Jump to content

No, Not Trump, Not Ever


Draggingtree

Recommended Posts

Life Lessons With Donald: Never Hire People Who Are Smarter Than You

 

Buzzfeed highlights this pearl of wisdom, which was bestowed upon humanity by Donald Trump in 2007 -- right around the time was advocating the impeachment of President Bush over the Iraq war he opposed from the start (but not really), but prior to donating twice to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and praising Barack Obama's "stimulus" boondoggle for saving the US economy. If this successful management tip sounds familiar, it should, for reasons we'll get to in a moment. Click through for video:

 

Donald Trump said in a 2007 television interview that executives have to be smarter than the people around them, declaring the idea that a boss’s employees should be smarter than them “a lot of crap”...In October 2007, however, Trump told CNBC host Erin Burnett that he believes in having “great people” around him but feels it is important that those people be less intelligent than he is. “You have to keep great people around you,” Trump said. “You have to motivate them. You always have to be on top of them. And you have to be smarter than they are. I hear so many times, ‘Oh, I want my people to be smarter than I am.’ It’s a lot of crap. You want to be smarter than your people, if possible”...In the 2007 exchange on the show “The Billionaire Inside,” Trump advised audience members against placing “too much” trust in the people around them, saying that, if they did, things would “start to happen that you’re not gonna like.”Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/21/life-lessons-with-donald-never-hire-people-who-are-smarter-than-you-n2151620

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draggingtree

April 23, 2016

Failing to Learn from History

By Amil Imani

Is it a case of ordained fate we cannot escape or is it that "We the People" are too dense to learn from our mistakes? Paging through humanity's history, time and again we find numerous instances of costly historical errors where people ignore facts and reason by entrusting their lives to a "savior." And time and again, we have ended up paying the price for our folly. If we are not genetically doomed to make these ruinous mistakes --which I am certain we are not -- then do we commit them out of wishful thinking, laziness, desperation, or some combination of the three?

 

History has warned us of three kinds of people: charlatans, demagogues, and politicians. And more often than not, someone will rise up who is all three of these characters wrapped into one. Our liberty is our most precious possession. Many will aim to rob us of it and, by so doing, add to their own power, while trying to force us to become robots.Scissors-32x32.png

 

Let us learn from our past mistakes. The “change you can believe in,” trumpeted by another “savior,” has turned out to be the change we need to change. And we have the opportunity to do so, at the RNC convention and on November 8th. Scissors-32x32.png
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/failing_to_learn_from_history.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done with Fox News

 

When Fox News debuted in 1996, it was a breath of fresh air, seemingly unadulterated by the leftist bias that had long characterized the three mainstream networks and CNN. But that initial commitment to balance has gone by the wayside, sacrificed on the altar of Donald Trump.

 

Fox News, as Mark Levin has observed, has become a Trump super-PAC instead of a news organization. From morning throughout the day and night, it is Trump, Trump, Trump.

 

Many of us who have depended on Fox for "fair and balanced" news feel betrayed. While Trump's rants at his rallies are a form of repetitive mass hypnosis of an angry public by a fraudster, Fox has set out to convince its viewers that Trump is a legitimate candidate, not a spoiler for Hillary – that he is a conservative when he is clearly not. His millions of supporters who have hitched their hopes for a better future, a return to American strength and values, to him will be sorely disappointed. Trump has no core values beyond his own ego and accumulated wealth.

 

Has Fox News changed its nature at the command of Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes? Are large amounts of money involved? Who knows?Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/im_done_with_fox_news.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Man Who Beat Donald Trump

REHOBOTH BEACH, Del.—Sitting here the other day in the library of his house with 40 rooms, 11 fireplaces, four pianos, a wine cellar, a movie theater and an elevator, Marvin Roffman talked about the time Donald Trump tried to destroy him for telling the truth.

“Brutal,” said Roffman, 76, wearing loafers, khaki shorts and a pink polo, his elaborate gardens and the sixth hole of the Kings Creek Country Club golf course visible through the windows.

 

“I’m telling you,” he said. “Trump is a brutal guy.”

 

This was March of 1990. Roffman was a veteran securities analyst. He had focused on the gaming industry in Atlantic City since the first casinos opened in 1978. He knew the market as well as anyone and had watched closely as Trump made a typically bold entrance with Trump Plaza and Trump’s Castle in 1984 and 1985. Now the New York real estate tycoon was about to open his third casino, by far his biggest, most lavish and most shakily financed one yet, the Trump Taj Mahal. Roffman was skeptical. He told a reporter from the Wall Street Journal the Taj would fail.

