In Support of Donald Trump
Editor’s Note: In anticipation of Georgia’s presidential primary on Tuesday, GeorgiaPol will publish a series of essays in support of some of the leading presidential candidates. This essay is from Trump supporter Bart Brannon.
This presidential campaign began early as they seem to do these days with a crowded field of 17 hopefuls attempting to secure the GOP nomination. One man among the group managed to stand out from the outset even though he had never sought political office. Over the past few months, this one guy accomplished the unbelievable task of knocking off many well-funded candidates without a SuperPac or serious fundraising effort. He made outrageous pronouncements much to the chagrin of old school pols and media types who predicted his demise with each politically incorrect rant. Yet he survived, thrived and not only leads the field, he is dominating it like no other candidate in history.
When this election cycle began, I decided to support a different candidate, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. She was coming off a big loss to Barbara Boxer in a California senate race, but decided to shoot higher anyway. Her first debate performance solidified her as a viable candidate.
Unfortunately Fiorina went off the deep end in debate #2 when she tried an appeal to those in the GOP who think Planned Parenthood is a more pressing enemy than ISIS. The rest is history. She lost standing in the polls then finally bailed out after finishing a distant 7th in New Hampshire. Bye bye Carly. I along with many others became political free agents looking for a bandwagon with an empty seat.
After much deliberation, comparison and review, I decided to go with the guy described in the first paragraph. Donald J Trump, the man, the brand.
America needs a fixer, somebody who can re-brand this country after 16 years of slow to no growth, endless wars and financial disarray. We need a leader with the courage to risk his own livelihood as many of the Founding Fathers did when they challenged the status quo under King George III. We must have somebody willing to stand up to foreign powers, somebody who is determined to re-establish the United States as the leader of the free world. A leader who has a proven history of bold, visionary pursuits. Donald Trump is that leader.
As a voter, Trump is a high risk, high reward choice. Anytime you bet on a brand hoping the substance is as strong as the rhetoric you take a risk. Trump is taking a huge risk himself. If he fails, he could lose everything he worked decades to build into a multi-billion dollar business. He has incentive to succeed provided by his children, grandchildren, employees and the rest who would suffer if his brand is tarnished or destroyed by this run for president. That is a huge risk.
So in summation, I am choosing to vote for Donald Trump next Tuesday and doing so with enthusiasm. I truly believe we need an outside the beltway boost to overcome the issues facing our country. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are all the same; lifelong politicians selfishly seeking the next highest office as a means to enrich themselves financially while gaining power they never imagined having at their fingertips. Trump is rich already, has plenty of power but is willing to risk all of it in order to rescue the country that gave him the opportunity to get rich and powerful. That takes balls, just what America needs now!
About Author
Jon Richards
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
No. Not you too. He’s a vulgarian con man. He makes no sense when he talks. He has an infamous temper that belongs nowhere near a seat of power. He despises women, minorities, and even his own supporters.
Just because he can win does not mean he must win.
Would you say the same about Hillary who sold them out for speaking fees and donations to her campaign?
CoastalCat,
Are you really making a blanket statement that he ‘despises women’ when he has many women working top management positions within his organization?
I would argue women have a much better chance of being treated fairly in a Trump administration than say Rubio who thinks all abortion should be illegal including rape, incest and possibly life of the mother. To me that should be far more offensive to women than Trump referring to Rosie O’Donnell as a fat slob (or whatever he called her).
And they’ll be treated far better by Trump than by the Hildabeast who once made it her life’s work to destroy the women who made credible accusations against the horn dog she’s married to.
Has Chidi called our guest a fascist yet?
It’s news to me that Trump is risking his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor. News to him too I bet.
xdog,
I didn’t mention risking life although I guess that should be included considering the job he seeks. But he is risking his brand to make this run. Nobody else has that worry.
So does Trump earn 59 of Georgia’s ~77 GOP delegates, or will Cruz or Rubio win Congressional districts and reduce Trump’s total by one for each Congressional District that Trump doesn’t win?
“One man among the group managed to stand out from the outset even though he had never sought political office.”
Never? So I’m guessing this isn’t counting all the time he spent in 2011 “exploring” a Presidential run, while simultaneously positioning himself as the figurehead of a ridiculous political conspiracy theory about the sitting President?
