Posted on 01/30/2016 5:29:18 AM PST by Kaslin
Of all the many things said about Donald Trump, what was said by Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Channel, said it all in just two words: "Grow up!"
It is amazing how many people have been oblivious to this middle-aged man's spoiled brat behavior, his childish boastfulness about things he says he is going to do, and his petulant response to every criticism with ad hominem replies.
He has boasted that his followers would stick by him even if he committed murder. But is that something to boast about? Is it not an insult to his followers, if it is true? Moreover, his cockiness is misplaced, because he still does not have a majority among Republican voters, while you need a majority of all the voters to win any state in the general election.
Trump has a showman's talent for telling people what they want to hear. But you can listen in vain for a coherent argument from him, based on facts and logic, much less an understanding of the inherent limitations of the office of president.
More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."
In other words, the personal character of the people to whom you entrust the powers of government matters even more than what kinds of government institutions there are. There have been some good kings and some bad presidents, as well as vice versa.
In a world where the future of this country is threatened from within by increasingly angry polarization, and where external threats can become nuclear, are we really going to entrust the safety or this country to a man who still needs to grow up?
Is the fact that he loudly expressed our own disgust with the political establishment a sufficient reason to gamble the whole future of the country by putting him in the White House?
The White House is not a place for on-the-job training. You are supposed to be ready, or at the very least grown up, before you walk in the door. Aging happens automatically, but maturity is optional -- and it is an option that Donald Trump has not yet chosen to exercise.
The issue that Trump raised about Ted Cruz's having been born in Canada is not the first time he has tried to challenge where someone was born. "The Donald" was among those who tried to say that Barack Obama was not born an American citizen, and who disgraced themselves, while undermining other critics of Obama who had serious objections to his policies.
On the other hand, messianic demagogues have often spoken at least part of the truth. But they have also often led their followers to their doom, whether at Jonestown, Stalingrad or innumerable other places. That is a very high price to pay for an exhilaration of the moment.
Donald Trump is not the only one who needs to act like an adult. With this country starting to unravel from within, while ruthless enemies overseas are developing both nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles to deliver them, we face problems that cannot be solved by candidates with glib words or by voters who vote for whoever meets their emotional needs.
If you don't understand the issues, but want to do your patriotic duty, then stay home on election night, whether in the primaries or in the national election in November. Uninformed voters turn elections into a game of playing Russian roulette with the future of America.
Conservative candidates will also have an opportunity to show their maturity and their patriotism. This is not the first primary season in which the conservative vote has been split among so many Republican candidates that it virtually guarantees that someone who is not a conservative will win the Republican nomination.
At some point during the primary season, it becomes clear that some candidates have no real chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. At that point they can either continue hanging on, keeping the conservative vote split, or they can withdraw and throw their support to some other conservative candidate who has a chance.
A lot of people need to grow up, and to do something for this country that has done so much for them.
That's not what I took from it. It sounded to me like Trump said the polls say that his supporters are loyal. Then Trump gave a bad analogy.
"My people are so smart -- and you know what else they say about my people? The polls? I have the most loyal people -- did you ever see that? I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
Who, by your reckoning, IS qualified? What makes him/her qualified?
This morning I was considering the various candidates’ resumes. On paper, Kasich is really well qualified: Governor of a big (swing) state, former Chairman of the House Budged Committee. But do I want him sitting in the Oval Office? Apparently the NYT does.
Huckabee, Gilmore and Bush completed their terms as governor of their states, so they have that executive experience going for them. Whether their records warrant moving up to the White House is another question.
Both Cruz and Rubio are in their FIRST TERM in the U.S. Senate. Just like Obama. They’ve been running for POTUS since they arrived in DC. Or before, actually. What has either actually accomplished in the U.S. Senate?
iIck Santorum served 2 terms in the U.S. House of Reps and 2 in the U.S. Senate before being defeated in an unusually strong Democrat election cycle.
Hillary was re-elected to the U.S. Senate, where she accomplished little, then left to assume SoS, as another stepping stone to the White House.
Bernie Sanders was reelected to the U.S. Senate. He would not finish out his term if elected. Not too sure what he’s actually accomplished in the Senate, except to caucus with the Dems to help achieve their agenda.
Carly Fiorina’s tenure at HP is controversial. Some say she did well; others not so much. I’m not qualified to judge on that. She has never served in public office, although she ran as a Republican in a totally Democrat controlled state.
Dr. Carson actually completed a full career as a pediatric neurosurgeon, then retired before turning to politics. He has never served in public office.
Donald Trump built a multi-billion dollar real estate/business enterprise before turning to politics. He has never served in public office.
Is getting elected a “qualification?” Is getting elected, then not completing the term for which one has campaigned a ‘qualification?’ If not, we have a number of candidates who really are not qualified.
A white hood? Seriously? I mean, seriously?
Foul ball.
And no, I don't think Sowell will be trudging to the polls himself to cast an abject ballot for the latest Yacht Club favorite, although I'm sure many of the other NRO writers would. I'd expect a Sowell vote, in an open field, for Cruz or Carson, maybe Santorum.
But I don't think his demurring from endorsing Trump can be taken as a sign of encroaching Kluxerism.