 

What happened next was straight out of Trump 101. The “people I don’t take too seriously,” he had written in 1987 in The Art of the Deal, “are the critics—except when they stand in the way of my projects.” Roffman was in the way. Trump bombarded him with invective, threatened to sue his employer, demanded his firing and then publicly assailed him some more. The fact that Roffman’s assessment was grounded in reality—that he would prove to be right—didn’t stop Trump from attacking Roffman. It was the reason for it.Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-marvin-roffman-casino-lawsuit-213855

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SrWoodchuck

Sweet @Geee & Sweet @nickydog!

 

A Contrast: A Saudi Prince’s Influence On Fox News Vs. Murdoch Family’s Lack Of Influence On Rotana http://shoebat.com/2013/04/25/a-contrast-a-saudi-princes-influence-on-fox-news-vs-murdoch-familys-lack-of-influence-on-rotana/

 

Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp. significantly increased its ownership in a media entity headed by Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.

 

Via Arabian Business:

News Corp will pay $35m for the shares, which will take its stake in Rotana to 18.97 percent. Last year, News Corp upped its stake to 14.53 percent.

The acquisition was announced after a meeting of the Rotana board chaired by Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, chairman of Rotana Holding, the Saudi Gazette reported.

Rotana owns the Arab world’s largest record label and about 40 percent of the region’s movies, and operates a number of free-to-air television channels.

 

Conversely, Bin Talal is the second largest shareholder of Newscorp. As such, the Saudi Prince has demonstrated an ability to influence how news is portrayed on Fox News Channel. For example, back in 2005, during coverage of Muslim riots in France, Fox News displayed a banner that identified the riots for what they were – “Muslim riots”.

 

Bin Talal relayed what happened next, via Think Progress:

 

I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.

 

This leads us to the kind of programming that airs on the Rotanna network. Does Rupert Murdoch or his son James have the ability to influence Rotana content? Assuming that both are appalled by songs that glorify martyrdom and programs that heap praise on hardened criminals, the answer is most likely no.Scissors-32x32.png

 

From the Soros financed group:

 

Conservative Activists Rebel Against Fox News: Saudi Ownership Is ‘Really Dangerous For America’ http://thinkprogress.org/media/2010/02/10/81482/right-rebels-foxnews/

 

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — making him the largest shareholder outside the family of News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Alwaleed has grown close with the Murdoch enterprise, recently endorsing James Murdoch to succeed his father and creating a content-sharing agreement with Fox News for his own media conglomerate, Rotana.

 

Last weekend, at the right-wing Constitutional Coalition’s annual conference in St. Louis, Joseph Farah, publisher of the far right WorldNetDaily, blasted Fox News for its relationship with Alwaleed. Farah noted correctly that Alwaleed had boasted in the past about forcing Fox News to change its content relating to its coverage of riots in Paris, and warned that such foreign ownership of American media is “really dangerous.” ThinkProgress was at the speech and observed attendees of the conference murmuring and shaking their heads in disapproval:

Scissors-32x32.png

ThinkProgess spoke to right-wing author Brigitte Gabriel, another speaker at the conference, who said that Alwaleed was recently interviewed by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. Gabriel angrily denounced the interview as a “darling high school reunion”: “All of the sudden, Neil Cavuto is interviewing him like a buddy-buddy because he is the boss.”

Scissors-32x32.png

With the Citizens United Supreme Court decision essentially freeing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in campaigns, theoretically Alwaleed can pressure the American corporations he owns stock in to spend millions — or even billions — of dollars attacking candidates he opposes. In addition to his powerful Fox News outlet, Alwaleed and other foreign investors have potentially unprecedented power to impact American elections.

***********************************************************************

Also Murdoch is coming to the end of his time as an active participant in FNC & has plans to let his son take the lead role. His son is a committed Progressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SrWoodchuck Both of his sons took over a while back. They split the duties, I forgot who got what. I forgot which NY Newspaper Newscorp owns (CRS), I think it's the NY Daily News. They have endorsed Trump. As @nickydog noted, so many of these people are from NY. I said in the beginning, when I noticed them kissing up to him day after day - I guess when you live there, you don't want to get on the wrong side of someone who wields power there. As far as Murdoch, I haven't a clue about him and some other people who are astonishing me - except for the fact that Trump has publicly blackmailed people that he will fight back and fight back dirty ohmy.pngblink.pngrolleyes.gif Who knows. Other people are all about power - and if they think he is going to win and they can profit in power or financially from it, they have no scruples about it. Only they know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump’s incoherent speech on foreign policy shows why he’s unfit to be president

 

The most remarkable aspect of Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech was that someone actually wrote it out and put it in the teleprompter. It was so filled with internal contradictions, falsehoods and genuinely crazy assertions that one would have thought Trump was speaking extemporaneously. It was a vivid display as to why he is thoroughly unprepared to become commander in chief. If anything comes of it, one hopes that a third candidate, sickened to his stomach, will have watched this, jumped from his seat and declared himself ready to rescue the country from the possibility that Trump might be president.

