Trump

[RowdyRebel]

"President Elect Trump" certainly does have a nice ring to it...considering what it MIGHT have been. Only Senate seatto "flip" was here in Illinois, which hasn't elected a republican to the Senate in a presidential election year since 1972...and Kirk was an absolute disgrace, so not really all that big of a deal. Some long-term big-name democrats lost in the state house elections...only 1 democrat remains in Springfield from South of I64.

But yes, after 8 years of democrats running full steam ahead implementing policies and regulations AGAINST the will of the people, ramrodding THEIR wants and desires down our throats, it's time for them to stand aside and let our side try to fix their f*ck-ups...and get back to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

I was a Ted Cruz supporter in the primaries. The day Trump clinched the nomination, he had my support.

[mackey58]

Yes we are screwed  and a laughing  stock mire now than ever oh well

[david wild]

Notice how nice they are all being to Trump, yesterday they would spit on him, today his farts are sweet as a flower, he has the power and the people behind him, this is not a Trump victory, it's a every day working person who has been victimized by the left victory and the left is scared turd less. They now sit and wonder who will go to prison and who will lose all that they stole, really bad day for the corrupt left, Americans have finally stood up to the big bully and put them in their place, out the door.  those who made a career of welfare maybe should start looking for a real job, I have no sympathy for Clinton or any of her goons, they went low, really low and should reap what they sowed, all eternal damnation. We don't need to be nice, no one was nice when the IRS was targeting Republicans ?? or Clinton getting a free pass on breaking the law or 4 fine men who died because she just did not care.  I hope and pray she gets exactly what she deserves. There is no way to spin the results, Hard working Americans have spoken and loudly, things must and will change.

[kscarbel2]

Trump's Road To Victory

Jacob Heilbrunn, The National Interest  /  November 9, 2016

Trump’s accomplishment may be to reshape the Republican party into a populist one.

Now that he has won the presidency, Donald Trump looks, to use one of his favorite phrases, like a political genius. For those of you who blanch at the notion, get real. He scoffed at the idea that he needed pollsters or a lot of advertising. He was patently bored by the notion of fundraising, and didn’t do much of it. He lashed into his detractors and political foes with relish, deploying a barrage of insults that would have made even Lenin, who contributed much to the lexicon of insults, proud. But most notably, Trump devised an electoral strategy based on the Rust Belt that propelled him to the presidency. It was Trump, and Trump alone, who set the course of his campaign, defied his advisers, destroyed both the House of Bush and Clinton and engineered his victory, which is invariably being labeled as “stunning.”

Certainly it stunned the political establishment. During the campaign, it was his adversary Hillary Clinton who came across as a relic of the old order. Her campaign was the political equivalent of the Hindenburg disaster. It was always difficult for Clinton to reinvent herself. Her husband Bill, after all, was an original New Democrat—a centrist who broke with the left-wing of the party. Along with other members of the Democratic Leadership Council such as Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, he took a tough stand on foreign policy and social issues. That heritage was also ingrained in Hillary, though she tried to assuage the concerns of the followers of Bernie Sanders by tacking to the left on free trade. But somewhere along the way New Democrats became Old Democrats.

Her recipe of jobs retraining and liberal social values didn’t offer much of sustenance to the white working-class that had once formed the base of the Democratic party. Democrats who try to blame the election results exclusively on FBI Director James Comey or on WikiLeaks are making a big mistake. These may have contributed to Trump’s victory, but they hardly formed its substance. Something much more fundamental is going on.

Writers such as Michael Lind warned several decades ago about the rise of an America “overclass” that was indifferent to the economic fortunes of the rest of the country. Both the Democratic and Republican parties connived at this development. Now comes the revenge of the repressed who Trump appealed to with his incendiary rhetoric.

Trump’s accomplishment may be to reshape the Republican party into a populist one. The Republican retention of the Senate and House of Representatives means that, at least for two years, gridlock should be a thing of the past. The burden for Trump and the GOP will be enormous. The prospect of Congress actually legislating brings to mind Lady Markby’s remark in Oscar Wilde’s play An Ideal Husband: “Really, now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.”

Trump will be intent on repealing ObamaCare, but what will replace it? Disputes are certain to emerge about taxes and spending as well. To what extent will deficit hawks clash with supply-siders? Does Trump really want to spend double what Clinton proposed on infrastructure programs? How will he pay for a massive military buildup? How will Republicans like Paul Ryan deal with, or adapt to, Trump’s demands for renegotiating NAFTA? Will Trump really pursue a trade war with China, one that could trigger a recession, if not a global economic meltdown?

When it comes to foreign policy, Trump also faces a litany of choices and difficulties. He has suggested that he might meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin before he takes office. He will have to assess American relations with NATO allies as well as the pivot to Asia that the Obama administration began to execute. Writing in the Washington Post, David Ignatius suggests that Trump “will bring an intense “realist” focus on U.S. national interests and a rejection of costly U.S. engagements abroad.” The key question he will have to answer is what actually constitutes realism. The next question, of course, is which advisers will help him define that. Not since Dwight Eisenhower has America had a president who never held prior political office—and in the military, Eisenhower was the politician par excellence.

Above all, Trump will confront the inherent limitations of the presidency. He can’t simply issue ukases. Trump will collide with the uncomfortable truth Founding Fathers sought to keep the three branches of government in a kind of equipoise. Though it seems doubtful that Trump is familiar with it, Marx’s 18th of Brumaire contains more than a bit of wisdom: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” For now the GOP is Trump’s party. But if Trump really wants to show that he’s mastered the art of the deal, he will have to deal artfully with both his friends and foes. It's a tall order.

[kscarbel2]

How Trump Replaced America's Globalist Consensus With A Nationalist Sensibility

Robert W. Merry, The National Interest  /  November 9, 2016

Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites.

