Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Trump wrecks his businesses, loses big dough; that’s ‘smart’

USEconomy1

I’m still trying to understand this one, so bear with me for just a moment.

The New York Times has uncovered information that reveals a big business loss for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. He declared a loss of about $916 million in 1995, caused by the wreckage of some business ventures.

The loss allowed Trump, according to the Times, to avoid paying federal income taxes for the next 18 years. The Trump campaign hasn’t confirmed or denied the veracity of the report.

So … is this a case of Trump gaming the federal tax system? Or is it smart business practice, as his supporters are now insisting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Rudy Guiliani, one of Trump’s key advisers, defends the GOP nominee’s tax-paying record.

It’s a complicated story, full of economic nuance and wheeling/dealing with which I am patently unfamiliar. As the Times reported: “Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.”

It’s not yet clear, of course, whether Trump actually did avoid paying income taxes over the course of nearly two decades. My achy old bones tell me he probably took full advantage of tax law  to dodge the tax burden.

After all, he did tell Hillary Rodham Clinton during their first presidential debate this past week that it would be “smart” of him to avoid paying taxes.

OK, then. Let’s see those tax returns so we can determine for ourselves who’s telling the truth.

So wrong, so often on this election campaign

donald-trump4

Please pardon this bad rip-off of a famous poem, but … How many time have I been wrong about this election cycle? Let me count the ways.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning wouldn’t approve, but what the heck. I feel the need to atone for some terrible misfires on this presidential election campaign.

I take small solace — and it is small, indeed — in the knowledge that I am not alone in failing to shoot straight.

Donald J. Trump has confounded damn near everyone, first by grabbing the Republican presidential nomination this summer and then by making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I once vowed to never again make a political prediction. I should have kept to my pledge. I should have buttoned up my pie hole/typing fingers and called it good. Let others stick their necks out.

But no-o-o-o! I had to weigh in. I had to make an ass of myself.

I never thought Trump would be nominated. I never thought this novice politician with the very big mouth and even larger ego could wrestle the nomination away from the Republican pros.

Then again, I never thought Hillary would run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and I thought that Colin Powell would run for the presidency in 1996. Neither of those things happened.

With that track record, I still managed to stick my neck out on this campaign.

Once Trump got the nomination, I was dead certain Clinton would win in a landslide. She was destined to be president, kind of like the way Ike was destined in 1952 for the top job … after leading Allied troops to victory in World War II.

I didn’t anticipate Clinton’s flaws being such a drag on her candidacy. Nor did I envision Trump ever being able to get away with some of the hideous things he has said over the past year: John McCain is a war hero only because he “was captured?; the U.S.-born federal judge being a “Mexican”; his mocking of a reporter’s physical ailments; his suggestion that Mexico is sending “rapists, drug dealers, murderers” and other assorted criminals to the United States.

I never anticipated that his GOP base of support would hold as strong as it has done.

Moreover, I was so certain that Trump’s flaws were so egregious that I actually blogged that Hillary could win a 50-state sweep this fall.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

OK, with all of that out of the way, I am going to make another stab at fulfilling an earlier pledge.

I am — once again — declaring myself to be out of the political predicting game.

I lack the intuitive powers, perhaps even the intellect to try to guess what voters are going to do.

If you catch me falling off the wagon again, you are welcome to call the guys in the white coats. I won’t be silent. There will be more commentary to come. Just no predicting.

I’m just going to wait this spectacle out … and hope for the best.

Pastor baffled by evangelicals’ support of Trump

max-lucado

Max Lucado is baffled.

The noted Christian pastor cannot understand the fixation that many evangelicals seem to have with Donald J. Trump.

Amen, preacher! So am I! So are a lot of us out here!

Trump’s support among evangelicals goes against the norm, said Lucado. Republican presidential nominees previously have had at least had a working knowledge of Christian theology, said Lucado.

Trump doesn’t have it. Nor does he have any semblance of a record devoted to doing the Lord’s work, Lucado writes.

Here’s what Lucado told National Public Radio, for example:

“I’m curious why we’re giving him a free pass on this behavior. Typically, evangelicals have tried to hold our leaders up, if they call themselves Christians, to a standard consistent with the faith and then of course consistent with whatever office they hold. But it seems like we’re more than willing to give Mr. Trump a free pass. The classic one was in Iowa when he was asked, ‘Do you ever ask for forgiveness of sins?’ and he said, ‘No, I don’t need to.’ I nearly fell out of my chair. That’s right at the heart and core of the Christian faith, that we’re all sinners, we all need forgiveness of sins.”

Here’s more of the interview:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/06/469371887/pastor-max-lucado-still-baffled-over-evangelical-trump-supporters?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

I have run out of ways to explain away the rationale of voters this year. I join Pastor Lucado in the crowd of baffled observers who cannot comprehend how — and why — this election has taken this turn.

