Jeb Bush: The man who killed Trump's casino dreams

cnn.com ^ | September 2, 2015 | Jeremy Diamond

[Berlin_Freeper]

Donald Trump openly boasts that he donates to politicians so he can exact favors from them after they reach office.

He did so for Jeb Bush in 1998, holding a high-dollar fundraiser for the gubernatorial candidate in Trump Tower and shelling out $50,000 to the Florida Republican Party. But when Bush took office in 1999, Trump didn't get the political help he needed to make his casino dreams a reality in the Sunshine State.

[greedo]

Attempting to influence a degenerate p.o.s. politician, to enable a job-creating enterprise,   [ BAD ]

Missing Senate votes and committee meetings,   [ GOOD ]

Ted Cruz a no-show at most committee meetings, floor votes

[Fhios]

I have more faith in the recently converted than I do with the choir.

There is a deeper substance to Trump other than your simple a=b < c equations you try and lay out through confusing dichotomies and false equivalencies that have already been outlined in the media for the low information/motivation voter.

We’re entering a zeitgeist, a time where positive change is possible. We can escape the politically correct nihilistic vector the professional political class has us set on. It’s a self-destructive evolutionary dead end for us.

When writing about G*d we capitalize the G. When writing about the g*dlike we use the lower case g. The ‘*’ is optional.

[RFEngineer]

“unsupported characterizations”

What about your concern for “tyranny and corruption” under Trump is unsupported by the words you wrote?

What about my point that you do not appear to be concerned about actual “tyranny and corruption” that is present from government to day is unsupported by our present political leaders of all stripes?

Which GOP candidate has actually addressed “tyranny and corruption” as an issue - and has a track record of exposing it?

I’m not being unreasonable with you. You are setting a standard for Trump that you are not expecting out of any other candidate or existing politician. Why shouldn’t I call that out as undermining the merits of your argument?

So please, defend your “Tyranny and Corruption” argument on it’s merits - but to be honest - deal with the full spectrum of T&C in candidates and those elected. Surely that matters as much as future T&C from Trump that you say is possible.

We haven’t had a nominee that reflects conservative values in a few decades. Please articulate the merits of that strategy?

Why would you reject Trump who has at least some positions that offer a possibility of some reform of government and political parties when he leads in the polls?

I like Cruz as much as anyone. Right now he is mere abstraction as a viable candidate though. To claim otherwise is delusion.

[nathanbedford]

You present two arguments: 1) Cruz might not be electable; 2) Trump's imperfections should be excused because Cruz is also afflicted with imperfections concerning amnesty.

The question of electability has not been decided fourteen months before the election and quite a while before the primaries. That is the purpose of the process we are going through now. The game should not be declared over before the first pitch is thrown.

The question of relative virtue between the candidates on amnesty is a defense of Trump that so often comes up: Trump is no worse than other politicians therefore he should be excused a departure from conservative orthodoxy that would not be tolerated in any other candidate. This is an argument of rank relativism and should not be accepted by any conservative.

If Cruz is wrong on amnesty and on visas, he is wrong but it does not make anyone else who was also wrong, right. It is not clear what Trump means about amnesty except that he is willing to grant it to some illegal immigrants that he re-admits and judges to be "terrific."

If both Cruz and Trump are wrong on amnesty, we should ask ourselves, assuming no other candidate intrigues us, who is more conservative or, put another way, who is less conservative and therefore more likely to do mischief on all issues if elected?

The answer is obvious, Cruz is the better choice in that regard. The downside with Trump has yet to be calculated for select all.

[Covenantor]

From your orotund rambling it is clear that you've never encountered “civil servants” in the commercial world as pertains to the granting of licenses, permits, and the continued life of an enterprise and indeed very nearly all aspects of life.

Your strawman of the pure politician or administrative flunky as one who must be wooed, cajoled, and bribed to abandon his ethical, moral, and legal code is laughable and must have derived from fictional sources.

From the very first simple forms of government those with power and the ability to enforce such power have been the initiators of the demand the gift or bribe to conduct human commerce, movement of self or goods, construction and occupation of domiciles.

It is the one with power that demands tribute at swords point that is corrupt and that corrupts. And always has been.

