Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ladies and Gentlemen, This is Your Candidate Speaking!
In a recent exchange, an online acquaintance posited that, surely, I must not like Donald Trump, and worried that I was being too hasty in dismissing someone who might be a potential ally on an issue about which we both care very much.
Since both of those suppositions are inaccurate, I’d like to clear things up. First, I’ve never met Donald Trump. I don’t know if I’d like him or not. Over the course of my life, I’ve met, and liked, any number of people. Some of them have been pillars of rectitude. Some of them have been engaging rapscallions and others have been complete scoundrels. Most of them fall somewhere on the continuum represented by these three markers.
And yes, I have been fooled (rarely), and liked someone who turned out to be a reprobate, or even an absolute monster. Like my former son-in-law, who didn’t turn out the way I’d hoped. Or my former employee who’s currently on death row in Ohio for murdering his wife, his sister-in-law, his father-in-law and his toddler niece.
However, this hasn’t stopped me taking chances. Who knows, maybe I’d even take one on The Donald if I ever did meet him.
But second, and perhaps more importantly, it’s not true that I’ve been hasty in dismissing Donald Trump as a potential ally. As a matter of fact, I’ve been extraordinarily thorough and deliberate about it. It’s not my nature to write people off just because they say a thing or three that I don’t agree with. And I do believe that redemption is possible for all. And that that’s a jolly good thing, and very lucky for many of us.
I acknowledge that I think redemption for Donald Trump really would require more than mere human intervention, as I’m not sure he’s capable of repentance on his own (see below). But time, and life, are short. There are many more congenial and productive ways of spending my time than spending it trying to rescue Donald Trump from himself, and I’m not sure I could ever convince him to my way of thinking on just about anything. Also, I’m pretty sure that even without my efforts to drag him back from the Dark Side, Donald will prosper in ways that he finds congenial and which I could never compete with in a material, or probably any other, sense.
So, as a public service, I present, herewith, and with minimal editorial comment, The Donald in his own words. The citations are by no means exhaustive, and you’ll probably notice many that are missing (we all have our favorites), but, to me, they illustrate some of the reasons that Donald Trump’s political ambitions should not be encouraged, but rather that he should be sent packing, back to do whatever it is he does best, wherever he does it.
I’ve included several links (I can’t guarantee that they are CoC compliant), in case you believe I’ve misquoted Trump, taken his remarks out of context, or am misrepresenting his position. Be forewarned, however; if you dive deeper, many of his positions do not improve upon longer acquaintance.
If you’ve already decided, or after further consideration and deliberation, you decide, that Donald Trump’s lifetime oeuvre, or even just that portion of it since he started his presidential run, shows him to be a smart, knowledgeable, thoughtful, principled, moral and reflective man who will never embarrass you by his behavior and will always do what is best for this country in an upright and ethical way, who is someone you can point to, and tell your children and grandchildren that you’d like them to grow up like Trump, and who will represent you well at home and abroad, then good on you. Have at it.
But I won’t be joining you in full-throated support.
And not because I’m closed-minded, thoughtless, and rash.
Donald Trump on Ben Carson, November 2015, not long after Ben Carson took the lead in Iowa polls:
When he says he’s pathological — and he says that in the book, I don’t say that — and again, I’m not saying anything, I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he’s pathological, somebody said he has pathological disease.
A child molester, there’s no cure for that. If you’re a child molester, there’s no cure. They can’t stop you. Pathological? There’s no cure.
He took a knife and he went after a friend! He lunged! He lunged that knife into the stomach of his friend. But, lo and behold, it hit the belt. It hit the belt, and the knife broke. Give me a break.
So I have a belt. Somebody hits me with a belt, it’s going in because the belt moves this way. It moves this way; it moves that way. He hit the belt buckle. Anybody have a knife? Want to try it on me? Believe me, it ain’t gonna work. You’re going to be successful, but he took the knife and went like this and he plunged it into the belt and, amazing, the belt stayed totally flat and the knife broke.
How stupid are the people of Iowa? How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?
Donald Trump on his pro-choice past, August, 2015
What happened is friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted, and it wasn’t aborted. That child today is a total superstar — a great, great child. And I saw that, and I saw other instances. And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.
