Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 28, 2015, 09:54:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87739 Posts in 2281 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Donald Trump
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Donald Trump  (Read 1789 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34080


« Reply #100 on: August 27, 2015, 04:16:18 PM »

Very good discussion going on here gentlemen.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/08/26/this-is-a-first-donald-trumps-response-to-glenns-interview-invitation/
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 04:21:47 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 186


« Reply #101 on: August 27, 2015, 06:14:37 PM »

DougMacG,

Yes, I am hard on the other mortals, but why should I not be? They are all professional politicians except for Carly and Carson. And look what professional politicians get us. Nothing good.

There is a deliberate GOPe strategy going on with this election. They are all in the tank for Bush and will do anything to get him elected, but they know that he is not well liked by the "commoners" in the party. So they have engaged in a deliberate strategy to get him nominated. That strategy involves getting enough candidates in the key states to dilute the vote against Bush so that no one will have a majority, and therefore the delegates go to Bush. And this plan was going to work except for one problem.......no one counted on Trump.

Now the GOPe is trying ways to stop Trump. One is in Virginia, North and South Carolina. The potential candidate must take a "loyalty oath" to not run as a third party if they lose, or they do not get on the primary ballot. Now, the RNC is talking about any candidate who does not win at least 8 primaries cannot be nominated at the Convention. What this does is ensure that if anyone not meeting this criteria but has won states, those delegates are now freed up to go where "they" want.

Now people are picking on Trump on the immigration plan. He cannot deport 11m people. Doesn't anyone realize that Trump is a "negotiator"? He throws this out, but you can bet he has "fall back" positions for when he wins. Never give out your bottom line position at this stage.

Kelo is an issue, but if eminent domain is available and there is benefit, why not?

FYI, I was originally completely against ED, but the housing crisis changed my opinion. In cities like Richmond CA, Camden NJ, and many others, there can be no housing recovery because the homes are underwater still and the people cannot afford the mortgages. Lenders are not working with the people. Why not use ED to take the homes, pay the Investors fair market value, and then get someone in to rework the loans for the people? It is possible and I know it is because I have been involved in discussions among a major investor who would rework the loans, a servicer willing to go along with it, and a local government ready to engage the ED. But guess what? The damned Congress and Obama enacted legislation that if a city did ED to help the crisis locally, the homes involved could never again be eligible for GSE or FHA funding. Wells Fargo and the other banks win again.

What Trump is doing is bringing all these issues to the light, but that is exactly what the GOPe and the Dems do not want. it threatens their own interests and that is heresy.

We are at a crossroads in the US. This election is likely the most critical election since 1860. The fate of the US hinges on it, but if we have a GOPe candidate, it matters not whether the new President and Congress is controlled by either party. They will all do the same as now. So we have to consider all alternatives.



 
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34080


« Reply #102 on: August 27, 2015, 07:51:54 PM »

Here is a thought:

Donald should announce that if elected he contemplates making Ted Cruz the Attorney General, Ben Carson the Sec of HHS to handle health care, and Carly Fiorina to something that calls upon her considerable talents.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 186


« Reply #103 on: August 27, 2015, 09:09:23 PM »

CD,

What makes you think that he would not get the best for each area? That is what he says he would do, and I believe him there.

As another point to DMG,

People are looking at Trump not for his "detailed" positions, they are looking at him for a reason that escapes most. They are looking for leadership. For so long, we have had no leadership. Politicians have taken a position of getting along or or just acting, often out of spite. None show true leadership capabilities like Reagan, and even JFK for a period of time.

As well, I don't know how old you and others are, but there is something else going on that should be considered. For those who are old enough and worked though this period of time, go back to 1975 through 1980 and think of the economy and what we were go though. Some points about that time:

1. Ford presents his program for reducing inflation. WIN. Whip inflation now. A slogan which meant nothing. ( I don't remember the inflation rate, but it was poor.)

2. 1975 with Ford, the Tax Rebate of $200 (maybe $300 but my memory is not so good). I remember being in a meeting with Senator Tunney, Dem from CA. He was touting how great an idea this was. It would help the middle class. I got up and challenged him about it, stating that the money meant nothing. it would not help the middle class and it would only be spent on food or bills. Needless to say, he had no response. (His brother was the fighter. May he got it too many times fighting his brother and it addled his brains.)

