[Winstonm]

Here is the give and take with Donald Trump during the first Republican debate. The question was about donations.

Quote

Q: You've also supported a host of other liberal policies, you've also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business related favors. And you said recently, quote, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.

TRUMP: You better believe it... I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system.

Q: So what did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

Quote

TRUMP: I'll tell you what. With Hillary Clinton, I said, be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice! Because I gave.

Bernie Sanders on Face the Nation was asked about this exchange and said: (emphasis added)
Sanders: I think that the Citizens United decision, which allows billionaires, as Trump mentioned, to pour huge amounts of money into campaigns, to allow the Koch brothers to spend more money — an extreme right-wing family — to spend more money in this election cycle than either Democrats or Republicans, is a disaster for American democracy. And do I think that the people who make these contributions, huge contributions, do it out of the goodness of their heart or do they want something? Of course they want something. Now the problem is it’s easy for Trump to say, I don’t need that money, yea, because he’s a billionaire. But the logical consequences that the only people who can run for office in America who don’t have curry favors are billionaires themselves.

Added to President Carter's recent statement that America is now an oligarchy one has to wonder if democracy in America has been Trumped?

[billw55]

I wish people would stop taking Trump seriously. Like several other candidates, he has adopted the recent trend of using a fake and/or obviously hopeless presidential candidacy as a marketing gig, enabled by a mountain of free publicity from the slobbering media. He can say any stupid thing he wants, because he isn't serious and knows he is just going to drop out later.

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2015-August-17, 09:20, said:

I wish people would stop taking Trump seriously. Like several other candidates, he has adopted the recent trend of using a fake and/or obviously hopeless presidential candidacy as a marketing gig, enabled by a mountain of free publicity from the slobbering media. He can say any stupid thing he wants, because he isn't serious and knows he is just going to drop out later.

Disagree. Someone leading all primary polls deserves to be treated seriously - it does say something about the primary and its voters, no matter how unlikely the candidate is to win.

[cherdano]

P.S.: If you are so sure, you can make about 8% profit at the various betting markets betting against a Trump nomination. At current interests rates, 8% is pretty good interest, so why aren't you?

[blackshoe]

"Who owns America?" That's easy. China.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2015-August-17, 12:38, said:

P.S.: If you are so sure, you can make about 8% profit at the various betting markets betting against a Trump nomination. At current interests rates, 8% is pretty good interest, so why aren't you?

As I understand it, such betting markets are legally unavailable to me. Also, 8% in 10 months is good but not great.

Offer me that in two months, and make it legal, and I would not hesitate. Meanwhile, I will wager all my internet forum pride with you right now

[gwnn]

Wolf PAC is trying to change Citizens United through state legislature.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

4 states down, 5 states half-down, 33 needed in total as far as I understand. I know kenberg said that such an amendment will never get passed (the rich folks might want to bribe the last few states needed or whatever) but I hope he's wrong.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2015-August-17, 14:52, said:

Wolf PAC is trying to change Citizens United through state legislature.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

4 states down, 5 states half-down, 33 needed in total as far as I understand. I know kenberg said that such an amendment will never get passed (the rich folks might want to bribe the last few states needed or whatever) but I hope he's wrong.

as do I, but ... he is not wrong. Look at the "progress" table in the wikipedia page. Not a red state in sight, and won't be anytime soon.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2015-August-17, 15:02, said:

as do I, but ... he is not wrong. Look at the "progress" table in the wikipedia page. Not a red state in sight, and won't be anytime soon.

As far as I recall, they got a lot of Republican support as well in the states they did pass it. Of course a Republican state senator in a blue state might be different than one in a red state, but it is encouraging that at least some of the time it did pass in a bipartisan way. And the activists are really bipartisan, now if only the politicians could be the same.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2015-August-17, 14:52, said:

Wolf PAC is trying to change Citizens United through state legislature.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

4 states down, 5 states half-down, 33 needed in total as far as I understand. I know kenberg said that such an amendment will never get passed (the rich folks might want to bribe the last few states needed or whatever) but I hope he's wrong.

Did I say that? I say so many things!

I see that it passed the lower house in Maryland. I had not noticed. Correction: A resolution supporting the idea of an amendment has passed. I went to the Wolfpac site and I gather that they have not yet settled on exactly what the amendment should be.

Since this would be the 28th amendment, and I had no idea what the 27th amendment was, I looked that one up. I found that "It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789. The amendment became part of the United States Constitution on May 7, 1992, following a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days". So clearly I should never say never.

[kenberg]

About Donald.

He doesn't want to be president. I doubt that he wanted Hillary at his wedding. Would you want to be president" Would you want Hillary at your wedding?

He likes to show that he hast the power to get Hillary to his wedding, and he likes to show that he can drive a lot of people up a wall with his candidacy. He enjoys this. He has absolutely no wish to be president.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2015-August-17, 16:35, said:

About Donald.

He doesn't want to be president. I doubt that he wanted Hillary at his wedding. Would you want to be president" Would you want Hillary at your wedding?