When asked by a Daily Caller reporter in September of 2015 whether he would have become pro-life if his friend’s child had turned out to be a ‘loser’ instead of a ‘total superstar,’ Trump responded with:
I’ve never thought of it. That’s an interesting question. I’ve never thought of it. Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he’s such an outstanding person.
Donald Trump on international relations–November, 2015
I got to know [Vladimir Putin] very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates.
Clarifying editorial comment: Putin and Trump were the subject of two different segments on a single 60 Minutes program in September of 2015. Putin’s segment was filmed in Moscow. Trump’s segment was filmed in New York. The two men have never met.
Donald Trump on how he acquires military and foreign policy expertise–August, 2015
Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great– you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals… Yeah, probably there are two or three. I mean, I like [John] Bolton. I think he’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about. [Colonel Jack] Jacobs is a good guy.”
Donald Trump on women–1991-2015
I think Gloria [Allred] would be very very impressed with [my penis].
Gratuitous editorial comment: I do realize that it’s a lose-lose proposition when the choice before you for ‘most narcissistic publicity hound’ is between Donald Trump and Gloria Allred.
Gratuitous editorial comment: I do realize that it’s a lose-lose proposition when the choice before you for ‘most narcissistic unfaithful spouse’ is between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.
There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the [prenuptial] agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.”
Donald Trump on trade–2011-2016
To China: “Listen you [redacted] we’re going to tax you at 25 percent.”
To Saudi Arabia: “We have nobody in Washington that sits back and said, You’re not going to raise that [redacted] price.”
To New Hampshire businesses who relocated to Mexico, (Feb. 4, 2016): “We’re gonna bring businesses back. We’re gonna have businesses that used to be in New Hampshire that are now in Mexico come back to New Hampshire, and you can tell them to go [redacted] themselves because they let you down and they left. We want the businesses that stayed.”
Donald Trump on his favorite subject
Gratuitous editorial comment: And people think Ted Cruz is creepy.
Donald Trump on religion—2015-2016
I have great relationship with God. I like to be good. I don’t like to have to ask for forgiveness. And I am good. I don’t do a lot of things that are bad. I try to do nothing that is bad.
So what [Ben Carson] is saying is that, these series of events, and he goes into the bathroom for a couple of hours and he comes out and now he’s religious. And the people of Iowa believe him. Give me a break. Give me a break. It doesn’t happen that way.
And, finally, in conclusion:
I rest my case.
Published in General
Please New Hampshire please send The Donald packing… he is probably a good enough person, but please, don’t vote for him.
Trump is the candidate of hopelessness, I am not that hopeless.
Rubio is the candidate of optimism and hope. I want to have hope and optimism.
A bit much? Well yes, I’d say it is, but those are actual quotes. So the bit that is too much is Donald Trump, you are blaming the messenger!
The quotes attack the message… whatever the heck that is. His mind is so jumbled.
Agree that there’s a difference, disagree that’s where we’re headed. Hillary vs. Trump (or, actually, Sanders vs. Trump) would be a sign that the US is becoming a banana republic. I’m hopeful it will not come to that.
Sadly, we’ve already taken some steps toward banana-republic-ness. On the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, the US no longer ranks in the top 10 among nations. This index does not rely on strictly conventional economic factors; it also includes categories such as property rights and corruption. Start to worry when Burkina Faso catches up. They’re gaining on us.
I’m almost as terrified by a Biden/Warren versus Rubio/anybody match-up. What Biden did to Paul Ryan was painful to watch.
In a banana republic, the most ruthless rise to the top, and after Felony, Biden/Warren qualify.
If Hillary is indicted before she grabs the nomination, I think it quite likely that Biden will jump in. That would be a different, and much more terrifying, race. Biden could win, especially with Warren at his side.
I agree. They’re both effective populist rabble-rousers. I think they’d give Rubio a particularly rough time of it, a la Paul Ryan.
Pardon me, but I have I different idea about just who is too [fill in the blank] to notice- and it ain’t Trump supporters.
If you want to complain about the coarsening of the public discourse it’s too late now. Remember Bill Clinton? The draft-dodging, ethically challenged rapist-governor of the obscure state of Arkansas, who nevertheless was able to beat both gopers he ran against quite handily.
