Trump reveals economic policy team
Donald Trump has unveiled his list of economic advisers.
The list is quite varied, with some very conservative individuals (Steven Moore of the Heritage Institute for example), a good number of former Reagan administration officials, a bunch of middle-of-the-road businessmen, and at least one past Hillary Clinton contributor (Steven Mnuchin). Overall, this list once again suggests that a Trump administration will be moderate though lean right, while also favoring business. It also suggests that Trump’s administration will not be as reform-minded as he sometimes claims. Instead, it suggests that while Trump will push through some much needed reforms, his administration will mostly work to try to fix the status quo.
Will that be good for the country? Right now, considering the dire state of the federal government’s budget and the general corruption that increasingly seems to permeate its entire operation, I personally don’t think so. Strong and fearless reform is needed badly, and it looks like the Trump administration won’t really give us that. However, this list of advisers also suggests that a Trump administration will possibly include some positive change, and also be far less harmful than a Clinton administration, which will push to do more of the very things the federal government has been doing so badly during the past two decades.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Donald Trump has unveiled his list of economic advisers.
The list is quite varied, with some very conservative individuals (Steven Moore of the Heritage Institute for example), a good number of former Reagan administration officials, a bunch of middle-of-the-road businessmen, and at least one past Hillary Clinton contributor (Steven Mnuchin). Overall, this list once again suggests that a Trump administration will be moderate though lean right, while also favoring business. It also suggests that Trump’s administration will not be as reform-minded as he sometimes claims. Instead, it suggests that while Trump will push through some much needed reforms, his administration will mostly work to try to fix the status quo.
Will that be good for the country? Right now, considering the dire state of the federal government’s budget and the general corruption that increasingly seems to permeate its entire operation, I personally don’t think so. Strong and fearless reform is needed badly, and it looks like the Trump administration won’t really give us that. However, this list of advisers also suggests that a Trump administration will possibly include some positive change, and also be far less harmful than a Clinton administration, which will push to do more of the very things the federal government has been doing so badly during the past two decades.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Where are his tax returns? What is he hiding? Returns being audited have been released before, and what’s preventing him relating older ones? If roles are reversed Trump would be hitting Clinton with this every day.
The few economic plans he has announced so far involve very large cuts for Billionaires but much less for ordinary Americans, with no plan to address the shortfall in income. His plan would probably make the deficit worse.
Oh, there will be economic reform big league! It comes crashing down regardless of what politicians do now. I suspect that these businessmen have a shrewd plan for how to get the US out of it on its feet. Maybe even stronger. There is actually a way to make a country rich other than by libertarian reform: One can take the wealth of other countries. US is the only economically independent country in the world. They can get what they want in any negotiation, because they can “walk” otherwise, which would be as devastating as a war to any country when it is not allowed to trade with the US or with any of the friends of the US. The whole world owe the US so much for their peace, freedom and wealth last century. Isn’t it just fair that they repay by taking over the US debt? I think Trump will run a colonial foreign policy with the purpose of producing a big black bottom line in cash. The military will become a money maker. By the way, since the US defends the entire world, isn’t it just fair that other countries pay what the US military costs?
Des,
Donald said himself on a rally that they would make stuff up about details in the tax return anyway, so nothing at all would be won by publishing it. It is funny how all the attacks on Trump are unfounded, irrelevant and have no content. His tone and style and the lies about him being a racist and a misogynist and the sick conspiracy theory about something with Russia. And the tax return. No one cares at all about that when it comes to choose president. Hillary Clinton takes millions of dollars in bribes from the worst tyrants in the world, who enslave all women, murder everyone LBTQ and organize terror attacks which kill thousands of Americans. And you think that Donald Trump cheated with his taxes last year, for the first time in his life?
What is the biggest victory a president ever had in an election? Whatever it is, Donald Trump will beat it.
Des,
Where are the transcripts for Clinton’s Wall Street speeches? What is she hiding this time?
LocalFluff inquired:
“What is the biggest victory a president ever had in an election?”
