CDZ Why I used to be keen on Mr. Trump and why today I am not

[TNHarley]

I enjoy his tax and trade policies. They are actually pro-American.
Even the people that talk shit about the tax plan say ti would add 4% growth. And that doesn't even INCLUDE his trade policies. Those globalist hacks are scared to consider that!

The question isn't whether Mr. Trump's stated policies are any good. The question is can he be relied upon to follow through on implementing them (or at least trying vigorously to do so)?

Based on his actions that I know about so far, for me that answer is, "I don't know." Not, "I think so." Not "Yes."

Take Mr. Obama for example. For all their griping about him, conservatives at least feel like they know what he is going to do. That's with someone from the opposition. Is it asking too much to have that same level of certainty and trust with regard to one's ally?

Obama is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic!

 

[320 Years of History]

I enjoy his tax and trade policies. They are actually pro-American.
Even the people that talk shit about the tax plan say ti would add 4% growth. And that doesn't even INCLUDE his trade policies. Those globalist hacks are scared to consider that!

The question isn't whether Mr. Trump's stated policies are any good. The question is can he be relied upon to follow through on implementing them (or at least trying vigorously to do so)?

Based on his actions that I know about so far, for me that answer is, "I don't know." Not, "I think so." Not "Yes."

Take Mr. Obama for example. For all their griping about him, conservatives at least feel like they know what he is going to do. That's with someone from the opposition. Is it asking too much to have that same level of certainty and trust with regard to one's ally?

Obama is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic!

Point taken. Post revised. Thank you.

 

[Correll]

As a businessman Trump played by the rules and in the environment that other people created.

As a President he would have a shot at making those rules.

His proposals for those rules sound pretty good. Far better than any I have heard from the other candidates, both parties.

I'm not saying that those things aren't so. I'm saying that, unlike what I know or don't know about his fellow Republican candidates, I know for a fact that Mr. Trump does not reliably keep his word, and it's clear that whether he will or will not keep his word depends not on what he wants at any given time, not on whether he has stated "such and such" a course of intended action on a given matter.

I don't trust people who do that. Do you?

Red:
Look at my remarks in section headed "Red" in post #9. Read this:

• Trump grilled in court over contract dispute

The case centers on Trump's dealings with ALM International, a New York firm that sought clothing industry licensing deals on his behalf. ALM helped arrange a 2004 meeting with executives of apparel giant PVH, formerly known as Phillips-Van Heusen. With ALM involved in subsequent negotiations, PVH ultimately licensed Trump's name for a line of dress shirts and formal neckware.

In the acrimonious, ALM alleges Trump improperly halted its payments in 2008 after paying the firm approximately $300,000 over 11 consecutive quarters — a period in which court records show the Donald personally signed checks to the firm for its efforts.

"Mr. Trump decided he didn't want to pay anymore, notwithstanding the fact that there was an agreement that my client get 10% of whatever Mr. Trump got for each and every time the contract with PVH was renewed and continued," ALM attorney Jay Itkowitz argued during opening statements on Tuesday.​

• Trump decries licensing firm’s claims

“[Mr. Trump's] position in this case is that his accounting department and his trusted employees presented him with checks that were reviewed at various levels and he signed them,” Itkowitz said. “Now he’s saying it’s all a big mistake. Ultimately, whether that’s a big mistake is going to be decided by a jury.”​

I haven't yet found the actual court testimony for that case, and I don't know what the outcome was/is, so for now all I can say is it may represent an instance wherein Mr. Trump decided he wanted to go back on his word in a business deal. For now, I can only say that it looks that way; if/when I find the details, I'll know whether it is as was alleged in that case. (Unlike a lot of folks, I make a genuine effort to "do my homework" and focus on and discuss "what is" and not go with "what it looks like it is.")


An observation unrelated to the thread/post topic:
I suspect Mr. Trump to be a micromanager. I don't know that he is; I haven't looked expressly to find out. I'm merely making an inference from what I read in the articles cited above in this post.

