It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: Libertas on March 31, 2011, 11:20:16 AM
-
...suspects Muslim disclosure!
Who knows?
Fresh from Indonesia? Muslim? Unheard of!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/30/donald_trump_obama_possibly_a_muslim.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/30/donald_trump_obama_possibly_a_muslim.html)
-
I watched Trump on O'Reilly last night. I must admit, I'm taking him a bit more seriously after the last few appearances in which I've seen him. He says convincingly that he's pro life, pro hetero-marriage, and that Obama is a complete and utter failure, with strong articulation as to why, as well as a good grasp on policy matters both foreign and domestic.
Clearly, he's going "all-in" with the birther thing. He's high profile, and has nothing to lose. The American people are increasingly viewing Obama as an outsider, and the number of people who believe he is a Muslim or foreign born is increasing. One thing Trump is accomplishing in my view is a de-stigmatization of those who just want the questions resolved. The Left and the establishment GOP has been very successful at painting those who want a definitive answer as kooks. Trump is articulately countering that effort. Now if you're calling birthers kooky, you're calling Donald Trump kooky. He's a media whore somewhat eccentric egomaniac with crazy hair, but he's been a well-known serious businessman for decades.
Trump will live or die by this tactic. If he yields no smoking gun, he's political toast. If he somehow is shown to be correct, and his determination ends up showing Obama to have been ineligible for the Presidency, I think Donald Trump may well be the next President.
-
When Trump made his initial statement on The View, Whoopi made known her opinion, drawn from a scientific analysis, of course, that the issue is a "pile of dog mess". Still, Trump persisted, I was very happy to hear.
-
If nothing else he will open up the debate. He is de-marginalizing Tea Party candidates.
It will be difficult to know, unlike Bush and Obama, what he will do when he assumes office.
-
When Trump made his initial statement on The View, Whoopi made known her opinion, drawn from a scientific analysis, of course, that the issue is a "pile of dog mess". Still, Trump persisted, I was very happy to hear.
I believe she called him a racist.....LOLOLOL
-
I watched Trump on Oreilly....He is a hoot and has the name recognition and credibility to not be dismissed as a kook.
I don't necessarily think he believes the whole birther thing,,,He did mention the possibility of
info on the birth certificate that would be damaging...like his religion listed as muslim or the whole name thing, but the subject is a lightening rod and he is one of a few who can challenge obamas birth without getting called nuts.
Whoppi tried, but did not succeed...She was made the fool on Oreilly by Trump, imo.
I'd also take his opinion over a liberals any day in regards to business.
-
I think we could do a lot worse than Trump. He clearly understands business and economics, and is vocal in asserting America's interests internationally (e.g. other countries throwing up barriers to our products while we give them unhindered access to our own market).
I think with Obama you see the culmination of this "faculty lounge" mentality, promulgated by the media, that says the President must be versed in every sort of academic esoterica else he's just some provincial rube. That's ridiculous. The President needs to be a competent administrator with a solid understanding of the broad brush strokes of economics, diplomacy, etc. Effective leaders have one important trait in common, which is the ability to marshal the best talent to, in turn, administer those parts of the government to which their specialist knowledge pertains. And there's one more thing that our liberal intelligentsia dismiss as a quaint anachronism: an emotional attachment and commitment to the well being of America. I'm not looking for absolute objectivity in my President. I want my President to have already taken sides on every issue that comes up -- America's side. I don't care about the whims of "the international community". Ideally our interests will largely overlap with other countries', but where they don't I expect my President to unapologetically take OUR side.
-
The President needs to be a competent administrator with a solid understanding of the broad brush strokes of economics, diplomacy, etc. Effective leaders have one important trait in common, which is the ability to marshal the best talent to, in turn, administer those parts of the government to which their specialist knowledge pertains. And there's one more thing that our liberal intelligentsia dismiss as a quaint anachronism: an emotional attachment and commitment to the well being of America.
Continuing the school house analogy:
In the past the majority of administrators, Principal, Assistant Principal etc., to the lament of the faculty lounge, were either coaches or shop teachers. Why do they always pick the knuckle draggers they lamented?
