Donald Trump - Opinions?

[britbox]

I haven't been following the early stages of electioneering in the US too closely, but can't miss the odd headline I catch - usually bagging Trump.

I've been catching up with some coverage the last few days.... is he really that bad?  Obviously, he's very raw but he's also hard to ignore and quite engaging in many respects... The biggest one is that he comes across as genuine in his beliefs - unlike many of the other contenders.  I always like conviction politicians even if I disagree with some of their politics.

Would be interested in the views of others, particularly Americans.

 

[DarthFed]

He's batshit crazy and still someone that I can't take seriously.  We are talking someone who is openly racist for starters.

I'd imagine he will not see it through to the end and eventually pull out or simply run separately as a libertarian.  In a way if that plays out it will be good for the Republicans because whoever else wins the nomination will look great no matter what.  If Trump wins the Republican nomination that party is doomed.

 

[Moxie]

Trump "speaks his mind," which is what you're probably referring to, bb, but he doesn't actually state much in the way of beliefs, other than spouting hateful comments, or the belief in his own ego and superiority.  On any issue of policy, he simply claims that he'll make things better, just trust him, and he'll tell you later what he's going to do.  But it's going to be "'UGE."  (Trump-speak for 'huge.')  He has managed so far to alienate hispanics generally, Mexicans specifically (calling them rapists and assassins,) women, Jews...at a recent luncheon at the Republican Jewish Coalition he traded in old Jewish stereotypes, ("I'm a negotiator like you folks.")  And he thinks we flat just shouldn't let any more Muslims in the country.

The Republican party has already held a meeting to decide how to by-pass him should he win the nomination, because Twisted is right:  they know they're screwed if they put him up as their candidate.  And not just in this election cycle.

That he has survived this long and is polling rather well is baffling to many.  It's currently being explained as that his appeal is similar to that of the character Archie Bunker from "All in the Family." (Series inspired by "Til Death Do Us Part" in the UK.)  For those who are unhappy with the many social changes in the US, Trump seems to give voice to their anger and sense of disenfranchisement, and they enjoy his absolute refusal to be "politically correct."  But it does seem more like a rampaging Id than a focused campaign with real policy ideas or solutions.

If you want someone who speaks his mind refreshingly and committedly, I suggest you have a look at Bernie Sanders.  (I'm not saying he's my candidate, yet, but he also started out as someone nobody thought had a chance, and is also polling surprisingly well.)

 

[Asmodeus]

While Trump is certainly loud and obnoxious (to some), he is correctly honing in on a general discontent with establishment politics. Many Republicans have become dissatisfied with the failure of the party to live up to ideals of limited government and economic freedom. How can the party say that this is it's platform when government continues to grow? As an outsider, Trump is very appealing to many.

Sanders, on the other hand, is an idiot. Not only does he constantly use the tired old rhetoric of the left, his economic policy is incoherent. In addition, Sanders is a true 'inside' candidate being in Washington for the last 20 years so he's part of the problem as well.

The best party with a theoretically coherent policy that understands the hell both Democrats and Republicans have put us in, is the Libertarian Party. If you believe in freedom and economics, this is the place for you.

 

 

 

[Federberg]

As an outsider, my bias would be towards the Libertarian party as it fits my view on socio-economics. Unfortunately I've found some of Ron Paul's comments on race to quite distasteful in the past. Now I know Rand is the guy putting himself forward as a candidate this time, but I'm not sure the apple has fallen that far from the tree, so I'll pass!

 

Thought this was interesting....

http://qz.com/571297/trump-cant-win/

By the way, I find it amusing that Republican Presidents have done more harm to the federal budget in the last 40 years than Democrats. It speaks to the fact that they might talk about small government but they don't walk the walk. I'm giving Obama a pass on the budget deficit because of the global financial crisis, not so much because I believe his administration's solution was the ideal, but there was method to the madness

 

[britbox]

I don't think any American president can control the budget deficit or the national debt.  There are way too many vested interests for the president to make a dent.

The National Debt will keep rising year on year until the total collapse of the Dollar... and that in turn will happen when the dollar is no longer the global currency of trade.

