Revealing Trump interview...

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:34 pm

lennygoran wrote:There's plenty of entertainment around-don't you have Cable-plenty of entertainment--being President is serious business-you want to take chances-you're relatively close to Atlantic City-go take chances there-we have a world to navigate through! Regards, Len

You misunderstand me. Trump is hilarious. I mean the man is just absolutely hilarious. I don't think I've ever had more fun watching someone in a political debate (or in politics in general). I mean I literally laugh out loud, as he's just such a ridiculous character and does and says ridiculous things and somehow gets away with it. However, that being said -- I think beneath his often outwardly ridiculous persona, he's actually quite serious and will take the responsibility of the Presidency totally seriously. I think he genuinely wants to do good, and wants -- if elected -- to be known as a great President by a large majority. That is, a true people's President. I think his ego genuinely wants that. I also think his priorities are all in the right place, though I do question how he will be able to achieve them all.

Of course, if I didn't think he was totally 100% serious, I surely wouldn't consider voting for him.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:37 pm

BTW, if Trump fades, look for Rubio -- not Bush -- to emerge as the frontrunner. I don't think Fiorina or Carson can win the general election, and I think most primary voters are likely to conclude the same. But we'll have to see what happens.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:04 pm

BTW, every post debate poll I've seen shows more people thought Trump won than any other candidate by a large margin. It will be interesting when the next polling is done to see if there is any movement in Trump's lead. I expect to see Carson drop a little and Fiorina to rise a bit and everyone else, except maybe Christie, to stay about the same. Christie did quite well I thought.

Proton · Post by **Proton** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:49 pm

rwetmore wrote:BTW, every post debate poll I've seen shows more people thought Trump won than any other candidate by a large margin. It will be interesting when the next polling is done to see if there is any movement in Trump's lead. I expect to see Carson drop a little and Fiorina to rise a bit and everyone else, except maybe Christie, to stay about the same. Christie did quite well I thought.

I suspect that last night's performance, short as it was on substance and specifics, will be seen as the beginning of the end of Trump's putative candidacy.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:03 pm

Proton wrote:
rwetmore wrote:BTW, every post debate poll I've seen shows more people thought Trump won than any other candidate by a large margin. It will be interesting when the next polling is done to see if there is any movement in Trump's lead. I expect to see Carson drop a little and Fiorina to rise a bit and everyone else, except maybe Christie, to stay about the same. Christie did quite well I thought.
I suspect that last night's performance, short as it was on substance and specifics, will be seen as the beginning of the end of Trump's putative candidacy.

Well, we will see soon enough.

piston · Post by **piston** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:40 pm

Well, right now, all the media are talking about Fiorina, not about Trump. Of course, you don't listen to the media and that's probably true of a good portion of Trump's supporters too, which implies that they didn't tune in to the CNN debate because they're anti-media...

Trump's damage about vaccines, yet another chapter in his ability to cause damage to important, vitally important, American topics, was countered by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations who have long argued that it is dangerous to children's lives to disseminate this unscientific b.s.:

The following medical groups agree that there is no link between vaccines and autism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine. Whether alone or grouped together (such as Measles Mumps and Rubella), vaccines don't cause autism. The medical community is clear.

But, of course, you don't believe scientists and you like the entertainment!

And the idea of spacing vaccines is not recommended by experts either. CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not recommend spacing vaccines and say this can be harmful, leaving children and those around them unprotected against dangerous and sometimes deadly diseases. In a statement, the AAP wrote on Thursday morning that "There is no 'alternative' immunization schedule. Delaying vaccines only leaves a child at risk of disease for a longer period of time; it does not make vaccinating safer."

The amazing thing is that Carson didn't take him on and show him for the irresponsible fool he is. Carson just "bunted" on that one.

piston · Post by **piston** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:10 pm

Anti-intellectual;
Anti-scientific;
Anti-media.

If that is the electoral reaction to the world we currently live in and which explains Trump's appeal to all those who have adopted such reactionary views, then we are really heading for anarchy and a very brutal new regime. A regime that doesn't listen to the evidence.

piston · Post by **piston** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:48 pm

And I don't think that Trump is the first Republican character to represent this new anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-media trend among American reactionaries. This woman, if I recall, was doing precursor work in the same direction not too long ago:

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:22 am

piston wrote:Anti-intellectual;
Anti-scientific;
Anti-media.

