[blackjack21]

You know I feel the same way. I am sure you will not agree with this but here is one thing that has happened. We destroyed our middle class. The middle class once included clerks, retail workers, construction workers, medical technologists of one kind or another and such. These people have all been relegated to the working/underpaid classes now.

Construction workers still do reasonably well, but they suffered hugely in the last recession and a lot of people simply left that business. It's much more stratfied now. Retail, except for unionized grocery clerks, were never all that high paying unless you owned the business. Small mom and pops are a thing of the past. That's technological. However, a lot of back office service work used to be middle class, and has now moved off to India. I finally got a team to help me. One guy in KC, but two others are in Czech Republic and India respectively. For example, call center jobs would have been unprofitable overseas before Global Crossing on just the taxes alone. However, VoIP + fiber made it possible to outsource entire divisions of companies overseas. I said that would happen. That's where I see all the pressure.

Yet I have to pay for things like Worker's Compensation and Disabilty--things that are serious matters and very needful if you have occupations like mining, logging, smelting, and other heavy industry. In computer science, it's overhead. It just makes more sense to go hire someone from the Czech Republic, because you don't have to deal with all that red tape.

The move for an increased minimum wage is a great start. One argument against it is that it will push jobs overseas. What jobs? Every little Middlesex, village and farm in the country will be better off.

The problem is that you can't do that without hurting the poorest first. There's an interesting read called, "The Second Machine Age, that deals with automation very well. When I talk about the return of "Driving Miss Daisy," I'm not kidding. However, it will be more technologically driven, like Uber, and thus inherently more efficient. The tax code isn't structured to favor that sort of thing. Uber just competes with taxis now, but it won't be long before local delivery services get revolutionized along those lines. Imagine a service that comes and picks up your laundry--knowing what belongs to who--takes it off site, washes, drys, irons and/or folds, returns and stores hangs, etc. That will always be a working class job, but it would certainly be in more demand if it were a tax deduction to procure services that can't be outsourced.

I agree with Trump about single-payer. It would stimulate our economy by about 900 billion a year (if we spend 1.5 times what the UK does per patient).

What we ultimately need is cost reform. People are forced to go to a doctor for everything. Nurse practitioners are gaining in popularity, but so much can be done without a doctorate. It's insane that we have such an inefficient system. What we need is incentives to get costs down without sacrificing quality. Most of that involves administering tests and interpreting results. Many tests do not require a doctor.

Or that money could be used to pay off government debt, fund social security....name your poison. Most importantly it would remove a huge burden from business and allow them to create jobs rather than worry about benefit costs.

Well they spoke of "trade offsets" for TPP, but I think the country is close to a tipping point as the promises of GATT, NAFTA, MFN status for China, etc. have not led to much structural reform in the US. The old welfare system is built on nationalism, and those days are behind us.

I think the main reason that this is a "weird place" now is that people are genuinely fearful about their future.

Yeah, but it's more than that. We have problems like Marines, unarmed by regulation, getting shot to death at recruiting centers. We have a black man getting killed over supporting the Confederate flag, because he sees it as a symbol against the federal welfare state. We have young millennials that shoot up, black churches. We have more blacks killed every year by other blacks than the Iraq War. We have a riot-inciting president. We have a do-nothing Congress. We have a Supreme Court that finds "gay marriage" in the Fourteenth Amendment when sodomy was illegal in every state until 1961. We have Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner depicted as a "hero." All of this seems to be aimed at hiding the fact that 90M people are out of work, and ObamaCare has made working class people have to take two part time jobs with no healthcare benefits. The 20th Century welfare state is potentially nearing collapse.

[Drlee]

What we ultimately need is cost reform. People are forced to go to a doctor for everything. Nurse practitioners are gaining in popularity, but so much can be done without a doctorate. It's insane that we have such an inefficient system. What we need is incentives to get costs down without sacrificing quality. Most of that involves administering tests and interpreting results. Many tests do not require a doc

Cost reform IS single payer. Let me bring you up to date on the medical profession. Nurse practitioners are not "gaining in popularity" they have been around a long time. Many people see practitioners and PA's for their primary care. But what you propose is not the problem. It is a smoke screen. 30+% of medical costs in the US are administrative. Start there. Single payer saves better than 20% of that. Now. And you have to understand this:

The system of insurances that we have do not cause Nurse Practitioners and Physicians to save money for the patient. Only the practice billing the insurance company. The insurance company does not pay based upon the level of the practitioner in most cases. They bill by the diagnosis code. Whether the patient is seen by a PA, NP or MD does not much matter. It is a profit center for the tens of thousands of health care companies in the US but not for the patient.