I never imagined I would see freepers trash Mark Levin either, but I have and I do. I understand the attraction to Trump's anti-media, anti-establishment crusade. I simply do not understand trashing conservative icons who have fought at our sides in the trenches for decades. I don't take issue, of course, with mere disagreements. It's the seeming desire to question their conservative credentials as if they were false friends all along that bothers me. It really troubles me.
I agree with you that I would like to see more humility from Trump. He is not perfect. I understand that. I was skeptical of Trump's running for president.
But right now Trump is doing what no other politician is doing. He is telling the truth about America and its challenges.
He actually visited the border and spoke to real border patrol agents. He then pointed out how bad things were. Every politician and every member of the media twisted his words and called him a racist and other names.
When Obama spoke about spending billions in tax dollars to bring in hundreds of thousands of Muslims that homeland security have said will be impossible to vet, only Trump said it would be a bad idea. Every other politician and every member of the media immediately attacked Trump and called him names.
When Trump spoke out against the problem of sanctuary cities he was attacked. When Trump spoke out against the our foreign policy and weakness against China, Iran, North Korea, etc. every other politician attacked him.
Trump is telling the truth. People are sick to death of the constant lies and the political correctness.
I really don't care whether or not Trump has been in a fist fight.
Unintentional I realize but too funny! Ick Santorum. That's how I feel about him. Just ... ick!
See post #27 and try the decaf.
I said it then, and I'll say it again: Obama's sulky pout said it all. He DID NOT like seeing his hero killed by the U.S. SEALs. And they suddenly died only a month later in a scenario that stank of "setup".
Obama was kept out of the loop when Osama Bin Laden was located and set up, someone wrote at the time, and he sulked off to one side when the SEALs closed in for the kill. Then the SEALs died.
Any questions about where his loyalties lay? For me, only a few little ones. Nothing substantive.
I seriously, seriously doubt Ted Cruz in any way resembles Uriah Heep's "Numble Man", or that he would be anything but forthright and forceful in his dealings with the Russian thug-despot.
Where did you get that ad-hom garbage, by the way? You diving in Port-O-Lets for stuff to throw at Cruz now?
Maybe the women comparing member sizes upthread should be our windsock for the way things are going here.
OK, so which candidate has written books about his positions over the past several years? Which candidate has written a book on how to get things done in an environment where you can’t be a dictator? Which candidate has the real evidence that if you put his system into practice you can achieve a lot of what you want in life? Which candidate has proven that he can impart these principals to others and have them succeed?
Take a look at this video from C-SPAN the other night: https://youtu.be/lf3mddLIZvE
Please give this some thoughtful reflection.
I made a point about your bad judgment and worse taste in calling Dr. Sowell a Klansman. Now stand up and take the heat.
And yeah, I saw the stupid photo of Chapelle.
I think we have to distinguish between the concept of qualified and eligible. There is only one candidate who is arguably ineligible and that is the man I support, Ted Cruz. There is only one candidate on the Republican side who has a chance of winning who is unqualified in my judgment and that is Donald Trump because of his biography, his associations, his frauds, his deceits and his sleaze.
I think the question of Cruz' eligibility is a close question and I on balance come down with the conclusion that it was the understanding of the Framers that a natural born citizen was one who was a citizen by virtue of his birth rather than by virtue of a process known as naturalization. I accept that there are dictain two Supreme Court cases which run contrary to this opinion but dicta is not controlling. Moreover, there is a question about whether or not the Supreme Court can or should rule on this issue. Certainly the Supreme Court is not in the business of handing out declaratory judgments as Donald Trump insists. Likely, the court will refrain from ruling by calling this a political question. That implies that the matter should be handled by the House of Representatives or by the political party or by the state authorities or, even better, by the voters.
I think the Donald Trump is being disingenuous in calling for a declaratory judgment. I think that Prof. Laurence Tribe is being passive aggressive in calling for a state official to deny Cruz a place on the ballot in an effort to generate standing.
As I say, on balance I think Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen and that understanding complies with the practice for other candidates on both sides of politics including Goldwater, Romney, McCain and Obama himself.
As to the qualifications, or absence of them, of Donald Trump to be president, that requires a lengthy exposition of his biography.
All the best,
I'd like to know what the female demographic has to say about this:
"If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller..."
"Beautiful, famous, successful, married; I've had them all, secretly, the world's biggest names."
--Donald "Bimbo" Trump
Excuse me nat, I neither have any real power to put Trump anywhere,
nor actual ability to impose my views on any American.
I’m just telling it as I see it,
without the overwrought emotional convulsions that color some analyses.
It's not quite that easy as some computer savvy is required, have knowledge about electronic records, database formats, importing data and knowing what each column in the record means, but with that ---- yep, anyone with that basic amount of knowledge these days can do it themselves if they know how to request the data.
In the past, access to this type of data had some restrictions on it for polling companies, research, etc.. --- not so much anymore.
Take a break, Mr. Sowell.
Hey! I’ve seen that picture before! ;)
Bravo!
Read the article, how long have you been here on FR?
I’m following very long an honored FR tradition of commenting via flying the handle at least two days before actually readint it..
Damn newbies
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.
