- No defense budget cuts. Big armies and stealth fighters are cool.
- No Medicare cuts. Donald says old folks are the "lifeblood of the country". (Plus, they vote with a vengeance.)
- Say no to tax increases.
- Our problems are caused by swarthy OPEC foreigners making oil too expensive and the Chinese playing games with their checkbook.
- Tariffs are good. Bring American jobs back to America.
- He's holding fast to the birther thing.
I'm underwhelmed.
.
The way I figure is that if The Donald somehow wins the GOP nomination, this country is clearly so stupid, celebrity-obsessed and addicted to TV that we're fucked either way.
ReplyDeleteI learned the hard way when running for political office at a much lower level (City Council of Colorado Springs), that the public doesn't understand the complex answers that are relevant and meaningful commentary about complex situations. They want simple answers.
ReplyDeleteThe Donald offers simple answers and although I shiver at the thought of him being the nominee, there lurks a hope that he could bring together a team of real common-sense capitalists and patriots that could govern.
The break-point, however, is whether or not the Tea Party movement will remain a traditional fiscal conservative element or will be co-opted by the social conservatives of the religious right. If they can avoid the abortion/prayer in school/censor the libraries/homophobic nonsense that gives virtually everyone something to disagree with, the Tea Party could recover the nation for us.
How can anyone vote for a guy who bankrupted a casino? A casino which is designed mathematically to make money. How do you do that?
ReplyDeleteThough, given his list up there, it does make sense that he could bankrupt one.
-SayUncle
give me a Republican candidate minus the birther insanity and the religion and i'm on board.
ReplyDeleteTrump is seeming to me to be the whackjob right wing simpleton that Palin is constantly accused of being.
ReplyDeleteOur nation's fiscal issues go way deeper than "tax the rich" or "repeal Obamacare" can cover- there's going to be a reckoning for decades of allowing Congresscritters to spend frivolously. Unfortunately, the American people won't countenance anything that might get us back to balanced.
One thing I know HE KNOWS and that is bankruptcy. He's filed three times, hasn't he?
ReplyDeleteWould he do any less for this country with HIS brand of nonsense?
I don't want Romney, but I don't want THIS either...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
I'm surprised we ever manage to field a candidate worth the powder to blow him to hell with.
ReplyDeletePitiably, this means Obama will be a two-term president. And what the hell will follow him?
The Czar of Muscovy over at The Gormogons is wondering out loud whether Trump, who has been a reliable Democrat contributor until very recently, is playing the deliberate spoiler.
ReplyDeleteOg,
ReplyDeleteIt's awful early in the game, yet. (I mean, as far as the 2012 elections go. It's awful late in the game of saving the Republic.)
"whether or not the Tea Party movement will remain a traditional fiscal conservative element"
ReplyDeleteUm, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think the TEA party is about fiscal conservatism. They do want low taxes, sure enough, but they always say they want low taxes AND a balanced budget WITHOUT touching Medicaid or Social Security. Best represented by the "keep the government out of my Medicare" mantra.
They're going to cut spending - enough to balance the budget, mind you - by the magical-thinking "eliminate waste" formula, which is basically equivalent to Barry's Unicorn farts.
Alath
Carmel IN
Tam:
ReplyDeleteGood lord, I hope you're right. On the other hand, I gave up hoping for anyone with integrity to show up in the political arena around... 84? maybe it was 88. No matter who runs, there will be a vocal group saying "HE'S WORTHLESS BECAUSE X!!!" and the media, anxious to destroy that person, will promote that image to the hilt.
Og,
ReplyDelete"No matter who runs, there will be a vocal group saying "HE'S WORTHLESS BECAUSE X!!!""
I don't vote for wealth-redistributors. I also don't vote for protectionists (because I can pronounce "Smoot-Hawley".)
If the GOP wants my vote, they can dig themselves up a conservative. If I wanted wealth redistribution, profligate fiscal policies and an anti-free-trade mindset, I'd just pull the lever for Obama.
(Or, as has been said, when you run a big government liberal against a big government liberal, the big government liberal always wins.)
