To: Donald Trump
From: Mitch Berg, Ornery Peasant
Re: Doyyy
Mr. Trump,
I started disliking your public persona thirty years ago. While I’m told you are a perfectly fine human being in person, your public persona – the garish extravagant gaudiness, the constant noise – was always off-putting. Still is.
Now, this time a year ago I was a Scott Walker supporter. And I still am. If there were a way to get him into the race (and lamentably, there is not), Shrillary would get pounded like a piece of cheap steak.
But that’s neither here nor there. Because here we are.
Anyway – I’m not one of the #NeverTrump crowd, if only because crowds annoy me. The idea of Hillary Clinton nominating SCOTUS justices should terrify everyone who cares about the Bill of Rights. And the Libertarian ticket isn’t an option (forget about the Greens).
So I don’t like your persona – but I don’t vote for personas. I don’t like what your campaign has done to the GOP, but then the GOP has been frustrating lately, too. And I don’t like the way you’re running this campaign, but then it’s your campaign, not mine.
But this? This is just plain stupid.
You’ll help NATO countries if they’ve “paid their way?”
What’s this tell you?
The NATO members in the most immediate danger from Russia – the Poles and Estonians – are taking their defense pretty seriously. Latvia and Lithuania are coming around (both have increased their spending in 2016 – Latvia’s spending is actually up 50% in the past two years).
And can you think of four nations that have “spent” more freedom in the past 30 years that those four? Not just in terms of budget, but in terms of actually resisting tyranny?
No, I don’t imagine you can.
Think about it, Mr. Trump.
That is all.
Yeaaah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.
The reason Liberals want the United States to be more like France, Italy and Germany is their generous welfare benefits. But the reason they can afford generous welfare benefits is they’re not paying their share of defense of their own countries: we’re paying their defense, which frees up money for welfare, which Liberals use against us.
When you step onto the used car lot to admire the 1957 Corvette and the salesman said “Ain’t she a beauty?” the first words out of your mouth should NOT be “OMG, I’ve got to have that car, money is no object.” Instead, your first statement should be: “Gee, I dunno, she’s showing a lot of wear and getting parts will be a nightmare . . . I suppose I could take it off your hands if you threw in a few things and the price was right.”
Trump understands that the Art of the Deal applies to old treaties as well as to old cars. This isn’t his final word on the subject, it’s his opening bid. And the fact he’s willing to consider negotiations instead of continuing down the subsidy path speaks well of his business sense as well as his political sense. It fits perfectly with the America First theme.
You don’t like the character he played on TV.. Do you like William Shatner because you loved Kirk?
Anyway he was talking to American voters, not the EU Rulers. And as such it’s a smart pitch.
I’d agree with Joe that politicians on both sides of the aisle often don’t get how to deal, but I’m not entirely sold on the idea that a guy with four business bankruptcies knows it, either.
My biggest complaint about our trade schemes–diplomacy in general–is that we have what appears to be a basically nonexistent list of non-negotiables. And one of the best ways of getting what you want in dealing is walking away from the table–this is killing us.
I do not think that it is wise to believe that whenever Trump opens his mouth, out comes a hard line ideological position. This is his strength and his weakness.
I have been comparing Trump to Ventura for over a year. If you would prefer Ventura to Hillary, vote Trump.
I am not being facetious, I can imagine a lot of reasons for preferring a president Ventura to a president Hillary Clinton. For one thing, Ventura is not an ideologue. For another, could Ventura have done worse than Hillary as Secretary of State? Would a president Ventura appoint worse judges (from a conservative POV) than a president Hillary Clinton?
The bankruptcy thing keeps coming up, as if it shows Trump is a bad businessman and therefore unqualified to head the Executive Branch. You do realize that Chapter 11 reorganization is a common and legitimate business strategy, right?
For example, Northwest Orient Airlines had the worst employee-management relations ever, and suffered frequent strikes. Northwest would sign a contract to settle the strike, then duck into bankruptcy to have the court throw out the contract terms they didn’t like.
