Up Like Trump

[Wilikon]

Donald Trump did it again!

Trump held a fundraiser tonight in Norton, Massachusetts with hundreds of supporters and veterans. CNN asked the first question and asked about the few protesters outside. Trump let the CNN reporter have it!


“Well, I don’t see a lot of protesters. I see thousands of people. And there are a few protesters. And, I figured you’d ask that question because you know, that’s the way it is. CNN is terrible. CNN. Are you with CNN. Are you with CNN. You people do not cover us accurately. So they have a few protesters outside. And thousands of people. And the first question from CNN is about protesters. Yes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ4FEZAcFTA

[Wilikon]

Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…



Begin with the end in mind – I’m not trying to convince anyone that Donald Trump is  running a campaign to actually win the GOP nomination.

Factually, I’m as uncertain and perhaps more skeptical as the next person. However, given that Trump has actually done things he normally wouldn’t do if this was a mere publicity stunt (ie. stock divestitures, removal of conflicts etc.), for the sake of intellectual argument, I’m going to assume, cautiously yet optimistically, he’s in it to win it.


So why support him?

Argument #1 – After all, he’s been a democrat, an independent, a Republican, and well, I have consistently despised Charlie Crist.

Counter Argument – Then again, what about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and Orin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Cornyn, and Thad Cochran and, well, you get the point…. What’s the difference between supporting those consistently Republican “Republicans” only to have them advocate for liberal/progressive policies.

Are the aforementioned better because they didn’t change party registration, yet act like Democrats?

Let me first explain something few fully comprehend – and fewer still, are willing accept.

People like us rail against the “establishment” because, despite the GOP claims to the contrary, they never actually do anything to stop the liberal policy agenda. One only has to look at President Obama’s veto record (four in 6.5 years) to accept that only legislation Obama agrees with is reaching his desk.

We gave the GOP the House (2010, 2012, 2014) and the Senate (2014) and yet we never have received a single benefit to the election victories We The People provided.

Why is that?

Here’s where a paradigm shift is needed for many of the political followers who don’t have a deep and specialized knowledge of the Republican agenda.

Citizens United was touted by conservatives as a victory. Why?

Was it because Citizens United was genuinely a win for freedom of speech, or was it actually and substantively because Obama declared it a loss?

Again, paradigm shift time – Citizens United was as much a defeat for “our side” as it was for “their side”.

We didn’t need Citizens United to win a massive electoral victory in 2010, Obama’s “Shellacking”; we just showed up to the polls and voted against his policies.

However, the Republican professional political class did need Citizens United to try and stop our efforts in 2012 and again in 2014. I’ll explain.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power brokerage for the GOP “establishment”. In short, whatever the CoC wants, their lobbyists on K-Street will insure the CoC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party.

The U.S. CoC is the operational arm of Wall Street, not, I repeat, NOT, Main Street.

The Citizens United  decision is what allowed Wall Street to fund the U.S. CoC, which in turn funded the GOP establishment machine.  If politics is a blood sport, Citizens United just authorized the unlimited use of STERIODS for the paid gladiators.

How does Wall Street differ from Main Street?

The answer to that question can most easily be reflected by explaining why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.

Wall Street and ObamaCare:

Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car.

Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold.

Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly.   In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods.

Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations.

Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency.

The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom.

Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare.

That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud. Only the promises of actual removal being used to get Pavlov’s sheeple masses to pull levers with hopes/promises of getting repeal pellets.

The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare.

Wall Street and Immigration:

Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker.

Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.

Wall Street and Common Core Education:

Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS.

Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding.

Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy.

Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core.

In 2013 CoC President Tom Donohue went on record saying his 2014/2015 legislative priorities were:

1 – Full implementation of ObamaCare without repeal.
2 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.
3 – Full implementation of Common Core educational standards.

Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund these legislative priorities.

The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities.

Conversely, Citizens United, through Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory.

So now that you know why both Republicans and Democrats support ObamaCare, Amnesty and Common Core; what exactly is the difference between a Jeb Bush and a Hillary Clinton?

Some social issues, maybe – gay marriage, legalized pot? A SCOTUS appointment? Do you really think that Bush or Clinton would select a totally divergent SCOTUS, when their intents and purposes are essentially the same?

