Explaining Trump to the betas!

[AUChizad]

Notorious left-wing media therightscoop:

http://therightscoop.com/not-kidding-donald-trump-just-attacked-scott-walker-for-not-raising-taxes-in-wisconsin/

NOT KIDDING: Donald Trump just attacked Scott Walker for NOT RAISING TAXES in Wisconsin!

Posted on March 29, 2016 by The Right Scoop

On a radio station in Wisconsin this morning, just after Walker endorsed Cruz, Donald Trump attacked Scott Walker for NOT raising taxes in Wisconsin. Yes I said for ‘not’ raising taxes.

Not only that, but he repeats the 2 billion dollar deficit lie he was called out on just yesterday for using against Scott Walker last year:

…In a radio interview with talkshow host Michael Koolidge on Tuesday, Trump bashed Walker’s administration.

“There’s a $2.2bn deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes ’cause he was going to run for president,” said Trump. “So instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things.”

Trump also added of the Badger State in general: “Wisconsin has a lot of problems, plus there is tremendous hatred … I wouldn’t exactly say that things are running smoothly.”

And Trump expects people to believe he’s really a conservative? Unbelievable.
 
Here’s the interview from yesterday where Charlie Sykes called out Trump on the 2 billion dollar deficit lie. It starts at 6:10. Trump claimed that he got it from Time magazine but refused to be held accountable for it even though he attacked Walker with it last year (and even today!):

Just to point out again, even Politifact rated this MOSTLY FALSE:

Mixing apples and oranges, Trump said that under Walker, Wisconsin “projected a $1 billion (budget) surplus and it turns out to be a deficit of $2.2 billion.”

There was in early 2014 a projection of a $1 billion surplus heading into the 2015-’17 budget period. Late in 2014, there was a projection of a $2.2 billion shortfall — the difference between expected revenues and the amount of money being requested by state agencies. But the shortfall was never a deficit — and some of the surplus was consciously spent by Republicans, as tax cuts.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth and ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False.

Trump is once again using Democrat lies to attack Walker and Cruz.

But hey, he just happens to be a different kind of conservative, one who loves raising taxes and using Democrat lies and tactics to attack his opponents.

[bottomfeeder]

Okay, Trump's got a cool income tax plan. What about other taxes? Is going raise the gasoline tax like Bentley did? There are other taxes he can have raised such as SS limits, import taxes, cell phone, etc.

He was quoted today chewing the WI governor's ads doe not raising taxes for schools and roads. Go figure???

I'm getting weary of Trump now. No substance and a liberal stance on state taxes? Gary Johnson should be allowed to participate in the general election debates.

[CCTAU]

CCTAU...you are just perpetrating the stereotype here dude...

It's almost like you are saying some of this shit on purpose...

What is the stereotype? The one the media gives you? Or the one where many Americans from all walks of life are pissed off and want something different?

It's funny how many people like jizzy here state that only the uneducatedsupport Trump. Yet I talk to propel every day who make well I've 100k a year who support him.

Damn dumbass rednecks we are I guess.

The GOP destroyed themselves. You can only lie to the people so much, and then they catch on.

Whether Trump is right for the job or not, he is definitely hitting it at just the right time.

And the stereotype out there is a group of Americans ready for a change in direction!

Get on board or get with hitlary!

Cruz and Kasich are done!

[Kaos]

What is the stereotype? The one the media gives you? Or the one where many Americans from all walks of life are pissed off and want something different?

It's funny how many people like jizzy here state that only the uneducatedsupport Trump. Yet I talk to propel every day who make well I've 100k a year who support him.

Damn dumbass rednecks we are I guess.

The GOP destroyed themselves. You can only lie to the people so much, and then they catch on.

Whether Trump is right for the job or not, he is definitely hitting it at just the right time.

And the stereotype out there is a group of Americans ready for a change in direction!

Get on board or get with hitlary!

Cruz and Kasich are done!

You didn't mention Chizad's Johnson.

[CCTAU]

You didn't mention Chizad's Johnson.

I thought we already established he doesn't have one.

[Ogre]

You can dislike Hillary and also dislike Trump.  It's possible. 

This sums up my thoughts perfectly:

No, Donald Trump Isn't Actually Better Than Hillary
by David French

Those of us who’ve pledged that we will never, ever vote for Donald Trump always get the same response: “You’d put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office instead?” Clinton’s name is spoken like an epithet, as if it’s unthinkable that any conservative would take any single action that could facilitate her election. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton, but I also do not believe that Trump would make a better president. Not because Clinton isn’t as bad as you think, but because Trump is worse than you imagine.

