Posted on 01/19/2016 4:33:56 AM PST by Helicondelta
-Which candidate in this race gave $250,000 to the Clinton’s Pay for Play Foundstion?-
To be fair, Trump did give $250,000 to the Republican National Committee.
If I knew I could get 3.5% interest on a short term loan of $50,000 to Ted Cruz, I would loan it to him in a heartbeat. I think he is good for the money.
Loaning it to Donald Trump, however, would be a YUGE risk. Donald has shown no compunction about declaring bankruptcy and leaving his creditors in the lurch.
To conflate a measly $50,000 secure loan with giving the CLINTON PAY FOR PLAY FOUNDATION $250,000 is the height of hypocrisy.
But it is what we have to expect when people support a hypocrite like Donald Trump.
I’d love to see them pair up. Sarah got skewered by the media, and McCain was helpless or uninterested in defending her.
Wait until the typical attacks are levied while Trump has her back. He will destroy them.
Another corrupt donation to a corrupt organization.
Sorry, folks, all too many se her as some stupid hick with a thoroughly redneck family.
I agree. Plus, Palin is sen by the public as a has-been. Would not help Trump.
If you think Cruz is corrupt, and apparently you do, maybe you should change your tagline.
The more I think about it the more I think it is a Palin endorsement. For some reason Trump thinks he HAS to win Iowa to keep Cruz from getting momentum and for all he’s done for Palin, he called in his favors.
Don’t know that Palin is that great of an endorsement overall but good in Iowa.
That is what I like about Trump, he doesn’t lose well and finds ways to win. This is good for America.
Trump, OTOH has taken out a lot of loans and leveraged a lot of his properties to make billions while bribing government officials to "grease the wheels" as you call it.
As I mentioned to another person carelessly throwing around that word, Bribery is the lowest hanging fruit on the public corruption tree. Electronic and paper trails, quid pro quo, you just cannot hide it. Just the appearance of impropriety merits investigation and likely trouble. The fact that Trump and his various donations across decades are not wrapped up in bribery scandals in a state that is drowning in public corruption scandals is the proof they are not bribes. There is no quicker and easier way out of office for a politician, especially here where we have had two governors in a row, and the head of each house in Albany taken down. The media and the investigative agencies and the opposition are hyper sensitive to the subject. It would be the stupidest thing a politician or a private individual lobbying a politician could do.
Not to mention the fact that people like Trump have a battery of lawyers to guard against this. Not to mention the fact that the opposing bureaucrat *not* getting the donations would love to hang it around the necks of both Trump and whoever it was he donated to.
Finally, If bribery is a bad thing ( and it is ) then what would you consider accusing someone of a bribe falsely? That must be an equally bad thing as well, right? Furthermore, not knowing the difference between a bribe and a donation, or intentionally trying to confuse the two, must also be a pretty ignorant and/or sleazy tactic, right?
So which of these things are you guilty of?
What the Hell happened to this forum?
So I guess that's more whining that people are just not being Conservative enough for your taste? Is it possible that people are waking up to the fact that self-Alinsky high-standard scrutiny for the one office that is different than all others is counter-productive? In other words, Supreme Court nominations, House, Senate, Governor, RNC Chairman and everything else right down to dog catcher makes perfect sense to run the litmus test battery but the Office of the President is unique because it requires (D) and (R) voters to win. It's not like the (D)ummycrats haven't built a nearly insurmountable electoral lead as it is, approx 250-180 "blue" to "red" at the starting line. Do you want to gamble that those 80-90 electoral votes are definitely availble to a doctrinaire (C) or evangelical?
It would be easier for the whiners to just come out and say I would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump. I mean ya'll are really just beating around the bush here.
I don’t think for one minute Palin is going to be the running mate. If she is flying in to endorse she is likely getting Energy Secretary which would be a good job for her.
The US taxpayer was left holding the bag when Trump’s failed schemes blew up in his face, filing bankruptcy 4 times. What a guy!
I think she saw the clip of Trump standing up for NY Values at the debate, and Cruz's light applause at the line (following the live audience lead), and just figured Cruz was the beta and Trump was the Alpha, and as Bin Ladin advised years ago, people will always choose the strong horse over the weak horse.
Secretary of Eliminating Departments. If not cabinet position, Czarina.
It was a Freudian slip on his part. He’s one of the ppl who would rather the Dem win in the general election. He can spin it all he wants, but I see no other way to interpret his comment.
113
The 50K was given to his campaign as a donation. That is a direct bribe rather than some contribution to the Clinton Laundry years ago.
Keep those blinders on nice and tight or your hatred could slip.
Change your tagline.
Since when do taxpayers pay bankruptcy settlements? You people are sounding like Dems.
States with open primaries.
At least this will prevent a lot of Democrats from voting for Trump
... right? Yep, a definite slip he made.
I hope people just cut to the chase here and start asking the whiners if they are really just saying: I would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump.
Enough beating around the bush. The stakes are so high now that there is no time left for this boutique litmus test nonsense. There won't be a next time after another loss with amnesty, naturalizations, and 4-6 justices on the line.I hope people just cut to the chase here and start asking the whiners if they are really just saying:
“I wouldn’t worry. If they sink to that level they will be gone soon. Right along with Cruz’ campaign.”
They are allowed to spew insults right and left, unprovoked much of the time. They take over Trump threads, insulting the Trump supporters just for not supporting Cruz. They post the same graphs, charts, bulleted points over and over on every thread.
This has been condoned, so why not the next step?
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.