Trump: Actually, I May Break My Pledge Not To Go Third Party

Townhall.com ^ | November 23, 2015 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

Hey, remember this?

The Pledge #MakeAmericaGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/5OVWdxgLn9 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2015

After routinely flirting with a third-party run, Donald Trump signed an unambiguously-worded pledge in early September, vowing ;forego a third-party presidential bid if he fails to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Having committed his word,Trump averred that he had "no intention" of reconsidering the promise: "I see no circumstances under which I would tear up that pledge," he said, calling the pledge "total." Now he's mad about some opponents and outside groups announcing plans to attack him, so the thin-skinned and erratic Republican frontrunner is once again changing his tune. Surprise:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an independent despite signing a pledge over the summer saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid. "I'm going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly," Trump said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" when asked about a new guerrilla effort by operatives within the Republican Party to derail Trump's candidacy.

But not to worry, conservatives. He'll be totally reliable on all the issues on which he's completely reversed himself in order to pander to you -- from tax increases, to abortion, to gun control, to government-run healthcare (which he still praises), to immigration rhetoric and policy, etc. His longstanding alignment with the Democratic Party and financial support for Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid shouldn't concern you either. Nor should his ongoing left-wing talking points on "fairness," the Koch brothers, "blame Bush," and expanding the federal bureaucracy. And neither should his abysmally low (34/61) favorability rating among the general electorate, much worse than even his dear friend and benefactor Hillary's terrible numbers. He'll never abandon you in pursuit of his own self-serving interests, or for attention. Incidentally, Trump was given yet another opportunity on Sunday to clear up the "media smear" regarding his allegedly nonexistent support for a national registry of Muslims -- including citizens. He took another pass, declining to answer the question asked of him, keeping things nice and hazy:

Here's the full Trump quote, which seems to be about Syrian refugees, not Muslim citizens. pic.twitter.com/jtnE3Xkk5L Jimmy (@JimmyPrinceton) November 22, 2015

This is more evidence supporting my suspicion that he's deliberately obfuscating. His supporters who insist this is a made-up media hit job can point to his responses focusing on refugees, while other supporters who like the idea of this unconstitutional scheme won't find a denial in there. And then there's this:

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump is doubling down on comments that thousands of people in parts of New Jersey with large Arab populations cheered on 9/11. Trump said at a rally on Saturday in Birmingham, Ala. that he watched as the World Trade Center "came tumbling down." "And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down," he added. "Thousands of people were cheering." ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump on Sunday if he misspoke, noting that "police say that didn't happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time." "It did happen. I saw it, " Trump said. "It was on television. I saw it ... George, it did happen," Trump persisted.

He did not see it, and it was not on television. In fairness to Trump, I distinctly remember hearing rumors about crowds of Muslims in parts of New Jersey openly celebrating on 9/11, but no credible corroborating evidence ever emerged, and local police have strongly refuted the claim. He may have been thinking of this footage showing Palestinians dancing in the streets of Gaza. Conflation is often how false memories form. What's inexcusable, but not surprising, is Trump's reckless, fact-free double-down. But cults of personality will justify and excuse virtually anything. Which helps explain why this vile man still has an approval rating in the low 40's:

Obama: GOP doing the terrorists' work for them; WATCH: https://t.co/bgQyLsQJ2p pic.twitter.com/mMSezkW2UF The Hill (@thehill) November 22, 2015

[kingu]

Shades of ross Perot. He handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.

Fiction. George Bush handed the election to Clinton by breaking his no new taxes pledge.

[Hostage]

Many many people have not forgotten Mississippi. The GOP brass damaged the party so much in Mississippi that the GOP may not survive to 2020. They acted like hardcore leftist democrats and in so doing they alienated huge portions of the electorate.

The only way the GOP survives is to sh*tcan the people calling the shots now. The internal civil war is not over, not by a long stretch.

[RedHeeler]

The gope ripoff continues, with corporate/special interest monies- to undermine Our Republic. These are supposed patriots, who are only interested in Leading Our Nation back from the precipice of Constitutional suicide. Keep pimpin’ boys. Regardless of the vote outcome- you are done.