There’s no real difference in character between the two. They lie as easily as they breathe: habitually, transparently, shamelessly. Hillary lies like a lawyer, always parsing her words to provide a legal escape route. Trump lies like a thug, contradicting himself with each successive breath and daring anyone to call him on it. They both seek to destroy their political opponents, and they’d probably both wield the levers of power to do so and to reward their friends. In other words, they’re both fundamentally corrupt.

We know what we’ll get from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. She’s an internationalist interventionist with more muscular instincts than Barack Obama and less resolve than George W. Bush. She voted for the Iraq invasion but then went wobbly as the war dragged on. She backed the surge in Afghanistan, advocated intervention in Libya, and was famously more skeptical of the Arab Spring than Obama. Her “reset” with Russia was a disaster, but she’ll broadly back American allies, maintain our stewardship of NATO, and keep our other international commitments.

Trump’s foreign policy, insofar as he has a coherent foreign policy, is by contrast an entire casserole of crazy. At various points in the campaign, he’s promised that he’d order the military to commit war crimes by torturing terrorists and killing their families; he’s called our core alliances in question; he’s pledged to remain neutral in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; and he’s switched anti-ISIS strategies so many times that no one has the slightest clue what he’d do. This is a man who has on multiple occasions endorsed a “bomb them all and take their oil” strategy for fixing the war-torn Middle East. He’d alienate every Muslim ally America has, including the Kurds, and he’s still completely mystified by the most basic defense concepts. The entire world would be less secure with his finger on the button.

On trade, Clinton will almost certainly be superior to Trump.  Trump pledges to “win” through punitive tariffs that would increase the price of consumer goods and trigger trade wars, but he gives little indication that he understands the economics of trade, the reality of the American economy, or even the truth about American manufacturing. (It is not, in fact, disappearing.) Clinton, by contrast, would probably maintain the trade-policy status quo, and while that status quo creates winners and losers — as any status quo would — free trade has long been an overall positive for American families.

The Clinton and Trump tax plans are both miserable. Clinton offers the standard Democratic package of tax increases for the rich and vastly increased spending, while Trump’s tax cuts would blast a hole in the budget, adding as much debt as Obama did — without the burden of a historic recession. Clinton’s plan would probably slow economic growth, but would be closer to revenue-neutral. Trump’s plan would spur more growth but would also increase the national debt by up to $10 trillion. Pick your poison.

But what about the areas where Trump fans argue that he’d clearly be better than Clinton? On abortion, immigration, and judges, we know what she’d do — protect Planned Parenthood, try to enact a path to citizenship, and appoint the standard-issue leftist legal technocrats to the bench.

How much better would Trump be? It’s impossible to know if his recent pro-life conversion is genuine, but it can’t be a good sign that he still refuses to denounce Planned Parenthood, consistently using Democratic talking points to praise the nation’s largest abortion provider. On immigration — aside from that big, beautiful wall, which is a pipe dream at best — he’s all over the place. And his corporate record indicates that he’s exactly the kind of “jobs Americans won’t do” legal-immigration and touchback-amnesty advocate who would be all too willing to open the door so wide that no one would have to scale the wall.

As for judges, the indications are similarly ominous. He praises his far-left sister and promises to nominate men and women whom everyone will like. But not everyone likes true conservatives. In reality, he’ll probably nominate friends and cronies — people who’ve said nice things about him. The best-case scenario is that he’ll delegate lower-court judicial nominations to home-state senators, simply adopting their recommendations. He’d probably be better than Hillary, but not by much.

He’d also probably be better than Hillary on the Second Amendment. There is at least a chance that he’d nominate a Supreme Court justice who wouldn’t vote for the repeal of the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it’s doubtful that he’d initiate any meaningful gun-control measures. But who knows what he might negotiate in the heat of the moment? Any position he takes — most definitely including all of the “conservative” stances he’s adopted since launching his campaign — could be discarded at a moment’s notice if it became politically inconvenient. It’s impossible to know what he actually believes, if he actually believes anything.

But virtually everything we do know about Trump is negative. He lies. He traffics in far-left conspiracy theories. He incites violence. He surrounds himself with thugs, cronies, and fools. He’s ignorant of the most basic realities of national security, foreign policy, and global economics. He has a decades-long record of corruption and a decades-long record of liberalism. In arguing that he’s better than Clinton, his supporters now ask us to trust his current “conservative” incarnation and disregard that record. We don’t really know how he’ll handle immigration, trade, ISIS, abortion, or judges. But trust him. He’ll do better. Yes, Trump has praised single-payer health care during this election, but trust him. He’ll do better than Obamacare. Yes, Trump has advocated touchback amnesty and increased legal immigration, but trust him. He’ll protect American workers. Yes, Trump has supported abortion-on-demand and gun control, but trust him. He’s changed. Yes, Trump has written large checks to leftist politicians, but trust him. He’ll fight them as president. Yes, his campaign team lives in the gutter, but trust him. He’ll appoint good people.

