|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 19, 2016 6:01:51 GMT -7
Make america great again PAC directly, and of course his own campaign accepts from anyone, including investment groups. I thought pacs could, but superpacs couldn't donate directly. Its not all that much money relatively and he really has not spent that much, I guess getting all the free press helps.
But just the other night on TV he again claimed he's 100% self funding. And that's the problem I have with him, his rhetoric doesn't fit whats true, and people are just eating it up.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 19, 2016 10:48:09 GMT -7
I don't think he's making the 100% claim in terms of dollars and sense because like I say he even talks about people sending him ten bucks here, fifty bucks there. I think he's making the claim in terms of big-money donors, the kind who aren't just sending money to support but giving money with expectations it is buying influence.
Trump has a way of choosing bad phrases to couch his meanings, I think the 100% is one of them. Now if he never willingly revealed anyone giving money to his campaign I'd say he's a liar, but it's hard to pin that on someone who's talking for ten minutes about accepting cash from everyday folks but turning down millions from wealthy friends because of the appearance it gives. It's the same thing with Cruz when he gives a speech and quotes from sacred scripture - the press would have you believe he's out to force religion on the masses. I just take it as Cruz views the words he quotes as a kind of universal truth that guides him, not that he's going to impose a Texas-flavored sharia or something.
If Trump was this nasty, conniving, lying, self-interested person they claim he is, then where are the people he lied to, the people he screwed over in business deals, etc? I'd think they could have produced them by now, and since the claim is these are common qualities of Trump, there ought to be many to choose from. Where are they?
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 19, 2016 18:09:12 GMT -7
He has a way of spouting bullshit and get people to believe it, and then when called on it walks it back to reasonable levels where people give him a pass. That's the essence of any other politcians mode of operation isn't it? Trump says things to give perception, whether its fact or not, or whether he means them or not. I don't care if he is non PC or not, he is a bullshitter and I have a hard time abiding that, at least any more than from any other politician, including Cruz who tends to preach at us in this speeches. The difference is I have never actually seen Trump act like a conservative until he was trying to sell us he is one to close the deal. I imagine some of these people would have a opinion on how great he is. lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-investigated-donald-trump-is-named-in-at-least-169-federal-lawsuits/And then his involvement with eminent domain to get his way when someone would not sell their property for his casino. He knows how to play the pay the establishment game just as well as any of them. And I am not saying he is the devil incarnate, I just see him for what he is, just another opportunist.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 19, 2016 20:01:46 GMT -7
He has a way of spouting bullshit and get people to believe it, and then when called on it walks it back to reasonable levels where people give him a pass. That's the essence of any other politcians mode of operation isn't it? It was sometime around the mid-1960s perhaps but there's more to it today I think. Do you think he's popular and getting all these votes because people think he's just "another" politician? What's different about the other politicians is that they promise something and then do the exact opposite; it's not simply a matter of scale on a bullshit meter, unless the meter can read to infinity. You elect a politician who says, "If you put me in office, I'll do X (or a party whose candidates all say they'll do X) and right after you hand them the reigns of power, they don't lift a finger toward the things they promised to do, in fact they do just the opposite. When you balance those against an unknown, what do you have to lose by voting for the unknown? He'll turn his back? Well, so will the other guy, no greater loss there. But if he can do some of what he claims, or even halt the flow in the other direction, that will be a positive. I truly do not think people are seeing Trump without defect like a bunch of Obama supporters. I think they get his bluster and his braggadocio and understand him in the same way they understand a TV commercial for Excedrin. While they don't expect the claims of the commercial, they still see benefit of taking it for a headache. Perhaps I'm just too slow, but I have difficulty with the opportunist angle too. I'm having a hard time picturing what that opportunity is, exactly. If the guy can sit home and keep making gazillions, what is a salary of a few hundred thou and a 747 going to do for him? About the only prestige I can see he