“He made outrageous pronouncements much to the chagrin of old school pols and media types who predicted his demise with each politically incorrect rant.”
Note too that his demise was also predicted after he lied, repeatedly and egregiously. But apparently a lot of Trump supporters aren’t dissuaded by him being a colossal liar. Hillary Clinton lies to get ahead; Trump lies because he doesn’t seem to even care about the difference between truth and fiction.
“Yet he survived, thrived and not only leads the field, he is dominating it like no other candidate in history.”
Seriously? “Dominating it like no other candidate in history”? Should we take this as innocent historical ignorance, or an attempt to emulate Trump’s own style of bombastic BS?
“America needs a fixer, somebody who can re-brand this country after 16 years of slow to no growth, endless wars and financial disarray.”
Sounds like someone subscribes to the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency. That the President can fix the country’s problems by just willing them to go away.
“We need a leader with the courage to risk his own livelihood as many of the Founding Fathers did when they challenged the status quo under King George III.”
The Founding Fathers were risking not just their liberty and property but their lives and the well-being of their family members. Whereas like this post says, Trump is, at the most, risking his “brand.”
“We must have somebody willing to stand up to foreign powers, somebody who is determined to re-establish the United States as the leader of the free world.”
And the New York version of Silvio Berlusconi is the guy to make other nations *respect* the US more?
“A leader who has a proven history of bold, visionary pursuits.”
Office building, hotels, golf courses, men’s clothing, reality TV…yeah, some real “bold, visionary” stuff there.
That said, I can think of two examples where Trump attempted to be bold and innovative. One was when he invested in a team belonging to the upstart United States Football League, which, you may recall, folded and lost a lot of money.
The other is his aforementioned stint as the spokesman for various ridiculous Obama-related conspiracy theories. Which, I’d note, he now refuses to discuss, but also refuses to repudiate as being false.
“As a voter, Trump is a high risk, high reward choice.”
Admittedly, this acknowledges that Trump carries a high risk, but then skates right past that without considering the size or scope of that risk. The risks here include damaging important international relations, creating considerable domestic tension, and having an egotistic President who’s both politically ignorant and remarkably dishonest. And these risks are outweighed by him having a “brand” and “initiative”?
“Anytime you bet on a brand hoping the substance is as strong as the rhetoric you take a risk.”
“Trump University” is currently facing multiple class-action lawsuits alleging that it was little more than a multi-level marketing scheme. In other words, people took a risk on the rhetoric and the Trump brand, and they got taken advantage of big-time.
“Trump is taking a huge risk himself. If he fails, he could lose everything he worked decades to build into a multi-billion dollar business.”
Wait…how could he lose everything? Shy of actually destroying the entire American economy, how could Trump lose billions of dollars of real estate investments? And since he plainly doesn’t *believe* that’s a likely outcome, he can’t believe that he’s actually risking anything either.
“He has incentive to succeed provided by his children, grandchildren, employees and the rest who would suffer if his brand is tarnished or destroyed by this run for president. That is a huge risk.”
Again, I’ll point to his 2011 stint promoting Obama Birtherism. As that demonstrated, he clearly doesn’t *care* about risking his name or his reputation.
Y’know, when I saw the headline offering an editorial in support of Trump, I went into it with great interest. I wasn’t expecting to be persuaded to support him myself, but I thought I’d at least get a well-thought-out argument.
Instead I learned that Trump has a “brand” and “balls”.
I made the same point about Romney and Sen Perdue when they ran their races, and were attacked by politicians that they were not successful in business. Agree or not with Trump, like Romney and Perdue, they have all been very successful. All have had deals that were good and bad, but at the end they won way more than they loss. All used the BK laws and or threat of it, to help turn around bad deals, which is very common.
I do think it is very open game to question details on policy for all the candidates, but on a macro, they are all solid businessmen. This attack coming from the GOP only bleeds into a general, which distracts from real issues. Ironically, the attacks come hardest from candidates who have not made it in the business world, and lived off tax payers paid jobs.
Cruz and Rubio ripping Donald how he turned 40mm into on the low end 3 BILLION dollars ( hard assets) is laughable. Trump made the majority of his seed money in the real-estate business, and parlayed it into a brand that put his net worth between 3 to 8 billion. The largest variable being how much his brand is worth, which is always very negotiable in any business deal.