 

[Federberg]

I don’t think any American president can control the budget deficit or the national debt. There are way too many vested interests for the president to make a dent. The National Debt will keep rising year on year until the total collapse of the Dollar… and that in turn will happen when the dollar is no longer the global currency of trade.

yes that's true. The executive doesn't control the budget, but their major policies can significantly impact it... Reagan and Star Wars(?) for example. The deficit actually fell during the Clinton administration (not really thanks to him, but gridlock). But yes I do agree that the dollar's reserve currency status lends itself to abuse

 

[Asmodeus]

By the way, I find it amusing that Republican Presidents have done more harm to the federal budget in the last 40 years than Democrats. It speaks to the fact that they might talk about small government but they don’t walk the walk. I’m giving Obama a pass on the budget deficit because of the global financial crisis, not so much because I believe his administration’s solution was the ideal, but there was method to the madness

This is largely incorrect. First, the national debt has grown significantly under Obama--massive increases in debt. Second, while Reagan did contribute to the large deficits during the 1980s, Democrats did control the appropriations arm of government (House of Representatives) so they voted in approval of these policies as well. Many people forget that if you don't like what happened in the US since WWII, Democrats controlled the House between 1955 and 1995, and the nearly the entire Senate (except between 1981 and 1986).

It is incorrect to pass entire blame on one party since rarely does either party have enough of a majority to control the entire legislative process. In addition, most increases in federal spending occur in nondiscretionary spending categories (social security, medicare, etc.). The US is fast becoming a militarized welfare state.

The answer, again, is to focus your future on a different vision of what the future should be: Libertarian.

 

[britbox]

So this Libertarian party is a totally separate non-Republican, non-Democrat party? Who's the leader and are they expected to win any seats in congress or the senate?

I've never heard of them before.

 

[Asmodeus]

So this Libertarian party is a totally separate non-Republican, non-Democrat party? Who’s the leader and are they expected to win any seats in congress or the senate? I’ve never heard of them before.

The Libertarian Party is distinct and separate from both the Republicans and Democrats, though there are a few Republicans that co-opt some Libertarian philosophy in their rhetoric. Any respecting Libertarian, though, would not consider them as part of the movement. Libertarian philosophy is discussed and debated throughout the world. It is an ideology that focuses on the smallest amount of government possible. This is the anti-Marxist/leftist/corporatist/big government approach to life and considers any who want to grow the size of government as a direct threat to liberty. Estonia is one country that has tried to incorporate some principles of Libertarianism, though they were influenced more by Milton Freidman.

Unfortunately, while there is a Libertarian Party in the US it does not effectively challenge the main two parties. Americans have an issue with wasting their vote on a third party candidate since it is likely to elevate their least preferred candidate to office. So don't look for them to win major office anytime soon.

 

[Federberg]

Unfortunately it will probably never be mainstream because one of the guiding theses in Libertarian thinking is the concept of hard money. This is in direct opposition to the central bank obsessed fiat money system in place now (by the way, the fiat money system is an essential requirement in the construction of the military industrial complex). The use of gold or another type of hard money is a significant component of the ultimate goal of Libertarians. This is because central banks and their inflationary actions effectively steal money from the poorest people in society, but the socio-political orthodoxies of today will always oppose that belief. You'll probably have heard of Friedrich Hayek who is probably the most famous proponent of the Austrian School of economics, his book 'Road to Serfdom' is a must read if you have any interest. For me though, Ludwig von Mieses is the real inspiration, and in my view his book 'Human Action' is right up there with great academic literature like Darwin's Origin of the Species.