If that is the electoral reaction to the world we currently live in and which explains Trump's appeal to all those who have adopted such reactionary views, then we are really heading for anarchy and a very brutal new regime. A regime that doesn't listen to the evidence.

Ah, no.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:26 am

piston wrote:Well, right now, all the media are talking about Fiorina, not about Trump. Of course, you don't listen to the media and that's probably true of a good portion of Trump's supporters too, which implies that they didn't tune in to the CNN debate because they're anti-media...

Trump's damage about vaccines, yet another chapter in his ability to cause damage to important, vitally important, American topics, was countered by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations who have long argued that it is dangerous to children's lives to disseminate this unscientific b.s.:
The following medical groups agree that there is no link between vaccines and autism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine. Whether alone or grouped together (such as Measles Mumps and Rubella), vaccines don't cause autism. The medical community is clear.
But, of course, you don't believe scientists and you like the entertainment!
And the idea of spacing vaccines is not recommended by experts either. CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not recommend spacing vaccines and say this can be harmful, leaving children and those around them unprotected against dangerous and sometimes deadly diseases. In a statement, the AAP wrote on Thursday morning that "There is no 'alternative' immunization schedule. Delaying vaccines only leaves a child at risk of disease for a longer period of time; it does not make vaccinating safer."
The amazing thing is that Carson didn't take him on and show him for the irresponsible fool he is. Carson just "bunted" on that one.

I don't really know anything about the subject, but I don't think very many people are concerned about it either way. Even if he's wrong, I don't see that hurting him. There are just too many more pressing issues most people care about right now.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:45 am

piston wrote:And I don't think that Trump is the first Republican character to represent this new anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-media trend among American reactionaries. This woman, if I recall, was doing precursor work in the same direction not too long ago:

I think a while back trump and palin sat down in nyc for pizza. Len

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:20 am

BTW, am I the only one who thought Trump seemed a bit nervous and stiff in the debate? I thought he did OK, but some of his responses were worded awkwardly. He seemed a bit off his game to me.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:20 am

lennygoran wrote:
piston wrote:And I don't think that Trump is the first Republican character to represent this new anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-media trend among American reactionaries. This woman, if I recall, was doing precursor work in the same direction not too long ago:

I think a while back trump and palin sat down in nyc for pizza. Len

The two are friendly with each other, so I wouldn't be surprised.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:29 am

rwetmore wrote:BTW, am I the only one who thought Trump seemed a bit nervous and stiff in the debate? I thought he did OK, but some of his responses were worded awkwardly. He seemed a bit off his game to me.

Yeah he was way out of his league-the others were talking substance-that`s not his style-he`s a trust me kind of guy! Len

Auntie Lynn · Post by **Auntie Lynn** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:14 am

That stupid debate was an ambush and everybody knows it. Carly is boring, got a voice that would stop an eight day clock...grating. The Donald is all the world seems to care about...he held up well...

karlhenning · Post by **karlhenning** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:29 pm

And, as if to underscore Chris Cillizza's point that "even [Trump's] delusions are getting boring":

Fox News: “Trump was kicking off a town hall event in Rochester, N.H. -- his first since Wednesday evening’s second Republican primary debate. ‘We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims,’ said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. ‘We know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.’ Trump, who was a driver of the ‘birther’ movement that claimed Obama wasn’t born in the U.S, first responded with feigned exasperation…Trump did not dispute the man’s assertions…After the exchange attracted widespread attention -- and criticism -- Trump released a statement saying the media want to make the issue about Obama.”

Not a statement saying he doesn't condone the slur against Muslims.

Bugs Bunny wrote:What a maroon!

