CDZ Has anyone heard Donald Trump say anything besides what's wrong with everyone else but him?

[320 Years of History]

Mr. Trump has now surpassed Ambien for putting me to sleep! It almost seems as though he entered a wager with one of his rich friends, saying "I'll bet you $10M that average Americans are so gullible that I can win the Presidency on nothing but attacks and innuendo. I can do it by being so outrageous that the press will cover everything I say, and having no substantive, detailed policy platform whatsoever and instead just attacking ."

Everytime I turn on the news and hear a clip of what Mr. Trump is saying that day, it consists of his:

• pontificating on what's wrong with his competitors,
• asking questions for which he himself hasn't articulated a comprehensive answer,
• asking rhetorical questions to cast doubt on others and keep them on the defensive,
• making unsubstantiated claims, and
• making empty promises.

The man just goes out of his way to say anything he can that will create problems for his opponents. It doesn't even in his mind need to be true.

Some examples:

• The American Dream is dead. If I get elected, I will bring it back and make it bigger, better and stronger then ever before.
  
  I got news for you, Mr. Trump, if it is indeed dead and that's what you do, it's called changing the American Dream, not resurrecting it.
  
  Of course, whether it's dead or not to begin with is highly questionable. Tell that to the thousands of recent college grads who are now beginning great careers and who came from humble beginnings, humble enough that their professional lives are not beginning with $5K or $10K+ in savings before their first day at work. Tell that to the thousands of immigrants who come or came to the U.S. with literally nothing or near nothing.
• "Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem."
  
  In the space of a week, Trump went from "some people say this might be a problem" to "Ted Cruz is going to sink the Republican ship if he gets the nomination!!!!"
  
  But what did any of that do to tell me whether Mr. Trump is going to be a good President? Are people really vote for Mr. Trump because he's the "best of the worst?" I recall when "Best of the Wurst" was a catchy slogan for a story about a hotdog stand, but for a politician to be understood that way? Really?
• About John Kasich:
  "This is the man that was a managing general partner at Lehman Brothers, when it when down the tubes, and almost took every one of us with us, including Ben and myself. Because I was there, and I watched what happened, and Lehman Brothers started it all. He was on the board, and he was a managing general partner."
  
  Kasich was indeed a Lehman Brothers employee leading up to the 2008 financial collapse, but he wasn't on the board.
• About George W. Bush:
  “You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?” asked Trump on July 9, after reports the former president charged a vets group for a speech. “Bush didn’t have the IQ [to be president],” he added on June 16.
  
  I didn't even like George Bush, but come on....That I agree in principle with Mr. Trump about Mr. Bush's IQ still doesn't tell me a damn thing of note about Mr. Trump and what he'd do as President.

I'm sorry, but I really don't want four years of innuendo, misrepresentations of simple facts from a President, and "he said she said" between the U.S. President and his foreign counterparts, friend and foe. Mr. Trump just wants to win the Presidency for the sake of winning it. The man is basically proving what I've long felt to be so: a huge share of Americans are either ignorant, stupid, or both.

 

[Esmeralda]

He's a narcissistic loudmouth blowhard who has no true grasp on reality. Totally self centered. Says what the lower level intellects & racists want to hear. Has virtually nothing positive to say about anyone but himself.

 

[Kalki]

He seems okay for a merchant. Why is racism evil? Because someone told you it is? It was a virtue only 3 generations ago. This demonstrates how you are not even in control of your own beliefs and values.

If you don't like how merchants rule the world and have all the power, you might like reading Rene Guenon and Julius Evola.

Personally, I prefer reading nonfiction, and everyone knows journalism is primarily fiction. Read, 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays, where this is admitted - that journalism is to manipulate the masses, and he coined the phrase "public relations" or PR; he helped to make the propaganda to get people to go off and get murdered for the merchants in WWI. Bernays told Wilson, "tell the American people we are going to war to bring democracy to Europe." They used the same lie 100 years later, and everyone supported it. Read the PNAC and Oded Yinon Plan and Operation Northwoods, or Operation Ajax.