Obvious to all but them. The "chosen one's" success as a teacher necessitated organizing a group and accomplishing a demonstrable goal at or within a specific period of time. Be it, win the competition, or, build the table.
Our present administrator, by his own admission, was not even a successful community organizer. His mentors were only successful at destroying things or self-destruction.
-
I think we could do a lot worse than Trump. He clearly understands business and economics, and is vocal in asserting America's interests internationally (e.g. other countries throwing up barriers to our products while we give them unhindered access to our own market).
I think with Obama you see the culmination of this "faculty lounge" mentality, promulgated by the media, that says the President must be versed in every sort of academic esoterica else he's just some provincial rube. That's ridiculous. The President needs to be a competent administrator with a solid understanding of the broad brush strokes of economics, diplomacy, etc. Effective leaders have one important trait in common, which is the ability to marshal the best talent to, in turn, administer those parts of the government to which their specialist knowledge pertains. And there's one more thing that our liberal intelligentsia dismiss as a quaint anachronism: an emotional attachment and commitment to the well being of America. I'm not looking for absolute objectivity in my President. I want my President to have already taken sides on every issue that comes up -- America's side. I don't care about the whims of "the international community". Ideally our interests will largely overlap with other countries', but where they don't I expect my President to unapologetically take OUR side.
Or simply....We need someone who can say..."You're fired"! ::whoohoo::
And I agree...We need to get over the issue of a President an expert in every field.....Good leaders understand how to delegate, and I don't mean employ a bunch of czars.
Or choose joe biden for his "expertise" in foreign policy. Which proves obama is neither a good community organizer or delegater.
-
Trump on O'Reilly again tonight. Basically saying that going into Iraq and leaving will leave them at the mercy of Iran the moment we leave. He says, don't leave, stay - and to the victor go the spoils. We take the oil we need, give the Iraqis what they need, give some to Britain and other nations, and repay ourselves trillions of dollars with oil revenue. Iran WILL NOT gain a nuclear weapon - he will do what is necessary to prevent it.
He's beginning to turn my head. I can't tell yet if it's because I want to see the train crash, or because I want to believe that boldness can win the day. But I'm liking what I've heard from him the past few days.
-
While not actually saying so, I think Rush has sort of put his stamp of approval on Trump. They're friends at least, and he's been on Rush's show a few times. Rush is not an endorsing type of course, but I don't think he would give Trump access to his audience if he didn't think the man was seriously qualified for the office.
I would say that he certainly could be no worse than the current occupier, but who couldn't you say that about?
-
The thing to discern is whether he is fluffing us or he will stick to his guns.
-
I worry a bit about his seeming propensity to believe that might, $$, may make right and his version of commonsense is the end-all and be-all. There is the Constitution to consider, and I do, as a PRIORITY. I'd like to hear from him his take and that.
-
I worry a bit about his seeming propensity to believe that might, $$, may make right and his version of commonsense is the end-all and be-all. There is the Constitution to consider, and I do, as a PRIORITY. I'd like to hear from him his take and that.
I've actually thought -- especially given the current occupier -- that you could write a computer program using the Constitution as a script for its internal rules, and it would be a more effective President 90% of the time.
President HAL 9000.
-
Trumps thoughts on Iraq and iran are all capitalistic....To the victor goes the spoils...We win, so we set the rules, which we get the oil, we say who else gets some and we will not allow the neighbor an opportunity of a hostile takeover to destroy what we have "won"....because we will set up a society to benefit the UNITED STATES first.
Personally, I like the hell out of it. ::beertoast::
-
Trumps thoughts on Iraq and iran are all capitalistic....To the victor goes the spoils...We win, so we set the rules, which we get the oil, we say who else gets some and we will not allow the neighbor an opportunity of a hostile takeover to destroy what we have "won"....because we will set up a society to benefit the UNITED STATES first.
Personally, I like the hell out of it. ::beertoast::
It's the philosophy that governed the conduct of war until Western civilization became afraid of the consequences of war. Why bother killing people from another country unless you plan to win utterly, and if you win utterly, why do anything but use the victory to your advantage?
