March 6-12, 2016
Mar 06 08:05 DFL's middle class tax increase Mar 06 09:33 Trump vs. Cruz & #NeverTrump Mar 06 17:22 President Potter's stupidity Mar 07 09:00 SCSU shuts down 6 sports programs Mar 08 08:20 Buchanan criticizes GOP, super PACs Mar 10 12:57 LTE asks the right questions Mar 11 15:56 Comparing Trump with Reagan Mar 12 11:47 Trump incites violence
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
DFL's middle class tax increase
One of the reasons why this session will be contentious is because the DFL is insisting that a promised tax cut be coupled with a middle class tax increase. Simply put, Kurt Daudt and the House GOP caucus won't let that happen.
The DFL's proposed middle class tax increase comes from raising the state gas tax. First, it's indisputable that sales taxes are regressive, hitting the middle class and the working poor harder than it hits the wealthy. Second, raising the gas tax hurts commuters more than it hurts people living in urban neighborhoods. (Imagine that. Democrats proposing raising taxes on the middle class living in exurban and rural Minnesota while protecting rich white people living in the safest DFL districts. That's as surprising as hearing that Bill Gates made money last month.)
Rep. Thissen highlighted the DFL's transportation priorities when he said "For someone that's a leader of the state to come up here and say transit is controversial? It's only controversial to the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party."
Actually, Rep. Thissen, imposing a middle class tax increase to pay for transit projects is controversial. It's controversial because people in outstate Minnesota have put a high priority on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. We don't care about new light rail projects. Our highways, streets and county roads are filled with potholes. I wrote this article to highlight that the roads are dangerous. I wrote that article in May of 2014 . Minnesota's highways, streets and county roads need immediate attention. Transit doesn't need immediate attention.
Last year, Move MN was leading the lobbying effort for shoving the DFL's middle class tax increase down our throats. After they failed, something that was inevitable, they've been replaced by Transportation Forward . TF will fail, too, because Republicans won't vote for a middle class tax increase to pay for something that isn't essential. It's worth highlighting, too, that there isn't a great grassroots groundswell of support for new transit funding.
The only way the DFL's middle class tax increase gets serious consideration in the Senate is if the House GOP provides political cover. That won't happen. Imagine the political danger involved for the DFL if the DFL majority in the Senate passed a gas tax but didn't get political cover from the GOP. The ads write themselves. Mailers with headlines like 'DFL passes middle class tax increase' or 'DFL ignores Minnesota's roads and bridges' would definitely get people's attentions.
Things might get real ugly real fast for the DFL if the DFL pursued this ill-advised strategy.
Posted Sunday, March 6, 2016 8:05 AM
No comments.
Trump vs. Cruz & #NeverTrump
Prior to Super Tuesday's primaries and caucuses, Donald Trump's ceiling of support seemed to be in the 35%-36% range. He won handily in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. It's particularly noteworthy that those 3 states were open states where Democrats were allowed to cause mischief or where independents could vote.
Yesterday's events were closed events, with only Republicans voting. This table shows yesterday's results:
Combining the 4 events together, Sen. Cruz got 41% of the votes cast. Meanwhile, Trump got 33.3% of the vote.
I haven't hidden my disgust with Trump. If I were king for a day, I'd banish him to Gitmo and throw away the key to his cell. I've got great company in not respecting Trump. Steve Hayes' article lowers the boom on Trump, especially this part:
The worst of these moments may have come when Trump mocked the disability of a journalist who had criticized him. At a rally in Sarasota last November, Trump was discussing Serge Kovaleski, a reporter for the New York Times. "The poor guy, you've got to see this guy," Trump said, before flailing in a manner that resembled a palsy tremor. Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, a congenital condition that affects the movement and positioning of his joints.
When Trump was criticized, he said he couldn't have been mocking the reporter because he was unaware of Kovaleski's condition. That wasn't true. Kovaleski had interviewed Trump a dozen times and said they had interacted on "a first-name basis for years." Trump then accused Kovaleski of "using his disability to grandstand."