Then, to know the true story about WWI read, 'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles August Lindbergh. Also, read 'War Is A Racket' by Smedley Butler. 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin. Or, in later years, 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. Then, study Harry Dexter White, the Bretton Woods Conference and the IMF, which were predicted by Lindbergh. Or, the Haavara Agreement, the Lend Lease Act, and the Morgenthau Plan. Or how Morgenthau put an oil embargo on the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor to instigate them to attack to get congressional and public support to commit mass murder and dominate the earth through New York City and London.

Then, look up Jacob Schiff financing the bolsheviks. Or Jacob Schiff financing the Japanese in the 1890s. Or Commodore Matthew Perry 1853. That is correct, Wall Street financed the communists. So much for the lies. Read, '1984' by George Orwell, which is happening right now in a country near you.

Just stop following the lies and half-truths of journalism or propaganda. Free your mind. I am surprised there are still people who watch television and read journalism. The only benefit of seeing it is to see what the manipulators of public dialogue are doing at any given year. I would have thought everyone knows that the news is aimed at the lowest common denominator, intellectually, and besides it is almost entirely one-sided stories and half-truths.

All we have to do is read the news from Russia and Iran at this time, to hear the opposite side of the story, to understand how journalism is purely propaganda lies, to manipulate your mind. The same is true of public education. When the entire public is educated, it necessarily must have lower standards so everyone can go through it and education is not the goal; John Dewey even admitted they wanted pliable tools to manipulate, and this was the purpose of public education in America.

 

[S.J.]

He's a narcissistic loudmouth blowhard who has no true grasp on reality. Totally self centered. Says what the lower level intellects & racists want to hear. Has virtually nothing positive to say about anyone but himself.

But enough about Obama.

 

[S.J.]

Since when is a candidate not supposed to criticize his or her opponents? Most of his attacks have been in response to someone who has attacked him, why is that not okay?

 

[S.J.]

Not sure you're interested in Trump's positions but...
DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

 

[cnm]

He's praised the Chinese deal making ability.

 

[Kalki]

He praised the hero in Russia who is standing up to International Finance and Jacob Lew.

 

[cnm]

DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

Reforming The U.S.-China Trade Relationship To Make America Great Again​

What a load.

 

[Esmeralda]

He seems okay for a merchant. Why is racism evil? Because someone told you it is? It was a virtue only 3 generations ago. This demonstrates how you are not even in control of your own beliefs and values.

If you don't like how merchants rule the world and have all the power, you might like reading Rene Guenon and Julius Evola.

Personally, I prefer reading nonfiction, and everyone knows journalism is primarily fiction. Read, 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays, where this is admitted - that journalism is to manipulate the masses, and he coined the phrase "public relations" or PR; he helped to make the propaganda to get people to go off and get murdered for the merchants in WWI. Bernays told Wilson, "tell the American people we are going to war to bring democracy to Europe." They used the same lie 100 years later, and everyone supported it. Read the PNAC and Oded Yinon Plan and Operation Northwoods, or Operation Ajax.

Then, to know the true story about WWI read, 'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles August Lindbergh. Also, read 'War Is A Racket' by Smedley Butler. 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin. Or, in later years, 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. Then, study Harry Dexter White, the Bretton Woods Conference and the IMF, which were predicted by Lindbergh. Or, the Haavara Agreement, the Lend Lease Act, and the Morgenthau Plan. Or how Morgenthau put an oil embargo on the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor to instigate them to attack to get congressional and public support to commit mass murder and dominate the earth through New York City and London.

Then, look up Jacob Schiff financing the bolsheviks. Or Jacob Schiff financing the Japanese in the 1890s. Or Commodore Matthew Perry 1853. That is correct, Wall Street financed the communists. So much for the lies. Read, '1984' by George Orwell, which is happening right now in a country near you.

Just stop following the lies and half-truths of journalism or propaganda. Free your mind. I am surprised there are still people who watch television and read journalism. The only benefit of seeing it is to see what the manipulators of public dialogue are doing at any given year. I would have thought everyone knows that the news is aimed at the lowest common denominator, intellectually, and besides it is almost entirely one-sided stories and half-truths.

All we have to do is read the news from Russia and Iran at this time, to hear the opposite side of the story, to understand how journalism is purely propaganda lies, to manipulate your mind. The same is true of public education. When the entire public is educated, it necessarily must have lower standards so everyone can go through it and education is not the goal; John Dewey even admitted they wanted pliable tools to manipulate, and this was the purpose of public education in America.

