Donald Trump: Main roles of federal government are security, education and healthcare

[oneforthebus]

Not there. You are changing your story. Typical.

Sigh. It is there dude. Go look. In several different posts. In fact it's in one of the first of my posts that you responded to.

You're just as juvenile as Trump.

 

[IndySteel]

His father knew how to make money... then gave a pile of it to little Donny and surprise surprise, he bought a bunch of expensive property and developed it. It's not rocket science. Trump is one of those guys that was born standing on home plate but thinks he hit a home run.

He got a $1 million loan, paid it back and turned it into $10 billion. Punk.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Sigh. It is there dude. Go look. In several different posts. In fact it's in one of the first of my posts that you responded to.

You're just as juvenile as Trump.

Sigh. No its not dude. You can't move the goal posts on me and get away with it.

 

[Superman]

His father knew how to make money... then gave a pile of it to little Donny and surprise surprise, he bought a bunch of expensive property and developed it. It's not rocket science. Trump is one of those guys that was born standing on home plate but thinks he hit a home run.

Trump may have started out ahead of the rest of us financially. As you were told, he was given a $1 million loan. He repaid it.
Trump's net worth now?

$4 billion

I'd say this ****** has some economical sense.
Unlike Hillary.
Bernie? puh-lease.

 

[RollRed]

He got a $1 million loan, paid it back and turned it into $10 billion. Punk.

Fred Trump, Little Donny's dad, built a fortune of over $200 million in the 60's and 70's developing real estate in Manhattan ... mostly building apartments. That's in 1970's dollars so take that into consideration also. He was one of the richest men in the country. But you're suggesting none of his fathers wealth and influence helped little Donny get his real estate development business going. You can't be that ******* stupid.... or maybe you can... I don't know.

 

[Rod Farva]

bingo




Round them all up - ship them off to Syria or Somalia for a year cleaning toilets

Send the libtard reporters off with them to cover that

That video is ******* hilarious!....all fun and games 'til someone loses an eye. Even temporarily.

Tibs...in a crowd that size people get bumped and jostled. What a perfect environment for some wet behind the ears, socialist little ***** to raise the claim of "grope-ism." That will turn out just like her little foray into "I can do **** without fear of retaliation because I'm a female" land.

Yep. The really hard thing for me is I've spent 30 years defending Republicans as NOT being the party of backwards ill-informed sexist bigots. I mean sure I knew there were some, but I've said for years we are the party of sound economic policy, of Constitutional principles, of our founding fathers' vision of limited government and individual liberty. I can't say that anymore. I've got to move on. It's very disillusioning to me, how many in this party are willing to throw that all out the window for this crude. sexist, loudmouthed ignorant charlatan.

Maybe I've been wrong all these years after all. Depressing.

Me too...................nothing wrong with being wrong as long as we learn.

 

[oneforthebus]

He's gonna lose and lose big...that's why Dems are crossing over to vote for him. They know he can't win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b077e0-f5e7-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

If Donald Trump secures the Republican presidential nomination, he would start the general election campaign as the least-popular candidate to represent either party in modern times.

Three-quarters of women view him unfavorably. So do nearly two-thirds of independents, 80 percent of young adults, 85 percent of Hispanics and nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Those findings, tallied from Washington Post-ABC News polling, fuel Trump’s overall 67 percent unfavorable rating — making Trump more disliked than any major-party nominee in the 32 years the survey has been tracking candidates.

 

[Troglodyte]

Fred Trump, Little Donny's dad, built a fortune of over $200 million in the 60's and 70's developing real estate in Manhattan ... mostly building apartments. That's in 1970's dollars so take that into consideration also. He was one of the richest men in the country. But you're suggesting none of his fathers wealth and influence helped little Donny get his real estate development business going. You can't be that ******* stupid.... or maybe you can... I don't know.

