Hilarious TRUMP Lovers

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
It's not important who Trump was playing golf with, but what IS important is that the scumbag lies almost every time that he opens his mouth, and when you lie about insignificant shit, it's pretty clear that it's automatic that you'll do so about stuff that IS important:

Trump says he doesn't remember ever playing golf with Samuel L. Jackson—Jackson smashes him

A few days ago an interview with famous actor (an avid golf fan) Samuel Jackson hit the internets. In it, Jackson mused about how Donald Trump was a terrible cheat at the game of golf. This echoed numerous other accounts of the Don’s (possibly) pathological ability to delude himself into believing he’s as great as he says he is. The news story spread just enough for the orange-headed-Republican-frankenstein-monster to give one of his patented, perfectly blunt and dullard responses on Twitter.

Hehe. Well, that solves that. Donald Trump isn’t a liar, you are! Samuel L. Jackson posted an Instagram photo of the receipt Trump’s golf club sent him (which has since been taken down).
Jackson responded Tuesday night by posting an apparent bill from Trump's New Jersey golf club on his Instagram account.
"A bill from the guy that doesn't know me & never golfed with me! I'm gonna Block his ass too!" he exclaimed in the post. (It has since been taken down, perhaps because the bill included his apparent home address.)
A little more damning was Jackson’s follow-up Instagram screengrab of fellow actor, and apparently the other guy playing with both Trump and Jackson that day, Anthony Anderson:
Screen_Shot_2016-01-06_at_7.56.58_AM.png

In the academic world that’s called “multiple attestation.” In the detective racket it’s called “corroborating testimony.” The point of it all is this: Donald Trump is such a pathological liar I’m afraid he cannot face the truth of anything without turning into a salt statue and blowing away in the wind.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Hey Dumbfuck, you really think Trump thinks Paris is in Germany?

Go suck a cock you Queen faggot.

Wow, somebody even dumber than Road Kill suggesting that he knows better than 10 news sources, lol. Blow yer daddy while you bang yer momma, Blubbery Bellied scum...Loser!@#0:devilex:azzkick(&^^^:):trx-smly0:kissingbb:madasshol:bigfinger:fckmad:
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,023
Tokens
DaFinch, you're gay....end of story.
 

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
2,755
Tokens
It's not important who Trump was playing golf with, but what IS important is that the scumbag lies almost every time that he opens his mouth, and when you lie about insignificant shit, it's pretty clear that it's automatic that you'll do so about stuff that IS important:

Trump says he doesn't remember ever playing golf with Samuel L. Jackson—Jackson smashes him

A few days ago an interview with famous actor (an avid golf fan) Samuel Jackson hit the internets. In it, Jackson mused about how Donald Trump was a terrible cheat at the game of golf. This echoed numerous other accounts of the Don’s (possibly) pathological ability to delude himself into believing he’s as great as he says he is. The news story spread just enough for the orange-headed-Republican-frankenstein-monster to give one of his patented, perfectly blunt and dullard responses on Twitter.

Hehe. Well, that solves that. Donald Trump isn’t a liar, you are! Samuel L. Jackson posted an Instagram photo of the receipt Trump’s golf club sent him (which has since been taken down).
Jackson responded Tuesday night by posting an apparent bill from Trump's New Jersey golf club on his Instagram account.
"A bill from the guy that doesn't know me & never golfed with me! I'm gonna Block his ass too!" he exclaimed in the post. (It has since been taken down, perhaps because the bill included his apparent home address.)
A little more damning was Jackson’s follow-up Instagram screengrab of fellow actor, and apparently the other guy playing with both Trump and Jackson that day, Anthony Anderson:
Screen_Shot_2016-01-06_at_7.56.58_AM.png

In the academic world that’s called “multiple attestation.” In the detective racket it’s called “corroborating testimony.” The point of it all is this: Donald Trump is such a pathological liar I’m afraid he cannot face the truth of anything without turning into a salt statue and blowing away in the wind.

Ok, so what do you think about Hillary and the stories she spins? Are the 60+% (Quinnipiac) of the country who say she is untrustworthy wrong?
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
DaFinch, you're gay....end of story.

Why? Because a blubber bellied, limp dick "I own a yacht and have a Playmate wife" racist scumbag says so? Blow yer daddy while you bang yer momma, Gas Bag...Loser!@#0:devilex:azzkick(&^^^:):trx-smly0:kissingbb:madasshol:bigfinger:fckmad:
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Ok, so what do you think about Hillary and the stories she spins? Are the 60+% (Quinnipiac) of the country who say she is untrustworthy wrong?

Yes, they're wrong. Hillary has her share of warts, but compared to those idiots on the Repub side, she's practically FDR. When push comes to shove, many people will hold their noses and vote for her before they go for Trump or that idiot Cruz. I saw an article that quoted that Quinnipiac poll who was gushing about how Carson does against Clinton, not that I believe the results that were shown, but, who gives a fuck about THAT match-up, YOU have about as much chance of getting the GOP nomination as Carson does. Republicans have lost 4 of the last 6 Presidential elections(and 5 of the last 6 popular votes) for a reason, and they're even worse now. They are clueless, and so are you, but you'll find that out soon enough.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Yes, they're wrong. Hillary has her share of warts, but compared to those idiots on the Repub side, she's practically FDR. When push comes to shove, many people will hold their noses and vote for her before they go for Trump or that idiot Cruz. I saw an article that quoted that Quinnipiac poll who was gushing about how Carson does against Clinton, not that I believe the results that were shown, but, who gives a fuck about THAT match-up, YOU have about as much chance of getting the GOP nomination as Carson does. Republicans have lost 4 of the last 6 Presidential elections(and 5 of the last 6 popular votes) for a reason, and they're even worse now. They are clueless, and so are you, but you'll find that out soon enough.

Repubs just don't get it. It's why they will wake up after next election wondering why the got their ass kicked again. But you can bet Russ, Dave , Willie and Joe will be here in 2020 saying the same shit.

"Poor people and high school dropout vote". Lol....as if they make up enough of the demo to swing the elections.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Repubs just don't get it. It's why they will wake up after next election wondering why the got their ass kicked again. But you can bet Russ, Dave , Willie and Joe will be here in 2020 saying the same shit.

"Poor people and high school dropout vote". Lol....as if they make up enough of the demo to swing the elections.

Yup, although, maybe we'll get lukcy and they won't be around to do so. And you left out arguably the biggest schmuck of them all, A-suck.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Yup, although, maybe we'll get lukcy and they won't be around to do so. And you left out arguably the biggest schmuck of them all, A-suck.

True.....but that dumbfuck lost a ban bet here, welched and keeps posting.....so I won't even acknowledge that old, miserable ,scumbag welcher. Even if they aren't on earth anymore.....they will still have Internet access in hell.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
True.....but that dumbfuck lost a ban bet here, welched and keeps posting.....so I won't even acknowledge that old, miserable ,scumbag welcher. Even if they aren't on earth anymore.....they will still have Internet access in hell.