The old order of American politics crumbled on Tuesday with an election that signaled an inflection point in the nation’s history. Donald Trump’s victory, almost universally considered impossible until it happened, shattered the globalist consensus of America’s governing elite and replaced it with a nationalist sensibility exemplified in the slogan, "America First." Never in the country’s history has it seen an anti-status quo, anti-establishment politician of such force and effectiveness.

The globalist consensus contained a number of central tenets, all rejected by Trump. They included:

— We live in a unipolar world, with America at its center as an "indispensable nation" with an imperative and mandate to dominate events and developments around the world; spread Western-style democratic capitalism; and salve the hurts and wounds of humanity in far-flung precincts of the globe.

— The nation state is in decline and is being replaced by emergent multinational super-institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations and, presumably, Hillary Clinton’s proposed "hemispheric common market," with open trade and open borders.

— The demands of constituent identity groups, based mostly on ethnicity and gender affiliations, are more important than any concept of national unity.

— Borders have lost their significance as nationalist sentiments have receded, and while something probably needs to be done about illegal immigration, largely to assuage political pressures, there is nothing essentially wrong with mass immigration.

— Free trade is an imperative in the post-Cold War era of globalization to lubricate global commerce and spur global prosperity.

— Despite the advent of Islamist radicalism, fueled primarily by intense anti-Western fervor, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of Muslims can’t be assimilated into Western societies smoothly without detriment to those societies.

This globalist consensus was embraced by American presidents from Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama and then to Clinton II. It was so entrenched within the top echelons of American society—the federal bureaucracy, the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks and charitable foundations—that hardly anyone could conceptualize any serious threat to it. Then Trump attacked it and marshalled a rowdy following of people bent on upending it. The globalist sensibility won’t go away, but it now is seriously challenged. The result is a new fault line in American politics.

The Trump constituency rejects most of the central tenets of the post-Cold War consensus. Its beliefs include:

— The American experiment in national building, with an attendant propensity for regime change, has been an utter failure, particularly in the Middle East, and needs to be replaced.  America must be in the world but shouldn’t try to dominate it.

— Nationalism is a hallowed sentiment, tied to old-fashioned patriotism, and shouldn’t be denigrated or rejected.

— Identity group politics is eroding national cohesion and, through political correctness, is threatening free speech on the country’s college campuses; that threat will grow throughout society if not checked.

— Borders matter; countries without clearly delineated and enforced borders soon cease to be countries. Immigration numbers should be calibrated to ensure smooth absorption and assimilation.

— Free trade, as practiced in the post-Cold War era, is killing us, hollowing out the country’s industrial base and devastating its middle class.

— Islamist radicalism represents a serious threat to homeland security, and it is merely prudent, therefore, to consider adjustments in immigration policy as one tool in seeking to lessen the threat.

Clearly, a clash is inevitable between the post-Cold War elites and the Trump constituency. And its intensity was presaged by writer and thinker Shelby Steele in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. Steele traced the emergence over recent decades of the view that America was a "victimizing nation," tainted by its history, particularly slavery, its treatment of its native Indian populations, and its diminishment of women and minorities. This raised a perceived imperative, in the view of many, that the country must redeem itself from its oppressive past. This could be done, writes Steele, only through a kind of deference "toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization."

But this call for deference assumed a moral high ground—and thus became a political weapon. From this moral position, the deference cadres could look down upon those who didn’t embrace the argument and stigmatize them as "regressive bigots." Writes Steele: "Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma." He cites Clinton’s famous "basket of deplorables," those Trump followers who don’t embrace her view of America as victimizing nation. They are stigmatized as "irredeemable," subject to her sense of political correctness. "And political correctness," says Steele, "functions like a despotic regime."

Then along came Trump, a thoroughly non-deferential figure, "at odds with every code of decency," who "invoked every possible stigma" and rejected each with dismissive sneers. "He did much of the dirty work," writes Steele, "that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do."

It didn’t take long for the writer’s stigmatization concept to manifest itself in the coverage of Trump’s victory. The New York Times lead story, by Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro, revealed the dismissive bias explored by Steele. Trump, wrote Flegenheimer and Barbaro, won the presidency through a campaign "that took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American democracy." The reporters predicted "convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold."

Here we see the one-sided elitist view that the post-Cold War consensus and the imperatives of deference toward victimization, past and present, constituted the only proper outlook. Rejection of it, in this view, poses a threat to the very institutions and ideals of the republic. And certainly no concept of journalistic objectivity should get in the way of exposing such nefarious thinking.

But Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites of both parties who presided over national decline and economic inertia, failed to secure the country’s borders, got America mired in unceasing Mideast wars, and pursued trade policies viewed as harmful to the country’s middle class. He galvanized white working class voters and rural folks throughout the nation, even in traditionally Democratic states in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. By 2:40 a.m. Eastern time, when Pennsylvania put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the Republican candidate had flipped five major states that had voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012—Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition, Michigan and New Hampshire, also Obama states in the two previous elections, teetered between the two candidates as votes were counted late into the night.

Trump was particularly strong among whites without college degrees, expanding his margin of victory with this voter segment to nearly 40 percentage points from just 25 percentage points in 2004. Whites with college degrees remained with the GOP but by a much smaller margin than in previous years. Wealthy Americans shifted away from the Republican Party in significant numbers.

All this suggested the possibility of a serious realignment in American politics, with more wealthy voters (educated suburbanites, Country Club types, urban dwellers) moving toward the Democrats and with working class Americans (once the bedrock of the Democrats’ old FDR coalition) shifting to the GOP.

