Questions for The Donald
Here’s your campaign manager:
she has so many advantages. She has endless money, she has a lot of the media,
Let’s focus on that money advantage. Hillary plans to spend a billion dollars or so, as far as I can tell.
You’ve said this election is important:
[T]heir agenda is to elect crooked Hillary Clinton at any cost, at any price, no matter how many lives they destroy. For them, it’s a war. And for them, nothing at all is out of bounds. This is a struggle for the survival of our nation, believe me, and this will be our last chance to save it.
Question: How much does your campaign plan to spend in total? How much of that will be money raised from donors?
Most importantly:
How much of your $10 billion fortune are you willing to devote to saving your country from ruin, and how much are you setting aside for a possible TV network project after the election?
I’m guessing that you are willing to devote about 1% or 2% of your wealth to saving America. Is that right?
PS. Your manager stated that she did not expect widespread voter fraud. Is she right?
PPS. Tell me the truth, was this all a secret plot to elect your good friend Hillary, who you used to claim would be a fine president?
PPPS. Do you still believe in these comments, from 2013:
I’ve long been a believer in the “look at the solution, not the problem” theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability. . . .
The future of Europe, as well as the United States, depends on a cohesive global economy. All of us must work toward together toward that very significant common goal.
Is “leaving borders behind” sorta, kinda, a little bit like open borders?
PPPPS. I see the latest poll out of Utah shows McMullin at 31%, Trump at 27% and Clinton at 24%. His odds of winning Utah have surged to 33%. (Perot came in second in Utah, BTW). I’m changing my endorsements as follows:
Vote Hillary in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina and Florida, McMullin in Utah and Idaho, Johnson in all other states.
If it looks like Hillary will win, vote for a GOP Congress.
HT: Peter
Tags:
19. October 2016 at 16:24
I like this one from National Review. Any replies/comments to this?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441126/donald-trump-conservatives-should-vote-president
19. October 2016 at 16:39
I can’t imagine why anyone would want Republicans to remain in control of anything. All of the Trump Republicans should be cast out of office. Let the Republican Party get wiped out, and then maybe over a couple of election cycles some responsible Republicans can begin to get elected.
We need a responsible opposition to Democrats. That’s not what you’ll get from this Republican Party.
19. October 2016 at 17:19
Massimo, It’s sad to see an intelligent conservative assume that Trump believes the same things as he does.
Scott, I agree that we need a responsible opposition, and that the GOP is not it.
But better than no opposition at all. Imagine if Hillary could do anything she wishes.
19. October 2016 at 18:06
I saw that McMullin was polling at 22% in Utah last week with only 51% of voters knowing who he is. So he’s getting ~44% of those who know he’s an option. I expect McMullin to win Utah.
19. October 2016 at 19:00
I certainly don’t want the Democratic Party careening too far into the Jeremy Corbyn direction. However, even that sort of stagflation and general incompetence is better than Trumpism, because at least it’s not so negative, by inciting violence for example, and it isn’t literally trying to undermine the legitimacy of elections.
I would prefer that on domestic policy, Democrats were more like Tony Blair, and Republicans more like David Cameron. I don’t think either was good on foreign policy though.
19. October 2016 at 19:18
I’m guessing that you are willing to devote about 1% or 2% of your wealth to saving America. Is that right?
how much do you think he is worth ?
Anyway… That’s more than he pays in taxes..
19. October 2016 at 19:50
I would be good with GOP house but not GOP senate. Should GOP have the Senate, would any appointees ever get confirmed?
I don’t agree with a libertarian talking point that it’s good if government has trouble functioning. Particularly lower court seats are important for speedy trials. Even for hearing civil grievances, basic common law for civil disputes goes back to the pre-Revolution colonies.
19. October 2016 at 20:08
On Trump’s wealth, something new I learned today: Paris Hilton grew her inherited wealth faster than Trump. That’s even using $4.5 billion as Trump’s wealth, which I think is vastly overinflated.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/paris-hilton-is-better-at-business-than-donald-trump-is/
The Frontline report on the election had an interview with a banker who had lent Trump money. Basically, the only reason Trump did not have personal bankruptcy was the bankers thought Trump was “worth more alive than dead” financially speaking. The idea of Trump symbolizing success was worth more to the bankers’ collateral than liquidating Trump’s personal assets.
