Despite NY Win, It Was a Bad Week for Trump

Townhall.com ^ | April 22, 2016 | David Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

Despite his big win in New York on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has had a pretty bad week. But will it matter? It should -- and just might.

During an NBC "Today" show town hall Thursday, the host read a question from Twitter concerning Trump's views on LGBT issues and how he plans to be inclusive as president. "Speak about North Carolina bathroom law in particular."

Trump responded: "I had a feeling that question was going to come up, I will tell you. Well, look, North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they're paying a big price, and there's a lot of problems. ... North Carolina, what they're going through, with all of the business that's leaving and all of the strife -- and that's on both sides -- you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble."

In response to a follow-up question, Trump said he would not support putting new bathrooms in Trump Tower. "I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way."

These politically correct answers from the alleged king of political incorrectness have to be music to the ears of Democrats -- not only those far left enough to agree with Trump's view but all others because they know this will alienate Trump from the tons of Republican voters who recognize such lunacy. Perhaps Trump should have been more forthcoming about his true New York liberal values.

Before you buy into Trump's inevitable walk-back of this disaster, remember how he began his answer: that he had anticipated the question. I'm not sure whether that should be more damning than if his answer had been purely spontaneous, revealing his true feelings apart from political calculation, but it's greatly troubling either way.

Trump says he is concerned about the strife and "the economic punishment (North Carolina is) taking." But it seems he also sees the issue from the perspective of adult men who want to use little girls' bathrooms. Has he even considered this from the perspective of the parents of these girls and all other sane people who don't feel comfortable sharing bathrooms with people of the opposite gender?

Who thinks like this, other than a candidate pandering to new constituencies? Who actually believes that prohibiting grown men from using little girls' bathrooms is discriminatory against the transgender community rather than against the 99 percent of people who have always had the comfort of going to public restrooms without the fear that people of the opposite gender could invade their privacy? Isn't protecting public safety one of government's chief duties?

It will be interesting to see how Trump's infinitely forgiving fans explain this one away or whether they'll even bother to try. I get it; all they think about is unfair trade and "the wall," so maybe they'll explain why Trump wants to tear down public bathroom walls.

Also on Thursday, Trump said he would support raising taxes on the rich, which should concern all economic conservatives who support reducing taxes across the board to stimulate robust economic growth. It should also concern Trump's defenders who believed he was standing by the tax plan posted on his website, which includes a cut to the top rate, from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

Those convinced that Trump has few ideological moorings and an inclination toward liberal positions are vindicated -- again. No matter what written plans Trump has proposed for use in his campaign, his instincts are to support the liberal position on many issues. And for those who buy that he's made a strong conversion from his previous liberal ways, you should know that there has apparently been no change in Trump's views about taxes since 1991, when he testified as a Democratic expert witness and described Ronald Reagan's tax cuts as "catastrophic."

Those who still believe in the sincerity of Trump's conversion to conservatism should be aware of the other bombshell that exploded this week in Camp Trump, which may be the most troubling of all.

In a private meeting aimed at reassuring concerned GOP leaders about Trump's positions and electability in a general election, Trump's "chief lieutenants" reportedly told them that Trump has been "projecting an image" up to this point in the primary season and "the part that he's been playing is evolving" in a way that will make him more palatable to general election voters. How utterly comforting.

Trump's new campaign guru, Paul Manafort, reportedly told Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities -- a private one and another one when he's onstage. "When he's out on the stage, when he's talking about the kinds of things he's talking about on the stump, he's projecting an image that's for that purpose. You'll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You'll see a real different guy."

So his own campaign chief just comes right out and says Trump has been playing a role -- pretending to be someone he's not? This is just incredible stuff, folks.

For the life of me, I don't understand how Trump's most ardent supporters can feel comfortable relying on his always-shifting promises -- even on immigration. Those who still feel comfortable about his candidacy baffle me.

Yes, Trump won his liberal home state resoundingly, but looking back, this could be one of his worst weeks of the campaign.

[Fantasywriter]

Well I don’t know about lefties in general, but I do know this. The leftists in the press back down pretty quickly when someone stands up to them. I don’t know if you remember McCain singing ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’? The MSM went berserk, accusing him of being a warmonger and of joking about the death and destruction caused by bombs.

McCain mocked them viciously [apart from picking Palin, it was his only strong moment in the campaign] and they slunk away like whipped puppies.

That happens every time. When a conservative—or in McCain’s case a RINO—points out that the MSM is stupidly overreacting—or stupidly placing the interests of illegals above those of citizens—the press lapses into shame-faced silence.

Why more conservatives don’t learn this lesson is beyond me.

[XenaLee]

What does that have to do with Trump? He’s the one we should be focusing on now, right?

[Agamemnon]

Maybe you should ask the approximately 70% of our fellow FReepers why they're on the same side as I am.

So you say you have taken a poll of FReepers you think you know and you have learned that 70% of FReepers have no problems with businesses boycotting NC for affirming the privacy, safety, and traditional expectations of those who use single sex public bathrooms?