This came up last Friday, as I drove my 8-year-old son to see the Washington Capitals play. I'll be gone on his birthday, covering presidential primaries, so this was an early present.
My son and his older sister have followed the campaign, as much as kids their age do, and they're aware that I've traded barbs with Trump. So we sometimes talk about the candidates and their attributes and faults, and we'd previously talked about Trump's penchant for insulting people. On our drive down, my son told me that some of the kids in his class like Trump because "he has the most points," and he asked me again why I don't like the Republican frontrunner.
I reminded him about the McCain and Fiorina stories and then we spent a moment talking about Kovaleski. I described his condition and showed him how physically limiting it would be. Then he asked a simple question:
"Why would anyone make fun of him?"
Why indeed?
I'd flip this around a bit. I'd ask what qualities or policies would convince me to vote for Mr. Trump. In terms of national security policy or taxes, regulations, federalism, the Constitution and the rule of law, I find Mr. Trump utterly deficient. Listening to Trump answer a question on national security is torture. At times, he's said that he'd "bomb the s--- out of ISIS." At other times, he's said he'd talk Putin into taking out ISIS. Bombing the s--- out of ISIS sounds great but that's just part of the threat ISIS poses. That does nothing to stop ISIS from radicalizing Muslims in Europe or the United States. Apparently, Trump hasn't figured that out, mostly because he doesn't even have an elemental understanding of foreign policy.
On national security, Trump says he'll be strong and frequently pronounces himself "militaristic." But he doesn't seem to have even a newspaper reader's familiarity with the pressing issues of the day . He was nonplussed by a reference to the "nuclear triad"; he confused Iran's Quds Force and the Kurds; he didn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. The ignorance would be less worrisome if his instincts weren't terrifying. He's praised authoritarians for their strength, whether Vladimir Putin for killing journalists and political opponents or the Chinese government for the massacre it perpetrated in Tiananmen Square. To the extent he articulates policies, he seems to be an odd mix of third-world despot and naive pacifist.
Like Steve Hayes, I'm a proud member of the #NeverTrump movement. While pundits like Sean Hannity and Andrea Tantaros talk about Trump like he's a conservative god, I won't. That's because I care more about the principles that make conservatism and capitalism the most powerful forces for positive change.
Why anyone would vote for a disgusting, immoral liberal like Donald Trump is mind-boggling. Personally, I won't.
Posted Sunday, March 6, 2016 9:33 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 06-Mar-16 10:23 AM
That's what concerns me. Heaven forbid that Trump actually gets the nomination, but if he does, I am afraid there are too many people who will believe that not voting for Trump and not voting for Hillary somehow puts a third candidate, better than either, on the ballot. It doesn't. Failure to vote for the lesser of two evils allows the greater evil (Hillary) to win.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Mar-16 11:54 AM
With all due respect, Hillary isn't the greater evil. We've dealt with losses in the past. We haven't dealt with a traitor in our midst. Most importantly, on the important things like judges, national security & isolationist economic policies, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary & DJT.
Finally, I hope we defeat Trump with either Rubio or Cruz. That way, we defeat Hillary, too. Hillary is a weak candidate. What type of candidate is she if she's having difficulty dispatching a 74-yr-old socialist?
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Mar-16 10:31 AM
Per a Strib item online today, Charlie Weaver is in the same quandry.
http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-growing-formidability-rattles-many-in-minnesota-gop/371136401/
Title: Minnesota's GOP leaders rattled as Trump's support grows
" 'I'm worried less about my party than I am about my country,' Weaver said. "
Not judging any of the item, just fyi.
