Republican Candidate Poll

[Spicoli]

Trump is his own corporation and lobbyist donating and greasing the palms of any and all of those same politician who can benefit his corporate interests and investments. The guys a con man with redundant punch lines and zero specificity. The only difference between he and the politicians he mocks like a 10 year old with bitter beer face is that Trump will tell you your baby stinks rather than hugging it for the camera like the rest. Republicants can do better..they better, for the sake of all of us.

[brocktonblockbust]

Both parties should be able to do to do better than Donald Trump. However this is how far down on the American political climate well that's a stage has become or has descended. Ross Perot would have been much better then Donald Trump I think.

[greynotsoold]

I favor Cruz and Rand Paul because they are strict Constitutionalists.
Of the two I prefer Paul. Partially because of his father. Mostly because Libertarian Girl has a crazy sexy tattoo on her right thigh.

[brocktonblockbust]

I would have voted for Ron Paul. I don't know what happened with that campaign he had all the right answers and was a very strict constitutionalist. I don't know as much about his son as I knew about him

[Kirkland Laing]

Another Donald Trump interview:

I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it's sitting on our backs. Their products are better because they have so much subsidy. We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren’t for us. Our "allies" are making billions screwing us.

[...]

It doesn’t sound like a good deal to me. They have totally outsmarted the American politician; they have no respect for us, because they're getting a free ride. Of course, it's not just the Japanese or the Europeans- the Saudis, the Kuwaitis walk all over us.

[..]

Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world--

[...]

What's the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval Office? Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I'd throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country and on all Japanese products, and we'd have wonderful allies again.





https://thecorporateculture.com/2015...-25-years-ago/


Except that interview is from March 1990. Trump thought America was weak and being laughed at around the world after eight years of Reagan and a few months after the Berlin Wall had come down.

I've got more to say about Trump, Sanders and the 2016 election tomorrow. I will just say though that it's impressive how politically engaged the American people are over the problems they face compared to Europeans and their problems. Trump may not be the answer but at least they're looking for answer god bless them. A President Trump might not be the worst possible outcome in November, at least it would advance the conversation somewhat although probably in the same old bifurcated way where righties believe Trump failed because he wasn't conservative enough and we get a timid centre-left liberal replacement.

[walrus]

Trump will face a major issue if he doesn't come in first in Iowa etc. One of his biggest campaign slogans is " I'm number one"

[Kirkland Laing]

The latest polls say he's within three points of Cruz in Iowa. Cruz is going to get the traditional Iowa evangelical vote to turn out for him but Trump's strategy is to bring out people who have never voted before. If they're willing to turn out for a couple of hours on a freezing cold night in January -- and they've stood in line for hours to get into one of his rallies -- then he could blow the field away. Even a strong second is good as he's miles ahead in new Hampshire and the next state is South Carolina which was so pissed off at the establishment in 2012 that they voted for Newt Gingrich.

A strong second for Trump is probably more than enough to keep the ball rolling. If he does do that or better and then wins New Hampshire (which is a must-win for establishment guys like Bush and Rubio) then you'll see full on panic in the GOP establishment.

Trump has a much bigger chance of beating Hillary in the general than is generally believed too. There are issues that Trump has campaigned on -- trade, the money being made by Wall Street and taxing them more, strengthening social security and medicare, immigrants taking American jobs, America's crumbling infrastructure and so on that Hillary has a lot of weaknesses on for various reasons. Trump can hammer all these issues and market himself as a problem solver not a Washington native and he'll attract a lot of blue collar/union votes from the Democrats. He's also got the Clinton baggage from the nineties to go at. Trump would I think be a far more electable candidate than Cruz would be in the general. Just not a candidate that the GOP establishment want.

[Kirkland Laing]

You know what, Trump could run Hillary so close that a faltering economy in 2016 -- there's the definite possibility of things getting really bad before November -- and Trump could be taking the oath this time next year.

[Kirkland Laing]

As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.


Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.


A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything..............


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...=top-news&_r=0

[walrus]

As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.


Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.


A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything..............


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...=top-news&_r=0

This is unfortunately small potatoes compared to the financial shit these assholes pull lately, and forever.

[Kirkland Laing]

As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.


Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.


A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything..............


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...=top-news&_r=0

This is unfortunately small potatoes compared to the financial shit these assholes pull lately, and forever.

Not with the orange supremacist though. He's got his own money. He's going to give all the lads at Goldman Sachs a nice big tax bill too. That doesn't appeal to you?

[walrus]

As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.


Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.


A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything..............


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...=top-news&_r=0

This is unfortunately small potatoes compared to the financial shit these assholes pull lately, and forever.

Not with the orange supremacist though. He's got his own money. He's going to give all the lads at Goldman Sachs a nice big tax bill too. That doesn't appeal to you?

If he took a low interest loan on his own money, declared it on one statement but not the other, I don't see a major issue. Its not like the Clinton charitable fund.

[Kirkland Laing]

As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
“Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports.


Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.


A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.
Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used.
The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything..............


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us...=top-news&_r=0

This is unfortunately small potatoes compared to the financial shit these assholes pull lately, and forever.

Not with the orange supremacist though. He's got his own money. He's going to give all the lads at Goldman Sachs a nice big tax bill too. That doesn't appeal to you?

If he took a low interest loan on his own money, declared it on one statement but not the other, I don't see a major issue. Its not like the Clinton charitable fund.

So telling voters you sold all your assets to fund your campaign when in fact you got the money loaned from a firm with a reputation for buying politicians isn't hypocritical then? It's definitely a lie.

And people running for dogcatcher manage to fill in their financial declaration forms correctly. How the hell can you forget about a one million dollar loan? Cruz is just another bullshitting politician. And he's Canadian.

[walrus]

Agreed his a bullshitting politician but they did finance, albiet favorable, their own money. NYT runs this hit pieced but fluffs every Clinton piece. Makes me wonder. There is no doubt that Cruz is american. If I were born outside the us by a legal citizen, I am american. John mcain was born in panama, did we hear this shit then.

[Kirkland Laing]

Agreed his a bullshitting politician but they did finance, albiet favorable, their own money. NYT runs this hit pieced but fluffs every Clinton piece. Makes me wonder. There is no doubt that Cruz is american. If I were born outside the us by a legal citizen, I am american. John mcain was born in panama, did we hear this shit then.

The NYT have published several articles just recently that were completely inaccurate hit pieces on Hillary Clinton including one that said she was now the target of a criminal investigation by the FBI. This made headlines all over America for a couple of days and then was quietly retracted. The article about Cruz being given millions in loans and then lying about it and not publicly declaring the loans is entirely accurate though.

McCain was born on a US military base which is American territory. Lawrence Tribe, emeritus professor of constitutional law at harvard says Cruz may very well not be an American citizen. Tribe is the top law expert in the country and taught constitutional law to a bunch of prominent Americans including the current US Supreme Court Chief Justice, Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.

I have to say that if you'd told me ten years ago that America would soon elect a Kenyan president and follow it by electing a Canadian president I wouldn't have believed you. But now there's a good chance that a Mexican-Canadian could be elected US president in November.