Most of that involves administering tests and interpreting results. Many tests do not require a doctor.

Nonsense. The last thing we need are people going into a lab for a battery of tests and then googleing what the results mean. The everyday blood work that doctors order are already of insignificant expense. A CBC with metabolic panel costs less than $20.00 in most places. The real deal is that these tests are made in the context of the practitioner's attempt to diagnose an issue with which the patient presents. The last thing we need is patients without the advise of a doctor running to the lab and having rare and unusual tests. You are obviously unaware that there are any number of places that retail lab work without a doctors order.

http://anytesttucson.calls.net/version2/wellness.php

So Joe Blow has had DVT or A-fib. So he runs to the lab and pays $100.00 to $500.00 for a Prothrombin Time Assay. What does he learn from this? Nothing. It is the same test his doctor orderd. But the real deal is that this patient ought to be followed by a practitioner. He should not be trying to save a C-note and he couldn't act on the results anyway. He (rightfully) needs a physician for that.

So you are articulating a solution in search of a problem. If this same guy was covered by a single-payer system, he would get the test "for free" as required and by someone who can act on the results.

I hear this "cost saving" bullshit all of the time. Nonsensical ideas like selling blood pressure medicine over the counter.

We agree in one regard. The notion that Bruce Jenner (whatever HE calls HIMSELF is no hero. He is a celebrity. It is past time when we understand the difference. He is free to live anyway he likes in my world. If he wants to dress in a skirt and live like a woman he is welcome to do that. But there is nothing heroic about his decision.

[QatzelOk]

I like that he's bit of a maverick that doesn't let facts weigh him down.

And even if he's really stupid and has a shit character, all the candidates from green to far right have the same stands on the important stuff: they all support Israel's wars, international arms dealing and exporting manufacturing jobs to dictatorships with lax environmental laws.

So how much worse could he be than any of the others?

I find the transparency of his hair... refreshing.

[Nattering Nabob]

I find the transparency of his hair... refreshing.

Don't develop too much of a crush...

He is only ahead in the polls because there is a 16 man field and all the votes are divided amongst the crowd...

The only reason he is standing out is because of his outlandishness...

When the crowd thins out and all those split up votes congeal onto two or three candidates the show will be over...

[jimjam]

As long as we recognize that Polk was a Democrat. Frankly, I don't find Russia's seizing of Crimea repugnant. 17th Century Russia saw the conquest of Siberia. Crimea is tiny by comparison. I think Putin taking Crimea is amusing, as I think the American world view is hopelessly unrealistic at this point.

No, I didn't think that Russia grabbing Crimea was anything to care about. Russia obviously needed the sea port and they have a long history there. Why did Khrushchev give it to the Ukraine in the first place? Well, the American world view could use some work, for sure.

I look out 20 years, and don't think I'll remain an American

I look out 20 years and I think i'll be dead. So, at this point, I'm like a short termer in a hot war. I don't want to get offed before I am honorably discharged. I'm not overly concerned about something as stupid as American politics.

[skinster]

Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex

[DrSteveBrule]

[blackjack21]

Cost reform IS single payer.

Single payer just means that the government pays for the insurance, instead of individuals. It can come with or without cost reform. ObamaCare came without cost reform, which is one reason why insurance premiums are sky rocketing.

30+% of medical costs in the US are administrative. Start there. Single payer saves better than 20% of that. Now. And you have to understand this:

A lot of that cost is that there are not uniform standards. You would not believe the IT infrastructure of older insurance companies. They are operating with antiquated mainframes. Forms and questionnaires ought to be available via Android or iOS app by now, but we don't have industry standards that allow for this stuff yet. That's a big problem with the medical system. It was once viewed as technologically advanced, but consumer electronics today are substantially more sophisticated than much of today's medical equipment. That's true anywhere. The administrative costs don't necessarily shrink. The UK's system is one of the largest administrative systems in the world, and Britain is a long way from the biggest country in the world.

The system of insurances that we have do not cause Nurse Practitioners and Physicians to save money for the patient. Only the practice billing the insurance company. The insurance company does not pay based upon the level of the practitioner in most cases.

That's because there is no incentive to do so. If you get less re-imbursement for nurse practitioners or PAs, BUT fatter profit margins, then you start to see cost reduction. If you get the same re-imbursement, it becomes a windfall profit with no savings for the patient. That's why Medicare IS the reason that medical inflation of this sort began in the first place. So putting everyone on Medicare isn't the solution unless you want sky high medical costs at tax payers expense, which ultimately leads to sky high taxes or rationing. That's why people oppose it.