If you want to complain that Trump doesn’t appear know jack about much of anything, I give you Barry Obama, dolt, who also beat the gopers he ran against- and yes, quite handily.
I also you remind of the endless, stumbling failure of the gop-run Congress, which produces nothing more than endless excuses for their endless failure.
Now Marco Rubio is the new great gop hope. Yay. Here’s Phyllis Schlafly on Rubio’s endless deceit on immigration. No thanks.
So perhaps you can understand why so many people are fed up with this, and are willing to consider Donald Trump instead of another one of the endless series of gop failures.
Probably not. Rubio gives a good speech- like Obama famously did before his election- and good speeches are all that matter.
Slick talk uber alles, right? That’s the ticket.
Don’t accuse me of only just starting to complain about the coarsening of the culture now; I’ve been complaining about it for decades. I do recognize, though, that millions of people, perpetrators and victims alike, embrace it for their own reasons, and that the purveyors and merchants of what is called culture these days get very rich off of them. That does not mean that I, or any others, have to partake.
I also completely understand why people are fed up, and you provide a very good precis of many of the reasons.
What I don’t see in your comment, though, is any positive program for change and/or improvement.
Just what is it that you think that Donald Trump is going to do that will make things better?
F-bombs, misogyny, vicious personal attacks, delusional thinking (his, not yours) and outbreaks of entertaining verbal diarrhea which are guaranteed only to get you top-billing on the 24-hour news channels, are not strategies for leading a country.
What is he going to do? And please don’t tell me he’s going to kick a** and take names. He’s already said that he’s going to make deals with the Democrats.
Alas, Trump is the only candidate who made a significant issue about illegal immigration, trade, and the elites astonishingly stupid plan to import endless numbers of third-world muslims into the country, for no reason.
Perhaps he might actually act upon the issues he has raised, unlike the post-American elites.
I’m not interested in hearing about “misogyny” when the left is ceaselessly raving about “white privilege.” I want a political party that will not accuse fellow party members of hateful thoughtcrimes while ignoring the endless shrieking racism directed at us. Represent the people who vote for you, gop. Or die.
I am not entered by Trump’s lunkheaded yammering. But I note he seems be to capable of learning, and becoming a better candidate, unlike Rubio, who came to this contest a master of deceit.
I presume he will make deals with democrats, but also taking into account that he wants border security.
Unlike Rubio, who will agree to whatever open border plan his billionaire paymasters tell him to agree to.
Advantage: Trump.
My post had to do with the caricature, not the OP (which I thought was reasonable).
Trump Derangement Syndrome, like bubonic plague presents in more than one type. Trump supporters have one type of TDS, where they overlook his many deficits; Trump critics have another type, where they overlook his few strengths.
The most painful part was Ryan let him get away with it. Like Romney let Candy Crowley bulldoze him. Whoever is the ticket is going to have to be prepared to fight like they want to win. I’m sick of gentlemen losers.
Yep, that would be a pretty stinky vote to have to cast.
I see that you have absolutely no idea what he’s actually going to do. Not a surprise. I don’t think you’re alone.
I’m not going to try to parse Donald Trump’s tweet of August 2013, in which he says “Congress must protect our borders first. Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped,” or his statement in early 2015 that “I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal…. A lot of these people are helping us … and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal,” or even his statement from last summer that “The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it. They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Sounds to me as though there’s a lot of room for making deals with the Democrats somewhere among and between those positions. Cross your fingers.
My point is not, what is Donald Trump saying today about amnesty, letting people stay in the country, the importance of not appearing mean-spirited, or anything like that. It is that, like most vote-seekers, his position on the matter is still ‘evolving.’
And I still don’t know the details of an actual Trump strategy or plan for this, or any other issue. And thanks for confirming that you don’t either.
I rather hope this election ends up to the American peoples’ advantage, not to the advantage of any one particular self-aggrandizing candidate, whoever he or she may be.
Slim and none, She, slim and none.
I’ve been saying the same thing for several weeks! The devil I know is the Democrat. If I were a single issue voter, which I’m not, my one issue would be the Supreme Court. I have a sense of who the Democrat would nominate. I can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea of the kind of justice Trump would nominate. Absolutely no idea. Does anyone?