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:29 pm

It's interesting to read old news, from the 1990s, about Trump's legal troubles resulting from the employment of 200 illegal Polish immigrants, hired to do very dirty demolition work in 1980. The law suit, initiated in 1983, dragged on for fifteen years as "The Donald" used every means at his disposal, including four legal firms, to win by financial attrition. The Polish workers not only faced horrendous working conditions, such as exposure to thick clouds of old asbestos, but were not even fully paid the 4 to 5 dollars an hour they had been promised. Some of them were homeless and slept at the construction site. Trump pleaded ignorance, but a FBI informant who served as his labor advisor testified otherwise. In 1991, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but the Trump legal team appealed, dragged the case for another 8 years, and then quietly settled the case. Trump "the winner," once again.

From the New York Daily:

TWENTY YEARS after a squad of nonunion Polish demolition workers cleared the way for Trump Tower by tearing down the old Bonwit Teller building on Fifth Ave., Donald Trump has quietly settled a lawsuit brought on their behalf. The lawsuit against Trump was filed in 1983 by a crusty ex-boxer and dissident member of the housewreckers union named Harry Diduck. It was Diduck's claim that Trump had cheated Laborers Local 95 out of at least $300,000 in contributions to its benefit funds by secretly employing the nonunion workers. The workers, many of them undocumented immigrants, sweated through round-the-clock shifts and some even slept on the floors of the building they were demolishing. They were promised $4 to $5 an hour, but many were stiffed for even those low wages. Trump dismissed the charges, saying any violations were the fault of an inept demolition contractor whom he later fired. But Diduck, the unlikeliest foe for the glamorous real estate tycoon, stuck to his guns and so did his lawyers, the late Burt Hall, a prominent labor lawyer and his partner, Wendy Sloan. After a trial in 1991, federal Judge Charles Stewart ruled that the Trump Organization and its partner, Equitable Life Assurance Society, conspired with a former union leader to withhold $325,000 in benefit payments plus interest adding up to about $4 million. An appeals court ordered the case retried and that is where it was headed until last month's settlement agreement, which was placed under seal. Neither side would give specifics. "It has been resolved on terms agreeable to both sides," said Sloan who was joined by lawyer Lewis Steel. Diduck died in 1992. "He never stood to make a nickel," Sloan said. "The money was to go to the [union] funds.

"Thanks to courageous rank-and-file dissidents like Harry, justice is finally catching up to Trump Tower," said James McNamara of the Association for Union Democracy.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:27 pm

Post debate poll says Trump has increased his lead:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... son-drops/

He seemingly can do no wrong.

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:36 pm

Actually, he can do wrong. Fiorina is in the lead in the New Hampshire post-debate poll by four points over Trump. When dealing with such small numbers as 500 people, one needs to be cautious with one's conclusions.

The NH poll surveyed 2,839 people in NH.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:41 pm

piston wrote:Actually, he can do wrong. Fiorina is in the lead in the New Hampshire post-debate poll by four points over Trump. When dealing with such small numbers as 500 people, one needs to be cautious with one's conclusions.

The NH poll surveyed 2,839 people in NH.

OK, where is the link to the NH poll?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:02 pm

BTW, am I the only one who thought Bush's performance was lame?

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:03 pm

I'm sure you can find that link; it's all over the news. Simply google Fiorina, instead of Trump!!!

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:32 pm

The NH people who were polled, via cell phones, are all primary voters. There's your link, from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pol ... ost-debate

Poor Carson was in a real bind in that debate. If he had come out strongly against Trump's ridiculous vaccine/autism position, he would have lost supporters because of the current Trump wave of support. He came out quietly and diplomatically, but that lost him support by showing weakness.

It's a very fine example of anti-scientific support, rwetmore. Everyone with any degree of scientific knowledge knows that there's no connection between vaccines or the scheduling of vaccination and autism. Trump still plays that non-scientific card because it draws to him that kind of voters. But it's no less anti-scientific than remaining silent to Muslim (and Obama) racism is anti-intellectual, unethical, and irresponsible.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:39 pm

piston wrote:The NH people who were polled, via cell phones, are all primary voters. There's your link, from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pol ... ost-debate

Poor Carson was in a real bind in that debate. If he had come out strongly against Trump's ridiculous vaccine/autism position, he would have lost supporters because of the current Trump wave of support. He came out quietly and diplomatically, but that lost him support by showing weakness.