People assume that unimaginably wealthy and successful people got that way because of smarts and hard work, whether it be Trump, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But the reality is there are a lot of very smart people who work very hard and never come close to achieving those same levels of wealth.

The reason is there is a third factor: opportunity. Not everyone gets the same opportunities in life, be it due to privilege or good fortune.

I'm sure Trump is smart and a hard worker, but make no mistake, his wealth is primarily due to opportunity. He's not simply that much smarter than everybody else, even if he thinks he is.

 

[IndySteel]

There's a lot of jealousy and envy up in this mf'er. Probably a lot of small dicks too.

 

[Superman]

He's gonna lose and lose big...that's why Dems are crossing over to vote for him. They know he can't win.
[
url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-be-least-popular-major-party-nominee-in-modern-times/2016/03/30/b4b077e0-f5e7-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html[/url]

If Donald Trump secures the Republican presidential nomination, he would start the general election campaign as the least-popular candidate to represent either party in modern times.

Three-quarters of women view him unfavorably. So do nearly two-thirds of independents, 80 percent of young adults, 85 percent of Hispanics and nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Those findings, tallied from Washington Post-ABC News polling, fuel Trump’s overall 67 percent unfavorable rating — making Trump more disliked than any major-party nominee in the 32 years the survey has been tracking candidates.

Every day
Every week
Every month
same old tired refrain of how unpopular Trump is. yet he's rolling on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/

 

[Superman]

aside from that, I don't want a politician/President who's so well-liked among the other bought and paid for politicians. I don't want a guy who's going to bend over in appeasement. I dont want a guy who's ashamed of the country.

We've had that for 8 years.

**** that.

 

[IndySteel]

aside from that, I don't want a politician/President who's so well-liked among the other bought and paid for politicians. I don't want a guy who's going to bend over in appeasement. I dont want a guy who's ashamed of the country.

We've had that for 8 years.

**** that.

Exactly, and the fact that the corrupt GOP establishment would rather have Hillary as President to keep the corruption in place should scream loudly how much we need Trump to shake things up. Plus, I want lower ******* taxes, cut wasteful spending to lower debt, destroy ISIS, bring back jobs and better trade to make our economy boom again and get rid of all the PC whining bullshit. It's so simple. There shouldn't even be a second thought about voting for Trump if you have a shred of common sense in your brain. And, after 8 years of Moose, our public morale needs Melania.

 

[oneforthebus]

I want someone who can win an election. That would be nice for a change.

 

[IndySteel]

I want someone who can win an election. That would be nice for a change.

There's a lot of time left and he's bringing back the Reagan democrats.

 

[madinsomniac]

He's gonna lose and lose big...that's why Dems are crossing over to vote for him. They know he can't win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b077e0-f5e7-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html

If Donald Trump secures the Republican presidential nomination, he would start the general election campaign as the least-popular candidate to represent either party in modern times.

Three-quarters of women view him unfavorably. So do nearly two-thirds of independents, 80 percent of young adults, 85 percent of Hispanics and nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Those findings, tallied from Washington Post-ABC News polling, fuel Trump’s overall 67 percent unfavorable rating — making Trump more disliked than any major-party nominee in the 32 years the survey has been tracking candidates.

Here is a question for you... All these supposed dems crossing over to sabotage the election... Fo you know any actually doing it? Because i dont. The dozens of dems i know who either crossed or are openly supporting him are mostly more rabid than spike.....Um , well at least as rabid... about him. This is just another case of whistling past the graveyard with him...

 

[Troglodyte]

There's a lot of jealousy and envy up in this mf'er. Probably a lot of small dicks too.

Let the record show Indy ponders about the size of people's dicks.

 

[IndySteel]

Let the record show Indy ponders about the size of people's dicks.

Why else do you hate successful people? Must be some sort of inferiority complex.

 

[Steelerfan]

"Occasional gaffes?" LOL. Trump doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He changes positions by the day, sometimes by the hour. He's a disgrace to our nation, that someone like him can be running for the highest office.


