Posted on 09/25/2015 3:29:53 AM PDT by cotton1706
Oh, I agree with you.
Trump for 8 and then Cruz for 8.
Maybe, just maybe things will straighten out.
I say maybe because I do not think elections will fix what is broke in this country.
This country needs a good weeding.
“...just watch Glen Beck or Faux News.”
I do not watch Fox news or listen to Glen Beck.
“Cruz voted for a segment of TPA called TPP.”
Cruz voted for TPA. TPP has yet to reach Congress, as it is still top secret.
“This is why Cruz is going around the country campaigning against the treaty not his vote.”
No, the Corker bill was a run around of the Constitution that provides treaty protection. THAT is the bill Cruz voted for. Mark Levin called all the senators out when they voted for the bill; still does. A treaty is what we want, which would have required a “yes” vote of 67 senators to pass. The Corker bill turned that around, required only 34 votes to pass Obama’s pet project of arming Iran.
“You mean Cruz who refused to say he would deport all illegals? Which means he is pro-amnesty.”
Cruz against deportation of illegals: not a sound bite — I heard the interview (satellite radio) with Megyn Kelly, she asked him about three times straight out if he would deport illegals aliens just as Trump said he would. Cruz refused to give her an answer, because he either does not have the courage of his convictions, or his is pro-amnesty.
He has made pro-amnesty statements in the past.
“You mean Cruz who voted for a five-fold increase in H1-B visas?”
It was not a sound bite, it was an interview.
“There odawg, now you have the whole story not just the MSM sound bite to chew on.”
Not sound bites, interviews.
“Do you feel better or now are you angry that it does not fit your into your square hole?”
I merely recounted his voting record. You are the one trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
“Cruz just took care of Boehner for...”
I didn’t realize Cruz was a Congressman from South Carolina.
I'm sure Kelly would be quite flattered by that comparison. IMHO she doesn't have the balls to own it like Fonda did. Photo ops with the enemy during wartime vs high school mean girl BS.
“Funny how priggish and PC everybody is getting now that the Donald is getting gored...”
Funny how your FR signup date is on 03-12-2001 but your posting history goes all the way back to 09-15-2015.
You must be another one of the sleeper trolls who only show up during presidential campaigns.
Of course you do, if you are an American -- we are not supposed to bow to kings; and he is not a mob boss.
But if you do, you had better do it well, and do it for right reasons. This was neither.
I've been pinged back to this thread today because of the ongoing issues with FoxNews bias against Trump.
RE your long prescription for what Trump shoulda said, what he said was, "Frankly, I don't have time for Political Correctness and neither do the American people..." at which the audience broken into loud, raucous applause. In that one short sentence, he summed up everything else your post was about, with a great economy of words. His campaign has run the same way: on time and under budget, like many of his building projects, because of his skillful use of social media and weaponized sound bites. The man is so much smarter than he is given credit for.
Trump did not use his entertainment and his business credential to talk down to an “objective moderator.” If he had done so he would not have merely gotten huge applause, he would have started a demonstration in the aisles similar to what’s seen in political conventions. He would have proved that Kelly did not know her audience and Trump did. Kelly would have lost control of the situation.
Judging by your comments, you didn’t see the debate. The audience went wild for him at several points. But it was the first debate. Nobody was going to get in the aisles over her stupidlty - it wasn’t worth it; and Trump took care of it himself, to loud applause.
Trump has his own plan, his system which he apparently (I have not read it) delineated in The Art of the Deal. He is doing just fine, and seems positioned to run the table and pivot into the general in a strong or - if Hillary is the nominee, dominating - position. Whether we will rue his victory is a different, and more clouded, question.
WSJ lead editorial today was on the possible third-party entry of Bloomberg. Thing would really get interesting then. WSJ suggested that the Republicans might lose the House if the Republican presidential candidate is not strong - but it would take a real tsunami to cost the Republicans the majority of state delegation majorities, which is what would define the winner of the presidency if it went to the House. Since each state delegation gets one vote - and since the Republican Party enjoys a natural gerrymander advantage due to the tendency of the Democrats to be concentrated in districts (i.e., cities) which they win overwhelmingly, while the Republicans win more narrowly is many districts. For example, Democrats have won the presidential electors of Pennsylvania consistently in recent years, and yet the Republican Party enjoys a clear majority of the PA congressional delegation. Likewise the ‘pubbies tend to win the majority in the delegations of most small states, which count just as much as the large ones do in this case.
In such case, the Republican presidential candidate need merely place third to be in the catbird seat for the presidency.
You are beating a dead horse.
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.