They bill by the diagnosis code. Whether the patient is seen by a PA, NP or MD does not much matter. It is a profit center for the tens of thousands of health care companies in the US but not for the patient.

Exactly right. Keep in mind I've worked on medical practice management systems, so I'm familiar with ICD-9/10, treatment codes, and HL7, a lot of it built on older EDI. For example, EDI 837. This is a big part of why I think the whole model is basically antiquated. I have a deep enough understanding of this stuff, as I had to model a lot of it for a medical practice management system. Prescription codes often work the same way, as you can get many of the same drugs with different doses, different methods of use such as IV, oral liquid, tablet/pill, or topical solutions among others.

You can get a big part of the way with standardization, but you need to have more flexible roles.

The only reason he is standing out is because of his outlandishness...

So far, this hasn't proven to be the case. It's interesting to see the Democrats and Republicans (RINOs) collaborating on how to defeat Trump. The problem they've created for themselves is that Trump is the only one talking about the things that matter to economically vulnerable Americans who don't want to be reliant on a welfare state. The establishment Republicans are as bad as the Democrats in this regard.

When the crowd thins out and all those split up votes congeal onto two or three candidates the show will be over...

It may be over for other candidates besides Trump though. Polls show Trump leading in Florida now too.

Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex

Trump has just sailed past that one too. Trump has brought up two things that scare the pants out of the establishment: immigration, but the really big one is trade. Trump has railed against trade deals, and that's a huge profit center for wage-arbitraging billionaires.

[pragmatocon]

Donald Trump is nothing more than a flash in the pan. Right now the only people paying attention to the race are politicos and journalists who are looking for sensational stories that can sell newspapers. Most voters aren't paying any attention, which is why a bombastic celebrity like Donald Trump has been able to shoot to the top of the polls. Most of that is driven by name-recognition. Once people start paying attention, and once the party establishment asserts itself, Donald Trump will flame out. Remember four years ago when Michelle Bachmann was leading the Republican field? It was a fun story, but even at the time people knew that wouldn't last, and they were right.

For instance, if you take a look at the latest odds on BallotCraft, Donald Trump's chances of winning the August 6 Republican Debate are hovering around 2%. Candidates like Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker are at the top, which sounds about right to me.

[redcarpet]

The press drive people up and then drag them down. AS they say. Trump's media partial-scrutiny will only last for a few months. There can only be one GOP candidate. It's logical the media will try to push for a particular figure. Rupert Murdoch has already lost his tolerance for Trump. Does anyone here think he will sit back and do nothing? No, he'll get his outlets (or try to) to turn on him as well as many of the rest. Because the candidate needs to be electable, otherwise another Democrat will be in the White House.

And we know the Republicans can't stand that prospect

[Godstud]

Trump is only weakening the Republicans. Sadly, the Republicans are their own worst enemy.

[redcarpet]

Trump is only weakening the Republicans. Sadly, the Republicans are their own worst enemy.

DON'T SAY THAT!! Don't you see the truth? Don't you understand the plot? It's the 'liberal media', 'cultural Marxism' and left-wing academics destroying the country.....it's gay marriage indoctrination by the radicals in the USPC and the socialist born in Kenya in the White House.

The.....OBAMACARE AND BENGAZI!!!.................ROFL!

[blackjack21]

Donald Trump is nothing more than a flash in the pan. Right now the only people paying attention to the race are politicos and journalists who are looking for sensational stories that can sell newspapers. Most voters aren't paying any attention, which is why a bombastic celebrity like Donald Trump has been able to shoot to the top of the polls. Most of that is driven by name-recognition. Once people start paying attention, and once the party establishment asserts itself, Donald Trump will flame out. Remember four years ago when Michelle Bachmann was leading the Republican field? It was a fun story, but even at the time people knew that wouldn't last, and they were right.

I disagree. He's a lot more than a flash in the pan. He could be the next Ross Perot. He has the power to play spoiler. Additionally, he doesn't need establishment money to fund a campaign. He's more media savvy than most politicians, and he has been through many tough negotiations throughout his life, so he doesn't go weak in the knees for political correctness. When politicians or pundits hit him, he hits back. Bachmann was easily trounced, because she was a light weight who relied on establishment money. Trump doesn't need anybody's money. That's a huge difference.