Wall Street needs Bush V Clinton in 2016 because they are two different sides of the same professional political coin. Wall Street doesn’t care which one, because Wall Street wins with either candidate.

How does Wall Street insure their desired candidate outcome?

Quite simple. WE’VE REPEATEDLY OUTLINED IT HERE – It’s a simple five state strategy, almost identical to their previously selected candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.

What makes Donald Trump different?

This is where you accept the value of Donald Trump; because despite opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump is Main Street – not Wall Street.

Trump’s wealth is tied directly to the success of Main Street. Trump builds things, actual things – which he then owns. Trump does not make money from capitalization of financials – Trump makes money from traditional business models, owning and operating stuff.

Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street candidates.

IDEOLOGICAL EXAMPLE: The IRS weaponization of government against people, as within the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, is an issue which Trump can breech. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the destruction of the Tea Party; neither Bush not Clinton bear any interest in exposing the IRS scandal itself.

When you accept that without Donald Trump you get Bush V Clinton, you begin to understand why it’s beneficial to support Donald Trump.

Quite simply, there’s nothing to lose.


[...]



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/

[Chef Ramsay]

Trump Hates Lobbyists—Except the Ones Running His Super PAC

...
On July 1, a pro-Trump super PAC, Make America Great Again PAC, filed with the FEC.

The organization listed on its paperwork a New York City address, which Bloomberg traced to a Midtown FedEx store. The address the PAC provided for supporters to mail their checks to was a Midtown UPS store. Calls to the group’s listed phone number went unanswered, as did an email. The treasurer who submitted the form to the FEC signed it “Les Caldwell,” short for Leslie, and Leslie refused to comment on the record to Politico, while just about every Leslie Caldwell listed in New York chose not to answer or return any of my calls.

Curiously, a closer look at the group’s filing reveals a return address not in New York City but in Colorado.

That address belongs to Jon Anderson, a lobbyist whose “practice is focused on corporate compliance and representing clients before federal, state and local government,” according to the website of his firm, Holland & Hart.

A consultant for the PAC, Mike Ciletti, also from Colorado, is also a lobbyist. He has his own group, New West Public Affairs, which he co-founded in 2009, according to his LinkedIn profile. His clients include the Community Financial Services Association, the trade association for payday lenders, which are often accused of predatory lending.

Anderson didn’t return a call, and Ciletti responded to interview requests with frustration that his activity with the PAC had placed him in the spotlight. “Personally I am waiting to see what other email addresses, phone numbers you can find to try to reach me at. Hats off to you,” he said in an email. “I am not interested in going on the record at this point, perhaps in the future. The focus should be on the candidates.”
...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/trump-hates-lobbyists-except-the-ones-running-his-super-pac.html

[Wilikon]

Sarah Palin Defends Donald Trump for 'Telling the Truth'


Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin took some time to chat with "Extra's" Renee Bargh on the set of her guest-hosting gig, "On Point with Sarah Palin.” During the interview, Sarah defended Republican candidate Donald Trump, who is making headlines daily. Sarah also chatted about Hillary Clinton.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgmrr8KAw8


WTH, LAMESTREAM MEDIA! STAY OUT OF MY BIBLE

WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual “gotchas” that they’d NEVER ask Hillary, or they’d feed the question to her and/or liberal cohorts before they asked it on-air (we know how these things work, lapdog media… the public’s on to you), so good on Trump for screwing with the reporter. By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn’t want to answer the guy’s question either… it’s none of his business; it IS personal; what the heck does it have to do with serving as commander-in-chief; and these reporters trying to trip up conservatives can go pound sand until they ask the same things of their favored liberal pals. I’ll cover this in my interview with Donald Trump and other candidates tonight on the One America News Network show “On Point.” The more the media does this, the more they empower America to reject them and their bias as voters run to the anti-status quo candidates daring to Go Rogue.


https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10153596970878588

[Wilikon]

‘Bing Bing Bing': Trump Lets Loose on ‘Perv,’ ‘Sleazebag’ Anthony Weiner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEBsWjoW5KM

------------------------
The press and everyone need to never forget anthony...

[Wilikon]

MEGYN KELLY: THE FIRST CASUALTY IN DONALD TRUMP’S ‘ASYMMETRIC’ WAR ON FOX NEWS

2016 GOP frontrunner and billionaire Donald Trump already won his war with the Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly.

