Posted on 03/17/2016 1:15:58 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
This man isn't going to be installed, he's going to be elected.
What you need to think about is what you are doing to this country if this man isn't installed.
How long have you been living overseas?
Too long, methinks.
There's no reason that Donald Trump couldn't be a decent President, all of your bleating notwithstanding.
All Presidencies come with risk.
Destroying the Washington Establishment is a risk worth taking.
As a matter of fact, what this electorate can't risk is to elect another typical politician from either party.
Ted Cruz has shown that that's exactly what he is, a typical politician.
And we already knew what a crook Hillary is.
Personally attack? I was asking how long you've lived overseas because it seems to me that you're somewhat detached from the mood "on the ground" here in America.
I can only assure you that you can't possibly overstate the anger. And, before you criticize that, I will tell you that it's some very thoughtful anger.
Many Donald Trump supporters are quite thoughtful, and the notion that they're acting purely on emotion is patently absurd.
Second, the idea that Ted Cruz has shown himself to be a "typical politician" is absurd especially so when we are comparing him to Donald Trump who has been on every side of every issue and financed every side of every issue.
Wrong again.
First of all, Ted Cruz has played the friggin' race card, for God's sake! There's nothing lower, especially when done disingenuously.
Secondly, Ted Cruz couldn't bring himself to show solidarity with a GOP candidate who had organized thugs criminally disrupt a peaceable rally scheduled by the frontrunner.
Ted Cruz's statement Friday night was, in a word, weak. That's not just my opinion, but in manhy cases his own supporters agreed. As a direct result, Cruz lost 300,000 Twitter followers overnight, and it clearly cost him support from among his own people.
Cruz's statement couldn't have been more tepid and disingenuous. It completely lacked proper emphasis, was not statesmanlike, and showed a distinct lack of leadership, accompanied by naked opportunism.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer who knows how to use words precisely. He completely misjudged the incident, and in so doing, looked like he was carrying water for the Establishment, which is engaging in all out character assassination against Donald Trump.
Hey, the likelihood is that Ted Cruz will be on the ticket in November.
Let's just leave it at that, and note that the consensus on this conservative forum is running 4-to-1 against Ted Cruz and for Donald Trump.
It's not the case that suddenly members who have been here since before the Clinton impeachment have gone soft on conservatism.
Rather, many have realized that disrupting the DC Establishment is the single most important thing that could be done this election cycle.
Nothing will change if that doesn't happen, and I don't see how Ted Cruz, who will be beholden to his donors if he's elected, will be able to lead that charge.
Whatever Trump's weaknesses may be, and there are plenty, one of them won't be that he will be indebted to any donor or group of donors.
The fact that Donald Trump is turning down large donations from various interests is a testimony to his integrity. If he was just in this for his own ego or advancement, it would be very easy for him to take that extra money.
I believe Donald Trump is sincere. I believe he's competent. I believe he's a leader. I believe he loves his country.
And I believe that there's nobody better suited at this point in time, to come in and clean house. Not as a careerist like Ted Cruz, but as a private citizen who sees the same thing a lot of us see: rampant corruption and cronyism, and endless talk accompanied by little or no action.
Let the chips fall where they may, but the character assassination, even if successful, is shameful.
Sure, Donald Trump engages in juvenile insults, but his foibles pale in comparison to the concerted, relentless effort that is being led to try do dismiss, discredit, and destroy this man.
It's absolutely shameful, and instead of rising above it, people like Ted Cruz are piling on in an attempt to gain political advantage.
They really can all go to Hell, as far as I'm concerned.
Just my 2 cents' worth...
1.Trump, who encourages his supporters to surround and shout down protesters with chants of “USA,” has openly pined for “the old days,” when, he says, noisy demonstrators would be carried out of a political rally on stretchers.
2.“I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told a Las Vegas casino rally crowd last month when one protester was ejected.
3.As protesters have been led away by police or security, Trump has said he wishes he could punch them in the face, or that in the old days protesters went out on a stretcher, or that someone should "knock the crap out of them" and that he would pay legal fees for someone who did.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470375065/a-campaign-on-the-brink-donald-trump-and-the-intersection-of-outrage-and-violenc and
4. "The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of."
5."Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore."
6. the candidate bemoaned the fact that there were no longer "consequences" to protesting and insisted the "country has to toughen up."
7.“You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?"
8."In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."