[trebb]

So - who is likely to be the most bought and paid for corruptible of the field? Do you really believe it is Trump? My money goes to Cruz but Trump is an acceptable substitute if Cruz falls.

If we want to do all the "what ifs" and use them to disqualify those on our side of the aisle, we may as well donate to Hillary and Bernie because one of them will follow Obama - unless we get the real prize of Jeb as a "victory".

[RFEngineer]

“I get that people don’t like admitting that they caused their own problems. “

Friend, you didn’t address the “moral relativism” point that I responded to.

I appreciate debate diversion tactics as much as anyone, but if you are going to say that Trump represents “moral relativism” when we’ve had “moral relativism” served up for the last 20 years and have nothing to expect but more in the future, I’m not sure what your objection actually is?

I’d think you’d want to use Trump popularity to reform the party of “moral relativism” if that is truly your issue. The party is “vulnerable” to reform right now. Trump is the reason.

Instead they want to kick him out of the party so they can get back to serving up the same slop they always have.

You think that’s a positive?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The discussion was about whether venality is limited to one side of the equation or both sides and whether venality is limited to financial reward but extends to power trips. I don't know how that discussion morphs into a discussion of the politicians' positions on amnesty.

Because its much ado about nothing for a rational person. If Trump has violated any laws, you should point them out. Meanwhile, the whole country burns down because of such stupidity.

\Most of his supporters here say he will build a wall-so far so good- and he will deport illegals (that is not what he is written but what he has said-perhaps a big difference?)

Considering it explicitly calls for tripling ICE who are in sore need of help in tackling the illegal alien population in the United States, calls for an "enforcement of laws" which is clearly understood as deportation, and explicitly calls for ending "catch and release" but requiring detention until they can be sent out, your claim here rings hollow.

He will readmit them-only the "terrific" illegal aliens. Trump has not troubled to define "terrific" for us

Again, you have not read his plan or read it poorly. It explicitly calls for an immigration moratorium, requires an increase in the lowest wage for H1B1 visas, and requires that all future immigrants to be able to certify that they will be sufficient here, not going straight on the dole.

If someone can come into this country, not be immediately in poverty and expect us to pay for it, on top of an American First workers program, there's no question that this is the best plan of any of the candidates. All of whom, by the way, do not even want deportation. They want mass legalization.

So, if you think Trump is evil incarnate here because he donates to politicians and calls on them for help, which virtually every other business man in the country does, what better candidate do you have to offer, or are you wanting me to stay home?

[Norm Lenhart]

What diversion? Some of us have learned our lesson. Some of us stand on principle and have for several years. Others make excuses like ‘its a lesser evil’ and ‘i’m being pragmatic’. Now you tell me. Which of us has a moral issue? The people abandoning morality or the people trying to stand for something?

People caused their problems. You did. I did. We can meet the definition of insanity and keep doing it or we can change course. Not seeing how admitting my own past complicity in wrecking America is diverting anything. Perhaps you would like to explain it in detail.

[9YearLurker]

Cruz IMO has proven utterly incapable of what’s most important for a GOP prez: to go over the media and directly persuade the people. Trump does that with ease.

And, I’m making my own assessment that Cruz is just not sufficiently likable and is, probably because of his largest donors, too focused on social issues to win an election now. As a VP, with more seasoning in 4 or 8 years, after successful GOP presidency, that may be possible.

My point on amnesty and TPA/TPP wasn’t that Cruz was wrong on the former, but that he was slippery and misleading on both. Trump gets points on forthrightness, which counts a lot to voters.

[RFEngineer]

“Not seeing how admitting my own past complicity in wrecking America is diverting anything.”

I’m not asking you to admit anything.

I am wondering why you would not use Trumps popularity to overturn existing party hierarchy so that we get less “moral relativism”. Instead you’d undermine the possibility of change because it comes from Trump. I don’t get it.

I don’t know exactly what Trump would accomplish as a nominee (we don’t know what ANY candidate would accomplish at this point)

But he has already shaken up the party. He seems to be driven by other things than they typical politician - at least if he isn’t he’s going about it a different way.

If he does NOTHING but illegal immigration reform, that is a reason for anyone, even someone of pristine political moral purity, to vote for him, or at least express support when he leads commandingly in the polls.

[Norm Lenhart]

IF?

IF???