She’s exposed as having a point of view, rather than being a purely impartial arbiter of news. Now he’s just having fun as a larger war between him and the network’s powers-that-be looms.

In exposing Kelly, he’s employed at least parts of an unwritten playbook for political warfare his former, longtime aide–legendary GOP trickster Roger Stone–has laid out mostly informally over the years called “Stone’s Rules.” Stone hasn’t actually published the “Rules” anywhere, though some appear littered throughout his Twitter account and in a profile that the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash wrote of him in 2007.

Stone, ironically, is a Fox News Contributor. He left the Trump campaign operation a few weeks ago—Trump says he fired Stone, while Stone says he quit—but he’s become one of the Donald’s biggest supporters on the outside in no time at all appearing on virtually every television show he can to tout Trump’s candidacy. “Never miss the opportunity to have sex or be on television, as Gore Vidal said,” Stone told the New York Times for a fashion profile on him this week.

Stone has worked in Republican politics for decades and helped Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan win elections. There’s no indication he’s involved in this Trump play against Kelly in any way, shape or form—he says he quit the Trump campaign because Trump insisted on this fight with Kelly—but his decades of influence on Trump, and his style, are clearly on display here.

“Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side,” probably the most important of “Stone’s Rules” reads, according to the Labash profile. That’s exactly what Trump has done to Kelly, and as she’s been “confused” amid a barrage of attacks, she’s made the critical mistake Trump had been hoping she’d make: she showed her hand, abandoning impartiality with people other than him.

[...]

...Trump has taken one thing away from her that she and her bosses at Fox can never replace, no matter how much time or money they spend on it: the appearance of impartiality.

[...]

After some more back-and-forth where Kelly noted that Trump is suing Univision for canceling his Miss Universe broadcast contract and that an executive from Univision compared Trump to Charleston, SC murderer Dylann Storm Roof, Kelly asked Ramos another question she could have posed to herself. “Do you understand Trump’s side of it, which is: ‘This is not the outlet I want to take these questions from because their mind is made up about me?’” Kelly asked.

The whole episode has left Kelly exposed—she probably didn’t intend to expose herself like this—which means Trump has inadvertently won the war with her. What remains on the horizon, however, is a bigger war that’s brewing between Fox News—and the network’s backers, including Rupert Murdoch and his sons—and Trump.

Murdoch’s ideology is one directly opposed to what Trump believes, especially when it comes to the issues of trade and immigration. As the 2016 election cycle progresses, with one of its best players in Kelly on intellectual battlefield sidelines—she’ll keep hosting her program and getting high ratings, but she’s forever lost the claim to impartiality thanks to Trump—the Fox News Channel is likely going to escalate, on behalf of the Murdochs’ worldview on immigration and trade, the war with Trump. It’s worth noting, though, that Ailes and Trump are friends and mutual admirers so this seemingly inevitable war may yet be averted. There are also many other personalities at Fox friendly with Trump, so it may not escalate further. What happens next remains to be seen.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/28/megyn-kelly-the-first-casualty-in-donald-trumps-asymmetric-war-on-fox-news/

[Wilikon]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

[bryant.coleman]

So according to the latest opinion polls, Trump's major opponent is Ben Carson? That will make things even more easier for him. Unlike the people such as Jeb Bush and Rubio, Carson doesn't enjoy 100% support from the establishment lobby. This will prevent the anti-Trump Republicans uniting and rallying behind Ben Carson.

[Spendulus]

Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…



Begin with the end in mind – I’m not trying to convince anyone that Donald Trump is  running a campaign to actually win the GOP nomination.

Factually, I’m as uncertain and perhaps more skeptical as the next person. However, given that Trump has actually done things he normally wouldn’t do if this was a mere publicity stunt (ie. stock divestitures, removal of conflicts etc.), for the sake of intellectual argument, I’m going to assume, cautiously yet optimistically, he’s in it to win it.


So why support him?

Argument #1 – After all, he’s been a democrat, an independent, a Republican, and well, I have consistently despised Charlie Crist.

Counter Argument – Then again, what about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and Orin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Cornyn, and Thad Cochran and, well, you get the point…. What’s the difference between supporting those consistently Republican “Republicans” only to have them advocate for liberal/progressive policies.