And your same poll shows that 70% of FReepers you think you know have a lack of concern for the privacy, safety and traditional expectations for those who use single sex public bathrooms as they appear in NY York City and in Trump Towers specifically, because Donald Trump himself doesn't care for privacy and safety of those who use his bathrooms?

As a mere 2-3% of the population, you homosexuality enthusiasts are well known for inflating your statistics, but claiming that 70% of FReepers endorse the proclivities of such a minority at the expense of the normative majority, and at the same time care nothing about a civil government affirming a basic right to privacy tells me that 70% of the FReepers you hang out with might find their soul mates with perverts.

You should introduce yourself to "dynoman." He posts stuff here on FR from "Chicks with Dicks" sites. Maybe that's just how the two of y'all roll.

"Trump just said it's OK if transgendered men share the bathroom with daughters, granddaughters" post #137

Now, the two of you may be a lot of things, but you have no core values that resemble true conservatism. Opportunistic values that enjoy the fruits of conservatism, maybe, but you have no core values which sustain conservatism.

It is evident that that the 3 out of the 4 total FReepers you know at all on FR who are as perverted as "dynoman" comprise that 70% figure that you nonsensically claim, but then again, now you are just known by the company you keep.

Better hurry, newbie. You and "dynoman" are late for your foam party.

[Georgia Girl 2]

If you think this was a bad week for Trump wait til next week when he wins 5 primaries. :-)

[CodeToad]

[LS]

All votes are based on faith. I have no faith that Cruz can accomplish anything, because I have no evidence he has. So far, Trump had built stuff, made money, as an anateur run for president on a shoestring budget and embarrassed the pros, so the evidence is, he can do a helluva lot more than St. Ted of Calgary.

[Agamemnon]

If you think this was a bad week for Trump wait til next week when he wins 5 primaries. :-)

The real question is, will he love you in the morning?

FReegards!

[Mike Darancette]

The evidence is that Donald can run for US president not be a US president.

[exDemMom]

But with all you say you know who is, none of that seems to bother you. No, Cruz, the 97% consistent conservative bothers you.

Cruz bothers you because his consistency holds up a mirror to your own inconsistency. That is what makes you uncomfortable about Ted Cruz and makes a lot on this Board uncomfortable about themselves, and I understand that you all don't like that.

Cruz bothers me because he is a caricature. He has selected certain traits that he deems to be "conservative" and exaggerated them, played them up, to convince more emotionally driven voters that he really is conservative. On top of that, he expects conservatives to swoon over him solely because of his conservative persona, while he fails to demonstrate that he has any skills or experience that would actually qualify him for the job.

I do not like fakes. I grew up in CA during the hippy movement--believe me, I saw more than my fair share of phonies, and developed an intense dislike of them. That Cruz is pretending to be conservative by putting on an exaggerated veneer of the same conservative stereotypes that the media constantly mocks tells me that he has no real understanding of conservative values. Furthermore, his action in CO--crowing about a "win" that looks like cheating--does not fit the behavior of a man who is truly principled and conservative.

Right now, the media is mostly focused on taking out Trump, since he is the only real challenge to Clinton or Sanders, and threatens the political/media cabal. However, do not kid yourself that the media's current silence about Cruz will remain if Cruz should (God forbid) become the nominee. The media will crush him. Suddenly, his fake "principled conservatism" will be evidence that he wants to install an authoritarian theocracy. Since he never did deny the National Enquirer story about his alleged trysts, the media will trot that out, too--and they won't be inclined to cover up bimbo eruptions the way they did for Bill Clinton. The media will attack him hard, and he won't be able to deflect the attacks because he doesn't have Trump's skill with handling the media. And so on. Even if Cruz were genuine, he wouldn't have a chance.

[LS]

So he’s de facto doing a better job of that than St. Ted of Calgary.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Time to prepare to accept dirty Teddy’s eminent departure from the race. I’m just the messenger. :-)

[Agamemnon]

Suddenly, his fake "principled conservatism" will be evidence that he wants to install an authoritarian theocracy.

"Authoritarian theocracy?" Is that what truly principled conservatism is to you these days? You might not really be quite so "ex-Dem" as you pretend.

Cruz' conservative creds are impeccable, longstanding, and accomplished with and a string of significant victories long before he was ever in this race. Trump's gotten his conservative "religion" conveniently just in time for a run for the Presidency -- his biggest ego rush yet.

To learn of your phony hippy roots doesn't surprise me at all. I opposed your types back then when you were all just getting high and shooting up your drugs, and smoking-up all your "Purple Haze."

All that greasy bandanad slop-talk self-righteousness "peace" and "love" gave Southeast Asia was 5 million dead in Pol Pots killing fields in Cambodia, and the lost generations of Vietnam and Laos + 58000 American lives. So you think you know a phony now, do you? Like, "takes one to know one" kind of familiarity is it?

I countermarched your commie anti-US military "Moratoriums" in Washington, DC back in 1969 and marched in 3 Marches for Victory in Vietnam in Washington, DC in 1970 an 1971. My own core conservatism predates this site by almost 35 years.

I've seen the fighters and the phonys over 50 years in the conservative movement and can the smell posers a mile away.