It's a very fine example of anti-scientific support, rwetmore. Everyone with any degree of scientific knowledge knows that there's no connection between vaccines or the scheduling of vaccination and autism. Trump still plays that non-scientific card because it draws to him that kind of voters. But it's no less anti-scientific than remaining silent to Muslim (and Obama) racism is anti-intellectual, unethical, and irresponsible.

I already said I don't know anything about the vaccination issue, let alone any of the science surrounding it. I take no position for or against Trump on this, because I don't know anything about it.

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:41 pm

Inaccurate! You do know something. You know that all major health organizations, national and international, have said so. If you don't take any position on the issue, it's because you're being suspicious of expert scientists, once more and for the XXXX time you have posted here.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:51 pm

piston wrote:Inaccurate! You do know something. You know that all major health organizations, national and international, have said so.

Actually, I didn't even know that. In fact, prior to this thread, I don't know that I've ever even given the issue a moments thought.

piston wrote:If you don't take any position on the issue, it's because you're being suspicious of expert scientists, once more and for the XXXX time you have posted here.

No, it's because I don't know anything, and yes, I've found it prudent to not blindly accept the purported views of so-called scientific 'experts'.

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:00 pm

What can I say? It pays to listen to well-informed media such as NPR. You learn stuff!

piston · Post by **piston** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:07 pm

Why is this showing up this year, in Maine, Ontario and elsewhere? I don't recall any news about that in recent years:

Auntie Lynn · Post by **Auntie Lynn** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:56 pm

Curious - national polls this morning had Carly at 3% (three way tie with Christie and Kasich)...

The New Hampshire Primary website has Carly at 11%

Once more with feeling, polls can be contrived to show exactly what you want them to show...

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:04 am

The WBUR poll you are referring to, which is much advertised with graph and all, is based on 400 "likely primary voters."

The Voter Gravity poll, conducted the day after the debate, is based on 2,839 NH primary voters, seven times as many:

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:18 am

the Rasmussen national telephone survey of one thousand Americans, of "likely Republican voters," place Carson slightly ahead of Trump, with Fiorina running strong in third place. Their poll questions distinguish between "likely to win" and "very likely to win." Trump only leads in that last category:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely Republican Voters now think Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is likely to win the Republican nomination, with 16% who say it’s Very Likely. Just 25% thought Carson was likely to end up as the nominee when he formally announced for the race in early May.

Our latest Trump Change survey shows that 58% of GOP voters think Trump is likely to be the party’s nominee, but that includes 23% who say it’s Very Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

These surveys were taken on the night of the latest Republican debate and the night after.

Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who turned in a strong performance at Wednesday night’s debate, is now seen as the likely nominee by 41% of Republican voters, up from 16% in early May when she joined the race. But the new numbers include just nine percent (9%) who say Fiorina is Very Likely to capture the nomination.

Forty percent (40%) of Republicans think Bush is likely to end up as the GOP nominee, but only six percent (6%) say it’s Very Likely. This overall finding is little changed from last week just before the debate but down from 56% in June when the former Florida governor officially announced his candidacy.

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:30 am

Good analysis of the "Obama is Muslim" phenomenon in The Washington Post, with Trump being at the root of that problem:

We live in the kind of truly interesting times that are the stuff of a purported Chinese curse. This is an era in which conspiracy theories can thrive with ease, thanks to the Internet. This is a time in which rumors can become hard to distinguish from reported news -- especially if one has spent enough time hearing about the bias and dishonesty of the "mainstream media." These are the conditions under which inchoate, counterfactual and irrational fears become what millions of Americans (and counting) consider to be a part of their politics -- or at least the plain and unpopular "truth."

[A startling number of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim]

These are the conditions in which 54 percent of Trump supporters and some 43 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Those numbers weren't conjured; they come from a CNN-ORC poll out this week.

Yes, Trump said that "people are saying that." One of the folks saying such things the loudest and the most frequently has, for some years now, been Donald Trump. Now that he's running for president, Trump has managed to give his most outlandish ideas and theories the imprimatur of hard-charging, politically incorrect but legitimate presidential politics. That's quite a feat.

One organization that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform and undocumented immigrants has gone so far as to start mapping the many places that it believes Trump has taken his presidential campaign and fomented a brand of hate that makes harassment and even violence likely. That's its theory.