On this blog I have openly questioned Trump, on policy via lack of details, as well the other candidates on lack of details…especially on healthcare and immigration. But, in no way would I challenge his skills as a businessman, as well as Romney and Perdue. Laughable coming from Cruz and Rubio, who have never ran any real business.
How did we end up here? I’m sitting here thinking hard about who to vote for and out of so many choices, I don’t want to vote for any of them.
Cruz – I forfeit the right to say “shall not be infringed” really means “shall not be infringed” if I vote for someone clearly not a Natural Born Citizen. Heck, I don’t even think Obama is one due to his father’s citizenship. The last time I checked, Canada isn’t one of Obama’s 57 states.
Mr. Amnesty, er Rubio – Gang Rape of 8 bothers me greatly along with his willingness to collaborate with Sen. Schumer. His gun record is anti-gun. People have claimed that he quickly forgets what he campaigns on.
Trump – I’ve been looking forward to voting for him. But, in the last debate it occurred to me that he is superficial and very weak. I’ve read stories about him stiffing his suppliers and threatening to sue them. I negotiate contracts with wall street banks and some of the largest corporations in the world. Trump strikes me as very unskilled in negotiation. Without his deep pockets for lawyers, he would be nothing.
So what is a GeorgiaPol reader to do? Is it too late to hope Romney gets in the race? I suppose he could qualify for the later primaries in CA, NJ, NY, PA, etc. and suck up enough votes to get to round two of the nomination process.
UGH!
PS: Thanks to GeorgiaPol for allowing supporters of each candidate make their case.
CNN is reporting that Trump will not disavow the KKK.
As long as Trump is adored and lauded, he doesn’t care who is doing the hosannas.
If CNN is reporting that, it should be retracted quickly – http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-disavows-former-kkk-leader-david-dukes-support#.khWM8Xl2K
He’s (not surprisingly) changed his answer yet again. Friday. Disavow. Sunday. Well, let’s not be hasty…
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/index.html
Do you think this is a double standrard verse Hillary and Bill Clinton. In 2008 you know the Clinton family ran a rather overt racist campiagn against Obama. Bill Clinton, went as far as saying, ” Obama should of been caring his bags” rather than running against Hillary? They ran the 3 AM call add……I could go on and on….Is this not worse than timing of disavowing a semi-endorsement? Why I say semi, is Duke said he did not really agreed with many of the Trump policies, really only immigration….basically saying lesser of all type endorsement…..
John, it’s the freaking KKK. The KKK. This isn’t questionable campaign tactics. He will not disavow the KKK and David Duke.
How much lower can he go before he turns your stomach? How much more can he degrade the GOP before it is enough?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/
How much can you stomach? Washington Post confirmed the birther movement was started by Hillary? You do agree, by any measure the Clinton campaign against Obama was very racist?
I don’t click on Breitbart links. Anyone else with that report?
The origin of the email came from the Clinton camp when she was falling behind Obama. Combine this with the 3 AM adds, racist comments by Bill Clinton toward Obama during the same time period……Seems rather clear it was a racist attack from the Clinton camp against Obama.
…………According to the article, the theory that Obama was born in Kenya “first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”
The second article, which ran several days after the Politico piece, was published by the Telegraph, a British paper, which stated: “An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.”
Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote two and a half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”
Claims about Obama’s birthplace appeared in chain emails bouncing around the Web, and one of the first lawsuits over Obama’s birth certificate was filed by Philip Berg, a former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general and a self-described “moderate to liberal” who supported Clinton……….
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/02/fact-check-clinton-cruz-trump-birther/29631903/
CC,
Does it not bother you, Hillary never personally denounced Phil Berg?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html
This is a great history how far the Clinton group went to smear Obama with racist attacks. Btw this is from the left the Daily Beast. Linda Star has played hit woman for the Clinton’s in the past. Irronically, she dug up dirt to help defend Bill Clinton during his hearing about sleeping with his employee Monica Lewinski who Hillary smeared. Her motivation for helping Hillary was the poor treatment of women. How bizarre is that? The lead PUMA created racist attacks on Obama, and led a dirt digging campaign to defend Bill Clinton who obviously violated work place rules for women. You could not make something up this crazy!