Racism was NEVER a virtue.

 

[cnm]

Tax Reform That Will Make America Great Again

Don't see anything about FICA. Must have slipped his mind.

 

[Boss]

Since when is a candidate not supposed to criticize his or her opponents? Most of his attacks have been in response to someone who has attacked him, why is that not okay?

I was fine with him attacking establishment goobs who attacked him or media idiots who tried to ambush him... I cheered. He lost me when he started attacking Carson then Cruz. Especially Cruz, since that is who MY candidate is. I totally understand what he is doing, it's not personal, he is just trying to win by using the Saul Alinsky tactic of attacking with guns-a-blazing. But I think his attacking principled Conservatives is a bad move for him because I think many of them would otherwise be in his corner. Instead of embracing them, he is alienating them... and he doesn't have to.

Let me throw this out there, and you all can ridicule me all you like, I'm used to it... You know how a lot of people were saying maybe Trump was working with the Clintons to help Hillary? What if Trump is working with the Conservatives? What if his plan all along was to become the front-runner and naturally catch all the criticism and vile from the attackers who attack the front-runner... serving as a FOIL for the eventual conservative who wins the nomination? This would explain why he doesn't give a damn about what he says... he doesn't really care because he wants to draw fire to help the eventual nominee.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not sure you're interested in Trump's positions but...
DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

TY for the link.

First of all, the thread is about the fact that Mr. Trump largely doesn't talk about and promote his own positions. He largely only criticizes everyone else's or criticizes what others have done. On top of that, when one actually reads through his position statements, one finds glaring omissions of detail.

Gun Control and the Mental Health System:
So I clicked on the link you provided. The very first thing I read was Mr. Trump's remarks headed "Fix Our Broken Mental Health System." And what did I find? Not one word about how to do that. The section ends, "We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas."

Okay, yes we need "real solutions," Mr. Trump. What are your "real solution" proposals to "fix our broken mental health system?"

Gun Control and Background Checks:
"When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system."

Okay...yes, we need to fix the system. How, Mr. Trump, assuming the fix is to " put criminal and mental health records into 'the system' ," whatever "the system" is, please give me a high level plan for making that happen? Nothing insanely detailed, just the half dozen to ten "must have" milestones in the overall approach you propose. That's no more than you'd ask of someone pitching the rough outline of a project to you....Surely you can do that much, right?

The Trump Tax Plan:
Here Mr. Trump has a bit more detail indicating what he wants to do, and that's not surprising seeing as finance is sort of "his thing." What's missing is anything, much less something credible, that shows or at least strongly suggests the probability of any of its predictions actually materializing.

For example, he states that his proposals are revenue neutral and then he writes, "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth....These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers."

Okay, based on what models? Being a man of big numbers and financial wheeling and dealing, I expect you have some legit basis for making those assertions. Show me the numbers that form that basis. Surely you didn't come up with the very specific tax rates and claim that your plan is revenue neutral based on a dream, or just outright pulling them outta your ass, did you?

Immigration and ICE
Mr. Trump writes that he would triple the quantity of ICE officers from 5K to 15K. He writes to show how that'll be effective, "Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are attempting to enforce immigration law against 11 million illegal aliens already in the interior of the United States."

Okay, so I have to agree that 15K ICE officers will likely have more impact than will 5K of them. What I want to know is why should I accept that 15K ICE officers are going to have a meaningfully greater impact than 5K officers against the 11 million illegal aliens you mentioned?

My take on Mr. Trump's so-called plans, not from a political perspective, but just as a project/business manager:
Mr. Trump does essentially the same thing senior folks in my industry (consulting) do: conceive, plan and manage very large projects. That's basically what he's going to do as President as well. The questions I've asked above are among the very basic sorts of questions that any partner or client exec would ask of a proposal team. More accurately, however, they are the kinds of questions that a strong proposal team would address up front so they wouldn't need to be directly asked.

What Mr. Trump is doing is presenting what I typically refer to as the "cocktail napkin" proposal. It's the sort of questions that when the lunch meeting or golf round is over, one or both parties reach out to a subordinate and have them pull together a team of people to flush out the details at the level indicated by the questions I've asked above. If after doing so, the ideas still "hold water," you move forward and dig into the real details.

