PostHeaderIcon The Real Trump

The headline on Drudge right now says: “Butler Has Trump’s Back.” Curious as to whether ‘Butler’ was a name or a job title, I followed the link to a RCP article entitled, “Trump Butler: “Incredibly Generous,” “Just A Nice Man”” It seems that 84-year-old Tony Senecal, Trump’s loyal butler for 16 years before his retirement, was interviewed on CNN this morning:

“He’s an incredibly generous person. He’s been generous to his employees. He’s generous to strangers. He’s an entirely a nice guy. He’s not the gruff person that people make him out to be. Sure, you attack him, he’s going to fight back. But most of the time he’s just a nice man. I lasted with him for 20 years, he had to be pretty good,” Senecal said.

Senecal defended Trump as a patriot who wants what is best for the country.

“His interest in the American people. His patriotism. The man was born on Flag Day. He’s a very patriotic person — ahem, excuse me — and he wants what’s best for this country,” he told CNN.

The video of the entire CNN interview is embedded in the article.

Even better, there is a link to a 6-year-old Newsmax article about Tony, “The Real Story on Donald Trump,” which I found rather enlightening, because it provided insight into the nature of the man himself, unrelated to his present endeavors:

On “The Apprentice,” Donald Trump is the guy who fires people. In real life, it’s a different story.

For 16 years, Anthony “Tony” P. Senecal was Trump’s personal butler at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s home and club in Palm Beach, Fla. Few people know Trump as well as Senecal. During the first interview Senecal has given since retiring last year, he told Newsmax what it was like to work for him.

Almost every weekend from November to May, Trump hops on his Boeing 727-100 in New York to fly to Palm Beach and stay at Mar-a-Lago. A 55,695-square-foot Mediterranean-style complex, Mar-a-Lago is a Shangri-La that Marjorie Merriweather Post built in 1927. It has 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, a ballroom, a spa, a nine-hole golf course, tennis courts, a party pavilion, and a private tunnel leading to Trump’s beach on the Atlantic Ocean.

Almost every celebrity, from Jay Leno and Regis Philbin to Barbara Walters and Tom Brokaw, have been to Mar-a-Lago. Oprah Winfrey threw a three-day party there for Maya Angelou’s 80th birthday.

Then, how’s this for legitimate patriotism, defense of the 1st Amendment, and concern for veterans?:

Trump usually has a running feud with the town of Palm Beach, where anyone with less than $100 million is considered poor. The most recent dust-up revolved around an American flag Trump erected at Mar-a-Lago. Flying from a 70-foot pole, the flag’s overall dimensions were 15 times larger than the town’s restrictive regulations allow. Landmarks Commissioner William Hanley called the flag a “major affront to the town.”

The town responded to the indignity with a daily fine of $1,250. Trump sued for $25 million, claiming his First Amendment rights were being violated.
Trump and the town eventually settled. The town agreed to let him keep the flag if he moved it to a less conspicuous location. Instead of paying the fine that then totaled $120,000, Trump agreed to donate $100,000 to veterans’ charities.

Senecal says he “hears” that the ground under the flag was raised, increasing the overall height of the flag. He attributes the episode to Trump’s patriotism.

“You know Donald Trump was born on Flag Day, and I swear it’s in his blood,” Senecal says. “He really is red, white, and blue.”

Perhaps Trump really does want to make America great again. Read the whole article for perhaps a different take on Trump, the man. 🙂 ◄Dave►

 

25 Responses to “The Real Trump”

  • Larry Andrew says:

    I never had any doubt that Trump wants to “make america great again”. Problem is he doesn’t have a clue how to do it and is more likely than not to make america worse. David Duke wants to make america great again. So does the old guy that punched the kid at the rally yesterday.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Problem is he doesn’t have a clue how to do it…

      Does anyone? Is it even possible? Or, is it too late? ◄Dave►

    • Do not be shocked if Donald Trump actually does have a clue and has figured it out in detail already.

      Trump appears to be one of the best strategists (I.E. poker players) it has been my pleasure to watch. Like Texas hold ’em legends Stu Ungar and Phil Ivey … Trump has a razor-sharp mind and what appears to be a supernatural instinct for reading his game and the other players in it (the political playing field).

      Pulling his bacon out of the fire is more than simple LUCK!

      These gamblers no matter what their GAME know exactly where they are going, why, and how to successfully get there come hell or high water.

      Seldom do they care who gets it and who does not. They almost never stop to explain the “HOW” to those they innately know will not get it for the next millennium.

      These types rise to become the MASTERS OF THE GAME.

      To Trump? Already a master of real-estate … next stop Politics … and “we the people” face certain destruction on this present course … so we have nothing to lose by backing an already proven winner. 😉

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Depends on how each of us…or the majority of voters define “great”. If Hillary or Bernie wins “great” is bigger fed govt and higher taxes and probably a continuation of Obama foreign policy. If Cruz wins it means smaller fed government and greater religious control of our lives with greater military presence in middle east. If Rubio wins, less fed govt but open borders and amnesty plus an unknown foreign policy outcome. If Kasich wins a sort of middle ground between dems and gop. If Trump wins…neither he nor anyone knows tho I suspect it would lean more to bigger govt and bluster for a foreign policy. Thins is, it depends on who he has as advisors because he doesn’t know much.