He did?!?! I missed that. You understand that I was talking about Acebb, right, but, if true, why am I not surprised?
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
He did?!?! I missed that. You understand that I was talking about Acebb, right, but, if true, why am I not surprised?

I do.....it got lost in the muddle if one of the threads....but he bet guesser about all my plays matching power sweep( long story short).....they didn't .....the bet was lifetime ban.....Acebb using word games to weasel out but he lost and is still posting. Yep, no real surprise to anyone that he didn't honor it.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Unreal the people this party puts up.


Friday, Jan 8, 2016 02:30 PM PST Ted Cruz is worse: The only thing scarier than Trump winning the nomination is him losing it

Stop freaking out about Trump winning the nomination because compared to Cruz, his agenda looks downright moderate

Ted Cruz, Donald Trump (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite/Reuters/Rick Wilking)
It’s just a few short weeks until primary voting begins, meaning we’re going to endure one, maybe two at the most rounds of journalists writing hopeful articles projecting that Donald Trump loses, even though he has held the lead in polls since July. The latest round was kicked off by Ezra Klein of Vox, who wrote a piece projecting Trump’s lead holds right up until the end, when Republican voters come to their senses and switch off to someone supposedly more respectable. Ross Douthat of The New York Times echoes the same argument, though adding that he doesn’t think Trump has to lose any votes, so much as someone else has to coalesce support to beat him.
Advertisement







Both these pieces are remarkable for leaning more heavily on hunches than political science, adding an air of wistfulness to the whole enterprise. It’s not that these writers are wrong, exactly. It could play out that way, sure, though it could also play out a totally different way that leads Trump to the nomination, just as easily.
But I have to ask: So what? Who really cares if Donald Trump wins the nomination?
It’s obvious why Douthat cares. He’s a Republican and wants to back someone who is a good soldier and has a better shot at beating Hillary Clinton. But, despite Klein’s ostensibly neutral stance on the topic, it feels like he only bothered to game this out because he really does not want Trump to win. You don’t usually see think pieces gaming out a path to losing for someone with as strong a lead as Trump without that wishfulness underpinning the operation.
To be clear, Klein is far from alone on this. It’s safe to say that many in the media, including the liberal media, find Trump especially disturbing and, even if they will never vote Republican, they want to see someone a little more in line with the party establishment win. That’s why waiting for Trump to collapse and breathlessly wondering if this will be the day has been sport for six months and counting now.
I personally dislike Trump, with his obnoxious racism and his rallies that feel like anti-desegregation meetings from the ’60s and his misogyny and his stupid hair, as well. But, personal style aside, the grim fact of the matter is that Trump is no worse than the wretched hive of scum and villainy that makes up the entire Republican field at this point. Every last one of those mothers is a moral monster who has no business running the country and if any of them win, this country will be so much the sorrier for it.
Let’s say that Trump does flame out, Howard Dean-style, in the month of February. If that does happen, odds are that Ted Cruz, who has been lurking around in the background like Gollum, will step up and take the nomination. It’s not just that Cruz is the favorite “second choice” option for Republican voters, but he’s a strong favorite for Trump supporters, and will vacuum them up in case of a Trump collapse.
If this happens, it will be much worse than if Trump just wins this thing. Cruz has the word “senator” in front of his name and his kids are cute and he’s won an election, so he gets treated as if he’s a less-awful version of Trump. But he is actually way, way worse, if you look past surface issues like squawkiness in the press. Compared to Cruz, Trump’s agenda looks downright moderate.
Take the candidates on two of the major issues driving the election: Taxes and immigration. On both of them, Trump has a nutty right wing agenda that will cause immeasurable damage to this country, but Cruz is even worse.
Trump’s plan is a standard right-wing wish list, promising to reduce deficits when it will clearly explode them by dramatically reducing the amount of taxes the wealthiest Americans pay. But despite the radicalism underpinning it, it still looks, if you squint hard, like a kind of sort of tax plan of the kind you might be familiar with. It’s still technically progressive — people who make under $25,000 will pay nothing, and then three tax brackets on top of that. (Which are clearly designed to allow millionaires and billionaires to see their tax burden plummet, while keeping it roughly the same for everyone else.) It’s dangerous and irresponsible, but at least it is recognizable as a tax plan.

Cruz, on the other hand, plans to eliminate the IRS. Oh, he claims he means to “replace” it, in the same way that Republicans always say they plan to “replace” Obamacare without actually offering a plan to do so. But he’s made this nutty idea, of eliminating the people who actually collect money so that everyone else can do their job, the centerpiece of his campaign. The tax plan he’s tossed on that — a 10% flat tax — is some crazed right-wing radical nonsense, but it almost doesn’t matter. Whether it’s 10%, 20%, or 90%, who cares if you’re running around saying you’re going to shut down the only agency that has the right to collect the money and enforce the tax code, whatever it is?
In other words, Trump is crazy, but Cruz is nihilistic. Trump runs around claiming he’ll make America “great” again (which appears to mean restoring past levels of white supremacy), but Cruz’s attitude is far more reminiscent of a stalker who swears to his obsession object that if he can’t have her, no one can.
Trump’s entire campaign, of course, has been built on his hysteria-mongering on immigration, with his tendency to characterize Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals and his promise to “build the greatest wall that you’ve ever seen” between the U.S. and Mexico. (Never mind that most undocumented immigrants don’t actually sneak across the border but enter with legal visas that then run out.) Oh, and while he’s at it, he promises to make Mexico pay for it. He hasn’t yet promised to get magical elves to build it, but hey, there’s a few weeks to go until the primary.
advertisement