For instance, if you take a look at the latest odds on BallotCraft, Donald Trump's chances of winning the August 6 Republican Debate are hovering around 2%. Candidates like Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker are at the top, which sounds about right to me.

Trump will counter that easily, as he has a very large lead. I'm guessing the Republican party strategy will be to try to oust Trump by getting the lesser candidates (except Cruz) to attack him, while leaving Walker and Bush above the fray. The problem is that they cannot count on what Trump is going to say or do, and further it doesn't matter if he wins or loses the debate (as the media and Republican party will spin it). What matters is if he appeals to voters. The media will go on about "who looks the most presidential," which is meaningless too.

The press drive people up and then drag them down. AS they say. Trump's media partial-scrutiny will only last for a few months. There can only be one GOP candidate. It's logical the media will try to push for a particular figure. Rupert Murdoch has already lost his tolerance for Trump. Does anyone here think he will sit back and do nothing? No, he'll get his outlets (or try to) to turn on him as well as many of the rest. Because the candidate needs to be electable, otherwise another Democrat will be in the White House.

That is the mistake the Republican establishment always makes. "Electable" is almost synonymous with "loser" now. Every "electable" candidate they've run has lost. What they need is someone who will fight for the job. Someone who won't land a punch on Hillary just because she's a woman doesn't deserve to be president. Of course, Hillary doesn't deserve to be president either.

Now the reason the latest polls matter is this: a bunch of Republicans went to a Koch brothers event, and Walker was among the mix. They took a shot at Donald Trump, calling him "DumbDumb." As per usual, Trump fired back and hard. The result? Trump now leads Walker in Iowa. Since Walker didn't finish his degree, associating himself with people calling others "DumbDumb" was not a great way to position himself.

Donald Trump Surges in New NBC News/WSJ Poll
Donald Trump is dominating another new poll

This is all way too early to matter. However, the problem for the Republican establishment is that in fighting Trump, they evidence that the establishment is for the establishment. They don't care about America, and they don't care about the voters. That's why these debates will be interesting. You cannot rise above Donald Trump if he attacks you, or you'll look weak. If you prepare to attack, he pre-empts. Have a look at this:

Trump campaign adviser fired over racially charged Facebook posts
This doesn't hurt him at all, because the remarks weren't really racially charged and Trump was ahead of the game. He doesn't have a problem with firing people, so he had no problem with dispatching someone before the media could make it a story. As the Koch brothers attack Trump, Trump hits back:

Trump tweeted sardonic well wishes early Sunday to his fellow Republican presidential candidates, deriding those who sought donations from the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David.

The interesting thing is that you have people who are against Citizens United, and they are typically on the left. Who is the best candidate, Republican or Democrat, with respect to not taking money from special interests? Donald Trump. Perot had long-standing credibility for the same reason.

So this stuff isn't working. What's next? "Trump is a hypocrite."

Exclusive: Donald Trump's companies have sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers
Of course, the author is Mica Rosenberg among others--a Jew. Here's the problem with this story: Trump's businesses have sought visas to import at least 1100 workers. The problem with Trump's opponents is that they operate from the mistaken assumption that those who oppose illegal immigration are simply racist. That isn't the case. Trump will easily counter this and say, "Hey, I create jobs. I offer them to Americans. If they don't take the jobs I create, I apply to import people who want to take those jobs. And... unlike my Republican and Democratic colleagues, I do it legally." Poof! Story up in smoke, and Trump gains even more in the polls. Trump will then go around saying, "My opponents break the law, and if you don't tolerate it, they'll call you a racist. They assume their lies are truth, and then they discover that I've imported workers too. Well, what they don't tell you is that I did it legally. I'm for legal immigration, like most Americans. My grandfather immigrated to the United States from Germany. I'm very proud of that."

This stuff will go on and on, but the basic heart of the matter is that all the free trade agreements coupled with illegal immigration have been harmful to US employment numbers and household income, and the establishment of the Republican and Democratic parties will no longer listen to the people. So someone like Trump can even garner leftist votes as he bags on the Koch brothers.

[Godstud]

Donald Trump continuing to run and garner support is like handing the next presidency to Hillary. The only "spoiler" he is, is to the Republicans.

Safe bet/Prediction: Hillary Clinton is the next US President.

[blackjack21]

Safe bet/Prediction: Hillary Clinton is the next US President.

I wonder if the people who say stuff like this are willing to bet money on it. Hillary is going to get smoked. Only now are the Democrats beginning to realize the err of putting all your eggs in one basket. Joe Biden in 2016: What Would Beau Do?.