Rubio seems to be fading in the stretch. If he does not get Florida, and Kasich gets Ohio,Rubio might be neither win, place, nor show. Some would not be saddened by such a result.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Mar-16 11:57 AM
Eric, I can't believe you read my article. Trump's support isn't growing. He got 33.3% of the vote yesterday. I can't question the fact that his supporters are incredibly loyal. I can question whether his supporters are increasing.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Mar-16 02:23 PM
Gary, by your data Cruz got 66 new delegates, Trump 51, with Michigan on the horizon. Cruz did gain ground. No question.
As to Trump's policies, he's not disclosing any, so you are guessing on old information. He's gotten this far on a cap saying "Make America Great Again" and xenophobia, which is rampant up and down the GOP ranks. Except for the employers, who want the cheap illegal labor; both parties' elites unite there.
While a Cruz vs Sanders race would offer more of a choice, a Cruz vs Clinton race - would it bootstrap the GOP down ticket?
I see Trump having more GOTV power that way. Neither of us will know for sure, since it is now only a hypothetical, and by August the two-party offerings will be set, hypothetical guesses left hanging; and then the setting of "choices" will have many, many, many holding their noses. Staying home.
Equal evils, absent Bernie. If it is Trump/Clinton.
Cruz/anybody would energize the anybody vote. How many Senators, which ones, have endorsed Cruz? It's his colleagues, eh?
Comment 4 by JerryE9 at 06-Mar-16 09:44 PM
"We haven't dealt with a traitor in our midst."
I understand the sentiment, but I still have to believe that a Trump win would be better than a Hillary win. Part of it is the down-ticket effect of having Republicans turn out for the down-ticket. A bigger part, for me, is believing that from what little he has SAID, he sounds better than Hillary and, if he puts together "good people" they can correct a lot of the Obama rot. Also, having to work with Republicans in Congress will keep him right of center, I think.
With Cruz gaining ground and Rubio fading, we may be on the right track. It will be a clear choice between Cruz and Hillary.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-16 07:41 AM
Jerry, Trump says that the government is run by idiots and he'll get better people to run it. That isn't possible from the standpoint that most of the administration is already in place. The political appointees can make a little difference but the career employees make most of the decisions. They're unaccountable. How do you fix that?
Comment 6 by eric z at 07-Mar-16 07:54 AM
Gary, last comment you added brings to mind the VA leadership person locally, and how she played the system.
So, Gary, How do you fix that without throwing out a baby along with bathwater?
How do you prune diseased branches without peril to the tree?
And don't just duck by saying, "Carefully."
It is a question that might need reflection, and ongoing posting - perhaps after November. But it seems to touch upon your feelings within the next above post where "Cut off the head of the snake" is a quick answer, but incomplete. I.e., not pressing for any quick fix ideas, but how do you fix what's bad, without damage to good things?
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-16 09:08 AM
You give veterans vouchers so they can go to a regular hospital or clinic. After shrinking the VA's workload, then you implement tighter reporting requirements, followed by increased oversight.
President Potter's stupidity
In December, 2010, SCSU President Earl Potter made one of his most foolish decisions when he closed the Aviation program at St. Cloud State. The program's enrollment had briefly dipped, which gave President Potter the political cover to get rid of a program he didn't like. Since then, SCSU's enrollment has declined dramatically.
SCSU's declining enrollment led, along with another of President Potter's boneheaded decisions, the signing of a lease with the J.A. Wedum Foundation, to massive annual deficits and layoffs.
When Potter closed the Aviation program, I wrote that it was stupid on multiple fronts. First, I wrote that it was stupid because there was a significant pilot shortage. Had SCSU kept its Aviation program intact, they could've increased enrollments. Not only that but SCSU could've expanded the program to include drone training. Drone training degrees bring with them virtually 100% of the graduates getting a job offer almost immediately after getting their degree.
But I digress.
