The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Club for Growth Action to Trump: You Sue Us, We'll Sue You Back
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corne ... well-sue-you-back-jim-geraghty
Published: Sep 26, 2015
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2015-09-26 08:54:45 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 18914
Comments: 92
Attorneys for Club for Growth Action, a political arm of the Club for Growth, sent a letter to the Trump Organization’s General Counsel Thursday threatening a counter-suit if Trump sues their organization. “If Mr. Trump brought suit on the baseless grounds stated in your letter, Club Action would not hesitate to seek sanctions for abusive litigation under Federal Rule 11 or equivalent rules and, depending upon the forum, under statutes that deter Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statutes),” the letter states. “Stripped of its purple adjectives, your letter makes two complaints against Club Action. Both complaints are untrue, and neither comes close to the type of knowing and malicious falsehood the First Amendment requires a public figure such as Mr. Trump to establish.” At the heart of the issue is the Club for Growth Action ad stating that Trump “supports higher taxes.” Trump’s lawyers say he no longer holds the position the ad refers to, and will soon be unveiling a plan to lower taxes. (Trump has said, however, he intends to target the “hedge fund guys” who he feels aren’t paying their fair share.) Perhaps the more interesting contention from the Club is this: You accuse the Club for Growth of trying to “extort” a million dollars from Mr. Trump in return for its political support. Nonsense. Club Action reports it was Mr. Trump who, last spring, asked to meet with the Club. During the meeting requestsed by Mr. Trump, as reflected in the attached letter to Mr. Trump, the Club’s Mr. [David] McIntosh made clear that the Club and Mr. Trump had important areas of policy disagreement. However, some areas of policy agreement also were identified. Mr. Trump asked how he could support the Club and, upon being informed that a donation would be appreciated, invited Mr. McIntosh to send a follow-up letter through Mr. Lewandowski, who also attended.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
What is the Club for Growth?
... one million dollars could make all that go away:
A conservative shakedown organization like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push. Make a donation and we won't say anything bad.
Wow. Only one million dollars? What a racket.
You're right. One million dollars is chump change for Trump. Hell, demanding only one million dollars from a guy like Trump, well, that hardly qualifies as a "shakedown", right? And running negative ads after being told by Trump to go piss up a rope, well, they would have run those ads even if they got the paltry one million dollars. You believe that, right? I mean, that's what "conservative" organizations do, isn't it? Take down conservatives?
The answer to all of this is not to engage these people directly. Ignore them. Use your own money to get elected. And then, when in power, press a directly populist message that the wealthy will pay the same percentage of their total wealth, from all sources including current income, that the middle middle class and working class do - the people who are above the level of the earned income tax credit, but below the level of the Social Security cutout. Make sure that the wealthy pay the identical taxes on capital gains, including unrealized capital gains, that the middle middle class does. The middle middle class earns wages, and all of them are taxed by social security, medicare and income tax. Therefore, ALL sources of income will be taxed by those same three taxes: capital gains and dividends also, and ALL at the same rate. And unrealized capital gain? That is also taxed to the middle class as well, in the form of property tax on homes (about 1.4% average). So, the middle middle class holds its wealth in homes, and pay 1.4% every year on that wealth. And the super rich hold their wealth as securities, and they shall be taxed at 1.4% of the value of their wealth too, every year, just like the middle middle class are. The second source of middle middle class wealth is automobiles, and they pay a sales tax when they buy them. Let the wealthy pay the same sales tax on the purchase of securities as well. Simply target the different methods by which the rich hold and exchange wealth with the identical taxes, at the same rates, the the middle class pay. That will redistribute about 30% of the wealth of the rich, just as it does the middle class. It is just. It will be popular with everybody but the rich (and they deserve no special breaks or favors), it will make the rich no different from everybody else, strip them of their secret privileges, and force them to compete in just exactly the same ways. And as their wealth concentrations ebb, their power will ebb also. Focus on the middle and working class, and propose tax reform that doesn't make the rich pay MORE taxes, but simply makes the rich pay the same LEVEL of taxes, on all their wealth, that the middle class pay. Do not allow the rich to make special categories of wealth that don't get hit by taxes. Stocks are not different than houses and cars. They're just wealth. But we TAX middle class wealth, every year. Not the wealth of the rich. There is a nice "right across the plate" pitch here that is so obviously just and fair that the only people who will scream are the rich who want to keep their privileges and shift the burden of government to the middle class, as they have done. Spread the burden evenly, and the rich will be brought in line. And then name and shame and nail every special interest group that lobbies for its own tax breaks. No tax breaks, for anybody. Starting at the top, because moves at the top generate greater revenue. Set the tax burden at the level needed to pay the government without a deficit, and as the debt is gradually retired over time, use the excess to pay it faster. Stop the accounting legerdemain. Fair, even and straightforward. No? Then refuse to compromise, let everything shut down, and let it all go to pieces. By doing so, Andrew Johnson turned what would have been the complete rape of the American South into a merely oppressive, tiresome and ultimately ineffective burden of occupation and annoyance. Sometimes you have to know when to draw the line and not budge, and accept that its better to let everything go to pieces than to let the bad guys win. If the choice is to thrown your own child out of the lifeboat to drown, so that the rest in the boat have a better chance of making it, you say that no, we will ALL risk drowning together, and maybe we will all drown together, but we're not throwing my child overboard. Because your lives are no more valuable than his, and it is better that we all die and go to God clean, than they we be murderers, live a few more years, and then all be thrown into hell. And then, when somebody disagrees, you throw HIM out of the boat, and your problem is solved, and he deserves it. That's how you fight.
Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income? Meaning you want to tax them again. And tax the same security every year. But only 1.4%, right? That percentage won't go up, will it? I don't see anything in your post about cutting spending. Why is that? Are we already spending as little as possible and the only solution is to send Washington more money?
Trump told them he wanted to support the Club. So they sent a fundraising request to his campaign manager. I've never known the Club to compromise, no matter who the donor is. Notice they specifically pointed out that they disagree with Trump on some political matters up front. Trump knew that they weren't going to ever endorse him if he didn't embrace the Club's strict agenda. Just as a general matter, the Club is quite consistent in applying its standards to both donors and to pols that it donates to. The pols, in particular, have to toe the line on the Club's agenda. Sounds like Trump wanted their endorsement and thought he could just buy them off since that is typical with many of these groups. The Club is tougher than that. If Trump just wants to write a check and get an endorsement, the Heritage Action group would be a better bet for him. But the Club's endorsement carries a lot more weight which is why Trump was interested to begin with. And Trump at least knows that a lot of us can be swayed to a candidate if they can secure the Club's support.
Another of your shameless lies. I doubt you know the Club or its history at all. Don't you have a cop to blow?
But Trump gives no indications he is going to cough up that moldy money he's got. His annual cash flow apparently is on the order of $400M. Assuming he'll blow off $100M on immediate expenses for the extended family and such, he'd have $300M in cash. After that, he has to start selling off golf courses and resorts and casinos and hotels. Or borrow money (at a favorable interest rate). You imagine Trump pulling out a big wallet with $1 billion of his own money to run. I would almost bet my own cash money that that will never happen. Recall Perot, another tycoon self-funder. And how much did he spend? AFAIK, even in his first run (when he had to cover the costs of getting the Reform party on all the state ballots), he spent under $60 million. And I'm not sure Trump will even spend $100M. Just think how much Trump has enhanced his name brand all over the world in the last few months. He could quit now, having spent nothing and gotten hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free publicity for his name brand. And Trump, in recent years, is all about putting his brand name (not his own money) into big projects. I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon you can finally love with all your heart and soul but there it is. : )
As a reccomendation, don't pick on "misterwhite"; he is an innocent victim of government love. He is reaching out for HELP!, however.
F**k the Club and f**k it's history. They tried to shakedown Trump and it didn't work. They're no different than Jesse and Al. What, I'm supposed to ignore that shameless bribery attempt because it's a "conservative" organization and it means well? The end justifies the means? Go vote for Hillary. At least she agrees with you. "Don't you have a cop to blow?" Watch your mouth, asshole.
Crush with what? Your own dreams? Yeah. That'll work.
So if Trump You're stupid if you believe that.
You're making stuff up.
No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them. I've never seen them adopt any donor's position. The donors adopt the Club's positions. And any pol that gets Club money has to toe the line, in particular on the annual roll call votes that they have held for the last decade or so. These are the ones where they try to defund pork for various congresscritters. It is a major reason why the Beltway GOP doesn't like them. Well, that and running candidates in primaries against their RINO incumbents (like Cochrane in Mississippi in 2014).
The club you worship is the enemy of Americans. They are part of the establishement that you are. You're establishement needs to be puked out of America.
You're naive if you don't understand that some of these "conservative" groups do sell endorsements. And you're naive if you don't understand that that is exactly what Trump was trying to do. He no doubt will buy a few of these endorsements. However, the Club has its reputation and loyal backers because they aren't for sale. The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (though they aren't as strong as they once were, the Club having taken some of their donors away from them).
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores. They are also damaged goods and those who associate with them are writing their own political funeral.
As I said. They would NOT have run the negative ads had Trump "contributed". A shakedown by any other name.
Actually, they are not for sale. But they assume that pols are so they do buy the pols. And they are quite good at making sure their pols stay bought. The Club intends to buy the pols (mostly in low-cost districts) to enact its pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda. And also to make the rest of them afraid of getting primaried by Club-backed opponents. In some respects, the Club was the model for the Tea Party groups. Like NRA, the Club will consider endorsing Dems as well as GOPs. Of course, Dems are allergic to the Club so they rarely have any applicants but it isn't because the Club isn't willing if a Dem will support their agenda.
Of course they were. And so were the houses of the middle class - which is the primary capital resource in which THEY hold their wealth. Cars are next, and those are taxed on sale and annual registration as well. So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent, and the primary capital asset they have that grows, is also paid for by after-tax money, and taxed on sale, and taxed again every year. Of course YOU are always going to support a special tax regime for the super-rich, even though you are not one of them, and YOU have to pay tax on YOUR primary capital asset year after year after year. You're one of those duped rube upper middle class folks I've talked about, who vote for Republicans so they can favor the people far above you, and screw you. But you have a (small, compared to them) stock portfolio that you don't want to see taxed. The 1.4% is what people pay right now, on average, for their house and land every year in property tax. That's why securites should be taxed at that rate. As far as cutting spending, in THIS post? No. But if you've read my posts over the years, you see that I have spending cuts all over the place, starting with bringing the military home from imperial adventures, slashing everything but the strategic nuclear forces by 75% and stationing the remainder on the Mexican border to stop the flow. Also, you've seen me advocating ending non-emergency relief foreign aid. You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people. Leave taxes where they are, augment it with direct extraction revenues, use the surging surplus to pay off the national debt, and then systematically ratchet down taxes overall so that we run no surplus and have no debt. There's plenty we can do to cut expenditures. Single payer health insurance will make per capita insurance costs to the government a lot lower than the current crazy-quilt, which is designed to inflate profits for the insurance company middlemen. Of course YOU are never going to hear any of this. Others might, though.
The Teachers Unions are not for sale either. They are hard-core partisan and could not be bought if you wanted to.
They are none of that. They are pro establishement crony capitalists amnesty loving pieces of shit. If they were pro business. They wouldn't be going against Trump. Trump is pro business they are not. The are not pro jobs. If they were they would be for eliminating trade deals that destroy American jobs and infrastructure. They aren't anit regulation. They like us being regulated under NAFTA, GATT and other bullshit "laws". They could all go suck Obama and get aids and die and we would be better off.
Well, I was trying to find something to like that had an "R" behind its name., but I can see myself from the partisan Republicans on this board that they'll never accept Trump. So I'm building Biden or Hillary into my models for the future now, because the only guy with a prayer of beating the Democrats is Trump, and it's obvious to me, just from this board and talking to other Republicans at work (in the NYC finance world) that Trump is not their guy. Some of them voted for Obama (the first time) because Palin was off the reservation of acceptable to them. They're not going to vote outside of their bandwidth. They are the "GOPe". I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true. It's like :Palin. I loved her. The degree of hatred others showed for her, and still do when I mention her, moves them into a certain cadre in my mind. The Republican right is dominated by that sort, and I think of them about the same that they think of Sarah and Trump. So I was hoping I'd have somebody to support, but you Republicans look destined to knock out Trump. I won't vote for him, but I'd rather see Hillary win than let you guys win. Whoever wins the next election puts two butts on the Supreme Court. I'd rather Hillary do that than Runio or Jeb or Fiorina. So now it's just watching a baseball game between two teams I don't care about, but one team I really hate. The Republicans vis-a-vis Trump are like that team that hired Tebow but refused to play him: jackasses that I want to see lose.
Why don't you do that? Why would anyone do that and give the profits they earned to the treasury. No one is that stupid. Sharing the profits would be better.
I don't hang out with the super elite like you do. Unless I'm doing a job for them. I can assure you that there are more regular folk then upper class snobs who vote for Obama. Almost everyone I talk to loves Trump and will vote for him. I'm just a regular dude. So I know what regular dudes think like. Also I know some regular gals who like him too. A couple who voted for the child murderer Obama.
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests. A federal and state oil companies, to drill on federal and state land, need not have investors that want a huge return, and need not have highly-paid executives. Roughnecks cost what they cost, but federal and state executives are civil servants that get paid pennies compered to private oil company execs. So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land. The cost of doing that is the same, but the profiits don't get handed over to the executives or the shareholders., they go right into the Treasury, where they reduce the need for taxes. Let private interests drill, and they only pay royalties for use of public land. Those royalties are but a tiny fraction of the profits. Most of the profits go to execs and shareholders. If civil servants are the execs, the profits stay in the company, and if the people are shareholders, through the Treasury, massive cash flows flow to the people directly from public assets under public lands exploited by the public, without any profit-skimming private middlemen. Cut out the middlemen, put public profit from public oil in the public treasury, and the need for tax revenues from the public will diminish proportionally, dollar for dollar, leaving more money in private hands for private activity.
Then you can have to post office and the office of management and budget go get the oil. The land is actually Gods not the governments.
Hey Mr Roosevelt butt kisser. Why not just have the government do everything like the USSR. Then we can all get our rationed "fair share". Where is the aurhorization in the constitution for the government to do this? Oh there isn't any but you're lawless so who cares right.
Yep. They even published a price list.
Well, to be clear, I think Trump is great, and I'll vote for him. I thought Sarah was great, and I voted for HER, not McCain - he was just at the top of the ticket. I vomited in my mouth when I voted for Romney, and that is the last time I'm going to pull the R lever unless I SUPPORT the person I'm voting for. The last three Republicans I actually SUPPORTED were: Palin, W on his RE-ELECTION (hated him in his first election), and Dole. I'll support Trump if your Republican buddies let him get the nomination, but they're not going to. I will not vote for any of the other Republican candidates EXCEPT for Carson, or Cruz, or Huckabee, but none of them will be the nominee. Trump's the only one who could be. And I see just how evil Republicans are - they'll stop at NOTHING in order to stop him. And when they do, I would rather have Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. The difference between this time and other times is that ever since 1969 the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court, so no matter what they always had the final say. But the next President will put two Justices on that court: Ginsburg's replacement, and Kennedy's. If Trump isn't the nominee, Biden or Hillary will put the next two justices on the court, and that will mean that the Court moves rapidly, with its full power, to sweep aside the political resistance to the full Democrat agenda. The winner this time wins it all. Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites. If it's Hitler v. Stalin, I'm with Stalin, because Stalin will always win - he has bigger armies - and in a Game of Thrones, I'm interested in living through the end of the game. The Right wing always loses popular revolutions. We don't have to have one at all, but we will if the Republicans keep winning with their economic agenda. It is France 1770 all over again. The pieces on the table are all the same, and they're being moved in the same tired, stupid old ways. A Trump can forestall that. A Lafayette - an aristocrat who GETS IT that the nobility can only rule the people if it doesn't IMPOVERISH the people. People will follow wealthy leaders, but they will kill them instead if the wealthy become SO greedy that they take away more and more of what the common people have. The wealthy have to keep on reasonably redistributing what they have amassed, as poverty relief and encouragement of the guilds, and as entertainment. If instead they compete with each other to try to run the table, the middle class and civil servants and workers become poor, the poor become destitute, and eventually they all march on Versailles and cut off the heads of the rich and take all of their shit. Then the rich are dead, or in America (or Chile or Russia). We have seen this game play out across three centuries. The American rich are just the current bone-headed aristocracy headed for the guillotine, UNLESS a Lafayette can garner the support of the people and clip the wings of the rich ENOUGH to keep it all going along well. You can concentrate 50% of the wealth in the top 10%, because that leaves enough for the rest to live decently, if frugally. But when you start concentrating 85%, as we have, going to 90%, in 5% of the hands, well, those FEMA camps and coffins are likely to end up housing and burying Rockefellers, not Smiths and Lopez', when all is said and done. The rich need a Trump to raise their taxes more than they imagine. But they don't imagine. So, I'm still hoping he wins, but I just don't think that the Republican crapweasels are going to let it happen.
Yes, and our houses are God's also, and not the government's. But if I don't pay my taxes, the government will act as though it's its, and take it. And currently the government claims the land and God isn't drilling wells, so as far as earthly powers go, federal land and the oil beneath it, all God's, are under the dominion of the temporal human owner, which is the federal government. We are the federal government. So, we should drill our oil, put the profit into the treasury, and reduce our taxes accordingly.