<iframe class="video-embed" src="https://mediamatters.org/embed/209566" width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>

Sitting around the table....hit, hit, hit, pass (guy)

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Andrea Mitchell is incredibly stupid.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Many statements he's made in the past, confirmed by some of his townhall comments last night. Motivations? Not the same at all. He has many times made statements alluding to the idea that the government is there to take care of people. It's the typical misguided do-gooder Hollywood liberal ideal, unlike Hillary who is all about power and control.

I have never heard him speak about limited government at all, or the benefits to the economy or to the individual of reigning in government. He talks a lot about punishing China and Mexico on jobs but virtually nothing about what this government does to shoot our own economy in the foot. He was a huge fan of Hillary for years for goodness sake! He said she was doing a great job! Donated hundreds of thousands to her campaign and foundation! I mean really, can't imagine after all the RINO talk of the last 2 elections that anyone is buying this guy as a conservative.

I know Spike, labels don't matter.

I guess we're gonna get into a debate now

You've made it a mission to go after Trump, and some of what you're saying here is either wrong and not shared as fact by many. You've 'never' heard him talk about limited Government? Yet there's a lot out there, by him and writers, about his plans to limit Government. How can you "never" have heard of this if you're doing your research?

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/president-trumps-limited-government/

So the pertinent question today is: Does presidential candidate Donald Trump believe in and will he respect the tradition of limited government?

His words are as forthright as Madison’s and embody a resounding “yes.”

Trump is a strict constitutionalist and has no expectations to usurp power or to grow the government. To the contrary, he has said he will give more powers and redirect funding to the states and use checks and balances as they were originally conceived. He will limit both his own executive powers and ask Congress and the courts to do the same. In other words, power will be returned “to the people.” This is the kernel of Trump’s populism, and it is as basic as the Boston Tea Party or the shots fired in Lexington by farmer militiamen.

All said, Trump’s government will be smaller, more efficient, more frugal and use management principles and best practices, so as to be more excellent, i.e., we will actually get the services for which our hard-earned tax monies were contributed.

Under Trump, we will see limited government for the first time in 60 years.

Trump himself has said, “Common sense tell us that the two basic principles of governing should work anywhere they are applied. First: Get government out of activities it can’t do well. (A list of thing government doesn’t do well is a very long list.) Second: Get government back in the business of providing for public convenience (transportation, public works) and safety (police and firefighters), and make sure it does so efficiently. Then judge its efforts by visible, definable results and fine-tune, as needed.”

Remember Donald Trump has self-funded his presidential campaign, disavowed PACs (no one else has) and is the puppet of no one or special interest. He complains constantly about “government incompetence” and cronyism. He promises “great management” of the limited government we need. He would employ all the skills from the private sector and deliver. As an entrepreneur, a doer and a builder, he would allow every American to succeed, so as to make America great, again.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/president-trumps-limited-government/#BMMqBj0I7x9s4zCK.99

He's a member of Americans for a Limited Government: http://getliberty.org/donald-j-trum...ion-authority-trans-pacific-partnership-deal/

This article does a nice job of discussing this 'notion' of limited government, because it is just that - a notion. So when you attack any candidate for not limiting Government, remember - NONE have or do.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/24/t...ent-wing-of-the-gop-because-it-never-existed/

Trump Won’t End The Limited Government Wing Of The GOP Because It Never Existed

To begin with Republican Party has never nominated someone (yes, including Reagan) who had a record in reducing government. Every president, regardless if they ride into the White House on an elephant or a donkey, has increased the size, scope, and spending of government.

Promising old ladies who subscribe to National Review and donate $20 to a Stop Hillary PAC that if only Republicans reject Trump, we will elect a “true conservative” who will balance the budget, destroy ISIS, and spread conservatism as they know it throughout the land, is a flat out lie.