But the intensity of voter angst in this particular campaign year could be seen in some exit poll results. Responding to a question on what voters considered the most important issue, some 40 percent said they were animated primarily by a desire for change. Of those, 82 percent voted for Trump, compared to only 13 percent for Clinton. Two other question segments revealed a willingness on the part of many voters to overlook Trump’s personal shortcomings in the interest of getting the country on a new course. Among those who felt neither major candidate was qualified for the presidency, Trump garnered 69 percent. Among those who said neither had the temperament for the office, he collected 70 percent. In other words, when forced to choose between two unpalatable choices, a large majority considered Trump the least unpalatable. 

[kscarbel2]

Why the Elite Wanted Trump To Lose

Daniel McCarthy, The National Interest  /  November 9, 2016

Elections pose a basic problem. Should the direction of a government be set by amateurs, by a majority or plurality mass of people who know nothing about policy detail, or should the best and brightest, the educated elite, make informed decisions for the good of everyone?

Last night, the amateurs chose a new leader and a new direction for the country. Donald Trump is now president-elect.

The elite thinkers of the media and policy realms are appalled. They spent months insisting that Trump was an ignorant bigot, a dangerously unstable fellow who could not be trusted with the kind of power that only they were fit to wield. The elite in both parties, among “conservative” journalists as well as “mainstream” ones, wanted Donald Trump to lose, and they confidently predicted he would. They were wrong.

Trump does not have the conventional resume of a presidential aspirant. He has never held elected office. He has never served in the armed forces, either. Instead, he has been a high-profile businessman and television celebrity. His name is a brand. How does that prepare anyone to occupy the Oval Office?

Trump is prone to making off-the-cuff remarks and articulating his policy themes in sometimes shockingly blunt language. This plain-spokenness and tendency toward hyperbole is perhaps as objectionable to educated elites as his policies: a good, well-educated technocrat, a polished politician, simply doesn’t use that kind of rhetoric. He has violated “norms,” and those norms—the etiquette of the elite—are sacrosanct.

If this is as far as one’s analysis goes, it seems obvious that the voters are wrong to make Donald Trump president. But maybe some things are more important than credentials or elite norms: perhaps, it’s worth considering, policy results also matter—and matter rather more.

Judged by the standard of her policies and their results, Hillary Clinton was evidently unfit to to be president. She voted for a Republican president’s unnecessary and wholly catastrophic war in Iraq. She urged a Democratic president to effect regime change in Libya. She has been a staunch friend to institutions of high finance that bear a large degree of responsibility for the financial crisis of 2007/8 and Great Recession. And she subscribes straight down the line to a progressive social agenda that Americans have never been willing to support when given a direct say in the matter. Gun control? Abortion? Clinton was considerably to the left on such questions. She has long been a peculiar mixture of centrist and leftist, combining many of the worst elements of each.

Yet she had credentials. She followed the prescribed etiquette. And many of her screw-ups, however lethal they proved to be, were screw-ups in which other leaders in both parties shared responsibility. What Republican could criticize Clinton for her Iraq vote? How different was Clinton’s involvement with, say, Goldman Sachs from that of other politicians? Clinton’s policy faults were not faults at all in the eyes of her fellow educated elites.

Indeed, as anyone who’s spent a bit of time in Washington, DC discovers, it’s professionally better to be wrong in a crowd than to be right by yourself. Clinton did not stick out. She did not make others of her class uncomfortable. George Will could have tea with her.

America’s educated elite—in the academy, the media, government, and the para-governmental world of think tanks and pressure groups—has been systematically and collectively wrong about some of the biggest questions in foreign policy, economics, psychology, sociology, and culture. The best and brightest have assumed for twenty years that what every man and woman on earth most deeply desires is to become a liberal democrat. Steel workers in Pittsburgh and goat-herders in Afghanistan really in their heart of hearts yearn to be more like Washington Post op-ed columnists. What could be a higher human aspiration?

The belief that comfortable, sexually satisfied consumerism, wedded to gauzy notions universal brotherhood (or sisterhood, or gender-nonspecific siblinghood), is all people want out of life has fueled the drive to integrate world markets, merge populations across borders, and dissolve the sovereignty of any state that falls short of the liberal-democratic ideal. Anyone who rejects this anthropology is irrational—much as Donald Trump is irrational—and requires education, if not medication. So bizarre and incompatible with historical humanity is this vision that all the wealth and prestige at liberalism’s disposal have not been enough to keep even Americans from demanding something else. The alternatives Trump offers are the nation-state and a vague idea of greatness—which, vague though it might be, is still rather more than what liberalism is selling.

The voters who elected Trump don’t subscribe to the complex ideological formulae of Beltway apparatchiks. But they know how they feel, and they know what’s happening in their own lives. They know that being an American doesn’t seem to mean as much or promise as much as it once did. And so they want to make America great again, and Trump is the instrument at hand. They know from experience things that a Brookings scholar’s flowcharts can never reveal.

A false anthropology undergirds the terrible errors that our educated leaders have made in foreign policy, economics, and governing in general. A different anthropology—hardly a completely correct one, but a more realistic one—is what informs the Trump vote, however inchoately. The amateurs know more than the experts. Donald Trump figured that out, and it’s won him the White House.

[Mack458]

Trump scares the hell out of me. I don't believe for one minute that he is that successful a businessman, or that he does not have some things that he does not want the public to know. He should as a matter of past practices provided his tax returns - nothing to hide, prove it. 

Running the government and a business are two different things. Business is for profit and government is about the people. He wanted to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. The latest I heard is that he wanted Congress to pay for it and send a bill to Mexico. A wall will not stop someone from coming into the country. Companies that are overseas will not return even if there is no tax burden. Payroll and any benefits are the largest costs - manufacturing will not return. He will bring coal back, but I think gas and oil will fight that as much as they can. He will restrict a women's right to determine what goes on with their body, and has stated that any women that would have an abortion must be punished. He has no respect for women or anyone who disagrees with him. I can't wait until 2020 when he says he will have no deficit. 

