In light of comments at this post, interesting to note Ross Douthat’s conservative case against him this weekend.
88 thoughts on “Against Trump”
Comments are closed.
In light of comments at this post, interesting to note Ross Douthat’s conservative case against him this weekend.
Comments are closed.
Hi WorkersUnite,
Even if Trump wins, it won’t be a total disaster. Looking at today’s headlines, I see a lot of variations on this theme: “Trump wants to raise minimum wage, taxes on wealthy” so chill out, dude, we already won.
Whoops, I commented in the wrong blog!
Even though it’s the wrong blog, this raises a question. I have absolutely no desire to go to leftist websites and stir up things by throwing in my conservative views. I see this as a total waste of time. I will never convince liberals to change sides and my ego doesn’t give me the false idea that I ever will.
Why Bob, do you do it? Is your ego so great you will think you can change opinions? Or, perhaps, do you think you’re arguments are just so wonderful you’ll convince us stupid rubes of the correctness of your ideas?
As I noted below, I was goofing around. The headline however, is real, although in fairness, it was from the New York Post. (As you can read in the news source of your choice, Trump’s position is that the minimum wage should go up, but it should be up to the states. And I’ll leave it to you to figure out his tax positions.)
But your more fundamental question is a good one. I have the opposite question, which is “why would you want to visit a blog where everyone thought the same way?”
I merely enjoy reading politico and the New York Times and other news outlets which, I realize, you view as biased, but I think of as at least trying to be neutral.
And sometimes I enjoy reading what the left is saying.
But I *love* reading The Corner and this blog and redstate.com and other rightwing or conservative sources. Why? Well, the web is full of bad arguments, but there are an occasional brilliant nugget to be found. I’m delighted when I find a brilliant nugget of an argument, and I’m especially delighted when I read a really good argument in favor of a position I disagree with! Then I’m inspired to think! When I comment here, it isn’t really to make fun of you, and it is rarely an attempt to convince you, I just want you spur you into saying something that is hard to refute. And that’s not selfish — the better your arguments are, the better everyone will be for it.
(Admittedly, when someone here says something that is factually wrong, I might try to convince them by supplying links. But that often doesn’t work, because they criticize the sources. But it is thought-provoking to hear criticisms of sources which I thought were pretty good if not impeccable.)
“…but I think of as at least trying to be neutral.”
… words fail. How?
If all this is true, why did you recently say that you agreed with everything Jim says? He’s been shown to be wrong many times.
When I comment here, it isn’t really to make fun of you, and it is rarely an attempt to convince you, I just want you spur you into saying something that is hard to refute. And that’s not selfish — the better your arguments are, the better everyone will be for it.
Well, thank you for your service.
Regarding the New York Times, I don’t mean the editorials, of course. Words still fail you, right?
I can only ask again… how? There is no part of the Times which is not infected with partisan jibes, and lies both of commission and omission.
I like that Bob-1, Jim, and others come here with different views. The back and forth keeps arguments, and thinking, from becoming too sloppy.
I don’t have a problem with it, I am more curious about the motivation, as I just don’t see the point of commenting on a liberal site.
I just don’t see the point of commenting on a liberal site.
Liberals (as they call themselves) are unthinking nitwits. There is no point in commenting to them. See how Andrew failed to respond to you or I regarding Iran. But bob and Jim know that we do think about things, and they hope we can be persuaded with logical fallacies
they hope we can be persuaded with logical fallacies
Perhaps, but I think it’s less than that. It’s the ‘hold them by the nose while I kick them in the ass’ game. It’s all a game. They know they’re wrong, but need to continually convince themselves of how right they are.
It’s simply impossible for them to accept plain facts that conflict with their fantasy reality.
Meh. As Douthat explains, most of his own reasons are things that plenty of Republicans think have passed their sell date. Hawkish internationally – if we wanted that, vote for Hillary. I’d rather have an non-interventionist. I’d rather have someone who will increase Europe’s responsibility in dealing with Putin and decrease ours.
Social conservative – doesn’t in any way define the Republican Party, although lots of us would support getting rid of really bad constitutional law like Roe v Wade. Of course we had a 5-4 Supreme Court for a few years now and they never once looked its way, so I haven’t any idea what anyone wants Donald Trump to do about it…
As for his personal failings, leave me alone. His opponent is – well, we all know about his opponent.