I know only that earlier in my career, I participated in the business process transformation projects in about a dozen multi-billion dollar organizations, and at a junior enough level that I came by the following: in not one of them was the CEO required to sign a check for $30K or less. See the 300K paid over 11 quarters; I don't know if that was a check per quarter, but the language makes it sound that way.

I know that an individual can be very successful in business, big business even, as a micromanager. I understand that in small business, micro-managing can be a key success factor. But I know too that as U.S. President, micro-managing is part of the recipe for lackluster achievement, if not failure. The older folks around here will recall that one of the things that helped make Ronald Reagan an effective leader/President was his adroit delegation of responsibility and authority.

​

1. Accusations from an unhappy business partner does not sound very convincing.

2. I can vote for someone who MIGHT keep promises that would, imo be good for America, or I could vote for someone who MIGHT keep promises, that would imo, be bad for America. Win: Trump.

 

[320 Years of History]

As a businessman Trump played by the rules and in the environment that other people created.

As a President he would have a shot at making those rules.

His proposals for those rules sound pretty good. Far better than any I have heard from the other candidates, both parties.

I'm not saying that those things aren't so. I'm saying that, unlike what I know or don't know about his fellow Republican candidates, I know for a fact that Mr. Trump does not reliably keep his word, and it's clear that whether he will or will not keep his word depends not on what he wants at any given time, not on whether he has stated "such and such" a course of intended action on a given matter.

I don't trust people who do that. Do you?

Red:
Look at my remarks in section headed "Red" in post #9. Read this:

• Trump grilled in court over contract dispute

The case centers on Trump's dealings with ALM International, a New York firm that sought clothing industry licensing deals on his behalf. ALM helped arrange a 2004 meeting with executives of apparel giant PVH, formerly known as Phillips-Van Heusen. With ALM involved in subsequent negotiations, PVH ultimately licensed Trump's name for a line of dress shirts and formal neckware.

In the acrimonious, ALM alleges Trump improperly halted its payments in 2008 after paying the firm approximately $300,000 over 11 consecutive quarters — a period in which court records show the Donald personally signed checks to the firm for its efforts.

"Mr. Trump decided he didn't want to pay anymore, notwithstanding the fact that there was an agreement that my client get 10% of whatever Mr. Trump got for each and every time the contract with PVH was renewed and continued," ALM attorney Jay Itkowitz argued during opening statements on Tuesday.​

• Trump decries licensing firm’s claims

“[Mr. Trump's] position in this case is that his accounting department and his trusted employees presented him with checks that were reviewed at various levels and he signed them,” Itkowitz said. “Now he’s saying it’s all a big mistake. Ultimately, whether that’s a big mistake is going to be decided by a jury.”​

I haven't yet found the actual court testimony for that case, and I don't know what the outcome was/is, so for now all I can say is it may represent an instance wherein Mr. Trump decided he wanted to go back on his word in a business deal. For now, I can only say that it looks that way; if/when I find the details, I'll know whether it is as was alleged in that case. (Unlike a lot of folks, I make a genuine effort to "do my homework" and focus on and discuss "what is" and not go with "what it looks like it is.")


An observation unrelated to the thread/post topic:
I suspect Mr. Trump to be a micromanager. I don't know that he is; I haven't looked expressly to find out. I'm merely making an inference from what I read in the articles cited above in this post.

I know only that earlier in my career, I participated in the business process transformation projects in about a dozen multi-billion dollar organizations, and at a junior enough level that I came by the following: in not one of them was the CEO required to sign a check for $30K or less. See the 300K paid over 11 quarters; I don't know if that was a check per quarter, but the language makes it sound that way.

I know that an individual can be very successful in business, big business even, as a micromanager. I understand that in small business, micro-managing can be a key success factor. But I know too that as U.S. President, micro-managing is part of the recipe for lackluster achievement, if not failure. The older folks around here will recall that one of the things that helped make Ronald Reagan an effective leader/President was his adroit delegation of responsibility and authority.

