Posted on 01/20/2016 12:27:24 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Same here. I would vote for Cruz or Trump. I gave hundreds to Cruz, but he mishandled it in my opinion. He spent it building infrastructure rather than going on the offensive. Then he wakes up one day and discovers Trump has run away with it.
It was bad strategy on his part. GW Bush was the same way. He wouldn’t respond to his opponents. Drove me crazy.
More Articulate than Cruz? She talks like a hillbilly, not that there's anything wrong with that. It is more pronounced now than when she ran in 2008.
Makes a great team with Trump? Maybe now, but when he wins the nomination he will drop her like a 6000 pound bowling ball.
He's using her to get the nomination. That's it. He can't really stand her. He'd rather give more money to Hillary than stand up there on the stage with Palin, but then right now he needs her more than he needs to contribute to Hillary.
Actually, I’m referring to the fact that he said the million dollars that his father loaned him was a “small” amount.
But you aren’t backing a conservative...And I really don’t care about your cute quips, you are backing a liberal that gave money to Sharpton...
History shows that the candidate hopping ‘conservative right’ had about a 2 week attention span last election. This time I would bet it’s from article to posted article.
One min they support one guy, the next thread they are unsure, the next thread it’s back to that guy, the next, another guy.
Trying to call anything definitively with this so called ‘base’ is a fools errand at best. And the people bitching loudest when I saw anything remotely like that are the ones doing the hopscotch.
See: “Hit dog howls”.
It doesn’t matter because Trump has a huge lead in NH, and he’s got a one point lead in Iowa. A top finish in Iowa, a win in NH. He’s way ahead in SC, NV, FL.
It’s over, Wags.
The coffee is brewing.
Well I think we know why Cruz is suddenly worse than Clinton. The Clintons get final say on what is covered under “executive privilege” and Trump is covering his ass by naming Cruz as worse.
It also seems to suggest that there is virtually no chance a Trump justice department would be prosecuting Clinton and risk any information leaks.
Who got a loan from his father? Trump? I'm confused, I thought we were talking about Cruz.
How is building infrastructure bad when going against a candidate that campaigns via twitter posts? It’s the difference between stability vs. Hopeandchange.
I am sure DT has infrastructure but Ted’s game isn’t reality show politics. It’s getting ducks ordered. If that strategy is a loser then there is something new under the sun. He might lose in spite of it but not because he built a solid campaign.
There will be remorse and self loathing.
It’s generalship, Norm. It is only proven wrong or right by victory or defeat.
I compare it to hesitant McClellan versus rampaging Lee in the Civil War.
Perhaps McClellan could have been right in wanting a force of hundreds of thousands, but Lee was on the offensive, and McClellan’s hesitation lost the 7 Days campaign and the entire Peninsular Campaign.
Lincoln went looking for a general who would attack. He found one after a couple years.
Plenty of reasons to believe that the Trump campaign may not be as powerful as his fans think it is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3386200/posts?page=14#14
I doubt it. There are still Freepers trying to justify voting for and defending a man that profits from BBQing dead and dismsmbered babies his own laws helped into the incinerator. Three years later.
Loathing? Yes. That they backed the losing horse. Self loathing? They aren’t capable of it.
Well it was a scam. It failed and he’s getting sued. But I sure their was a good reason. And his MLM companies.
“It’s generalship, Norm. It is only proven wrong or right by victory or defeat.”
If that were true, Isis is right to murder Christians and Muslims are right to rape Euro women. Because they clearly have won.
Then we would be right for eradicating them. Logic dictates both things cannot be right. If you say they were right in their timeframe, thats situational ethics defined and it’s liberal.
Since I’m fairly sure you aren’t overtly liberal, the only logical answer based on facts in evidence is that you are simply wrong.
What an apt analogy, McClellan then went on to run against the Republicans in 1864...The problem with it though is “Donald really is a liberal, which is why he has dumped money on liberals and their causes.” So its not really McClellan attacking Lee, but McClellan really going against Lincoln.
Well, I was talking about a political campaign. But applying the principle to ISIS, it says we should attack and prevent their expansion.
And, of course, if they win over western culture, they will impose their culture and write the history books. If they actually read.
Actually I thing the word ‘fan’ gets to the heart of it. No one goes from 0-100 politically. No one goes from 0-100 in their support of a pol with lasting impact and the inevitable mind change by a good portion of the flagwavers.
As befote, thought and facts go out the window and fanboism rules the day. The only question is can he hold their affection until he gets elected and the fans return to critical thinking.
Actually, it better fits Cruz because he always was saying how much he likes Trump, and there is a huge conversation about whether McClellan, a compromiser Democrat, really WANTED to attack the south.
Cruz is complicit in Trump’s rise by his failure to attack.
But history is fun. You know yours. Salute.
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.