Trump!!!

[Seattle Husker]

Well, I'm sure Carson would be better at politics than John Kasich would be at neurosurgery. But yeah, I think it's bad to put someone in charge of something when they have no relevant job experience. I don't share an abhorrence for politics, so electing someone as president, a REALLY political job, with no experience political experience bothers me. So I consider Trump and Carson as irrelevant. Fiorina, running a public company and as a previous candidate for a Senator rates slightly ahead. Cruz is also unqualified, because though he has been a legislator, his entire experience is in gumming up the works, not getting anything done.

Careful, now you're talking about needing someone who can make deals. That's the death knell to anyone seeking the Republican Party nomination. Rhetoric and bluster claiming are valued more than actually finding compromises that can get passed.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I like Carson, but he has no relevant experience to be President. Somebody will make him Surgeon General.

As for Trump, he is getting support from the anti establishment crowd as well as the average U.S. Citizen who is an idiot. He provides no specifics and is simply living off of his persona.

I think Fiorina had a great performance last night and will eventually overtake both Carson and Trump. Kasich is a moderate who never makes it out of the primaries, but possibly ends up as a great VP to the eventual nominee to win a pivotal swing state.

I sure hope Fiorina can pass Trump/Carson. As "outsider" candidates go on the Republican side, she has the intelligence, experience and most potential to be a good President.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Carson to me seems clueless when he starts talking politics. The guy has an important message and I'd love to see him on stage. Just don't want a guy learning leadership, politics, economics, military and foreign affairs on the job.

That's my big problem with Carson. Personally, I think he's a terrific guy, and he might be the smartest person in the race from either party. However, his undoubtedly powerful intellect doesn't seem to reach into the policy realm. Whether he's talking foreign or domestic policy, he is remarkably and frankly surprisingly shallow. If he's going to be the nominee, he has a very long way to go.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's my big problem with Carson. Personally, I think he's a terrific guy, and he might be the smartest person in the race from either party. However, his undoubtedly powerful intellect doesn't seem to reach into the policy realm. Whether he's talking foreign or domestic policy, he is remarkably and frankly surprisingly shallow. If he's going to be the nominee, he has a very long way to go.

Couple that with the fact that Carson hasn't demonstrated significant management experience at any level and it's clear that though he's smart he hasn't remotely demonstrated any ability to play any part of the POTUS job.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm watching the debate right now, and Trump even looks ridiculous. He makes weird faces that suggest sarcasm and arrogance - reminds me somewhat of the faces Vizzini makes in the Princess Bride.

He looks like a Saturday Night Live actor caricaturing him. And he's sounding like a colossal *******, especially to Carly Fiorina. She has more brains and more class in her left boob than he has in his whole body.

Speaking of Fiorina, I am very impressed. She is truly brilliant, very tough, and I like that she gives specifics. For a politician, she is very low on platitudes and high on substance. Kasich is still my favorite, but she is definitely my second choice.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Couple that with the fact that Carson hasn't demonstrated significant management experience at any level and it's clear that though he's smart he hasn't remotely demonstrated any ability to play any part of the POTUS job.

I'd really like to like Carson. His personal story is just incredible, and he seems like a man of integrity. However, you're right. His grasp of the issues just isn't strong enough, and he doesn't have the experience to be the President.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fiorina is fine tuning her pitch. She was as eloquent last night as I've ever seen her, that includes the Sunday morning political newshow circuit which she has been a frequent participant on the last few years.

Though Kasich worked hard to steal the "adult" label it was Fiorina that did it much more effectively.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Fiorina is fine tuning her pitch. She was as eloquent last night as I've ever seen her, that includes the Sunday morning political newshow circuit which she has been a frequent participant on the last few years.

Though Kasich worked hard to steal the "adult" label it was Fiorina that did it much more effectively.

I agree. I think Kasich tread water. He didn't hurt himself, but he didn't make a big leap. Fiorina made a big leap (again).

 

[texas_ex2000]

Couple that with the fact that Carson hasn't demonstrated significant management experience at any level and it's clear that though he's smart he hasn't remotely demonstrated any ability to play any part of the POTUS job.

I wouldn't go that far. From wikipedia:

Carson was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. At 33, he became the youngest major division director in the hospital's history as director of pediatric neurosurgery. He was also a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center.