He likes to show that he hast the power to get Hillary to his wedding, and he likes to show that he can drive a lot of people up a wall with his candidacy. He enjoys this. He has absolutely no wish to be president.

None of us can 'know' what the Donald wants, but it does seem pretty clear that he is a narcissist. My own take is that he would love to be 'President of the United States of America'.

I don't think he'd like the workload, and he might do a Sarah Palin and quit partway through his term. Which would be good news-bad news....getting the Donald away from the nuclear trigger would be good, but who the heck is he going to have as his V-P????? Probably someone even less competent.

Anyway, how much work does it take to run for President?

The hardest work seems always to be going to fundraising events. Trump doesn't need to do so. Preparing for debates is, for most candidates, a herculean task, with all kinds of advisors doing practices, and making sure to memorize talking points, etc. Trump doesn't seem to bother with that stuff.

Making rambling speeches or issuing 1900 word 'policy papers' doesn't take much preparation...heck I think I have posts longer than 1900 words

I suspect that in many ways running for President is easier for him than being the star of his earlier reality show, and the one he is starring in now is so much more rewarding.

Meanwhile I suspect that he is greatly enjoying seeing himself leading the polls, and as long as he receives the adulation he needs, he'll keep running.

[kenberg]

The Trump campaign is really remarkable. As I get it, the sales pitch goes like this:


I am totally out for myself. I have ruined others. I have used bankruptcy laws to make billions. Any idiot who trusts me deserves what he gets. Vote for me for president.

Maybe it will work.

If it does, I doubt that any constitutional amendment will save our butts.

[gwnn]

Odds of 11.0-12.0 seem ridiculously high (the number 11 is too big, what's the expression then?) to me. I might bet on Trump with the intention of selling my bet later after a few other jokers drop out. I might double my money unless Jeb somehow gains some traction. But yea I'm not this betting godfather to go down that road. Somehow gaining money on Trump's popularity seems dirty to me.

[gwnn]

Why is someone turning up at your wedding such a big deal BTW? I'd assume tax breaks and various other stuff would come in more handy than accepting an invitation.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2015-August-18, 03:59, said:

Why is someone turning up at your wedding such a big deal BTW? I'd assume tax breaks and various other stuff would come in more handy than accepting an invitation.

That was my point. The couple getting married are the stars of the show. Invitees can come or not. Trumps point was not that "Hillary came to my wedding" but rather that "Hillary came to my wedding because I told her to". Me, I wouldn't want anyone to come to my wedding because I told them to come, or because I gave them some money. But I am not Donald Trump.
He wouldn't care if Putin came to his wedding, but he would love to be able to say Putin came to his wedding because he told him to.

I never watched his show.. I don't know what the guests or contestants or whatever they were did on the show or how they got fired. Some years back Trump and Merv Griffith, if I remember correctly, got into this public debate about who had beaten whom on some deal in, I think, Atlantic City. I read a couple of paragraphs and figured I didn't care. And I remember the great tabloid headline some years back during a divorce "Ivanna it all". Other than that, I have paid no attention to him.

So now he is here. Republicans, many of them, seem to think it right to try to out Trump Trump, or at least catch up to his views, whatever they are. This is a mistake.

[Winstonm]

I believe the most important point in all this is that only people like Trump, i.e., billionaires, can run where we the people can be assured that their votes are not compromised by the gigantic money given them by individuals or corporations to run for office. Citizens United vs FEC may well turn out to be the straw that broke the Republic's back.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-August-18, 06:36, said:

That was my point. The couple getting married are the stars of the show. Invitees can come or not. Trumps point was not that "Hillary came to my wedding" but rather that "Hillary came to my wedding because I told her to". Me, I wouldn't want anyone to come to my wedding because I told them to come, or because I gave them some money. But I am not Donald Trump.
He wouldn't care if Putin came to his wedding, but he would love to be able to say Putin came to his wedding because he told him to.

I guess it's a demonstration of their political influence, if they can get a rival to do something at their bidding. But does getting a rival to come to a wedding translate to being able to achieve something significant in a political or international negotiation? Just because Putin might come to a wedding, does that mean he would also give up on annexing Ukraine?

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2015-August-18, 09:51, said:

I guess it's a demonstration of their political influence, if they can get a rival to do something at their bidding. But does getting a rival to come to a wedding translate to being able to achieve something significant in a political or international negotiation? Just because Putin might come to a wedding, does that mean he would also give up on annexing Ukraine?

I agree entirely. I was by no means saying this is a good feature of Mr. Trump. I think that he takes great pleasure in being able to command others. Some wish to take command in order to accomplish something, hopefully something worthwhile. I think that for Trump the satisfaction is in commanding someone, never mind with what purpose beyond making them obey his whims. Come to my wedding. Why? Because I told you to.

As mentioned, I don't think he wants to be president. Even he would, well maybe, feel a sense of responsibility if he became president. He enjoys doing what he is doing. Lots of fun (for him) and not likely that he will ever have to actually tackle the job.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2015-August-17, 16:35, said:

He has absolutely no wish to be president.

If true, that would make him the number one candidate IMO.