​

1. Accusations from an unhappy business partner does not sound very convincing.

2. I can vote for someone who MIGHT keep promises that would, imo be good for America, or I could vote for someone who MIGHT keep promises, that would imo, be bad for America. Win: Trump.

Red:
Are we correct to infer from your remark that you'd actually consider voting for someone, anyone, who has shown repeatedly and recently that they cannot be trusted to do what they say they will do?

It's one thing to think someone might or might not stick to their word, but lack indisputable proof one way or the the other. It's entirely another to have clear evidence that they do not.

• In the aftermath of the former situation, one has some basis for griping when the elected individual doesn't keep their word; in that of the latter, one does not.
• In the aftermath of the former situation, one's trust will have been betrayed; in the aftermath of the latter, one's foolhardiness will have been confirmed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He's doing what he has to do to stay competitive.
You have to be willing to pay higher prices for goods made in America which I'm willing to do to bring those jobs back.

It would be horrible if he had to replace the gold bathroom fixtures in dozens of bathrooms in his huge mansions and condo's.

How does it feel to be so envious?

 

[320 Years of History]

Yet another indicator of "so many things" wrong about Mr. Trump, not the least of which is his lack of personal integrity....in the video you'll find at this link -- Donald Trump: 'I probably identify more as Democrat' - CNNPolitics.com -- you'll see and hear Mr. Trump stating that he thinks the economy works better under Democrats, yet, he's now running as a Republican. It'd have shown more integrity for him to pursue the Presidency as an independent, assuming he didn't want to do so as a Democrat, than as a Republican.

 

[320 Years of History]

In addition to his purely selfish aims and deeds, the man has shown repeatedly that the only way anything he does or wants to do can be beneficial to me, to you, to anyone is for their financial needs and desires to be very closely aligned with his at a given point in time. If his needs and one's own are aligned "today," great; if his needs and aims change "tomorrow," one is sh*t out of luck and f*cked. Period. We have multiple illustrations of this over the years, but in some cases, one need not have waited even one year for the "flip-flop" to occur:

• Afghanistan -- Literally 180 degree difference in two weeks!
  • October 6, 2015: "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. It's a mess, it's a mess and at this point we probably have to (leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan) because that thing will collapse in about two seconds after they leave."
  • October 20, 2015: "Iraq was a disaster. Not Afghanistan, because that's probably where we should have gone in the first place."
    
• Syrian Refugees -- This time it took a little bit longer to go make it to the completely opposite point of view.
  • September 9, 2015: "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart."
    
    
    
    
  • September 10, 2015 -- Not 180 degrees yet, but heading there: "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart."
  • October 3, 2015: "If I win, they're going back."
    
• Planned Parenthood -- I think this if a 180 degree change in Mr. Trump's position, but really I can't be sure WTF make of this set of remarks individually, nor what to make of them taken in total, which, IMO, is even worse than clearly flip-flopping. I cannot stand ambiguity and vagueness!
  • July 22, 2015: "Absolutely they should be defunded.
  • August 3, 2015: Same position expressed in an interview with Hugh Hewitt.
    
    
    
    
  • August 3, 2015: This collection of remarks totally astounds me because I truly have no friggin' idea of what the hell his position is on the matter; I'm not even sure he knows what exactly Planned Parenthood is, does or doesn't do, and yet he's talking about it....Does Mr. Trump even know that federal law prevents the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in virtually all cases?

"What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely. I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.
​

• • August 12, 2015: "They do good things. We have to take care of women. We have to absolutely take care of women. The abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood should not -- absolutely should not -- be funded."
• • September 10, 2015: Nearly a month later, Mr. Trump still hasn't bothered to figure out that little of what Planned Parenthood does involved providing abortions. "I am against abortion ... and that is a tremendous amount of the work they do." (Around the 9:00 point of the next video below....)
    
    
    Anyone who doesn't get to watch daytime television absolutely should, in its entirety, watch this video interview with Donald Trump. It is chock full of first hand illustrations of everything that's wrong with Mr. Trump being both a candidate and/or U.S. President....integrity, wishy washiness/ambiguity, ignorance about things of which he speaks, conflicting principles, etc. It's one of the few interviews where the interviewers did sit quietly by and let him get away with the sh*t he said that was not factually accurate. Those women were not having it!
    