Most “acceptable conservatives” that ran in this election cycle had no plans to restrain government. Despite having 17 Republicans running for president, there were only three types of candidates: Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and the 15 dwarfs who recycled George W. Bush talking points. None of Conservative Inc.’s candidates were going to fulfill the empty promises.

To think that Ted Cruz, Jeb! Bush or Marco Rubio were going to roll back government to pre-George W. Bush days while antagonizing Russia into World War III, expanding free trade agreements, importing millions of poor people from around the world, and balancing the budget, is farcical.

Even more infuriating is that the few times a limited government conservative has run for office, they have been mocked and ignored. Conservative Inc. portrayed Ron Paul as crazy but Rick Perry as a true believer.

These soothsayers have been wrong at every turn of the primary process, and it irks them to no end that enough people haven’t read the mental masturbation they’ve peddled in their books, non-profits, and think tanks. If only the pragmatic proletarians would abandon Trump and listen to their diagnosis on how to create the new American century.

For decades, they have been able to sell “conservatism” as a meaningless brand, suitable for all shapes and sizes, but like New Coke, no one wants something that’s empty, bad for you, and leaves a disgusting taste."

Regarding supporting Hillary, yes he's waffled - a lot. I don't like that. Hell, Susan "Left-Wing-Nut-Job" Sarandon has even come out and denounced Hillary and said she would vote for Trump. People waffle. But equating donating money to her in the past and being a huge fan is a big, big stretch. We all KNOW that businessmen make donations to get business done. He's from NY. She served for that state. Maybe it was cronyism, that he publicly deplores (hypocritical, I know). None of this means he is motivated by Hillary or is a 'huge fan' - not even close, sorry.

 

[Troglodyte]

Why else do you hate successful people? Must be some sort of inferiority complex.

What have I written that would make you think I hate successful people? Just pointing out that opportunity is more important smarts and hard-work.

You seem to have a hard time accepting the fact that Trump isn't some real-life super hero with ridiculous hair and a big dick. Enjoy your man-crush.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Just pointing out that opportunity is more important smarts and hard-work.

You've said that - twice now. Sorry, I simply don't agree. It's the current rage to have this opinion and those who regurgitate it are making talking heads proud.

This opinion fits very well into BLM, white guilt, the earnings gap, and whatever other political angle Liberals and Socialists want to take to make people believe that no matter how smart you are or how hard you work, privilege and luck is what really makes people successful. Therefore, since they didn't really "earn" it - they won it - it can be taken and redistributed. Remember, Obama? - "You didn't build that."

I get fed up with this bullshit. It's damaging that so many believe it. Beliefs like these are what make people like Sanders now viable candidates - candidates we'd have laughed out of the room two decades prior.

The vast majority of the time, rich people earn their wealth. They work their ***** to amass it, they take on a ton of risk to build it, and bust hump to protect it. It's no surprise that in my world, where people earn $100K to $400K per year, the highest wage earners are the hardest workers 99% of the time.

But in today's world, Americans perpetually look at the "white rich man" now through goggles that say "he shouldn't have that, he didn't earn that, he walked into that." It's not right that he has it.

This is dangerous rhetoric. It's destroying that American Dream ideal where you can become successful with a lot of hard word and determination and some luck. That ideal drives innovation. The American dream is now becoming "what will they give me?" vs. "what can I make of myself?" It's destroying American drive and ambition. It's thinking just like this - "opportunity is more important than smarts and hard-work" - that's doing it.

Trump earned his fortune. He worked and works hard. To suggest otherwise is Socialist and destructive. Did he get a head start with daddy's loan? Yep. So what? Do you know how many people get loans only to go into debt and not be able to build on it? Have you ever looked at the venture capital world, where start-up companies seek investment $$ to begin a new business? Do you know what % of those companies actually turn that investment into an ROI, despite stringent vetting processes? Do you know how many restaurants go out of business vs. those that make it? In every case, a small % succeed, a high percentage fail. Getting a loan doesn't guarantee success. In fact, it may be the opposite - it's a high likelihood that you'll fail. It's a gamble.