The citizens of the United States did not have much of a choice this season for sure. Hillary was unpopular and Trump has no idea what he has gotten himself into.  Anyone person that says they are the "only one" that can solve the problems, knows more about ISIS than the generals, and is going to be the best president that God created, well he is not in reality. He will not get much done in his time in office. Some in his own party don't like him, and the Dems will fight him like the Republicans fought Obama. My greatest fear is what will happen to the economy once he starts spending. He wants to lower taxes and invest a large amount of money in the "Wall" and removing immigrants. Our dept will go up, and citizens investments in the stock market will become very small. I hope this does not happen because I would like to retire some day, but I don't think Trump will worry about that. 

I have seen how he has treated people that disagree with him. He will have plenty of people from both parties who disagree with him, but he will respond with his usual thin skin attacks. I hope that for all Americans things work out well and we all prosper. In reading this post their is so much anger and in some, disrespect. How are we as a people going to "Make America Great Again" until we work together. (I believe America was great before Trump).

Mr. Trump will take us back to what he thinks was good times. Back to when we were at war.  

If you want to see someone who is angry about Trump, and makes some very good points about how the FBI got involved in the election, please go to Youtube and watch Keith Olberman. He has 40 great commentary's that have some valid points. 

Best to all of you.

[Underdog]

The government SHOULD be run like a business. Take in more than you spend. Simple as that. Our debt ratio as a nation is unsustainable. Nobody knows yet what Trump will do, give him the benefit of the doubt. We already KNOW what the establishment politicians would do, just keep on spending. We tried it the socialist way for the last 8 years, the people have soundly proclaimed that they would like to go in a different direction.

[kscarbel2]

9 hours ago, Mack458 said:

Trump scares the hell out of me. I don't believe for one minute that he is that successful a businessman, or that he does not have some things that he does not want the public to know. He should as a matter of past practices provided his tax returns - nothing to hide, prove it. 

Running the government and a business are two different things. Business is for profit and government is about the people. He wanted to build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. The latest I heard is that he wanted Congress to pay for it and send a bill to Mexico. A wall will not stop someone from coming into the country. Companies that are overseas will not return even if there is no tax burden. Payroll and any benefits are the largest costs - manufacturing will not return. He will bring coal back, but I think gas and oil will fight that as much as they can. He will restrict a women's right to determine what goes on with their body, and has stated that any women that would have an abortion must be punished. He has no respect for women or anyone who disagrees with him. I can't wait until 2020 when he says he will have no deficit. 

The citizens of the United States did not have much of a choice this season for sure. Hillary was unpopular and Trump has no idea what he has gotten himself into.  Anyone person that says they are the "only one" that can solve the problems, knows more about ISIS than the generals, and is going to be the best president that God created, well he is not in reality. He will not get much done in his time in office. Some in his own party don't like him, and the Dems will fight him like the Republicans fought Obama. My greatest fear is what will happen to the economy once he starts spending. He wants to lower taxes and invest a large amount of money in the "Wall" and removing immigrants. Our dept will go up, and citizens investments in the stock market will become very small. I hope this does not happen because I would like to retire some day, but I don't think Trump will worry about that. 

I have seen how he has treated people that disagree with him. He will have plenty of people from both parties who disagree with him, but he will respond with his usual thin skin attacks. I hope that for all Americans things work out well and we all prosper. In reading this post their is so much anger and in some, disrespect. How are we as a people going to "Make America Great Again" until we work together. (I believe America was great before Trump).

Mr. Trump will take us back to what he thinks was good times. Back to when we were at war.  

If you want to see someone who is angry about Trump, and makes some very good points about how the FBI got involved in the election, please go to Youtube and watch Keith Olberman. He has 40 great commentary's that have some valid points. 

Best to all of you.

It can be easily argued that Trump is not a "successful businessman".

Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy no less than four times. There's an alarming pattern there, and few would argue it is the mark of a successful businessman.

-------------------------------------------------

If Trump fulfills even half of his promises, that in itself will be interesting.

Hundreds of times, he promised to build a wall on the US border with Mexico and deport all or many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. [And rightly so.]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration

However, in a June 2012 CNBC interview, Trump said he didn't believe in deporting undocumented immigrants who "had done a great job."

"You know my views on it and I'm not necessarily, I think I'm probably down the middle on that also,” said Trump. “Because I also understand how, as an example, you have people in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job, they've done wonderfully, they've gone to school [for free], they've gotten good marks, they're productive — now we're supposed to send them out of the country, I don't believe in that. I don't believe in a lot things that are being said."

He completely flipped on his "illegal immigrant" position. If they've successfully evaded capture by the INS for 20 years, they can stay !

My wife is from Norway. I had to go through the whole immigrant process with her, from green card to U.S. citizenship. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed to cross our borders at night and stay? Why should I have gone through all the procedures for "legal" immigration, when these people can ignore our laws and receive amnesty to stay?  Who's the fool?

I want EVERY "illegal" immigrant deported........period.

-------------------------------------------------

You should be scared. I am. Unlike the average American, I travel throughout the world. I can report to you that things are very, very bad. We particularly plunged downward from George W. Bush's tenure. America has massive issues before it, almost indescribable in scale. And, we face them without the significant edge (superiority) that we once enjoyed for decades.

[RowdyRebel]

I don't give a rat's ass if a politician makes his tax records public or not. When was the last time YOU applied for a job and was asked to turn those documents over to your prospective employer? I know I've never been asked to produce them, and would likely refuse if asked because it is none of my potential employer's business what I made last year, how much I wrote off, or what my total tax bill was. The ONLY thing they need to be concerned with is what THEY are going to pay me going forward for the work I'm going to do for them. I don't know where or why this whole "show us your tax records" bullshit got started, but it is NOT a Constitutional prerequisite to holding ANY elected office.