    
    
    Say what?!? Defunding abortion at Planned Parenthood constitutes defunding nothing! Forget about whether I think abortions should or should not be federally funded. Do you, Mr. Trump, have the first damn idea of what you are talking about? And Mr. Trump has the nerve to call other people idiots?!? Boy, can that pot call a kettle black!!!
    
• U.S. Military Spending:
  • August 3, 2015: "I would bring it (military levels) back to where it was at the height because we’re in such trouble."
  • October 4, 2015: "I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less."
    
• Going after Islamic State/ISIS:
  • July 8, 2015: Trump noted he would "send troops in" to Iraq and he said he'd "bomb the hell" out of Islamic State-owned oil fields in Iraq to defeat the terrorist group.
  • August 11, 2015: "I'm the most militaristic person there is."
    
  • September 28, 2015: "Let them fight it out. Let Russia take care of [Islamic State]."
    
    
    
    Ugh...When was the last time ISIS (or Al-Qaeda) cited Russia as a prime target of its ire?
    
• Flat Tax Rates: The man literally changes position within minutes, in the same interview, no less!!! (Watch by clicking on the link for the preceding sentence.)
  • "You can have fair tax, you can have flat tax, you can take the existing plans that we have and simplify.
  • The one problem I have with the flat tax is that rich people are paying the same as people that are making very little money," he said before promoting some kind of "graduation" tax upward.

Hello!!! A tax is either flat -- one rate for everyone -- or it's graduated, increasing rates as taxable income increases.​

• A look at Mr. Trump's "evolving" (to put it kindly) positions over time.

Now some folks may say, "Oh, he meant this." Others may say, "No, he meant that." Still others may say, "What he said means something else that may or may not be what he actually said." Twelve year olds offer fewer non-answers, vague answers, "everything" answers, etc. .than Mr. Trump does. I literally have never seen anyone be as unclear as that man! And that is the problem!!! As often as not, there's no telling for sure WTH he meant, or WTH he actually thinks, or WTH he thinks we should do, or worst of all, WTF he actually will do if he wins the Presidency!!!

Donald Trump is trying to be too many things to too many people! Period!
There is no trusting a person like that!​

 

[320 Years of History]

Now, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," has morphed into "just a suggestion" that "hasn't been called for yet."

Really? Does it escape him that he expressly called for it? Now the man is the GOP's presumptive nominee and his "calling for" the ban was a suggestion?

CTFO! I suspect that a summer of Trump "spinning" damn near all of his campaign assertions into something else is what we're in for.

It'll be interesting to see what else Trump wiggles his way out of, to see what else becomes "just a suggestion," or "just an idea floated to see how it played." But then I have said repeatedly that nothing that man says is actually believable. What I believe is that Trump just wants to be POTUS and he doesn't much care how he makes that happen; winning, making it happen, is his goal and he'll say or do anything at anytime to make that happen.

 

[TNHarley]

Now, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," has morphed into "just a suggestion" that "hasn't been called for yet."

What else would it be?

 

[320 Years of History]

Now, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," has morphed into "just a suggestion" that "hasn't been called for yet."

What else would it be?

Excuse me? Are you seriously intimating that you find it acceptable that a candidate's campaign statements are mere suggestions rather than representations of their commitment to what they believe needs to be done to "fix" things?

 

[TNHarley]

Now, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," has morphed into "just a suggestion" that "hasn't been called for yet."

What else would it be?

Excuse me? Are you seriously intimating that you find it acceptable that a candidate's campaign statements are mere suggestions rather than representations of their commitment to what they believe needs to be done to "fix" things?

IDK if you have noticed, but everything with him is negotiation. Just seems realistic

 

[320 Years of History]

Now, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," has morphed into "just a suggestion" that "hasn't been called for yet."

What else would it be?