The Post Office will always operate at a loss because it has to deliver to private citizens in rural areas, and that can't be done profitably. It's like rural roads - necessary, costly, a permanent drain. But not such a crushing burden that we should stop doing it.
Like a commie you want to get rid of the rich. If there are no rich who can oppose the government?
Similarly, the rich pay property taxes on their homes. Along with taxes on their cars, boats and planes. They also pay a higher income tax rate, inheritance taxes, and capital gains taxes -- unlike most in the middle class. The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the nation's income taxes, and are paying a larger share each year. The bottom 50% don't pay shit. They're freeloaders. Before we hit "the rich" to pay more, how about a little something from the lower 50% so they have some skin in the game?
In the USSR, the government took that which was private and operated it, after shooting the owners. Here, Federal land is already Federal, so there's no taking. It's using what is already ours. The Constitution? Necessary and proper. Appropriation of money. It's no different than the selling off of land in 1800s for farms.
WHAT??? The Democrats bought their vote long ago.
Then I predict we'll have the biggest write-in campaign in this nation's history.
We're talking a post-Obama (apocalyptic) period So this is the USA that the "winner" will win: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
Comments (41 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
"... the Club’s Mr. [David] McIntosh made clear that the Club and Mr. Trump had important areas of policy disagreement. However ..."
#3. To: BobCeleste (#1)
"What is the Club for Growth?"
#4. To: misterwhite (#2)
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#4)
"Wow. Only one million dollars? What a racket."
#6. To: TooConservative (#0)
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
"And the super rich hold their wealth as securities, and they shall be taxed at 1.4% of the value of their wealth too, every year, just like the middle middle class are."
#8. To: misterwhite (#2)
#9. To: misterwhite (#3)
A conservative shakedown organization like Jesse Jackson's Operation Push. Make a donation and we won't say anything bad.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Use your own money to get elected.
#11. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#9)
#12. To: TooConservative (#9)
"I doubt you know the Club or its history at all."
#13. To: TooConservative (#10)
"I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon
#14. To: TooConservative (#8)
"Trump told them he wanted to support the Club. So they sent a fundraising request to his campaign manager."
paid the bribe "donated" one million dollars, they still would have run those negative ads about him. Because they're "consistent in applying their standards".
#15. To: TooConservative (#8)
If Trump just wants to write a check and get an endorsement,
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
So if Trump paid the bribe "donated" one million dollars, they still would have run those negative ads about him. Because they're "consistent in applying their standards".
#17. To: TooConservative (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
You're making stuff up.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
they aren't for sale.
#20. To: TooConservative (#16)
"No, they would have thanked him and highlighted areas where Trump agrees with them."
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They are for sale. They are already bought and paid for. They are whores.
#22. To: misterwhite (#7)
Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income? ... Weren't those securities purchased with after-tax income?
#23. To: TooConservative (#18)
The only other group that is notable for not being for sale is the National Taxpayers Union bunch (
#24. To: TooConservative (#21)
pro-business/pro-jobs/anti-regulation agenda.
#25. To: TooConservative (#10)
(Edited)
I know I'm crushing your sweet dreams of the Republican tycoon you can finally love with all your heart and soul but there it is. : )
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
You'll have seen me advocate for the states and feds to drill for the oil and frack it on state and federal land, and put all of the profit from oil exploitation on public land directly into the treasury, reducing the need to tax people.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
I can vote with the GOP on a Trump, but they and you are all telling me that it won't be him, that you'll never accept him, and I'm beginning to be pretty sure that is true.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Oil under federal and state land belongs to the people. It does not belong to private interests.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
So, you set up a federal oil company to explore and drill all of the oil on federal land.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#19)
(Edited)
"They are for sale."
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Then you can have to post office
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Which means its Trump or bust. And then the question - if it's not Trump - is what the bust looks like. Is it a Republican bust, where everybody gets screwed but the super rich escape? Or is it a Democrat bust, where everybody gets screwed and the rich get gutted and strung up. If I'm going to go down, I want to be sure that the rich go down with me. So, in a bust scenario, in a Revolution, I'm definitely on the side of the Reds against the Whites.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
"So, the two primary places middle class wealth is spent"
#37. To: A K A Stone (#30)
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
"The Teachers Unions are not for sale either."
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
"And then the question - if it's not Trump"
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
The winner this time wins it all.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]