This is mine: The misinformation campaign around Obama, his place of birth, his citizenship, his loyalties, his faith and the crimes and threats to national security that Obama is supposedly therefore unwilling to tamp out -- it all began years ago. Donald Trump has been one of its leading voices, and no part of that question at his New Hampshire event -- heard or unheard -- should have come as a true surprise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... -has-sown/

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:33 am

That's interesting. I do trust Rasmussen to be objective.

The question is where will the support go as candidates drop out? In particular, Carson supporters if or when he drops out? Right now he's getting a lot of the support base. Will it mostly go to Trump or someone else? We don't know.

My prediction is it will come down to Trump and Rubio in the end. Maybe between Trump and Bush, but I'm just not seeing that.

What do other people think?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:35 am

piston wrote:Good analysis of the "Obama is Muslim" phenomenon in The Washington Post, with Trump being at the root of that problem:
We live in the kind of truly interesting times that are the stuff of a purported Chinese curse. This is an era in which conspiracy theories can thrive with ease, thanks to the Internet. This is a time in which rumors can become hard to distinguish from reported news -- especially if one has spent enough time hearing about the bias and dishonesty of the "mainstream media." These are the conditions under which inchoate, counterfactual and irrational fears become what millions of Americans (and counting) consider to be a part of their politics -- or at least the plain and unpopular "truth."

[A startling number of Americans still believe President Obama is a Muslim]

These are the conditions in which 54 percent of Trump supporters and some 43 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Those numbers weren't conjured; they come from a CNN-ORC poll out this week.

Yes, Trump said that "people are saying that." One of the folks saying such things the loudest and the most frequently has, for some years now, been Donald Trump. Now that he's running for president, Trump has managed to give his most outlandish ideas and theories the imprimatur of hard-charging, politically incorrect but legitimate presidential politics. That's quite a feat.

One organization that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform and undocumented immigrants has gone so far as to start mapping the many places that it believes Trump has taken his presidential campaign and fomented a brand of hate that makes harassment and even violence likely. That's its theory.

This is mine: The misinformation campaign around Obama, his place of birth, his citizenship, his loyalties, his faith and the crimes and threats to national security that Obama is supposedly therefore unwilling to tamp out -- it all began years ago. Donald Trump has been one of its leading voices, and no part of that question at his New Hampshire event -- heard or unheard -- should have come as a true surprise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... -has-sown/

Where and when did Trump ever say he thought Obama was a closet Muslim? I've not heard that before.

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:44 am

rwetmore wrote:That's interesting. I do trust Rasmussen to be objective.

The question is where will the support go as candidates drop out? In particular, Carson supporters if or when he drops out? Right now he's getting a lot of the support base. Will it mostly go to Trump or someone else? We don't know.

My prediction is it will come down to Trump and Rubio in the end. Maybe between Trump and Bush, but I'm just not seeing that.

What do other people think?

According to my mental calculation, Fiorina's major gain in support, after only two debates, took more votes away from other Republican candidates such as Walker, now in the dark, than Trump did because his gains are smaller than her's. She's doing great dammage to her competition in these debates. If I were part of Trump's organization, I'd be worried about that.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:47 am

piston wrote:According to my mental calculation, Fiorina's major gain in support, after only two debates, took more votes away from other Republican candidates such as Walker, now in the dark, than Trump did because his gains are smaller than her's. She's doing great dammage to her competition in these debates. If I were part of Trump's organization, I'd be worried about that.

I'm not worried about Fiorina, but it's interesting to hear your thoughts.

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:50 am

rwetmore wrote:
piston wrote:Good analysis of the "Obama is Muslim" phenomenon in The Washington Post, with Trump being at the root of that problem:
Where and when did Trump ever say he thought Obama was a closet Muslim? I've not heard that before.