Cruz’s own father is an immigrant from a Spanish-speaking country, which might make you think he’d be more reasonable about this, but in reality, he’s even more radical than Trump. He not only has signed off on everything Trump wants to do, including mass deportation and ending birthright citizenship, but he goes a step further. While Trump claims to support legal immigration, Cruz promises to halt any increases in legal immigration, claiming that it suppresses wages. (Cruz’s fear that overpopulation reduces wages has not reduced his enthusiasm for forced childbirth, however.)
Cruz likes to trumpet how much “harder” he is on immigration than Trump, in fact. “He’s advocated allowing folks to come back in and become citizens,” Cruz has argued. “I oppose that.”
All this is happening not because Donald Trump is a uniquely obnoxious person, but because the conservative movement in this country, which is indistinguishable from the Republican base, has become radicalized, hateful and desperate. They believe “their” country is being stolen from them. They have become enraptured by the politics of purity, believing that the measure of how good a candidate is lays with how radical he is, how “hard” he is willing to be. The candidates, all of them, are simply responding to what the voters want and what the voters want right now is a candidate who would rather burn this country to the ground than to let conservatives share it with people they see as inferior to them.
In a sick sort of way, the system is working, as the candidates are responding to what their voters want. But that is also why there’s no use worrying about Donald Trump winning the nomination. He may. He may not. But whoever wins — and therefore has a chance at the presidency — will be just as bad, or, as with Cruz, quite likely worse.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=6]- JANUARY 10, 2016 -[/h][h=1]TRUMP! MASSIVE CROWD SHOWS THERE IS NO DOUBT WHO “SILENT MAJORITY” WANT[/h]The Herald
ROCK HILL - Donald Trump is a leader – get used to him.
As many as 10,000 people who wanted to see him Friday at Winthop University show clearly Trump’s march to the Republican nomination is as sure as Sherman’s march to the sea. Trump will crush his Republican opponents and smile as others squirm into forgotten history.
There was greatness, pure and proud, under the only Friday Night Lights at Winthrop Coliseum. Donald Trump showed he is a leader, like him or not. He was brash and bold and he smiled and scowled and forcefully boasted how he alone is the one who will save America.
“I had to run,” Trump told the crowd, so he could save the country.
There it was. The guy said he is “The One.”
Trump spoke without prepared speech and rambled sometimes. Without question he was absolutely thrilling. He was funny at times. He had confidence. He used a bit of profanity – kind of like real life has a bit of profanity.
Sure, a few protesters were escorted out. A few were Muslims the media immediately made a story.
That was sideshow, done for the cameras and attention by both the protesters and Trump. The media took to escorted-out protesters like sharks to chum.
Yes, those protesters matter.
But the real story of Friday night and Trump was the thousands of people in the stands. The potential voters in the Feb. 20 primary and November election.
That was the story most of the media missed because they are penned up willingly like sheep and are terrified of not having the exact same story as the other media, so they focused on a few protesters getting the boot and the 6,500 others in the crowd, and the thousands more in the line, in the cold, clutching tickets who could not get in the coliseum’s capacity was reached.
These conservative and great people want somebody to say they matter because they do matter. Trump told them Friday. He would have told more of them if there were more seats.
As the doors were locked, a woman screamed “I wanna see Trump!” to the officers from the Winthrop police and Rock Hill police and federal agents. Hundreds more pushed forward trying to get in. Angie Wells, a female officer with great courage, took the words and did not flinch.
Inside Trump called out, “The fire marshal, whoever you are, we love you!”
The crowd roared.
The fire marshal in Rock Hill is Otis Driggers of the Rock Hill Fire Department. He was there Friday night checking exits and the crowd, and he decided the doors must close. Driggers, who takes his job of public safety more seriously than any politician takes a vote, willingly was the bad guy so Trump could be the good guy.
There is no push by thousands scorned to see any other candidate. Only Trump.
So much is made by the political and pundit/media class that Trump’s supporters are almost all white. So what. Trump showed that almost all white audience Friday night they matter just as much as anybody and owe nobody any explanation for their Americannness. These are conservative people in a conservative area of a conservative state.
The people there Friday night are good people. I was proud to sit among them and talk to dozens and dozens of them.
These are the people who vote in Republican primaries. It is their election on Feb. 20. Ten thousand wanting to get in an arena on a Friday night shows who will win.
“It’s a movement,” said Catawba’s John Stewart.
The signs in the arena read, “The silent majority.”
They were not silent Friday night.
This was not about Trump versus Hillary Clinton in November. That can wait. The people who would vote for Clinton will have their turn Feb. 27 in the S.C. primary, and again in November.
Friday night was about the people who don’t like the Clintons and Obama and liberals and are against amnesty for illegal immigrants and want to keep their guns.
Trump was funny and engaging, and if he has no details on how he will do things, so what. Just don’t think about the millions of Hispanic children of illegal immigrants whose parents came to America out of desperation who will be sent to Mexico or El Salvador or Guatemala if Trump gets his way.
Many, including me, tried to stand on the concourse for the bird’s eye view until police said they needed to keep it clear for safety. Trump was talking about how cops are the best. He said it as he talked about how “Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away” and the crowd cheered for Trump.
There were no guns in Winthrop Coliseum Friday night as guns are barred from campus and were barred Friday by the throng of cops sweeping for them at the metal detectors.
Why does Trump have Secret Service? Why metal detectors? Why so many cops Friday night?
One answer. Guns.
But Trump says there will be guns everywhere, all the time, if he is elected. No more gun-free zones, he said. At his rally Friday night, if he had his way, everybody would have been packing.
Guns, in the hands of good people, would protect the good people from the bad people with guns, he said.
One of the cops on the floor protecting everybody was Lt. Tim Ayers of the Rock Hill Police Department. I proudly stood near him as the National Anthem was played and Ayers stood at attention, his hand over his heart. I thought of his courage and then thanked him for it.
Tim Ayers spent two years of his life risking his own safety putting Hells Angels gang members in prison for barrels of guns and mountains of drugs.
I moved around the arena a few times during the speech as the media of sheep sat in their enclosed pen, their corral, doing what Trump tells them even as he ridicules them. I sat in front of Detective Ryan Thomas whose days are spent putting killers of the innocent who use guns in jail.
These people I sat around and near and next to who are for Trump do not want diplomacy or politics. They want a leader, and Trump is one.
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
TRUMP - Things You Might Not Know About Him


As candidates for president emerge it is important to know where each stands on issues that are important to AMERICA. The USA cannot afford to make another mistake in electing an anti-American Socialist, someone with a poor track record of public service, or someone who values illegal invaders more than hard-working, loyal Americans and her military.


Trump, hopefully, is waking some of the RINOs up. The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he's had and all the business deals he's made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, he's actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness.

A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didn't brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others.But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trump's plan is for America. It's funny how so many people say they don't know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans:



1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country's problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.


2.) Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn't said it directly that I know of, Trump's attitude about America and about winning tells me he'd most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, and I'm sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too.


3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles (which seem to support my comment in the last point):

American interests come first. Always. No apologies.

Maximum firepower and military preparedness.

Only go to war to win.

Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.

Keep the technological sword razor sharp.

See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.

Respect and support our present and past warriors.


4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.


5.) Trump makes the point that China's manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here.


Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U.S., once again creating jobs here.


6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act - NOPEC - S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin's drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.


7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. (And he says he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn't put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.


8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we've lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to:

Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%

From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%

From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%

$1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%


9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it's a "job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity" that "can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed." He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.


10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don't stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.


11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.


12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs "a safety net, not a hammock." He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.


13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.


14.) Trump opposes Common Core.


15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.


16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.


17.) Trump's view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a state’s rights issue, not a federal issue.