These Republican elites have spent their lifetimes telling those pathetic hicks in the party to suck it up, hold their noses, and vote the party line, because half a loaf or a third of a loaf is better than nothing. Now when those same elites are faced with the same choice, they’re all “Let’s vote for Clinton on principle.”
I think it is simple: you can predict under what circumstances Hillary would start a war, and you can’t for Trump. And in the age of nuclear weapons, war policy is one of the primary reasons to pick a president.
Hillary: She is a known quantity. She is an interventionist for situations in which our ability to use overwhelming force can prevent a humanitarian disaster with minimal US casualties (so, situations like Libya& Kosovo, and Syria where she would have done it differently than Obama, and Rwanda where she learned from her husband’s regret over not doing more.) Other than that, she would maintain our cold war posture toward our allies and our adversaries, a posture endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike for decades, a posture which has kept America safe and which has kept the entire world prosperous.
Trump: who knows! His America First policy might melt in a crisis, much as the original America Firsters weren’t heard from after Pearl Harbor. MikeR, do you want NATO to disband in practice if not in name? Do you want Trump to have control of the USA’s nuclear weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons? Do you want the continuing absence of conflict in Korea and in the Taiwan Strait to depend on Trump’s judgement?
(In case it wasn’t clear, I was just teasing above in my imaginary reply to “WorkersUnite”)
Substitute “Reagan” and “Carter” mutatis mutandis, and we’re back in 1980.
I don’t see it. Who is Reagan, and why? Thanks!
Guess you weren’t around back then. Well, youngster, Reagan was a reckless cowboy who went around aggravating the Soviets, and was surely going to get us into a nuclear war. Or, such was the meme. The rhetoric had been a staple of fearmongering Democrat attack ads advocating capitulation to the Communists for a long time, most prominently in the Johnson-Goldwater election cycle.
Oh, I see. I was around back then, somewhat (I graduated from high school in the mid-80s.)
Democrats were scared of Reagan because he was principled, not pragmatic, right? Principled people can seem heedless of the consequences, and thus scary — Reagan’s anti-communism looked like it could lead to WW3.
But at least we knew what Reagan stood for and we knew what he would oppose. With Trump, I don’t think we do.
Sure we do. Trump stands for Trump. And, insofar as Trump’s interests coincide with our own, he will be for us. And, I’m pretty sure Trump’s interests do not include WW3.
Sure, maybe the glass is half empty. But, with Hillary, we know the glass doesn’t even have a bottom.
Ha! We don’t have to worry about WWIII because the Russians (and Trump) love their children too.
In 2001, well before Sept 11th, a US spyplane crew was held and interrogated without sleep on Hainan Island in China. I think President Bush handled the situation just about right by using some dipolomatic double talk: he apologized by saying the US was sorry and regretful but he didn’t officially apologize (because the US plane wasn’t doing anything wrong) and this allowed the Chinese to save face while somewhat allowing us to save face too, and we got our crew back. I think Hilary (and Romney, McCain, and pretty much all GOP and Democratic presidents or presidential nominees would have handled it the same way – with diplomacy.
What would Trump have done? Whenever anyone challenges Trump, he doesn’t use the language of diplomacy, instead he ups the ante. I think at best, the crew would still be in captivity, and crippling trade embargos, and at worst, limited one-upsmanship by each side that eventually leads to an accidental crossing of the line separating peacetime from wartime. Maybe an attempted hostage rescue with Navy Seals in there somewhere….
If you disagree, how do you think President Trump would have handled the Hainan Island incident.
So, is it always our responsibility to provide a way of “saving face”? Do the Chinese have no such responsibility? Is incremental retreat really the best policy in the long run?
This is just like Reagan/Carter. For years, we tried to soothe and palliate our adversaries. But, that’s just angling to get pushed around even more. When Reagan pushed back, it was the adversaries who retreated.
Every school kid who has successfully fought off a bully knows this. The more you shrink from the fight, the more they bring it on. But, when you stand up for yourself, you find they really aren’t interested in picking on someone who defends themselves.
when you stand up for yourself, you find they really aren’t interested in picking on someone who defends themselves.