Donald Trump got a loan. He turned it into billions. There was a higher probability that he would have failed. He didn't. He was wildly successful. You want to say it's because he got a loan. Bullshit. If it was luck, as in a game of chance or opportunity, the odds say that he'd have pissed away that initial investment. Instead, he turned it into a fortune.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Every successful person, every one, has benefited from good fortune. Michael Jordan, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Mark Cuban, Hillary Clinton. Look at Oprah Winfrey. Her good luck wasn't money. Hers was that she was born "pretty." You realize she got her start by winning the Miss Black Tennessee beauty pageant at 17? If not for that, there'd be no Oprah today. From that pageant, she got noticed and hired at a local radio station, then moved over to TV. She was blessed to be attractive. Lucky. She didn't "earn" that if you wanna use Bammy's words, just like Yao Ming didn't earn being 19 feet tall. But Yao and Oprah both worked hard and turned that "opportunity", those blessings, into fortunes.

Like Donald Trump.

But, oops...he's white.

 

[Troglodyte]

You've said that - twice now. Sorry, I simply don't agree. It's the current rage to have this opinion and those who regurgitate it are making talking heads proud.

This opinion fits very well into BLM, white guilt, the earnings gap, and whatever other political angle Liberals and Socialists want to take to make people believe that no matter how smart you are or how hard you work, privilege and luck is what really makes people successful. Therefore, since they didn't really "earn" it - they won it - it can be taken and redistributed. Remember, Obama? - "You didn't build that."

I get fed up with this bullshit. It's damaging that so many believe it. Beliefs like these are what make people like Sanders now viable candidates - candidates we'd have laughed out of the room two decades prior.

The vast majority of the time, rich people earn their wealth. They work their ***** to amass it, they take on a ton of risk to build it, and bust hump to protect it. It's no surprise that in my world, where people earn $100K to $400K per year, the highest wage earners are the hardest workers 99% of the time.

But in today's world, Americans perpetually look at the "white rich man" now through goggles that say "he shouldn't have that, he didn't earn that, he walked into that." It's not right that he has it.

This is dangerous rhetoric. It's destroying that American Dream ideal where you can become successful with a lot of hard word and determination and some luck. That ideal drives innovation. The American dream is now becoming "what will they give me?" vs. "what can I make of myself?" It's destroying American drive and ambition. It's thinking just like this - "opportunity is more important than smarts and hard-work" - that's doing it.

Trump earned his fortune. He worked and works hard. To suggest otherwise is Socialist and destructive. Did he get a head start with daddy's loan? Yep. So what? Do you know how many people get loans only to go into debt and not be able to build on it? Have you ever looked at the venture capital world, where start-up companies seek investment $$ to begin a new business? Do you know what % of those companies actually turn that investment into an ROI, despite stringent vetting processes? Do you know how many restaurants go out of business vs. those that make it? In every case, a small % succeed, a high percentage fail. Getting a loan doesn't guarantee success. In fact, it may be the opposite - it's a high likelihood that you'll fail. It's a gamble.

Donald Trump got a loan. He turned it into billions. There was a higher probability that he would have failed. He didn't. He was wildly successful. You want to say it's because he got a loan. Bullshit. If it was luck, as in a game of chance or opportunity, the odds say that he'd have pissed away that initial investment. Instead, he turned it into a fortune.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Every successful person, every one, has benefited from good fortune. Michael Jordan, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Mark Cuban, Hillary Clinton. Look at Oprah Winfrey. Her good luck wasn't money. Hers was that she was born "pretty." You realize she got her start by winning the Miss Black Tennessee beauty pageant at 17? If not for that, there'd be no Oprah today. From that pageant, she got noticed and hired at a local radio station, then moved over to TV. She was blessed to be attractive. Lucky. She didn't "earn" that if you wanna use Bammy's words, just like Yao Ming didn't earn being 19 feet tall. But Yao and Oprah both worked hard and turned that "opportunity", those blessings, into fortunes.