 

[shawnbm]

Trump is shrewd and knew how to tap in with growing distate amongst the populace with "political correctness" and business as usual with the usual suspects inside the beltway in Washington D.C.  He found his niche with the immigration issue at the border, which was only enriched by the attacks in Paris.  His view is protect Americans first and keep illegals out, including all Muslims until ISIS is destroyed.  His position is that it is simply too dangerous to let Muslim immigrants into the nation on the Trojan Horse theory and many agree with him.  People used to flood to the States because of religious tyrany in their native lands, but more and more since 1900 the reason has been purely economic for the most part, with exceptions (Jews during WWII, El Salvadorians in the late 1970s and early 1980s, etc.)--people want to come here for economic opportunity and the freedom to own property and money and things.  Of course, that often means somebody already here and who is a citizen gets displaced or has to make room.  There is anger as to that as well.  Many a hispanic illegal has taken jobs that could go to black, white or other citizens--and there is anger with the illegals and with the employers who violate the law to employ them on the cheap.

 

Trump is NOT a politcian or statemen; he is a smart businessman who likely can't believe he is still in this.  I have said all along he is not electible and I stand by that.  He will likely start to lose some primaries in the next few months and fall back into the middle of the pack.  But, and I also mean this, I detest how neo-fascist and oligarchial some get in my nation about Trump.  The media CONSTANTLY ask and cajole his position and ask rhetorically "How long can this go on when the elitists and GOP movers don't like him?"  Well, tough--this is supposed to be a country where the people vote in who they want, even if the "establishment" doesn't like him or her.  The establishment does not like it that this guy is sticking his thumb in their eye and they are trying to control things, which will get up another beltway person who won't rock the boat much.  The populace is saying no--and that is a breathtaking thing to watch--democracy in action, even if the media and elitists don't like it. LOL

 

[Federberg]

Trump is shrewd and knew how to tap in with growing distate amongst the populace with “political correctness” and business as usual with the usual suspects inside the beltway in Washington D.C. He found his niche with the immigration issue at the border, which was only enriched by the attacks in Paris. His view is protect Americans first and keep illegals out, including all Muslims until ISIS is destroyed. His position is that it is simply too dangerous to let Muslim immigrants into the nation on the Trojan Horse theory and many agree with him. People used to flood to the States because of religious tyrany in their native lands, but more and more since 1900 the reason has been purely economic for the most part, with exceptions (Jews during WWII, El Salvadorians in the late 1970s and early 1980s, etc.)–people want to come here for economic opportunity and the freedom to own property and money and things. Of course, that often means somebody already here and who is a citizen gets displaced or has to make room. There is anger as to that as well. Many a hispanic illegal has taken jobs that could go to black, white or other citizens–and there is anger with the illegals and with the employers who violate the law to employ them on the cheap. Trump is NOT a politcian or statemen; he is a smart businessman who likely can’t believe he is still in this. I have said all along he is not electible and I stand by that. He will likely start to lose some primaries in the next few months and fall back into the middle of the pack. But, and I also mean this, I detest how neo-fascist and oligarchial some get in my nation about Trump. The media CONSTANTLY ask and cajole his position and ask rhetorically “How long can this go on when the elitists and GOP movers don’t like him?” Well, tough–this is supposed to be a country where the people vote in who they want, even if the “establishment” doesn’t like him or her. The establishment does not like it that this guy is sticking his thumb in their eye and they are trying to control things, which will get up another beltway person who won’t rock the boat much. The populace is saying no–and that is a breathtaking thing to watch–democracy in action, even if the media and elitists don’t like it. LOL

I largely agree with you. But hasn't he miscalculated now? In his enthusiasm with the Republican base, he seems to have alienated a huge cross-section of global consumers now. Muslims, Mexicans and Latinos in general, not to talk of Scots and British people generally who are signing up in record numbers to demand he's banned from the UK. He'll find his client base is going to shrink to a few red states in middle America at this rate!

 

[shawnbm]

I don't think the Donald calculates in such a way  so as to garner. He simply speaks with many think in terms of refugees, illegal aliens and the rule of law in this country. Those two classes of people are not, I repeat not, citizens of United States and, therefore, it correctly that they do not have our constitutional rights.  Because of the problems of terror and crimes committed by illegal aliens that get arrested and then get back in and commit crimes, he realistically says this can't continue--that something needs to be done.   He thinks illegal aliens should be sent back out about legally.   It is unpopular amongst the Latinos but he is not PC; he speaks it as he sees it.