9.“They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” he said, before lamenting "we've become weak."
10."Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."
11."If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." He again promised to pay for any legal fees associated with an assault.
12.After a Black Lives Matter activist was kicked, punched and, he said, called the N-word at a campaign event in Birmingham, Alabama, in November, Trump expressed his approval. "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,"
13."I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will." http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#tjGh.egBFiqY
We are after all judging the qualities of a man who wants to become the most powerful man in the world and we are entitled to ask ourselves, could he have handled these situations better? Instead of inciting violence as he did, could he have converted the situation into an opportunity to edify the audience and by extension the whole nation on the meaning of the First Amendment? Can we judge Trump because he took the low road? Can we condemn Trump for encouraging the mob, for inciting violence?
Of course we can.
Indeed, we can even observe that Donald Trump inciting tens of thousands against one individual whether defined as protester hooligan, is guilty of inciting the mob, playing to its worst instincts, to falling short of the standards we require of the President of the United States of America. We can judge him unworthy of the office.
Since the litany recounted above, Donald Trump has slyly insinuated that there will be riots if he does not get the nomination. Ted Cruz was right about Donald Trump, Donald Trump confirms Ted Cruz out of his own mouth.
Ted Cruz was WRONG to side with Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton.
You have me no facts. You gave me your perception.
Of course Trump could have handled some situations better. He's not perfect. Having said that, I must assert that several of your points certainly do not rise to the level you're asserting.
Furthermore, these statements are almost always in reaction to some provocation.
There have been many Presidents who were a lot more "rough around the edges" than Donald Trump.
Make no mistake: some of Donald Trump's rhetoric has been irresponsible. My first piece of advice to him would be to tone down that juvenile crap.
But to say that Trump is "inciting violence" by making such flippant comments is, to say the least, a bit hysterical.
Nobody has the right to enter a Peaceable political rally and deliberately disrupt it, rush the podium, tear signs out of Peoples' hands, scream at the top of their lungs, and, in general, initiate conflict by disturbing the peace. That's incitement in and of itself. Worse, it's an attempt to infringe on First Amendment Rights.
Such things tend to get people rather fired up. People react angrily in return, especially when the disruption is a bunch of Left-wing agitprop.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Nathan Bedford Forrest the historical figure was guilty of making extremely irresponsible statements far in excess of anything Donald Trump has ever done.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Forrest later repented of some of those actions. But I digress.
I'm sure Donald Trump will tone things down. He has already begun doing so. Live and learn. He's always been a very candid and blunt person, sometimes to a fault.
But for you to hysterically claim that Trump is somehow disqualified based on some saucy utterances in the heat of a very acrimonious political campaign?
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Trump and his supporters are exhibiting, to some degree, a siege mentality, and rightly so.
There is a systematic, organized, and well-funded character assassination effort underway against Mr. Trump.
I'd like to see how any other candidate would handle the same situation.
I'd like to see Ted Cruz's explanation when the organized Left sends criminal thugs to disrupt one of his rallies beyond the point where he can turn it into a smarmy soundbite.
Don't worry, it'll happen sooner or later.
The Left doesn't consider Cruz a threat currently, but the moment he shows any signs of being one, they'll go after him as well.
Trump is taking a lot of flak, and given the forces arrayed against him, it's actually quite amazing that he's handled the pressure as well as he has.
He'll make a good President, IMHO.
He's the best candidate available this cycle. Ted Cruz failed to gain any traction on the issues that Donald Trump has brought to the forefront. Why? Because those issues were too controversial for Cruz to emphasize.
Donald Trump marched right in an forced these issued to be addressed. That's leadership.
Like I've said, imperfections can be gauged by many criteria. I don't think Donald Trump's imperfections are any worse than anyone else's, and I think his leadership and perhaps his passion, far exceed the remaining candidates.
Judging Donald Trump's qualities against Ted Cruz, I prefer Donald Trump.
I've been on record saying that I believe that Trump could run a much cleaner campaign than he has been.
Hopefully, people such as yourself will ultimately be able to set aside their reservations and support him, should he become the GOP nominee.
Ted Cruz will have to become a better candidate if he wishes to win the nomination. Simply having the right boxes checked on some "conservative purist score sheet" will not be sufficient.
Go, Trump, go!
