Donald Trump is gonna take a stab at the presidency, he thinks he can win the GOP nomination, And he thinks he can beat Barack Obama! He said this on the highly informative, non-biased "news" and entertainment show Fox and Friends (ugh, I hated typing those words!!)"
"I think I probably have more experience of anybody [in the GOP field] — whether I sell them real estate for tremendous amounts of money. I mean, I’ve dealt with everybody. And by the way, I can tell you something else. I dealt with Gaddafi. I rented him a piece of land. He paid me more for one night than the land was worth for two years, and then I didn’t let him use the land. That’s what we should be doing. I don’t want to use the word ‘screwed’, but I screwed him. That’s what we should be doing."
PLUS.. he's going all out to secure the looney tunes base of the rethug party by claiming to be a BIRTHER!! He is "just not convinced Obama's birth certificate is legit, he is not convinced Barack Obama was born in Hawaii"! This supposedly "smart" man is saying President Obama and the state of Hawaii fabricated Obama's birth certificate, and the Honolulu newspapers fabricated his birth announcement in 1961, in order to help elect Obama by fraudulent means 47 years later!
Eeeegads, how embarrassing is THAT??
Now Michele Bachmann has decided she will form an exploratory committee because she's thinking of putting her name in the hat for Prez. of the USA. Accomplishments please Michele?? Got any?? I mean besides forming a teabagger caucus and studying the Constitution and American History 101 (LOL!). Yikes, super embarrassing for sane moderate republicans....
Actually I believe Bachmann is trying to fill Sahara Palin's red patent leather high heels. Palin has been kinda quiet lately, 'course she has been on a whirlwind trip around the globe. Hmmmm, maybe she is running and needs to bone up on her world leaders.
Seriously people, the list of potential GOP candidates for POTUS is the worst I have seen in all my years of voting. If liberals are asking what the hell happened to the republican party, you gotta believe the common folk righties are asking the same thing.
Trump??? Bachmann??? Paw...Paw...Lenty??? ick..... Christie, Huckabee.....Jindal...Gingrich...Cain...
53 comments:
Gary Busey may announce if this trend continues..
hey stranger! Maybe Willis, Maybe!! LOL
If I run on the Republican Ticket, will you support me? I am not going to run unless there is enough interest.
I think I can beat these guys, and I suspect someone will step up and blow them out of the water.
I guess you view Cain as the best of the worst since you put him at the end of your list.
Trump is a self promoting egotistical arse. While I questioned Obama's qualifications to lead this nation with his limited experience and flawed philosophy as to governance, I question as well the motives and qualifications with Trump.
As an independent conservative (not a republican which I ain't) the best thing that could happen for Obama is if Trump gets the nomination.
We don't know who will get the GOP nomination, but I'm pretty sure we know who will NOT:
Trump
Palin
Bachmann
Cain
Barbour
Huckabee
Palin hit another homerun of ignorance while in Israel when she labeled the decades long crisis on the West Bank as a "zoning issue."
Her stupidity never ceases to amaze!
Charlie Sheen or Mel Gibson might have a shot at it.
Seriously, the Republican establishment must be in a tizzy trying to figure out how to stop Palin. She's got so much baggage and is so unpopular outside her base of teabag-fruitloop fans (a shrinking portion of the right wing) that she's vanishingly unlikely to win the general, but a lot of serious analysts think she'd have a very good chance of getting the nomination if she goes all out for it.
Bachmann could even save the Republicans by splitting the nutjob vote in the primaries.
I can't see Trump getting anywhere. Too much of a clownish image, too many people out there with stories about him who'd come out of the woodwork.
But who else is there? Gingrich? He'd be rightly pilloried as a family-values hypocrite. Romney? The fundie base won't vote for a Mormon. Barbour? Too tainted by racial flubs.
I'm with Shaw. It's easy to see which ones aren't viable candidates, but when I try to think of who is, I'm pretty much drawing a blank.
Har, har, har. I love it. It's like watching a bunch of circus clowns piling out of a little car.