lacks is that of the office and the Penn. Ave address, beyond that he could buy everything else. I don't think he's in it for the health care plan, so what is it he'd selfishly gain by all of this? I believe he, just like the Cruzer, is truly upset with the direction the country is going in and thinks he has a shot at changing it. Either one, IMO, would work toward that end, the only differences being Trump has an advantage in the economics of it, while Cruz has an advantage of the Washington aspect of it. Also, Cruz has a track record where you cannot deny he'll do what he promised, win, lose, or draw. That makes either one of them someone I'd vote for. I really wish they would join together on a ticket because it would be unbeatable. Hillary isn't going to put anyone competent in her co-pilot seat, just like Obama. The VP debates will be losers for the D's all around. The only way I think we can lose is if the Trump - Cruz ill will can't be mended before Nov.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 20, 2016 7:22:51 GMT -7
I think he is popular and getting all these votes because he successfully sells himself like he is not a typical politician, speaks like he is one of the guys and make his signature to be un-PC, but when you look at him objectively can you really see a difference in operation? I can't. Same self serving narcissist most of them are. He is ambiguous on a lot of stuff, while promising result, its not different than any one else on a lot of issues. When it comes to campaign rhetoric, if you just distrust everything everyone says and start looking for consistencies, inconsistencies of detail and the rare moments of candor you can start to piece together who they are. The opportunist in him is tapping into an anger and rebellion of people who genuinely are sick of a burdensome govt. Trump comes along and speaks plainly, gives general positions that agree with core issues, and makes people feel good someone in public light shares their attitude, but really he has no problem with big govt, its his business mode to use that govt through legal wrangling and influence to his favor. If I could believe he would act the part of small govt conservative to get elected and remain popular, I would probably be more prone to throw in with him, but I just don't trust him enough. Mainly because I can't go back in his past and see where he stood on principle, everything in his entire history I have seen is just one long string of negotiation to close a deal, and when that deal is done, he doesn't have all that great of record of keeping it a success. Whats he gain? power, influence and his ego gets stoked to capacity. His own plane may be even more luxurious than Airforce 1, but its not Airforce 1, which clearly is a status he covets. I just don't buy this sudden neopatriotism some claim about him. When super rich people make more money than they can spend, they get bored with it and start looking to accumulate power and influence. Some people like Soros and Buffet are prone to secrecy so they use their money as leverage and pull strings from behind the curtain, some people like Trump or Bloomberg like the bright light and try and control directly. I'm sorry, but I know "good people" and none have ever been in the vein of type of people Trump is. Trump/Cruz ticket? I really don't see that happening, too much bad blood and really are opposite of ideal. What kind of principle would Cruz show by throwing in with a populist. I suspect he will probably offer to either Carson or Kasich if he goes with a candidate for VP, one brings in evangelicals and blacks, the other heals the rift with establishment and brings him Ohio. But I would almost expect him to bring in someone else, especially if the party keeps snubbing him. He can bring people like me around, but he is going to have to do more than be bombastic. And actually what may ultimately make me support his is the left keep doing what they are doing with the protests and trying to shut him down etc. What we need to do is to use their DNA and genetically create one from the good traits of them, then the Crump monster could rule the world. I suspect unless there is some sort of upset in these upcoming states, Trump is going to get the nomination. Cruz will throw in the towel and may even endorse Trump against Hillary, but his voters, at least enough, are going to sit on their hands in the general because Trump is not really a uniter, he is a flame for moths of disenfranchisement. Hillary will likely win a squeaky close election with the typical dem fear mongering about Trump as a demon and the usual cheating and fraud. And in the end, the GOP will blame the teaparty, which will leave en masse, and then the dems will regain the senate in the mid terms and it will be business as usual again in DC. And you know what, we all get what we deserve.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 20, 2016 14:25:22 GMT -7