What do I mean by that? Take the idea of tripling the ICE force to 15K. Mr. Trump says he'll pay for it by "by accepting the recommendation of the Inspector General for Tax Administration and eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants." Well, that recommendation consists of implementing process improvements and internal controls to drastically reduce the sum of unnecessary tax refunds given to foreign nationals. According to the report, written in 2012, the sum is ~$46.5M.

1. Have the reforms indicated in the report already been implemented? If so, how much has been gained from implemented them?
2. Assuming the revisions haven't been implemented, $46.5M/10K = $4650. I know just like everyone else that nobody is hiring 10K new ICE officers for $4650/year. And that's even before considering the indirect and overhead costs associated with 10K new employees. Even assuming a modest salary of $50K/ICE officer, that's $500M in direct wages.

As you can see from the above, I can suss out some very high level ballpark figures associated with Mr. Trump's proposal and tell there's a huge gap somewhere. I know damn well that Mr. Trump has a campaign staff would could have done at least as much, but they didn't...for whatever reason, but at the end of the day, the reason stops at Mr. Trump's not insisting that they did.

The above is just one illustration of the perfunctory BS that Mr. Trump is tossing our way and expecting us to accept it. That alone may not be the worst thing, but taken in conjunction with other facts...

• Mr. Trump having zero experience legislating for or managing organizations the size of many a government entity -- a federal department, a state or department in one, or even a mid-to-large size state or federal agency -- and thus is not aware of (nor tried to be so) of the challenges of doing so, and
• The fact that I know Mr. Trump would not himself accept the above level of mediocrity and paucity of precision and clarity from his direct reports in his commercial enterprise, yet he's putting less than his "best foot forward" in presenting his ideas to us whom he's asking to make him U.S. President, and
• Mr. Trump's having gone bankrupt multiple times.

So considering those facts, I have to say that as senior business manager who does much the same things he does, I'm just not seeing the gravitas that suggests I should put my one resource -- my vote -- in his box. Were someone on my staff in seeking my OK to go forward with a project, or present the proposal to an existing or potential client, to present to me the quality of proposals that Mr. Trump has presented to the American people as his intended policies, they'd (1) be told "no," and (2) if they continued to do so, "out counseled" within a few months. And that's a damn shame because as a senior business manager, I would love to vote for Mr. Trump.

 

[S.J.]

Since when is a candidate not supposed to criticize his or her opponents? Most of his attacks have been in response to someone who has attacked him, why is that not okay?

I was fine with him attacking establishment goobs who attacked him or media idiots who tried to ambush him... I cheered. He lost me when he started attacking Carson then Cruz. Especially Cruz, since that is who MY candidate is. I totally understand what he is doing, it's not personal, he is just trying to win by using the Saul Alinsky tactic of attacking with guns-a-blazing. But I think his attacking principled Conservatives is a bad move for him because I think many of them would otherwise be in his corner. Instead of embracing them, he is alienating them... and he doesn't have to.

Let me throw this out there, and you all can ridicule me all you like, I'm used to it... You know how a lot of people were saying maybe Trump was working with the Clintons to help Hillary? What if Trump is working with the Conservatives? What if his plan all along was to become the front-runner and naturally catch all the criticism and vile from the attackers who attack the front-runner... serving as a FOIL for the eventual conservative who wins the nomination? This would explain why he doesn't give a damn about what he says... he doesn't really care because he wants to draw fire to help the eventual nominee.

I agree with you on attacking Cruz and Carson. I'm talking about attacking liberals (which is what I'm sure concerns the OP). Every one of them deserved what he gave them. I wish he wouldn't attack Cruz too, I think it's a bad strategy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Since when is a candidate not supposed to criticize his or her opponents? Most of his attacks have been in response to someone who has attacked him, why is that not okay?

I was fine with him attacking establishment goobs who attacked him or media idiots who tried to ambush him... I cheered. He lost me when he started attacking Carson then Cruz. Especially Cruz, since that is who MY candidate is. I totally understand what he is doing, it's not personal, he is just trying to win by using the Saul Alinsky tactic of attacking with guns-a-blazing. But I think his attacking principled Conservatives is a bad move for him because I think many of them would otherwise be in his corner. Instead of embracing them, he is alienating them... and he doesn't have to.