This article highlights the impact the airlines pilots shortage is having:
Mid-sized and regional airlines in the US are suffering from a pilot shortage that could threaten the health of the broader US aviation industry. The labor shortfall has led to canceled flights at carriers like Mesa Airlines and Silver Airways. That has hit smaller airports, such as in Redding, California, or Erie, Pennsylvania, according to figures from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
The staffing crunch could also constrain traffic for larger companies like United Airlines and Delta Air Lines that depend on the mid-sized companies to serve rural consumers and feed customers into their networks. "It's becoming a crisis at some carriers, resulting in the cancellation of flights and other serious disruptions," said Patrick Smith, a pilot who runs "Ask the Pilot," an aviation blog. Republic Airways, which operates flights for Delta, United and American Airlines, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, citing the labor crunch.
"We've attempted to restructure the obligations on our out-of-favor aircraft, made so by a nationwide pilot shortage, and to increase our revenues," said Bryan Bedford, chief executive officer of Republic Airways.
If President Potter was a visionary leader, he wouldn't have closed Aviation. He would've expanded it. Drone programs were clearly a rising program that would've helped turn around SCSU's declining enrollment. Now with the pilot shortage getting worse, SCSU could've touted their aviation program while recruiting new students.
Had President Potter made the right decision initially, it's unlikely that it would be facing annual multi-million dollar deficits. A true leader would've changed direction. The late great economist John Maynard Keynes once famously said "when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?" President Potter should've learned from Dr. Keynes.
Posted Sunday, March 6, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Mar-16 07:47 AM
A Keynesian. Indeed!
As to changing facts, and prior posting, the impression is the headline is aimed to emphasize continuity.
Comment 2 by Nick at 07-Mar-16 10:05 AM
Republic Airways filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because they are short pilots. This means that they will shed unprofitable flying contracts by reducing their fleet size, which will result in furloughs for some of the aircraft mechanics that work there. More than likely one of their maintenance bases will close.
Comment 3 by Nick at 07-Mar-16 10:31 AM
SCSU could have added an A&P licensure track for their Aviation Maintenance Management back when they had it. Boeing out in North Charleston, SC HAS 100 opening to be an aircraft mechanic for people who have just obtained their Airframe and Powerplant licenses to be.
Comment 4 by Nick at 07-Mar-16 10:32 AM
*Aviation Maintenance Management program*
SCSU shuts down 6 sports programs
According to this memo , St. Cloud State closed 6 sports programs, including "men's and women's tennis, women's Nordic Skiing, men's cross country and men's indoor/outdoor track and field." Needless to say, the Potter administration is putting its best spin on this disaster, saying the "decision to eliminate programs better aligns St. Cloud State's sport portfolio with the athletics department's mission and vision while addressing budget shortfalls."
I didn't know that universities' athletic departments had a mission or vision. I suspect they don't. Further, I suspect that this is President Potter's attempt to make it sound like there's a great strategy behind these closures. There isn't.
Thanks to President Potter's financial mismanagement, SCSU is in dire straits. This editorial explains what's really happening:
The university is facing a $9 million [deficit].
Putting that into perspective is simple. SCSU's deficit is almost exactly the same amount as what the University has lost on the Coborn's Plaza since 2010. It's worse than that, though. It isn't just that there's a significant deficit this year. It's that past deficits have depleted SCSU's reserves. MnSCU requires a 5% reserve. With SCSU's budget at $200,000,000, that means SCSU's reserves need to be $10,000,000. The last I heard, SCSU's reserve was approximately $1,000,000.
This St. Cloud Times' cheerleading is inexcusable:
For those protesting increases in tuition cost and crushing debt loads for students after they graduate, these cuts are part of the answer. Imagine the outcry if the $9 million shortfall was filled with a tuition increase.
Let's not imagine that. Instead, let's imagine if President Potter didn't foolishly spend money on Coborn's Plaza. That's $9,000,000 right there. Then there's President Potter's decision to pay the City of St. Cloud $720,000 for police to not patrol the SCSU campus. Then there's $450,000 that President Potter spent on rebranding SCSU. (That worked well, didn't it?)
