Posted on 11/11/2015 12:26:56 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
During last night's Republican presidential debate, the Wall Street Journal's Gerard Baker made a critical mistake: He tried to pin Donald Trump down on policy specifics. In this case, it was about trade policy, a subject about which Trump evidently knows very little.
Baker asked the billionaire "which particular parts" of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal he objected to. If he were familiar with the deal, Trump could have raised any of several issues. Instead, he continued with the same word salad about China that he has been issuing forth since long before the TPP had been negotiated and published.
"If you look at how China and India and almost everyone takes advantage of the Untied States - China in particular, because they are so good, it's the number one abuser of this country. If you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation. It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000 page agreemen...If [TPP] is approved, it will just be more bad trade deals, more loss of jobs for our country. We are losing jobs like no one's ever lost jobs before. I want to bring jobs back into this country."
It took a clear-headed Rand Paul to bring some reality back into the conversation.
"Hey, Gerard?" Paul interjected. "We might want to point out that China's not part of this deal." The crowed roared with laughter as Trump shrunk before their eyes. (Never mind the fact that Trump had just accused India of currency manipulation - perhaps making him the first person to do so at least in the last decade.)...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“I saw only one light weight candidate on that stage tonight and it was Donald trump.”
I wouldn’t call someone a lightweight who stands alone against amnesty, while being ridiculed by Kasich and Bush for it. He not only didn’t waver, he stood even more firmly talking about the unfairness to all those waiting-a point often ignored. Eventually Cruz joined in, but never did talk about amnesty, so we still don’t know what his stance is.
With Trump, you know his position. With politicians, they can talk for 10 minutes, sound brilliant, yet you never know their position.
That statement is NOT found in the article. So, your post to me is nonsense. The wife was bashing Trump on a topic she did not research.
“Building a wall on the Mexican border is not enough.”
And Trump is the ONLY candidate to go further, by deporting the illegals. All the others will let them stay, which is amnesty.
Caving to their donors, no doubt.
I might be wrong about Jindal, he might not be for letting them stay. But I know that all on the main stage have except Trump are.
“For Trump, and for many of his supporters, knowledge and facts are not all that important.”
You Cruz supporters are evidently so insecure in your candidate’s abilities that you have to slander Trump and his supporters in order to maintain an even mental keel.
Would it be possible for once that a Cruz supporter can say, “I like Cruz” and state the reasons and leave it at that?
Whatever you have to say about Trump, you will have to admit that he has been unusually successful in what he sets out to do, much more than his detractors.
You get out there and duplicate his achievements and then you can hold court on the state of Trump’s knowledge with more credibility.
Get your own links.
What is Ted Cruz’ plan for the illegals here?
He talked around it, sounded brilliant, but was not specific. While Trump came out shooting straight with a clear position.
I’ve researched articles and interviews and Cruz is deafeningly silent on his position. I think it’s his bug money donors.
There are great consequences with a candidate not beholden to anyone. You can trust what they say and don’t have to wonder if someone will change their minds for them.
Sounds like something John Kerry would say. It's pretty obvious that most of US diplomacy was sold to the highest bidder starting with Carter and Clinton. It is not fixable with trade deals that give more power to foreigners. It is not fixable period. Trump on the other hand would bypass "US diplomacy" and spell out terms to our adversaries like China.
So, only professional politicians can become POTUS? Well, they are doing a splendid job! INSANITY
It would have been fun to watch the candidates squirm to the moderator’s one question: Have you personally read the entire TPP?
“He came out last night against amnesty, his first specific. “
Actually he didn’t. I thought at first he did, and was very happy about it. But he really didn’t say one word about what to do with the millions here. What he said was brilliant and would be great if we didn’t have an existing invasion.
But he offered no plan for those here. He could let them stay, which is amnesty since they’d be forgiven for breaking our laws and would cut in line ahead of those waiting in line. We really have no idea. But he sounded brilliant;(
AMEN!!
The Oval Office isn’t a dictator’s seat - Trump would have the Bully Pulpit but he’s so unscripted, I expect the world would “bypass” us.
“Would it be possible for once that a Cruz supporter can say, “I like Cruz†and state the reasons and leave it at that?”
Apparently not on this site!
Sad because the man himself is a class act. You’d think they’d want to emulate that great quality instead of being reduced to using liberal tactics.
Good point. He has previously stated he would give them legal status, which is amnesty.
Every one of your comments in this thread contains some sort of myth. The cause of the great depression was mainly monetary excess. The crash was 1929 and protectionism came in 1930. Furthermore trade would have declined precipitously without any protectionism.
Has he? Well, crap, there goes that.
I thought he’d make a great VP, but not now. It’s hypocritical to talk against illegal immigration like he did last night yet offer a plan including amnesty.
I’ve gladly escaped 2 ruined border states and LOVE living in the US now. I don’t want my home ruined again.
And that's bad how? The rest of the world is busy pretending to save the world (while doing the opposite). The Europeans for example have moved their manufacturing to China more than we have. There's an economic war going on and we need an economic warrier, not John Kerry II.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.