Posted on 04/13/2011 6:28:02 PM PDT by RobinMasters
If you wonder whether Donald Trump is serious about running for president, tune in to the finale of “The Celebrity Apprentice” on May 15.
Trump plans to say on the NBC show that he will be holding a press conference in the next few days. At that press conference in the Trump Tower in New York, Trump will be announcing his candidacy for the presidency.
Even then, many will snicker that it’s all a publicity stunt. But that defies the facts and common sense.
Of all the people on the planet, Donald Trump is the last person who needs more publicity. And if he is riding a groundswell of support, why would he—or anyone else—decide not to run?
Since writing the first story in January to report that Trump will definitely run, I have been amazed at how much the idea of a Trump presidency is catching on across the political spectrum. As I wrote in my story, Don’t Underestimate Donald Trump for President, he can be outrageous and boastful. But when it comes to a successful run at the presidency, don’t count him out.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Now we will have a problem.
If he wins the GOP nomination .. he will be a RINO most likely, but still far better than Obama. he could win.
If he does not get the GOP nomination he will run independently. This will take votes from any GOP candidate and Obama will win.
An Independent run is doom and Obama wins.
I too recall the Ross Perot enthusiasm, and it died a quick death when Clinton won due to Perot peeling off votes for HW Bush.
I don’t take well to blackmail. FAIL.
Trump with Alan West as VP would be pretty damn interesting to watch .
The reality is we will probably have Romney, which is insulting.
I expressed before that this pairing would shake things up with intensity and courage.
Always a good idea to punish the hard-working and successful and give the money to do-nothings with their hand out. It’s what made our country the good and great Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, right?
I disagree.
Trump is everything Perot was not. Trump has all of his marbles. Perot did not and Perot was a jackass. He was the one that gave us Clinton, Iraq and eventually Obama.
I like that too. That would a great great ticket.
That's fine, but if free-market economic reasoning doesn't work for you, I urge you to look at the facts of historical record which bears out the failures and fallacies of Socialism and the successes of free-market Capitalism.
If you're concerned about the poor, historically, they've done much better in free-market economies and have suffered much more economically under Socialism. If you're "concerned" about the wealthy, why? Isn't that what everybody's trying to become - at least financially healthy and thriving? Historically, it's the wealthy who have provided the entrepreneurial advances in industry, providing real employment to do real jobs.
The point is America was founded on the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom has always taken guts bravery and hard work. There used to be no guarantees nor should there have been, other than freedom from unconstitutional government interference. That is what made our country great and why so many people people died to get here - not because of what government could do for them. They died trying to escape the clutches of government oppression, knowing first hand that the same government that said it would help them ended up oppressing them (historically, given the power, governments will always oppress). They died seeking the opportunity to live free and make a life of their own with no other guarantee.
Freedom, the heartbeat of which is economic freedom as well as religious freedom, has always been, and now is, worth fighting for and dying for.
Don’t think you understand the premise. Not taxing income for corporations or individuals is about as free market as you can get.
That's nothing new -- it goes back at least as far as "Ol' Hickory" and "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too".
“Taxing the wealthy” is Socialism.
I love the chicken-headed conservatives gathering under our tent. They love telling what it is they don’t like but don’t have one clue about telling us what they do like. And if you disagree with them about what they say . . . Cluck Cluck
“It would be an incorrect rumor. Both were born in the US.”
I believe more than just that is required to fully conform to what a “natural born citizen” is, as being Constitutionally required to become president.
I think the status of the parents has something, perhaps much, to do with it as well.
Are there not those who claim that even if he was in fact born in Hawaii of Stanley Anne Dunham by Barack Obama Sr., the fact that Obama Sr. was not a US citizen, and indeed was a British subject (dual nationality with Kenya), means that Obama cannot be considered natural born because he was not born on US soil of _two_ US-citizen parents?
If that is true (and I don’t claim with 100% finality that it is, I’m merely posting what others have said), the same requirements apply to Rubio (and Jindal).
Those requirements are that Rubio’s _parents_ both be citizens (even if only naturalized citizens) at the time of his birth.
The issue has been raised that his parents were NOT U.S. citizens, and thus, he cannot be considered a “natural born” United States citizen.
That’s the argument, again, I’m unsure if this is the case.
But before you say “he’s OK, don’t worry”, you better have the facts straight.
Or the ‘rats and the media will throw this right back in your face.
Just sayin’.....
No Trump in the White House. I like his BC investigation but I don’t trust or like the guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.