[41chevy]

We got the lesser of two evils. Hillary would have driven us past the brink and listened to only her People" and had "her" liberal Judges to back her up. Trump, one hopes is smart enough to listen to advise from knowledgeable and credible people. 

Soro's Penn  Virginia filed bankruptcy

Warren Buffet's Energy Future Holdings went bankrupt and Berkshire Hathaway isn't far away either

Point is every businessman has the same things happen ,agreed not an art form like Trump but still the same.

 

[kscarbel2]

One of the biggest surprises for me about the election is I lost some respect for Giuliani. Perhaps his age is showing. He used to choose his comments well. But the quality of his comments fell, I thought, towards the end of the election.

[Mack458]

RowdyRebel, one of the main reasons that those running for president disclose, voluntarily, is so that any "special interests or conflicts" can be identified.

Similar to "show us your birth certificate".

I don't care if you don't care. It is of interest to me and I have the right to why someone would not want to do it.

Or is asking you to respect my opinion too much to ask?

If so, you are the problem!

[RowdyRebel]

The Constitution requires the President be a Natural Born Citizen, thus the birth certificate may be requested in the event there is doubt as to the whereabouts or circumstances of one's birth.

 

Tax forms aren't going to show anything about "special interests" because the source of revenues is not shown...just dollar figures. How much came in. How much was written off. How much was donated. How much was paid in taxes. Completely irrelevant to the job, unless you're trying to nit-pick and twist things around to make a big stink over nothing. Professional politicians don't mind disclosing their tax forms because they have based their filings upon perceived public perception of what they may or may not put on those forms. You make sure that the form "looks" good...that you're paying your "fair share" even if that means screwing yourself by not claiming deductions you'd otherwise be entitled to...or worse, making sizable "charitable donations" to your own damn charity when you're the one controlling that money anyway in order to appear like you've given a lot to charity. When you're a private citizen, you're using the tax codes to the best of your ability to minimize your tax liability. Appearances to potential prying eyes never crosses your mind, only minimizing what you owe. That automatically places the non-politician at a disadvantage to the career politician if they disclose this unnecessary info.

[kscarbel2]

Donald Trump Transition Team Planning First Months in Office

The Wall Street Journal  /  November 9, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi on Wednesday and will have his first postelection meeting with President Barack Obama on Thursday to discuss the transfer of power between their two administrations in January.

Mr. Trump’s transition team has been gathering for months, and they packed into an office on Wednesday a block away from the White House to continue drafting blueprints for the new administration. Among the proposals: a policy that would ban many members of the transition team from lobbying the same federal agencies they are helping shape.

The proposed ban, which may last as long as Mr. Trump is in office, would underscore the “change” theme that powered the Republican nominee’s surprising victory on Tuesday, according to people familiar with the planning.

It would also limit his pool of potential hires by disqualifying or alienating many Washington consultants whose careers straddle public service and private business.

“There will be a real effort to put in place dramatically tougher ethics reforms,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in an interview about Mr. Trump’s administration.

The transition team also includes a unit studying how Mr. Trump can quickly deliver on his promise to build a wall on the southern U.S. border to prevent illegal immigration.

Mr. Obama, who was among Mr. Trump’s harshest critics on the campaign trail, struck a conciliatory tone in remarks Wednesday, praising Mr. Trump’s victory speech and pledging to work hard to ensure a successful transition.

“I want to make sure that handoff is well executed, because ultimately we’re all on the same team,” the president said.

Mr. Obama will use his meeting with Mr. Trump to discuss specific policies he would like to see carried over to the next administration, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday.

Mr. Trump also will receive briefings from Mr. Obama’s national security team on foreign-policy issues. And the president-elect and vice president-elect will begin to receive the broader daily national security briefing that the president reviews each morning.

A campaign aide said Mr. Trump’s conversations with the leaders of Israel and Egypt—as well as Saudi Arabia —were congratulatory, not policy-focused. The president-elect invited Mr. Netanyahu, who has had a tense relationship with Mr. Obama, to meet as soon as is feasible, the aide said.

Mr. Trump’s transition team, like his campaign operation, has had a much smaller staff than previous Republican nominees, and hasn’t produced the voluminous policy proposals and potential legislation sought by other candidates, including Mitt Romney four years ago.

Instead, they produce mostly two-page and 20-page memos on specific items about the function of certain agencies and what issues will be a priority on the first day, the first 100 days, and the first 200 days, according to three transition team members.

The team has also been assembling a list of people to fill key jobs in a Trump administration. Some have been close to home. Among those discussed for attorney general are New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a top campaign adviser who heads the Trump transition team, and Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, according to two Trump campaign aides.

Mr. Gingrich [age 73] and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani [age 72] have also been mentioned as potential candidates.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Wednesday, Mr. Giuliani said he isn’t that interested in a post. “You never say no, but I’d rather help him find someone else who can do it. I’m very happy not being in the government,” he said.

Candidates discussed for Health and Human Services secretary include Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Ben Carson, one of Mr. Trump’s former primary rivals, a member of the transition team said. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has been mentioned as a potential secretary of the interior, the member said.

A chief of staff should be named within two weeks, and there will be a rush to have his cabinet nominated and approved within two weeks of inauguration, said Mike Leavitt, a former Utah governor advising the transition team.

“The priority is to put a team on the field,” Mr. Leavitt said. “You’ll start to see significant proposals roll out, though not necessarily the expectation that they will pass right away. But there is a need to get the proposals on the table. I don’t know how prepared they are at this point.”