But two recent Quinnipiac University polls show her unfavorability rising in swing states. She now trails Jeb Bush by one point, after leading him by 10 in May, and Joe Biden leads Jeb by one point.

Hillary is slipping, and the air of inevitability is going to wear off quicker than it did in 2008.

Beau was losing his nouns and the right side of his face was partially paralyzed. But he had a mission: He tried to make his father promise to run, arguing that the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.

Hunter also pushed his father, telling him, “Dad, it’s who you are.”

Bernie Sanders was an unexpected surprise. If Biden jumps in, it suddenly becomes a race.

Where Joe Biden Is Coming From

For Joe Biden, Beau’s long, valiant, futile struggle with brain cancer hammered home in brutal fashion the truth of the vice president’s observation about the unknowability of the future. Beau’s plea has had a profound effect on his father’s thinking—and, always as important when it comes to Joe Biden, his feeling—about the decision before him. That his younger son, Hunter, holds the same view as his late brother matters greatly to Biden, too. (Where his wife, Jill, stands remains a mystery even to family friends.) But equally significant, according to several people close to Biden, is his mounting sense of dismay about the Clintons: over their controversial politico-philanthropic endeavors, their enthusiastic money-making activities, and their le parti est le nôtre, nous sommes le parti sense of entitlement.

It's not a single source. People are talking about Biden seriously running, and his reasons run deep.

Between his underdog status, warm relationships with countless national reporters and pundits, and the irresistible narrative of a father running to fulfill his cancer-stricken son’s deathbed wish, the vice president would be all but guaranteed many weeks, if not months, of soft, forgiving, at times gushing coverage.

There you have it. What sympathies are people going to have with Hillary? By contrast, Trump is strong and getting stronger. Fox News Poll: New high for Trump, new low for Clinton.

Trump receives the backing of 26 percent of self-identified Republican primary voters -- up from 18 percent in mid-July and 11 percent a month ago. That’s not only the highest level of support for Trump, but it’s also the highest any GOP candidate has received since the Fox poll began asking the question in December 2013.

Trump’s rise hasn’t hurt former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who garners 15 percent and is the only other Republican in double-digits. He was at 14 percent in mid-July and 15 percent in June.

This is really interesting, because the press tried to kill the Trump campaign with the "Rally around McCain" moment that fizzled. So Trump gaining strength from that is really telling. What's more interesting is that as Trump gains strength, others aren't as hurt as one would think. That means something: Trump is winning over undecided voters. That's exactly the opposite of what we're being told will happen. So the brainwash is failing too.

Another example of GOP primary voters increasingly liking what they hear from Trump: 34 percent say they would “definitely” vote for him, which is more than four times what it was two months ago (8 percent).

Trump is changing perceptions about him. The media campaign has failed.

Donald Trump staying power confounds Republican opponents

Mr Trump’s surprising staying power has confounded even some of Washington’s savviest operators. Written off by many as politically dead after he belittled the war record of John McCain, the Arizona senator who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, the billionaire’s campaign has actually gained, rather than lost, momentum.

People are really hip to the establishment's propaganda and trickery. So it looks like their play is going to be to try to co-opt his message while alienating him. That's the establishment for you.

However, the problem is that Trump can keep changing focus while still remaining the darling of the public. Why? Because the establishment adopted a strategy of ignoring the will of the people, common sense, etc. and defending itself. So the only one out there really telling the truth on the matter is Trump. What have I been saying since the story broke regarding Hillary and the email server? It's a disqualification for higher office in addition to being a criminal offense. It's evidence of dangerously bad judgement. Have you heard that from Jeb Bush? No. He's given her public service awards. Look at this one from Trump:

Trump attacks Hillary's right-hand-woman Huma Abedin as he calls her husband Anthony Weiner 'the worst deviant in the United States' and claims the pair had access to Clinton's secret classified emails

Trump told DailyMail.com during a wide-ranging interview in his New York City Office that 'the person seeing her emails more than anybody else is Huma. And who's Huma married to? The worst deviant in the United States of America, right? Weiner!'

See? If Trump had been the Republican nominee in 2008, Obama would have been nowhere near the White House. The RNC's "electable" loser isn't going to win. Trump can go third party and best the Republican nominee if he has to. Without bringing up what Clinton did while in office, Trump will start talking about Hillary, Huma, and Carlos Danger. It's truly incredible to me that he's the first one pointing this out in a big way. Either the RNC is directly tied to the best interests of the Democratic party or they just don't know what the hell they're doing.

This is why I think America is failing as a great power. Deception is not a strategy. It's a tactic.