–If the internet is to be believed– it’s LBJ over Goldwater.
http://www.listology.com/list/biggest-landslides-us-presidential-elections-
(This would be popular vote, and not the Electoral College.)
Des–remarked in part; “….very large cuts for Billionaires but much less for ordinary Americans, with no plan to address the shortfall in income. His plan would probably make the deficit worse.”
–Trump is not my guy, but I will defend his good-stuff:
His economic Plan is largely pro-growth, except for his obsession with taxing people who buy imported goods. (Tariff’s = federal sales taxes on imported goods, paid for buy people who buy them & not paid to the Treasury in-advance by importers…such as Carrier.)
–The “Government” doesn’t have an “income,” –it collects taxes. It’s all our money to start with. The operating Deficit is already huge, and the Debt is approaching 21 trillion.
The median income in the USA is around $50K, isn’t the Feds 1/3 skim, already far too much?? Not to mention payroll & Medicare taxes.
These “billionaires” already pay “their fair shares,” to use to the language of the left.
–What He’s not addressing, so far or in-depth, is how to drastically cut the 40 million people on SNAP, the 20 million people who have free-phones, etc., etc., and exactly how he will eliminate socialized medicine & scale back Medicaid massively, among just a few items.
Keith: They might start out something like this :
” First of all, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone here for your very generous contributions to our family’s foundation, your donations have all been duly noted, well most of them anyway ( frightening, open mouthed cackle, goes on for just a bit too long, just long enough for the though to go through your head: Could she be a Reptilian Queen? Seriously…..). I want to especially thank LLoyd (Blankfein, you do not have to use his second name, they know who she is referencing) for his extremely generous dedication to the Clinton Foundation and the women and children that we are so focused on helping, my son in law, and LLoyd’s continuing loyal patronage in funding these little worth while talks that I give.”
*
ALL FOLLOWING TEXT IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND IS TO BE DISPERSED OR DISSEMINATED ONLY AFTER APPROVAL AND ALL NECESSARY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION AND PERMISSION IS SECURED AND GRANTED UNDER PENALTY OF PROSECUTION AS PER THE NONDISCLOSURE FORM ALL PRESENT HAVE DULY SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO.
*
With that I would like to conclude this talk and wish you all a good day.
Thank you again, LLoyd.
Hillary R. Clinton
Cotour–
[ref the secret Clinton speeches]
You are definitely on to something! She didn’t give some long detailed comprehensive or deeply intuitive “speeches,” to these groups.
(I characterize all her paid “speeches,” as expensive, pay-to-play, meet & greets. She obviously did not take advantage of using her gazillion “speeches” to actually practice & hone her delivery.)
I’ll take a tangent, and bash Chelsea Clinton, (she learned from the Master herself) and her phony-baloney job at MSNBC. They paid her something like $400K for 1 year of “work.” Then she married the hedge-fund guy. (That’s in addition to the “speech” Hillary gave to NBC, for which she charged $225K.)
As for the original Topic in the thread–
As Mr. Z noted, the Trump list of advisor’s does run the spectrum. Some good people, some not so good.
— I’d be interested in knowing which of these people he would actually appoint or hire for specific posts in the Executive branch,which would be chosen for purely “advisory” positions, and which he would just consult with privately.
Not at all related, but this is really all realated when you think about it:
This is just to demonstrate how very stupid the German authorities have become and an indication of what is intended to become of America using the same road map and just dopey Leftist PC philosophy.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/696646/Thomas-Salbey-Munich-shooter-Ali-Sonboly-prosecution
An insult to any reasonable human being, this is oppression and Big Brother incarnate. I propose that the U.N. adopt a universal and world wide demand for the implementation of an international Second Amendment!
Localfluff asked: “The whole world owe the US so much for their peace, freedom and wealth last century. Isn’t it just fair that they repay by taking over the US debt? … since the US defends the entire world, isn’t it just fair that other countries pay what the US military costs?”