Well that unity is the key. If , like last time, we get a bunch of Paul supporters who take their bat and ball and go home, we can't win no matter who the candidate is. There are more Dem votes in the country. The only way we can win is for everyone who does lose to get behind the winner. Whether that happens will remain to be seen, but they all need to understand there is no gain in hanging on to their remaining fraction because if this election is lost, there will be no more Republican party, it will be Dem 1, Dem 2, and Everyone Else parties. I know people like Rush say that's fine with those in power now, but I don't buy it. When the votes start drying up, and they will, they'll eventually go out of power too. McCain's current reelection is one example - there's plenty of voters for him to win, but many of them are turned off, some even saying they'll vote for the Dem just to kick him out.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 20, 2016 16:45:06 GMT -7
Its interesting though, because its only the "far right" like constituionalists and/or devout Christians who are expected to suck it up and vote for the 'R' guy, you never hear a populist candidate schmooze the right consistently, but they sure love to pander to that maybe 10% of the middle and supposed cross overs, and then they wonder why they get beat 5% or more every time. If you can't beat the left by leaning left, then maybe you should try and get more of your base out. And the fact that Trump has never led Hillary in poll averages means real trouble come the general all that money is poured into attack ads that pound and pound until people either start believing it or just disconnect and don't vote if it a bother.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 23, 2016 8:34:07 GMT -7
As far as polls go, I try to be mindful that if you take the time left from here to the general election and go back that same amount of time, polls were showing Bush was going to crush everyone in the R stable. They are meaningless this far out, because they are factoring in people who were behind Christie, Carson, Fiorina, etc. who are not going to tell a polster Trump has a good chance. Anything could happen between now and then. For example, just the other day one of Cruz's superPACs ran an ad featuring a semi-nude photo of Trump's wife from a shoot she did for GQ magazine. Now that's a real class act. The issue was not so much about a model taking photographs like that, but the photo used showed a briefcase chained to her wrist, and the superPAC is using the image to say Trump views women as subservient creatures. Yeah, I'm sure the Donald made sure GQ took a photo like that because he believes so strongly in that ideal. Question I have is, if Cruz is such a moral giant as he claims, why isn't he taking them to task for that? Instead, he simply laughed about it. That's what, 3 times now his campaign or his PACs have come out with stuff he supposedly doesn't stand for and hasn't done anything about? Carson's out of the race, Rubio's out of the race, we can't have a First Lady who's done a GQ photo shoot while she was employed as a model? What's next? I guess Trump's moniker for Ted is turning out to be more true as the days pass. I didn't think he was like that, honestly, but now I'm not so sure. I'd personally rather have a First Lady who did a semi-nude photo shoot for GQ than a President who has Bill Clinton's truth standard. If Cruz thinks he's going to shrug and point to a PAC being responsible and people are not going to see through that, he's too stupid to be president. Now he has an endorsement by the veritable icon of the establishment, Jeb himself. How'd he do that if he's as detached from the establishment as he claims to be? It sure makes me suspicious of where his loyalties lie.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 23, 2016 12:35:46 GMT -7
Well he really never had a chance to respond as Trump attacked Cruz and his wife directly as soon as it came out. Cruz should be condemning it or anyone doing things like that. But Trump either is ignorant of (unlikely) how superpacs are supposed to work, or simply is using it (most likely) to stir up controversy because anytime he does his followers all line up despite the facts, and condemn and insult whoever his target is. Or the outside possibility is Trump is in illegal contact with his superpacs and figures everyone else is as well and went after Cruz directly. And you want to talk about comparison of Clinton honesty now? Trump lies nearly every single time he step[s up to a mike, but he has a meme of "lying ted" and it gets parroted endlessly. Maybe we should just start calling him hypocritical Donald.
But I agree, Cruz seems to turn a blind eye to some really low stuff the superpacs are turning out, when it would not hurt what so ever to strongly disavow them. Though he cannot even speak about them in a direct approving or disproving way as that is seen as coordinating which is illegal. So what is he supposed to do? Yes he is going to shrug and point to the PAC, because that's who did it, without his consent or participation. So are we going to start blaming these guys for what their supporters do on social media Facebook now? Well OK, but there is no moral high ground in there.