Like Donald Trump.

But, oops...he's white.

No, you read into things way too much and then make them fit your narrative - all 3,000 words of it.

Trumps opportunity was not only the loan, it was also a safety net if he failed, getting into the NYC real estate market when he did and having daddy as a mentor. I already said he's smart and worked hard, but so what?

Do you really think the guys making only $400k as executives aren't nearly as smart and nearly as hard-working as Trump? I mean their salaries and wealth are a small fraction of his.

Burgundy went to mortuary school later in life. I guess you think he isn't very smart and hasn't worked hard?

Or does opportunity have a lot more to do with it?

 

[oneforthebus]

et there's a lot out there, by him and writers, about his plans to limit Government. How can you "never" have heard of this if you're doing your research?

I don't have time to go searching the internet at the moment for all of the pro- big government things he's said, but they're out there if you look, so if you want to criticize me for not "doing my research" maybe take a look in the mirror.. And if you are going to quote him, please quote HIM...not things other people have written for him. I don't doubt he's got people who know what they're doing writing his public relations materials for him. I've just never heard HIM talk about any of this stuff. He rarely talks about anything specific at all. When asked a specific question he generally changes the subject, starts spewing meaningless platitudes or just steps right in it i.e. his recent comments on abortion and the role of government.

Read the transcripts of his recent interviews. He doesn't really say much of anything.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No, you read into things way too much and then make them fit your narrative - all 3,000 words of it.

Trumps opportunity was not only the loan, it was also a safety net if he failed, getting into the NYC real estate market when he did and having daddy as a mentor. I already said he's smart and worked hard, but so what?

Do you really think the guys making only $400k as executives aren't nearly as smart and nearly as hard-working as Trump? I mean their salaries and wealth are a small fraction of his.

Burgundy went to mortuary school later in life. I guess you think he isn't very smart and hasn't worked hard?

Or does opportunity have a lot more to do with it?

I didn't read anything into it or take anything out of context. I quoted exactly what you said - that opportunity means more than hard work or smarts. I vehemently disagree with this.

Wow, Trump had more than "one" opportunity. Again, odds say he should have failed miserably. He didn't. He succeeded wildly.

No where did I, or do I think is anyone saying, that if you are smarter you earn more money. You're trying to say that.

You ask 'does opportunity' have more to do with it. I'll answer. Nope. Honestly, I believe hard work is the most important. All three, a good combination, are needed - hard work, intelligence, some luck.

Case example: I worked in the early 90s at a company that was competing with Cisco when the internet was being built. I worked head to head against Cisco reps. We were making a really good living. Along came a guy to our company, a great guy. He'd gotten a degree from a small college. He was working, before this job as a landscaper (his own small time landscaping business) no joke. But he was friends with one of us. That friend got him hired on a flyer as an inside sales rep. That was this man's 'opportunity' - a chance.

My degree meant more than his. I am and was smarter than him. I could sell circles around him. I was a better presenter and an orator. I technically knew more about ethernet and token ring and ATM switching than he did.

I wasn't as committed nor did I work as hard as him. This guy had a work ethic that would make the average man crumble. He pounded the phones, he ate at his desk so he could read and research. He was the first one in, the last one out.

We all did well, trust me. But John? He made us look like paupers in the end. John got woo'd away to go work for Cisco, in the early days, when you could still make a killing there. John went on to have 7 digit earning years. I've visited his McMansion. He "won" so to speak.

It's just one anecdote, but it's my perspective. Being lucky gets you nothing by itself. Being smart gets you nothing, by itself. Being hard working gets you nothing by itself. The right combination of the above "can" make you enviably successful when put together.