No. There is no reason for the rest of the world to become indebted for the overspending of several US Congresses and presidents. The assistance that the US previously provided to the world excesses of this government. These debts were incurred by the US government encouraging people to be non-productive (live on “welfare” as a normal condition of life) and that is the responsibility of these irresponsible politicians, not the rest of the world.
In fact: Hell NO! The rest of the world should not encourage or enable the US government to be so irresponsible — no matter how helpful the US was in the 20th century. Instead, the rest of the world should encourage the US government to go to some sort of Redistributors Anonymous or other 12 step program to get off this harmful and wasteful income redistribution habit. By stealing from the productive and giving to the layabouts, the US discourages productivity and squanders taxes that could otherwise be used to pay off its debts. In fact, by doing this redistribution, it taxes more money from the people — people who would have spent that tax money more productively.
Instead, many other countries likewise set up similar policies that discourage productivity. No wonder the world was so productive in the previous century and is in such economic trouble so far in this century.
If the rest of the world should reimburse the US for military services rendered, then there should be previous agreements in place to do so. If the US chooses to give free assistance, such as after earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis, then that is a gift and should be accepted (by both parties) as such.
If, on the other hand, the rest of the world feels guilty for accepting such gifts, then for God’s sake, please do not send cash, but send assistance in the prevention of further squandering of our precious human resources! Most of those on the government dole could be greatly productive, rather than a drain on the rest of us. Elimination of government over-regulation could free up regulators and many of those in the compliance departments to be greatly productive, rather than squander their work hours on useless regulations.
All that added productivity would repay, by far, past assistance that the US gave. That productivity would do good worldwide, as the US would be prosperous enough to continue providing world assistance. If other countries that are also addicted to anti-productivity policies likewise wised up, then the whole world would be a whole lot better off.
We won’t have people fighting over the pie, because we will have more people baking more pies — and more varieties of pies, too.
Now there is an economic policy everyone should get behind.
Edwards, Yes, but free trade and deregulation is not a realistic option. Today’s regulations make trade and thus industry investments unbalanced and suboptimal. In the competition of nations the US is far superior. The whole thing with Trump is that he will use this to the benefit of the US, instead of continuing as some self sacrificing global care taker for the best of other countries. Trump’s bilateral negotiations with every country might turn out to be his easiest deals ever since a trade war with the US means immediate depression, government bankruptcy and de-industrializing for any other country. Trump wants to capitalize on that strength.
Not related specifically, but I suggest that its all related now:
This letter below was sent to me via an email. I do not know if it actually was written by a “Blue Star” mother, that is almost not relevant, the content of the letter is what is important with these additional thoughts included by me.
* What this woman does not realize is that this Muslim man who is a lawyer and works as an immigration facilitator for his fellow believers into the Untied States who in fact lost his son while in the military may well be able to justify the use of his sons death to further the causes of Islam. For a man to so vociferously support a candidate and political party that is so blatantly focused on flooding our country with his fellow Islamic followers, that in my opinion promotes the destruction of our Constitution and the promotion of Islam over our Constitution may well be his “righteous” goal. And that goal may well be seen as worthy enough to sacrifice his sons memory and honor to accomplish it. Islam and the Koran is an anathema to the Constitution.
I say that this subject needs to be further explored in a respectful but thorough way by agents other than Trump and further fleshed out as to this mans connection to the DNC and his duplicitous motivations. This is the dirty aspect of politics but the situation that Americans find themselves with the Democrat party essentially being taken over by Leftists who masquerade as traditional Democrats requires a take no prisoners strategy to put an end to this Leftist takeover. This entire Khazir Khan thing has stunk to high heaven to me right from the start and must be dealt with appropriately. (and when I say “appropriately” I mean in a ruthless, take no prisoners type of way.)