And yes he has endorsements of many of the establishment people, Trump gets endorsed by the KKK, and you don't see him running away from it like its plutonium. That doesn't mean for thinking people that he is pro white supremacist, nor should it for Cruz that these people see him as the bets anti trump candidate support him for that, should it? Neither one can control who endorses them, heck one of the most condemning for Trump and his supposed conservative supporters should be Christie who is actually campaigning for him.
And if this got under Donald's skin, whats he going to do when the Dems start their mud slinging for real?
You know what bugs me about this whole thing, the dishonesty by the way this is all done by everyone. Trump supposedly corners the market on plain talk, yet he cagily maneuvers people to act and then acts like he had nothing to do with it. Cruz was spot on when he said Trump created an atmosphere, more than once he had called on people to be aggressive and assault protesters, is even paying the legal bills for one, and then acts like he is completely innocent when violence happens. That may play well to the angry crowd, but he is fueling the chaos that will engross him, and what difference is that then the step father of Michele brown saying 'burn the bitch down'? Where Cruz overstepped is blaming Trump for the violence on both sides. BLM and OWS and all theSoros backed groups are there specifically to start this to create controversy, and Cruz should be stating that instead of using it another cover for attack on Trump.
And then Cruz is not pure as the wind driven constitutional snow either, he voted for the expansion of the patriot act and like NSA spying at least in part, now wants to start patrolling Muslim neighborhoods. WTF, I do not want a GOP led police state either. Cruz seeming to use 3rd party as surrogates to attack.
If we want to honor the truth, in the end there is only one guy in this race who actually stood against the establishment while he was in office and elected to do just that, and one who either paid them or was fully in support of them just a few years ago, or for that matter has been on both sides of positions in this campaign, and I think we know we who each is.
What I would like is for Trump to be smart enough and say to his crowds, "Don't do that, they are trying to get you to attack them so they can get that video, so just calm down" just get them out if they are disruptive, but beating them down is not the way, instead of trying to appeal to people who just want to break something because they are so mad right now. What kind of leader is that?
And Cruz should be taking the high road instead of taking the bait of wrestling in the mud, he is just getting dirty, and Donald likes it. Instead they both just fall back on the old repeat meme long and loud enough and they become perceived as truth, when someone who really could truly speak plainly and honestly would gather support like no one is in this race is.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 23, 2016 14:25:16 GMT -7
I agree with everything you just said except the parts about Trump attacking Cruz's wife and the KKK. All he did was Tweet to Ted that if he didn't knock off the "attack on wives" stuff, then Mrs. Cruz would be next. I don't see that as an attack on her, but only a call to Ted to disavow the ad. He was endorsed by David Duke, who hasn't been in the KKK for 6 years. The KKK Grand Dragon held a press conference in CA announcing they were pulling their endorsement of Trump and giving it to Clinton. One of the questions he was asked was, "When did you endorse Trump?" because no one even knew they did. He said several months back, but no one can find any announcement or press release, so who knew to be able to disavow it? With Duke's endorsement, he rejected it 4 out of 5 days just prior to Jake Tapper's show, and it was only because he didn't say it again on that show that the media ran with it. How many times does he have to disavow it to count?
One other fine point, candidates can disavow what a PAC does, nothing stops them. Saying they went too far or used poor taste isn't collusion, it's reaction, and they have a 1st Amendment right to react.