Remember Obama’s Car Czar? He orchestrated the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies as part of the bail-out.
Let’s remember that The St Paul Dioceses in currently Chapter 11. Now let’s discuss the morality of bankruptcy.
RE: MWO – Did they ever pay back the State of MN loans they were supposed to pay back if they moved out of the state?
DG,
Reply to this thread in some way, immediately, or I’m going to start to get serious, here.
———
Scott Walker could never “pound” Hillary. Walker couldn’t even carry his own state of Wisconsin. Walker dropped out because no one, other than you. would vote for him, pretty much (on the scale necessary for winning a primary, never mind a general).
But then again, Trump can’t carry New York either.
Someone got to Trump; he’s admitted he was wrong on the whole plain / money to Iran crap he was spewing, and now belatedly apparently he is endorsing Paul Ryan.
But Trump because who he IS is exactly who he appears in his public persona, will continue to tank, will continue to fail.
The whole GOP is going to hell. You can tell when they are broadly promoting such epic lies like the left wants to admit unvetted refugees. That isn’t true.
Liars are losers. Trump is an unusually bad liar, and is getting busted for it. His persona is hardly the most important thing that is wrong with him.
But in spite of double digit numbers of candidates for president, you don’t have any good ones on the right. That goes along with having bad policies.
I’m doing my happy dance watching Brownback on his way out…along with SO many other right wing governors.
——-
No more Mr. Nice guy, DG.
DG,
Reply to this thread in some way, immediately, or I’m going to start to get serious, here.
———
I look at this, and look at the daily fail that is Trump, and realized you deserve this horror of a candidate.
Reading your ridiculous post about black teens and the minimum wage, it is clear that your party has courted and invited those who think and operate at the most simplistic level of thinking.
Clearly when you write something aimed at this demographic, you do so by not knowing anything about unemployment for example. You used to do your homework on topics; not anymore. You SHOULD have known that unemployment falls into two main categories, frictional and structural. You SHOULD have known that those who are least qualified or most marginal employees are the most vulnerable to changing jobs — frictional unemployment, the normal job changing that goes on in any economy. You should also have known that structural unemployment, when jobs go unfilled because there are no qualified people to hire, or where people are highly trained but no comparable jobs exist to fill is a very real problem in the USA, because most jobs that pay more than minimum wage require some degree of specialized training,often some level of college or equivalent.
It is NOT a valid criticism of the minimum wage that black teens are frictionallly unemployed, much less that Democrats in some way harbor animus towards people of color. It is Dems who are looking at solutions for marginal employment and frictional unemployment, but also towards solving structural unemployment for the 21st century.
It is no accident that minorities will vote against Trump and against Republicans generally, given the racist statements and policies – like fighting minimum wage increases. People who are looking for solutions to economic problems, recognizing that economic equality of opportunity is essential, and economic fairness which does not disproportionately benefit the 1%, are unimpressed by the kind of thinking your post represents — stirring up racial animus while pandering to the ignorant conservative who seeks superficial gratification but who doesn’t want to have to actually know anything or benefit anyone in the middle class or below.
It is going to result in the new demographic majorities working against and voting against and donating against the GOP for at least a generation.
SO if you want Trump and Trump-like no-nothing candidates, keep pandering to your base. That is who voted for him in the primary, and that is who is funding him now. YOU, not Trump are why the right is losing so badly; Trump and the ignorant base who supports him are simply the by-product of propaganda like yours.
But I’m sure you’ll find something else to talk about and write about rather than face that nightmare head on.
———-
Until you start leaving some indication that you’re participating in a discussion, I won’t bother responding. You are at best an unworthy opponent who can’t construct an argument – but that’s not abuse. Pooping and running is.
No more breaks, DG.
/You do realize that Chapter 11 reorganization is a common and legitimate business strategy, right?/
“I’ve borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts,” Trump told CNBC.
That’s an interesting way to describe using bankruptcy to defraud your creditors.
that’s the point, Emory, bankruptcy is not fraud, it is a constitutional right.
