Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 142

Thread: Campaign Evaluation: Donald Trump (POTUS)

  1. #61
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,672
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I've asked every one I came across spewing bull$#@! to come here and defend Trump.
    Great, that helps. Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    The most important thing that should be considered, in my opinion, and should put an end to any thought to going forward with a pro-Donald Trump section is the fact that there have been numerous warnings against a Donald Trump presidency by none other than DR. RON PAUL. This being the message board that still bears his name, and still has many of his supporters hanging on out of respect for him (with the intention of continuing his fight for liberty) the decision seems obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.
    Dr. Paul bases his warnings off of facts, we are reconstructing those facts here.


    So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Conclusions, based on info provided in this thread so far:
    Civil Liberties - F (10 con, 0 pro)
    Constitutional Issues - F (14 con, 0 pro)
    Economic Issues - C (1 con, 1 pro) (more specific policy stances and proposals needed for accuracy)
    Foreign Policy - F (9 con, 0 pro)
    Social Issues - C- or D (2 con, 1 pro) (more needed for accuracy, and some may consider the pro to be a con)
    Misc - F (6 con, 1 pro) (pro may be seen as a con by some)

    We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


    Thanks.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.
    Outstanding!

  4. #63
    I have updated posts #55 and #56 to reflect some additional information. Bryan appears to have made last call here. Does anyone else have additional info, or actual (or better) sources for info provided in this thread that has not been properly or accurately sourced? (please refer to "notes" in post #55) I will attempt to keep post #55 as updated as possible, pending additional information and sources.

    I did attempt to be as objective as possible in post #55. However, there are some areas that do require a judgement call that is at least somewhat subjective. For instance, if a area of policy contains 5 cons and 1 pro, with two of the cons being position statements on an issue that was current 8 years ago, and the one pro is a policy that not only may some view as a con, but it also appears to be a flip-flop, then what should the evaluation rating be for that area of policy? There are two such areas where it becomes a bit subjective, and Bryan (and whoever else is part of the decision) will need to make a judgement call. However, this only seems to be the case in two areas, and the remaining areas of policy seem quite clear-cut as to where the candidate actually (and currently) stands on the issues. Remember, the more information, and the better the information, the less subjective the decision can become!
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  5. #64
    Donald Trump: ‘Eminent Domain Is Wonderful’




    Donald Trump sees a simple reason why so many conservatives disagree with him on eminent domain, the controversial power by which the government seizes private land for development projects: They just don’t understand the issue as well as he does. “I fully understand the conservative approach, but I don’t think it was explained to most conservatives,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier that aired yesterday. “Nobody knows this better than I do, because I’ve built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and you’ll have twelve sites and you’ll get eleven and you’ll have the one holdout, and you end up building around them. I know it better than anybody.” Eminent domain may seem like an obscure issue, but the Club for Growth Action Fund found it important enough to spotlight in an attack ad against Trump.

    The ad focused on Trump’s full-throated support for the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed state and local governments to seize land from one private owner and give it to another private owner to further economic development. Many conservatives saw the decision as expanding the power of elected officials and wealthy developers at the expense of the private landholders who often stand in the way of their ambitions.

    In a perfect irony, the state and city spent $78 million to purchase and bulldoze the home of Susette Kelo . . . and then the developer couldn’t finance the project. (The site remains an empty lot today.) As Ilya Somin put it, “Trump did not merely claim that the Kelo v. New London decision was legally correct; he argued that it was ‘good’ to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote ‘economic development.’”​


    In his interview with Baier, Trump didn’t back down one inch; he insisted that the compensated, involuntary transfer of private property by the government was in the public’s best interests. He first used the example of a government seizing land for a road or highway — generally the least controversial and most broadly supported use of eminent domain. But he quickly broadened his argument, insisting that government should always be allowed to take private land for development projects if the promised public benefits are big enough. “If you have a factory, where you have thousands of jobs, you need eminent domain, it’s called economic development,” Trump said.