3. 1973, Gas rationing. We had to buy gas on alternative days and you waited in line for an hour or more. If you ran out of gas on the no buy day, you were SOL.

4. Jimmy Carter, a President who had no leadership ability. Control freak who actually filled out the White House Tennis Court Usage schedule. He was voted in simply as a reaction to Nixon and an incompetent Ford who stated in a debate that Poland was not a satellite of the USSR.

5. Under Jimmy Carter, the Misery Index of 19.72%

6. The Iranian Hostage situation. 

(BTW, here is an interesting factoid. When the hostages were taken in Nov 2008, I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters. There, we had 67th Air Rescue which had evacuated US personnel from Iran in the year before. When the hostages were taken, my squadron was recalled for possible action in hostage recovery. At the same time, Airborne and other Army troops were in Germany for the Reforger exercises. We could have sent Airborne from Germany and our own squadron from Bentwaters with C 141 and C 130 aircraft, supported by 5 Bentwater A10 squadrons, F-15s out of Bitburg, F111s from Mildenhall and other support aircraft  to get the hostages within the first few days. Even in April of 1980, we could still have gone, but Carter wanted to use Navy choppers which it was well known would have had problems with the sand getting in their engines. But Carter did not have the guts to do what was needed.)

7. A National Election in 1980 where the GOP tried for the second time to keep Reagan from being the nominee. Instead, they want the Senior Bush to be the nominee. Yet the 'commoners" wanted Reagan.

The conditions of 1980 match what is occurring today in all too many ways. We have a populace looking for leadership and a bunch of politicians that offer no leadership. Even worse, they continuously ignore or insult those who disagree, calling us vulgar, low information votes, idiots, and who knows what else. They are the Elitists who know what is best for us and they are not to be challenged.

To hell with them all. As far as I am concerned, the professional politicians can go to hell. BURN IT DOWN!!!!!
Logged

PPulatie
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6653


« Reply #104 on: August 27, 2015, 11:36:33 PM »

"FYI, I was originally completely against ED, but the housing crisis changed my opinion. In cities like Richmond CA, Camden NJ, and many others, there can be no housing recovery because the homes are underwater still and the people cannot afford the mortgages. Lenders are not working with the people. Why not use ED to take the homes, pay the Investors fair market value, and then get someone in to rework the loans for the people? It is possible and I know it is because I have been involved in discussions among a major investor who would rework the loans, a servicer willing to go along with it, and a local government ready to engage the ED. But guess what? The damned Congress and Obama enacted legislation that if a city did ED to help the crisis locally, the homes involved could never again be eligible for GSE or FHA funding. Wells Fargo and the other banks win again."

Interesting take on this PP.  I can see why you like it but I see a few problems too. Some of this belongs in our housing/mortgage thread, but it ties back to Trump as well - by his choice.

a) I don't really see someone as a homeowner if they have zero equity or less.

b)  There is a difference between underwater and being delinquent or in default.  Underwater, I guess, is none of my business as long as they are making the required payments.  I think you deal with situations where they are not.

c)  The central problem with delinquent, underwater properties in default is that government rules make it difficult and sometimes impossible for a lender to take back a property.

d)  That the lender took a bad risk and made a bad loan and the property won't cover their costs is not my problem or concern.

e) A mortgage IS the right to take back a property in default.  If it can't be taken back in a reasonable time, process and cost, it is an unsecured loan.  When the collateral means nothing, that is when loans don't get made, hurting everyone.  Again, the rules of foreclosure are the problem, not market fluctuations or anything else.

f) Instead of fixing the central problem caused by government rules, we establish new government powers.

g) Assuming you cannot change the rules tying the hands of lenders to get back their rightful collateral and the strategy you suggest is perfectly executed, I can see how a bad situation is dealt with and resolved.

g)  On the flip side of giving government the power to take private property for private purposes without limits are all the moral hazards that come with that and eventually take down all great, centrally planned economies:

    1.  With expanded government power comes expanded government corruption.  Without a doubt.
    2.  Large industrial and economic players can buy that power for their own benefit.  And they do.  The richest counties in the United States are mostly in the DC area.  Buying power isn't a small industry; it has become our largest industry.
    3.  Government officials can sell that power for their own benefit.
    4.  People without power get Trumped on, like of Suzette Kelo in New London, Vera Coking in Atlantic City, and Nancy MacGibbon in Minneapolis.
    5.  When victims of eminent domain get 'fair market value' for what is taken from them, they don't get fair market value.
    6.  And when government powers have no limit, well, we don't know and can't even imagine all of where that will lead...