[baltwade]

I wonder if the people who say stuff like this are willing to bet money on it. Hillary is going to get smoked. Only now are the Democrats beginning to realize the err of putting all your eggs in one basket.

Actually, they are. Right now the odds for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination is just about 75% with a 2/7 payoff (you win $2 for every $7 you bet). The odds for Hillary winning the Presidency is about 50% with a 2/1 payoff.

For Republicans it's:
Bush - 45%, 5/4 payoff for the nomination - 34%, 7/2 payoff for the Presidency*
Trump - 19%, 10/1 payoff for the nomination - 11%, 22/1 payoff for the Presidency
Walker - 30%, 4/1 payoff for the nomination - 18%, 17/1 payoff for the Presidency

There are numerous predicting markets and betting sites where you can invest/bet on US elections. You can actually put your money where your mouth is. If you really believe that someone like Trump, Walker, Cruz, or even Bush is going to be the President, you could make a lot of money. Or, if you just wanted to bet that Clinton won't be the next President, there's money to be made there too.

*%odds and payoffs came from two different sites, so they don't exactly match up.

[Gletkin]

Republican candidate Donald Trump’s platform: Because I said so
by David A. Fahrenthold
The Washington Post
August 1, 2015

Donald Trump wants to make America great again. This is how he wants to do it:

If Trump were elected president, he says, he would launch the U.S. government into a massive building project — and a massive manhunt — both at once.
On the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump would build a long, impenetrable wall. In the rest of the country, he would pressure the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to “self-deport” — and, if they don't, round them up to deport en masse. Later, Trump says, “the good ones” could come back.

He also wants to go on a building spree.
Modern new VA hospitals. Better bridges, highways, railroads. A new floor at LaGuardia Airport, to replace that shabby terrazzo Trump hates. And, to pay for it all, Trump would not raise taxes. He’d lower them.

Instead, Trump would get other countries to start paying the United States large new sums of money — and agree to receive nothing in return. China, for instance, would pay for new tariffs. Mexico would even pay for America’s new border wall.

“They’re not going to pay for the wall,” Fox News host Bill O’Reilly told Trump this summer.
“You have to let me handle that, okay?” Trump said.

Trump, a billionaire real-estate developer and ­reality-TV star, has surged to the lead in the Republican presidential nominating contest using a showman’s flair and anti-immigrant and anti-Washington rhetoric.

But, so far, he’s missing something basic: a policy platform. A formal list of Trump’s ideas for America.

“They’re all done,” Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager, said in a recent radio interview. Not that they’re going to share them or anything. “They’re done and we’re waiting, you know, for our schedule,” Lewandowski said.

Nonetheless, Trump has already explained pieces of his vision — in this year’s speeches and interviews, and in “Time to Get Tough,” a political book he wrote four years ago.

At times, those ideas make Trump sound like a conservative Republican. He wants to repeal “Obamacare.” He has called global warming “bull----.” He wants to end the Common Core education program and renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran. But, at other times, he sounds more like a Democrat: Trump, for instance, rejects GOP plans to overhaul Medicare.

In other areas, Trump’s ideas seem to defy both parties’ orthodoxies. And sometimes, to defy logic.

To square the circles in his vision — to explain how he will do things that seem implausible — Trump’s answer is usually himself. That is the heart of Trump-ism, the glue that holds the agenda together — the man’s own sky-high self-confidence.

President Trump’s vision would work because Trump would be president.

“Trump is like your Uncle George at Thanksgiving dinner, saying he knows how to solve all the problems. It’s not that he’s always wrong. It’s just that he’s an auto mechanic, not a policy guy,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which calls for reduced immigration.
Krikorian actually agrees with Trump that illegal immigration is a major problem. But he’s frustrated by Trump’s ideas to fix it — such as a suggestion to charge Mexico $100,000 for “every person they send over” across the U.S. border.
“Charging them, how? For what?” Krikorian said. “It’s just Uncle George at Thanksgiving, kind of holding forth.”

In a phone call Saturday evening, Trump rejected arguments that his ideas — particularly those about building bigger projects on lower taxes — were implausible.
“It’s not implausible, because we’re going to make the economy sing,” he said. Trump said that under his leadership, more jobs and more growth would make up for lower tax rates.
He was asked whether — in the course of his campaign — he had encountered any issue where the situation was more complicated than he’d first believed. The answer seemed to be no.
“Life is complicated. But this is not complicated, believe me,” he said. He assured a reporter that he would like America under Trump: “You’ll be happy, believe me. You’ll be happy.”

