Posted on 12/14/2015 12:12:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Imagine for a moment if Donald Trump made the decision to run for president as a Democrat instead of as a Republican.
As Trump-mania continues to dominate the Republican presidential primary, it's not hard to envision an alternate reality - one where the real estate billionaire is taking the country by storm as a Democrat.
In many ways, it would have been easier for Trump to enter the Democratic primary than the Republican primary. Trump was registered as a Democrat from 2001 to 2009 and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid over the years. (In fairness, he has donated a lot of money to Republican candidates as well.)
As a native of liberal New York City, it's not surprising that Trump has a much longer record of being pro-choice than he does of being pro-life.
"I support a woman's right to choose," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 2000.
Trump was never a staunch opponent of gay marriage either until recently. In fact, Rick Santorum says that Trump chided him in 2011 for being "too hard-core" on gay marriage and abortion.
"I don't know anyone that shares that opinion with you," Santorum said Trump told him.
So it's not too hard to envision Trump running as a socially liberal Democrat. Indeed, it would seemingly be a far easier act for the thrice-married New Yorker to pull off than convincing evangelicals that he is staunchly pro-life and against gay marriage.
On foreign policy, Trump isn't all that different from Barack Obama. To the extent his foreign policy worldview is comprehensible, he comes across as the least hawkish candidate in the GOP field, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, even though rhetoric sometimes masks this. While he says he wants to increase military spending and "bomb the shit" out of ISIS, he regularly makes the case for reducing America's leadership role in world affairs and focusing on nation building at home.
"I'll tell you what, there is going to be nation building. You know what the nation's going to be? The United States, that's what the nation's going to be," Trump told me in September, speaking of his foreign policy outlook.
As Trump also repeatedly highlights, he opposed the Iraq war (though the first evidence of this comes from 2004, over a year after the war began). Such a position is far more endearing to the Democratic base than Hillary Clinton's support for the military action that removed Saddam from power.
Trump wouldn't be out of place on economic issues in a Democratic primary either. At this anti-Wall Street moment, Trump could paint himself as the insider who is ready to turn enemy of his class for the good of the country.
What's more, Trump has a record of favoring proposals that would be far more vexing to the one percent than anything Bernie Sanders has proposed. In 1999, Trump proposed a one-time 14.25 percent tax on wealthy Americans and trusts over $10 million. Even now he doesn't back away from that proposal philosophically, even though he says he doesn't intend to pursue it in the White House.
"At that time we could have paid off the entire national debt and we could have started the game all even," Trump told Sean Hannity in August, noting that the proposal was actually "very conservative."
Trump is also a supporter of universal health care, if not Obamacare.
"I am going to take care of everybody," Trump said on "60 Minutes" in September. "I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
Trump even praised the single payer health care programs of Canada and Scotland during the first Republican presidential debate in August.
"As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland, it could have worked in a different age, which is the age you are talking about here," Trump said when asked by the moderators about his past support for single payer health care.
Of course Trump would have had to made the strategic decision to position himself to run in 2016 as a Democrat way back in 2010, before he went on his birther kick. You probably can't win a Democratic primary as one of the leading birthers in the country.
His rhetoric on immigration also wouldn't fly in a Democratic primary. But if he made the decision to position himself as a Democrat contender back in 2010, he would never have called for the deportation of all the illegal immigrants in the country. In fact, after Mitt Romney lost in 2012, Trump criticized the Republican contender's rhetoric on immigration as "mean-spirited," which suggests Trump's instincts on illegal immigration may be less harsh than what we are seeing today
"The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it," Trump told Newsmax. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."
But if Trump made the decision to run as a Democrat in 2010, he may be even better positioned to win the Democratic presidential nomination today than he is to win the Republican nomination. The Democratic field is far smaller and with Joe Biden's decision to not enter the race, there is no candidate opposing Hillary Clinton who people can actually imagine winning the nomination, even if Sanders could potentially threaten her in a few states.
Trump may have been that guy. He could have successfully branded Clinton as untrustworthy and even criminal over her email scandal and shady Clinton Foundation dealings, just like he negatively branded so many of his GOP foes. And it very well may have worked, just like it seems to have worked with "low-energy" Jeb Bush.
So it doesn't take too much of an imagination to envision a world where Donald Trump is on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination. In fact, it may even be far easier to get your head around than our current reality.
