Posted on 11/15/2015 4:13:36 PM PST by SamAdams76
There was some discussion on another thread regarding the fact that Donald Trump should not be trusted as our Republican nominee due to the fact that he donated a substantial amount of money to Democrats over the years.
This is a valid concern, especially as it is becoming more likely that Trump will be the nominee. And as a Donald Trump supporter, it concerns me as well. So I thought I'd put the facts out there and throw this open to discussion.
Trump himself has been asked about this and his responses can be distilled as follows: In his line of work, which in large part entails building and acquiring properties in New York City, which is mostly controlled by Democrats, it was necessary for Trump to donate to both parties, especially to Democrats, in order to get business done. Further, Trump goes on to say that this is why he is self-financing his own campaign, as he does not want to be beholden to campaign contributors as they have been beholden to him over the years. This is something that Trump hopes to change should he get into office.
Many here will probably not buy that and they will state that Donald Trump should not be our nominee because he cannot be trusted, having supported Democrats in the past. Others here will state that the past is the past, that Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat and that this did not stop him from being one of the greatest conservative presidents in our history.
So can Trump be trusted as Reagan was?
To use football parlance, I decided to go to the tape. Below is a chart showing Donald Trump's political contributions each year since 1989. Up until 2010, it appears that Trump gave more or less equally to both parties and in some years, clearly gave more to the Democrats. However since 2010, not only has Trump only given to Republicans but his donations have greatly accelerated.
During the 2011-2014 period, Trump donated nearly $500,000 to Republicans while giving zero to Democrats. This appears to be more donations that the total Trump gave during the 1989-2010 period (21 years).
Now granted, that might not sit will with some folks here either as folks like Mitt Romney and John Boehner representee Republicans during that time.
This all said, we must consider the future of the Republican party and conservatives in general. Are we looking to win the hearts and minds of those who once voted for or donated to Democrats? Or we willing to forgive those who may have supported GOPe in the past such as Romney or McCain? Or do we need to turn our backs on them because they are not pure and cannot be trusted? If we take the latter course, the conservatives may be doomed to minority status, I fear.
Speaking for myself as a Trump supporter, I concede that Ted Cruz is the superior conservative in this race. But I'm not convinced that Cruz can win the nomination and then the general. I would love to be proven wrong on that and I would happily support Cruz should he get the nomination. But as of right now, I believe Trump is the best chance we have to keep a GOPe lightweight like Jebbie Bush or Marco Rubio from getting the nomination and then winning decisively next November against the Democrat.
Below is the graph of Trump donations to both Democrats and Republicans since 1989. I'm looking at recent history and giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. But I'm interested in the opinions of others.
How can anyone state anything about Trump trying to warn people against making a big mistake in the voting booth, without being called a "Trump basher," in your book?
So I guess what you want is for everyone to only sing the praises of all candidates, happy flowers and gold stars everywhere, all nice and pretty?
Or do you want serious discussion of candidates, of avoiding repeating things like voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger? Isn't that Arnold bashing?
What do you want -- for all discussion about Trump's flaws, to stop? Do you say the same to those who bring up Cruz's flaws in discussion?
Thank you! Some actual sense.
Warren Buffet does! Let's elect him!
I'm thinking that the cost of doing business for the signers of the Declaration of Independence was to go along with the Crown, but they refused and instead put political principle above financial gain.
So, by the way, did the woman in England just arrested for putting on her facebook page that she would no longer welcome Muslims at her beauty salon. She was arrested for being "racially abusive" (though since when Islam has been a race is beyond me, I must have missed the memo) and her words were: "Sorry, but time to put my country first."
Donald Trump was putting financial gain first so recently as to help put Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy in office. Does it matter how many Republicans he also helped, when he used his own hard-earned money to advance those political tyrants to advance his own bottom line?
This wasn't 20 years ago. It was recently enough that everyone should understand clearly the risk they are taking by investing so much faith in a man, Trump, with ZIP RECORD of political commitment, direction, or vision.
Let me tell you how it is in New York. In NYC, we often have a contest between two Democrats, one of whom is much farther left than the other. When the general comes around, sure, there’s a Republican, usually one who doesn’t have a chance of winning.
In the rest of the state, we sometimes have had a Democrat who is farther to the right than the Republican. Not sure Upstate matters that much as far as Trump is concerned, but the statewide offices matter.
Our City Council races in NYC are important, since they vote on laws and regulations. Not just the mayor. How they stand on agencies like the Landmark Commission and many other things, like zoning, affect real estate interests.
The Democrats did this in increments. First they increased the size of the City Council enormously, supposedly to have more minority representation. Then they keep voting for increases in the matching funds, which apply to everyone but since there are almost exclusively Democrats running, the party gathers more and more taxpayer money.
They could write the textbook on how to establish one-party rule.
Of course all the handouts help their cause, and NYC has many needy among the better-off. The unions have had a stranglehold as well—mostly Democrat.
So please don’t condemn Trump for having to survive here and make his businesses work.
Plus, maybe most important, money rules, probably more than in most other places.
There -- now I agree with your statement. Trump is a six-it-with-better government kinda guy who belongs in today's GOP.