I’ll more to say — probably quite shortly — about how wrong I’ve been to date in trying to predict the unpredictable about this goofy election.

Debate prep matters … it really does!

trumpclintonill927

Donald J. Trump blew it in that first joint appearance with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No doubt about it.

Now he’s got to ready for the next one. Will he do what he needs to do or will he follow his misdirected instincts and do what he seems to always do: ignore the best advice he can get?

Dan Balz, a veteran political columnist for the Washington Post, seems to think he’ll do the latter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-trump-shift-gears-in-time-for-the-next-debate/2016/10/01/92ac526c-87e7-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

Lessons learned from the first debacle seem to have gone unheeded by Trump, according to Balz. Contrast that with what happened when Barack Obama fell asleep during his first debate in 2012 with Mitt Romney. He thought initially he did well; then his staff told him otherwise. Obama listened, then got ready for the next one.

Trump, according to Balz, instead is relying on “Internet polls” that have told him he did just fine during that first encounter.

Keep thinking it, Trump.

This “unconventional” campaign of his worked well in securing the Republican presidential nomination. That’s because the base of his party was willing and ready to accept someone wholly unqualified, unfit and unprepared for the office he is seeking.

The rest of us know better.

Texas pulls out of refugee settlement program … more or less

tt-leadart-syrianref_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has made a political statement, which of course is no surprise.

He has withdrawn the state from the federal refugee resettlement program.

Here’s the deal, though. The feds are going to keep sending refugees to Texas, where they might be resettled but only after they’ve been vetted thoroughly to ensure they aren’t part of some evil terrorist network.

All of this begs the question for Gov. Abbott: What is the point — precisely — of the “withdrawal” from the refugee resettlement initiative?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/30/texas-officially-withdraws-refugee-resettlement-pr/

Abbott’s office cited security concerns. He doesn’t want terrorist infiltrating into Texas. Duh? Neither do I, nor anyone else, near as I can tell.

The feds, though, are running the Middle East refugees through a rigorous background check as it is … and no, we aren’t welcoming “hundreds of thousands” of refugees from the war-torn region, as GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump keeps insisting. President Obama announced a ceiling of 10,000 Syrian refugees, for example.

“Refugees will continue to be resettled in Texas only after extensive screenings are conducted by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security,” a spokesman for the Office of Refugee Resettlement said.

The fear campaign continues at full throttle, goosed by Trump and others who seek to terrorize Americans with the threat that we’re being invaded by throngs of crazed Islamic warriors bent on killing us all on sight.

Quite clearly, Gov. Abbott has accepted at least a version of that notion. It reminds me of when he ordered the National Guard to monitor the U.S. Army’s military exercise in Texas, apparently believing the garbage that the commander in chief might order a military takeover of Texas.

Trading with the enemy: Trump steps on his own toes

cuba-trump

Reports that Donald J. Trump did business with the hated communists in Cuba seems aimed directly at one of the last curiosities of this presidential campaign.

The Republican nominee for president has been winning over those staunch GOP conservatives who just can’t cotton to the idea of letting the Cuban commies off the hook for their repression.

Yet now come these reports that Trump’s business enterprises traded with the Cubans long before the Obama administration decided to lift the decades-old economic embargo against the government run by Fidel Castro.

How does that play with the staunchly anti-communist Cuban-American community in, say, Florida … where Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton are fighting furiously for the state’s 29 electoral votes?

One would think it wouldn’t play well at all.

One would think …

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-that-donald-trump-did-business-in-cuba-ups-the-ante-in-florida/ar-BBwSAK9?li=BBnb7Kz

According to the New York Times: “The question of whether Mr. Trump sought business opportunities in Fidel Castro’s Cuba is explosive not only because of how loathed the Castro government is among Cuban-Americans in the Miami area, but also because Mr. Trump has taken such a hard line against the Obama administration’s policy of normalizing relations with the island nation.

“As far back as 1999, in public at least, Mr. Trump called efforts to restore relations with Cuba ‘pure lunacy.’”

Pure lunacy? Reports suggest, though, that Trump spent $68,000 on a business trip to Cuba to explore business opportunities.

Trump, quite naturally, denies that the trip had anything to do with business development. Sure thing, dude. He’s also denied a lot of things despite being seen and heard — on the record — saying the very things he denies saying.“

Will this enrage Florida’s still-potent Cuban-American political community enough to turn them against Trump?

“This adds to the long list of actions and statements that raise doubts about his temperament and qualification to be president and commander in chief,” Clinton said Thursday.

If it’s lunacy to trade with the Cuban commies, then only a lunatic would do so. Is that a correct assumption, Donald Trump?

Nothing is ‘impossible’ with Trump

presidential-debate

I thought it would have been impossible for the 2016 presidential campaign to get any lower, more miserable than it has been to this point.