I'm not sure Palin is running, maybe why we are seeing so much of Bachmann?? Palin's not tough enough, she knows liberals and the media will slaughter her. She'd be so tongue tied she wouldn't know her ass from her head.
I forgot to put Romney in there, how could I forget him? That magic underwear story from the book of Mormon will probably be enough to scare away the electorate. Beck's a Mormon, the press will have to equate the two.
A party who had no better than GW Bush to nominate has gone downhill from that disaster. I don't think there is a soul who can bring them back. Maybe Jesus? Was Jesus a republican? Oh hell NO, what am I thinking. Jesus was a socialist...
Wow.... strange tales from the Gold Mine...... this crap just gets deeper and deeper..... & check out this Indiana Repub and how he suggested the Wisconsington Governut could win media support...
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/03/25/the-high-stakes-labor-fight-in-wisconsin-gets-more-intense/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
WOW jimm!! Heres a bit of what's in the link....
Finally, there’s the story of one Carlos Lam. On Feb. 19, he sent Gov. Walker an email, lauding him for his stance against unions and offering a bit of advice. Drawing upon his 18 years of experience in politics, Lam suggested that Walker stage on attack on himself, perhaps by someone using a firearm, to discredit the union opposition.
What the hell is this idiot thinking?? DESPERATION!!!
go play in the highway lisa...
"She'd be so tongue tied she wouldn't know her ass from her head." Er, I wouldn't put that in the future tense.
Lam has been fired. Had he not been caught, he'd probably still be there.
Or maybe Lam resigned. Whatever, the same principle applies.
Is Clint Eastwood too old to run? He's in pretty good physical condition.
Olympia Snowe?
My buddy-boy, Michael Steele?
T. Boone Pickens?
Michael Bloomberg?
Trump
Palin
Bachmann
Cain
Barbour
Huckabee
With this fantastic brain trust Obama is laughing his ass off. Please I do hope Pretty Palin, Dizzy Bachmann, and Infidelity Patriot Newt run, while Obama has pissed me off several ways to Sunday with that crowd 2012 will be a breeze.
Who is a serious republican candidate? Romney?
none are serious cuz they know they can't beat Obama. Not one of them can.
I'd vote for Bloomberg in a millionth.
How can someone who can't even comb his hair properly (or at least put on a wig properly) be president? I say you gotta get at least that much right. As for the others, most are has beens and Michelle and Sarah are too stupid to know what an exploratory committee is - so no worries there. You're right, this is the crappiest bunch of Repubs in a long time.
Sue ~ I would take ANYONE from the republican list of possible candidates over the list of socialists/statists/anti-capitalists which are the Democrats of today...yes, that includes our current occupant of the White House.
I dunno Lisa G.
Remember that Fred Thompson idiot with his rented red pickup truck and cowboy hat? Rudy "911" Giuliani. McCain and Palin were the biggest pair of dufuses to run in our entire history. I'd say the republicans are fairly consistent this decade. Funny thing is they all seem to make Shrub look relatively smart and compassionate by way of comparison.
They can go balls out and nominate Paul or they can pretty much pack it up and go home.
FJ I agree, this group and all rethuglicans in Washington today do make the shrub look compassionate in comparison.Never have I seen such a mean-spirited selfish bunch of yahoooooos.
Linda you would because you're one of those who votes for God reasons. Your candidate must be an evangelical Christian or you don't vote, right??
will Bloomfield change the tax code Will? I'll vote for the person who makes the tax code fair and goes after the upper tier who get away with paying NO taxes while the middle class gets swamped.
Lisa G, Trump is one of those guys stuck in the 70's and needs a makeover on Oprah! God I would love to see that happen! LOL
Who pays no taxes, Sue? Yeah, maybe some big corporations have been sliding, but once the money gets distributed (as opposed to it simply being "on-paper" profits) in the form of dividends and salaries, the government taxes it.......I don't know if Mr. Bloomberg is in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6% or not. He's a pragmatist who wasn't opposed to raising taxes in NY, so, I'm assuming that he'd at least consider it.
Salaries are a deductible expense and therefore reduce a corporations taxable profit, and dividends, at least from US corporations, are taxed at only 15%.