    “Now you’re employing thousands of people and you’re able to build a factory, you’re able to build an Apple computer center, where thousands of people can work. You can do that, or you can say, ‘Let the man have his house.’” Trump added that he thinks “eminent domain is wonderful,” and contended that those who are forced out of their homes often end up better off. “The little guy sometimes gets a lot of money.

    Sometimes they’ll get four or five times what their property is worth.” ‘Most of the time, they just want money. It’s very rarely they say, “I love my house, I love my house, it’s the greatest thing ever.”’ Baier pointed out that some homeowners might not want to move out of their homes, even if the promised compensation is significant. Trump argued that homeowners often fight eminent domain not out of principled support for private-property rights, but as a negotiating tactic. “Most of the time, they just want money,” he said. “It’s very rarely they say, ‘I love my house, I love my house, it’s the greatest thing ever.’ Because these people could buy a house now, that’s five times bigger, in a better location.”

    Trump has firsthand experience with eminent domain fights. In 1993, he tried to purchase the home of Atlantic City resident Vera Coking to expand his hotel and casino. When she refused to sell, New Jersey attempted to condemn the property and have her evicted. She fought in court and, with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, won.

    She made a terrible mistake,” Trump said to Baier. “I was going to expand a hotel, put in thousands of rooms. I had the one house in the way. We would have had, probably, 1,400 employees getting jobs. She was offered four, five, six times what her house was worth. Eventually we couldn’t do it because one court ruled against us.” Trump later said he offered Coking $4 million; her grandson said Trump’s top offer was $1.9 million. Whatever the sum, Coking refused. In July 2014, with Coking now in a San Francisco retirement home, her family sold the property for $530,000. Trump called that amount “peanuts.”
    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...main-wonderful
    Last edited by William Tell; 03-17-2016 at 08:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    From @r3volution 3.0
    INDEX (numbers below issues link to sources)

    I. Policy Issues

    Pro Socialized Medicine
    #1 . #2 . #3 . #4 .

    Pro Bank Bailouts
    #1 .

    Pro Auto Bailouts
    #1 .

    Pro Obama Stimulus
    #1 .

    Pro Higher Taxes
    #1 .

    Soft On Immigration
    #1 . #2 . #3 .

    Pro Abortion (including Partial Birth)
    #1 . #2 .

    Pro Eminent Domain
    #1 . #2 .

    Pro gun Control
    #1 .

    Against Returning Federal Land to The States
    #1
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5954359
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  8. #66
    leaving this here
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    O'reilly : Libya- um, the libyan action is being explained as a humanitarian issue

    "I support stopping that kind of slaughter, but the problem is where do you stop..."

    Iraq:
    "To the victor go the spoils"
    "as sure as you are sitting there Iran is going to come in and take over the oil (in Iraq), you stay and you take the oil"


    "I am the most militaristic person that you will find."


    https://youtu.be/i6G4AAI77kI?t=1344
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Donald Trump to Endorse Harry Reid



    Reality TV star, Donald Trump, who endorsed and contributed money to Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel will travel today to Nevada to endorse a Republican candidate?

    Please explain to us why anyone would care.

    Please explain to Republican voters in Nevada why they should consider the opinion of a billionaire from New York who endorsed the arch enemy of all Republicans in Nevada, and really the enemy of all Republicans in the US.

    Hopefully, media reports of this event will include this delicious irony.


    See below for more info on Trump’s political history.




    Washington Post: “Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism”

    “Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate:
    He has given most of his money to the other side.”

    Recipients include Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and
    Rahm Emanuel, a former aide to President Obama.”

    “The Democratic recipients of Trump’s donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator
    Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).”

    The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York...”

    He donated $10,400 to Reid, including for his 2010 battle with Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee and tea party favorite.”

    CNN: “Trump has a long history of assisting Democrats”

    “Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile Democrats and liberal icons, including
    Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden.

    “The biggest recipient of Trump's largesse?
    The scandal-plagued Rangel…”
    ..
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  10. #68
    Donald Trump: 'Torture Works'

    Donald Trump, the Republican candidate currently leading the pack in South Carolina, told a crowd Wednesday morning that "waterboarding is fine" but "not nearly tough enough."