The candidate was in Scotland late last week, visiting one of his golf courses. In his phone call with The Washington Post on Saturday, Trump was asked about a question raised by conservatives.

If he became president, were there any major parts of the federal government he wanted to cut?

Trump said he would cut portions of the Education Department — where he wants to eliminate Common Core — and parts of the Environmental Protection Agency. He cited clean-air enforcement as an area where regulators have become too burdensome.

For now, Trump’s lack of a detailed campaign platform hasn’t stopped his campaign. He leads the Republican field by at least six percentage points in poll averages. That would be enough to put him at center stage for the first presidential debate on Thursday night.

“It’s not so much what I like about him. It’s what I dislike about everything else in Washington,” explained Skip Houston, 51, an airline pilot from Georgia and a Trump supporter. Houston said he admired Trump’s raw approach and his ridicule of Washington’s culture of fundraising and favors.

But what about Trump’s policy ideas? “He hasn’t really gotten that in-depth yet,” Houston said.
Did that bother him? “It’s too early” Houston said. “There’s over a year to go.”

One thing is clear: Trump has reversed several positions from his past.

In 1999, contemplating a possible presidential run, Trump said he was pro-choice. Today, he is against abortion. He previously praised the idea of a national, single-payer health-care system. Today, while aiming his fire at the president’s health-care law, he doesn’t.

Trump also seems to have backed off another unusual idea: a one-time mega-tax on the nation’s very wealthy. In 2000, Trump advocated a 14.25 percent tax on people with a net worth over $10 million, which he estimated would raise $5.7 trillion and pay off the national debt in one swoop.
“It’s a win-win for the American people but an idea that no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward,” Trump wrote in his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve.”

Trump doesn’t mention that idea now.
“The numbers no longer work,” because the national debt is higher, said one longtime friend, who asked for anonymity in order to speak about Trump’s thinking without authorization from his campaign. “It was a good idea at the time. We should’ve done it. We’d be out of debt now. Or maybe not.”
Today, when Trump talks about taxes, he usually talks about lowering them.
He has called for eliminating the estate tax. Lowering personal income taxes. Other Republicans say the same. But Trump has gone much further in one respect. In his 2011 policy book, “Time to Get Tough,” Trump called for eliminating the income tax on corporations entirely: “A zero percent corporate tax would create an unprecedented jobs boom,” he wrote.

But it would also open a sinkhole in the federal budget. About 9 percent of all government revenue would vanish.

At the same time, Trump has contemplated expensive new plans. To fight the Islamic State, for instance, he has advocated a military campaign aimed at removing the oil out from under the militants’ territory.
“Take back their wealth. Take back the oil. . . . You bomb the hell out of them and then you encircle it, and then you go in” with an oil company, Trump has said. “Once you take that oil, they have nothing left. And it’s so simple.”

Oil-industry experts expressed skepticism about this plan. Skepticism, in fact, may not be a strong-enough word. They noted, for instance, the difficulty of finding a company willing to get oil out of an active war zone, and that depleting the area’s relatively minor oil fields might still take decades.
“That is sheer lunacy on so many counts, it’s hard to start,” said David Goldwyn , a former State Department special envoy for energy in the Obama administration.

At the same time, Trump — a real-estate developer now imagining himself in charge of the largest property owner in the country — has a lot of ideas for things to build at home.
Highways. A fortified border. Better VA hospitals to replace what Trump called “outdated dumps.”

“When he comes up against a problem, his reflexive answer is that we’ll do something to fix it that’s going to cost more money,” said Michael Tanner, of the libertarian Cato Institute.
He said Trump had not explained enough about how these big projects would be paid for as tax revenue declined. “You can’t spend more and collect less. That’s kind of basic math,” Tanner said. “You can argue about how the math adds up in the other people’s plans. But there’s math there. This, there’s just no math.”

That’s where the other countries come in.

In his 2011 book, for instance, Trump called for a 25 percent tariff on all goods imported from China if China wouldn’t stop unfair trade practices. Trump has also called for increased tariffs on imports from Mexico in order to pay for his wall.
He would also threaten American companies with tariffs if those companies wanted to shift U.S. jobs overseas.
“I would call up the head of Ford, who I know. If I was president, I’d say, ‘Congratulations. I understand that you’re building a nice $2.5 billion car factory in Mexico and that you’re going to take your cars and sell them to the United States, zero tax,’ ” Trump said during his campaign announcement. “So I would say, ‘Congratulations. That’s the good news. Let me give you the bad news . . . we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax.’ ”

But these plans would not be easy. Even for President Trump.