The late-80’s spending spree symbolizes the mind of a child. As simple as that. Since he is so opaque about his liabilities, I would not be surprised if his true wealth is really in the 100’s of millions range. He had a wealth of precisely $0.00 in the early-90’s, living on a $450k/month allowance from the banks. Then what wealth he does have is the $10’s of millions per year he has earned from licensing and entertainment.
19. October 2016 at 20:15
I’d much rather prefer Donald Trump as president and a Democratic Congress. I suggest voting for Donald J. Trump and a Republican Senator in all states except Utah, in which I endorse Trump and that transgender Senate candidate.
In any case, Hillary Clinton showed Herself unqualified and vastly incapable of leading on foreign policy. She is pro-al-Qaeda, pro-ISIS, and dangerously, shockingly McCarthyite and Russophobic. All Russian-Americans watching (excluding the neocohens) have been pushed into the arms of Trump by Clinton’s extreme McCarthyism and Goldwaterite recklessness.
19. October 2016 at 20:24
Fun fact:
S&P500 spiked 4 points the same minute Trump said he wouldn’t respect the results of the election. Futures were entirely docile for the rest of the debate.
19. October 2016 at 20:27
“Imagine if Hillary could do anything she wishes.”
-I.e., imagine Hillary winning. Fact: if Clinton wins, she can do anything she wants. Same with Trump.
19. October 2016 at 20:28
Great debate we had tonight! One candidate wouldn’t promise to concede if he loses and the other didn’t bother denying that her campaign has been starting riots at her opponent’s rallies.
19. October 2016 at 23:06
How stupid are the American people?
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fgztvildyo/toplines_yougov.pdf
The Russia policy one (and trade and immigration being Trump’s winning issues) is depressing.
19. October 2016 at 23:11
The republican party or whatever right leaning party that replaces it has to do is abandon the lazy nihilistic prior that they all they need to do is destroy…. And then natuer will automatically rebuild in the awesome pure way we know the world to want to be ….
” break the back of the bureaucracy…or shrink the government down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub”…..
A vitaly conservative movement is not obsessed with killing things…it is obsessed with making things lean and mean…
till you abandon your death cult….you anti got a futer…
20. October 2016 at 03:43
Is Scott going to do a “The Fed is a Sous-vide Machine for NGDP” response post to Alex Tabarrok, or is that kind of done to death these days?
20. October 2016 at 04:25
Trump is an ignoramus, a blowhard, a liar. However, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that he’d be worse for the country than Hillary.
As David Gelertner, argued, at least Trump is impeachable and removable.
20. October 2016 at 05:28
I actually would like to see Democrats regain control of both houses for the purpose of passing immigration reform. I think they would be the most likely party to draft immigration reform that would have a positive impact on the economy – we need more skilled workers and immigrants to help off set the coming demographic challenges.
This is of course with the assumption that there will be a political backlash in 2018 and Democrats would lose in the mid-term. But who knows, maybe they will do a wonderful job and everything will be awesome and win in a landslide ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
20. October 2016 at 06:03
Bill, You asked:
“how much do you think he is worth ?”
About 1 billion.
Matthew, You said:
“I don’t agree with a libertarian talking point that it’s good if government has trouble functioning.”
I agree, I hope they stop blocking appointments.
As far as Trump, he would try to bankrupt America with an insane fiscal policy, just as he bankrupted those companies. Fortunately, Congress would not let him do so.
Saturos, He’d have to indicate whether he was talking about RGDP (I agree) or NGDP (I don’t agree) before I could even comment.
JMCSF, Immigration reform is coming either way (and I also favor it.)
20. October 2016 at 07:37
@Patrick: LOL, elect the one who you then have to impeach. Maybe the Reps can nominate someone better next time instead. Either one of these two is a one-termer for sure.
20. October 2016 at 07:39
Listening to the debate is very depressing. Neither candidate has a clue to what the real problem is with the economy. In my eyes, we have two economies, one that has made impressive productivity increases and contributes to increasing standard of living…and one that has made zero productivity improvements and sucks all the gains from the other economy into it. The second economy is education/healthcare/government. The democratic solution is to find new sources of money to shovel into it. The republican solution is to assume that supply side incentives that work well in the first economy will work equally well in the second economy if we just double down on them.