I'd say that's pretty impressive and more executive experience than Obama had. It's more than Hillary's (she was strictly an airline miles Secretary instead of an executive officer), Sanders, Rubio's, Paul's, and probably Cruz' experience if he wasn't a managing partner at his law firm. Does the Solicitor General have a big staff?

 

[texas_ex2000]

That's my big problem with Carson. Personally, I think he's a terrific guy, and he might be the smartest person in the race from either party. However, his undoubtedly powerful intellect doesn't seem to reach into the policy realm. Whether he's talking foreign or domestic policy, he is remarkably and frankly surprisingly shallow. If he's going to be the nominee, he has a very long way to go.

Deez,

I'm voting Fiorina. But I like Carson too. Let me throw this theory out there. The guy is brilliant. Maybe he believes that high level bombing is the dominant strategy. He doesn't want to muck around in the details from a defensive standpoint. He doesn't want to hazard his biggest assets right now, which are his credentialed judgment and calm surgeon's sensibility. He's trying to answer the question by discussing his decision making process and his principles which guide those decisions. He wants you to buy that process, not necessarily the details which the other candidates will try to pervert and spin.

Think about his borderline homophobic statements. I emphasize borderline because I don't think they are homophobic or that he is homophobic, but his are probably the most uncompromising views of all the candidates...even more so than Huckabee's. But so far in the debates, he hasn't had to address them. I haven't heard any reports of his recent campaigning talking about it. From where I sit, it looks like he's strategically avoiding those issues.

The guy is smart and if that's the way he's approaching it - he's tied in these early polls right now. For him and his assets, that strategy plays well. Now does that gives you comfort in his knowledge of policy? Maybe not, but I think his approach in the debates are deliberate rather than reflective of an inability to grasp policy. It worked for Reagan right?

For Fiorina, attention to detail is everything for a business professional. You see that in the debates. That plays to her strengths.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I wouldn't go that far. From wikipedia:

Carson was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. At 33, he became the youngest major division director in the hospital's history as director of pediatric neurosurgery. He was also a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center.

I'd say that's pretty impressive and more executive experience than Obama had. It's more than Hillary's (because she was strictly an airline miles Secretary instead of an executive officer), Sanders, Rubio's, Paul's, and probably Cruz' experience if he wasn't a managing partner at his law firm.

My goal is not to disparage Carson but the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Neurosurgery department has 10 physicians today. The Craniofacial Center may have been a little larger. Do you think the "department manager" level prepares someone to be POTUS? We are not talking large teams here. Additionally, my critique of Carson was he lacked the "management" experience and political experience. That's a double whammy in my book.

At least Fiorina (and Trump) have experience running 10's of thousands employee organizations to balance out their lack of political experience. Carson has managed 10's of employees. In fact, based on his Wikipedia page, his current campaign is likely the largest org he's lead by orders of magnitude.

 

[texas_ex2000]

My goal is not to disparage Carson but the Johns Hopkins Pediatric Neurosurgery department has 10 physicians today. The Craniofacial Center may have been a little larger.

Fair point. I'm not saying he's Lee Iaccoca or Admiral Nimitz, but it's something more than some of the other contenders and he got there at a very young age.

Just citing a department of 10 physicians as smallish doesn't tell the whole story. For every physician, there are nurses, technicians, administrative staff, and probably tens of millions of dollars of equipment and budget.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fair point. I'm not saying he's Lee Iaccoca or Admiral Nimitz, but it's something more than some of the other contenders and he got there at a very young age.

Just citing a department of 10 physicians as smallish doesn't tell the whole story. For every physician, there are nurses, technicians, administrative staff, and probably tens of millions of dollars of equipment and budget.

Agreed but it's still not within 1000's of miles of the management skill he'd need to have as POTUS. If you're giving Carson credit for that then surely you gave Obama credit for the various roles within charity organizations he held prior to being an Illinois Senator. Those orgs had hundreds of millions in assets.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Agreed but it's still not within 1000's of miles of the management skill he'd need to have as POTUS. If you're giving Carson credit for that then surely you gave Obama credit for the various roles within charity organizations he held prior to being an Illinois Senator. Those orgs had hundreds of millions in assets.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of assets? Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't pass the smell test, and I look at balance sheets of corporate level non-profits for a living. He only worked as a community organizer from 1985-1988 after graduating college. He was an employee...maybe a project manager by the time he left. He then went to Harvard Law. After Harvard he never made it past associate before he ran for state office.