Why is it even a question? How is it that Trumps stronges backers can ask IF their candidate will do something so basic?

That aside, I’ll go with it. If he did every thing he said on illegals while pushing his gay crap? No that is not reason enough to vote for him. If he did everything he said on illegals while raising taxes in violation of everything conservatives and everyone short of the DNC has preached for decades? No it ain’t good enough. It ain’t good enough to take one YHHHhuge step forward and 25 bog ones backward across the board.

And it isn’t about hated purity. It’s about either believing in conservative values that founded America or it isn’t. Your position is one held by moderates. Most of Trumps supporters are. So they makes them at best, moderates. So be it. Just don’t question why or complain when you get what you claim not to want.

It’s great that he is destroying the GOP. I love it. I support ‘that’. Tell me what solid basis, what in his history should convince me to give my vote to him. As a conservative American.

I am willing to be convinced. If you wish to try, lets have a serious conversation. But I will forewarn you. I have read his history, I am brutally familiar with Republican history, and I know why I believe what I do because it is based on fact.

If you don’t want to have that conversation thats equally fine.

[nathanbedford]

It is the one with power that demands tribute at swords point that is corrupt and that corrupts. And always has been.

Rubbish. The law has always criminalized both sides of the equation, the giver and taker.

When Trump acted as the giver by his own admission he expected the taker to render up favors-to act corruptly in an ethical if not a strictly legal sense. To make a virtue of this behavior is either the depths of cynicism or heights of self delusion.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

What diversion? Some of us have learned our lesson. Some of us stand on principle and have for several years. Others make excuses like ‘its a lesser evil’ and ‘i’m being pragmatic’. Now you tell me. Which of us has a moral issue?

The ridiculousness of this is that the "lesser evil" thing exists almost entirely in your own negative thinking, and requires you to purposely look for problems or to make minor and insignificant things into deal breakers, while the entire country collapses by the other candidates who would inevitably fill the vacuum if Trump left.

This idea that we have to have someone who is absolutely, entirely ideological, absolutely with us on every single issue, instead of getting a President who will make HUGE changes and benefits for the nation as a whole, is completely ridiculous.

It's this type of stupidity that gave us guys like Rick Santorum-- who literally had nothing going for him, no plans, nothing-- but he was a "social conservative" with religious bonafides. And what did we get? Mitt Romney. And what would we have gotten with Rick Santorum as nominee? Another loss, because even that sweater vest had no plans with a very limited appeal outside of the Church Lady coalition, who don't even know anything about politics!

[billyboy15]

I agree.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

That aside, I’ll go with it. If he did every thing he said on illegals while pushing his gay crap? No that is not reason enough to vote for him. If he did everything he said on illegals while raising taxes in violation of everything conservatives

Raising taxes? Do you have a brain tumor? His plan is a tax cut.

So what if it's not a flat tax or a fair tax? I'll take the huge cut just as we did with Ronald Reagan who kept the same damn system. You would not even vote for Reagan!

[billyboy15]

That’s not an answer to what I asked. Donating to a Party or a Candidate in the hopes they will through their policies help your business thrive is not the same as donating to a pol and hen asking him for a specific quid pro quo.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The irony is that these guys are bashing the most forthright and honest candidate in the race! More than likely they want us to vote for someone with even more significant trust issues. If they were consistent, these people would just stay home on election day. And I say, good riddance!

[Norm Lenhart]

Yea, my thinking and the posts of hundreds if not thousands of Freepers over the years.

If you’re gonna try that one, find a better hobby.

Raising taxes is a dealbreaker. Read my lips.

Telling your voters ‘Sorry Conservatives” on Romneycare...sorry, Obamacare ‘replacement’ is a deal breaker.

Hiring, promoting and backing Trannies in your businesses while pushing them as ‘beauty’ is a deal breaker.

There’s three major issues he’s utterly liberal on. Taaxes, Homos and Healthcare. And the one issue he made famous is merely words, no different than Barry’s hope and change crap with nothing of substance to back them regardless of how much we agree. Want more? No need. You know them as well as I do. The difference is you are OK with them. So have at it and let a guy like Cruz tank because ONE issue upset your ‘purity’ so awfully.

[Norm Lenhart]

I guess his direct words about raising taxes on the rich was just a hallucination.