Are the aforementioned better because they didn’t change party registration, yet act like Democrats?

Let me first explain something few fully comprehend – and fewer still, are willing accept.

People like us rail against the “establishment” because, despite the GOP claims to the contrary, they never actually do anything to stop the liberal policy agenda. One only has to look at President Obama’s veto record (four in 6.5 years) to accept that only legislation Obama agrees with is reaching his desk.

We gave the GOP the House (2010, 2012, 2014) and the Senate (2014) and yet we never have received a single benefit to the election victories We The People provided.

Why is that?

Here’s where a paradigm shift is needed for many of the political followers who don’t have a deep and specialized knowledge of the Republican agenda.

Citizens United was touted by conservatives as a victory. Why?

Was it because Citizens United was genuinely a win for freedom of speech, or was it actually and substantively because Obama declared it a loss?

Again, paradigm shift time – Citizens United was as much a defeat for “our side” as it was for “their side”.

We didn’t need Citizens United to win a massive electoral victory in 2010, Obama’s “Shellacking”; we just showed up to the polls and voted against his policies.

However, the Republican professional political class did need Citizens United to try and stop our efforts in 2012 and again in 2014. I’ll explain.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power brokerage for the GOP “establishment”. In short, whatever the CoC wants, their lobbyists on K-Street will insure the CoC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party.

The U.S. CoC is the operational arm of Wall Street, not, I repeat, NOT, Main Street.

The Citizens United  decision is what allowed Wall Street to fund the U.S. CoC, which in turn funded the GOP establishment machine.  If politics is a blood sport, Citizens United just authorized the unlimited use of STERIODS for the paid gladiators.

How does Wall Street differ from Main Street?

The answer to that question can most easily be reflected by explaining why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.

Wall Street and ObamaCare:

Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car.

Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold.

Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly.   In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods.

Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations.

Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency.

The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom.

Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare.

That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud. Only the promises of actual removal being used to get Pavlov’s sheeple masses to pull levers with hopes/promises of getting repeal pellets.

The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare.

Wall Street and Immigration:

Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker.

Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.

Wall Street and Common Core Education:

Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS.

Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding.

Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy.

Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core.

In 2013 CoC President Tom Donohue went on record saying his 2014/2015 legislative priorities were:

1 – Full implementation of ObamaCare without repeal.
2 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.
3 – Full implementation of Common Core educational standards.

Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund these legislative priorities.

The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities.

Conversely, Citizens United, through Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory.

So now that you know why both Republicans and Democrats support ObamaCare, Amnesty and Common Core; what exactly is the difference between a Jeb Bush and a Hillary Clinton?

Some social issues, maybe – gay marriage, legalized pot? A SCOTUS appointment? Do you really think that Bush or Clinton would select a totally divergent SCOTUS, when their intents and purposes are essentially the same?

Wall Street needs Bush V Clinton in 2016 because they are two different sides of the same professional political coin. Wall Street doesn’t care which one, because Wall Street wins with either candidate.

How does Wall Street insure their desired candidate outcome?

Quite simple. WE’VE REPEATEDLY OUTLINED IT HERE – It’s a simple five state strategy, almost identical to their previously selected candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.

What makes Donald Trump different?

This is where you accept the value of Donald Trump; because despite opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump is Main Street – not Wall Street.

Trump’s wealth is tied directly to the success of Main Street. Trump builds things, actual things – which he then owns. Trump does not make money from capitalization of financials – Trump makes money from traditional business models, owning and operating stuff.

Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street candidates.

IDEOLOGICAL EXAMPLE: The IRS weaponization of government against people, as within the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, is an issue which Trump can breech. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the destruction of the Tea Party; neither Bush not Clinton bear any interest in exposing the IRS scandal itself.

When you accept that without Donald Trump you get Bush V Clinton, you begin to understand why it’s beneficial to support Donald Trump.

Quite simply, there’s nothing to lose.


[...]



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/

That's a pretty impressive analysis of the problem.  To be fair, none of us really knew that the Republican reformers of 2010, 2012 and 2014 would accomplish nothing.  Nobody knew the extent that Boerner would bend over at Obama's command.  That was all a surprise, but that's what happened.

Yes, Trump represents business.

How about who he'd put on SCOTUS.  Think that one over and it's implications.