And I have no love for war, nor do I have any first hand knowledge of the horrors. All I'm saying is "if, then". The old way is logical.
ETA: What he's doing here is turning the "no war for oil" crap on its head.
-
I b'lieve I just got voted off the island. ::thinking::
-
I b'lieve I just got voted off the island. ::thinking::
Might makes right...there is nothing unconstitutional there.....
But if we give you the immunity idol, that could be unconstitutional...... :D
-
I b'lieve I just got voted off the island. ::thinking::
No, your question is the one that must be answered correctly before any of the rest of it can be valid. You're on solid ground. The rest of us are just giddy at the prospect of an unapologetic leader in the White House.
-
I b'lieve I just got voted off the island. ::thinking::
No, your question is the one that must be answered correctly before any of the rest of it can be valid. You're on solid ground. The rest of us are just giddy at the prospect of an unapologetic leader in the White House.
I doff my hat and bow to your courtesy. ;D
I'd thank God for an unapologetic leader, based in Constitutional principles, in the WH, but seeing as we currently have an unapologetic "leader" in the White House, reigning based on his marxist principles, untethered to anything we recognize as AMERICAN, I'd prefer the next occupant have a firm grasp of our traditional, concrete guidelines is all, lest he get all uppity an' sh*t on US.
Do I alwus have to be the wet blanket 'round heah?
-
No.
Is he going to be in the May 5, debate? If these strong free thinkers are not allowed in the debates it's toast. The Rovians are having sleepless nights trying to make sure that stage is full of truce making get-a-longs. Trump and West at least should be up there.
-
No.
Is he going to be in the May 5, debate? If these strong free thinkers are not allowed in the debates it's toast. The Rovians are having sleepless nights trying to make sure that stage is full of truce making get-a-longs. Trump and West at least should be up there.
May 5th debate on what?
-
The first Presidential debate and it will be aired on Fox.
The contest is on and it's time to get all our guys up on that stage.
-
The first Presidential debate and it will be aired on Fox.
The contest is on and it's time to get all our guys up on that stage.
Just so. I want to see them all.
None of this "you're not party affiliated" or "party condoned" BS.
-
I want Trump and as many other "outspoken" candidates as we can get. As mentioned by others, these candidates can do a lot of good by - if nothing else - injecting issues into the debate without the "serious" candidates having to take that risk themselves.
I don't know how exactly, but we're going to have to step on the Rovians early and hard. More of their same old, same old is just a recipe for disaster. The 2012 GOP primary needs to be treated with at least as much energy as the 2010 midterms. Any candidate the media pronounces "unelectable" or is the recipient of sniping from useless anonymous bastards like these "House congressional aides" is doing something right. Flak is heaviest over the target!
-
Getting all our guys up on that stage will step on Rovian toes.
As you said, first off they will bring up topics that the more timid would otherwise not broach.
Also, their responses to those topics will be revealing.
Personally I don't think the RINOs are up to the task and they will show themselves weak. They should consider it an opportunity to show their breadth and depth; however, having none they will fight to keep TeaParty candidates off the stage.
-
Crush the Rovian's!
Grind them into dust!
The time is now!
-
...Trump and West at least should be up there.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think West has any intention of running for President now.
We'll at least have Bachmann, Cain, likely Trump, likely Palin, maybe Bolton... that's a good crop of conservatives to at the very least drive the conservative message into the debates. Pawlenty will be conservative in debate too, because he is conservative - he's just not the unapologetic warrior we're looking for.
Trump scares the hell out of me. I think he's an egomaniac, and we already have one of those. Like Pan, I want to know first and foremost that whomever we nominate is a constitutionalist. But he's at least gotten me to stand up and pay attention over the last week, and he's hitting all the right notes.
-
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think West has any intention of running for President now.
We'll at least have Bachmann, Cain, likely Trump, likely Palin, maybe Bolton... that's a good crop of conservatives to at the very least drive the conservative message into the debates.
Big ruh ro here, I meant Cain, my fingers took control of my mind.