Let me throw this out there, and you all can ridicule me all you like, I'm used to it... You know how a lot of people were saying maybe Trump was working with the Clintons to help Hillary? What if Trump is working with the Conservatives? What if his plan all along was to become the front-runner and naturally catch all the criticism and vile from the attackers who attack the front-runner... serving as a FOIL for the eventual conservative who wins the nomination? This would explain why he doesn't give a damn about what he says... he doesn't really care because he wants to draw fire to help the eventual nominee.

Red:
I wouldn't have nearly as much distaste for the attacks and platitudes were they accompanied with equal frequency by some high quality remarks about his own plans. I'm sorry but I just can't get behind someone who wants to be President and who also was for years a pretty private person, so I don't really know what the man is "about," and all I can really go on is my observations of what he's said publicly over time. (e.g., nobody is going to get near Mr. Trump's emails, for example....he can't be chided for "this or that" vote he made in Congress or a state legislature).

Of what he's said over the years, I've seen that the man talks out of both sides of his mouth, even more so than most politicians, saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Much the same as one who runs a reality TV show or produces a commercial product would do. I'm fine with that for marketing a product; I'm not fine with it for marketing policy that will drive what happens in the U.S. and quite likely the rest of the world. (be it actions in support of the policy or to oppose it)

Blue:
Well, that possibility hadn't crossed my mind, but I'll grant that it's possible. I don't really see it as plausible because as an approach it denies too much for too long to the "heir apparent" who'd step in. I also just don't see a person with Mr. Trump's ego being a willing participant is such a scheme. Even I, with my substantially smaller ego than Mr. Trump's (or any Presidential aspirant's, for that matter), wouldn't cotton to that idea. My ego wouldn't be the only thing disallowing me from being party to such a scheme. I wouldn't sign on to it from "jump" because if it started looking like I could win both my party's nomination and the Presidential election, I'd go for it. I would not step back and let the "next guy" take the lead. Knowing that about myself, I would not want to be accused of having lied when I first signed up for the idea and then going back on my word.

 

[Boss]

Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again


Most every one of his ideas are laid out in specific detail in his book.

This stuff is not just some "cocktail napkin" anecdotal small talk, he has put a lot of thought into it and he has laid out a very clear game plan.

I like a LOT of what he says. I think it dovetails well with core conservative philosophy. Perhaps it's not as "social conservative" as some might like, but big deal. Social Cons tend to be big spenders like George W. Bush. I don't have to have a social conservative. I am more libertarian socially and I think Trump is as well.

That said, he is pissing me off the way he is attacking Ted Cruz and how he attacked Ben Carson. He raised my eyebrow when he made the statement that he plans to "raise taxes on Wall Street" ...even though I know what is talking about and it's not how it sounds. He is using left-wing phrases that have no business being used. You can't raise taxes on Wall Street because Wall Street is a fucking place and places don't pay taxes, people do. He is talking about eliminating loopholes in the tax code which allow hedge fund managers to pay cap gains taxes instead of income tax. I favor doing that... but state it another way.

 

[S.J.]

Not sure you're interested in Trump's positions but...
DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

TY for the link.

First of all, the thread is about the fact that Mr. Trump largely doesn't talk about and promote his own positions. He largely only criticizes everyone else's or criticizes what others have done. On top of that, when one actually reads through his position statements, one finds glaring omissions of detail.

Gun Control and the Mental Health System:
So I clicked on the link you provided. The very first thing I read was Mr. Trump's remarks headed "Fix Our Broken Mental Health System." And what did I find? Not one word about how to do that. The section ends, "We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas."

Okay, yes we need "real solutions," Mr. Trump. What are your "real solution" proposals to "fix our broken mental health system?"

Gun Control and Background Checks:
"When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system."

Okay...yes, we need to fix the system. How, Mr. Trump, assuming the fix is to " put criminal and mental health records into 'the system' ," whatever "the system" is, please give me a high level plan for making that happen? Nothing insanely detailed, just the half dozen to ten "must have" milestones in the overall approach you propose. That's no more than you'd ask of someone pitching the rough outline of a project to you....Surely you can do that much, right?