Salaries and dividends do not excuse corporations from paying taxes. It is disgraceful when a corporation can earn 5.1 Billion dollars on US operations and pay no taxes. Even worse, this company claimed a tax benefit of 3.2 BILLION dollars.
In 2009, corporations contributed only 6.6% of all federal revenue, down from 30% in the 1950's.
Read more about it here.
I just posted this elsewhere, but to answer your question, GE:
Bill O’Reilly said today that GE earned five billion dollars last year and paid zero dollars in taxes. He repeatedly pointed out that GE is a “friend” of Obama. According to O’Reilly, GE supported Obama more aggressively than any corporation ever represented a candidate, and in return, O’Reilly implied, Obama permitted his corporate cronies to use tax loopholes that allow them to pay no taxes at all.
Mr. O’Reilly failed to state when these loopholes were created, or on whose watch. The reason is simple: how the loopholes came to be is irrelevant. The fact is Obama has been in office for more than two years, and he still hasn’t initiated a bill that says GE cannot take advantage of corporate loopholes. It is true that the Commander in Chief cannot initiate bills, but that really isn’t the point. The fact that neither republicans nor democrats have proposed the GE tax law is also irrelevant. Only one thing matters: Mr. Obama failed to create a law denying GE the right to take advantage of republican tax loopholes. Now GE is not paying any taxes because of Obama’s negligence.
There is certainly plenty of blame to go around on the lack of effort to close corporate tax loopholes. Some congressional democrats have tried, but have met strong resistance from republicans and lukewarm support from the White House.
Corporate power is strong in both parties, however they clearly have a much stronger hold on republicans than Democrats.
these are the 2 major problems I have with Obama. Tax loopholes and war. We should be seeing more effort from Obama on the tax or not to tax issues. It's something we must do and should have done years ago. We have talked about the fairness many times, Jerry talks about it all the time too.
We're under this impression that taxing corporations hurts "the rich". It does not. The big CEOs are going to get their money regardless. The taxes are passed on to consumers, shareholders, and employees. And the fact that businesses work so hard to avoid paying them - that's important time that could be spent more productively. If you want to help the economy AND sock it to the rich, eliminate corporate income taxes (or reduce them dramatically) and instead raise them on the wealthiest individuals.......And if you think that this is a "conservative" point of view, think again. Robert Reich also advocates it in his latest book.
actually Will, Reich debunks the republican lie "Cutting corporate income taxes creates jobs."
Baloney, Reich says. American corporations don't need tax cuts. They're sitting on over $1.5 trillion of cash right now. They won't invest it in additional capacity or jobs because they don't see enough customers out there with enough money in their pockets to buy what the additional capacity would produce.
Sue, I saw him say it (getting rid of corporate income taxes) on Larry Kudlow's show, too. Maybe he says different things to different people.
what he says in my comment, makes total sense.
Corporations do not pass taxes "on to consumers, shareholders, and employees."
The price corporations charge for their products is set by the demand for their products, not the cost of their products. If the demand is high, they can set the price high and make a big profit. If the demand is low, they have to set their price low to sell any. If the price is too low to support their costs, they go out of business.
Jerry,
Demand usually drives prices lower, not higher.
Corporations are not garage sales.
Demand in the absence of supply drives prices up, especially when you go to craigslist.
If corporations could have a total monopoly, this would not be as true, but with competition in place, that's just how it works. The higher the demand, the more players want to join the game and the cheaper it is to ship and produce the goods, which lowers cost, which happens to also lower the price.
Except for those two things, I agree with your last comment, though.
I do not wish to be contentious, as I am an idiot and incapable of debating my position.
Demand only lowers prices when the supply increases. If the supply does not increase, demand drives prices up, not down.
John said: I do not wish to be contentious, as I am an idiot and incapable of debating my position.
Who said this to you?, I must read it! That person is an idiot!