[Wilikon]

Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…



Begin with the end in mind – I’m not trying to convince anyone that Donald Trump is  running a campaign to actually win the GOP nomination.

Factually, I’m as uncertain and perhaps more skeptical as the next person. However, given that Trump has actually done things he normally wouldn’t do if this was a mere publicity stunt (ie. stock divestitures, removal of conflicts etc.), for the sake of intellectual argument, I’m going to assume, cautiously yet optimistically, he’s in it to win it.


So why support him?

Argument #1 – After all, he’s been a democrat, an independent, a Republican, and well, I have consistently despised Charlie Crist.

Counter Argument – Then again, what about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and Orin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Cornyn, and Thad Cochran and, well, you get the point…. What’s the difference between supporting those consistently Republican “Republicans” only to have them advocate for liberal/progressive policies.

Are the aforementioned better because they didn’t change party registration, yet act like Democrats?

Let me first explain something few fully comprehend – and fewer still, are willing accept.

People like us rail against the “establishment” because, despite the GOP claims to the contrary, they never actually do anything to stop the liberal policy agenda. One only has to look at President Obama’s veto record (four in 6.5 years) to accept that only legislation Obama agrees with is reaching his desk.

We gave the GOP the House (2010, 2012, 2014) and the Senate (2014) and yet we never have received a single benefit to the election victories We The People provided.

Why is that?

Here’s where a paradigm shift is needed for many of the political followers who don’t have a deep and specialized knowledge of the Republican agenda.

Citizens United was touted by conservatives as a victory. Why?

Was it because Citizens United was genuinely a win for freedom of speech, or was it actually and substantively because Obama declared it a loss?

Again, paradigm shift time – Citizens United was as much a defeat for “our side” as it was for “their side”.

We didn’t need Citizens United to win a massive electoral victory in 2010, Obama’s “Shellacking”; we just showed up to the polls and voted against his policies.

However, the Republican professional political class did need Citizens United to try and stop our efforts in 2012 and again in 2014. I’ll explain.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power brokerage for the GOP “establishment”. In short, whatever the CoC wants, their lobbyists on K-Street will insure the CoC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party.

The U.S. CoC is the operational arm of Wall Street, not, I repeat, NOT, Main Street.

The Citizens United  decision is what allowed Wall Street to fund the U.S. CoC, which in turn funded the GOP establishment machine.  If politics is a blood sport, Citizens United just authorized the unlimited use of STERIODS for the paid gladiators.

How does Wall Street differ from Main Street?

The answer to that question can most easily be reflected by explaining why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.

Wall Street and ObamaCare:

Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car.

Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold.

Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly.   In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods.

Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations.

Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency.

The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom.

Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare.

That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud. Only the promises of actual removal being used to get Pavlov’s sheeple masses to pull levers with hopes/promises of getting repeal pellets.

The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare.

Wall Street and Immigration:

Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker.

Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.

Wall Street and Common Core Education:

Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS.

Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding.

Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy.

Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core.

In 2013 CoC President Tom Donohue went on record saying his 2014/2015 legislative priorities were:

1 – Full implementation of ObamaCare without repeal.
2 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.
3 – Full implementation of Common Core educational standards.

Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund these legislative priorities.

The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities.

Conversely, Citizens United, through Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory.

So now that you know why both Republicans and Democrats support ObamaCare, Amnesty and Common Core; what exactly is the difference between a Jeb Bush and a Hillary Clinton?

Some social issues, maybe – gay marriage, legalized pot? A SCOTUS appointment? Do you really think that Bush or Clinton would select a totally divergent SCOTUS, when their intents and purposes are essentially the same?

Wall Street needs Bush V Clinton in 2016 because they are two different sides of the same professional political coin. Wall Street doesn’t care which one, because Wall Street wins with either candidate.

How does Wall Street insure their desired candidate outcome?

Quite simple. WE’VE REPEATEDLY OUTLINED IT HERE – It’s a simple five state strategy, almost identical to their previously selected candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.

What makes Donald Trump different?

This is where you accept the value of Donald Trump; because despite opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump is Main Street – not Wall Street.

Trump’s wealth is tied directly to the success of Main Street. Trump builds things, actual things – which he then owns. Trump does not make money from capitalization of financials – Trump makes money from traditional business models, owning and operating stuff.

Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street candidates.

