Posted on 05/04/2016 9:55:41 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
“Trump is not a conservative and barely even qualifies as GOPe, except for his money and liberal stances.”
_____________________________________________
Preach it, sister.
My favorite liberal stances Trump holds:
- More immigration
- More radical islam
- Better deals for foreign trade partners
- Weaker military
- Higher taxes
- Keeping Obama care
Oh wait.
Too bad the e com con guy was not there 7 years ago.
Well, bye....
So secret it is all over the internet.
For all those who think this is about, “winning”...wake up.
It is about paying him to run to steal votes to get Hitlary elected, who the establishment on both sides (one side, really) wants so they get to keep their goodies at our expense.
Please, please wake up. It is about stealing votes, not winning.
They “win” if Hitlary is “elected”, and, we lose.
They lose if Trump is elected, and, we win.
Oh, and the media loses if Trump is elected to, that is a, “lan yap”.
The Daily Beast!? Really?? Lol sorry, no thanks. Get thee behind the nominee, please.
That's like the moronic accusation against those who refused to vote for Romney in 2012: it's not that they were to blame, it was that Romney-as-candidate didn't give them anything to vote for. It was always "vote against Obama" awhich didn't work because he was really (politically speaking) Obama's clone. And, if you remember the sentiment of the time, Romney was one of very few people that could have lost to Obama.
Reminds me of my twin boys, tell them they have choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, they say strawberry and get none.
You're falling into the false choice fallacy WRT to American elections — it is not two parties and only two parties.
There is no viable third party, picking one is simply a cop out to not choose between the two choices before us.
That stance is actually very, very repugnant: for you are telling people that their vote only counts on some condition, namely that their vote does not matter unless approved by one of the "two" parties.
As this Republican primary has shown, the powers-that-be were quite intent on stacking the deck with people that they approved of. Trump's candidacy/run has indeed upset that; but that doesn't negate the fact that virtually everyone on the slate would have been acceptable to the corrupt and globalist GOPe. (Carson was the only one who I think was not morally/ethically compromised; but he didn't present himself as strong, candidate-wise, and they probably thought they could push him around.) Cruz, by his running, showed how he disregards the Constitution and there's evidence that he's in the globalist camp.
This win doesn't mean that Trump will be the Republican nominee — the GOPe has shown us their true colors, and how they will fight tooth-and-nail against Trump, which means they could pull something out of their arses and flat-out deny Trump the nomination. It would piss a lot of people off, but they've shown that they don't care about the people. (Indeed, given the actions of the congress, the executive, and the judicial it saams that they are ever more convinced that the law does not apply to them but only us.)
Epic fail alert.
heh heh
These guys better work fast! They’re already going to miss the Texas deadline for independent candidates, and the states really start ending ballot eligibility in the next 90 days or so.
There is no reason why plurality voting could not be used on a state-to-state basis, keeping electoral college.
E.g. Someone writes in as vote #1) Mattis #2) Trump
If Mattis didn’t get enough votes in North Carolina to win, then his votes get tossed, then the total votes for Trump get counted and if he beats Hillary, then he gets all the electoral votes for North Carolina.
Its not a difficult concept, sort of like instant runoff elections but from a single election. It would encourage people to vote for individuals and not parties.
George Washington himself warned about the dangers of political parties. And I don’t think the plurality/instant-runoff voting method was even considered (or technically feasible) 200 year ago.
LOL - they’d have a better chance with Jeb - at least he got 8% of the vote. Eight percent is a hell of a lot more than some unknown General’s gonna get.
Interesting, but too late to get on the ballot in a lot of states. I think Texas is two days away.
Then again I wish them well - it'll separate more fools from their money...
Not a good move whether or not Hillary is indicted. Plus didn't Petraeus help elect Obama?
Like the ice cream, there is only chocolate and vanilla, you choose something, you lose.
what you said.
The author (Tim Mak) at the Beast is smoking an illegal substance! He’s lost his mind.
No is right! Thankfully Mattis already came out and said no. Thanks for the ping.
Petraeus still advises the white house and is a North American Unionist. Mattis helped Petraeus write the COIN strategy. What portions are his or why he was unceremoniously dumped by the current administration are unknown.
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.