The Trump Tax Plan:
Here Mr. Trump has a bit more detail indicating what he wants to do, and that's not surprising seeing as finance is sort of "his thing." What's missing is anything, much less something credible, that shows or at least strongly suggests the probability of any of its predictions actually materializing.

For example, he states that his proposals are revenue neutral and then he writes, "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth....These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers."

Okay, based on what models? Being a man of big numbers and financial wheeling and dealing, I expect you have some legit basis for making those assertions. Show me the numbers that form that basis. Surely you didn't come up with the very specific tax rates and claim that your plan is revenue neutral based on a dream, or just outright pulling them outta your ass, did you?

Immigration and ICE
Mr. Trump writes that he would triple the quantity of ICE officers from 5K to 15K. He writes to show how that'll be effective, "Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are attempting to enforce immigration law against 11 million illegal aliens already in the interior of the United States."

Okay, so I have to agree that 15K ICE officers will likely have more impact than will 5K of them. What I want to know is why should I accept that 15K ICE officers are going to have a meaningfully greater impact than 5K officers against the 11 million illegal aliens you mentioned?

My take on Mr. Trump's so-called plans, not from a political perspective, but just as a project/business manager:
Mr. Trump does essentially the same thing senior folks in my industry (consulting) do: conceive, plan and manage very large projects. That's basically what he's going to do as President as well. The questions I've asked above are among the very basic sorts of questions that any partner or client exec would ask of a proposal team. More accurately, however, they are the kinds of questions that a strong proposal team would address up front so they wouldn't need to be directly asked.

What Mr. Trump is doing is presenting what I typically refer to as the "cocktail napkin" proposal. It's the sort of questions that when the lunch meeting or golf round is over, one or both parties reach out to a subordinate and have them pull together a team of people to flush out the details at the level indicated by the questions I've asked above. If after doing so, the ideas still "hold water," you move forward and dig into the real details.

What do I mean by that? Take the idea of tripling the ICE force to 15K. Mr. Trump says he'll pay for it by "by accepting the recommendation of the Inspector General for Tax Administration and eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants." Well, that recommendation consists of implementing process improvements and internal controls to drastically reduce the sum of unnecessary tax refunds given to foreign nationals. According to the report, written in 2012, the sum is ~$46.5M.

1. Have the reforms indicated in the report already been implemented? If so, how much has been gained from implemented them?
2. Assuming the revisions haven't been implemented, $46.5M/10K = $4650. I know just like everyone else that nobody is hiring 10K new ICE officers for $4650/year. And that's even before considering the indirect and overhead costs associated with 10K new employees. Even assuming a modest salary of $50K/ICE officer, that's $500M in direct wages.

As you can see from the above, I can suss out some very high level ballpark figures associated with Mr. Trump's proposal and tell there's a huge gap somewhere. I know damn well that Mr. Trump has a campaign staff would could have done at least as much, but they didn't...for whatever reason, but at the end of the day, the reason stops at Mr. Trump's not insisting that they did.

The above is just one illustration of the perfunctory BS that Mr. Trump is tossing our way and expecting us to accept it. That alone may not be the worst thing, but taken in conjunction with other facts...

• Mr. Trump having zero experience legislating for or managing organizations the size of many a government entity -- a federal department, a state or department in one, or even a mid-to-large size state or federal agency -- and thus is not aware of (nor tried to be so) of the challenges of doing so, and
• The fact that I know Mr. Trump would not himself accept the above level of mediocrity and paucity of precision and clarity from his direct reports in his commercial enterprise, yet he's putting less than his "best foot forward" in presenting his ideas to us whom he's asking to make him U.S. President, and
• Mr. Trump's having gone bankrupt multiple times.

So considering those facts, I have to say that as senior business manager who does much the same things he does, I'm just not seeing the gravitas that suggests I should put my one resource -- my vote -- in his box. Were someone on my staff in seeking my OK to go forward with a project, or present the proposal to an existing or potential client, to present to me the quality of proposals that Mr. Trump has presented to the American people as his intended policies, they'd (1) be told "no," and (2) if they continued to do so, "out counseled" within a few months. And that's a damn shame because as a senior business manager, I would love to vote for Mr. Trump.