The Times doesn't take any of that foolish spending into account. Why should they? MnSCU didn't take it into account when they extended President Potter's contract through 2019. The scuttlebutt I'm hearing is that they didn't terminate Potter because they couldn't find anyone qualified to replace him. I can think of 3 people right now who'd do a significantly better job than President Potter.
Posted Monday, March 7, 2016 9:00 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick M at 07-Mar-16 10:19 AM
Would be interesting to see how many upper level administration people have been added (new positions) since Sept. 2010. After finding that number then what has been the increased cost of Admin to the University [each year dollars in table/chart form]. We can start with President Potter's international travel costs.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Mar-16 04:21 PM
A shortage of rousting athletes at potter's field?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Mar-16 07:28 AM
Eric, SCSU shouldn't be a partisan issue. Potter spent $450,000 on a rebranding initiative. It failed miserably. He spent another $50,000 to get permission from the Great Place to Work Institute to use their logo on SCSU stationery. That's half a million dollars spent on improving SCSU's image while the product (college degrees that lead to high-paying jobs) declined. What's worst is that nobody in MnSCU or the legislature is looking into fixing this mess.
Comment 3 by Crimson Trace at 07-Mar-16 07:22 PM
Potter should have been fired long ago. This university is dying and the chancellor, trustees, and legislative leaders...both the DFL and GOP...have their heads up their &@@$&. The fact that Potter has repeatedly yelled at employees and students is sickening beyond belief.
Buchanan criticizes GOP, super PACs
Pat Buchanan has been critical of the GOP for 25 years. After reading Buchanan's latest article , it's clear he won't stop criticizing the GOP anytime soon.
Buchanan has fancied himself as a populist conservative. If that description sounds like it doesn't fit, it's because those words don't fit together. Conservatism at its finest is governed by foundational principles. Populism is governed by mob rule. That's Patrick J. Buchanan, though. Trying to make sense of the things he says is like trying to tracking the flight of a butterfly with a spotting scope. Good luck with that.
Buchanan's latest eruption was triggered by people opposing Donald Trump's becoming the GOP presidential nominee. Why that's controversial is difficult to figure out but that's Buchanan's logic. (Personally, I always thought that the GOP presidential nominee shouldn't be a Democrat but I'm quirky that way. That's why I also believe that all primaries and caucuses should be closed.)
But it raises anew the question: Can the establishment stop Trump? Answer: It is possible, and we shall know by midnight, March 15. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, winner-take-all primaries, he would likely fall short of the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination on the first ballot.
How could the anti-Trump forces defeat him in Ohio, Florida and Illinois? With the same tactics used to shrink Trump's victory margins in Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky to well below what polls had predicted. In every primary upcoming, Trump is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads on radio, TV, cable and social media, paid for by super PACs with hoards of cash funneled in by oligarchs.
Buchanan omits the fact that the ads use Trump's words against him. Buchanan omits the fact that these super PAC's ads tell the story of how Trump funded the campaigns of Democrats, who then used those majorities to create Obamacare.
Let's re-word this paragraph to fit reality:
But Trump, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent next to nothing on ads answering these attacks, or promoting himself or his issues. He has relied almost exclusively on free media.
It should read like this:
But Trump, who frequently claims that he's self-funding his campaign even though his FEC report says otherwise, hasn't needed to spend money to promote himself or his issues because he's received tens of millions of dollars worth of free media.
Then there's this:
Yet no amount of free media can match the shellfire falling on him every hour of every day in every primary state.
Mr. Buchanan, campaigns aren't cheap. If Trump chooses to not spend money countering the ads, then that's a campaign decision. It isn't a particularly wise campaign decision but it's a campaign decision. As for promoting Trump's policies, he doesn't have any. He's used tons of slogans to outline his agenda but advertising slogans aren't the same as detailed policies.