Even weirder than that… then they want to be your best friend. I’ve never quite understood the psychology of bullies.
As you say, I disagree profoundly with Clinton’s attitude towards intervention, and your examples are good ones. Stupid pointless attempts to pick sides in wars between opposing thugs. Kosovo is the first step in our current quarrels with Putin. Libya we all know about. She was in favor of Iraq until she was against it.
“Do you want NATO to disband in practice if not in name?” Yes indeed. NATO was an attempt to stop an expansionist Soviet Union from ruling the world. That has not been an issue since the Soviet Union disbanded, and an annoying Putin is no reason to revisit it; it is not our job to work out Russia’s relationships with the rest of Europe. If Europe wants our help they should pay for it.
As for “Do you want Trump to have control of the USA’s nuclear weapons?” – that’s just standard scare tactics, and was used by every politician on both sides against their opponents during the Cold War when I was a kid. I have absolutely no reason to think that Trump is a wholesale butcher, everyone’s freakouts about him notwithstanding. He is a shock jock, most of what he says means absolutely nothing, and that’s all.
WF Buckley said that he would rather be ruled by the first thousand names in the Boston telephone book etc. Do you want the first name in that book to be in charge of our nuclear weapons? I have no reason to prefer some famous politician. Most people aren’t sociopaths and Trump is no exception.
“Most people aren’t sociopaths and Trump is no exception.”
I think all politicians are sociopaths and Trump is no exception.
I think Trump is invested in the idea of building a wall- if Mexico were to magically and instantly turn into a wonderful nation which did not cause it’s citizens to flee to the US and Mexico suddenly did not have drug cartel wreaking havoc, then Trump would still feel it would be a failure not to build the wall..
Or, because he is a sociopath.
I personally know some sociopaths… Trump is not.
if Mexico were to magically and instantly turn into a wonderful nation which did not cause it’s citizens to flee to the US
FWIW, from 2009 to 2014 there was no net migration from Mexico to the U.S. It didn’t take any magic, just a global recession.
Source, Jim?
FWIW, from 2009 to 2014 there was no net migration from Mexico to the U.S. It didn’t take any magic, just a[n Obama]
globalrecession.FIFY.
Net? Which is not to say they didn’t pour back and forth over our borders (even assuming you are correct.)
That has not been an issue since the Soviet Union disbanded
Except for Ukraine and Georgia.
Something to consider about the current state of Russia’s military. It is improving through real world practice and is emulating the American fighting style of combined arms.
In Syria, they had sea launched cruise missile attacks. They direct airstrikes from the ground with special forces. They brought in top of the line air defenses that chased away American planes.
They deploy troops in one part of the world, redeploy them in another. Their forces are constantly shifting and are gaining a lot of experience.
They may not be as big a threat as they were at the height of the Cold War but they are becoming more of a threat than they were a few years ago. It isn’t unthinkable that they could be a bigger problem than they were during the Cold War but who knows what Putin’s intentions are with his military?
The Russians have known about mechanized warfare and combined-arms tactics since World War II.
During the Protracted Struggle, such Soviet training and doctrinal manuals as got smuggled out to the West and translated showed they had a very good grasp of theory, though perhaps with different emphasis on different areas.
Likewise, we knew that, unlike most of the supposedly “Category 1” units of the Soviet Army, which spent most of their time being used as a government labor pool, shifting around the USSR or various Warsaw Pact nations to help with the potato harvest or do road repair, the two army groups of Group of Soviet Forces, Germany actually spent most of their time training, just as their opposite numbers on the other side of the inter-German border at least theoretically did.
As for the present case, I would suggest that the USSR constituted an existential threat to the West and had to be dealt with as such, over the objections of those who counselled capitulation and surrender. The USSR was at war with the West in all but name for seventy-four years, supporting and fomenting terrorism worldwide and interfering in the internal politics of scores of sovereign nations.