Maybe I missed something, but unless you count his year as editor of HLR (which I know you wouldn't because SH you're smart), I don't think Obama had any management experience as an officer/executive of an organization before the White House.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez,

I'm voting Fiorina. But I like Carson too. Let me throw this theory out there. The guy is brilliant. Maybe he believes that high level bombing is the dominant strategy. He doesn't want to muck around in the details from a defensive standpoint. He doesn't want to hazard his biggest assets right now, which are his credentialed judgment and calm surgeon's sensibility. He's trying to answer the question by discussing his decision making process and his principles which guide those decisions. He wants you to buy that process, not necessarily the details which the other candidates will try to pervert and spin.

Think about his borderline homophobic statements. I emphasize borderline because I don't think they are homophobic or that he is homophobic, but his are probably the most uncompromising views of all the candidates...even more so than Huckabee's. But so far in the debates, he hasn't had to address them. I haven't heard any reports of his recent campaigning talking about it. From where I sit, it looks like he's strategically avoiding those issues.

The guy is smart and if that's the way he's approaching it - he's tied in these early polls right now. For him and his assets, that strategy plays well. Now does that gives you comfort in his knowledge of policy? Maybe not, but I think his approach in the debates are deliberate rather than reflective of an inability to grasp policy.

For Fiorina, attention to detail is everything for a business professional. You see that in the debates. That plays to her strengths.

That's an interesting theory, and I do like his surgeon's demeanor. I'd certainly take a calm, reasoned adult over a raging blowhard like Trump. However, if this is an intentional tactic, I think it's going to fail. Eventually he's going to have to speak about policy with some degree of specificity.

His professional background will keep the opposition (the Democrats and the political media) from making him look like a black, male Sarah Palin. However, they will try to spin the narrative that isn't being forthright about his agenda, and if he never speaks with specificity about his agenda, it'll be easy to spin that narrative.

In addition, his comments about the gays aren't hurting him now, because GOP primary voters aren't sympathetic to the gays, so it makes little sense for his opponents to bring them up. However, if he's the nominee, it'll make a lot of sense for the Democratic nominee to make those comments front and center.

When Carson is trying to convince fis-con/soc-mods (like SH) to vote for him to try to deliver swing states to the GOP, HRC is going to do everything she can to convice guys like SH that Carson will launch an anti-gay social crusade rather than on deal with everyday problems that the country faces. She'll do that by diverting SH's attention away from Carson's fiscal agenda where he and SH might have some agreement and toward his more controversial comments on homosexuality. If that happens, he's going to have a hard time.

 

[texas_ex2000]

That's an interesting theory, and I do like his surgeon's demeanor. I'd certainly take a calm, reasoned adult over a raging blowhard like Trump. However, if this is an intentional tactic, I think it's going to fail. Eventually he's going to have to speak about policy with some degree of specificity.

His professional background will keep the opposition (the Democrats and the political media) from making him look like a black, male Sarah Palin. However, they will try to spin the narrative that isn't being forthright about his agenda, and if he never speaks with specificity about his agenda, it'll be easy to spin that narrative.

In addition, his comments about the gays aren't hurting him now, because GOP primary voters aren't sympathetic to the gays, so it makes little sense for his opponents to bring them up. However, if he's the nominee, it'll make a lot of sense for the Democratic nominee to make those comments front and center.

When Carson is trying to convince fis-con/soc-mods (like SH) to vote for him to try to deliver swing states to the GOP, HRC is going to do everything she can to convice guys like SH that Carson will launch an anti-gay social crusade rather than on deal with everyday problems that the country faces. She'll do that by diverting SH's attention away from Carson's fiscal agenda where he and SH might have some agreement and toward his more controversial comments on homosexuality. If that happens, he's going to have a hard time.

Yeah, he's going to have to talk about it in the General Election, I have no idea how that would play out against Clinton/Sanders/Biden. From what I've read in articles covering this, his style works much better on the ground than in televised debates and people are very charmed by him.

Two things I really don't like about him. I probably wouldn't disagree with you if you called me a neocon, especially on foreign policy. I'm not full-blown Wolfowitz, but let's say I think Lindsey Graham has the right perspective on many foreign policy issues. Carson, I think, may be too naive about why and when to go kinetic. His JFK to the Moon analogy on how to respond to 9/11 lost me on that issue.