IDEOLOGICAL EXAMPLE: The IRS weaponization of government against people, as within the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, is an issue which Trump can breech. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the destruction of the Tea Party; neither Bush not Clinton bear any interest in exposing the IRS scandal itself.

When you accept that without Donald Trump you get Bush V Clinton, you begin to understand why it’s beneficial to support Donald Trump.

Quite simply, there’s nothing to lose.


[...]



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/

That's a pretty impressive analysis of the problem.  To be fair, none of us really knew that the Republican reformers of 2010, 2012 and 2014 would accomplish nothing.  Nobody knew the extent that Boerner would bend over at Obama's command.  That was all a surprise, but that's what happened.

Yes, Trump represents business.

How about who he'd put on SCOTUS.  Think that one over and it's implications.

Yes, Very impressive. Hope you read the full article.
This is what he is saying: with how conservatives were brutally treated in the last 3 times, there is not much to lose by massively supporting Trump next time...

[Wilikon]

Donald Trump Takes Aim at Huma Abedin and 'Perv' Anthony Weiner


Shortly after the event, Trump defended his attacks on Abedin and Weiner, telling NBC News over the phone that Abedin should not have had access to confidential information.

"I don't think she should have been part of the people receiving it, whether it's confidential, why would she be involved?" he said, but noted, "I know her husband, I know him very well."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill tweeted a response to Trump's onslaught, saying Trump "crossed the line this evening. Disgraceful."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-takes-aim-huma-abedin-perv-anthony-weiner-n418116?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=c265eaee0df9ecf8638ec10a5c39c090


--------------------------------------
Who crossed the line in pervland again?

[bryant.coleman]

Speaking about Huma Abedin, she seems to be a shady character to me. And regarding her relationship with Anthony Weiner, the less talked about the better. It is an open secret that Huma Abedin is a lesbian and her true husband is Hillary Clinton (the Abedin - Clinton relationship started after the latter ended her relationship with Janet Reno). And Anthony Weiner looks like a gay.

[Spendulus]

Donald Trump Takes Aim at Huma Abedin and 'Perv' Anthony Weiner


Shortly after the event, Trump defended his attacks on Abedin and Weiner, telling NBC News over the phone that Abedin should not have had access to confidential information.

"I don't think she should have been part of the people receiving it, whether it's confidential, why would she be involved?" he said, but noted, "I know her husband, I know him very well."

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill tweeted a response to Trump's onslaught, saying Trump "crossed the line this evening. Disgraceful."

Let's cross some more of those lines.

[BlackWidow]

Bernie Sanders is the one.

He's talking about the banks.

No one else will do that. I hope they don't kill him or set him up. This is going to be a deal where child porn is found on his computer, or someone makes an accusation, etc. Or they will make it grisly, so no other future politician dreams bring them up again. Burn him alive or some other crazy and horrific shit. Or maybe just the old "heart attack". No question they will make an example of him. You don't get to say the things he is saying without them doing something about it.

I hope I'm wrong, and we will see soon enough.


So that leaves Trump.

What completely blows my mind is the power displayed when you watch the two party system at work.

So many people, and I mean the fucking majority, fall for this shit. Liberal and conservative.

People:

It's a horse race, but both of you are still betting on a horse.

You're picking a red car or a blue car, but you are both still picking a car.

Do you need more examples?

It's a goddamn scam people. You are picking which companies you are going to side with, but you are still picking the corporate vote. This is how it is people!!!!! Wtf smh


Trump doesn't have to pay people back. It's not a prerequisite to having the resources necessary to run a campaign, like it is for the rest of the candidates.

At least Trump is different. Do you really want more of the same??


Trump makes sense. He is making his policies known and isn't even worried about if they sound politically correct. He believes in his ideas and is promoting them.

Granted Trumps empire is smaller than the federal government, but he has run a successful empire and seems like the kind of guy the US needs in its corner right about now.

[Wilikon]

Bernie Sanders is the one.

He's talking about the banks.

No one else will do that. I hope they don't kill him or set him up. This is going to be a deal where child porn is found on his computer, or someone makes an accusation, etc. Or they will make it grisly, so no other future politician dreams bring them up again. Burn him alive or some other crazy and horrific shit. Or maybe just the old "heart attack". No question they will make an example of him. You don't get to say the things he is saying without them doing something about it.