Excuse me? Are you seriously intimating that you find it acceptable that a candidate's campaign statements are mere suggestions rather than representations of their commitment to what they believe needs to be done to "fix" things?

IDK if you have noticed, but everything with him is negotiation. Just seems realistic

Okay...from that standpoint, yes, his waffling on his positions is precisely what one must expect. The question, however, is whether "everything's negotiable" is what one should want from a candidate. What are the people who voted for Trump to think when he negotiates away the assertions/promises he made to them? A political aspirant has to actually stand for something.

Sure, once one has ascended to the Presidency or other elected role, one may have to negotiate and yield on some things. Everyone ought to understand that. But Trump is already yielding on some of his most stridently promoted positions before he's, strictly speaking, actually been nominated, let alone elected, yet he's the only one who at this point can be nominated.

Of course whether the staunchest positions Trump has articulated make any friggin' sense is another question, but whether he can be trusted to adhere to the most vociferously taken ones is what I'm "on about." And what we've been observing from the moment the man announced his candidacy is that he can't be relied on to adhere to damn thing. Not everything; literally nothing is sacrosanct with that man except his own infallibility. The man quite simply won't admit to being mistaken; he won't attest to having misspoken; he won't assert that he misread something.

How does one trust a person who lacks that level of integrity? Trump says he's fed up with politics as usual in Washington, yet he's daily demonstrating, contrary to his own words, that he's fine with playing politics as usual. Has it actually not occurred to him that the dearth of integrity among politicians is the problem and that the various positions, even when folks don't especially agree with them, isn't. Fine negotiate, but do so with integrity; own your successes and mistakes. Everybody has both and will continue to have have both.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, S.J. focus, please. Obama as a counterpoint to Trump is clear and to the point.

Two, we know, right or wrong what BHO will normally do.

Three, Trump is tacking back and forth far worse than McCain and Romney together.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just to add to the list of unreliable statements Donald Trump has made and additional reasons not to trust that man:

• Tax Returns -- Sure, the man doesn't have a legal obligation to release them. What he does have, however, is a bunch of BS reasons why he won't. If the man had any integrity, he'd have just said, "I'm not going to release them, and you can stop asking me to do so, and you need not ask me why I won't because I'm not going to tell you." This crap about "I'm being audited" is total BS and everyone knows it. It's not as though what he put in a return is going to change because he discloses the return, and it's not as though the IRS is going to notice something or be able to uncover something they would not have be able to see or uncover absent his releasing the returns. Everyone who knows anything about taxes and audits, including Trump, know that too.
  
  It's also not hard to release a tax return. All one need do is black out addresses, phone numbers, and various identification numbers. Those things don't appear that much in returns, and where they do appear is in consistent places. Moreover, that information in the computerized systems that Trump's preparers without a doubt use can be extracted, dropped into a fresh file, globally replaced with exes, zeros, or whatever, and then printed.
  
  The personal identification data in such relational and highly normalized databases can be addressed at the data table level for the purpose of releasing the return to the public. For example, SSN sits in one field in one table and is used in myriad places in the reports (the return itself is actually a report) the database produces. Addresses and whatnot work the same way. The substance of the process is very similar to the find and replace feature in MS Word, although databases allow one to do such things on a much larger scale, and "all at once" rather than serially. We're talking about a couple hours worth of work for even the most junior DBA one can come by. Indeed, actually being a DBA isn't necessary; that's how simple it is to do.
  