Mr. Trump sketched a broad outline of his first days in office during an October speech in Gettysburg, Pa., a blueprint that was overshadowed by his threat in the speech to sue the women who had accused him of sexual misconduct.

His actions, he said, would be aimed at cleaning up corruption and “special interest collusion.” He promised to protect American workers and “restore security and constitutional rule of law.”

The plan included a hiring freeze on new federal workers, with exceptions for positions in the military, public safety and public health. He promised to eliminate two regulations for every new rule created during his time in office. He proposed a five-year ban on lobbying for officials who leave the executive and legislative branches of government.

In his first days in office, Mr. Trump has said, he plans to announce he will reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and will withdraw consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He plans to order his commerce secretary to identify, and then remedy, all foreign trade “abuses that unfairly impact American workers.” He plans to lift restrictions on tapping energy reserves, approve the Keystone XL pipeline and cancel billions in payments to United Nations climate-change programs.

The New York businessman has vowed to cancel President Obama’s promise to protect from deportation undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, and start deporting as many as two million undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

The first 100 days of the Trump administration “will focus on three to five structural reforms from day one, including controlling the southern border,” Mr. Gingrich said. “It will almost certainly include very dramatic civil-service reform to allow us to fire people who are incompetent or corrupt or breaking the law.”

Several of Mr. Trump’s early initiatives could likely be accomplished through executive orders and regulatory changes, which would make it easy for him to execute because he can bypass Congress. But he could also seek congressional input to foster a better relationship with lawmakers, and his senior staff will have to decide soon on what agenda to set.

Transition Team Gears Up

The Trump transition team is working on two floors of an office tower about a block from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. The team working on appointments meets on the eighth floor.The group includes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the transition chairman; Rich Bagger, a former New Jersey state senator who was formerly Mr. Christie’s staff chief and is executive director of the transition; and former Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the transition team’s principal domestic policy adviser.

On the seventh floor are offices of The five main policy teams are being overseen by Ron Nicol, a former Navy officer and longtimeadviser to the Boston Consulting Group. The economics team is headed by William Walton, the head of a private-equity firm, and David Malpass, who was chief economist at Bear Stearns and a GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York in 2010.

The national security team is headed by former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.). Retired Army Lt. Gen. J. Keith Kellogg heads the defense team, while former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is in charge of domestic issues. The management and budget team is headed by Ed Meese, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, and Kay Coles James, who served in both Bush administrations.

A sixth team, run by Ado Machida, a former domestic policy aide to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, is devoted to reviewing President Barack Obama’s executive actions, as well as regulation overhauls and immigration. The immigration team is made up of staffers with ties to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has long called for tougher immigration laws, and includes a unit dedicated to figuring out how to build Mr. Trump’s wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

[david wild]

John Deere went bankrupt, GM , Chrysler  in fact millions use bankruptcy as a fresh start every year, if you hold that against Trump then change the law, but I'll bet bankruptcy was most likely a Democrat sponsored law to begin with, Trump hates Women ???  funny until the very end were they able to dig up some bimbos to accuse Trump of  groping, there headliner was a failing porn star, why did those women come forward sooner ?? they would have been paid off years ago,  It's almost a insult to question Trumps ability to make money ??  and yes Government is a business and should be run like one,  and Democrats are sore losers, you see them protest, get a job you would not have time to protest or need to. Trump was not the lesser of two evils, he was and is the right choice because he is best suited to fix the the mess, the people have spoken, when they , the people chose Obama some of us did not like it but we got up and went to work well they (the people) figured out they made a mistake, they have now fixed that mistake, now put on you big boy pants and lets go to work, there is alot to do and Trump is the right guy at the right time.   

[david wild]

Thomas Jefferson was president when first bankruptcy laws were passed it was under George Bush that the law was overhauled to stop abuses.

[kscarbel2]

47 minutes ago, david wild said:

John Deere went bankrupt, GM , Chrysler  in fact millions use bankruptcy as a fresh start every year, if you hold that against Trump then change the law, but I'll bet bankruptcy was most likely a Democrat sponsored law to begin with, Trump hates Women ???  funny until the very end were they able to dig up some bimbos to accuse Trump of  groping, there headliner was a failing porn star, why did those women come forward sooner ?? they would have been paid off years ago,  It's almost a insult to question Trumps ability to make money ??  and yes Government is a business and should be run like one,  and Democrats are sore losers, you see them protest, get a job you would not have time to protest or need to. Trump was not the lesser of two evils, he was and is the right choice because he is best suited to fix the the mess, the people have spoken, when they , the people chose Obama some of us did not like it but we got up and went to work well they (the people) figured out they made a mistake, they have now fixed that mistake, now put on you big boy pants and lets go to work, there is alot to do and Trump is the right guy at the right time.   

Have the people spoken? The "people" were only given two choices. The "people", including you and I, were not involved in the process of deciding that Clinton and Trump would be the two choices. Two choices really isn't.......much at all.

And since we don't have a direct vote system like other countries, the people aren't actually choosing. They're sending their vote, allegedly, to the electoral college, but the EL doesn't have to heed it.

Remember Gore versus GW Bush. There really wasn't a choice. Neither was qualified to be anything more than a state governor. If the system can't offer the people two qualified choices, there's a serious problem. I humbly suggest the people should be offered a minimum of six qualified choices, chosen by the people via preliminary direct vote nominations.

[RowdyRebel]

The system provided Republicans the choice of 17 possible candidates. The Democrats put up their own handful of possibilities. THE PEOPLE of each party selected the 1 candidate they felt best represented what their party needed in order to win. If you didn't like those 2 candidates, the Libertarians had their usual nominee, and I think it was the Green party that had yet another option on the ballot. If you didn't like the nominees in the general election, did you participate in the primaries? If not, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself for the choice you were left with in the general election. If you DID vote in the primary and your candidate lost, that's life. You DON'T always get what you want, because not everybody thinks like you.