 

Having mocked use of a teleprompter last night, he used one, reading haltingly. He appeared ill at ease, nervous even. That may because the content, even as rudimentary and discombobulated as it was, did not stem from any thoughts or beliefs he might harbor. In that sense, the speech really was “foreign” to him.

 

At best, the speech was filled with platitudes and aspirational statements with zero content. “We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests and the shared interests of our allies,” he declared, having provided none. “Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States,” he proclaimed, without explaining even in general terms how that might be accomplished. Written at a grade-school level, it suggests that Trump does not understand the meaning of “policy” — that is, a plan of action girded by principles.Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-2016-trump-s-incoherent-speech-on-foreign-policy-shows-why-he-s-unfit-to-be-president-a7004671.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my heart sinks a little lower. Although it's a little bit helpful to consider the source of the above.

 

You can find similar articles on US sites. We keep talking about how US World relations have fallen since O was elected. This guy is not even the nominee yet and every other country hates him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SrWoodchuck

I see the Independent as owned by a Russian Oligarch that is...or has been close to Putin. It also proclaims it is extremely liberal. This is a "in the view of the beholder" situation. Then again, maybe I watched the wrong speech. He wasn't incoherent. He was more pResidential...by a few degrees. He wasn't as blustery. Look, I see this through a glass that is tinted with 7+ years of Oblunder. He is truly inept & vacuous...and brought with him a cabal of liberal elite that punish Americans daily, with more regulation, more political correctness, less liberty & continued theft of the Treasury. Valerie Jarrett's foreign policies are what have Amerika where we are today. I expect Trump to have some errors along the way, but have to think he'll be better than Killary, Sanders...or the 3rd Oblunder term. Please forgive that redundancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

righteousmomma

I'm done with Fox News

 

When Fox News debuted in 1996, it was a breath of fresh air, seemingly unadulterated by the leftist bias that had long characterized the three mainstream networks and CNN. But that initial commitment to balance has gone by the wayside, sacrificed on the altar of Donald Trump.

 

Fox News, as Mark Levin has observed, has become a Trump super-PAC instead of a news organization. From morning throughout the day and night, it is Trump, Trump, Trump.

 

Many of us who have depended on Fox for "fair and balanced" news feel betrayed. While Trump's rants at his rallies are a form of repetitive mass hypnosis of an angry public by a fraudster, Fox has set out to convince its viewers that Trump is a legitimate candidate, not a spoiler for Hillary – that he is a conservative when he is clearly not. His millions of supporters who have hitched their hopes for a better future, a return to American strength and values, to him will be sorely disappointed. Trump has no core values beyond his own ego and accumulated wealth. Scissors-32x32.png

 

Has Fox News changed its nature at the command of Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes? Are large amounts of money involved? Who knows?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/im_done_with_fox_news.html

She is right on.

We have gotten where we can't watch anything but occasionally the news.. Used to be standard to watch Fox and Friends in the morning and The 5 in the afternoon. Now 10 minutes cannot seem to go by on any program without Trump being mentioned.

 

To quote the article:

"Fox News, as Mark Levin has observed, has become a Trump super-PAC instead of a news organization. From morning throughout the day and night, it is Trump, Trump, Trump.

Many of us who have depended on Fox for "fair and balanced" news feel betrayed. While Trump's rants at his rallies are a form of repetitive mass hypnosis of an angry public by a fraudster, Fox has set out to convince its viewers that Trump is a legitimate candidate, not a spoiler for Hillary – that he is a conservative when he is clearly not. His millions of supporters who have hitched their hopes for a better future, a return to American strength and values, to him will be sorely disappointed."

 

"Megyn Kelly sure got in trouble for challenging Trump and had to go grovel before him at Trump Tower. Now she is about to interview him; it will most likely be a carefully orchestrated love-fest. She has capitulated. Greta is clearly his good friend of long standing, so she will not address his candidacy honestly. Hannity has become, as one cartoonist drew it, Trump's ventriloquist's dummy. And Giuliani! What can one say about his support of Trump?

