The Case for Donald Trump

Town Hall ^ | 8 Feb 2016 | Kurt Schlichter

[Rummyfan]

It’s easy to make the conservative case against Donald Trump – he’s a Hillary-donating human troll doll who displays the interpersonal skills of Damien from “The Omen” while practicing the same deep, abiding commitment to conservative ideology as Charlie Sheen does to sobriety. Yet millions upon millions of Americans – some committed conservatives – still choose to support his nomination and, stunningly, do so on purpose. We need to understand why. In the Army, you call it “red teaming” – looking at the fight from the enemy’s point of view. In the law, a trial lawyer must not only know his own case but understand the other side so well that he can make his opponent’s case. And there is – cue the prayer for the Republican Party – a case for Donald Trump.

The best argument for nominating The Donald is the fact that he is not one of those aging, doddering, super-white, socialist Democrats. It’s a sad state of affairs when the sole item of diversity in the leadership of one of the two major parties is whether or not one sits to pee, and considering Bernie’s quirks it’s probably best not to explore that imagery too deeply.

[Rummyfan]

[Yosemitest]

If you're backing SOCIALIST Trump for President, ponder this .

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015

... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:

Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:
"Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
Challenged by Stossel, he said
that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.

Thomas Sowell called it CORRECTLY !

...Trump boasts that he can make deals, among his many other boasts.
But is a deal-maker what this country needs at this crucial time?
Is not one of the biggest criticisms of today's Congressional Republicans
that they have made all too many deals with Democrats,
betraying the principles on which they ran for office?

Bipartisan deals -- so beloved by media pundits -- have produced some of the great disasters in American history.

Contrary to the widespread view
that the Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by the stock market crash of 1929,
unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months that followed the stock market crash in October, 1929.

Unemployment was 6.3 percent in June 1930 when a Democratic Congress and a Republican president made a bipartisan deal that produced the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
Within 6 months, unemployment hit double digits --
and stayed in double digits throughout the entire decade of the 1930s.

You want deals?
There was never a more politically successful deall than that which Neville Chamberlain made in Munich in 1938.
He was hailed as a hero, not only by his own party but even by opposition parties, when he returned with a deal that Chamberlain said meant "peace for our time."
But, just one year later, the biggest, bloodiest and most ghastly war in history began.

If deal-making is your standard,
didn't Barack Obama just make a deal with Iran --
one that may have bigger and worse consequences than Chamberlain's deal?

What kind of deals would Donald Trump make?
He has already praised the Supreme Court's decision in "Kelo v. City of New London" which said
that the government can seize private property to turn it over to another private party.

That kind of decision is good for an operator like Donald Trump.
Doubtless other decisions that he would make as president would also be good for Donald Trump,
even if for nobody else.

[lonestar67]

Though I support Cruz there is a case for trump.

We live in a radical age of propaganda. Even Fox News schills for lies.

Electing trump would damage those epistemic systems. People would leave the country. Heads would explode.

That system of lying from Hollywood to public schools must be broken.

[justlittleoleme]

Already posted:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394292/posts

[Calpublican]

A person running for president should study issues but Donald seems to think bluffing and bullying is sufficient.

There is no case to be made for this low-class man.

[Grampa Dave]

How an Obscure Adviser to Pat Buchanan Predicted the Wild Trump Campaign in 1996

The Week dot com ^ | Michael Brendan Dougherty
Posted on 1/20/2016, 2:17:11 AM by WayneLusvardi

Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs?

What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better healthcare at a reasonable price?

What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America. You simply promised to restore the Middle American core, the economic and cultural losers of globalization to their rightful place in America?

What if you said you would re store them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3385923/posts

[ghosthost]

how many black people voted for Obama, because I forget. Oh right, every single one of them. Vote Trump.

[To Hell With Poverty]

Oh snap, that’ll leave a mark.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Arguments for Trump:

1) He can win. He can do this by attracting enough Reagan Democrats with his positions on trade and immigration. Watching Romney flounder taught me that sadly a candidate claiming to be a traditional Conservative cannot win in the current environment.

2) He will shove back hard against the Clinton machine and the Democrats’ Saul Alinsky crap. All others in the GOP have shown they just don’t have the stomach for that.