Actually, the US’s very liberal bankruptcy laws are one of its strong points as far as business is concerned. You can be much more aggressive and push the line harder when you know that overreaching may not be fatal. In tech firms, that’s critical because you often take chances, and if you guess wrong you don’t usually tank the company, you either reorganize or sell it off and continue having (hopefully) learned a lesson.
Compare that with Britain, where going bankrupt essentially destroys the firm and scatters the remains to the wind.
US bankruptcy law was one of the earliest incentives to move from the Old World to the New World, and it continues to be one of the strong points of American business vs. the rest of the world. Yes, investors have to be more careful here, but just as the risks are larger, so are the returns and the net to the US economy is pretty high.
So no, I don’t view all of Trump’s business bankruptcies as an issue. Most of them were in highly speculative areas like casinos and resorts, which are notoriously risky and not for the faint of heart. High risk, high reward, and yes, you can “pay back with discounts” if you guess wrong.
DG said: “Scot Walker uocld nerve “punod” Hillary. Awkler udocln’t veen acrry his won tseta fo Wcinssoin. Awlekr orppded tuo ucebeas no oen, tohre nhta uyo. wlduo ovet orf hmi, rtetyp mcuh (no eth lcsae ecneyssra ofr iwnnngi a mrapyri, veenr mind a eengral).”
As usual DG you just aren’t making sense!
There’s an old apocryphal tale about the Bedouin sitting out a sandstorm in his tent. His camel asks to let it put its nose in, out of the scouring wind. Then its eyes. Then its ears. And so on, and so on, until all of the camel is inside the tent, leaving no room for the Bedouin, who is out in the storm.
The Republicans let the radical right put its nose into the tent when Obama was first elected. Now a full-blown birther occupies the space, and the GOP is out in the sandstorm, getting rightfully blasted.
There’s an old apocryphal tale about the Bedouin sitting out a sandstorm in his tent. His camel asks to let it put its nose in, out of the scouring wind. Then its eyes. Then its ears. And so on, and so on, until all of the camel is inside the tent, leaving no room for the Bedouin, who is out in the storm.
The Democrats let the radical left put its nose into the tent when Obama was first elected. Now a full-blown corporate running dog occupies the space, and the Democrat Party is out in the sandstorm, getting rightfully blasted.”
There I fixed that for ya Emery
Shorter: When you have a full-blown birther running as the GOP nominee for president, it won’t end well.
“Shorter: When you have an indicted criminal running as the Democrat nominee for president, it won’t end well.”
there I fixed it for ya emery
damn spellcheck… it should be “unindicted”
If the Democrats managed to install a fake candidate in the Republican race who embodied all the worst stereotypes about conservatives, how would that look different from Trump? I have faith that there are many voting segments Trump has yet to piss off.
Joe, you’re FOS, but that’s not new. Liberals don’t support being “more like France” for greater “welfare”, at least not the kind you’re thinking of. We think of three things: Affordable college costs, national healthcare, and a reasonably fair split of profits. We lack those. We have many other FAR better things too. For example, we have presumption of innocence, we have (or are supposed to) have better protections of individual liberties. We don’t want to change those. Not close.
Mitch, outside of the unconstitutional 2nd Amendment protections you like, (such as preventing limits on weapon capacity – fully constitutional, but you don’t like it), what about the destruction of voting rights through fraudulent claims about voter fraud and implementation of unconstitutional voter ID laws is “protecting liberty” to you? What about implementing religiously based discrimination against OTHER people in the guise of “religious freedom” of ownership is protecting liberty to you? What about granting constitutional protections to corporations is “protecting liberty” to you? What about attacking the 14th amendment is protecting liberty to you? What about denying due process is protecting liberty to you? What about suspending Habeas Corpus is protecting liberty to you? What about stealing elections through unconstitutional voter purges is protecting liberty to you? What about rendition is protecting liberty to you? What about making things secret that have no need to be (which both parties do FAR too often) is protecting liberty to you? In short, we’ve moved far down the road of becoming a police state, despite doing EVERYTHING possible to give people access to guns, easy access, unrecorded access, and access free of concern or research on the impact. Your “liberty” line ignores SOO many far more important liberties, including eating away at the edges of protection against self-incrimination (and all those named above). The liberty you claim will guarantee the rest has done nothing of the sort. I’m sorry, but your comment is 180 degrees wrong. If you care about the REST of the liberties outside the over-reaching 2nd Amendment claims, then you CAN’T possibly want any more conservatives on the bench. There are no liberties the conservatives protect (outside the over-reach on the 2nd Amendment), and nearly every one of the rest they are happy to attack. Every one of them. They’ve started tearing down the wall between religion and government and they intend to go farther.