I for one am GLAD we don't have direct elections, or else the entire country would look like Calif***ya, Illinois, New York, etc...where the population of a large city or two completely dominates and overpowers the vote in the other 98% of the state. Take a look at the "county-by-county" maps. Even the bluest of blue states is red as can be...except for the big city. Hell, the Illinois legislature only has 1 Democrat left in the house and Senate combined South of I64...but the City of Chigago sends so many reps to Springfield that there is still a veto-proof majority in the Senate and near veto-proof majority in the house. That's what happens when mob rules...the major population centers that are riddled with crime and poverty start pushing THEIR failed policies onto the rest of the State.

The Electoral College ensures that the smaller states get a voice, too.

[david wild]

Yes and I too travel to many other countries, and up till lately I have not felt unsafe, no thanks to the liberals and mostly Obama, Americans abroad have a target on their backs, other countries have all ways admired this country for what is has done and those it has helped, but mostly it has been our power both military and financial, they under stand that, they respect it. but with Joe kiss ass in the WH that has gone away. Trump was my first and only choice, look at that big RED map and don't me the people have not spoken. Bush relied on a CIA that had been all but destroyed by Clinton, and as far no WMD, we flew out over 400,000 lbs of yellow cake, and it wasn't Betty Crocker either, what do you think that is used for????  

Does anyone have Whoopi or the other ones addr. 2 men a truck are ready to move them to their new homes in Canada  

[carlotpilot]

38 minutes ago, david wild said:

Yes and I too travel to many other countries, and up till lately I have not felt unsafe, now thanks to the liberals and mostly Obama, Americans abroad have a target on their backs, other countries have all ways admired this country for what is has done and those it has helped, but mostly is has been our power both military and financial, they under stand that, they respect it. but with Joe kiss ass in the WH that has gone away. Trump was my first and only choice, look at that big RED map and don't me the people have not spoken. Bush relied on a CIA that had been all but destroyed by Clinton, and as far no WMD, we flew out over 400,000 lbs of yellow cake, and it wasn't Betty Crocker either, what do you think that is used for????  

Does anyone have Whoopi or the other ones addr. 2 men a truck are ready to move them to their new homes in Canada  

I`ll even supply the truck and drive it to. those jerks will have to supply their own labor though

[HeavyGunner]

19 hours ago, Mack458 said:

Trump scares the hell out of me. I don't believe for one minute that he is that successful a businessman, or that he does not have some things that he does not want the public to know. He should as a matter of past practices provided his tax returns - nothing to hide, prove it. 

And Obummer the freshman senator "community organizer" accomplished what before his presidency that gave you comfort in his ability run the country?  Watch the news and you'll see our country is in more discontent then it ever has been in my lifetime. Race relations are as poor as they were in the fifties because the president backed looting and rioting by standing idle while it happened and when he did address it he sympathized with the "protesters" instead of stopping the violence?  The Middle East is as bad as ever, obummer gave Iran the ability to make nukes does that make you feel safe?  He also refused to call terrorists terrorists and refuses to do anything about there growing violence in the US. The IRS was caught red handed discriminating against conservative/republican 501 C3 organizations and virtually no repercussions. Obummer has turned his back on law enforcement and by again standing by idle is condoning the actions and encourages the offenders to ramp up their actions. Think I'm wrong? Look at all this cop killing bs going on. Again what makes you feel safe with Obummer at the helm?  I'd argue about trump not being successful. If you can turn 1 million bucks into billions go broke and do it again your successful. Claiming bankruptcy or tax write offs as a detriment to what trump has built is a weak argument. Any business hires accountant to find as many LEGAL write offs as possible. You or I would do the same thing to make a business as profitable as possible. If you think the tax laws or bankruptcy laws aren't good go out and vote to change them. Until then trump shouldn't be demonized by using the laws as best as he can for himself like every other business. In short from what I've seen Obummer has done nothing but divide this country between career welfare recipients and minorities pitted against the working class and white people with"white privelege". The economy is in the crapperand after nearly a decade it can no longer be blamed on bush, Obummer care IS a giant failure. It's time for a change, it's time for someone with some business sense to pull the nose up on this plane and start us on the decades long climb out of debt and rebuilding of our infrastructure. 

[david wild]

God that was good !!!

[kscarbel2]

6 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

The system provided Republicans the choice of 17 possible candidates. The Democrats put up their own handful of possibilities. THE PEOPLE of each party selected the 1 candidate they felt best represented what their party needed in order to win. If you didn't like those 2 candidates, the Libertarians had their usual nominee, and I think it was the Green party that had yet another option on the ballot. If you didn't like the nominees in the general election, did you participate in the primaries? If not, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself for the choice you were left with in the general election. If you DID vote in the primary and your candidate lost, that's life. You DON'T always get what you want, because not everybody thinks like you.

I for one am GLAD we don't have direct elections, or else the entire country would look like Calif***ya, Illinois, New York, etc...where the population of a large city or two completely dominates and overpowers the vote in the other 98% of the state. Take a look at the "county-by-county" maps. Even the bluest of blue states is red as can be...except for the big city. Hell, the Illinois legislature only has 1 Democrat left in the house and Senate combined South of I64...but the City of Chigago sends so many reps to Springfield that there is still a veto-proof majority in the Senate and near veto-proof majority in the house. That's what happens when mob rules...the major population centers that are riddled with crime and poverty start pushing THEIR failed policies onto the rest of the State.

The Electoral College ensures that the smaller states get a voice, too.

When I went to the voting booth, I did not have 17 Republican choices.