A $10 increase in the price of a computer or a $2 increase in the cost of a cell-phone isn't going to appreciably lower the demand for these products (people are still buying cigarettes, right?). And like John said, there aren't exactly a lot of mom and pop competitors out there. And what about the 401K folks out there who will be hurt by a reduction in these profits? No concern about them? Like I said before, the rich people that you folks so obviously hate aren't the ones who take the hit here. They're going to get their money by hook or by crook. Tax the individuals! That's the most sanitary (as in less collateral damage) way to soak 'em.
How about this? If we don't tax corporations, then they don't get "personhood". Eliminate the Citizen United decision. Prevent corporations from contributing to individuals or campaigns. No free speech issues for corporation. Congress can pass any laws they want governing what corporations can do.
No taxes, no rights. It is that simple.
Will,
So wanting the rich's tax rates to go back up 3 percent is “hating” the rich?
Then I suppose our complaint that corporations, who enjoy legal super personhood, benefit from our legal system, our public safety services, and pay no taxes, while bribing their way into more representation in our government leaving us lowly human being type citizens shut out of our proportion of representation...is "class warfare" on our part?
I know the Right loves to accuse the left of treason, class war, hate for the rich, communism, and serving the Devil, but their saying so does not make it true.
Shame on us. We should shut up and allow the Golden Rule, those with the gold make the rules. Divine right of wealth shall supersede democracy and lead us to neo-feudalism where we are the subservient serfs to our corporate lords.
Bingo, Jerry!!!! That's a huge part of the reason why Mr. Reich wants to do away with this tax. It'll possibly free us from future bad supreme court decisions. Youza!
Dave, if I haven't made this clear before, let me do so now. I am IN FAVOR of the top tax rates going back to 39.6% (yes, I might raise the threshold up a little higher to $300-400,000 but, in principle, I'm saying). I'm just against some of these other rates that I've been hearing from the left; 60, 70, 90%. Those rates I think would be majorly disastrous.......And let me also remind you that most of the people who own stocks aren't wealthy folks. I mean, you have a 401K, right?
You cannot consider the number of people who own stock as the relevant question. How much stock do they own? If one person owns stocks in the millions and holds futures at any given moment in the multi-millions, that does not compare to 100 people who each own less than 100k in stock via a 401k.
By the way, not that this is totally relevant, but the rich long-term stock holders are paying less tax on their millions when they cash out than someone pays on his non stock income who grossed 34,000.01.
The long term capital gain "loophole" is a major source of lost revenue.
As the top marginal tax rates plummeted since the 30's, so did the long term capital gains tax. It all fell in such a way to empower the extremely rich and do much less for the less wealthy.
Actually, Will, in 2007 the top 10% owned over 80% of the stocks and mutual funds and nearly 90% of all investment assets.
Jerry, and the average income for the top 10% in 2007 was $113,000 a year. Don't tell me that you're going to start calling that rich now, too.............John, if you're saying that we should tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income, I agree, we should. I might index it for inflation but, other than that, absolutely, tax it at the identical rate.
Will,
It is funny. Short term capital gains, what I think is the minority, is taxed at the regular income rate. I don't see how we can allow tax write-offs for capital losses, which reduces taxable income, and so is a credit at the regular income tax rate, by definition, but then tax capital gains at 15%.
Capital gains are income. The difference is, I think, that long term capital gains in large amounts are always the income of rich people, and congress cannot tax the rich very much, or the rich people will get them fired.
So much for political courage amongst these folks, huh, John?
Will,
I was responding to our comment that "most of the people who own stocks aren't wealthy folks".
My point is that the people in the top 10% of income own over 80% of the stock and mutual funds. In other words, most of the stocks and mutual funds are own by only 10% of the people.
In fact "most people" own less than 20% of all stock and mutual funds. Most people being 90% of us.
Whether or not you are rich if you earn more than 90% of all people is another question.
But that 20% is a lot of money, Jerry, money that a lot of people end up relying on.
Will,
I think maybe we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the number of people who own stock, be it one share or one million shares. I am talking about who owns most of the stock. A few people own most of the stock. Lots of people own stock.
I agree that 20% is still a lot of money.
I'm for taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income. Does that help?
Post a Comment