  Saying that won't, however, squelch the issue/talk any more than what he already said, but it would be a clear position that he doesn't have to wiggle out of later on, and one for which nobody would fault him for changing his mind, and one about which nobody can assail his reasons for taking the position to begin with. This is an issue that rightly should be made a non-issue by the man just releasing the returns and moving on.
• The "Publicist's" Voice -- There simply is no reason why this should go on as a matter of discussion. If Trump had a publicist at the time of the calls we've heard in the news, there'd be records of Trump or his company having paid that publicist, and having implemented accounting systems for years, I can assure you it'd take all of a few minutes to get hold of those records. Even if they'd been archived, it'd take less than a day. A human being would be marched out and they would say, "Yes, I'm John Smith [or whatever the guy's name is], and that was me on the audio you heard."
• Self Funding -- I thought the whole point of Trump being self funding was that he couldn't be bought. That was his justification, not mine. Now, however, he doesn't want to be self funding. One must infer that he's okay now with being "bought." One might infer other things, such as maybe he's not as wealthy as he claims. (There's nothing wrong with his being less wealthy than he's claimed, other than the potential fact that he's claimed X and X is not the truth. Why in the world he couldn't have just kept his mouth shut on that point is beyond me. Frankly, I don't know anyone other than Trump who makes a point of telling folks what they are worth, but I know plenty of folks who won't deny, or who will admit. that they are well off. Lots of folks will attest to making a good living even.)
• The Ban on Muslims was just a suggestion -- Go back and look at all the threads discussing that matter and tell me folks perceived his remarks as being merely suggestions. The issue isn't even about whether Trump thought of it as a suggestion when he said it (a dubious likelihood, but whatever). The issue is that he knew damn well that his supporters didn't see it as a suggestion and he never made any attempt to clarify their thinking on the matter to make sure they understood it was "just a suggestion" and not necessarily something he intended to follow through as stated in his speech.

I can just imagine what Paul Ryan must be thinking. "Somebody actually thinks I and the rest of the GOP should support this man? All that and the quack of butler come historian Trump hired and kept on his personal staff, to say nothing of the wackos and racists that find in Trump "enough that's good" that they can take inspiration enough to crawl out from under the rocks and double-wides where they've hidden for the past twenty years."

I have to be honest, I'd lose the respect I have for Mr. Ryan were he to now support Trump.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan is duty bound to try to find cover such support.

I think it will fail.

 

[320 Years of History]

Ryan is duty bound to try to find cover such support.

I think it will fail.

I know you left out a word in the first sentence, maybe two. I just don't know what word it is. Help?

 

[ChrisL]

The only thing I like about Trump is that he has both the main parties kind of freaking out. THAT is a good thing. The "establishment" fears him. Perhaps because he can't be "bought"? It's hilarious how upset they are about him beating out their "chosen" candidates and now the dems are fearing he might be out the Hill bag. Lol. I respect that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan is duty bound to try to find cover such support.

I think it will fail.

I know you left out a word in the first sentence, maybe two. I just don't know what word it is. Help?

"for" such support. Thanks.

IOW, Ryan must support his party, and right now it wants him to find enough common ground with Trump if that is possible.

Whether that works depends on Donnie.

 

[320 Years of History]

The only thing I like about Trump is that he has both the main parties kind of freaking out. THAT is a good thing. The "establishment" fears him. Perhaps because he can't be "bought"? It's hilarious how upset they are about him beating out their "chosen" candidates and now the dems are fearing he might be out the Hill bag. Lol. I respect that.

Red:
I think the thing(s) to like about Trump have to do with what he's accomplished rather than with Trump himself. I like that he's highlighted that there exists a large quantity of folks who are genuinely disgusted with the existing state of politics and how the political process happens.

I think that is good, for those people need to and deserve to be heard, even if all of their ideas, sentiments and desires do not deserve to be expressed and/or implemented in U.S. public policy. Indeed, some of their ideas, like those aired by that quack butler and the white supremacists, deserve to be heard only so that we know how populous they are and can, knowing that, develop effective means of marginalizing them.

There is also a significant thing to dislike about what Trump has done to the campaign process that is well worth not wanting to see happen to the actual process of governance. What he's done is make a mockery of the truth by rarely telling it. Additionally, he's made the campaign process one wherein insults and exploiting what voters don't actually know (be it through no real fault of their own or not) and by pandering to their specious suspicions. Yes, eventually even his supporters will figure out they've been duped. The trouble is that many of them are so dissatisfied at the moment that they may not come to their senses and critically examine Trump's comments until after they've put is lying ass in the White House. Well, then it's too late.