Pen:
Re-read this sentence:
“Mitch, outside of the unconstitutional 2nd Amendment protections you like, (such as preventing limits on weapon capacity – fully constitutional, but you don’t like it), what about the destruction of voting rights through fraudulent claims about voter fraud and implementation of unconstitutional voter ID laws is “protecting liberty” to you?”
You swerve through three different topics, none of them related to each other, much less the topic of this post.
And that’s just the start! The entire comment is a series of disconnected memes built around a colossal red herring; that if you don’t simultaneously talk about (your preferred interpretation) of every single “liberty”-related subject (but only the left’s preferred interpretations!), I don’t care about any of them.
Some – many – of the liberties you mention in your comment, especially the Fourth and Fifth Amendment ones, I’ve been an activist on since before I had a blog. You’re not quite qualified to lecture.
And nobody said the 2nd Amendment would be the sole protection against an encroaching police state; but as long as we have it (something your side is doing its best to end), we have options. And those options aren’t necessarily “armed revolt”, so don’t even go there.
Emery, Trump is not a conservative. That is why he has such a hard time rolling up the conservative vote. Trump is a populist of the Right. His position on immigration is far closer to what most Americans think than what Obama/Hillary propose. Democrat immigration policies are unprecedented in American history.
Trump’s candidacy paints a portrait of a political party so weak that someone like Trump seems strong in comparison. That might be the biggest delusion facing Republicans: Trump isn’t winning–Republicans are losing.
Mitch,
Let’s agree that we both want to protect constitutional liberties. I am sure you do. Are there cases where you say, “Well, yes, the 14th Amendment matters but..” like the but of, “But the life of an unborn child also matters”? I have too often met those on the right who are all-too-happy to suspend rights, even those which they supposedly otherwise would never accept having stripped, to satisfy some “greater good” like stopping terrorism. They say, “Well, they weren’t American”, or “Well, it’s ok to put a US citizen in jail without charge because he was a Muslim and in league with Al Qaeda.” I don’t agree with that, not even a little. I don’t agree that citizens can be disarmed, it was prevented by the likes of US. V Kruikshanks long before the McDonald decision but I don’t think that right is unlimited, and pretty clearly SCOTUS feels it’s not unlimited. The point is, we can have a reasonable disagreement about the 14th and the 2nd (and 6th and 10th). I can argue with good merit the reason we shouldn’t short-circuit due process. You can argue with good merit the limits of the 10th.
What I cannot, not ever, accept is the idea that we should tell lies or commit fraud to justify stripping people of basic rights. Inventing “women’s health” as an argument to obstruct access to abortion or “voter fraud” as a different argument to deny people the right to vote is as much of an anathema to me as would be fully stripping the right to keep and bear arms should and would be to you (and incidentally to me). Those attempts have been fundamental violations of our basic liberties and have only been able to move forward because of the make-up of the court (up until Scalia’s death). They were morally wrong acts and attempts. You may not like certain voters, I know I don’t, but they have the RIGHT to unfettered access to the polls. Voter ID has been roundly repudiated as nothing more than a not-successfully veiled attempt to disenfranchise voters as have supposed women’s health laws which limited access to abortion.