THE PEOPLE of each party selected the 1 candidate they felt best represented what their party needed in order to win

The people?  Those "people" don't know me or my interests. It is impossible for them to choose for me.

I have a dim view of the party system. It is a part of the past still clinging on, struggling to justify its continued existence.

Our President and members of congress are.......employees of the American people. That's all they need to remember. I'd rather they not be affiliated with a "party", lest their priorities become......confused.

[kscarbel2]

From Obamacare to Yellen: What can Trump do?

The Financial Times  /  November 10, 2016

Five questions on the limits on the president-elect as he heads for the White House

Donald Trump repeatedly promised during his campaign to overhaul or repeal some of President Barack Obama’s signature policies, including his healthcare and financial reforms, on “day one”. He has also said he wants to change the people at the top of the Federal Reserve and the judiciary, which are independent parts of the US government.

But the US system is famous for its checks and balances, which make it hard for one branch of government, even the president, to act unilaterally. So how fast can things change after Mr Trump takes over on January 20?

Can Mr Trump repeal Obamacare?

Mr Trump has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” in his first 100 days in office. The law, enacted in 2010, has extended health insurance to 20m Americans but it has come under criticism for its rising costs. US government figures released in October showed that insurance premiums in the program will jump by an average of 25 per cent next year.

To replace or fully roll back Obamacare, Mr Trump needs Congress to pass a new law, which is entirely possible.

Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and their leadership shares his distaste for the law. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has called it the “single worst piece” of legislation passed during Obama’s presidency. But the process could become bogged down if Congress and Mr Trump do not agree on what should replace it.

Should he desire, Mr Trump could take other steps to cut back the program unilaterally. For example, he could stop enforcing certain Obamacare provisions, such as the individual mandate that requires most people to have insurance, or refuse to approve states’ changes to their Medicaid programs for low-income people.

Can Mr Trump replace Janet Yellen?

In May, Mr Trump said he would “most likely” replace Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen if elected, telling CNBC that Ms Yellen is “not a Republican” and that it would be “appropriate” to put someone new in the position when her four-year term expires in February 2018.

As president, Mr Trump will have the power to nominate all members of the central bank’s Board of Governors to 14-year terms. He also appoints the Federal Reserve chair and vice-chair to four-year terms.

However, Federal Reserve governors may not be removed from office before their terms run out except for “cause”, which does not include their policy views.

Will Mr Trump scrap Dodd-Frank?

Mr Trump has sent mixed signals on his plans for financial regulation, but said he wants to come “close to dismantling” Dodd-Frank, the complex 2010 Wall Street reform act aimed at preventing a repeat of the financial crisis.

Many Republicans in Congress abhor the reform law, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and includes 2,000 pages of new regulations, including tighter capital requirements for banks and the so-called “Volcker rule” that clamps down on banks’ ability to bet their own money.

Key Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, have floated Dodd-Frank reform plans. But as with Obamacare, the difficulty will be in agreeing on the details. Democrats do not have the votes to stop a new law on their own, but they can make political hay from provisions that appear to go too easy on Wall Street.

However, Mr Trump can reshape some financial regulation more quickly by using the regulatory process. He will be able to appoint new chairs to each of the main financial watchdogs, who could then rewrite or repeal the detailed rules that spell out how the principles laid down in Dodd-Frank apply in practice.

For example, a new chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission could rewrite the rules governing the trading and clearing of interest rate and credit derivatives, and take a more relaxed approach.

Mr Trump could also seek to defang the CFPB without killing it by appointing a new director who is more friendly to industry than the incumbent, Richard Cordray. However, there is an ongoing legal dispute over the president’s power to remove a CFPB director.

The brokerage industry is hoping that Mr Trump will also move quickly to scrap another regulation put in place recently by the US Labor Department that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. One of Mr Trump’s top Wall Street advisers, Anthony Scaramucci, has said the president-elect will repeal the rule, which can be done without congressional approval.

Will Mr Trump make the Supreme Court more conservative?

The highest US court consists of nine justices, who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve until they die in office, resign or retire.

The court currently has four Democratic appointees and four put in place by Republicans. There is one vacancy created by the death earlier this year of conservative Antonin Scalia.

Mr Obama nominated centrist appeals court judge Merrick Garland in March, but Senate Republicans refused to vote on his appointment.

Mr Trump has already published a list of 21 people that he would consider to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy, but a right-leaning appointment by Mr Trump would not alter the balance of opinions on the high court.

There are also three justices in their 70s or early 80s — liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 years old, while liberal Stephen Breyer is 78 and justice Anthony Kennedy, who is a Republican but has been the swing vote on crucial issues, is 80.

If any of them step down, Mr Trump would be in a position to shift the court more decisively to the right on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

All Supreme Court appointments need the approval of a simple majority of the Senate, but if one party filibusters, or seeks to stop an appointment with an extended debate, a so-called “supermajority” of 60 senators is needed to end the debate and force a vote. After Tuesday’s election, the Senate will have 51 Republicans, 46 Democrats and two independents who generally vote with the Democrats. The open Louisiana seat is scheduled for a December run-off election.

Will Mr Trump roll back environmental protection?

Mr Trump, who has called climate change a hoax invented by China to make US manufacturers uncompetitive, has vowed to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement, which was adopted last year and received the approval of 55 countries last month.

No single country can abolish the Paris deal. But Mr Trump could decline to participate in the accord and refuse to work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US — non-compliance that is unlikely to result in any penalty.

Mr Trump has also promised to open up more federal land to oil and gas drilling and coal mining, while diminishing the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. He has talked about scrapping a range of environmental regulations, including Mr Obama’s $5bn Clean Power Plan, which seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

However, changes to the Clean Power Plan or other environmental laws would likely face legal challenges from environmental groups.

.