Hillary Clinton is the most beatable likely Democratic nominee since John Kerry, and the GOP is poised to nominate the one man least likely to beat her, and the one man who would be just as bad in the White House. I don’t vote for despicable people. I don’t vote for leftists. And I will never, ever, vote for Donald Trump. He’s no better than she is.

[WiregrassTiger]

I thought we already established he doesn't have one.

Technically, he has an outie. He just wishes that he had an innie.

Am I really the only one on here who has seen him naked?

[GH2001]

he gave money to ant-gun democrats and that makes him a liar on the second amendment? REACHING

From your article:Once again REACHING!


He's right about the brain power. He just has to be careful that he does not get called an anti immigration racist bigot by not wanting the unskilled  labor to enter the country on these visas. Then again this is neither here nor there on any subject in the meme!

Any more bogeymen you want to exercise?


Some of you are so hellbent on hating the man for every little thing that you are missing the big picture. That big picture was on the RIGHT side of that meme. If you think the positions of the evil one on the right side of that meme are acceptable, then vote for her.

He's recently espoused everyone of those views and very conveniently. He will do and say anything to get what he wants. It's the Donald way. And has been his whole life. Trump supporters are a perfect example of his strategy of tapping into anger that totally disregards logic and past precedent. I thought that's what the right accused the left of in 08? Say it ain't so.

[GH2001]

What is the stereotype? The one the media gives you? Or the one where many Americans from all walks of life are pissed off and want something different?

It's funny how many people like jizzy here state that only the uneducatedsupport Trump. Yet I talk to propel every day who make well I've 100k a year who support him.

Damn dumbass rednecks we are I guess.

The GOP destroyed themselves. You can only lie to the people so much, and then they catch on.

Whether Trump is right for the job or not, he is definitely hitting it at just the right time.

And the stereotype out there is a group of Americans ready for a change in direction!

Get on board or get with hitlary!

Cruz and Kasich are done!

You obviously suck with math and how a convention works. This is going to a convention. The people that run it do not like trump. The delegates there do not like trump. If he doesn't win on the first ballot where the pledged delegates are bound to him, he is through. Maybe you should do some research on the 1860 GOP convention. This seems to be going down the same way so far.

[CCTAU]

He's recently espoused everyone of those views and very conveniently. He will do and say anything to get what he wants. It's the Donald way. And has been his whole life. Trump supporters are a perfect example of his strategy of tapping into anger that totally disregards logic and past precedent. I thought that's what the right accused the left of in 08? Say it ain't so.

The difference is that in '08, the candidate in question HAD a political record to go by. He had no business record to go by.

In this case, we can only speculate as to what Trump will do.

We KNEW what the great ONE would do. And he DID.

So it is not quite the same. If Trump had been in politics and had the same opinions and record to back it up, most would not touch him.

[GH2001]

The difference is that in '08, the candidate in question HAD a political record to go by. He had no business record to go by.

In this case, we can only speculate as to what Trump will do.

We KNEW what the great ONE would do. And he DID.

So it is not quite the same. If Trump had been in politics and had the same opinions and record to back it up, most would not touch him.

Oh he's been in politics. Just ask him. He literally said that. He's bought and paid for all kinds of liberal politicians. That's the definition of a lobbyist that he claims to hate so much. Of course he needs no pax money. He's a billionaire. Easy for him to say. But most everyone else running HAS to get donations! It's the game that's played. Donald has plenty of evidence of his track record of positions. He's an absolute authoritarian. 50 years of views and actions doesn't get erased in 8 months.

He's donated to dens at a 2/1 ratio versus the GOP. Do you see the Koch brothers or Sheldon adelson donating to people like Soros Pacs, Hillary for president, rahm for mayor, pelosi for speaker and on and on and on? I reject the notion that a businessman must donate to slimey politicians to succeed. Most do not.

[CCTAU]

You obviously suck with math and how a convention works. This is going to a convention. The people that run it do not like trump. The delegates there do not like trump. If he doesn't win on the first ballot where the pledged delegates are bound to him, he is through. Maybe you should do some research on the 1860 GOP convention. This seems to be going down the same way so far.

I think we've come a long way from word of mouth and plows and pitchforks.

That would be suicide for the the GOP.

[CCTAU]

I reject the notion that a businessman must donate to slimey politicians to succeed. Most do not.

And they don't succeed in New York.

[GH2001]

I think we've come a long way from word of mouth and plows and pitchforks.

That would be suicide for the the GOP.