DT is no conservative and he doesn't claim to be, but all the lemmings on this site line right up behind him as he tries to elbow his way to this nomination. All I have to say is be careful for what you wish for. If he gets the nomination I suspect he'll turn on the lot of you so fast it will make your collective heads spin.

You cling to "the image" you desperately want him to be, and willfully choose to ignore the real man that you know he is and by your own admission has actually been all along - the bombastic, debate-ably principled NY media hound lib.

This past week gave you another (unsurprising) glimpse at the politically correct push-over that he really is at the core of his comb-over.

Get ready for more of the same.

Who knows, by the time this is all over and after another string of just-can't-help-stepping-in-it-himself liberal gaffes you might be changing your screen name to ex-Trump.

FReegards!

[exDemMom]

"Authoritarian theocracy?" Is that what truly principled conservatism is to you these days? You might not really be quite so "ex-Dem" as you pretend.

Please, try practicing reading comprehension. Here is what I said, in full context:

However, do not kid yourself that the media's current silence about Cruz will remain if Cruz should (God forbid) become the nominee. The media will crush him. Suddenly, his fake "principled conservatism" will be evidence that he wants to install an authoritarian theocracy.

Taken in context, it is clear that I was describing how the media will characterize Cruz, not stating my opinion. I know this because I have observed the media for decades and seen how they fawn over the spirituality of a leftist who mumbles something about going to church on Sunday, but then go into full fear-mongering mode about the upcoming totalitarian theocracy we're headed for if a church-going Conservative happens to win an election. If you pay any attention at all to the media, you should know for yourself that this is how the media behaves. They do it to dissuade people from voting for a conservative, because it works.

To learn of your phony hippy roots doesn't surprise me at all. I opposed your types back then when you were all just getting high and shooting up your drugs, and smoking-up all your "Purple Haze."

Wow, talk about twisting around what I said into something that does not even resemble the truth. I was a child in the 60s when all of that stuff was going down--that alone should pretty much tell you I was an observer, not a participant. And as an observer in the middle of that environment, all I saw was phony fakery on display. So I recognize it when I see it. Cruz is a phony. He is as phony as all of those hippies pretending that they were building some kind of peaceful utopia.

And don't even think about trying to paint me as anti-military. I have spent my whole adult life closely affiliated with the military, either as active duty or as a military spouse. You are jumping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. For all of your claims of how you marched in anti-anti military protests, have you ever put YOUR life on the line? Have you ever had one of YOUR relatives deployed to a combat zone? I have.

Throughout all of the responses you have given my posts, you have jumped to conclusions, put words into my mouth, and made completely false characterizations about me. Obviously, it is impossible for you to engage in an intellectual conversation. It is not surprising that you support Cruz, because he specifically tried to emotionally manipulate people into supporting him, without offering any concrete reasons why he is better for the job than anyone else.

Why do you think Cruz's campaign slogan is "TRUSTED"? It is because people who want to scam you put a lot of effort into telling you to trust them. They cultivate a soft, smooth voice (i.e. oily voice) and constantly tell you how trustworthy and honest they are. I much prefer Trump's slogan: Make America Great Again. Cruz's campaign is all about him; Trump's campaign is about the American people.

FYI, being conservative is about more than just praying all day and going to church at least once a week. If that is all being conservative is about, then I know a lot of leftists who are far more conservative than most of the conservatives that I know. Being conservative is a holistic philosophy--do you believe people can make better decisions about their lives than some bureaucrat in some distant capital? Do you believe the economy works best when the government interferes the least? Do you believe that illegal immigration is a drain on our economy and hurts everyone, including the illegal aliens who are being lured here? Etc. A lot of issues go into being conservative, but at its core, conservatism is about believing that ordinary people are capable. And, honestly, I have not seen Cruz display true holistic conservatism at all. Beyond making a big effort to caricaturize a couple of media-defined conservative stereotypes, he hasn't done too much. And he hasn't demonstrated any skills or experience that would indicate he would actually be able to do the job expected of the president.

Try to stop reacting emotionally and look at the situation intellectually. Cruz lost, because a lot of people saw in him everything I described. Trump is winning, because people see his living, everyday conservatism--not your narrow definition of conservatism, but a holistic definition. And Trump is not a fake.

[Ohioan]

If you think making an exception for a girl who has been raped is a "-abortion" stand, you are very, very sadly misguided. That myopic lunacy defeated two otherwise Conservative Senatorial candidates in a recent election.

You do not help our cause by adopting a form of myopic tunnel vision, that shuts out all other considerations, in trying to make a point. You do not elevate the case against killing unborn babies, by insisting that the life of a possibly completely innocent young girl, who has been raped, be effectively sacrificed because of the resulting effect of her having been victimized. There has to be a balancing of interests in any decision. To ignore that is to embrace fanaticism over reason.

And your other "examples" of imagined Trump positions are even more misleading. You are imitating what Trump's remaining Republican opponents are serving to the gullible.

[spacejunkie2001]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[SaveFerris]

The TDS is strong with this one........

[Ohioan]

Your response in #175 clearly demonstrates my point in #174.