Where's the outrage about the real violence and real incitement that was perpetrated by organized collectivist thugs against peaceable rally attendees, to the point where these criminals infringed on the Right of the People to Peaceably Assemble?
The hypocrisy of the Left, the Establishment, and the Mass Media is truly breathtaking. And, unfortunately, the trailing GOP candidates piled on, along with some of their supporters.
Every GOP candidate just gave lip service to the real violence, to the real threat, which should have been the primary focus of the outrage.
PC considerations aside, Donald Trump does not yet have a perfected concept of the traditional boundaries of political rhetoric.
Compared to the organized, subversive violence coming from the thugs, Donald Trump's flippant remarks totally pale in comparison.
Does anyone honestly think that Ted Cruz, with his ostensible lack of inflammatory rhetoric, won't be targeted by these organized disruptors?
Because if so, that means Cruz's statement on Friday night was hypocritical, opportunist, and weak.
And if anybody doesn't think these same left wing criminal elements would disrupt a Ted Cruz rally, I can't imagine why.
This is all just systematic character assassination against Donald Trump. Even stipulating to every accusation against him (the vast majority of which are distorted and spun) Donald Trump remains the target of a political witch hunt. We're in the midst of a diabolical campaign of demonization which far exceeds any rhetorical missteps Donald Trump has made.
Let the People decide, and let the chips fall where they may.
But not with character assassination fomented by the Establishment. Our owners are playing with fire...
It is actually Donald Trump who is invoking government to throttle free speech when his side argues that their right to peaceably assemble gives them the right to censor speech. Unfortunately, Donald Trump censors speech by encouraging violence.
>> while China’s number one export to the United States is $46 billion of computer equipment, the number one export from the U.S. to China is waste $7.6 billion of waste paper and scrap meta <<
Wrong. The USA’s number one export to China is the billions and billions of dollars in Treasuries that China buys from us every year. Clyde Prestowitz simply doesn’t understand the basic economics involved.
Right. If a manufacturer in China sells a computer to a customer in the U.S. for $1,500, it’s not like the seller can eat that money.
” Clyde Prestowitz simply doesn’t understand the basic economics involved.”
You’re only fooling yourself. Clyde Prestowitz was Ronald Reagan’s chief trade negotiator and has been writing on these issues for over 30 years.
Exports are goods and services. Capital transactions are a separate category that offset export imbalances. Sales of Treasury debt to China are recorded in the Treasury International Capital recording system. Conflating the two is a not so clever attempt to muddle the issue of exports.
So does it really matter if I have a “trade imbalance” with my barber and my local grocery store?
I have to say that it’s strange to read this from a guy who was an avid proponent of NAFTA back in his government days.
“So does it really matter if I have a “trade imbalance” with my barber and my local grocery store?”
No, but America is not shopping at a grocery store despite the confusion of some on the matter.
It matters greatly if your country has a massive imbalance and it results in the decimation of the manufacturing economy that was once known as the Arsenal of Democracy.
Our trade partners in Asia understand the difference between low value added employment and high value added employment and actively take away the latter since no one here has been trying to stop them from doing so.
They employ non-tariff barriers, market restriction, forced sharing of technology, keiretsu and chaebol support and a number of well known techniques to drive their American targets out of business. Even major American firms have trouble competing in this environment, small ones simply go out of business.
The United States has experienced widespread unemployment and underemployment thanks to our collective indifference to the very real trade policies of our competitors. But we may just continue to shove our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that this is no different than getting a haircut or buying a box of Wheaties, that seems to be popular these days.
“Even Clyde Prestowitz, the President of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that once was strongly against the NAFTA, now says that the pact should be ratified. Last fall, Prestowitz claimed that the NAFTA would cost up to 222,000 jobs. Today, however, he argues that “NAFTA will be a plus in the long run.” His reasoning: Many U.S. companies will likely shut down their operations in Mexico and return home once Mexico lowers its trade barriers. “
And he should have stuck with his original opinion since firms aren’t “returning home”.
your misunderstanding is near complete.
If the manufacturing had not been moved, there would be no products because the US based business would be dead
The money from the imbalance is making it’s way back by investment in business and real estate. In the end, just as with the Japanese in the 80’s we get the money back.
American companies are not dummies. If it were good business not to subcontract manufacturing out of the country, they would not have done so.
“your misunderstanding is near complete.”
Really? Tell us all about your in depth study of American trade policy. I’m sure it will be fascinating.
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.