Meanwhile, O'Reilly speaks as though Trump is already the Republican nominee. Maybe he will be; maybe he will not. But he is not yet. These folks are betraying the country for the friendship of a rich celebrity."

 

"The channel has sold out to the lowest common denominator and actively sabotaged the one qualified candidate, the constitutional scholar, the Reaganesque guy. While I greatly respect Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, and a few others, the rest of them can wallow in their Trumpaphilia to their hearts' content."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

righteousmomma

I did not watch Trump's speech. Only second hand info. I think the ineptness may come from the remark Rush was talking about in the "overanalyzed" speech:

 

"Trump used a phrase in this speech, and I'm gonna tell you, this is classic, folks. This little bit of information I'm gonna impart here to you is a great way to understand the dynamics of this race. Trump, in his speech, used a phrase "America first." Well, that phrase has a pedigree. That phrase is well attached to something very, very important and potentially very, very negative in American history."

It goes back to World War II, and it was used by those who didn't want to get anywhere near stopping the Nazis. "America first" was the rallying call of anti-war people, for the most part, who said, "The hell with it. We don't care. They're not affecting us. If they want to take over Europe, fine and dandy."

So here comes Trump using the phrase "America first." Well, the learned intellectuals in the foreign policy corridors of America needed the vapors. "Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God, does Trump even know? Oh, my God." They can't get over it. "Does he even know," they asked, "does he even know that 'America first' means support of the Nazis? Oh, my God! Oh, my God." And they started fainting and going on TV and acting like one of the greatest violations of foreign policy understanding and (gasping).

So the debate began, does Trump even know what he said? Does he even know what "America first" means in terms of its historical context in World War II? Or is he just out there using a phrase "America first" because he's appealing to a brain-dead bunch of voters, which is how the establishment looks at Trump supporters.

And it doesn't matter, because I'll tell you what's gonna happen. If the people who occupy the learned and elite foreign policy corridors go overboard on this "America first" business, it's not gonna separate Trump supporters from Trump. The intellectuals of the foreign policy corridors, the establishment, the clubs and the associations and the think tanks and the intellectual hangouts and the domains, if those people start harping on Trump, your average Trump supporter could say, "See? See? This is exactly the kind of nose-in-the-air arrogance that we want to get rid of."

 

 

Then he said Trump supporters will carry away one phrase and tune out the rest:

"We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearvision

So not specific to Trump.

 

But if you told the rest of the world:

 

We must invest in the US first, less for you guys.

We are not going to pay to defend countries that don't bother with reasonable military expense so they can work 30 hour weeks, have month vacations, free healthcare.

Climate payoffs...get outta of here.

Fair trade.

Etc.

 

You think they would be happy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's Contradictory, Incoherent 'America First' Foreign Policy

 

On Wednesday, Donald Trump’s widely anticipated speech shed light on his proposed foreign policy. First, pay attention to the venue where he chose to speak.

 

Trump was invited by The National Interest -- a policy journal vigorously opposed to neo-conservatism -- and the think tank that hosts it, the Center for the National Interest, which defines itself as a center for “strategic realism.”

 

His speech was reminiscent of the period before WWII, when -- above all other desires -- the American public wanted to stay out of foreign wars. Isolationists, who preferred to call themselves "non-interventionists," created a popular pressure group whose members gave it the slogan Trump now invokes: “America First.” This America First Committee favored building a strong defense that would make America impregnable while working to keep the United States out of foreign conflicts. The similarity in its approach to that taken now by Trump is obvious, whether or not Trump himself knows about the Committee.

 

Trump’s speech indeed made him look more presidential. As with his AIPAC speech, he read awkwardly from a teleprompter and avoided the spontaneity that delights the mass audiences at his rallies. Thankfully, we didn’t hear about lyin' Ted or crooked Hillary.Scissors-32x32.png

 

https://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2016/04/27/trumps-contradictory-and-sometimes-incoherent-america-first-foreign-policy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruz, Clinton Campaigns Go After 'Simplistic,' 'Incoherent' Trump Foreign Policy Speech

 

WASHINGTON -- The Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz campaigns found common ground today in their disdain for Donald Trump's foreign policy address.

 

In a statement, the Texas senator said that "few speeches in campaign history have raised graver problems of public disclosure and accountability by a presidential candidate."