Moreover, there's plenty more not to like about Trump the man.

• The outright lying about his own actions, actions he admitted to or demonstrated in the past, and lying about what he owns. There just isn't any reason to lie about those things other than to "steal" headlines and keep the press saying negative things about him, which tends to in turn make the ignoramuses among supporters (far too large a share of his supporters, IMO) like him all the more for the most absurd of reasons. Two examples:
  • The publicist that today isn't Trump, but that years ago was him. He attested to being John Barron under oath in open court.
  • Not knowing anything about David Duke, yet years back he knew enough to have things to say about David Duke.
  • "We have Trump Steaks." Ummm...no, you had Bush Brothers steaks.
    
    
    
    
    
  • "I own [Trump Winery] 100 percent, no mortgage, no debt." Well, no, actually your son own that and the winery's website makes a point of saying, "Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates."
• The outright lying about points of fact. (Just two examples are below.)
  
  Foreign Policy/International Relations
  • Trump: "I got to know [Putin] very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates and we did very well that night." (from the 4th GOP debate)
    • Point of fact: The two men appeared on the same show, but their respective segments/comments were taped separately, Trump in his NY offices and Putin thousands of miles away in Moscow.
  • Trump: The TPP "was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone,” and currency manipulation “is not even discussed." He claimed that China would be the big winner if the Obama administration’s huge Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is allowed to move forward. (from the 4th GOP debate)
    • Point of fact: China is not a party to the TPP. The reddish colored countries shown below are the parties in the TPP. (click the image to access the source)
      
      
      
      
      
      
    • Point of Fact: The TPP has provisions about currency manipulation.
• The flexibility before he's actually gotten the nomination or won the general election. So far Trump's stuck to his "build the wall" claim. I would not put it past him, however, to build a three foot wall somewhere and tell us that he's kept his promise. That's the substance of what he's done with his "ban the Muslims" call that has become a suggestion.
  
  You'll recall his express words were "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Now, he's trying to say it was just a suggestion. Well, I bid you look at the definition of the verb "call." You will not find one "flavor" of that word's meaning that denotes or connotes suggestion, that is, a "slight indication." I doubt that anyone is going to say that we have "figured out what is going on."

As go the outright lies, there're more of them. One need only look for them. Yes, some of the things that are claimed to be lies seem only thinly so, but far more are clearly untrue. And here's the thing: The man lies about all sorts of things for which it's not a matter of there being "shades of gray." Nobody in their right mind lies about the kinds of things Trump does, which over and over again are simple points of fact that are easily determined.

Who does that? Children do because they don't realize grown ups will check or know better than they. People with Alzheimer's Disease/dementia do because they don't realize that they are doing it. Pathological liars do because they can't help themselves. Other than those groups, I can't think of folks who lie with the frequency or about the things that Trump does.

Trump simply does not realize that while lots of voters were born at night, they weren't born last night.​

Blue:
I don't think freaking out the people who currently lead the U.S. is a good thing. Serving a "wake up call" is a good thing. Freaking them out is almost certainly not a good thing.


Green:
Well, that whole "can't be bought" mantra is over. He's now seeking donations, big ones. That "self-funding" thing is just another of his "things" that's gone the way of the dodo.

 

[MarathonMike]

Trump is pro-American and he has a proven record creating jobs and creating successful businesses. Oh but he went BK 4 times, you say! BFD I say. Part of being successful is trial and failure. He didn't make the rules, he made the rules work for him. Now he wants to be part of the rule making to make America stronger and get more Americans back to work. It's all about priorities, and when all is said and done, Trump's #1 priority is America and it's citizens.

If your sole criterion for selecting a President is "character" then Jimmy Carter would be your ideal man. Honest as the day is long, extremely hard worker. But he totally sucked as President!

Instead of being 24/7 Trump basher, how about applying the same rigorous analysis to your Hillary. You've written a freaking novel on Trump. There is clearly a personal dislike that is fueling your efforts and it is disingenuous of you to state otherwise, Mr. 320yrs.