Trump hasn't built a campaign organization. He hasn't bought paid advertising. He's run while trying to hide the fact that he's a liberal. That's quite a trick.
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2016 8:20 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Mar-16 09:00 AM
If Trump does survive fire from GOP ranks, what more can the Dems throw at him in a general election.
If Trump is not the nominee, it will be GOP establishment, leaning in ways Trump popularized, trying to credibly shift to the middle. Without Trump's persona, and without the legions now backing Trump.
Clinton will be vulnerable, over taking money and suggestions of quid pro quo; but not if it's Cruz.
He's taken money, with suggestions of quid pro quo; so that factor would be a wash.
If it is Rubio, all Dem factors would be energized to defeat him at any cost. More so than if Trump is the nominee with a legitimate "outsider" basis to assert.
Comment 2 by eric z at 11-Mar-16 06:21 AM
Populism is governed by distrust of status quo political processes; and of integrity among those having power.
Mob rule is the Tea Party. You call it populist?
LTE asks the right questions
I'll admit that this LTE asks some important questions. Still, if this SCSU alumnus had read LFR instead of the Times, he'd know that President Potter took over a very successful school, then made a series of decisions that've caused the annual deficits.
Mr. Kovell said that he "was shocked by the university's recent decision to cut six men's and women's athletic programs." I don't doubt that. To hear President Potter talk about SCSU, you'd think that it was a well-run organization that's revitalizing an entire city. The truth is that President Potter's financial decisions have literally cost the University millions of dollars.
Mr. Kovell likely won't get a straight answer from the administration after asking "as SCSU enrollment has decreased by 16 percent the past five years, have administrative costs been correspondingly reduced, prior to cutting men's and women's athletic programs?" I don't doubt that the administration will give him an answer. In fact, I'd guarantee it. I'd also guarantee that the answer will be anything but straightforward. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that the administration's answer will be self-serving spin that doesn't have anything to do with the truth.
Two years ago, the SCSU FA (FA = Faculty Association) told the administration to renegotiate the deal with the J.A. Wedum Foundation. The Potter administration didn't do that. Thanks to their refusal to confront the Foundation, SCSU is obligated to essentially pay the Foundation rent checks for the next 9 years. Thus far, thanks to the contract that President Potter signed with the Foundation, the University has lost $7,700,000 in the last 5 years. This year, they're hoping that the loss will be approximately $1,300,000.
I hope that more alumni speak out like Mr. Kovell. Lord knows that civic leaders haven't criticized President Potter's performance. They've been silent. Profiles in courage they aren't.
What's especially disturbing from a statewide perspective is that nobody's criticized MnSCU's reckless spending habits. MnSCU didn't get criticized for signing the consulting contract with McKinsey and Company. They should've been, especially considering the fact that it was a $2,200,000 contract for a 3-month assignment.
In 2013, the DFL bragged that they'd made "historic investments" in education. What's frustrating is that I've never heard of the DFL brag about legislation that increases scrutiny of whether the taxpayers' money is spent efficiently. If there was true accountability within MnSCU, taxpayers wouldn't have to read about sports programs getting cut or multi-million dollar annual deficits.
Unfortunately, the DFL won't let such legislation get a hearing because they're beholden to the special interest group protectors that prevent true oversight into the system.
Posted Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:57 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Mar-16 06:23 AM
Does MnSCU have an inspector general?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Mar-16 01:03 PM
Unfortunately, IG is a federal position.
Comparing Trump with Reagan
This year, the unthinkable happened. Some of the formerly unquestioned leaders of the conservative movement started comparing Donald Trump with President Reagan. Frankly, anyone that thinks Donald Trump is at all similar to President Reagan isn't thinking clearly.