And of ALL the people Obama could have chosen for SoS, he chose…
He needed Hillary for the PUMA crowd, which was not fully supporting Obama post convention. I would guess a deal was cut with Hillary and Bill to help with support. Hence my main point that a lot of all of this is just political BS…Which is why I focus way more on policy than the spewing on all sides.
B,
You can see from the most left blog around, they are asking the same question as well, why would any black person vote for Hillary?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/28/1492803/-I-Would-Like-Black-People-To-Explain-Why-They-Vote-Hillary
John Konop: “How much can you stomach? Washington Post confirmed the birther movement was started by Hillary?”
Hillary didn’t start the Birther movement, and nothing in the links above proves that she did. The closest any of those stories comes is to say that Hillary *supporters* were prominent among those who spread the rumors early on.
If you want to know where Birtherism really got its start, the answer is here: http://birthofanotion.com/home/the-secret-origin-of-the-birthers
Huh?
The key dirt researcher for Hillary and Bill started the dirt throwing on this issue? A key democrat supporter of Hillary filed the original Birther-law suite. The Clinton were running a nasty racist campaign against Obama. Hillary never denounced Linda Starr head PUMA supporter who had been a professional dirt digger for the Bill and Hillary. Hillary never denounced the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg who was a big time supporter. What am I missing, you really think Hillary had nothing to do with it?
JK, you can keep flogging that but it is really unlikely to be a deciding factor for very many people. She’s already been through a campaign with all that baggage. It was a long time ago. A lot of water under the bridge. People have already decided and moved on. For those who don’t know I suspect they are much more likely to be interested in her more recent activities.
B,
Many on the left are asking the same questions about Hillary. Would you tell the them the same?
Of course.
Your original question was is this a double standard? The answer is no. The Clintons are not racists, xenophobes, or misogynists despite what you may have seen from various sources during a campaign and despite miscellaneous historical anecdotes of questionable relevance . It’s not really debatable. Their bona fides in this area are well known. If any of the breitbart chum bothers someone they should not vote for her, but they were probably just looking for an excuse not to anyway (which would be weird because you don’t need to look too far to find a couple of reasons to disagree with Hillary Clinton).
……..The Clintons are not racists …..Their bona fides in this area are well known………
The Clinton’s can tear apart the African American via taking the War on drugs to an extreme level that devastated the community by any measure. Run a racist campaign against Obama to the point they would not disavow birther supporters, who went as far a suing the president, Hillary sent their kids to war for nation building exercise in the Middle East, sold off American jobs for speaking fees and or campaign donations, and that is your conclusion. With friends like that who needs enemies.
So your candidate is, what, for decriminalization, opposes intervention in the Middle East, and is a protectionist?
Do you think if you enforce the trade agreements than you are a protectionist? Under your logic why even have any agreements? Or your solution is just keep letting them cheat? We should negotiate deals that allow countries to abuse us and kill American jobs and wages? Or better yet office holders like Hillary should just sell American jobs off for speaking fees and campaign donations?
It’s true that Hillary supporters were among the earliest vocal Birthers. I said as much at the link.
But the rumor was created in early March 2008 and circulated at low levels online until it exploded in popularity in June 2008. And according to Linda Starr’s own interviews with John Avlon, she was first exposed to Birther rumors in summer 2008, and she first brought those rumors to Philip Berg’s attention in August 2008.
Hillary supporters did a lot to promote Birtherism that summer, but they didn’t create the rumor, they weren’t alone in promoting it (FreeRepublic did a lot too), and there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hillary or her campaign was involved in any way.
And trust me when I say that I *wish* Hillary could be blamed for Birtherism. But she can’t.
John this is crazy talk. Some scummy Hillary consultant may have started it but Trump was still talking about it….YEARS after Obama got elected. Every vicious, stupid conspiracy theory out there has passed Trump’s lips at some point. Vaccines cause autism? Check. Bush lied about WMDs? Check. Bush knew about 9/11? Check. Scalia was murdered? Check. Obama is a Muslim? Check. Executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood? Check.
I’m sure there are more but there’s no need. The man is an idiot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=0
Money quote from Erickson: “It’s like a walking, talking Enquirer magazine.”
Sadly, the Enquirer sells pretty well. So does US Weekly. But I’d rather not have that crap for a president.
CC, when I posted the buzzfeed link, I had not yet seen the CNN interview. Now that I have seen it, I still stand by the fact that he immediately disavowed any association with David Duke right away on Friday. That should have ended the story but CNN and the ADL wanted to push it.