Donald Trump is a great "negotiator", (he says). The victim examples listed above did not consent to entering into "negotiations with Trump or Trump-like entities.  Assuming they owned their property, paid their taxes, followed the laws, kept up their homes, paid their mortgages and all that, do they have a right of privacy?  Do they have a right to be left alone?  Are these rights what the constitution calls unenumerated rights that areprotected by the 9th amendment in the constitution?  Of course they are.  Is this a small matter?  No.

Now back to the 5th amendment:
" If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution "
    - Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent on Kelo

And if you feel the opposite, you believe the Court can eliminate liberties expressly protected in the constitution.  You are President Trump appointing judges who will do just that.

PP:  "Kelo is an issue, but if eminent domain is available and there is benefit, why not? "

I hope I have answered that.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6653


« Reply #105 on: August 27, 2015, 11:55:37 PM »

...
As another point to DMG,

People are looking at Trump not for his "detailed" positions, they are looking at him for a reason that escapes most. They are looking for leadership. For so long, we have had no leadership. Politicians have taken a position of getting along or or just acting, often out of spite. None show true leadership capabilities like Reagan, and even JFK for a period of time.

As well, I don't know how old you and others are, but there is something else going on that should be considered. For those who are old enough and worked though this period of time, go back to 1975 through 1980 and think of the economy and what we were go though. Some points about that time:

1. Ford presents his program for reducing inflation. WIN. Whip inflation now. A slogan which meant nothing. ( I don't remember the inflation rate, but it was poor.)

2. 1975 with Ford, the Tax Rebate of $200 (maybe $300 but my memory is not so good). I remember being in a meeting with Senator Tunney, Dem from CA. He was touting how great an idea this was. It would help the middle class. I got up and challenged him about it, stating that the money meant nothing. it would not help the middle class and it would only be spent on food or bills. Needless to say, he had no response. (His brother was the fighter. May he got it too many times fighting his brother and it addled his brains.)

3. 1973, Gas rationing. We had to buy gas on alternative days and you waited in line for an hour or more. If you ran out of gas on the no buy day, you were SOL.

4. Jimmy Carter, a President who had no leadership ability. Control freak who actually filled out the White House Tennis Court Usage schedule. He was voted in simply as a reaction to Nixon and an incompetent Ford who stated in a debate that Poland was not a satellite of the USSR.

5. Under Jimmy Carter, the Misery Index of 19.72%

6. The Iranian Hostage situation.  

(BTW, here is an interesting factoid. When the hostages were taken in Nov 2008, I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters. There, we had 67th Air Rescue which had evacuated US personnel from Iran in the year before. When the hostages were taken, my squadron was recalled for possible action in hostage recovery. At the same time, Airborne and other Army troops were in Germany for the Reforger exercises. We could have sent Airborne from Germany and our own squadron from Bentwaters with C 141 and C 130 aircraft, supported by 5 Bentwater A10 squadrons, F-15s out of Bitburg, F111s from Mildenhall and other support aircraft  to get the hostages within the first few days. Even in April of 1980, we could still have gone, but Carter wanted to use Navy choppers which it was well known would have had problems with the sand getting in their engines. But Carter did not have the guts to do what was needed.)

7. A National Election in 1980 where the GOP tried for the second time to keep Reagan from being the nominee. Instead, they want the Senior Bush to be the nominee. Yet the 'commoners" wanted Reagan.

The conditions of 1980 match what is occurring today in all too many ways. We have a populace looking for leadership and a bunch of politicians that offer no leadership. Even worse, they continuously ignore or insult those who disagree, calling us vulgar, low information votes, idiots, and who knows what else. They are the Elitists who know what is best for us and they are not to be challenged.

To hell with them all. As far as I am concerned, the professional politicians can go to hell. BURN IT DOWN!!!!!

59, and a student of economics in the 70s.