 

[britbox]

shawnbm wrote:
Trump is shrewd and knew how to tap in with growing distate amongst the populace with “political correctness” and business as usual with the usual suspects inside the beltway in Washington D.C. He found his niche with the immigration issue at the border, which was only enriched by the attacks in Paris. His view is protect Americans first and keep illegals out, including all Muslims until ISIS is destroyed. His position is that it is simply too dangerous to let Muslim immigrants into the nation on the Trojan Horse theory and many agree with him. People used to flood to the States because of religious tyrany in their native lands, but more and more since 1900 the reason has been purely economic for the most part, with exceptions (Jews during WWII, El Salvadorians in the late 1970s and early 1980s, etc.)–people want to come here for economic opportunity and the freedom to own property and money and things. Of course, that often means somebody already here and who is a citizen gets displaced or has to make room. There is anger as to that as well. Many a hispanic illegal has taken jobs that could go to black, white or other citizens–and there is anger with the illegals and with the employers who violate the law to employ them on the cheap. Trump is NOT a politcian or statemen; he is a smart businessman who likely can’t believe he is still in this. I have said all along he is not electible and I stand by that. He will likely start to lose some primaries in the next few months and fall back into the middle of the pack. But, and I also mean this, I detest how neo-fascist and oligarchial some get in my nation about Trump. The media CONSTANTLY ask and cajole his position and ask rhetorically “How long can this go on when the elitists and GOP movers don’t like him?” Well, tough–this is supposed to be a country where the people vote in who they want, even if the “establishment” doesn’t like him or her. The establishment does not like it that this guy is sticking his thumb in their eye and they are trying to control things, which will get up another beltway person who won’t rock the boat much. The populace is saying no–and that is a breathtaking thing to watch–democracy in action, even if the media and elitists don’t like it. LOL

I largely agree with you. But hasn’t he miscalculated now? In his enthusiasm with the Republican base, he seems to have alienated a huge cross-section of global consumers now. Muslims, Mexicans and Latinos in general, not to talk of Scots and British people generally who are signing up in record numbers to demand he’s banned from the UK. He’ll find his client base is going to shrink to a few red states in middle America at this rate!

Trump will naturally alienate a lot of people, but he'll also get a lot of support from others.  He's a divisive character but at least he's not another vanilla politician.

 

[shawnbm]

He is definitely not another vanilla candidate.  He speaks freely and not in careful language; he talks like regular folks--and that resonates with the populace.  He is attacked as being a fear mongering blowhard, but there is a lot to fear since Paris and San Bernadino.  Muslim terrorism is not some fad or silly thing that is just going to go away if we only try to reason with them.  That is not going to happen, so he says what many here think--let's not be fools; let us secure our borders and only let in those who can be vetted.  Lets deport illegal aliens and then let them in once they wait in line like everybody else.  Lets not take Syrian refugees, in particular, if they are Muslim because of how easily terrorists can infiltrate the throngs coming our way and elsewhere.  Let us not play games but destroy ISIS where they are.  Working in the minds of Muslim youth can come later.  That message resonates with millions and he is not a hateful guy; he's pragmatic in the face of real worrisome issues.

 

[Asmodeus]

Unfortunately it will probably never be mainstream because one of the guiding theses in Libertarian thinking is the concept of hard money. This is in direct opposition to the central bank obsessed fiat money system in place now (by the way, the fiat money system is an essential requirement in the construction of the military industrial complex). The use of gold or another type of hard money is a significant component of the ultimate goal of Libertarians. This is because central banks and their inflationary actions effectively steal money from the poorest people in society, but the socio-political orthodoxies of today will always oppose that belief. You’ll probably have heard of Friedrich Hayek who is probably the most famous proponent of the Austrian School of economics, his book ‘Road to Serfdom’ is a must read if you have any interest. For me though, Ludwig von Mieses is the real inspiration, and in my view his book ‘Human Action’ is right up there with great academic literature like Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

Agreed that Mises is the real heavy hitter in Libertarian philosophy. Though not as famous as Hayek, he is definitely his intellectual superior. Though, is you to explore the antecedents of Libertarian thinking look at Herbert Spenser, Lysander Spooner, and Bastiat. Some good stuff to read post-Mises is Murray Rothbard then Walter Block. If you're looking at Libertarian thinking in action you can look to Jason Soren's Free State Project. He's a friend of mine.