    This was not the first time Trump has advocated in favor of the controversial enhanced interrogation tactic. But at a town hall event in Bluffton, South Carolina, Trump insisted that "torture works."


    A Senate Torture report from 2014 said enhanced interrogation tactics did not help to retrieve information from prisoners.


    Still, Trump holds strong in his beliefs. "Don't tell me it doesn't work," he said. "Torture works. Okay, folks?"


    In an opinion piece earlier this week, Trump further pressed for the use of torture, writing "I cannot imagine knowing that something could have been done to save American lives and then not taking those actions."
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...-works-n520086
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders. I totally agree with him.
    so lets just boil it down

    you're not here to support liberty
    you're here to support state nationalism and socialism

    you want to overturn globalist trade deals for nationalist trade deals, $#@! everyone from adam smith to murray rothbard... and their free markets

    you want to overturn eons of open borders because we give too many benefits to newcomers in opposition to
    Some people and organizations advocate for an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries. This include Libertarian Party of the United States, the International Society for Individual Liberty
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

    and in solidarity with

    The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall


    such liberty
    much eagle
    Last edited by presence; 03-17-2016 at 08:40 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  12. #70
    Donald Trump Promises to Bring Back Waterboarding and Worse Torture: 'If It Doesn't Work, They Deserve It Anyway'

    Donald Trump is doubling down on his promise to reinstate waterboarding as an accepted form of interrogation – and taking it one step further by saying he'd approve even worse torture.

    "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would – in a heartbeat," Trump said to cheers during a rally in Columbus, Ohio, Monday night, according to The Washington Post. "And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

    Trump added that waterboarding – a controversial interrogation tactic that was banned by the Obama administration and classified by the United Nations as torture – is what's needed to deal with terrorists who "chop off our young people's heads" and "build these iron cages, and they'll put 20 people in them and they drop them in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull them up 15 minutes later."

    "It works," Trump repeated of waterboarding. "Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."
    http://www.people.com/article/donald...arding-torture
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post


    Economic Issues - D- or F (5 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy)
    Here's something


    Donald Trump’s tax plan costs $12 trillion, according to analysis


    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire’s pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal.


    The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates’ tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.



    In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump, whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.



    The findings strongly contradict Trump’s campaign rhetoric, where he’s repeatedly boasted about his willingness to raise taxes on well-off Americans like himself in order to help others. On Tuesday, Trump said his plan would “cost me a fortune” at his press conference unveiling it.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-tr...rding-analysis
    Last edited by William Tell; 03-17-2016 at 08:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  14. #72
    Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016 election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. “How can you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health care?” asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: “As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland.”
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Trump Open To Idea of Continuing Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

    During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the idea of continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.

    “The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”

    When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”

    Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”

    In other words Trump is open to a status quo many conservatives find unacceptable and immoral; also a typical federal government shell game to skirt around the law. If you give Planned Parenthood money for these so-called “other things,” the abortion provider can shift money from those “other things” to abortion.

    Any money given to Planned Parenthood funds abortion. Period.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ed-parenthood/
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal. I didn't include it for this reason. I did already include some of the stuff you've posted. However, Bryan said that he wants to discount older positions, and try to concentrate on things said in the current campaign. So, I paid less attention to things from 1999-2000, that were undated, or that did not articulate a clear policy proposal or stance on an issue. Referring to my notes in post #55, do you have anything more current or better sourced, for the issues that I mentioned there? It would be great to have something more solid and current on gun control and abortion issues. The waterboarding is a good one, as that is a current well-defined stance on an issue - I'll add it in, but unfortunately it isn't in either of the areas where more or better information is needed.

    edit: I see that the waterboarding position is already in there.
    Last edited by invisible; 03-17-2016 at 10:29 AM.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:



    We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


    Thanks.
    @invisible has done a fantastic job grading the information provided here (I can't really improve on what he's already done, but I will continue to look for more information to evaluate.)