Spending a lot on solar panels may be good for the earth, but is not going the “stimulate” the economy. The energy sector is already incredibly productive. Making college more affordable should mean finding a way to reduce the cost, not just subsidizing it’s inefficiency. Increasing the minimum wage is just going to push the first economy to find even more ways to reduce payroll (which as an engineer, I’m loving, but I fear the loss of entry level jobs does to society ..), there are not that many minimum wage jobs or low skill jobs in the second economy (some home health aids maybe)
20. October 2016 at 08:44
O/T: The “Trump Effect” on public opinion about immigration:
http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2016/10/20/trump-effect-amnesty-now-much-popular-voters/
20. October 2016 at 11:50
Tom, I keep telling people that Trump is going to bring us amnesty. After Trump loses, the GOP will recoil against Trumpism. There will be a deal.
20. October 2016 at 16:01
You know, I wondered if Trump’s campaign might have that kind of effect, like what happened in California with Prop 87 and how it ruined Republicans there. Perhaps we’ll see a less extreme version of that in the US generally.
20. October 2016 at 16:03
The imperative is: teach the GOP they must never, never unleash a Trump on us again. I don’t think gifting them both houses of congress accomplishes that. At most, I’d give them a 1-seat majority in the House. And even that is utterly undeserved. Or shall we return to flirtations with Treasury defaults again?
20. October 2016 at 17:30
Scott, you disappoint me. You quote: “We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability. . . .”
Somehow you forgot to finish reading the sentence. “leave borders behind” with respect to financial stability is obviously not the same thing as “open borders” with respect to immigration. Come on. You embarrass yourself.
20. October 2016 at 18:02
RM, You really disappoint me. When Hillary talked about open borders to those bankers, she was obviously not referring to immigration, she was referring to finance. And yet Trump interpreted it as immigration. And now you seem to take Trump’s side. The moron’s side. You really disappoint me. I had such high hopes for you RM, until I saw this comment.
Now I feel crushed. You really disappointed me. Please don’t do it again.
20. October 2016 at 18:20
Why are you bringing up Hillary’s speeches to bankers? I didn’t refer to them, nor do I know much at all about the content of them, nor are they relevant to my point. Your claim is that the quote is supporting open borders. The quote supports no such thing.
You’re letting your personal distaste for Trump cloud your judgement. No reasonable reading of that quote should lead one to believe that Trump favours an open borders immigration policy. Furthermore, you’re making quite the assumption by claiming that I’m taking Trump’s side. I’m not taking Trump’s side; I’m simply saying your claim is incorrect.
21. October 2016 at 12:35
RM. I guess you haven’t been following politics recently. Trump’s been making a big deal about Hillary’s support for open borders, in the speech to bankers. I thought my readers were well-informed, and would immediately get the reference. I guess in your case I was mistaken.
I was in no way implying that Trump favors open borders, just showing how ridiculous his criticism of Hillary was, on that point.
21. October 2016 at 16:18
Scott. Consider two quotes:
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
“We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability”
A plain reading of the former quote, despite Clinton’s claims, should not lead any reasonable person to believe that she’s referring to open borders only with respect to energy. The reference to energy is clearly in addition to the previous goals. I.e. “We want X and Y and Z”. This is especially obvious with the reference to the “common market” ala the Eurozone. In fact, the quote would make no sense whatsoever if it only referred to energy. What exactly does “open trade and open borders in energy” even mean? The phrases “open trade” and “open borders” would be redundant.
In contrast, the latter quote very obviously attaches the caveat “when it comes to financial stability”, and no sensible person could possibly read that as a statement having anything to do with immigration policy.
You’re trying to draw an equivalence between these two quotes when there is none to be had. They’re referring to totally different things. I’m just showing how ridiculous that equivalence really is.
22. October 2016 at 19:10
RM, I hope hope you are joking, the alternative is too depressing to contemplate.
This especially silly:
“This is especially obvious with the reference to the “common market” ala the Eurozone. ”
Just go away.