#2 - I'm also a little more socially moderate. Pro guest worker program and in-state tuition for children of illegals; although I'm vehemently against drug-decriminlization, I'm lock step with Fiorina on investing in addiction prevention. But the big topic - I think we had a discussion about the merits of the SCOTUS same sex marriage decision, which I disagreed with because I think the States have sovereignty on such an issue. But also said that as long as the Government, Federal or State, recognized marriage as a publicly regulated institution, then same-sex marriage equality is preferable to the status quo - more accurately lesser of two evils. Carson, may be too uncompromising on what is a very big wedge issue. And it's not that I vehemently disagree with his opinions, it's that his major talking points on this evoke slippery slope arguments. That divides people, very much how like Obama divides people. Huckabee probably has the same views, but he doesn't equate gay marriage to beastiality and pedophillia. He just talks about the virtues and value of traditional marriage to a society.

 

[Crockett]

An Hispanic friend posted this on Facebook:

 

[Mr. Deez]

From what I've read in articles covering this, his style works much better on the ground than in televised debates and people are very charmed by him.

I don't doubt that Carson is a charming candidate in person. He seems like a very kind, down to earth guy with integrity. Maybe it's just a rap, but I'd like to think I've got a pretty good ******** sniffer when it comes to politicians, and he seems pretty authentic to me. However, very few voters actually meet presidential candidates or even see them in person at speeches or rallies, and the vast majority of them are already militant supporters. You have to be able to connect on television.

s JFK to the Moon analogy on how to respond to 9/11 lost me on that issue.

He lost me when he suggested that as an alternative to war and said he would have opposed the war in Afghanistan. Taking out the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda's presence there was a must. However, I actually thought the idea of a large, coordinated national effort to make the US energy independent in addition to military action would have been a smart move.

rson, may be too uncompromising on what is a very big wedge issue. And it's not that I vehemently disagree with his opinions, it's that his major talking points on this evoke slippery slope arguments. That divides people, very much how like Obama divides people.

I agree, but that's going to be a challenge for any GOP nominee. They desperately need colossal turnout by white evangelicals, and many of them are motivated by strong condemnation of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. While the bestiality comparisons are turning SH's stomach, they're inspiring fist pumping by an evangelical who thought Mitt Romney wasn't worth voting for. However, they also need at least a significant number of the SHs (white, educated voters from urban areas) of the world to decide to vote GOP despite differences of opinion on this issue. That's the dilemma.

Personally, I think they should go after the SHs for three reasons. First, the fist pumping evangelical is going to be more motivated to turn out than he was in 2012 even if this issue is deemphasized, because all of the candidates under serious consideration are overall more conservative than Romney was and because they'll be more desperate after 8 years of Democratic rule. He just isn't going to have be appeased as much.

Second, the SHs of the world aren't as tough to attract as many Republicans think. They don't need to fully endorse gay marriage and alienate the evangelical. If that was necessary, guys like SH would already have their minds made up to vote Democratic and wouldn't even be considering any Republicans. He knows he's going to have disagreement with the GOP nominee on the issue just as he has had disagreement with the Democrats on fiscal, some non-social domestic issues, and perhaps foreign policy issues. All they really have to do is avoid becoming polarized on the gay issues and show the SHs that their priority will be fiscal and economic policies where they have agreement.

Finally, attracting the SHs can fundamentally change the electoral map. Not only does it turn the true swing states red, it makes some blue states winnable. Further motivating the evangelical might flip some swing states, but at best, you get a very narrow victory if you run an otherwise perfect campaign (rarely happens). I'd rather build a dominant electoral coalition built around a sound center-Right economic policy and a strong national defense.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

These charts are by the (St. Louis) Fed - click to make larger

 

[Seattle Husker]

Definitely, an election handmade for Republicans to take the whitehouse if they can get out of their own way.

 

[Joe Fan]

Trump’s ‘cease and desist’ letter to the Club For Growth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ld-trumps-cease-and-desist-letter-annotated/#

By Federal Express

David McIntosh
The Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036

Re: Your Defamatory Attack Ad

Dear Mr. McIntosh:

I am General Counsel to Donald J. Trump. We recently had the opportunity to view your television commercial entitled "Politician" together with your accompanying statements in the media concerning my client's views (collectively, your "Attack Ad") and, quite frankly, are dismayed by the depths special interest groups like yours will go to in an attempt to materially mislead the public for the personal benefit of you and your financial backers.