There is no sabotage. No rule changes. That's how the game works. There are rules. Keep believing that rumor mongering that people like Sean hannity are peddling though about underhanded convention actions.

You have to have 8 state wins to be on the ballot at the convention.

1st ballot - all pledged delegates are bound. Unpledged can do what they want.

2nd ballot - no delegates are bound at this point. It's an open vote.

I'm saying of trump doesn't get this thing on the first ballot then he's toast. And I'd say that even the 1st ballot is a tossup at this point. There are no shenanigans. This is what happened in 1860.

[Kaos]

From Ogre's "Oh no! Not Trump!" article:

On trade, Clinton will almost certainly be superior to Trump.  Trump pledges to “win” through punitive tariffs that would increase the price of consumer goods and trigger trade wars, but he gives little indication that he understands the economics of trade, the reality of the American economy, or even the truth about American manufacturing. (It is not, in fact, disappearing.) Clinton, by contrast, would probably maintain the trade-policy status quo, and while that status quo creates winners and losers — as any status quo would — free trade has long been an overall positive for American families.


False.  Clinton was a major supporter of (and instrumental in the development of) NAFTA.  She's never owned a business, never had a real job and is far inferior to Trump in the ability to understand the basics of the economy. Keeping NAFTA (or the "free trade" policies) is not beneficial to America or American families. And if this guy doesn't think American manufacturing is disappearing, he hasn't been to a single small town in his life.  He's a billion percent wrong on this point.

We know what we’ll get from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. She’s an internationalist interventionist with more muscular instincts than Barack Obama and less resolve than George W. Bush. She voted for the Iraq invasion but then went wobbly as the war dragged on. She backed the surge in Afghanistan, advocated intervention in Libya, and was famously more skeptical of the Arab Spring than Obama. Her “reset” with Russia was a disaster, but she’ll broadly back American allies, maintain our stewardship of NATO, and keep our other international commitments.

Misleading.  Every single move this shrew made as Secretary of State was an unmitigated disaster and weakened the country.  We can't afford to let her be in charge of the whole enchilada.  Yes, we know what we get from her.  And it's awful.  When you know it's awful you can't reject her opponent because he "might" be bad.  It's hard to imagine anything that could be worse. 

Not going to continue the point-by-point, but the fact is this:  We KNOW Clinton will be abysmal.  Worst ever and her election could be the death knell for this country. Whatever this guy (or anyone else) expects from Trump is nothing but speculation.  He could be terrible.  But he could be great. For that reason, anyone -- even Trump -- is better than Clinton.  Period.   

[CCTAU]

Not going to continue the point-by-point, but the fact is this:  We KNOW Clinton will be abysmal.  Worst ever and her election could be the death knell for this country. Whatever this guy (or anyone else) expects from Trump is nothing but speculation.  He could be terrible.  But he could be great. For that reason, anyone -- even Trump -- is better than Clinton.  Period.

Apparently this point goes right over people's heads.

As bad as some speculate Trump MAY be, we KNOW how bad hitlary IS!

[CCTAU]

There is no sabotage. No rule changes. That's how the game works. There are rules. Keep believing that rumor mongering that people like Sean hannity are peddling though about underhanded convention actions.

You have to have 8 state wins to be on the ballot at the convention.

1st ballot - all pledged delegates are bound. Unpledged can do what they want.

2nd ballot - no delegates are bound at this point. It's an open vote.

I'm saying of trump doesn't get this thing on the first ballot then he's toast. And I'd say that even the 1st ballot is a tossup at this point. There are no shenanigans. This is what happened in 1860.

Still suicide. The people vote and want their vote heard. We live in an age of instant communication. It will not take two weeks for the decision to reach the people. This is not 1860.
There will be no GOP after this. Then the dims win.

[GH2001]

Apparently this point goes right over people's heads.

As bad as some speculate Trump MAY be, we KNOW how bad hitlary IS!

So you're admitting there is a good possibility of a "lesser of two evils" choice being put before us once again? Like we've had in every single election since Reagan left Penn avenue...

[GH2001]

Still suicide. The people vote and want their vote heard. We live in an age of instant communication. It will not take two weeks for the decision to reach the people. This is not 1860.
There will be no GOP after this. Then the dims win.

It happened in 1976 too. The GOP came out stronger in 1980. Reagan had a lot of votes in 1976 and was denied. This is way it works. Donald signed up for the rules as they exist. The delegate process is complicated and I'm sorry if he and his supporters don't understand it.

[CCTAU]

So you're admitting there is a good possibility of a "lesser of two evils" choice being put before us once again? Like we've had in every single election since Reagan left Penn avenue...

I've admitted that a thousand times.

Therefore, I look for the positives that can come out of this.

Hitlary has no positives!