18.) Trump supports the death penalty. Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense, innovative thinking in Washington (Hmmm… looks like he believes in horse sense!). He says it's about seeing the unseen and that's the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around. He tells a personal story to illustrate the point: "When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it's on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done. The problem wasn't the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy. We didn't need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense.

On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been under remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.



Donald Trump's entire life has been made up of success and winning. He's been accused of bankruptcies, but that's not true. He's never filed personal bankruptcy. He's bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as businesses do all the time. But he's never been bankrupt personally. He's a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation. Earlier I quoted Trump saying, "I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately - fiercely, even." We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans. Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them. Looking over this list of what he wants for America I see a very necessary set of goals that are long past due. Before we criticize someone because the media does, maybe we should seriously consider what he has to offer, as it is important to know what each of our candidates to replace a President who has ruined us globally, and who has put us on a path to disaster!

This is not an appeal to vote for Trump, only to give some depth of comparison, before the next debate.
 
Last edited:

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=1]DONALD TRUMP’S ART OF THE STEAL[/h]Time
There is a reason most presidential candidates stump through diners and living rooms this time of year. They can’t fill a bigger room.
And then there is Donald J. Trump.
On the second day of January, in the Gulf Coast town of Biloxi, Miss., at least 13,000 stood for hours in a stinging chill to pack an entire sports arena for Trump, and when that venue was full, the overflow spilled into a second megaspace nearby. Trump called it the biggest crowd in Mississippi political history, which is exactly what you’d expect him to say, and also entirely plausible.
A few days earlier, Trump had packed a convention hall in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two days later, he filled the 8,000-seat Paul Tsongas Center in Lowell, Mass., with people who waited on line in subfreezing cold. The next night, after standing for two hours in single-digit temperatures, locals filled the equivalent of two high school gymnasia on the Vermont–New Hampshire border to catch Trump’s revival show.
Given these crowds, the unprecedented Trump-driven television ratings for GOP debates and his unsinkable run at the top of the national polls–a streak of more than five months and counting–even the most mainstream Republicans are coming to grips with an idea they have resisted since last summer. This could be their nominee. And they are asking themselves, could they stop worrying and, perhaps, learn to love the Donald?
Leading Republicans unhappily find themselves deep in “probing” conversation, asking, “perhaps he wouldn’t be so bad,” says veteran strategist and lobbyist Ed Rogers. True, Trump is a wild card, a flamethrower, a man with no known party loyalties and no coherent political principles, a thrice-married casino mogul and reality-TV star, a narcissist and even a demagogue. On the other hand: Biloxi.
At a time when the crown princes of Republican politics can’t mount so much as a two-car parade, Trump is drawing the biggest crowds by far. He has the largest social-media footprint–again, by far–and lodges the sharpest attacks on Hillary Clinton while attracting the greatest number of potential recruits to Republican ranks. As a result, Washington insiders from both parties are now calling around to GOP heavies, asking, “Do you know anybody on Trump’s campaign? Who is on his foreign-policy team? I need to get to know them fast.” Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who entertained a discussion of Stop Trump strategies at a meeting late last year, now consults regularly with the front runner by phone. Even if the GOP could resist, should it? “He’s got the mo, he’s got the masses,” says Rick Hohlt, a GOP strategist. “He’s attracting a new class of voters.” Efforts to stop him have failed miserably; meanwhile, Trump may be getting smarter as a candidate, adds Hohlt. “He knows when to push and when to back off.”
The man is moving people, and politics does not get more basic than that. Trump is a bonfire in a field of damp kindling—an overcrowded field of governors and former governors and junior Senators still trying to strike a spark. His nearest rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, has traction in Iowa among the evangelical bloc and—in contrast to Trump—is a tried-and-true conservative. But with little more than half the support Trump boasts in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, Cruz has a long way to go to show that he can move masses.
Cruz staffers, tellingly, have been studying a 1967 tome titled Suite 3505 as a playbook for their campaign. This F. Clifton White memoir, long out of print, tells the story of the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign. That was the last successful populist rebellion inside the Republican Party, propelling a rock-ribbed conservative past the Establishment insiders–just as Cruz hopes to do. But this triumph of intramural knife fighting proved a disaster at general-election time. Goldwater suffered one of the worst defeats in American political history. It’s no wonder that GOP leaders are every bit as wary of Cruz as they are of Trump.
In short, the GOP has awakened less than a month from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary to find itself in bed between a bombshell and a kamikaze. It’s a sobering dawn for a political party that seemed, not long ago, just a tweak or two away from glory. Republicans dominate America’s state legislatures and governors’ mansions. They control both houses of Congress. So why is their electorate leaning toward the outstretched grip of such a man as Trump?
And could Trump be a sign of something bigger even than himself?
Traditional GOP power brokers have long since lost count of the indignities Trump has inflicted on their rites and rituals. Since entering the race in June with a fantastical promise to wall off America’s southern border and send the bill to Mexico, Trump has shredded the political rule book, scattering the pieces from his private helicopter. Have mouth, will travel. Policies that would be preposterous coming from anyone else–like barring all Muslims from entering the country or hiking U.S. tariffs while somehow erasing trade barriers erected by other nations–sound magical to his supporters when served up by their hero. Outrages that would sink an ordinary candidate, like mocking a person who has a congenital disease or giving a pass to Vladimir Putin for the murder of Russian journalists, lifted Trump atop the polls and then helped keep him there. What Flubber was to physics, Trump is to politics: an antidote to gravity, cooked up by a quirky but prodigious amateur.
Other candidates work to relate their lives to the struggles of ordinary voters. Trump does the opposite, encouraging Americans to savor vicariously his billionaire’s privilege of saying whatever he damn well pleases. “I love Donald Trump because he’s so totally politically incorrect. He’s gone after every group,” says Greg Casady, 61, an Army veteran who joined an immense Trump rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa. “He’s spending his own bucks–therefore he doesn’t have to play the politically correct game. He says what we wish we could say but we can’t afford to anymore.”