The email:
To the Muslim Gold Star father that spoke at the DNC…..I have some thoughts on your comments. I am a Blue Star mother. My deepest condolences on the loss of your son. No family should have to endure such a loss. That being said….while your son is a hero, you Sir, are NOT. My son has served three tours of combat in the countries you and your family came from. Iraq and Afghanistan were his introduction to adulthood and service to something bigger than our individual selves. He was blown up by an IED set by your countrymen. His Purple Heart is a testament to his love of America and our freedoms. I have suffered through his multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan….never knowing from moment to moment if he would return home in a flag draped coffin. It is torture when a mother wakes up to this day after day and sees the atrocities happening over there on the news and being helpless to change a thing. My comments to you will probably offend you. I do not apologize. These things need to be said. Unlike you, I could NEVER use my son’s death as a pawn piece in support of a woman that left “America’s treasure” (Hillarys words) to die unaided in Benghazi. The same woman that says vile things to her military details there to protect her. You, Sir, are supposed to be a witness to your son’s bravery and sacrifice. Instead you stood on a stage and promoted the woman that upholds the very people that killed your son. You became a political PAWN that promotes pandering to our enemy. You desecrated your son’s memory by your words. You did not utter one word of outrage at anyone but Donald Trump. Are you forgetting that Trump did not kill your son. He had nothing whatsoever to do with these wars. His memory should mean more to you than five minutes of fame on the stage of the party that voted to send your son to war. The same party that for eight years has denied and cheated our veterans out of their deserved medical care. Who for the last three years has cut our veterans pay.
Of note…your wife stood SILENT. She stood with her head covered, never uttering a word about her loss. She submitted to you being her voice in front of the country. She abdicated her free voice to you…..as would any good Sharia wife and mother. Let me say, this was not lost on the other American military moms….myself included. Had it been my son being “used” as a political PROP, no one could have silenced me. I would be voicing my grief, my pride, my love of him to the world. A man cannot speak to a mothers loss. No man knows her heart at the loss of a child. She did her heroic son a disservice by her silence. She should have uncovered her head and her heart to be the American mother you claim. And last if all….you dared to flash your picket Constitution and ask if Trump has read it. I dare to ask you, Sir….HAVE YOU READ IT? If you say yes, then I dare ask you HOW you could represent that party? HOW can you support this woman? How can you affiliate your family with a party and candidate that cannot even call the radicals that killed your son what they are? How can you support a current administration that diminishes your son’s death by denying he had an enemy? And if you have read our Constitution, how could you cover your soulmate in colorful submissive sheets and have the audacity to speak FOR her? Your son died for that Constitution you so carelessly waved around on national TV in support of the very party that exists to destroy it. As a soldier’s mother….NO ONE could ever speak for me. I find your outrage artificial. I find your party affiliation offensive. I find your wife’s silence atrocious and offensive. I find YOU a political FOOL. I find your son to have been your greatest accomplishment, and you, Sir, have dishonored him. I hope you memorize that picket constitution so you will understand what it means to be a REAL American and hero. You are not one. You were USED. Your son WOULD NOT be proud of you. My only hope is that when MY son goes a fourth time to combat radical Islamic terrorist’s, ( and he WILL) he will know that his mother never stood submissively SILENT about an American hero. Yes, your son was a hero that could not be manipulated but, you, Sir, are a weak minded FOOL. I would love to hear your thoughts this morning about the 1500 American soldiers on the air base in Turkey being held as basic hostages as I type. Not a word from this president or party you adore…or the media that so thoroughly manipulated and used you and your wife. So…what say you Sir??? What will you say to a Blue and Gold Star family if these heroes die? In my opinion, you will say NOTHING.
Unfortunately, as Bob suggests, Trump would mostly attempt to fix the status quo. However, given the direction of our last three presidents, and even including Reagan to a certain extent, that seems a about as good as could be expected given the mindset of much of the electorate who seems to be trying to decide between socialism-lite and full out communism. Somehow, those voters seem to be seeing what is going on in Venezuela as a guidebook rather than an example of what not to do.
I have had that Venezuela conversation with many Democrats, they have no understanding of the connection. Most of them are Democrats / Liberal Democrats who think that Obama and Hillary are one of them. They are not one of them, they have no idea about what they actually believe but they know they call themselves “Democrats”.
Last week I had two ladies visit me, they are older, in their 70’s, comfortably retired in Florida. One a former Bank executive and the other her neighbor. The first thing they ask me? “Please tell us whats going on in politics? “.