I hope I'm wrong, and we will see soon enough.


So that leaves Trump.

What completely blows my mind is the power displayed when you watch the two party system at work.

So many people, and I mean the fucking majority, fall for this shit. Liberal and conservative.

People:

It's a horse race, but both of you are still betting on a horse.

You're picking a red car or a blue car, but you are both still picking a car.

Do you need more examples?

It's a goddamn scam people. You are picking which companies you are going to side with, but you are still picking the corporate vote. This is how it is people!!!!! Wtf smh


Trump doesn't have to pay people back. It's not a prerequisite to having the resources necessary to run a campaign, like it is for the rest of the candidates.

At least Trump is different. Do you really want more of the same??


Trump makes sense. He is making his policies known and isn't even worried about if they sound politically correct. He believes in his ideas and is promoting them.

Granted Trumps empire is smaller than the federal government, but he has run a successful empire and seems like the kind of guy the US needs in its corner right about now.

Try to read my post #202 or better yet read the article
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/


It is a long read, and it is not about bernie. Let us know what you think.

[Wilikon]

Trump: I’m winning because Americans are 'tired of being the patsies'



Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he is leading the GOP race because he represents Americans who have had it with their nation coming up short.
 
“People in this country are smart,” he told listeners at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies’ 2015 conference in Nashville on Saturday.
 
“We’re tired of being the patsies for everyone,” Trump said.
 

“There is a big, big, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds silent majority out there. [The 2016 race] is going to be an election based on competence.”
 
Trump argued he is surging in national polls because he represents the Tea Party supporters ignored by Democrats and betrayed by Republicans.
 
“I love the Tea Party,” Trump said. “You people have not been treated fairly. These are people who work hard and love their country, and then get beat up by the media. It’s disgusting.”
 
“At least I have a microphone and can fight back,” the outspoken billionaire added.
 
Trump indicated he envisions a much wider base for his campaign than traditional Republican voters next election cycle.
 
“You don’t know how big you are,” he told listeners. “The Tea Party has tremendous power. It’s Democrats, it is evangelicals, it is everybody.”
 
The New York business mogul also vowed he would not succumb to the prestige and power of Washington’s political establishment if he wins in 2016.
 
“They go to Washington and they get weak,” Trump said of Democrats and Republicans alike. “They get there and they see these beautiful, vaulted ceilings and they say, ‘Honey, I’ve made it.’ That won’t happen to me, I promise.”
 
Trump also said he intends on saving taxpayer dollars by focusing his energy on the nation’s capital if elected next year.
 
“I think I’d maybe never leave,” Trump quipped of the Oval Office. “I’d do the fundraisers in the White House. Whoever the [interview] host is would like it better – ‘Hey, we’re live from the White House.’”
 
“Do you know how much it costs to fuel those things?” he joked of jets like Air Force One.
 
“We have so many things to do to straighten out our country,” Trump added. “We can’t waste time.”
 
Trump’s address at the NFRA’s 2015 conference Saturday was attended by many notable figures from the original Tea Party movement.
 
The organization’s president is Sharron Angle, who unsuccessfully challenged Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010.
 
The NFRA’s executive vice president is Ken Blackwell, a challenger for Ohio’s gubernatorial office who came up short against former Gov. Ted Strickland (D) in 2006.
 
The group is — despite its name — a grassroots network unaffiliated with the Republican Party that counts on Tea Party voters for its membership.
 
Trump is currently leading the race for the GOP presidential nomination across national polls.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/252250-trump-im-winning-because-americans-are-tired-of-being-the

[Wilikon]

Traitor to His Class
Nothing is more terrifying to the elite than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism




Donald Trump is not a serious candidate. Donald Trump is not a serious man. The truth of these statements is supposed to be self-evident. But one begins to wonder, are they true?

Trump’s popularity, while beyond doubt, is treated not as a legitimate expression of popular will but as a mass psychosis to be diagnosed. It would seem to be the duty of every American pundit today to explain the inexplicable and problematic rise of Donald Trump. The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion.

Why is Donald Trump so popular? Explanations range from mere celebrity, to his adoption of extreme positions to capture the most ideologically intense voters, to his explosive rhetoric. These explanations are not entirely wrong, but neither are they entirely right.