Putin and the Russia of today, by contrast, are not. Russia today, whatever the aspirations of its would-be Tsar, is a nation in an economic and demographic death-spiral, an economic Chernobyl. They can’t even retake Ukraine–and by invading and occupying the Crimea and the Donbass border region they have successfully not only alienated and cut off Russia’s prior sole source of things like solid rocket motors for missiles–Ukraine is where all the old Soviet factories for such things were built–but also reopened old wounds and reminded all their neighbors of the brutal Soviet conquests and occupations of the Twentieth Century, and may yet succeed in unifying all their neighbors against them, who fear–not wholly unreasonably–that Putin intends to recreate the USSR by force, over the objections of the peoples who live within its old borders.
In any event, NATO is an institution whose purpose went away when the Berlin Wall came down. It is 25+ years past its freshness date, an extremely expensive military alliance that buys us nothing whatsoever and protects the Germans and the French from–well, whom, exactly? I would be just as happy to see all US troops come home from Europe and Korea and the Middle East and put on the southern border to assist the Border Patrol.
She was in charge of the flipping State Department while Obama screwed the pooch halfway across the globe. She wouldn’t do anything differently.
“As Douthat explains, most of his own reasons are things that plenty of Republicans think have passed their sell date. ”
That’s the problem Mike – Republicans != Constitutionalists
congressional abdication
This should be the focus. Trump is just one guy and we
havehad laws.It’s good that ya’all imagine how bad Trump will be. That way the reality will be a pleasant surprise. He’s going to beat Hillary without your support.
“It’s good that ya’all imagine how bad Trump will be. ”
Don’t have to imagine…we can see it happening yesterday. See below
Donald Trump breaks with Republicans on raising taxes, minimum wage
By Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times – Sunday, May 8, 2016
Yeah tax the wealthy…Is that Donald Sanders or Bernie Trump?
Trump for the minimum wage…let’s see is that Hilary Trump or Bernie Trump?
Trump’s disdain for free trade…….that’s gotta be Bernie Trump.
No imagination required…we’re seeing it all unfold in real time.
raising taxes, minimum wage
Minimum wage is stupid, but as long as it stays below what would be paid anyway, it has little effect. Did Trump give a wage number? I’m guessing not, so it’s a non-issue.
He talks about raising and lowering taxes. He published his tax plan. Some [republicans] think it’s a good one. Taxes will likely go both up and down. Not taxing the first $50,000 for couples sounds like it might be good for the middle class? The rich know how to take care of themselves. If corporate taxes come down, I expect they will put more of their money there.
“Did Trump give a wage number I’m guessing not, so it’s a non-issue.”
You cannot be serious. That’s the sort of free pass they keep giving to Obama, Bernie and Hillary
That’s the sort of free pass…
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Trump says a lot of things. It’s part of his charm (I know I gotcha with that one!)
He has support for a reason that has nothing to do with what you complain about and nothing to do with a con… well, he is conning you into believing he’s an idiot rather than a very successful businessman that just happens to not be tone deaf regarding issues a large number of people care about… issues that have been ignored by our ‘betters.’
a very successful businessman
He’s not a successful businessman. He’s a successful con man and thief. And “reality”-television star, which is the only thing he’s ever been really successful at.
“…well, he is conning you into believing he’s an idiot rather than a very successful businessman that just happens to not be tone deaf regarding issues…”
First of I am heartily sick of people like Obama, Hillary, Boehner, McConnell etc who talk one way and act another.
Aren’t you?
Why would you POSSIBLY want to support someone who – as explained by his supporters – is presenting a false face during the campaign, and is really a different kind of person. Aren’t you sick of that?
I am.
And what makes you BELIEVE it’s false? What hard evidence do you have?
And what you are now trying to argue is that his support has nothing to do with what he says.Are yous saying his support has nothing to do with the wall? With his (multiple) immigration policies?
Well that’s just a cop out. All you’re saying is that his flip flops, dissembling, disingenuous and multiple personalities can ALL be ignored because of some magical thing.
Tell us why he has all this support then? What is the magical thing?
Tell us why he has all this support then? What is the magical thing?
“Did you hear what he said,” our betters sputter. Yes, we heard which is why pointing it out has no effect. It’s hilarious how you just can’t understand Trump, a very simple man, which is also why Hillary will lose to him.
Trump is flat out wrong on a lot of issues. They are not the issues that matter. We face an existential threat which is the issue that matters.