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    My comment on that Brietbart piece: it's not just a question of whether PP might later shift those funds to abortion. Even if they don't, government has no business paying for mammograms, Pap smears, birth control Pills, etc (I've never been to a PP clinic, so I'm just guessing what these other "good things" are that Trump is speaking of.) If those are the things he's speaking of, they ARE good and necessary procedures (the first two, anyway) but government shouldn't be providing the funding for ANY of that.

  20. #77
    How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan? (Answer: It's not)




    Donald Trump wears what's become a campaign signature: his "Make America Great Again" hat. Part of making the country great again, Trump says, is implementing his hard-line immigration plan.


    Scott Heppell/AP


    Donald Trump's immigration plan is — like the candidate — flashy, strident and headline-grabbing. Fox News called it "an early Christmas gift" for immigration hawks. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter pronounced it "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."


    But some of those in the trenches of immigration reform say it's unrealistic and unworkable.


    Donald Trump could write "Immigration Reform for Dummies." He makes a complex issue simple and sexy.


    "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border," Trump has said, "and I will have Mexico pay for that wall, mark my words."


    Even people who support tough immigration reform question whether Trump has the right answers. For instance, anyone with an elemental understanding of border security knows how hard it would be to build a continuous wall along 2,000 miles of the Southwest border because of rough terrain and private property rights.


    Beto Cardenas is a Laredo native, who served as general counsel to then-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, during immigration debates.


    "When it comes to the idea of border fencing, there is a difference that is needed in one county versus another," Cardenas said. "You cannot say there is one solution that fits all."


    Trump's six-page immigration battle plan, released last weekend, contains a host of fixes, though he doesn't mention how much it would cost:


    Triple the number of border officers
    Stop birthright citizenship (children born in the U.S. but born to immigrants in the U.S. illegally, would no longer be granted citizenship)
    Deport people who overstay their visas
    Make it harder for asylum seekers and refugees to get into the country
    Perhaps Trump's most controversial idea is to round up all 11 million or so immigrants who are in the United States illegally and send them home.


    "We will work with 'em," Trump said before adding, "they have to go."


    Kerry Talbot, an immigration lawyer who worked for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., was a key negotiator who helped come up with a bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013 (and failed in the House). She dismissed the idea of deporting everyone in the U.S. illegally.


    "That's just not a solution that is workable," Talbot said. "It's not possible to deport 11 million people."


    She added, "And so the Senate negotiators realized that, and they understood that, you know, you just have to work with reality and what's possible. And you need to look at people's connections to the U.S., what kind of contributions they're making. And Trump doesn't look at any of that. He just wants to deport everyone."


    Immigrant families often have mixed legal status. Take the family of Juan Belman — a 22-year-old university student in Austin. He and his 17-year-old brother were brought here illegally from Mexico as young children, and they identify as Americans. His two other little brothers were born in Texas and are U.S. citizens.


    Belman wants to know, in Trump's hypothetical administration, what happens to a family like his?


    "I don't see how that's going to work," Belman said, "how that's going to look good for the United States. It kind of breaks my heart that people think this way, that people have this idea of separating us, of deporting us."


    Trump does, however, get praise for including some ideas that deserve deeper discussion.


    The government has a voluntary program called e-Verify, where employers check an employee's Social Security number to make sure he's legitimate. Trump wants to take e-Verify national and make it mandatory, as a way to eliminate the magnet of jobs.


    "I think that a mandatory verification system is an important part of immigration enforcement," said Doris Meissner, a former immigration commissioner under President Clinton. She now works for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "And I think that's one of the interesting things about his proposal is that he mentions it. But there's just a short sentence. It doesn't tell us anything about how you actually would do it."


    Despite their shortcomings, Mark Krikorian says Trump's immigration recommendations are the most thorough of any Republican contender, next to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan.


    Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which calls for stricter immigration laws. He is no Trump fan, but gives him credit for bringing immigration to the forefront in this campaign.