ReplyDeleteI learned my lesson about voting for conservative, eccentric, egomaniacal billionaire businessmen who didn't have much political experience in 1992. Thanks, but no thanks. Republican Party, please keep trying.
ReplyDeleteOr Trump is Perot all over again. A fun little way to ensure that Bama gets a second term. How fun would it be to see a debate where everyone demands he whip out his birth certificate....and he does. Camera pans to trump..."Ok, I go nothing.."
ReplyDeleteHe is a fabulous way to siphon off votes. Think people think!
Yup, that is underwhelming.
ReplyDeleteNot sure it's worse than the Democrats, but it's sure not inspiring.
"He is a fabulous way to siphon off votes. Think people think!"
ReplyDeleteOh, thank gawd! We were all about to vote for him until you said something!
:p
(Also, anonymous, it's easy to bankrupt a casino company.
ReplyDeleteFinance it at too high a rate and then have a recession hit, and there you go - which is what happened to Trump in 1990.
The casino part of a Casino Resort Property (TM) makes money - but it is not and cannot be the only part, and there are lots of other costs one can have.
(The second round of Trump casino bankruptcies in the 2000s was for refinancing, in fact, rather than that they couldn't bring in an operating profit. All about paying off debt and re-financing at a tolerable rate of interest.
In fact, when you know that, it almost seems like "knowing how to get out from under crushing debt" is kind of an asset here... not that I think Trump's exactly "Presidential" - but the "ha ha bankrupted a casino who can do that lulz?!" stuff is mere ignorance.
A quick search of the Interwebs will reveal lots of casino bankruptcies over the years. It's almost like the fact that the gambling part is in the house's favor isn't some magic guarantee that costs won't exceed income!)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAlath:
ReplyDeleteThey do want low taxes, sure enough, but they always say they want low taxes AND a balanced budget WITHOUT touching Medicaid or Social Security.
Speak for yourself; as for myself, I don't want to see SS/Medicare/Medicaid trimmed, I want to see them eliminated. I understand that it would need to be phased out to avoid chaos, and I'm willing to make that concession, but the end goal should be the dismantling of those programs.
How odd is it that SS/Medicare/Medicaid is considered "entitlement" spending, while things like national defense and border control--both specifically prescribed in the Constitution--are "discretionary."
(Not that there aren't major cuts to be made in defense spending; if we'd A) quit being Europe's resident protection force, and B) quit pissing in everybody's cornflakes, we could save a ton.)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhat Breda said: we elected Captain Bullsh*t (formerly known as The Dear Golfer, formerly known as The Annointed One) on the basis of nebulous promises and "star power", and it looks reasonable that we'll at least nominate The Donald for the same reason.
ReplyDeleteWe are soooooo f*cked.
Um, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think the TEA party is about fiscal conservatism. They do want low taxes, sure enough, but they always say they want low taxes AND a balanced budget WITHOUT touching Medicaid or Social Security. Best represented by the "keep the government out of my Medicare" mantra.
ReplyDeleteThey're going to cut spending - enough to balance the budget, mind you - by the magical-thinking "eliminate waste" formula, which is basically equivalent to Barry's Unicorn farts.
Someone else who learned all he knows about the Tea Party from HuffPo.
Ahem
ReplyDeleteEvery interview I've heard Trump give, he's spent the entire time blaming outside forces - the Red Chinese and their currency manipulation, the Koreans for their trade policies, etc., etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteAll of his so-called solutions centered around "what he was going to do to/about those evil foreigners".
I realized while driving home the other day that those are exactly the policies that dictators use to keep the prols in line. "Nothing to see here, no-siree. But LOOK OVER THERE - it's all those eeeevil foreigners that are causing all our problems!"
Sorry, but ALL our problems, from finance to entitlements to energy are all self-inflicted, and no amount of protectionism is going to cure that. I'm staying as far away from that guy as possible.
I will have to admit that I am rather enjoying the apoplexy he's inflicting on the Lame Stream Media with the birth certificate thing though. :-)
BoxStockRacer
WV: kisse - NOT going there . . .