Trump is an anomaly, but not the only one in this 2016 campaign. There is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an avowed socialist who leads the early polls in the New Hampshire Democratic primary–despite the fact that he spent most of his career spurning the Democrats. Though not as shocking or aggressive as Trump, Sanders is no less the darling of a discontented army. He too draws large audiences–but unlike Trump, Sanders faces an even stronger opponent in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Big Money, the supposed superpower of post–Citizens United politics, is a dud so far. Super-PAC bets by various billionaires have done nothing to fire up such candidates as former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Bush has filled screens in key states with millions of dollars in both positive and negative ads. The result: falling poll numbers. Touted as a front runner a year ago, Bush is mired in single digits and rang in the new year by announcing that he was scrapping a round of ads in favor of more ground troops in early-voting states.
Big Media too has been brought low. The collapse of Trump was predicted so often, so erroneously, in so many outlets that the spectacle was almost comic, like a soap opera that keeps killing off the same deathless character. Televised debates became seminars in media ethics, with candidates delivering stern lectures to their questioners, while offscreen, campaigns threatened to boycott networks and blacklist reporters.
What if all of these groundswells are part of the same tsunami? By coming to grips with Trump, Republicans might begin grasping the future of presidential politics, as the digital forces that have upended commerce and communications in recent years begin to shake the bedrock of civic life.
Disintermediation is a long word for a seemingly simple idea: dumping the middleman. It came into use a half-century ago to describe changes in the banking business. A generation later, the term described a key concept of the Internet age. In one field after another, the power of networked computing swept middlemen out of the picture. Ubiquitous retailers like RadioShack and Waldenbooks have either downsized or vanished as their customers go online to buy directly from manufacturers and warehousers. Netflix shutters the Blockbuster chain by mailing movies directly to viewers–then offers streaming, which cuts out the mailbox as well. Craigslist drains the advertising lifeblood from local newspapers, and local libraries reinvent themselves after the web puts the world in your pocket. It’s a familiar story, one of the megatrends of our era.
Donald Trump is history’s most disintermediated presidential front runner. He has sidestepped the traditional middlemen–party, press, pollsters and pooh-bahs–to sell his candidacy directly to voters, building on a relationship he has nurtured with the public from project to project across decades.
As far back as 1986, Trump began seeding this direct relationship with the public. That was the year he goaded New York City Mayor Ed Koch into handing over the disastrous renovation of the Wollman ice-skating rink in Central Park. The decline of New York was an old story by then, and the ice rink was a sorrow symbol. City bureaucrats had turned a routine rehab into a six-year slog with no end in sight. Trump took the reins, and the project took less than six months. He cut the ribbon on a beautifully finished rink, completed ahead of schedule and below budget, with live TV there to cover it.
He followed up with more self-styled rescue missions: the East Coast shuttle operations of dying Eastern Airlines, for example, and the ruined paradise of Atlantic City. Launched with fanfare (if often abandoned in silence), these efforts burnished Trump’s image as a can-do, cut-the-crap businessman–even as he risked his fortune. This is part of the power of owning your image, free of the mediators. You can tell your own story, even if it is not entirely true. Trump’s a fine businessman, with a keen eye for bargains and a knack for leverage. Where he is peerless is as a promoter; he is the Michelangelo of ballyhoo.
A masterstroke in 2004 vaulted him free of remaining middlemen; that’s when Trump debuted his television show, The Apprentice. Tens of millions of Americans followed the cameras past the gatekeepers and into a direct relationship with the purse-lipped entrepreneur. That this intimacy is an illusion doesn’t really matter; it has an undeniable power to create loyal followings for even the unlikeliest characters. From the Kardashians of Rodeo Drive to the Robertsons of Duck Dynasty, from the Cake Boss to Honey Boo Boo, the crafted characters of reality TV experience a different kind of stardom from the TV and movie idols of the past. Fans are encouraged to feel that they know these people, not as fictional characters but as flesh and blood.
Something similar goes on in every celebrity Twitter feed or Instagram account. Properly tended, the social network of skilled disintermediators can grow to encompass tens of millions of people, all sharing a joke or commiserating over a disappointment or comparing breakfasts with their famous “friend.” The pop star Taylor Swift’s nearly 70 million Twitter followers recently overheard her share a Christmas memory with her brother Austin and chuckled at a picture of her cute elf costume.
Peggy Lemke, 64, from Dows, Iowa, is one of many voters who see what is going on. “Trump is a reality-show phenomenon,” she says. “His supporters treat this like American Idol. We treat everything like American Idol. I’m having a really hard time taking this seriously.”
Disintermediation is not entirely new. In 1941, the radio personality W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel dealt Lyndon B. Johnson the only defeat of his consummate insider’s career. Johnson had the credibility with middlemen, but O’Daniel had a direct connection to his listeners. Nearly 60 years later, the professional wrestler Jesse Ventura used his direct connection with an audience to win a three-way race for governor of Minnesota. But technology now gives the power of direct relationships to everyone, not just media stars; indeed, the line between being a media star and simply having a big Twitter following is blurring into nothingness. It’s telling that Trump’s rallies often feature appearances by a pair of women who go by the names Diamond and Silk, whose spirited endorsement of Trump on YouTube has been watched by nearly 100,000 people–as many as tune in to some cable news shows.
Trump tends his virtual community with care. Among the candidates, his 5.6 million Twitter followers are matched only by his counterpart at the top of the Democratic polls, Hillary Clinton. Trump has 5.2 million Facebook likes—three times as many as Cruz and 17 times as many as Bush. His 828,000 Instagram followers is nearly a third more than Clinton’s 632,000. For many, if not all, of these individuals, their networked relationships with Trump feel closer and more genuine than the images of the candidate they see filtered through middlemen.
This can explain why Trump is unscathed by apparent gaffes and blunders that would kill an ordinary candidate. His followers feel that they already know him. When outraged middlemen wail in disgust on cable news programs and in op-ed columns, they only highlight their irrelevance to the Trumpiverse.
Indeed, the psychology of disintermediation adds another layer of protection to a figure like Trump. For members of an online network, the death of the middlemen is not some sad side effect of this tidal shift; it is a crusade. Early adopters of Netflix relished the fate of brick-and-mortar video stores, just as Trump voters rejoice in the idea of life without the “lamestream” media. Trump gets this: mocking abuse of his traveling press corps is a staple of his campaign speeches.