Silly me. I forgot about Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president. He has all but pledged to bring Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior forward as a campaign issue against the former president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The lesson apparently is that never put anything — anything at all! — past Trump.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-vows-attack-clinton-husband-sex-scandal-article-1.2813694?utm_content=buffercb642&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

He said Clinton can get “nasty,” but adds he can get “nastier.”

That appears to be his signal for what is to come.

I’ve wondered — in this forum and in conversation with others in the Texas Panhandle — what does Bill Clinton’s behavior have to do with Hillary Clinton’s ability to run the country?

Oh, I get it. Trump is going to assert, perhaps, that if she cannot control her husband, she cannot be expected to take command of the U.S. military, that she cannot become head of government, head of state, leader of the Free World. Is that it?

Well, it’s utter horse manure.

Trump knows it. I know it. You know it. Bill and Hillary know it.

That will not stop Trump from making an absolute ass of himself — in the eyes of those who haven’t already climbed into I fear we haven’t yet hit bottom.

Trump has introduced ‘The Issue’

clinton and trump

This thought just occurred to me.

Donald J. Trump’s “threat” to introduce former President Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity has done the job already. He has made the president’s dalliances — alleged and proven — an issue in this campaign.

Thus, he has lowered the bar of standards to new and disgusting levels.

Whether he brings it up when he and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton meet in their second joint appearance really is moot at this point. He’s done it already.

The media are talking about it. Trump, the GOP nominee, has told reporters that he is considering whether to raise the issue.

Therefore, the issue is out there. It’s on the table.

Here, though, is my question: How is this even relevant to the kind of job that Hillary Clinton would do as president?

I cannot discern any reasonable rationale for making this an issue in the 2016 presidential contest.

Then again, Donald Trump has defied reason and rationality all along the way en route to this point in the campaign.

Twitter storm shows Trump’s bizarre behavior

bbwq3gn

Let’s see if we can get this straight.

Donald J. Trump is in the middle of a fierce campaign for the presidency against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He’s got issues to discuss: trade, immigration, refugees, war and peace, geopolitical standing, jobs, the environment.

So what does he do? He wakes up at 3 a.m. and begins firing off tweets about a former Miss Universe who he said gained a “tremendous amount of weight.” He calls her the “worst ever” Miss Universe. He says Hillary Clinton has been “duped” by this young woman, Alicia Machado.

What in the ever-loving hell is this man thinking?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-on-trumps-miss-universe-attacks-unhinged/ar-BBwQ8Pw?li=BBnbcA1

Hillary Clinton said today that Donald Trump has come “unhinged, even for him.”

Do you think?

Before we cheer these endorsements, consider this …

newspapers

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rolling up some impressive support among the nation’s major newspaper editorial boards.

Let’s see: The Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, the Cincinnati  Enquirer, the San Diego Union-Tribune all have weighed in on Clinton’s side in her campaign against Republican Donald J. Trump.

All the papers mentioned have something else in common: They virtually never have endorsed Democrats for president.

Clinton also has racked up more endorsements from normally friendly editorial boards, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It’s impressive. But will it be decisive? Will these media giants’ editorial opinion on the merits of Trump and Clinton determine the electoral outcome all by themselves?

Trump has earned, all told, zero editorial endorsements from major newspapers. He might get a smattering of endorsements from papers of smaller size. As a point of personal privilege, I’m waiting to see how my former employer, the Amarillo Globe-News — which is owned by the very conservative William S. Morris family of Augusta, Ga. — weighs in on this campaign.

I pose the question about whether these endorsements will make the difference for a good reason. Let’s flash back to 2010.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was running for re-election. He faced a stout challenge from within his Republican Party from then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry defeated Sen. Hutchison handily in the GOP primary.

Then he faced former Houston Mayor Bill White, a conservative Democrat, in the general election. Perry then did something quite interesting: He declared he wouldn’t meet with any newspaper editorial boards. The governor didn’t need to talk to us ink-stained wretches. He’d talk “directly to the people of Texas.”

The result was that Perry got virtually zero editorial endorsements from newspapers around the state. Even the Globe-News, as reliably Republican-friendly as any paper in Texas, backed Mayor White.

What was the electoral result? Gov. Perry cruised to re-election. He barely broke a sweat while defeating White 55 percent to 42 percent.

Rick Perry knew how to win in Texas. He was first elected to statewide office in 1990 and was as familiar with the state’s political landscape as any politician anywhere.

I make this point to caution those out there who consider these media endorsements to be deal makers and/or deal breakers for the candidates involved.

There might be plenty of other issues that swing this election toward Hillary Clinton’s favor. I’m dubious, though, about believing that newspaper endorsements will be among them.

As my friends on the right are fond of reminding me: Newspapers don’t pack as heavy a punch as they did in the old days.