Trump's business model is over extend yourself in dept and file chapter 13 i.e., screw over anyone that was stupid enough to finance your dept. This seems to be his plan on a national stage with China.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
Josh
I think the solution to out of control Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security costs is to eliminate every one of these programs. Phase them out but make them go away. Hard to see what the government has to do with any of these, constitutionally speaking. Or just wait until the whole house of cards collapses, which will likewise fix the problem in a very messy way.
ReplyDeleteIf the Anointed One gets put back in because the Whig's Nominee stinks (as usual), I will be keeping my Winter Camo Wookie Suit close to hand. This time around there won't be a Nader to steal votes from the DemiCommies, so the Republitards better find someone quick.
ReplyDeleteLet's see...he pretends to be a Republican, but is actually a liberal at heart...starred in a hit TV show but has moved on to other things...does know about being rich and was once poor enough to declare bankruptcy...and now every time I see his picture I just think he needs to buy a better toupee...Yep! I'm now ready to vote for Captain Kirk for President.
ReplyDeleteDrang, WTF is a HuffPo?
ReplyDeleteEveryone I have ever known of to self-identify with the TEA party has espoused some version of the entitlement-sparing, low-tax, balanced-budget innumeracy I described above. Used to be on the email list for a local TEA party group, and heard this kind of stuff all the time. Plenty of TEA partiers on the Indiana Gun Owners Forum say the same kind of stuff: "I paid into Social Security for 40 years, and I'm getting back what I paid in." Bucko, you didn't pay enough for your own retirement. You paid enough for 1/3 of someone else's retirement, at 1980 rates.
I have said I will vote for the first party that addresses the national debt in a realistic way that adds up. I'm still waiting.
Alath
Carmel IN
Alath:
ReplyDeleteHuffPo is short for Huffington Post. Not a particularly conservative place, and has been bad-mouthing the Tea Party since day 1.
Pretty much everybody I know has switched to the Tea Party, and none of them are even remotely like the individuals you describe. Pretty much Gadsden types who are more than willing to take personal responsibility for their own lives if they can get the government out of the way.
With the exception of wanting a strong military, they believe that "That government governs best which governs least".
BoxStockRacer
Alath,
ReplyDeleteI'd call myself a Tea Partier, and I support ending pretty much any subsidy, wealth transference, and direct disbursement of tax dollars for anything other than services received.
You're honestly the first person that has described the Tea Party in those terms to me that wasn't on a network television news program; that's pretty much the straight MSNBC party line.
Trump is the first non-Paul candidate I can remember who has said, in response to a question about some issue, "I don't care".
ReplyDeletePresidents, congressmen, and the citizens who elect them should say and hear that a LOT.
Underwhelmed doesn't begin to describe it. The idea that Donald Trump could considered as a serious candidate is a sign of the crumbling of the Republic. If the Stupid Party can't come up with serious contenders, we will have four more years of the Evil party.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Trump would even put his name forward is an indication of the vacuum of leadership we currently have.
While Trump has many faults, saying that the chinese are a big danger to our country is not one of them.
ReplyDeleteTam, Drang, BoxStockRacer,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like we are in agreement on the debt and what needs to happen. Perhaps I am mistaken in my impression of most TEA partiers' stance on entitlements - but I did get this from actual people and what they said, not from HuffPo, MSNBC, or any other outside party characterization (I don't watch MSNBC, either, or any TV at all for that matter).
If we're to make any progress on debt, there will have to be a mass of Americans step forward to say "Please cut MY entitlements." That's where I'm coming from, and apparently where you are, too, but my impression is that we are a tiny minority. So far, the libertarians are the only identifiable political group who seem to consistently espouse this - but if the TEA party does so, they'll have my vote.
Alath
Alath, the Tea Party isn't a monolithic bloc (neither is the Libertarian party, but that's another matter); in fact, it's not even a formal party. It's a movement, arguably a caucus, but--as with all elections--you need to look at the individual candidate, not the letter after his name.
ReplyDelete