I'm not claiming Trump is angelic here, but he has stuck to attacks on the candidates and not on their families. Cruz himself has conducted himself somewhat within bounds, but this is the third or forth time allegations of dirty tricks has been pointed at him or his campaign or his supporters. At some point he's going to have to step up or what should we expect if he wins? Is he going to blame congress for everything, or just Democrats kind of like Obama does with Republicans? See, that's what I'm saying is how this stuff undercuts his efforts. He's claiming he can bring everyone together and get things done, and he has a track record of being the one guy far on the opposite pole staking out his position. So there is doubt there about his ability to do that, but it's counterbalanced by him sticking to his guns in the Senate. But now, if he (or his supporters) are making the case that he's willing to resort to deceptive tactics to get votes, then how can we know he's not doing that same thing to us? And by us I don't mean you and I, I'm thinking in terms of the general election where "us" is the voters.
He can do that to Trump and Trump will raise hell on social media about it, but when he tries that with Hillary he's going to jumped on and hounded about it for weeks in the media, and that will be the sound byte from every interview, not what he thinks about national policies. That's how I think it hurts him if this stuff continues.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 23, 2016 16:02:47 GMT -7
But Cruz didn't do it. It would be one thing if it was the Cruz campaign, but it was a third party anti Trump PAC that did it, and he starts attacking Cruz., not even the PAC that did it. And when it comes to super PACs, they can disavow association, but they cannot approve or disapprove of what they do, that's why they have those messages at the end of the campaign ads stating they approve the message. Thank McCain-Feingold for that. But yes he should have just came out and said plainly he had nothing to do with it, and does not condone that kind of thing, so yes that's a knock, and I think its costing him some support.
On the other hand Trump not angelic? Kind of an understatement don't you think? If I searched I could list the tirades he has done himself on twitter that scorches the earth around him, or even on live TV and exaggerate, to be kind, and completely slam people off hand and his supporters laugh at that. Do you think the people he will have to have vote for him if he is to win the general will laugh about it too? And what's he going to do, use twitter rants if he gets elected to complain and character assassinate people when things don't go his way?
And yes, it does question the character of either one once they are elected. Cruz had big money backing him for his senate run, and according to Brietbart used this same kind of thing in his senate campaign, yet still turned out to be the most principled in congress. Its possible it was all a plot to make it to the whitehouse where he will screw everyone, but I honestly doubt that. Trump on the other hand is all about selling himself and making promises to close the deal, so I really see nothing that makes him at the least more trustworthy than Cruz. I like some of the things he says, but as I watch I pick up the things he is genuine and informed about, and the things he is winging it hoping to say what he thinks people want to hear. Unfortunately that just makes him disingenuous over all to me. But then heck, I have hard time stomaching some of what Cruz says too.
They both have strengths and weaknesses, but either one had better get ready, because once the general starts, the attacks and dirty tricks by Superpacs are going to be nothing like we have seen so far.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 24, 2016 6:59:27 GMT -7
I get that Cruz didn't do it, I think most people do too. All I'm saying is that as these situations accumulate, it gives the impression Cruz doesn't care what they say or do, giving the impression HE doesn't care what anyone does so long as he wins. Kind of like if you have two young boys being a nuisance and every time they're challenged one of them says "He did it!" pointing at the other. It might be true, but how does it appear the tenth or twelfth time you hear it? I think there is a point people reach where they wonder if this second kid is creating all the problems, why hang around him? Why never condemn his actions even after they drag you into the mud? It's as though the first kid wants all the thrills and excitement of the delinquent acts, but doesn't want association with them or consequences from them.
I will vote for either of them. This is one of maybe 3 things that differentiates the two that makes me lean toward Trump. He looks at things like trade deals, government budgets, and procurement from a business kind of model, and sees plenty of room for improvements in efficiency and cost-cutting. Having been in a small part of that world, my experience is it works to a completely different set of standards, ones that don't make any sense.
In government, if you're given a budget of $50,000 for the quarter or year, and you figure out a way to run the railroad for $45,000, you aren't thought of as efficient or a good steward of resources as would be the case in business. Instead, you're thought of as a fool who didn't use every morsel of your allocated funds, thus allowing some of them to be taken from you and also calling into question why government should give you even more next year (which is the goal of every government manager). If you aren't spending correctly, your boss will be all over you and demand you spend it or they'll take it from you and spend it where they want. It's how the whole institution thinks.
