers seeking leadership positions
made a concerted effort to do so while pursue a virtuous life. Unfortunately the pursuit of virtue is no longer something to which leaders aspire. Certainly the public in recent years has not required its leaders to seek and adhere to the highest standards of morality and behavior.
Elections in the modern era have forced conservatives to vote for the lesser of two evils. Since the election of 1984 there has not been either a conservative or a patriot on the GOP ballot. Yes, George H.W. Bush and John McCain both served in the military. I contend their military service alone does not make them patriots. By compromising the interests of the nation and the people while holding positions of public trust, they both demonstrated they are not patriots. They consciously chose to represent interests working in opposition to the Republic and the people.
I have no doubt the GOP candidate on the ballot in November 2016 will have a flawed character, will be corrupt, and will not be a pure conservative. Once again conservatives will have to examine the flaws of candidates and determine the lesser of multiple evils. At this point Trump seems the most likely to fearlessly and aggressively fight the progressive agenda instead of collaborating with those who would fundamentally change American on the left. He has demonstrated on several occasions it is possible for a candidate to stand stand tall against a media firestorm and survive without compromising the message. Will less egotistical candidates gain courage from Trumps example or will they continue to play to the media and the elites by toeing the line of political correctness.
I’m far from deciding who to support but at this point I find the fighter with the supersize ego more attractive than any pragmatic politician whose absence of conviction and principles allows him to equivocate and compromise before the fight begins.
I think your reply stands a clear thinking analysis of our current situation. I even agree with you that Trump shares that analysis and responds to it.
More later.
I have no idea what a conservative is anymore nor which GOP I am dealing with. Is it the GOP, RINO's, Log Cabin GOP, Tea Party GOP, the GOPe? Is this supposed to be a united political party?
Are the name changes due to Americans simply wising up to the epic con-game? Conservative means many things to many people.
Are there some here who believe there is some supreme, loved conservative who will be supported by the majority of Americans who will actually elect this person? A person who will restore America to what it was originally long ago?
Who is this cherished crown of conservative principle? Does anyone really believe the person described above exists and will actually be elected President in 2016 America?
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.