Oh, come on! Watch the video or read the text! You'll see a clip of McCain acting responsibly (i slightly misquoted him above), Colin Powell doing the same, with Trump in the background fueling that terrible rumor:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/ ... m-birther/

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:51 am

Bush needs to pack it in, IMO. Though I know he won't for a while.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:54 am

piston wrote:
rwetmore wrote:
piston wrote:Good analysis of the "Obama is Muslim" phenomenon in The Washington Post, with Trump being at the root of that problem:
Where and when did Trump ever say he thought Obama was a closet Muslim? I've not heard that before.
Oh, come on! Watch the video or read the text! You'll see a clip of McCain acting responsibly (i slightly misquoted him above), Colin Powell doing the same, with Trump in the background fueling that terrible rumor:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/ ... m-birther/

You didn't answer my question. I asked where has Trump said he thinks and supports the belief that Obama is closet Muslim?

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:34 am

You are either naive or highly legalistic. What he did in 2011, in the O'Reilly interview, is voice the opinion that he had greater doubts than before about Obama's American citizenship, that a newspaper announcement of his birth in Honolulu was problematic in itself, coming from his hippie mother ("how can she have afforded that?!"), that Obama had not shown his birth certificate because it might have included the word "Muslim," etc., etc. In short, he was spreading doubt and encouraging the rumor, even if O'Reilly didn't buy it:

BILL O'REILLY: Now, when you were on "The View" and they didn't walk out, which they should have because they walked out on me and they should have stayed. You were way, way worse than I was on "The View." You were hammering the birth certificate.

Now, we very early on did an investigation about Barack Obama's birth certificate. What "The Factor" found out was there were two announcements the week he was born in both Honolulu newspapers saying that he was born, OK. That is impossible -- that is impossible to make happen if he had not been born in the hospital. So therefore, I just put it to bed. I said he was born in Honolulu. The two newspapers documented it. His mother was a hippy. His father was a guy from Kenya who split. There couldn't have been a sophisticated -- what is he, Baby Jesus? -- there was a sophisticated conspiracy to smuggle this baby back into the country? So I just dismissed it. But you made a big deal of it.

DONALD TRUMP: Bill, I grew up with Wall Street geniuses. What they do in terms of fraud and how they change documents and I will tell you something. If you notice those dates were three days later. Here is what I ask people. Who puts announcements? Here are two poor people, a man and a woman with no money, they have a baby. There's announcements in the newspaper?

O'REILLY: The grandparents did it.

TRUMP: Excuse me. The grandparents. Nelson Rockefeller doesn't put announcements.

O'REILLY: Sure, there are birth announcements all the time.

TRUMP: I have never seen one.

O'REILLY: Really? They are common.

TRUMP: I've never seen one.

O'REILLY: But why is this important to you?

TRUMP: Because if you are going to be president of the United States you have to be born in this country. And there is a doubt as to whether or not he was born…

O'REILLY: Oh come on. Do you really feel this about him?

TRUMP: You know, I started off by saying -- and I always do and I did on the "The View." I'm a very smart guy. I went to the best college. I had good marks. I was a very smart guy, good student and all that stuff. Because what they do to the birthers, which is a term I hate because a lot of these birthers are just really quality people that just want the truth. What they do to the birthers is unbelievable to a point where people are afraid to talk about this subject. They are afraid to confront you or anybody about this subject.

O'REILLY: Do you think it's an important subject?

TRUMP: Listen, I have a birth certificate. I have my birth certificate. And in fact, they said the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough. So I actually got the one from the Health Department, which is the perfect one. Because they were saying the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough, so I got the other. People have birth certificates. He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one. But I will tell you this. If he wasn't born in this country, it's one of the great scams of all time.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:19 am

piston wrote:You are either naive or highly legalistic. What he did in 2011, in the O'Reilly interview, is voice the opinion that he had greater doubts than before about Obama's American citizenship, that a newspaper announcement of his birth in Honolulu was problematic in itself, coming from his hippie mother ("how can she have afforded that?!"), that Obama had not shown his birth certificate because it might have included the word "Muslim," etc., etc. In short, he was spreading doubt and encouraging the rumor, even if O'Reilly didn't buy it:

I've seen that interview, and I'm aware of his support for the so-called 'birther movement'. Saying he thinks his real birth certificate may have designated his religion as Muslim is not the same as saying he thinks or is advocating he is a closet Muslim now. Wasn't Obama's father a Muslim (at least for a time)?