I will defend your 2nd Amendment rights, I’d ask you to defend the rights of people to vote. Claiming that Scalia or Thomas were defenders of those rights is, to be polite, extremely inaccurate. Scalia would vote one way one day, and the next another (People v. Gore). Thomas never met a Republican plank he wouldn’t back, which is why he was alone in siding with Bush about the administration’s desire to invent the “illegal combatant” status and ignore our Geneva Convention obligations. Even Scalia (iirc) saw such shenanigans as wrong.
So, I think you really do want the best for the country. I know I do to. I believe protecting the populace from government overreach in ALL areas, not just firearms laws, is the right thing. I believe “activist” judges who grant citizenship equivalency to corporations are not adhering to the ideals upon which the country was founded. SCOTUS is supposed to be a check against overreach and abuse of power. How is it we can say it’s doing that when it allows the state to deny people legal protection or the most important right in a democracy, the right to vote? Voter ID laws are a big government solution in search of an actual problem. As a conservative they SHOULD offend you to your core. The incidence of organized vote fraud is so infinitesimally that it’s akin to creating laws to stop people from screwing in light bulbs with chain saws. Sure, it’s wrong (and even stupid) to do, but we sure as hell don’t need a law to stop it. Our election system is the envy of the world. It’s so clean it squeaks. So, the question is, why are people seeking to limit it? The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, they are seeking to make it harder for the less privileged to vote and they are doing so because they know they, on average, more often vote for the opposition party. It’s the same reason they go after unions. This is THE most important basic right, and among the top three in most important rights (the other really important ones are a free press and free speech). I cannot imagine how someone who loves the basic premise of this country can abet the assault on voting rights. It’s not defensible, it’s not right, and it’s sure as hell not constitutional.
Mitch, the topic of the post is about whether Trump or Clinton will appoint judges which are best for the country.
I think you feel that reasonable limits on firearms are unconstitutional, but they aren’t, at least, they aren’t right now. They are defacto constitutional because they’ve been declared as such. You don’t like them, I don’t like Citizens United, but neither of us get to claim that the decision is, or the underlying point is, unconstitutional.
If you want to be myopic and have arguments about syntax, well, I guess that’s a way to avoid the discussion. I do have to say I expected better.
As for being “qualified”, Mitch, I was politically active long before you, so get off your high horse. I started working on political campaigns in 1978. You were a politically adrift radio jockey in the 1980’s. so…
Trump’s candidacy paints a portrait of a political party so weak that someone like Trump seems strong in comparison.
*shrugs*
I am not a Republican.
But any discussion that the GOP is weak as a party needs to take into account that they control a large majority of governorships and state houses, as well as the federal House and the Senate. The Democrat presidential candidate road her husband’s coat tails to get where she is. Her only strong opponent during the primary season was a washed up old radical who is not even a Democrat.
The Democrats like people to think of the GOP as a washed party representative of a dying demographic, but as usual with the Dems, their claims and reality are mismatched. If they lose the presidency this year, they got nothing but control of the big cities.
One reason the insurgents are so strong in the GOP — not just Trump, but tea party favorites Cruz and Rubio — is that the national party will not flex its muscles.
I’m sure that will be of little comfort to Tea Party conservative Tim Huelskamp. Voters may now be willing to take a second look at trickle-down politicians and decide that someone more moderate is a better bet.
Penigma, you need to bust out the Windex. Your crystal ball is fogged, you have no idea what I’m thinking which is why your reply is inapt.
I’m sure that will be of little comfort to Tea Party conservative Tim Huelskamp. Voters may now be willing to take a second look at trickle-down politicians and decide that someone more moderate is a better bet.
Two things in this comment illustrate your incoherency, Emery.
1) The use of the term ‘trickle down economics.’
There is not such thing. It is pejorative term liberals use to describe certain principles of keynesian economics.
2) The selection of a Ryan-backed ‘moderate’ over a Tea Party incumbent in a primary undercuts your original argument that the GOP is weak. Geez. Try to be consistent, will ‘ya?
Ad hominem attack, the last refuge of those who can’t argue facts.