    Overall, Trump is the biggest unknown.

    No matter what happens, the dems will think america can be greater with a dem leadership in place and the gop will think the opposite.

  • Larry Andrew says:

    I can’t help but like the Trump shots at lobby groups, the defense budget and procurement waste, etc. He does get that right. We would in a much better place if we could get a handle on that but it is probably wishful thinking. He doesn’t know how and seems to think the President is like a CEO that can just order things to be done.

    At the same time he dismisses Executive Orders, etc. A real conundrum.

  • Chris says:

    If Cruz wins it means smaller fed government and greater religious control of our lives with greater military presence in middle east.

    Out of curiosity Larry and just briefly what “religious control” would you anticipate being imposed on your life? I’m aware of your position about religion and not looking for any debate, Just wondering what you think would change about your way of life were Cruz president.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Perhaps the thrust of your question, Chris, explains why Trump is doing so well with pissed off evangelicals, which Cruz expected to flock to him. Many voters are far more astute than generally thought, and there is damn little a POTUS, dedicated to Constitutional originalism, could do to promote religious dogma anyway, no matter how much he claims to be planning to daily get on his knees, and pray to his Lord Jesus for advice. Profound piety is just not part of the job description. 😉 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        Perhaps Dave, but I always took the piety angle a bit differently. I never thought Evangelicals wanted a religious POTUS because they wanted to impose religion on the masses. I always thought of it as a demonstration of moral grounding and a leaning toward honesty. Albeit imposed by a higher power honesty none the less. I would never expect even the most pious to try and blow up the first amendment and impose state religion and I would hope nobody else would.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Interesting take, Chris. Those like Larry and I certainly see it differently. Why bother to make such an issue out of a candidate’s religious/’moral’ position on abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, etc., unless they expect him to do something about it?

          Why did three million evangelicals refuse to vote in 2012 because Romney was a Mormon? Did they think Mormons were dishonest and untrustworthy? I generally hold the opposite opinion, even if I find their religious dogma itself to be utterly ridiculous.

          I have some good-ole-boy relatives down south, who are far more prejudiced against Catholics than Blacks. They would have little compunction about voting for Carson; but don’t you try it. 😉

          Finally, as for morality, I wouldn’t trust the typical piety spouting evangelist with unsupervised access to our children, any more than I do a Catholic priest. That either danes to judge the morality, of those who do not share their superstitions, is laughable. 🙁 ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          Proof of that moral character Dave. The overly pious require it even with the knowledge that the power doesn’t exist to do it. The voters know it. The candidate knows it. I would submit that if the religious right didn’t demand it the left would make an issue of it to make them demand it. There’s little need to rehash all that. Actually this year there is refreshingly little chatter about social issues from the right. There’s bigger issues at hand.

  • Hi Dave,

    How are you guys getting the blockquotes around the text that you are commenting on?

    Are you just putting a blockquote tag around it?

    Well I will soon find out … LOL

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Chris…you’all seem to be able to monitor the comments more quickly than I. You asked a very good question regarding effect if Cruz is the man. Dave did a masterful job of responding with specifics that explains my views accurately so no need to repeat it all.

    I will add that all of the “righteous” scare the crap out of me because of the mindset required to be so convinced that the country would be a far better place if government imposed their views on others. It is actually the less obvious decisions that are not so clearly religious that would be affected by their certainty. Last time around I found myself to be quite comfortable with Romney as a leader and decision-maker but could not get around the fact that such a smart guy could actually believe the bull-shit teachings of Joseph Smith. Forced me to vote for Gary Johnson.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Well put, Larry. 🙂 ◄Dave►

    • Chris says:

      I understand both your positions, and don’t broadly disagree. Yet my question has gone unanswered. Since the founding the country has been governed by men of religious faith. Some more than others. I dare say it fared pretty well up until fairly recently when the progressives decided the state was the all powerful and God had no place in the public arena. Just an observation.

      • ◄Dave► says:

        I wasn’t trying to answer your direct question to Larry, only commenting on your suggestion that evangelicals were choosing pious candidates for their moral grounding and honesty, rather than any expectation of policy grounded on such. I’ll let Larry answer for himself; but I will note that correlation is not causation. To suggest that early America thrived because its leaders were religious, and that modern efforts to keep church and state separated caused our decline, is a logical fallacy.

        I could make a case that the beginning of the decline of America dates back to the adoption of universal suffrage, and the notion that America is a democracy ruled by the majority. Then, I could ‘observe’ that things fared pretty well, until women and/or blacks started voting, and it has been downhill ever since. As a correlation, that would be accurate; but to suggest that their votes caused the decline of our republic would be an illogical leap. 😀 ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          My point isn’t one of a positive effect of the religious in government but the lack of negative effect which is more to the crux of the question.

          Then, I could ‘observe’ that things fared pretty well, until women and/or blacks started voting, and it has been downhill ever since.

          Oddly enough the correlation has a great deal more validity than political correctness would ever allow anyone to admit. Lets see Mr. “tells it like it is” admit that. 😀

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links