Frankly, my own instinct is he is not a Muslim, but instead a closet atheist masquerading as a Christian. I don't care what his religion is or is not, as by and large I think he's a useful idiot and grossly incompetent, and Trump has pretty much echoed the same sentiments.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:27 am

BTW, when has Trump brought any of this up during his campaign? He never has as far as I've seen or know. This is also the first time at any of his rallies that any member of the audience even mentioned it. Had this guy not been picked to ask a question, we never would have even been discussing this.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:05 am

This is hilarious. That duo again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH9g-oDPlE4

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:06 am

I didn't occur to me that the guy could have been a plant.

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:18 am

Continuing my stories of Trump's failures in this "Let's Make America Great Again" thread. Thus far we've seen that Trump was sued by the DoJ for failure to disclose some business information and he had to pay the government. We've also seen that he was sued by a labor activist for the employment, and abuse, of illegal Polish immigrants, and he quietly settled that case too after 15 years of legal delays.

To the more principled Republicans on the right, Trump is also guilty of having twice attempted to deprive businesses and individuals of their fundamental property rights by finding ways to use the power of "eminent domain." One such case involves an aging widowed New Jersey woman; the other pertains to five businesses in Bridgeport, CT. This side of Trump has led such Republicans to declare him a "statist" who does not hesitate to rely on state powers, against individual rights, to advance his own cause:

In a free market, there’s a pretty simple process for dealing with the situation that arises when one person covets another’s belongings: The coveter makes an offer to purchase them. If the offer is rebuffed, the coveter can make a new proposal, but he cannot simply take what he wants. It’s an effective way of recognizing the impracticality of the Tenth Commandment while enforcing the Eighth. Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property. This is called, of course, “eminent domain.” The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one. In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights. A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.” Today, however, it takes a push from the Club for Growth to remind us of Trump’s lack of respect for property rights. The problem dates back to at least 1994. That year, Trump promised to turn Bridgeport, Conn., into“a national tourist destination by building a $350 million combined amusement park, shipping terminal and seaport village and office complex on the east side of the harbor,” reported the Hartford Courant. “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.” The wrinkle? “Five businesses and the city-owned Pleasure Beach now occupy the land,” as the Courant put it. The solution? “The city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc. and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.” Here’s how the story concluded: “The entire development would cost the city nothing, Trump said, and no private homeowners would be affected because there are no dwellings on the land. Trump would own everything.” That brings us to the story of the aforementioned elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines. He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000. Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed. The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case. In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision. Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/2 ... verbruggen

The Donald bites the dust again!

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:27 am

Trump's response to this latest thing:

Trump says he's not 'morally obligated' to defend Obama against claims

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/19/politics/ ... index.html

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:09 pm

The Corcoran Group is one of New York's premier real estate firms. Founded by Barbara Corcoran, she really built this enterprise from scratch (one thousand dollars). She began her work life as a school teacher, a waitress, etc., and a part-time real estate agent. Her association with Trump goes back to 1981 and, eventually, she and two other female partners served as real estate brokers for Trump, by bringing Hong Kong investors to his negotiating table. The agreement was these services amounted to four million dollars.

But Trump had not fulfilled his end of the agreement in 1994 and, when they accused him of breach of contract in the media, he took them to court:

Corcoran and Trump haven't always seen eye-to-eye. In 1994, Corcoran accused Trump of not paying millions of dollars of commissions to two of her brokers who'd brought him key Hong Kong investors for his Riverside South project. Trump eventually agreed to pay a lower fee, and Corcoran signed a confidentiality agreement, but after Corcoran talked to New York Magazine about the deal, he decided to withhold her fee.

"The ink wasn't even dry when I got the call from New York," Trump remembers. But in a ruling later upheld by an appeals court, Trump was obliged to pay up.

So, Trump sued. Barbara Corcoran, the former school teacher, counter-sued. Trump was beaten in court and partly complied to the court ruling by paying 2.7 million dollars out of the four million he owed them. Barbara Corcoran took him to court again in 2005 to collect the balance. Trump appealed the decision in her favor and, according to the 2006 decision I have read, he won (but I'm not sure if what he won was a delay and the balance was paid later).