I’m with you on the Supreme Court as perhaps the most important issue. Immigration is also extremely important, but it’s not going to get solved in five minutes, no matter who is President, and there are many, many hoops to jump through before substantive changes are made. (Significant improvement would come quickly if President Whoever would immediately start to enforce the laws that are in place already. One of the reasons the system is so ‘broken,’ is that the existing laws are not enforced, and that the Executive branch and the Justice Department encourage this flouting of the law. I do think Ted Cruz understands this).
But when a Justice leaves the Supreme Court there is an immediate vacancy. A nomination is made, hearings are ‘heard,’ and there is a vote, more or less right then.
Over the next four years, four Supreme Court Justices will turn 80 or older. (Ginsburg is already 82). The four are Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer. One ‘conservative,’ one ‘swing vote,’ and two ‘lefties.’ In a democratic administration, one has to assume that Hillary Clinton (or someone) would nominate four left-wing justices to replace them. And that the Republican (or something) Congress will go along to get along as usual.
Who knows, in this, as in many other things, what Donald Trump would do?
I think we have a better idea of what one or two of the other Republican candidates would do. That’s one of the reasons I do not favor Trump. There are other ‘devils we know,’ besides Hillary Clinton, some of whom have an (R) after their name, and some, who are, in my estimation, a much better bet than Donald Trump on this critical issue.
Very true. And I don’t want to further derail this wonderful thread, but…yes, that is exactly why the Court rises to the level of “single issue” in a way that immigration just doesn’t (in my mind): Immigration is an immensely more complex issue. That is to say, under the catchphrase “immigration” we are talking about millions of humans making billions of decisions. I don’t care what anyone says: no one can reliably predict how millions of people will act. Everyone on the Republican side is interested in “border security”–and it is at that level of vague that surety ends. Pundits seem to want us to think in binary terms about immigration, but in fact immigration poses a series of very complex questions and involves multiple government agencies, thousands of miles, hundreds and thousands of communities, and millions of Americans (and illegals).
Just one more left-wing justice disrupts the balance of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. Just one.
The smartest thing Trump could do to win the Republican primary would be to promise to nominate Ted Cruz to the SCOTUS. Think about it. Cruz’s Senate colleagues would confirm him in a heartbeat, just to get rid of him. He could be as obnoxious as he wants from the bench and would only have to contend with Roberts’ opinion of him. And Republican primary voters would be reassured about the long term limits to the damage Trump could do to the country, with such a hard… nosed conservative on the court.
Problem is, such promises are not binding.
He’s said he’d nominate his sister.
Yes. Ahem. :)
Not that again.
On the merits, Trump’s 78-year old sister, a lifelong Republican, has perfectly good career credentials for a nomination to the Supreme Court. However, her 2000 decision to overturn New Jersey’s partial birth abortion ban (which was concurred with in fact, if not in spirit (he disagreed with her findings but also ruled against the ban, giving her the panel majority and overturning it) by Samuel J Alito), is very troubling.
Still, I think even Trump recognizes that his nomination of his sister to the Supreme Court wouldn’t go over very well (because she’s his sister, not because of what she believes), and said as much at the time.
This distinguishes him, in a good way, from John F Kennedy, who appointed his brother to the post of Attorney General fifty-five years ago. Those of you who believe I’m suffering from incurable Trump Derangement Syndrome, please take note.
I think we should probably be more worried that Hillary Clinton would nominate Trump’s sister to the Supreme Court than that her brother would.
In either event, I strongly support the “She” rule for nominating Supreme Court Justices, which is that 80 should be the minimum age for appointment, so that we don’t have this business of Justices hanging around and extending the often miserable legacy of their President for four or five decades after he or she is gone. In that event, I think Maryann Trump Barry probably wouldn’t be a long term problem. I’m more worried about people like Cass Sunstein.
Derail away! That is what happens in a conversation. And that’s how we learn.
He hasn’t said he’d nominate his sister?
He said, I believe in an almost joking way, that he’d nominate his sister, that she’d be “outstanding,” or “phenomenal,” or “terrific,” or some other superlative Trumpian adjective. Then he said, more or less, that that wouldn’t be appropriate and that anyway, she wouldn’t be interested (possibly because she’s already 78 years old, and will be almost 80 by the time The Donald is immaculated, as Rush would say). There was a thread or two on this several weeks ago. That’s what I was referring to.