[pburgh01]

Bingo! Cruz’s downward spiral towards oblivion starts this week. Preaching to the conservative radio talk show crowd will not win you a plurality. The guy is just not likeable or electable in the general. Reagan WAS likeable, did not come across as strident, angry and preachy like Cruz does. Amazing to me that so many Conservatives who rail against the lawyer hegemony in Washington are so willing to elect a lawyer who has never had a job besides lawyering. I guess if you parrot bullet points of the Conservative agenda that gives you street cred with the purists.

[Yosemitest]

Vote COINSERVATIVE, and NOT SOCIALIST !

CRUZ or LOSE!

"The Republican establishment has more experience electing Democrats than I do.
They've shown they know how to do it, in presidential races. "


What You Need To Know About Ted Cruz ( 1:46 )

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

CRUZ or LOSE!

[poinq]

The criticism of the republican congress is not that they have made deals. The problem is that they make bad deals. And many times the things “we” get are really for big republican lobbyists and against most of us republicans. We as republicans don’t want government handouts to big business. We are against government handouts period.

To stand pat and not get anything passed, is also costing us a lot of criticism. And it costs us when we have to pass a budget. So we have to deal sometimes. And we would like to get good deals. Not deals that pay off republican lobbyists at the expense of republicans.

What Sowell is missing, is that republican cronyism is not conservatism. There is nothing in the conservative theory that says handouts to businesses or increasing immigrants for businesses is conservative. Free market is conservative. But businesses will abandon free market and use cronyism if it works better.

One big difference between republicans and democrats, both hate cronyism, but republicans think its governments fault for taking the money. And democrats think its business’ fault for offering it. Trump is not accepting any and wants to be President. I think thats a step in the right direction.

[avenir]

Good points. One has to pretend we don’t live in a thoroughly twisted 2016 to rule Trump out because of a perceived boorishness.

What other candidate has stuck to unpopular positions or (as recently) called out a live debate audience as paid shills? Republicans and conservative purists love Trump as a sin-eater, as a bulldozer clearing the way for them to do the usual number on us once elected.

I’m willing to risk it on Trump based on the serious, measured man I’ve seen in the one-on-one interviews (including the older ones).

[heights]

I want to ‘Burn down the house’, the other candidates are the house.

[cableguymn]

1) highist disapproval numbers of all candidates democrat or republican. People like him less than hillary.

2) depends on what version of trump shows up at the time of need.

While I will support him in the general I do NOT think he is the man for the job.

[Lagmeister]

What utter crap.

[Lagmeister]

Moreover, look at his positions: will not deport all illegals, will continue to support trade deals that ship jobs overseas and his tax plan has a hidden VAT tax for businesses that will cloak rising prices for consumers. And look at Cruz’s benefactors: Mercer controls Cruz’s main PAC and he is a hedge fund manager that owes the government 6 billion dollars.

[Harpotoo]

I like when he basically told Jeb to STFU during the debate:-)

[duffee]

I believe Trump has stated that eminent domain made him rich.
Mississippi had a ballot initiative that passed and limits eminent domain to public use and prohibits the taking of private property otherwise. Haley Barbour strongly endorses Trump’s eminent domain, taking a persons farm to build a factory and giving them market value and nothing for being uprooted, leaving the family farm and starting over. Trump likes to “deal make” and negotiate, let him, the developer, do it with the property owner. These private real estate investments some time work out and properties become very valuable and then through eminent domain the developer can reap those profits through legalized theft.

[Yosemitest]

" ... we have to deal sometimes ... "

And just what 'deals' have the DemocRATS made ?
The point is ...

NO !
WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE 'DEALS' !

Next WRONG statement:

"To stand pat
and not get anything passed,
is also costing us a lot of criticism.

WHERE is it costing us?
It hasn't cost the DemocRATS anything !

"But businesses will abandon free market and use cronyism
if it works better."

Its doesn't !
The ONLY reason they're putting up with it ... is

BECAUSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" don't have the guts to fight against it.

That is ALL the DemocRATS ARE ... is :"PAY to PLAY" CRONYISM !
And Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump is ONE OF THEM !

Someone once commented:

"... show me where Cruz is going to dismantle Eminent Domain.
Oh that's right, Cruz supports it too."

WRONG !

Show YOU?

OKAY !

Ted Cruz: President Can IGNORE Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions
Thursday, 10 December 2015, by  Selwyn Duke

Are we Americans meant to be governed by the rule of law or the rule of lawyers ?
For a long time now we've been under the latter, with the belief that
whatever five unelected judges on the Supreme Court say must go for 320 million citizens.
But presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (shown) has now challenged this opinion,
siding with no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson,
who long ago warned that such an opinion would make our Constitution a "suicide pact."