You spin his comments into lies, when he said no such thing (examples too numerous.)
How do we know what Trump will do? On the details, we don’t, but big picture we do because they’ve been on continuous display. He will fight… in the gutter even.
He will not apologize for American exceptionalism (even if he doesn’t understand it any more than Obama.) Occasionally he will even get some things right, which is better than we expect from standard prepackaged politicians.
Did Trump give a wage number? I’m guessing not, so it’s a non-issue.
We know that there is absolutely nothing that the con man can do or say that will cause you to waver in your support, but he talked about raising it, from a number that is already far too high.
So what? Did he actually raise any? No. Until he does, it’s meaningless which has been your point, hasn’t it? It’s not central to Trump meme.
Until he does, it’s meaningless which has been your point, hasn’t it?
No, it’s not meaningless, and I’m sorry you don’t understand my point.
He’s talking like a Democrat, and I have no reason to think he wouldn’t govern like one, or appoint justices like one.
“So what? Did he actually raise any? No. Until he does, it’s meaningless which has been your point, hasn’t it? ”
In other words, Ken what you are saying is that since he cannot push for a higher minimum wage, because he’s not President, his statements about raising a minimum wage that is (as Rand says) already too high, can be safely ignored?
“It’s not central to Trump meme.”
Tell us what the Trump meme is then.
Tell us what the Trump meme is then.
It’s printed on the baseball cap and it really is as simple as that. You keep trying to parse his words and at the same time tell us it’s gibberish. Guess what, you’re right… and foolish to keep analyzing everything he says.
He is successful as a businessman because they have a very simple metric for that… it’s called money.
If it were just a con, it would be the worst con in all of history. Understanding Trump is simple because he is a simple man. You keep twisting yourselves in a knot trying to figure out what isn’t there.
He is not a conservative. Arguing that point gets you less than nothing. He does talk like a dem but he’s not actually that either. He’s a 69 yo rich guy that remembers when America wasn’t as screwed up as it is today and would sincerely like to do something about it even if he doesn’t really know how. But he’s going to accidentally get a lot of things right because he is first and foremost American.
Haven’t you noticed this has been missing from the left’s world apology tour?
He is successful as a businessman because they have a very simple metric for that… it’s called money.
Well, by that metric, he’s a failure. He’s lost many tens of millions, pocketing huge pay offs for himself while leaving a lot of poor contractors and investors holding the bag.
He’s a multi-billionaire. I know some people here that would like to be that kind of failure.
It’s easy to become a “multi-billionaire” (we don’t really know what he’s worth — we have to take his word for that, partly because he refuses to reveal his tax returns) if you start off inheriting millions, then lie, cheat and steal, and leave others holding the bag.
or appoint justices like [a democrat.]
Perhaps it’s about time the advice and consent rubber stamp should be revoked?
There is no “advice and consent rubber stamp.” I have no idea what you’re talking about.
He is successful as a businessman because they have a very simple metric for that… it’s called money.
We have no good way of knowing just how much money Trump has. We know that Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, and George Soros all have more than even Trump claims to have, but I wouldn’t pick any of them to be president.
when America wasn’t as screwed up as it is today
Has anyone asked Trump when that was, exactly?
We have no good way of knowing just how much money Trump has.
Other than the filing of assets he was required to file for his run for president. Nobody said riches make you president material (nice strawman.)
Jim, you don’t recognize how screwed up America now is because you’re among those screwing it up.
Tell us what the Trump meme is then.
Ken Replies:
“It’s printed on the baseball cap and it really is as simple as that. ”
Yes every bit as simple as “Yes we can!” Or “Si Se Puede!”
And every bit as useless in trying to decide who to vote for.
“You keep trying to parse his words and at the same time tell us it’s gibberish.”
Yes – I try to parse his words because THAT is how one chooses who to vote for, in addition to past actions.
And yes when I try to parse his words the result is that they are gibberish.
I don’t want to vote for a guy who speaks gibberish. Do you?
“Guess what, you’re right… and foolish to keep analyzing everything he says.”
No Ken the foolish thing is to ignore what he says and vote for some mythical unicorn image of what he’ll do.