This sets off a comprehensive 30 minute seminar / crash course in modern American politics and the Constitution. After which they asked if I could include them in my daily email. My conclusion was that the neighbor (who I just met) identified as a Liberal / Democrat and the lady that I have known for 20 years who I know is more conservative had no idea about what I had just laid out for them, but they were certainly thinking seriously about it.
There is hope, but this clandestine under the surface operation that the “Democrats” have embarked on for the past 30 or so years has been very effective and many in America are behind the curve in actually understanding what it actually is today.
*As an aside. The friend originally came from from San Francisco. I Asked if she ever voted for the “you have to vote for the bill before you can know whats in the bill” Congress person. She had no idea what I was talking about. “She really said that?” was her response. This was her first email.
“Nancy Pelosi commenting on passing Obamacare.
https://youtu.be/hV-05TLiiLU
So in Ms. Pelosi’s thinking as an empowered Congress person, believes that its best if the Congress first passes a bill and turn it into an empowered and implemented law before the the Congress and the people that they represent can know what is in the bill / law. I would think that you would first want to understand as comprehensively as possible a law that controls a significant percentage of the entire American economy before you would implement it. In any reasonable thinking can that logically make sense?
PS: You are a traditional Liberal Democrat, our government, in the form of this particular administration, is now populated by Leftists (philosophical Marxists) calling themselves Liberal or “progressive” Democrats”, they are not what you think they are.
Localfluff wrote: “In the competition of nations the US is far superior.”
Although I am not sure what that is intended to mean, it seems from context that the US has some form of unfair advantage, such as, “agree to our low price or we will not trade with you.”
Strangely, every trade negotiation has a similar statement in order to maximize the benefit to each trader. That is how free markets work. Each trader negotiates a deal that is the best to himself as he can make it. If he cannot negotiate a good enough deal, then he walks away.
Localfluff wrote: “free trade and deregulation is not a realistic option. Today’s regulations make trade and thus industry investments unbalanced and suboptimal.”
I’m not sure who (which international organization) is regulating today’s international trades, but the complaint should be with them, not the United States.
The only way that the US could have an unfair advantage in trade negotiations is if it already has everything that it wants and does not need to trade with any other nation. So why is the US trading with other countries?
The only way that the US could have an unfair advantage in trade negotiations is if the other nation(s) does not produce something worth trading for. This is why I recommend that nations set up policies that encourage, rather than discourage, productivity. With more productivity there is bound to be some portion that is worth trading for, and thus an increase in goods that the US (and all other countries) is willing to trade for.
With all the other countries willing to trade for those goods, if the US offers too little, then other countries may be willing to offer more. If no country is willing to trade for the cost of production, then greater efficiencies of production are necessary.
This is how free markets work. If there is an international organization (over)regulating away these free markets, then that organization is the problem that must be solved.
Localfluff wrote: “Trump’s bilateral negotiations with every country might turn out to be his easiest deals ever since a trade war with the US means immediate depression, government bankruptcy and de-industrializing for any other country.”
Trump certainly *is* a bully, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to use government to take from others — he already has stated that he likes eminent domain to be abused in his favor.
Trade wars are nothing new, and that they would mean government bankruptcy shows how badly other countries have over extended themselves, relative to their productivity, as the US has done. The US would become one of the bankrupt, but when it comes to bankruptcy, Trump is one of the most experienced businessmen on Earth. I would not be surprised if he took the US into bankruptcy for the same reasons that he used bankruptcy in several of his companies.
This is why I advocate for policies that promote productivity. The greater the productivity, the less likely the bankruptcy. Lack of sufficient productivity to satisfy servicing the debt is the reason behind bankruptcy in the first place.
Cotour wrote: “This entire Khazir Khan thing has stunk to high heaven to me right from the start and must be dealt with appropriately.”
Khan is a distraction from the issues. The appropriate way to deal with this thing is to get over it and work the real problem: presidential election. Instead of attacking Clinton, the Trump campaign seems to remain in the gear “Republican Nomination” but at this point, the proper gear is “Presidential Election.”