Cruz fired his shot across judicial supremacy's bow in a recent appearance on EWTN, a global Catholic network, while being interviewed by Princeton University professor Robert George (video below. Relevant portion begins at 13: 52).

CANDIDATE CONVERSATIONS 2016 WITH ROBERT GEORGE - 2015-11-25 ( 52:05 )
Asking Cruz about "judicial power," George pointed to the Supreme Court's checkered past rulings, mentioning the Dred Scott case, the 1905 case of Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, and this year's Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage decision.
The professor then said, as presented by Crisis magazine:

Some people say that a president must always accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution
no matter how dubious that interpretation is;
that we have to treat it as the law of the land,
binding not just on the parties to the case
but on other officials of government, beginning with the president.
Abraham Lincoln though, as you know, vehemently disagreed with that idea of judicial supremacy, saying that
to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases,
no matter what,
no matter how usurpative,
no matter how anti-constitutional,
would be for the American people - and I quote now the Great Emancipator -
"to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

George then asked if Lincoln was right and if Cruz would defy the court on Obergefell, to which the senator responded:

I agree with President Lincoln
and courts do not make law. ...
The court interprets the law, applies the law. ...
And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election. ...
They're [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay "marriage" decision came down,
they described it as the settled law of the land.
It's final;
we must accept it,
move on and surrender.

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama's talking points
and I think they are profoundly wrong.
I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate.
It was lawless.
It was not based on the Constitution.
I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy. ...
And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent
, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott,
that state and local officials will REFUSE TO OBEY this LAWLESS decision.
It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.

In point of fact, Justice Scalia issued a stern warning to the Court in his Obergefell dissent, quoting Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 and writing,
"The Judiciary is the 'LEAST dangerous' of the federal branches because it has
'neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment;
and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm'
and the States,
'even for the efficacy of its judgments.'
With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -
with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -
we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."

The reality is that
the judiciary has no men under arms;
it cannot enforce its rulings.
Enforcement is the executive branch's role,
and the Court has no ability to coerce a president into acting on its decisions.

But isn't this just a matter of might makes right?
Doesn't the court have the legal authority of its judicial-review power to nullify or invalidate a legislative or executive action it deems unconstitutional?
Doesn't this give it the moral high ground?

The Constitution is our land's supreme law, above, of course, the Supreme Court;
this is why the Court will rule against a law citing the Constitution's authority and not merely its own.
Yet where does the notion that the Court has judicial-review power -
and that all three branches of government must be constrained by its judgments - come from ?

It is not in the Constitution but was declared by the Court on, in essence, its own authority - in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

So the Court gave the Court its oligarchic powers.
And "oligarchic" is not too strong a word, nor a new characterization.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote two centuries ago,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
He further said that if the judicial-supremacy thesis is sound,
"then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se" - a suicide pact.
For judicial supremacy gives to one branch alone, continued Jefferson,
"the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others,
and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. ...
The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

And the twisting continues apace as our Republic twists in the wind
and we are governed by the ruler and not the rule.

Justice Scalia made mention of this in his Obergefell dissent as well, writing,
"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.
It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.
Today's [marriage] decree says that
my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

One of the basic ideas behind our American government is "balance of power," both between the feds and the states and among the three governmental branches.
Judicial supremacy makes a mockery of this,
confusing the Supreme Court with the Supreme Being
and giving one branch -
whose prominent members aren't even elected by the people
and cannot be recalled by them -
complete TRUMP POWER OVER the other two.
To consider it legitimate
is to believe
our Founders FOUGHT ONE TYRANT living overseas
IN THE NAME OF ESTABLISHING A TRIBUNAL OF NINE TYRANTS on our own soil.

But they didn't, which is WHY judicial supremacy was NOT written INTO the Constitution.
To accept it is to yield to circular reasoning:
"The courts have the ultimate say in the meaning of law.
And how do I know?
The COURTS have told me so."

" ... THAT IS FIVE UNELECTED JUDGES DECLARING THEMSELVES AS 'THE RULERS' OVER 320 MILLION AMERICANS ... "
SO ... you can now SEE that

TED CUZ does NOT support "EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR PRIVATE USE !

That video from 13 minutes 50 seconds until 23 minutes 40 seconds REALLY IS WORTH YOUR TIME.
The whole video is worth your time.

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington ( 59:47 )
Published on Sep 28, 2015

It really IS worth your time.