Donald Trump breaks with Republicans on raising taxes, minimum wage
By Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times – Sunday, May 8, 2016
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,”Mr. Trump went beyond his disdain for free trade, long a linchpin of conservative thought. He also said he would be willing to raise taxes and that he favors increasing the minimum wage.
“We have to negotiate. The thing I’m going to do is make sure the middle class gets good tax breaks. For the wealthy, frankly, I think it’s going to go up. And it should go up,” he said in the interview, which was recorded Saturday and aired Sunday.”
Let’s see….tax breaks for the middle class…..tax hikes on the wealthy…where have I heard THAT before?
Oh yeah…Bernie the Socialist, Hillary, Obama……
But don’t call him a Democrat!
Hell no! He’s a Conservative through and through!
The kneecapping continues……
“Free trade, long a linchpin of conservative thought…”
Of late the Republicans have been engaged in the sort of shameless historical revisionism we normally associate with the Left, attempting to recast Washington and Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton, as some sort of enthusiasts for free trade and wide-open borders, the doubleplusgoodness of which is only doubted by thoughtcriminals and other nogoodniks.
The inconvenient reality was their support for the Tariff Act of 1789, and the 120 years of 20%+ tariffs on foreign goods that followed, that were the principal source of revenue for the US government prior to the income tax. See also, the 60,000 or fewer immigrants per year until the 1830s, when 98.5%+ of the US population was native born.
There is nothing whatsoever “conservative,” big-C or small-c, about wild-eyed experiments with radical, irrevocable changes to the economy and radical, irrevocable changes to the nation’s demographics, nor has there ever been. Risky, hare-brained experiments with half-baked ideas are what the Left always champions, by definition. Conservatives are supposed to be the adults in the room, who say “Hey, wait a minute, are we sure this is a good idea? Have we thought this through? What will we do if it doesn’t work out the way you say it will?”
A very cogent and thought-provoking post. Thanks.
” Conservatives are supposed to be the adults in the room, who say “Hey, wait a minute, are we sure this is a good idea? Have we thought this through? What will we do if it doesn’t work out the way you say it will?” ”
Actually that’s incorrect.
Conservatives are the adults inthe room who understand that they in no way can really predict the outcome of a change.
So theymake very small changes very slowly and observe the results before making the next one. That way you can back out if you execute a goofball idea.
They understood human limitations and knew that even the finest thinkers would not be able to make predictions and would come up with goofball ideas occasionally.
They were not against thinking things through. But they understood the limitations of that thinking given that the thinkers are human.
Donald Trump breaks with Republicans on raising taxes
No, he revised his own plan up but still a tax break.
“But far more than Obama or Hillary or George W. Bush, Trump is actively campaigning as a Caesarist, making his contempt for constitutional norms and political niceties a selling point.”
I can’t believe I’m reading crap like that, given how thoroughly Obama has eviscerated the separation of powers, and rammed through unpopular measures by executive fiat. An MO that Hillary would be sure to emulate.
At least Trump would have some limitations. As the Blogfather is fond of saying, we need a Republican President, if only so that the press will do its job of containing the office’s power.
General comment: Amazing how much time and effort people spend on parsing statements by a shock jock. _What he says means nothing._ Nothing. Ignore.
Jon to Bob-1: “If all this is true, why did you recently say that you agreed with everything Jim says? He’s been shown to be wrong many times.”
Not in Jim’s head.
There is no truth but socialist truth.
His unfitness starts with basic issues of temperament. It encompasses the race-baiting, the conspiracy theorizing, the flirtations with violence, and the pathological lying that have been his campaign-trail stock in trade.
Seriously? This analysis is beyond reality.
But above all it is Trump’s authoritarianism that makes him unfit for the presidency — his stated admiration for Putin
This is the attack Democrats have been leveling against Republicans for noting Putin’s success in working over Obama on Syria. Noticing the reality of a situation is not admiration for it.
This election is bizarre. Trump is a RINO and the GOP’s traditional RINOs have embraced the use of Democrats tactics against their own party, against a fellow RINO. The GOP often nominates a RINO, why not one that knows how to get some votes?