The fading power of middlemen is also visible in less garish manifestations than the Trump campaign. For example, voters used to judge candidates in part on their record of government service. Experience was a middleman, a sort of ticket puncher, that stood between the would-be President and the public. Not anymore. A stable of successful GOP governors–Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin–have dropped out, unable to understand the new calculus. As for the three current Senators on the trail–Cruz, Florida’s Marco Rubio and Kentucky’s Rand Paul–experience is the least of their selling points. All are first-term rookies known for defying party leaders, not for passing legislation. Rubio won office by challenging his party’s official choice for the seat. Cruz glories in his reputation as the least popular Senator in the cloakroom: he doesn’t need Washington’s validation. In fact, it’s the last thing he wants.
The three Senators–and their colleague Sanders in the other party–have used the Senate as a foil. What they accomplished as Senators, which is next to nothing, pales in their telling compared with what they refused to do. They did not sell out. They did not compromise. They did not break faith with their followers–a virtue that has replaced the ideal of service to a constituency. With disintermediation, the power to set the campaign agenda shifts from the middlemen to the online networks, and those networks, this year, are very angry. Here, again, Trump is far outrunning his rivals in seizing the momentum. Americans are unhappy about an economy that punishes workers, according to opinion polls and conversations with voters. They are tired of politicians who don’t deliver on their promises. Trump’s strongest backers are angry about illegal immigration. Cruz channels anger over Obamacare. Sanders mines anger from the opposite end of the spectrum, targeting “Wall Street” and “billionaires” to the seething satisfaction of the Democratic base.
These voters don’t want someone to feel their pain; they want someone to mirror their mood. Woe to the candidate who can’t growl on cue. Perhaps nothing has hurt the Bush campaign–whose money and endorsements, lavished by middlemen, have fizzled on the launchpad–more than Trump’s observation that the former Florida governor is “low energy.” Translation: he’s not ticked off. Voter anger in this sour season is less a data point than table stakes.
At a late-December rally in Council Bluffs, Trump treated his audience to one of his trademark free-form speeches, which are like nothing in the modern campaign repertoire. He sampled alter egos from talk-radio host to insult comic to the fictional Gordon Gekko. (“I’m greedy,” Trump bragged. “Now I’m going to be greedy for the United States.”) When he wrapped up, Teresa Raus of nearby Neola, Iowa, waited another 30 minutes for Trump’s autograph. Why? “I feel real confident that he can make America better. I believe him,” she explained. And yes, she’s angry. Other politicians “are liars,” Raus continued. “They’re all liars. I’m sick of politicians. If he’s not running, then I’m not voting.”
But if Trump voters are angry, that doesn’t mean they’re crazy. You meet more state representatives and business owners at his rallies than tinfoil-hat conspiracy buffs. In ways, they are a vanguard, catching sight of a new style of politics and deciding early to throw out the old rules. Their radical democracy helps account for Trump’s uncanny resilience: the less he honors the conventions of politics, the more his supporters like him. They aren’t buying what the political process is selling. They want to buy direct from the source. “It’s like this,” says Casady, the Army vet. “We’re going to go with this guy sink or swim, and we’re not going to change our views. It doesn’t matter. It’s time for us to do a totally insane thing, because we’ve lost it all. The times demand it, because nothing else is working.”
Some powerful forces inside the GOP will continue to fight Trump to the bitter end. As strong and durable as his support appears to be, the number of Americans who tell pollsters they would not vote for Trump is bigger. Trump’s intemperate remarks have alienated millions of Latino, Muslim and women voters. His rash pronouncements are the antithesis of the moderate approach that many citizens still value. His proposed religious test for foreigners who want to come to this country is as inconsistent with America’s self-image as linoleum floors in a Trump hotel.
The problem is that the party is weak at the national level, deeply divided into hostile camps, while Trump has the strength of a technological epoch at his back. Finding a way to live with Trump might not be a choice for the GOP; those might be the terms of surrender that he dictates at the national convention in Cleveland in July. And in private, even top party officials occasionally admit it.
Unless Cruz can continue to rise through the primaries—aided by members of the congressional Freedom Caucus who share his maximal conservatism—or a candidate like Rubio manages to push aside all mainstream rivals to consolidate the anti-Trump vote, the pot-stirring plutocrat may well steamroll through winter into spring with the lion’s share of the delegates. They won’t stop Trump because they can’t stop Trump.
In that case, party insiders may be forced to decide whether to pull every trick in the rule book to keep Trump from the nomination, with all the havoc that would ensue–including a very real chance that the party could split in two. Faced with that prospect, they may decide instead to swallow hard and follow Trump’s glowing blond nimbus into battle this fall. “The pundits don’t understand it,” Marco Rubio told an audience at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. “They don’t understand why in this election, why aren’t the things that worked in the past working again? Why is it that the people with the most money, or the most endorsements, or the one that all the experts thought would be in first place–why aren’t they winning?”
Donald Trump will be happy to tell them.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=1]Exclusive–Phyllis Schlafly Makes the Case for President Trump: ‘Only Hope to Defeat the Kingmakers’[/h]
[h=2]In an exclusive hour-long sit down interview with Breitbart News, 91-year-old conservative icon and living legend Phyllis Schlafly declared that Donald Trump “is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” and detailed why she believes Trump alone will return the government to the people. She warned that if immigration is not stopped: “we’re not going to be America anymore.”[/h]Schlafly, born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1924, has been active in politics for more than one-quarter of all American history. She helped launch the conservative movement, create the pro-family agenda, and has led the fight against open borders trade and immigration policies. Thus, Schlafly’s proclamation to Breitbart News that front-runner Trump “represents everything the grassroots want” is certain to reverberate across the 2016 electorate.
Schlafly is also a Daughter of the American Revolution, author or editor of 20 books, a writer of nearly 2,500 columns, a lawyer, a mother of six, and a grandmother of 14.
The in-depth interview comes more than fifty years after the publication of Schlafly’s seminal work, A Choice Not An Echo, which inspired a generation of conservatives and defined the battle lines between the Republican grassroots and the Party elites.
Today, Schlafly tells Breitbart that the defining and most important battle is immigration. She said that current visa rates will “destroy our country,” and called for a pause on all new immigration, just like the county had during the middle of the 20th century.
The quick-witted conservative heroine also delivered a blistering critique of
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
56%