Yes. think of France without the socialist party which we do not have. They have extreme leftists, globalists, greenists, and persons of color in the rats’ party. We have values, isolationists, and constitutionalists or more aptly small federal government states’ rightists, on the right.
Conclusions and opinions using fatally flawed “logic” cannot be fact. The point stands; using your logic Cruz has a higher percentage of primary voters “ not in his camp” than Trump does. Trump consistently polls at least double digits above Cruz.
Like I said, if you don’t like that check your logic. I am using your logic exactly like you did.
And you’ll see more of the Class of 98 go again. With no regrets whatsoever.
America is what matters. Not a website.
He absolutely seems to have changed. Most of his positions look to be Populist. Somewhere along the way he appears to have rejected the Elitism side of politics. I suppose once you get F.U. Money, you are freed from some of the shackles of the establishment -- and he most definitely has F.U. Money.
The political battleground has changed drastically in the last 20-30 years. It is now Elitist vs. Populist. That is why you see so many Republicans acting so inexplicably oddly. It is also why Trump is so popular, with crossover appeal.
The Elitists have very VERY bad plans for us. Erasure of nations, removal of all defensive weaponry from the populace, thought-control (literally), and gross depopulation (probably on the birth side, I think they learned from Hitler / Stalin / Pol Pot how bad it goes on the other side).
I freely admit I could be wrong. This could be the best acting job since Heath Ledger's "Joker". This is a bit of a dice-throw for me. While I would prefer Cruz, Trump has a large lead. So I will toss the dice on Trump. Best to toss the dice, than to submit to the Globalist/Elitist world paradigm.
The thing that informs me that it is likely not an act, is the response of the Elitists. They threw Jeb, Rubio, and Carson at us. They tried to smear Trump in every way. They are planning to split us with Cruz by inflating his polls.
Those are not the actions of a people who want Trump to be the nominee.
Smart people are people who can change conclusions when new facts are introduced.
The facts were there all along. They are not new.
“The Club for Growth today noted that Donald Trump once tried to use eminent domain”
My question again;”Where did Trump use emminant domain?”
For reference, your statement; “And the past use of emminant domain for private property aquisition is, well, despicable.”
Oh, that's just pathetic. You might want to alter your line of argument.
The comment is just way too broad to pick on. Is he talking about the Common Defense? Well, that's right there in the Constitution. Is he talking about taking care of people by getting out of their way? Is he talking about taking care of those who truly need it, only? Is he talking about taking care of people by shutting the borders against Mexico, or preventing hostile Muslims from entering America, or dealing much more smartly with China?
You don't know what he means. A smart reporter would have pinned him down a lot more. They didn't.
I wouldn't use this as your argument. It's about as weak as they come.
He went to court over it and lost. He used it but failed in court. That was pre Kilo-New London decision. Are you saying you do not count his two efforts to use it merely because his efforts failed? (And he claims he always wins, btw.)
According to that article Trump never used eminent domain, right?
Nope. They weren’t there. Not so plainly. The seven years of Obama have been very instructional to many millions.
The context is clearly about healthcare.
Well, since it took that 70 something year old so long to figure out the conservative/liberal divide, I suggest he is not the proper person to be in charge of the nation and the Republican Party. It’s not like he is a young man.
From the article:
Trump is also a supporter of universal health care, if not Obamacare.
“I am going to take care of everybody,” Trump said on “60 Minutes” in September. “I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”
Trump even praised the single payer health care programs of Canada and Scotland during the first Republican presidential debate in August.
“As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland, it could have worked in a different age, which is the age you are talking about here,” Trump said when asked by the moderators about his past support for single payer health care.
Of course Trump would have had to made the strategic decision to position himself to run in 2016 as a Democrat way back in 2010, before he went on his birther kick. You probably can’t win a Democratic primary as one of the leading birthers in the country.
You said “And the past use of emminant domain for private property aquisition is, well, despicable.”
Words have meaning, if you meant he wanted to use it but lost in court say that. Be accurate.
Trump was stopped by the courts but as the excerpt (with Trump quote) that I proved to you in Post #62 shows, Trump likes the idea of being able to appropriate other people's property, still.
And I don't mind having these exchanges with you. I know other FReepers believe that they're tying "anti-Trump" posters up with endless arguments (pinning them down in one place, as it were), but you are providing a service in getting out the truth.
Next?
Oh. Well I never said I was always right ;)
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.