The interesting thing about this op-ed is the fear that Trump will be successful. On the one hand there are the sensationalist fear mongering attacks that Trump is going to destroy the world because he is a thin skinned dummy and on the other, the fear he will change tax policy, rebuild the military, fix illegal immigration, defeat ISIS, improve the economy, and get Europe to spend more on their own defense. If he is successful, then maybe the party should change a little or at least stop with the sensationalist attacks?
No, the danger isn’t a Trump that is successful. The danger is a Trump that isn’t successful. The danger is that Trump makes promises, like the GOPe has done, and then doesn’t deliver.
It’s easy to become a “multi-billionaire” (we don’t really know what he’s worth — we have to take his word for that, partly because he refuses to reveal his tax returns) if you start off inheriting millions, then lie, cheat and steal, and leave others holding the bag.
Easy? Really?
Tax returns are not the way to determine valuation. That only shows income, not wealth. The forms he did file show actual assets.
The rubber stamp is when congress only puts on a show of vetting judicial nominees which has been the case if you’re not a conservative judge. Ask Bork or Thomas, but not the wise latina or Kagan.
Tax returns are not the way to determine valuation. That only shows income, not wealth.
One can infer much from them. As with Obama’s college transcripts, there’s a reason he doesn’t want us to see them. There are many similarities between Trump and Obama.
As with Obama’s college transcripts, there’s a reason he doesn’t want us to see them.
That reason may or may not be that there’s something to hide. Obama didn’t want to release his long form birth certificate, and there was nothing to hide there, he apparently just didn’t want to be held to a different standard than other candidates. For all we know that’s also the case with the transcripts.
With Trump the problem isn’t being held to a new standard. Every recent presidential candidate has released multiple years of tax returns (Romney only released two).
Obama didn’t want to release his long form birth certificate, and there was nothing to hide there, he apparently just didn’t want to be held to a different standard than other candidates.
What other candidates have refused to release their transcripts? We saw Bush’s, and Kerry’s.
Bush’s transcripts were leaked after he declined to release them. Ditto Gore’s. Kerry released his after the 2004 election (?!?). McCain and Romney didn’t release theirs. Nor did Sarah Palin.
Insisting that Obama release his transcripts is holding him to a different standard. Insisting that Trump release his tax returns is holding him to the usual standard for presidential candidates.
Both Trump and Obama are allowed to hide things, and we are allowed to draw conclusions from their reticence.
The difference (morons, Ace would say) is that a birth certificate directly addresses a constitutional requirement for president whereas a tax return doesn’t.
Liberty means nothing if we are not free to exercise it. Obama did not have the liberty of sidestepping a constitutional requirement and we’ve still never seen his birth certificate (a certificate of live birth can be issued without being present at the birth.) I’m much more willing to believe Obama’s grandmother than Obama… but that ship has sailed.
a birth certificate directly addresses a constitutional requirement for president
Obama satisfied that with the short form certificate of live birth (the one that was dismissed by birther nuts as a forgery). No other presidential candidate has been pressed for a long-form birth certificate.
we’ve still never seen his birth certificate
Yes, we have. Some crazy ideas just won’t die.
Both Trump and Obama are allowed to hide things, and we are allowed to draw conclusions from their reticence.
The conclusion is that Obama releases the same sorts of information that other candidates do, and Trump doesn’t.
That’s your conclusion. Others may have other conclusions.
dismissed by birther nuts as a forgery
Because it listed a hospital that didn’t exist by that name when Obama was born; so it’s not even a good forgery.
With Trump the problem isn’t being held to a new standard.
Jim, can you provide a source for this standard? For example, I can find the laws that require government employees to use government systems, such as email, to conduct government business. So, can you provide the regulation that makes it standard to release tax returns.
Leland,
As you well know, “standard” doesn’t imply government regulation. Consider the phrase “double standard” which Jon uses in the comment below yours. When an English speaker says “double standard”, or says “held to a higher standard”, or says “held to a new standard”, there is no implication of a government regulation, and you know this.
What is really going on is that we are comparing Trump to other presidential candidates. This article, from 2012, describes the rather interesting history of Presidential candidates releasing their tax returns:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/presidential-candidates-have-long-history-of-releasing-tax-returns/
and it will allow you to make an informed comparison.