Trump is the only one that appears concerned at all about these practices and how they impact 22 Trillion in debt. The rest of our politicians get on the stump and complain about the deficit but then spend away like it's no problem at all. I would like to see someone get in there and shake that part of government up, to stop it from being bloated, inefficient, and wasteful without consequences. This is why the VA spends lavishly on conferences and buys quarter-million art pieces for their lobby that light up in Braille characters while vets can't get appointments and can't get the treatment they need and were promised. I don't think that culture can be changed overnight, but it can be changed if the right people are put in place at the top and fiscal responsibility along the lines of a business model put in place.
It's that "outside-the-box" factor that draws me in one way more toward Trump than Cruz, but either one is quantum leap up from another Clinton presidency.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 24, 2016 8:59:54 GMT -7
Yeah, except I don't think this helps him win, which is why I wonder why he doesn't disavow it more strongly.
And I completely agree with that assessment of Trump, I imagine he would try and run a tight operation and eliminate a lot of waste and misuse. But he is just a president, and he has limits on what he can do, and I am not so sure he understands that. We already have one imperial president, I do not want another that may coincide with my interests once in a while. I can;t really see him reducing govt to a level of constotuional limitation. Nor can I for Cruz for that matter, but at least he understands the Constitution and its intent.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 26, 2016 6:45:00 GMT -7
I guess Donald decided to play that game too? Of course he had nothing to do with the national enquirer coming out with a smear campaign on Cruz, but it is coincidentally one of his long time friends who runs the NE, and has ran hit pieces on other candidates that remotely looked to be threat to Trump. One difference of note, Cruz did not jump on social media and start attacking and threatening Trump. I suggest who ever wins better buckle up because the surrogate attacks are just starting.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 27, 2016 22:14:15 GMT -7
I got pretty busy for a few days and didn't get to see much news, so I guess I missed the NE thing. What happened with that? I tried to catch up but just scanning the headlines the only thing I saw having to do with Trump/Cruz was something about Glen Beck turning into some kind of Mormon version of Jimmy Swaggart. Dunno what's up with that either. Talk about out of the loop.
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Mar 28, 2016 5:43:32 GMT -7
Heh, the NE claimed Cruz had affairs with several women, and then Trumps camp came out with "news" that Heidi Cruz is a Bush surrogate because she worked with Bush in the past, much of its no big deal, but Cruz is insisting Trump had NE run a hit piece in retaliation, Trump is claiming Ted is lying, yada yada, which I bet no one saw coming. This is the problem for Cruz like I said, if he wrestles in the mud with Trump, Trump just likes it that much more. However, its costing both cross support later, more so for Trump when the dust settles and he want to bring this home if he doesn't have the votes at convention. Now he is making noise the GOP either changes the rules and who ever comes in with the most votes even if not a majority get the nomination to preempt the GOP screwing him, or he takes his ball and runs independent. At which point the RNC will select other than the above and its hello madame president. I don't know what the news is about Beck, but he has been basically an ongoing campaign ad for Cruz since he announced his endorsement of him, so if he is claiming Cruz is our messiah it would not shock me.
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Mar 28, 2016 6:42:00 GMT -7
Ah, well yeah I can see where a story like the NE thing could easily be thought to source from Donaldland. Perhaps Ted got a little sample of the medicine's taste when a third party's actions are shrugged off as the work of someone else.
You're absolutely right about the crossover vote thing; attacking each other was fine when there were 16 of them, but now it's down to two, it's pretty clear at this point where each of them stand, nothing new to be discovered there, so it's time to let voters choose and for BOTH of the candidates to go full-on with Hillary. The best thing they could do is damage her campaign now before the D convention as every vote Sanders gets is a question mark for Hillary come the general.
|
|