To begin with, his positions, as Josh Barro has written in the New York Times, are rather moderate. As Barro points out, Trump is willing to contemplate tax increases to achieve spending cuts. He supports some exceptions to abortion bans and has gone so far as to defend funding Planned Parenthood. He has called for protective tariffs, a position heretical for Republicans, who are typically free traders. Although opposed to Obamacare, he has asserted that single-payer health care works in other countries. Even on the issue of immigration, despite his frequently strident rhetoric, his positions are neither unique—securing the border with some kind of wall is a fairly standard Republican plank by now—nor especially rigid.

With respect to his rhetoric, whether one characterizes his delivery as candid or rude, it is hard to ascribe his popularity to colorful invective alone. Chris Christie, who never misses an opportunity to harangue an opponent, languishes near the bottom of the polls. Or ask Rick Santorum, as well as Mitt “47 percent” Romney, whether outrageous comments offer an infallible way to win friends and influence voters. Trump’s outré style, like his celebrity, helps him gain attention but just as certainly fails to explain his frontrunner status.

Most candidates seek to define themselves by their policies and platforms. What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests.

What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.

His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people. Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits.

Trump’s campaign is predicated on restoring American greatness here and now, and he is seen to select policies in support of that overarching purpose. Others, in contrast, appear to pursue public office mostly for the sake of implementing favored policies so that they can read about the results of their grand experiments in future economics textbooks. They are like doctors who use patients to advance medical research for its own sake, rather than physicians who use medicine to cure the patients before them.

Conservative pundits have complained for years about the base and its desire for “ideological purity.” Trump shows that what is most in demand, however, is not ideological purity but patriotic zeal. Only a fool would believe that the fate of the Export-Import Bank could motivate millions of voters. It is not a minor and complicated organ of trade promotion that motivates but whether the ruling elite is seen to care more about actual national interests or campaign dollars and textbook abstractions like free trade.

Trump’s critics misunderstand his political appeal just as they fail to comprehend his business appeal. Indeed, Trump is almost certainly not as rich as he claims he is, nor is his record as glittering as others’, nor is his a rags-to-riches story. What he offers instead is a portrait of business as a fully human struggle filled with almost romantic jousting competitions. For Mitt Romney, corporations may be people and capital the invisible hand, but for Donald Trump business success is about human battles and visible victories. When asked if he feared a backlash against rich candidates like the one that damaged Romney, Trump responded, “Romney isn’t that rich.” If listening to Bizet made Nietzsche want to be a composer, listening to Trump makes one want to buy real estate. He imbues business with glory. For Trump, business is about winning and losing, and for real human beings, that’s what gives it life.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/traitor-his-class_1020527.html?page=2

[Wilikon]

UNREAL: Popular News Website Posts Photo of Donald Trump in GUN CROSSHAIRS


Could you imagine if this would have happened to a Democrat?
…Obama or Hillary Clinton?

It’s only when it’s a popular Republican that the liberal media thinks it’s acceptable.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/unreal-popular-news-website-posts-photo-of-donald-trump-in-gun-crosshairs/

[Wilikon]

Inside the Trump-Bush melodrama: Decades of tension and discomfort



[...]

At the core, there are clashes of style, manner and class between the Bushes — a patrician clan of presidents, governors and financiers who have pulled the levers of power for generations — and Trump, a hustling New York City deal-maker who turned his father’s outer-borough real estate portfolio into a gold-plated empire.

“The Bushes were never Trump’s cup of tea,” said Roger Stone, a longtime confidant and former adviser to Trump. Asked why the Bushes often have kept Trump at arm’s length, he said: “He’s not from old, WASP money. The Trumps didn’t come on the Mayflower.”…

But Trump reserves particular, personal ire for Jeb Bush, whose first name he commonly mocks by drawing it out in a slight drawl. One Trump associate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly, said of Trump: “He’s very smart, he’s driven and he has two goals: one, to be elected president, and two, to have Jeb not be president.”…

And back to Jeb: “He’s not up to snuff. . . . Jeb is never going to bring us to the promised land. He can’t.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-trump-bush-melodrama-decades-of-tension-and-discomfort/2015/08/27/419b0686-4be6-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

[ridery99]

Trump doesn't even try to win, he is just part of the hillary's campaign to destroy real republican candidates