Tuesday night, Corey Lewandowski assaulted Michelle Fields. After last night's debate, Donald Trump said he thinks that the entire situation is a figment of Ms. Field's imagination. Mr. Trump said this despite the fact that Lewandowski told Breitbart.com's Matthew Boyle that he'd roughed her up but that it was an accident. Lewandowski told Boyle that he "didn't recognize her as a Breitbart reporter, instead mistaking her for an adversarial member of the mainstream media."
I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Apparently, Trump's people only rough up unfriendlies. Thank God they don't indiscriminately beat up anyone in their path. I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that the GOP frontrunner's staff aren't total thugs.
The reason I mention this in this context is simple. It's impossible for anyone who knew President Reagan to think that he would've tried rationalizing this thug's actions away. It's striking that Mr. Trump isn't just rationalizing Mr. Lewandowski's actions. He's denying that the incident ever happened.
This isn't the first time Mr. Lewandowski has threatened women this campaign. Before the Fox News debate in Iowa, Mr. Lewandowski threatened Megyn Kelly:
In a call on Saturday with a Fox News executive, Lewandowski stated that Megan had a 'rough couple of days after that last debate' and he 'would hate to have her go through that again.' Lewandowski was warned not to level any more threats, but he continued to do so. We can't give in to terrorization toward any of our employees.
Democrats who hated President Reagan's agenda called him an "amiable dunce" in their attempt to belittle him. Nobody will characterize Trump as amiable.
President Reagan was a God-fearing Christian. Trump isn't a Christian. He's gotten to where he's gotten through threats and intimidation. Finally, President Reagan was a policy wonk and a fantastic negotiator. Trump is a policy lightweight, especially with regards to foreign policy and national security.
Posted Friday, March 11, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-Mar-16 12:26 PM
Hopefully not like Reagan, presuming he is the Republican candidate. One Reagan, one too many.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Mar-16 02:13 PM
Right because a great economy for all can't be tolerated?
Trump incites violence
A little over a month ago, Donald Trump incited violence when he told people attending his rally to "knock the crap" out of protesters. Trump certainly will deny that he's inciting violence but the video tells the story:
Trump started that call to arms by saying that security told him "Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience". Trump went on, saying "so if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell -- I promise I'll pay the legal fees."
This post on RedState is worth reading because it summarizes what's been happening at Trump rallies. Caleb Howe is spot on when he wrote "Trump says all the time, correctly, that people are angry. He says those angry people come to his campaign. And he brags about the size of his rallies. So in summary he fills a stadium with angry people, tells them people are out to get them, tells them who those people are, tells them to physically assault those people, and then they do as he says and physically assault those people. So yes, the sucker punch and similar incidents lead right back to his mouth."
Apparently, Trump is an anarchist. Here's the definition of anarchist :
a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
The United States used to be a nation of laws. I say used to be because President Obama has spent most of his time in office undercutting the rule of law. What's frightening is that Trump might be more of an authoritarian than President Obama. People are legitimately frustrated. Others are legitimately worried about their family's future. Seven years of terrible policies will cause that.
That doesn't give people who are legitimately frustrated or worried the right to act out violently. There are still laws that apply to people who act violently. While Mr. Trump tells people to "knock the crap" out of people and that he'll pay the legal fees, he's telling people to commit crimes and that he'll pay the legal fees for their crimes.
If you thought that the Obama administration was lawless, there's information that's right in front of our face that suggests that Mr. Trump might be Obama on steroids. That's a frightening thought.
Posted Saturday, March 12, 2016 11:47 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 12-Mar-16 12:30 PM
"Trump is an anarchist..." I hadn't thought of it that way, but yeah....that fits him to a "T".
LL
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 13-Mar-16 05:44 PM
I would need more evidence that Mr. Trump, volatile though he is, wasn't provoked into such statements by violence directed at him and his supporters. Self defense or the defense of others is a legitimate defense, and while these lawless crowds of liberals burn down buildings, upset cars and assault innocent citizens, the anger at their kid-glove treatment continues to grow. The question needs to be in all these criminal cases