Simply stated, your Attack Ad is not only completely disingenuous, but replete with outright lies, false, defamatory and destructive statements and downright fabrications which you fully know to be untrue, thereby exposing you and your so-called "club" to liability for damages and other tortious harm. For example, while your Attack Ad blatantly misrepresents to the public that Mr. Trump "supports higher taxes", nothing could be further from the truth. To be clear, Mr. Trump's tax plan, which is scheduled to be released later this week, supports a lowering of taxes.

Not surprisingly, a closer look at your Attack Ad reveals that your supposed "source" for this statement is -- according to the small print on your website -- nothing more than a single article published in the Advocate on February 15, 2000 which quoted Mr. Trump as supposedly saying he would "impose a one-time net worth tax of 14.25% on the superwealthy ... to pay off the national debt." That's it. While a reputable organization would have at least had the decency to disclose its source — and the fact that the source article is more than 15 years old -- your pitiful little group conveniently chose to leave that information out in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that it is reflective of Mr. Trump's current position — when, unquestionably, it is not. Making matters worse, you then chose to appear on several talk shows, including, MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which you furthered the erroneous notion that Mr. Trump "supports higher taxes" even though you have absolutely no factual support for that statement. In other words, you lied. Mr. Trump does not support higher taxes. This is the very definition of libel.

Sadly, the deplorable actions of your organization are not the least bit surprising. As I am sure you recall, it was only a few short months ago that you very openly and shamelessly attempted to extort Mr. Trump to the tune of $1 million in exchange for your political support. Indeed, you were not even the least bit discreet about your motives in that, after meeting with Mr. Trump, you immediately followed up with a June 2, 2015 letter requesting a "contribution of $1 million" in exchange for an endorsement by your organization's political action committee. "This contribution," you proclaimed, "would have a dramatically positive impact on the Club's ability to identify future free-enterprise champions." When Mr. Trump, however, presumably unlike many of the other candidates, refused to succumb to your extortionist demands, your only response was to oppose his inclusion in the August 6, 2015 Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, launch a series of misleading Attack Ads targeting Mr. Trump and, ultimately, endorse certain other candidates. Though your website states that donations to "Club for Growth ... are NOT publicly disclosed", one can only assume that the candidates you are endorsing paid handsomely for your support. American politics at its worst. If that is not a "shake-down", I do not know what is.

Rest assured, however, we will not sit idly by and allow special interest groups and political action committees like yours to defame Mr. Trump and cause damage to his reputation and business interests by intentionally disseminating libelous statements you fully know to be untrue and, even worse, continue to purposely mislead the American people for your own financial gain. Toward that end, Mr. Trump has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt to your defamatory Attack Ads. In the interest of avoiding what will certainly be a costly litigation process, we are prepared to offer you the one-time opportunity to rectify this matter by providing us with your prompt written assurances that (i) you have stopped running the Attack Ads; and (ii) you will not generate or disseminate any misleading or inaccurate information or make any factually baseless accusations you know to be untrue with respect to my client at any point in the future. In the event, however, we do not promptly receive these assurances, please be advised that we will commence a multi-million dollar lawsuit against you personally and your organization for your false and defamatory statements and the damage you have intentionally caused to my client's interests as well as pursue all other remedies available to us at law or in equity.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

Alan Garten

cc: Donald Trump

Mark E. Kasowicz, Esq.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-christmas-but-gets-boos-for-insulting-rubio/

 

[Seattle Husker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-christmas-but-gets-boos-for-insulting-rubio/

WFT? Trump is becoming a caricature of a caricature.

 

[Mr. Deez]

WFT? Trump is becoming a caricature of a caricature.

Is he going to criminalize the saying of Happy Holidays? I'd like to hear him explain how his election will actually impact what people say.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Is he going to criminalize the saying of Happy Holidays? I'd like to hear him explain how his election will actually impact what people say.

You know Trump can simply proclaim it and it will happen. Boehner's "beware false prophets" statement comes to mind.

 

[Joe Fan]

Latest NYT Mag cover

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm not sure if Trump is a balloon anymore. If he is, I'm now convinced he can win the Repub nomination. Maybe the balloon pops in the general election?

 

[LtSwtCrude]

As always, politics says more about the American people and their states of consciousness, than about the candidates. Instead if listening to them, listen to us.

On these forums I learn more about the members than I learn about the topic of discussion.