Oh, and Mitch, those “red-herrings”, well, I guess if you consider things which the SCOTUS has declared unconstitutional conduct by the government a red-herring, then, they’re red-herrings. Me, I think things the government does, from secret prisons to jailing people without charge, to be ya’ know, actually about liberty n’ stuff. But I guess since it’s not your ox, you don’t.
“I think you feel that reasonable limits on firearms are unconstitutional, but they aren’t, at least, they aren’t right now. ”
This isn’t syntax – this is a strawman. Of COURSE “prudent limits” are constitutional. Some people think that means “no artillery”. Others think it means “three round magazines”. IT’s not the “whether”, it’s the “what” that matters.
As to my point about your sentence construction? It wasn’t nitpicking at your syntax; it was pointing out the complete confusion in your “argument”.
“As for being “qualified”, Mitch, I was politically active long before you, so get off your high horse. I started working on political campaigns in 1978. You were a politically adrift radio jockey in the 1980’s. so…
“As for being “qualified”, Mitch, I was politically active long before you, so get off your high horse.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
” I started working on political campaigns in 1978. You were a politically adrift radio jockey in the 1980’s. so…”
Well, no. I was a conservative talk show host in 1986. At that time, the only conservative pundit in the Twin Cities punk rock scene.
So much of what you (and especially DG) know to be “fact” just is not so.
Penigma,
The fact that Scalia noted in Heller that prudent restrictions could be constitutional isn’t the red herring – and I’d like to finish the sentence with “and you know that”, but I’m honestly not sure that you do. That’s not an insult – it’s pointing out the fact that you have a real problem with NOT using logical fallacies in arguments; your comment was clogged with red herring arguments.
What is a ‘red herring’? You and DG should read this and absorb it (and maybe the entire page to which it’s attached). Again, no insult intended; it’ll help the quality of both of your arguments.
Your original comment, and the sentence I highlight, had enough red herrings to feed the entire population of Scandinavia.
You need to check what ‘ad hominem’ means, Emery.
An “ad hominem” fallacy would mean that I said that your arguments were incoherent because you, Emery, made them. Saying that a person’s pro-life arguments should be ignored because that person is a believing Catholic is ad hominem. Saying that a person’s political arguments are incoherent because he uses pejorative cliche’s to describe economic policies he (apparently) disagrees with is not ad hominem. Pointing out that a person who argues that a political party’s establishment is both weak and strong is contradictory is not ad hominem.
Oh bless your heart. You keep hanging in there.
What a pissy little bitch you are today, Emery! Now that’s ad hominem!
BG: I’m thinking of starting a Liberal-to-English Dictionary, because Liberals so frequently use familiar-sounding words in unfamiliar ways and that can cause misunderstanding.
For example: “Oh bless your heart, you keep hanging in there” translates to “You are factually correct but I’m not man enough to admit I was wrong.”
You can see how useful the book would be.
Ahh.. the dreaded Oh bless your heart. You keep hanging in there. Bento, as a recipient of more than one of these, your conversation has run out. It is a clear indication eTASS has ran out of false premise arguments and strawpeople and has been p0wned… again.
Oh bless your heart. You keep hanging in there
The internet equivalent of squid ink.
You kids keep it down! Grandma gets distressed by loud noises.
Inventing “women’s health” as an argument to obstruct access to abortion…
Screeech…hold it right there you little twerp. The “women’s health” canard is a 100% Democrat owned joint, bub.
It was invented for the same reason we have leftist slags demanding “clusters of cells” be vacuumed out of their wombs. It’s because the left feels that the truth, the nuts and bolts of abortion, are too horrific to discuss openly.
But you know what, Peeve? I think your leadership is wrong. I think y’all are ready to grab that fetus by the neck, tear it out, slap it against the wall a couple times and jump up on the table and proudly declare “There! Behold! You are with Child No More for I have Crushed the life out of the little Bugger!”.
Because I think leftists have sunk that low, Peeve. I really do.
So let’s drop all this “women’s health” bullshit. It’s all about abortion, all the time.