and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%





, the two most prominent representatives of the Republican Party’s donor class. Schlafly said that “Rush [Limbaugh] is right” to argue that a Ryan-Rubio tag team in the Presidency and House Speakership would ensure the swift enactment of the donor class’s agenda.However, Schlafly declared that Rubio will never become President—explaining that his “anti-American” immigration agenda is “why he’s not going to get the nomination.”
Throughout the meeting, Schlafly was energetic, quick to tell a joke, flash a wry smile, and smack her hands down on her desk for dramatic emphasis. Centering her dignified 91-year-old frame were two sharp, fast-alert blue eyes, which danced with life as Schlafly recalled memories of past conservative crusades she fearlessly led. One of those fights that changed the course of American history was Schlafly’s underdog triumph in defeating the so-called Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s; the amendment passed Congress as part of the new wave feminism and had been sent to the states for ratification. Because of her efforts, it fell three states short of being added to the Constitution.
Schlafly lit up as she further regaled Breitbart with tales ranging from her climbing out of the window ledge of a Congressional House Office Building as part of her effort to stop China from joining the WTO, to stories about her leading “study groups” throughout American homes in the 1950s to inform grassroots voters about the evils of communism. When an aide came to check in on our interview, Schlafly quickly shooed him away, allowing her to return to outlining her intricate views on the nation’s trade policies, and making it clear to everyone that, at any age, the indomitable Phyllis Schlafly—unlike countless Members of Congress—needs no handler.
Her eyes were equally sharp and focused in discussing the existential issues facing America today.
“Trump is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart resolutely. “Because everybody else will fall in line. The Kingmakers have so much money behind them.”
More than fifty years ago, Schlafly coined the term Kingmakers—or what Schlafly says is now “generally called the Establishment,” or donor class—to describe a select group of cosmopolitan elites who control the Republican Party and have historically determined the Party’s presidential nominee. Aspects of Schlafly’s Kingmaker theory have been articulated in, what is today known as, the “invisible primary” or “The Party Decides” theory.
As Schlafly wrote in 1964, these “few secret kingmakers… successfully forced their choice on a free country where there are more than 34 million Republican voters… They dictated the choice of the Republican presidential nominee just as completely as the Paris dressmakers control the length of women’s skirts.”
“The Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart, “have picked our last bunch of losers. And there’s one loser after another because they were more interested in maintaining their flow of money from the big donors and their cooperation with the Democrats—their bipartisanship—and that’s not my goal. I’m for America [Schlafly slams hand on table] and America first [slams hand on table again].”
When asked what is the “most pressing issue facing the country today,” Schlafly—without a moment’s pause—said, “Immigration. And that’s why Trump is doing so well. People recognize that is the biggest thing. In the first place, it’s just about destroying our schools. All of these kids, who can’t read in any language, are coming in and expecting to be taught by our English-speaking teachers. And it’s not going to work. And yet we have to babysit them all day.”
Schlafly explained that immigration represents an existential issue for the nation: “If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.”
“We have thousands of young people, who are first time entry into the job market and they need a job—they need an entry level job—and they are frozen out by these immigrants coming in. And there’s nothing un-American about saying, ‘No.’ We said no to everybody [during the mid-20th century]… we paused in taking anybody in and we had every right to do that. That’s one of the indicia of a sovereign power,” Schlafly said.
When asked if she thought it was time for another immigration pause, Schlafly said, “I certainly do. I think we ought to have a total pause until we catch up—and, in indelicate words, as Trump said, ‘until we know what the hell we’re doing.’”
With regards to Trump’s call for a temporary pause on Muslim migration, Schlafly said, “I think all the polls show that the country is with Donald Trump on that issue… It is certainly not our duty to let in everybody who wants to come to this country. Probably the whole world wants to come into this country. There’s more freedom, more good things, more plenty, and more welfare handouts [laughs] than any other country.”
“We’re a sovereign country and if we don’t want to let anybody in, we don’t have to let anybody in,” Schlafly said. “We closed our doors [during the mid-20th Century]… and those are the years when we became a great country. We don’t need to open our doors for anybody.”
“Except for the obvious financial interests of the big corporations who want the cheap labor, I can’t think of any other reason that even makes any sense,” Schlafly said about Republican lawmakers’ desire to continue large-scale visa issuances. “Because it is ruining our country… and the Democratic Party all thinks thinks they’re going to be Democratic votes. And they’re breaking our bank by bringing them in because they all immediately go on U.S. welfare. And it’s not just welfare– it’s all the associated things. The children go in our schools, and we’ve had to hire all of teachers who speak foreign languages to teach these foreign children– there’s no reason why we we should do that at all. And these commentators who talk about the Constitutional rights of the immigrants– they don’t have any Constitutional rights. They’re not entitled to any U.S. Constitutional rights unless they’re residents in this country, and they’re not.”
Schlalfy detailed her views on the current revolt taking hold throughout the nation and reshaping the political landscape. “The real fight is within the Republican Party to get it to nominate grassroots-type candidates who the public wants, and not just some echo of the other side,” Schlafly told Breitbart.
I think a lot of people are misled by this goal of bipartisanship, which I don’t believe in. I think we are a two party country and that’s the way we have to play the game of politics—the way it is, not the way we wish it had been. And that’s why I say to the Third Party people, if you’re a third party person, I suggest you move to Europe. They have lots of third parties over there—[Schlafly laughs] you can join one of thembut we don’t. We are a two-party system. And as Rumsfeld once said, “You go to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you have.” And what we have is a two-party system. And I’m certainly not trying to shape up the Democratic Party—I think that’s beyond my capabilities—but I am trying to shape the Republican Party.”
“That’s been one of my major goals,” Schlafly stated unapologetically as she leaned back in her chair. With her mid-length black skirt, neatly tucked-in denim button-down shirt and perfectly set hair, Schlafly seemed to epitomize the image of the indefatigable, joyful warrior. Schlafly spoke plainly and calmly like a general, who—far from being war-weary from past skirmishes—thrived on battles of principle and relished the coming challenge ahead. Indeed, the rebellion now coming to a head within the Republican Party seems to represent the build-up of the revolt, which Schlafly has led—at times, almost single handedly—for the better part of a century.
In Schlafly’s view, the philosophical battle within the Republican Party centers around the Kingmakers and their chosen candidates—who prioritize the needs of other nations and global corporatists—versus the Republican voters and the few representatives, who put the interests of the American people first.
Schlalfy explained that the Kingmakers, for financial reasons, are invested in promoting “America Last” policies. “They think their world is advanced—their financial interests are advanced—by bringing in low wage people,” Schlafly told Breitbart. “And that’s not what we [i.e. the American people] want to do, that’s just taking jobs from entry-level people in the United States.”
As Schlafly wrote in 1964:
“Highly placed New York kingmakers work toward ‘convergence’ between the Republican and Democratic parties so as to preserve their America Last foreign policy and eliminate foreign policy from political campaigns… The New York kingmakers, for pocketbook reasons, are extremely anxious to prevent any curtailment of the foreign giveaway program… [which] might come about by the election of a president who did not put the welfare of America secondary to the welfare of every other country from Albania to Zanzibar.”
The Kingmakers’ fetish for putting America last, which Schlafly detailed more than fifty years ago, remains true today: “people say it sounds like the same old story over and over again,” Schlafly said of her book’s thesis.
For instance, when donor-class favorite Paul Ryan was pushing Rubio’s amnesty agenda in 2013, he declared that the job of a U.S. lawmaker is to put himself in the shoes of foreign citizens and then work to improve these foreign citizens’ quality of life. Ryan said:
“Put yourself in another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do that almost every single day. The job we have—and what we do is we take different people’s perspectives. The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his green card. The DREAMer who is waiting. We take all these different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.”
Likewise, Marco Rubio said during the first Republican debate that the people who do not get enough attention in determining U.S. immigration policy are the foreign citizens living in foreign countries, who apparently call Sen. Rubio’s office to seek representation and complain about the wait time to enter the United States.
“And let me tell you who never gets talked about in these debates. The people that call my office, who have been waiting for 15 years to come to the United States. And they’ve paid their fees, and they hired a lawyer, and they can’t get in.”
What Sen. Rubio did not mention is that the U.S. has admitted 59 million immigrants since 1965, and that one quarter of today’s population is either foreign-born or a child of a foreign-born parent. Sen. Rubio also did not mention that every three years, the U.S.voluntarily admits a new population of immigrants the size of Los Angeles. For instance, over the next ten years, the U.S. will issue more green cards to foreign nationals than the population of the three early 2016 primary states– Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina– combined.
Rubio’s 2013 Gang of Eight bill would have tripled green card issuances, and his 2015 Immigration Innovation Act would have allowed an unlimited number of foreign students to get American green cards.
In Schlafly’s view, Trump stands in stark contrast to these candidates who put the interests of foreign citizens and global corporations above the interests of the American people. Schlafly explained that Trump’s America First platform on the critical issues of immigration and trade sets him up as true enemy of the Establishment—or “Kingmakers”—and, as such, he is the only candidate who cannot be co-opted by them.
“I don’t think he’ll make inroads with the Kingmaker types—that is—the big business [types],” Schlafly said. “Because he’s not doing what he’s told [Schlafly chuckles]. They like people to do what they’re told.”
Breitbart followed up: “And you think all of the other candidates will just do what they’re told?
“I do,” Schlafly said.
While Schlafly spoke warmly of
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%