In this wrong gear, for two weeks of the fifteen-week election period, Trump has lagged behind and is headed for a loss, all on his incompetent own. It appears that Localfluff has no need to fear that Trump will get the chance to bankrupt the world into de-industrialization.
Cotour wrote: “They are not one of them, they have no idea about what they actually believe but they know they call themselves ‘Democrats’.”
The same goes for Trump calling himself a Republican.
Edward:
Is this the Conservative secret weapon candidate that you were sworn to not name?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/08/independent-conservative-evan-mcmullin-to-launch-campaign-for-president/
This should stop Trump cold, well played strategy. Could really shake up the entire election.
“Is this the Conservative secret weapon candidate that you were sworn to not name?”
I wouldn’t know, as I have not sworn not to name any candidates. On the other hand, you, Cotour, explicitly stated that you are not going to consider any candidate other than Trump until Mark Levin gives his audience permission to do so.
On the third hand (the Gripping Hand, for Niven and Pournelle fans), I hereby explicitly give you permission to consider any conservative candidate. Please note that Trump falls under the heading of liberal Democrat, not conservative — especially not conservative, since he is unable to define or describe conservativism.
Edward, your Mark Levin “permission” comment was originated right here on BtoB buy yours truly. Now I do not mind if you use it, but your using it against the person that originated it? Sounds a lot like you are not as pure as the politically driven snow as you promote.
PS: A Liberal Democrat, if that indeed is what he is, I think he is going to be very conservative in certain ways and mildly liberal in others, if you were to ask me, is far preferable to an out and out Leftist posing as a “progressive” Democrat.
Incrementalism here gets the job done, and then we do it again, and again, each time moving the ball further to the reasonable and farther away from the irrational and plainly un American.
Cotour,
You wrote: “Now I do not mind if you use it, but your using it against the person that originated it? Sounds a lot like you are not as pure as the politically driven snow as you promote.”
I am confused. You are the one who told us about your needing Levin to give you permission, so how is that using it against you? Is this not your own philosophy, as stated? Did I misunderstand your original statement?
I don’t know what I have said that makes you think that I promote that I am as pure as the politically driven snow.
You wrote: “A Liberal Democrat, if that indeed is what he is, I think he is going to be very conservative in certain ways and mildly liberal in others, if you were to ask me, is far preferable to an out and out Leftist posing as a “progressive” Democrat.”
Since his instinctive answers have all been from the point of view of a liberal Democrat, yet his not so liberal answers have come after several tries at sounding conservative, plus he cannot even define what a conservative is, it is difficult to believe that you have been fooled into thinking it is even remotely possible that he could be even slightly conservative. As he has demonstrated on multiple occasions, even recently, he still thinks as a liberal Democrat — right down to continuing to attack conservatives and not attack his extremely vulnerable liberal Democrat opponent. He continues to campaign as though he is running for Republican nominee, not running for president. He seems comfortable with his opposition winning that race.
But then again, all the other liberal Democrats are comfortable with a Clinton win, too.
Also, please note that for about a century, Democrats have used “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably, depending upon which sounds more acceptable at the time.
My comment was ” Soon Mark Levin will give you all permission to support Trump, believe me, its coming”.
You again reveal your own special interpretation of what was said.
Still confused. Maybe more so.
Does this mean that you don’t yet have Mark Levin’s permission to support Trump, after all? The implication had seemed to be that you already had the permission, which was why you support Trump, but the rest of us were still waiting for our permission, which you assured us was coming. Perhaps we should no longer believe you when you tell us to.
The further implication seemed to be that you depend upon Levin for permission to support a candidate, and that you had not yet received your permission to support anyone other than Trump.
But now you claim that this implication is my own special interpretation. If requiring Levin’s permission to support a candidate is not what you intended to say (or am I once again revealing a “special interpretation” of your previous reply), then what did you intend to say, and why didn’t you say what you had intended to say? You could have saved us weeks of confusion.