Even if Trump could get Congress to approve new tariff increases, for instance, they would likely violate existing trade agreements. And they would hit Americans in the pocketbook by making imported goods more expensive. And, probably, they would trigger retaliations from other countries, which would raise their own tariffs and hurt U.S. exports.

“If you thought this had a ghost of a chance — which it doesn’t — you would sell all your stocks,” because of the damage that a trade war would do to the U.S. economy, said Gary Hufbauer , of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Hufbauer said that the United States has spent decades trying to lower tariffs worldwide. “This would be the U.S. kind of going into the insane asylum,” he said. “It would be blowing up the system which we have created since the Second World War.”

In Trump’s plan, the thing that makes it all work is . . . Trump. This confidence is not new. Back in 2000, Trump wrote that — if elected president — he would appoint a new U.S. trade representative.

Guess who.

“My lawyers have checked, and the president has this authority,” Trump wrote then. “Our trading partners would have to sit across the table from Donald Trump.”

This year, Trump said he believed those same deal-making skills could also improve U.S. relations with an unpredictable rival: Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.
“I would be willing to bet I would have a great relationship with Putin. It’s about leadership,” he told Fox’s O’Reilly.
“Based on what?” O’Reilly asked. “You’re two macho guys?”
“Based on a feel.”
“Just a feel?”
“Based on feel,” Trump replied.

[Red_Army]

Putin and Trump could probably bond over banging underage prostitutes.

I think he would make an excellent president.

[Gletkin]

Platform: Because I Said So

That does sound awesome.

[redcarpet]

He may wreck the GOP though;

It's no secret that Fox News both boosts the GOP and wields significant influence over the party—the so-called Fox News Effect. It covers the news that Republicans want covered long after the mainstream media have moved on (Benghazi! IRS targeting! Planned Parenthood tapes!). But the network, where many Republican voters get most of their news, is also partly responsible for setting the party's agenda and boosting its major players, including Trump. And by helping Trump maneuver to the front of the GOP pack and putting him in the spotlight Thursday night, Fox may be doing significant damage to the party it has long favored.

When the Republican National Committee assigned Fox the first of up to 12 primary debates, it also gave the network the ability to choose the debate format and qualification criteria.

Recently, New York magazine's Gabriel Sherman reported that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes "is pushing Fox to defend Trump’s most outlandish comments." In June, Fox gave Trump more coverage than any other candidate, according to Sherman.

"I don't think there's any question that they essentially made Trump, because going back several years now they would invite him on quite often to discuss political issues, and in the process made him a political figure," says Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official and a critic of the Republican Party's recent ideological move to the right. "Trump is sort of the most obvious example in which Fox is exercising outside influence on the Republican electoral process. I think without Fox, he would not be running, let alone a serious candidate."

Kevin Arceneaux, a political scientist at Temple University, says Fox's influence over the debate—and its role in making Trump a front-runner—is part of a larger trend of the declining power of parties in choosing their own nominees. In the 2008 book "The Party Decides," four political scientists demonstrated that for the past several decades, the candidate in both parties favored by the party's elites—members of Congress, governors, and influential local party leaders—always won the nomination. The parties, the book argues, "scrutinize and winnow the field before voters get involved, attempt to build coalitions behind a single preferred candidate, and sway voters to ratify their choice." And since the 1970s, they have been successful. But Arceneaux believes that may change this year as parties cede power to the media and the billionaire donors who have emerged since 2010, when the Supreme Court struck down limits on outside election spending in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. "The parties still set the rules for how nominations take place," he says. "But they have a bit more competition at the table saying who should be the standard bearer for the party."

To Bartlett, the question is not whether Fox is influential, but whether its influence is good or bad for the GOP. In an academic paper earlier this year, Bartlett posited that the network, which once gave voice to the party's agenda, may now be directing that agenda to the detriment of the party. He called it a "self-brainwashing" that has pushed the party to the right, making it harder for Republicans to win presidential elections.

The RNC has voiced support for how Fox News has organized the first debate, but the setup could inadvertently highlight the party's weaknesses. Making Trump the face of the party Thursday night might hurt the GOP "if only because of his toxic effect on Latinos," a critical voting block in several swing states, says Bartlett. Trump alienated many Latinos when he suggested undocumented immigrants from Mexico are "rapists."

"If I was a Democrat, I'd just stand back—I'd do everything in my power to make Trump the face of the Republican Party," Bartlett says. "Not that they have to make much effort."