    "Individually, as a citizen, I would not want this guy to be president," Krikorian said. "I mean, look, he's a bloviating megalomaniac. But he has, in fact, made a significant contribution to the immigration debate. We are now debating policy issues that nobody wanted to or cared to talk about before. So that's all to the good in my opinion."

    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-plan

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan? (Answer: It's not)
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-plan
    I haven't seen the e-verify position before, I'll add that in! Immigration has already been covered - that's an issue that is hard to determine accurately (which has been noted), since it seems to have been flip-flopped on, is an obviously impractical proposal, and some will view it as either a pro or a con, depending on opinion. However, I did mark it as a pro, simply because this is an issue that supporters have argued as being one of the candidate's strengths.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal.
    No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan




    Last edited by William Tell; 03-17-2016 at 11:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  23. #80
    Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at


    Sun December 6, 2015

    Washington (CNN)Republican presidential contenders have largely called for increases in surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and California. But they also argued Sunday that one U.S. surveillance tool -- the government's no-fly list -- can't be trusted as a tool to bar gun purchases.


    Several GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination argued against a Democratic push to bar members of the no-fly list from buying firearms during appearances on Sunday news shows, saying that list is too broad. Just one -- Donald Trump -- said they were willing to consider the move.




    "The majority of the people on the no-fly list are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn't belong on the no-fly list. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy once said he was on a no-fly list. There are journalists on the no-fly list," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
    More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.

    Thank you everyone, this is all very useful.
    How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.

    Donald Trump Calls 'Self-Deportation' Idea 'Maniacal'

    Billionaire Donald Trump is the latest in a string of Republicans to criticize the party for failing to recognize the increasing diversity of the country.


    "Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," Trump told Newsmax.
    He told the site that Republicans appeared hostile toward minorities this election cycle.


    "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," he said. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."


    Trump also told the site that Romney's suggestion that people "self-deport" gave Hispanics the impression that Republicans do not care about them.


    "He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal," Trump said. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."



    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/det...ump-s-tax-plan
    Ok, added.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473
    That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by klamath View Post
    That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.
    Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at
    More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/
    Ok, added.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at




    More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/
    Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.

    We do have F-, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.
    Then I would think 7 or 8 years would be the cutoff for flip-flops. For the last 24 years, we've been in an era of two-term presidents.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473
    As I had noted, that's going to require a subjective judgement call by Bryan. In the interest of being completely objective, I marked immigration down as a pro, but did note the concerns of an apparent flip-flop on the issue.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.
    It's also a social issue, so I counted it in that category as well.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  35. #90

    Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge

    Aug 27, 2015

    Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”


    If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”


    So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”

    More:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru


    Donald Trump: I Was Joking When I Said I’d Put My Pro-Abortion Sister on the Supreme Court


    FEB 15, 2016

    Now that pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away, pro-life voters are scrutinizing each of the candidates in terms of how they will handle Supreme Court appointments. And when it comes to businessman Donald Trump, he has faced criticism in some quarters from pro-life voters who point to a past interview he gave about his sister, who is a pro-abortion attorney.

    [...]

    Now, in a new interview, Trump says pro-life voters shouldn’t take the offhanded praise for his sister seriously and that she is not someone he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court.


    SIGN THE PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President


    Here’s the transcript and video of what Trump said:


    STEPHANOPOULOS: “Let’s turn to the Supreme Court right now. You also heard Senator Cruz right there say that you can’t be trusted to make a Supreme Court pick, that you would pick liberals on the court. He cited your praise of your sister, saying she would be a phenomenal Supreme Court justice. Your response?”


    TRUMP: “Well, look, just so you understand, I said it jokingly. My sister’s a brilliant person, known as a brilliant person, but it’s obviously a conflict. And I said, oh, how about my sister? Kiddingly. My sister, also she — she also happens to have a little bit different views than me, but I said in that in a very joking matter, and it was all lots of fun and everything else. I would say total conflict of interest as far as my sister. Somebody like a Diane Sikes from Wisconsin I think would be very good. There’s some great people out there. But my sister obviously would not be the right person; it’s a conflict of interest for me.”

    Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/15/d...supreme-court/

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •