Trump Mocked Elizabeth Warren, Referred to Her as “The Indian”

This story is a little bit older than we usually report on, being from March 21, but WDTLAY missed it then. It also concerns an Oklahoma native and casual racism towards Native Americans.

Elizabeth Warren has come out very strongly against Donald Trump, at various times calling him a “loser” and a “wannabe tyrant.” When asked at a press conference about these comments Trump smugly said “Who’s that, the Indian? You mean the Indian?” Trump is referring to a controversy that Elizabeth Warren could not prove her Native American heritage when pressed.

Immediately after making this rude, offensive and divisive comment, Trump has the audacity to brand Elizabeth Warren the divisive one: “The problem with the country right now is it’s so divided. People like Elizabeth Warren really have to get their act together because it’s going to stay divided.” Donald Trump seems to think that using racially charged words to mock a US Senator is the way to really bring the country together.

He later further patronized Native Americans in general and Elizabeth Warren in particular, saying “I think it’s wonderful because the Indians can now partake in the future of the country. She’s got about as much Indian blood as I have. Her whole life was based on a fraud. She got into Harvard and all that because she said she was a minority.”


Donald Trump Donates Less Than Half of $6M To Military Charities


While most of the Presidential candidates were attending a Fox News debate on January 28th, Donald Trump decided to hold a fundraiser for military veterans. He was boycotting the debate because moderator Megyn Kelly had asked him some tough questions in an earlier debate. In any case, raising money for veterans is a laudable undertaking, and according to Donald Trump he raised $6 million.

More than two months later, the Wall Street Journal states the charities that were slated to receive the money report that they have received only $2.4 million from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. 19 of the 22 charities responded. One had not filled out the paperwork, one didn’t respond and one did not disclose how much it received. Several groups said they didn’t receive any of the money promised to them.

The Trump campaign said that more charities than those originally mentioned received money, petulantly adding that “if the media spent half as much time highlighting the work of these groups and how our Veterans have been so mistreated, rather than trying to disparage Mr. Trump’s generosity for a totally unsolicited gesture for which he had no obligation, we would all be better for it.” If the Trump campaign was transparent and upfront about where $6 million dollars in donations went then perhaps this wouldn’t be a story.


Trump Actually Said “I Don’t Care About the Rules”

While the staff here at WDTLAY Headquarters usually focuses on, well, lies that Donald Trump told yesterday, we ran across an incredible sound bite of Donald Trump telling the truth. Still stinging after winning the Louisiana primary, but losing delegates, he raged this quote at a rally in Milwaukee on Tuesday:

“And then you see the dishonesty. You see where I won Louisiana, and then I find out I’m not supposed to get as many delegates as a person that I beat. What kind of stuff is that?” Trump continued: “Somebody said, ‘Well, there’s a rule and another rule.’ I don’t care about rules, folks. I go out, I campaign, we win, we get the delegates, right?” Check the 14:00 mark of the above video.

That “stuff” happens to be the rules in place for the GOP primary of Louisiana. Unfortunately, bluster doesn’t matter, that “stuff” is the only thing that matters. To fact check Trump here, he and Cruz actually won 18 each, but there are 5 unbound and 5 that went to Rubio who has now dropped out of the race.

Donald Trump is correct in being frightened. He has a serious delegate problem, and needs ever delegate that he can get. While Ted Cruz has been mobilizing his “establishment” organization for months to woo delegates for the convention, Trump only hired a delegate advisor last week. This became crystal clear in Louisiana as all of 10 of the unbound delegates there are likely to go to Cruz.

Ultimately the President is the chief of the Executive branch, the lead enforcer of the rules. It is truly incredible that a man running for the office of President would utter such a comment with such disdain for the laws of our country, and his own professed party. “I don’t care about the rules, folks…”


Trump on Delegate Fight: ‘I Don’t Care About the Rules’

Trump Accuses Cruz of Collusion With Super PAC

CaptureAfter a bad week in the press the Trump campaign was hoping for a surprise win in the Wisconsin primary, where Ted Cruz has been leading the polls. Unfortunately for Donald Trump, he was trounced thoroughly by the Texas Senator on Tuesday, losing by 13 points. Instead of retreating with his campaign to plan a strategy going forward Donald Trump’s campaign lashed out against Cruz, accusing him of being a “puppet…a Trojan Horse” for the GOP and perhaps more seriously accused him of colluding with a Super PAC.

In a statement yesterday the Trump campaign claimed that Ted Cruz “was coordinating with his own Super PACs, who totally control him.” They did not go on to offer any proof however, and no evidence of this has come to light. Coordinating with a PAC is illegal, and a serious offense. The Trump campaign used similar accusations about an attack ad in Utah a few weeks ago, as well as a multitude of other baseless claims, with a similar lack of evidence.

While these statements from Trump have no evidence to back him up, it does bring up an important and hazy point on how much coordinating between candidates and PACs is going on. According to the Washington Post, Ted Cruz has appeared at several functions in Wisconsin in the last week put on by the Keep The Promise PAC. Appearing at these functions alone is not considered coordination by the Federal Election Commission as long as strategies and specifics on the race are not discussed.


Trump To Use Patriot Act To Make Mexico Pay for Wall?


One of Donald Trump’s earliest and most often lauded promises is to build a wall between the US and Mexico and to make Mexico pay for it. During Trump’s prolific speech making, sometimes 4 or 5 in a day, he mentions this pledge in nearly every one of them. What he doesn’t mention is how he plans on making Mexico pay.

In another memo to the Washington Post today he has finally fleshed out what up until now has been bluster and vagaries. He has vowed to stop the remittance payments from the US to Mexico, a lifeline to many of the poorest in Mexico and an important part of the Mexican economy. Trump claims these payments from the US are “de facto welfare” and amount to as much as $24 billion per year, though that includes the payments from the entire world, not just the US.

The Trump memo says that the “majority” of these payments are from illegal immigrants. However this statistic is almost certainly made up as the Goverment Accountability Office has stated that it is impossible to tell how much of these payments are from illegal immigrant or legally working people of Mexican descent. The disdain for the people of Mexico is clear in the memo.

The big reveal of the memo is a proposal of how to legally stop the wire transfers. Enter the Patriot Act. Section 326 requires legal identification to open an account at a bank, presumably to stop the transfer of money to fund terrorism. Trump plans to expand the definition of “account” to also mean “wire transfer.” Then they could be stopped if deemed illegal. THEN President Trump could officially begin blackmailing the country of Mexico.

Trump also laid out the rest of his blueprints for “leveraging” Mexico that he has said before, namely raising visa prices, increasing tariffs and cancelling visas. It is not really clear whether any of this is legal at all, much less whether a President could unilaterally interpret the law this way, or enact these changes without the agreement of Congress.


Donald Trump Changes His Stance on Abortion Again for the 5th or 6th Time

Yesterday in an interview with Sean Hannity, Trump was asked early on about his recent stances on abortion. Hannity asked about his statements earlier this week with Chris Matthews where Trump said that abortion should be illegal and that women who get abortions should “be punished.”

Last night he had a completely different stance. “You know I’m pro-life, okay, with the exceptions, but I am pro-life…It was a hypothetical question, you give a hypothetical answer.” Trump said last week that abortion should be illegal, period, with no talk of any of the usual exceptions for rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Donald Trump has held just about every conceivable position on the abortion issue. The Washington Post released an article on Sunday with an amazing timeline of Trump’s different stances on abortion. Below is a summation of that timeline:

October 1999: In an interview on Meet The Press, Donald Trump describes himself as “very pro-choice,” even advocating for third trimester partial birth abortions.

1999-2011: Trump reverses his stance on abortion, claiming that he became pro-life after hearing anecdotes about women deciding not to have abortions.

June 2015: In an interview with Jake Tapper, Trump says he’s pro-choice, realizes his mistake, and quickly corrects himself to “pro-life.”

March 30, 2016 2:30pm: The interview with Chris Matthews where Trump declares that all abortion should be illegal, with no mention of exceptions, then goes on to say that if it were made illegal then the woman who have abortions should be punished. There was no mention of the fathers or doctors performing the abortions.

March 30, 2016 3:30pm: One hour after making those statements the Trump campaign backpedals and tweets the he is “pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times.”

March 30, 2016 5:00pm: In a more formal statement two and a half hours later, Trump changes his position again, saying that if abortion were made illegal then the doctors would be targeted for prosecution, not the women involved.

April 1, 2016 6:30pm: Trump changes tack again, saying that the abortion laws are in place, and they will remain. He would prefer that the states choose their own stance on abortion.

April 1, 2016 9:00pm: That evening in a statement from the campaign, Trump says that he will uphold the law on abortion, but appoint judges that will overturn the law.


Trump Predicts “Massive Recession,” Economists Scratch Their Heads


Yesterday WDTLAY posted about Trump’s farcical promise to eliminate the national debt in his eight years as President. In that same interview in the Washington Post he predicted a “very massive recession.”

