To: Theo
To the point: Ok...
Do you think Trumpâs wealth allows him to be âbeholden to nobodyâ? Yes
Do you think that because other candidates raise funds and rely on PAC money their motives are necessarily conflicted? Yes, moreso than someone who doesn't.
If so, then you are implying that because of his wealth, Trump is necessarily better than other candidates. In a no-strings attached way? Certainly. Not in an ideological way.
But *Soros* proves that such a contention is wrong. That's where you fall off the Turnip Truck.
The issue is being behonden to someone. It isn't ideologies!
HELLO!
This isn't an argument that Trump's ideology has to be better than Soros' ideology, because Trump self-funded.
It is an argument about self-funding vs not self-funding.
Two men walk into a car dealership.
One walks in alone and pays for his own car with cash.
One man walks in with another person, and the other person hands over cash to buy his car.
Which man was more likely to be beholden to someone?
Does it matter what a third person did? Thought? Voted? No. No. No.
One man is more beholden. End of story.
98 posted on
12/28/2015 12:18:21 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
((It's beginning to look like "Morning in America" again. Comment on YouTube under Trump Free Ride.))
To: DoughtyOne
You are saying that Trump, because of his wealth, is more pure in his motives.
That is not true. Soros is an example of a wealthy man who is impure in his motives.
Wealth does not make someone a better candidate, it does not free them up to act benevolently.
100 posted on
12/28/2015 12:38:53 PM PST by
Theo
(Trump = French Revolution. Cruz = American Revolution. Choose wisely.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson