The Liar Word Applies to Trump

Now that the liar word is being thrown around by the Republican wannabe nominees let's look at one big lie that no one seems to mention. This is the big lie that Trump is telling about self-financing his own campaign. On every occasion he states that he is not beholden to do anything for anyone because they gave me money.   

Let's look at the money issue and see where the money is coming from according to the Federal Election Commission. The Trump campaign brought in a total of $19.4 million dollars by the end of  

 2015.  Of that total amount Trump put in $12.8 million.The remainder of that money came from individual contributors. The contributions have a limit of $2,700 per individual for each candidate per election which is the cap set by federal law. On the other hand, Trump has put in 66% of the money that his campaign had on hand in 2015. That means that 34% of the campaign is being financed by individual contributions and it can be from individual donors. There are two other things that should be considered when Trump claims that he is 'self-financing' his campaign. One is that of the personal money Trump has contributed to his campaign he lists that $200,000 is a contribution and the $12.6 million is  a loan. This means that in the long run Trump expects to recoup those loans of $12.6 million. The second thing is that Trump's self-financing was done in the final quarter of 2015 when he loaned his campaign a total of $10.8 million. Of those loans he paid himself for fuel for his campaign trips on his plane and Trump's spending also included the candidate's penchant for his own name brand.There are minor payments to favorites like the Trump SoHo ($100), Trump Grill ($607), Trump Restaurants ($3,000) and Trump café ($94), where the hamburger retails for a reasonable $10. Then there are some hefty payments to the Trump Plaza ($27,000), Trump Payroll Corp ($20,201), Trump CPS LLC ($18,000) and a whopping $119,451 in rent for Trump's headquarters at — where else — Trump Tower on 5th Avenue.. He does expect to get those loans paid off in the future and especially if he wins the election. 

The most recent  records from the Federal Election Committee filings pertaining to the Trump campaign reveals that the Candidate funded $108,780, whereas donors contributed over $3.8 million to his candidacy. It also shows that the candidate Trump has previously loaned rather than donated an additional $1.8 million. There are no illegalities or abnormalities or irregularities with the way Trump's campaign is receiving or doling out the cash, it’s just that it is not the way that Trump portrays his self-financing. This is a the big lie on his part. 

This is the Trump rant whenever he has a campaign event. “I don’t need anybody’s money,” he declared when he announced his candidacy in June. “I’m using my own money. I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich.” Well it looks like he is telling a whopper and keeps on spewing it out even though everyone knows he is lying through his teeth.This kind of behavior is the type of behavior that hardcore politicians use to get elected. Win at any cost and it looks like Trump has that ingrained in both his personal life and business life and now in his political life. 

Trumped by Iraq

   Well, here we go again, Trump has once again stuck his foot in his mouth with the Iraq War. First off everyone knows that George W. Bush and Company set up the  reasons for invading Iraq so they lied in their accusations in order to have viable reasons to invade. There have been several reasons why this was done but the main reason was that those at the head of our government  through administrations following the first Iraq war under Bush41 felt that regime change would be the best thing for Iraq. President Clinton considered regime change in Iraq during his administration but an invasion was not in his repertoire and his main way for doing that was supporting opposition groups in Iraq to topple Saddam. Clinton however did bomb Iraq in 2008  because it refused to cooperate with United Nations (U.N.) weapons inspectors. Clinton’s decision did not have the support of key members of Congress, who accused Clinton of using the air strikes to direct attention away from ongoing impeachment proceedings against him.  
   George W. Bush received all the ammunition he needed to invade Iraq when the World Trade Center came down on Sept 11, 2001. From that point on he built a case on Saddam as part of the reason that the Twin Towers came down. Saddam had no connection to the terrorist attack but he was a terrorist and terrorized his own people and thus he supported terrorist which the Bush administration used to connect him to terrorists. Then there were the weapons of mass destruction including both biological and chemical and now Bush tried the nuclear connection to make a more compelling reason to bring him down. All those reasons turned out to be false so they did lie about the reason for bringing down the Saddam regime and invading Iraq.  
   Trump wasn't lying about Bush43 concocting the reasons for going after Saddam but Republicans do not criticize their own leaders in this manner and that job is left to the opposing party. As a result Trump is not considered a true conservative who wouldn't criticize his own in the manner that he did. Trump may have told the truth about Bush43 but when he started saying that he was against Bush43 even before the invasion of Iraq, it turns out he lied. It seems that he was interviewed by by none other than his NY buddy, Howard Stern before the war and he clearly states that yes he is in favor of the invasion. After the war started and it looked like it was a bad decision he then decided to switch sides. If Donald Trump had been either a Republican or Democrat voting for the war in Iraq in 2003 he would have voted yes. Seems that he switches sides a lot and that is his MO.   
   Many people supported The Bush Administration and its decision to invade Iraq and then later regretted that decision, among them Hillary Clinton. Hillary was too close to the decision makers in her husbands administration and felt that Saddam needed to be replaced and thus her decision to support the war effort. Bernie Sanders on the other hand had reasons to vote no and oppose the Republican decision to invade. Does this one decision disqualify Hillary from being President, no. You could say the same thing about Trump supporting the Iraqi war before the invasion, does that disqualify him to be President, no. The main difference here is that Trump kept saying that he was against the war before the invasion and that is a total fabrication. He lied just like Bush43 lied. Do we want to elect someone who will go to any length to get elected and that includes lying. I wouldn't want someone like that running my country and like Bush43 he has disqualified himself not because of his support for the war but because of his lying about it.

Two Political Peas in a Pod -- Trump and Sanders

     Let's talk a little bit about the other side, the Democrats and most specifically about Bernie Sanders. He has a rousing message about how the American people are controlled by big money, from Wall Street to big corporations.  That's a given and has been the case for the last 50 years at least. It's no secret that this has been happening in this country. The country has managed to move forward even under those circumstances. It's a fact however that the middle class is shrinking and it makes no difference which party wins the election. 
   The fallacy in Trump's claim that he will not be influenced by big money because he is self funding his election is yet another lie by Trump because he is one of the boys and is a member of that class. He's a billionaire trying to buy his way into office. Trump's main focus since he was born was to make money and if he becomes President that focus will not change. It's ingrained and you can tell by his complaints about funding his campaign and about the money  the news networks are making off his back. He wants part of the money that networks are making to go to his charities and vainly trying to monetize this part of the campaign for his own benefit. Trump is a shrewd businessman and he'll find a way to get the public's money (tax dollars) to flow to his companies. 
   But let's get back to Sanders, we know where Trump's coming from but what about Sanders. First off let's look at Sanders' record in his quarter century in the Congress with 16 years in the house and his 9 years in the Senate. His record is not uncommon as most members of Congress have similar records.  In other words he has not shown that he can get things done which brings into question whether he can get things done as President. The same thing applies to Donald Trump. He has never dealt with any obstacles when running his company. There are no shareholders and no one can derail whatever changes Trump wants to make as far as running his companies. The only time Trump's had shareholders is when he has had to file bankruptcy and not just once but four times. So when it comes to complete control Trump does a fantastic job. When it comes to negotiating to get things moving the way he wants, he's batting a big zero. 
   During his quarter century in office Sanders has introduced 353 bills with a success rate of 1%. Because Bernie Sanders leans to the far left and is much more progressive than most liberals, it has been a struggle for him to get bills passed. With that record it may well be very difficult for Bernie to get the things he is proposing to get through a Bernie Sanders administrated Congress. The downside to the things he is proposing as is the case with Trump are overly expensive and will be more than a struggle to get through this conservative congress and a moderate leaning fiscally minded Democratic part. Sanders as does Trump has some big ticket items that he is pushing and has not been specific about how he plans to pay for those. Sure he claims he will tax the rich, the fund managers and Wall Street but that will not be enough for all the things he wants to do. Where's the money, is the big question people should ask. Trump with his plan to deport 12 million people and build a wall that Mexico will pay for is a pipe dream. 
   Sander's claims that he has not succeeded much with bills but that he has added many amendments to bills that have passed. He has been dubbed the "Amendment King" which was a title he received from a 2005 article in Rolling Stone Magazine in 2005.  However, it seems that most of those amendments were added to spending bills that were not considered controversial or worth fighting for and included shifting money to energy efficiency programs and low income heating assistance. The amendments that were worth fighting for were passed in the house but later stripped from the bills. 
   It looks like Sanders' record in Congress will follow him as President and he will have a difficult time getting anything passed in the Congress if the ideas are so far left that no one will vote for them. 
   Sanders has been an advocate for many of the things that people would champion but it will be very difficult to get through Congress. If you are anywhere left of center or right of center even if it is a Republican or Democratic Congress it will not make it through Congress. It is far better to have moderate views than to be on either end of the spectrum on your views if you want to be successful. 
   Bernie talks about breaking up big Wall Street Banks, expanding Social Security, create a European-style single payer health care system, and provide free college tuition for most college students. Even when the congress was controlled by Democrats those proposals gained no steam under President Obama in 2009-2010. 
   Sanders' dreams are lofty and progressive but they will never make it through any Congress no matter who is President including him.

Progressives or Trump?

   Now that there's all this talk from Bernie Sanders about being a Progressive comes this little tidbit.  Is it good to be a progressive? Last month in California the progressive government, the California Public Employment Relations Board nullified San Diego’s 2012 ballot referendum that replaced defined-benefit pensions with 401(k)-style retirement plans for new workers. Former Mayor Jerry Sanders and other city officials campaigned for the initiative, which was sponsored by private citizens and approved by two-thirds of voters.The Public Employment Relations Board is suppose to review unfair labor practice charges by government workers and ruled that the city had “breached its duty to meet and confer in good faith” (i.e., collectively bargain) with its unions. Apparently according to the progressive board the Mayor was required to negotiate the pension changes. But because he decided that the people should decide the issue and supported the measure to vote on the issue, it was considered a breach of his responsibility. In other words, because the referendum’s supporters were civic-minded, their civic-minded reform had to be approved by unions, not voters. Thus lawmakers have no right to lobby voters for reforms that cross government unions.  

   On the other hand unions are free to petition voters to, say, raise taxes. If the board’s ruling holds up in the courts, the initiative process would  be invalid and can no longer challenge any union-negotiated power grab. Hiram Johnson, the progressive who led the fight for the initiative process in California a century ago, wouldn’t recognize today’s anti-reform progressives and must be rolling in his grave..The board also rebuked the Mayor and city officials for exercising their First Amendment rights. The boards ruling stated that First Amendment free speech rights cannot be used for the purpose of violating” state collective-bargaining laws. We'll see how this turns out but as a result of the board's ruling the city was ordered to rescind the voter-approved pension reforms, restore the status quo before reform, and pay workers 7% interest to compensate for benefits that were reduced by the initiative.  

   The initiative process is a last resort for reformers trying to challenge the public union monopoly that is bankrupting local governments. If unions can’t win the battle for public opinion, they’ll use government power to muzzle opponents and overturn the will of the people. 

   Sorta, kinda makes you think that maybe you should go with Trump. Then again you look at all his negatives and you go back to voting anything but Trump.Now that I brought out the negatives. Most politicians are lumped in with lawyers as far as trustworthiness. In fact most of them are lawyers. Nobody trusts them because of their reputation. However, not all of them are lawyers.  

When you're in national office you are most likely a career politician. There is an art to getting elected. You have to hire a political consultant and say the right things or you will turn off many voters. People may be tired of that which is why Trump's style is so popular, but that alone is not enough to make you a good candidate. Trump is a businessman and an entertainer. He has name recognition and people like him because of his show and the way he conducted himself on that show for 14 years. What they don't realize is that it is all scripted and everything out of his mouth was scripted. It's a reality show, not real. That does not happen in real life. So he decides to run for office and makes a mistake by telling a big lie. His reputation is on the line but he feels that he hit a nerve and runs with it. He can't back down so he keeps going and people start responding. It isn't because he is being truthful but because he is Donald Trump (Billionaire and larger than life). Trump has some positives, one important one to people is that he is not a career politician. But when you look at the negatives, you realize that he would not make a good POTUS. Trump is a far right candidate and now that he is running he is spouting his far right tea cup philosophy.  

   If he thinks and people think he can push his far right agenda in government like he does his business, he is going to see that governments aren't run that way. He is burning bridges left and right with countries and his own party and will have more enemies than allies. Not everyone will get on his bandwagon just because they're afraid of the criticism and the barbs coming from him. He is already doomed and people will start realizing that his negatives far outweigh any positives he might have which right now are his celebrity and his wealth because on the issues he has not come up with any solutions other than outrageous claims that he will build the biggest, baddest fence that anyone's ever built and that he knows how to build. He's a Joke.