I will say that it makes me happy when I find someone who is familiar with and supports this thinking. You have a responsibility to disseminate this to the walking dead. They could use the help.

As far as hard money is concerned, while I support its enactment, not every Libertarian is hung up on it. Many would find a victory in any capacity where the leviathan state is diminished. Perhaps an argument to use with the zombies you meet is to argue that hard money would bring stability to one's purchasing power. This would particularly help the poor.

 

[shawnbm]

I, for one, am unfamiliar with the libertarian philosophy concerning hard money.  I know Nixon and that group of congressman took us off of the gold standard in 1973, but I was in elementary school and did not know what the fuss was all about.  I still don't know.      

 

[Moxie]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
shawnbm wrote:
Trump is shrewd and knew how to tap in with growing distate amongst the populace with “political correctness” and business as usual with the usual suspects inside the beltway in Washington D.C. He found his niche with the immigration issue at the border, which was only enriched by the attacks in Paris. His view is protect Americans first and keep illegals out, including all Muslims until ISIS is destroyed. His position is that it is simply too dangerous to let Muslim immigrants into the nation on the Trojan Horse theory and many agree with him. People used to flood to the States because of religious tyrany in their native lands, but more and more since 1900 the reason has been purely economic for the most part, with exceptions (Jews during WWII, El Salvadorians in the late 1970s and early 1980s, etc.)–people want to come here for economic opportunity and the freedom to own property and money and things. Of course, that often means somebody already here and who is a citizen gets displaced or has to make room. There is anger as to that as well. Many a hispanic illegal has taken jobs that could go to black, white or other citizens–and there is anger with the illegals and with the employers who violate the law to employ them on the cheap. Trump is NOT a politcian or statemen; he is a smart businessman who likely can’t believe he is still in this. I have said all along he is not electible and I stand by that. He will likely start to lose some primaries in the next few months and fall back into the middle of the pack. But, and I also mean this, I detest how neo-fascist and oligarchial some get in my nation about Trump. The media CONSTANTLY ask and cajole his position and ask rhetorically “How long can this go on when the elitists and GOP movers don’t like him?” Well, tough–this is supposed to be a country where the people vote in who they want, even if the “establishment” doesn’t like him or her. The establishment does not like it that this guy is sticking his thumb in their eye and they are trying to control things, which will get up another beltway person who won’t rock the boat much. The populace is saying no–and that is a breathtaking thing to watch–democracy in action, even if the media and elitists don’t like it. LOL

I largely agree with you. But hasn’t he miscalculated now? In his enthusiasm with the Republican base, he seems to have alienated a huge cross-section of global consumers now. Muslims, Mexicans and Latinos in general, not to talk of Scots and British people generally who are signing up in record numbers to demand he’s banned from the UK. He’ll find his client base is going to shrink to a few red states in middle America at this rate!</blockquote>
Trump will naturally alienate a lot of people, but he’ll also get a lot of support from others. He’s a divisive character but at least he’s not another vanilla politician.

But is being aggressive, racist, egotistical and childish a resume for the most important office, arguably, in the world, just because you're not "boring?"  If the Republican party can't put up a plausible candidate, that's their fault.  If they allow Trump to pull their rhetoric to the extreme of divisive, and they lose the general election because of it, that's their fault, too.  I get the idea that iconoclasts and those out of the beltway can be appealing, but they have to have some notion of what they want to do.  Chris Christie (Gov. NJ) is also a plain-speaker, but, like Trump, he's generally seen as a bully.  And neither one of them has a coherent foreign policy.  Some may be disenchanted with the political mainstream, but it doesn't mean you have to choose a xenophobe or a thug.

 

[britbox]

Trump is a Xenophobe? I know at least two of his wives have been foreign.