 

"Mr. Trump owes a full and immediate accounting to members of the media and the American public. Mr. Trump must confirm or deny reports in the media that others in the Washington Cartel’s industry of foreign policy for personal gain were involved in the drafting of this address -- indeed, were the principal authors. In addition to the authors of the speech, he must fully identify the role and involvement of Mr. Manafort who is widely recognized for his entanglements with corrupt foreign regimes and anti-Democratic rulers," Cruz said.

 

The clients of Trump's convention manager, Paul Manafort, have included Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia after being deposed by pro-democracy demonstrations in 2014.Scissors-32x32.png

 

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/04/27/cruz-clinton-campaigns-go-after-simplistic-incoherent-trump-foreign-policy-speech/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of Course: Trump Backed Multiple Policies He Condemned in Foreign Policy Address

 

Donald Trump's foreign policy address yesterday was a mishmash of good ideas, incandescent contradictions and feel-good assertions of things he'd do "quickly" as president, with very little offered in the way of explaining how he'd pull off this remarkable global winning streak. The point of the speech -- which was clearly written by someone other than the principal, who managed to recite it relatively smoothly, with occasional extemporized flourishes such as "very bad!" -- was to check a box, and offer the cameras some optics with presidential trimmings. On that score, I think it was probably a success. Dig even the slightest bit deeper, and the inconsistencies begin pile up. Here's a series of big ones, elucidated at length by Andrew McCarthy at NRO, and succinctly distilled by...Hillary Clinton's campaign:Scissors-32x32.png

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/28/of-course-trump-supported-all-three-wars-he-condemned-in-foreign-policy-address-n2154633

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SrWoodchuck

The non-interventionist stuff...sounds kind of Ron Paulian, doesn't it? Maybe an olive branch to Libertarians? My take on "America First" is that Obama has been putting America & Americans, dead last in the world...by design. In the lead-up to a Progressive One World Government, sustained urban population centers & the UN's Agenda 21...this is a salvo fired back, by people who don't want to go down that road. The Oblunder administration has locked up Federal lands, canceled oil leases, kicked ranchers off Federal grazing land & put park areas under a no-go condition for any citizen, or allowed their crony capitalist friends to use that land to enrich themselves with "green" projects. Oblunder is on his 2nd Apology tour. Wait until he starts the "Reparations Tour" to bankrupt what's left of the US Treasury. All these Trump utterances are speaking to a large group of disenfranchised Americans...and drawing Independents & Blue Dog Dems to his team.

 

BTW: Can't stand Manafort. He is smarmy & looks like oily death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearvision

Tell that to this crowd.... California tonite.... Watch for at least a minute or until helicopter comes back to stadium and seats...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to this crowd.... California tonite.... Watch for at least a minute or until helicopter comes back to stadium and seats...

 

My gosh, that's amazing. You'd think it was the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Play the Game to Win

 

The sole purpose of a political party in a representative republic is to choose and support candidates that can win elections. After eight years of Obama the 2016 election has become extraordinarily important and who the Republicans choose as their presidential nominee must win in November. Therefore, it is time for a proverbial “Dutch Uncle” talk without the usual rancor, meaningless accusations, vile epithets and unthinking loyalty to any one candidate.

 

In 2012 approximately 127 million Americans voted in the presidential election (in 2008 there were nearly 130 million). It is generally estimated that between 130 million and 132 million will vote this year in a nation with ever changing demographics and voting patterns. Donald Trump is the current leader and odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination and challenge Hillary Clinton. As of today what are Trump’s unvarnished chances to win in November?

 

In 2012, 53% of the voting electorate was made up of women. However, in 2008 women accounted for 54%. With the potential interest generated by having the first women ever nominated for president, it is estimated that in 2016 the female vote percentage will be higher than the 2008 level or 55% of all voters. Among women Trump presently records an astounding 73% negative rating (only 27% of women have a favorable opinion of Trump). In 2012 Romney won 44% of the total female vote (Romney lost women by 11 percentage points) but at present Trump is currently losing to Hillary among women by 23 percentage points. Just to get back to the level of Romney in 2012 will be a herculean and in all likelihood an impossible task considering his astronomically high unfavorable rating. It is projected that the male vote in 2016 will be about 45% of those voting. In 2012 Romney won 52% of that group. In an astonishing turn of events Trump is viewed unfavorably by 57% of men (a first for a Republican in many years of polling). It will, therefore, be a very difficult task, considering the changing racial makeup of the electorate, for Trump to get to the same level as Romney in 2012.Scissors-32x32.png

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/you_play_the_game_to_win.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1711663862
×
×
  • Create New...