Let independent fix-it-with-less-government Cruz run against the Republican Trump. The Republican party left us and betrayed us long ago. Trump will do the same to all who vote for him, so leave him in the right party. :^)
When is the last time you voted for a Republican politician who for 21 years, spent as much money to advance the election of Democrats (more, actually) as Republicans? Who is the last Democrat politician who for 21 years donated as much to Republicans as to Democrats?
Well, I’m glad I’m not Dr. Carson.
Good post.
Finny has given you an excellent answer to this.
Yes. He's a mastermind... or something. Just stop thinking so much and you'll feel better.
You’re not paying attention to what I wrote. That’s OK, tho.
I don’t think so, but none are so blind as those who will not see.
Yes you should really open your eyes to the developing cult of personality surrounding your recycled liberal icon.
Who says I am voting for Trump? Not I.
As for political donations, living in a large Democrat controlled city and being involved in business interests it is not unlikely that a vast majority of the people who I know are Conservative have given numerous donations to Democrat politicians. Most spread it around and layer it thick to the Dems as they are significantly more corrupt.
Everyone buys Hillary ... the Chinese, Arabs, and Trump... there are woman like that...
You’ll like this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3361530/posts
Media: Jeb Bush want’s a no-fly zone in Syria?
Trump: When did ISIS get airplanes?
Media: You can’t build a wall?
Trump: I build things, that’s what I do - watch me!
Media: You’re going to deport 11 million people. You’ll need a “deportation force”.
Trump: What does I.C.E do?
And on and on it goes. Simple cut-to-the-chase responses with total fearless ownership of any downside from a policy proposal.
Media: But you used to be a Democrat, you have donated to Democrats?
Trump: Yes, I live and work in New York. NYC is all Democrats, if I need to leverage assistance for my company goals I need to work with Democrats. It’s a business necessity; I look out for my employees and their best interests.
Media: But you had Hillary Clinton at your wedding?
Trump: Yes, it was an amazing event, the best, the biggest, the most elegant, and I asked her and Bill to attend. They did. Wouldn’t you, I mean if I invited you?
Media: You spend all this time talking about polls. You seem obsessed by polls?
Trump: Yeah, that’s because I’m winning them. If the polls were not good, I wouldn’t even mention them. Duh.
When you compare how Trump owns the so-called “negatives”, you immediately recognize they are only negatives if he allows them to be. Thus, he doesn’t let them be issues - he owns them, and says “yeah, so?”
Trump has spent decades with Park Row media types. He has never avoided them, he totally understands how they operate - and more importantly “why”?
The most stark contrast is Donald Trump when contrast against others in the race like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Like Trump they all have historical issues and/or policy proposals with severe downsides. However, unlike Trump - Bush, Rubio and Cruz keep trying to play the game of avoiding their history (as if it doesn’t exist) and downsides from policy.
Imagine if Jeb Bush said: “hey, I know Super-PACs are a bad idea, but without them I wouldn’t stand a chance”.
Imagine if Marco Rubio said: “hey look, the reason I supported the gang-of-eight was because I was a freshman senator and their offer made me feel superior, like I was an important and influential member of the Senate - it was a massive ego boost”.
You’ll like this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3361530/posts
Media: Jeb Bush want’s a no-fly zone in Syria?
Trump: When did ISIS get airplanes?
Media: You can’t build a wall?
Trump: I build things, that’s what I do - watch me!
Media: You’re going to deport 11 million people. You’ll need a “deportation force”.
Trump: What does I.C.E do?
And on and on it goes. Simple cut-to-the-chase responses with total fearless ownership of any downside from a policy proposal.
Media: But you used to be a Democrat, you have donated to Democrats?
Trump: Yes, I live and work in New York. NYC is all Democrats, if I need to leverage assistance for my company goals I need to work with Democrats. It’s a business necessity; I look out for my employees and their best interests.
Media: But you had Hillary Clinton at your wedding?
Trump: Yes, it was an amazing event, the best, the biggest, the most elegant, and I asked her and Bill to attend. They did. Wouldn’t you, I mean if I invited you?
Media: You spend all this time talking about polls. You seem obsessed by polls?
Trump: Yeah, that’s because I’m winning them. If the polls were not good, I wouldn’t even mention them. Duh.
When you compare how Trump owns the so-called “negatives”, you immediately recognize they are only negatives if he allows them to be. Thus, he doesn’t let them be issues - he owns them, and says “yeah, so?”
Trump has spent decades with Park Row media types. He has never avoided them, he totally understands how they operate - and more importantly “why”?
The most stark contrast is Donald Trump when contrast against others in the race like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Like Trump they all have historical issues and/or policy proposals with severe downsides. However, unlike Trump - Bush, Rubio and Cruz keep trying to play the game of avoiding their history (as if it doesn’t exist) and downsides from policy.
Imagine if Jeb Bush said: “hey, I know Super-PACs are a bad idea, but without them I wouldn’t stand a chance”.
Imagine if Marco Rubio said: “hey look, the reason I supported the gang-of-eight was because I was a freshman senator and their offer made me feel superior, like I was an important and influential member of the Senate - it was a massive ego boost”.
brilliant
 Well Said!! Well Done!! |
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.