, she said that she’d ideally like to see Cruz on the Supreme Court during Trump’s administration. “That’s the place I think Cruz should go,” Schlafly explained. “He’s eminently qualified for that. And that would be a perfect solution for him… his qualifications are enormous… His education and his experience. He would be eminently qualified for that and very good at that.”Schlafly argues that the reason the Kingmakers view Trump as their undisputed enemy—and, by extension, see him as being unable to be co-opted—is because Trump refuses to adopt their longstanding “America-Last” platform and, as a result, he is not afraid to talk about the issues that matter to American voters.
In her 1964 landmark book, Schlalfy explained that the Kingmakers want “to nominate candidates who would sidestep or suppress the key issues” by compromising with Democrats on the issues that matter to Republican voters. In so doing, the Kingmakers create a sort of monopoly consensus on particular issues—and, as a result, voters are denied their ability to choose a candidate who represents their interests, since each party’s nominee represents merely an echo of the other side. For instance, the Kingmakers’ choice-candidate this election, Marco Rubio, shares President Obama’s same goals on mass immigration and trade– with both men trying to make it easier to import cheaper foreign goods and labor.
Schlafly explained that echoing the Democrats’ policy platform on the critical issues of the day makes a Republican candidate weaker—not stronger. For instance, while Rubio’s campaign team has sought to promote declarations from liberal operatives that a Clinton-Rubio match up “scares” Democrats, Schlafly explained in 1964:
“One of the favorite tricks of the Democrats is to try to get the Republicans to pass over their strongest candidate and nominate instead a candidate who will be easy to beat. For example, in 1948 the Democrats cooperated with the Kingmakers to persuade Republicans to nominate a [bipartisan] ‘me too’ losing candidate, Tom Dewey, instead of the Republican Majority Leader, Bob Taft. The Democrats said they ‘hoped Republicans would nominate Taft’ with the same reverse psychology that Brer Rabbit pleaded with the fox, ‘Oh, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!’”
Instead, Schlafly told Breitbart that Republicans should advance a nominee who represents the interests of its electorate. “I think that we need to respect the will of the majority. Republicans ought to be a grassroots party. And the grassroots certainly agree with Donald Trump on most issues, but certainly on the immigration issue.”
“I certainly think he represents everything the grassroots want,” Schlafly said.
On the issues of trade and immigration, the polling data is clear. According to Pew, 92% of Republican oppose any growth to immigration levels, and an overwhelming margin of almost five-to-one Republican voters believe that so-called free trade deals are damaging wages, rather than improving them.
By contrast, Schlafly explained how Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan align with the Kingmakers’ agenda. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan are “not representing what grassroots Republicans want,” Schlafly said.
Schlafly agreed with Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that with Rubio as President and Ryan as Speaker, then in the “first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda is implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want.”
Breitbart: “Rush Limbaugh said… that if Marco Rubio is President and Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House, the donor class’ agenda will be passed within the first 12 to 18 months of the next administration.”
Schlafly: “Well, Rush is right.”
Schlalfy, however, seemed to immediately rule out the possibility that Rubio would be the Party’s nominee because of his extreme views on immigration. When Breitbart asked Schlafly about Rubio’s push to “increase immigration at a time when 92% of the GOP electorate would like to see immigration levels not increased,” Schlafly said simply, “Well, that’s why he’s not going to get the nomination.”
“The majority of Republicans do not want open borders,” Schlafly said. “They think we should stop our immigration.”
In an October 2015 op-ed
Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)
100%





and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
80%





wrote, “It is not mainstream, but extreme, to continue surging immigration beyond all historical precedent. And it is not rational, but radical, to refuse to recognize limits.”Schlafly said that she agreed with Brat and Sessions’ analysis. When asked if she thought Rubio was “too extreme to be the Republican nominee,” Schlafly said, “Yes, I do.”
She explained that the 2013 immigration plan Rubio co-authored and ushered through the Senate was not only “anti-American,” but was also “dangerous” and that members of the Gang of Eight “were completely not with the majority of the American people at all.”
Breitbart asked Schlafly for her take on how Rubio had not been asked about his signature achievement in the U.S. Senate– the Gang of Eight bill– during the first four Presidential debates. Schlafly laughed and suggested that the establishment media is doing the Kingmakers’ bidding: “They’re protecting him,” she said.
Schlafly issued a clear warning to Republican publications, such as National Review, whose writers seem to boost Rubio’s campaign despite Rubio’s support for President Obama’s transformational immigration agenda. Indeed, Rubio’s campaign spokesman Alex Conant seemed so appreciative of a recent National Review piece that hemarked it as a “pinned tweet” on the top of his twitter page and declared that it “raises the bar for all future ‘must-reads’”.
Schlafly rebuked the argument that Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are conservative in spite of their views of immigration. Schlafly warned that Republican publications’ boosting of Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan will come at the expense of the nation’s peril. “If they’re not right on immigration they’re going to destroy our country,” Schlafly said.
Schlalfy, who has previously argued that if the country continues mailing green cards at the current rate, it will amount to suicide for the Republican Party, told Breitbart that this election is critical: “If we don’t get this election right, it’s going to be bad news for America,” Schlafly said.
With the Iowa caucus only three weeks away, in Schlafly’s view, America has the opportunity to make a choice—one that she wrote about more than fifty years ago:
I can look back on campaigns in which I saw Republicans on the local level working their hearts out for a cause they believed to be just, only to realize, after it was all over, that the kingmakers had given them a candidate who would not campaign on the issues. I speak with the voice of the countless Republican Party workers who don’t want this to happen again; in the words of the greatest Republican slogan of this century, they have “had enough”…
At this crucial point in American history, will we send in our bat boy? Or will we send in our Babe Ruth—a man who is not afraid or forbidden to take a good cut at all major issues of the day?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,870
Messages
13,560,709
Members
100,700
Latest member
877cashnow!
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com