I love Bachmann but she has a more important job and she hasn't announced.
Palin, she hasn't announced either. I don't think they will have unannounced and last moment candidates up there.
I get the sweats thinking about a stage full of wonk worms.
-
...I get the sweats thinking about a stage full of wonk worms.
No doubt. Clash of the GOP Titans: Romney, Pawlenty, Barbour, Santorum, Huntsman, Daniels, Gingrich, Huckabee.
My God.
-
...I get the sweats thinking about a stage full of wonk worms.
No doubt. Clash of the GOP Titans: Romney, Pawlenty, Barbour, Santorum, Huntsman, Daniels, Gingrich, Huckabee.
My God.
You just spoiled my whole weekend. (Don't worry - I'm used to it ;-)
-
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/31/fox-exclusive-rnc-considers-greater-role-crafting-presidential-debate-schedule
...
"With some debates already scheduled less than five weeks from now, we know it is important to move quickly to determine what role, if any, the potential candidates would like the RNC to play in the debate structure, format and timing," RNC Chief of Staff Jeff Larson wrote
...
The process of deciding whether to officially sanction debates is part of the committee's active effort under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus to assert its influence and increase organization
../
On May 5, Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party are set to kick off the 2012 primary season with the first major debate of the election cycle, although Larson indicated in the memo that "the Committee has determined the best start date might be later than May."
...
Already on Wednesday, The Reagan Foundation, along with partners NBC News and Politico, announced they are rescheduling the May debate to September. "Although there will be a long and impressive list of Republican candidates who eventually take the field, too few have made the commitment thus far for a debate to be worthwhile in early May," said John Heubusch, the Reagan Foundation's executive director in a statement.
WTF? This reads as if the debate has been canceled?
The GOP is going to help?
HELP! ::gaah:: Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
[cont]
"The recommendation we'd offer from the Committee is for there to be no more than two debates per month. It takes at least three days for a campaign to get to an event, prepare for the debate and then participate in the debate. If the debate schedule continues to escalate moving forward there could be 50-70 debates for the candidates."
The Committee on Presidential Debates is headed by Indiana committeeman Jim Bopp of Indiana, who has a background in campaign finance and election law. Priebus chose Bopp, Larson, and Wisconsin's Steve King to set up separate conference calls with the inner circles of potential candidates to "continue the discussion about the RNC's role in debates," in particular whether "we can reach some consensus on is when the debates might start and the frequency of debates."
Committee members include: Linda Ackerman (California), Congressman Dick Armey (Texas), Al Cardenas (Florida), Maria Cino (Virginia), Jo Ann Davidson (Ohio), Mike Duncan (Kentucky), Mike Grebe (Wisconsin), Debbie Joslin (Alaska), Tom Minnery (Colorado), and Solomon Yue (Oregon).
-
Idunno... Where the RNC seeks to insert itself, it's always good to be skeptical...
On the other hand, if the first debate is really scheduled for May 5th, and there are NO declared candidates as of April 1st, with many of the hopefuls saying they do not intend to officially announce until summer, it could just be a case of the debate planners jumping the gun, expecting the field to have been more established by now, and reacting to the fact that they have debates planned with no candidates to attend them.
I agree with the candidates choosing to wait, BTW. Why start hammering on each other now, while the Dems are continuing to self-destruct?
-
Re: early debates
Some TV sage opined that early debates benefitted the unknowns and hurt extablished candidates. It allows unknowns to become known and raise nasty issues about the Ruling Class.
The GOP inserting itself to "help", affirms the opinionator's premise.
ETA: as you said, if we don't have candidates how can we have debates?
-
May is far too early. We first need to have some people throw their hats into the ring and let them make the circuit tour. From there there needs to be a field narrowing. I would hate to see a debate with 25 potential candidates. That would take away form the the true contenders. Any more than 10 in a debate is worthless. No one gets to give a complete answer and its on to the next question or they will need a debate that lasts 4 hours. ::falldownshocked::(YAWN). The earliest the debate should be is in August. Heck, even then, some might not have thrown their hat into the ring.