[laplata]

What I said is a fact and you need to get over it. You’re acting like some kind of kook.

[JoSixChip]

Trump does not split the vote. He takes the vote.

I like it! that would make a great line.

[laplata]

I understand all that.

[RedHeeler]

Clinton was a slutboy of the Nor’east crowd. Bush handed that bastard Our Country.

[sparklite2]

"No one gives a flying f*ck about Perot. Perot is not relevant. He's nowhere near as charismatic or as attractive as Donald Trump. Period; End of Story."

----------------------

I was replying to a post which said...

Perot had nowhere near the charisma and attraction of Donald Trump. The two are not comparable.

And why the hostility, anyway?

[DesertRhino]

Look at our GOP choices since Reagan. Romney, McCain, Bush W, Dole, Bush I.

They insist on GOPe candidates, and I simply do not see any reason to support them. If they cared, they would be working hard to win conservative votes. All I see is efforts to marginalize us.

And so they get no support.

[Hostage]

You’re talking about Perot on a Trump thread, and there is no comparison. Those are facts.

[JoSixChip]

In that trump is a liberal, he’d probably pull more from the dammocraps, anyway.

You are such an ass hole, I don't know why you even bother to post to this site.

[laplata]

You’re talking about Perot a lot more than I am. You’ll be a basket case by election time.

I won’t waste anymore time on this thread.

[JoSixChip]

I'm sure when Zuckerburg announces his candidacy in the future you'll be all excited to support him because he's self funded

Ya, because zuckerburg and Trump have so much in common, right? Can you point me to one of zuckerburgs books for the 80's. 90's. 00's or 10's that are consistant in a view for America or a conservative path forward? I think not. Go back to DU where you are considered relevant I'm sure.

[Hostage]

You’re talking about Perot on a trump thread, and there is no comparison. In other words, talking about Perot adds zilch to the analysis of a 3rd party run.

It’s like saying Walt Whitman was a pretty good poet. Well so was Adolf Hitler. Are they comparable?

People see the terms ‘Trump’ and ‘3rd Party’, and they immediately latch on to Perot in 92 as if others here are not capable of remembering Perot the clown buffoon.

What they fail to realize is the electorate of today is composed entirely different from 1992’s. They think they are some sort of insightful geniuses by steering this thread to Perot when in reality they are subgrade thinkers.

Donald Trump has already taken a huge portion of the republican base away from the GOPe. He’s already done it. If he goes 3rd party, he doesn’t split the vote, he takes it with him and he adds to the wide support he has from independents and a surprising level of support from traditional democrat demographics. Perot could never even get near to what Donald Trump is carrying.

[Hostage]

Go away then.

Maybe you will learn that Trump supporters are not to be messed with.

[kingu]

Perhaps you are too young to remember, or have a lapse in memory. Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.5% Perot 18.9% I don't think one Perot vote would have Ever gone to Clinton.

We don't elect presidents by popular vote, we do it by the electoral college.

Go take a look at the results and then pick which states you think that Bush could have carried that he didn't already win. Bush lost his own race, Perot was just an interesting sideline. Oh, and a particularly useful boogieman for anyone who threatens to not vote for the designated (r).

[INVAR]

I’m laughing my arse off at the abject display of Gross Normalcy Bias exhibited in the replies on this thread.

Everyone’s analyzing this as though it’s just another election cycle and we can glean from past elections as to how things will go, willfully ignorant that the velvet coup we suffered never happened.

[sitetest]

Flattery will get you nowhere. ;-)

[laplata]

I am a Trump supporter. But I’m not a kook. I’m going away now. Bye.

[JoSixChip]

Votes to Perot got Clinton elected and that’s a fact.

What ever gets you through the night. But bush was a liberal in the same way his son was, that is why he lost. And that is why clinton and obumber were elected. Granted that is only my opinion on the matter. But to me my opinion is valid, yours is that of an uniformed msm believing serf.