Trump the Narcissist

   What's the big deal with Trump. Is he still trying to get the news media coverage that he gets for free or is he serious about his accusations about Cruz stealing the Iowa  caucus. If he came in second, what's the big deal. The last two winners in Iowa, Santorum and Huckabee have already dropped out of this race and most likely would welcome a VP nod if Trump wins the nomination. Trump just cannot take coming in second and no matter what happens he will go to his grave believing that he would be declared the winner had Cruz not cheated.  

   The whole controversy that Trump brings up is that the Cruz's campaign apparently sent out flyers, email, and tweets stating that Carson was dropping out of the race and that Carson caucus voters should vote for Cruz instead. Underhanded maybe, but that sounds like something Trump would do to win. As things are Carson is still in the race and there has been a Cruz apology with Carson accepting it and it could have been a conspiracy between two candidates to derail the Trump avalanche. The truth is that Trump miscalculated his skipping the last GOP debate in Iowa and should just man up and accept the fact that he came in number 2. Is he going to be whining all through this campaign if he doesn't come in on top in every nominating election from here forward.  

   The competitive nature of Donald Trump is beyond normal because Iowa hasn't picked a winner in the last sixteen years. His whining about winning may be justified because he has lost his invincibility and he can be defeated. If he can have a lead in the polls all through the process and when it comes to getting in that booth and pulling that lever which is still done in some places here in America, the people of Iowa are not voting for the 'Donald'. Although the Iowa causus' are different and are like town hall meetings and almost everybody votes electronically now it is still a secret ballot and people will make up their mind at the last minute. At an Iowa GOP caucus a candidate can walk  in and give a speech before the paper ballot is filled in. People can also walk-in and register to vote and there are speeches for support of candidates and can even include the candidates that are running. The events take place in 1,744 precincts across the state -- including churches, libraries and other smaller venues, starting at about 7 p.m. local time.  

   The Democratic caucus process is totally different. At a Democratic caucus site, upon arrival participants essentially divide into groups depending on their preferred candidate. The Groups that don’t have enough members to make their candidate “viable” are disbanded. After disbanding the members then join another candidate group, at the persuasion of others, until groups have sufficient members to make a candidate viable enough to get delegates. The candidates who finish on top often continue with their campaigns deep into the election cycle while those who finish at or near the bottom sometimes drop out soon thereafter, although that’s not always the case.  

   As a narcissist Trump has a rigid type of thinking, a "Swiss Cheese Brain" with holes in the brain and mind where good common sense and conscience should be. Not a good thing when your looking at him being POTUS. That's the behavior of a narcissistic personality 

   Narcissists develop a false self and use aggression and intimidation to get their way. Narcissistic attitudes and behavior come from the ego defenses that function as smoke screens to hide the deep shame and fractures that came from being hurt emotionally or physically as a child. Self image is distorted with the narcissistic point of view and the person believes that he is superior to others. An inflated self-esteem is a defense to cover up their sense of shame deep within. Grandiosity is an insidious error in thinking that prevents them from blaming themselves and becoming depressed or disintegrated. Creeping narcissism in a person is their succumbing to the gradual demands of selfishness and entitlement by giving in to "I am special" beliefs. 

. 

Traits of a narcissistic Personality: 

1. They're likable -- at least, at first glance. 

2. Not all narcissists are loud and proud. In fact, some are quiet and shy. 

3. They can often be found in leadership roles. 

4. They always manage to make the conversation about themselves. 

5. They're also guilty of name-dropping. 

6. Not every story a narcissist tells is one of victory. But even in the stories of tragedy or failure, there's an air of entitlement and victimization. 

7. They like nice things. 

8. Appearance is everything to them. 

9. On Facebook or twitter, they have lots of friends -- and not a single bad picture.  

10. They are strongly averse to criticism. 

11. Excuses are a narcissist's best friend. 

12. They leave a trail of wreckage behind them. 

13. And in that vein, they may be more likely to cheat. 

14. Everything is personal. 

15. A narcissistic person probably has no idea he or she is a narcissist. 

16. You find yourself resorting to flattery just to maintain the peace with a narcissist. 

17. Narcissists are not low in self-esteem. 

18. Men are more likely to be narcissists than women. 

 

Trump always manages to make the conversation about himself. Personality flaw or childhood trauma?