So what does Barbara Corcoran, a truly successful business woman, think of D. Trump?:

Donald Trump is a marketer above anything else. He doesn't build buildings anymore - he leases his name. He is a phenomenal businessman. I have worked with Donald Trump many times. He is excellent at reading people. He can spot a person and size them up immediately. He finds people and knows how to use them. Once he has gained all he can from a person, he disposes of them and steps on them. I have not only witnessed this behavior from him, but he has done it to me. This way he operates works for him, he has a constant revolving door and he can continue to bring in new people because of his enormous name recognition.
I think that I have an equally strong gift to size somebody up and decide how I can use him or her. But the difference between Donald and I is that I think about how I can lift them up and hang on for the ride. One method is a "people valuing" philosophy and the other method is a "people disposing" type philosophy. He is not a nice person. I have witnessed how he can work over someone - he is a first class bully.

When I was in court against him, there were 37 other cases against him. The reason - he uses and burns people out. Obviously, it works for him.

Up until that lawsuit with Donald Trump, in 28 years in the business, I had never been sued or sued someone else. I hate conflict. I feel it is negative energy and I would rather focus my time on something else.

http://www.recruitingpipeline.com/index ... 8,23100001

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:43 pm

David Brooks' opinion, rwetmore, and it's much more perceptive than anything you've posted here. Supporters of Trump are like "socially insecure" teenagers:

By a majority of 64 percent to 30 percent, conservative Republicans tell pollsters they want their candidate to be an outsider. Republican governors in the debates reel off long data-filled paragraphs about their accomplishments, and you can feel the entire Republican electorate doing the bored valley girl eye roll.

Republicans radiate more alienation than the sophomore class at a Berkeley alternative high school. They have also entered a weird post-material political space. Many Republicans show little interest in candidates who offer proposals, but flock to the ones who offer outrageous self-expression.

Donald Trump has emerged as the prankster narcissus. It doesn’t matter that he might not be able to find Syria on a map; he offers America hair, boasting, misogyny and insult. There’s no woman who can’t be reduced to a physical object. The socially insecure rise and applaud as he insults the people they’d never have the guts to take on themselves.

And, like me, he's going for Fiorina right now:

Instead, the party will veer on a course midway between outsider and establishment. It will probably end up with some hybrid candidate — sharp of tongue, gifted in self-expression and yet still anchored in the world of reality.

That’s where Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio come in. So far, Fiorina has looked like the most impressive candidate. She has a genius for creating signature moments. (“If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Mrs. Clinton’s.”) But her spotty record at Hewlett-Packard probably means she can’t start at the top of the ticket.

Rubio is young and thus uncorrupted, and he is a genius at relating policy depth in a way that is personal. He has clarity of mind and can sum up a complex subject — Russia, the Middle East — in a way that is comprehensible but not oversimplified.

This debate was one moment in time, but you can see the vectors of where this campaign is headed. This is no longer Bob Dole’s or George H.W. Bush’s GOP. But it’s not going to completely lose its mind, either.

It’s going to be somewhat the same, but edgier and more renegade. Right now, Rubio, Fiorina and maybe Chris Christie are best positioned to occupy that space.

http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/2 ... trajectory

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:23 pm

Would you believe it? Fiorina majored in medieval history as an undergraduate student. She was "raised on operas," a statement supposedly intended to undermine her image... And she plays the piano, though I couldn't say how well.

So, she's got some humanistic and artistic values in her that I fail to find anywhere in disco king Trump.

piston · Post by **piston** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:53 pm

And Fiorina did not physically abuse her spouse when her image was dramatically altered by breast cancer and two masectomies. Rather, bald because of the chemo treatment, she put on her best dress and organized a 60th birthday anniversary her husband could never forget, including friends he had not seen in thirty years.

The corresponding Trump story with his first wife is not so pretty:

After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

“Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

His first wife would somewhat qualify her story at a later date, as follows:

“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... g-sex.html
Rape or not, that was Trump's reaction to the surgical alteration to his appearance, which is quite a contrast to Fiorina's brave struggle against cancer and celebration of her husband.

Now you know why Trump, in this campaign, calls on his female assistant and asks "Are these real hair? Tell them they are!"

Who is online