Posted on 06/16/2015 1:49:13 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Ok, that's it. You TDSers have been spewing your Trump hatred enough. Trump is a patriot, he donated 6 weeks of his time to this country. That was a huge sacrifice for him. Do you know how much that cost him? Of course not, because he never made public his personal finances, but he would have if he run, which he would of if it wasn't for that popular TV show. We can guess it must be alot of money for him to do it.
Six weeks of Trump's time! He sacrificed by spending that time in front of MSM cameras talking about all his ‘solutions’, and how smart and gutsy he is (except for disclosing those financial records.)
On 4th of July think of Trump. Men like that made this country great!
Thanks for the ping!
Donald Trump has been playing people for fools for his entire career.
Now he’s decided to pretend to be a conservative. PT Barnum was right!
You got it!
Plus, he’s a CONTROL FREAK, who didn’t want Republicans in New York State to have a primary, if they wanted him to be their Republican candidate for governor.
GOP Chairman Cox basically told him he had to go through the process like everybody else.
Let's not paint with too broad of a brush. I agree with you if you're referring to the majority of the Washington establishment branch of the GOP. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but much of the grassroots, several of the state parties and even a few of the presidential candidates are showing hopeful signs.
Then there are candidates like Trump and Paul who lie outside both of these larger factions.
To me the one who continues to impress is Fiorina. She makes virtually no flubs or gaffes, has tremendous "opposition research" on the drive-by media who interview her and always has a masterful response to their "gotcha's." I know a lot here will think she's too soft on social issues, but that's not my concern about her. I just wonder if she is enough of a firebrand (like Palin was) to really gin up the crowds and voters. Policy wise, she's very skilled.
Actually I (believe) Trump had set the date for his announcement, before Bush did.
I could be wrong on that, but I don’t think so.
Obviously, Heidi Cruz's work for Goldman Sachs won't be a problem until the Fall of 2016.
But it's equally obvious that it's a huge, and in my opinion an insurmountable problem once the Democrats have a nominee who will make money center banks the centerpiece of his campaign.
I've mostly stopped posting about this, because of all the abuse I get over it, but it's still true.
The husband of a Goldman Sachs managing director, "on leave" or not, is not going to be elected President in 2016. That's a fact.
He's not going to be nominated in the new, populist Republican party either.
He's getting a pass right now on the issue, but the ads on the subject will be scathing.
"Senator Cruz, how much money does your wife and you stand to make if this (trade agreement, banking reform etc.) passes"?
I think the conflict of interest angle is more damaging than the jealousy angle.
The more who run the more opposition files the democrats must pay for research on each candidate. I’m for another dozen or so entering to waste more rat money. ;-)
That's because you model voters as if they all had IQs of 110.
If "conflict of interest" was a voter issue, you would not be hearing about the inevitability of Hillary!
Great point. I looked at it like, the more voices criticizing Obama and Clinton, the better. And from different angles.
Absolutely. That’s why the entire gambit should be involved as late into the nomination as possible. A friend and I are working on a list of where we would like each candidate/ party leader to serve if not president/VP
Example:
Cruz — expert in constitution — AG
Palin — energy
Perry — immigration/borders
Dr Ben — health and welfare
Krusic — IRS
We’d like to see them all run as a team with lots of well developed ideas The one who eventually wins includes the all on the team
Peddle your BS somewhere else, hack.
Republicans don't usually work that way. A conservative Republican elected official in an urban part of Texas or Georgia or some other red state will respect the right of a liberal businessman to run his business without interference. But to be fair to Trump, I think Republicans need to give him some credit for being able to survive in business in a city which is not just liberal but which has a long history of seriously corrupt government.
Yes, Donald Trump should be asked to explain those donations. If he says the Clintons kissed his you-know-what to get his money, make Trump explain what he got and what the Clintons got out of the bargain. The answers might prove fascinating.
If Trump were running for governor of New York or mayor of New York City I might think he'd be better than the alternatives. He's a NYC version of Mitt Romney who understands business but unlike Romney, likes to drink, womanize and swear.
Romney was probably about the best Republicans could get as a candidate in Massachusetts. But as conservative Republicans we can do better on the national level and don't need to get people like Romney or Trump.
Let's be honest; Trump wouldn't even be a possible contender at the national level with his views and his personal history if it weren't for his money and his showmanship. Somebody needs to explain to him that while he may be able to buy his way into power in NYC political life, Republicans don't work the way NYC liberals work. We actually care about what somebody believes, not just how big their checks are.
Consider this stolen. If I never use it, I still want to run into it on my hard drive.
Is that cute or what....
LOL....isn’t it hilarious? Perfect for the Spar Wars going on, around here ;-)
Yes it is. Thanks for the laugh.
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.