Yes, Whip Inflation Now was perhaps the most economically ignorant policy in history.  And the Price wage freeze concocted on Friday the 13th, Aug 1971 was perhaps the most damaging.  The inflation they couldn't control was 7%.  By the end of the decade it was 14%.  With Reagan and Paul Volcker they whipped unemployment and inflation almost simultaneously, proving almost everything Keynesian to be false.

That said, I don't like putting all elected politicians into one category.  Some have sold out and some haven't (yet).

The GOP establishment isn't is a formal club, just a concept.  There isn't anyone there big enough to pull any real strings.  If nothing else, Trump proved they aren't controlling this process.  Money has been irrelevant to the process so far too.  Money has nothing to do with Trump's success so far.

Hugh Hewitt said it straight up.  He would lead off every show with a Trump interview if he could.  It's good radio.  Rush has been all over the Trump story.  Hannity is a friend of Trump.  Mark Levin loves Trump's boldness on immigration.  None of them I think would choose him at voting time.  It's the story of the day and Trump is smarter than everyone thought.

Like GM said, Trump has balls, so to speak, and we need our candidate (of any gender) to have that.  But the details matter.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:04:45 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34080


« Reply #106 on: Today at 07:47:03 AM »

"CD, What makes you think that he would not get the best for each area? That is what he says he would do, and I believe him there."

Forgive me, but that does not address my point-- which is the suggestion that Trump ANNOUNCE this NOW.  Reflect upon what the reaction to this might be in various quarters and amongst voters.
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 186


« Reply #107 on: Today at 08:51:25 AM »

"Ted Cruz Attorney General, Ben Carson the Sec of HHS to handle health care, and Carly Fiorina to something that calls upon her considerable talents."

Let's assume that Trump makes an announcement like this today. What is the response?

1. Cruz, Carson and Fiorina all three denounce Trump and saying that they are running for President and not a Cabinet post.

2. The rest of the candidates and the GOPe all accuse Trump of trying to bribe his competition to not run any longer.

3. The media goes nuts, accepts the GOPe claims, and then jumps on Trump and his "Cabinet Choices", claiming that this would be harmful to liberals and minorities. The uproar would be more harmful than good.

Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34080


« Reply #108 on: Today at 09:05:34 AM »

Disagree.

Of course the other candidates would say the predictable things, but I think the case would be this:

It shows Trump can work with others and underlines the depth of the Rep bench.  Those who like those candidates but wonder about their completeness to be president (and IMHO that is many people) may well come to feel that Trump isn't so bad after all.   

Cruz as AG would be a truly inspired choice , , ,  Imagine him handling the illegal alien, 14th Amendment issues for Rep candidate Trump, or Ben Carson handling Obamacare replacement and race issues, and Fiorina getting in a cat fight with Hillary or Buffoon Joe.

Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 186


« Reply #109 on: Today at 09:15:27 AM »

You are much more positive about things than I am. The GOPe and the Media are looking for anything to stop Trump and this would provide them much attention.

Now to go walk the dog. He needs to do a Bush and Hillary.
Logged

PPulatie
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34080


« Reply #110 on: Today at 09:26:59 AM »

I have heard but not yet verified that Trump speaks very highly of his sister who is both a federal judge and an aggro abortion supporter.

I wonder what kind of judges he would nominate for SCOTUS?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4564


« Reply #111 on: Today at 09:46:43 AM »

Hints about his tax policy.  Lower taxes on middle class, simplify the code and raise it on the wealthy.   I am not for the latter part of this unless he means, and I think he does, raise their rates by reducing deductions.   Especially deductions the rest of us do not have.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/28/donald-trump-im-king-tax-code/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#!

Like I have posted on the board before neither party represents me - the Democrats or Republicans.  Trump comes the closest.  He is by reason of exclusion the top choice at this time for me.   With regards to leadership, salesmanship, showmanship, and strength, a giant among kids.  Sorry, but it is obvious.  That said his ego and mania is of major concern and frightening in many ways.

Also I wish Jindal would get more traction.   He represents America the beautiful.

I agree with PP about Bush.  The Bushes while wonderful people, seemingly honest, and great Americans have done quite a bit to hurt conservatism.   The father was never a conservative:   "voodoo economics".

And I am 58 and remember the 70's all too well.   I am sorry Carter has cancer but he was the worst President since Warren G Harding.

However that title now belongs to yours truly Barack Obama.

Carter can now think, "thank God for Obama".  I am off the bottom of the list.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!