He cited high unemployment and an overvalued stock market as a “financial bubble,” with a serious recession looming. “First of all, we’re not at 5 percent unemployment. We’re at a number that’s probably into the twenties if you look at the real number,” he said in regard to the unemployment rate of 5% released by Bureau of Labor Statistics. A broader measure of unemployment that includes part time employees and those that have become discouraged and stopped looking for work is pegged at 9.8%.


The above graph, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that unemployment is approaching its pre-recession lows of 4.4%, though currently at 5%.

In an article at Huffington Post, Harm Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Research, said “We’re not heading for a recession, massive or minor, and the unemployment rate is not 20 percent.”

Many economists would agreed that the stock market may be in a period of slight overvaluation due to the recent rally. The market as a whole has been estimated to be 15% higher than its long term averages, but hardly a catastrophic overvaluation that Trump’s hyperbolic statements would suggest.

In an article at CNBC, Rajeen Dhawan, director of Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University, said “I cannot predict a stock market crash, so I cannot predict a recession. I don’t see any of the reasons for a recession going forward unless there is a huge problem with the market or there is some catastrophic world event which is beyond the scope of economics.”


President Trump Would Rid US of $19 Trillion in Eight Years

Confused Schoolgirl Thinking

In an interview with the legendary Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa published Saturday Donald Trump made the fantastical claim that he as President Trump would wipe out all $19 trillion of US national debt in just eight years.

After stating that the US was sitting on a massive bubble about to pop, he then made the ambitious claim that he could wipe out $19 trillion dollars of debt “over a period of eight years.” Here’s a transcript from the Post:

Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.”

Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?”

Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…”

Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?”

Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.”

Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?”

Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.”

Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.”

Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.”

Most economists and anyone who understands basic arithmetic would say this is a ridiculous fantasy. Let’s take a look at the numbers.

If the national debt stopped right now it would be around $19,274,000,000,000. Let’s call it $19 trillion. $19 trillion divided by 8 years is $2.375 trillion dollars per year that the US would have to pay back in order to get rid of the debt. Last year the national budget was $3.8 trillion dollars. To pay off the national debt in 8 years the US would have to repay 62% of the entire national budget each year for all 8 years. The absurdity of this statement should be self evident. These numbers also do not take into account that the US is running at a deficit and before he could begin paying it off that Trump would have to balance the budget.

Trump claimed that he would raise that nearly two thirds of the national budget, more than $2 trillion, by “renegotiating trade deals.” He offered no specifics on how he would do this. Trump was wrong on the numbers about our trade deficit with China, it’s $366 billion. Our entire trade deficit with the world is $531 billion. The US would only see a tiny fraction of that as income.


Trump Tweets That Wisconsin Lost Jobs, Actually Gained 1000s


While Trump tweeted this morning that “Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade,” a quick look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website tells a different story. The employment numbers have been gradually increasing at a rate of approximately 3000 jobs per month. Unemployment is at 4.6%, well below the national rate of 5%. Below are graphs from the BLS showing all upticks in jobs since the recession.


Trump was also wrong on the loss of trade. While the most recent numbers released by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection are from 2014, they show an increase in overall trade of 1% compared to 2013. The total exports were $23 billion in 2014, that 1% amounts to a $230 million increase in trade in 2014.

It is unclear where Trump got the idea that Wisconsin is losing jobs, as it just is not true. Trump promises to “rapidly reverse” these trends, so think about that before casting a vote for Trump in Wisconsin this Tuesday.


Trump Says Explicitly That a Woman That Gets an Abortion Should Be “Punished”

Donald Trump, a man who declared himself to be “very pro-choice” in 1999, stated that women who get an abortion should “be punished.” Check the 1:20 mark of the above video. Chris Matthews presses Trump to answer whether he thinks that a woman who gets a abortion should be punished:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no? As a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some sort of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten years? What?
TRUMP: That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not? You take positions on everything else?
TRUMP: I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.

Trump explicitly states in this interview that he would ban all abortions, and thinks that any woman that gets an abortion should be punished. In spite of the fact that time and time again a woman’s right to choose has be upheld by the Constitution.

He quickly backtracked later that day after outrage from women’s groups and even members of his own party, saying that he was in favor of punishing doctors who performed illegal abortions, not the women involved. That is absolutely not what he said in this interview. There is no wiggle room in the above statement.

This episode again shows Trump’s disregard for truth, the Constitution and shines another light on the fact that this man has no morally held positions. Should women be punished for having an abortion like you said on Wednesday? Or should third trimester partial birth abortions be legal, like you said in 1999?