My take on the Tapper interview is that Trump was trying to make it clear he had no idea about Duke or any white supremacist group being involved with his campaign. Could he have done it better, yes. But when a reporter asks an open ended question like the one posed by Tapper, ‘even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you, would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support.’ He had already disavowed Duke’s support, so what was the purpose of the question other than to continue trying to portray Trump as a racist?
For comparison, here is what Hillary once said about her ‘mentor’, former grand poobah (or whatever the KKK uses as a title for their leader) and US Senator Robert Byrd – “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul. From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom,”
Maybe interviewers will start asking all candidates about the more controversial endorsements they receive as if that is within their control.
So it sounds like the analogy would be: Voting for Trump is like repainting your beater car and putting some of that LED lighting under it and getting a really loud horn for it.
So does anyone here in this thread think Trump has a point about anythings he’s advocated, for instance, the border? Should we take steps to restrict those illegal aliens who are coming over here taking American jobs and getting American social benefits? Does he have a point or is he just a racist bastard?
Like many things in life it is gray, not black and white. We need secure boarders, and a system that does not pit cheap labor with limited rights vs American workers in trade and immigration policy. This was a key cornerstone concept in Wealth of Nations the bible of free market economics by Adam Smith. The concept of the Bill of Rights was coined by Adam Smith from concepts in the above book.
With that said rounding about 11 million people seems rather irrational. Also business does need workers for temporary purposes like harvest time, resorts in season….It should be a temporary work visa not full citizenship. Are biggest security risk is a broken visa system that needs total revamping.
In my opinion I agree with Kasich that we should secure the boarders, fix the visa system and create a temporary work visa to get people out the shadows, not full benefits of citizenship.I would add in trade, we should seek the help of minority communities to weed out bad elements like gangs and help with terrorism. The vast majority would help if they and or thier family could come out of the shadows.
The whole point about conservative economic policies is that they are supposed to help bake a bigger economic pie. Trump seems to buy the Bernie Sanders line that everything is zero sum and he needs to be the one to divvy the pie. Trade wars and giant walls aren’t going to help our economy at all. In fact, they’ll just make everything more expensive.
Of course we need a secure border. You don’t want millions of people living in your country who aren’t bought in and aren’t paying their fair share of taxes or whatever. Every Republican candidate knows this and has said so. There’s only one though who talks some nonsense about building a giant wall that another country will pay for, for some reason (trade/tariff war?), and uses language that seems to denigrate a huge swath of people or at the least pleases those who want to see said people denigrated.
Trump himself said in the last debate that he hired these people for his Palm Beach resort because there weren’t any Americans to do the work. So even Trump doesn’t think he has a point on “taking American jobs”.
The other candidates have all acknowledged the problem of immigration and have talked about plans to document who is coming here, who overstays visas (about half of those undocumented and “ADDING TEN FEET TO THE WALL!” won’t do a thing to fix it.
But talking about the finer points of policy and how we get from here to where we want to be isn’t what Trump is about. He’s a strong man using demagoguery to attract a base that would allow him to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not care. That has nothing to do with immigration. It has a lot to do with destroying everything that actually makes America great in the name of “making America great again”.
I’m almost ready for Satan himself to get into the race. If my choice of the lesser of two evils devolves into Trump v. Clinton then I would rather go straight to the source.
Trump has more skeletons in his closet than Davy Jones’ Locker. Rubio has been kind to him compared to what the Clintons would bring. You can’t just jump into US politics at its highest level with that sort of baggage. I know he seemingly can do no wrong with certain people but I seriously doubt they are of the majority in the states that hold sway with the Electoral College.
Take a few 21 minutes out of your day. Pop some popcorn or crack open an afternoon beer and watch this video of John Oliver’s show last night. If you start it you won’t be able to stop until you watch the entire thing. It’s very funny and extremely sad at the same time.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/29/for-your-lunchtime-perusal-a-john-oliver-take-down-of-donald-drumpf/
“America needs a fixer, somebody who can re-brand this country…” Am I the only person who thinks that fixing something is not the same thing as re-branding it? Most of the time, it’s the exact opposite of fixing. It makes no sense to brand this country at all unless we’re planning on selling it to someone.
Thank you Andrew and Loren. Both nailed it.