I'm thinking more "Dark Helmet" myself....
Posted on 12/16/2015 4:22:24 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Donald Trump is officially leading the Republican primary campaign with a massive margin, which may be impossible for any candidate to overcome.
Now, it's official... Donald Trump's lead is even greater than former President Ronald Reagan in 1980!
As the Weekly Standard reports:
According to the two latest national polls, conducted as the furor over Trump's call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim migration reached a fever pitch, the real estate magnate leads the Republican field by either 23 or 27 points. Tuesday's Washington Post/ABC News poll has Trump with more than double the support of the second place finisher, Ted Cruz. Indeed, Trump's lead over his primary opponents, this late in the game, is larger than both Ronald Reagan's was in 1980, and George H. W Bush's was in 1988.
Via Gateway Pundit
As Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan administration official who writes for the American Spectator noted, there are plenty of similarities between Trump and The Gipper:
Reagan became one of the party's most popular presidents and that popularity helped his vice president, former President George H.W. Bush, get elected, Lord said.
But Bush was an establishment candidate and that's why he lost to President Bill Clinton instead of getting a second term. That's why the campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney ultimately failed. It's also establishment thinking that created policies like No Child Left Behind, which is widely criticized, Lord said.
"That's why people like Donald Trump. He's an independent soul. He thinks outside the box," he said.
Plus, as we saw at the debate last night on CNN, no one can communicate a bold, conservative better than Donald Trump. Reagan was also noted for his brilliant communication skills, which he perfected as a Hollywood actor before entertaining public service.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepoliticalinsider.com ...
LOL....
I hereby invoke White Privilege.
Woo Hoo!
Go Cruz Go!!!
I disagree that he didn’t lose because of Perot.
I DO AGREE that the family is a tragedy to the republican party.
But jeb wont big last night and will SURGE now, i tell ya, SURGE!!
according to the media, at least.
Next stop for Yeb! 4.2%...
= :^)
No, he didn't. He got cold feet about taking Baghdad after the Highway of Death incident. He should have finished the job then and turned right, at Baghdad and headed directly for Tehran. We then could have seized Riyadh, Medina and Mecca and wrung the neck of islam once and for all.
I'm thinking more "Dark Helmet" myself....
What we have here is a Yuge Paradigm Shift
Could have sworn they spelled that Helmut for this character, but I was wrong.
Helmet it is.
There was no support for it.
Iran and Iraq were deadly enemies.
No fly zone protected kurds.
We see how invading Iraq turned out. Just splendid.
LOL...
I hereby invoke common sense
Woo Hoo!
Go Trump Go!!!
Good response. ;>)
:)
I have two friends who were actually in the Gulf and in the military during Desert Storm and they couldn't possibly disagree with you more.
The first was sitting inside a tank about 75-100 miles outside of Baghdad picking off Iraqi Republican Guard tanks with ease when they got the order to cease fire.
The Iraqi's were on their rooftops waving American flags begging us to take Saddam Hussein out.
When the order was given to cease fire, then pull back we not only abandoned the Iraqi's in the Southern part of Iraq, we left the Kurd's in the north high and dry as their weapons and ammunition (that we provided them!) ran out and left them as easy pickings for both Hussein and Turkey. Those Kurds, who were our greatest fighting ally were left to be mustard gassed to death by Saddam Hussein, and shot by the Turkish whenever the Kurds tried escaping Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Another friend worked the flight deck on one of our aircraft carriers sitting in the Persian Gulf launching sorti, after sorti, after sorti 24x7 while we bombed the sh*t out of the Iraqi army.
We bombed them so bad, non-stop, so hard they RAN towards our tanks with arms up surrendering en-masse when they heard our tank's diesel engines. They threw themselves on the ground at our military's feet and begged for food.
Here's the problem for people like you who want to blame Perot for Bush's losing in 1992: that's complete, utter, bullshit.
George Herbert Walker Bush lost for two reasons. First, he was so completely out of touch with the American people, the economic pain the recession had caused, and he couldn't connect with a dead fish.
Second, he SQUANDERED the goodwill that America built up in the entire middle east when we LIBERATED Kuwait. He left HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi's (both muslims and Christians) to be SLAUGHTERED by Saddam Hussein post 1992.
That turning of his back cost us untold political capital and goodwill in the middle east.
People far smarter than you who were ACTUALLY THERE and saw the reactions of the Iraqi people when they believed we were there to rid them of Saddam Hussein, and then saw their reaction when we pulled out and didn't finish the job the first time have told me exactly why not finishing the job in Iraq is one of the reasons George Herbert Walker Bush lost the election.
Our own military knew the opportunity that was squandered and every single person I've ever spoken to that was there, all said to a person that one day we'd have to go back and clean up that mess, and that it wouldn't be pretty the second time around.
You want to know why we weren't welcomed as liberators and treated as invaders when George W. Bush went in and removed Saddam Hussein?
Because the entire Middle East knew we should've done it right the first time, we had ZERO good-will established, and unlike the first time when we had the Coalition of the Willing and the backing of so many middle-eastern countries, we couldn't re-create that coalition because no one believed we were serious the second time, and everyone knew the power vacuum that'd be left behind as a result.
People far smarter than your brilliant analysis have told me that. I'll take their on-the-ground informed experience over yours any day.
Yes, yes, YES!
Well at the time, they had a real coalition to go there. And 25 years ago it may have come out differently than it did 15 years ago.
Yes, its just conjecture at this point, but I think that stopping when they did in 1991 short of Baghdad was a mistake.
Getting older really sucks. Glad I'm losing my mind first, at least I won't give a crap about the rest then!
There would not have been an opening for Perot if Bush had kept with Reagan’s policies.
I hear ya. I hope I go first so you can have more fun at my expense. LOL
Take care...
unless Trump implodes for some unforeseeable reason and the RNC doesn’t illegally sideline him, it is pretty clear he’s getting the nomination. It is also common knowledge that Trump has the ability to wipe the floor in a debate with the Hag unless he gets an offer he can’t refuse. If the Hag ends up in the WH, it will be clear to most that she got there via vote fraud and coercion. I’m just curious as to what the American people are going to do when that happens. If we just accept it, then we deserve what we get.
Ran into this out there on the internet just now.
Yikes! Look at this information.
Trump does come up short against Clinton, but that is not the race right now and it doesn’t bother me.
I say this because Trump campaigns like nobody since Reagan. He’s in it to win it, and I know he’s going to just riddle Clinton.
Don’t expect a repeat of Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, or Romney.
Trump doesn’t do back-peddling...
I think this is very interesting for Trump and those who wish to beat him. As I said. Yikes.
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.