Once again, I gave you an answer, you just didn't like it. This is the thread title:
Has anyone heard Donald Trump say anything besides what's wrong with everyone else but him?

Your opening statement:
Mr. Trump has now surpassed Ambien for putting me to sleep! It almost seems as though he entered a wager with one of his rich friends, saying "I'll bet you $10M that average Americans are so gullible that I can win the Presidency on nothing but attacks and innuendo. I can do it by being so outrageous that the press will cover everything I say, and having no substantive, detailed policy platform whatsoever and instead just attacking ."
I gave you a link containing his positions without attacking everyone else and you said he didn't state his positions, then you proceeded to take issue with his positions. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Boss]

...because as an approach it denies too much for too long to the "heir apparent" who'd step in.

But that would be the point, don't you see? What happens to the guy on top? Smear... jeer... overblown controversy... slam... smear... criticize... attack... more smear... digging into the past... slam... smear some more... raise more controversy... ridicule... denigrate... just vicious non-stop partisan witch hunting 24/7 as long as it takes to bring them down. That's what the left and their media lap dogs do to the front-runner.... who has been Trump. Meanwhile... heir apparent is left alone... unscathed, for the most part.

You saw it, when Carson began to edge close to Trump, they switched gears and suddenly began smearing Carson. Trump jumps in an starts talking shit about Carson and retakes the lead. Then Cruz... same thing happens. Trump continues to lead and continues to be the one who everyone is attacking... for the most part. I just think it's a possibility... Trump is simply acting to deflect the attacks on the "would-be" front-runner. AND... if it all plays out to where he actually WINS... I think he will be shocked.

 

[S.J.]

That said, he is pissing me off the way he is attacking Ted Cruz and how he attacked Ben Carson. He raised my eyebrow when he made the statement that he plans to "raise taxes on Wall Street" ...even though I know what is talking about and it's not how it sounds. He is using left-wing phrases that have no business being used. You can't raise taxes on Wall Street because Wall Street is a fucking place and places don't pay taxes, people do. He is talking about eliminating loopholes in the tax code which allow hedge fund managers to pay cap gains taxes instead of income tax. I favor doing that... but state it another way.

The thing is, he's most likely gonna get the nomination. He does things we don't like but if it comes down to Trump and Hillary are you gonna not vote and let Hillary win? I don't like a lot of what he says either but I believe he has good intentions and wants to do great things for the country. Maybe he can't but I think he will try. Hillary just wants power and she has no intention of doing anything good for the country. Bernie would be a total disaster too. I don't have to like the man personally or agree with everything he says but he's a still a thousand times better than any Democrat and I think he would be the hardest Republican to beat because he represents change and that's what's waking people up. I don't think Cruz has what it takes to beat the Dem machine and the other ones would just be like Dems, probably couldn't win either.

 

[S.J.]

...because as an approach it denies too much for too long to the "heir apparent" who'd step in.

But that would be the point, don't you see? What happens to the guy on top? Smear... jeer... overblown controversy... slam... smear... criticize... attack... more smear... digging into the past... slam... smear some more... raise more controversy... ridicule... denigrate... just vicious non-stop partisan witch hunting 24/7 as long as it takes to bring them down. That's what the left and their media lap dogs do to the front-runner.... who has been Trump. Meanwhile... heir apparent is left alone... unscathed, for the most part.

You saw it, when Carson began to edge close to Trump, they switched gears and suddenly began smearing Carson. Trump jumps in an starts talking shit about Carson and retakes the lead. Then Cruz... same thing happens. Trump continues to lead and continues to be the one who everyone is attacking... for the most part. I just think it's a possibility... Trump is simply acting to deflect the attacks on the "would-be" front-runner. AND... if it all plays out to where he actually WINS... I think he will be shocked.

I don't see Trump taking the role of running interference for another candidate. Not with that ego and not with those poll numbers. He hasn't even spent any money yet (not real money). Why in the world would he agree to be the loser? Not his style at all, Trump is an achiever, that's what his life has always been about, he's not gonna deliberately lose. I could see somebody else doing that but not Trump.