If there is no requirement, then the standard is voluntary. When people voluntarily conform to a standard, it is called a tradition. Breaking from tradition is no big deal.
So if that is all you have, bob; it was a waste of your time and mine, but that’s your
standardtradition. I’m glad others here don’t follow it.If Bush and other republicans don’t release transcripts, there’s a cry in the media.
But if Obama?
Meh, nothing to hide.
So tired of this double standard on your side.
If Bush and other republicans don’t release transcripts, there’s a cry in the media.
Uh, no. Bush did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”. McCain did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”. Romney did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”.
The only “cry in the media” about unreleased transcripts has been directed by the right-wing media at Obama.
Jim claims no one cared, but if that was true; then why did the New Yorker pay to get a leaked copy of pointless transcripts.
Oh yeah, Jim lies.
Jim claims there is a standard of releasing documents, but then list numerous people that didn’t release theirs. If not everyone is doing it, how is there a standard?
Oh yeah, Jim lies.
I’m starting to see the tradition here.
why did the New Yorker pay to get a leaked copy of pointless transcripts
Who says the New Yorker paid? Publishing a leak is not the same thing as demanding that information be released. There was no media cry for Bush’s transcripts, or McCain’s, or Romney’s. Just Obama’s.
Jim claims there is a standard of releasing documents, but then list numerous people that didn’t release theirs.
Where are you getting that from? I claim there is a standard of presidential candidates releasing tax returns. I believe that every nominee going back to Carter has done so, and that Nixon did as well. I have not listed numerous candidates that didn’t release their tax returns — as far as I know, they all have.
That reason may or may not be that there’s something to hide.
Right Jim, Obama wouldn’t want to brag about his accomplishments. They must be so superior to us lesser mortals.
My two favorite high school report cards: 4 As & 3Fs. One F was for reading!!! Another all C’s with a B in math. How the hell did I get a B in math? I had a perfect score on tests!? One of the Cs was for an english class where we listened to a tape, then wrote an essay about it. One day I felt motivated to do a good job and the teacher accused me of cheating somehow. He ‘knew with certainty’ that it was too good to have been my work.
I was also student of the month (got my picture in the local paper and everything) that I only attended for one month (that year I went to about four seventh grade classes while traveling with my abusive stepdad.)
Hey Obama, got something to hide?
“That reason may or may not be that there’s something to hide. ………. he apparently just didn’t want to be held to a different standard than other candidates. ”
Yeah standards like honesty, transparency, clarity.
There are many similarities between Trump and Obama.
Yes, any two random humans will share similarities. However, the inference is ridiculous (but a very common political attack.)
I note that Obama is black and Trump is orange!!!
Uh, no. Bush did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”. McCain did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”. Romney did not release transcripts and there was no “cry in the media”.
Uh….do you really remember 1999 that well? So well that in that year of Bush’s lack of “gravitas” they also railed on him endlessly for every little slight he did? I don’t think so.
I do remember Rush making fun of the media for his lack of transcripts.
Do you remember 2008 or 2012? Do you remember all the calls for McCain’s transcripts or Romney’s transcripts? Do you hear anyone calling for Trump’s transcripts today?
I try to parse his words because THAT is how one chooses who to vote for
Words have no meaning without actions.
Trump wants potential threats vetted while others cry, “why that’s unamerican.” It’s not racist to point out that some coming into this country want to harm us (with numerous proven examples.)
Trump wants to use the proven strategy of tit-for-tat (although he doesn’t call it that) in foreign trade (like Reagan.)
Trump wants our military prepared so we don’t have to play catch-up as we always have when others get militarily adventurous. But he also doesn’t want to commit our military without a clear American interest. He wants other to take their share of the burden so America isn’t the world’s police force.
He correctly believes the middle class has been decimated and wants to reverse that.
There is of course more. The objections to Trump are trivial compared to these which is why they get no traction.
So go ahead and keep parsing those things that don’t matter. Lately, in interviews Trump has tried to talk about substance while reporters want to discuss meaningless throw away lines that mean next to nothing (and not at all Trump’s focus.)
The amazing thing is the right has begun to emulate the left in having no idea what’s important and what’s not (in many other ways as well, as other have clearly pointed out.)